Hansard — Monday, March 26, 2007 a.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


Tabling Documents		6359
	Office of the Auditor General, report No. 11, 2006-2007, Infection Control: Essential for a Healthy British Columbia

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6359
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)
	Hon. S. Bond

Tabling Documents		6359
	Major capital project plan for Surrey out-patient hospital

Private Members' Statements		6359
	An integrated strategy to cut emissions, obesity and inactivity
	D. Cubberley
	R. Sultan
	Steelhead
	R. Sultan
	R. Austin
	Insurance premium tax
	C. Wyse
	J. Rustad
	Child safety as a priority
	I. Black
	C. Trevena

Motions on Notice		6368
	Road maintenance (Motion 44)
	D. Chudnovsky
	J. Rustad
	L. Krog
	D. MacKay
	N. Simons
	L. Mayencourt
	C. Trevena
	H. Bloy
	N. Macdonald
	A. Horning
	G. Coons
	C. Wyse

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present report 11 of the Auditor General, 2006-2007, Infection Control: Essential for a Healthy British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased today to introduce Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007. This new legislation delivers on government's throne speech commitment to introduce education reforms that focus on improving quality, choice and accountability, so we can improve student achievement throughout British Columbia.

Under the legislation, school boards will focus on student achievement. Accountability contracts will be replaced with achievement contracts. Boards must prepare achievement reports. Superintendents of achievements will help school boards reach their achievement goals.

The district superintendent of schools will now be responsible to school boards for student achievement. The name of school boards will be changed to boards of education to reflect a broader mandate for early learning and literacy. School boards must develop district literacy plans. The capacity to create new provincial demonstration schools will be broadened.

The province will provide increased avenues for parents who are dissatisfied with a district ruling concerning their child. The legislation will also enable school boards to offer specialty academies at an additional cost and to charge fees for trades equipment and musical instruments for a student's personal use.

In addition, however, school boards must have a policy to ensure that students who cannot afford to pay fees will still be able to participate. Core curriculum for courses leading to graduation will continue to be offered free of charge.

These legislative changes support government's goal to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction in North America.

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 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) 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. G. Abbott: In accordance with section 14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I am tabling a major capital project plan for the Surrey out-patient hospital.

D. Cubberley: The 2007 throne speech identified a dramatic new target of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by one-third of current levels by 2020. That's 10 percent below our 1990 levels, a even more ambitious target than California's.

How we will get there hasn't been set out, but change must begin now. The target is huge, the scale of change required is transformative, and we have only 13 years to get the job done. What are we to do?

The 2005 throne speech identified five great goals, one of which was to make B.C. the healthiest, most physically fit society in North America. How we will get there still hasn't been mapped. Efforts to date are puny, and the incidence of type 2 diabetes is soaring, pushed by persistent weight gain and physical inactivity. The target is demanding, the scale of change required is transformative, and we are only three years away from 2010. What are we to do?

Both goals were unveiled with a sense of urgency about the imperative to address problems that threaten human health and well-being and our environment. The 2007 throne speech says that no priority is "more important than the critical problem of global warming and climate change." It says that little has been done to seriously address the problem and that it is literally threatening life on Earth as we know it.

It notes rightly that voluntary regimes haven't worked and states categorically that in 2007 "B.C. will take concerted…action to halt and reverse the growth in greenhouse gases. The science is clear. It leaves no

room for procrastination. Global warming is real." It says that to achieve the planned reduction, we'll need to be focused and relentless in its pursuit.

To date we've seen little that would meet the new test, only an energy plan trying to be both green and brown at the same time. What would concerted, focused and relentless action look like if government meant to act now and act deliberately? What if there were a strategy that would enable B.C. to meet both its goals by means of bold, committed intervention by government?

What if the same actions served to address both challenges — one to our survival as a species, the other to our future as a society healthy enough to survive as a species? What if it weren't possible to reach either goal without doing these things? Then it would seem to argue that it must be a priority for focused and relentless action.

The good news is that there is. It isn't even that difficult to do, but it does require clear vision, political commitment and sustained new investment to address an enormous current infrastructure deficit. And time is tight.

The priority action is to invest in a massive expansion of active transportation infrastructures in all our urban areas — transit, walking and cycling. All of these require dedicated infrastructure to flourish, all are currently stunted in comparison to what Europe demonstrates is achievable, and all can only be expanded through sustained public investment.

No amount of emission trading credits or other Ponzi-type climate change scheme will get the job done. What role do we need active transportation to play in addressing climate change in B.C.? Forty percent of our greenhouse gas emission load comes from mobile sources, the biggest and fastest rising of which is the private automobile. To meet our provincial reduction targets, we need to more than double the current share of travel for each mode in every B.C. community.

To grasp what that means in practical terms, let's use our largest population centre as an example. A business-as-usual scenario for the GVRD — i.e., all the rapid transit projects underway, plus the Gateway project — would see total greenhouse gas emissions rise from 5.5 million tonnes to 6.5 million tonnes by 2020. Now, that's a whopping big increase in the wrong direction.

To meet the Premier's new green commitment of a one-third reduction over today's level by 2020, 13 short years away, you have to reduce the 6.5 million tonnes projected for 2020 by 45 percent — 45 percent in 13 years. The clock is ticking, and so far no one is talking transit.

I'm sure some believe that new technologies from smart cars to hydrogen highways are going to get us there. Think again. At best, new technology will give us 10 percent of the required reduction. The rest, 90 percent, has to come from changed behaviour, and that requires unprecedented investment in low-carbon infrastructures — infrastructures that support transit, walking and cycling.

TransLink planning director Clive Rock estimated that transit's share of travel in the GVRD will have to rise from 11.5 percent of trips today to about 30 percent in 13 years. He called that phenomenal — phenomenal, as in remarkable, unprecedented, hitherto unseen. That will mean increasing the number of transit trips from 165 million in 2006 to some 400 million — more than double what's being done today.

The good news is that it's doable, with senior government focusing new investments on transit, walking and cycling. The bad news is that the trend line is moving in the wrong direction, and this government is deeply invested in accelerating the business-as-usual scenario.

The Gateway project conceived before any commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will, as conceived, serve to move B.C. further away from its new green goal. Added highway capacity is inevitably governed by the rule of triple convergence, resulting in expanded SOV use from three principal causes. Some people choose it in preference to alternative routes, some shift back to peak-hour driving from off-peak driving, and some currently using transit or telecommuting will opt for car travel. The net result is that in painfully short order, new road capacity fills up.

Here's the dilemma. Your new capacity in transit from the Canada line to the Evergreen line will be more than offset by your new road capacity, meaning that all that investment won't turn the trend line in the GVRD and won't get any closer to the new goal. The trend line is actually to diminish the share of total trips taken on foot, by transit or by bike, by growing SOV use more quickly than these three.

The snapshot of your dilemma is that when population rises by 200,000 people in the GVRD, the population of cars rises by a higher number. That means that transit has to become a focus for our climate change strategy for this government.

R. Sultan: I'm delighted to respond to these remarks tying together the important subjects of transportation strategy, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, exercise and our mutual quest to reduce childhood obesity from, indeed, the former Deputy Chair of the select standing committee with whom I've worked very closely to address many of these selfsame issues.

I'm delighted to see him raise once again the issue of the need to get people out of their automobiles and onto bicycles and into their running shoes as one means of extending the life of this new generation coming along, because it is in fact a vital issue.

But there are few little niggling details that I would point out to the member in terms of some of the more provocative statements he's made. Namely, how does he square his comments on this government's approach with what the MLA for Nelson-Creston and former senior cabinet member in a previous government representing those opposite said in a letter to his constituents: "The

NDP has no idea what to do about climate change or its implication for socialist principles"? Now, that was a bit of a mouthful.

R. Sultan: In any event, I endorse the member opposite's views concerning the need to integrate our….

Deputy Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, would you take a seat, please.

I have asked that no comments be made from the chair and that we allow the member to make his statement. There is no using of first names in the House, Member, which is what is required.

R. Sultan: As I was saying, I endorse the need to integrate transportation strategy with the need for greater exercise. I would like to point out that, in fact, we have begun to make considerable progress in this regard in my own riding along two dimensions.

Over the weekend the Minister of Transportation released a study which engaged two years of engineering consultation by Urban Systems and a contract that I had strongly encouraged to look at the issue of trying to get cars from the Lions Gate Bridge up to the Upper Levels Highway.

MOT came back with a report that was quite illuminating, saying that we can move the queues around, and we can change the lineup configuration in terms of access to Lions Gate Bridge. But at the end of the day, there are only so many cars in a particular day or time of day that can get across the bridge, and we are at capacity. So we will do nothing about people's access to the downtown, and therefore — this is the punch line — we must look to public transportation as the means of increasing the people-carrying capacity of that particular bridge.

