Hansard — Tuesday, March 27, 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


Petitions		6443
	B. Bennett

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6443
	Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)
	Hon. S. Bond

Petitions		6443
	J. McIntyre

Committee of the Whole House		6443
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)
	L. Krog
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	Hon. K. Krueger
	J. Horgan
	C. Evans
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	N. Simons
	J. Brar
	Hon. C. Richmond

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6455
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Chudnovsky

B. Bennett: I have a petition from about 1,300 people in my riding who don't have cell service and who would like to have cell service. They've all signed a petition.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to introduce Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007. This act meets our election platform and throne speech commitments to establish a registry, administered by the B.C. College of Teachers, to publicly report the names of teachers disciplined for misconduct involving emotional, physical or sexual abuse.

These amendments to the School Act, the Independent School Act and the Teaching Profession Act will also establish an employment registry for school boards and independent school authorities to verify the employment record of teachers. The amendments will clarify the duty to report any suspension or dismissal; any conduct or competence in breach of the college's standards; and any discipline of a member of the College of Teachers, or a teacher certified by the inspector of independent schools, for misconduct that involved the emotional, physical or sexual abuse of a student.

The amendments set out the following: (1) what disciplinary actions should be reported, who should report and the consequences for failure to report; (2) what information should be included in a discipline registry and who should have access; and (3) what information should be included in an employment registry and who should have access.

These legislative changes deliver on government's commitment to ensure that B.C. students are safe and that school districts and parents can access information about teachers who have been disciplined for professional misconduct.

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 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 12; S. Hawkins in the chair.

L. Krog: Very conscious of the rules of this House, I simply want to commence by saying that I note that this is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act coming through the Ministry of Attorney General. I think all members of this House wish the Attorney General very well in the present circumstances.

C. Trevena: I have a couple of questions about section 6, the Child Care Subsidy Act, which has already been described in the popular media as setting up a snitch line. Firstly on section 6(a), I would like a clarification where it says replacing "that person" with "that person or another person." I would just like a clarification on what that means.

Hon. L. Reid: Today the act is very restrictive. It only allows that information to come from the applicant.

This allows for the information to come from individuals other than the applicant.

C. Trevena: I wondered what other individuals might be providing information about subsidy and about the income status of an individual who is applying for subsidy.

Hon. L. Reid: With respect to the member's question, it doesn't relate only to income status. It certainly allows information to flow, and information has flowed in the past — unable to be utilized but has flowed — from neighbours and from other child care providers who know that individuals in question are not, in fact, delivering services perhaps to the number of children they claim to have in their facility at any one time. So that kind of information is certainly available. We now will have the opportunity to put it to use.

C. Trevena: I just wanted to clarify, then, that this isn't just about child care subsidy — those who are receiving child care subsidy. It's also those who are providing the child care that this information will be gathered on, from your previous answer.

Hon. L. Reid: The information is about the recipient of the subsidy, but it may indeed flow from providers. They may indeed know that a family is receiving a subsidy for a service at that particular time that they may not be procuring or be receiving an elevated subsidy for a service that costs less.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister whether the third party will be only the child care provider who will be providing this information.

Hon. L. Reid: The information can come from anyone. Certainly, I'll reference the member to section 6(b)(ii): "…the minister has not solicited the information from the person who provides it." So anyone is welcome to provide it. We simply are not in the business of soliciting that information. This garners us the authority to act upon the information we receive.

C. Trevena: The issue of applying for any sort of subsidy from government is obviously quite sensitive to people. I wondered if there is any way that the ministry will be vetting those third parties who are providing information about someone who may or may not be utilizing a service for which they are claiming subsidy.

I ask this because I fear that it opens up the way for many malicious claims — somebody who has got a grievance against someone else and will claim that they are getting a service that they are not getting. I wondered what sort of guarantees there are going to be that there is some sort of vetting for individuals who are making these claims, making the allegations.

Hon. L. Reid: What this allows us to do is to go back to the applicant and ask them to verify the information we have received. That is our first course of action. Certainly, the member's sentiment is well taken.

There will be due diligence applied to how we go forward. Certainly, our challenge as government is to ensure that the dollars that are available for subsidy end up in the hands of those who are, frankly, deserving of that level of subsidy. So this check is only about that. But the first approach will always be to the person who receives the subsidy, and we will ask them to verify that information for us.

C. Trevena: I don't think there are that many people in B.C., if any, who would be trying to exploit the child care subsidy to try and extract extra money out of the government. So I wondered in what way you are going to be approaching the people who are having third-party allegations made against them to find out whether this third party is telling the truth or is being malicious.

Hon. L. Reid: Audit verification has been in place since this program began, and a similar process is available today for MEIA clients. Certainly, that level of verification is important. This is a $126 million annual program that is delivered in monthly payments. So, indeed, every opportunity will be taken to ensure that the dollars end up in the right hands. But the scrutiny is about safeguarding the program, the subsidy and a child's access to that level of support, and as the first course of action we will always return to the claimant to ensure that they are able to verify that information.

Will it be done in ways that make sense, that are logical? Absolutely. This authority has always been in the hands of MEIA, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. To have the ability to verify information that comes to us is the next logical step. We are in receipt of information today. The ability to utilize that information is what this section speaks to.

C. Trevena: If there is an anonymous third-party allegation against someone and an investigation ensues, will the person who is claiming the subsidy still be getting the child care subsidy while there is an investigation into whether or not that allegation is legitimate?

Hon. L. Reid: The short answer to your question is yes, unless there is a finding that they are indeed not eligible or if they do not respond to the request for verification of information.

C. Trevena: How will the request to the claimants be handled? Will it be by telephone? By mail? How are you going to do that? And will the claimants know who the third parties are who are making claims against them?

Hon. L. Reid: We will always put that request for verification in writing, and certainly we will exercise discretion in terms of how much time we have for people to get back to us. But in that this is a monthly payment opportunity today and they are in contact

regularly, if someone were not to be back in touch with us for an excessive period of time, that would be contrary to the current level of contact they have with us.

The second part of your question related to whether or not the third-party claimant information would be made available to the applicant. That certainly is not something that's provided for today under protection of privacy.

C. Trevena: I find it deeply troubling, actually, that we are getting anonymous third parties that can make allegations against people. Although people obviously do have the right to defend themselves, these are coming from anonymous third parties. I wondered where the protection of privacy for the subsidy claimant comes in.

Hon. L. Reid: The substance of the allegation will be disclosed to the applicant so they can indeed verify, or not, the accuracy, the legitimacy of that information. That is currently common practice across government. Whether that's MEIA or Workers Compensation Board, that practice is in place today and has been for untold numbers of years.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister is going to have any assistants with him, or can I proceed to ask my question?

L. Krog: Thank you. The amendment clarifies what kind of notice must be given under section 3 of the existing Coal Act. Obviously, this section is of great importance because this is the section that provides that a recorded holder of coal rights can go onto someone's property to begin exploration development. The amendment will have the effect of referring to "in the prescribed form and manner and within the prescribed period," which I assume will be established by regulation.

The act itself, obviously, is not terribly descriptive. In the present section, subsection (1) is describing how notice must be given. I'm wondering if the minister can advise: what is the present practice with respect to giving notice, and does the minister have any intention around what will be the new practice with respect to giving notice?

I'd like to introduce the staff that are supporting me today. This is Rick Conte, the director of mineral titles, and Katherine Rowe, the manager of corporate policy branch for the ministry.

There already is a requirement of notice under the Coal Act, but the manner of notice has not been prescribed, so generally what has happened is that a written notice has been provided to the property owner.

We're seeking to establish consistency between the two pieces of legislation being amended. We have a draft of the form of notice that we believe would be appropriate. We intend to engage in consultations with those who will be affected over the coming months, and then the amendments will be brought into force by regulation.

L. Krog: I thank the minister for his response. I take it what we're really talking about is simply written notice.

The reason I raise this as a concern is because the land title office obviously requires that every title holder have an address on their title. Unfortunately, people change their addresses, and one of the last things they ever think about changing is, in fact, the address on their title, particularly if they own multiple properties — could be a mining company, could be a rancher who moves into town, all those kinds of things.

It raises the very real and practical possibility that if the notice is simply delivered in a written form to the address on title — which is the way the land title office, for instance, delivers notice to a registered owner if a certificate of pending litigation has been filed — there is a real possibility the owner, in fact, will never get notice. Somebody's going to show up with a backhoe one day and start digging for coal and digging holes, and the owner, for practical purposes, will be deemed to have notice because they were, you could argue, negligent in not providing an updated address.

I'm wondering if the minister is giving consideration to the possibility of actually having personal delivery. We're not talking about a situation where it's some poor, impecunious person who can't afford to hire a process server to go out and find the owner — people or corporations. The recorded holders, generally speaking, will be mining companies who will presumably have some access to financial resources and would be in a position to ensure and pay for personal service of the notice that the recorded holder intends to commence exploration or development.

I'm wondering if the minister has given consideration to that possibility, because this is a matter of great concern to British Columbians who have woken up to the fact that many of them do not hold the mineral rights to their property, notwithstanding that they think of themselves as being the registered owners of everything above and below the surface. Again, to the minister: can the minister advise whether the government is considering actual personal service, particularly in light of the significance of what activity is going to take place on their private property?

Hon. K. Krueger: Just to clarify to the member: notice is already required, prior to these amendments, if there's going to be any disturbance of the land. The changes. Up until now, if it didn't involve any mechanical work or disturbance of the land, a free miner didn't have to give notice to explore.

The concerns that the member expresses have not been demonstrated in the practice of the industry to date.

There are only a handful of disputes every year between surface rights holders — whether they be people who have Crown leases or people who hold titles…. There are only a handful of disputes between owners and prospectors. In fact, on average only one dispute a year has gone to the formal disputes resolution process.

There will be an option, as contemplated in the regulation, where notice can be served, but there will also be an option that it can be provided by mail or facsimile. Up until now, there have been very few problems with the process that's been in place. We're actually expanding the rights of property holders with this legislation.

J. Horgan: I'm wondering if the minister could tell the House what other jurisdictions in Canada have just a notice requirement.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'm advised that Ontario is in a similar position to British Columbia presently — perhaps a little bit behind where we have been up until now, so further behind when we make these changes. Quebec is in a situation that's very similar to ours. There are some provinces where no exploration is allowed on private land.

J. Horgan: Could the minister then confirm that in Alberta consent is required before property is accessed?

Hon. K. Krueger: Yes, that is correct. In Alberta consent of the surface rights holder is required.

J. Horgan: Then I'm interested to know, when the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement comes into play, will we be going up to the Alberta standard or will they be coming down to ours?

Hon. K. Krueger: There is nothing in the TILMA agreement that requires either jurisdiction to adopt the regulation of the other, although there is general understanding that there will be an attempt to harmonize the regulations. So the jury is still out on that question, and it's a good question.

J. Horgan: Well, I thank the minister for that, and I know he would expect nothing less.

I'd like to stay on this for a minute then. If we are entering into an interprovincial trade agreement of the magnitude and scope of TILMA, why is it that we're in this Legislature amending the Coal Act and later in this bill the Mineral Tenure Act without having some understanding of how that's going to impact property owners in British Columbia or in fact in Alberta? Has the minister, in the form of this question, consulted with Alberta on these changes?

Hon. K. Krueger: Obviously, the amendments that we are discussing are a step closer to Alberta's current provisions. We do have industries that have differences — the Alberta mining industry as compared to the British Columbia industry. As I mentioned earlier, there is no requirement for us to harmonize the regulations, but clearly, we are moving closer with these changes.

J. Horgan: Well, I appreciate that from the minister's perspective this would be a move in the direction of consent. Certainly, in the interactions that I have with other human beings here on the planet, notice and consent are drastically different. In the province immediately beside us, where we've just entered into a significant interprovincial agreement, consent is required.

