Hansard — Tuesday, March 27, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		6469

Tributes		6469
	B.C. Council for Families
	Hon. L. Reid

Introductions by Members		6470

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		6470
	Active North Shore
	K. Whittred
	Anaphylaxis
	S. Simpson
	B.C. seafood products
	R. Lee
	North coast water quality and biotoxin program
	G. Coons
	U.S. water-tasting awards
	V. Roddick
	B.C. Mixed Curling Championship
	D. Routley

Oral Questions		6472
	Raw log exports
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	C. Puchmayr
	D. Routley
	Closing of Deni House
	K. Conroy
	Hon. G. Abbott
	B. Simpson
	Transportation safety for farmworkers
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Jumbo Glacier Resort
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong

Petitions		6477
	C. Trevena

Reports from Committees		6477
	Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations, first report
	I. Black

Committee of the Whole House		6477
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12) (continued)
	J. Brar
	Hon. C. Richmond
	C. Trevena
	L. Krog
	J. Horgan
	Hon. M. Coell
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. K. Krueger
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	D. MacKay
	N. Macdonald
	B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills		6493
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 12)

Committee of the Whole House		6493
	Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 11)
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6504
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Chudnovsky
	D. Thorne
	C. Puchmayr
	K. Conroy
	B. Simpson

N. Macdonald: I'd like to introduce my wife Karen and my daughter Brandy, who are joining us all the way from Golden. I'd like the House to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to have in the gallery today my wife Yasmin. Yasmin is accompanied today by her good friend Jo Beverley. Jo is a Victoria resident and an award-winning author of over 30 historical romance novels, which have been translated into 15 languages. Would the House please make Jo and Yasmin very welcome.

R. Chouhan: In the gallery today I have two very dear friends. Michelle Boudreau is the communications editor for The Mixer, Unite Here Canada Local 40, and Shelly Ervin is the financial secretary-treasurer. Would you please join me to welcome them.

J. Rustad: It's always a pleasure when I have somebody from my riding who's come down to visit. Today it's my pleasure to introduce to the House a good friend. Would the House please welcome Dennis Jackson from my riding.

C. Trevena: I think most of us who live in rural communities know the importance of our village post offices and village stores. So it gives me great pleasure to welcome two people who've been very instrumental in Heriot Bay on Quadra Island, where I live: Susan Enns and her husband Gerry. Susan's father used to run the Heriot Bay store and was committed to Quadra Islanders. Then it was taken over by Susan's husband Gerry while Susan was the postmistress.

Both are now retired. Both were able to come down to Victoria for a visit, and I hope the House will make them welcome. They're very eager to watch question period.

Hon. S. Bond: Today is day 2 in Education Week in British Columbia, and we continue our theme of celebrating excellence. It was very inspiring today to meet for lunch and spend some time with 13 incredible educators from across the province. Each one of these individuals was recently the recipient of the Prime Minister's Awards for Teaching Excellence. We felt that it was important to recognize them here in the Legislature certainly and in British Columbia for the phenomenal work they do every day.

Please allow me to introduce to the Legislature today Lorraine Baron from Central Okanagan; Andrew Lum from the Delta school district; Maryam Moayeri from school district 45, West Vancouver; Briar Ballou from North Vancouver; Linda Beaven from Okanagan-Skaha; Brent Cameron from an independent school; Kathleen Forsythe from an independent school; Michael Maser from an independent school; Sharon Conrad from Langley; Jim Cram from Nanaimo-Ladysmith; Don Hutchinson from Coquitlam; Christina MacDonald from Vancouver Island North; and Antonio Vendramin from Surrey. Not able to join her colleagues today, very unfortunately, is Janet Williams, who was also recognized. She is from MacKenzie.

Mr. Speaker, these are incredible educators. Next year we will have our very own award here in British Columbia to recognize excellence. I ask my colleagues to please make them very welcome in the precinct today.

D. Chudnovsky: My colleagues in the House will know that of the 79 constituencies, of course, the best one is Vancouver-Kensington. I've reminded them on a number of occasions.

In Vancouver-Kensington we have wonderful students and teachers, and some of them are here to visit with us today. We have 65 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, with four of their teachers — Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Lum, Ms. Paris and Mr. Peacock. I hope the House will join me in making them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Mr. Speaker, a delegation from China is visiting the Legislative Assembly today. The delegation comprises senior officials from the National People's Congress of China and from several provincial people's congresses.

The delegation is interested in the B.C. experience with respect to government accountability and budgetary matters and with regard to federal-provincial budgetary transfers. I know the group has visited the House of Commons and the Ontario Legislature and has met with senior officials at the B.C. Ministry of Finance, and they will be exchanging with B.C. MLAs later this afternoon.

I would ask that the House please welcome our visitors from China, Mr. Jian Feng of the budget affairs commission of the National People's Congress and the leader of this delegation.

C. Puchmayr: Today in the House we have many members from the building trades that are here meeting with the government and meeting with the opposition. I would like this House to make them all welcome. They are the people that built this province.

Hon. L. Reid: I have the pleasure today of recognizing 30 years of excellence in the B.C. Council for Families, 1977 to 2007. It was established as a registered non-profit society incorporated under the Society Act on March 23, 1977. Over its 30-year history the

council has positioned itself as a strong advocate for prevention and a focused approach to child and family development.

They have been led by Dr. Carol Matusicky as executive director over many years. She has made an outstanding contribution, and I would ask the House to join me in recognizing that contribution today.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to join with the Minister of Education to welcome all 13, and one in particular from the constituency of the Sunshine Coast. I'd like to just say to Michael Maser, the director of SelfDesign Learning Community: welcome to the House. I hope my colleagues join me in that welcome.

S. Hawkins: Not exactly in the gallery but in the home gallery today is someone who is watching intently. I just got a call from him; it's our Attorney General. He wants everybody to know — and he's watching — that he's doing very well. He's thankful for all the warm wishes, and he just lets everybody know that he's doing well and he's at home.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome my dear friend Doug Morgan, member of the Local 180 executive of the Steelworkers and a longtime friend from Cowichan-Ladysmith.

Hon. I. Chong: The term "catastrophic" took on a new meaning for our world when on December 26, 2004, an earthquake registering 9.0 on the Richter scale wrenched the floor of the Indian Ocean. Tsunamis generated by the quake devastated coastlines of 12 countries, killing more than 225,000 people. Approximately 2.2 million people were affected, of which an estimated 1.5 million people were displaced.

The world responded. Among the most generous were the people of British Columbia. Individuals lined up for hours to make donations, and an unparalleled number of volunteers came forward to offer assistance. Companies and their employees rallied together to raise funds. I can say that the Red Cross internationally has provided assistance for more than 1.7 million tsunami survivors. Approximately 30,000 transitional and permanent homes have been constructed by the Red Cross to date, with another 40,000 permanent houses in the works.

I was able to meet with two representatives of the Red Cross who are in the gallery today. I would like the House to help acknowledge and welcome Mr. Peter Brimacombe, the manager of major donor relations and planned giving, as well as Kimberley Nemrava, the director of B.C. disaster management.

K. Conroy: I'd like to introduce today some people that are joining us from the Kootenays: Valentina Fierro from Nelson, Wendy Boulliane from Castlegar and Joanne Chatten from the Slocan Valley. They are all here with their spouses, who are part of the building trades delegation.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome back to the House my spouse Ed Conroy, who is also here with us today.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery today a gentleman by the name of Dave Eddy is here. Dave runs the Vancouver Native Housing Society in Vancouver. That agency literally touches thousands of people in our neighbourhood and provides wonderful housing accommodation for them. Would the House please make Dave feel very welcome.

R. Fleming: I'd like to introduce a couple of gentlemen representing the skilled trades who are in the legislative precinct today: Phil Venoit, who is the business manager for the electricians union, Local 230 on the Island, and Al Laird, who's the business manager for the painters and allied workers on the south Island. Will the House please make them welcome.

K. Whittred: As spring arrives, our thoughts turn to getting outdoors and exploring our communities. Active North Shore network is part of the ActNow B.C. active communities initiative. It is my community's local response to encourage our already active community to be even more active and healthy. Active North Shore partners include North Shore Health, the school districts, Action Schools B.C., the recreation commission as well as many local businesses.

One part to get North Shore residents involved is through their summertime Active North Shore walks. With nearly 20 walks planned from May to September, there is a walk for everyone. The trails selected include wheelchair-and-walker-accessible routes as well as challenging trails for the more adventurous. There are walks that encourage everyone from the very elderly to moms with tots.

Last year I took part in some of the walks and thoroughly enjoyed not only the exercise but the community spirit. I was so impressed by the popularity and participation of the program that this year I plan to host my very own walk on my favourite trail along Lynn Creek in Lynn Canyon Park.

Active North Shore is a great community effort to encourage active healthy living. Congratulations to Active North Shore and to ActNow B.C. I encourage everyone to get up, get out and take a walk.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to stand in the House today concerning an issue that impacts parents and children in all of our constituencies.

Anaphylaxis is a severe systemic allergic reaction to a range of products such as peanuts and milk. The results of this reaction can prove fatal in its most severe instances. Approximately 2 percent of B.C. children suffer from this condition, and sadly, that number is growing.

While there is no cure for anaphylaxis, there are preventative measures and tools that can help ensure that accidents don't occur. These include, for example, making the EpiPen — a device that administers adrenalin, which will halt an allergic reaction — more available and providing improved training for school staff in how to both recognize an anaphylactic attack and deal with it quickly and effectively.

There is also a legislative option. In 2005 Ontario adopted Sabrina's law, named after a young girl, Sabrina Shannon, who died at the age of 13 after eating french fries that were accidentally cross-contaminated with cheese in a school kitchen.

Sabrina's law does not call for the banning of products in schools. Rather, it is a more balanced approach that requires school boards to ensure that there are individual school-based plans for each student suffering from anaphylaxis, as well as policies to reduce exposure to causative agents. It calls for communications and public awareness strategies on its risks and provides for training on how to deal effectively with accidents, as well as supplying EpiPens to all schools.

Sabrina's law is an example of a positive response to anaphylaxis that is about inclusiveness rather than exclusion. It strives to provide a preventative and precautionary approach that identifies risk for impacted students and offers strategies to minimize those risks.

Tomorrow my colleague the member for Saanich South will be introducing the anaphylactic student protection act. I hope all members can support this non-partisan effort to adopt legislation on this critical matter to help ensure that we never have to hear about another unnecessary and preventable tragedy due to this condition.

R. Lee: Two weeks ago I attended the Fifth Anniversary Celebration and Seafood Gala presented by the Western Canada Seafood Merchants and Processors Association. More than 500 guests, including the consuls general from People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Lithuania, came to celebrate this special occasion and tasted a variety of B.C. seafood.

British Columbia's beautiful freshwater and marine environments produce over 80 high-quality species of finfish, shellfish and plants. This industry generates $1 billion in wholesale value and employs over 15,000 people. Seafood is B.C.'s number one export in the food product category, and you can find B.C. seafood in more than 50 countries.

Last year more than $500 million of seafood products were exported. About half of these products went to Asia-Pacific countries. Japan, the leading importer, consumed $165 million of B.C. seafood in 2006. Many of our seafood are of such superb quality that they are the preferred delicacy in Asian banquets. Dungeness crab, prawns, scallops and fish are common dishes in a formal Chinese dinner. Asian gastronomists highly value our red sea urchin, geoduck, oysters and spawn-on-kelp and of course the traditional salmon, Pacific halibut, sablefish, tuna, clams and mussels.

It's interesting to know that geoduck, also known as king clam or elephant trunk clam, is one of the longest-living animals in the world. Recently the Underwater Harvesters Association researchers found a 168-year-old geoduck from Tasu Sound on the Queen Charlotte Islands. As the annual allowable harvest of geoduck is only 1 percent, with proper sustainability management, we can expect our children and grandchildren to continue to enjoy the best of British Columbia for many years to come.

Please join me in thanking the B.C. seafood processors and seafood merchants for their efforts.

G. Coons: I think it quite appropriate that I follow my colleague from Burnaby North. I want to talk about the North Coast Water Quality and Biotoxin Program Society, which is based in Prince Rupert and performs an essential service for many in the region.

It coordinates biotoxin and water quality monitoring and testing services for shellfish harvesting and growing interests on the north coast and Haida Gwaii. The program is vital for first nations on the coast as they undertake very significant initiatives in order to develop a shellfish aquaculture industry.

The federal government supports and funds these activities along with funding from the province. The balance of a new regional industry hinges on continued funding for the biotoxin program, but more important is the need for a local facility to test and continue the sampling.

First nations on the coast are currently in government negotiations with regards to openings for food, social and ceremonial harvest of shellfish. At present the entire north coast is closed to any type of shellfish gathering. Despite this closure, many individuals continue to harvest, putting their health and the health of their communities at risk. Continued monitoring by the biotoxin program is crucial to ensure the health and safety of participants in future food, social and ceremonial openings.

On the north coast we all believe that shellfish development holds much promise for the many communities that need economic initiatives as well as the employment that accompanies it. Participants in the program include the first nation communities at Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Kitimat, Lax Kw'alaams, Hartley Bay, Kitsumkalum along with commercial recreational interests on Porcher Island and in Haida Gwaii. The Nisga'a Nation also has stations affiliated with the program.

It's absolutely essential that biotoxin and marine water quality monitoring continue and that the necessary resources be allocated so that the remoteness of the rugged north coast is not another excuse for a missed opportunity.

V. Roddick: Those of us in the field of agriculture often feel that we tend to bear the brunt of everything that's wrong with the world — global warming, silent springs, water contamination and so forth — despite the fact that the farmers and ranchers of British Columbia produce the most diverse, local, safe, fresh, delicious and nutritious food in North America.

It gives me great pleasure to announce that for the second year in a row, a B.C. municipality won a U.S. award for having the second-tastiest tap water among entries from North America. The awards come after the weekend tastings at the annual Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting in West Virginia, which bills itself as home of the first warm-water spa in the U.S. and discovered by former U.S. President George Washington.

A hundred waters from 23 states and 11 countries were judged in various categories. Elkford, located in the East Kootenays, placed third with a bronze. But the big surprise was a silver medal that went to Clearbrook, which amalgamated with Abbotsford more than a decade ago.

To quote Mayor George Ferguson: "Obviously, they've got a good well." Jill Klein Rone, the event producer, explained that it's just like wine tasting and went on to deliver congratulations to B.C. "You really do have good water."

It shows that agriculture and our urban communities can exist side by side and by working together environmentally can deliver not only the best food but the best water in North America. Congratulations to B.C. Remember, we all have to eat and drink to live.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the B.C. mixed curling championships in my riding, Cowichan-Ladysmith, which start today. Curling started out as the peaceful settlement of a disagreement between a monk, John Slater, and the lay governor of his abbey, Gavin Hamilton. They went down to the ice patch in the orchard and settled their score, and Mr. Slater won his argument.

Today men and women are joining in Duncan to entertain this peaceful settlement of disagreement — curling. Today Curl B.C. has the slogan: "One house, great delivery." Curl B.C. is the amalgamation of the Pacific Coast Curling Association, B.C. Ladies Curling Association, B.C. Interior Curling Association and the former Curl B.C.

They organize competitions and playdowns throughout B.C. They coordinate volunteer efforts by the host communities. They engage in a communications newsletter with their various curling clubs, and they host evaluation camps. Other activities of Curl B.C. are courses in playing and coaching as well as ice-making and symposiums on the business of curling.

This week in Duncan we welcome curling rinks from eight communities — three from the Royal City area, one from Trail, two from Kelowna, one from Prince George and one from Duncan led by skip Jason Montgomery, third Rachelle Haider, second Will Duggan and Nicole Montgomery. These folks have come to the warm land, Cowichan, and I welcome them. All the people of Cowichan join me in welcoming these eight great teams.

Cowichan is known as Quw'utsun', the first nations word for warm land, which is apt acknowledgment for our friendly climate and warm people. I am sure they will have a wonderful tournament, and I'm wishing all the teams good luck. I hope that they will enjoy their wonderful experience and will visit us again. In the words of the Cowichan people, hi sa' ap ca, or thank you.

C. James: On many occasions we've asked the Minister of Forests about job losses in the forest sector. We get a lot of bluster but rarely get answers. According to the Council of Forest Industries, B.C. has lost 10,000 forest jobs since 2001. The Minister of Forests has a report on his desk collecting dust that recommends action on raw log exports.

When is the minister going to pick up that report and take actions to protect jobs, or does he just not care?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member for her question. For the member's information, if she was paying attention to the route that's taken place here, there were two people, Wright and Dumont, who did a report on log exports. I then asked organizations to comment on that report to the end of January, which they've done. There's a parallel process going on, the coast forest recovery program, with people affected by the industry across the board who are paralleling today.

In the next 30 days or so we will be doing both the activities and actions on the log export report and on that coast forest products report to build a strong future for the coast forest products in B.C.

C. James: Well, I'd like to ask the Forests Minister: how many reports does it take to actually get the Forests Minister to do something about the crisis in the industry?

The Wright report was clear. It recommended action on raw logs. Thirty-nine mills have closed in this province since 2001. A profitable mill in New Westminster closed permanently this February because they didn't have enough logs. Here's the irony. While that mill was shutting down, the minister signed an order allowing 60,000 more truckloads of logs to leave this province.

The minister procrastinates while forest communities suffer. When is the minister going to listen, and when is he going to take action to stop raw log exports from this province?

Hon. R. Coleman: In ten years of the NDP, you did nothing about raw log exports. You did not do any reports. You did no action on it at all. As a matter of fact, during the era of the NDP you made a great big announcement in Prince George one time saying you were going to have a jobs and timber accord and create 21,000 jobs in the forest sector. You delivered zero jobs in forestry in British Columbia.

The Pearse report in 2001 told us that we had a challenge on the coast. Everybody knows we have a challenge on the coast. Quite frankly, all the parties — the labour unions, the companies, the communities — have been hard at work for the last year as we've tried to get to a coast recovery plan for the coast of British Columbia. We're going to implement that plan as soon as we get it through our process, which is a very, very short period. The work these people have done has been exceptional, and it will be good for the coast when it goes forward.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: The minister seems to forget that he's been in government. It's his government record, and they've done nothing to protect this forest industry.

It was this B.C. Liberal government that promised a revitalized forest sector with more jobs, and we've lost 10,000 jobs since they made that promise. The Minister of Forests acts like nothing is wrong. There's no time to act on the Wright report, but there's certainly no problem in sending logs out of our province.

Again to the Minister of Forests: why is he ignoring forest communities, ignoring workers and families, and when will he wake up to the crisis and take action?

Hon. R. Coleman: The forest sector in the interior of B.C. is in very good shape and doing very well. The forest sector on the coast of British Columbia is, in actual fact….

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don't believe it. You know what you can't stand? You can't stand the fact that unemployment in British Columbia is at the lowest point in the history of the province. I know you can't stand the fact that they actually went out and put two people, independently, on log exports.

I have not heard a consistent message on log exports from the members of the opposition. You don't have a position on that particular program. As a matter of fact, the Wright report said it was a very complicated issue. Maybe you should read the report, hon. Member, because it does tell you that there's no one pat solution. We're working through that process. We're going to come up with the solutions, and the people on the coast will be better for it.

C. Puchmayr: Log exports continue to rise in this province, and the minister likes to reflect back. In 1997, 275,000 cubic metres of logs were exported. Now we're up to five million cubic metres of logs — five million.

The mill in New Westminster that just closed. It's a consolation that they can now go out and work in some fast-food restaurant — that's what the minister is telling them — while they lose value-added, high-paying jobs.

As log exports continue, the recommendations were supposed to be responded to in February. It is now almost May. The minister has not responded to them. Will the minister take some action now to ensure that the mills in British Columbia get the logs they need so that we have value-added jobs in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I'd just like to maybe remind the member of a quote where it says: "The sun is shining today on the lives of 136 sawmill workers and families. Western Forest Products Saltair mill will begin pumping out lumber after a year-long shutdown." That was the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith.

Now realize that Western Forest Products had to make a business decision with regards to its operation. They made those decisions, and they made them while looking at the fact that 90 employees at New Westminster sawmill were eligible for retirement. So 50 have chosen to retire, 20 have found alternate employment, and the rest of them have an opportunity to be relocated and placed elsewhere within Western's operations.

C. Puchmayr: Interesting how he can justify that. If we weren't exporting the logs we're exporting today, both those mills could be open and both those mills could be providing value-added jobs. Some 297 direct jobs in my community left. The minister would not respond to the wishes of the council, would not respond to the wishes of the workers, and didn't have the decency to come and speak to the people about his policies and how they're creating job loss in my community.

The number one issue on the coast right now is the lack of logs. It's not capital. It's not workers. It's not regulations. It's not first nations. It's the lack of logs. When will this minister intervene to ensure that our mills have the logs they require to continue to manufacture?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member is completely wrong. The fact of the matter is that it's all of the above, hon. Member. The mills are not competitive. There are issues with regards to labour. There's an issue with regard to fibre supply. There's an issue with access to

fibre supply. There are a whole number of issues on the coast that have to be addressed in a coast recovery plan, and that's what's going to happen in the next month or month and a half when we release that coast recovery plan.

D. Routley: The minister can deny reality all he wants, but the reality in our communities is that we're watching hundreds of truckloads of timber leave our ridings and head south, and along with those logs go our jobs.

The minister won't act on the review panel report and restrict raw log exports, but he has acted to continue those exports. On March 1 this year, knowing full well that we've had mill shutdowns due to a lack of logs, the Minister of Forests extended his own log export approvals for the midcoast and the North Coast, Kalum and Skeena forest districts. These are government-sanctioned log exports at a time when mills are shutting down due to a lack of logs.

My question to the minister is this. Instead of permitting more log exports, why didn't the minister implement a tax on raw log exports as recommended by his own review panel?

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I answer the question, I would like to personally congratulate the member opposite's fast response to a person who was in cardiac arrest earlier today on the grounds of the Legislature.

Let's be clear about the midcoast and the northwest on the coast. Let's be clear about a couple of things. First nations and communities up and down the coast asked for the extension of that export permit to be continued. They asked for it for a lengthier period of time than it was given. It was given to the end of August, I believe, of this year so that we could get on with the log export review and the changes in the log export policy of government.

D. Routley: Despite the blaming of other people and demands from other communities, I'm not hearing that. Nor are any of the people on the coast or on the Island. We are hearing a demand to stop raw log exports. That's what we're hearing. We want our jobs, and we want our mills back.

Not only is this Minister of Forests not acting on his own log export report and is continuing to approve these log exports, he's actually increasing them across the province. Before the log export panel had even tabled their report with the minister, the Minister of Forests approved a 2½-million-cubic-metre increase of log exports from public forests in the interior of the province. That's over 60,000 additional truckloads of logs that don't have to be processed in B.C.

To the Minister of Forests: yes or no? At a time when mills are closing due to log shortages, will this minister stop expanding log exports and immediately impose export taxes on log exports to stem the flow of logs and jobs out of this province?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's interesting, coming from these members, that they don't understand the whole aspect of log exports and who actually has jurisdiction. On one side of it, the private land logs in British Columbia are covered by federal statute, and these members know that. They know that.

But there is a surplus test. Yesterday I was actually in a meeting with private land log owners who were telling me they're having difficulty getting their logs exported because of the blocking bids and the surplus test. They said: "Your system is actually working to stem the log exports."

However, it's not good enough for me that we're going to live with the old and the old and the old forever. That's why we asked Dumont and Wright to do the report. That's why I asked for public comment back on that report in January.

That's why I've been working in the last couple of months to have both the coast recovery plan and the log export policy changes that will come forward ready to go by mid-April, and then we will implement them once we've gone through our process.

K. Conroy: Yesterday in Williams Lake the Interior Health Authority locked down Deni House and started to relocate the seniors. They locked the doors to the facility and put security guards on all of the doors. They prevented families from seeing their loved ones to offer them support through this painful process.

The health authority started boxing up the life possessions of one senior while the poor woman sat dazed and confused because she didn't know who these men were in her room or what they were doing.

Does the Minister of Health still stand by his statement of yesterday and "absolutely support Interior Health in the changes they are making in Williams Lake"?

Hon. G. Abbott: I do support Interior Health and the changes they are making at Williams Lake. First of all, I think it should be noted that there are going to be, with the new units that have been opened at Williams Lake retirement village, 23 percent more residential care and assisted-living beds in Williams Lake than when we took office. Further, we have moved from a situation where there are multi-bed wards, where there are doorways and hallways that are wheelchair inaccessible, where there were insufficient recreational and social amenities.

What Interior Health is doing with their very substantial investment through Williams Lake retirement village is providing, both quantitatively and qualitatively, a far better life for the frail elderly that are served by that facility.

K. Conroy: This minister needs to listen to the community, a community who has said from the start that they did not want this facility to close. There have been petitions of over 7,000 signatures, letters from agencies, first nations and local governments, and delegations in Kamloops and here in Victoria.

My question is to the Premier. Does he agree that seniors should be dragged out of their homes that they've lived in, the only homes that they care about and want to live in? Does he want to stand up for the seniors of Williams Lake and commit today to reopening Deni House?

Hon. G. Abbott: No government in the history of British Columbia has made a greater investment in residential care and assisted living than this government. The condition of some of the housing stock that existed in 2001 when we took office was shameful. We had facilities that were multi-bed wards, not the private rooms that we have today.

Hon. G. Abbott: We had facilities where people in wheelchairs could not get proper access to the facilities. We had poor standards that simply don't meet the standards that we have put in place today.

I think that rather than criticizing the move by Interior Health from a substandard facility to a world-class facility, the opposition ought to be supporting that move — as we do.

B. Simpson: The Minister of Health calls these individuals "frail elderly." They are our veterans. They are our first nations elders. They are the pioneers of our community.

They've had their doors locked. They've had security guards placed inside and outside their doors. They've had their family blocked from coming and seeing them and helping them in a painful transition process. Many are disoriented and do not know what's going on, and their families are locked outside. This minister says that he supports that relocation process. He just said it.

To the Premier of this province: will the Premier please intervene in this case? This is wrong. It is immoral to do this to the seniors in that community. It is disrespectful. To the Premier of this province: please stop the actions that are occurring in Williams Lake today.

Hon. G. Abbott: What is immoral and disgraceful is the way that this opposition takes on issues that are aimed at making better lives for the elderly. Three thousand incremental residential care and assisted-living units in this province; 5,000 substandard units of residential care stock that we inherited in 2001 have been remediated — tens of millions of dollars of investment.

