Hansard — Thursday, March 15, 2007 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		6301

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6302
	Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 18)
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 19)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 17)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M206)
	C. Puchmayr
	Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M207)
	J. Kwan
	Human Rights Code Amendment Act (Bill M208)
	L. Mayencourt

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6304
	NoRooz celebration
	J. Nuraney
	Maillardville
	D. Thorne
	Petro-Canada Ice Centre in Port Moody
	I. Black
	Kidney Health Month
	D. Cubberley
	Journée de la Francophonie
	R. Cantelon
	Farmworkers
	R. Chouhan

Oral Questions		6306
	Government action on farmworker safety
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. P. Bell
	C. Puchmayr
	Call for inquiry into farmworker safety and employment standards
	C. Evans
	Hon. P. Bell
	Child care funding
	C. Trevena
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Group home access for developmentally disabled adults
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Transition plan for rural communities
	C. Wyse
	Hon. I. Chong
	Government facilitator for community issues in Lillooet
	H. Lali
	Hon. I. Chong
	Loss of Alcan jobs in Kitimat
	R. Austin
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	TILMA agreement and availability of affordable rental housing
	G. Robertson
	Hon. C. Hansen

Reports from Committees		6310
	Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts
	Annual Summary of Activities
	R. Fleming
	J. McIntyre

Committee of the Whole House		6311
	Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7) (continued)
	N. Simons
	Hon. W. Oppal
	M. Karagianis

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6312
	Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)

Committee of the Whole House		6313
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6) (continued)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6322
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

Second Reading of Bills		6322
	Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6333
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. Horgan
	S. Simpson
	H. Lali
	M. Sather
	C. Trevena
	D. Routley
	K. Conroy

H. Bloy: It's a real honour today. We have the francophone community here celebrating. One of the leaders in my community is Johanne Dumas, and she is celebrating her birthday today. I'm going to try this: bonne fête, Johanne.

L. Krog: We have two distinguished guests in the gallery with us today: the mayor of Nanaimo Gary Korpan and, accompanying him, councillor Joy Cameron, who I know the member for Nanaimo-Parksville would probably want to introduce. But if a certain nomination fight had gone differently, she'd be introducing him today.

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my pleasure to welcome grade 11 students from one of B.C.'s very fine secondary schools, Eric Hamber. It happens to be in my riding. We have 200 students here today visiting the Legislature and watching us do our work, so let's please extend a very warm welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have three family members of the farmworkers killed in that tragic accident last week. They are Darshan Singh Poonia, husband of Sukhvinder Kaur Poonia; Jagjit Singh Sidhu, husband of Sarbjit Sidhu; Harsham Bal, son of Amarjit Kaur Bal and Param Grewal; and Jim Sinclair, president of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Hon. S. Bond: Today in the gallery we have a number of distinguished guests, including Marie Bourgeois. Marie has actually been named to the Order of Canada for 25 years of service to the community, promoting French language and culture in British Columbia, and also for working to protect and advance the rights of francophone parents and children. She assumed the role of chair of the Conseil Scolaire Francophone, and she is also the executive director of La Maison de la Francophonie de Vancouver francophone community centre.

We are delighted to have her in the gallery and want to thank her for the work she does on behalf of francophones across the province.

R. Fleming: Visiting us in the House today we have a number of people from Four Corners Language Institute in downtown Victoria. With us is Carlos Serra, who is the school owner and administrator — and also a coach of one of the clubs, with Fernwood United. But I digress. Also with him are students Tara Corman, Jay Gysler, Wakiko Okano, Alex Lee, Jessica Nam, Joe Cho, Fred Park, Fumi Sutoh, Misato Komura, Kayo Fujita, Adriana Cisneros and Yukiko Suzuki. Will the House please make these visitors most welcome to the House today.

I. Black: I have three quick introductions to make today. I want to first welcome the mayor of Coquitlam and her husband Gordon, who also happen to be valued constituents of mine. I would ask that the House make them feel welcome.

I would also like to point out that as many of you may have noticed, we have a former MLA with us today. He is a neighbour and friend of mine. Richard Stewart, former MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville, is with us today.

G. Robertson: I'd like to join the Minister of Finance in welcoming all the students and teachers from Hamber Secondary, many of whom live on the north side of 33rd in my riding in Fairview, and particularly the teachers Mr. David Smith, Ms. Saiqa Mohammed and Ms. Rosalind Kellett. Would the House make them all welcome.

S. Hawkins: Today visiting the House is a former constituency assistant to the Speaker, Derek Badger. On behalf of the Speaker, I would like to ask that the House please make Derek feel very welcome here today.

R. Cantelon: I'd like to welcome today two of my constituents. One is the mayor of Nanaimo Gary Korpan, who has boldly led the city council into renovating downtown, including a $72 million conference centre that's on time and on budget.

Joining him today is another councillor, Joy Cameron, as well as Marilyn Hutchinson, the manager of economic development. So make them doubly welcome, please.

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two leaders in the B.C. francophone community: Mme. Michelle Rakotonaivo, president, Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique and also Capt. (Navy) Peter Ellis, Deputy Commander of the Canadian Fleet Pacific. I ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

D. Thorne: It's my pleasure today to welcome a couple of people from Maillardville, Alexis Norton and Johanne Dumas. I'll also say hi to the mayor and her husband Gordon.

Bruce Dumont is the president of the Métis Nation of British Columbia. He is actually also, for members that may be connecting names, a direct relative of Gabriel Dumont, who was present for the historic battle in Batoche with Louis Riel. Please make Bruce Dumont welcome in this chamber.

L. Krog: I won't attempt to follow the flawless French of the Government House Leader, but I would like to welcome to the gallery someone who has just arrived — Nicole Langlois, who is the executive director of the Nanaimo Francophone Association. Would the House please make her welcome.

D. Hayer: On Tuesday we had some students from Pacific Academy, and today I have some additional students and special guests. These are the students, a teacher and principal from Princess Margaret Secondary School: Parniyan Hazhir, who was born in Afghanistan; Ashleigh Girodat, who was born in White Rock, British Columbia; Ishrat Gadhok, who was born in New Delhi, India; and Jalila Jalila, who was born in Lahore, Pakistan. These four students, who are almost as diverse as the United Nations, are visiting here today. These students are also accompanied by their teacher Jon Nilson and principal Susan Hambleton.

The students are winners of the Rotary Club of Surrey's Adventure in Citizenship, which was a speech-writing contest dealing with service to British Columbia and Canada. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bains: I know one of the guests that I want to introduce here today. She's on a different mission today, but she's one of the reasons I'm in this House today. My campaign manager Jesse Oppal is in the House. Please help me extend a warm welcome to her.

At the same time, I'd also like to welcome the principal and the students from Princess Margaret who are visiting this House. Please join me and extend a warm welcome to all of them.

I. Black: It's been brought to my attention that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville and myself failed to actually mention the name of the mayor of Coquitlam. It's Maxine Wilson.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 18 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today I introduce Bill 18, which amends five forestry and range statutes.

In the throne speech our government committed to introducing changes to strengthen forest stewardship and reduce the risk of forest fires, encourage better use of beetle-killed timber and salvage fibre, and strengthen the actions against those who damage our forests and range resources — for example, those who like to mud-bog. Today's bill delivers on those commitments.

It also delivers on other important priorities, including building on our new relationship with first nations; continuing to streamline our processes, particularly for woodlot owners; and continuing to revitalize the forest industry.

Hon. 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 18, Forests and Range Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 19 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 19 proposes a number of amendments to taxation and revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The amendments reflect the government's commitment to continuously improve customer service, streamline and simplify regulations, collect all outstanding accounts and amounts due to British Columbians, and make British Columbia the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.

The bill, accordingly, proposes amendments to the following: the Home Owner Grant Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Land Tax Deferment Act, the Mineral Land Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Property Transfer Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. The specific details will be elaborated with respect to second reading discussion of the bill.

I move that Bill 19 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN JUDGMENTS
AND DECREES (TRADE, INVESTMENT AND
LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: The introduction of the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007, means that these amendments are necessary in order for British Columbia to comply with the provisions of the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement between British Columbia and Alberta.

TILMA was signed by British Columbia and Alberta in April 2006. It comes into effect April 1, 2007. Under the agreement, each party is committed to making a compliance award — made by a panel established under TILMA — enforceable as if it were an order issued by the respective parties' superior court.

These amendments extend the jurisdiction of the British Columbia Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act to include TILMA agreements respecting awards and costs that may be made by a panel established under TILMA. I am advised that Alberta is moving ahead in a parallel fashion with British Columbia to introduce similar enabling legislation.

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 17, Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees (Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement) Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

C. Puchmayr presented a bill intituled Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2007.

C. Puchmayr: I move introduction of the Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act for first reading.

C. Puchmayr: The tragic deaths of three farmworkers last week in the Fraser Valley have underscored the need to improve safety standards for workers. It also highlighted critical gaps in legislation and enforcement identified over three years ago by the coroner's inquest into the death of Mohinder Sunar.

For three years the government has refused to act, prompting the opposition to introduce this bill and bring the following measures into force. The bill establishes mandatory seatbelt requirements for every occupant of a worker transport vehicle. It does so by amending the Workers Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicle Act, closing loopholes as identified by the coroner.

The bill also closes the enforcement gap by making both WorkSafe and the motor vehicle branch work jointly to be responsible for safety standards around transportation of workers. It allows peace officers and inspectors to enforce the WorkSafe rules.

The bill requires worker transport vehicles to be clearly marked, and the maximum occupancy of the vehicle must be clearly displayed on all sides. The bill stipulates that only qualified technicians will be allowed to modify seats and seatbelts in transport vehicles and that those modifications must be made in compliance with the new standards and the maximum occupancy rules set by WorkSafe B.C. and the motor vehicle branch.

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 M206, Workers Compensation Act Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

J. Kwan presented a bill intituled Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007.

J. Kwan: I move that the Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a first time now.

J. Kwan: I am pleased to introduce the Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, which amends the Vancouver Charter. This bill will create opportunities and innovation in the development of social housing in the city of Vancouver and bring clarity to the existing legislation.

The changes proposed to the Vancouver Charter include the addition of social housing as a part of the list of conditions which can trigger a density bonus. This bill will amend the Vancouver Charter to allow for increased density as an incentive for the creation of social housing.

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 M207, Vancouver Social Housing Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

L. Mayencourt: I move that the Human Rights Code Amendment Act be introduced and read a first time.

L. Mayencourt: The Human Rights Code Amendment Act corrects a longstanding anomaly in the provision of housing in British Columbia. In 1998 the province amended legislation to prevent discrimination against renters based on family status. These amendments ensure that renters in rental buildings, condos and co-ops could not be evicted because they had children. That move applied only to renters, and this bill will extend the same protections to people that own or purchase a condo or co-op.

My neighbourhood in Yaletown in Coal Harbour has gone through rapid development, with up to 80-percent growth, and many purchasers started out as singles or as couples without children. After some time many of these individuals and purchasers have had children, sometimes in contravention of strata bylaws. The little baby boom in my riding has created hardship for some of those individuals.

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

Bill M208, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 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.

J. Nuraney: For some Shia Muslims, March 21 marks the dawning of a new year. It is called NoRooz, and it is a time for rejuvenation. It is a celebration of the arrival of spring. NoRooz has been celebrated over the centuries in Persia and other parts of the world.

The celebration is not only the physical signs of the rebirth upon the arrival of spring after long winter months, but also a spiritual renewal. Families and friends get together to make a new resolution for the coming year, as reminders abound to seek to improve the material and spiritual lives of those who are their members.

Like any other new year, it is a time of reflection, taking stock of your strengths and weaknesses, and acknowledging your shortcomings. It is a time to resolve to enhance our capacities to create a more enduring environment around our families, friends and communities at large. On this auspicious occasion, I offer to those Shia Muslims who celebrate this event a NoRooz Mobarak.

D. Thorne: Earlier today a celebration was held here in the Legislature in honour of B.C.'s francophone community and the importance of the French language. As the elected representative for the oldest and largest francophone community in B.C., it is my pleasure to tell you a little bit today about the village of Maillardville, which is the heart and soul of my riding, and also to show off my French Canadian sash.

The history of Maillardville is an integral part of the city of Coquitlam. Coquitlam received a significant boost in population in 1909 when hundreds of forestry workers from Quebec were persuaded to move to Coquitlam to work at the Fraser Mills lumber mill. Maillardville was and is a vibrant community, the largest francophone centre west of Manitoba. The descendants of those French Canadian mill workers have ensured that the French language can still be heard on the south slope of Coquitlam.

Maillardville's past is recognized in street names that honour early pioneers. Local redevelopment which reflects the French Canadian heritage is high on the city of Coquitlam's agenda. Many Maillardville community groups organize year-round events to keep this culture alive, ranging from the youngsters in Scouts Francophones to the seniors at Maillard village. Every year the Festival du Bois attracts thousands of visitors in March to celebrate francophone music, dance, culture and heritage.

Recently I was very pleased to write a letter of support for the city of Coquitlam's application to have a Canadian commemorative stamp issued in 2009, which will be the 100th anniversary of the village of Maillardville. This will further enhance Maillardville's reputation as a thriving francophone community in British Columbia. Let's just hope that Canada Post decides to carry out this very deserving project. Merci.

I. Black: Last night I had the pleasure of assisting in the official opening of the new Petro-Canada Ice Centre in Port Moody. The new centre includes a fully accessible international-size arena with two rinks, renovated curling rinks, a new gymnasium and fitness centre, a viewing lounge as well as outdoor seating and a field house for the sports field.

The arena was originally completed in 1972, and this is the first significant renovation. The upgraded arena became operational last December. Since then, ice time at the rinks has been absolutely fully booked — a testament to the necessity of a new facility.

Consistent with our government's view that access to arts, culture, sports and recreation is key to creating

healthy and vibrant communities, I'm proud that our government provided $2 million in funding for the new state-of-the-art ice centre through the Canada-B.C. infrastructure grant.

Olympic excitement is building throughout the province, and there are less than three years until the opening ceremonies of the 2010 Olympic Games. With our new ice centre, the possibilities are endless. The ice meets all international standards, and the city can now actively promote Port Moody as a place for Olympic hopefuls to train, whether it's local kids playing hockey or the Ukrainian figure skating team.

Our government is one that also believes in the power of partnerships, and this project would not have happened without them. Beyond Port Moody residents supporting it via a referendum in 1994, our contributions and the $800,000 contribution of Petro-Canada, there are five key businesses in Port Moody that stepped up and made a statement about their community values: Coast Capital Savings, who funded the sports field; Pacific Coast Terminals, who sponsored the curling centre; ParkLane Homes, who sponsored the fitness centre; G&F Financial Group, who sponsored the running track; and the Omni Group, who sponsored the aerobics and dance studio.

I'm proud that our provincial government supported this project, and I'd like to congratulate the city of Port Moody and the many sponsors on the development of this new facility.

D. Cubberley: March is Kidney Health Month, a time to focus attention on the role that this vital organ plays in ensuring bodily health. While other organs like hearts and lungs conjure images, provoke emotions and are celebrated in folklore and song, the neglected kidney remains invisible, toiling in obscurity to purge our bodies of toxins — a thankless but essential task.

Hence, Kidney Health Month — intended to lift this humble organ from indifference, raise it to prominence and inspire us to become aware of it, develop affection for it and give it the care it deserves.

Alas, we and our kidneys have a long way to go. Its work in purifying our internal fluids seems more plumbing than poetry and somehow less noble, less inspiring of feeling than either heart or lung. We grasp the breath of life existentially, for life cannot exist without it, and that confers respect. But the kidney? It is a mere filtration device that regulates fluids in our engine.

Yet there is a reason for us to raise the kidney above this indifference. One in nine North Americans has chronic kidney disease, and another one in nine is at risk. Our processed diet, laced with too much fat, sugar and salt, relentlessly stresses our kidneys whose task is to restore balance to our body chemistry.

The bad news is that diabetes grows apace with our swelling bulk. The good news is that we can intervene to modify our lifestyle. If our kidneys had a voice, they'd tell us it's time for a change. Kidney Health Month is a good time to start listening.

R. Cantelon: Merci, M. le président de la maison. Each year since 2002 our government proclaims March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia, and this year is no exception. Earlier today my colleague the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations hosted a celebration in this prestigious building.

La Colombie-Britannique a la privilège de compter une communauté francophone dynamique et bien vivante. Il s'agit d'une communauté fière de son patrimoine et de sa contribution aux tissu social, culturel et economique de notre province et de tout notre pays.

Indeed, in the 1850s the francophone community made up 60 percent of the province's population.

I would like to personally recognize l'Association des Francophones de Nanaimo. The Programme Bonjour, the initiation of a trade and cultural mission with Quebec and the role it plays in newcomers' retention in the community are all testimony to the group's drive to contribute to our social and economic fabric.

Over 7,300 people attended the recent Maple Sugar Festival in Nanaimo and were able to experience a little bit of traditional French culture, music and food. Last year the province received the prestigious Baldwin-Lafontaine Award from the Canadian Club in Vancouver. This award recognizes the tangible initiatives achieved by the B.C. government in promoting bilingualism and fostering Canadian unity.

The proclamation of March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in British Columbia gives all of our province's French-speaking individuals an opportunity to celebrate our Canadian heritage.

Je vous invite à vous joindre à moi pour féliciter et remercier les Britanno-Colombiens francophones pour leur contribution à notre société. Merci.

R. Chouhan: I rise to speak about a segment of our society that plays a very important role in our lives to help us to stay alive and healthy. British Columbia is blessed to be one of the most fertile agricultural provinces in the world.

Our fruit, our corn, our wines and all of the other produce we grow and enjoy are of superb quality, but when we enjoy that delicious food, juice and wine, we often overlook the labour that went into harvesting those crops. These workers spent countless hours in often difficult conditions labouring in the fields to bring us the wonderful produce of British Columbia. Mainly they're elderly men and women. During the summertime you would also see children working alongside their parents and grandparents.

We need to think about the value of the labour that goes into that work. It is no easy task and takes a lot of experience and skill. Next time, Members, when you're biting into a delicious peach or apple, think about the

hands that picked it. These are the farmworkers working hard for all of us. Please join me to appreciate the value of their work and to thank them for feeding us.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have family members of three farmworkers who were killed in that tragic accident on March 7, 2007. They're in a state of grief and are anxiously waiting to hear from this government as to what steps this government has taken to protect the lives of farmworkers.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the Minister of Agriculture advise this House: when will the coroner's recommendations, made after the July 2003 accident, be implemented?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, the Minister of Labour and I did meet with the families — some of them are here today — of the injured victims and the deceased victims of that tragic accident.

The key message we heard from them — and it's quoted by Darshan Poonia in the document that was provided to us — is that no one else has to die. I think that's a message we all have heard clearly in this House, and the people we met with today said it's time to move on. It's time to deal with the challenges that we find in our fields and respond in a positive way.

I can tell you that it was a very good meeting we had today with the workers, and with Jim Sinclair as well. We're committed to making sure that our families, our family farmworkers get home safely every single day.

R. Chouhan: The question I asked was a very simple question. I have been asking that question for the last seven days. For the last seven days the Minister of Labour has refused to answer it. The Minister of Agriculture has refused to answer it. The Solicitor General has refused to answer it. So I'm going to ask the question of the Attorney General.

Could he ask his government and encourage them to do the right thing and implement the recommendations the coroner made after the 2003 accident? How many more farmworkers have to die?

Hon. P. Bell: I don't think we want to underestimate the power of the meeting that the Minister of Labour and I had today with the farmworkers. This was a tragic accident, something that devastated the entire multicultural community in British Columbia, something that devastated our farming industry.

There have been 29 recommendations presented to us by the farmworkers and by the B.C. Federation of Labour. My colleagues and I will be reviewing them and seeing how we can react quickly and decisively to them.

C. Puchmayr: My question is to the Agriculture Minister as well. For the last two days we have put forward some creative solutions to this issue and some solutions, I think, that are quite timely and that should have had some response up to three years ago.

My question to the Agriculture Minister: is he prepared to work with this side, as well, to introduce some of those solutions that we brought forward so that we can ensure that farmworkers go home safely at night after a day's work?

Hon. P. Bell: I again want to reinforce the importance of the meeting that we had this morning. This was very difficult. There were eight families that we met with this morning, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for the individuals, who faced such tragedy such a short period of time ago, to come and take their time to speak with us.

I think I want to respect that. I want to respect the work that they have done here. As I indicated to the member, I'll be meeting with my colleagues over the next number of days to try and respond as effectively and quickly as we can to this.

C. Evans: For some days now this House and, I guess, this province have been seized — correctly, I think — on the issues of farmworkers' safety and standards. On several occasions, hon. Speaker, you've been required to impose order because the debate has been somewhat partisan and raucous. For my part, hon. Speaker, I apologize for any unkind or inappropriate things I might have said in the heat of the moment.

I suspect, though, that some of the heat that this building has reflected in the last few days is because of the contradiction between such a complex and important issue — one that comes back every few years — and the bizarre nature, really, of question period and the fact that we ask these questions in a six-second opportunity and how poorly this venue fits to that issue. I think that it would be best if issues of farmworkers' safety, compensation law, worker safety and immigration standards were removed completely from this venue.

My question is for the Attorney General, as the minister responsible for inquiries. Will the Attorney General initiate — say, today, in front of the folks who are here — a non-partisan independent inquiry into all facets of agricultural labour, including safety, labour

Hon. P. Bell: I want to say this one more time, just because of the importance and the impact of the meeting that we had just four hours ago.

Four hours ago I received 29 recommendations that I think were well thought out and that were reasoned — some that we can react to, many that we can react to. I think it's inappropriate for us to go further than that at this point in time.

We need to give ourselves a little bit of time to review this information so that we can respond in an effective manner. These families were torn apart. These families were torn apart. These families will never have their spouses back. I think it's appropriate that we respect the work that they did, the information that they provided us, and to allow us to see how we can respond to that.

C. Trevena: Last week, just three weeks before the end of the fiscal year, the Minister of State for Childcare announced $20 million in one-time funding for child care and another $20 million to come. This isn't new money. It's part of the federal transfer which the government has known about for months. But child care operators now have just three weeks to spend it, and there are strings attached. It can be spent on toys or on furniture but not on building a sustainable child care system. So child care providers have a $40 million three-week shopping spree.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance: is this really a prudent use of taxpayers' money?

Hon. T. Christensen: There's no question that the shift in the federal government's approach to child care, the cancellation of the ELCC funding agreement by the federal government, has created some significant challenges for the province. The province is committed to getting money to child care operators, to making other investments to support child care and to doing so in a manner that abides by provincial law around the expenditure of funds.

I'm very pleased that the minister acknowledged that the cancellation is causing problems. It makes me question why B.C. was alone as a province in not fighting, not standing up for our children and not questioning the federal government when this funding was cancelled and why B.C. is refusing to make up the shortfall.

The child care crisis is having a huge impact on B.C.'s economy, so I would like to ask the Minister of Finance again whether she will commit to invest in a sustainable child care system for B.C.

Hon. T. Christensen: The facts are that the federal government…. The cancellation of that agreement has resulted in a loss of $455 million over the next three years. The fact is that in the coming year, the province is increasing the provincial commitment to child care by approximately $15 million to ensure that we can continue to provide child care to those most vulnerable children in our communities.

We have been forced by the cancellation of this agreement to set our priorities. We've set the priorities on ensuring that parents that are getting the enhanced subsidy continue to get that enhanced subsidy, such that on an individual basis they're getting almost twice as much in subsidy as they were a few short years ago. We've also focused on children with special needs, and we've focused on maintaining services at the best level we can, given the cancellation of that agreement.

M. Karagianis: Yesterday in this House, in answer to questions about group home closures, the Minister of Children and Family Development first denied that there were going to be any group home closures in the province but then later confessed that the number of group homes that will be available in the province will depend precisely on the number of developmentally disabled adults who choose that that's the best option for them.

Well, Harvey Blondeau has clearly made that choice here in British Columbia. Harvey is from North Burnaby, and he has a developmentally challenged daughter who's 30 years old, who in fact requires round-the-clock care and an enormous amount of support.

Harvey Blondeau is 70 years old and is no longer able to lift his daughter or care for her in the way he should. He has been repeatedly denied a group home in this province, repeatedly denied a group home in his community, despite the fact that that is his choice. I would like to ask the minister: why can't Harvey get group home care for his daughter?

Hon. T. Christensen: As the member well knows, there are a number of eligibility criteria, a number of circumstances that are going to be taken into account in any particular placement.

In respect to this particular case, which I'm not personally familiar with, if the member would like to get me the information, I'm more than happy to follow it up with Community Living British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: I'd be happy to bring that individual case forward to the minister's attention, but this is really in answer to the minister saying that closure of group homes is about parents making choices.

Well, Harvey Blondeau clearly has made a choice that he has been denied. Pam Harris has also made a

choice for her son, 26-year-old Scott, who has cerebral palsy and Down syndrome. Pam very clearly has looked at all the options that are being offered to her, and she wants a group home because that is the best setting for her son. She has been very public in this.

At each inquiry that she has made to CLBC for a group home for her child, she has been told no. Group homes are being closed, and her choices are being narrowed down to a different kind of care.

I would like to again ask the minister to explain to Pam and Scott Harris why they can't have a group home.

Hon. T. Christensen: I am actually familiar to some extent with the situation that the Harris family is facing. It's my understanding that they're in the midst of developing an individualized plan with CLBC for the care of Scott. If during the course of that process it's determined that a group home is the most compatible fit for Scott, then I'm advised that that's the outcome that will be found.

As I said yesterday, the residential options project is about matching individuals with the best residential option, given their needs and given their circumstances. That's what has been affirmed to me by CLBC on a number of occasions. That's certainly my expectation, and that's the direction we're going.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, 200 communities have lost population from 2001 to 2006. The vast majority of those communities that have lost population have been in rural and northern British Columbia. As we discussed yesterday, those communities are represented by members on both sides of the House.

Today I have pulled forward by name some of these communities to make that point, which have been affected by a population decline: Houston, Vanderhoof, Prince George, Williams Lake, Quesnel, Ashcroft, Clinton, Barriere, Clearwater — definitely represented by both sides of the House.

Yesterday the minister responsible for providing transition plans for communities that are facing such a situation was not provided an opportunity to answer any of the questions that were provided to her. Today, once more, will the Minister of Community Services tell this House how many transition plans exist for communities that have suffered population loss?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the question posed by the critic for local governments. He should be aware — and I know he has received a briefing — of what community transition is all about. It is about helping those towns that are requesting it and in need.