There was a significant meeting of landowners in the interior this past weekend. My colleague from Nelson-Creston attended. The minister will know. He sent a letter urging those in attendance to support the legislation. They took the opportunity to vote, and they voted unanimously to oppose the legislation.

I'm wondering, in the interest of meeting the desires and aspirations of property owners in British Columbia — which, if I understand the throne speech, is the thrust of this legislation — why wouldn't we take advantage of the TILMA and raise our standards in this instance to those of Alberta?

Hon. K. Krueger: The right of free entry for free miners has been a longstanding right in Canada, and certainly that's been the case in British Columbia. The imposition of a requirement of notice has caused some consternation to the mining exploration industry. They are in a position of feeling they're having to surrender a lot of what has been their right, which they have exercised in a largely unfettered way with very few problems over many years.

To correct something that the member said, I didn't indicate that we are moving toward consent. Clearly, we are moving to notice. I've said that we're not required to harmonize with Alberta, and we do not intend to move toward the requirement of consent.

I'd like to respond to the member's discussion of the meeting that took place in Vernon. It is a surprise, many times, to the owners of surface rights to learn that other people can and do acquire the subsurface rights. That's very surprising to people many times. In some cases people have tried to litigate against that, unsuccessfully, because the fact is that the minerals, the wealth below the surface of the land in British Columbia, belongs to the Crown, belongs to the people of British Columbia.

Not many people realize that the oil, gas and mining industries currently are producing 30 percent of the province's entire revenue flow. These industries, because they're able to develop these subsurface resources to the benefit of British Columbians, pay for 30 percent of doctors in B.C., 30 percent of nurses, 30 percent of teachers, 30 percent of social workers. In fact, everything that British Columbia is able to do for British Columbians, 30 percent of it is paid for by the people who purchase the subsurface rights and then develop industries through them.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's rendition of revenue sources in British Columbia. I think that was

instructive for those who were unaware of that, but it doesn't answer my question with respect to this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

As I understand it, based on the question from my colleague from Nanaimo, the arduous intrusion into the rights of free miners is a quill pen and a mailing address. That's the concession that they will now have to succumb to as a result of this amendment. They're going to have to advise the property owner that they're coming to dig holes in the front yard.

I'm thinking that when TILMA comes into effect, those free miners who are now burdened by a quill pen, maybe a fax machine and an address book — as they go about their business intruding on private property to extract wealth for themselves and a modest portion for British Columbia — may well look at the consent requirement in Alberta and see that as an impediment to investment and may well go to the people of Alberta and say: "You're restricting our abilities to generate wealth for ourselves, and under the TILMA we're going to take you to task." Is that a possibility that the minister has contemplated?

Hon. K. Krueger: There is very little prospect that investors in the mining industry would be driven to explore in Alberta rather than in British Columbia. The geology is not at all the same and not nearly as attractive to the industry in Alberta. We are one of the most sought-after jurisdictions in the world presently because of many things. The geology is a driving factor. So is the security of operating here and the business climate.

I wish again to correct something that the member said, though, and I'd like to get this clear on the record. If it's a misunderstanding that members opposite have, or if it's something worse, I think it's important that the members not raise alarms about this legislation changing the situation to where, as the member opposite put it just now, people can show up and start digging holes in the front yard. That just isn't true.

There's always been a requirement of an agreement between the exploration operator and the surface rights holder before mechanical means of exploration commence. There has to be a workplan that is approved by the inspector of mines. It involves bonding provisions and a reclamation plan. Nobody will be showing up and digging holes in anybody's property because of the changes that we're talking about today.

In fact, the surface holder's rights are being expanded, and I think that's clear to the member. But I'd like it on record, if the member doesn't mind, that he understands that this change will not permit mechanical disturbance of the surface holder's land any more than it's permitted right now, because that just isn't true.

J. Horgan: First of all, I'm surprised to hear that the Minister for Mining is unaware of significant coal deposits in the province of Alberta, as there are. I don't dispute the geological abundance that we have in British Columbia, and both he and I rejoice in that, and we've done it together. We've embraced the mining industry as individuals, so that's not my issue here.

My issue is that property owners in British Columbia are concerned enough that the minister and his government are responding by this minimalist change. But when we look at the province immediately to our east, the one that in many instances the executive council of this government wants to emulate and in fact has entered into a significant agreement, a far-reaching agreement that will harmonize regulations and requirements across the piece…. I'm curious. Did the minister or his staff consult with Alberta, as I asked a couple of questions ago, on these changes?

J. Horgan: Is coalbed methane affected by these amendments with respect to notice?

Hon. K. Krueger: Coalbed gas is defined as a natural gas under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. Coalbed methane, coalbed gas are not affected by this legislation. They're governed by that act — the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

C. Evans: I would like to say welcome to the minister to his new portfolio. Everything that I'm going to try to do is to make it as uncomfortable as I can, but I really like having you in the chair, so don't take any personal offence to the fact that I don't agree with anything you're doing.

On the weekend there was a meeting of citizens profoundly interested in this legislation. I would argue that they maybe even created the impetus for this legislation. I think they're called the Land Owners Rights Association or the like. The minister wrote to those people to give them assurances that this legislation was in their interests. Would the minister please read into the record the letter that he wrote to those folks.

Hon. K. Krueger: I don't have the letter with me, but I'll have it brought down to me shortly. When the member says that he doesn't agree with anything we're doing…. Obviously, the member opposite was a cabinet minister in the government of the 1990s, and the party that he ran with and continues to be an MLA for had the opportunity to make this change and any others that they chose to make during the 1990s.

One of my friend across the floor's colleagues said also as a cabinet minister that government could do anything it wanted. It was a notorious phrase that was repeated many times in this House. When the member says he doesn't agree with anything we're doing, obviously he doesn't agree with our adding a provision that free miners are required to give notice to landowners before they commence legislation. It doesn't surprise me that he would say that, because they had ten years to do it, and they didn't.

This is a step — a large step, from the point of view of the exploration industry — in favour of surface rights holders, which we're taking in order to balance the concerns

of surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders in a way that the NDP never bothered to do.

The member on one hand says he doesn't agree with anything we're doing, apparently including this. I wonder why they didn't do this or anything further in the 1990s. It is certainly a step in the direction of further rights for surface rights holders. This is as far as we decided to go.

C. Evans: For the benefit of anybody who might not understand the background, as the minister says, this is incredibly complicated. It appears what we are doing here today is a good thing.

The minister has a small, two-paragraph amendment to the Mineral Tenure Act in what's called the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. That means that there are 20-some pages of small changes to many different statutes, and two paragraphs apply to mineral tenures.

What's going to happen, I think, is that although it doesn't say exactly how in the act, it does say that notice will be given to people when the mining industry desires to explore on their land. It doesn't say how that will happen, but we assume that that will be written into some regulations, and the regulations will follow, and that's fairly normal. There's nothing untoward about that. I have faith that the regulations really will follow, and the regulations will make sense.

What is offensive is the implication that we will fix the trouble between private land owners and the mining industry by sending people a letter before we enter their property. There is no reference here to the changes that happened to the Mineral Tenure Act and all the statutes that relate to the mining industry, and they enter into private property in 2002 and 2003. There's no reference here to the Coalbed Gas Act, which actually says there is no recompense and there is no referral to the courts when the mining industry or the drilling industry enters your land. We are pretending as if, by writing people a letter, we're extending their rights. There's no acknowledgment here, hon. Chair, that we took away the rights of private land owners in the earlier years of this century.

I, myself, am just learning the extent to which private land owners were stripped of their rights in 2002 and 2003. Of course, I didn't work here then, and there was no official opposition then, and there was no research to have then to try to figure out what was going on. I was advised, so I want to put on the record a bit of the information that the wonderful citizens of British Columbia assembled in Vernon last week. That's why I wanted the minister to read his letter into the record, and we'll maybe get to that later.

As the minister knows, a group of citizens has now met to discover what the ramifications of the changes in legislation are that stripped them of their rights already, before we get to this day. It is quite amazing and quite an education to me.

We started with a woman who owns the Australian Ranch north of Quesnel, which has been in her family since 1903. She advised that a former minister from the NDP came with a mining company and said to her, "We're digging coal on your land," and she said: "Oh no, you can't do that. I've been ranching here since 1903." The mining company said: "Oh no, the rules say we can now mine on your property."

Historically, when a mining company came to work on a piece of private land, the landowner had the right to a tribunal. I think this goes all the way back to the Magna Carta. The tribunal would be one person appointed by the landowner, one person appointed by the mining company and then a third person chosen by agreement. Now the rules have been changed, and there's just a single person that you go to, an appeal person, who tends to be a lawyer, tends to live in Vancouver, has no understanding of the ranching industry. The landowner has no opportunity to appoint anybody.

The woman went on to say that she had now decided to pass the ranch on to her 27-year-old daughter, who had been to college to learn how to run a ranch in a businesslike fashion, but she was afraid that she was passing on a coalmine and not a ranch.

Then, hon. Chair, there was this wonderful gentleman — 30 years he worked for the provincial government, for the Attorney General — and he lives in a retirement community in Oyama. There are 50 other retired people, and they're looking at the lake, and they think they're living in Oyama and everything's okay. Then they find out that one, two, three gravel pits are built around them.

They go to the municipality and say: "Can you guys stop this? We're turning into a gravel pit. That's not what we bought." The municipality says: "We're sorry. We municipalities no longer have any power here." Four, five and then six, and with the sixth gravel pit they started blasting above the community. All the rattlesnakes that were living in the rocks moved down to the front lawn of the people. The gentleman was saying: "We tried to retire here, and now we have no recompense. We're surrounded by six mines."

Then there was a gentleman who got up to talk about coalbed methane. He used to be a Crown prosecutor. He was a Crown prosecutor all his life. He's now retired. He owns a vacation home in Princeton. He told us that when the coalbed methane company came and said, "We're going to look for methane underneath your land," he said: "Oh no, you can't do that. We have to have a tribunal." They said: "No, the provincial government has stripped your rights to have a tribunal. We get to do pretty much whatever we want." The retired Crown prosecutor charged the Premier of the province with criminal conspiracy in the court in Princeton.

Of course, the Deputy Attorney General or assistant deputy stopped the court case from going forward, but here's this older gentleman saying: "The rules that have existed for 800 years for private land owners — not to stop business, but to have an input, to have some way to negotiate — have been stripped." Here we are in the Legislature today, and the minister's saying, "Hey, we're making it better," but there's no entering into the record all the changes that have happened already to take away the landowner's rights.

There's a young man from Clearwater who woke up one day to find out that people wanted to drill for uranium above Clearwater. They organized their whole town and then finally captured the mining company and the ministry staff in a community hall and convinced them that this was not really a good idea in Clearwater. But he pointed out that he had to capture them in a hall and change their minds with public pressure because they had been stripped of their power in law to argue the case.

The minister wants us to believe that by sending those people a letter before they start drilling, we're going to solve the problem? I would submit that what's going on here is we are using a tiny little amendment to hide what has actually happened, which is a striking stripping of private land owners' rights to property and negotiation. And none of us, I don't think, really knew. I don't think the province has been engaged in debating what has happened here to take away people's rights.

Some people at the meeting called it Victoria's secret, and they didn't mean underwear. They meant Victoria's secret that we had quietly in the last few years…. We have this huge boom, and of course commodity prices are high, and everybody's working, and I like that. But we greased the process by stripping private land owners of their ranchland and their farmland and their retirement — their right to well-being where they live.

One gentleman got up. He was 80 years old. He ranches 5,000 feet above Rock Creek, and he said: "You know, I attempted to negotiate with the people that wanted to drill on my land." Instead of a tribunal, he goes straight to some lawyer who is completely uninterested in water, soil, cattle, trees or how rural people live. All of it comes down to money. "How much are we going to pay you for each hole?"

Now he's got ten-inch holes that a horse can break its leg in all over his property, and there's 175 parts per million radioactive material coming out of those holes. Those holes are not legal. They aren't filled with cement. And he's pointing out that he has been stripped of his private land owner's rights by the present government, which — this Victoria's secret of what we did — we're going to hide by writing him a letter?