In the Leader of the Opposition's own riding is the James Bay Care Centre. She might have a look at that. There used to be 200 residents in multi-bed wards. Today there are 110 in private, beautiful rooms. I'm proud of that investment, and I'm proud of the investment we're making in Williams Lake as well.

B. Simpson: The minister is trying to hide behind statistics, trying to hide behind numbers. We are talking about people. We are talking about people at a stage in their life where they deserve our utmost respect, not the disrespect that they are being shown today.

This minister knows, because we brought the people here to tell him directly, that these veterans, these pioneers, these first nations elders do not want to go. What does the minister not understand about that? They like Deni House. They've asked to stay in Deni House.

Again, my question is to the Premier of the province. Will the Premier please stop what is happening in this unconscionable transition process and stop dragging people out of a place they do not want to leave?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we so often hear from the NDP opposition is that there should never be any progress in this province. We should never….

Hon. G. Abbott: Don't change anything. Leave everything exactly as it is. Even if it's substandard, leave it exactly as it is. Apparently…

Hon. G. Abbott: …the NDP in British Columbia don't believe our seniors deserve new and modern facilities to live in. But let's test the proposition for a moment, shall we?

The member has asked a couple of questions here, and maybe the member can advise me. We're about to make a huge investment in Quesnel in a place called Dunrovin Lodge. I challenge the member to get up and tell us whether he wants us to make that investment in Quesnel or not.

R. Chouhan: Over the three days of roadside inspections of motor vehicles, three vans owned by the labour contractors were taken off the road because of serious mechanical defects, and ten more vans were found with other major defects. Despite the fatal accident on March 7 killing three farmworkers and seriously injuring 13 others, the farm labour contractors are still transporting workers in unsafe, dangerous vehicles.

The harvesting season is fast approaching, and there will be hundreds of these vehicles driving thousands of farmworkers to fields during the season. Can the Minister of Labour assure farmworkers that these vehicles are safe and there's no danger to their lives?

Hon. K. Falcon: As a matter of fact, yes, I can tell that member that we have…. I believe there are 131 vehicles involved in the transportation of farmworkers. Our commercial vehicle inspection staff have hit virtually every single one of them. I believe that this week we will complete. We've got four or five more to inspect.

I want the member to know this and everyone in this House to understand this. If they are not operating vehicles that are safe and in full accordance with the laws and the regulations, both federally and provincially, the full force of this government will rain down upon them. We will yank them off the road, as we've been doing. We will hit them with fines, as we have been doing. And we will make sure that those vehicles are operating in the safest possible manner. We'll demand that in every sector in British Columbia.

R. Chouhan: Twenty days after that deadly accident, these labour contractors are still driving those deadly, unsafe vehicles. I don't know where the law is that the minister is talking about.

When an unsafe van is impounded during the roadside inspection, farmworkers are left stranded on the roadside wondering who would provide them with a ride to and from the farm and back home.

Will the Minister of Labour tell us: in such situations, who will be responsible to provide safe transportation to farmworkers and make sure they get their lost wages paid by the labour contractors while waiting?

Hon. K. Falcon: In the early days when we undertook the inspections, we did actually provide transportation for those individuals to get to their workplaces. Now, that's obviously not something that is typically done. We don't want the workers, of course, to pay the price of not being able to get to their worksite because there are certain contractors who are utilizing transportation that is not up to snuff.

I think the critical thing here is to know…. Whether it's with the dumptruck sector, which we also had problems with, as that member well knows, or the taxi industry, where we identified some problems as a result of safety blitzes, or the farmworker transportation….

If they are not complying in these vehicles, they're going to have to understand this. We're going to yank them off the road, as we're doing, and we're going to hit them with fines. We'll continue to hit them with fines, and we'll continue to pay attention until they get it into their heads that they've got to operate safe vehicles in the province of British Columbia, and they're going to have to do that.

N. Macdonald: On October 14, 2004, this government made a commitment to the people of the Kootenays that Jumbo Glacier Resort would not proceed without the approval of the regional district of East Kootenay. It was clear; it was unequivocal. Rumours abound that the government intends on breaking that commitment.

My question is to the Premier. Will the regional district of East Kootenay be making the final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort? Is it yes, or is it no?

Hon. I. Chong: The only rumours that are abounding in the area are the rumours that have been started by that member in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Mr. Speaker, that member…

Hon. I. Chong: …has been irresponsibly spreading rumours in his riding, getting everybody worked up when he knows there's a process in place that is being adhered to. If he would allow that process to continue, he will see the conclusion.

N. Macdonald: People are worked up in the East Kootenay. They are upset about what appears to be…

N. Macdonald: …the breaking of a commitment. On Monday on CBC I asked the minister to state clearly the same question that I've asked here. I've asked it repeatedly, and every single time I get some

ambiguous answer. Did the minister answer the question that was clear — yes or no? She did not. Instead, she skates around it.

I'm asking her to stand up. The question could not be clearer. She can say yes, or she can say no. The people in the East Kootenay want to know: does this government keep the commitments that it makes? And the question is this: is this government going to keep its word and keep the decision where it properly rests — with the regional district of East Kootenay? The minister can stand up and say yes or no. Which is it?

Hon. I. Chong: …there was no frenzy occurring in the East Kootenays. There were no issues that were being raised. There were no interviews having to be taken. But it was because that member irresponsibly has gone out in the community and created an issue that doesn't exist.

Hon. I. Chong: It is clear on this side of the House that we support a strong economy. We support resort development. Does that member support resort development? Clearly he doesn't, but maybe he should go back to his community and ask them if they want the jobs and the economic growth that will occur in his area.

C. Trevena: I rise to present a petition, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition from a number of signatories in Vancouver protesting cuts in child care.

I have a second petition from residents in Campbell River who are supporting Tom Bakken, who is facing eviction from the Crown land he's been homesteading.

I. Black: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations for the second session of the 38th parliament.

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

I. Black: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make some brief comments.

During the second session the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations met with the senior officers of six of British Columbia's Crown agencies. Representatives from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, British Columbia Securities Commission, Partnerships British Columbia, British Columbia Lottery Corp., British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and British Columbia Innovation Council all appeared before the committee to present their respective annual reports and service plans.

The committee's unanimous report includes 14 recommendations on how each of these six Crown corporations may improve their respective performance-reporting documents.

I would like to thank the senior officers of the various Crown corporations who appeared before the committee in the previous year. In addition, I would like to thank all members of the committee from both sides of the House for their spirited contributions and their important additions to the committee's unanimous report.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of members, you will continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

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

J. Brar: I would like to continue the debate and take up from where we left. Last year when the CAP program was restructured by the ministry, the stand-alone advocacy agencies lost their funding — for example, in Surrey, the Newton Advocacy Group, called NAG. They used to provide advocacy services to income assistance clients, including helping them to prepare for, and representing them in front of, the appeal panel.

Now those clients don't have those individualized support mechanisms available anymore. The impacts of that, in my opinion, are: first, a significant majority of these clients do not have the ability to represent themselves in front of the panel.

Secondly, they don't have the ability to insist — a word that the minister used a few times; they have to insist — with the ministry on three members, because they are scared to offend officials of the ministry.

Thirdly, the minister is not prepared just to give them the right to request a three-member panel. They have to insist. It's not their right, as my understanding is.

Fourthly, a significant majority of these clients are not aware of their rights to insist on a three-member panel to have a fair hearing.

On one side, the ministry has cut funding, and they've lost the advocates who can prepare them and represent them in front of the panel. On the other side, now the panel is being redefined where only one person can stand up and be a panel member.

My question to the minister is: what is the plan of the ministry to address those four important issues I just said, to ensure that appeal panels continue serving their purpose of providing timely and fair decision-making?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, we are doing this to give people faster service, so they can get in front of a tribunal quickly instead of having to wait months at times. We are also talking about a very small number here. The estimate from history is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent — from 45 to 90 clients per year.

Secondly, they will be told that they can avail themselves of a three-member panel if they so wish, but if it's in a remote area one of the members or maybe even two might be there by teleconference.

Thirdly, they are welcome to take any advocate of their choosing with them. They can have an advocate there to advocate for them.

We are not doing this to in any means diminish a person's right to a fair hearing. We are trying to expedite things and get them in front of a tribunal within a few weeks, rather than a few months.

J. Brar: With due respect, I understand the concept of expediting the process, and I appreciate that. With that process, my fear is: are we going to sacrifice the fair process of appealing? That's the concern I have.

My question to the minister is: how is the minister going to make sure that the clients have proper education about the rights, that they can have a three-member panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: Let me read from a document that we have crafted to do exactly what the member is worried about.

J. Brar: I appreciate that the minister understands that there's a need for an advocate to assist these people to go through that process. As I said before, a significant majority of these people have challenges to represent themselves in front of the panel because of fear, because of the language challenges and because of many other things — the fear of offending the officials.

What are the plans of the ministry to ensure that these clients are going to have advocates which are supported by the ministry so that they can go with them and represent them in the appeal process?

Hon. C. Richmond: To repeat, every client will be advised of all of their rights. They will be given brochures explaining what the procedure is. They will all be told that they have the right to insist on a three-person tribunal, and they will also be told they can take any advocate with them that they wish.

J. Brar: Basically, the process when we talk about the rights of the clients to request or insist — whatever the word I have been hearing — by the clients….

Is that part of the brochure you're talking about, or will they be informed to make sure that they actually understand that that's part of their right?

Hon. C. Richmond: Yes, they will be informed of exactly what their options are. Like I said, if they live in a remote area of the province, quite often they would prefer to say: "I would like to be heard now. Rather than having to wait a month, two months, three months, I can be heard now." Quite often the one tribunal member that will hear their case may be in the exact town in which they live, so they can be heard almost immediately rather than having to wait till we can put a three-member panel together.

J. Brar: Do they have to file with somebody or submit a request in writing in order to have a three-member panel?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. They just have to tell the tribunal chair that they would prefer to be heard by three people rather than one. The chair will then make

that determination on how soon she can put a three-member panel together. She may tell the client that it may be a long time before…. It has happened in the past. It could be five or six months before they can get a three-panel tribunal to hear them. Or she'd say: "Would you prefer to be heard by a single member" — an impartial member who is on neither side of the issue. An impartial member would sit down and hear the hearing.

If they insist on having three members, as I've said before, the tribunal chair can say: "Yes, you can have three, but two might be there by telephone."

J. Brar: If a client who has to appeal the decision comes back to the ministry and says, "I don't have anybody to support me; in other words, I need an advocate to talk to me, to prepare for my case or represent me in front of the panel," what support will the ministry provide?

Hon. C. Richmond: The client does not have to have an advocate with him or her when they appear in front of the tribunal. It's their decision. If they wish to have one, they can bring anyone they like. But they will get a fair hearing in front of a tribunal, whether it's one person, two or three.

To repeat what I said earlier, about 90 to 95 percent of the cases will be heard in front of three people. It's only to accommodate people mostly in remote areas of the province where this is very difficult.

J. Brar: I understand your challenge. It's hard to find people for the appeal panel in the rural area, in order to continue the panel's work. But my concern is on the other side, from a client's perspective. It is equally difficult for the clients to find an advocate in that area as well, because we don't have a lot of organizations who have funding for providing advocacy services. We are dealing with one area, one aspect of the problem, but we're leaving the other side of the problem, which is related to the clients.

My question to you was: if the client needed support from an advocate, and if those advocacy services are not available in that area and the client requests the ministry that they need somebody, are you not going to provide support to that client?

C. Trevena: I just had a couple of questions. I've been listening to some of the questions here.

The minister said in response to one of the questions from my colleague for Surrey–Panorama Ridge that if the client "insists" on having a three-person panel…. I just wanted to know whether there is going…. I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I think this is somebody's right to have a panel rather than one person sitting in judgment, so I'd like to get a bit of clarification from the minister on that.

Hon. C. Richmond: As I said earlier to one of the members who was questioning, the chair will accommodate the concerns of the appellant. They will be informed that they can be heard probably almost immediately by a one-person tribunal — which is a bit of an oxymoron, I suppose. They can be heard by one person now, or they can be heard by three when we can put a three-person panel together.

C. Trevena: As a representative of a rural constituency where a number of people will most likely be having this alternative put in front of them — and as the minister quite rightly says, it is an oxymoron; you don't really have a tribunal if it's one person — I wondered whether this is the last recourse. If the one-person tribunal decides against the claimant, does the claimant have anywhere else to go? Or is that the final ruling, from that one person who is making the decision?

Hon. C. Richmond: No. As I said earlier, nothing changes in the procedure. The first step before a tribunal is requested is reconsideration by the ministry staff, which involves supervisors. The second step is the tribunal, and if they're not satisfied with that, then it's a judicial review.

J. Brar: I would like to make some comments and probably ask my last question if I get the answer. I was surprised to hear from the minister that in order to deal with this issue because of a lack of people available for the panel, the ministry has decided to move forward and make this amendment to the existing act. I understand that. But on the same side, when we talk about expediting the appeal process, the important component of that is the fair process when it comes to the appeal process. Justice must be delivered in a fair way.

From the last comment the minister made, that if somebody needs an advocate to help them, the ministry will not support them…. It's a bit surprising to me that the ministry is only looking, at this point in time, from the administrative point of view rather than from the clients' perspective as well. They are the most vulnerable clients in the province.

My question. If the ministry will not provide services, how does the minister think that this will be a fair process if the person involved in the appeal process has a severe addiction or mental disability? Even in that situation the minister will proceed with the so-called…. It could be one member, because this person doesn't know how to work with the system.

Hon. C. Richmond: For barriered clients who may have difficulty navigating the appeal system on their own, the ministry staff will always provide a list of community agencies that can help them pursue any eligibility complaints. So while we don't provide an advocate — that's what I meant by my former answer — we will always steer them to an agency that may be able to provide them with an advocate.

Five years ago we moved away from the adversarial system in these tribunals. It's working much better

than the old system, and to repeat, the chair will always accommodate the concerns of the appellant. If they feel they must have an advocate there, we will try to guide them to someone who will be an advocate for them. But they will always accommodate the concerns.

If the advocate says that this person wants to be heard in front of a three-person panel, then, as I've said several times already, the chair will accommodate that. But if it's in a town way up north, two of the panel members may be there by teleconference.

J. Brar: I understand that the ministry is going to provide the list of various agencies, but my understanding is that in rural areas there may be some towns where we don't have a local agency which provides advocacy services. In other words, the client may have to go out and find somebody far from where the panel is going to take place.

Will the ministry provide, in that situation, any assistance to the advocate when it comes to their expenses, or will that be the responsibility of the client, who is already very vulnerable and may not have any money?

Hon. C. Richmond: I'm certain, knowing our staff and the way they operate and the empathy they have for people, that they would be able to find a name for a person in their town who would advocate for somebody. I feel 100-percent sure that they would find someone for them.

J. Brar: I would like to ask the minister for some clarification on this one. Can the minister clarify: what is the difference between prescribed professionals and health professionals?

Hon. C. Richmond: This section substitutes "prescribed professional" for "health professional" in section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, and moves the definition of "prescribed professional" from the act to the regulations.

Professionals such as nurses and social workers provide supportive information as part of the application for persons-with-disabilities designation. This amendment provides flexibility and adds to the list of approved professionals without requiring legislative change. Also, by changing the term to "prescribed professional," it clarifies that both health professionals and non-health professionals, such as social workers, are crucial in supporting this process.

It allows us to add a prescribed professional other than a health professional to make a decision. It could be a chiropractor. It could be a nurse practitioner. Not only can we add them to the list of professionals who can qualify or disqualify someone for PWD status, but it also enables us to do it without having to come back to the Legislature and change the act. In other words, we don't have to come back and wait a year for an amendment to go through the Legislature. We can do it by regulation.

J. Brar: If I understand that correctly, the change means that this could include professionals other than health professionals and that there will be lists of professions prescribed by the ministry with which the ministry would like to work and with which the ministry would want the clients to work. Is that the case, or is it something different?

Hon. C. Richmond: The current list of professionals is very short. I'll just list them off: a medical practitioner, a registered psychologist, a registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist or a social worker. That list is not going to change.

What we want to do with this is to make it better for the client so that we can add another prescribed

practitioner — maybe not a health professional — such as maybe a chiropractor or a nurse practitioner or someone like that. We want to be able to do it without having to come back for a legislative change to do it. Because of the time that it takes to get an amendment through the House just to add, say, a nurse practitioner, we want to be able to do that by regulation.

J. Brar: Other than not coming back to the House for each and every change, how is this change actually going to impact the service delivery or the assessment process? Is it going to expedite it? Is it going to make it better? What is the response on that one?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, it will make it much easier to get the application form completed. The ministry requires that professionals who complete part of the PWD application may be authorized under an enactment to practise in B.C. This includes health professionals as well as social workers and ensures that individuals completing these forms are accountable, especially since they are working with some of our most vulnerable citizens.

We will assess additions to the list on their own merits, taking into account the capacity of the profession to positively impact service for clients, their profession's accountability and its scope of practice.

What we're trying to do is broaden the list of those who can approve someone for PWD status. In order to do that, we have to be able to add to the list, and we want to add to the list without having to go back to the Legislature every time.

J. Brar: So will the client have the right to have options of two or three professionals and choose one of them? Or will the client be directed to one person, and there's no other choice?

Hon. C. Richmond: They have that right now, and that's not going to change. It's the client's choice who they go to, to be examined for PWD status.

J. Brar: My last question. I asked this question before, but I think a more specific way is: will this in any way expedite or shorten the assessment process for people who are making application for PWD?

L. Krog: I want to thank the minister for his candour today because he was very straightforward in saying the whole purpose of section 18 is to take out of this chamber the right to amend the list — in other words, to give it to cabinet.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I have raised this issue over and over again in this House, and each time we are assured that it's just a convenience. Trust good old cabinet. Cabinet will look after it. Government will do it.

I can't help but think to myself: if the members on the government benches were sitting over here in the opposition, what would their reaction be as the Legislature, through sections and amendments like this, continues to be stripped of its authority, its usefulness and its very function, which is to actually make the laws in this place, not to constantly turn over the power to cabinet to add to and change lists?

We give them broad regulatory powers so that the statutes themselves are starting to look a bit silly, frankly. You have this little thin statute, and then you have this great raft of regulations which are passed by cabinet, don't come before this House, don't face debate and don't face public scrutiny.

That's the issue, and I'm going to continue to repeat it every time it comes up in this House. It's come up in the last two days in separate statutes and separate bills, as well, and that is this constant interest in reducing the work of this place to, frankly, becoming mere ciphers. Either we are here to make law as legislators duly elected by the people of British Columbia, or we are here just to rubber-stamp things and let cabinet run the place like it's a corporate entity. That's my concern.

I appreciate the minister being so straightforward about it. But my question to the minister is: if we're contemplating adding people to the list as it exists now in the definition section of section 2 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, is it that difficult and is it that much beyond the comprehension of the experienced staff of the ministry to actually figure out?

Given the number of professionals and bodies and people that have been consulted and referred to in all the work of the ministry year in and year out, is it that difficult for the minister to simply provide an amendment in section 18 that would say, "We're adding to the list this year because we've discovered there are a couple of other professions or occupations that actually make sense that should be added to the list of people who could do it," as opposed to turning it over to cabinet?

Does the minister have in contemplation the kinds of professionals who would be described under the act now as prescribed professionals? If we know those occupations, what are they?

Hon. C. Richmond: I can understand the member's concern. I really do. All we're trying to do here is make it easier and much quicker for people to get PWD status. No, we didn't sit down and try to contemplate every profession that might come along. That's why we would like the right to do it by regulation, rather than having to come back.

That is exactly what concerns the member, but I think he knows full well that we would not sit in the cabinet room and dream something up. The recommendation would come from our staff, who are very qualified. They would come through me to cabinet and say: "This is a profession" — maybe nurse practitioner

— "that we believe should be added to the list." We would just like to add that name by regulation, rather than having to wait for the next legislative session to have that name added to the list.

J. Horgan: As we look at the next number of sections for Bill 12, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, sections 20 through 40 seem to be exclusively to do with the Engineers and Geoscientists Act. I'm just talking while staff can take their seats for the Minister of Advanced Education.

Now that everyone's comfortable, I'll begin by posing a very simple question. Why are the bulk of these amendments contained in a miscellaneous amendment act and not in a stand-alone bill?

Hon. M. Coell: Basically, packaging by the legislative counsel. As the member knows, this is a very old act. The engineers and geoscientists would like the entire act reviewed. This is the minimum they've asked for and have worked with our staff. I think it fits in a misc bill at this point.

In consultation with geoscientists and engineers and their various associations and those that would be interested in this act…. Was that consultation the bulk of this bill, or were there additional consultations?

If I can just outline for the member in simple form what the request was. As I said, I think the request initially was: can we have the 80-year-old act revisited? We did not have time to do that this year, but we took out a number of parts that they felt were important and addressed them.

It basically clarifies the association's mandate by setting out its duties and objects. I believe it improves public protection by permitting mandatory professional development. It modernizes the investigation, discipline, dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms.

It removes the unintended restrictions on the ability to seal professional documents and conduct ballots by electronic means. They did not have that ability, as many other professions do now, to do business electronically.

It simplifies and improves the administrative processes to remove provisions meant to be transitional and generally clarifies and standardizes the legislation. I think that in the not too distant future you will see a revised act come before this House as well.

The opposition caucus had a number of meetings with this body as well, and they made it very clear to us where they wanted to proceed. On the surface of it at that time we had no concerns, but now that we see the bill in its final form, I have a few additional questions. As we proceed through the sections, I'll rise and pose them.

Just a simple one: what's the benefit of the association having the rights of a natural person, for those watching at home.

Hon. M. Coell: The powers of a natural person. It simplifies for them some of the things they can do, and I can give you some examples. It's the ability to alter the rights and duties, liabilities and other legal relationships either for oneself or other people — so they can do that as an association. The ability to acquire or dispose of property, to lend and to borrow, to invest as an association, and to hold property and trust are some of the more prevalent examples.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. Again, some of these questions are more for the edification of those at home. Of course, the government knows that our function on this side is to get clarification on issues so that the public has a better understanding of the intent of the legislation.

In section 20, section 3(3), the bill reads: "The Business Corporations Act does not apply to the association unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council, by order, provides that specified provisions…."

J. Horgan: The first section, 3(3). It's basically that clause. What circumstances are contemplated whereby the L-G-in-C would allow the Business Corporations Act to apply?

Hon. M. Coell: The second subsection is necessary to avoid the unintended application of the Business Corporations Act, and this is consistent with a lot of the new, recently enacted or amended professional legislation.

J. Horgan: Could the minister help me out and maybe cite an example of an unintended consequence that we're preventing by this section?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, the complicated provisions for windup would be a good example of why we wouldn't want to have the unintended use of the Business Corporations Act.

J. Horgan: This section, which is amending section 10(1) — it's section 24 of this bill — is establishing levy-

ing, payment and remission of…. And it inventories annual fees, admission fees, application fees, licence fees, professional liability insurance and so on. I'm curious as to why this set of fee schedules is outlined in the legislation and wouldn't be dealt with by a bylaw of the association.

Hon. M. Coell: Being that it's such an old act, what we're doing is clarifying what they can do by bylaw and what needs to be done by legislation.

J. Horgan: This is where I'm not clear. What's left for bylaws if the legislation sets out this inventory? And was it an inventory that was provided by the association?

J. Horgan: So this list is comprehensive? The association didn't contemplate any others that they would add to this fee inventory, and this is then comprehensive?

J. Horgan: In the explanatory notes with the bill, section 24 states that section (a) "clarifies that late fees and reinstatement fees for members, licensees and certificate holders are not set by bylaw." As I understand that, these fees that are inventoried here are comprehensive and the association could not amend them by bylaw, but they would have to be amended by legislation. Is that correct, or am I overstepping with that?

Hon. M. Coell: Just to clarify, and I think I understand the question, section 10(1) is amended, and then there is a list of fees. Those will be able to be enacted by bylaw of the association.

J. Horgan: I see lots of head nodding, and that's really what I thought was a more appropriate task for the association. So I was curious as to why the list was here in the legislation.

Just for clarification then, why wouldn't we have had leg. counsel draft a section here that would have said just that — that there are fees that may be levied as set by bylaw of the association, rather than having a list that may not over time be comprehensive? As we've said with other sections of this bill in debate today, we're not always here in the Legislature to make these amendments. Why wouldn't we have used, in this instance, language that would have been more permissive of change absent legislation?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the quick answer to that is we're limited of what we can do with this bylaw, because it's so old, without opening it up and doing a complete review. What we wanted to do was make some basically minor amendments that would keep them going for a number of years before we did the complete review.

J. Horgan: In your consultation with the association, that was a compromise they were comfortable with: "Let's change what we can change now, and we'll have a more comprehensive look in the future"?

I know I'm anxious the Government House Leader not jump upon me for talking about future legislation. But in satisfying the association with these amendments, did you give any indication to the association at what time they could expect a more comprehensive review?

Hon. M. Coell: The association is happy to have these amendments this year. I think it's safe to say that they would have liked to have seen a complete review, but we did not have the time to do that this year.

J. Horgan: While I'm on my feet, I thank the staff of the minister for the previous section for their good work. Well done.

Now, with section 41, it's the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. When we have the opportunity to amend the list, why have we only got the one public body? Are there any other public bodies that are contemplated in the near future? If so, why wouldn't they be here today?

Hon. J. Les: Sorry, Madam Chair. I wasn't aware that I was up already, so if the member would repeat the question, I'd be much obliged.

M. Farnworth: The question was a simple one. Given that we're dealing with the information and privacy act and that this particular issue is being removed because of the legislative change, were there any other titles or changes that could have been made to the act at this particular time?

Hon. J. Les: This is pretty straightforward. It is absolutely a consequential amendment as a result of the repeal of the Parole Act and nothing else.

J. Horgan: This may well also be a consequential amendment, but as I have in my constituency communities with less than 5,000 souls, I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me the impact of this amendment on those communities.

Hon. J. Les: We will get to the sections of the act later that include communities under 5,000 and electoral areas in terms of paying for policing. This is a consequential amendment, although it's earlier in the bill, to that issue.

J. Horgan: Now I've found my comfort zone, and I'm anxious to continue the discussion we had today with the Minister for Mining. We debated at committee stage this morning changes to the Coal Act, and now we find ourselves with the Mineral Tenure Act. We've had a chance over lunch to think about the thoughtful comments that were made in the House on the amendments to the Coal Act.

I'm wondering if anyone is going to come and join you, or are you just going to take this one?