I can tell him that I've not received a request from Prince George. I have not received a request from Houston. Obviously, they have on-the-ground purposes and projects that they have in place to diversify their economy.

I can tell you that it was that NDP government that devastated communities. In 1997 it was that government that unilaterally, arbitrarily, without consultation and without notice removed grants to local governments.

In contrast, it is our government that has returned dollars, economic initiatives and opportunities to local communities right throughout this province.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the response that I received from the Minister of Community Services. It doesn't answer the question. It simply walks around the issue that exists.

Many of the communities that have faced a population decrease already during this period of time…. Once more it's 2001 and 2006. We're talking about this government's watch, nobody else's. We also know there are communities that face a further additional pressure as a result of a drop in the allowable annual cut.

Once more, Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the minister: will she tell this House how many transition plans exist for communities, which are they, and how many of them involve communities that also face the drop in the annual allowable cut?

Hon. I. Chong: Maybe I'll just go a tiny bit slower. Provincial assistance through the community transition program is provided at the request of the municipality, based on what they believe their needs are.

I need to ask the critic: is he telling me that the mayor of Prince George is saying that his community is in need? That's not what I'm hearing.

Once again, I want to assure all members of this House, lest any have any doubt, that our government has increased substantially, significantly, dollars to local government. Our $635 million gas transfer tax over five years — out to municipalities. Infrastructure dollars. Budget 2007 — $189 million in additional dollars to reinvest in communities. They voted against it.

H. Lali: The minister says that the communities have to come forward and ask for help. I'll give her an example of a community that has asked for help repeatedly. It's the community of Lillooet.

In the last five years we have seen massive cuts in terms of the B.C. Rail deal that was made by this Liberal government. The hospital services have been cut in half. The courthouse has been eliminated out of Lillooet. Legal aid services have been pulled out of Lil-

looet. Schools have been closed. The forestry office is gone. The transportation and highways person who was in Lillooet is gone. One after the other, there are cuts continually from this Liberal government.

They have asked for a facilitator. I've facilitated a meeting between the Minister of Agriculture and the mayor of Lillooet, and we asked for a facilitator from this government. This government has continually refused to give us a facilitator.

According to the last census, we have lost 15.2 percent of the population of Lillooet. That's the third-highest of a municipality — in Lillooet.

When is the Minister of Community Services going to cough up and give Lillooet a facilitator like they have demanded?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure that the people from Lillooet can appreciate the outburst from the member who is representing them, but he's not doing them a great service by not putting out all the facts. The facts are: we have an economy that is growing. We have opportunities that are abounding. We have a government…

Hon. I. Chong: …this government, that has provided opportunities through development initiative trusts, that has provided more infrastructure dollars than ever before.

These are the requests we receive from the mayors around the province. When I meet with them at UBCM and when other ministers meet with them at UBCM, they give us their priorities, and we work with them.

H. Lali: Through all of that rhetoric from the benches opposite, I have one simple question to the minister. Why has this government turned down the request for a facilitator for the community of Lillooet?

Hon. I. Chong: What I can tell this member and all members of the House is when a community finds itself in need of provincial assistance, we work with them. We work with them to the extent of meeting their needs. They decide what they want at the grass-roots level.

You know, last year we canvassed this, and former members of municipal affairs who are on that side of the House know full well that it's important to listen to the local governments and bring forward those needs. If they expect us to intervene and tell them where they need to diversify, then they're wrong, because we respect local governments.

R. Austin: I'd like to share with this House the B.C. Liberal transitional plan for Kitimat. Their transition plan is to support Alcan to close down another 500 jobs. The Premier's decision that Alcan is no longer an aluminium manufacturer, but a power company, has resulted in Kitimat losing 12.6 percent of its population. Quoting a letter from Steve Wilson doesn't make up for this government's actions in not upholding the public interest in the B.C. industrialization act.

R. Austin: My question is to the Minister of Energy. He refused to answer yesterday; maybe he'll face the music today. Can he tell this House how the Liberals' sweetheart deal that they concocted between B.C. Hydro and Alcan is going to help Kitimat recover? Can he explain how wiping 500 more jobs out of Kitimat will help that community?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Here we have a previous government — unfortunately, for ten years in British Columbia — that actually signed a lousy deal with Alcan in the mid '70s, created expectations that weren't there and now today are totally opposed to a total environmental cleanup of a huge plant in Kitimat. Over $2 billion of investment, thousands of jobs guaranteed for 35 years, and all they can say is no.

Hon. R. Neufeld: What is wrong with success in British Columbia? What's wrong with seriously looking at the environment for a change in the province? We're making all those moves. Jobs are important in Kitimat, and we would like that member to finally get on board and help us create those jobs in Kitimat instead of saying no to jobs and no to the environment.

R. Austin: This government believes that privatizing a public resource like the river that powers the generation plant at Kemano is success? Five hundred fewer jobs than we've got today is success? How can that be? Explain that to the people of Kitimat and to all the people who live in rural B.C. Giving away a public resource to a private company so they can cut jobs — how is that success?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Last week you were riding a 50-year-old horse, and you're still on it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let's go back to the deal in the mid-1990s. That was the largest export of electricity out of the Kitimat region, facilitated by the NDP, to the United States of America. We wanted to keep that electricity in British Columbia to make us self-sufficient.

That side is fully happy with being dependent on the U.S. We're not, and we're going to change that in this province. We're going to look after the environment. We're going to continue to create jobs. We're going to continue to actually get a great environment in British Columbia. We're going to continue to get investment — over $2 billion in Kitimat. We'll continue with that. I encourage the member that represents that area to actually get on board.

G. Robertson: According to legal opinion from the city of Saskatoon, residential rental buildings are considered investments under the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. Next month the city of Vancouver is considering a moratorium on the demolition and conversion of rental apartments to protect them. But on April 1, TILMA kicks in, and outside investors may be able to challenge the city's efforts to protect affordable rental housing.

This government promised to protect rental housing for Vancouver residents as part of the 2010 commitments. Will the Minister of Economic Development stand in this House today and guarantee us that residential rental buildings are exempted from TILMA challenges?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure the member that there is absolutely nothing in the TILMA agreement with Alberta that is going to prevent any municipality in British Columbia from setting bylaws and other rules that are going to protect affordable rental housing.

What TILMA does is actually level the playing field between two provinces. So if we've got a company that wants to come in and build affordable rental accommodations in any community in British Columbia, as long as they do it in a way that is non-discriminatory…. We can have our own rules, municipality by municipality. As long as they are not actually compromising the ability of a company in B.C. to compete with a company in Alberta or vice versa, then the TILMA agreement would not be compromised.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the gallery today I notice that Kevin Gillies from the newspaper in the central Fraser Valley is here. I think he's got his daughter with him. I hope members will make Mr. Gillies and his daughter feel welcome.

R. Fleming: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the second session of the 38th parliament entitled Annual Summary of Activities.

R. Fleming: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

R. Fleming: I move that the report be adopted, and in moving the adoption of the report, I wish to make a few comments. I would also like to note that this report addresses the work of the committee from the second session of the 38th parliament.

The resulting recommendations of the committee address the following reports: Auditor General's Financial Statement Audit Coverage Plan for Fiscal Years 2007/2008 through 2009/2010; Auditor General report 2, 2006-2007, The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Review of Estimates Related to the Province's Commitments; and Auditor General report 8, 2005-2006, Managing Pharmacare: Slow Progress Toward Cost-Effective Drug Use and a Sustainable Program.

In addition, the committee's report provides a summary of its activities related to the search process to select an Auditor General, a position which had become vacant in 2006. As members are aware, the committee, on division, appointed Mr. Arn van Iersel as acting Auditor General in May 2006. Mr. van Iersel has

since tendered his resignation from this acting position, effective June 1, 2007.

Therefore, the committee is continuing its work to select and unanimously recommend a candidate to serve this House as a permanent Auditor General. I am pleased to say that a five-member subcommittee for the selection has begun its task in this regard and on behalf of this House.

I appreciate the opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report. I'd also like to extend my appreciation to all the members of the committee for their participation throughout the past session. In particular, I would like to thank the committee Deputy Chair, the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. It has been a pleasure to work with her since she has been selected by the committee in that regard.

I'd also like to thank two other committee members who are not returning to the Public Accounts Committee for this session, the member for Vancouver-Kensington and the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. I wish to thank them for their contributions over the past year.

J. McIntyre: I simply want to add my thanks to the committee members for all their hard work and contribution and to the acting Auditor General.

I will return the compliment. I enjoyed working with the Chair. I also would like to thank the member for Richmond-Steveston, who served as Deputy Chair before me, and thank him for his work as well.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is the adoption of the report.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. And in Committee A is continued Committee of Supply — for the information of members, estimates debate for the Ministry of Transportation.

CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES
(REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007
(continued)

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

N. Simons: I'll continue where I left off before the committee adjourned for lunch. My questions had to do with the fact that there's a one-year wait for appropriate bodies to investigate the death of a child who has had services that are considered reviewable services. Can the minister please explain the new section 13(c) to the House.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is not new. This was in the old act. They're just separated out now.

N. Simons: Under the old regime, the ministry would investigate the death of a child, and it would subsequently decide whether or not to refer that on. In this particular case, we're talking about a one-year delay between the death of a child and the moment when somebody can actually say we need to change this practice now — before the police report, before the coroner's report, before the autopsy. There are things that happened in previous cases, and there is a litany of history involved here where waiting for one year could potentially be dangerous to children.

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, the representative can monitor and advocate at any time. Thus the issue that's been raised here by the member does not arise, because if there is a circumstance where the child is in danger, the representative can act. We're talking here about investigations, which is quite a different thing from apprehension or protecting a child.

N. Simons: The most likely and most qualified and most informed on the case will be the director. The director will be most informed when a child is critically injured or dies and is receiving reviewable services.

With that in mind, what is being suggested by this one-year delay before the representative…. Contrary to what the Attorney General just stated, the representative cannot investigate until all of the other investigations are complete. I'm trying to figure out here who is going to step in when the ministry is denying there is a problem, the representative doesn't have any jurisdiction, the coroner is still investigating, the doctors are still doing their autopsy, and there's nothing to do to make any changes in the lives of the child or their siblings.

That's the flaw that existed before, and that's the flaw that's being perpetuated here. If in fact it's the right for the representative to go and review everything right now before anything's happened, then why isn't that in the legislation?

Hon. W. Oppal: A director can act at any time. If for some reason the director is of the view that he or she does not wish to act, then the representative can act at that time.

N. Simons: In the interest of preserving everyone's sanity here, I think I'm going to allow this section to…. I don't think the Attorney General understands the circumstances here.

No. The Attorney General is saying that the director can do whatever it wants, and if it doesn't do anything, then the representative can step in. Well, that's

what happened in 2002. The director knew what was going on, the director didn't release that information to anyone, and it stayed hidden. At what point does the director inform the representative that a critical injury or death has occurred, and if that happens immediately, can the representative monitor the entire situation at that time?

M. Karagianis: On section 16, my question really is just a matter of practicality. I see that the fiscal year for the representative to prepare a service plan and report out an estimate of resources needed has been moved from 2007-08 to 2008-09. Can the Attorney General please explain the rationale for moving that one year back.

Hon. W. Oppal: This is really a matter of logistics and practice, because the representative will not have been in office long enough to complete a report or a service plan for 2007-08.

M. Karagianis: It's certainly my experience so far with the representative that she is well ahead of us on many of these issues. Certainly, it would seem to me to be somewhat moot, because I believe that the representative is going to present information both to the standing committee and probably to this House well in advance of this deadline put there.

I merely flag this because I think there's a certain redundancy in that, and perhaps that's the only comment I wanted to make. In fact, all of this may be the cart following the horse in this particular case.

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, she can make a report any time she so wishes, but a service plan is required under the Financial Administration Act.

M. Karagianis: One further question. At this point has the representative been presented with the service plan? Is she simply following that, or is she not in fact having to develop a service plan, at least an interim service plan, in order to function?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is no, because she doesn't have all her full staff yet. She's just in her startup stage.

M. Karagianis: Sorry, just to be clear then. Under what kind of service plan is she actually functioning? Is there no service plan, or is there something that is an umbrella service plan of the ministry that extends to her or from the Attorney General's office that extends to her in the meantime?

Hon. W. Oppal: She has a budget. She has a workplan, and she's working with a transition team. So that's where she is, and then she'll be working towards a plan after that.

M. Karagianis: I'm aware of the fact that the children's representative did review the resources to the office and made a request very soon after her initial examination, I guess, of the resources of the office, and she did look to have some increased resources. How in fact does that affect the second part of section 16, where it says that she would present the standing committee with an estimate of the resources? How is that affected? Is that part of the transition, that request that she made, or how is that handled?

Hon. W. Oppal: The first budget was prepared by my ministry with her participation. Now, however, she is on her own, and she will be preparing her own budget with her own staff.

M. Karagianis: Just one final question, then. Under this section it does say that she would present to the standing committee an estimate of the resources that she might need to continue to function. Should she find herself in a position of, you know, changing expectations, she may propose to the committee….

She has made some proposals already that sound very interesting and that should be presented to the Legislature here. Is there a mechanism in here for her to apply for additional funding or to look for more resources within her office function outside of this service plan date?

Hon. W. Oppal: In those circumstances she would go back to the select standing committee, in the event that she requires more funding.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate on Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act.

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

Hon. W. Oppal: I have with me Assistant Deputy Minister Jerry McHale as well as Russell Getz, legal counsel.

L. Krog: I just wish to assure myself before I wind up debate on this particular amendment that the Attorney General has had an opportunity to say all he wishes to say. I take it from his nodding that he does.

The opposition moved the second amendment to section 28 by requiring that the executive council has to review the report within ten days before it's submitted to the Legislature. We believe that is an important recognition of a right that has existed now for 110 years in the province.

Accordingly, we on this side of the House intend to support that amendment. We are disappointed the government has chosen not to. This was an opportunity, particularly in light of the number of public inquiries that have been called for by the opposition during this session. It was particularly important, we felt, that the government consider this amendment appropriately.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have nothing further to say, save and except that we obviously oppose the amendment.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, in light of the defeat of my wonderful motion — which just shocks and surprises me — I'm going to withdraw the amendment that would provide the removal of sub-subsections (a) and (b) from section 28(5). It would, in light of the defeated motion, weaken the bill at the present time.

I am, however, not finished questioning on section 28. During the course of debate previously on this section, the Attorney General, as I recall, indicated that we are the last or only province in Canada to retain a provision that requires delivery of a commission's report to the Legislature, whether it's sitting or not, within a limited period of time — which is certainly, I would argue, the best way of doing things.

My question to the Attorney General is: is he — or his officials, who are highly skilled in this area and whose judgment I trust entirely — aware of what in fact is the practice in other nations of the Commonwealth who operate in a similar parliamentary system?

Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, we're not experts in that area, and I can't enlighten the member as to what's taking place in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

L. Krog: I'm just shocked that the Attorney General couldn't provide a response, notwithstanding the assistance of his able staff.

Nevertheless, the section that is the most crucial, which I have referred to earlier, is section 28(4), where it says: "Following review of the report…," which allows no time limit.

Given that the executive council, pursuant to sub (3), is going to sever the report for purposes of freedom of information and protection of privacy and given that the report would be on a matter of obviously public importance with respect to hearing commissions, as opposed to study commissions, my question to the Attorney General is: why would the executive council require, actually, any time to review the report, which is and should be a public document and which, indeed, the legislation requires to become a public document?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, a study commission, as well as a hearing commission, can have material in it that may be offensive to particular persons' privacy interests.

L. Krog: And I understand the Attorney General completely in that regard — that cabinet has the ability to review it for that purpose. But apart from that purpose, which should be a relatively easy task, what other purpose would cabinet wish to review this document for before it's submitted to the Legislature?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the grounds upon which the report or parts of the report may be severed are disclosure that may be harmful to law enforcement, to intergovernmental relations, to financial or economic interests of a particular party who is not a party, or something that may be harmful to public safety or public security, business interests. Those are some of the issues upon which a report may be severed.

L. Krog: I understand what the Attorney General is trying to say, but essentially, he is repeating the provisions that apply under subsection (3). What I'm asking specifically is…. That job is essentially — and I mean this in a nice way — a bureaucratic job in nature. That's what the legislation provides. "On receiving the report, the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1," etc.

That's what the job of the executive council is: to review it for that purpose only. That's the way I read the legislation. Am I in fact correct in reading it that way?

L. Krog: Then, my question back to the Attorney General is: given that that task is quite specific, why is no time limit — upon receiving the report, on the review of the report — set out in section 28(4)?

In fact, that isn't something that would require a significant period of time. The existing legislation is 15 days, and that's without any consideration of privacy issues, although one would presume that privacy issues could be done by way of simple practice of the commission itself.

This opens up an unlimited period of time for cabinet to review this document for what the Attorney General has now told me in this House is one purpose only, and that is as set out in section 28(3). So my question to the Attorney General is: why do we need an unlimited period of time for cabinet to accomplish this review?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's not a question of cabinet needing an unlimited amount of time. It's a question of not putting constraints on cabinet because of the complex nature of some reports that may be voluminous in nature. It would not be in the public interest to place a time constraint on a report. Say it's 4,000 or 5,000 pages long.

The reports that come to mind are the Gomery Commission report or the report on the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin. Those are reports that were lengthy in nature, and it would be unfair to put time constraints on the release of those reports where quality and the public interest may be sacrificed.

L. Krog: Well, the fact is that the Attorney General will be well familiar with the phrase: "Justice delayed is justice denied." The fact is that you can strike out criminal prosecutions in this country if the justice system does not move quickly enough to actually bring the matter before a court and have it dealt with appropriately under the law.

We have recognized throughout the history of the legal profession that delays must only be for legitimate and reasonable purposes and that such delays must in fact be reasonable. I would suggest to the Attorney General that an unlimited time review of a commission's report, whether it be a study or a hearing commission, is on the face of it patently unreasonable.

And it raises the suspicion, not just in the opposition's mind but in the public's mind, that the real purpose of section 28(4) is to delay the submission of the report into the public's hands for political purposes. That is exactly what the suspicion is. I understand the Attorney General's concerns about privacy and those issues, which are covered off, but the fact is that that's what the public's going to believe, and that's what the public suspects.

I haven't heard anything from the Attorney General that indicates to me that the cabinet is going to require an unlimited period of time. Obviously, by implication, I'm going to presume — or hope, in any event — that the executive council itself is not going to sit around the table passing it around like a high school math test, with everybody marking it to see what could come out, and that this task will be accomplished by professional public servants, not by spin doctors, not by people working in communications, not by people who are employed to advise ministers on how to avoid the political upheaval that may follow the publication of a commission.

Again to the Attorney General: given the limited nature of the review purpose, which may in fact be a fairly significant job, why leave it open for the executive council to be able to sit on a commission of inquiry for an absolutely unlimited period of time — given my remarks earlier about justice being delayed is justice being denied?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I've gone over this a number of times already. First, the position of the opposition is really premised on the fact that a report would contain something unfavourable to government, and the government would then consider not releasing the report. In fact, I know of no report in this province's recent history where that's happened. I note that during the life of the last government, the NDP government, they ordered 18 inquiries. I know of none that

were withheld from the public. During the life of this government there has been one inquiry ordered; that was the recent one, two weeks ago, on the death of Frank Paul.

I don't know of any experience in this province that would raise those types of concerns that have been raised by the member. In fact, I don't know of any similar circumstances where governments across this country have improperly withheld reports from the public. Interestingly enough, of the 18 or so inquiries that were ordered by the New Democratic government in the '90s, a number of them dealt with conduct that was not related to government, such as the Vancouver Stock Exchange and study commissions into policing and into the Chilcotin justice area. So they didn't even relate to government conduct or government concerns.

L. Krog: The Attorney General has referenced a number of commissions that have studied matters that one would say are not directly related to government. Commissions are generally ordered to deal with issues in society where there is perceived to be a problem. Nobody institutes a good-news commission.

No government, to my knowledge, has ever called an inquiry to go out and study the happy effects of the economy, or the level of sunshine in British Columbia. No one orders a commission for that purpose. You order a commission because there is a problem, because there is some public concern or issue being raised. I've never heard of a sunshine commission.

I've certainly heard of commissions designed to deal with what are obvious public wrongs, where there are issues involving maltreatment of segments of our society, where there is corruption in various fields — any things of that nature. Surely, given that the very purpose of a commission is generally to bring into the light of day problems and issues, and hopefully thereby some solution….

Why, when the premise is that there is a problem, when there is some wrongdoing that should see the light of day, would the government not, in this bill, want to ensure that after the commission's work is done…? The commission's work may indeed be lengthy and complex. Why would the government wish to give an opportunity to cabinet to delay further the publication of a commission's work which would, in fact, point the way to a solution or provide a solution or expose something that indeed requires prosecution or criminal proceedings? Why?

Again, my question is to the Attorney General: given that it is designed to deal with an issue and a problem, why would the government not wish to ensure that the executive council, rather than being able to take its sweet time on this issue…? Why not force them to do a job?

I doubt very much if the Attorney General, when he turns to his senior public servants and there's an issue, says: "Well, just take as long as you'd like. I don't mind if it's not ready for the next cabinet meeting. I don't care if it's not ready for the next election. You just take your time."

That is not the way the real world operates, and surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that cabinet should likewise have a time limit placed on it in these circumstances.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I've answered this question at least 25 times. I don't know what more I can do. I don't know if the member across the way is, to use the expression, "ragging the puck," but I'll say it one more time: no other Legislature in Canada places a time limit on the release of the report. This is a report. A commission of inquiry report is a report for government. It is ordered by cabinet.

The legislation states that privacy concerns have to be adhered to. Some evidence, some material, some information in a given report could be contrary to public interest — such as contrary to law enforcement, economic interests, innocent third parties, privacy concerns.

Therefore, the person to whom that report is sent, the cabinet, is entitled to look at that report. It is for the benefit of cabinet. Cabinet is entitled to look at that report in order to determine whether or not there are prejudicial aspects of that report that could be harmful to innocent parties. Then they can release the report. It would be impractical to place a time limit on any given report, given the fact that there is a wide range in the lengths of reports that are commissioned by government.

I've given two examples. I'll give you two others. The Arar is one. It was a lengthy report. The Krever report went on for a long period of time. I would suggest that it would be totally impractical for government to have legislation that that report be released in ten days, such as was suggested by the member opposite. I don't know if I can say anything more useful or anything more productive than that which I've already said.

L. Krog: I must say, I'm entirely distressed by the suggestion from the Attorney General that I'd be "ragging the puck." It's my nephew who is the accomplished hockey player, not myself.

With respect to subsection (6), it provides that: "If a report includes a finding of misconduct against a participant, or alleges misconduct by a participant, the minister must make available to the participant a copy of the report." Now, this section gives an unlimited period of time to cabinet to review it.

It says that finally when cabinet has done this job, which is unlimited in time, then it has to be delivered to the Legislative Assembly within ten days or to the Clerk. What period of time does the legislation provide — and perhaps I'm missing something — with respect to section 28(6)? When does someone against whom some finding of misconduct has been made get a copy of the report?

L. Krog: Well, I'm sorry, and pardon my ignorance. I take it from the Attorney General's answer — just so

I'm clear — that in other words, a person against whom a finding of misconduct is made gets the report at the same time that the Legislative Assembly does. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Not necessarily. It's possible, but not necessarily at all. If the report contains therein material that discloses some criminal conduct, I would expect in those circumstances that that information ought to be given to a participant earlier than the report would be released to public. That makes sense because that person against whom there may be charges laid or against whom there may be information that's contrary to that person's interests may want to seek the advice of counsel.

I'm speculating, and I don't know. What I'm saying is that any number of possibilities could arise based on the particular circumstances of any case.

L. Krog: As I understand the Attorney General's answer to my question around section 28(6), even before the Legislative Assembly gets the report, the Attorney General is suggesting that someone against whom some allegation or finding of misconduct has been made gets a copy of the report. Is that the Attorney General's answer?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is yes. My recollection is…. It's a recollection of Mr. Getz that in Krever that's what happened.

Hon. W. Oppal: Krever? It's one of those reports in Ontario where that did happen. So it's quite possible that that would be given to that person prior to disclosing the same to the public. I could see where it would be practicable to do that in light of the fact that….

Let's assume for a minute that a report discloses criminal conduct on the part of a participant. I would think in those circumstances it would be prudent to release that to the participant against whom it is alleged has committed some criminal misdeeds in order for that person to get a fair trial. That's a possibility.

L. Krog: I hope the Attorney General understands why I see this as such a very important area of questioning. This is a public inquiry we are talking about. It is a document that goes in secrecy to cabinet. It may arrive there by way of an interim report. Once released to a participant or an accused — I shouldn't say an accused — someone against whom a finding of misconduct has been made, it's out in the world.

This is an electronic age. The simplest happening in the most obscure parts of the planet are videotaped and broadcast around the world now. That is the reality. People use cell phones and the Internet and all kinds of electronic devices. So what the Attorney General is saying is that the government has a bill before this House that allows essentially the publication of this document, a commission's findings, before it's given to the Legislative Assembly.

That is a pretty dramatic change from what exists now. I mean, it's one thing to say we're going to let cabinet sit on it forever and call that reform after 110 years. It's entirely another thing to say in a bill that now the report can be given to somebody ahead of the Legislative Assembly or even during — possibly under the terms of this — to a participant or against someone where a finding of misconduct was made, even while cabinet is considering it. Is that what the Attorney General is telling the House — that, in fact, that's what this section means?

Hon. W. Oppal: This really is a matter of common sense. If there's a report that's given to cabinet, and that report discloses that Mr. Smith, who participated in the commission of inquiry, is facing criminal charges, surely the member opposite isn't suggesting that that evidence of criminal wrongdoing should be disclosed to the public before it's disclosed to him.

The member opposite is a lawyer. Surely you know that if there are specific allegations of wrongdoing that are contained in a report, contained in a commission of inquiry report that's not subject to the usual rules of evidence, surely in the interest of fairness, in the interest of defending oneself in a criminal proceeding — rules operating under the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt — that that report or the offensive parts of that report or the relevant parts of that report must be disclosed to that person who is facing prejudice, who is under jeopardy, before it's released to the Legislature. I would think that would be a commonsense proposition.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments about it perhaps being a commonsense matter, but the fact is that unless a charge has been laid concurrently with the report, which is not going to happen the way I read the previous sections, the fact is that it will be up to the Crown, after a finding of misconduct, to determine whether or not some criminal charge should be laid.