There was another gentleman who got up who lives just near Vernon. He talked about the fact that he has a neighbour with no real interest in exploration — a neighbour who has applied for a free miner's permit and is using that permit to harass his neighbours, with no intention whatsoever of ever drilling for anything. A free miner's permit apparently now allows you to behave in a hostile way with authority — sort of like you have a licence to oppress your neighbours.

The gentleman was so upset he could hardly speak. He said that when he went to the RCMP, the RCMP said: "As long as he's holding that free miner's licence, we can't stop him from harassing you unless he's actually staring in your windows."

Now, I have two hard-rock mines that have opened or are opening in my constituency, and I'm very pleased by that. Like everybody on this side…. We're very pleased to be living in a time where the stuff that we have to sell has a high enough value that we can go get it. But historically, that was a negotiated process, and Victoria's secret is that we've taken away the ability of the private land owners to negotiate, and now we're going to write them a letter?

The problem that the private land owners have is that they live everywhere. Australian Ranch, north of Quesnel. The farmers who have the gas industry coming onto their land, paying a farm price lease and then using it industrially…. In other words, paying you so much an acre as the farm value of your land in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John, turning it into industrial land and not paying you the industrial price, sucking the gas out and then going away again. Then you get it back as agricultural land.

Those people live hundreds of miles from the woman who owns the ranch in Quesnel, who lives hundreds of miles from the guy who has the ten-inch holes on his land in Rock Creek, who lives hundreds of miles and a mountain range away from the fellow with the trouble with the free miners licence.

Then down south you have the folks who were engaged in the methane fight and, in the East Kootenay, the coalbed methane fight. What we have here is a huge massive amount of expropriation of the happiness and well-being that ranching and farming and rural families used to have with their private land. It has all been done over the past few years as Victoria's secret, like the underwear underneath the pretty clothes. And we're going to cover it up by writing them a letter?

There's laughter going on, hon. Chair. I'm perhaps not saying this very well. I'm trying to get into the record that there is a group of citizens who live spread out around the province and who have a difficult time to communicate with each other, never mind us. Those people are saying to us: "Please deal with our problem, which is that you have stripped us of the rights to be happy on our land or to raise cattle on our land or to farm." And we're going to fix it by writing them a letter?

Through the Chair to the minister: I think it is fairly politically unwise of you to have brought in this motion, because it opens the door. You have lifted Pandora's box on Victoria's secret. You are suggesting that by writing them a letter, it is okay that we took away their right of well-being on their private land. The right of private land has been in there ever since they fought the King to get it in England. You're supposed to be able to go home and be happy. There's not supposed to be some guy who comes and says that 75 metres from your bedroom, we get to drill a hole. And all we have to do is write you a letter?

The minister gets up and says: "Actually, there isn't any trouble. There's usually only one appeal per year." You're not winning. Why would anybody go to the appeal to lose? They've been stripped of their rights by the present government, except now we're going to write them a letter.

I wonder if it's going to say in the letter: "We're writing you a letter, but don't bother doing anything about it because you'll lose, anyway."

Hon. Chair, I have a question for the minister. Does the minister wish to withdraw this motion, or will he read into the record all the changes that have been made in mining legislation since 2002 stripping landowners of their rights — and then introduce this as the fix?

Hon. K. Krueger: Again the member opposite waxes rhetorical. The truth is that no rights have been, as you put it, stripped away from private land owners by this government. We have no intention of talking about legislation that was very capably dealt with by Joy MacPhail and her colleague during the first term of this government. Once again, I want to correct the inflammatory things the member says: nobody's rights have been stripped away.

I wish to clarify something that I said earlier about agreement between surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders before exploration involving mechanical means takes place. There are situations, and they're quite rare, where the parties do not agree on how the process will unfold. Either party in that circumstance can take their concerns to the Mediation and Arbitration Board. A one-person arbitration board attempts to resolve the differences, and if that process is not successful, the second step involves a full arbitration hearing.

I thought I'd comment briefly on the aggregate industry because the member raised the Oyama situation. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country approached me about that, had a full briefing by ministry staff and spoke with his constituents. I believe that most of the constituents are satisfied by the explanations.

The truth is that it's a tremendously important industry to British Columbia. Everyone here who owns or lives in a building is probably a consumer for that and many other products of the aggregate industry. It's the least expensive building material that we have. Per capita, British Columbians use between nine and 15 tonnes of aggregate every year, on average; 70 percent of what we produce in British Columbia is used just for the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing infrastructure. Every school, hospital, road and home in British Columbia is dependent upon that industry, and I think the members opposite are ill-advised to speak negatively of the aggregate industry or of the mining industry. They're tremendously important.

When I was in Toronto for the Prospectors and Developers Association conference at the beginning of this month, an investor — people who spend a lot of money in this province and generate a lot of employment — looked at my business card and said: "If it was still an NDP government, your title would have to be Minister Responsible for Not Mining."

J. Horgan: I'm just curious as to what relevance the minister's travel itinerary is, and why anyone he may happen to meet on the road would have any impact on the debate we're having today in this House.

Hon. K. Krueger: A number of the people from Oyama who raised those concerns…. I expect the people who the member was quoting, from the meeting he went to in Vernon, actually live in a trailer park that is built in a reclaimed gravel pit. The people who live in the Oyama area are heavily petitioning the Minister of Transportation to spend $60 million on a road to bypass their community, which would take a lot of aggregate.

Aggregate — as the member probably knows, but we'll put it on the record — is sand, crushed rock and gravel. Those are essential materials. So, yes, we have people who live in a reclaimed gravel pit and don't like to see other gravel pits. But the fact is that British Columbia needs the aggregate. It's an important industry and one that we should be very happy that we have.

Now I do have the letter that the member asked that I read into the record. I'll do that now. It was written March 21 to the member opposite.

Despite the fact that he had ten years as a government MLA and minister to take action on this issue and did not….

Again, I challenge the member opposite. If he thinks that these provisions don't go far enough, why didn't he and his government, which held power in British Columbia for ten years, through the '90s, make this and further changes?

C. Evans: I very much appreciate the minister reading the letter into the record. Hon. Chair, the reason why I wanted the letter to be read into the record is because last week in this House, these amendments were introduced.

I read it, and I thought: "Oh, that's pretty good. You're going to write him a letter. That's something."

Then the minister wrote a letter to me and distributed it to all of the people — the media who attended the meeting and private land owners — to talk about this bill. There it was. You walk in the room and every one of the hundred people got a letter to me from the minister of mines.

It was read out to the meeting, and everybody was holding it in their hand. So the chair of the meeting — who, by the way, informed me that he's never voted for my party in his life — went to the microphone and said: "Okay, the minister of mines has written us all a letter asking us to urge this MLA to go back and vote for this bill. Now I would like to have a show of hands. Everybody in the room that wants…" Can I say my own name?

C. Evans: …the member for Nelson-Creston to go back and vote for this thing, please raise your hand." It was dead silence. Not a single person…. He said: "All those people who want the member to go back and tell the minister that this is covering up the rights that you stripped from us by writing us a letter. This is not enough and not acceptable, and it's not helpful and ask the member to vote against it, please raise your hand."

Unanimously, all the people — the folks from Oyama, the people from Rock Creek, the people from north of Quesnel, the people from the Okanagan — raised their hands and said: "Go back and vote against it."

I had gone to the meeting thinking: "Well, this is fairly innocuous." The citizens who live on the land feel ripped off and want us to say no. This is just putting clothes over Victoria's secret. They stripped them of their rights.

I hope I can convince my sisters and brothers to vote against this, and then we'll tell the story about why.

M. Farnworth: This section of the Correction Act makes, I think, some significant changes that affect the Parole Board of B.C. and has implications in terms of the National Parole Board. I wonder if the minister could briefly outline what those changes are and how they will work.

Hon. J. Les: The particular section that the member refers to here deals with, in some ways, a transition of

responsibilities. When the new provisions come into effect, the National Parole Board will have jurisdiction in dealing with parole issues for all matters of parole pursuant to federal offences.

There are a very minor number, an extremely minor number, of provincial offences for which, as I said, in a very minute number of cases, prison sentences are actually provided for and imposed. In those cases, of course, the National Parole Board will not have jurisdiction once this legislation comes into effect, so provisions are included to allow wardens of institutions to grant leave to those very few inmates.

M. Farnworth: What the minister is saying is that under this section 11…. This is spelling out and making changes to allow those particular types of sentences to be regulated when they're in fact covered by the parole here in B.C. They're not related to…. The National Parole Board would not have the jurisdiction over them. Is that what he's saying?

Hon. J. Les: That is correct. Once this legislation is in effect, those people incarcerated pursuant to an offence against provincial legislation — that is, not the federal Criminal Code — will need to be dealt with pursuant to these provisions.

M. Farnworth: Could the minister give an example of the types of sentences or the types of offences that would be covered by this?

Hon. J. Les: A couple of examples would be offences under the provincial Fisheries Act, the Motor Vehicle Act and the Environmental Management Act.

M. Farnworth: Would it ever include sentences that had jail time, such as contempt of court? Would they be included?

Hon. J. Les: The answer would be no. Contempt of court is an offence against the Criminal Code.

M. Farnworth: Even if it's a civic contempt? So it would be a civil contempt?

Hon. J. Les: Contempt is an offence against the Criminal Code, and contempt applies to contempt of court, so I don't think that these provisions apply to that in any way.

M. Farnworth: Can the minister give any indication of the number of offences that would occur in a typical year that would be covered by these particular amendments? I mean, the minister said it was not many, but….

Hon. J. Les: We've had three cases in the last two years that would be covered by these provisions.

M. Farnworth: I just want to confirm again, on the record, that this particular section deals with those same types of cases and the same limited number of cases that section 11 would apply to and that it's not expanded in any way.

M. Farnworth: I wonder if the minister can outline for us what the benefits are and what the differences will be by making this change, going from the provincial to the National Parole Board standards.

Hon. J. Les: When we move to the National Parole Board dealing with all of the applications for parole, we think this will lead to a more integrated method of dealing with these individuals and a more standardized approach as well. Obviously, there are some cost savings to the provincial government as a result of doing this. The National Parole Board has a great deal of expertise in dealing with these matters. We think, on balance, this is good public policy.

It actually, in a slight way, decreases eligibility for parole in that people that the National Parole Board deals with do not become eligible until they have served six months of their sentence, whereas under the provincial parole provisions they could apply after three months.

We often hear, for example, that programs of a rehabilitation nature — treatment programs — are more successful when people serve a slightly longer sentence, so this may facilitate that as well. For all of those reasons and perhaps others, we think this is an appropriate step.

M. Farnworth: I'd just like to ask a question about one of the changes that occurs that would clearly be a change in the caseload between National Parole Board standards and provincial standards. Can you tell us what the current standards are provincially — I guess caseload per worker — and what they will be, moving to the National Parole Board standard?

Hon. J. Les: It's a little difficult, on a going-forward basis, to anticipate what the caseload might be. I can indicate, however, that the current caseload that is being carried by provincial parole is about 120 individuals. Those, of course, will be transferred.

Arguably, if you look at the slightly lessened eligibility criteria, that caseload for that group of people might be slightly reduced, as they're being dealt with by the National Parole Board.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that answer, and I understand the issue about going forward and going back. The second part of my question was: is he aware of what the current caseload is for National Parole Board members as opposed to provincial?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure that I'll be able to give an adequate answer to that particular question, as I don't know the relevant statistics for the National Parole Board. I know what the workload was and is that is carried by the staff in my ministry, so I'm not sure if I can provide the comparison that the member is looking for.

M. Farnworth: I guess the point I'm making is that the caseload number is significantly lower. I think that's important, because one of the challenges that we've had — if I were to have a criticism — at the provincial level is that the caseload has been too great. It doesn't necessarily allow for all the work that should be done with individuals on parole to be done in the way that we would expect or to its optimum.