J. Horgan: Okay, fair enough. When we talked this morning, the minister made reference to mechanical disturbance on private land as a result of free miners exercising their subsurface rights. I'm wondering, for those in the House and for those at home, if the minister could explain what that mechanical disturbance would be and what consultation, what consent would be required before that could take place.

Hon. K. Krueger: The term referred to things such as bringing in a backhoe, bringing in a caterpillar, pushing dirt around. Free miners up until now have been able to enter onto the land, pick up rocks and hit them with hammers, that sort of thing, but in order to proceed with exploration that involved using mechanical devices such as I've described, they had to move to the next stage. What we've actually done is expand the requirement on explorers, free miners, so that they have to give notice before they go on to the land at all.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I'll just say, then…. So mechanical — he mentioned backhoes. Would a shovel be a mechanical disturbance?

J. Horgan: So, then, the amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act proposed in the sections here in the miscellaneous amendment bill are intended to satisfy concerns of landowners and, as the minister said today and not to put too fine a point on it, to put a burden — in his mind, or the mind of some — on free miners to proceed with their exploration for subsurface opportunities.

I guess the question would be to the minister: does he believe that these changes have satisfied that commitment to landowners groups in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Krueger: The change, as I said earlier, feels like a burden to free miners. It's something that they haven't had before. What the government seeks to do is strike more of a balance between the rights of surface rights holders and subsurface rights holders. In doing so, it has moved the balance more to the surface rights holders.

J. Horgan: Since the mineral tenure on-line registry has come into effect and is in fact creating more opportunities for free miners, I would think that would then be creating more stress on fee simple landowners. I'm wondering. In contemplating amending the legislation and changing what the minister said were pre-Confederation rules of engagement with the mining sector and property owners, did the minister contemplate the impact that access to on-line resources, in terms of identifying potential opportunities, would have on landowners?

Hon. K. Krueger: The move to modernize exploration to MTO actually places significantly less stress on surface rights holders. No longer do free miners have to walk on the land, let alone break rocks or disturb anything. They don't have to pound stakes in. They don't have to leave miles and miles of netting and ropes and things that were done in the past.

It's also much safer for the people engaged in the exploration industry. I've heard tales of explorers jumping out of helicopters to pound in stakes and falling through snow cornices. This is much more environmentally friendly, is a much safer way to stake claims and is much less intrusive to the owners of the surface rights.

J. Horgan: Well, quite often the chase is half the fun in these situations, and if you can just google your various deposits on private lands, I think that would take some of the glamour out of free mining and the great find and staking your claim.

I live in the 21st century with the minister, so I understand that times are changing, but it seems to me that the opportunity to get to the stage of mechanical disturbance on what was private land is enhanced as a result of these technological cases. In cases of Crown land that's a positive thing. In cases of land where the landowner wants to participate in some meaningful way in the extraction, that's also a positive.

For those circumstances that we heard of from the member for Nelson-Creston and the groups that the minister knows well…. I'm sure his in-box is as active as mine from those who are galvanizing against this legislation and are concerned that a commitment was made to ease their pain.

They believe that we've missed the mark with this legislation and that the Legislature should give some thought to how we can modify the rules of engagement so that property owners have a better understanding of what risks they have by not accessing their subsurface rights. In fact, how can landowners even access those rights if they don't have an inclination to do so until such time as someone now sends them a notice?

This, I concede to the minister, is an improvement on the state of play today but is, when we look at our

neighbours to the east in Alberta, a good distance away from consent. So I'll say to the minister, then, as we discuss this section of the bill: has he contemplated since this morning moving to the Alberta model of consent rather than notice?

J. Horgan: I thought a good hearty lunch and some reflection might have changed the minister's view, but apparently that hasn't happened.

J. Horgan: You've got to come up with a better line than that. You guys have been driving the boat here for a goodly long time, and…

My question. I'll go back to the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement that is due to come into effect in British Columbia and Alberta on April 1. Has the minister reflected on my comments this morning about the intrusion on investors' rights in Alberta by them not coming down to our notice position?

Hon. K. Krueger: I told the member opposite, when he first raised this question this morning, that I thought it was a good question. I turned out to be mistaken, because the TILMA agreement actually doesn't apply to mining regulation.

C. Evans: Is the minister aware of the case just outside Vernon with the person holding a free-miner's licence who has been in the news harassing the neighbours? I think it's made national news — certainly, British Columbia news — and I think maybe even the United States news.

Hon. K. Krueger: I am aware of that case. If a person decides that they want to be a bad neighbour, they can find many ways to demonstrate it. It's difficult for mining regulation to deal with that sort of problem. By and large, the industry and the owners of surface rights get along very well.

The previous member made the point that we have had time to reflect on mining regulation with this government, and we've done that. Governments for over a hundred years in this chamber have had time to reflect on mining regulation and make changes — not just the NDP government of the '90s, as one of the members just pointed out, but for a hundred years.

We're the first government to move this far. We've done it because we think times have changed and people expect more involvement in matters that affect them than perhaps they did in the past. But I want to remind the member opposite again that there is only a handful of disputes historically in a year. There just haven't been that many disputes, and only one on average has actually had to go to the formal process — one per year to go to the formal process to resolve disputes.

C. Evans: I'm very pleased that the minister and I are both on the same page. We both understand the same issue. I think the fact that we both understand the same issue, with me just sort of naming a general area of the province, is indicative of the fact that this situation is indeed an anomaly. In the main, people holding a free-miner's licence are just that. They're prospectors. As the minister was saying before lunch, they're people who have found the wealth that created this building.

Historically, even in some of the years I've worked here, there's been a kind of assumption that if a citizen, any citizen, was willing to learn prospecting, there would be courses subsidized by the Crown to make it possible for a person to learn a beginning-level geology. At one point when I worked here, there was even a carryover from the grubstake provision of the old days, where a free miner could get a little bit of cash as a start at the beginning of the season.

I have no trouble with the idea of free-miners' licences, and in fact I think that without those wonderful people, most of the precomputer geology in British Columbia never would have happened. There are, of course, systems in place now that somewhat threaten the free miner, the prospector, by virtue of allowing — encouraging even — a form of prospecting that, as the minister says, does not require a citizen to walk on the land.

Setting all that aside, I want to endorse the idea of free miners, because I think that they are part of our history and part of our future. But there is the possibility, as I think the minister and I both acknowledge, that the free-miner's licence can create almost a licence for unkind or unfair and maybe even dangerous behaviour in a bully.

I live where hard-rock mining is the history. In fact, when I came here, in what they used to call the maiden speech, I said that the silver from where we live built this building. I have no idea if that's true, but that's the mythology where I live. All of that is on the strength of the prospectors' capacity, especially in a place called Payne Mountain, in a village called Sandon, in a valley called the Slocan.

In Vernon at present there's a guy holding a free-miner's licence who has been on national news for scaring his neighbours. My observation about police is that police hate a rogue cop, because that cop brings down the reputation of policing. And I can't stand jerk politicians, because they bring down the reputation of the work I love and believe in. I would argue that if we can allow a free miner to behave in ways that denigrate prospectors, the people who should be most afraid of that are the gentleman who sits in the minister's chair and all the other prospectors in British Columbia.

I have some questions about the free-miner's licence. I would hope that we could figure out a way to exclude bullies from using that piece of paper in a way that denigrates prospecting, mining and maybe even

governance. My first question is: will the minister tell us how much it costs to get a free-miner's licence?

I'd respectfully like to point out to the member opposite that section 44 merely deals with an amendment to the definition of "locate" and, again, the definition of "location." There might be other points where he'd like to raise these questions, but I just wanted to point that out.

C. Evans: Of course, I appreciate the advice of the minister. The minister has excellent advice.

It costs $25 to get a free-miner's licence. Of course, if you have a free-miner's licence, then you have to write a letter to actually use it. We'll get to the question of location. It's my understanding that in the Vernon access office of the government of British Columbia, it takes three minutes to get a free-miner's licence. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Krueger: That is a fact. It's a very quick, expeditious process, and I don't want to pass up the opportunity to agree with the member opposite in what I thought was an expression of support from him of the exploration industry in general.

I know that the people in the industry were tremendously upset about the example that the member has raised. The fact that it was and probably still is national news indicates what a rare occurrence that was. People occasionally do very nasty things to other people right across the spectrum. Surely the opposition wouldn't want us to impose all sorts of additional cost and expense on the exploration industry in general because one individual engaged in rogue behaviour.

I'm willing to offer another example of why we felt that it was appropriate to move in this direction, to start requiring notice. Again, the times are changing.

We had an issue where a camp for children had an issue with a free miner wandering across the property. Of course, in this day and age we don't want strangers in situations like that. In fact, the people who run children's camps have legal obligations. They're not to have adults on the property who haven't been subjects of criminal checks, and they have liability and insurance concerns.

That was another example. It wasn't a situation where anything bad had happened; it was a concern that was voiced to us.

Okay, so now we've established that it costs $25 to become a free miner, and it takes three minutes to do it. Is there a criminal-record check involved?

Hon. K. Krueger: No, there is not. I think it would be respectful to the House to deal with what section 44 actually sets out, which is very simple. Perhaps we could move onto other sections for other questions.

C. Evans: I appreciate that. You appreciate, of course, that there are people watching this debate and that these matters are of great interest to those folks. We're talking about section 44. We're talking about providing notice, and we're getting to the importance of the notice.

I received notice that a free miner wants to come onto my land. I now know that the notice comes from a person who has $25, took three minutes and for whom there is no criminal-record check. I'm kind of wondering how I have some satisfaction that this person who sent me notice is in fact a legitimate prospector.

My next question to the minister is: is there any obligation to know anything about geology or prospecting? Is there a test or an exam? Is there anything I have to do to prove that I have the slightest interest in the mining industry in order to become a free miner?

C. Evans: Wow. Three minutes, $25, no criminal-record check, and I don't even have to know anything about rocks.

My next question to the minister is…. Okay, now suppose you're the RCMP, and you receive a call from a citizen who is afraid because there is a person on their property who has a free-miner's licence. Does the RCMP then have the right to remove that individual? Or does the permit, as a free miner's licence on the property — and the notice, of course — give that person right of access?

Hon. K. Krueger: There is nothing in the act nor in these amendments that would deter the police from doing their duty or delay or defer them from doing their duty.

The things that the member opposite is now raising as concerns would all have been just as legitimate for the entire term of the 1990s, when he sat with the government, or for any time over the last hundred years.

The legislation moves to improve the situation and the rights of surface title holders, people who have surface rights. Why would the member be concerned about that sort of question today when he wasn't from 1991 to 2001, when he was in a position to do something about it?

C. Evans: I love it that we've actually reversed the system and now the minister is asking questions of the member. I don't even need staff to help answer the question.

I'm concerned now because we actually have a situation where an individual is walking around the province using a piece of paper and scaring people. It's on national news, which denigrates British Columbia's reputation, and all the prospectors and free miners and workers in the mining industry in my constituency. I'm standing here trying to figure out a way to get this person off the news in order to make free miners the

My next question — and I'll make it my last question because I can see the minister is unhappy with the line of questioning — is: will the minister consider coming back into this House with another amendment in order to put in place criminal-record checks or some assurance so that when the notice comes from the free miner that they are coming onto your land, that is, in fact, an honourable individual and one with rights to be there who will respect the private property, well-being, health and happiness of the citizen, rather than a bully?

Hon. K. Krueger: I want to put it on record that with regard to the individual that the member is questioning about and the incidents that he's talking about, we do have enforcement action underway. We are investigating that particular free miner's holdings, and we may withdraw the licence for his claims.

The member gives me a thumbs-up, but I want to make sure the member understands that by requiring free miners, for the first time in British Columbia's history, to give formal notice before they go on an individual's land, we're going to be requiring them to identify themselves and how to reach them, how to get in touch with them.

Up until now, including all through the 1990s, people often wouldn't even know that somebody had been exploring on their land. There was no requirement to tell the owner or even find out who they were. This is a substantial improvement to the rights of surface rights holders.

J. Horgan: Section 46(1.1), "The chief gold commissioner," etc. I'm wondering if the minister could explain what new powers this section will pass to the chief gold commissioner.

Hon. K. Krueger: Up until we brought this legislation before the House to oblige free miners to give notice, of course there didn't need to be any provision for anyone to deal with problems that might arise in trying to do that. But the fact is that it is sometimes very difficult to identify who the owner of property is — for example, in the case of the property being owned through people who live in other countries, foreign ownership.

The manner in which the chief gold commissioner would have the authority to provide an exemption will be prescribed, as the legislation says, and the free miner making a request for exemption would have to convince, satisfy, the chief gold commissioner that due diligence had been undertaken — that genuine efforts had been made, that all possible means of identifying the owner of the land had been followed and that it just could not be ascertained.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for his response, but as I read section 46 and particularly (1.1), it says that the gold commissioner can exempt a free miner from section 46(1), which is the essence of the notice period and procedure that the intent of these amendments is heading towards. I'm wondering what new powers that, then, would require — for the gold commissioner to discharge that — if a free miner is compelled to follow the law and yet get an exemption, other than in the situation that the minister just suggested.

Hon. K. Krueger: I apparently failed to be clear. What I was trying to say was that we have brought in a new requirement for free miners. What (1.1) does is that in these very rare circumstances where ownership can't be ascertained, it gives the chief gold commissioner, who I hope the member has met — if he has, he would have enjoyed it; he's a wonderful civil servant and a guy who would never exercise his powers lightly — the authority to provide for an exemption in those rare circumstances.

If the member refers to the act itself, 11(2) still applies. And just for the member's edification so that he doesn't have to look it up, the right-of-entry does not extend to land that's occupied by a building; the curtilage of a dwelling house, meaning a reasonable distance around it; orchard land; land under cultivation; and land lawfully occupied for mining purposes, except for the purposes of exploring for and locating minerals or placer minerals as permitted by the act.

It also doesn't apply to protected heritage property, except as authorized by the local government or the minister responsible for the protection of the protected heritage property or land in a park, except as permitted by section 21. So there are many restrictions, and that hasn't changed.

J. Horgan: On section 49. I'm just confirming, I think. We had a discussion a moment ago, the minister and I, with respect to the on-line registry and how it's taken some of the romance out of prospecting, but it's greenhouse gas–neutral if you just click and drag and stake your claim.

Can the minister confirm that section 49 is just allowing the gold commissioner to take as a claim something posted on the Internet, rather than by stakes, marks or posts? Is that the intent?

Hon. K. Krueger: We have about 20,000 ground-staked claims still in existence, and for four years government has been patiently urging the people who own those claims to make sure that the mapping of them is very accurate, because we want to convert them all to MTO. All new staking has to be with MTO.

M. Farnworth: I have just a couple of questions to ask on behalf of the critic, so I won't harp on this particular section particularly long. But it does strike a chord, and I think it's important to make a couple of notes on this particular section. I'll ask the questions, and if the minister wishes to trumpet his response, he's more than welcome to.

The Registered Music Teachers Association has existed since the first decade of the 20th century, and its demise is a noteworthy event. What's the purpose of repealing the act?

Hon. M. Coell: Given that the association can now incorporate as a society, it will have the occupational titles protection for its members pursuant to part 10 of the Society Act. It really offers superior mechanisms to ensure that the occupational titles of members are protected, and it's proposed that we would repeal the act only once the association has been incorporated. By becoming a society, the Registered Music Teachers Association will be governed by and accountable to the government, along the same lines as other occupations are now as well.

M. Farnworth: I indicated that I had a duet of questions, and that solo answer has dealt with the second question.

J. Horgan: I just have a couple of questions, more of an explanatory nature. I think that those who are watching at home or reading the act as we go through clause by clause will want to know what the minister's definition of stratigraphic reversion is. So I welcome the minister to respond.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think this is a pretty straightforward section. What it means is that natural gas and oil are produced from different zones down in the earth. I know the member is aware of that. What happened back in 1985…. Let me back up a bit. What used to happen was that oil and gas companies would buy the right to drill for that oil and gas, and they retained everything from the deepest depth that they drilled to the surface.

In 1985 the government of the day said that the zones that were below where they were producing from would revert back to the Crown because they weren't producing them, and there could be gas or oil there. That happened in 1985.

We've been in consultation with the industry for a couple of years now about doing the reverse on the area above the zones that they're producing. What would happen on a normal lease, which is usually five or ten years…. I know the member is aware of that also. At the date of that fifth year, if they have not produced above a certain zone, that right actually reverts to the Crown to be resold to some other company that may want to drill into that pool — or, if not that pool, other pools — to produce that gas.

The soonest it could take place after this section comes into force would be 2012. It's a good thing for the province, reverting those rights back, because they can be resold and produced at a later time by another company instead of lying dormant.

J. Horgan: We're talking about the Police Act, so I thought I'd get to my feet. If the minister could find some staff….

I'll just pose a couple of questions to the minister. I gave him a bit of a preamble or a heads-up on the Islands Trust amendment. If this is an appropriate spot to raise the issue of communities with less than 5,000 people in them and the costs of policing, and how this amendment will impact those communities….

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member is aware, we've had a situation in the province for quite a number of years that, frankly, many people saw as being inequitable: that is, a situation where municipalities under 5,000 in population and rural areas of the province were contributing little or nothing towards the costs of policing.

What these amendments propose to do is to provide a mechanism whereby they will be contributing to the costs of policing, albeit on a somewhat reduced basis from the contributions that are being made by other municipalities across the province. We think that the proposals in this legislation do that in a fair and equitable way and resolve this inequity that has existed for a long time.

D. MacKay: I believe that the minister realizes that I have a large number of small communities located in Bulkley Valley–Stikine. Smithers is the only community that is currently paying for police services, because it's over the 5,000 population. That's just a bit of a preamble.

I want to start, first of all, with the contributing area under the definition of this particular section, where it describes municipalities that are "not providing policing and law enforcement under section 3(2)," an electoral area, and an area of the Province outside a regional district.

My first question. Could the minister tell me: does this include Indian reserves located in British Columbia?

D. MacKay: Could the minister tell me: does this include the Nisga'a Nation?

D. MacKay: With that answer, would the exemption of the Nisga'a Nation be a result of the treaty or of the fact that it's not included in this definition?

Hon. J. Les: There are policing provisions within the Nisga'a treaty that provide for policing. So that situation is provided for, and there's no need to include that within this legislation.

D. MacKay: Does that mean, then, that the Nisga'a Nation will be a contributing factor in the policing costs for communities under 5,000 going forward?

Hon. J. Les: The existing arrangements that apply to the Nisga'a self-government area are in place pursuant to the treaty, and they are in place until the year 2012. So there is no necessity at this point to address those issues.

There are policing provisions in place, contributions being made pursuant to the treaty. We have not contemplated making any arrangements within this legislation to specifically address Nisga'a because they are addressed.

D. MacKay: Obviously, I'm still somewhat confused about that last answer. I will take it upon myself to discuss it with the minister one-on-one so that I don't waste valuable time in this House.

Again to the minister: I've done some homework on this and, based on 2001 figures, if a community has a population of over 5,000 people the average cost per capita is about $164.

For those communities, once they exceed the 5,000 population they are now responsible for 70 percent of the actual policing cost based on the number of personnel they had at that detachment. That means the federal government is contributing 30 percent.

This may sound like a long question, so I'll have to ask you to bear with me while I go through this. So 70 percent is being paid by the community that's within the boundaries and that has the population in excess of 5,000. The federal government is contributing 30 percent. Again, I'd just ask you to keep that in mind as I go through this.

The total cost to the province for municipal and provincial police services in British Columbia is roughly $806 million. I'm going to break that down for you. The provincial government contributed $153 million for provincial policing. For municipal policing costs, they contributed $551 million. The federal government contributed $101 million for a total of $806 million.

A part of the $153 million that the province paid for services for those communities under the 5,000 population…. So $90 million out of that $153 million was for police infrastructure and specialized functions. Will the small rural communities now be asked to contribute to this $90 million that pays for the specialized services such as the identification section, police services dog and other identification section services? Are they now going to be asked to contribute to that $90 million?

Hon. J. Les: The answer is no. The small communities will be making a contribution only to basic community policing. None of the specialized forms of policing will be included in the formula.

D. MacKay: Again, with that new provision that has been included in Bill 12, as the minister said, they'll be asked to raise 50 percent of those costs. If my number is correct, it would be $63 million that they would have to collect, which is equal to one half of the…. So $39 million is for unincorporated areas, $15 million for populations under 5,000 and $9 million for Indian reserves, for a total of $90 million for police infrastructure and specialized services.

Could the minister tell me how much we are expected to recover from the rural areas in the populations under 5,000 people?

Hon. J. Les: Without being too complicated here, I'll just go straight to the numbers — roughly what they are. The total that will be collected from all of the rural areas — that is, the electoral areas and the communities under 5,000 — is in the neighbourhood of $25 million. That would be the gross amount collected.

Then, of course, we need to bear in mind that these communities and electoral areas will be eligible to participate in a share of the traffic fine revenue as well. That will be netted out against that $25 million, roughly.

D. MacKay: So $25 million is the expected recovery. That's much less than my numbers actually showed, so I'm pleased to hear that.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me…. The money that is going to be collected, is it going to be from rural residents only and only from residential homes, or does it include all different types of taxation — industrial? I'm thinking of sawmills in small towns. Are they also going to be assessed a portion of this policing cost money?

N. Macdonald: Section 61 is the amendment to the Police Act, which provides the mechanism for the province to collect money for communities under 5,000 to cover the cost of 50 percent of the policing.

As the minister knows, the community that I come from — just as my colleague here comes from — contains a number of communities that are under 5,000 and that had previously not paid for policing. This includes Golden, Radium, Invermere, Canal Flats, as well as the regional districts.

Since the mid-'90s, attending UBCMs, I had the opportunity to listen to the Premier. At that time — in his time as Leader of the Opposition — and then in documents since, the Premier consistently talked

I go back to even when the Community Charter Council Act was put together. There was a provision in there that outlined that the provincial government would not reduce its costs by transferring responsibilities of costs to municipalities. In other words, it would not download. Yet I put it to you that this is a download.

I'd ask the minister to explain. How is this cost not a download if it is applying costs to communities that previously did not pay for this?

Hon. J. Les: I thank the member for his question. I think what the member would perhaps want to do is look at this in context. There is no question that for the first time we're asking those communities to contribute to policing. As I've already indicated to a previous question, that is no more than providing some equity.

I'm sure the member is aware of small communities that happen to have 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,000 population within their borders. It has been a matter of concern to them for a number of years that communities only slightly smaller were not required to pay for policing services. So what we have done is implemented a construct here that I think is demonstrably fair.

At the same time, though, we have made a number of contributions towards policing in British Columbia that enhance the policing service available to communities. We have invested approximately $35 million, for example, for the implementation of PRIME, which is a common information-sharing network that by the end of this year will be available to all police forces right across British Columbia.

We have increased the province's contribution to policing by $122 million a year just a couple of years ago, which enables a very significant additional number of police personnel to be deployed across the province.

We have invested in integrated police resources across the province. There are some nine or ten of those specialized integrated police organizations across the province that investigate major crime — for example, that are involved in the Internet-based crime — and that are involved in integrated traffic enforcement, the integrated road safety units. And there are a number of others like that.

I would perhaps take issue with the member. This certainly isn't a case of downloading. This is first and foremost a case of providing some equity. Secondly, demonstrably, our government over the last number of years has provided very significant additional policing resources. So I would suggest that the province is at least picking up its share of the burden and, in fact, is doing much more than that.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the answer. Just to continue with that theme, and then at a later time we'll talk about the equity issue. The commitment was made to not download. Because you don't have the economy of scale, the burden that is placed upon smaller communities especially and upon the property tax payer is significant.

I think all MLAs here will be receiving, especially around tax time, indications of concern around the cost for community members with their property.

I'll just give you examples of things that have also been downloaded, and this is just taken from a community in my riding that's under 5,000. A few examples. The lab cost for water testing. The cost for a community under 5,000 can be as much as $30,000, and that was a cost that was previously paid by the province up until 2004. Cross-connection control and aquifer protection was mandated by the province, but the cost to a community under 5,000…. The number I had was $59,000.

There are more onerous sewer reporting proceedings that cost communities up to $10,000. There are costs, as well, for interface fire preparation, costs for the reorganization of the fire commissioner's office. Now you have an additional cost, an additional download, for community police funding for communities under 5,000. No matter how it's presented, it means that small rural communities are going to be under pressure to raise funds.

The additional pressures come from other things that previously were done, such as the building of dikes. They were partially financed through the provincial government. You had those costs as well as many others that come down to these small communities.

Now, there are economies of scale, so I just repeat: how does the fact that you are downloading this cost in any way line up with repeated promises not to download those costs? How is it not a download?

Hon. J. Les: I think I attempted to explain to the member that this is not a one-way street. While there are going to be contributions towards policing costs, the province has already done quite a number of things specific to policing to more than square that circle.

In addition to that, my colleague the Minister of Community Services has indicated a number of times over that there are quite a number of programs specifically oriented and geared towards small communities that will help offset some of their costs. In many of those small communities they enjoy a much stronger economy today than was the case six, seven and eight years ago. That, too, is obviously helpful.

When we're talking about the increased cost, I just want to point out for the benefit of the member and anyone else who might be interested that we're not talking about hundreds and hundreds of dollars here. The member might be interested in the community of Canal Flats, for example, where the average house in that community will be paying an additional cost of $42 per year. That's $3.50 a month.

We have tried very deliberately to mitigate the impact and to keep the costs at a very reasonable level. I think we've very successfully done that. Clearly, there is always change going on. This is in fact a change, but there have been many other changes as well that have benefited communities and the taxpayers in those communities.

When you do the math and try to weigh these things one off against the other, I think communities

N. Macdonald: One of the reasons I mentioned a number of things that have been downloaded is because all of these, regardless of their size, incrementally put pressure on one small and, I would argue, regressive form of taxation, which is property tax. You have the cumulative effect. In a community like Golden it will be an additional $150,000 for the community.

You could argue that that's not going to break anyone, but it comes on the back of many, many other costs that are downloaded, and these communities will be telling all MLAs, I'm sure, that they feel pressure. I think my compatriot from the north will hear the same thing.

The economies of scale for these communities are not there. Every additional cost that they are forced to absorb is therefore a serious problem, and while $42 per person for Canal Flats seems inconsequential, as a whole it is part of an additional burden.

It is seniors that we're very often hearing from. Communities not only have additional costs, but many communities in my area also now own courthouses that they picked up when the province decided to get out of courthouses. Well, that's new. We have communities that have to pick up the cost of hospitals that were left. There are additional costs in these communities.