I think this is a strategic moment in the life of the North Shore — to have the Ministry of Transportation, the blacktop and pavement guys, come along and say: "We've run out of capacity, and we're going to have to look to mass transit in the future for further growth in capacity for people to get from the North Shore to downtown Vancouver."

I think that's a remarkable tipping point in our affairs. I am also encouraged that the Minister of Transportation strongly endorses that point of view, which is quite contrary to the way he has been portrayed in some quarters.

The second pivotal event on the North Shore which addresses the issues raised by the member opposite concerns the enthusiastic endorsement by all three North Shore communities and indeed the two North Shore first nations for the spirit trail project of this government, which — depending on how the applications are now sorted out, and they're in the process of being evaluated now — will result in, we believe, greater investment in bike paths on the North Shore, further encouraging people to get out of their automobiles and get some exercise.

This will not only have public health benefits but obviously will further address the issues that the standing committee dealt with in terms of encouraging greater exercise. So on these two cases, I think we are refuting some of the points made by the member.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the member opposite's comments, and I take them to heart. I think that the government can be commended for those investments it is making in public transit. But I believe government is nowhere near making enough investments to even deal with the challenges of congestion, let alone begin dealing with the challenges of climate change.

There's no defined way, for example, to plan, build and operate an LRT system in a community like Victoria, no earmarked funding for developing low-carbon people-movers and no regional authority with dedicated revenue streams that could bring this about in the way, for example, that there is in a city like Portland or even in Vancouver where TransLink — created in the dark days of the '90s — allows that to happen.

You know, it's good to keep in mind that of every dollar in tax collected in Canada today, 92 cents is divided between the provinces and the federal government, with just eight cents to run everything that cities do and no source of revenue that actually grows with the economy — just property tax. This cannot work as a way of financing expanding investments in rapid transit or in walking and cycling infrastructures on the scale that is required.

Farebox revenues from transit properties account for about 61 percent of total operating costs already, and the Minister of Transportation wants to increase the amount of revenue coming from the farebox under TransLink in Greater Vancouver. Municipalities have to cover about 94 percent of the shortfall in operating revenues, and there are no defined formulas for funding the investment in new transit systems.

In the United States under George Bush, federal and state governments pick up 30 percent of operating costs, and the federal government alone still funds 50 percent of new transit investments. Canada and the provinces stand alone among advanced nations in not investing in low-carbon infrastructures.

We need to draw some lessons from other places like Europe, where very high percentages of people walk, cycle and use transit to get around. Denmark and the Netherlands achieve over 40 percent of their urban trips on foot or by bike, and in both, walking and cycling are supported by extensive rapid transit.

If we compare modal choice by age, in North America people are highly car-dependent and become more so as they age, taking fewer and fewer trips on foot or by bike. In Europe the opposite is true. People under 75 walk and even cycle more as they age. The

Dutch and the German elderly make half their trips either by walking or by cycling, and the sole difference is the availability of low-carbon infrastructure supporting those choices.

Germany engineered a transport modal shift by investing in bike lanes in cities. We can do the same thing for walking, cycling and transit in B.C., but it requires government commitment in order for us to get there.

R. Sultan: I rise today to bring the attention of the House to the plight of British Columbia's steelhead. These magnificent fish, a member of the trout and salmon family, are renowned for their size, strength and capability — a true British Columbia icon.

My interest in steelhead goes back to the '20s and '30s when my uncle was one of the pioneering steelhead anglers on the wild and wonderful Coquihalla River. As a section hand on the Kettle Valley railroad, my uncle propelled his handcar from Hope to Lear through what are now called the Quintette Tunnels looking for hazards an hour ahead of the steam engines hauling lumber to the coast.

In his spare time he fished for steelhead. In later years he encouraged me to emulate his adventures, climbing in and out of the canyons by rope. I found the fishing fascinating and the tunnels terrifying. Things sure have changed since the riskier days of my youth.

One of the most unfortunate changes is the depletion of wild steelhead populations on the Coquihalla and elsewhere in this province. Ever since the days of Roderick Haig-Brown, abundant British Columbia steelhead have etched themselves in the hearts and minds of outdoor enthusiasts from around the world, who trek to our province even today to enjoy this unique angling experience.

However, from California to Kamchatka wild steelhead stocks are in serious decline, and human activity is one of the major reasons. Major watersheds supporting steelhead include the Skeena, the Bulkley River, the remote Dean, the Thompson near Kamloops, the Fraser including the Vedder-Chilliwack, and Vancouver Island's Cowichan, Stamp, Gold and Campbell Rivers.

Steelhead can also be found about 200 metres from my office in West Vancouver in the Capilano River, which gives its name to the riding that I represent, and also in the Seymour, a few miles down Burrard Inlet.

Our steelhead are categorized into three distinct groups, all with similar life histories. Spawning occurs in the rivers in either late winter or spring. Eggs hatch in the spring or in the summer. Recently hatched steelhead stay put, living in fresh water until they are mature enough to migrate to the ocean. Juvenile steelhead usually reside in fresh water for two or three years in southern B.C. waters and four or five years in the colder northern waters.

These juvenile steelhead, or smolts, are very territorial, and there's an upper limit to the number that can survive in any given habitat. Water chemistry, nutrient levels, temperatures and the complexity of the available stream terrain set an upper limit on smolt abundance. I emphasize this because the steelhead's complex relationship to its environment is a key indicator of a river's health or well-being.

An example of this is the Capilano, recently dubbed the second most endangered river in B.C. largely because of its depleted steelhead stock and indifferent management of water flows by the GVRD. But the Capilano is really not much different from many streams in the Georgia basin.

Once steelhead migrate to the ocean, their duration of ocean residence also varies. Some stocks return after three or more winters abroad, while others spend only two years at sea. Returning steelhead are truly magnificent — large, muscular and aggressive. They've survived the most complicated life history of all salmon species on the Pacific coast. They are aquatic Olympians, travelling faster and further at sea than any of their North American cousins. They are not programmed to die after spawning but return to the sea again and again.

Despite their strength and endurance, steelhead are threatened. The majority of the 525 streams that produce steelhead in our province have populations ranging from dozens to a few hundred. Let me repeat that. Most of the stocks of steelhead in any river may be counted at hundreds of fish, at best, all the way down to a dozen or so at worst. In fact, the entire population of wild steelhead is estimated at barely more than 300,000 fish in the entire province. When you consider the vastness and relative wildness of our river systems compared to the rest of the world, this is a frightening decline from the abundance of the past.

The issue of conservation is therefore important. Although there's debate about when stocks began to decline, there's no doubt that significantly reduced numbers commenced about 15 years ago. Three reasons are readily apparent: the growing impact of human activity, resulting in degraded watersheds; secondly, lower ocean survival rates. Years ago, for 100 smolts going to sea, ten or 15 returned. Now we're fortunate if we get two or four. Experts blame climate change and warmer oceans. Finally, there are the anglers. Modern anglers are much more efficient at catching steelhead than they were when I fished with my uncle. With new technology and easier access, even the strongest steelhead are no match for today's sport fishermen.

It's therefore clear that we need to take a more active role in protecting and restoring B.C.'s wild steelhead. A group of us, which I'll comment on further in a few moments, are hoping to organize a conference in June to bring concerned citizens together — anglers, technical experts and MLAs — to help design a strategy to better preserve this wonderful icon of British Columbia, and we seek partners in this important endeavour.

R. Austin: I rise today in response to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, and I am very delighted

that he has brought this important topic to the attention of the House. As the member for Skeena and somebody who lives in a community that is at the heart of probably one of the last surviving great watersheds of the steelhead, I am also very worried and concerned as to what is happening with our steelhead population.

As the member mentioned, the steelhead belong to the family of salmonids that includes all salmon, trout and chars. Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout, a salmonid species native to western North America and the Pacific coast of Asia.

The term "anadromous" refers to the fish species born in the stream that migrate to the ocean for their adult phase. Steelhead are similar to some Pacific salmon in their life cycle and ecological requirements. They are born in freshwater streams, where they spend their first one to three years of life, and then emigrate to the ocean, where most of their growth occurs.

Many of the world's last great wild steelhead streams flow through the Skeena. The Morice, the Babine, the Sustut, the Kispiox and the Zymoetz are the destination for anglers from all over the world who travel great distances and spend large sums of money to do battle with what is widely considered the world's premier freshwater game fish, the summer-run steelhead.

As you heard, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano spoke very passionately about his experiences as a young man going fishing with his uncle. Unfortunately, I spent my youth fishing in the streams and rivers of England, where we did not have any steelhead. However, I have spent a great deal of time speaking to anglers since moving to Terrace 12 years ago, and it is true to say that of all of the sport-angling fish, the steelhead are the king.

Because they spend more time in fresh water before responding to an unfathomable primordial pulse and heading for the sea, Skeena steelhead often attain greater size than do steelhead from rivers in the south and central B.C. and the western United States. The world records for sport-caught steelhead have all been caught in Skeena rivers.