One of the advantages of this moving is the fact that there is a greater opportunity to see that issues around parole, things around treatment are in fact…. There may be a better opportunity to deal with some of those things, and that's a point that I wanted to get on the record.

British Columbia is moving to this way of dealing with parole. How many other provinces have also gone this route?

Hon. J. Les: British Columbia was to this point one of only three provinces that had their own provincial parole system. So when this legislation passes, it will be only the provinces of Ontario and Quebec that will have their own provincial parole system. All other provinces will have an integrated National Parole Board system.

N. Simons: Just a couple of questions for clarification, if I may. My question is: am I correct in that the minister has stated that eligibility for parole for people serving in provincial institutions is now six months prior to eligibility as opposed to three months? And is it this act that is changing that?

N. Simons: Correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair, but that's a significant change in the policy for corrections in this province. I'm not sure how an amendment to a section dealing with the administrative structure of the conditional release program is suddenly having an impact on sentencing. When sentencing occurs, they take into account eligibility for parole. How has the minister contemplated that reality in the construction of this part of the legislation?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, as we undertook the work to make this transition, the fact that the National Parole Board has standards whereby they do not entertain parole before an inmate has served six months…. That was known to us, and we've made decisions with that in mind.

Obviously, those changed provisions will clearly form part of the decisions of the judiciary as we go forward as well. So we're going through a time of transition. I think there's also something to be said for the fact that a minimum incarceration of six months before someone is eligible for parole is a good thing, at least in some ways.

These were deliberate issues that we looked at very deliberately as we put the bill together. I think we've landed in a place where, from a public policy perspective, it's very defensible.

N. Simons: Is it fair to say that the provision allowing for temporary absences prior to that is to compensate for the sudden ineligibility for parole for anyone serving over six months?

Hon. J. Les: When we discussed the temporary absences in the earlier section, that dealt specifically with those people who have been sentenced pursuant to an offence against the provincial act, not against a criminal code. I want the member not to be confusing those things. Those temporary absences are at the discretion of the warden of an institution for inmates who have offended against provincial statute.

J. Brar: I have some questions related to the Employment and Assistance Act, section 15. I would like to start with under (a). The change from consisting of three members of the tribunal to consisting of up to three members of the tribunal to me is a significant change when we talk about the fairness of justice to particularly the most vulnerable clients in the province.

I would like to ask the minister first of all: what is the rationale for this change, which is a very important change?

Hon. C. Richmond: There are two major concerns being addressed by this change. First, it can be very difficult to recruit sufficient members to form a three-member panel in rural communities. This amendment will allow hearings to be held in communities by community members where it is difficult to form a three-member panel.

Secondly, in situations where one member of a hearing panel at the last minute unavoidably cannot make the tribunal, cannot attend a scheduled hearing or is not able to continue with the hearing — if they're partway through and have to leave — the hearing will now be able to continue without inconveniencing the parties through incurring delays due to either adjourning or the hearing having to form a new panel to re-hear the matter.

J. Brar: Thank you for that clarification. If the difficulty is to find people, I understand that piece. On the other side, I think the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance deals with the most vulnerable people who don't have a lot of support around them, particularly at this point in time, when we see that there are not a lot of workers out there to provide assistance to them to deal with their own cases in front of the panel.

My question is basically…. I think at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the minister to make sure that the process is fair and that justice is provided to the people, the most vulnerable people of the province.

In that light, on the issue that it's hard to find people, how do you balance between providing, just to make sure, that the justice is made available to these people as compared to the number of people it is not available for? How do you balance that?

Hon. C. Richmond: I understand the member's concerns, and these are items that have crossed our mind, but this is much more fair to people. In the past when we have had to wait in some cases for months until we can convene a three-member panel, they have waited up to nine months to have a hearing. That, to us, is just not fair, as you say, to these vulnerable people.

The system we have in place now works very well, and it's not very often that we have to go down to a two- or one-member panel. It's in about 10 percent of the cases. But it allows the case to be heard in a timely manner, usually in less than six weeks.

Prior to this, while we were trying to round up a three-person panel, it could take up to nine months. We don't think that's fair to the people at all.

You must remember that these people who are on these tribunals are experienced. They're at arm's length from government. They're not appointed by any branch of government; they're completely independent. We feel that the person will get a much quicker hearing, a very fair hearing.

However, if they choose and absolutely refuse to be heard by a one- or two-person panel, the tribunal chair has the option of having another member sit in by teleconference, or two members by teleconference. You could have a hearing by one person or two and the third one, if they insist, by teleconference.

J. Brar: If the concern was that the panel hearing is done as quickly as possible, which seems to be the intent here by the minister, is it possible for the minister to tell us how this is going to expedite the panel hearing? How much will those clients see the change in terms of the number of days or number of months before they actually get their hearing in front of the panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's our intent to see that people get their hearing in front of a panel as quickly as possible. With this, we don't feel that anyone will be seen in more than six weeks. We want to bring it down to less than six weeks — two weeks if we possibly can.

Under the old system, sometimes it was up to six months or nine months before a person's grievance could be heard. Not only that, sometimes they would wait months. Then at the last minute some panel member had to cancel out because something happened in their personal life, and the hearing was postponed again.

We're trying to get away from that to allow these people to have their day in front of a tribunal as quickly as possible. To me it's like justice delayed is justice denied, and we want these people to have their case heard as quickly as possible. If we move to this system, we feel that almost all cases will be heard in less than six weeks, and there won't be any more that go up to six, eight and nine months.

J. Brar: A couple of clarifications, if the minister can provide. My understanding from listening to the minister is that this change, when it comes to the implementation, is mainly related to the challenge we have in the rural areas at this point in time. In other words, in urban areas like the lower mainland, Victoria and other big cities, the current system — the panel of up to three members — will continue. So it is not the intent of the ministry to bring it down to one member, flat, everywhere.

That's one thing I want clarification on from the minister — that in order to provide a fair process, the intent will be up to three members whenever it is possible. The second thing I wanted to ask, which you clarified a bit, is that it is the right of the client to demand up to three members, and the ministry will act on it.

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes. In answer to your first question, the intent is to have a three-member panel wherever possible. But where this mostly is in effect is — you're right — in the rural areas. We have a difficult time assembling a three-member panel in a remote area. Mostly, as I said, it's in the rural areas. Mostly, in the more heavily populated areas, it doesn't happen.

The decision as to the number of panel members rests with the tribunal chair, and appellants who have concerns can certainly contact the tribunal offices to discuss their issues. The hearing may be held by teleconference. Again, if the person absolutely insists that there be three panel members, it's at the discretion of the tribunal chair to say yes, but one or two of them will be there by teleconference.

J. Brar: Thank you to the minister for clarification. But I think we need more clear clarification on this. Is it the right of the client to demand up to three members, or is it the discretionary power of the chair to give it or not?

Hon. C. Richmond: It's really both. The client can demand, and the tribunal chair can decide whether he or she can have three persons at this hearing — let's say it's a remote area up in the north of the province — or whether two of them might have to be there by teleconference. But it is the client's right, if they so choose, to demand a three-person tribunal. Then it's up to the discretion of the chair.

Of course, this could cause delays. They may say: "We can have your case heard by a one-person panel next week, but if you demand three, it might take a little longer for us to put that together, and two of them might be there by telephone."

L. Krog: Prior to 2001 there were community law offices in this province, including one in my city, Nanaimo, which provided staff and individuals who could represent clients of the ministry who wished to appeal decisions. Of course, with the cuts the government made, those offices were eliminated. There are very few advocates left in the province who are in a position to appear on behalf of clients of the ministry.

We know that people on assistance are already vulnerable. Very few, in my experience, ever choose to go on assistance. They would prefer to have the ability to work or to have employment. They would never wish to be forced into that situation. One of the safeguards they have now is that in the absence of community law offices to assist them in conducting their appeals successfully, they at least have three shots, so to speak, at getting justice.

They have a three-member tribunal, whereas what is proposed by this legislation — the minister says it will only arise in rural areas and is up to the discretion of the chair, etc. — essentially gives authority to the ministry to have one-person panels. In essence, if I can't convince that one person, that's it. If I have a three-person panel, I at least have better odds of successfully appealing.

The kinds of decisions that are being made by these panels relate to the poorest of the poor. The people who are appealing decisions of the ministry are living in conditions that I suspect none of the members of this House has ever suffered — never in that position. Or if they've been in that position, I'm sure they will have incredible sympathy for the people I'm talking about.

My concern is that the minister says this will only apply to about 10 percent of cases, but that's a significant number of recipients. My office deals with these issues day after day. I represent, as many members of this House have heard me say, the third-poorest constituency in the province.

I would be a great deal more comforted if the minister could explain why we are doing this, as opposed to obtaining enough people available on lists who could undertake this work so that tribunals could be convened quickly and easily. In other words, is the problem what is being paid, so to speak, or offered to the members of the tribunal? Is that the issue here, as opposed to other factors?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. Mostly it's a case of just not having people available at short notice to sit on a tribunal. We do run into that more and more, and it happens in the more remote areas.

The reason we're doing this is to give people that the member describes…. And we're very concerned with them too. That's why we're doing this — to make sure that they can have their day in front of the tribunal and have their hearing in a timely manner, rather than having to wait months till we can assemble a three-person panel.

I should remind the member, too, that they still have a three-step process. We're not altering that. They can ask for reconsideration first, then a tribunal hearing and, if they don't like the results of that, a judicial hearing. It is at the discretion of the chair, who will always try to accommodate the concerns of the appellant. If the appellant insists, as I said to the other member, that they have a three-person tribunal, they will have it in as timely a manner as we can provide it, but they may not all be present in person. The tribunal may have one or two members there by teleconference.

L. Krog: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

G. Robertson: Good morning to the minister and staff. I have some questions this morning related to the

Canada line, the RAV line, which makes it way through my riding in Vancouver-Fairview.

I have noted to date in the House that there has actually been considerably more disruption in the neighbourhoods and to the business districts in Fairview than was anticipated, I think, by residents and by small businesses in particular. They are definitely bearing the brunt of a project that they underestimated in terms of its impact on the ability to do business, to get around, to get to school, to get to work in the neighbourhood. That is an issue that my colleague and I want to canvass to some degree here.

I wanted to start with some confirmation in terms of the financial commitments of the province. Will the minister just confirm the amount of funding to date that has been delivered to the project?

G. Robertson: Will the minister clarify what funding will be allocated in the three years covered by service plans.

Hon. K. Falcon: The number over the next three years will be $138 million total.

G. Robertson: From the minister's information, I'm getting $274 million as the total allocation three years out, by which time the project should be completed, I believe. Is that the extent of the province's payments going into the construction of the project, or does that include something else?

Hon. K. Falcon: The balance of the payments will be made up of performance payments to the concessionaire. The performance payments are predicated on issues of car availability and some quality issues that are spelled out in the concession agreement, which is also posted on the website.

G. Robertson: How much exactly in performance payments is to be allocated within these three years?

G. Robertson: Twenty million dollars. So $274 million total, and $20 million of that is performance, meaning $254 million is the component that is construction-related?

G. Robertson: From the authorized dollars through the history of the project, $235 million was the authorized amount from the province of B.C. for construction. Can the minister explain the difference between that $235 million and the $254 million that's now envisioned?

Hon. K. Falcon: The difference is in 2003 dollars as compared to as-spent dollars. Obviously, there is a difference between as-spent and the 2003 figure.

G. Robertson: A question then. There are mounting concerns, certainly in Vancouver, as to the progress of the project and what costs will eventually be once all is said and done. In past estimates, certainly last year, the minister has clarified that the province's contribution is capped and that there will be a $435 million contribution on behalf of the province. That includes the performance payments.

Maybe the minister will just clarify that those are 2003 dollars. Given that there is an update, an additional cost of approximately $19 million from 2003 to date added on to the $235 million commitment, is there an additional cost envisioned for the total commitment of $435 million once the project is paid out?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Our provincial commitment is capped at the $435 million. That has not changed, and that will not change.