Let us use for an example the results of a public inquiry, a hearing commission into a matter involving members of cabinet or senior government officials or political staff of ministers. Clearly, until the commission's work is completed, the Crown is not going to be laying charges. So with great respect to the Attorney General, I don't follow his logic saying that common sense dictates. The fact is that if common sense dictates something, then why isn't it specifically in the bill before the House?

I'm suggesting to the Attorney General and to his staff assembled here in this House today that this is something that they have not considered carefully, that this is a matter of public importance, that it should be considered further. That in fact 28(6)…. I would suggest the plain reading of subsection (6) produces a result which is not reasonable, which will mean that reports of commissions will be placed out in the public or

have the potential to be placed in the public in a way that is not possible, should not be possible and would not in fairness be in the public interest.

I want the Attorney General to tell me why I'm wrong in suggesting that in the circumstances where a criminal charge might be laid as a result of work done by a commission, the criminal charge is going to follow the commission results. It's not going to precede the commission results, so why should we be giving the results of a commission to somebody ahead of time?

They are not subject to prosecution until they're prosecuted. They're simply a person named in the results of the inquiry. So why should some member of the public, who is a participant, receive advance notice of a report, paid for by the taxpayers and provided to government, which is required by law to be submitted to the Legislative Assembly and says that: "A person must not release a report of a commission except in accordance with this section" — subsection (8).

Well, that's not going to happen, because once you've released that report it's out there. So explain to me why this is in the public interest to do this.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure that the member understands what's happening here. A typical scenario is as follows. A commission of inquiry makes a report to government. Contained in the report is evidence of wrongdoing against a participant in the inquiry. Surely that person against whom charges may be laid, in the interests of fairness, ought to be entitled to know the allegations against that person. That person doesn't have to wait for a prosecutor to lay charges. That person may wish to reply to the pejorative aspects of the evidence. They're entitled to know that under the rules of fairness.

The report may or may not be released to that person in its entirety. It may be that it's appropriate only to release those parts of an investigation that impacts on that person's guilt or innocence in a subsequent criminal trial. That's the purpose of the report.

The contrary proposition suggested by the member is to release the report to the public so that the person gets tarred and feathered in public — but just so the members of the Legislature can have it and the public can have it, and meanwhile damage is done to that person's reputation. That's what we're talking about here.

We're talking about reports that are commissioned, that are prepared, often with no precautionary rules of evidence. We saw that in Gomery. All kinds of allegations were made in the Gomery Commission, many of which were never tested in cross-examination, many of which would never have passed scrutiny in a court of law.

In those circumstances, the mischief that this section tries to address is that some innocent third party doesn't get his or her reputation irreparably damaged in the public arena without a fair opportunity for that person to defend himself or herself. That's the purpose of sub (6).

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's concern around protection of an individual, but let's use an example about trust in government. A finding of misconduct is made against senior political staff of the government or a cabinet minister. Let's just assume that that finding of misconduct is made. That individual or individuals will have an opportunity to receive the report ahead of time, prepare a response. So the day the world, the public, gets to read the commission, they will immediately have that opportunity to defend themselves.

I can't honestly see how the public's faith in government is going to be restored by the concept that a person who may well be the subject of a public inquiry — and we've had them in the past — about bribes and corruption in this province…. The member for Surrey-Whalley referred to some the other day. It's going to be fairly remarkable, I think, from a public perspective, to believe that the public will accept that — as opposed to the ordinary right of any citizen against whom a finding of misconduct has been made to defend themselves in the public arena, to respond to the questions from the media, to deal with it in the same way.

In terms of trust in government, I just want the Attorney General to try and imagine what the public reaction will be when a finding of misconduct is made against a cabinet minister or a senior political staff. Cabinet has had months and months — and does, in fact, sit on the report for months and months — during that interim period, gives the commission study to someone who has six months to prepare, and then the study is dropped.

The Attorney General, I hope, is beginning to understand my concerns around what this does to trust in government, without any time limits on this whatsoever. Even if this section had said: "We're going to give it to them ten days ahead of time…." But right now you've got a bill that says cabinet gets an unlimited period of time to review it.

You've got a bill that the Attorney General is telling me gives an unlimited amount of time for a participant against whom a finding of misconduct is made to receive a report and to prepare, until the cows come home, to respond to it. That person can be a senior political staff of government. That strikes me as being unreasonable and against common sense.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think that as far as the time limits are concerned, I've already answered that, and I'm not going to go into it any further.

The second part of the question, the hypothetical example given by the member: supposing we have a cabinet minister or a senior government official who is accused of corruption, why should he be given some advance notice? The last time I looked, the rights that accrued or were conferred upon a government minister or a government official were the same as the rights conferred on any other person in society.

I ask rhetorically: why should it make any difference at all against whom these allegations are made? The fact is that in any proceedings we give people notice where there's evidence of wrongdoing, even in the investigative stages.

Let's assume for a minute that we have a police investigation going on about a homicide. We don't disclose that to the public unless charges are laid. But if a person against whom allegations are being made wants to go to the RCMP during the investigative stages, the RCMP will tell them — if they want. They're not obligated to, but that happens.

Let's assume for a minute that a murder has taken place. Someone is a suspect. The RCMP can say: "Smith, come in. We want to talk to you. Bring your lawyer in. You're a suspect."

That evidence is not disclosed to the public, but that person is given a heads-up, because the police will say to you: "This is what we've got against you. This is what we have. We have evidence of A, B, C and D. Do you have any response to that?" That's done all the time. I guess you could say that's an unfair advantage to that particular accused, but we do it, again, in the interests of fairness.

L. Krog: I understand what the Attorney General is saying, but most of the citizens of British Columbia don't enjoy the honour of taking an oath to uphold Her Majesty's law and her peace and dignity. They do not enjoy the privilege of being hired into positions in which they're required to take that oath. They do not enjoy the privilege and respect and honour that come with attaining high public office.

I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying about equality before the law, but when one steps forward into public life and takes that oath or becomes senior political staff, the expectations on one's behaviour are much higher. There's a member on the back bench now who is sitting there because he sent off an e-mail — a little e-mail in a fit of anger, the kind of behaviour that goes on day in, day out across this province. I wouldn't begin to try and count or suggest what the number of e-mails is that contain offensive language. But that member, who I think it's safe to say worked very hard on behalf of his constituents, is now on the back bench instead of around the cabinet table.

The fact is that we do expect a higher standard, and that higher standard goes with the creation of public trust in our institutions. I suggest to the Attorney General that the government is going to get its way on this bill, but there will come a day when there will be a public inquiry, and this section, the way it's written, is going to enable the set of facts that I have advised the Attorney General of to occur.

The public is going to demand heads. They will look back on the records of this debate, and they will know that this issue was raised. They will understand that notwithstanding the objection of the opposition, the government has gone ahead and passed this bill the way it reads — notwithstanding what I would suggest is reasonable advice from the opposition about very serious concerns surrounding section 28.

L. Krog: Section 29 talks about disclosure. Just so I'm clear — and it's only because of the inadequate state of my brain this afternoon — I read this section to say that if a commission determines it necessary to disclose information over which the government asserts privilege or immunity, etc., then immunity isn't defeated for any other purpose.

Do I take that to mean that if the commission releases information in the report, in fact the commission is entitled to do that, even though the Crown has asserted privilege or immunity?

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of this section is to facilitate the work of the commission of inquiry. The government may assert privilege over material such as evidence relating to terrorism, for instance, that it wishes to assert privilege over. That information would assist the commission in its work but would not be disclosed to the public.

L. Krog: I believe that the Attorney General wishes to say something further, so I'll take my seat.

Hon. W. Oppal: Thank you. I wish to correct that. There would still be privilege disclosed over that. The information would be disclosed in their report, but the government would maintain privilege over that.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, I take it, then, that the commission has the authority to demand that government hand over information even though the government asserts privilege on it. Or is it only in those situations where the government has voluntarily disclosed it? Does it also include where it's in response to a request to a summons? In other words, is the commission more powerful than the government? That's probably the simplest way I can put it.

Hon. W. Oppal: The scenario as I see it is as follows: under section 22 the commission has the necessary power to compel evidence, and if the government discloses to that commission, either voluntarily or by order of a court, then information that's a subject matter of the dispute can be contained in the report, but the government can maintain privilege over that with respect to subsequent proceedings in another court — or subsequent proceedings.

L. Krog: During the course of questioning around the previous section 28, the Attorney General made reference to the interests of protecting a participant against whom a finding of misconduct may be made. What this section says is that the "commissioner, or person acting on behalf of or under the direction of a commissioner, must not be required to testify or produce evidence in any proceeding, other than a criminal proceeding, about information obtained in the discharge of duties under this Act."

I'm just wondering. I may be somewhat obtuse here. There is a situation where someone commences a civil proceeding arising out of findings or comments made in a commission study. What this says is that you can't compel the person who produced the evidence to give evidence in the civil proceeding, thereby potentially denying a right to a plaintiff in a civil proceeding for evidence which they might need in order to proceed with their action. I'm just wondering if I'm reading that section correctly.

Hon. W. Oppal: What this section says is that a commissioner, or a person acting on the commissioner's behalf or under the direction of a commissioner, is not compelled to produce evidence, other than in a criminal proceeding. What this really does is…. It's similar to section 55 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. This section really clarifies that a commissioner or a person acting on behalf of or under the direction of a commissioner must not, in proceedings other than criminal proceedings, be required to testify or produce evidence obtained in the discharge of their duties before the commission.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General clarifying that for me, because that's what my understanding is. But I refer the Attorney General back to the example he used where there's a finding of misconduct against a participant.

The participant gets the commission study ahead of time, before it's released to the public. The Crown reviews the commission study and decides that no criminal proceeding is going to be laid. Some potential lawsuit arises out of the findings made in the commission or evidence around involving participants, and I'm a person who brings an action in the B.C. Supreme Court, a civil proceeding.

What this section says is that I can't rely or require to give evidence — even though it may support my case or, if I'm defending, help me defend my case. It says that I can't be required to testify or produce evidence — thereby potentially denying to some person, a plaintiff or a defendant, the right to either fully plead their case or, alternatively, to defend themselves in a civil proceeding that may in some way be related to the results of a commission of inquiry.

Hon. W. Oppal: The starting point here should be: a commission of inquiry's purpose or intent is to gather information and report that information to government, usually with appropriate recommendations. So the information that is led before that commission of inquiry is evidence that's particular to that commission of inquiry and necessary for its findings. That evidence can't be the subject of compulsion in a civil case, but in a criminal case it could be.

In other words, a person could be compelled to give evidence in a criminal case by way of a subpoena, but in a civil case that would not be the case. Now, the concern raised by the member is a good one. Does that mean that a person could not necessarily defend themselves in a civil case?

The answer to that is no. You can defend yourself in a civil case. The question is…. You can't be compelled to, but if you wish to give evidence on your own behalf in a civil case so as to prevent a damage award against you, then that would be valid and admissible evidence.

L. Krog: But my point is that in defending myself, I'm not allowed to compel anyone who worked for or was a commissioner. That's the problem; that's what I'm saying.

The Attorney General is worried about the rights of a person who is found to commit an act of wrongdoing getting the report ahead of time, being able to defend themselves publicly, but if I bring a civil action as a result of what comes out of a public inquiry, I'm not allowed to ask anyone who worked for the commission to give evidence to defend me. I would suggest that as much as that may be common in administrative law, etc., it does, I suggest, rather limit the rights of plain-

tiffs and defendants to defend themselves or bring cases appropriately in civil proceedings.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have to disagree with the member on this basis — that the purpose of a commission of inquiry is not to assist people in pursuit of their civil actions or to provide defences for people in their civil actions. The purpose of a commission of inquiry is to assist government in gathering certain information and from that derive certain recommendations so that they can act appropriately.

A person who has a civil remedy against another person could pursue that remedy. The only caveat to that is that person can't rely on evidence that's given somewhere else in a commission of inquiry — evidence that may be inadmissible in a court of law, for example. So I would suggest that it's a section that's based on sound reasoning.

L. Krog: I didn't wish to disturb the rhythm of the committee at this stage, but section 52 of the Gaming Control Act is repealed by this. Not having had a full opportunity, perhaps the Attorney General can advise what section 52 of the Gaming Control Act — the repeal of that section…. Why it's required as a result of the passage of Bill 6.

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is that the general manager's powers are no longer necessary. The powers of a general manager under section 44 of the Gaming Control Act read as follows: "The general manager is responsible for regulating horse racing and may (a) regulate the operation of all sites at which horse racing is carried on, (b) regulate the operation of all designated race horse training centres…."

It goes on to say: "The general manager may hold hearings relating to any of his or her powers or duties" under this act. He just doesn't, relating to subsection (2), hold hearings anymore. So the section really isn't necessary.

L. Krog: Section 44 repeals section 14(2) of the Marriage Act, which states: "A marriage commissioner designated under subsection (1) has for the purposes of this section the powers and duties of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiry Act." I'm just wondering what effect the removal of that authority will have on any of the powers of a marriage commissioner.

Hon. W. Oppal: The short answer is that the marriage commissioners don't need this authority any more.

The historical reason, I am advised by the assistant deputy minister, is that this section goes back in the Marriage Act to the concern about the validity of Doukhobor marriages, so that's a piece of history for you that you can take away from this debate. Those powers are no longer necessary, because we don't have to determine the validity of Doukhobor marriages any more under the Marriage Act.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, to assist in the passage of the bill, I would be agreeable, certainly, to passage up to and including section 57. I have a question on section 58.

L. Krog: With respect to section 58, it repeals section 27(1) of the existing Notaries Act, which prescribes: "A panel of 3 or more members of the discipline committee may inquire into the conduct of members or former members, and for that purpose it has all the powers of a commissioner under Part 2 of the Inquiry Act." Section 58 again provides for a panel of three or more members and then applies the sections appropriately, I presume, of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Just so I understand this section, it is essentially to put administrative tribunals down where they belong, so to speak, in the pecking order of judicial status, below a commissioner under the Public Inquiry Act, which now has far more specific and sweeping powers. Is that essentially the effect of this section?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder if I can have the member clarify the question. I don't understand what he means by "the pecking order." The section really replaces the powers of the notaries society provided under their governing legislation by reference to the Inquiry Act. What it does is it substitutes all references, and it brings the legislation in line with the Administrative Tribunals Act.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, that is essentially what I wanted to have clarified by the Attorney General: to confirm that, in essence, the new Public Inquiry Act gives significant powers and authority to a commissioner under the Inquiry Act in excess of what is required in order for the notaries public discipline committee to deal with the administrative challenges of disciplining its own members.

Essentially, we are bringing the notaries into line with other administrative tribunals, including the Law Society and other bodies. I believe that is my interpretation of this section, and I just want to confirm with the Attorney General that in fact is the case — that this is a streamlining, if you will, of the law to ensure that

we have a standard form of rules and procedure for administrative tribunals or professional bodies when it comes to disciplining.

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer, generally, is yes. Government is attempting to make uniform rules across the line for all administrative tribunals.

L. Krog: One other question to the Attorney General around this section, and a simple nod will suffice. Was this done at the request of the notaries society?

L. Krog: The Attorney General might have saved himself one more standing up in this chamber if he'd indicated if the results of that consultation represented a consensus approach from the notaries society, or is this section being enacted over their objection?

L. Krog: I am satisfied, unless some other member of the House indicates to the contrary, to pass sections through to and including section 69.

L. Krog: This repeals the existing section 6 of the Debtor Assistance Act and then sets out certain powers. Again, does this essentially bring the authority of the director and procedure in line with administrative tribunals, once again, as discussed with respect to other bodies?

L. Krog: Again, in order to assist, if I might ask the Attorney General a general question with respect to all of the sections through to 133 — that all of these sections are entirely what I would call, and I mean the term in a non-offensive way, bureaucratic in nature; that they simply involve the necessary consequential amendments to all of these various statutes; that all of the professional associations and bodies who are covered by these statutes have in fact been consulted and there is no significant objection to any of these sections being passed.

Hon. W. Oppal: They are, to use your terminology, bureaucratic in nature, and the answer is no, there's no objection to any of the enabling legislation.

L. Krog: Section 134 provides that the Inquiry Act is repealed by this statute and this new act will come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I may be out of order, but I'm wondering if the Attorney General has given any thought as to when this act would be brought into force by way of regulation. In other words, are we going to be moving into the broad new era of the Public Inquiry Act, or are we going to be relying on the existing Inquiry Act for a substantial period of time yet?

Hon. W. Oppal: The best that I can say is that there will be something stated in the very near future. Our objective is to pass this legislation as quickly as possible, and I've already made reference to the inquiry that's been ordered. So I'll leave it at that.

L. Krog: I would move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name to change the name of this bill.

The Chair: Hon. Members, the amendment is out of order. The title of a bill can only be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment. The amendment is out of order, as it is beyond the scope of the bill as it currently exists.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time on the following division and passed:

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate of Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. I. Chong: I move that Bill 11, intituled Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, be read for a second time now.

I am pleased to read the Community Service Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, for the second time now. In so providing my comments, I want to, first of all, acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that my staff have put into this piece of legislation and the number of meetings that have taken place to ensure that we incorporate these changes, many of which are housekeeping and many of which have been at the request of municipalities for us to bring forward.

Our government is committed to vibrant and connected communities that are socially responsive and environmentally sustainable, with real economic opportunities with real potential.

As we all know, British Columbia is characterized by the diversity of our communities and a fact that one size does not fit all. That's why we work with local governments closely. For example, we recently introduced programs to assist with sustainable infrastructure and to encourage all British Columbians to be more active as well as helping all local governments work more effectively. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, makes changes that will benefit all communities and some that will focus on particular needs.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, recognizes the unique challenges and extraordinary circumstances of resort-oriented communities. For example, many of these communities do not have the tax base relative to the demands that the community faces during peak periods due to the number of visitors.

As an example, imagine a small permanent population of 1,500 providing for upwards of one million visitors a year. With limited options, it is harder for such communities to provide stability for their residents and the amenities that will support their visitors. It is more difficult to plan for the future and to realize their potential. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, provides important tools to help resort-oriented communities thrive.

We're updating the definition of a resort. No longer is this just a mountain resort with one season of activity. Over the past decade things have changed. British Columbia now has a diverse range of resort-oriented communities, all-season resorts, lakefront and oceanfront resort communities with jobs, opportunities and growing local economies from Ucluelet to Harrison Hot Springs to Valemount. Yet these different resort-oriented communities have some common goals and face common concerns.

As a local government in these areas, you have to ask: how do you make sure there is enough housing for resort employees? How do you fund visitor services so that visitors tell each other and their neighbours about their great experience and wanting to return? How do you fund infrastructure specifically needed to reach the community's full potential? How do you ensure that development is sustainable and that it fits in with the community?

The answer lies in providing unique finance, development and governance tools for these resort-oriented communities. Today's legislation provides those tools and resources that grew out of our B.C. resort initiative. Following upon the Premier's B.C. Resort Task Force formed in 2003, which explored ways to enhance resort development throughout the province, we have today this important piece of legislation.

First and foremost, we will be working with participating municipalities to return a portion of the provincial hotel room tax to them, so they can develop their tourism economies as they see fit, whether a festival, park improvements or enriching a resort's all-season opportunities. The resort municipality revenue-sharing program will see an estimated $10 million returned to resort-oriented communities each year.

There are also three other elements pertaining to resort-oriented communities in today's legislation that grew out of our B.C. resort initiative — elements that answered the call in our Balanced Budget 2007 to achieve our province's full potential in tourism.

Firstly, the designation of resort region expands beyond just mountain resorts to other municipalities with significant tourism drivers. This leads to the second element, where these resort-oriented communities can access specialized development, finance and land use authorities. For example, they will be able to create a resort association to promote their facilities, and they will be able to institute development cost charges that will go towards resort employee housing.

The third element provides that if a resort community decides to incorporate as a mountain resort municipality, a customized governance structure will help guide the newly formed municipal council and ensure the development continues in line with the community's master development agreement, which sets out the terms of development for the resort. This legislation will help local governments reach their potential as economic drivers and facilitators of tourism and resort opportunities.

There are other amendments in this legislation. The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, provides tools and resources for these resort communities. The other amendments also provide for things such as fairness and certainty while helping local governments work more effectively.

For example, we will be streamlining an aspect of the bylaw ticketing system to save local governments and the provinces time and money. We will also be enabling consistency for business, and accountability for the public, regarding land use regulations that apply during multi-phase, long-term developments. In particular, we're helping the city of Vancouver meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets by extending an authority that currently other municipalities enjoy so that Vancouver can establish a community energy utility system serving new energy subscribers in the southeast False Creek area, and providing economic development through the system's construction and management.

This legislation is also dealing with more day-to-day situations. For example, we're enabling Vancouver to streamline the appeal system regarding chauffeur permits in the city. To say that the entire city council doesn't have to sit in on the appeal hearing makes sense. This will help both the local government and the affected businesses by making the system more effective, more efficient and more responsive.

We're also giving regional districts another option for sharing service costs when one of their members is faced with a bankrupt property from which they cannot collect taxes.

These and other changes are relatively minor, but necessary to update or maintain the framework of local government legislation. We're also permitting local governments to deal effectively, as I say, with a variety of issues they face.

The Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 brings balance, certainty and new opportunities for local governments and their communities around British Columbia. As I have said earlier, it's about fulfilling economic potential, including tourism and resort opportunities, and turning that potential into economic reality. So not only is British Columbia the best place on earth to live and work, it's certainly the best place on earth to visit, play and invest.

I ask that all members lend their support to this worthwhile and necessary piece of legislation. I certainly welcome comments from my colleagues all around this legislative precinct, and I move second reading.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to be up here addressing the House at about five minutes to five on a Thursday, just before we start a long weekend. Like my colleague across the floor, I would also like to acknowledge the graciousness that the minister's staff shared with me in giving me a briefing upon this bill.

I do not at all mind sharing here with the House that this is the first time that I've actually been given the privilege — the responsibility, if you like — to be the lead on legislation that has been entered into the House. With that in mind, it brings some observations to me.

Generally speaking, the bill that we're dealing with, which is a series of amendments, becomes like a miscellaneous bill. In doing so, it has the potential, as my hon. colleague across the floor has indicated, for doing some good in a variety of different areas. But as you know, sometimes it's the detail that is contained within the document that we're dealing with that requires the scrutiny.

I think as we go through the discussion, you are going to find that, likewise, the members on this side of

the House are going to be very much in agreement with the general thrust that my most respected colleague has presented to the House in her opening remarks — that generally this bill is going to provide some improvements across all the local governments that are affected.

It's important for all British Columbians to also recognize that the minister's staff has consulted relatively extensively throughout the province on most parts of the bill that is here in front of us. And as you know, Madam Speaker, when you've got a bill that's a miscellaneous bill, there is not the need, of course, to be having discussions with absolutely everybody in the province. You have discussions with the people that have been affected and are going to be affected by the various sections that are contained in the bill.

However, it is also important that as the discussion and debate takes place, we ensure in this discussion that this miscellaneous bill does not either intentionally or inadvertently end up usurping some other aspects that it was not intended to do. As I've mentioned, I find it somewhat gratifying — I'm a little lost for words here — to be here at this point in time with a bill that generally would be considered to be so innocuous that it would normally just pass through.

However, I am going to be talking about the points in the bill that this side of the House believes are beneficial, are going to make improvements, are going to contribute to the efficiency of local government working with the senior level of government here in Victoria. Time permitting before we adjourn today, I will then also go into some other parts of concerns that we do have that exist here within the bill.

Giving that type of an indication of where we are over here on this side of the House, I would like to return to recognize once more this consultation that has been far and wide. It adds some clarity. It puts some increased efficiency into the delivery of services for local government. It adds some new powers. It generally has listened to the concerns that have been brought in various manners, ways and forms through the various committees so that the ministry has had these concerns. They have looked at them.

Some of these concerns have existed here in British Columbia for literally years, if not leading into the plural of decades. I want to recognize the government for having had the foresight, if you like, to begin to put some corrections into place and — as my hon. colleague across the floor has mentioned — to give some efficiencies, to provide for a number of things.

One of them was to deal with vibrant communities and — again, I don't want to put words incorrectly into anyone's mouth, but I believe it also was mentioned — connected communities and also, if I was hearing accurately, environmental sensitivity in addressing the issues here across British Columbia. Without meaning to be misleading, I do want to recognize those comments that I believe I heard made by my most respected colleague on the other side in her opening addresses to Bill 11, because eventually I will be coming back to a portion of those words that I have mentioned, particularly the part around being environmentally sensitive.

That is a part that, upon examination of this act that — as I've mentioned earlier — is a collection of a number of amendments. If my memory serves me right, I think there are about six different amending parts that are contained in this act.

Normally, this type of an act would be an innocuous type of a thing. It would normally just proceed through the House, as has been suggested. At least, it's a suggestion that I took from the introduction of the bill. I do want to mention to you, Madam Speaker, it was an impression that I formed — and I may have formed the wrong impression so I don't mean any slight when I share the impression that I have formed — that an amendment act that is a collection of some important items, albeit relatively few amounts, would just zing through.

But to have a miscellaneous act introduced on a Thursday at the tail end of a session, which contains in it amendments that aren't necessarily straightforward, that aren't clearly of a perfunctory nature and that haven't necessarily been brought forward by any groups here within British Columbia that I'm aware of…. Underneath that set of circumstances, it raises alarms to me.

Now, a very long time ago, and when I talk about a very long time ago…. For me, in this House, I can't use that expression of a long time ago because I'm a rookie here. I've been here a very, very limited amount of time. And I have so much to learn about how this place works, how it operates and all those other great and wonderful things that take place in this Legislature. I have so much to learn about that.

So when I talk about a long, long time ago…. I have to share with you that now what I'm talking about is when I was in local government. Somebody much wiser than me said…. I guess I can't use my name, so I was told, "Look for the detail," whatever my name was, "because that is where the difficulties may be."

As I got older…. I am old relative to many, many people that are in here because we are such a young, vibrant group of people, without any doubt. As I aged and developed some experience, I recognized the wisdom that was contained in that advice that I was given.

After I've talked about all the good things that are contained in this bill…. And I do want to emphasize and recognize that this bill does contain good things for the province. It has listened to, in most cases, the interests of British Columbians and the problems that they wish to have resolved.