I agree with the hon. member that the difficulty here is to figure out a way to mitigate against human activity. In Skeena we still have the option to do that, as opposed to some of the rivers that the member mentioned, where a lot of industrial activity that happened in the '50s, '60s and '70s has had a very detrimental effect. I believe, therefore, that it's very, very important at this time that we take the resources and the time to recognize those rivers that still have a large wild steelhead population so that we can protect those rivers and that population from further predation.

I'd like speak for a minute and just introduce to the House a letter that was sent from the North Coast Steelhead Alliance. This was in response to the government asking for input prior to the budget that was just announced. They say:

I'm sure that the hon. member opposite will agree that part of our problem is to put some of the resources back into managing these fisheries and — within all of the budgets and all of the demands that the government has — figuring out a way to protect the wild steelhead. It's estimated that they bring in $50 million in tourism to British Columbia. That's not a small sum of money.

Remember that these people come from all over the world to fish here in British Columbia. I believe that it is definitely worth investing a small amount of our resources in order to protect such a wild fishery and also something that is symbolic of British Columbia. The steelhead, as I say, is the king of fish.

R. Sultan: I'm delighted that the member for Skeena's views and my views coincide on so many vital dimensions of this issue. It is a trait of this province that I think universally we can all agree on. Certainly the Skeena is one of our truly remarkable existing rivers of abundance, and I agree completely that it must be protected.

My friend Al Lill, a former director of DFO, first educated me on many of these issues about three years ago. As I became more educated, I realized that few people, including myself, were aware of the magnitude of the issue which I brought forward and which the member for Skeena has so capably addressed. That's why I recruited a group of like-minded MLAs. We've formed something we informally call the steelhead futures caucus — unpaid but concerned, and made up of government MLAs with steelhead rivers in their ridings, including those from Nanaimo, the North Shore, the interior, the lower mainland and northern B.C.

We've set ourselves several goals. Our first priority is to become educated on the issues. On this, Ministry of Environment officials — notably Craig Wightman, but I could mention many others — have been particularly helpful. I cannot think of a group of officials who epitomize the high standards and dedication to important causes than the people I've encountered in the Ministry of Environment, on this issue in particular.

The second priority is to get MLAs and ministers into the field and into the water. In this regard our

Minister of Environment has participated in an underwater snorkel survey of the Coquihalla, and so have I. We're here to say that this has not had the fatal outcome that some had predicted.

A third priority is to educate the broader public. Most of you have probably heard of Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia. Don't expect to learn much about steelhead on Wikipedia, not yet, but wait a couple of weeks. We're about to change that.

A fourth priority is to meet the stakeholders, most of them vastly more knowledgable and experienced than we are: fish and wildlife groups, non-government organizations, anglers and fisheries conservation foundations.

A fifth priority is to advocate for the no-kill provincial sport-fishing policy for wild steelhead. That policy will take effect later this year. The excitement from steelhead fishing — a scrappy, strong, difficult-to-catch fish — comes from the hunt and not from the kill. Our caucus firmly believes that all anglers should abide by the catch-and-release policy.

A sixth priority is to see the $21 million living rivers trust fund extended and, through these means, ensure that steelhead are around for a long, long time.

C. Wyse: Today it is indeed my pleasure to rise in the House to present a case for a more justified use of the present insurance premium tax. I wish to very briefly discuss the history around this tax that goes back over the last 85 years. When we look upon that review, we will hopefully understand the need for this type of review. I do emphasize that it is back over 85 years, to show that this is something that has evolved over a very long period of time.

Back in 1921 the fire insurance premium tax was set up to offset the cost of the office of the fire marshal to cover such things as fire investigations, training and code enforcement. Over time amendments have been made to that particular act to cover automobile insurance so that it is included in that tax, and also to add the entire property insurance that is charged across the province. Likewise, there had been a link between the tax and payment for fire insurance that has been severed.

To give some examples of the history of this, in 1982 the original fire insurance premium tax had its name changed to the insurance premium tax, which led, in 1988, to having that tax charged to the gross property and vehicle insurance, which in essence doubled the amount of tax that was then collected by this particular vehicle.

In 2004 there was an additional 0.4 percent added to that tax to cover the forest fire fighting responsibilities, which most of us in this House would agree is a provincial responsibility. With that insurance being set at 4.4 percent, in 2004 it raised approximately $300 million to cover whatever general revenue is covered here within British Columbia.

When we look at the original intention of this tax, fire prevention, we discover that only $2.3 million, or less than 1 percent of that tax, went to the office of the fire commissioner. Local government retains the responsibility to provide for fire suppression. The office of the fire commissioner duties have been transferred to local government — for example, safety inspections and fire investigations.

Property taxes collected by local governments in 2004 raised $336 million to provide for firefighting, safety inspection and fire investigation. The 1.7 million properties in British Columbia pay $4.5 billion in property taxes to provide for local government services. Remember that the property tax of $336 million for fire protection was in addition to the $300 million paid to Victoria, a tax originally intended for fire protection via the insurance premium tax. Both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Fire Chiefs Association do lobby for the return of this tax, remembering that local governments' primary source of income for providing for all services is property taxes.

In addition to this case, over a period of time provincial downloads to local governments likewise have occurred. Besides the area of fire protection, local governments are now responsible for planning for interface fire sets of conditions — a responsibility that a short while ago rested here in Victoria. In 1998 provincial grants were at $98 million to local governments. By 2004 those grants have shrunk to $37 million.

The policing costs for unincorporated areas and incorporated areas of communities of less than 5,000 have been passed on to local government. Water and sewer service responsibilities likewise have increased. At this moment it is once more important to emphasize that local government's primary source of revenue is the property tax.

As a result of this budget crunch, when we look at what happens to the provision of fire protection, we often encounter this situation throughout British Columbia. In the area of paid fire departments, a request for the increase of firefighters is regularly, frequently and often rejected, because property taxes cannot afford the necessary increases to fund that. In the voluntary fire department area, the request for adequate equipment to provide for fire protection likewise is frequently and regularly turned down, because property tax cannot cover those particular expenses. In fact in both sets of circumstances, cuts in services, deferred projects, layoff of staff and raising taxes for fire services is a common, regular set of circumstances that exist.

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at some other examples. Manitoba spends its 1.25 percent of insurance premium tax for a range of municipal fire departments. In the United States some states direct premium taxes to fire services, either directly to the municipalities or through state fire services. Legal opinions show that the deleterious effects of not funding fire services with this tax outweighs the benefit of the case of the money.

This tax discriminates against property owners. Others do not have to pay this tax, and it does not benefit those who pay it, as fire services are not funded by it. The question that I put in front of this House for

our consideration is: when a tax is collected from a defined group of people for a defined purpose, is there a moral obligation to spend the revenue on that purpose? That's the question that faces us here today.

J. Rustad: I'd like to thank the member for Cariboo South for bringing forward this topic of insurance premium tax. I have to admit, it's a tax I didn't know a whole lot about until doing a little bit of research around it, and I found it very interesting.

The actual history of it actually goes back before 1921 to 1911, under the fire insurance act, and has gone through quite a number of changes over the years. In recent times it not only includes fire insurance but also auto and life, as well as property and other taxes.

The amount of revenue that comes in from the insurance premium tax is pretty significant, but I want to point out a couple of things that revenue is used for. In particular over the last years, I'll just give a couple of examples. In 2005-2006, $127.5 million was spent on fire suppression in our forests, and that was funded primarily through the insurance premium tax. In 2006-2007, $118.5 million was spent on fire suppression work.

That also doesn't take into consideration the amount of work that is being done through the beetle action plan in terms of field management and mitigation issues. For example, we have a number of studies ongoing that are looking at the effects of the pine beetle and how fire patterns will change, given the drier conditions. There are also a number of strategies happening through the urban interface, which is about a two-kilometre range around communities.

The provincial strategy threat assessment was completed in 2004 and has mapped 1.7 million hectares of land in and around B.C. communities that may require treatment, including 460,000 hectares which may be affected by the pine beetle.

A strategy has gone forward in terms of working with UBCM and local communities. The data we had was provided free of charge to the community wildlife protection plan. Some 70 local governments have either completed or are preparing such plans through a provincial partnership with UBCM. We're also working with the First Nations Emergency Services on fuel management.

All of these things cost money, and that money is coming from revenue that is being generated from IPT. Beyond that, nearly $23 million is also being invested in fuel management treatment over three years, particularly looking at priority areas.

On the tax issue I have to look a little bit…. The member has suggested that only $2.3 million is being spent, and clearly that's a false assumption. That doesn't take into consideration the entire range in terms of firefighting efforts.

The other thing I find interesting is that the member also mentioned in the Manitoba example that 1.5 percent of the taxes were going back into fire suppression. If you look at the revenue that's coming from the insurance premium tax and at the percentage that's being collected, we're actually spending more than the 1.5 percent that Manitoba is, with regards to fire suppression efforts.