G. Robertson: So regardless of the inflation of dollars, the maximum amount the province will be in for is $435 million. That excludes any increase relative to inflation from 2003 dollars?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think with the proviso, and I'm sure the member understands this, that when a budget is set, you set it in the dollar of the day.

That was set in 2003 dollars — the $435 million…. Obviously, over time, as-spent dollars are going to be higher than $435 million. That's a basic finance issue, and I'm sure the member understands that. But you have to lock in a dollar figure, and 2003 dollars was the commitment. So that means, obviously, in as-spent dollars it's a larger number, but if you do a net-present value, it comes back to 2003 dollars — $435 million. That has not changed; that will not change.

G. Robertson: So it's $435 million 2003 dollars. My questions were basically to clarify what is anticipated in terms of inflation over the next three years. The ministry is budgeting $19 million to allow for that — the inflation. Over the extent of the project — the $435 million commitment — what is the anticipated increase in the dollars of the day?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I'm trying to do is explain it in a way that will be simple for any folks that may be listening at home. I guess the important point to make is that we set our commitment in 2003 dollars of $435 million. Built into that is a 2-percent annual inflation factor. Anything over 2 percent is not our responsibility. All of that is built into the payment streams that we make into the out-years on this project.

Obviously, there's a difference between as-spent dollars and the 2003 dollars — no doubt about that. It's like that on every single project. It's sometimes a difficult concept for the general public to grasp, but it's, as you know, a very standard protocol in finance.

G. Robertson: A question specifically around the future payments and commitments, in terms of the operation

of the line, from the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority books and their notes to financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2006. The grants to the Canada line rapid transit, in terms of future payments, total $586.6 million. My understanding is that that is through a provincial funding agreement for continued related expenses on the operation of the rapid transit line. Can the minister just confirm that that is the case?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be the sum total of the payments over the life of the agreement.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify that this sum total of payments is in addition to the $435 million of capital and performance payments that are committed?

Hon. K. Falcon: What the member is referring to is all of the future payments on that project — representing, obviously, the $435 million in as-spent dollars out till 2040. Those payments would total, in as-spent dollars, $586.6 million. I believe that's the number the member's referring to, and that would be correct.

G. Robertson: Okay. That clarifies the envisioned expense. At a 2-percent increase in inflation, the $435 million ends up being a $586.6 million total cost to the province of B.C. Thanks to the minister for that clarification.

In terms of ongoing liability for the project in the event that it is not on budget, there have been concerns as to the cost being borne by the contractor, the difficulty for the tunnel boring machine and construction challenges through this very stormy and wet winter. Will the minister just clarify where any additional funding will come from if construction costs are beyond what was originally anticipated?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member asking that question because this goes right to the heart of why we enter into private-public partnerships. Those risks — which are considerable, and the member is quite right about that — are risks that are borne by the contractor, not the taxpayer.

Under this arrangement, the contractor, however tough it may be on them — I have no doubt that it's tough — will be responsible for those risks. If there are any additional costs, those are costs that they will have to eat, and that's as it should be under the way these things are structured.

I do have to say that the contractor, I think, is doing an exceptional job. This is a project that remains on budget and is on schedule. Given the environment that we find ourselves in today with all of the challenges in terms of labour, price of steel and concrete, etc., it is something that gives me as the Minister of Transportation great comfort in knowing that our contribution and our exposure from the taxpayer point of view is fully protected.

This contractor and the consortium that is building the Canada line are fully liable on making sure that it gets built, completed and operational. There are financial penalties that are involved if they don't achieve that.

I really want the record to show that the work they are doing has been nothing short of phenomenal, and I really take my hat off to those workers because I think they are doing an exceptional job in challenging circumstances.

G. Robertson: I'm curious. The minister continues to repeat that we're on time, on budget. My understanding from the RAVCO Quarterly Report No. 4…. A quote from that states that overall work progress continues to be behind.

Certainly, from those of us who live in the community and see the work going on and see the schedule that was put forward, this is a huge concern for the merchants in Cambie village, where they were told disruptions in front of their businesses would last no more than a year. Those disruptions are already taking place, and the actual dig hasn't even begun in the Cambie village. So the disruption now looks like it'll be several years in terms of impacting the local businesses in order for the project to get done in time for the 2010 games.

It appears that the construction schedule right now is basically fluid. They're opening it up and driving it as fast as they can everywhere.

Just to return to the costs associated with that, according to the information that I have, we are 24 percent or 13 months into the planned 54 months of construction, but 53 percent of the money has already been spent, according to the numbers provided. Is the minister concerned that we're way ahead on spending, and we are behind in term of the construction schedule?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the important thing for the member opposite to understand is that the project is fully on schedule in terms of completion dates. Ironically, I ran into the senior person responsible for that at a social event recently. They assured me that not only was it on schedule, but in fact their optimism was increasing because as they do more and more of the cut-and-cover, they are actually improving the productivity levels and determining ways that they can actually increase things.

They are a little behind on the cash flow, meaning that the dollars they expend are slightly behind schedule in terms of the schedule they put in place. But again, that's a cash flow issue, and they're catching up on that too. The critical thing from the government's point of view — because frankly that's an internal thing that they can spend some time on — and for the small businesses that the member speaks of is the fact that what really people are very interested in is: is this thing going to get built on schedule?

I'm here telling the member that based on all the information that has been suggested to us by the people that are actually doing the building, that yes, indeed, they are on schedule. They are increasingly optimistic that they will very much be staying on schedule and perhaps feeling some sense of optimism that they may be able to even get ahead of schedule.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, I think we beg to differ on at least one, if not more, of the assertions that the minister has made. The minister asserts — and I think this is basically a direct quote — that what people are really interested in, referring specifically to the merchants on Cambie Street, is that the project be done on time.

While all of us hope that the project will be done on time, on budget, that's really not what the Cambie Street merchants are concerned about at all. What they're concerned about is that the commitments that were made to them with respect to disruption to their businesses during the period of construction are kept. It appears that those commitments are not being kept. The question to the minister is: is he aware of that? To what extent is he aware of it, and what does he have to say about it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would disagree with that characterization completely. In fact, the Canada Line has provided $1.3 million in direct support to support businesses during the construction period. They've got marketing campaigns; they've got street ambassadors; they've got community festivals. There is a full-time person who does nothing but work with the small business sector to try and ameliorate any impacts.

I should tell the member, first of all, that I think we need to be very clear and upfront. Of course there are going to be disruptions. We shouldn't try and pretend that we live in some kind of perfect world where you can take a fully built-out neighbourhood and try and do a major project like this and not have disruption. Absolutely there is disruption. What I always find interesting is that people tend to talk about the disruption and not talk about any of the benefits when this thing is completed. I'll give you an example.

I was talking to a hotel owner who said to me: "No question, Minister, we are being impacted by this. The whole street is dug up in front of our hotel. There is a short-term impact, but we just look to when this is open." We're going to be able to have people come from the airport right to their hotel, and that is a huge benefit. That is a benefit in terms of the value of their asset and in terms of the people who can visit their businesses.

So it is along the corridor. That does not mean, in any way, that I am not concerned that these folks are impacted. They are impacted. I don't believe for a second that we should try and minimize that. Everything that I know in terms of the "I Shop The Line" website that has been put together, the street ambassadors and the dollars that have been expended to try and create continued shopping along Cambie…. It's achieving its purpose, and that is to try and support as best as Canada Line and RAVCO are able to the merchants along that corridor without pretending there is not an impact.

D. Chudnovsky: I take it that the minister agrees, then, that the schedule of disruption that was provided to the merchants at the beginning of the project and committed to by RAVCO…. He agrees with our contention that that has not been kept and that the disruption is significantly more and for longer periods than had been committed to. I take it that answer is in agreement with that assertion.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not exactly sure what the member is characterizing. It sounds like maybe the discussions between RAVCO and the businesses…. Initially there was talk of a tunnel, and then it became cut-and-cover. If that is what the member is referring to, then….

Hon. K. Falcon: Okay. Sorry, no, that's my fault. I shouldn't ask the member mid-answer whether that was what he was saying.

I'm sure there were a bunch of discussions that went on between RAVCO and the small business merchants. I don't pretend to understand what all those discussions were, because it's not my project. We are a funder in this project, but it is not a project I am delivering, so I wasn't involved in those discussions.

The question I thought I heard the member asking me was: am I trying to deny that there is impact on the small business community? I think I was fairly upfront about it. From my observation and from what I see, yes, clearly there is impact. I don't think for a second we should try and deny that there is an impact.

From my perch, I would quibble with the level of impact and the devastation that it apparently wreaks. I believe that when I was driving down Cambie last time, I saw a couple of new businesses that had opened up in one of the Cambie neighbourhoods. There is a Capers and a coffee shop I saw that were newly opened. I've also heard, in fairness, that people have said businesses have closed. But businesses close and open all the time.

My position is, as one of the funders of this project of which we are not delivering, is that we should recognize and be sympathetic to the fact that there are impacts. Also, what I've seen is a significant amount of money expended to support those businesses, and Canada Line is doing everything they can to try to ameliorate the impacts on the small business community.

I do think that they are trying hard to do that, and they're working closely. They have got a business advisory committee that works with the small business sector, a full-time person who works with them, who tries to do their very best to minimize the impacts on those folks.

We should never lose sight of the fact that once this is operational and opens on schedule, as it is going to do, that there will be enormous benefits for those folks, with at least 100,000 people a day who will be riding that system and taking benefit of visiting those local businesses.

G. Robertson: I will take issue with the minister's assertions that is this is actually good for business, specifically the businesses which currently exist along Cambie Street, and Cambie village in particular. There is no stop anywhere near Cambie village that shoppers will be able to access the village through.

In the case of the new businesses opening, the commitments that were made by those businesses to take on those locations were made before they understood this was a cut-and-cover project. They are certainly bearing the brunt and suffering the impacts of extreme disruptions to their business.

So the minister knows, because I live a few blocks away from Cambie village, there are lots of businesses losing their businesses. They are gone. I would say that, on average, from the merchants that I talk to along Cambie, their business is down about 50 percent; their revenues are down about 50 percent.

Does the minister consider a 50-percent drop in revenue and a whole series of bankruptcies along Cambie village to be an acceptable disruption or impact on the community?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, of course the minister would not consider that acceptable. I think the member has to be careful. Businesses open and close every day throughout the province. We undertake highway projects throughout this province that have an impact on business.

I can promise you that when we do road widenings, we often have to sometimes shut off access to businesses that were used to having free-flowing access into their properties. There can be impacts. I don't think we should try and pretend that there are no impacts. But I think we need to put the impacts into perspective, and we need to recognize the efforts that Canada Line is making to try and ameliorate those impacts, which are considerable. Does that make it a perfect world? No, it probably does not.

I came from a business background, and I recognize that there are challenges periodically in business as you go through life. Some times are better than others. I can tell you that if we operated from the assumption that we will only undertake projects in the province that do not impact anyone, we will not be undertaking any projects. That includes every major project I can think of that has been done in the last 25 years, including the SkyTrain, the Millennium line, the Cambie Street Bridge and all the other projects we have built throughout the lower mainland.

We have to be careful about the fact that there is ever going to be a perfect world in which we can make significant multi-billion-dollar investments and have absolutely zero impacts on people. The issue, I think, is: has RAVCO and has Canada Line done the reasonable efforts that one would expect to be necessary to try and ameliorate the impact of the construction?

My sense, as one of the funding partners — not the person driving and delivering the project — is that they are making every effort they can to try and deal with that issue. With the committees of business representatives they've got from the area, the $1.3 million, the full-time person, the street campaigns, the community festivals, and all the other things they're doing, they are there to try to assist the small business sector as much as possible.

I am always sorry if I hear about any business failing. I'm always sorry when I see someone that's invested a lot of their earnings to try and make a go of a business and they don't succeed. I've heard today there's a major business that will be announcing that they were unable to succeed financially. That's unfortunate. I feel bad for the individuals that are affected.