The question of equity. The changes to small-community funding will not mean money in the pool of money for policing. Is it going to mean that any other community pays less? If you're talking about equity…. For the communities that now pay 70 percent, is this going to change what they pay? My understanding is that it does not. It simply goes into the provincial fund.

I don't see how that makes it any more equal for communities to pay the full cost or pay 70 percent of the cost, because this doesn't change their situation at all. It is historically set up so that communities that are small and that will face an economy of scale, a burden put upon them, can still be places that are appealing for people to live.

What we repeatedly see is that with cost pressures combined with the removal of services, you have these places now less and less appealing. We see that with the data, as people find that they cannot easily live in these communities. They don't get the services, and there are property taxes.

The question I had for you was: is my assessment correct? Is what I said correct — about the fact of this additional $25 million that is collected? You said it was $25 million. Does it in any way ease the burden for any of the other communities that are paying for policing? Does it do any of that?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the additional contribution of $25 million will tend to be shared by all British Columbians generally, so it'll ease the tax burden on all taxpayers.

I want to caution the member about engaging in a discussion about downloading, because I don't believe that this side of the House has anything to learn from the NDP on that matter. I was a mayor in the 1990s. If you want to talk about downloading, Madam Chair, I can go on all afternoon about the downloading that occurred in the 1990s.

We had a Premier, then Finance Minister, Glen Clark in 1992 who couldn't wait to get his hands on municipal finances. His favourite refrain was: "There is tax room at the municipal level." As he carried on as Finance Minister and later as Premier, he literally stripped municipalities of any provincial support by hundreds of millions of dollars at a time. When we went to see the then Premier Clark, he basically told us to get lost. There was absolutely not a listening ear there whatsoever.

Frankly, I'm not interested in sermons from the NDP on downloading. We in fact have turned that story around. We are providing good support to communities today. My colleague the Minister of Community Services has a number of programs in place specifically to help small communities, and for larger communities as well.

We're returning more than $50 million a year every year to communities today just as a result of traffic fine revenue finally going back to municipalities where it belongs. That was a case that I was trying to make for a decade through the '90s. It was municipal revenue that should have gone to municipalities right from the very beginning. This government made that commitment and delivered it to municipalities across the province.

N. Macdonald: I've been called a number of things today, and now I'm a sermonizer. I was a mayor in the '90s, just as you were a mayor in the '90s. We attended many of the same functions, and I can tell you that the issues that were important to us then are the same issues that should be important to us now.

There is a problem with putting burdens onto the property tax. If you're saying there's no room at the municipal level, if you're saying that that's your view — excuse me, the minister's view — that there's no room at the municipal level, then I agree with it. I see the burden for small communities, and what has gone on here is, no matter how you shape it, you have downloaded an additional cost.

Now, you can say that it's not a cost that should break any community. I'm saying that it is one more of many costs that have been downloaded onto the communities after explicit promises not to do that.

Because that's what this government was elected saying in 2001. That's what I heard this Premier saying explicitly from 1994 on at every single UBCM that I attended: "We will not download."

Whether it was done in the past makes no difference to me, because I was in that chair. I was a mayor. What makes a difference is what's going on now, and what I say to you and what I will leave you with is that this is an additional cost. It is a download. It puts a

burden onto small communities. It is important that that be recognized, and it is why I will be voting against this section. I do not think that it in any way addresses the issue of equity.

B. Ralston: I take it the minister doesn't wish to reply to the last…. Very well.

The minister mentioned the traffic fine revenue-sharing program. Will municipalities under 5,000 be able to participate in that program in terms of sharing traffic fine revenue back on a proportionate basis as it's raised from their municipality?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, they will be participating in that program on the same basis as all other municipalities.

B. Ralston: So what is to stop, say, an entrepreneurial municipality like the town of Topley, which is on Highway 16, from putting a police car on the highway and making up enough traffic fines to pay back the additional revenue?

I take it that's a possibility, and there are a number of small communities on busy highways — all along Highway 16, Telkwa, Topley, Hazelton; I mean, you just go down the list — that would fall into that category. It seems to me to not be good public policy.

Hon. J. Les: Of course we're acutely aware of the devious methodologies that might be employed by municipal leaders, as some of us indeed were in those chairs at one point in time. In thinking about how we would share and distribute municipal traffic fine revenues some years ago, we devised a system whereby the money is all pooled and then distributed to municipalities based on their contribution to policing services as a percentage of the overall total.

So there is indeed no particular advantage to any municipality deploying its policing resources to try to derive direct benefit back to that municipality. The additional benefit that would accrue from that kind of action would go into the pool, and everyone would benefit, so I would argue there is little incentive for them to do that.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I'm not totally familiar with the formula. Is the formula based on a regional pool or one single provincial pool?

Hon. J. Les: It's a provincewide pool. Just to further clarify at this point, there isn't actually a cheque written. It's actually deducted from the policing contribution that would otherwise be payable.

D. MacKay: Just following up on that, the small community of Telkwa, which is located ten kilometres from Smithers, receives its policing services from the community of Smithers. Smithers gets a percentage of the traffic fine revenues back based on the provincial average. In Telkwa they are now going to be entitled to receive a portion of that money based on their input into the total cost of policing for rural B.C.

Is that not going to take away from some of the communities with a population of over 5,000 that are now paying for the policing services?

Hon. J. Les: To the extent that some of the existing traffic fine revenue will now be shared with the small communities as well, it can be argued indeed that that is money that would otherwise have gone to communities over 5,000 in population. Whether that will result in a significant reduction to those large communities…. I doubt it. We're talking about pretty small contributions here, both towards this $25 million in the first place and then the traffic fine offset to that.

The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine is correct. This money does come out of the pool, and to that extent it does represent somewhat of a reduction to what the communities over 5,000 would otherwise have received.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment and seek leave to sit again.

Bill 12, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 11, Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; S. Hawkins in the chair.

N. Macdonald: I have a number of questions around the definition of a resort area, and I'll begin with the question…. Just to define resort area specifically.

Hon. I. Chong: Before I begin my response, I would just like to acknowledge that I've been joined by staff from the ministry — Nicola Marotz on my right, the member's left, and on my left Meagan Gergley and Ben Brunnen, who have been assisting in the development of this legislation.

To the member's question regarding resort area. There are three definitions that come to mind regarding resort area. It can be in fact a mountain resort, which would be a resort area. It could be a resort region that has been established, or it can even be Whistler as a resort area.

N. Macdonald: A resort body in relation to a resort area means a municipality, regional district or entity described for the resort area. With the term "entity," I wonder if the minister would describe what entities are foreseen as possibilities — if she could describe what entity she is specifically meaning here.

Hon. I. Chong: For the purposes of describing entity, that could refer to a destination marketing organization or a resort association.

N. Macdonald: Are those the only options that are available? Will there possibly be more types of entities that could come up in the future, or is that limited?

Hon. I. Chong: That would be a municipality-created corporation, or it could be another corporation created by the local government.

N. Macdonald: Is it possible that these entities would have appointed members, or will they always be chosen in a democratic fashion?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I'll provide a little additional clarification for the benefit of the member. When I stated earlier that it could refer to another corporation created by the local government…. For example, the local government may decide to establish a local economic development commission as a corporation.

In such case, they would be governed by the rules regarding corporations. How the people serve on that corporation would again depend on the nature of how that body would be established.

C. Trevena: I have a question. I raised the issue when we were in second reading of this. I too was puzzled about the definition of what a resort area is and how it is going to be applied.

For instance, my riding has both municipalities and regional districts, and large areas — rural areas — in regional districts, some of which are islands. Could, for instance, a whole island that is within a regional district be designated as a resort area?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated earlier, a resort area would be, as described in the legislation here, one of three types. It would be a resort region, a mountain resort municipality or, in fact, Whistler.

More specifically, if the member is wondering as to a resort region, that could be, within the resort region, a municipality which could include other unincorporated areas and other electoral areas within that. It would depend on that region that would be described as the resort region.

Hon. I. Chong: The resort region would be established based on requests or initiatives that come forth from the local government. If a local government would like to consider their area as a resort region, they would do so. They would request that, and we would certainly consider that.

The objective of an area, of a municipality with some adjacent areas to be considered as a resort region,

is to allow them to have access to the new hotel revenue tax-sharing that is being made available, as well as having an opportunity to look at specific development tools to have their particular region move forward in terms of resort development.

C. Trevena: I have one last question. So it's either the municipality or the regional district who would be responsible for drawing up the boundaries of a resort area, if they designate that they want this to be a resort area. They would draw up the boundaries and then come to your ministry for approval?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it's best to envision a resort region, again, as an initiative that comes forward from local government, whose objective is to be able to access some of the hotel room tax revenue-sharing that is being provided for in this legislation. It provides an opportunity for a regional district or a municipality to make a request as to what that region should be so that when development occurs, they would be able to access and share in that.

There would not necessarily be specific boundaries as such, but there certainly would be an understanding of what region will be able to provide the revenues from the hotel room tax.

As well, because we are looking to ensure that these are resort-oriented areas, the idea will be based on the number of bed units, as has been provided for in the formula and to determine the hotel room tax and those eligible. The presence of a mountain ski lift in the area would also determine whether it should be considered as part of a resort region as well.

N. Macdonald: In section 7, looking at the new taxes proposed to raise revenue for provincial purposes, just a question: what does this tax replace? Does it replace an existing tax? If not, if it's a new tax, then what is the justification for this tax?

Hon. I. Chong: I thought I had made it clear in my second reading comments the fact that this was revenue-sharing. So it is not a new tax; it doesn't replace tax.

Currently, hotel rooms do collect 8 points of what they call hotel room tax, and what this legislation will do, when passed, is allow for certain communities around the province to share anywhere between 1 and 4 points of those 8 points.

N. Macdonald: Well, there's an opportunity here for the minister to clarify for me. I think we've spent the better part of a week talking about this particular section. The question I have for the minister to begin with is: will the regional district of East Kootenay be making the final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort?

Hon. I. Chong: This legislation is not specific to any particular regions around the province, other than the fact that there are 13 possible opportunities for resort-oriented communities to share in hotel room tax. As I've indicated to the member in previous questions on a previous section when he asked about resort regions, these will be established and come as a result of initiative from the local government — what they would like to define as their resort region, for which they can then share in the hotel room tax as well as the development tools.

N. Macdonald: I have more questions about this, and I do want to understand how it works. We had a discussion earlier in the day where there were questions about my understanding of this section. I think it's useful to begin this conversation with some clarity.

Will it be used instead? Well, let's get back to that simple question. Yes or no: will the regional district of East Kootenay be making the final decision on the Jumbo Glacier project? I think that would clarify it for all of us as we proceed in asking questions — just a simple yes or no so that we can move on from there. Is the regional district of East Kootenay going to be making the final decision on the Jumbo Glacier project?

Hon. I. Chong: I glanced away and didn't realize I was joined by another member of my staff. I'd like to introduce the assistant deputy minister for local government, Dale Wall. He is now with us.

To be clear, this section provides an opportunity to share in hotel room tax and other development tools that are made available. This section has nothing to do with decision-making authority.

N. Macdonald: Well, you're creating a resort region, which is defined fairly loosely. Let's try to nail down, then, what a resort region is. Does a resort region need to be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, section 14 is about the ability to share in hotel room tax. If the member wishes to discuss the resort region, which is described in section 15, then I would ask that we move along to section 15.

N. Macdonald: Section 14 is the definition of a resort region. A resort region, it says, "means a resort region designated under section 6.8," so we are talking about the definition of a resort region. It seems com-

I've asked a question that I'll repeat. Does a resort region have to be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction? That is a very specific question on the definition of a resort region. If I could have an answer, I would appreciate it.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the easiest way for the member to understand how a resort region may be designated is to share with him an area that I'm sure he should know fairly well. Currently Golden is a municipality, and not far away we have the Kicking Horse Resort along with an electoral area. If the municipality were to request that we take a look at expanding the electoral area, which would include Kicking Horse as a resort region, then certainly we would, through this legislation, be able to accommodate that.

That would therefore allow for the hotel room tax collected from Kicking Horse to be attributable back to and shared between, for example, the regional district as well as the municipality of Golden.

N. Macdonald: So the question was: with a resort region, must it be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction? That's the question. Would you please answer that question.

Hon. I. Chong: Because I was expecting us to move into section 15, which actually describes a resort region, but we're still on section 14…. So I will move right into section 15, where we describe what a resort region is. As I've indicated to the member, it was based on an initiative that was brought forward from local government as to what they would like to designate as a resort region in the legislation.

In section 15 we have said that it must include one municipality, not a part of a municipality. So depending on the initiative brought forward by local government, they may choose to have a resort region that includes two municipalities that are bookends and there is an area in between, and they would describe that as a resort region. They could not, for example, choose one municipality, the area in between two municipalities and then half of another municipality.

It would depend on whatever local government initiative was brought forward as to what they believe the resort region should be to allow them to have access to the hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Well, with due respect, the minister has not answered the question. I'm asking specifically — and you needn't shake your head. Just say exactly….

Listen to the question. It is: must a resort region be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated geographically but still under one jurisdiction?

The Chair: Members, I would advise we deal with section 14 first, and then go to section 15.

Hon. I. Chong: Well again, I've attempted to explain that these would be local government initiatives, and it would make sense that when a local government brings forward what they believe a resort region should be, that they would consider it to be contiguous.

I'm not going to predetermine whatever local government — which could be a municipality, as well as a regional district — brings forward for us to consider as a resort region. I would expect that that's how it should be. But, you know, we are expecting that the local governments in the area will come forward and ask us to designate what they believe to be the resort region for which they can then share in the hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: Okay. Well, let's be clear. The resort region, when we move into section 15, is something that cabinet is going to designate. You should, I'm sure as you put this together, have looked at scenarios and have clear parameters around what a resort region is.

I just want a straightforward answer on that question. Must it be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction? What are the parameters that you have set around this definition?

The Chair: Member, you are clearly dealing now with section 15. So we can put the question to the House — the question on section 14.

N. Macdonald: Well, I put it to you that we are voting on a definition for a resort region, and as yet we have not had that fully defined. It seems sensible to me that before we would move on and vote either for or against a resort region, we would fully understand what it means.

That seems completely reasonable to me. To be honest, we could move through this fairly quickly if I could get an answer to the question that I ask.

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated to the member: yes, I would expect it to be. However, because these requests come forward as initiatives from local government, I don't know what the regional district or the local governments may propose. At this point I would expect that to be the case, but I don't have a crystal ball.

So I don't know whether or not there is a proposal that our regional districts, local governments and unincorporated areas are looking at. If they have such a proposal, then I would certainly consider that.

N. Macdonald: I have every reason to expect you to be specific on this because there is a proposal that the

minister knows that I have questions about, and part of the scenario around Jumbo Glacier Resort is that you would have one community, Radium, taking and joining with Jumbo Valley, and that they would be two separate geographical areas.

The question is completely reasonable. As you sat down and thought this through and in all the time it took to put it together, you must have considered exactly what a resort region means. So it seems a straightforward question. Must it be one contiguous area?

This is the legislation that this minister has put together. It is legislation that the cabinet is going to drive. The cabinet is going to be making the decision. The minister has thought it through and the government has thought it through, so I want you to just be really clear.

If you're saying that it is possible that it will be pockets, then say that. If the minister is saying that it has to be physically, geographically one contiguous area, then say that. I just do not want it nuanced. I want to understand exactly what a resort region is. The question is: must it be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction?

Hon. I. Chong: My expectation is that proposals brought forward to designate resort regions would in fact be that, as the member suggested. That is my expectation.

Again, I would say that section 14 is about eligibility to share in the hotel room tax. It is not about decision-making authority, which I presume he is referring to, which is in section 15. So, Madam Chair, I'll take your direction on whether we continue this line of questions because certainly section 14 is all about the eligibility to share in hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: Whether we do this in section 14 or 15, they are the same questions, because in section 15 we are talking about the resort region and exactly how that works. It just makes sense to me that before we move into section 15, we actually know what we're talking about.

I have asked — how many times? — four or five times a very simple and straightforward question. If the minister is getting impatient with the same question again and again, there is a simple answer. There is a simple response. Just tell me: is it possible that a resort region can be one contiguous area? Must it be one contiguous area, or is it within the realm of possibility under any circumstance that it can be more than one, two or three areas that are separated by geography?

Now that is a straightforward question. The minister has access to lawyers. You have access to literally decades of experience beside you — draftspeople. This had to have been thought through, so would the minister please answer the question. Must it be one contiguous area, or may it be two or more areas separated but still under one jurisdiction? Is that possible?

Hon. I. Chong: I will try, again, to provide further clarification. The member has tried to present, I guess in his mind, his example of what would be a resort region. I have indicated to him now on a number of occasions that the expectation that we have when we take a look at these resort regions, when they come forward to us from local government, is that we would expect them to be geographically contiguous.

However, when it comes to jurisdiction, there is a possibility that you could have a municipality that is in one regional district and an electoral area in another regional district. Our requirements here are that a resort region just requires that a municipality be part of that resort region. So there could be two separate jurisdictions in that two different regional districts are involved here because one electoral area is in one regional district and the municipality is in another.

Again, we are trying to allow for the local governments to take a look at what works best, to present that forward to us so that we can then allow them to have access to the hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: Okay. This is what I mean. What you talked about was overlapping jurisdictions, and that's not the question. The question is this: in what you define as a resort region, does that resort region need to be one contiguous geographical area? Is that a must? That's the question. Is that a must? And it's a yes or no.

What frustrates me and, I think, confuses the general public is the fuzziness of the answer so that it can be interpreted in many different ways. I asked you to end my confusion and just tell me: does the resort region refer to an area that must be one contiguous, one single, geographical area under one jurisdiction?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I will say that the expectation that I have is in fact that it would be, and I have stated that. So if the member has some idea of what he thinks can happen, then he can certainly share that with us. But I have said that the expectation when this legislation was drafted was to consider that those initiatives coming forward from local government would in fact have that geographical, contiguous nature to it.

N. Macdonald: Does the definition, as put together, specifically bar the creation of a resort region that is geographically split? Just a yes or no. Is that completely out of the question? That's what I've asked, I think, six or seven times. I just want to know if it has to be one solid geographical area, or is it able to be split over a number of geographical pockets? That's very clear. Does this definition bar that from happening?

Hon. I. Chong: The definition does not bar that from happening. However, because the local government would be coming forward with its initiatives as to how they would like the resort region to be established so that they could share in the hotel room tax, then I expect that they would speak to each other — the jurisdictions — to make a determination as to what works best. Because this is about the revenue-sharing that is going to take place. This is about eligibility for the hotel tax revenue-sharing.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand this, let's put a scenario in front of the minister. If a community such as Radium decided to make itself a resort region and it decided, as well, that Jumbo Valley, 60 kilometres to the west, could be part of that resort region, is that something that is precluded from the definition of resort region? Is that something that is possible, or will the minister say that that is completely impossible?

Hon. I. Chong: Presently if Radium were to approach our ministry and request a boundary extension, just as an example — which we do from time to time, as the member well knows — it could. Radium could today include the Jumbo area, as he indicated, as part of its municipality. This legislation is not about that. But if the member is trying to determine whether the annexation could take place, I would say that without this legislation that could take place today.

N. Macdonald: I tried to lay out for the minister as clear as possible a scenario. Instead, it seems very often that you're dancing around the question. I don't know how the question could be put more clearly. I gave you a scenario.

I gave the minister a scenario, I'll repeat it. Using the definition of resort region — not what could be done with any other act but in the definition of a resort region — is it within the realm of possibility that you could have a community such as Radium or any other neighbouring community and have that a resort region, as well as Jumbo Valley, which is 60 kilometres to the west? Could those two parts in any conceivable way under this definition of a resort region be contemplated? Is that possible? Can that happen?

Hon. I. Chong: If that is the scenario the member is presenting, then yes, the possibility could occur. But all that would do — and I want to make this very clear to the member because I think he is also missing this point — is allow for an opportunity for the municipality to receive in the revenue-sharing. It would not change any decision-making authority that would take place. It's about the hotel room tax that may be generated that could then be eligible to be shared with a municipality, which is one of the reasons why we have stated that a resort region needs to include a municipality and not part of a municipality.

N. Macdonald: My understanding is that this is a change to the Local Government Act, and therefore, the resort region is something within the Local Government Act. What the minister has said is that it is possible that you have a scenario where a resort region is created with Radium and another part of that resort region in Jumbo Valley. The minister, as I understand it — and I do get frustrated with the nuancing of these things — is saying that that is a possibility.

I'll move on slightly and just ask: do you need to be the closest municipality? Let's look at the example of Jumbo Valley. Radium is not the closest municipality. Does Radium need to be the…? Do you need to be the closest municipality to this other region, or what are the rules around that?

Hon. I. Chong: I think perhaps part of the clarification that needs to be made here is that when the member said that a resort region is created, I'm presuming — and he can correct me if I'm wrong — that he thinks that as a result of a resort region being created we have a new governance structure, a new governance model. Again, I would say that is not the case.

The resort region will just provide eligibility for hotel room tax–sharing. I would expect that the local government in the area, in the region, would come forward and make the proposal to government requesting that accessibility, that eligibility for the hotel room tax. That is the definition to allow us to have a resort region established, to allow that eligibility for the sharing of the hotel room tax. A new governance or a new local government is not created by virtue of having a resort region being designated.

N. Macdonald: Let's keep exploring this. What the minister has said is that you can have a resort region which includes…. The scenario I used was Radium, and you can have as well a resort region that also includes Jumbo Valley, which is 60 kilometres to the west. That's not the closest community. Does the closest community have any right to take…?

I mean, the scenario does not make sense. Radium is not the closest community. If you have places, a resort region that is not geographically linked, then you raise all sorts of questions about how you have these pockets of resort regions. What are the rules around that? Does it have to be the municipality that is closest, or can it be a municipality that is more distant than a neighbouring municipality?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I expect local governments to come forward with their initiatives. I do not have any predetermined conclusions as to what may or may not take place, and it would depend on a local government in the area. If the member thinks it happens to be Radium and they come forward and request that a resort region be established so that they can share in potential hotel room tax, then I could consider that.

However, at the present moment, if Radium, again using his example, were to come forward to the ministry and ask for a boundary extension which would take in the entire valley — as is possible — then they would be included in that municipality. They would then automatically be eligible for the hotel room tax-sharing that would eventually occur.

Again, if the member believes that there is a decision that is being made here today, I would tell him that that is not the case. I will await the initiatives that come forward from local government as to what they

believe should be the resort region for the purpose of the hotel room tax-sharing.

N. Macdonald: Well, the minister can certainly move this forward with one simple answer. The reason I'm concerned about this is twofold. First, the answers seem very difficult and very nuanced and, therefore, need very repeated asking of the questions. But if the minister is saying that we need to move on, all she needs to do is stand up and assure me that — as they were promised, as is the commitment from this government — the regional district of East Kootenay will make the final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort. If she will stand up and do that, then we can move on a bit quicker.

If that's not going to happen, then we'll continue and try and piece through the nuanced answers of the minister to fully understand what a resort region is. So I'll give you that opportunity now.

Hon. I. Chong: I have tried to be clear on a number of occasions now that this section is not about decision-making. This section is not about governance. This section is about the eligibility of the hotel room tax-sharing. What the member is suggesting is just not involved in this particular section, and I know that he wants to be specific about a decision that has yet to be decided upon in his local area. That is not what this is about. This is about ensuring that we have local governments who would like to have access to and a possibility to share in that hotel room tax.

I gave him the example previously of Golden, which would like to include in its resort region the Kicking Horse so that they could share in those hotel room taxes there. It would not change the governance of Golden. It would not change the decision-making that Golden has to make. All it means is that Golden, for example, would be able to share in the hotel room tax. The member is, I guess, determined to have this section referred to as a decision. That is not what this section is about. This is about the hotel room tax-sharing.

The Chair: I wish to advise the member that the Chair has listened carefully to the questions and listened carefully to the answers, and it is bordering on and is actually repetitious. I would advise the member to choose another line of questioning.

N. Macdonald: With due respect, the repetition comes from the lack of an answer. If I would get a clear answer…. The invitation was there for the minister to move us quickly through this definition. If she had clearly said that the government would keep its commitment…. She chose not to. In each one of these questions that I've asked about the resort region, I have had to pick through the nuance.

I don't think anyone in this House has any clarity from the minister's answers about what a resort region is. Before we say yes or no to a definition, it makes sense that we fully understand what it is. I think that with all the lawyers that this minister has available to her and all the decades of experience that she has, she has available to her a clear definition.

The Chair: With the greatest amount of respect, Member, you are now arguing with the Chair. The Chair has advised you that your questioning is repetitious and advises you to move on to a new line of questions on this section.

N. Macdonald: Okay. I will ask, then: if I give you a scenario of Radium…? If Radium was to set up a resort region that would include Jumbo Valley, you say that that is something that is acceptable.

What if it is not acceptable to the community that is closer to Jumbo Valley, which is Invermere? How does the definition of resort region work? Does it need to be the community that is closest in proximity, or can it be a community that is slightly further away in proximity?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sorry if it hasn't been made as clear as I possibly can. I mentioned a while ago that in the member's comments about a resort region being created…. I believe he has in his mind that a new creation of a new municipality or a governance model would take place. I've clearly said that is not the situation, but that a resort region is established for the purposes of revenue sharing.

Let me provide the member another example — Invermere. I know he's familiar with Invermere and with Panorama. If Invermere were to request that the resort region include Panorama, it would now mean that Invermere would be eligible to receive some of the hotel room tax that is being collected through the Panorama Resort. But if Invermere were not to request that to take place, then it would not be able to share in the hotel room tax.

This is what a resort region, the designation, is about: to allow for a municipality to share in the hotel room tax — not about establishing a new governance model; not about establishing which is the most logical choice for the revenue sharing.

I will await the local governments to come forward with the initiatives, who will make the case as to why they feel that if there should be hotel room tax in a region, an incorporated area, they should have an opportunity to access and share in that hotel room tax. I'm hoping that with that, the member understands clearly what this section is providing for. It does not create another distinct municipality.

N. Macdonald: Let's ask the same question, but with a slightly different scenario. Rather than the potential of a new development, let's talk about the existing one. If you want to use the example of Panorama, is it within…?

N. Macdonald: Excuse me. If the minister would like to use the example of Panorama, then let's put this

scenario in front of you. Can Radium join with Panorama in a resort region? Is that absolutely impossible, or is that within the realm of possibility for resort regions?