I find it interesting, as well, the argument that the member is making. The member is making the case that taxes that are being collected should be spent. Well, the taxes that come into general revenue are being spent on hospitals; they're being spent on education; they're being spent on health care services and social services.

I'm wondering what exactly would the member suggest we cut in order to put additional money into fire suppression efforts. I mean, we've put in a lot of money, and we've obviously made some significant efforts around fire suppression and are doing some good work. Clearly the member is suggesting that we should be taking some revenue from somewhere else and doing that.

Or is the member suggesting that perhaps we should be raising taxes? After all, this is the member who stood up and actually voted against a 10-percent tax reduction, who voted against $120 million in PST changes and relief. You know what, Mr. Speaker? The member has an opportunity following me to stand up and say: "I actually stand for higher taxes. I believe that the people of this province should be paying higher taxes." Clearly, from what the member is suggesting, we should be spending more dollars, and those dollars have to come from somewhere. They have to come from tax revenue.

If the member would like to go back to what they did in the 1990s…. When you look at all of the tax increases, there are literally pages and pages of increases throughout the '90s on small issues that came forward, including increases to the PST, increases to alcohol and tax, motor vehicle. On just about anything that people do, taxes were raised in the 1990s. That compares to what we have done when we tried to provide some tax relief for the people, because we believe that it's far better that people have some dollars in their pockets to be able to do things and to be able to help spur the economy than to choke off the economy through high taxes and extra service fees.

J. Rustad: With that, I want to thank the member for Cariboo South for bringing this forward and for this interesting debate.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure to acknowledge my colleague opposite. The debate here isn't on taxation and its spending. The debate is on collecting taxation for one particular use and then spending it on another.

I would refer to the B.C. Liberals' New Era document. One goal is to "provide the most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada" with responsible, accountable management of your public resources and tax dollars and a community charter that outlaws provincial government offloading of costs onto municipal governments. It is with that that we are into this discussion. It

is in the interest of all British Columbia municipalities and taxpayers to have the insurance premium tax repatriated — that is, returned to its original function of providing for fire services at the local level.

The debate earlier by my hon. colleague was around a provincial responsibility for fire suppression. Despite facing increased financial pressures, no municipality can, in all conscience, cut back on fire protection services. There is a solid case for returning revenue from the insurance premium tax to municipalities for fire services based upon three points: the insurance premium tax's historic link to funding local fire services and, alternatively, the lack of justification for such a tax without that link; the shrinking provincial funding to municipalities, despite the downloading of additional fire service responsibilities; and the questionable ethics of double-taxing residents, ostensibly for the same service.

In conclusion, property owners and insurance companies are being taxed twice for the same service. A more equitable sharing of B.C. insurance premium tax must be found, and that is a responsibility that rests here amongst all of us in the House. With that and in closing, I would rest the case for a review for the use of the insurance premium tax that has evolved over a very long period of time.

I. Black: For the past year I've been canvassing the views of emergency room physicians, first responders and vehicle safety experts. The goal has been to gauge support from the true experts with respect to our 22-year-old laws in the area of child passenger safety — more specifically, to canvass a proposal to make booster seats mandatory for children between the ages of four and eight. That campaign has been going very well, and the efforts continue, but it is a different area of child safety that has me rising to speak this morning.

Today kicks off Education Week in B.C., and I thought I'd consider, for a few moments, initiatives of our provincial government that represent important pillars in the ongoing provision of a safe school environment for all children in British Columbia.

I'm very proud of the efforts of my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard and of his relentless support for anti-bullying policies in school districts. Anyone who has ever been the victim of bullying — which I was for years — knows the relief of something as simple as safely walking in the front door of your own home unharmed or of having certain kids stay on their own side of their street, or that awful feeling in your stomach when you realize there's a substitute teacher for the day who may not understand the subtleties of the classroom chemistry. It's an extraordinary, isolating feeling.

Now, we can't legislate against mean people; we know that. But advocating for policies to make school boards and schools face the issue, deal with it when it's discovered and help prevent it has raised awareness in our communities. With its mention in our recent throne speech, I'm hopeful for some meaningful change.

We are, of course, very proud of our public education system and of its thousands of hard-working and dedicated teachers. Like this job, it's not a job for everybody. Teaching is a job requiring physical stamina, the ability to connect with a wide range of kids, commitment to ongoing self-improvement and often significant emotional investment. It's a profession where the truly gifted and passionate really do stand out.

The opposite, unfortunately, is not true. In a profession that involves ongoing, close contact with young people, the least desirable can often hide undetected. As with bullying, while we can't control human behaviour through legislation, there are steps we can take — steps we must take — to fulfil our responsibility to provide all students in British Columbia with a safe learning environment.

With the announcement in the throne speech of our intent to form a teacher registry aimed at identifying for employers the history of any teachers disciplined for misconduct involving emotional, physical or sexual abuse, we have responded to individual parents, school trustees and the PACs and DPACs throughout the province who want every reasonable step taken to safeguard our children and the public school system itself. This is the focus of the rest of my comments this morning.

We all know that all but the smallest percentile of those working in our public education system would never dream of harming a child. Unfortunately, there are people out there who do not share the same set of values. We've seen this in high-profile cases recently in B.C. — some very recent, some historical.

I will not sully this House by mentioning the names of those exploiters of youth and the violators of trust, but you do know who they are. We must not ignore their conduct. As a father, I know I speak for all parents when I say that I would do anything to protect my children. We must do what we can to minimize the repeat of their actions elsewhere.

An employment registry for educators would allow prospective employers such as school boards to review the employment history of individual teachers. The misconduct tracked is only that which directly threatens the ongoing safety of our kids, a key element of parental concern.

Safeguarding our kids is not new. The majority of volunteer organizations that work with children — groups like the Girl Guides and Scouts Canada — require their volunteers to get criminal-record checks every five years. These organizations are committed to putting safety first, and they recognize that knowing the history of their volunteers is simply effective risk management.

As a coach of amateur sport, I'm subjected to the same RCMP check every two years, not five. As coaches we are warned as the deadline date approaches that we are not welcome at the field until this process is complete.

As a coach I have involvement with these kids two to three times a week during the season, thus far with constant and considerable parental presence.

Surely it is not unreasonable to expect our public school teachers, who have much more independence in discharging their responsibilities, to have at least that degree of review and, as the registry will deliver, to have any inappropriate actions documented for the serious contemplation of future employers. We've heard much in the media about recent transgressions of these exceptions to the rule and of how criminal convictions have led to the suspension or cancelling of a teaching licence, but this is reactionary. While certainly an appropriate move, it's after the fact.

In the case of multiple infractions, contemplate for a moment the reaction of a parent of one of the perpetrator's victims if they were to be given the chance to prevent their child from being a target. That's what this registry contemplates: keeping a teacher who has received discipline for specific inappropriate behaviours from being able to slip unnoticed from one district to the other, from one region of the province to the other.

There is nothing more paramount in our school system than the safety of our children. I believe that all in this House would agree with that. That is what this is all about.

The B.C. School Trustees Association is in favour of creating a teacher registry, as it will give school boards the ability to verify the full employment history of teacher applicants. Boards will be better equipped to ensure students are learning in a safe environment. They know the sad truth is that not everyone has the best intentions. This kind of inappropriate conduct does happen, and as a government, we need to do everything we can to protect our students.

We no longer operate under a veil of ignorance in this area. Thus, to take no action in a most basic manner in this sensitive and crucial area places us squarely in the shadow of abdication. If creating a teacher registry prevents even one student from being victimized, then it will be worthwhile.

C. Trevena: I am very, very happy to stand up and respond to the statement from the member for Port Moody–Westwood. He raises a very important point: the issue of safety within our schools, what happens to our children and who is responsible for them. It's something that I think we all recognize is very important.

I will touch on some of his issues. The lists that are going to be built and the registry that's going to be built I think do raise a few questions that will be discussed as we move along through the process, as legislation comes in. Obviously, we are going to need to know who is going to be paying for this, how much it's going to cost. Whatever the cost, we do have to make sure that our children are safe.

What's very interesting, however, is what the member for Port Moody–Westwood hasn't said in his remarks, and that is the safety of our children before they get to school age. We do have this blinkered view that as soon as a child is six they are our social responsibility, but before the age of six they're not really one of our responsibilities and can still be the responsibility of the family.

I think this is something that as a society and as legislators we have to be very aware of. We are looking at a broader picture here. We are looking at the issue of what's going to be happening to our children from year one, when parents are generally going back to work, through to the time when they are in an environment where there is greater protection and greater vetting.