I am also encouraged when I see new businesses opening and new people investing. I'm sure there are lots of people who are probably going to be looking ahead and saying: "Boy, there are going to be some real opportunities along this corridor once we have a rapid transit system in place and built." Those people are probably going to be preparing for some potential upsides.

G. Robertson: The minister refers to the news today of a business that is going under. Can the minister just expand on that?

I think it would be useful for people to understand what is acceptable here. What does the minister feel is an acceptable impact in terms of losses? If we've lost to date, I'd say, between 20 and 30 percent of the businesses…. We have vacancies along Cambie village that weren't there before. There are indications that is going to continue to increase, as many of these businesses could never have budgeted or insulated themselves against these kinds of drops and impacts and disruptions to their business. That schedule has stretched out way beyond what anyone envisioned on cut-and-cover — which itself was a surprise to these businesses who had expected that there would be a tunnel bored.

Does the minister think it's okay if we lose half the businesses — which is way, way beyond any natural course of events or even a typical disruptive construction event related to highways — in a business district like Cambie where there are hundreds of businesses, from False Creek up? Is it acceptable to lose half those businesses? Where does the minister draw the line before he steps in and says: "The measures being taken by Canada Line, although they may have been considered appropriate at the outset, now we've passed a point at which it's acceptable to the province as a funding partner, and we need to do something different here"?

We need to look at ensuring that we don't lose more businesses. We've already lost a quarter of the businesses. Is the minister going to step in and do something if we lose half of the businesses, or are the businesses on their own and that's it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can tell you that this Minister of Transportation is never happy when any business fails. Sadly, we have businesses that fail probably every day in the province of British Columbia. That's what the marketplace is all about. The marketplace will determine whether businesses succeed or fail.

I think this member has — I don't want to say — well, an extraordinarily pessimistic outlook in terms of

the businesses that are operating on Cambie. This member talks about half the businesses failing. Well, that is the first time I've heard that number. Obviously, it wouldn't be good if half the businesses are going to fail along that corridor, but I've certainly seen no evidence that half the businesses are due to fail along the Cambie corridor.

I said before, and I'll say again, that whenever you undertake a major project, there will be impacts. As a funding partner in a program that I'm not responsible for delivering, I've never tried to deny that there aren't impacts. Clearly there would be.

The issue for the Minister of Transportation is: have they taken every step that the public would consider reasonable to try and ameliorate that impact? I don't know if the member opposite is coming up…. You know, socialists come up with new and crazy ideas every day about how they think government should step in and play a role in areas that they have no jurisdiction or knowledge in playing. Maybe the member is suggesting that government needs to operate their businesses during the term of the cut-and-cover.

I have no idea what the member is suggesting. But I can tell you that that is certainly not a direction this government will go in. All I need to know as a funding partner is: is RAVCO and Canada Line doing the best they can to try and ameliorate impacts?

My assessment is yes, they are doing the best they can do. Does that mean that it makes everyone happy along the Cambie? No, it doesn't. Again, in all the projects we get involved with, we have impacts. We don't try and deny that. We try to minimize those impacts. We work very hard to try and minimize those impacts on the folks.

I think the extent to which Canada Line has gone and the dollars that they have contributed to try and do that are rather extraordinary and perhaps appropriate given the extraordinary nature of the impact for the small businesses. But I'm not nearly as pessimistic as that individual.

I hate when people talk in anecdotes, including myself, so I'm hesitant to use an anecdote. I'm trying to remember the individual that I talked to. There was a small business on Cambie that had indicated…. Anyhow, I'm not even going to use it.

The member opposite laughs, and I think that's fine. The critic can laugh, but there was a case where an individual came to me and said their business hasn't been better. But for me to say that on the record without saying who the individual was…. I think it's inappropriate, because it wouldn't….

Hon. K. Falcon: Yeah, the hotel I can actually talk about. The owner of the hotel is the one in Yaletown. It's that real high-end boutique hotel.

Hon. K. Falcon: Opus. Thank you, the Opus Hotel. I had a discussion with the owner of the Opus Hotel, and they said to me, no question that it's having an impact during construction, but boy, can they see the benefits when that Canada line is completed. That's what they recognize — that there will be enormous benefits. If you can imagine this for the Opus Hotel, they're going to have a situation now where any clients flying into Vancouver can hop on the Canada line and be dropped off literally on the doorstep of this hotel. They are great hotel operators, by the way, and the impact on their hotel is enormous.

In fact, I was down there at an event they were doing, a street event — it was a wonderful event — and the impact was everywhere. You could see all the big fences and gates and the road closed off. There's no doubt that that has a big impact. I give credit to the entrepreneurs, like the owner of the Opus Hotel, who recognize that while there is a short-term impact, boy, they really recognize that there is a very significant longer-term benefit.

I guess that's a way of me saying, look, we shouldn't try to minimize, we shouldn't try and pretend there's no impact, because that would be just an affront to the people that are impacted. As I've said so many times before, I think the issue is: are Canada Line and RAVCO doing everything a reasonable person would expect them to do to try and ameliorate? My sense is that they are doing that.

I'm sincerely sorry for any businesses that feel that their losses or their failure is a direct result of that. I have been involved in the business community long enough to know that there are usually other factors that come into play, that can affect the viability of a business. Nevertheless, I do think that they are trying to do everything they can to ameliorate, and that's appropriate.

G. Robertson: It's very disappointing that the minister continues to belittle the challenges that are borne by these businesses, given the fact that they were operating and many of these businesses succeeding in the market. It was actually this government's intervention in the marketplace that has created the conditions by which it's very difficult for businesses to continue or certainly to succeed to the degree that they were doing before the project started.

The failures that are taking place — to attribute them to marketplace failures when on any given day you can't even get down the sidewalk to access a business, you can't cross the street in certain places…. Nobody can park on Cambie Street, through the village. To say that there are marketplace forces at work here is preposterous and very disrespectful of businesses that have worked very hard over many years to build a substantial customer base that can no longer access those businesses because of an intervention created by the government.

No doubt there's a reason, there's a rationale to have a rapid transit line along the Cambie corridor. However, my question to the minister had been about when the government will step forward and say: "The impact has

gone too far. We recognize that this construction is wiping out too many businesses, that not enough is being done, that a million-dollar budget to coordinate some special events and some billboards and advertising is inadequate, given the level of disruption and impact on these businesses, and we're going to do more to support these businesses."

I didn't hear from the minister at what point that is considered. It sounds like it's not being considered at all and that everything is on RAVCO or Canada Line, and their business liaison, to deal with this and that the province is taking no responsibility for the impact on the businesses, regardless of how extensive it ends up being. The minister may want to comment on that, if he has a different opinion about actually supporting some of these businesses in some way, shape or form beyond what has currently been provided, given the impact.

I want to just shift our focus to what's happening on the downtown side from the Opus Hotel to Waterfront. In terms of construction, my understanding is that there is now tunnel-boring proceeding across the peninsula, which wasn't envisioned. It was envisioned that the tunnel would be bored under False Creek and come up at the Roundhouse station in Yaletown, and that there'd be cut-and-cover construction up through Granville, some of which is taking place on the northeast end of Granville Street. But it looks as though tunnel-boring is now proceeding across the peninsula. Can the minister just clarify, from the province's perspective, what's going on there?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have that information at my fingertips. As the member well knows, this isn't a project we are delivering. That would probably be a better question for RAVCO and Canada Line. I just don't have that information, and I think I need to be upfront about that with the member.

We are a funding partner; we are not the deliverer of this project. We set out, as part of the agreement with the concessionaire, what their obligations are in terms of when they need to get this thing built, and we allow the genius and innovation of the private sector to undertake that in the best way possible.

Every indication I've ever had has been that they are doing an exceptional job. They've taken a complex project. They are delivering it on schedule and on budget, and that is something that I can tell you I hear positive reviews about on a regular basis. Anything more than that, especially the details of how the project is being delivered or where the tunnel-boring machine is on any given day, is not something that I have at my fingertips. I have enough on my plate without, you know, getting involved in the details of where they're boring tunnels, etc., for a project that I'm not delivering.

D. Chudnovsky: It's perplexing and troubling that we would be providing funding to the tune of some $400 million from the province and that when we ask the minister who is responsible for providing that funding as a partner in a major infrastructure project — a project the minister talks about all the time — the minister wouldn't know about some of these details.

We make the assumption — perhaps it's wrong, and perhaps the minister can advise us if it's wrong — that somebody somewhere in the ministry should know what it is that we're buying with the $435 million we're spending. So, could the minister tell us whether his explanation — that he is not particularly interested in the details of this project — is an indication of the ministry's involvement? Or is there somewhere in the ministry where they actually know what's happening with tunnelling on the RAV project?

Hon. K. Falcon: These are the parts of the discussions that I enjoy so much with the members opposite, because it just shows the glaring lack of knowledge they have on overseeing any kind of project and how these projects work. I just wish that once, at least, they would actually go on the website and read what the agreement says and then become aware of how these kinds of projects get delivered.

There are milestones that the concessionaire has to achieve. They don't get paid unless they meet these milestones. That's how we do things, Member, on the government side. It's called performance. It's actually called payment for performance. Those milestones have to be met. The payments are contingent upon it.

I actually do not, and I'm proud of the fact, spend my time figuring out where that tunnel-boring machine is every day of the week, because I'm not interested in that. What I'm interested in is: is this concessionaire delivering as they should deliver this major project? Are they achieving the milestones? When we pay them, we make sure they achieve the milestones. I can tell you that my staff get briefed on a reasonably regular basis but certainly not on a day-to-day basis, nor would we want to.

That perhaps goes to the fundamental difference between the opposition and the government. The opposition love interfering with and getting involved in decisions for which they don't have the skill set or the basis on which to do so, and that's how you get involved in creating disasters like the fast ferries, for example. We're interested in results.

Staff were briefed on this a while back. They don't particularly recollect the specific detail of what the member originally asked about the tunnel-boring machine and its direction or what have you, not because that may not have been covered but because it was just one in a series of issues that would be covered in their briefing, and they don't happen to recollect that particular detail at this point. But I can tell you from our point of view that all we're interested in is: are the milestones being met? Are they sticking to schedule?

Our payments are dependent upon that, and thus far we've been very, very pleased — in fact, extremely pleased — with how well the concessionaire is operating and how well they're doing in terms of schedule.

G. Robertson: Again I will try to describe the surprise and disappointment that I have, with the minister specifically, in terms of having no clue what's going on

under the largest city in the province, under the most important business and financial district in the province, right through downtown Vancouver. The difference for the businesses and all the people who work in downtown Vancouver between a tunnel-boring machine coming across the peninsula and a big dig making its way across is a very significant difference.

I am not sure that the public knows what's going on here. It doesn't seem that it's well understood exactly what is taking place between Yaletown and the waterfront in terms of construction approaches. It obviously makes a big difference for the businesses along that stretch of the line what type of construction is taking place. The difference in terms of disruption and impact, the difference that that makes on the ground in downtown Vancouver for thousands and thousands of people and businesses every day is very significant.

I would be astonished if nobody in the ministry at a high level understands what kind of construction is going to take place between Yaletown and Waterfront. Whether it is tunnel-boring…. It would be great news for everyone who works and lives in the downtown peninsula if there was going to be a tunnel-boring machine deployed across the peninsula. It would mean a whole lot less disruption taking place. I would think that would be good news for the minister and certainly for the Canada Line people to get out.

I'm curious why there is an absolute blank across from us here from the minister and his senior staff as to what is taking place, given the importance of this, given the good news that it could mean for the downtown peninsula. And that we're being deferred to the project coordinator…. I think the people of B.C. should be able to know. What's taking place in terms of construction should be public information.