With that relatively brief introduction to Bill 11, I would like to now begin to come in and talk with you, Madam Speaker, on some of these miscellaneous items that are contained within Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Over all the years that I've been involved in speaking, I've always been told that I'm a linear type of an individual. I have trouble, if you like, just randomly moving through any items. I find, for myself, that I'm able to give a more reasoned, thought-out dissertation

upon the issue that is at hand if I simply follow through with the item that is in front of me.

I'm going to start from the beginning of this miscellaneous act, this collection of changes to a variety of different acts, and I'm going to begin to go through them.

The first item that is in front of us is an amendment to the Community Charter. Along the way, Madam Speaker, I'm hoping that you will give me assistance to make sure that I don't move into committee stage in the discussion, in my youthful exuberance in this new task that I have in front of me, and make sure that I do stay upon my function here of talking generally about this particular bill — the goodness of it, the badness of it, the neutrality of it and all those words that are contained in it that are in-between.

When I look at the Community Charter part of it, I think I understand what the intention of this section is, and generally speaking we would be in favour of the intent of streamlining ticketing. It makes sense that it be streamlined. But the amendment goes a little further than just simply the streamlining. It also brings into discussion the tried, convicted and sentenced aspect of it.

At another stage of this bill, I very well may be coming back and talking in much greater detail upon that part of the act. At the same time that we're looking for increased efficiencies and vibrancy and all those other items that we're looking for, I know that nobody here in the Legislature wants to throw out other principles inadvertently or in whatever fashion that it may occur within. That part of the amending act, the Community Charter part, likely will require a little bit further discussion, and I will return to that at another time.

Now, moving on to the part of the act called the Hotel Room Tax Act. This is a part of the act that I want to recognize the government in its wisdom for bringing forward. This is the part of the act…. When I've read through it and studied it — albeit for me, it's been a relatively short period of time to study…. That's how the rules work in here.

But I have had a chance to look through the Hotel Room Tax Act, and it looks to me and to this side of the House that the government, in essence, has got their act together in this part of the amendment. There are quite a number of communities here within British Columbia that will benefit very much from the government having listened to this concern.

I believe that we should just take a moment before I talk about the specific communities that will benefit by this and recognize the intent of this part of the act.

With wisdom, if that's the correct term to describe this, the government has recognized that we have got incorporated areas around British Columbia that have a high population usage but they're of a non-resident nature. The pressure that puts upon those communities is simply this: local governments primarily raise their funds, their resources, for dealing with whatever services they provide primarily from the property tax.

Therefore if you're in a situation such as Valemount in which you have a large number of tourists that come to your community every year, those large numbers of tourists put demands upon the infrastructure system of those tourist-based communities. In order to provide for those services, one tool they did have available to them underneath existing legislation was a 2-percent hotel tax, which, in essence, was used to encourage more people to come to your area and to promote it. All fine, wonderful things to do.

However, it still left that community with a funding crunch. Their funding crunch was worsened, because they only had property tax to raise it off of, and therefore it increased the difficulty, the affordability for the residents that live there day in and day out, in order to be able to afford the costs of being in that particular community. Kudos to the government for recognizing the communities of British Columbia that have experienced that set of circumstances.

C. Wyse: My colleague over here to the left, I agree with her applause completely, and I wish I could join with her, but I understand my job is to speak about the good, the bad and the ugly of this bill. So I have to return to the task that I have in front of me, which is to do exactly what I am doing.

What this bill does — graciously by some people's mind, maybe should have done by other people's mind…. In other people's mind, maybe there should have been even more put into the pot to address the issue that is in front of us, but I think that is all by and by the side. The fact is that the government has shown a willingness to share the provincial portion of the hotel tax with those communities that face the situation and meet the criteria that are contained within the bill.

There are criteria that are contained within the bill, but I think that at this stage of the game it would be absolutely nitpicking to be going into the particulars. This is the stage of the bill in which we're dealing with the philosophy of it. Good on the government in sharing the provincial revenue on the hotel tax. That has the potential of providing some further assistance other than the property tax that municipalities have.

What I'd like to share with you, Madam Speaker, is the list of some of the communities that are going to benefit by this. The interesting thing when I looked at my list — no surprise — is that these communities are found all over British Columbia. They're not found based upon the ridings that they are contained in or represented by. There's a good mix of representation contained in here. That also, I believe, is reflective of the wisdom and the responsiveness that the minister has shown in bringing forward this part of the act.

For those people out in British Columbia who want to know the names of some of these communities, I would like to put them into the record. As we move right through to assent, because I'm sure that this part is going to pass…. There are other parts that after debate and discussion and listening to the wisdom may be re-examined, but in this part, these communities around British Columbia would want to know, and I

believe that they have the right to hear, why the goodness of this legislation has an effect on them.

It includes Valemont, Ucluelet, Tofino, Golden, Kimberley, Invermere, Radium Hot Springs, Harrison Hot Springs, Fernie, Revelstoke, Rossland, Whistler and Osoyoos. There's the list of 13 communities that I've been given that stand to benefit by the legislation that is introduced here.

Madam Speaker, there are more than just those 13 communities here within British Columbia. I don't want to lead anyone here that I'm an expert upon all of these items. Surely, there are other communities out here in British Columbia that are going to want to examine this legislation when it's passed, this section called the Hotel Room Tax Act, and are going to want to see whether the generousness of the government will be able to be extended to them and assist that community with getting on with the issues that are in front of them.

By reading into the record those particular communities, I don't want to leave anybody in British Columbia with the impression that that's a totally inclusive list and that everyone else is left out. That information is what I've been given by the research that I've done. I have no reason to doubt that aspect of it. I know that many of these communities have been lobbying for quite a period of time in order to have this type of an arrangement made with the provincial government — whoever that provincial government may have been. So good on the government, as I've mentioned.

Don't treat this as an exclusive aspect of it. Remember this is late on a Thursday, a miscellaneous act. Good things in the bill, and we need to go through and examine it. We may not get it all done tonight. We may still require some more time in order to come back and carry on a discussion upon this piece of legislation that is here tonight in front of us. But that is the Hotel Room Tax Act.

Now when I move through Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, I come to the next stage in the act where amendments are proposed. This section in the act is called the Local Government Act. There are parts of this particular act that I'm going to put aside. I'm going to come back to this part of the act and discuss it in more detail, assuming that I have time left today. If I don't have time left today, then I will come back to this section here on Monday.

C. Wyse: Thank you. I appreciate somebody reminding me where I am, on Thursday before this long week. I'd forgotten that it isn't this Monday; it is a week Monday — which reminds me of a point. To have a miscellaneous act that has been introduced at the tail end of a day…. We have a break, ten days, Madam Speaker, and to introduce a miscellaneous act at that point of time….

I am so grateful that my colleague opposite reminded me of where I am at this particular point in time, because in actual fact I happen to be at the point in the act where I have great concerns. I happen to be exactly at the point in the act where this side of the House has concerns. I happen to be at that part of the act where we have concerns about the consultation, where the local individuals were not listened to. I'm at the part of the act where the interests and the desires of local residents may in actual fact be thwarted.

But, Madam Speaker and colleagues opposite, I digress. As I recall, I was going to talk about the parts of the act that I'm in agreement with, on this side of the House. Moving through the Local Government Act portion, there are sections contained in this part of the act that we would speak in favour of, but as I've mentioned, there are also parts contained in this part of the amendment that we do not speak in favour of. As a matter of fact, we have reservations about them.

Let's move to a part of the act, Madam Speaker, in the Local Government Act, which we believe there is merit in, which there is benefit to and which there are some good things to be said about. That is section 16, if I understand how to read these things correctly. Being so new here, with an amendment act I have trouble making sure that I've got the numbers.

C. Wyse: I'll return to section 15, but it's section 16 that I want to talk about, because there are good things that I want to say about section 16. We're now talking about mountain resort municipalities. In this part of the act, I understand that the ministry staff….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just for clarification: are you the designated hitter?

C. Wyse: Madam Speaker, I am not at all certain that I'll be able to get it all done in an hour and a half, but I'm going to do my best. If along the way we get adjourned, I do know that I've got notes all around here. I'll make certain that I don't lose them, so that I can pick up when we come back ten days from now on this very, very important item that was stuck in here Thursday before a ten-day break. I'll sleep well, but I know my thoughts will still be here when I come back in ten days from now.

Now, I do want to try and get as much of this important piece of information in front of this House…. I want to return to the part about where we support, where we put the ticks in the right box. If I understand this correctly, I'm on section 16, page 6, where we have a mountain resort municipality constructed.

Good idea. This is one of these new powers that are being put in place, and the government needs to be

recognized for having made some adjustments — in our judgment, in a positive fashion — for how conditions change. What we're talking about here, Madam Speaker, is where you have a ski resort that develops, sets itself up.

In doing so, of course, there's a huge investment that is made by individuals in setting up this resort. It's understandable that interest in the investment, the security of it, cannot and should not be jeopardized.

At the same time that the resort has been put into place, it requires the development of services in order to provide not only for the people that come and use the resort but, based upon the successfulness of the resort, for employees who will require services.

Traditionally, what has happened, not in all cases, but…. For those of my colleagues who are of a more urban nature, I'm going to digress here just a little bit. Normally what would happen is these resorts would be put into an unincorporated area of a regional district, and that structure of government was never set up to look after providing services to a resort.

From where you live, Madam Speaker, I'm sure this information is old hat to you, but I didn't want to take a chance that all of my other colleagues who are in here didn't understand that aspect of it. Likewise, I want to take some time in talking about the good things that are contained in the act at the same time.

The pressure then is on that unincorporated area to provide those services and the governance that is required in a fashion that it was never meant to provide that type of service. I'll make up an example. I like to make up examples. It helps me explain it to the people of British Columbia who have been waiting eagerly for this amendment act to be placed in front of us at this time.

What it allows to take place, with agreements involving the regional district and, also, the owners of the resort, is that you can structure a mountain resort municipality and, therefore, leave it in a position to more ably look after its own governance and the servicing needs that that developing community would require.

A great insight, in our judgment, coming up with this type of category and designation. My understanding from communities that exist here in British Columbia — Sun Peaks — is they also like this. Discussions that have been taken on with UBCM likewise see merit in this. I think it's only fitting that we recognize the thoughtfulness, the wisdom — all the other aspects. I'm sure that the staff have assisted the hon. minister in bringing forward this part of the act.

It is laudable. It is supportable. I hope that the minister will agree with me that I have given it the credit it's due because I'm willing to talk longer and give it more credit, if there's anyone here who feels I haven't given it the credit that is needed.

I see my colleagues opposite — a split decision on it. I'm not certain that….

C. Wyse: Someone is in a hurry, maybe, to go home, and the other wants to hear more of what the issue is. I'm also hearing that we need a little bit more upon this particular item.

Madam Speaker, to be honest with you, I'm not certain how much better I could speak to the goodness of this particular part of the act. I'm not just simply here to be rambling on. I'm here to talk about the good and the bad and the ugly that is contained in this bill, that ended up here on that Thursday just before….

C. Wyse: No, I have to correct my colleague — a ten-day break, not a long weekend. Where I'm from, a long weekend is four days. But that's us guys upcountry, and I can understand when I get down here that it is a little longer when it's ten days.

Now, having acknowledged that portion of the act, Local Government Act, I wanted to confirm that I am still in the amending part of the amendment contained in it. I want to move on to the phased development agreement and talk about that. Another suggested set of amendments are contained here in the Community Services Statute Amendment Act, 2007, and upon initial examination of this part of the act, it likewise appears to quite effectively do what the minister has described in her opening remarks — to provide for the mechanics of developments that are of a long-range nature.

It's not uncommon, when a development comes in front of a local government, that the development isn't all going to be completed within a relatively short period of time, let's say five years. These phased developments might take ten years, or they might take 20 years and in some cases maybe even longer to come to fruition, to completion. The existing legislation presents difficulty in doing that bridging over that multiplicity of time units that I've used in my example.

This part of the Local Government Act may require more scrutiny at the next stage, but at this point in time it appears to move in the direction that has been outlined by the minister to allow for the complexity of dealing with the funding of services to phased development over long periods of time — or shorter periods of time, depending upon what happens.

At another stage, when I have more time to do the detail of the act, I will likely have some questions around ensuring that everybody's rights are protected. See, I not only want to ensure, as my hon. colleague mentioned, the rights of the developer, I also want to ensure that the legislation provides protection for the municipality, the local level of government. I also want to make certain that the residents have protection.

Even that part, Madam Speaker, isn't the part of the concern that I've mentioned, where my wisdom about this fellow who advised me a long, long time ago to look for in the detail…. It isn't these details. These are the details that, quite rightfully so, could have waited until the committee stage. I do want to mention at this point in time that I do have questions in this area.

I want to ensure, and if possible in my naivety, my newness at this part of the job, that when I received my briefing from the minister's staff, I didn't have the wisdom or the experience to have asked some questions around this part of the act, so I will come back and deal with it later.

I also want to share with my colleagues on both sides of the House, likewise it may have been my naivety, that in other parts of act, in the briefing that I received, I had things that weren't drawn to my attention, and I accept full responsibility for not having had the wisdom and the experience to have asked those questions when I was having my briefing.

I do want to mention here, so that there's no misunderstanding with what I'm saying, that when we moved through the briefing, I had many, many things that were drawn to my attention by the staff. I found the staff forthcoming, I found them willing to volunteer information, and I found them willing to provide me with insights on most of the stuff that's contained here within the bill — most of the stuff.

Now, I'm not the sharpest knife in the deck or in the drawer. I mix up my metaphors all the time. Where I'm not the sharpest and often where I don't know what I'm doing, I get a little confused. The fault and the responsibility or whatever those words may have been rest over here, and they rest over here on this side of the House.

I do want to clearly state that to the best of my recollection when I do get wound up later on, on a part of the act that concerns us on this side of the House, I don't recall having it drawn to my attention. And if it was drawn to my attention, it was drawn in a fashion that no alarm bells would have gone off. As I mentioned already, that's my responsibility. I am the individual that is elected. I am the person that is here. It's my responsibility to make certain that we understand all, all the effect of all the acts that are in front of us, including a miscellaneous act that is introduced on Thursday before a ten-day holiday at the tail end of the day.

That, Madam Speaker, sits in my stomach just a little bit. But I'm not to that point. I want to return to the part of the act where we think that the government is on course, so allow me to proceed. I'm attempting to go through this as quickly as I can, but I'm not at all certain whether I'm going to be able to get it all done today. It's also important here in this House that members on the other side recognize that we have had people who represent parts of this province that are affected by other parts of this legislation. They are staying here in Victoria, doing their job in speaking to an amendment act that contains amendments in it that have a profound effect upon their community, and as I mentioned earlier, it's contrary to the interests of those areas.

I need to balance off that item so that somebody else may have an opportunity to speak on this important item — but not right now, because I have not gone through all the good parts of the act yet. It's only 20 minutes to six. As my colleagues on the other side have insisted, we are here until 6:30. We are here doing the people's business, and we insist upon doing the people's business right up to 6:30 on Thursday.

Now, back to the act. I digressed, and I didn't mean to do that. Allow me a moment just to recollect my thoughts.

As I move through the act, I come across a couple of items that, even given the role that I have to play here tonight…. It takes much more experience than I have to spend a lot of time on the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act. So that everybody is comfortable here in British Columbia with that section of the act, that it is of a perfunctory nature…. It's the type of thing that would just receive a tick in the box, and they're the things that are needed to be done.

So moving along — not trying to drag this out — I want to now go on to the Mountain Resort Associations Act, or the Resort Association Act — as it's now called, or will be called when this is passed. A name change, but it's mentioned in here, so…. A rookie on the block, I think you can maybe see some of the difficulty that occurs.

I just talked about two amendments contained within this amendment act that, rightfully so, are just that — they are some changes. They are some name changes. So if you didn't sit down, and you just took this amendment act when it was introduced — but I think that most people have got the idea now of when this act was introduced and the time frame — a normal conclusion would be that that's exactly what this act is. It's a perfunctory nature. Talk to it over a short period of time, and get on to it. However, it's in the details.

Moving on, I just found a section in the act that I had missed. I want to apologize to everybody. It's the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3). I look at it, and the good thing about taking notes in my style of how I do things, all of a sudden I recognize that no, I hadn't missed this part of the act. I saw my notes, and I looked at it, and I think where I would have left this part of the act was sort of in the category area of good on the government — good on them here.

I mean, these people in the Sooke electoral area, the Juan de Fuca electoral area that has existed since September 1, 1999, have experienced some difficulties in functioning. The laws don't quite mix together. When they don't quite mix together, you get some problems. You get some problems that need to be clarified, so good on the government for having listened to this part. I'm not going to spend a large amount of time here because I want to save some time for my colleague who will spend some time talking about the issue that is of concern — so good on the government for that part of the act.

Carrying on to the Vancouver Charter portion, some good things are contained in here in this part of the act, this amendment act. What it allows to happen is to bring some portions of the Vancouver Charter more up to date with the Community Charter. Good for bringing the Vancouver Charter more up to date with the more modern Community Charter.

When I ran across this part of the act, I went rush, rush, rush to the end of the act, figuring that contained within that part of the act I also might find the same type of part for bringing regional districts up to speed with the Community Charter, just as they were promised in 2004. But it's not in this act. It's not in this miscellaneous act.

This happened to be one of the very few areas that I had the wisdom and foresight to ask about when I got my briefing. I received assurances that that part does have some priority for this government opposite to address as they promised, coming up to three years ago, would take place. When I asked some questions around that part….

I don't want to digress too far down this particular road, but as I mentioned I thought I would find it in this act, this miscellaneous act, where I found the Vancouver Charter act being brought up to speed. I wasn't left jumping up and down as though that amending part was going to bring regional districts into the year 2007 with any great rapidity, but I will deal with that aspect in another venue, Madam Speaker. If I spend too much time talking on that, I think even you might agree that I'm wandering all over the place. So I don't want to spend any more time there, Madam Speaker, because I don't want to upset you, and I want to stay upon the bill that is here that was introduced today at this time, this miscellaneous act.

Coming back to the energy utility system part. What a marvellous idea. It's absolutely tremendous. This is the environmental part that I could be in favour of and in agreement with the minister across the way. This brings enabling legislation into place that would allow Vancouver to take waste product and turn it into energy. I thought: wow, good on the government for looking at an idea, and good on that government for having listened to the city of Vancouver in bringing forward this great idea.

Good on the principles of it, but contained in this area there may be some questions around the detail of it. But I would leave that off until the committee stage. At this point in time, I've mentioned on numerous occasions, I want to concentrate upon the part of the bill where the ticks should go — on the good part.

Along the way, I hope that there's going to be time for me to get to the part in which there are serious concerns, so I'm just checking the time here. I now see that we've moved to ten to six on Thursday night, and I'm glad everybody is willing to stay here with me until 6:30. That's great.

As I move through this particular act…. I need to mention before I leave the Vancouver Charter — as I mentioned at the start of the act, and now getting towards the end of the act — that there are some concerns around having good things put into place at the possibility of being sacrificed at other principles. So contained in here, the government in their wisdom have also brought in the concept that — found guilty, it's all over. Appeals and things of that nature, which I'd mentioned with concerns around the Community Charter aspect of it…. Lo and behold, as I mentioned, if you're going to bring the Vancouver Charter up to the year 2007, you're going to bring that piece along with it.

But I will ask my questions at the committee stage. I'll need to remember, and I hope that I do remember, that there are two parts of this act that have the same set of questions around them for when, eventually, I do get to the committee stage.

Carrying on through the act, I get to that part that is called the transitional provisions. They provide in certain sets of circumstances some retroactivity contained within the legislation.

Sometimes, I guess, retroactivity for legislation is good. In other times, retroactivity may have some built-in concerns about that retroactivity. Therefore, at the committee stage when we go through the detail contained within it, I then may have more questions that pertain to that part of the bill. But I will leave that to the committee stage.

Now, what I have learned over the short period of time that I've been here is that it is a responsibility to check the legislation to ensure that it is doing what you believe the legislation is intended to do, and to not necessarily end up creating situations that allow things to take place that on first blush or first read would not be allowed.

I am going to return to the "Local Government Act," section 15, which proposes to make some amendments, and in doing such provides the authority, the ability by regulation, to designate an area as a resort region. Then it defines very succinctly: "An area may be designated as a resort region only if (a) the area includes a municipality, and (b) the area does not include a portion of a municipality."

Now, section 15 is very brief. It's a few words. That's all — a few words stuck in a bill on a Thursday, before a ten-day…. The words that have the ability to potentially bypass the desires of the local residents in areas of the province where the residents clearly have raised their concerns about certain types of developments.

This legislation allows a circumvention of the interests and desires of a part of the province. When you have legislation that allows circumvention of the interests of any part of the province by an innocuous amendment, it should set off alarm bells, and it has set off alarm bells at this side of the House.

There are developments that exist here within British Columbia that have been opposed by area residents for years and years. We're not talking about just a small percentage of the residents of the area. We're talking, overwhelmingly, the vast majority of the residents. And this legislation provides for a means to circumvent the interests, the desires and the wants of local residents. It is a subtle means of circumventing local government. That's what it does do.

I'm not going to be talking for much longer, because I cannot give this the emotion that it deserves. I wish I could, but I fail — having not lived in that part of the province where this section of the act could have such a profound effect.

Where I do come from, though, is a part of the country where we expect — no, we anticipate — that there's an openness contained in discussions. That is simply expected to be the case. It is a shock to a country boy to turn up here in this House and find 50 words — stuck, hidden, amongst thousands of words — that can circumvent the wishes of British Columbians and their desires. It also calls into question the sincerity around environmental sensitivity.

I had mentioned earlier in the discussions that I was going to go through and tick where all the good things are in the bill, and I have attempted to do that quickly. I know that I could have taken longer in talking with the praises of the bill, but unfortunately, I do not want to pass the opportunity to speak about other parts of the bill.

I'm referring to the Jumbo Glacier Resort, where we have had ministers of this government indicate that the controversy that exists around this particular development would be left with the regional district of East Kootenay. When you look through this particular proposal, you find that local businesses, most of the first nations, Invermere municipal council and so on have huge concerns about it.

But I don't want to digress here into all the details around this particular development. We do have elected representatives from that part of the province that also wish to get up and speak upon this particular bill at some time, whether it's today or whether it is ten days from now. So what we have here, from where I sit as the local government representative, is my deferral to those people that talk around the emotions of this specific example, and there may well be more than one that fall into this proposed amendment.

The part that I wish to discuss here with this House is the manner in which that amendment has been brought forward. No fanfare. Thursday, late in the day, stuck in amongst thousands of words is something that will profoundly affect the environment, that will profoundly affect the people that live in parts of the province, that allows once more the government to circumvent local government and local government's designed responsibility to look after the interests of those individuals — a creative manner to achieve that, albeit.

It still concerns me greatly that we would have once more this type of legislation be put in front of us so innocuously.

So few words that have such a profound effect. It is almost impossible for me to live up to a statement that I just made. It is almost impossible for me not to spend a little bit of time on the example. It needs to be put into context — 15 years that proposal over in the Kootenays…. It borders a couple of ridings. Local government in that part of the province for decades has been able to balance off the needs and wants of its citizens. It has been able to balance off the needs and wants of its citizens in an environmentally sensitive fashion. It has served as a guardian in reaching that achievement.

From the part of the country where I'm at, from the part of the province up in the Cariboo, which is experiencing an effect of climate change and has been experiencing an effect of climate change maybe longer than all the other parts of the province — the mountain pine beetle…. From where I'm from in the Cariboo, we have had a sensitivity to the land because we live on the land. We have watched the effect that climate change has had in our area with the mountain pine beetle.

I can bring that intensity to this discussion. I can bring those emotions to this discussion. I can bring the sincerity of what I believe the existing communities in this part of the province will have when they become familiar with what this section of the act can possibly allow to occur in their part of the province.

Emotionally, I can relate. But when you say you can emotionally relate to something, I have also learned that you cannot do that in all honesty until you in actual fact have experienced the situation that the individuals themselves are experiencing. I can share with you that I believe intellectually I can relate to the emotions that these people are going to have, but I would be misleading to leave the impression that I truly in my heart will suffer the grief, the disappointment, the shock, all of those other type of feelings they will when they become familiar with this part of the act.

I will need to defer to people that live in that area, and we will likely get a good mix of different opinions on it. The information I have is that the residents in that part of the province are overwhelmingly not in favour of this development proceeding, and I suspect overwhelmingly will be less in favour of it proceeding through the back door. But time will tell because this is the part of the act where it's my responsibility to attempt to convince the government in their wisdom to see the error of their way.

It has happened before in my short two years here, and in the time that is left, I'm always hopeful, I'm always optimistic that it will happen again.

There is no better time for it to happen than in this miscellaneous act that is titled — let me find it again, just to make sure everybody in British Columbia knows the act that I'm referring to — Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

That is the part that needs this section — section 15…. It's not a lot of words to be withdrawn. I didn't count them, but I'd estimate it's about 50. That's not an awful lot to pull out of an act that goes on for pages and pages and pages. It would make a lot of sense to do that, because I did accept the words — and let me try and find them. I hope I wrote them down accurately.

The act is meant to be environmentally sensitive. When I started off, I referred to some adjectives that were used to describe this particular act. I referred to some words that were also used to describe the intent of the act. So, accepting on behalf of the 79 of us that wish to be environmentally sensitive…. After all, when I came back to the House, the throne speech spent pages on being environmentally friendly. It spent the largest portion by far on being environmentally friendly. It did all of those things. My naivety again, I guess.

I guess when the budget was introduced and I couldn't find those "environmentally" parts of it contained in the budget, the alarm should have gone off. I accept responsibility for that. I have so much to learn here. I'm trying to learn fast. I'm working as hard as I can to do my job.

I hope on behalf of all British Columbians that I've been doing my job properly here today, starting by dealing with a simple amendment act snuck in at the tail end of a session before a holiday. I hope I've done my job in providing the opportunity for British Columbians to become aware.

Deputy Speaker: I would remind members that second reading is a debate on the core principles of the bill.

C. Wyse: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I very much appreciate your wisdom. I appreciate it very much. I apologize in my naivety to have digressed, and I am so thankful that you have drawn it back to my attention. So let me return to the intention of this act — this amendment act that was meant to be environmentally friendly. You're right, I digressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad that you have come to join us. I'm going to just take a moment to wet my whistle. Now, I don't have to repeat what I said, do I?