We have at the moment some excellent child care centres in B.C., and we have some very dedicated workers. But I think everyone would have to recognize that there isn't a guarantee that our children are going to be safe. Only 13 percent of B.C.'s children are actually in licensed child care. Licensed child care does mean that there is a vetting there, that there is a procedure there that makes sure our children are safe.

If 13 percent are in licensed child care, that leaves us with 87 percent of our children who are not — 87 percent of our children who might be, and I'm not saying they are — in a very vulnerable position. I think we should really make sure that wherever possible we are protecting our children and making sure that that 87 percent are going to be safe.

Obviously, some of the children are going to be at home with parents or grandparents or whatever, and so will have that protection, but we have others who are being put in positions where they may be vulnerable. It's never, ever the intention of a parent to jeopardize a child. There is no question of that. But if you have a parent who needs to go to work, needs to find child care, needs to have a place to put their children, and they can't find a space in a registered licensed child care where that service has been vetted by the health authorities and where there is a system in place, they are going to put their child in a situation where the child may be unsafe.

This is one of the areas where unfortunately I think the government has made a major mistake by cutting the organization that is partly responsible for that vetting, the child care resource and referral centres. They are there to help child care operators ensure that they are meeting standards. They are there to help parents find high quality child care where it is available. By having cuts in those areas, I think we are putting our children at a greater risk than they need be.

As I said to start off with, I'm very pleased that the member for Port Moody–Westwood has raised this in the House. It is very important, but I think as in all issues of child safety, of the future for our children, of our children's education and the future of our society, we cannot just be looking at the ages of six to 18. We have to be looking at the ages of nought to six.

We've got to make sure that when we're looking at child safety, at children's education, at societal development, that age group is also included. With that, I'll conclude my remarks.

I. Black: I thank the member for her comments. I noted in her remarks a vote of caution about the teacher

registry, and given that we are an institution of democracy and that they fulfil an important role as opposition, those are fair enough. Some of the remarks of some of her colleagues, however, during the throne speech and budget reviews require a little more scrutiny, and I'd like to touch on those for half a second.

The member for North Coast dismissed the concern of child safety as expressed by parents of this province by characterizing the registry as "unnecessary." The member for Vancouver-Kensington characterized the registry as a mere administrative inconvenience, complaining about bureaucracy and forms. Notwithstanding that a simple database application, such as I suspect this will be, rarely creates administrative overhead, we think protecting our kids is worth a little effort.

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows characterized this basic safeguard as an attempt to "stigmatize teachers by a public reporting of their misdemeanours." Misdemeanours? This is not about parking tickets or city bylaw infractions. This is about preventing the repeated abuse of trust perpetrated by adults on impressionable and, in many cases, defenceless youngsters.

Once again, this NDP opposition leaves me wanting for a firm position. It seems they're opposed to this…

I. Black: …but we have yet to hear of any alternative plan. Once again, this time regarding something as basic as the screening-out of the, thankfully, rare individual who has already demonstrably crossed a line of ethical conduct, the responses leave me hungry for content, direction and a clear statement of their values.

Our values and beliefs are clear and specific. They're certainly there to be opposed, to be sure, but they are in plain sight. We believe in working alongside teachers who share the common interest in weeding out from their ranks the, thankfully, statistically small number of professional educators who frankly are not professional at all. This safeguard is clearly in their interest, and they know it.

We believe that taking simple and basic steps to protect our children is driven by parents of all political leanings and that this is one part of public education policy that is, quite frankly, above the political fray. We believe in providing school boards what they've asked for — the pertinent facts of "employment history" — before putting a teacher in front of a class, on a field trip or in a locker room.

We believe that we should implement a basic database of this crucial information that will withstand scrutiny with respect to privacy laws and the individual rights of our teachers. And we believe that teachers, both individually and collectively, share our view that safeguarding children from known offenders is a basic and solemn part of maintaining and enhancing their status as professionals.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 44 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

D. Chudnovsky: The motion that I'm putting on the floor and that is before us is:

It's traditional in this House for members to rise and say something like, "I'm very pleased to rise today, Madam Speaker, to speak on this or that," but I have to confess that I'm not pleased to rise today to speak about this motion. This is a motion that should not have to be put on the order paper.

I'm actually appalled that the motion needs to be put before this House, because it seems to me that fundamental to the work we do for the people of the province is making sure that the roads are passable, safe and maintained, that the snow is removed and the potholes aren't there. It is disappointing to me that the motion needs to be put before us at all, but it does need to be put before us.

We do need to improve substantially the road maintenance system in the province, and it's the government's responsibility to do that. It is a common and well-understood truism in British Columbia in 2007 that this work needs to be done. It is as well known to the members opposite as it is to us on this side.

I know and they know that they have received dozens and scores and hundreds of expressions of concern and complaint from the people of the province about the way the highways and roads of the province have been maintained. It's a common problem for us, and it's something we should look at together. It's something that we need to put our minds to and our will and energies to in making the situation better for the people of the province.

Now, why is it that the issue is of such importance? Why is it that when one lonely opposition critic takes a drive to look at highways maintenance in the province, he receives expressions of concern and complaint about highway maintenance from every corner of the province?

Why is it? Well, it's simple. It's because the highways and the roads have to be maintained so that people can get to work, visit their families and feel safe and secure in doing the everyday business which keeps this province going and makes it such a great place to be. So it shouldn't surprise us, in the context of inadequate highways maintenance — which is the situation that we are faced with now — that we would be hearing

from these dozens and scores and hundreds of residents of the province about their concern about inadequate maintenance.

Now the minister has said, Madam Speaker — and I know that you've heard him, and other members here have heard the minister: "Well, you know, it's a bad winter. It's a bad winter, and so you've got to understand that the snow's going to pile up, that the potholes are going to get deeper, that the road's going to get narrower. It's a bad winter."

But, Madam Speaker, I know and you know and others in this House know that it doesn't say in those maintenance contracts that we've signed with the maintenance contractors across the province…. There's nothing in the contract that says: "Keep the highways clear, except if it snows." In fact, it's when it snows that we can expect that the highway should be kept clear. The contracts are for maintaining the roads so that we can use them, so that the people of the province can use them and feel and be safe and secure.

So it's no answer, I would submit, to say: "It's a bad winter. The contract doesn't count. You have to cut them some slack." It's the situation that in the bad winters we need the kind of adequate highways maintenance that we deserve.

Finally, you'll recognize that I'd love to talk for hours about this issue, but my friend from Nanaimo has the hook out. So let me say one more thing before I finish, and that's about the structure of the contracts.

We've talked a little bit about that in this House. The minister has run as fast as he can away from the issue, but we need to talk about the issue of the performance bonuses because if the people of the province only knew that in every case except one in this province we are paying performance bonuses to the highways maintenance contractors, they'd be appalled.

The last thing I want to say before I close is that I have some sympathy for the highways maintenance contractors. The problem is that many of them have made errors and provided service that we would like to be better, but the problem is not with the contractors fundamentally. It's fundamentally with the government, which has cut to the bone highways maintenance in this province. That needs to be reversed.

We need, as it says in the motion, to improve substantially the system of road maintenance in British Columbia. I know that every member in this House agrees with that, and so every member will vote for the motion.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the member for bringing forward the motion with regards to highways maintenance. I found it interesting that he started off his speech by saying he's appalled to have to bring this forward. Well, first of all, that's the job in this House, obviously — to bring things forward.

I find it interesting that he chose to use those words because I want to talk a little bit about local in my riding. Back in the mid '90s, the late '90s, under the NDP's reign in this province, the amount of capital dollars being spent on roads was about $5 million, and that's from the Alberta border to Burns Lake and up and back and forth a little bit — $5 million. That is absolutely horrendous when you look at what was needed.

Now, the reason why I bring that up is that when you start talking about potholes — and the member was very eloquent about commenting about how many potholes he ran into — potholes are a factor of long-term maintenance and capital maintenance on roads. Where you have few dollars being spent, you get a structural deficit on the roads.

Today I'm pleased that we are, I think, somewhere between $30 million-$35 million being spent in my area in that road area in terms of overall maintenance and strengthening our roads. That is a key component towards improving the road condition, but the problem is we've got a huge deficit from underspending for many, many years that we're trying to catch up on.

I find it also interesting that he talks about road conditions and how the excuse of weather was used. I just want to point out that right now in my area around Prince George, it's once in 20 years of snow accumulation — once every 20 years. We actually saw the number of freeze-thaw cycles in this province up by 200 percent.

You cannot go around and fund for the absolute max every year, but what you need to do is you need to be able to provide enough to make sure the job is being done. Quite frankly, our crews, under some very challenging conditions, have gone out and done what I think is actually a pretty good job.

There have been some challenges. Sure there are. Of course there are. Any time you're at 200 percent above normal freeze-thaws and that much snow and accumulation time and time again, it's very challenging to try to keep up with that work. But I have to say that they have, on the whole, been out there trying to do the best job they can around this province.