Hon. I. Chong: That is a possibility, but at the same time it is also a possibility that both Invermere and Radium would come together and share in that. It really comes down to the municipality who sees this as an opportunity to access hotel room tax. I would expect that there will be discussions amongst them as to how best to access that hotel room tax to provide for the infrastructure needs of the community and for them to develop their area.

That is a possibility, but it's also a possibility that Invermere would also come forward and say that they would like to be included in the region for which they would then have access to the hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: Yes. So is it possible that Oak Bay would go and take the Panorama as a resort region? It's a bit of a facetious question, but what the minister needs to define is: what is the physical proximity?

What the minister has said is that it doesn't need to be the closest community. So you're saying that it's okay for Radium to go and take Panorama. You also have it as a possibility that Invermere could do that, which is slightly more logical since it's the closest community. But could Oak Bay?

Where are the physical, the geographical limitations of where these two…? Now that we have finally found out they're not contiguous, what are the physical limitations?

Surely with all of the people, all of the staff, that the minister has available to her, these things have been fully considered. Would the minister please explain what the physical limitations are of these separate islands that make up resort regions?

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the member was not trying to poke fun at my community of Oak Bay. I would hope that's not the case.

First and foremost, I must say that Oak Bay would not qualify in the revenue-sharing, because it's not a resort-oriented municipality. I'm sure they wish they could, but unfortunately, that is not the case.

The purpose of this section of the bill is, again, to provide for access to the hotel room tax. The reason why resort-oriented communities are asking for access to the hotel room tax is because they are faced with unique challenges — generally, that of the infrastructure. Because of the nature of their industry, they would like to have access to the hotel room tax. So there is a relationship that will be considered for the sharing of the hotel room tax. That is the purpose of why it was introduced.

We heard from the resort communities. They are impacted by the tourism industry. They feel that they need to have an opportunity to share in a revenue source, which we've identified as the hotel room tax, to allow them to deal with the impacts of that industry on their communities. So we would look for that relationship. The whole point of this is to provide those communities with access to the hotel room tax because they are impacted in that way.

N. Macdonald: The minister is frustrating me with the answer. Okay, let's put out another scenario. If you don't want to use Oak Bay, then we'll use the community of Whistler.

I want to understand exactly how thoroughly thought through this is, because it took us a long time to discover that it does not have to be a contiguous area — that it can, in fact, be islands that are separated that can make up a resort region.

The scenario that the minister laid out about Invermere and Panorama as two separate islands being a resort region…. Now we learn that it can be Radium and Panorama that can be two islands that make up a resort region. The question is: can it be Whistler and Panorama that can be joined together?

If not, then what are the limitations? Be very clear with me. What are the limitations? If it's not the neighbouring community, which seems somewhat sensible, then what are the limitations? It seems ridiculous to me that you would have Radium and Panorama combined when the road has to go through Invermere.

I have not had any assurance that the minister discounts that with this bill. I want very clear assurance that that is impossible, because it's a ridiculous scenario. So would the minister please address that? She can use the somewhat facetious example of "Can Whistler join in a resort region with Panorama?" as a way of setting the parameters around what a resort region actually is.

Hon. I. Chong: If the member wants to throw out example after example until he exhausts the entire province, then I guess he's welcome to do that. I don't think it's a particularly good use of his time.

I've already indicated…. I again apologize if I have not made myself clear, because I am trying to make myself as clear as possible. He wants to define predetermined outcomes, which I have indicated I cannot do until I receive the request from local governments.

I stated just previously to this question that there has to be a relationship with the resort-oriented community for which a resort region would be designated. The whole purpose of having that designation is to allow access to the hotel room tax, which will help alleviate and in some ways provide for the funding to deal with other pressures, unique challenges and costs associated with communities impacted by the resorts that are in the area.

Currently, if the resorts are in the areas, there would not be any opportunity to share in that hotel room tax. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to provide for a municipality to put forward that initiative, come to the ministry and ask that the resort region be defined in a way that they can access the hotel room tax so that the municipality can deal with

some of the pressures they are facing as a result of a resort community that may be impacting it. That is the purpose of this.

For Whistler to become attached to Panorama, the member well knows, is a silly notion, for lack of a better description. But if he wants to continue, as I say, to list off every single municipality in the province and try to affix them to a resort region, I'm telling him that he's going to be wasting his time. I've indicated that it is about communities impacted by resorts in their area that then want to be able to access a revenue stream, which we've identified as a hotel room tax, to allow them to deal with those unique challenges.

N. Macdonald: It is a silly notion that was put forward. What is disturbing is that the minister did not categorically say that it cannot happen, because what is being contemplated by this legislation in many ways seems silly.

Let's just clarify again. Could Jumbo Valley and Radium make up a resort region? Is that possible? Can Jumbo Valley and Radium make up a resort region?

Hon. I. Chong: I thought I was clear enough. When the member proposed that Whistler and Panorama could possibly be adjoined or considered as a resort region, I said it was a silly notion. Therefore, if he does not take that to be no, then I'll make it clearer: the answer is no. They could not do that, because I am referring to communities that are impacted as a result of resort activity in adjacent areas.

What this section does, what the purpose of this section is, is to allow for places like Invermere, Golden and Fernie — finally, I guess, after some requests that have been made of the Resort Task Force — to be able to access hotel room tax. Without this section, we would not be able to allow Invermere, Golden and Fernie to share in some of the hotel room tax. That is being collected in Panorama, in Kicking Horse and in Fernie Alpine Resort.

If the member is not satisfied with that and does not wish a resort region to be designated, then he should say so, and Invermere, Golden and Fernie will not be able to access hotel room tax.

N. Macdonald: A question just on the existing rights that may be in a resort region: what happens to existing mining rights when a resort region is created?

N. Macdonald: With the creation of the resort region, the minister used an example of Panorama, which is an existing resort. Is it required? The other examples that the minister has used are the existing resort of Kicking Horse, the existing resort of Panorama, the existing resort at Fernie. Is it possible for a community to take in an island somewhere where there is no development existing? Is that a possible scenario?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the easiest answer to the member would be that you can't have an impact on a community for which they are requesting access to the hotel room tax if there is no resort.

N. Macdonald: Well, let's go to this one. With the appointment of local government members, will there be a change in any way? So you have the municipality, and you have an area that is added. Will there be in any way the appointment of any local government members?

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I would request your direction on the approach we're taking. We are still on section 14. Section 14 has nothing to do with decision-making authority. Section 14 has to do with access to the hotel room tax. So I would ask whether we are now on to another section. If so, we could pass section 14.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, and I'm still trying to get to the definition of resort region.

Okay. Well, let's do this, then. Let's move many of these into section 15. We can do that. So we'll move the definition of resort region into section 15. Many of the questions overlap, as you've indicated, so we can easily do that. We'll move into section 15, then.

N. Macdonald: Section 15, then, is very clearly about how the cabinet goes about designating a resort region, and it reads that subject to subsection (2) the cabinet may by regulation, without coming before the House, designate an area as a resort region. We've established that a resort region need not be contiguous, that it can be a series of islands. What we have not had clarified is how close those islands need to be, nor have we made clear exactly how that would work.

I'll give the minister an opportunity to again clarify the issue that she knows I am most concerned about. Will the minister assure the House that this section and in fact no part of Bill 11 will be used to impose on the people of Columbia Valley a decision with regards to Jumbo Glacier Resort?

Hon. I. Chong: To be clear, section 15 is not about extending the boundaries of municipalities to include proposed resort projects such as Jumbo. The purpose of section 15 is to enable resort-oriented communities with major resort developments to access those new resort tools such as the hotel room tax, such as development cost charges for employee housing. That is what section 15 is about.

Again, I do believe, based on the questions that the member is proposing, that he has some belief that this designation of a resort region creates a new municipality or creates a new governance model. That is not the case. I'm hoping that that can be as clear as possible to him.

N. Macdonald: Well, certainly what would clarify it most clearly for me is if the minister would stand up and assure the House that the decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort will be made, as this government promised it would, by the regional district of East Kootenay. If the minister would stand up and do that, that would move us along much more quickly.

Hon. I. Chong: I thought I had said that again, but for the benefit of the member, the designation of an area as a resort region is enabling. It is about a permissive process that serves to provide the affected local governments, which are the other communities involved, with unique finance and development tools for enhancing the resort sector.

The designation of a resort region encourages local governments to collaborate but has no effect on a local government's land use decision-making jurisdiction or governance structure, which is one of the reasons why I tried to express to the member that the general tone of his questions appears to suggest that there is a new governance structure, and that is not the case.

N. Macdonald: So the minister is suggesting that if a municipality that exists was to have, as the minister says it is possible to have with a resort region, another pocket that will join its municipality…. I would ask for clarification. If you have a resort region that includes a municipality and can also include another area, and the example that you used was, I believe….

The example the minister used was the communities of Invermere and Panorama. If those two were to be joined in a resort region, what is the governance model for that resort region? What's the governance model?

Hon. I. Chong: The governance model would still remain as it is. What it would entitle Invermere to do is to access the hotel room tax that the resort development at Panorama is currently generating. I don't know how much clearer I can be. The questions that the member is posing seem to lead him to believe that we have another governance model that is in place, and that's not the case.

When he says, "Well, if this region joins with that," he's now talking about, I would imagine, boundary extensions, but that's not what we're talking about. The opportunity to be able to designate an area to be a resort region will provide the municipality, the local government in that area, affected by that particular resort development with an opportunity to access the hotel room tax that is currently available.

Unfortunately, by voting against section 14, what he is saying there is that those specific communities — Invermere, Golden and Fernie, which might have had access to those resort developments — should not have access to the hotel room tax generated by that resort. We are trying to merely allow for local governments with resort-oriented communities to have access to that. That's what it is. It is not about governance. It is not about decision-making.

N. Macdonald: The next question is: using the scenario of Invermere joining in the resort region with Panorama, are there any obligations on the community of Invermere beyond the obligations around the hotel tax? Do they have any responsibilities at all for fire, for any other of those normal municipal responsibilities?

N. Macdonald: Okay. Will there be within that resort region any bylaws that would in any way be in place with both the municipality and the other parts of the resort region?

Hon. I. Chong: Again to be clear, there is no jurisdictional change that would be occurring. It would

allow, in the example that the member offered, Invermere to have access to the hotel room tax. It would have opportunities to look at development cost charges for things such as employee housing. If the region is so designated, the regional district of East Kootenay would also have access to the hotel room tax as well as development cost charges and development permit abilities.

That is what this is about. It is providing for opportunities, an additional tool to allow the area to be able to meet the unique challenges of the resort communities.

N. Macdonald: To be clear, then, when a resort region is created, there is nothing at all to do with governance. The resort region could be two separate entities entirely in terms of governance. Or do they have to be the same governance?

The Chair: Member, the Chair is again listening very carefully to the questions and to the answers, and the questions are repetitious.

Hon. I. Chong: The answer is yes, because this is not about governance changes.

N. Macdonald: Just so that I understand, the whole resort region must have the same governance.

Hon. I. Chong: No. The member's question was whether or not the existing governance structures could stay as they are, and I said yes, that would be the case. Whatever is in place now with Invermere and whatever is in place with the regional district would remain. What it would change is only the ability for Invermere and the ability for the regional district to come together and collaborate on the access to the hotel room tax that the resort development of Panorama currently is generating — the hotel room tax which both the regional district and Invermere, I would imagine, would have been very much looking forward to.

N. Macdonald: I'd like to at this time move an amendment. I would like to amend as follows:

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate having notice regarding the amendment. What I can say is that the amendment is unnecessary. Section 15 provides authority for cabinet to designate a resort region, which would include a whole municipality but may include more than that. In the case of Golden, for example, it would include part of the electoral area that covers the Kicking Horse Mountain Resort.

The purpose of the designation is to enable a designated region to be eligible for the hotel room tax revenue-sharing and to have development tools, such as the specialized development permit areas and development cost charges for employee housing. In other words, the designation is only relevant in the context of permissive authorities that local governments may want to access, and it is the local governments in the proposed area that would indicate whether or not they want those authorities. As it stands, I believe the amendment is unnecessary.

N. Macdonald: In the throne speech at the beginning of this session and, in fact, in my initial speech when I began as an MLA here, I did draw to the House's attention the importance of the Jumbo decision, the Jumbo Glacier Resort controversy. I brought that to the House's attention.

It has been an area of particular difficulty for the community for a long time. What I said at that time was that after 15 years of people investing time, it was important that the government makes sure that the process that makes a final decision on Jumbo Glacier Resort is absolutely aboveboard and crystal-clear.

What I have tried to do with this bill…. Quite frankly, it's difficult to know, when you get a piece of legislation, exactly what a definition like "resort region" means. Eight, nine questions into this committee stage, it was still difficult to get even the most basic answers. As we move along, it becomes somewhat clearer.

From my perspective, it is absolutely essential that this not be put in place if it in any way affects the Jumbo Glacier Resort decision. What I have tried to do from last week all the way through is to get the minister to very clearly indicate to me that Bill 11 has nothing to do with Jumbo Glacier Resort and that, if a decision is to be made, that decision will be made in accordance with the commitment that the government of British Columbia made to the people of Columbia Valley, as clearly as could be made, back in October of 2004.

It was at that time that the people of Columbia Valley were promised that it would be a decision made by the regional district of East Kootenay. The current Minister of Health made that announcement with a news release and a press conference here. The point that he made is, and these are his words: "The government recognizes that there are strongly held views surrounding this project. The final decision will be in the hands of those closest to the project. Those who will benefit most directly and who most directly understand the costs will have the final say here. The project would not be able to proceed without the approval of the East Kootenay regional district."

Now, what I have been after from day one when Bill 11 was introduced is just clarification from the minister. Will the government honour that commitment? Or will they, as many, many people suspect in the Co-

lumbia Valley, try to loop around and, through legislation, do something different — get the result that they want while breaking the commitment? That's something that, I can tell you, people in the Columbia Valley will not accept.

What I expect from the minister is some clarity on that issue. It would certainly make this piece of legislation much easier to understand and allow it to move forward in a timely way. But to date I have not had any clear answer from the minister. What it leads one to believe is that there is something that is hidden. If that's the case, then it is deeply problematic, because the least that people should expect is that a government is going to be straightforward in the commitments that they make.

The regional district of East Kootenay was promised this decision, and that was the clear commitment. They should be involved. If they are not, and we do not protest, then we're accepting that that's the standard that governments can live by. The commitments can be made and then easily cast aside when it is convenient to do so. That's a pattern that this government falls into continuously. They get away with these things because they have the power, and they're able to do it. They have the numbers to win a vote, but it's not something that should be easy.

Any of the tools that I have available to me to slow it down and to say again and again that there was a clear commitment made by the Minister of Health, speaking on behalf of all members of this government, that the decision would be made by the regional district of East Kootenay and that it would not be made through the back door with some piece of legislation.

To be honest, the answers that I have received…. I do not have the resources that the minister has. I do not have decades of experience surrounding me and telling me what things mean. I do not have lawyers that are explaining the nuances to me exactly. I'm a simple teacher and principal. When I read through and try to meet my obligations to the people I represent to make sure that if something is slipped through here I've done my job and identified it, then that is what I need to do.

This proposed amendment adds something that I think is very important. If you are going to establish a resort region, it adds the provision that it be done with the approval of the board of the regional district in the area where the resort region is located.

The second part of any move to have a decision made on Jumbo Glacier away from the regional district…. The second part of that that is offensive to people in rural British Columbia is the fact that the regional district will not be involved. In fact the decision, instead of being made in a local community by people who live in the area, who have to face electors in the grocery store…. That the decision instead will be made in a secret meeting of cabinet is deeply offensive.

On those two points I move this amendment. I move it so that I will force this government to keep its commitment. In that sense I'm doing them a favour, because all people who are involved in public life should be interested in that commitment and in keeping their commitments. It's something that's useful for all of us as politicians — that people believe, when we make commitments, that we intend to keep them.

I can tell you that this has created a great deal of cynicism about the political process. The minister has received the e-mails that I have received, and they say the same thing. They are almost entirely along the theme of: "You, the government, made a promise that you need to live up to." I know that in the Kootenays that's the expectation we have of people. I know that in the Kootenays that's the standard for government. If it's made a commitment, the government must keep it.

Secondly, in the Kootenays we can make our own decisions on land use. In fact, I think if you moved around rural British Columbia, you would find person after person saying the same thing — that decisions on land use, decisions that impact our lives, are decisions that we need to be part of. That was the commitment this government made, and it's a commitment they need to live up to.

This motion allows us to return what should be there, which is the decision-making of the board of the regional district in the area where any resort is to be located. That is something that is, of course, key.

I think we can easily slip into situations where we look for expediency. We look for easy solutions to problems, but I think we also have to be mindful of the institution we have come to here, an institution that has evolved over time. When we're here, we make small improvements or take away small bits from the institution.

What I have seen over this session is incremental, tiny removals of the rights and strengths of this Legislature. I have seen — and it was raised again by my colleague from Nanaimo — how we continuously move decisions to the secret sanctuary of cabinet. Whenever you do that, you remove citizens from the political process.

I put forward this amendment. It is my intention to push as hard as I can to make sure that this government keeps its commitment to make sure that the regional district is included in decision-making on the land base. What I will continue to ask is for a clear answer from this minister. She has had several opportunities to be completely open and clear to the people of Columbia Valley about her intentions on Jumbo Glacier Resort. Every time the question has been put it needed only a yes or a no, and there was never a yes or a no.

This afternoon in question period, all that every person who was here — this place was filled up — needed to know was yes or no. Is this government going to keep its commitment to have the regional district of East Kootenay decide on Jumbo Glacier Resort, as the Minister of Health, when he was the minister responsible, promised in the clearest terms? Yet what you get is a non-answer.

What it raises in an opposition — what it raises for me and raises for people who would watch at home — is the question about why would a minister not answer clearly unless there was some other agenda going on. The minister says: "Well, what are you suspicious about?" I'm suspicious because I do not get a clear answer. It would be solved in an instant.

It is not only on this issue that questions are raised. At this time I have another issue that is in front of the minister, and it is the issue around bylaws that I'm waiting to get signed off. It is an issue that there is a clear way that the minister should proceed, but instead the minister sits and waits without signing the bylaw.

That's another example of where we look to expediency, but in the long term we set a standard for conduct that is questionable and troubling. In the case with the bylaws, these were bylaws that were presented to the government and to this minister many, many months ago, and they are still awaiting approval.

It is my intention to continue with the opportunity that I have to speak, and I will take that opportunity when we come together again Wednesday afternoon. At this time I would note the hour, and I would move the committee rise and 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.

S. Simpson: I've got some questions for the minister today that relate to the service plan and to the decisions of the government announced in the throne speech around climate change and the relationship of this ministry to that.

Hon. Chair, as you'll know and I know the minister knows, when we look at greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia, the transportation sector is the largest single sector in terms of emissions. About 40 percent of our emissions come from the transportation sector. I would expect that that will be an important consideration for this minister and this ministry over the next year or years to come, as the government grapples with the pronouncements of the throne speech to get the reductions that were announced in the throne speech.

My first question for the minister is: can the minister give us some kind of idea about what the role of this ministry will be in the discussion around climate change and in the actions of government to deal with climate change specifically as it relates to transportation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for that question, because this ministry intends to play a very important leading role in this area and make sure that we do our bit to contribute to reduction of greenhouse gases and improvements in environmental outcomes.

One of the things that we campaigned on, of course — one of our five great goals — was to ensure that B.C. had some of the best environmental outcomes in the world. We were serious about that when we ran on it, and we intended to make sure that all we do drives us towards that objective.

It's one of the reasons I fought so hard for the Canada line. It's one of the reasons I wasn't going to allow narrow ideological opposition to derail a project that was very, very important — in my view and in the view of government and certainly the Premier — and that would have such an important beneficial environmental effect. It's one of the reasons we have also restructured TransLink, because we're going to ensure that there is a structure in place that will, first of all, inspire some public confidence — which was totally lacking — but also ensure that important initiatives like the Evergreen line will get built and will have the revenue stream necessary to get built.

That's one of the reasons why, when we move forward on a major project like Gateway, there will be tolling involved, even though tolling is often politically difficult — not an easy thing for government to move forward with. But the decision we made is the right decision in terms of its TDM, or traffic demand management measures and in terms of the benefits of getting drivers to think about alternatives.

It's one of the reasons why we're going to continue with our very aggressive push on cycling and pedestrian paths. We think that that is something important within our ministry. But even across government with our LocalMotion fund, it is something that is also important to make sure that, wherever we can, we provide options and alternatives for the public to consider other than the automobile, recognizing that we live in a

large province — and it is a large province with a dispersed population, particularly in the rural parts of British Columbia — where sometimes those options are not easily available.

We are going to be increasing and we are increasing public transit expenditures to ensure that we maintain the ability to expand transit both in capital and in operating dollars over the next few years. I think all of those things cumulatively are what are going to help us achieve and do our bit to meet those standards.

The final thing I'll say — and I forgot to mention this, Member — is that we are also going to be adopting California tailpipe emission standards. I think that's very important. The larger the pool of jurisdictions that buy into the new, tougher emission standards that are being introduced by California, the greater the likelihood is that the auto industry will have to respond to that. You could easily ignore a market like British Columbia. You cannot ignore a market like California and British Columbia and hopefully the other states that we can bring into alignment with us.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what dedicated resources there are within the ministry in the coming year to begin to work on developing ministry responses or initiatives to achieve the climate change objectives of the government?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know that on an initiative like this, which the Premier sets forward as one of the great goals of the province, I expect all of the resources of this ministry to be driving us toward that goal. This is not something where I create three people and say: "You are responsible for making sure we achieve our greenhouse gas initiatives." This is where I say to my entire team that I expect the entire ministry, in everything that we do, to be thinking about how it is going to tie in to one of the great goals that we set in the province of British Columbia.

That is something that goes from this minister to my deputy to my assistant deputies, right down through the organization. I make no apologies about the fact that I expect, in every part of this province, that means that we have to think differently about how we do things.

That means that when we get a community that may come up and say, "We want to you build us another bridge or widen this road," we will be looking at that through the lens of what it is going to mean in terms of traffic volume. What is it going to mean in terms of environmental impact? What is it going to mean in terms of what alternative options are available? Maybe we should be looking HOV lanes in some of these areas now — something that historically hasn't been looked at. We now have emerging regional cities where the population growth, I believe, requires us to start looking at those options now.

I say that because I want the member opposite to know that I, as a minister, take very seriously the objective of government and that I expect that every single part of our ministry will be driving us towards that.

S. Simpson: Well, I'll try the question again. My question here is: are there particular individuals or departments or areas within the ministry that have responsibility for climate change and for this initiative? If it's as significant and as important an initiative as the minister tells us, and I accept that…. If it's that important, then I would assume there are some staff within the ministry who have some responsibility to drive that — to direct it, to coordinate it — and that that's part of their primary responsibility.

Those would be the people, I would presume, that the minister or the deputy would be looking at to be accountable for moving forward the initiatives that the minister talked about.

So I'll ask again: are there people dedicated within this ministry with primary responsibility to deal with climate change?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have created a new position within the ministry, our chief operating officer, who is responsible for working with the different teams from the various parts of the ministry. So that means, whether it's Pacific gateway and the initiatives we're going to undertake in terms of port improvements and plug-in power — all those initiatives — or whether it has to do with issues on the highway side…. We also have people working with us there that look at all the options in terms of plug-in power for the trucking sector, look at issues that have to do with HOV lanes and, of course, transit.

We've got people within our transit section that work with the communities to make sure that we are exploring every opportunity to provide expansion services in a manner that will best serve the public and best provide the encouragement for people to get out of their cars.

S. Simpson: A two-part question: first of all, could the minister identify the chief operating officer, and am I to assume that the chief operating officer is the one person within the government who has the primary responsibility for these matters? There is not a department that works around this?

Hon. K. Falcon: The individual is Peter Milburn. Peter is responsible for ensuring that we have project teams that work cooperatively across government. That's actually something that…. I don't know if it's unique to our ministry, but it's certainly the way our ministry operates.

His job is to make sure that everything we are doing is driving towards the objective that we've set as government. The Premier has made it very clear to all of his ministers, including me, that he expects us to make sure that we move forward in a manner that helps us achieve that collective obligation to try and reduce greenhouse gases and to create a cleaner, greener environment for British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I'll move a little bit in terms of the questioning, because I'll accept that there is one person who has responsibility in a billion-dollar ministry and that they will create teams that will come and go — I believe, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong — on particular initiatives. But in terms of overall coordination this all rests with a single individual.

One of the reasons I raised the questions is…. I took the opportunity to read the service plan before coming to ask the minister these questions. I read it, and then I went back and I looked at it again. I was looking for anywhere in the service plan — in the accountability statement of the minister, in the purpose of the ministry, in the vision of the ministry or in the mission or the values of the ministry — and nowhere in here could I find the words "climate change" or "greenhouse gas emissions."

Maybe I missed something. Maybe the minister could tell me where in the service plan for the government it talks specifically about how this ministry will deal with climate change.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll direct the member immediately to two pages. One is the message from the minister and the accountability statement, and I'll quote directly from it for the public record.

Hon. K. Falcon: Seeing that the bells are ringing, we'll recess, and I'll come back.

The Chair: I'll declare a five-minute recess, or until the vote is completed.

Hon. K. Falcon: The question the member had was where in the service plan we actually reference that this ministry is going to be doing its bit to lead this province towards, ultimately, a greener planet and making our contribution towards that end.

In the "Message from the Minister and Accountability Statement," fifth paragraph from the bottom:

I will also take the member to page 6 under our "Vision, Mission and Values." One of the visions that we mention there "is a fully integrated transportation system that advances environmental, economic and social objectives, and moves goods and people safely within British Columbia to markets beyond." Clearly the environment is a big part of that.

I then take the member to page 11, where we talk about public transportation and we talk about the commitments we have there for making sure that we can provide public transit opportunities and investment, including the dollars that the tax revenues provided to TransLink, and the continuing efforts we make to ensure that the federal government will return portions of fuel tax that are paid in British Columbia, which go back to those folks.

I would then take the member over to page 16, which talks about linkage to the great goals. We have there, in the middle of the page: "Lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none."

Then underneath we talk about all the ways that we're doing it. One that I'll highlight is the ministry's use of environmentally friendly fuels in their vehicles. In this ministry, every single vehicle we utilize uses environmentally friendly fuels, except in those rare cases where we require the truck and the power necessary, and the market doesn't yet provide those kinds of vehicles for us. That is a commitment where I believe we're ahead of every other ministry in this government in terms of achieving that objective.