C. Wyse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being new here, I didn't know whether when we changed speakers and I was into the bill like this, if I would have to repeat myself, and I just wanted to apologize to you because I doubt I could remember everything I said over the last little while. So thank you for your wisdom, too, Mr. Speaker. I find that assists me greatly.

Getting back to the business at hand, we're dealing with a designation of resort regions. That's what we're dealing with. That's where the concern is. The concern — and I'm sorry, I got into a habit, Mr. Speaker…. I may have left the impression that this issue only existed in the Kootenay part of the province, but that's not necessarily the case.

My colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast also indicates to me that there is the possibility — and I have to indicate here that it is the possibility — that there may be developments that are of this type of nature, a resort region, that given the change of authority, it would remove the input from another regional district in having a say, looking after the interests of their residents.

These 50 words that I've been attempting to convince my hon. colleague to remove so that we can get back to the principles that this act was introduced on and reach in all the sections…. I should count them because I forgot to count the various parts. If I've counted them right, there are eight amendments that are contained in this list of amendments, but I may have missed one, as I mentioned earlier. There were a couple that were name changes in there that were bang on. I may have miscounted them, but if you'll just take that there are in the broadest of terms about eight amendments contained in this miscellaneous collection of acts that are in front of us.

The key part, though, is that section 15. That is the part that challenges all of us here in the House. It challenges the basic principle of the best being left as wilderness, and I don't mean to digress. The minister in the opening statements — just in case you may not have heard them — had mentioned that this bill would be environmentally friendly. You have a part of the province in which the parties that are concerned strongly, overwhelmingly, in huge numbers, including their local governments, believe that things should be left best as wilderness. Environmentally sensitive was what the throne speech said that we're attempting to achieve. That having been the intent, this is the part of the act that needs to be removed. It needs to be amended.

C. Wyse: Pull it out. I guess that's one way it could be done. I guess deleting it is another way it could be done. I'm so new here that I'm sure that there are other people with much greater wisdom than I have that could come up with other ways, in actual fact, of achieving what is necessary to take out the offensiveness of section 15.

While I'm here in my youthfulness as a newly elected MLA, I guess it's possible to be amended. I guess that's a possibility, and with that possibility of an amendment, I would need to study the possibilities of amendment to see whether we could come up with means and ways of achieving those amendments that would allow the bill to be environmentally friendly, would allow the bill to look after the interests of the local people, to achieve what they wish to have. It would allow ways to be found in order to ensure that local government, which is elected to look after those local interests, is not circumvented by 50 words — that does not allow us here in Victoria to go streaming through.

My memory tells me that recently I've brought to attention that there are certain things we do here collectively as the 79 of us. The 79 of us here have a task to do to attempt to find the best legislation that works for all British Columbians.

To do that requires everyone to be listening, Mr. Speaker. You so well have drawn to my attention over the last couple of days the importance of people being willing to listen to the answers as well as to the questions. So drawing upon your wisdom that you have helped me learn here, I'm going to paraphrase your wisdom and share it back with my colleagues here in the House.

What I'm going to suggest is that we need to listen to the pros and cons around sections of the legislation. Let's assume that, inadvertently, I have discovered

something in an amendment act that isn't there and wasn't intended to be there, but it could be used like that. It could be used like that, but it was never intended to be used like I've described it. Then the honourable thing, I think, would be to simply withdraw that part of the offending portion of an amendment act. That to me makes sense.

Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, are from the same type of communities. They're small. They're personal. They allow that interaction when we go home. People come up to us, and they say: "Yup, that's what I think should be happening. This is where legislation should be going." They actually join me. I suspect that a friendly person like yourself finds the same thing when you go back to your riding. Your constituents come up and share those items with you.

I know there's nobody here in this House that wants to go back to their ridings, have people come up to them and talk about what might have happened on a Thursday, ten days before a long weekend, with an amendment act that is a collection of eight amendments.

We don't want that to happen. We want it debated fully. We want it discussed greatly. We want it to have full debate, full discussion across all of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thousands watching their televisions and the millions watching around the world — full debate for British Columbia.

C. Wyse: I appreciate my colleague and his wisdom from across the way. I had forgotten those people that were out there watching us on TV. I had forgotten that that is out there, and this function does also need to be taken into account. I am so thankful that my colleague across the way reminded me of this because I thought for a moment that I was just about finished.

However, now that I've been reminded of that very important function…. Those people that are the working families back at home have tuned in to see how their Legislature works and have just come off shift. I am so thankful that I was reminded of the people up in the Cariboo that work on shifts.

For them to be able to come into the House on a Thursday, with a miscellaneous bill in front of them, and find us here staying right to 6:30….

C. Wyse: Maybe even more. I am willing to stay, as I mentioned before, because it is important that we do the people's business.

It has truly and sincerely been great to be involved in this discussion and debate, to have served my role as an MLA, to have served my role as a critic. Furthermore, those people who are out here in British Columbia and who have watched me over the years — former students of mine…. I told them to do their homework, to study, to make sure you know what is happening, not to walk into things blindly. I hope this was a demonstration of the importance of doing those things.

Now, I have just about exhausted what I have to say at this time, but in the Cariboo the word "just" can also require a little bit longer. I don't think there is more at this time that I can add to the discussion and the debate.

One final reminder, though: I lack the experience. I lack the familiarity with the effects of this amendment, section 15, and what it can have for us here in British Columbia. Later I'm sure that there will be many, many members of this House who are going to wish to rise and speak on Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. I'm sure that that will be the case. In order to ensure that that is extended all across the board to all the members…. My experience doesn't allow me to know all the rules in here, so I have a little bit of reluctance to be doing anything at this moment in time except staying here, holding my spot, carrying on about the importance of Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Along the way, I'm sure the hon. Speaker will give me some assistance on when it is time to move adjournment of the debate and to reserve my right to speak. I'm sure that I will get some assistance on doing that. Is that the motion I should move now, Mr. Speaker?

C. Wyse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Noting the hour, I would move adjournment of the debate on Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and reserve my right to pick up debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, you've all heard the motion. All those in favour say aye.

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the House do now adjourn and wish all members a good week in their constituencies.

G. Coons: As we clarified before, I was just going to have one or two more questions on Ferries, and then we'll pass it off to the highway crew.

I wanted to get into one of the recommendations from the Auditor General where he recognized that the ministry monitors performance to ensure contracted service levels are met, but there is no monitoring of the new structure to evaluate how it is meeting the objectives. That was one of the issues he had. Earlier in the report the AG recommended periodic evaluations of the ferry system, and these would address the absence of such monitoring.

The Auditor General also indicated that it's no longer administered by a single corporation but rather a collection of several separate legal entities, and he found there was no structure involved. "It was somewhat fragmented," are his words. He said it would be of value to taxpayers, ferry riders and Members of the Legislative Assembly if a single summary of the various reports were all thrown into one as a whole. His recommendation is that the Ministry of Transportation issue separately or as part of its annual service plan a comprehensive summary report on the coastal ferry system.

I'm wondering, for the benefit of taxpayers, ferry riders and Members of the Legislative Assembly, if he will follow this recommendation of a comprehensive summary report for the next annual service plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: I have a bit of a challenge with that particular recommendation, Member, and the reason is that it's our belief that independent entities like B.C. Ferries, the B.C. Ferry Authority and the B.C. Ferry Commission are in the best position to report on their activities.

We do have on our website a coastal ferries services section linking to the various entities and reports. It has actually made it extraordinarily easy for individuals who have on-line access, through our coastal ferries services section, to tie into any one of those reports. I'm less compelled for the need for a comprehensive summary report, though we haven't rejected it out of hand, of course.

G. Coons: I'm glad that hasn't been rejected, because I think, as the Auditor General says, the ferry riders, MLAs and taxpayers would value that summary report.

One last comment or a question. In one other estimates we talked about force majeure, and I think that was the one time the minister and I agreed, because he ended up saying: "I think the member is exactly right with the force majeure concept." When we left it last, both lawyers from B.C. Ferries and the government were throwing back and forth whether or not they had agreed it was a force majeure for the sinking of the Queen of the North. I'm wondering if that decision has been made yet.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite is correct. I take the same position the member opposite does. This government's position is that we did not accept and do not accept the position that was initially put forward by the Ferry Corp. with respect to force majeure, and our position has not changed.

G. Coons: I find it interesting that in the annual report of the ferry commissioner — and this would be the third one — this is the first year they have added a definitions page from B.C. Ferries. In the definitions page it talks about force majeure as being a labour disruption, a weather…. Then they have a major incident and the sinking of a vessel. Somewhere along the line this says, in your contractual lawyerese, that they've determined it on their side to be a force majeure, and they've used it in their data and stats as far as happenings on the northern routes. They've classified it.

Will the minister clarify whether or not it's been unilaterally declared a force majeure by B.C. Ferries, but the government doesn't agree.

Hon. K. Falcon: The issue with respect to force majeure is very closely tied to the incident that brought about, obviously, whatever the accident or the incident when an individual may claim force majeure. As you know, there is an investigation that's currently taking place that will, I'm hopeful, be soon releasing some results publicly that may help determine what actually caused the sinking of the Queen of the North.

It has always been the position of this government that the invocation of force majeure with respect to that incident is premature until such time as all of that information is brought to bear. I don't think there is any contradiction with what the member said.

G. Coons: In conclusion, I'd like to thank the minister and the staff. But we look at the transformation. We look at the Auditor General, we look at the Morfitt report, and then we look at the incentive regulation model they went to. It seems that there are no objectives, no criteria. Information not being shared, failure

to have competition, not following the contract, conflicts of interest with the corporation…. We didn't talk about the regulator capture dilemma that the commissioner may have. Monopoly by the corporation and fragmented structure, B.C. Ferries no longer accountable to anyone, the unproven hybrid model, the government influencing fares. The risk that no-cost reduction will occur and the commissioner's concerns not being fully addressed, WorkSafe B.C.'s concerns for the safety of workers on vessels and the dispensations, variances that are happening. The list goes on.

I would say it's not a great way in the first four years of trying privatize our marine highway. We on this side will probably consider that a dismal failure. Are the objectives of transformation being met? We don't know and we won't be able to tell because of the hybrid model, the Auditor General tells us.

I hope that the minister listens to the ferry advisory committees chairs when they meet next week, listens to their concerns about the Coastal Ferry Act, revises it. Perhaps we need to amend it so that it works for coastal communities and for ferry users.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to join in the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation. I have a series of questions that I'm going to propose over the next short while. My colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin was to join me, but she is in the other chamber debating legislation, so we may have to do a little bit of back and forth on that as the afternoon progresses. We'll have to see.

My first question to the minister would be around the reference in the throne speech to regional transportation initiatives or authorities. I can't remember the exact phraseology from the throne speech, but the minister will be cognizant of it. In particular, of course, as a member who represents a constituency in the capital regional district, I'd like to ask the minister in general terms what plan he and his ministry have to try and coordinate some of the transportation challenges in the lower Island. That'll give him an opportunity to do a bit of a statement on that, and then we can go into some more detailed questions.

Hon. K. Falcon: The reference the member is making to the throne speech really has more to do with public transit. We're looking to do more in public transit in different communities and involving the communities more in terms of how we best deliver those transit options. It's really more to the B.C. Transit and the public transit agenda of the government.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Certainly, my colleagues from the south Island — the members for Saanich South, Victoria-Hillside, Esquimalt-Metchosin — and I will want to be canvassing those issues with B.C. Transit, so I'll move off that.

I only raised it because the minister will know, as I'm sure his staff has been advising him, that as time has gone by, there is a perception on the south Island, and perhaps even on the entire Island, that a tremendous amount of effort has gone into transportation improvements and infrastructure improvements in other parts of the province.

There's increasing growth. The census data just the other day highlights, in my community, a 19-percent growth in Langford; 20-percent growth in View Royal; Highlands, 13 percent. The Cowichan Valley is growing as well. There is a tremendous infusion of people coming to the south Island.

There hasn't been a corresponding, in the mind of the public…. Certainly, I welcome data to contradict my perception and the perception of others. There is that perception that transportation infrastructure replacement and upgrades are not happening at the same rate on the south Island as in other parts of the province. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. K. Falcon: There is some truth to that. I think we should acknowledge that. The truth is largely driven by the fact that, in the late 1990s, I believe just over $1 billion was invested on the Island in the Island Highway. That was done at a time when many other parts of the province were starved of infrastructure investment.

What we've tried to do is lay out a very balanced transportation plan throughout the province. We're trying to focus our investments in areas that have been woefully short of infrastructure investment over the past number of years. That's what we're trying to do. I think we're doing a pretty good job.

I do think we have to be careful not to pretend there is not investment happening on the Island. Of course, we are doing…. Perhaps we'll talk about this soon. I know we're investing over $8 million in the Dougan Lake section, where we identified that there are some safety issues there, through the Cowichan area, and to reduce some curvature in an area that's experienced high accidents.

We were particularly sensitive to where there's a safety or reliability issue in different parts of the province. That's not the only factor, but they are important factors. They also tie in to what sort of traffic is on that particular corridor, what the safety record is, etc.

J. Horgan: I was going to ask the minister about the Dougan Lake section in terms of time lines. I'll leave that just for a moment and go right to those issues that the minister raised with respect to safety improvements and concerns — many in my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. The name is in the title, as they say.

The Malahat Drive is a challenging piece of roadway, particularly in the winter months. If you ever have the opportunity, Minister, on as rainy a day as you can find, take a trip up. I know that your deputy has driven it many times, and it's a challenge.

You can't legislate behaviour; I understand that. There are some bad drivers in the universe. Many of them are on the Malahat Drive. I don't dispute that for a minute. I don't think anyone in the lower Island is under some delusion that if only you improved the roadway, we'd completely eradicate the accidents and fatalities on that stretch of road, but there are certainly things that we can do.

There has been a study underway for almost the past 18 months. I understand that we're very close to going to the next phase of that study. I've had some discussion with staff, and they've advised me that the consultant and the ministry have narrowed it down to a couple of options. Is the minister in a position to advise me today whether we can discuss those options in some detail?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think, Member, the responsible thing would be to say no. I don't think that would be a good idea, because we still have some open houses. I believe there are still two public open houses, and we also have local government open houses coming towards the tail end of March. I don't think that would be helpful.

I would heartily echo what the member says about the Malahat. I have driven it during times when it was dark and rainy, and there's no question that it can be a very challenging road, particularly if you're an unfamiliar driver. We have invested somewhere in the range of $8 million — perhaps a little more than $8 million — since 2001 to try and put improvements into place to reduce, I believe successfully, some of the accidents that we saw occurring there.

The electronic signage, I think, is helpful; the extension of the median barrier is helpful. We've tried to do some things there. I believe lighting, improved signage…. Maybe not lighting yet; I think that was something that was also being looked at. There are some issues there.

Of course — as the member opposite knows, perhaps even better than I — the real challenge is the Goldstream Park section, and that's where you get into some sensitive environmental issues. There are some real challenges in terms of doing the improvements through there, but I do think that the millions that have been spent subsequent to 2001 have had a measurable, beneficial impact.

On the longer-term issues, as the member well knows, there are options that are being studied and have gone through an extraordinarily rigorous and, I dare say, exhaustive public consultative process. We are getting to the tail end of that process now, and I think that as we get to the tail end, we will be able to have a more fulsome discussion.

The one thing I would say to the member personally that I don't think in any way compromises any of the public consultations is that…. I would suggest to the member that one of the things that we as a government are going to be much more aggressive on is achieving our environmental objectives. In order to achieve our environmental objectives, it sometimes means we will have to do things differently in many communities.

Public transit is going to be an area that we're going to be paying particular attention to. I know that's one of the recommendations. Rail and road transit is one of the recommendations. It's also being examined here, as it rightly should be.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's response. However, I thought that we were at the end and that we're going into another phase. I'll try…. Just for my own benefit…. The final two open houses will be the last go-round on the proposals that are currently in play. Once those open houses have taken place and the affected municipalities have had their briefing, we'll have a report. Could the minister say how far between the last open houses and the tabling of the report?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that by the time we complete the final stage of public consultation, coalesce all the information that's come out of that and put it together in a report, we're probably looking towards the beginning of summer as a realistic time frame.

J. Horgan: Okay. I have had tremendous support from ministry staff on this question. It's a challenge, particularly in my constituency with the increasing number of commuters moving above the Malahat. I appreciate very much my access to senior decision-makers.

J. Horgan: With that, I think I will go and vote, hon. Chair, and pick up this discussion in a few moments.

The Chair: I'll declare a recess, and we will return here at the appropriate time.

J. Horgan: Just picking up on some of the questions we were asking earlier, or I was asking, of the minister with respect to the Malahat. He did mention, and I'm very, very pleased…. I guess, again, this will be flowing from the throne speech. He mentioned transit and commuter rail.

Of course, the Island Corridor Foundation has secured — for all of us on Vancouver Island and, in fact, all of British Columbia — the E&N corridor from Comox right through to downtown Victoria. It's a tremendous opportunity.

Local municipalities along the route have an ad hoc committee that includes the city of Victoria, Esquimalt, View Royal and Langford. We've been meeting with local developers, other interested parties and Southern Rail for some months now. We have been aided, certainly, by Mr. Davis from B.C. Transit, who has come to try and help us coordinate a multimodal response to the transportation challenges in the south Island.

I'm wondering if the minister has any plans to allocate any staff resources to the commuter rail proposals currently on the table from Langford into town. Would he, through the Malahat study, envision extending that commuter rail service over the Malahat to Duncan and beyond?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the issue there is really that those are part of the issues that are being canvassed fairly thoroughly as part of the Malahat corridor study that's being done. I feel more comfortable, to be honest, waiting until those reports go through the final stage of consultation and are then released, prior to getting into speculating what may or not be in them. I don't want to in any way undermine the opportunity for the public and the local governments to have their full participation and say in those.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I wasn't trying to go back to that.

This ad hoc committee is separate and distinct from the corridor study, and the rationale for that in my community was…. I was advised by staff and by the minister and looked at the terms of reference for the Stantec review. It was fairly limited in its scope, which was one of the problems from a municipal perspective, certainly on the downside of the Malahat upstream from Goldstream as you come into the western approaches into Victoria.

Those municipalities are acting separate and distinct from the study to look at train transport from Langford — which is outside of the scope, as I understand it, of the Malahat study — into town through View Royal, Esquimalt and Victoria.

That group is up and running. They believe they're separate and distinct, although I keep trying to say that if you get to Langford, it's a short hop to Shawnigan and then to Duncan, and so on. Of course, the Southern Rail people say a short hop to me is not a short hop to them in terms of infrastructure costs to upgrade the line.

Let's leave that, and I appreciate the minister's concern about not getting the cart before the horse on the Malahat. Moving into town from Langford, it's key to some of the significant developments that are on the books — large-scale residential developments, 40-storey towers in Victoria, which frightens many, many people. But it's coming, and the train is an integral part of their planning. I wonder if the ministry has any plan to participate in this in the near future.

Hon. K. Falcon: Speaking at a high level, I think the last point that the member made is a good one. One of the things that the Premier and the government telegraphed in the throne speech was that communities are going to have to think a lot differently about how they grow, particularly if we're to reduce the environmental impact of human beings in term of the land utilized for a lot of the growth and development that has typically occurred, where it's sprawled out in a fairly dramatic fashion.

As the member well knows, it makes it very difficult to deliver any kind of effective public transit when you've got people spread all over the place. Part of what we would do on any suggestion like the member is talking about or with communities that are interested in that kind of thing is put it through a fairly rigorous business case analysis. I have no doubt they're probably working on that.

I don't mind telling the member that I know, just at a high level and based on the brief conversations I've had with Southern Rail, that we would be talking about very, very significant dollars that would need to be invested, I'm led to understand, just in the rail track and infrastructure to operate an effective commuter rail. There are very, very big dollars involved. Obviously we would have to look at what the business case is, have discussions with the communities to see what level of participation they're prepared to have and then determine whether or not this is the best way to get people into public transit and out of their cars. It may very well be, but at this point I wouldn't be prepared to say that it is.

J. Horgan: I think that the minister will find in the weeks and months ahead that the work that is going on in the communities and the development proposals that are on the books and proceeding apace will fit quite nicely with the proposals in the throne speech. I think that we're very close to being at a place where the densities required to make this work will be in play.

Southern Rail, coming with cap in hand saying that they're poor and impoverished and that they need the help they can get…. I appreciate that the minister has to deflect that. I do think that the numbers I've been seeing at the table with municipal leaders and the Southern Rail and the Island Corridor Foundation are not knock-you-over numbers, but the business case needs to come.

Let's press on in the interest of time. I'd like to talk of a few other issues in Langford, if I could. The two issues that have almost become one: the Amy Road intersection just to the south of Goldstream Park, and between there and Spencer Road, what is being proposed as the Spencer Road interchange. In the public mind, certainly in my community, there's been a sense for some time…. The Amy Road blacktopping was done a year ago. There was a long delay in line-painting, for a whole host of reasons. There are constituents of mine who live in what we know as the Sooke Lake Road subdivision who would prefer to see the Sooke Lake Road closed to right-in, right-out, left-in, left-out traffic.

I know that's the minister's objective and why the Amy connection was approved in the first place, but

could the minister shed some light on why it's taken so long to get that intersection up and running? Could he also perhaps explain to those who are paying attention and those who will be reading the transcript why there's a difference between the Amy Road intersection and the proposed Spencer Road interchange?

Hon. K. Falcon: The reason that the closure of Sooke Lake Road is taking so long is that Langford has yet to secure the property that is needed for them to undertake the alternative route that would need to be established. We're hopeful that it will be resolved soon, in the coming months, but our understanding is that it is not yet resolved.

In terms of the Amy Road intersection, the issue there is that the traffic analysis shows that an intersection is more than adequate to deal with the volume of traffic that's currently there. Frankly, it's not going to be a candidate for an interchange for some time to come. It could be a while before that possibility would arise.

J. Horgan: Well, that's a puzzle to me. I know that some of the members of your staff are aware of this, and we talked about it. There's an intersection at Amy Road, and then there's a proposed interchange. It was initially called the Bear Mountain interchange. It was then called the Spencer Road interchange.

Significant residential development hinges on access to the highway. I understand that the developer is on the hook for the lion's share of that proposal, but I do know that the province has been approached and is actively engaged in negotiations on those dollars. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten me and my constituents as to what the percentage of provincial participation would be in that interchange, and what the rationale would be for participating.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the Spencer Road interchange, the member will be well aware that this has been the source of some continuous and at times challenging negotiations. As the member well knows from previous estimate discussions, we've always adopted the same position — that is, the Ministry of Transportation will make a contribution that is commensurate with the benefit we believe we receive on the Trans-Canada Highway, and we will be requiring other beneficiaries like the developer and the local municipality to also make investments that are commensurate to the benefit they receive.

We have not yet concluded that deal. I believe we are close, but I'm not at a point where I can say that that's been fully dealt with.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that response. He now understands, I think, the confusion in the community between these two. Their proximity to each other is one issue — the interchange and the intersection. Both of them have been promised and planned, and planned and promised. Lines have been painted. Traffic patterns are being adjusted, and the public is being delayed unnecessarily, in their mind, while protracted negotiations go on. If, as I'm led to believe from the minister's comments, those negotiations continue and we'll have a reasonable answer in the future, that's great.

It's really important, though, that I be on record, hon. Chair — and this is also for the minister's benefit — that the benefit to the province is clear in his mind as well as in my mind when I go back to my community. Because there are those that are concerned that this is a large public expenditure in the interest solely of a developer.

I don't believe that's the case. I think that the development will lead to employment in my community. It will lead to growth and overall be a net benefit. But there is concern in the community, and I think that the minister and I both want to be clear on what that benefit is. I look forward to that articulation when the time comes, and I'm sure that I'll be fully briefed.

I know I have other colleagues lining up. The other few questions I have are to do with Sooke and Highway 14. The minister and his staff will know that Highway 14, like the Malahat, is a single link for people living in my constituency — certainly Port Renfrew, at the farthest reaches, Jordan River, and other communities in toward Sooke.

Certainly, the winter storms we've had have brought home quite vividly for all of us on the west coast of Vancouver Island what happens when a few winds start to blow at an inappropriate time of the year: chaos ensues. I'm wondering if the minister could advise me if his ministry has a contingency plan to move residents in the event of the bridge going out — which it did do while we were having estimates on this question last year — or road closures resulting from washouts and erosion.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is an issue — not this specific one, although it may have been touched on in a very sort of random way in a conversation that I had with the mayor and some other representatives from Sooke. We had a very good meeting. I know they've met with my staff on several occasions to talk about some related issues having to do with flooding on Highway 14. If my memory serves me correctly, it was happening near the WestCoast Tire shop.

We did some work with them. Although it's fairly infrequent when this takes place and it happens for a very short duration — once every five or ten years for maybe two to four hours — it is something they raised and made us aware of. We, of course, were very aware of it. We've worked to try to do some clearing and remove obstructions in the creek that will hopefully prevent some of this in the future.

Occasionally there are accidents, not just on the bridge that the member mentions but on other bridges throughout the province. We actually have contingency plans that are ready to move very quickly when that happens.

In the case of that bridge, the member will recall, I think it could not be accessed for about one day prior to us getting it back into service. I recall at the time that there were calls for, you know, "We must have an alternative route," etc. That alone is not a reason why we would expend those kinds of very significant dollars to create an alternate route — because of something that may happen very, very infrequently.

J. Horgan: On the plan to get people out in the event, Sooke is the southernmost point for a tsunami watch on the west coast of the Island. Highway 14, or the West Coast Road, does go all the way out to Port Renfrew, where there used to be signs advertising the Circle Route. The signs have come down. I don't know how much money has been expended on upkeep on the Circle Route from Port Renfrew to Mesachie Lake in and around Lake Cowichan, but I did find it odd that the signs went up, moneys were expended, and then the signs came down. I don't think a lot of folks are using that road.

A preferable alternative route would be to access TimberWest roads, the backbone of TimberWest's forest operations in and around Sooke and Jordan River, which in the Malahat corridor study — not wanting to go back too far — were called the far west route. There are well-maintained forestry roads in and around Sooke that are a far better option for a circle route to get from the east side to the west side of the Island.

I'm wondering, first of all, if you can tell me: what's the state of the Circle Route, why have the signs come down, and are there proposals or plans for an alternative inland route?