The other thing we do, of course, is we actually monitor the work being done. We have 117 employees in every region of the province who are out monitoring the work that's done, checking on performance and the work that is happening. I find it very strange that the member would be criticizing this sort of thing. In particular, I'd like to suggest that instead of potholes in the road, it may have more to do with posturing during the current round of labour negotiations between the workers and the contractors that is going on. However, that's for the opposition to be able to expand on at one point.

When you look at the work in my riding, I've seen stretches of 65 kilometres done in one year in terms of the resurfacing work. Last year was 30 kilometres; this year was another 43.5 kilometres being done. That's just within my riding, and that's also just on the main highways. There's tons of work being done off highways in terms of strengthening the roads and improving the conditions.

If you sit down and compare our record to what happened in the 1990s, I think it's very clear that we have put a priority on that. We have been spending a lot more dollars than any previous government has done within our area.

Now, road maintenance is an easy thing to take a shot at because inevitably you have conditions where roads are deteriorating from the strengthening situation. But quite frankly, I am very proud of what we've been able to do as a government, where we're going and how we've been able to meet this serious challenge in our area.

Pine beetle has been significant on our roads. We committed $90 million — $30 million a year for three years — to try to help improve roads and maintain those roads. We're moving in the right direction, and it's clear by the people moving back that we are trying to make this place the best place on earth to live, to work and to play.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to follow the member for Prince George–Omineca trying to take us down the history-lesson trail once again, which is the common practice of the government benches.

I would remind him that we need to go back one more decade to the political predecessors of the present Liberal government, the old Socreds. Indeed, some of their members still sit in this House, including the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. When they privatized highway maintenance in this province, that started us down the road — no pun intended, given this morning's topic — to where we are today, which is the condition of B.C. highways never seen in decades, and certainly never seen in this province in the days of W.A.C. Bennett or Dave Barrett, when they were Premiers.

We're in this situation because in 1991, when my party came to power, we realized very quickly, given the fiscal mess — the largest deficit in B.C.'s history at that date — left behind by the political predecessors of this government, that it was impossible for government fiscally to take back direct control of highways maintenance. It should have been and is properly the job of government to ensure safety on the roads, to ensure that commerce can move smoothly and that British Columbia's economy can continue to prosper.

That's where the problem started. For that member to suggest somehow that the problems we see today are as a result of neglect in the '90s is simply without basis in fact.

The reality is we've got 117 public servants monitoring the mess handled by private contractors across this province who continue to get bonuses for doing in many cases what is clearly an absolutely inadequate job of protecting the safety of British Columbians on their roads.

This motion deserves support from every member of this House. The system of road maintenance in this province is nothing like it used to be. British Columbians don't feel safe. The truckers who have to work on the roads of our province every day don't feel safe. The people who drive the school buses that take our children to schools don't feel safe either. It's time this government owned up and faced the facts. They have let road maintenance go…. I won't use the term, but it has something to do with a handbasket, in any event.

The fact is this is the pothole province of Canada now as a result of government policy. It's time this government fessed up, put money back into road maintenance, got rid of private contractors, took responsibility for it and put it back under direct control. They should do the same with B.C. Ferries so that B.C. taxpayers can feel that they've got someone in Victoria who's actually going to step up to the plate and take responsibility for the mess that's out there on B.C. roads.

D. MacKay: Before I get into my comments on road maintenance, I just wanted to take the member for Nanaimo down the road. I want to take him to that warm place that he had mentioned — in a handbasket. I want to take him back a few years and remind him that under the previous government…. He talked about the debt that was left by the Social Credit government. I think that in just over nine short years they actually doubled the provincial debt. They actually doubled the provincial debt.

D. MacKay: Deficit. Thank you. I apologize to the members for the incorrect terminology.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Please let's listen to the member. Thank you.

D. MacKay: Slight difference. Yes, it was. I apologize to the members for that comment.

Let me just talk about the unprecedented winter that we've had up in the north. I notice that the member for Vancouver-Kensington is the one that brought this motion forward — a member who lives in the lower mainland. But I want to talk about some of the issues that we face in the northern part of our province as it has to do with snow removal. I can relate to that very well.

Almost every time that I've gone home from this House on a weekend on a Friday, on Saturday morning I'm up shovelling my driveway because of all the snow we've had. We've had a record snowfall this year. We're up to about 175 percent of normal. That means we're going to have problems down the road when it starts to melt. But we are at record levels. As the member for Prince George North spoke about, the unprecedented freeze-and-thaw cycles we've had up there have made the removal of snow that much more difficult.

On Tuesday of last week I had the opportunity to travel up to Stewart. Stewart is about four hours' driving time west and north out of Smithers. When I got up there, I was absolutely amazed at the amount of snow they've had. They have 27 feet of snow on the ground. The road was blocked in two particular areas because of avalanches that came down. As you're driving into

Stewart, you're looking up at the high mountain peaks because the snow continues to slide down these big slide areas.

I can tell you it was difficult keeping my eyes on the road because I kept looking up at the high mountain peaks on both sides of that particular highway — 27 feet of snow. That's a chore for anybody — to move snow. They don't use the belly pads or the front blowers. They use front-end loaders to move snow on Highway 37 at Bear Pass, where the snow was falling heavily as I drove in there six short days ago.

There are challenges. When I got into Stewart itself and checked into my motel, it was like I was driving into a tunnel. I sat in the motel room, and I couldn't look out the windows because the snow was so deep. That creates a lot of problems for snow removal. This is an unusual year, and yes, we've had some….

D. MacKay: It definitely was snow, to the member for Nanaimo. But this creates unprecedented snow problems for the snow removal people. You can't pay them based on an average year. This is an unprecedented year, and there have been problems with it. There have been challenges with it.

When that snow comes off those peaks and blocks those highways, it creates all sorts of problems. It creates lakes. The creek that runs down that valley actually backed up and created a lake. So there are lots of problems. How can you budget for an unprecedented snow load like we've had this year? It's extremely difficult.

I left Stewart Wednesday morning and started to drive out. You know what? It was still snowing. It was snowing heavily, and the snowplows were moving the snow back and forth. When I got up to Bear Glacier, it was snowing heavily, and there was no snowplow in front of me. Is that what we expect as we're travelling these northern roads — to have a snowplow in front of us? The snow is deep. The snowbanks were 12 feet high as I was coming out of the community of Stewart and driving back to my community of Smithers.

They've had some real challenges this year. As far as potholes, that road into Stewart was actually repaved — hot-in-place — a year and a half ago. The road was smooth. There was snow on the ground, and it was compacted because of the fresh snow that was falling as I drove in there. So there are challenges to snow removal this year. We can't argue that. We've got people that drive around on mixed tires. They don't have the same tires on the front or the back. That creates problems.

There are many problems faced by the contractors who are looking after our highways this year. I don't support the motion, and in fairness, I will yield the floor to the other members who wish to speak to this.

N. Simons: I'm pleased to stand here and support my colleague's motion that we need better maintenance on our highways. I want to just bring up the fact that I'm representing a rather southern riding in relation to Peace River, in relation to the Bulkley Valley. The road maintenance issues where we get maybe a foot of snow a year are deplorable, so I would just say that it's not all about snow and snow removal. It's partly about sand and gravel that washes on to the roads. It's partly about ditches that don't get trimmed properly, obscuring the vision of people coming out from their driveways onto the highway. It's about bicyclists who have to travel in the main roadway on a thin rural road because there's no alternative.

The edges of the highway are covered with sand or gravel or grass or glass or pieces of metal from trucks. This is a remarkably dangerous situation when you're talking about…. In my constituency we have about 175 miles, or about 230 kilometres, of road — perhaps slightly more than that — of maintenance contract highway that needs to be cleared for the traffic that has no alternative but to use that highway to go from Langdale to Lund.

The condition of that road has been called into question by numerous constituents who probably drive up and down that road when I'm over here in Victoria and see conditions that are even worse than when I get back there. They see, after a rainfall of inconsequential amounts, ditches overflowed. We've got culverts that aren't being cleared properly. And when it does snow, the plows that do exist seem to not really meet the needs of the constituents who I represent and who I hear from.

I know they have a difficult job, and I know they have trouble meeting the requirements of their contract, but when I hear Ministry of Transportation people telling me that it's going to be a decision on the Sunshine Coast between whether they do snow removal or whether they do brush-cutting at the edges of the highway, that's not acceptable to the constituents who I represent. It's not acceptable not because I want pretty little highways. It's because I want safe highways. I want highways that don't cause drivers difficulty because 90 percent of the little cats' eyes, the reflecting centre-line markers, are broken off. This is deplorable, and it requires the attention of this government.

The government recently, after the death of the sixth young girl in my constituency, agreed to improve safety. The day after the child's accident the ministry announced $1.5 million to improve safety. They call "improving safety" basically making sure that the highways are wide enough to meet the standard. That's not an issue of safety; that's common sense. To make sure that the reflective markers on the road are not broken — that's just standard maintenance. That should not require a decree from Her Royal Highness.