It talks about the significant investments in the Canada line. It talks about the huge financial support for the hydrogen highway, an $89 million federal and provincial commitment. The reason we're doing this is to showcase the technology so that we can show the world, especially during the Olympics, that there are alternative technologies that are clean burning and are largely manufactured right here in British Columbia. That is another example.

You'll see on the following page that we talk about leading the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. That refers to the transportation network improvements making it easier to access health care and making sure that, from a cycling point of view, we constantly try to design any new roads or investments that we make to encourage physical fitness.

On page 19 we've got the commitment to ActNow B.C. In support of this initiative, the Ministry of Transportation is…. It talks about how we're facilitating cycling, trails and access to recreation. A recent example comes to mind in Kelowna, where they want to provide cycling access from the new university right through the downtown core along a right-of-way that's operated by the railway. We're working with them to try to make that vision a reality.

Of course we have our cycling partnerships program to help bring that about. It goes through discussing some of that, and then it talks about LocalMotion.

That is a brief synopsis, for the member opposite, of the commitment that is right through the entire service plan and that will help drive us towards that objective.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the ministry does a lot of things in transportation, and it deals with transit and with some cycling. I'm happy that it's supporting ActNow and that it is going to make us all a little bit healthier.

What I didn't hear in that list was specific references to climate change, to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and what those might be. Could the minister tell us: is that referenced in the service plan? Did I miss that somewhere?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member would probably be more properly looking for that in the Ministry of Environment service plan. I haven't had a chance to recently read it over, but I suspect that that's where you'll find the discussion on that.

What you'll see in this service plan are all the practical things that we are doing to make sure we achieve that objective. It's obviously led by the Ministry of Environment and by the Premier, of course, but every single ministry must drive towards that.

We don't need to recreate all the language that they have in the Ministry of Environment service plan. What we are saying is that here are the practical measures that we are undertaking within this ministry to help us achieve those objectives.

I appreciate the member commenting on the extensive range of those commitments, because it is something I am very proud of. I'm really proud of the fact that the single largest expansion of cycling opportunities in the history of the province is being undertaken by this government.

Those commitments to public transit, though controversial at times and not without problems, are hugely important generational investments that need to be made regardless of the fact that there will always be some that will tell you why we shouldn't.

We want to make sure, on the port side of things, that we do lead the world. That's why we're working with Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Gregoire from Washington State to ensure that we coordinate our efforts so that there won't be competition in terms of port access and container shipment movements on the basis of who has the least environmental standard. We want to make sure that we harmonize our standards to the highest possible standard, and then drive the industry to have to respond.

That's another example, actually. I know the member would agree with me on this. We can't do that by ourselves because the largest port in the world is L.A.–Long Beach, and they are the ones that would be able to drive those kinds of changes. But we can certainly make sure that we have the same standards and that we all agree on a high standard together that the industry will be forced to comply with.

Our HOV strategy is also something — the member and I have discussed it in the past — that I think is important, especially on the Surrey side of the Port Mann Bridge, where we don't have HOV lanes. As the member well knows, the one thing I always have about that is that I'm not happy with the people who cheat in the HOV lanes. I'm making sure that we, as part of the Gateway program, come up with new technology that will be able to nail those people that try to abuse that very important initiative.

We've also got other things, including our ITS, our intelligent transportation system, and the signage system program. As people are heading toward border crossings, it will direct them to where there is the least lineup. We don't want to have trucks and cars idling, so wherever possible we can use technology to try and create a situation that moves vehicles in the most efficient possible way.

We've got that on the Upper Levels Highway, too, as you approach the Lions Gate Bridge. There's a big sign right on the Upper Levels as you head towards the Lions Gate Bridge that will tell you exactly what the congestion is on the bridge. It will give people the option of going the Second Narrows or going another route other just sitting on Taylor Way and idling in traffic.

I think, Member, the easiest way I could say to you is that the cumulative impact of all of these decisions in every single segment of this ministry is what I believe is going to make a very, very substantial contribution towards reduction of greenhouse gases and is going to make sure that British Columbia can meet our very ambitious targets that we've set.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's answer. The minister is saying that those issues around emissions and targets are primarily going to rest with the Premier and the Environment Ministry presumably. I have read the service plan of the Environment Ministry, and it does make references — maybe not quite as many as the minister might think it would — but we'll discuss that at another time with the appropriate minister.

A question I do have, though is this ministry is a billion-dollar ministry, as the minister has told us. In indirect terms it has responsibility for 40 percent of our emissions, which come under Transportation.

It's going to have to be a pretty big player in this, as the minister says, in actually dealing with these issues on the ground in terms of reduction of emissions on the ground, if there's any possibility that the government is going to get to this 33-percent reduction by 2020. That's a very challenging target.

What I've heard, hon. Chair, is that we have a chief operating officer who will put teams in place for project-oriented work presumably, because they're not standing teams, and that there are a whole lot of different projects going on. The minister hasn't yet told us how they're coordinated.

I'm going to backtrack a little bit, again, to this question. Maybe it's around the chief operating officer and the deputy. Could the minister tell us how the ministry is coordinating its efforts to deal with emission reductions, whether it targets specific numbers? What are you doing to deal with emission reductions in a coordinated fashion, and how are you going to determine how you're doing?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member opposite's patience as I canvass this with my staff, and I've got an answer that I think will help the member.

Right now across government there are deputy minister working committees that are working together on a cross-government basis to make sure that we're all developing, essentially, plans to make sure that we can implement and achieve the objective that the Premier has set out for the government. Then that comes to our ministry executive led by, in this case, the COO, or chief operating officer, who will ensure that we are undertaking whatever projects or policy necessary to help us achieve those objectives. At the ADM level we also have assistant deputy ministers that attend air quality and water quality ADM cross-government meetings to ensure that we're all working in coordination in trying to achieve the objectives.

I think the most critical thing that I can say to the member opposite is that our chief operating officer, Peter Milburn, has been tasked and has been told that he and his team will have access to all the resources of the ministry, whatever form they may take, that are necessary for him to undertake and ensure that we help to do our bit, as the Ministry of Transportation, in achieving the objectives that the Premier and government have set forward.

S. Simpson: I'll pursue that a little bit further in a sec. I'm now going to just bounce back because of a comment that the minister made.

He talked about Mr. Milburn and his team. I'm assuming, then, that Mr. Milburn has a team working directly with him, to provide support for him to be able to achieve the objectives and achieve his mandate as set out to him by the minister and the deputy to accomplish the Premier's objectives. Maybe the minister could give us some idea about the expertise that rests on that team with Mr. Milburn to help him to do his job.

Hon. K. Falcon: The team that's in place, the project team that supports the chief operating officer, is a team responsible for executing the direction and making sure that the results are driven. I think it's important to note that the expertise the member refers to…. We have that expertise across this ministry — in the legislative side, in the policy side, in the environmental side.

As the member is well aware, within our ministry we have been awarded numerous awards on the environmental front for the work that we've done in preserving wildlife habitat and in advancing some of the environmental objectives we have in government. So there are people throughout government.

The project team, under the supervision of the chief operating officer, will be able to draw upon that expertise. It is very widespread; it is right across our ministry. They will be responsible for using whatever expertise those folks can lend to ensure that our project objectives in this ministry get met as far as achieving the overall government objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: One of the areas, clearly, that the government — and, I expect, the ministry — has a role in will be identifying and tracking sectoral emissions. I know that the government has talked about the big goal for 2020. It has also talked about sectoral objectives for 2012 and 2016 being put in place.

The first question I'll ask is: is it the expectation of the minister that one of those sectoral targets will be in the area of transportation for interim reductions in emissions for 2012 and 2016? Does the minister anticipate that transportation will be one of the areas for sectoral reductions?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would seem logical to me that the Transportation Ministry would be one of those sectors, for sure. That, of course, is being led by the Ministry of Environment. There are ongoing discussions there. I'll certainly state for the record that I expect us to do our bit. I would think that it would be logical that the Ministry of Transportation and transportation would be one of the sectors that would be aligned with us achieving that goal.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us, then, what work is going on…? I'll rephrase that a little bit, hon. Chair. If that is the expectation of the minister, and I certainly hope he's correct, I think it would be hard to track emission reductions without identifying the single biggest area, which is transportation. I'm glad that's the minister's expectation as well.

Could the minister tell us what work is going on within the ministry to determine how to track emissions so that there will be the capacity to determine when emissions are being reduced?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would be something, of course, we would work on with the Ministry of Environment, who would be the ones likely to be tracking that. What we would be doing is making sure that through all of the various measures we're undertaking in this ministry — which are very extensive and which I'm happy to go over if the member wants me to — are making a net-positive contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas initiatives.

However the Ministry of Environment — and they have much more expertise in this area than I do — decides to measure it or whatever measurement tools they use, I certainly expect that this ministry will be doing its part, and I've directed my staff in that regard.

S. Simpson: When we talk about reductions in vehicle emissions, there will always be ambitions to change the technology for vehicles, whether it's hybrids or whatever, and that we'll emit less. That's always an objective, and I know the government has adopted positions around tax breaks for certain of those vehicles. The federal government has now done similar things at the federal level. We'll see how that all plays out in terms of increasing the numbers of those more efficient vehicles that end up on the road, and

hopefully it will be somewhat successful. We also know, though, that that on its own is not going to get at our problem. It helps, but it doesn't get at our problem.

One of the areas in discussions I've had with people I know the minister is aware of who work in this field…. The Larry Franks and the Patrick Condons of the world, who work around sustainability and transportation planning, tell me that we need to determine how to slow the growth of the number of vehicles on the road — ideally reduce, but in reality probably slow the growth of the number of single occupancy vehicles, primarily, that are on the road, or cars generally.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what his thoughts are about that and about what the ministry is doing to reduce the number of cars that are on the road, or to slow the growth of that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer to that question is that there are a range of things that we need to do. First of all, we need to understand that one of the challenges, which the member has correctly pointed out, is that there is continuing growth of vehicles on the road. Knowing that we're going to see another one million people on the lower mainland over the next 20 years — a population the size of New Brunswick moving into the lower mainland…. Clearly that is going add more vehicles.

The challenge then is: how can we ensure that with the addition of those new vehicles…? People, in many cases, require vehicles for their livelihoods, and people require vehicles to get around. Whether we like it or not, that's still a reality for many, many people. The question is: how are we going to deal with that?

One of the ways and one of the things that I am pleased about is that technology in the marketplace is often a helpful way that we can provide part of the solution. The improvements we've seen in air emission standards in the auto industry have actually been what's led to the decline in emissions from the tailpipe that have resulted in improvements in the regional air atmosphere in the lower mainland. That has been steadily improving over the years, in spite of the fact that there's been an increase in the number of cars. That is driven primarily by the fact that we've got better, newer cars that burn less and have fewer tailpipe emissions than we had previously.

By adopting the California standard and ensuring that this government takes a leadership role on helping to push the auto industry to further increase that effort, I think that will make a big difference.

The rest of it comes down to doing what the member mentioned — talking about how, through tax incentives, we can encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars. That is important. HOV lanes and the extension of HOV lanes is something that is going to be very important.

Obviously, there are issues around cycling expansion, the public transit expansion, rapid transit investments, the tolls that we will use strategically where it's consistent with our tolling policy — where we can also not only get infrastructure built but provide new opportunities for public transit where they don't exist today. They can't exist because we've got a level of congestion that does not allow it.

One of the reasons we're talking now about denser zoning around proposed rapid transit lines is not only because that has less of an environmental footprint on the landscape but because it also feeds ridership into the public transit investments that you're making, which are very significant and very costly, and can help to defray those costs and are also encouraging people to live a life that has less environmental impact.

As I mentioned, we are going to continue with port electrification, with truck stop electrification, those initiatives, so that we can reduce unnecessary idling. The technology investments that we'll make in terms of moving traffic in a manner that's efficient, I think, will help on that.

We're going to continue to work with our AirCare approach specific to the trucking industry. We call them our mobile AirCare units that can travel around and ensure that we've got enforcement on trucks that are disproportionately spewing particulate into the atmosphere that is not helpful.

I'm also looking, in that regard, at ways we can always improve that, particularly on the side of trying to provide the appropriate encouragements — whether through inducements or other methods of achieving that objective — to encourage people in the trucking sector to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.

It's a fairly wide-ranging list of tools, obviously, that we're going to use to get there, but it's the combination of all of those, together with the improvement in emission tailpipe standards that we're going to be signing onto with California, that will get us continued improved outcomes and also drive us toward meeting our objectives.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what, in the last three years, has the percentage growth been in terms of the number of vehicles on the road in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have an exact number for the member, unfortunately, but I'll endeavour to get that for the member also.

S. Simpson: The reason I ask is when I was looking through the budget-related documents, I believe I saw that ICBC is projecting an 11-percent growth in the number of vehicles over the next three years in British Columbia. I was looking to determine how that looks versus what's happened in the past three years. That was an ICBC projection.

The reason I ask the question is because it is my sense that it is that growth in vehicles which is going create the problem for us. The minister has talked about the California project, the vehicle emissions, the tailpipe emissions standards.

I don't know whether he's fully able to answer this question at this point in time, but could the minister

tell us what he expects his ministry's role will be in that program and the application of that program?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're working with the Ministry of Environment on that specific issue, so whatever it takes or whatever part we have to play, we'll certainly play it. But that's something we're working on with the Ministry of Environment. As I say, they are the lead on that, and they can count on our full cooperation as we move forward in that regard.

S. Simpson: The reason I raise this question is that I had the opportunity to look at a report out of California back a little while ago. This was a report that was written in June of 2004. It was from the California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, which I understand is the body in California essentially responsible for climate change initiatives as they relate to the state. This report was Staff Proposal Regarding the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effective Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles.

The question I would have at this point is: is the minister or the minister's staff aware of this report, and have you looked at it?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can't speak for all of the staff — there are almost a thousand in my ministry — but I haven't seen the report that the member refers to. The member probably will recognize the challenges sometimes of reading the vast volume of information that circulates, not just in this country but even more so in the United States. It's hard to keep up on all of that. But no, I haven't personally had an opportunity to see that.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. I wouldn't have necessarily expected the minister to have sat down…. I have the executive summary here. The other 196 pages are someplace else. I haven't read those either, to tell you the truth, but I have read the executive summary.

This is just the report that staff provided to the government of California so as to talk about what they would accomplish with their tailpipe emissions program. It's very interesting where they go in this report. There's a small section here that deals with environmental impacts. It's very brief, and I'll read it to the minister so that he gets the whole gist of this.

I would say at the outset that there's no question that in terms of the California tailpipe plan…. It's a good plan, and if you don't do it, you're going to be in a big mess, because emissions are going to skyrocket, as the report shows. But it tells us this. It says:

Those are pretty good numbers. But then it goes on to make the point that is most concerning. It says: "Staff estimate that baseline emissions today" — and these were a 2004 baseline — "are 386,600 equivalent tonnes a day. With the regulation, 2020 emissions will be lower than today's, and 2030 will be approximately the same as shown below."

When I inquired into this…. What they're saying is…. They're talking about growth of vehicles. They're essentially saying: "We expect enough growth of vehicles in the state of California that by 2030 our total emissions will be the same as they were in 2004. We won't accomplish a reduction." Of course, if they don't do that, they go straight through the roof in terms of the reduction.

The question I have for the minister is this, and I'd like his advice and view on this. The Premier has said that by 2020 we will have a 33-percent reduction in overall emissions in British Columbia. I believe that's 10 percent below 1990 levels. This 40 percent of our emissions is coming out of this sector of transportation. The bulk of that probably comes out of the tailpipe cars. This is telling us, if it's accurate, that by 2030 we don't make any real progress. We kind of hold the fort at 2004 levels with growth.

We know we're growing here in vehicles. My question to the minister is: how do we start to get to those kinds of reductions that have been anticipated in the throne speech, if this report by California staff is accurate and the best we can expect to do is status quo because of growth in vehicles, if we don't actively try to reduce the number of vehicles on the road?

The Chair: Before the minister gets up, I'd like to make an introduction of my constituency assistant, who is here today — Dave Teixeira.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member has identified a very, very important issue, and it's one of the reasons why, with the restructuring of TransLink, there were a couple of objectives we were trying to achieve. The first is that we actually want to get stuff built. At the end of the day, that's what the public cares about. They are less interested in the fascinating levels of debate that can often go on for years without any result. They actually want to get stuff done.

It's also why we said we're going to do things differently. Unapologetically, by the way, we are going to do things differently. We are going to require that there be density around proposed transit stations.

We're not going to have a discussion about whether it's a good idea or not. We're going to say it's going to happen. The reason we're saying that is because unless we do those kinds of things, unless we get people to change their behaviour and understand that we have to actually build things differently in this province, we're not going to get the result the member talks about.

That is one of the things that I feel very, very strongly about — getting results. Getting results often

means that we have to get past people who like to talk about getting results but won't do anything differently. The member is absolutely right. It makes no sense to make huge investments like that if communities are going to continue to develop the way they always have. The Premier has said at UBCM, as the member knows, that communities have to start densifying. They don't get to keep doing it the way they always did it and expect to get a different result.

That means that if we can say we're prepared to invest significant public tax dollars into rapid transit lines but we also want a commitment out of the communities that they are going to do their bit to ensure that the density will be there to feed the rapid transit lines to get people to reduce the environmental footprint they have on the land base…. By doing that, we actually will create the kind of results that the member talks about.

One of the reasons why Vancouver has achieved some success in getting people to walk to work and to bike to work, etc., is that those options are so freely available. If you live in Vancouver, it's hard to imagine why you would be driving to work unless it's raining. You've got SkyTrain and buses; you've got cycling and all these options. We need to make sure that those options are available in the other parts of the lower mainland that are also experiencing tremendous growth.

We also need to say that there is a responsibility on the local governments there to do their bit too. I don't think we should be apologetic about that. We should say that we all have to do our bit. The province will do its bit by ensuring these lines get built and by making sure that the revenue stream is there so that they will get built. But we also want them to do their part.

Member, that's perhaps a bit of a long-winded way of saying that things are going to have to be done differently. We should work together to make sure that happens, because there will be lots of folks who will tell you why we shouldn't do things differently and why the province shouldn't be telling us that we should have density around stations, etc.

We're going to do that, and I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's the responsible thing to do. I think that's why we're going to tie our investments to make sure that happens. If we can do that, then we can start changing behaviour and then provide people with a place that they can live and get to work on rapid transit without having to utilize a car.

We will never get to a point where we're getting people to reduce the number of cars that they and their families are purchasing if we don't provide them with the ready transit options. It's something I feel pretty passionately about.

I hope the member opposite will join with me in helping us work with communities throughout the lower mainland in particular. I say the lower mainland because obviously that's where the most significant portion of the population in the province lives and where we can make the greatest impact in the shortest period of time.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments there. I want to go back, though, to this scenario that this report paints, which is that with the growth in number of vehicles, California ends up essentially at a status quo level in terms of emissions.

Considering the work of the ministry, is it the minister's view…? When the ministry looks at what it projects the growth in numbers of vehicles may be between now and 2020 or 2030…. I assume that there are people in the ministry who look at those things and consider this.

When you look at future planning for the province and the regions of the province, is it the expectation of the minister that we're going to be able to accomplish the kinds of significant reductions in emissions, even with a California tailpipe program, if we continue to have that growth in vehicles?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member's right, and I think the report's right. At least, my instinct tells me it would be right. It sounds sensible to me that if you relied on tailpipe emissions standards alone, that's not going to get you there. I think that's true.

It's got to be that, plus how do we get individuals to drop their vehicle usage? Not to eliminate it altogether, because that's probably not realistic. How do we get them to reduce the usage — in other words, the number of kilometres that they're utilizing their vehicle every week? How can we get that reduced?

That's why it's so important to tie it into other initiatives, whether it's densities, cycling options, HOV lanes or van pools — all the other things that we collectively try to identify to ensure that we give people realistic, viable options for getting out of their car.

This is a particularly important point for folks in the suburbs — those of us who live south of the Fraser River — because we don't have great options. When we are going to talk about providing those options, we have to make sure that they are effective and efficient options. People aren't going to get into a bus to sit in traffic and have the joy of doing that for six or seven hours a day. That, to me, is not a viable option.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the options we are going to provide to people — especially to those folks who don't have viable options right now — are actually going to be effective. That is something which drives me in a very, very important way. We have to ensure that if we're going to ask people to get out of their car, we'd better be giving them an option that is realistic. You cannot sentence them to options that are ridiculous, frankly.

I agree with the member. I think the member and I actually see eye to eye on this point, that tailpipe emissions standards alone are not enough. There's a whole bunch of other issues that have to be done and will be done, and that we're going to drive towards.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments. I want to follow that up a little bit, because I am increasingly of the view that we need to figure out how to

reduce the number of people in cars. I agree with the minister that we're talking about reducing our dependency on the car. We're not talking about getting rid of cars. We're talking about using it a little bit less, about doing other things, about not driving when you can walk or when you can ride your bike or whatever.

In the Port Mann discussion, we'll talk a little bit about the Gateway, but I'm not here to talk about the Port Mann directly. It was interesting. I was having a discussion with Professor Condon from UBC a couple of years ago, back when I worked for Smart Growth B.C., before I got this job. We were talking about the Port Mann, the existing bridge, and I said: "There is a congestion problem on that bridge. How do you solve it?" He said: "It's easy. You take 25 percent of the cars off the bridge."

He made that statement and laughed, and then we talked about how challenging it is to do. But he said that's what you do, and he's right. It's obviously easier said than done, but he is right. We need to figure out how to reduce the number of cars that are on the road at any given time, at least in relationship to the population that we have.

The question I have for the minister is: he's talked about a number of these other projects; what are the projections? Has the ministry done projections about what it expects the number of vehicles to be on the road in future years, particularly as the minister moves forward on this whole array of initiatives that he has commented on today — HOV, development around SkyTrain stations and building more transit lines?

Has the minister modelled out what that does, in terms of the volume of cars on the road, versus if you don't do that?

Hon. K. Falcon: In consultation with staff, one of the things they tell me is that this is really part of the emerging work we're doing now with the Ministry of Environment — to develop what the appropriate tools are to try and get the right information so that we can make sure we're working off of a common platform as we move forward.

The only other comment I would make with respect to the comment of the good professor — that it's simple; remove 25 percent of vehicles from the bridge — is that I'm reminded of the old saying: every time you hear of a simple solution to a complex problem, it's usually wrong. This reminds me exactly of that situation.

I wish that there was a magic world where we could do it — especially with the knowledge that we've got a million more people moving into the lower mainland — and that we could somehow snap our fingers and make that happen. Clearly, that's not realistic.

The answer is that what you have to do is try and strike a balance — whether it's using tolling, using HOV lanes, providing additional transit, building rapid transit or building cycling lanes. All of those things together cumulatively provide, I believe, the realistic options necessary to get people to move out of their cars — and, I should point out, I think the member is absolutely correct about that point — to reduce the vehicle usage, not eliminate it. I think that's very, very unlikely, at least in the short term and the medium term. We have to make sure that we provide the options available for that reduction to happen.

I believe that the design of communities is also really important for that to happen. There have got to be communities designed in a manner that doesn't require people to get into their cars and drive to go get groceries, for example. We need to make sure communities are investing more in sidewalks and cycling opportunities.

I come from a community where, frankly, there's a lot of work to be done in that regard. We're trying to encourage them through the cycling partnership program, etc., to see more of that happen. As an avid cyclist myself, I think it's very important. If you don't create those opportunities, it's very unlikely you are going to get the public to take you up on those opportunities.

That, combined with ActNow and our efforts to really try and change the behaviour of British Columbians, I believe, can help us get to where we can achieve those targets.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister that land use planning is an essential piece of this and that the building of more compact, complete communities is the way to go.

I spent the last ten years of my professional life before coming to this place working on that, largely in the Greater Vancouver area but across the province as well, and trying to find those solutions in cooperation with local governments or to find pieces that helped local governments on their road to accomplishing those things when they wanted to do it. I'm very sympathetic to that approach, and I think that approach is accurate.

In terms of the comment about the professor, my notion would actually be that the professor is right when he says to take 25 percent of the cars off the road. I would agree with the minister that whether you can do that or not is a whole other challenge. The solution is the right solution. Whether you can get to that solution is a whole other matter. I believe that Dr. Condon understood that too. He wasn't quite that glib as we took the conversation forward to what that might look like.

I do want to move the conversation just a little bit around that. Obviously, whatever the result of this debate is, one of the projects that will probably define in some ways the government's view on transportation planning, in terms of sustainability and of the Premier's objectives around climate change, would be the Gateway project.

It's referenced, of course. I believe that in the throne speech it's referenced as an initiative that the government believes is a positive in terms of the objectives. I'm not so sure I agree with that in terms of what it will do for emissions, but clearly it is the government's view that it will improve the situation.

My first question around that is: could the minister tell us exactly what he thinks gets accomplished in terms of the modelling for that bridge, the number of vehicles we have today and what emissions look like

today? I believe it talks about idling, and reducing emissions in idling is the assertion of the ministry. But what does it look like, the modelling, in terms of emissions before the bridge gets twinned and after the bridge gets twinned?

Hon. K. Falcon: What the modelling suggests…. And by the way, a modelling methodology that has not been questioned by any of the regulatory agencies at all is that over the 30-year period that is used as part of the measurement, there is virtually no impact on greenhouse gases and vehicle emissions. In fact, this is publicly available on the website: particulates, 0.1 percent, and greenhouse gases, 0.3 percent, over that 30-year period.

I think the important thing to also point out is that for virtually no impact from that end of things, there are enormous benefits that are derived. There are enormous benefits in terms of increased transit ridership and the introduction of transit ridership across that corridor for the first time in 20 years.

There is a very significant benefit in terms of what that's going to mean for the economy. In fact, we all know about what's happening in terms of the growth in Asia and the Asia-Pacific and what that could mean for British Columbia and how important that is. I was pleased to see, actually, that the Leader of the Opposition, on her visit to Asia, came back — I managed to catch her on CKNW as she was talking about that trip — and said…. I agree with this. I'll read from her quote:

That was the Leader of the Opposition, and I fully, fully endorse the quote and the sentiment behind that. Where we would probably part ways is that the Leader of the Opposition may not realize that to achieve that, you actually have to do something. You've got to do more than say you are going to do it. You have to do something and make sure that you make the strategic investments, whether it's in infrastructure, rapid transit or what have you, to actually achieve that end.