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to the signage on the Circle Route, I appreciate the member bringing that to our attention. We're not aware of any signs being down. Maybe the member can let our staff know where those are. It could be a weather event. I'm not sure whether….

Hon. K. Falcon: They're just gone. Okay. Maybe they were stolen; I'm not sure. That's the first we've heard of that, so we'll check into that and try and find out.

We're not planning on changing the route for the Circle Route. Actually, we expended far more money than I'd planned on expending on that particular Circle Route. I must say I still get letters from some people complaining about the quality of the route. To be very candid, there's not a chance we're paving it, which is what some of the people seem to say. I want to be really upfront about that. We've done a lot of work on gravelling on that particular route.

I think it's a very, very comfortable, reasonably credible route, and that's the point of it — to be a circle route and not to be a highway. We'll continue to maintain that and make sure that it acts in the manner in which it was intended. I do have to say to the member that that was one where we invested significantly more than we originally planned.

J. Horgan: I fully appreciate that there was an awful lot of money put into that road, and it's not working, certainly for the people in Port Renfrew. As a tourist route, without a good map and a stout vehicle, it's a challenge. But that's driver beware, I suspect.

The sign issue. They're just not there. These were the "Come and drive the route…." You had signs on the side of the road announcing all the various destination routes, and the Circle Route parts are gone, and the others are still there. We can certainly deal with that off line. We don't have to waste valuable time on that.

The last issue I wanted to touch on was downtown revitalization in the district of Sooke. Certainly Highway 14 goes right through the heart of Sooke. If the council and the chamber of commerce and other interested parties in Sooke are going to realize their dream of a revitalized and dynamic downtown core, they need to do that with the ministry and the minister's staff.

I'm wondering if he could advise me what the state of play is with respect to the right-of-way issues between Otter Point Road and Phillips Road on Highway 14.

Hon. K. Falcon: I was part of one of the discussions that we had with the mayor and representatives from Sooke. We are trying, and staff continues to work with them to coordinate the corridor planning through Sooke with the plans they've got for upgrading some of their sidewalks and some of the improvements they want to do.

Actually, the meeting we had was very, very positive. In fact, we identified some of the concerns. They had some concerns that they were making sure we were alive to, and we've been working through that. That will continue as we go forward, and I believe we will be able to make progress on that.

J. Horgan: I'll conclude my interaction here with the minister and his staff by saying that his staff and the work they do are absolutely vital to my community. Malahat–Juan de Fuca is the fastest-growing community on Vancouver Island. The challenges are enormous. The sprawl that was addressed or spoken about in the throne speech is alive and real in my community. We are also taking steps through smart development to increase density so that we can access the opportunities for rapid transit and expanded, enhanced transit in the community.

The other challenge he knows full well, and the staff knows full well. I yell at them whenever I see them in the building. The Malahat is a significant challenge for people on Vancouver Island. The member from Comox is here. He understands that very well. He drives it on those dark November nights. When the fog comes in, it's absolutely treacherous.

Some of the lighting issues, as a quick mitigation measure…. I encourage the minister to aggressively

pursue that with his staff and B.C. Hydro. I don't believe that the distribution elements are a challenge; I think it's just a matter of will. There may be some poles that would be required at the summit, but those aren't the challenging areas. There are power lines running there, so throwing up some lights shouldn't be a problem.

With respect to downtown revitalization in Sooke, I'm very pleased that the ministry is fully engaged. I have had numerous discussions with regional staff about this. I'm glad that it's been brought directly to the minister's attention. I'm quite happy to work with him and his staff to make sure that Sooke can realize its potential. The ministry's participation is absolutely vital.

Lastly, on the Amy Road–Bear Mountain–Spencer Road interchange, clear and concise rationale for decision-making would be very appreciated in our community so that we understand who's paying for what, what's public, what's private and who's going to be responsible at the end of the day for cleaning the stuff off of it.

Hon. K. Falcon: We will make sure at the time, should we be successful in reaching an agreement, that all that information is made public.

Before I sign off, I have to ask the member: what is that in your pocket? Is there symbolism or something behind that?

J. Horgan: Well, hon. Chair, I'm pleased that the minister drew attention to this. There is a campaign underway on the lower mainland to do something about high gas prices, and the Minister of Energy said to me that I was dreaming in technicolor if I thought that there would be any chance at all that an ideologically driven government would step in to try and protect consumers from gouging gas companies. So an organization in Vancouver has prepared technicolor ribbons, and I'm wearing one today. I'd actually forgotten about it. I appreciate the minister bringing it up. I did pass one on to my friend the Minister of Energy, and he said he would cherish it. Thanks for the question.

S. Simpson: I have a few questions that relate primarily to my constituency. The first questions revolve around an area that the ministry, I know, is involved in but has limited authority around. I really want to probe a little bit what support there may be for my community.

My community in Vancouver-Hastings is a residential area that abuts the Port of Vancouver. It's one of the only areas where you have a significant residential community right up against the working port. People in that community came and moved there knowing full well that's the case. They're very happy to live next to the port, and they find it very engaging. I live a block away from the port myself, and I can see the activity in the port and generally find it quite positive.

There always have been challenges around the interactions of industrial activity and a residential community. That's been met in a number of different times with challenges. Hon. Chair, over the last couple of years there's been some very good work done with the port, the city of Vancouver and the local community on something called the East Vancouver port lands process, which looked to find some processes to solve a whole range of problems around appropriate uses and other kinds of questions. It's been quite a successful process in large part in dealing with a whole array of questions.

The one area where it still faces real challenges is questions around noise — primarily traffic noise from trucks and train traffic into the Port of Vancouver. This will become an increasingly challenging problem as the port expands its hours of operation. I don't think people understand that that's going to occur, that our port's becoming increasingly busy, and it's a critical part of our economic activity and needs to occur. But there are challenges around truck traffic, particularly around it coming in — their jake brakes, their idling.

The port is trying to do some things around that and about the trains that come in and sit and idle endlessly or couple up and back and forth. People in the community are saying: "We accept that that's part of living here, but we're looking to try to do something about that." Between about 11 at night and six in the morning would be the challenging time. The rest of the time people accept that that's a reality of where they are.

The question I have for the minister is: are there any avenues open through the ministry — I know it's primarily federal — to get engaged in that discussion to support finding a solution to these noise-related issues, a solution that works for everybody on this?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is right that in some ways this is really a sort of a federal/city of Vancouver issue, but we do think there's an important role that the province can play and does play, particularly on the trucking side of things.

We have been working with the port. I know that the port authority is looking at bringing about some changes to deal with the quality of trucks that are accessing the port. There's some real concern around a lot of truckers that may be purchasing really old trucks and using them to haul these containers.

The challenge with that, of course, is that they are often polluting. They're not very energy-efficient. They're not particularly quiet in terms of the latest technologies.

We've got the commercial vehicle inspection program, obviously. We've also got the…. It's like AirCare but on the road. It's a vehicle inspection division that we are having pay particular attention to the trucking sector down at the ports. What we're looking for there are the noisy mufflers, the kinds of things that would really irritate members of your community.

It's an issue that I am quite well versed in, having grown up next to a highway and also living next to one of the busiest truck routes in the province on Highway 15. This is an issue that's kind of near and dear to my

heart too. It ranks right up there with people with loud motorcycle mufflers, which is a particular irritant of mine.

Sadly, that comes under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. But I digress.

I didn't mean that in any kind of negative way. To my good friend the Solicitor General: I just wish that I had the opportunity to deal with that, because it's a particular irritant for me.

I apologize, Member. I'm digressing on an issue that is particularly annoying to this particular minister.

Let me just say to the member that those are in fact very legitimate concerns, especially given that as we consider British Columbia as a gateway opportunity — which I know the Leader of the Opposition supports and which we support — we also have to think about how we're going to mitigate the potential impacts, because there always is a downside to the good news — right?

The good news is continued economic growth and B.C. potentially becoming a key trade corridor. But the bad news could be the increased activity and what that's going to mean for neighbourhoods. So we're going to drive very, very hard on the environmental front. We've talked about that in different discussions, looking at the issue of plug-in power for cruise ships and for container ships, etc., at the terminals.

We are going to be working very carefully with the trucking industry. We really try to work with the Trucking Association to make sure they educate the truckers on the importance of not idling, especially in communities — not just leaving their rigs running as they're sitting outside waiting to get into the container facilities.

The final piece, just going back to what I said earlier, is the port authority. I know that they've got some pretty significant — and they may be challenging for a lot of the industry — rules that they're contemplating that could make a dramatic positive impact for neighbourhoods like your own.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I certainly have had significant and ongoing discussions, before I came to this place and since, with Gordon Houston and others in the port around these issues. I appreciate the challenges they face in trying to balance being a good neighbour, being sustainable and having to do what they do in their industry.

There are a couple of issues. The minister talks about the noise, and certainly we've had discussions, I know, in the community about other kinds of rail engines. Is it the Green Goat or whatever? They've decided that won't be appropriate. They've tested it, and for reasons that the railway understands, it doesn't work — and, of course, the trucking that the minister has talked about.

One of the issues here seems to be the question, though, around the monitoring, because right now we're in a position where it looks like everybody acknowledges that this is the big problem nobody was able to get their heads totally around. One of the key issues is around monitoring of that noise, whether it be rail or truck noise, in terms of times and that.

One of the things we find is that sometimes the big problem doesn't come with the steady noise, but it's with the spikes that happen, and they can be very large. There has been a sound study done by acoustic experts that showed this borders on a health hazard. They have suggested that potentially, with the increased traffic that the port projects, it could actually go over the top as a health hazard — based on federal and provincial standards, presumably.

What I wonder about is the ability to monitor that so that the flags can go up if it becomes a significant problem. Does the province have a role in monitoring those?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is that no, we don't. That would be an issue that would be completely within the jurisdiction of the port. As with so many of the issues that we find when it comes to the ports, there are, of course, federal jurisdictional issues.

Having said that, we do try very hard to use our working relationship with the port and moral suasion to really encourage them to adopt changes that will provide benefits for communities and also environmental benefits. That's an area where I personally have pushed the board of the port and also the executives, including Gordon Houston.

Essentially, what I'm saying to them and have been saying for at least six, seven, eight months is that I would like the port to be a leader in that regard. I believe they're trying very hard to do that. They are making some significant changes in terms of the vehicles, particularly the vehicles that operate 24 hours a day on the port docklands themselves. They're trying to use, I guess, fuel-alternative vehicles that are also more quiet in terms of their operation. I think that's something I view as a positive.

Our role, to be very honest with the member, is really one of moral suasion, and we'll continue to do that on behalf of communities like your own to ensure that the port is adopting everything they can to try and minimize the impacts.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I understand the limited role of the province in these discussions. I have had the opportunity to have discussions around this matter with Minister Emerson and some of his staff in relation to this as the minister was leading the way around the Pacific gateway and around investments in the port to upgrade the port to be able to meet the challenges of increased industrial activity.

I know the federal government contemplates pretty significant dollars in support of the port. The discussion we had was around saying that that's a great thing if there is some relatively limited amount of dollars needed to do some sound buffering there.

S. Simpson: I do want to deal with another issue or two, but just one last question in relation to this issue.

I appreciate, as I was saying before we got dragged off to vote, that there is a limited capacity or authority for the provincial government and the ministry to play a role in this. But I very much appreciated the minister's comment that he felt that moral suasion was the one place that he and the ministry could play a role. I would like to call on him, hon. Chair, to use the moral suasion that he has.

Particularly, as I was saying before the bells rang, I've had the opportunity to have these discussions with federal Minister Emerson around these issues. He is the minister that has been leading in terms of support for the Pacific gateway and for funding and financing of increased access and capacity in the port. I think that's all a good thing to enhance the port.

The discussion that I had with him, and with his staff in a subsequent meeting to meeting with the minister, was around looking at some portion of funds that would deal with noise mitigation. There are some barrier strategies that have been identified that will, in fact, work. They cost a little bit of money. I don't have the details on how much, but they do cost some money, obviously. They are models that have been used in Japan and elsewhere successfully.

My position to the federal minister was that this residential community shouldn't pay the price for economic success. I'm happy to provide additional information. I would wonder whether the minister might be supportive in also encouraging the federal government to look seriously at helping to support this noise mitigation issue. I'm sure that adding his voice to mine and others may get more attention from the federal government than I would get on my own, particularly if we don't end up in an election in the next two weeks or something.

I would ask the minister if he would entertain or consider providing his voice to help solve this problem in this community.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that anytime we deal with the federal government on any issue — but on an issue like this one, in particular — our position is always strengthened when we're armed with real facts that can demonstrate: here's the problem that has been identified by this community, and here are some potential solutions.

I'm not aware of the solutions the member refers to in Japan. I don't believe I'm going to be travelling to Japan anytime soon, so I probably won't be able to see them, at least first hand. But if the member or the community or others have ideas that could be put forward, we could then take a look at those and examine those. I'd be happy to do that.

If together we can figure out whether there are some reasonable accommodations that could take place, which the federal government could undertake and which could provide benefits for the community, I think that's an entirely appropriate discussion to have. I would look forward to it.

S. Simpson: I appreciate those comments. I have some of the research that has been done by Wakefield Acoustics on behalf of the Port of Vancouver and the city. There is research and analysis that has been done on their behalf — sound studies and reports that also look at some of those options, as well as information from the past. So there is a body of information that has largely been driven by the port in the city of Vancouver that I can make available and make sure it's made available. We'll talk some more about that.

I just wanted to raise a couple of other questions. These are questions and points that were brought to my attention by constituents. Interestingly, I think it may be a campaign. I don't know, but I had three separate constituents at different times talk to me about HOV lanes. I assured them that I would ask the minister if I got a chance.

The question is around two things. First is a question around the access in and out of HOV lanes. The concern that they raise is the positioning of the dotted lines versus the solid lines to get in and out of HOV lanes versus being able to get to exit routes off the freeway and that. What they see is the challenge to get over two or three lanes of traffic. They felt people were doing this in a risky fashion.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but I would ask the minister whether that's something that's looked at and how that engineering decision gets made to do that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, when they designed the HOV lanes, the traffic engineers spent a lot of time on this. I guess the issue that they look at…. They do a fairly extensive analysis on how long a person — when coming onto a highway or, in the reverse, coming off — will require to merge their way over to the HOV lanes, in a safe manner, obviously.

Essentially, there's a solid line, and it starts going into the dotted line at the point at which they determine that you could safely move your way from the extreme right lane over to the HOV lane and do it in a safe manner. That's what I'm advised by staff.

S. Simpson: I think that part of the challenge is going the other way, when they see their exit signs and start going from the HOV lane the other way. Presumably, that works.

I have one other question in relation to HOV lanes, and this is a question that reflects back a little bit to my responsibilities around environment. I know of comments that the minister has made in regard to other discussions we've had about wanting to encourage, obviously, more use of HOV lanes — getting people out of single-occupancy cars, getting more people into one car and trying to reduce the volume of traffic through the use of HOV lanes.

The question would be around the enforcement of HOV lanes. I know there have been issues raised about how that enforcement is done. What's the success of that in terms of penalizing those who inappropriately use the lanes? Maybe I'd ask the minister to talk a little bit about that issue.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because I drive that corridor a lot, as the member probably knows. Every time I drive that corridor, I'm always checking my mirror as I watch cars go by to see whether in fact they have two people in them. There was a period of time — it was probably about a year ago — when I was noticing an inordinate number of people that were not, at least to my quick…. I'd look in my mirror, see them approaching, then look as they go by to see if I could see the two heads.

It drives me crazy when I see people that are abusing the HOV. Periodically I've talked to my staff, and I've had them go and talk to the RCMP or the respective policing unit about getting more enforcement there.

What they typically say is that often what you'll hear from the police is: "Well, we're so busy, and we have all these other things to do." We have provided additional funding to get that enforcement done, because I want it to be done. I don't want people to think this isn't something that's looked into. We have contributed dollars so that they will actually plant police there and do that enforcement.

Over the longer term this is something that is, as I say, near and dear to my heart. As we go forward with the Gateway program, one of the things I'm going to be insisting upon is a new technology — not yet developed, apparently. I believe it should be well within the realm of a technical possibility that we develop a technology that will be able to determine when there are not two people in a vehicle. I'm not sure whether that technology would use body heat imaging or whatever the case may be, but it's something that would actually catch people when they're cheating. The cheating thing really bothers me, because it undermines the whole point of the HOV lanes.

When we were in L.A. and Long Beach, I was also looking at the HOV lanes that they undertook to see what kind of cheating goes on there. I'm sure this is a problem that people face everywhere. But I believe we're at a point where we have the technology and the ability to design something that could nail those people who cheat and then hit them with a big fine. I think that would change behaviour very quickly.

Once people know that they're not going to be able to do it without getting caught, I think that behaviour would change very fast. What happens now, of course, is that they essentially make a judgment about whether they will get caught. More often than not, they probably won't, because there are not police there all the time.

It is a very legitimate question, and it's something that I feel very strongly about. We have to do everything we can to make sure that the enforcement continues and that we punish those people who are trying to cheat the system and the people who are honest enough to use that lane when it's okay to do so.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for his comments. I share his view that if we're going to have any success in reducing traffic, we need to enforce the HOV lanes. I also understand, as the minister says, that the notion of putting sworn police officers there to do that may not be the best use of their time, considering all the other challenges.

I would encourage the minister…. I don't know whether it would be like photo radar or what, but some form of technology that allows the government, the ministry to photograph and in some way identify when there are fewer than an appropriate number of people in a vehicle — to identify a licence plate and to provide a hefty enough fine — would ensure that people only do that once. I would support the minister in doing that.

I have one last question, and this question relates to one of the minister's favourite projects, the Gateway project, and to my community. As the minister will know, the freeway currently and the expanded freeway come into the city of Vancouver. It can come in on McGill, on Hastings, on First Avenue, a little bit on Broadway and on 12th — all in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings.

As the minister certainly knows, the people in my constituency have a pretty strong view about the Gateway project and have a great concern about it. Their concern is around the impact, setting aside the broader questions around whether it's the best thing to do sustainably. The concern in the city of Vancouver is what it does to traffic in Vancouver. One of the big concerns is whether there will be pressure put on Vancouver to change its roads — the makeup, the size and the capacity.

My question to the minister would be this. The minister said previously that he would not force the city of Vancouver to take any action. He would bring it to the border, and it would be Vancouver's choice. So I would ask him to confirm if that's still his view.

Secondly, would he view the new TransLink as in fact forcing Vancouver to make changes, or will it rest with the city of Vancouver to make those choices as they seem appropriate?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's interesting that the member brings that up. I had a fascinating discussion with a constituent of the member's who was talking to me. Actually, he was one of the firefighters that were here during the great reception we had with the firefighters — just a wonderful gentleman. He basically said to me: "Minister, if there's a hockey tournament or something going on, on Commercial Drive…. I grew up there,

born and raised. I've lived in this community my entire life, and they're having this thing against this Gateway thing." He wanted to find out what was going on, so he went up to the guy — the guy was playing goalie, apparently — and said: "So what exactly are they doing? I'm trying to understand how this impacts me. I live right here on Commercial Drive, and I want to know what's happening."

He was saying to me that he wanted to know whether he should sell his house. He said: "It's fine if you're going to widen all the streets in Vancouver. I just need to know." I said to him: "Well, no one is widening any streets. Is that the common perception?" He said: "Well, yeah. That's what they're saying. They're saying all the streets coming in through Vancouver are all being widened and stuff as part of this Gateway." I said: "Well, that's clearly total misinformation, and I'm not sure why." You know what groups are like, right? They tend to try and create these worst-case scenarios. When I told him that no, in fact, what we're talking about is one additional lane on an existing corridor to the Port Mann Bridge from Vancouver, he was shocked to find out that that was the extent of this apparently terrible thing that was going to be bestowed upon the residents of Vancouver.

I say that only because I remember finding that striking. I know in these things there is a huge amount of misinformation that goes out. So let me try — I doubt for the last time — once again to put that to rest by first of all saying this. I think this is very, very important for Vancouver, because many people in Vancouver are still operating under a very false assumption about what traffic patterns are doing.

A lot of people still think it's like it was 15, 20 years ago, when people used to commute from the suburbs into Vancouver, work and then go home at the end of the day. What the most recent trip-traffic survey undertaken by TransLink in cooperation with the province and the Ministry of Transportation — the most extensive trip-traffic survey that's been done in at least a decade, if not more — told us is that travel patterns have changed very dramatically. The days are long gone when people are now coming from the suburbs and going into Vancouver. In fact, it's dispersing. Basically, the way I would describe it is that the traffic is dispersing in a whole bunch of different directions. In fact, over half the traffic that crosses the Port Mann Bridge is turning off into the northeast sector and doesn't go anywhere near Vancouver.

The analysis also showed that with or without the Gateway program, the impact on the traffic growth coming into Vancouver is very, very modest. It's very little. In fact, the traffic growth of Vancouverites going to the suburbs is growing far more dramatically than the traffic from the suburbs into Vancouver. So there's really been a sea change in terms of what's happening there.

The final thing I would say is that any decisions regarding McGill or First Avenue or Broadway or any others — whatever the case may be…. Those are all decisions that are made by the city of Vancouver. I know that the city of Vancouver has been very clear that they have no plans — nor do I think there is any requirement, nor do I think it would be the wise thing for them to do — to widen the streets of their city. There is no need for them to do that at all.

What we are most concerned about with the Gateway is making sure that the No. 1 corridor, coming right from the Second Narrows Bridge through the tunnel and all the way out to Highway 15 if they're going to the border crossing or into the interior north — that most congested corridor in the province — is going to be opened up to allow traffic to move.

I won't bore you with them, but I have lots of quotes from the former NDP government minister saying exactly the same thing. The member for North Island appears to be shaking her head as if that's not true. I'm happy to read them into the record. I'm not doing that to be partisan about it. I'm doing that because I'm just recognizing that previous Ministers of Transportation from an NDP government also recognized that this, at the end of the day, is a very, very important goods-movement corridor. We can't ignore that.

It's not about commuters. Frankly, I could care less about commuters. What we have to do is make sure that we provide commuters transit options and that we have a goods-movement ability to get goods moving along the most important goods-movement corridor in the province. If there's a commuter benefit, it's ancillary to the more important benefits of public transit and getting the goods moving.

S. Simpson: I'm sure the minister is going to get lots of opportunity to repeat that presentation when the Transportation critic is here, when these things continue in future. I don't want to get into that discussion. That belongs to the Transportation critic.

Just to be clear here. The minister has said that he certainly views…. He has no intention of obliging the city of Vancouver to do anything that it doesn't choose to do of its own accord.

I guess the other thing I would just ask for a confirmation on is: would it be the view of the minister that the new TransLink also wouldn't be in a position to oblige Vancouver to do anything? It would solely rest with Vancouver? I'll close with that, hopefully.

Hon. K. Falcon: I actually appreciate the member asking that question, because I think it's an important question that I want to put on the record and answer and make very clear in my answer. The answer is no.

Under no circumstances would I or the province apply any pressure to do that, nor would a new TransLink or a reconstituted TransLink. Because I actually don't think it would be the right thing to do. I don't think it would be necessary. All of the traffic survey information tells us that would not be necessary.

Of course it would be totally within the purview of Vancouver. I don't believe that Vancouver has any plans whatsoever to do any of the widening on their

city streets that the member is alluding to. I hope that gives the member comfort. My position on that is unequivocal. I would say no to it — not only no, but no, it is not necessary. I'm more concerned about just that corridor as a whole and the importance of moving goods along that corridor.

H. Lali: I want to start by recognizing staff of the Ministry of Transportation and the great job that they do, and also the folks that are out in the field day in and day out working with local communities and community leaders, making sure that our transportation and highway system works in a safe and efficient manner. I want to be able to put that on the record right off the bat. I also want to compliment the minister on his choice of ties.

Having said that, I want to quickly talk about…. Yale-Lillooet, I think, is about 4 to 5 percent of the land base of this province. It's actually a fairly large rural constituency and topography. In area it may not be as big as some of the northern constituencies, but Yale-Lillooet has the highest amount of lane kilometres of road compared to any other constituency. The Yale-Lillooet constituency also has the highest number of bridges under the ministry as well.

The area may be small, but in terms of infrastructure it's very large. The Trans-Canada Highway goes through there. Highway 97, Yellowhead-Coquihalla highway system. The Hope-Princeton Highway 3 carries on through to the Alberta border, and a number of other highways…. Highway 99, as well, that comes up through the Sea to Sky Highway. The infrastructure is immense. "All roads lead to Yale-Lillooet," I often used to prefer.

I just want to first of all talk and ask the minister…. I didn't question the minister in estimates last year, but the year before, I did. At that time I'd asked for a list which the ministry prepared on a year-to-year basis in terms of how much of the capital and rehab expenditures the ministry made — and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority as well — on a constituency-by-constituency basis. At that time he indicated he would get back to me on that, and I want to ask him the same question: if that list would be made available to us.

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for the delay. The reason for the delay was that there was some genuine confusion because we thought that that had been provided two years ago. One of my staff remembers putting all that together, so I don't know…. Maybe we dropped the ball in not getting to you, or whether it's not recognized, or what have you. But we'd be happy to…. Well, no, actually I'd be lying to say that we'd be happy to, only because it's a fair bit of manual work, as the member knows.

But if the member wants that…. It's a ton of work, as the member knows. I mean, not just a ton of work to manually pull it together, but there is a ton of work that is being done throughout the province. So the numbers will show a lot of work. Of course, the member knows how decisions get made in terms of allocation.

H. Lali: I want to talk about two roads in my riding. First off, I'll lump them together. There's the Summers Creek Road, also known as the Missezula Lake Road, near Princeton, and there's also the Botanie Valley Road, near Lytton. Both of them are in dire need of repairs. Summers Creek needs gravelling, grading and some ditching. There's some branching, some de-limbing that has to take place. I passed a note over to the deputy minister, actually, a while back.

The second one. This is Botanie Valley Road, near Lytton. It's near a cliff, so it's starting to erode quite a bit. It should be two lanes. It needs some seal-coating, some paving and gravelling and widening as well. The Summers Creek Road — it needs over a three-year investment, about $75,000 a year. The Botanie Valley Road — we're looking at approximately $300,000.

We're not looking at huge sums of money, but it is for the safety of the travelling public. I'm not asking for a commitment on the part of the minister today, but the commitment that I would need…. I'm not looking for a monetary commitment. The commitment I would need from the minister is if he could assign his deputy minister to work with me to help find those moneys in future in the budget.