Certainly for the businesses that are involved, they should know if the impact on their businesses is changed markedly now because of a different construction technique than envisioned. It is going to make a big difference for their business planning. Shouldn't they know about that? Shouldn't that be public information right now? Shouldn't the minister be able to find that out by this afternoon's estimates so that businesses downtown are able to understand what's in store for them and what is good news for them in terms of construction impacts?

Will the minister provide that information this afternoon? Can he make that happen for us, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know that there is a project team at RAVCO that is responsible for delivering this project. The member should also know that I probably spend a lot more time with the business community than that member does and know most of them on a first-name basis. I can tell you that the business community is hugely supportive of this project.

I'm not too sure who that member talks to, but I can tell you that the project is being delivered in a manner that is providing great confidence to the business community, and certainly providing great confidence to us as a government. That's happening because it's a private-public partnership.

I want to say that on the record because I can tell you that God help us if government was trying to deliver this project ourselves. I can't even imagine what would happen if this project was trying to be delivered by TransLink. The scale of the risks involved for the taxpayer would be enormous.

Here we have an area where we've got the taxpayers with a fixed contribution on a project that's being delivered on schedule with great support from the business community. It doesn't mean there aren't some members — particularly, apparently, on the Cambie corridor — that aren't doing handstands over the fact that they're seeing construction disrupt their businesses.

We should recognize that that's an impact. But the fact of the matter is, if the member has questions like that he should go and talk to the people delivering the project — the RAVCO. They've got a project team in place. They'd be happy to share.

They'd probably be happy to give the member a briefing, if the member has great interest in where tunnel-boring machines go. I believe they might even have information on the website that provides updates on a regular basis to those who are interested. In fact, I'm sure they do. The member can get daily updates on what is happening with the project. I think if that's helpful to the member, he should consider doing it.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister doesn't know and doesn't care, he told us, what technology is being used to create the tunnel for the downtown portion of the Canada line. He rejects the notion that there are businesses on the Cambie corridor which are suffering because of the project.

He suggests to us that there are other factors. We can only speculate on what those other factors are. Perhaps he thinks that these are poor business people, or they are not paying attention to their businesses, or they don't care about them. But there are other factors that are to blame for the failures of businesses in the Cambie corridor and in Cambie village.

He rejects the notion that the disruption which is being caused by the project is significantly greater than it had been committed to be. We certainly could provide a briefing for the minister, if he so desired, and show him the charts, the maps and the commitments that were made by the company which is doing the project, which he and his ministry are major partners in.

If he wanted to take some time to get that briefing, we could certainly provide that briefing for him. I'm certain we could find some Cambie Street business people who would be prepared to participate in that briefing. But all of those things are rejected, so maybe we can talk about another piece of the puzzle when it comes to the Canada line, because on the one hand there are the expenditures…. That is what we are paying.

By the way, the minister continues to repeat the canard that the costs to the taxpayer are capped. They, of course, are not capped. The costs to the taxpayer through the province are capped. They certainly are not capped if the 100,000 people that the minister predicted a little while ago don't show up. He knows very well that the taxpayers of the lower mainland will be on the hook for that additional cost.

The other side of the equation is: what do we buy? What are we buying? Could the minister please review for us his understanding of the major — I'm not talking about the minor — changes in the project in terms of reducing services and amenities and parts of the project since the contract was signed and since the budget was created.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the last point first. No, the minister won't do that. The member opposite is asking me to go back into history and try and determine all the decisions that RAVCO and Canada Line, on behalf of TransLink, made with respect to the project. This is a project that I'm a funding partner in, and as much as this member wants to pretend that I am the one delivering the project and that I should have all this information at my fingertips, I don't. So I'm not going to waste a lot of time worrying about that.

I do want to address, however, the attempts of the member opposite to try and misrepresent comments I've made. I actually don't think that that's the right thing to do as hon. members in this House. The member is trying to say that I don't care about the small business sector. I made it very clear that I have never for a second pretended that there weren't impacts on small business. Of course there is.

Who in their right mind thinks you can build a $2 billion project and not have impacts? Only in the fantasyland of the opposition would that be possible. Especially in an area that is fully built out, of course there are impacts. The issue is not whether there are impacts, but whether Canada Line and RAVCO are doing everything possible to try to ameliorate it, and clearly they are.

I have to say — and I'm sure my members sitting here today would certainly agree with this — it's a little rich to hear the NDP suddenly becoming the defenders of small business. These are the people who destroyed small business in British Columbia, for goodness' sake. There was no better economic wrecking crew than the NDP government during the 1990s. The small business community was fleeing. Their small business strategy was to basically take big business, drive them into small businesses. That was their small business strategy.

As the Minister of Transportation, I find it a little hard to hear that when here we now have a province with multiple credit upgradings, triple-A credit rating, the strongest business sector we've seen in the history of British Columbia, the lowest unemployment rate since they started recording unemployment rates and the strongest support from the small business sector to a government that there probably has ever been in the history of the province. I know because I spend a lot of time with them. I talk with small business folks all the time, used to be one and know them well.

The member spends a lot of his time with his public sector union cronies. They probably don't have a lot of experience in the business sector, but we actually have some on this side of the House. I can tell you that the business community is very, very supportive of the direction this government has gone. They are very supportive of the tax cuts that put more money into the pockets of small business, which those individuals voted against.

I sat in this House and saw over the years, time after time again, that when we were providing tax relief to small business, they voted against it. They voted against the elimination of the corporate capital tax. They voted against the personal income tax cuts — not just the 10 percent one we did in this budget, but the 25 percent one we did in our first budget. So it's a little rich to hear them now suddenly become the defenders of small business and say: "My goodness, how can this government be so hard on the small business community?"

Well, that characterization is completely fraudulent and just ridiculous, just on the face of it. I did want to correct the record on that because I think it is not only wrong, but it's just silly, frankly. It's just downright silly.

The fact of the matter is I'm very sympathetic to individuals who are impacted by this. I've said that before. I've said it repeatedly. I wish there were no impacts. I can tell you as a funding partner in a project I'm not delivering, I'm sorry that there's any impact. I wish we could have a world where there were no impacts.

But I also am someone who knows that the business community is a very strong…. These are very great entrepreneurs, and I wish all of them would succeed. All of them won't — we just know that — whether there is a Canada line or not a Canada line being built.

There is no doubt it'll have impacts. But I am satisfied — and this is the central point that I want to get on the record — that RAVCO, as the deliverer of this project, and Canada Line have been doing everything that they reasonably could be expected to do to try and help out the small business sector that is impacted by this.

I do not lose sight of the fact and this member should be careful not to lose sight of the fact that there is very, very strong support for this project, not just in Vancouver and not just in the Vancouver small business sector, but by the residents, the public and the population of the lower mainland. I tell you this because these members opposed this project, by the way — another one that they opposed. They actually oppose everything, but this was a project that they also opposed.

This was a project I fought for. In fact, I recall hearing the members opposite talk about how I was a bully. Apparently, you're a bully when you want to get things done that are going to provide significant benefits to the province. Let me tell you this: a hundred thousand people a day out of their cars and into public transit, and over 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emission that will not be going into the atmosphere annually as a

result of this investment. The fact that we will be a major city with a major rapid transit network going from the airport to the downtown is going to be hugely significant for the future economic prospects of British Columbia.

I'm proud of the fact that we supported it when they didn't. I'm proud of the fact that we stood up to the objections of the same people that always come out against these projects. They're always that same little group: public sector unions, the usual advocates. I even had environmentalists, for goodness' sake, that were telling me why we shouldn't do this. I remember David Cadman on Vancouver city council talking about how the pouring of concrete would create environmental impacts. I mean, it's just lunacy.

The fact of the matter is that this was a project…. The same people that oppose this project I find suddenly at anti-Gateway things. I find it interesting that the member opposite will be speaking at an anti-Gateway rally. I love this because it just continues to confirm that they oppose rapid transit investment and that they oppose infrastructure investment. But I can tell you this. I will say this here now: what they do not realize is that there is strong, huge, broad-based, widespread support for these projects. That doesn't mean you can't pull together a couple of hundred people that will always show up and oppose stuff. It happened with SkyTrain.

I was at the 25th anniversary of SkyTrain, and former Mayor Mike Harcourt was there. I have a great deal of respect for Mayor Harcourt, I have to say. A reporter asked him a question. He said: "Well, Mayor Harcourt, you opposed the SkyTrain project. Why are you here at the 25th anniversary?" This is what I really like about Mike Harcourt. He said: "That's true, and I was wrong. This has been good for Vancouver, and it's been good for the environment." I'm paraphrasing what he said, but that was it. My respect level for Mike Harcourt went through the roof because one of the hardest things to do in politics is to admit that you're wrong.

I think the same kind of thing goes into these kinds of projects. Yes, there are going to be people that will always oppose them, and they're often the same people. In fact, some of the same people that opposed SkyTrain oppose the Canada line, and then they just move over to oppose whatever the other projects are that they don't like.

The fact of the matter is that we are getting it done because it's the right thing to do for the environment and for the city of Vancouver. We recognize that as RAVCO delivers this project, there are going to be impacts. Are they trying to do their best to minimize the impacts? Yes, they are. As the Minister of Transportation, I'm proud of the fact they're trying their best to do that, but this is a private-public partnership project, I might add, that I am very proud of being delivered on schedule and on budget.

D. Chudnovsky: One of the hardest things to do in politics is admit you're wrong, but even harder is to stop talking once you get started. It doesn't take much to get this minister going, does it? It's extraordinary. Sometimes I hesitate to even ask a question because we get, you know, a long, long non-answer to a simple question.

The question, as I recall…. It's hard. It begins to recede into the deep dark past. I do remember the question that I asked, and it had to do with the reductions in service and changes to the project which tend to reduce the project since the time that the budget was set.

Somewhere in his oration — which began to become, I have to say, Castroesque at times — the minister repeated that he doesn't have an interest in the details of the project. Once again he told us that — as regards the $430 million, money that's coming through his ministry from the people of British Columbia — he doesn't have an interest in what that project looks like. I find that, frankly, to be extraordinary. It's extraordinary. He can dress it up with some….

My God, we're going to vote. But I'll be back. I promise, hon. Chair: I will be back.

The Chair: The committee will have a recess until after the vote is completed.

D. Chudnovsky: Just to tie up that last bit, or maybe not — who knows. Let's see if we can do it this way. Is the minister aware that a large number of changes have been made to the RAV/Canada line project, which would tend to reduce the cost and the value of the project?

For instance, is he aware of the single-tracking of the line for some parts of the Richmond section and the reduction in the number of stations as two examples, among many, of changes that have taken place?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, you should know that on a major project it is very common for the concessionaires and the group that is delivering the project to undertake value engineering. It's very, very common. They will look for ways that they can streamline costs and try to do things to deliver it more efficiently.

That is something that is extremely common when we get into projects too. You start at a predesign. Then you go to design phase. Then you go to detailed design. Throughout those processes, they work together to try to determine — often through value engineering — where significant savings can be realized.

They also learn lessons, by the way, based on the ongoing consultations and discussions they're having with stakeholder groups, etc. So I'm not at all surprised that there would be those kinds of things happening.

That's certainly the way it works in our projects. We go through, as the member knows, very extensive public consultations. As a result of those consultations, we end up making fairly significant changes. When we start getting into detailed design we start looking at value engineering options to make sure we deliver the project as cost effectively as we can.

Is the minister aware that, among the stations on the Canada Line, almost all of them will not have down escalators? That is a specific problem for the disabled community. The community has been working as hard as it can to convince the Canada line to provide down escalators for people who find it very, very difficult to make the trip down into the stations.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's a very important question, actually, and I appreciate the member asking it. In fact, I had a very good meeting with none other than Rick Hansen, an individual whom I hold in the highest possible esteem. This issue of ensuring accessibility on the Canada line, and frankly on all projects undertaken by government, was canvassed very widely between myself and Mr. Hansen.