I think it's expected that our roads be maintained properly. I believe that all my colleagues have heard similar things from their constituents. It's not a partisan issue. Let's make sure that the contracts are appropriate. With that, I will cede the floor.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to the motion put forward by the member opposite. I'd like to begin by referring to the comments

of my good friend from northern British Columbia who talked about the 28 feet of snow — was it 28?

L. Mayencourt: It was 27 feet of snow. You know, Madam Speaker, no doubt we've had really freaky weather this year. We had windstorms. We had floods. We had big snowstorms and all of those sorts of things. These are events that no one could actually predict were going to happen.

What we have is a contracting system that has been in place since 1988, a contracting system that does include a period of time in which members opposite represented the government, when they were in charge of transportation. The idea of holding contractors accountable — I'm all for it. I really am. But you know what, Madam Speaker? They're already accountable.

I had the opportunity this past week to take the Cariboo connector. I started up in Prince George, went to Quesnel, went to Williams Lake, 100 Mile, Clinton, all the way down to Kamloops, and then I went from Kamloops all the way down the Coquihalla. Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that all along the way I saw traffic signs that were in place where they should be. I saw reflector guards where they should be. I saw roads cleared. I saw incidences where there were some frost heaves and what have you on the Coquihalla connector, and those certainly need to be repaired.

I have got to tell you, Madam Speaker, that when I was driving through that…. I can't remember exactly how many kilometres it is, but those highways are being maintained by good, hard-working people that I saw on the roadways making sure that everything was up to speed and up to whatever standard we have for the highway contractor. [Applause.]

I want to thank the member for West Vancouver–Capilano for encouraging me. Yes, thank you.

The other thing I noticed on my trip through there is that people in the communities were pretty darn satisfied. It wasn't an issue they were raising with me. I spoke in many of those communities, and honest to goodness, that wasn't what was on their minds. There were a lot of other things that they wanted to talk about, so we did talk about those.

The incidence of road maintenance or, actually, the provision of the road maintenance seems to be something that is satisfactory to a lot of people that live along the Cariboo corridor, a lot of people that live in Kamloops, a lot of people that live through the Coquihalla Pass. In Kamloops in particular, I've never seen better highways — great, great highways, wonderful condition.

I want to tell you that if I was driving down that highway and I saw something that was dangerous or unsafe or unacceptable to me as a citizen of British Columbia, I'd have picked up the phone, and I would say….

L. Mayencourt: Yes, I was actually in Gibsons, and the road was pretty darn good there as well.

L. Mayencourt: The point here is that we have access to the contractors. We have access to the Ministry of Transportation. If there are some reflectors that are missing or a guardrail that has been taken down, my goodness, Members, pick up the phone, call, and tell people what the problem is. Tell the people that are responsible for fixing it, and I can guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that they're out there fixing it.

I saw a lot of roadwork on the Coquihalla that was underway. I saw a lot of plowing that had obviously taken place before I went through. It wasn't really snowing that hard there when I went through. What I found is that there are fine, fine people working on the roadways to make sure they're safe for all British Columbians.

I'm concerned that we seem to be…. The members opposite have said that we're not holding these people to account. As some speakers have already said, last year — or rather this year — one of the Coquihalla Highway contractors was fined $168,000 for not fulfilling their end of the bargain. Now that's a pretty hefty thing. I mean, I certainly know that that got the attention of the contractor, and it meant that we had better control and more concentrated efforts on making sure that that roadway was safe.

I thank the people that are on those highways that actually tell us when there's a problem. I thank the people on those highways that fix them when they need to be fixed. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that if members opposite see something wrong with the highways, pick up the phone, call the minister, and we'll get on it with our contractors.

C. Trevena: I am very pleased to speak on the motion from my colleague from Vancouver-Kensington.

I'm very interested that the member for Vancouver-Burrard says that we should pick up the phone, that people should pick up the phone and call, because that's what's happened. I get lots of calls from people who actually do pick up the phone. When I take those concerns to the minister, I'm told: "Well, there is nothing we can do about it."

I'm going to take this debate a little beyond just the issue of snow clearance. It has been a bad winter. We have had lots of snow, and we've seen a lot of the issues that come with that. But I would like to talk a little bit about the general maintenance of the roads and the fact that in the North Island we have Highway 19, which is a fabulous road.

We've now got the inland Island Highway. It's a great connector. Then you go north, and it goes into a two-lane road up to Port Hardy. As you get up there, you notice that you're driving in tracks. You're driving in tracks because logging trucks have grooved the road. But there is no money for repairs.

You go to Port Alice on Highway 30. I was in Port Alice this last week and was talking to a first responder who said: "How are we supposed to help people in an ambulance coming along our 30-kilometre road?"

I'll try to describe the Port Alice road for members. The Port Alice road, Highway 30, is a Ministry of Transportation road. It's paved. It was a logging road, but it's paved. It still weaves in the same basic way that a logging road weaves. It hasn't been straightened out in many places. It dips, it cracks, and it buckles. It is a patchwork.

We have a growing community and industry in Port Alice, but a road that is deteriorating. Highway 19, a main road which connects many communities, is also deteriorating. Highway 28 is deteriorating.

These roads are deteriorating because heavy industry is using our highways. What would be very helpful when constituents do call me — I can put them on to the minister and ask them to call the minister as well, and I do call the minister on their behalf — would be to have some recognition that we do need our roads to be maintained to a high quality when we have heavy industry using our roads.

This is not an issue of our contractors. Our contractors are working within the limits that they have, and I know that the individuals who work for the contractors are working very hard. This is an issue of how we maintain our infrastructure, how we look after what holds our province together.

I often get the question: "We've got this network of logging roads around the north Island. Why aren't the logging trucks on the logging roads?" This is a question I have raised with the minister as well, because I do try to raise my constituents' questions with the minister. I haven't had much response.

I would like to say that we don't just look at the contractors when we're looking at this motion. We look at the infrastructure, what keeps our province together, and I would hope that all members support this motion.

H. Bloy: Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak today. I just want to let the House know that I will not be voting in favour. I'm opposed to this motion, and I guess there are a number of areas. I take exception to how they're challenging the contractors and the employees who have worked so hard under weather conditions this year.

You know, there is one point that I don't believe has been raised yet, and that's that the BCGEU is in union negotiations right now with all contractors around the province, including the one in my mainland area. But the union is focusing on the Coquihalla Highway in their negotiations.

We know how this opposition works. We know how their leader works. The union of choice of the day phones up the leader of this opposition or any of her members and says: "This is what we want." That's why the motion's up on the floor today. It has nothing to do with maintenance. It has to do with the flip-flop and ineffective leadership.

H. Bloy: You know, our government has spent more than double what any NDP government in the '90s did. This can't be about money when we've more than doubled anything that they ever spent when they had an opportunity to improve the roadways of British Columbia.

I can tell you that we're working constantly on striving the roadways in British Columbia. In my area the roadways are looked after by Mainroad. They've held the contract since 1988. They've been one of the best and most consistent providers of the best service available anywhere in the province.

There are a few things I wanted to say about Mainroad. I just want to let the public know what a huge area they have to look after and what they look after. They look after heavy, high-speed traffic routes. They look after freeways. They look after the border patrols, HOV lanes, international border crossings, ferry terminals, major bridges, swing bridges, counterflow situations at the Pitt River and the George Massey Tunnel, communication and traffic monitoring, traffic control, large stakeholder groups, local environmental issues affecting ditching programs and restrictive lane closures.

It's a huge area, and it's a huge job. These employees do such a fantastic job. This past winter we had heavy snowfall in densely populated areas which, yes, caused major traffic tie-ups. Drainage problems were caused by heavy rainfall. Slide areas in some of the eastern sections of the Lougheed Highway and in the UBC section service area. Flooding and debris buildup in drainways. Flooding in low-lying sections.

When you talk about Mainroad and what a great job we get from our contractors and from their employees…. Mainroad installed the first Cover-All salt storage facility in British Columbia, which has now become an environmentally preferred structure. In 1997 Mainroad formed a partnership with Mitsubishi Canada Ltd. and became the sole distributor of de-icing salt imported from Mexico. The salt is now PNS-approved and is considered to be the most effective de-icing sodium chloride product available due to its purity. Mainroad is self-sustaining in terms of the availability of salt in the winter season.

Mainroad implemented its program of anti-icing, prewetting and automated spreading applications in 1998. The program has expanded since and has become a major component of Mainroad's winter operations. Mainroad adopted the use of salt brine as its primary anti-icing liquid due to its effectiveness and availability. In view of the recent recommendations of Environment Canada, Mainroad is involved with its partner Mitsubishi on salt anti-caking agent alternatives to YPS and other performance-enhancing products.