Hon. K. Falcon: What I will do, Member, is…. The more appropriate person to assign, to be honest, is not my deputy but the regional director. I have very, very high confidence in the regional director to do the right thing in trying to move these along.

There are some challenges. Botanie Valley Road. I know the ministry has completed the field data collection for that, I guess, very narrow section of Botanie Road. The engineering staff has taken a look at it to establish design and potential upgrades for that particular section. Once we determine the cost estimates and the engineering design issues, we're then going to discuss those with stakeholders. We are tentatively planning work for 2008. Naturally, that is going to be subject to funding and prioritization, which we normally do. Lytton has been notified of the proposed plans and the status of the road. I believe — it's my understanding — that Lytton has been involved in these discussions.

In terms of Summers Creek Road and the residents of Missezula Lake. The issue there is…. A few things. First of all, the maintenance contractor has an ongoing program of road maintenance and upgrading that includes items such as gravelling, base repairs, ditching, culverts, brush, base stabilization.

About two years ago the ministry employed a property negotiator to try and acquire the lands that would be necessary for improvements to be made there. The member is probably aware that two of the landowners were not at all willing to sell. That's been a source of contention. I know the community feels like

these two individuals are holding up something that the community feels very strongly about.

We're still trying to work our way through what is a difficult negotiation, and we're hopeful that we can make progress. But we are trying to do it in a way that can accommodate the interests of the community and balance that with the interests of the landowners.

H. Lali: I thank the minister for the answer. In the interest of time, I'm combining some of the questions together. In terms of working with the regional director, if we can add Highway 3, Hope to Keremeos, as well…. Maybe a simple nod from the minister might be good. Okay, that would be good.

My question, and I'll keep them short, is: does the minister believe in highway corridor development plans?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, we still utilize corridor management plans. It's useful as a high-level planning tool for some of our key primary corridors.

H. Lali: Does the minister believe that expenditures or investments in transportation by the B.C. government, in terms of projects, help kick-start and expand local economic opportunities in recipient areas?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, I do believe that. I think that that is something that is often the case.

Having said that, I also have to issue this cautionary codicil to that because I recognize that every community will make that argument and naturally want government to introduce dollops of money so that they can increase their economic opportunities. Coupled with that is a responsibility by government to ensure that as we look at these multitudes of communities that have priorities they believe would be very important for achieving their economic objectives, we have to also balance those with the realization that we don't have unlimited sources of money.

The dollars that we do have, have to be allocated in a way that meets the test of cost benefit, safety and reliability, and we continue to do that.

H. Lali: I just want to ask the minister: what are his thoughts about the economic development spinoffs and tourism benefits as a result of the Gateway project and the Sea to Sky Highway? In other words, what positive benefits, economic and social, will the lower mainland accrue as a result of the completion of the Gateway project and the Sea to Sky Highway?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member mentions the Sea to Sky Highway and the Gateway program, so I'll talk about those very briefly in lieu of the question the member asked, and then add a couple more that I think are also just as relevant.

The Sea to Sky Highway — a bit of a unique case. In this case we had a real safety issue, over 300 accidents per year with some horrific fatalities along that particular corridor. This is something the member will know well as a previous Minister of Transportation. There had been plans going back to the 1980s, and governments wanting to do them, but typically not moving forward because of, usually, financial constraints or decisions made to expend dollars elsewhere.

The Gateway program I liken very much to the work we're doing in the Kicking Horse Canyon. This is really a goods-movement issue. We think these are two very important commercial-goods-movement corridors.

Of course, the Kicking Horse Canyon is the number one transportation priority in the province of British Columbia. We've said that from the very beginning. We were able to drag the federal government into that project. The Premier, actually, successfully did that, and I can assure you that that was no small feat because the federal government tends to look at priorities more urban-based than rural.

But both the Gateway program and the Kicking Horse Canyon are very important to this government from the goods-movement point of view. Of course, there will be a related commuter benefit, but the primary benefit, I think, is for British Columbia's potential as an open trading province that has $80 billion worth of goods moving in and out every year.

Other projects. The William Bennett bridge would be something where you get a commuter benefit, a goods-movement benefit and a cycling benefit, so in that case we've got a little bit of everything in that particular project. I think that it kind of depends on the area and the particular project, but there can often be multiple benefits.

H. Lali: I'm going to lump a couple of questions into one here. Does the minister believe safe transportation corridors are essential to the effective delivery of health care services in rural British Columbia? Secondly, does the minister subscribe to the philosophy that the Ministry of Transportation should construct and improve safe circle routes for tourism expansion and economic development opportunities and for the efficient transportation of goods and people?

Hon. K. Falcon: Circle routes are actually a tourism initiative. They're not a goods-movement initiative. We've put into place circle routes to try and encourage…. It's something that appears to be enjoying some popularity with the travelling public — the rubber tire traffic, so to speak. That was the primary reason for circle routes.

I would agree with what the member said regarding the issue of transportation access to health care.

H. Lali: I'm sorry I'm going through these fast, but there are other people lined up as well. Does the minister go on tours of transportation and highway infrastructure across British Columbia and also hold public meetings?

Hon. K. Falcon: The minister does try to do that wherever possible. Quite often in the summer I try to carve out some time to spend personally driving the highways. I like to go visit staff in the different offices and drive the highways and look at the condition of the highways firsthand. That's very important for me so that when I meet with mayors at UBCM or meet with our regional transportation advisory committees, we have an opportunity to speak about some of these areas in a relatively knowledgable way.

I must say I'm enjoying the series of lead-up questions because I know we're getting to Highway 12. I can't wait until we finally get to the end of this. I will say to the member that our regional transportation advisory committees also provide confidential advice to the minister. The whole point of those committees was to look at — and this gets to the heart of where the member is going with his questions — the very difficult issue of how to make decisions amongst competing requests from different communities and different regions.

Part of what we tried to achieve with the regional transportation advisory committees was to have folks that represent different parts of the regions try and get together, look at the needs of the region and then try to prioritize them to act as a source of independent advice for the Minister of Transportation.

I think that by and large they've done a very good job, and we've tried very hard to align the decisions that we make as a ministry with the recommendations coming forward from the regional transportation advisory committees.

H. Lali: Minister, you're stealing my thunder here. I know the minister is prepared to work with MLAs and community leaders and also residents on transportation issues. I know the minister is prepared to work with opposition MLAs to find solutions to transportation and highways issues, particularly me.

I guess that would have been my next question. Is the minister prepared to work with the MLA for Yale-Lillooet on transportation and highways issues? The answer is already yes.

I want to pass a document over to the minister. It's a letter, and I'll wait for a second until the letter gets to the minister. This is a letter that I wrote. An electronic copy and a hard copy has gone to his office, and I think he might have one in his hand right there. It's inviting him, on behalf of the residents of the Lillooet-Lytton area, to come to the community to have a tour of some of the transportation and highway infrastructure and also to hold a public meeting.

I already informed the minister earlier that there was a meeting organized. Highways officials from the region and the area were there. No fault of the highways folks, but I think the meeting was little bit disorganized. The community left a little upset at that. Who ended up coming to the rescue but the opposition MLA from Yale-Lillooet. I didn't think it was fair for folks to be getting on the case of the local highways officials.

One of the things that came out of the meeting was that folks asked me if I would be willing to set up a public meeting and have the Minister of Transportation and his deputy minister and local regional highways officials come out.

I would invite, in the Leader of the Opposition's new initiative and also the Premier's new era and new way of doing things in cooperation…. In that spirit, a non-partisan public meeting with the mayors from Lytton and Lillooet, some of the tribal chiefs in the area as well as the area reps….

We'd want to go on a tour and show you firsthand some of the transportation and highways infrastructure in the area so that we can have a better understanding — all of us, including myself — and the expertise from regional staff. Then we'd have a public meeting afterwards in the area to hear local residents' concerns and then go away, work together.

I'm more than willing to work with the minister and the regional staff and his senior staff here to help find some solutions. I mean this sincerely. There's no partisanship involved in this. You have New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives, some Green Party members, aboriginal people, community leaders and residents — all concerned — business leaders, union leaders as well. All the people who travel those highway systems want to see you out there. They'd love to see you out there and to show you what sort of ideas they have in their minds.

I was wondering if I can actually get a commitment from the minister to come on out and hold a joint public meeting where we can discuss these sorts of issues.

The Big Slide is one of them, obviously, and Highway 12, which the minister has mentioned, are amongst other issues that we would like to discuss. His predecessors, as I mentioned in the letter, including myself, have had meetings like that in that area. If we can continue on in that great tradition….

I was wondering if the minister could commit to coming out there and spend a day, and we can do a tour. I know he wants to come out there to do ribbon cutting on the 97 near Merritt. We can do it in conjunction with that. I wonder if the minister would agree to that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I feel an obligation, having received the six-page letter from the member. That's something I will do with the member. I'll give you my word that I will do that. Maybe I can find some time, while I'm up in the interior, to do horseback riding.

We can check out some of the areas that the member talks about. I'd be happy to do that. I'm always happy to go through that beautiful part of the province and meet with the mayors. I have been through that area, as the member knows.

I have taken particular interest in the Big Slide, Highway 12, and I am keenly aware of the challenge that that creates for us. I always try very hard in my position as Minister of Transportation to be upfront with folks. I think we, first of all, have to recognize that there are dangers there. There's no question about it.

I think we tried very hard to implement some measures in the near term that will try and ameliorate some of those, but they do not eliminate them. I, too, have received letters from people, and I can absolutely say that there can be nothing more frightening than to be driving along a road and having boulders crashing down onto the highway. It is an absolutely legitimate concern that those folks have.

The challenge, of course — and the member will know this from his days as Minister of Transportation — is that it's a corridor. Highway 12 is a route that sees about 1,200 vehicles a day, so it's very, very low volume, and the fix, of course, is very, very expensive. We haven't quite landed, I don't believe — at least, conclusively — on what the best result of that fix would be.

I know that the member is speaking more generally. So I'll say to the member that I will. The issue is really time. It would probably be better to do that as we get closer to summer. Then I think that'll probably be convenient in terms of our ability to get around too. Probably not when we do the 97 announcement together, but I will do that for the member.

H. Lali: I want to thank the minister for making the commitment to come out there.

M. Sather: The minister made a statement in this House a little while ago, with regard to the Gateway program, that he didn't care about commuters and that his only concern was the movement of goods. That was an interesting statement. That's been my suspicion all along, but it was interesting to hear the minister confirm that.

I wanted to talk to the minister about the Golden Ears bridge, which is a public-private partnership or P3 venture. It's between Langley and Maple Ridge–Mission and my community. A lot of the people in my community are commuters, and they think that the bridge is for them. They're actually looking forward to being able to get over to Langley and Surrey more quickly.

One of the things I wanted to ask the minister about was the financing around this project. Dexia Bank SA and DEPFA Bank PLC are the institutions financing the P3 contract with the Golden Crossing group general partnership to build the bridge. I wanted to ask the minister if the financing costs for this P3 project are the same as they would have been if it had been a conventional public-built facility?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member is probably aware of the fact that that is a TransLink project. It's being delivered by TransLink. I actually have nothing to do with that particular project. The question the member raises, I think, is an important one. It's the usual question I hear from members of the opposition when they want to discuss private-public partnerships.

It's predicated on the basis that since government can borrow money cheaper, ipso facto, government should build these projects because we can borrow money cheaper. That's essentially what the core of the member's question is.

Of course, the challenge with that is that having the ability to borrow money at a low interest rate doesn't in any way correlate to overall savings to the taxpayer at the end of the day. I would use the fast ferries as an example of that — developed with very cheap money. All of that was borrowed money all at the government low rates, but at the end of the day, the taxpayer ended up paying significantly more.

Financing costs are one component of what goes into major complex projects like that. Perhaps the more important issues that government and taxpayers are going to be concerned about are: will these projects be procured, designed, delivered and built on time, on schedule and on budget? Those are very, very important to the taxpayers.

I can say to the member that I have extensively canvassed this issue of cost of capital and weighted average cost of capital and how this whole issue of financing goes into projects like this. I would encourage the member to look back at previous Hansard. I've spent considerable time with the opposition critic on this issue.

The one thing that we have consistently said…. You don't have to actually believe me. You can look at the results that are out there right now. Every major private-public partnership that the province is involved with today…. That's not one of them, I must hasten to add. Every single one that the province is involved with is characterized by two things that I think are very important to the public. They are either on or ahead of schedule, and they are on or under budget.

Given the environment that we currently operate in, where we've got significant pressures in the construction industry, and the cost of steel and concrete and labour, etc., I think that is a validation of the most extreme sort as to why governments, including TransLink in that case, consider the P3 option as a procurement option.

It is not the option for every project, by the way. There's another project in that member's riding that he'll be well aware that our government is moving forward with. That's the new seven-lane Pitt River Bridge. The Pitt River Bridge project construction is starting now. That is a project in which our staff looked…. They do this independent of me.

My position is that I want to make sure they look at a P3 option, but I don't tell them what option to do. They do a professional analysis. They engage whatever advisers they need to engage, and they ultimately make a decision. On that particular project, the decision they made was to go to a design-build type of de-

livery model that had fixed price and guaranteed scheduling times as part of that contract.

M. Sather: It's true that this is a TransLink project. Now the minister has revamped TransLink and has a lot more control over it. Some people are suggesting he has ultimate control over it.

I know, in any regard, that the minister loves P3s. He has commented and I'm sure will continue to comment on these projects. Certainly, financing is a significant part of any project, whether it be P3 or otherwise. Is the minister aware of what the credit rating is on a Golden Ears bridge project?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, Member, I'm happy to speak to you in great depth about projects that I have, but I have no involvement in that project whatsoever. I haven't got a clue what the credit rating is. In fact, I know very little about that project from beginning to end. I have enough on my plate without having to worry about the projects that TransLink is involved with.

M. Sather: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I'll be glad to discuss it with him because I think that it is a P3 contract, and we're going to be seeing a lot more of those according to this government. Any project over $25 million has to go through that screen, and it sounds to me like most of them are going to be P3s.

I did want to say a little bit about the financing of this project because I think it's not only germane to a project that's costing the public money, it's also germane to other projects that are going to be coming forward. This project introduced the cost of what's called monoline insurance, and this is in which P3 project companies use this to make their appeal to lenders more appetizing.

The insurers on this project are Ambac Assurance UK Ltd. and XL Capital Assurance (UK) Ltd. The monoline insurance provided by these companies employs a process called wrapping, and apparently, this is a state-of-the-art procedure that we may be seeing more of. Wrapping allowed this P3 project to go from a credit rating of triple-B to triple-A.

Essentially, the insurance company provided the insurance to the banking financial institutions, and it bumped what was a triple-B rating for the consortium up to triple-A. Now that's pretty significant when it comes to borrowing money, as the minister will know. This is also confirmed by Standard and Poor's.

This induced credit rating — that's what it is — serves the partnership by providing a better interest rate, as I said. It gives Partnerships B.C. an argument, whenever they're proceeding with these kinds of projects, that P3 financing is not more expensive than public financing. The minister has alluded to this as certainly being an issue of considerable debate around P3 projects. It gets the insurance companies into the P3 game, which is essentially putting more public money into the pockets of private investors.

But the insurance that's being used here doesn't come free. Since the minister is not aware of the details, my information is that the premiums for that insurance are being paid for by the government — by the public. Essentially, the public is paying to bump the rate from a triple-B to a triple-A rating.

I also wanted to talk to the minister, who was quick to point out that the Golden Ears bridge is not one of "their projects." This project is a P3, and it's over budget by between $450 million and $526 million, a phenomenal amount. The project has nearly doubled in price, and they haven't even started building it yet. How would the minister defend a P3…? Even though it's not his own, it's a P3 in this province, and it's part of the larger Gateway project. How would he defend a project with such a colossal overrun?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, I don't defend it because it's not my project. But I think the member needs to understand what an overrun is. An overrun is when you have a project that has been tendered and awarded, and construction begins on the project, and then the project prices start coming in higher than that at which it was tendered.

My limited understanding of the Golden Ears project is that there is no overrun whatsoever. What happens — and this is very common; the member should know this, I would hope — is that there are often early high-level estimates of what a project will cost prior to you ever getting into the detailed engineering and then the issuing of requests for proposals, when you actually start to get a nailed-down cost of what that is going to be.

My understanding — though, as I said, it's not my project — is that's what happened here. They had an earlier cost estimate probably back in 2003. I imagine by the time they got to issuing the RFP — we all know what's happened to steel and concrete prices — they adjusted the figure upwards. It's not a cost overrun, Member.

You may want to check that with TransLink. This is my recollection of reading news articles. By the time they went to actually award tenders on it or even issue the RFPs, it was very apparent that steel and concrete had gone up fairly substantially, and that was reflected in their revised figure for what it was going to cost to build the bridge.

The Chair: I would just caution the member. I think you both understand that this is not a project within the scope or authority of the Ministry of Transportation. I'd ask to you pursue a different line of questioning. We certainly want to give as much latitude as we can, and I allowed a rather elaborate statement of the opinion on the insurancing thing, but I'd ask to you consider moving on to a different project within the scope of the ministry.

M. Sather: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that, but this is a significant project the minister has commented on — on the cost overrun, saying that it isn't. Certainly it is. This is part of the flimflam that goes on with P3 projects. There's a price that comes out, and

then there's a moving target, and they end up saying: "Well, it wasn't a cost overrun at all."

The general price tag for this bridge was $600 million. That's what they said it was going to cost. In July of 2006 TransLink put out a report that said they will pay $1.126 billion. The legal firm that brought this deal together, Davis and Co. — Doug Buchanan said that they had acted for Bilfinger Berger BOT, Germany's second-largest engineering firm, in a $1.05 billion deal to build and operate the Golden Ears bridge project in southern British Columbia.

I guess these folks, including the people that put the deal together, don't know the real costs. I think it's clear that there is a significant, major cost overrun, and I think the minister should own up to that.

I will move on to another issue, and that's the issue of the Lougheed Highway, which is leading up to the Pitt River Bridge, which the minister will admit is a provincial project.

We have a new connector that the minister will be aware of called the Abernethy connector that's leading into the Lougheed Highway. From where that connector meets the Lougheed Highway to the Harris Road section is only five lanes. The rest of the highway to the bridge is six lanes. It's really important that we get that other lane in order to move traffic down that highway to facilitate the new bridge.

Hon. K. Falcon: That is actually one of the projects that we're looking at as part of the Gateway program. That is currently being studied. No final decisions have been made on that, but I think there are some reasonable arguments that could be made that that makes some sense. So we are considering that.

I must say I haven't yet heard the member thank the government for its leadership in moving forward with the new seven-lane Pitt River Bridge. I was very happy to be there at that. That of course is a very important part of the new Gateway transportation project. That bridge is really a centrepiece of what's happening on the northern side of the Fraser River. That is a $198 million project that I am very pleased to see going forward on schedule and on budget.

I'm sure the member probably has just forgotten to mention how much he appreciates that being constructed. I know it was talked about a lot during the 1990s, but sadly, it was one of those things that was talked about but never acted upon.

We are acting upon it. It is going forward, and I'm very excited about that fact. I think it's going to make a big difference to those communities. I know that's something they'll be thinking a lot about as they see it rise above the water and be constructed, and I look very forward to the positive results that it will bring us in the years forward.

M. Sather: Well, I know the minister was out to the Golden Ears bridge recently, along with the Premier, to announce the awarding of the contract. I would have loved to have been there with them. I know he meant to invite me, he really did, but somehow it just skipped his mind.

There's another part of the Lougheed Highway that's in dire need of an upgrade, and that's an interchange at Harris Road and Lougheed. When I talked to the Gateway people, they said that this is on the 2031 horizon. That's 24 years down the road. The people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows simply can't wait that long for the highway improvements to the bridge. It's fine to build the bridge — that's great — but if they don't do the highway improvements leading up to the bridge, we're going to end up in the same mess we were in before.

Can the minister give some assurance to the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows that that interchange is going to be built in a timely fashion, not 24 years from now?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is no, I can't give that assurance, because it won't be done in the near term. That is a longer-term project, and I think I need to be very straight up with the member about that.

I should say to the member that I'm sorry he wasn't at that Pitt River Bridge contract-awarding. The Opposition House Leader was there. I very much enjoyed having the Opposition House Leader there with us, and I'm sorry the member wasn't able to join us for what was, after all, a very celebratory day.

This was a very significant part of the Gateway transportation project, and I can tell you that as we've gone through the public consultations on Gateway…. Over 10,000 people have participated in these public consultations. I am struck by the fact that it was at one of the consultations in that member's riding where we had a situation where the attendees literally stood up and applauded the announcement that this bridge was going to be built in that community — so strong is the support for what we are doing in the Gateway transportation project.

I know the members opposite are having difficulty with this issue. The critic is very much opposed to what we're doing on Gateway, and so are the members of the NDP caucus. I think that's very unfortunate, because I know that when we open up that new seven-lane Pitt River Bridge and the throngs of people are there in great, joyous celebration, it will again be a challenge to try and stop the NDP members from elbowing their way onto the stage to share credit for that decision that they opposed.

Nevertheless, I find that that is something I am getting used to dealing with — lots of opposition to very big projects that are widely supported by the public, that the public is very enthusiastic about. And despite the opposition of that member and others, we will get those projects done.

C. Trevena: Areas which are not Gateway projects. I am going to try to limit this to three questions, because other members do have questions. It may slip into four, depending on the answers.

We're seeing some increase in industry in the north Island. We've got the Port Alice mill reopened. We've got quarrying down near Coal Harbour and the possibility of a new power plant down in Gold River. I'm looking at Highway 28 and the road to Coal Harbour and whether there is going to be any money in this year's budget for upgrading these roads for industrial work.

If not in this year's budget, if we can please get a marker down for next year's budget. Residents are getting very stressed by this. I think we all saw the holes in the Gold River road in the recent storms.

Hon. K. Falcon: There are no plans for any upgrading of that particular highway to Gold River. We will of course be doing the usual maintenance and rehabilitation that we would undertake on the road, and that will continue.

C. Trevena: I also mentioned Highway 30 to Port Alice and the highway to Coal Harbour, which is a smaller highway.

While we're asking, a couple of issues that I know were brought to you by councillors during UBCM: the road to Tahsis, which is a shared Forest Service road, and the Mitchell Bay Road on Malcolm Island, where there's a section which is run by the Ministry of Forests.

I know this was raised by councils and regional directors, and I wondered whether your ministry has actually dedicated some funding towards this now.

Hon. K. Falcon: As a result of the meeting that we did have with some of the local government officials at the UBCM, we did step up some maintenance on the road to Tahsis. Obviously, it's a challenge. It's a very low-volume road, a gravel road too. But I am led to understand that some stepped-up maintenance was done there to try and deal with some of the issues that were raised.

On the issue of Highway 30, my answer is very similar to that of Highway 28: no upgrades are being contemplated, but continued rehab and maintenance as we would normally do in the course of things.

C. Trevena: I would ask that in future budget considerations you consider these roads, because the areas are trying very hard to increase economic development. One of the areas is tourism, and the road does put people off. It also is getting increasing wear and tear as the trucks use it.

Very briefly, the Mitchell Bay Road which is on Malcolm Island, the section between Mitchell Bay — which was supposed to be water-only access but isn't water-only access — to the village of Sointula…. There's that section, the 11 kilometres of Ministry of Forests road. It was raised at the UBCM. I just wondered if you could deal with that. A point of notice to your staff: I'm going to be asking about Highway 19 next.

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you. Yes, I do recall actually having that conversation, and I had said to them, as I've said when this kind of issue came up before, that we're not going to be taking over the maintenance of forestry roads. That's something that we've always been very clear on. So the issue isn't really an issue for our ministry; it's an issue for the Ministry of Forests. I was pretty upfront with them that that's not something we would be taking over.

C. Trevena: I hope that we can at some stage get a meeting with the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Transportation. Possibly, if you would like to come up to the north Island and see non-Gateway roads, it would be very healthy.

I have questions about Highway 19 — essentially, from Beaver Cove to Port Hardy, which was resurfaced last year with chip seal. There has been quite a bit of concern about this. In fact, last week's Port McNeill village council meeting raised it as well — a great concern about broken windshields and chipping of paint.

I know that in the south Island and Highway 18, there was some urging of ICBC to deal with this. Unfortunately, that has not been the case with Highway 19, and I wondered if you could give some assurances to people about this.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is something that has just come up recently. We've heard from, honestly, very few people about this particular issue, but we are investigating those complaints to determine whether there is any foundation to those complaints at all. So at this point I really don't have any more information except to say that staff were looking into it to try to determine whether there is any foundation to the complaint.

C. Trevena: I can assure you that there are foundations to the complaints. There was chip seal there. In our office we've had….

C. Trevena: If I may finish. I know that the minister hasn't seen the damage that has been done, but I have had many complaints through into my constituency office about this, including letters from people. One from Donna Kingdon who wrote to the minister herself in January and still has had no response and is very concerned. They have been trying to deal with Arrowsmith — the contract about this — and have had no response.

If I might urge that the minister looks at this with some sort of urgency, because this happened last summer. They've seen what's happened down-Island on Highway 18 and feel that they are being neglected in comparison. So if the ministry can act quickly and inform me, I will really appreciate that.

Moving on, my final question is that of the contracting system. I know that the critic for this file will be dealing with this later on. But I wanted to get some clarification about the contracting. We've had lots of complaints in the constituency office over the last month about the work of Emcon in the North Island

from residents who are not seeing timely snow clearing and not seeing ice cleared.

If I might quote somebody who works for Emcon and who worked for Main Road before. He basically says that the equipment is not high quality. There is less equipment to work with, and the work that they are required to do is of less quality. If I might quote from Emcon themselves, who say: "Many times I receive complaints that road conditions are not meeting public expectations. However, upon review, in many cases conditions are meeting the ministry's specifications. Unfortunately, there is a large disparity between the ministry expectations and the public expectations."

I just really wanted to canvass with the minister in the best way possible how we can match public expectations, ministry specifications and the work that the contactors do. I know that the individuals who work for the contractors are trying their best, but it seems that there really isn't the commitment from either the contractor or maybe the budget the contractor is given to do the work.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, just to finish off on the earlier point, I think the member may have had complaints about people making allegations regarding seal-coating. But I think it's important to point out to the member that in winter there are winter abrasives and sand that are used on the road. There are lots of other things that could be potentially responsible there, and the member has to be careful not to accept too quickly the assumption that it had to do with seal-coating. That's something that staff will investigate, but I am much more reluctant to acknowledge that that could be the issue. It could be other details, too.