That's where the Gateway program is so very, very important, because what we get, with virtually no impact on air quality and greenhouse gases over 30 years, is tremendous benefits, particularly in the movement of goods. Obviously, there's a side benefit there, too, for commuters but a significant public transit ridership benefit too.

S. Simpson: A quick question to the minister: in that formula, or the modelling that was done, were California tailpipe emission reductions factored into that, or was this done before that was a consideration?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the question. No, that was actually done before, so the adoption of California tailpipe emissions will result presumably in an even greater benefit.

S. Simpson: Then that raises a very interesting question. I don't know who did or didn't question this, but here is the problem I have, hon. Chair. We've had the minister essentially agree here that the vehicle growth will lead to greater emissions. In the case of this California study that I mentioned, it said that between 2004 and 2030, we basically have status quo.

What the report said is that if you didn't put the vehicle regulation in — tailpipe emissions — it goes from about 386,000 tonnes a day to about 575,000 tonnes a day by 2030 — if you don't do anything. We also know that ICBC has said that in the next three years alone we'll have an 11-percent increase in the number of vehicles on the road. Presumably, the majority of those will be in the lower mainland, where most of the growth will occur.

My question is: how on earth can the government claim no increase in emissions when we're going to have that kind of vehicle growth? In California they're expecting a 60- to 70-percent increase in emissions if they don't do anything, and the minister says those actions aren't part of the mix. I don't see how it works.

Hon. K. Falcon: What it means is that the methodology, as I said earlier to the member, which is not questioned by any of the agencies involved…. In fact, it's endorsed and supported by those regulatory agencies. Basically, what it is saying is that there is a result if you don't do anything. You don't do the Gateway program. That would be X. Then there's a result if you do the Gateway program. That would be Y. Any improvements in that technology have a relative reduction in both of those options. That's really all it's saying.

S. Simpson: What the minister is saying, just to be clear here, is yes, we will have this dramatic growth in emissions. It's just that they won't be much different whether we build the bridge or not. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, what the studies are telling us is that by adding the bridge, we have virtually no impact, with all of the commensurate benefits that go with it in terms of the increased transit ridership, the opportunities to extend the HOV lanes out into the suburbs well into Langley — especially the transit opportunities which are extremely important for folks in the Fraser Valley to make sure that they've got viable transit options.

Those transit options will allow, for the first time, the opportunity for folks right up into Abbotsford and Chilliwack to be able to come by bus and have the option to go over either the Golden Ears bridge or the newly twinned Port Mann Bridge to get to their respective stations.

Whether they want to ride the West Coast Express, take the Golden Ears or look at the SkyTrain options if

they're going to Vancouver over at the Braid station…. It opens up all those possibilities — a very, very significant benefit at virtually no impact.

One of the questions I have about that modelling…. It's my understanding the modelling that was done was based on the projections in the livable region strategic plan put forward by the GVRD. Could the minister confirm that?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would confirm that it is based on the population growth measures that were laid out in the growth management plan of the region.

S. Simpson: My question to the minister is this. That growth management plan, the livable regional strategic plan that this is all based on…. All of those assumptions were based on not having a bridge, on there not being a twin bridge. They were based on very different kinds of land use measures and initiatives and, as the minister has spoken about, the need to have more sustainable land use measures.

Could the minister tell us whether the GVRD was asked to relook at its numbers and reassess those numbers based on the reality of the bridge and the expanded highway and what that might do to population in different areas before that was done?

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of things. One is that under the livable region strategic plan, it only assumed that there would be no bridge built prior to 2020. It said nothing about a bridge post-2020. It's also important to point out that elements of the Gateway plan are entirely consistent with the livable region strategic plan, including the South Fraser perimeter road, by the way, which has been called for by the region for over 20 years. The opposition critic is going to be speaking at a rally against that South Fraser perimeter road, which I find at least of passing interest.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member says I should come and hear what he says. I get to listen to what the member says all the time, and it joins part of the chorus of: "If there's a simple solution to a complex problem, it's usually wrong." That's where I find the member opposite.

I think the other thing the member should know about the livable region strategic plan is that this is a ten-year-old document that was supposed to be updated every five years. It has not been updated. It's now past ten years, and there has been no update. I will make a prediction: there will never be an update. The reason there won't be an update is because, amazingly enough, it requires unanimity amongst all the 21 members of the GVRD to agree on updating it. One thing I have learned about the GVRD is that they can hardly agree on almost anything, so I think it's very unlikely that it will be updated. Regardless, hopefully they can try and work on that.

The critical thing is that when we undertook a traffic survey with TransLink, the largest one we've ever done that I can recall in the history of this ministry — though I always stand to be corrected; I believe it was one of the most significant ones undertaken in the region, certainly for a long time — what it showed was that there has been a huge change in commuter patterns and the patterns of where people are going.

Many of the critics that are opposed to this project, some of whom live in Vancouver, are operating under the belief that things are as they were 15 or 20 years ago. That clearly is not borne out in the trip-traffic studies that were done. Those trip-traffic studies show that in fact there is very little growth in ridership and traffic going into Vancouver, because not all roads lead to Vancouver anymore in terms of jobs. There has been a significant shift in where the traffic is moving. The traffic trips tend to be shorter, more frequent and dispersed throughout the region.

My role as the Minister of Transportation is to make sure that we are examining the reality of what is actually happening in the lower mainland and making sure that we achieve the objective that the Leader of the Opposition talks about — to make sure that we are competitive and globally competitive and competitive against our provincial neighbours. Those are good words, actually, and I applaud the Leader of the Opposition. I'm glad to hear the words competitive, competition, being globally competitive, making sure we seize on the opportunities of the Asia-Pacific, but that requires more than words. That requires action.

The question, in my view, is: are the actions the government is taking the right actions? That's what we can have a debate over, and that debate has to be predicated on facts. It can't be selective facts. It can't be groups like SPEC that will criticize the Gateway program and conveniently ignore all the other elements of tolling and buses and transit and HOV lanes and all those other elements of it, and that just focus on the fact that they don't want a new bridge without making any credible case as to how just adding transit to an existing corridor is not going to work.

In fact, a significant study undertaken by one of the authors of the livable region strategic plan found that the transit-only solution that is actually being peddled by some members of the opposition, including, I believe, the opposition critic…. I don't want to put words into the member's mouth, and if I'm wrong, I'll apologize about that publicly, but I do believe I've heard him endorse this farcical solution of just adding buses to the existing corridor.

What that study by one of the authors of the transportation segment of the livable region strategic plan found was that it wouldn't work. In fact, it would reduce about the equivalent of 350 people a day out of their cars on that corridor — 350.

This is a corridor, for the listeners out there who may not be aware, that sees almost 130,000 vehicles

crossing it every day. Yet there are still people that operate under this delusional world that adding buses to that existing absolutely totally congested corridor — that one spot, the bridge, where you can't possibly move anything any faster…. There's no opportunity for cycling across it. You can't walk across it. You can't get buses across it. You can't do anything. Their solution is to just add buses to that.

Who in their right mind is going to get on that bus? I defy the opposition critic and those two members who are from Vancouver to come out and go sit in a bus for four hours a day and see how much they enjoy that. They may think — in the world of Vancouver where you've got SkyTrains every three minutes, and you've got buses going by every two minutes, and you can walk here and there and everywhere else — that that's how rest of the province and lower mainland operates. But I can assure them, that's not the case.

I can tell you…. Seeing an opposition member from Surrey that's just walked into the room, that member can also tell you that. When I have to listen to folks that are almost always in Vancouver try and tell the folks in the Fraser Valley how they should be happy that their solution is just to add buses to the most congested corridor in the province, that is an affront. It's an affront to common sense, it's an affront to the facts, and it's not going to, in any way, provide a solution.

The solution that we're providing is a balanced one. Twin the Port Mann Bridge. Extend the HOV lanes out to Langley. Make sure that we design into the new bridge and the interchanges — as we're able to do — the ability to have queue-jumper lanes built in for those buses so that they can bypass whatever queues may be there and provide a realistic, effective, efficient transit alternative for people.

If we are going to meet the goals that this member professes to care about — the greenhouse gas emission goals…. I can tell you this much: you will not meet them if you're not providing public transit that actually works. It is a disservice to the achievement and the objective of getting to those goals to say: "Let's provide something that provides no realistic opportunity or option for the travelling public." It's actually cruel to do that.

That is something that I find very, very challenging. It's one of the reasons why, if you've travelled to Surrey and the Fraser Valley…. I was talking recently to the federal NDP Member of Parliament — who supports the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, by the way — who recognizes that her constituents want to see that happening because they want to have realistic options.

I guess I'm appealing to the members to understand that the fastest-growing part of the province is not Vancouver. The largest school district in British Columbia is not Vancouver; it's actually Surrey. The only growing school district is in Surrey. What does that mean? That's actually an early indicator that the largest population in the province in probably about a decade is going to be in Surrey.

We think that Vancouver, with the greatest respect — with all of the bridges that Vancouver has, including an eight-lane Granville Street bridge — eight lanes…. We're talking about a Port Mann Bridge with five lanes with up to 14 hours of congestion a day that people are trying to deal with. I drive across the Granville Street bridge at 7:30 in the morning to go to a meeting, and you could fire a cannon across that bridge and not hit a car. There is virtually no traffic.

I would say to the members opposite that before they try to say to all of the folks in the northeast sector and south of the Fraser that they should not have viable transportation alternatives, at least have the courage to come out there and tell them that.

When the opposition critic goes to speak this weekend to the usual suspects that are always against anything, whether it's SkyTrain or a road that's been called for in the region for over 20 years, consistent with the official community plans of Delta and Surrey and that the region wants…. The problem is that the moment you say, "Well, let's actually get it underway and get it built," then they're the first to jump in front of a small group of people and tell you all the reasons why you shouldn't do it.

That's not leadership in my books. That's not how you are going to get to what the Leader of the Opposition says — to make sure that we have a competitive place out in the global economy and that we're out-competing our provincial neighbours.

We're going to do it by the balanced approach we're taking, by building the Port Mann Bridge, by building the South Fraser perimeter road, by building the North Fraser perimeter road, by the improvements we're making on the Mary Hill and by the new Pitt River bridge. We're going to do it and achieve our objectives in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

S. Simpson: I'm trying to remember what the question was. But I do appreciate that when the minister doesn't want to have to give an answer, the answers get very long. They get much longer when there isn't an answer there that he likes.

I appreciate the minister's comments about the absolute failure of the transit system south of the Fraser, and it's unfortunate that this government has failed the people south of the Fraser in terms of transit. Maybe if they had invested some dollars into those communities that the minister talks about, they'd be a little better off. But we'll get a chance to talk about that. I'm sure some of the members will talk about that.

There has been work done on the livable region strategic plan: the sustainable region initiative, which was and is the next phase of that plan. There has been significant work done with the business community and others, including the Port of Vancouver and others, to look at how to expand on the livable region strategic plan and take that forward.

It's been good work, and it's been inclusive. I actually think that the GVRD should be congratulated on that. But for the moment I'm going to accept the minister's assertion. The minister has said here, early on in that last answer, that the plan hadn't been reviewed for a significant amount of time. He talked about whether

Maybe this was the question I asked last time. It's been awhile. Can the minister tell us, in doing the modelling, was there a review of the assumptions that the GVRD put forward in the growth management plan, in the liveable region strategic plan? Did those numbers change? Are they different?

If the government is not confident about those numbers, as I think the minister was suggesting, then how come those numbers got used? What adjustments were made to those numbers to get to where the government got on this project?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should know that the GVRD is one of the reviewing agencies of our air quality studies — and not the only one. Actually, there were independent experts in all areas, including the GVRD, that had the opportunity to have a look at this, have a look at the methodology that was developed with all the regulatory agencies and approved by the GVRD.

I think that if the member has any concerns about that, perhaps the member should talk to the GVRD. We rely on the experts to look at the assumptions that are made and determine whether those are reasonable or not. If, as in this case, they all took a look at it and validated it and said, "Yes, these are reasonable assumptions, and that's the basis on which you should go forward in determining your air quality surveys, etc.," then that's good enough for me.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that comment. Would the minister make available the list of all of those experts who went through this, plus the written comments that they provided to the ministry on this project?

Hon. K. Falcon: All of that information is posted and available on the website as part of the environmental approval process, so it's available for the member. Just simply have your researchers google it up, and you can find it on the Web.

S. Simpson: Just to confirm, then. All of the information about anybody who has reviewed the Gateway plans, any of the modelling that's been done — all of those reviews and independent assessments — are available. The people who did the assessments are identified. Plus, all of the documentation on what they told the ministry about that is all readily available on the Web. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: We follow the process that has been put in place by the environmental assessment office. Studies are available on the Web. The reviews by the experts and the regulatory agencies that review the studies are all available on the Web. That's available not just on the environmental assessment office website but also on the Gateway project website. So it's freely available for the member opposite and any members of the public to have a look at.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. If that's all readily available on the Web, I'll have to look a little harder to see what I can find. If I'm having a problem with that, I'll be happy in the future to talk to somebody in the ministry's staff, and maybe they can help me to make sure I find all of the information that's readily available on the Web.

I just want to ask a couple of questions that relate to the transit portion around this and the provision of transit. The minister has talked quite a bit in our conversation here about the critical role that transit will play. We know that at some point the northeast line will go forward. We know that there is a move to improve…. I think we've talked about buses and other improvements south of the Fraser. There's been talk about the old Interurban.

I wonder if the minister could tell us when we might see some of those things or what the time line is for some of those projects to come forward and to move forward.

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the things the member well knows, of course, is that TransLink drives the decisions in terms of the regional transportation decisions. But we've been working very closely with TransLink.

The member opposite will know that TransLink has developed a long-term plan which includes the Evergreen line and rapid bus service south of the Fraser. That's where we've been working very closely with them.

The rapid bus service south of the Fraser is really important to me and to members that represent communities south of the Fraser. What we are able to do is design into the Port Mann Bridge the ability to ensure that those buses have available to them…. For example, we want to make sure we've got park-and-rides available along the corridor. That will be part of the Gateway program.

We want to make sure we design in features that allow those buses to go by any queues that may be in place. For example, the new 156 underpass, which is going to go underneath the highway, will be designed to allow for public transit access only to get them off that highway and very quickly into the communities they're serving.

These are the kinds of things we're able to do as part of the Gateway program, which are going to be so important for delivering effective, new, efficient transit service for the folks that live south of the Fraser.

The final thing I'll say about the rapid bus service…. What we're working with TransLink on is the ability — because there are benefits to TransLink's roads even before TransLink, if they do enter into arrangements with the neighbouring communities to bring them under the regional transportation umbrella….

Even prior to that, there are benefits to TransLink by sending buses out to those communities and bringing people in by bus, because it frees up the road network and takes cars off that road network and creates opportunities. It also can help create a culture of public transit in communities that frankly don't have many options.

I recall when I was on CBC radio having a lady phone in as a result of the changes I announced on TransLink governance. She said: "Amen. I don't have a car, and we've got four buses out here. I want to have those alternatives."

I think the rapid bus service that TransLink is working on in cooperation with our ministry will create huge new opportunities to provide really effective public transit options for people that live south of the Fraser.

S. Simpson: Maybe we'll get to some specifics around some of these transit projects. My question was around dates. Maybe we'll be a little more specific, and then we'll get those answers.

On the northeast sector line, could the minister tell us when he expects that line to be operating?

Hon. K. Falcon: I can't give a date because it's not my project. That's obviously a project that will be delivered by TransLink.

The TransLink governance review that I announced, which I am hopeful will be able to come forward in legislation this session, will provide the tools necessary to give TransLink the financial ability to actually get that project built. That's something that was very important to us as a government and the Minister of Transportation to ensure that they had the revenue measures necessary to provide long-term stability and the sustainable revenue necessary to build that and all the other projects they've wanted to do but didn't have the funding in place for.

It's something I'm very proud of and something I've received huge, widespread support on, which I'm very pleased about — very strong support from the public. As we go forward, I can say to the member that it's up to TransLink, obviously, in terms of schedule and delivery times and everything else.

My responsibility as the Minister of Transportation is making sure they've got the tools and the structure to make sure they have the money to get it built and, importantly to me, that the dollars going into it, which are very substantial, are going to be well invested and that those are going to be decisions made by a group of professionals who have the expertise and the skill set to make those decisions.

S. Simpson: Here's my problem with the minister's answer. The minister has, for the last hour and a half, talked often quite eloquently about the importance of transit as a significant piece of dealing with the climate change issues that we have and about creating a transit system that is accommodating, affordable, safe and that will encourage people to get out of their cars more frequently than they do today.

We have agreed we're not going to get rid of cars. That's never going to happen, or not in our lifetime, but we can get them out of their cars more frequently with a better transit system. The minister has said that's his commitment. The minister has said that he believes he's prepared to do what it takes to make that happen.

The minister has also said that whether local government thinks it's a good idea or not, he's prepared to assert density issues related to SkyTrain stations or, presumably, other rapid transit stations. If it was light rail, the view would be a similar view. So he's prepared to assert himself on that as well.

That's all good and fine, but now the minister is saying that he doesn't have a view about when the northeast line should be open. The minister is going to end up…. We're going to pay for this provincially — a significant portion. So the minister has no view as to when he expects the northeast line to be open — is that what he's saying?

Hon. K. Falcon: I certainly have a view, and my view is that it'll get opened, frankly, as soon as is feasible and possible. I also have a recognition that this is not a provincial Ministry of Transportation project. This is a project of TransLink, a regional transportation authority responsible for delivering the project.

What I heard from TransLink, Member, was not that they wanted me to come in and build a project for them and get it done. I'm always open to those suggestions, but that's not what I heard from them. What I heard from them is that they had a $400 million gap that didn't allow them to move forward with that project.

As part of TransLink Governance Review, we've now fixed that problem for them — subject, of course, to legislation being passed that puts this in place and that will provide them the financial sustainability so that they can get that project built. How quickly they move that project along, of course, will be within their purview and not mine, but we have now solved the biggest roadblock to getting that done.

Certainly, what I heard from them was appreciation that we had eliminated the one final roadblock, one of the major roadblocks to getting that project built.

S. Simpson: So the minister does not have a firm view on when the northeast line should be built.

Another critical piece — and the minister spoke about this — is the rapid bus system for south of the Fraser, Surrey and other adjoining communities. We talked about the importance of that. That is critical. I'm certainly very supportive of a significant enhancement of our transit system south of the Fraser, and that's critical.

Can the minister tell us if he has a view on when the rapid bus system might be put in place south of the Fraser?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's very supportive comments for that kind of bus service, that transit service through that corridor, because it is a very important issue for folks south of the Fraser and something that people really want to see happen.

The proviso I would make to the member's comments…. I think the member would agree with me when I say that it's got to be effective public transit. It's not like these people that live in this fanciful world

The reason they won't do it is because it makes absolutely no sense. They're not going to try to add transit to a congestion situation like that, because it wouldn't make any difference. Nobody would ride it.

That's what the study from one of the world experts, Karoly Krajczar …. I can never say his name right. It's a difficult name to say, but he's affectionately known as K.K., one of the foundational authors of the livable region strategic plan. That's what his independent study found — that adding buses to that corridor alone will not do it.

With the work that we're doing — we're working with TransLink — the goal and the objective we have mutually working with TransLink is that the day the new twinned Port Mann Bridge opens is the day that we get the new rapid bus transit service started.

That's something that I personally am very excited about and something that I know that the folks south of the Fraser and in those communities that will be serviced by that new rapid bus service will also be very excited about.

S. Simpson: Maybe I misunderstood the minister, or he misunderstood me. My notion, when the minister talked about a rapid bus system in the Surrey area, was that it was for all of Surrey. It wasn't dedicated to the single corridor that comes into the bridge or that would come into any new bridge. It was about improving transit throughout the area.

One of the things we know, of course, with SkyTrain…. People will tell you on SkyTrain: it's a fabulous system if you're near it and you get on it and use it. Or the West Coast Express: it's a fabulous system if you're close to it and get on and use it.

S. Simpson: The suggestion was made that the minister was waiting for the Speaker's corridor to be twinned, and then we would be back in business.

The point I was making before we got called to vote was around the rapid bus system in Surrey. The minister has talked about rapid buses, and I believe that he's been focused on the rapid bus that would be linked to any new bridge on that particular corridor.

My concern — and I have to believe the minister would share this — is a rapid bus system and a system that actually accommodates a much larger area of south of the Fraser than simply that corridor.

As we know, as I referenced before, when we talk about people on SkyTrain and the West Coast Express, obviously the comment is: "If I'm close to that, it's fabulous. If I have to get there sometimes it's not so good, so I stay in my car because I don't care for the bus system that links me to the SkyTrain."

The issue here is that the minister has said the rapid bus on that corridor would link whenever it is that the bridge would be built, depending on that time line. Does the minister have a view about a rapid bus or a broader bus system for the rest of Surrey and the people in Surrey?

Hon. K. Falcon: I sure do. In fact, that's an area that obviously TransLink is responsible for. I don't have direct responsibility, but I know that TransLink is looking at doing a rapid bus service along the King George Highway and the Fraser Highway throughout Surrey. Those will be very important for getting the communities of south Surrey and the communities of mid-Surrey also to have some viable transit options.

The issue with Gateway, of course, is that that's an area that we are directly involved with. That's an area that we can work with TransLink to create some really viable transit alternatives by the use of park-and-rides, by the use of design features that will favour buses over commuter traffic, and by the use of all of those elements that we'll be able to build into this — especially the cycling lanes.

Again, I think it's worth stating for the record that the single largest expenditure in the cycling expansion network in the history of British Columbia, with a $50 million commitment, will provide that option for folks too, in a safe way. Of course, you can't ride across that bridge or walk across that bridge now unless you want to place your very life in danger.

That's where we can make a difference, but I don't think that we should pretend for a second that TransLink isn't thinking about their responsibilities too. That's why the rapid bus service along King George and the Fraser Highways are also going to make a big difference. But I'll tell you, the rapid bus service that will serve the communities of north Surrey, north Langley and Abbotsford will make a significant difference and provide significant benefit to those previously not very well-served parts of the province in terms of transit.

S. Simpson: A couple of questions here, and I'm going to wrap up. Maybe the first one, and it's a quick assumption here, is that any improvements on the Broadway corridor would also then be seen as a TransLink matter. I won't ask the minister to give me that answer again. I'll accept that that's a TransLink matter, and we know what that answer would be.

There's been a lot of talk around the south Island and light rail options in and out of Victoria. Could the minister tell us: is there support for that? What's the position of the ministry around that?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is something I had an opportunity to canvass a little bit with the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

Hon. K. Falcon: Representative of all Malahatians, as the opposition critic correctly points out. Maybe not all of them, now that I think about it, but nevertheless a portion of the Malahatians are represented by that particular member.

Hon. K. Falcon: We had an opportunity to canvass that. What we said there is that's something that we certainly would be interested in. Anything that can provide people the opportunity to get out of the car is something that we will have an interest in, for sure.

Of course, we will apply the same rigour on that in terms of a business case and making sure that the homework gets done so that the public and the decision-makers can have a true sense of what the costs are, what the benefits are, and do the appropriate rigour that we would normally do when considering any kind of major investment like that.

S. Simpson: I just want to step back to TransLink for a moment with just a couple of questions there. The minister may have answered this for the critic and I wasn't here for that. My question is: the professional board that's to be put in place under the proposal that the minister has advanced, based on the report he received — not the mayors committee, but the professional board — who appoints that board?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a question I've been asked before. One of the things I've said is that there are a couple of principles that will guide where we ultimately land on this. One of the principles will be that it won't be the provincial government and that the council of mayors will play a significant role. We still haven't finalized that yet, but I'm sure we'll have lots of opportunity to canvass that once the legislation comes forward.

S. Simpson: Well, just a bit of a follow-up — and I appreciate the minister's comment. If the provincial government isn't doing it, and the mayors will have a role but it's not determined what that role might be, who else might play a role in those appointments other than either the mayors or the provincial government?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't want in any way to appear disrespectful to the member. I think it's a reasonable question to ask. But I also think that it's going to be legislation that will be coming forward in the House. At that time the member will see where we land on that particular issue, and we'll have an opportunity to canvass it with the member.

Here's the reason, hon. Chair, I asked the question. The minister has talked about the importance of land use planning. He has expressed the view that the GVRD obviously has significant responsibilities, as do local municipalities, around that land use planning.

I'm assuming from comments of the minister and also comments of the Premier at the UBCM that the provincial government is going to be very enthusiastic, if not even more directive than that, in starting to talk about what land use planning looks like in terms of accomplishing the objectives around climate change and the relationship of land use planning to climate change, and reducing emissions by creating more compact communities — more smart-growth communities, as they're often called. I accept that premise to some degree.

The challenge here is that transportation plays such a huge role. The linkage of land use planning and transportation together probably are the two biggest aspects to determining how well that works — obviously, economic opportunity and placement of job opportunities. But creating town centres is about land use planning and transportation mostly — and pop-dense areas.

My concern is this. If I read the report properly — and I've read it somewhat, not as completely, obviously, as the minister and some others — you have the committee of mayors, which will meet three or four times a year, maybe, to adopt some of the big-picture things of the work done by the professional board and by staff. But their role is not nearly as proactive as the current TransLink board's role is, obviously.

How does the connection work between the new TransLink board, the GVRD and all of those people responsible for the livable region strategic plan, for the sustainable region initiative, for that kind of planning, in the most critical area in the province in terms of trying to solve these problems or getting ahead of the issue of climate change?

How does that all work if you have a greater separation of TransLink from that local government body than currently exists today?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that's a very good question to ask. The way it will work is actually in three ways. The first is that the council of mayors…. I think we must remember that these mayors are leaders in their communities. Presumably, of all the people that sit on their councils, they are the most aware of what the regional land use plans are and are responsible as leaders of their councils and their communities to make sure that whatever decisions they make are in adherence to regional land use plans.

The second is that it will be proposed to be written into proposed legislation that we hope to have before the House, as I've mentioned before, which will stipulate that decisions must be made and aligned with the regional land use plans.

The third is that the independent commissioner will also be responsible for ensuring that any proposed plans being put forward to the council of mayors for their approval will have to be consistent with the existing regional land use plans. The reason for the separation of the GVRD is that ultimately we foresee a transportation region that is much bigger than the GVRD. Clearly, it is.

Again, some of the fastest growing communities are actually outside the GVRD. We want to make sure that those communities have the option, should they decide that that's the right move for them, to be able to join this region and to be part of the transportation network that connects all these communities.