I just wanted to talk about the great service that I get in my area in the riding of Burquitlam from our contractor Mainroad and its great employees. I want to reiterate that I am opposed to this motion. I believe that it's a union-backed motion, and it has nothing to do with the maintenance of the province. I'm proud of the workers that work in my area.

N. Macdonald: The interior rural caucus of the opposition asked the critic to put this forward as an issue, and any MLA who represents a rural area knows that there was an issue with highway maintenance this past winter. This year has been different from the last few, but it really represents a return to normal winter in the Columbia-Kootenay.

Repeatedly over the winter I've heard deep dissatisfaction with the level of maintenance of our highways. It begins with a motion from the regional district of the Columbia-Shuswap. It's from the chair and mayor of Salmon Arm, Mr. Bootsma, who wrote to the minister as early as December, saying that the contractors are not responding in a timely manner following snowfalls. The roadways have become difficult to drive on. They're dangerous, some even impassable.

You hear that again and again from individuals, and I have a whole host of e-mails. Other rural MLAs will have the same thing from individuals and organizations saying that the standard has to be better.

My riding is a large area with some of the most challenging highways in all of Canada to maintain. There is no question that it is a challenge. Weather can vary significantly, so in talking to residents, some parts of the riding seem adequately maintained while other areas have been unacceptably maintained.

I can tell you that the strongest views were expressed in Revelstoke, especially with concerns about poor maintenance on Highway 23, north and south on the Trans-Canada. The mayor of Revelstoke, who has worked tirelessly on highway safety issues, hosted a meeting of truckers, primarily, and then brought representatives to meet with me. I've had the chamber of Revelstoke come to meet with me.

I raised an issue here in question period where Tom Siddon, a former Mulroney Conservative Member of Parliament, phoned up and said that the highway conditions that we're being asked to drive on, forced to drive on, cannot be acceptable. This is not good enough. There are simply not enough plows on the road, and when that happens, people get hurt.

What happened this winter cannot be the standard that we accept. The idea that HMC or a contractor that does that sort of work gets a bonus…. I can tell you when that was sent back to Revelstoke, people were incredulous. They say: "How do people get rewarded for that sort of work?"

I do not want to leave the impression that I do not understand the challenges for contractors. The fact is that there is a shortage of drivers. These are highly skilled positions, and there are many, many people who want those drivers. You have huge projects going on in Alberta that will come and recruit these people, and there is a shortage of mechanics. But it nevertheless leaves a problem that is real. Anyone who denies there is a problem with highways maintenance…. They are wrong. I don't even think the minister believes that there's not an issue that they need to deal with.

I see two things that need to be done. Firstly, the standards that the minister sets need to be raised. What we do as MLAs is we phone in, and we tell people that they need to phone HMC or the contractor, and they need to be phoning the ministry. If they have a complaint, they leave it with us, but they also register it with those bodies, and they do. What they are told is that the highway they just drove upon that they were so appalled with actually meets standards. What I would say to the minister is that those standards have to be changed, because they are not good enough.

Secondly, you are inevitably going to have to look at the system that exists where you have underbidding of contracts. That seems inevitably to lead to road safety being compromised. The point that will be made is: "Well, that existed during the 90s." It's true, but there is an issue here that needs to be dealt with. At some point when you underbid, you get to a place where the standards are simply not going to be high enough.

I'm very pleased that our critic put this motion forward. I think anybody who represents a rural area is going to be voting in support of it.

A. Horning: I, too, am opposed to this motion. As you know, road maintenance was privatized in 1988 by the Social Credit government. Today we have a strong system of road and bridge maintenance that provides good value to taxpayers and is maintained by private contractors in 28 service areas throughout B.C. To ensure our provincial standards are met, the ministry monitors the work of the maintenance contractors in all 28 service areas by 117 ministry employees.

How do we compare our standards to other jurisdictions? Well, this is difficult because highways are classified differently. We have mountainous terrain, and other provinces don't. We are continually making improvements.

Let me talk about road maintenance in the Okanagan and in my particular area of Kelowna–Lake Country. Highway 97 goes through my riding. I have Highway 33 going to the Kootenays and past Big White. They are challenging roads. One of the most challenging roads that I have that people connect us with is the connector, the Coquihalla. Now, that road has challenging conditions. In the summertime you can have a snowstorm, but in the wintertime it's a treacherous highway, and the contractor on that particular road has a lot of work to do to keep maintaining it.

Last year, for instance, I can tell you that some of the contractors didn't do what they were supposed to do. We had a situation there where the ministry went after that contractor and fined him $168,000. Since then he's made changes, and everything is fine.

Another thing I want to say about the Coquihalla that people complain about is the gravel. On the Coquihalla, because it's so windy up there, gravel doesn't stay on the road. So one of the things that has to be done is that they have to have bigger gravel on there. In some cases they're little pebbles, and what happens? This, of course, is tough on windshields. That is a big complaint: they lose their windshields.

But safety is first, so what do they do? They have to put the bigger stuff out so the wind doesn't take it off. With safety first for the ministry, that is the bottom line. I just want to say that in my particular area we have problems at times. But if I have a problem, I just get hold of my maintenance department or the highways department, and they're right on it right away. So I have very little complaint, and when there are any complaints, they're dealt with promptly.

G. Coons: I support this motion. I find it encouraging that some of the members have travelled the roads and have found no problems or that they feel comfortable picking up a phone as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and making a phone call and getting some of their concerns looked after.

That's not what's happening across the province. I'm glad my colleague mentioned Columbia-Shuswap regional district and the Sicamous council, which had major concerns about highway and road maintenance.

Kitimat-Stikine. At the UBCM the regional district there had a motion a year and a half ago about ensuring that northern roads receive the adequate level of service to satisfy safety requirements. Apparently not much was done with that recommendation, because as we speak, there's a petition of over 5,000 signatures, and it's spreading, going around in Kitimat and Terrace in the Kitimat-Stikine regional district. They want to ensure that sufficient funding is available and an appropriate, transparent process is enacted to ensure proper performance as well as audits of the contractors, and they want safety to be a priority. They're calling it the Sand for Souls campaign.

Maintenance companies aren't following through on their commitments, and that's spreading in the north. That's a concern in rural areas. We need standards for rural roads that are different than the ones in the lower mainland and in the Okanagan.

I'm glad some people travelled around. I went to the Nass Valley this past week, and I travelled from Greenville to Kincolith on their road. They weren't potholes; they were craters. You could lose your first-born in some of those craters, and it's horrendous. It's horrendous travelling that. They've got emergency vehicles travelling that 30 kilometres' worth of road.

I took pictures. I'm going to distribute them to the Minister of Transportation for him to look at those pictures. They've got ambulances, fire, RCMP travelling those roads. They've got elders, and some elders are saying that they travel those roads to go to medical appointments two or three hours away, and they're returning because those roads are in worse shape than when they left. That's disgustful. That's shameful.

The Nisga'a school district had concerns about busing. They bus students along those roads. I travelled those roads, Mr. Speaker, and I took a good dozen pictures. I will give you personal copies of those. I'm not too sure how many first-borns were lost, but it's a shameful sight.

As we move along, we start talking, also, about Stewart. We had Seaport Limousine and Bruce Charles of Arrow Transport. They're travelling those roads daily, Highway 37, and they're in awe of the lack of road maintenance and the safety concerns. One of the quotes I had is this: "Some sort of ministry inspector had to exit his vehicle from time to time to see if the rough conditions had damaged his kidneys and if he was passing blood." Now, I find that atrocious to have to be able to say that in this House today.

As we travel along through the roads in the north, through rural roads, we need standards. We need accountability for contractors.

Again, I realize that our workers, our contractors, are doing the best that they can, but it's up to this minister and it's up to this government to ensure that rural roads are maintained to the standards that they need to be and that they are safe.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, noting the hour, I'm going to be very brief with the comments that I would like to bring to this House from the Cariboo.

The aspect that is facing us in this particular resolution is to improve substantially the system of road maintenance in British Columbia. We look back to the '70s, when every bridge was lost from Smithers all the way out to Prince Rupert during the flood of that particular year, yet within four days every bridge was replaced. Now, when we get into the 2000s, we get one bridge taken out and we're proud that it's replaced in four days. There's the comparison.

From the Cariboo at the beginning of the snowfall season we have reports from Ministry of Transportation of 12 to 15 roads in non-compliance being identified. Likewise, in January, a few months later, we find ranchers and loggers complaining about the logging trucks that can't travel on the roads safely, and these are straight stretches of road.

Mr. Speaker, recognizing the time and staying on the issue, the motion calls for improvement in the delivery system, a system that had funding taken out of it in 2002 with a 10-percent reduction in the contract prices that were given. With that, in closing, I'm sure this House will be voting substantially in favour of this particular motion.

Hon. B. Penner: I thank all members for their contributions this morning and move that the House do now adjourn.

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.