With respect to the maintenance contractor…. The member talks about Emcon. Actually, Emcon has done a very good job in that area. They are a maintenance contractor that has generally a good record. I think what I would say to the member is that — what I've been saying for some time now — this has been a very, very challenging winter.

I don't say that as any excuse. Not at all. I say that as a reality — that we've had snow accumulations that have been 200 percent beyond the usual norm. It has made for some very challenging situations. There have been freezing and warming cycles that have created changing conditions that happen very, very quickly.

So you can get an icing situation happening very, very quickly. Then it can start snowing very quickly, and suddenly you've got to move from sanding to plowing. Given the challenges that the maintenance contractors, including Emcon, have faced, I think they've actually done a fairly good job. It is a testament to the workers.

I can't speak to anonymous people that are non-attributed. It means nothing to me. You know, anyone could say anything. But I'm not aware, and I'm not led to believe, that there have been any problems with the quality of the equipment that is being used by the maintenance contractor. In fact, my understanding is that they've actually done a reasonably good job in that area, given some very challenging circumstances.

C. Trevena: Just a couple of clarifications. The chip-seal issue isn't just a winter issue; it has been happening for some months. The chip seal was done during the summer, and we've been having complaints since then. I would hope that when your ministry looks at these complaints, they are aware that it's not just winter complaints.

The issue of Emcon. As I say, the people who work for Emcon are trying their best. The quote I read about the complaints about the road conditions not meeting public expectations actually came from Greg Ehman from Emcon, so it's not anonymous.

My final point is that I would just really like to thank the ministry's staff who work in the North Island. They are extraordinarily helpful, and I think that my constituency assistants who are dealing with them on quite a regular basis are very pleased with their professionalism.

D. Routley: Again on maintenance contracts with the highway companies, I wonder what steps have been taken to accommodate the increased demands placed on these contracts by climate change, the effects of climate change.

Hon. K. Falcon: These contractors are very experienced in dealing with the conditions in British Columbia. One of the reasons why they sign ten-year contracts is that they recognize that during those ten years you will have ebbs and flows in terms of what the weather conditions will be like. You may have one winter like we just had, which was extraordinarily challenging for them, but then you may have another winter during that ten-year contract period where you get off very light, where there are very little issues. You get light snowfall or, in some cases — on the Island, for example — virtually no snowfall. So it just depends.

One of the things we know is that these people are professionals. They are well used to the different variations of the weather in this province. Typically, the employees who are working for these maintenance contractors have been working for them for many, many years — back since almost 20 years ago, some of them, when it was still run by government.

Frankly, I don't believe that they take any of the climate change issues into effect. I don't think they think a lot about that when they enter into their ten-year contracts. What they do is look at the experience they've had in the past, and they apply it to their experiences going forward. This happened to be a particularly tough year, but we've had earlier years within these ten-year contracts that weren't nearly as bad.

D. Routley: It sounds to me that the minister is denying climate change. The minister is saying that our experience of 20 years and the variances that we've experienced historically are what we'll see in the future

when, in fact, the throne speech spells out very clearly that there is no time to procrastinate, that the changes are upon us. And they are upon us. There were 14 consecutive storms that hit the Island this fall. They caused devastation, the kind of runoff that has never been experienced. It has been accentuated by terrible logging practices, which have caused other problems with the highways, which we'll get to in a minute.

The experience of 20 years can hardly be applied to the next five or ten or, especially, 20 years, given the Premier's commitment to the notion of climate change and the many challenges that we will be confronted with as a result of that.

I would ask the minister again. The highways maintenance contracts are clearly inadequate. The roads are full of potholes. The culverts are clogged. The ditches are clogged. There are endless problems, and we can only expect more. We can only expect a greater frequency of extreme weather events and a greater demand on the infrastructure.

What has the minister done to increase the ditching and culvert capacities and to increase the maintenance of those systems?

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Chair, I can't imagine the torture it must be to live a life like this member, where all around you see nothing but negative, destructive and terrible things happening. It must be a horrible burden to carry through life when everything is apparently just so horrible.

Actually, it's not so horrible. There is no denying climate change here, but there's also no denying that we have maintenance contractors well used to working in different climatic conditions.

This is the story of British Columbia. Do your homework; figure out what actually happens on the highways of this province. Understand that there are some big swings in the kind of terrain and geography we have in the province, Member, and stop making ridiculous allegations against the people who do the work.

They actually do a very good job. I'm tired of these little drive-by attacks on the workers who do a very good job, sometimes under very challenging circumstances, as happened this winter. To suggest that nothing is being done, that the world's coming to an end and that they don't care about ditches and culverts is the most preposterous, silly thing that I think I've had the misfortune of having to listen to in this House. Normally, I get reasonably intelligent questions raised, but sadly, this doesn't appear to be following the usual standard.

The member is simply wrong. These workers actually have done a very good job under some difficult circumstances. There's nothing particularly unusual; we know this happens in the province. Periodically, maybe every decade or so, you will see we get very heavy snowfall. Sometimes we get lucky, and those snowfalls are relatively spaced out through the course of a winter, but they can happen very quickly in a very short period of time.

Regardless of the facts that every piece of equipment is out on the highway system, that the workers are working day and night, that they pull in every auxiliary they can and that they spend an enormous amount of money, effort and time trying to deal with this, you will still find individuals like this who will ignore that this is a once-in-a-decade experience and will try to use the situation — where apparently it just wasn't perfect for this member.

The world just wasn't quite perfect in highway maintenance this winter. Therefore, he will extrapolate from one situation and try and denigrate an entire workforce for the fact that they apparently didn't keep the road perfectly black and perfectly clear for this member.

I'd say to the member that it is wrong to do that. I stand by the workers. By and large, they've done a very good job under very difficult circumstances. Where they do not do a good job, we will financially penalize the maintenance contractors. I don't make any apologies about that either.

To me, as is always the case in this ministry, it's about results. If the results aren't there, they'll pay a price. If they need to have improvements, we'll make sure our staff works with them to make sure they have the continuous improvement that we expect out of maintenance contractors.

We are also human beings. We also recognize, when they're going through a once-in-a-decade event and facing some extraordinary challenges, that we don't pile on them and try to make their life miserable just to score cheap political points. We try to work with them and assist them so that they can deal with the fact that they had an extraordinary winter.

The final thing I'll say is that the member mentioned potholes. Well, this is a revelation, apparently, to some of these members opposite who live on Vancouver Island. I would agree that potholes aren't something you would typically see on a widespread basis on Vancouver Island. That's because — again, if the member would do his homework — we've had a challenging winter.

The freezing and low temperatures, and the freezing and thawing that we've seen on the Island, have been unusual. As a result freezing and thawing — I'll walk the member through this — you get asphalt that breaks up. It's called potholes.

But you know what. The maintenance contractors aren't going to drop the clearing of the highways and the work they're trying to do to keep the highways safe to deal with this member's potholes. They're going to work to keep the highways safe. When they can get a break and when the temperatures warm up enough, then they'll start to do patching work on the potholes. That's how the maintenance industry works.

I wish the member would do some homework instead of making spurious allegations about subjects of which he apparently knows very little. It becomes more apparent to me every minute I have to sit and listen to him.

D. Routley: Perhaps, Mr. Chair, when the opposition attempts to hold the ministry to account, to make the ministry accountable, the minister shouldn't take

that personally and shouldn't take that as a personal attack unless he feels that it's warranted.

The bigger torture and the really horrible burden is borne by my riding, as so many of my constituents have had their houses flooded and totally or near-totally destroyed by the fact that culverts and ditches were not cleared, were clogged and flooded at places where they have never flooded before. As far as this recent winter goes…. We've had five of the most extreme winters on record in the last eight years. Unless the minister really is denying climate change, we can expect exactly that — more of the same.

It is preposterous and silly, to use the minister's words, to address people of my riding that way. The minister should realize that we sit in chairs; we sit in stations. We represent people, and when he discounts me, dismisses me or is disrespectful to me, I don't take it personally. I know it is not meant for my person, but I'm sure that my constituents take it personally. I welcome that attitude from the minister. In a political sense, it certainly helps me. It's unfortunate on a personal level.

In any case it's clear that these maintenance contracts are inadequate, and it's clear that climate change will place greater demand on the infrastructure of our highway system. That's clear, unless the minister denies climate change.

When these instances occur and the maintenance contracts are found to be inadequate in terms of offering the maintenance levels required to avoid these floods, extra work is called out. That extra work is done on a cost-plus basis to the contract. How are those cost-plus jobs allocated, to whom, by what standard, and how is payment made to those cost-plus agents?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're trying to understand the member's question. We're not sure what he was referring to when he says cost-plus. These are fixed-price, ten-year-term contracts that we engage the maintenance contractors in. Perhaps the member could elucidate.

D. Routley: I'll submit a question to the minister separately. I have to move on.

Highway 18 has been seal-coated in this past year, and we have had millions of dollars of claims. We've had thousands upon thousands of my constituents affected with broken windshields, chipped paint and smashed windows. We've had traumatized children. One child vomits every time she's asked to get into the car now, because she was sitting beside the window when it smashed. Her father was in the emergency room having glass removed from his eye. There has been a lot of damage and a lot of public safety put at risk.

The chip-sealing was done in 1979 by the then Socred government. It was a drastic mistake at that time, acknowledged by the government at that time. There was a class action lawsuit, and millions were lost.

Why did the government choose chip-sealing for Highway 18? It's a 110-kilometre-per-hour highway. Only after months and months of damage was the speed limit temporarily reduced. How much was saved? How much is the ministry paying for the deductibles on the claims? What cost implications are there to ICBC for this?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we utilized seal-coating because it's been utilized successfully on the Coquihalla for decades, for a long time. It's actually a very good way of extending the life of our highway system, and it does it in a manner that is both respectful of taxpayer dollars and, also, very effective in terms of extending the life of the highway.

What we had here is actually relatively straightforward — unfortunate but straightforward — in the sense that we had a failure of the seal-coating. Not even entirely sure why, but there was a failure of the seal-coating on Highway 18. As a result of the failure of the seal-coating, there were some unfortunate situations, and the member opposite detailed some of them. It created a great inconvenience for many people. No question about that. I don't take away from that at all.

What we did as a result of that, as the member knows, is we temporarily put in a lower speed limit of 80 kilometres an hour. We initially had sweepers going through there on a daily basis to get rid of any of the chips that may have arisen as a result of the failure. This problem has largely gone away now. We said and have always said that once the weather gets to a point where it warms up a little bit more and we have the ability to get back to work on that road, we'll do that.

We also said that we would deal with the claims that came forward. We would investigate all the claims and submit payments to those individuals that had legitimate claims, and we would cover the deductibles. We've done that. I believe up till the end of February we've done something in the range of $110,000 of payments that have been made.

We intend to go after the contractors' insurer for that. But we're in the midst at this point of trying to determine what the cause of the failure was, and our staff is investigating that with the insurer and with the contractor and trying to figure out what the situation is. In the meantime we've taken care of the individuals. I've apologized in the past to those individuals. I think we should not be afraid to acknowledge when a failure happens and a mistake is made. We've done that.

I've just been passed something here that suggests that…. Okay. We've reached an agreement now with the contractor and the insurer, I'm advised by staff. All the claims up to January 31 were paid for by the contractor. The ministry has reserved the right to seek compensation from the contractor for all claims post-January 31, should the need arise.

D. Routley: Moving on to another question, but first to make a slight answer to that. My colleague from North Island has not…. Her constituents have not received the same guarantee of deductibles being covered from chip-seal damage in her riding. I asked about the cost of the deductibles to the minister, but I also

asked about the cost of the overall claims to ICBC, because of course those are borne by all British Columbians.

Since time is short, I would like to move on to bridges and logjams. Bridges throughout my riding are accumulating massive logjams from poor logging practices, massive amounts of logging debris coming down our creeks. This has put many of our bridges at risk.

The Saywell Creek Bridge in Honeymoon Bay had a 12-foot logjam that raised the level of the water 12 feet. The river was running over top of the bridge. It wasn't the bridge that finally broke. All the approaches, the gravel, massive…. Thousands of yards of gravel gave way. We had a cascade of rock and gravel and water come shooting into Honeymoon Bay. It went across a golf course and through several homes.

This is a great risk to bridges throughout the riding — Ladysmith, Koksilah, Cowichan, Lake Cowichan, Honeymoon Bay. There are numerous bridges under threat. Since it is logging debris causing most of the problem and, ultimately, logging practices, what steps has the minister taken to ensure that the buildup of logging debris stops and that logging practices that caused it improve? What steps have been taken to address the threat? How many bridges are threatened? What would be the cost implications if these bridges were to fail?

Hon. K. Falcon: I haven't got a clue what this member is talking about. I don't recognize the bridges that he…. Well, he listed off one. It doesn't sound like one of our highway bridges. If it is, I'd ask the member to correct me, but none of us recognize it. We're not aware of any problems on our bridges that we're responsible for in the Ministry of Transportation.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've just had confirmation it is not our bridge. Sounds to me like the member should take his theatrics and go talk to whoever is responsible for the bridge. It's probably a municipal bridge, I would suggest. If he has concerns about logging practices, talk to the Minister of Forests about logging practices.

The issue for this Minister of Transportation is the bridges that we're responsible for and the culverts we're responsible for. We work very diligently to keep them clear, and I think we actually do a very, very good job. It would be helpful if the member talked about issues that are directly related to the Minister of Transportation.

K. Conroy: I actually do have something that relates to the Ministry of Transportation. There was a letter that we sent from my constituency office to the minister in August, and we haven't had a reply yet. It relates to Highway 33, which is the highway from Beaverdell or Rock Creek to Kelowna. The section of the highway from Big White to Joe Ridge is actually in my constituency in West Kootenay–Boundary.

I've met with the chamber of commerce from Big White at the ski hill. I've met with some of the constituents. I've talked to many people that travel that road, because it's a main route for people from my constituency who are travelling to Kelowna for medical needs. The Kelowna regional hospital is a major centre for us.

The highway between Big White and Joe Ridge in the Kelowna area is in deplorable condition. There are many accidents on it. I think I have heard that the MLAs from the Kelowna area have also expressed concerns about this. The regional districts have expressed concerns. The road is a main artery for ambulance services. It's not just in the winter; it's in the summer.

The road needs some work. There are millions and millions of dollars going into the Sea to Sky. I think it's time to put some millions of dollars into other parts of the province. I think this section of the road is a perfect example of where some money could go.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member referenced a letter I'm not familiar with. I'll look into that for the member. I receive over a thousand letters a month, so I'll try and find out what happened to that particular one.

In terms of Highway 33 and the road to Big White, we are undertaking improvements in cooperation with the city of Kelowna. We're doing some four-laning on that stretch of highway, particularly providing a passing lane for the trucks. A lot of the problem is created when the trucks are climbing the hill and frustrated drivers can't get by them and try to do unsafe passing moves.

That work, I think, is very far along in terms of all the design and engineering work. They're still working with the community in terms of the planning on that passing lane, but we're very much alive to the challenge that is faced there. Big White is a very important resort. That's why we do want to invest dollars there, and we will be doing so.

But again, we have a lot of dollars being spent, particularly in the interior. I think whenever I go up there most folks acknowledge that with great warmth and applause, because we're doing an enormous amount of spending up in the interior. We will continue to do so.

K. Conroy: I don't think the minister quite got over into the Kootenay part of the interior, because there hasn't been a lot of money being spent in that region — unless you have an actual dollar figure you can share. I have correspondence from regional district members, one you're well aware of, Mr. Zaitsoff. We have correspondence from other mayors, from councillors that are expressing concern about the conditions of the roads.

It's especially the condition of Highway 3. Highway 3 right from the Alberta border through to the Hope-Princeton is a road that's of concern. I know the mayors are trying to work with the ministry to ensure that that road is brought up to the standards it should be. It's a main artery. The majority of the people from my constituency use that route. They don't go into the Okanagan and go through the Coquihalla. They actually use route 3. Many of the truckers use that route also. It's a main artery into the Kootenays.

I'd like to put that on the record, that it's an issue of concern. I also want to know what the ministry is doing to work with the various mayors and city councils across the entire region to ensure Highway 3 is dealt with.

Hon. K. Falcon: In fact, I've met with the mayors along the corridor, and we've spoken about Highway 3. We are, I think, doing some very good work on Highway 3. We've identified and prioritized some of the improvements we're making. Primarily, we want to make sure we make the improvements that we think will have the greatest return in terms of safety.

I believe there is sometimes a misperception, frankly, amongst some of those mayors in terms of what the volumes of traffic are along there. It's something we monitor very carefully, but they appear to feel that the volumes are substantially higher than the actual volumes that we're aware of. As we say, we're continuing to provide passing opportunities in the improvements we do. We're continuing to provide bridge improvements to try and improve safety.

We're investing those dollars keeping in mind the traffic volumes and the safety returns. I'm quite pleased. In fact, I've driven that road, not very recently, two times — in the winter and in the summer. Both times I was very pleased with the trip itself. The traffic volumes were quite light on both occasions. I specifically wanted to go in the summer to find out what it was like.

I think the mayors are doing exactly what mayors should do. I get letters from mayors right across the province. They're wonderful people, and they're great advocates for their communities. I don't begrudge for a moment the fact they want us to spend more work on projects that impact their communities. We try very hard to listen to those mayors, to work with the mayors and to balance their interests fairly across the rest of the province.

K. Conroy: We're not going to disagree on that. I think the mayors are doing exactly what they're supposed to do and doing a good job at it. I think the members on this side of the House are here to support them in that.

I do drive that road a lot. I drive back and forth at least once or twice a month. It's a very long drive from here, and it is a busy road. I'm not sure of the times the minister drove the road, but obviously, it was one of those few times when it wasn't busy. From our perspective it is a fairly busy road with many big trucks on it, which is an issue.

I'm glad to hear that the minister continues to work on it. I would like to put on the record that I support any work that you can do on the Hope-Princeton. That's not in my constituency, but it's part of my route and where we drive — and the people from the Kootenays that have to drive to Vancouver.

It's the worst part of the road, and it's very difficult to drive, especially in the winter, but it's also difficult in the summer. It's a tough stretch, and any work that can be done on that road needs to be…. We will applaud it from this side of the House. I just want to put that on the record.

The minister continually refers to the bad winter we've had. I want to tell the minister that yes, it has been a difficult winter, but we have had letters in our office, hundreds of letters, many of which we've made sure that the minister gets copies of. They're sent on to his office. I'm not sure if he's had an opportunity to peruse them. As he said, he gets many, many letters. When I see the numbers we get, I can only surmise that the same number come from every office in the province, so I'm sure you do get hundreds and thousands of them.

The people that are writing us about the winter conditions this year are people that have lived in the constituency for decades. They have not just moved there. They have lived there all their lives, and they are saying that in all their lives they have never seen worse road conditions than what they've seen in this last year.

I have talked to many people who've worked in jobs similar to mine. In fact, I have a close relation that worked in this job for ten years. He never ever, in his ten years as MLA for the region, got the number of letters in his office in the entire ten years that we have gotten in the last ten years. In the last year — it just feels like ten years.

We have worked with the contractor; we have worked with ministry. When it comes right down to it, what seems to be the problem is not the contractor or the ministry. The problem seems to be the standards in British Columbia. What we are told — and I hope the minister can maybe correct this or give me the information on this — is that the standards in British Columbia are lower than those in Alberta, and that's what the contractors are working to.

Now, if this is inaccurate, then we need to let our contractors know that so that they can raise their standards. But that's what our understanding is: that the snowplowing conditions are lower than in Alberta — Alberta, which has straight highways, very few mountainous routes.

In our constituency we have five mountain ranges that you have to drive over. We'd like to know if in fact the standards are lower than Alberta's and why the standards are the way they are so that it makes for difficult road conditions in the winter.

Hon. K. Falcon: The last point first. There is absolutely no comparison between the winter conditions in Alberta and British Columbia, and I think we just have to state the obvious. There are very different weather conditions and very different terrains and very different requirements, frankly, in terms of maintenance. It's one thing to plow a straight highway, and it's quite another to try and deal with some of the very challenging topography and geography of British Columbia. I'd just say to the member that that's really, really not a great analogy to use, and most people that have any familiarity with the maintenance contracts industry will feel free to tell you the same thing.

I will say this. The member points out that there have been some shortfalls with that maintenance contractor, and that's true. There were some areas in which this maintenance contractor fell short, and I know our ministry staff identified some of that in conjunction with things that they've heard from stakeholders like the trucking industry.

They worked with the contractor to have them change their approaches in how they were dealing with certain of the areas that were a part of their responsibility. They have changed their approaches, and we certainly heard, at least from the trucking industry…. They're very alive to this issue, because of course their truckers are constantly keeping them updated on what the conditions are. My understanding is that they've seen improvements that they're quite pleased to see.

This is a situation where I think we need to acknowledge that there were shortcomings in the job they delivered. That's why we have the auditing procedure we do, where we identify shortcomings. We work with the contractor to try and deal with those shortcomings. If they do not deal with those and do not change the behaviour and the work they do, then of course they can face financial penalties. Of course, that's something that they work very, very hard to avoid, because the financial penalties can mean the difference between breaking even and losing a substantial amount of money in that particular year of their ten-year contract.

It's an issue that the maintenance contractors are very alive to, and in this case, I'm led to understand that the maintenance contractor did respond to the issues that were raised and did change their practices to try and deal with those issues.

K. Conroy: The minister maybe didn't hear or didn't understand what I said, and I'll repeat that my office has an excellent working relationship with the contractor and with the ministry staff in the Kootenay-Boundary region. We work closely with them. When there are issues, we're talking to them. We've developed a very good working relationship with them.

It's not comparing the winter conditions. It's the standards that are utilized to determine how far the snowplow blade goes off the ground, standards that are critical when you're clearing the roads in B.C. Our standards are lower than Alberta's. It's got nothing to do with the winter conditions in Alberta compared to the winter conditions in B.C. It's the standards that are utilized to make sure the roads are clear. That's what I'm asking.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know: every blade goes against the ground. There is no difference or differential as the member talks about. The member should be made aware of that. The other thing the member should know is that we spend more dollars per kilometre, easily, than Alberta by a long shot. In fact, we almost always have, because we have way more challenging geography and issues to deal with than Alberta does.

I think it would be safe to say, and I'll double-check this with my staff, that we pay more per kilometre for highway and winter maintenance in British Columbia than probably almost any other jurisdiction in the country. So I don't for a second accept those characterizations or those criticisms, because they're just not true. I just think it's important to correct the record on that, particularly on this issue of the high-blading that the member talked about.

K. Conroy: I'd like to put on the record then that I will produce those standards and the comparisons that we have been given in our office so that the minister is well aware of them.

G. Coons: Noting the time, I just want to do a couple of things before we adjourn. I communicated with the minister a couple of weeks ago about a concern on Ridley Island. There was a family that was travelling, and the wife slid down the bank towards the grain terminal and landed on a railway track by the river. The road was icy, and apparently the family is pretty upset because the manager at O'Brien Road and Bridge Maintenance, who are responsible, said that it's not a high priority.

They just thought that in situations where there could be a dangerous turn or curve…. They were requesting that the ministry look at putting barricades over that to protect the lives of people early in the mornings when O'Brien may not get out there. I would say it's a secondary road. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I haven't received the letter back. So I just wanted to say it's on its way, and I thought I'd bring it forward for this constituent. It's a concern for a lot of people travelling that corridor for the Grain and Ridley terminals.

The second issue. I got a letter from school district 52 in Nisga'a. They wrote to the Nechako Northcoast Construction in Terrace, and they had concerns about the road between Kincolith and Greenville. It's breaking up along the edges, and it's narrowing the surface along the river. They're concerned about the safety of the kids.

Basically, Nechako said it was the ministry's responsibility. Again, I got this letter. I don't know if it's been forwarded to your ministry yet. It went to Don Ramsay up in Terrace, but just to bring to your attention that there are concerns about busing and school kids early in the morning and what's happening on the highway there. I hope we can keep that high on the list of priorities, especially in the Nass Valley.

I'm sure you have met Karl Osmers down in Bella Coola or got responses about the Bella Coola highway. He asked me if I could find four surveys for alternate routes connecting Bella Coola. He said that in 1971-1972 Fred Lewis did an extensive one. I've had some of our staff look for it, and I can't find it. I'm just wondering if the ministry could take a look through their files and see if they can find something from Fred Lewis in 1971 about that route.

Hon. K. Falcon: In speaking to one of my staff who's familiar with the alternative study that the

member talked about that was done in the '70s, the issue there was enormously expensive with apparently very significant environmental impacts. As a result of that, it was shelved. Though it could be found, it would involve searching off-site and going through an enormous amount of work that I don't believe would really be in the best interest of folks, unless the member wants….

G. Coons: That's what we assumed — that it was off-site. In conclusion to this, I'd like to thank the minister and his staff. I did talk about the roads, and on the north coast we don't have that many roads. We have probably 200, maybe 250 kilometres of roads — a few in Bella Coola, a few on Haida Gwaii, not many in Rupert and close to Stewart. But there were concerns, and I mentioned in the House to the minister about concerns around Highway 37.

I just want to mention Les Deacon-Rogers from Seaport Limousine. I talked about the concerns up there before, where he travels that road daily. There were concerns up there.

Also, I just wanted to mention what Bruce Charles of Arrow Transport, who runs large trucks carrying ore from Huckleberry and gold from Eskay to the port in Stewart, has also said on record. He says that the provincial government should maintain the road into Stewart. It either needs money, or the Transportation Minister isn't keeping a close eye on the contractor.

It's not just a willy-nilly person driving down the road around Stewart. It's somebody who's driving it daily — somebody with big trucks. There is a concern, so I hope the minister and his staff look into the situation and make sure that rural highways are kept to the standards that we need them.

In conclusion, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 26

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
Kwan	Ralston	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy

	NAYS — 36

Falcon	Coell	Chong
Christensen	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad


	YEAS — 36

Falcon	Coell	Chong
Christensen	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Hawkins
Bennett	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad

	NAYS — 23

S. Simpson	Fleming	Ralston
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Gentner	Routley	Horgan
Lali	Dix	Trevena
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Austin
Chouhan	Wyse	Sather
Macdonald		Conroy