I think it's important to note that all stations will have up escalators and elevators and will be fully accessible. That is very important to know. Canada Line conducted a review of all the stations in '06 to ensure that where possible, down escalators will be built for opening day. Where they are not going to be built for opening day, provisions will be and have been made in the design to ensure that they can be added later.

That would include down escalator provisions and possible future installations being made for Waterfront, Vancouver city centre, Yaletown and Roundhouse stations. The decision to install the down escalators and the timing of that depends a fair bit in terms of what kind of ridership volume they are experiencing.

If there is a strong ridership volume of course, especially if it's much stronger than anticipated, that would obviously accelerate the addition and the provision of the down escalators in the area that has been reserved for that. But I think from an accessibility point of view, it's very important to remember that there will be full elevator access and there will be up escalators at all the stations.

D. Chudnovsky: It's heartening to know that on this issue at least, the minister expresses some caring about the details. We spent close to an hour prior to the break with the minister saying that he doesn't know about the details, he doesn't want to know about the details, he doesn't care about the details, and he is proud that he doesn't care about the details. But on this it's very heartening, and it's good to know that the minister is briefed.

D. Chudnovsky: Pardon me, Minister? Through you, Chair, to the minister. What did he say? I don't know. He'll have his chance.

It is a serious issue, and it's an issue that I still feel I must pursue a little bit further with the minister. In fact, in the question I made it clear that we are aware that up escalators will be available. My information from those with whom I've talked is that for many disabled people, it's actually going down stairs that's more difficult, more complex and more of a challenge.

I'm wondering what steps this minister will take on the details of the Canada line project in his ongoing relationship with those who are responsible for the Canada line. What specific actions will this minister take to advocate for full accessibility — meaning down and up escalators for every station — for the opening of the Canada line?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is actually correct. I always think it's important to point out when the member does say something that is correct, because I think the record needs to demonstrate that.

The member is correct when the member says that on this issue the minister is apparently much more well informed. The reason for that is, as I say, I did have the opportunity to meet with a person I admire tremendously, Rick Hansen.

This issue was raised by Rick Hansen. I felt that this was an issue that is important enough that I want to make sure that any project, even if we're a funding partner, is going to ensure that we have full accessibility.

I looked at this situation. I looked into it. My staff looked into it. We talked to InTransit B.C. and RAVCO. I am comforted by the fact that there will be full accessibility at all the stations. Now, admittedly they won't all have down escalators, at least not initially. But many of the stations will have been designed in provision that those can be added when the need justifies.

I think it's important to point out that they will all have elevator access. So anyone that the member is concerned about that may have accessibility issues will be able to utilize the elevator. Typically, in my experience, I don't note that people in wheelchairs or those with tremendous mobility difficulties are using escalators. They typically use the elevators.

The issue for me as the Minister of Transportation was: are these stations fully accessible? The answer is yes, and I'm satisfied with that. I'm also satisfied that they've made provision for the down escalators. The decision as to when those will take place will of course be dependent upon the volumes that they're experiencing.

D. Chudnovsky: If we could just talk about the elevator situation for a second. I'm informed that there are some real concerns on the part of disabled people with respect to the provision of elevators. Specifically, those concerns have to do with two things which arise from the fact that the stations will have one elevator.

The concerns have to do, first, with the availability of the elevator but, more importantly, with safety concerns. With one elevator available, there is a concern that there be visibility into the elevator — in and out of the elevator — so that people who are using those elevators can feel that their safety isn't compromised.

Again, I want to say that I'm heartened by the minister and the ministry's concern and interest in this issue. It is something that we all need to take very seriously. I need to say that the minister's answer that at some point in the future there may be down escalators doesn't give me the kind of satisfaction I'd like to have. Nevertheless, we've heard the commitment that has been made.

I wonder if the minister could make a comment or two about his understanding of the availability of elevators and the safety issues with respect to elevators.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the issue of availability of elevators, I have to profess that it's not an area of particular expertise of mine. I imagine the challenge is always that you must balance between the costs involved. Obviously, in a project like this, having multiple elevators that are sitting idle most of the time probably wouldn't be the best use of dollars.

What I would suggest to the member, as I know the member for Vancouver-Fairview has had repeated and detailed briefings on this project with staff from RAVCO and InTransit B.C.… I would suggest that on this issue…. In terms of windows or any concerns the member may have about safety or availability, I have no doubt they have very detailed information that they would be happy to provide to the member.

If the member wishes, I would be more than happy to arrange a briefing for the member and ask RAVCO to provide a briefing to the member that could help him with the issues he raised, which of course are of a very detailed nature and would have lots of issues associated with them too.

I'm sure they've done lots of work, as they typically do when designing stations, in thinking about ridership and what percentage of the population is likely to be mobility-challenged and what is necessary to provide them with reasonable access to ensure they can be dealt with in a manner that is appropriate for their level of mobility impairment.

That will, of course, speak to the issue of availability, too, because I have no doubt that they've done the work in terms of…. I imagine there is probably a calculation they undertake which determines what percentage of the population is likely to have mobility impairment and what that is going to mean in terms of ridership and in terms of what needs to be available to serve them appropriately. But if the member wishes, I can help to arrange a briefing for him on that.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you for that. I think that we would want to take advantage of the ability to speak with both RAVCO people and with ministry folks about the issue of accessibility. We very much appreciate the offer and would very much like to find a way to do that.

Now, if I could move back to the Sea to Sky project, the privatized highway project. I wonder if the minister could tell us about the cleanup. I want to canvass the issue of the January slide near Ansel Creek and the cleanup that arose from that slide, the big one. I wonder if he could tell us what the cost of the cleanup of that slide was.

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I want to make sure we're talking about the same slide. I think this is the one you were talking about where there was a big boulder that ended up on the highway — is that the one? — that they had to actually blast apart and then move.

Yes, this was a responsibility of the P3 concessionaire. The P3 concessionaire is responsible for cleaning that up and removing it, and I don't know what the costs were. That would be costs to the concessionaire, which I'm not aware of. We don't have that information at our fingertips.

D. Chudnovsky: Maybe we are speaking at cross-purposes for a second, so let's take a step back and make sure that we're on to the same issue. I'm informed — well, maybe not — that that particular slide took place in the design-build section of the highway. I might be wrong. I'm wondering whether the minister can check with staff to make sure that we're not talking about two different things at two different times.

Hon. K. Falcon: It was just south of Ansel, and my staff leads me to believe that that was outside the design-build area. This was within the area of concessionaire responsibility.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that, Chair. In any case, we'll pursue this issue, perhaps in this way. With respect to slides, the minister says that the cleanup was taken care of by the P3 concessionaire. Can he explain what the setup is in the contract with respect to landslides when there is a problem?

If we can just go back a step, the maintenance of the highway — including the design-build section, we found out yesterday — is part of the contract with the company that runs this highway. What I'm interested in talking about for a little bit is how that works. What exactly is the company responsible for with respect to landslides onto the highway?

Hon. K. Falcon: They are responsible for up to $50,000 for each event. Over $50,000 would be the responsibility of MOT. That information of course, as the member knows, is available on the website as part of the concession agreement.

D. Chudnovsky: So they are responsible for up to $50,000 for each event. I want to come back to that in a minute.

I take it the costs of the cleanup for this particular slide…. First, what happens if it's more than $50,000? What happens if the cost is more than $50,000 to clean up from an event?

Hon. K. Falcon: Any natural event that would happen of a landslide nature that's not a result of anything done by the concessionaire…. As I say, they are responsible for up to the first $50,000, and over $50,000 would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Transportation. That is set out in fairly significant detail in the agreement we have with the concessionaire.

D. Chudnovsky: Okay, we're going to come back to this $50,000 event business in a couple of minutes, but first let's deal with this particular slide. I take it, then, that the cost of the cleanup from that slide was less than $50,000. Or does the ministry expect a bill from somebody for the overage above $50,000?

Hon. K. Falcon: Because that was a slide that took place in an area of control — we consider it an area of control where the contractor is doing work — they are responsible for all of the costs associated with cleaning it up. Even if it's more than $50,000, that is going to be a cost that will be borne by them, not by the ministry. We're not expecting any bill for that work.

D. Chudnovsky: I've said thank heaven. Does that sound happy to you, hon. Chair? Does that sound happy to you?

I think what the minister is saying is that this one was, at least to some extent, a result of the construction process and still under the control of the concessionaire and, therefore, that the concessionaire is responsible for all of it.

That's interesting to know, because I recall reading in the press at the time of that slide that there were engineers running around — I guess paid for by the concessionaire — saying: "Oh, no, this isn't construction. This is just the way it is." I repeat: that's terrific to know that the concessionaire is responsible for that.

Let's get back to the $50,000 per-event limit that's laid out in the contract. I thought it was $43,000 per event?

Hon. K. Falcon: Staff advised me. They thought it was $50,000, but they haven't got that number at their fingertips. We'll certainly check that for the member.

D. Chudnovsky: Nothing, at least conceptually, turns on the difference between $43,000 and $50,000. I'm willing to pursue it and take it on the face of it that the staff think it's $50,000 if we can get it clarified at some point.

I'm just painting for myself a picture in my mind of how this is going to work. We've got this highway. It's being run by this company for 25 years. If there is a slide after the construction period — now we're talking about the maintenance period that's run by the company — and the value of the cleanup of the slide is $50,000 or less, the company is responsible for it. The amount above $50,000 is the responsibility of the ministry. Is there a limit on the number of slides that the concessionaire is responsible for?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's getting into a fair bit of technicality, which we're happy to provide the member. Probably once we come back from lunch hour we can do that.

Essentially, it depends on the nature of the event and what kind of event it was. Was it a washout? Was it a rockslide? There is an annual limit each year that's put into place. We'll get you the number. I think it's somewhere in the half-million dollar range, but I don't want to be held to that number in case that's not exactly it. We can get that for the member after lunch and, if you want, we can pursue that course of questions then.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks for that. The number that sticks in my mind is $150,000 a year. Again, my point is not to gotcha. That's not the point. The point is to understand what's going on here. I thank the minister for the commitment to get that figure, and we very much would like to engage on this issue using the correct figure. But let's pursue the discussion, if I may, notwithstanding the fact that we're not sure exactly what that is.

So again, I'm painting this picture for myself and trying to understand this contract we're involved in with this concessionaire. So we've got a situation where we…. The minister told us yesterday that this is one of the most unstable and most difficult geological environments anywhere in the world for a highway. He said that.

We know from our own experience that there are slides from time to time. The limit on the cost to the concessionaire of any one slide is $50,000, and there is a limit in total. Maybe it's $150,000; maybe it's something a little bit different.

So I'm trying to figure out what the big risk is. How come we're paying millions and millions and millions of dollars in two different ways to this concessionaire for the transfer of risk when there are very clear and very low limits to the amount of risk that the concessionaire has?

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you, Chair. I'll provide the answer, and then we can adjourn for lunch, if it's appropriate for the member opposite.

I think it's very important to point out to the member that the member is incorrectly mixing the construction

risks with the ongoing maintenance risks of the highway. It's important to separate those. They're two very different things.

There are very significant construction risks, as the member points out. This is some of the toughest geography, terrain and topography in British Columbia, certainly, and probably in North America it would rank up there. Those construction risks — we've gone through that before — are something that the contractor is very aware of and is going to have to try and manage as best it can.

It's important we not confuse that with the ongoing natural risks that are associated. Those natural risks can't always be fully mitigated. Those are natural slide events and events that take place, as the member knows, throughout the province on different highway sections. It's impossible to fully mitigate that risk, whether that risk is with government or with the contractor. That's just a reality.

With your approval, Chair, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Les
Richmond	Bell	Krueger
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Penner	Neufeld	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 26

Brar	S. Simpson	Farnworth
Kwan	Ralston	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Macdonald		Conroy


	YEAS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Les
Richmond	Bell	Krueger
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Penner	Neufeld	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 26

Brar	S. Simpson	Farnworth
Kwan	Ralston	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne
Simons	Puchmayr	Gentner
Routley	Horgan	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Macdonald		Conroy