S. Simpson: I'm starting to figure this out, but not completely. So I'll just try again. I want to finish up pretty quickly here because I know I have colleagues who are very keen to ask the minister some questions.

The commissioner that's mentioned by the minister: I believe that commissioner is a provincial appointee. If not, can the minister tell us who will appoint that commissioner, and is the suggestion here that they will be able to direct the professional board? Will they be able to supersede decisions of the committee of mayors? I'm just trying to figure out that role.

Hon. K. Falcon: The independent commissioner will be appointed by the council of mayors. The independent commissioner will be responsible for, really, advising the mayors on whether the proposed plans are in fact consistent with regional land use. So the mayors will have an independent voice that's also evaluating that and providing advice to them about whether or not any plans are consistent with regional land use.

D. Chudnovsky: I don't have a question at the moment, but I just wanted, for the benefit of the minister and staff, to talk a little bit about the shape of the day — which we should do from time to time just to make sure that we get it straight.

First of all, a kind of apology from me. It's been a bit disjointed, but as the minister knows, a lot has been happening today in the House. We have a number of responsibilities that we have to take on.

For the rest of the session this afternoon a number of my colleagues are coming in to talk about specific issues that relate to their specific constituencies. Some of them are policy oriented, but they nonetheless relate to specific areas and constituencies.

I'll be back tomorrow afternoon to continue our discussion which we stopped in the middle — it was an important discussion about maintenance and the Sea to Sky — and there are a number of other policy issues that we want to discuss tomorrow, and there are some more individual MLAs who want to come forward. So, again, my apologies for the disjointed nature of it, but that's the game we're in.

D. Thorne: I'm jumping ahead of everybody else because I'm on duty in the House and they're going to let me go. I only have a couple of questions concerning the light rail transit or rapid transit issue in Coquitlam, to Coquitlam Centre.

When I was a city councillor in Coquitlam, for many years we studied SkyTrain and spent a lot of money — the province, the city and everybody — studying SkyTrain and studying the different routes. At that time the southern route was basically eliminated from consideration, and the northern route was chosen for SkyTrain. Then when the decision was made to switch over to light rail, the northern route was still the route that was considered the best, but certainly the most expensive route.

Now, I've noticed lately when there have been drawings and discussion around rapid transit to Coquitlam Centre, the southern route is showing up again as a possibility. They're showing both routes again. It's sort of déjà vu. It's like it was ten years ago. My first question to the minister is: are we again considering the southern route? Is that, in fact, a fact? If so, when will this be announced more or less publicly?

Hon. K. Falcon: The province and the Ministry of Transportation don't have any role in that route selection. What we expect is that they will undertake the best business case necessary to achieve the transportation objectives they're trying to achieve. That's really the issue as far as the province. We don't get involved, nor have I been involved, in any discussions having to do with what routes TransLink may decide or not decide to move forward on.

D. Thorne: Thanks for that answer. I guess I sort of more or less knew that. I was just hoping you might have some nugget of information, because the area, the Tri-Cities, were it one city, would be the third-largest city in the province.

We're talking about a huge number of people who have been waiting a long time and are now being confused again by the appearance of the southern route. I'm assuming you know nothing that we don't know. We already know the business case. We know the southern route is cheaper. In fact, it was cheaper with SkyTrain. In fact, SkyTrain on the southern route is cheaper, if my memory serves, than light rail on the northern route.

My second and last question is going to be: if in fact the southern route does come up as the choice, will the province and TransLink consider SkyTrain, as it will be cheaper than what we've been working on for the last year or so?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, with a slight variation, obviously we don't get involved in that decision. What we do pay a lot of attention to is the business case. The business case isn't driven by cost so much, although that's clearly a factor. The business case is also driven, and the lens we would look at it with is: is the business case going to achieve the objectives they're trying to

achieve, especially with respect to ridership? From the province's point of view, that is the key thing there. We expect a rigorous business case evaluation to be done, and we expect that the business case will point to the right solution to achieve the ridership objectives and the transportation objectives that TransLink has set out.

C. Puchmayr: My community certainly has some struggles with traffic. Close to 400,000, sometimes over 400,000 cars a day will pass through it. I know that there are some traffic initiatives that the city council has worked on for many years with the government, and one of those is the partnership with the province and the federal government on the north-south border infrastructure program. Right now it's part of the build as the Howes Street overpass, which is sitting on preload at this time.

My question to the minister is to get an update on the Howes Street overpass. Maybe I'll just ask another question, and he can answer them both at the same time. With respect to that preload, are there some concerns or some issues that may have caused some poor loading of that situation, or are there any issues with respect to the contract as it has been fulfilled so far?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the question from the member. This is one of the very important projects that we have underway as part of our border infrastructure program, in cooperation, as the member correctly points out, with the federal government — a $241 million initiative to make some important strategic investments which include, of course, the Howes Street interchange.

For the member's benefit, there was a significant amount of preload that was applied to that area. No problems that I'm aware of. None of my staff are aware of any problems. The only issue with preload, and maybe this drives the question, is that some people may ask: "Well, why is it there for so long?" The reason is that there's a time period necessary until we get sign-offs from the geotech engineers that we need to have the compression necessary to successfully complete the structure and not have any future settlement.

My understanding is that we're very close to that and that we will be, and may have already in fact, started advertising for tenders for the paving and finishing of that project.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for that response, and the lead-in would be my next question. Are you aware of whether or not that was tendered? I believe there was — quite a while back…. I think your comments were that it had been tendered or was going to tender late February.

Do you have any information on whether or not it has been tendered and whether or not that tender has been approved?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'd have to double-check that, Member. My recollection is that we had advertised for tenders for that final work to be done. So if my memory serves me correctly, I'm pretty sure it's underway, but I'd have to double-check for you.

C. Puchmayr: Would you give us a projection of when you would anticipate that project to be completed?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I must apologize. We don't have the schedule for every project on hand here, so I don't have that information for the member. I can get that information to the member if he wishes, but I just don't have it right at our fingertips here.

C. Puchmayr: There were some promises of completion on that when it was first announced. I think there were two or three sod-turnings on that site prior to the previous election. Because of the way that it was being advertised, I assumed that there were more concrete time lines of completion. If the minister says that doesn't exist, I would ask the minister if he could maybe forward to my office an update on the tender process as to where it sits and maybe an estimate of that time.

I could move on to one other issue, which is the Front Street part of the North Fraser route. Certainly, there is a very major concern in my community with respect to the truck traffic — the load, the volume, the air quality that's created with truck traffic running under the parkade. Many of the businesses in that area have some very significant air quality concerns. I believe that the GVRD did some testing a while back that showed that some of the worst air quality in the region was in that underground parkade area.

Certainly, there is some concern with any future expansion or any future volumes that may be triggered by some of the transportation projects on the North Fraser. So I'd ask if the minister is looking at working with the city on some creative solutions for moving that traffic through that with some possible ventilation — maybe some possible construction over top in the thing that I believe they call a plinth. The city has some very creative ideas on how that whole waterfront can develop and still take the region's share of transportation through there.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. In fact, I had a meeting with the mayor and some of the councillors, or at least one or two of the councillors, and they went through some of their vision for that area. I actually applauded them for that. I thought some of their vision was very, very good.

I did remind them, of course, that it is a section of North Fraser perimeter road that TransLink is responsible for delivering, not the province. So I encouraged them to work with TransLink to make sure they share their vision with TransLink. I reminded them that basically, the way things worked with TransLink was that TransLink agreed to take on that section of the North Fraser perimeter road. We agreed to do the South Fraser perimeter road.

As I reminded TransLink, we're certainly keeping our obligation. We're moving forward, and we're get-

ting that thing built. We're dealing with all the fun things that go along with doing that in terms of all the consultations, critics and everything else.

What I suggested to the mayor and council is that they take those very good ideas, and they sit down with TransLink, and they try and work with TransLink, which is responsible for delivering that section, and see if they can come to some kind of agreement that can make sense for all of them.

K. Conroy: On March 6 we engaged in some discussion on estimates, and I brought up the issue of the difference in snow removal specs between British Columbia and Alberta. The minister had expressed interest in seeing these specs, so I would like to provide them today.

You'll note on page 3 of the B.C. government's specs that snow removal begins once snow exceeds four centimetres. In Alberta the number is three centimetres. I just wanted to provide that for the minister and to let him know that those statistics actually exist. They're out there, and those specifications are being shared with people across the province.

I want to move to a couple of other questions. In the fall a report was released called Aging Well in B.C., the report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors' Issues. This was released in November. Recommendation 13 has a number of issues that relate specifically to transportation, and I'm wondering…. There are some specifics here, but where in the minister's budget will there actually allow for these recommendations to be implemented?

I think they're excellent recommendations. This was a report that was quite comprehensive done across the province. There was input received from people all around the province. So I'm wondering, especially around the issues for developing and implementing a comprehensive plan to improve transportation services for older people…. There's a recommendation that the Ministry of Transportation work with its partners to ensure that that can be done across the province. That's one of the recommendations that I'm hoping is somewhere in the ministry's plans as far as budget goes.

Also a commitment to ongoing funding of transit, especially in rural areas. It's quite an issue out in other parts of B.C. not covered by TransLink — for instance, in the lower mainland — that don't have transit systems to get to much-needed services such as medical services. So there is that issue. There was also the issue around providing supplementary transportation services to people out in the interior.

There are a number of issues addressed here, and I'm hoping that the ministry will be able to point out where in the budget they will be able to support these recommendations and ensure they are completed, as was identified by this report.

Hon. K. Falcon: I thank the member for West Kootenay–Boundary for the question. The short answer is: there is an interministerial ADM committee, which one of my ADMs serves on. It is a committee that is looking at the Aging Well report and making sure we work across government to try and achieve the objectives that are set out in that report.

I know that the member opposite will be pleased to know that over the next three years we will be increasing funding for B.C. Transit, in part to reflect the direction that was called for there and, also, in part to ensure that we provide greater transportation, public transit options for folks across British Columbia. That $9½ million over three years does not include an additional $5 million of GST-rebate dollars that will go towards public transit and will be available for service expansion.

There will also be an additional $22 million in new capital to provide additional buses and services to communities and, in some cases, new services to smaller rural communities that currently don't have any service. It also includes additional services in handyDART, which is particularly germane to the folks that are represented in the Aging Well recommendations.

We believe that that very strong additional financial commitment to B.C. Transit, coupled with the work that one of my assistant deputies is doing interministerially to ensure that we coordinate efforts across government, will go a long way towards achieving the recommendations called for in Aging Well.

B. Simpson: I need to do a little bit of work around highway maintenance issues. I want to look at them with respect to some issues in my riding and in the general case, as well as move on from there, and I need to explore a little bit around invasive plants — just for the minister's edification.

First off, let me say that my questions result from a concern about a significant number of lost lives on the highways in my riding over the last couple of winters. They're not ideological. They're more about quality control and trying to understand how the ten-year contract system works because those are the questions that I'm getting as an MLA. With that in mind, I'm trying to understand it so that I can better articulate to my constituents what's going on and whether or not their concerns are valid and how the process works.

It's my understanding, from a briefing that I was given by the minister's own staff, that standards in the province were updated in 2000. In 2003 new standards were established for road maintenance, and on the basis of those new standards, contracts were let for the ten-year contract process through B.C. Bid.

Has the ministry done an assessment of the difference between the 2000 standards and the 2003 standards? That's one of the areas that we get lots of questions around.

Hon. K. Falcon: What the practice in the ministry has been is that at the end of every contract renewal on maintenance contracts, there is a committee formed that is made up of stakeholders and representatives and contractors — individuals that have experience in

this area. Stakeholders include, of course, the public, because we want to hear from the public.

They together form recommendations which are then utilized and inputted into the new standards that will form the basis of the contracts going forward. In effect, what we have is a continuing level of improvement in terms of the standards that are in place.

One of the big changes that came about, which is now in the standards effective from 2003 on, for example, is that there's a new requirement for the maintenance contractors to be more proactive when they become aware of or prior to a storm that is moving into an area.

Typically prior to 2003, the way things used to work is that they'd wait until the snow started falling and the storm hit and then go out and do their clearing. That's what they were supposed to do, and they were absolutely in alignment with the nature of their contract.

Based on the input received from stakeholders and others that were involved in the committees in 2003, one of the recommendations was that if they got out there proactively and started the salting and some of the work that they can do beforehand, that could have a beneficial effect. It was a good recommendation that now forms part of the maintenance contracts.

I think the issue that's important to understand is that — as I've mentioned before, and the member will know — in spite of all the best standards we could put in place and in spite of all the monitoring we will attempt to do, when we are hit with the kind of conditions we had over this recent winter — some of the worst ever recorded in not just snow accumulation, although certainly we saw lots of that, but in terms of the frequency of freeze-thaw cycles and wind velocities which broke records in certain parts of the province, and in terms of rainfall in certain parts of the province….

I was up in the Fraser Canyon talking to the folks up there who were trying to replace a section of road that had run out. That is an area, as my recollection is, that will typically get about two millimetres of rainfall at this time of year, and it received almost 50 millimetres of rainfall in a very short period of time — clearly rather unprecedented.

Those extreme situations can create real challenges for the folks. I've always been one to accept criticism and give criticism where criticism is warranted, and in some cases it has been. We should never be ashamed of saying that we have standards in place. And if they're not being upheld, we should acknowledge that and move on and make sure they improve.

I also have been defensive of the workers because I actually think that given the extraordinary situation those workers were facing and knowing firsthand how hard they worked to try and meet the challenges of a really difficult winter, for the most part I think they did very good work in very challenging circumstances.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments about the workers. Anything that I say around here is not with respect to them or what they attempt to do. It has to do with whether or not the standards changed.

My question again to the minister, because it is a question that I get quite often…. In that change in 2003, is there some place where I can go or can point constituents to, who believe what happened was that the standards were downgraded, who believe what happened was that we changed road classifications so that there was a lower level of maintenance, particularly on tertiary road systems…? Is there some place that I can resolve that issue for my constituents?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I would recommend is that the members of the public that have an interest in this can find these specifications laid out on the website. In fairness to the member opposite and to his question, there are no comparisons done between the old and the new. What I would say to the member is that what happens with specifications is that there's continuous improvement. There's not a taking away or reducing of the standards that are in place.

The committees are there to actually make recommendations that will increase the standards and the outcomes that we expect to see. I've got a copy, for example, of some of our maintenance specifications that highlight the new areas that, as I said, have been added on as a result of 2003.

The major one I've referenced before is the proactive winter maintenance services in advance of and during a forecasted weather event. It goes on in very incredible detail, really — applying of winter abrasives and chemicals to minimize the development of slippery surfaces, increasing the monitoring of road temperatures and condition forecasts, notifying and deploying resources in advance of weather events as required. It goes on and on.

I'm happy to make this available to the member if the member wishes. I think the principle is that of continuous improvement and making sure that the standards — in this case, the proactive regime that was not there before and is now there — are being implemented.

B. Simpson: I've seen all of the standards and so on. What we were trying to find out is whether or not a comparison was done as to continuous improvement. Part of continuous improvement is also cost efficiencies. That's the question that people have. We may set continuous improvement with respect to standards, but again, in 2002 there was a renegotiation of the contract with the BCGEU that allowed for some costs to be taken out of system. Again the bid process was designed to take some costs out of the system as well.

So efficiencies and continuous improvements sometimes collide with each other. That's what my constituents are concerned about: that we've had a collision of those — no pun intended, given the estimates that we're in. So the answer to that question is no, and we'll have to do that work for our constituents.

Let me come back to something that the minister has indicated — the ten-year contracts. It's my under-

standing that those contracts took a backward look at what was required in the various Ministry of Transportation districts — what some of the circumstances are that would have to be taken into consideration in order to build an evaluation matrix around the plan submissions that were a part of the contracts.

It's my understanding also — and I look to be corrected if I'm not correct on any of this — that in the bid process, 40 percent of the bid was on the basis of the plan that was submitted, and 60 percent of the bid was on the basis of the price. First off, was that correct? Do I understand correctly how that process unfolded?

Hon. K. Falcon: A couple of points. First, to an earlier point that the member made: I think it's important to recognize that in all of our discussions with the BCGEU back in '03, we made it very clear that any of the savings cannot result in a net reduction on any work being done on the road. We were very, very clear about that as part of those negotiations.

The member is correct in that in the bid process the quality of the plan represents 40 percent in terms of consideration of the bids — 40 percent of their bid — and price, 60 percent. The quality of plans, of course, is basically how well they are going to achieve the standards we set out. Of course, they must do it in accordance with the principles of ISO 9001.

I think that's an important question because there is a suggestion out there sometimes that, my goodness, it's because people made low bids. That's why they won these contracts, and that's why they're not clearing the roads as well, perhaps, as certain members of the public may think they need to be cleared.

That's simply not the case. Price is one part. Obviously, it's an important part, but fully 40 percent of the consideration we give is going to be to the quality of the plan that they're putting in place as part of their bid.

B. Simpson: The minister's comments about the cost savings around the BCGEU contract are interesting, because I would suggest that many of the maintenance contractors now are struggling to get quality workers. It is quality workers that make for quality road maintenance. There's a huge struggle there. The net savings not going on to the road system is still going to be through the workforce that they've got, and they've lost a lot of the senior workforce.

Let me come back to what the minister's talking about in terms of public perception, because he's raised this in the House in question period. On November 8 of last year the Ministry of Transportation folks in Quesnel admitted publicly that the provider there, HMC, was non-compliant on the first winter snow. The Environment Canada folks said that it was not an abnormal event. It was a normative winter snow event.

Yet according to the Ministry of Transportation's own staff, HMC Services were non-compliant on more than a dozen roads. This is a direct quote from the Ministry of Transportation operations manager in Quesnel: "They didn't plow. They didn't sand or provide anti-icing on some roads."

It's not public perception; it's reality. My question to the minister is: how many of these contractors are found non-compliant in circumstances where they have a normative winter event — I want to get to the non-normative ones — and what's the penalty that they incur as a result?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's quite correct in that assessment, and so is the local employee in the Transportation office. HMC in their first year there were cut a little bit of slack in the sense that maybe it was a bit of unfamiliarity and maybe they were just not being as good as they ought to be.

I think the important things to recognize are that that's why we set out standards and that's why we monitor to make sure they meet those standards. If they are deficient, as they were…. The member correctly points out that they were and that it was a normative winter. I'll accept his word for that. I honestly don't recall that particular winter, but I will operate on the premise that the member is quite correct about that.

There were shortcomings. Those shortcomings were identified, and to answer the question directly for the member: what we do is we notify them of those shortcomings. We try to work with them, obviously, first. We're all trying to achieve something here that provides a benefit, so we operate from the premise that they're trying. If there are shortcomings, we point them out to them, and we try to work with them.

If there are consistent shortcomings and they're not meeting the provision of the contract, then we have significant financial penalties that can be put into place. The withdrawal of their winter bonus is one of them. This is a very significant financial event for any contractor to face. I can assure the member opposite that it brings great focus to the mind of these individuals responsible for that work.

I do have to say for the record that HMC has improved dramatically since those shortcomings were identified. They, I believe, have been doing their best, especially in the most recent winter, which was a huge challenge. I'm advised that they've improved dramatically since those shortcomings were identified.

B. Simpson: Unfortunately, I have to correct the minister's thoughts about HMC. I wasn't referring to the first year; I was referring to this winter. They were in non-compliance in the first winter, they're in non-compliance again this winter, and so we have a history there of non-compliance. We had that same day a fatality on a road that was in non-compliance. In my community those connections are being made all the time, and in the Quesnel area, HMC has been targeted for me by log truck drivers and by transportation drivers who drive the whole province and say that that is a problem contract in that area.

My question to the minister is: when does it become a problem contract as opposed to some ongoing dialogue? When do you actually cut bait?

Hon. K. Falcon: Chair, I apologize for that. I think the member is quite correct. At the beginning of their winter contract, there were problems identified. What I was trying, very inarticulately perhaps, to explain to the member opposite is that there was a dramatic improvement once those shortcomings were pointed out.

I do want to state for the record that I'm always very, very sorry to hear of any fatality that takes place in the province. I wish that folks in the lower mainland understood the challenges that the people in the interior and the north need to deal with sometimes with the winter events that can happen. They are sincerely a huge challenge sometimes.

I think that we have to recognize that we don't just have an idle chat and hope they make things better. We sit down with them very proactively. The culture of this ministry that I respect so much is that every member feels that they play a role. All of the Transportation staff that that member works with…. I am sure this member would concur that these are all exceptional people. I can guarantee you that when they're driving the roads, they're checking the quality of the work that's being done. It may not even be part of their job description, but they'll be doing that because that's the culture of this ministry. When they become aware that there are shortcomings by the contractor, they'll bring those to the attention of the contractor, and they will try to work with the contractor to make sure that those things get solved.

Make no mistake. The contractors know that if they do not perform, if they consistently fail to meet whatever identified shortcomings there were, they will face financial penalties. That can go up to and include the cancellation of their maintenance contract, which obviously would be fairly devastating.

The final point I would say about the issue of quality workers is that there's no question that it's always a challenge in an economy with some of the lowest unemployment rates in history. It is going to be a big challenge for all businesses, including those that provide the services of maintenance contracting. They are, I have no doubt, working hard to try and find good people, just as so many other sectors are.

B. Simpson: I would echo the minister's sentiment. We, too, would like the lower mainland folks to understand sometimes the circumstances that we live in.

To the minister's point about the improvement with HMC, on January 7 — these are just isolated incidents that tell the story — we had a logging truck roll over on Marsh Road. I want to explore Marsh Road briefly a little bit later on. Here's what the logging contractor said when he was asked by the local residents why his trucks were on that road when it was obviously unsafe, because it was sheer ice. The contractor for Blackwater logging said that it could be a lot safer if they just looked after it better. It's never sanded. He said that if his drivers waited until the public roads they used to access woodlots were sanded and safe, they'd never get to work. "If we have to wait for them to sand the roads in the morning, we wouldn't be working." That's the logging contractor.

On January 18 we had the roads closed out of Quesnel, both north and south, for hours — south because of a fatality. On January 19 we had the road north closed again. I'm not quite sure where the continuous improvement is here that the minister is speaking of.

Again, my constituents come in and ask how they get access to these non-compliance reports and to the audit reports. I've tried to go directly to the minister's staff, and they're very helpful with me there. But they tell me that I can't get access to those and that everybody has to go through freedom-of-information. So my question to the minister: is it correct that public information about our public roads is now behind freedom of information legislation?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that the member would appreciate that it's extremely difficult to talk about a specific date and what may or may not have happened on that date because we don't have access to the information that would tell us, for example, if that was an ice storm. If there was an ice storm, that could have a very dramatic impact in terms of what the condition of the roads would be, etc.

I don't know specifically what road the member is talking about. I don't know if it's a secondary road or a primary route. I can tell the member that the way they operate…. Especially under a very major weather event, their focus is to clear the primary routes first of all — that's where most of the people are travelling. That can sometimes have an impact on secondary routes, which will take longer for them to be dealt with.

Certainly, the people on the secondary routes might be saying, "Hey, gee, I would like the Cadillac service here right away," but that's not how it operates. That's not how it should operate. They need to make sure that the primary routes are cleared and taken care of.

The other thing in terms of the FOI issue…. I think it's important for the member to know that there's financial information, stakeholder information, privacy information or sensitive information there that would need to be severed. That's why there's a requirement for the FOI process.

The final thing I'll say is that we do have a stakeholder rating process in place where we have representative stakeholder groups — the RCMP, school bus operators and trucking associations, etc. — that we use to rate the maintenance contractors and to help us form an assessment of how they're doing by people who are actually using the highways on a very regular basis. For HMC, their stakeholder rating — we haven't got it yet for this year — was 93 percent for last winter.

B. Simpson: My apologies. I should have told you that it was Highway 97 I was talking about the closures on. So it is a primary road.

The stakeholder rating process is new to me, and I will look into that and find out how that's actually done because it goes against some of the levels of complaints that we've got. But, again, I'm more interested

in being able to communicate more accurately to my constituents. So I just want to close this section off — to be crystal clear. The FOI stuff we can have a debate about — what is public, what is private, and so on. I've got the answer that I needed. It is FOI —

The other question that I need an answer to, however, is: what is the process of determination of the pulling of the contract? If we've got two winter non-compliances out of three, if we have non-compliance on roads, and if we have events that are occurring, is there a clearly articulated process by which a contract ends up getting pulled?

The Chair: We will recess Committee A for five minutes or until the vote is completed.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member opposite's patience. What I want to be able to do is sort of walk the member opposite through the various steps that are involved. Hopefully, I can do this in a way that does justice. I hope it's not going to sound too complex, but I'll do my best.

The first principle we operate under, of course, is contract law and a principle of fairness. Nobody wants to be unreasonable or unfair to these folks, and we certainly have to make sure, as we go through these various steps, that we're in full compliance with the contract and basic contract law.

The first issue would be if there's a problem identified under a quality program — problems in the field similar to those that the member opposite mentioned. We try to work with them, obviously. If we start to see that there are continued problems, the result will be a non-conformance report. Under the non-conformance report, we will work with the contractor to try and improve their work.

The member opposite raised some examples. That would be an example. Where a non-conformance report gets issued, we try to work with the contractor to improve, and a loss of part of their winter performance payment can be a direct result of this.

After that step has been taken, if there is still a pattern of repeated non-conformance by that contractor and we see those same problems appearing in spite of the fact that there's been a partial winter performance payment withdrawal, then there's a notice issued called a notice to comply.

The notice to comply is a very significant step, because their bonding company is now notified. Their bonding company is made aware of the fact that there's been a notice to comply issued, and it will result in the loss of all of their winter performance payments.

I think the gravity of that situation would be self-evident. The bonding company will be very alive to this issue, because they now have a potential financial risk involved. They will be, I am sure, all over the maintenance contractor to ensure that they get into compliance very, very quickly.

The next step would be…. If there's a failure to improve under the notice to comply that was issued and the removal or stripping away of the winter bonus, the result would be that a single-event default would be issued. If there's an event, it's recognized — the shortcoming. A single-event default is issued. There would be a further loss of payment for work not being done for that.

They must improve. It's not a question of whether they should. They're going to have to make immediate improvement, because the next step is full default. Full default is where the bonding company may actually step in and take over and ensure that the work is getting done or provide payment of damages that would be required as a result of the contractor not performing.

Those are the steps that are involved in the contract provisions we have with the maintenance contractor.

B. Simpson: Again, these are very helpful for my staff to be able to communicate with folks, so I do appreciate that.

Let me go back to the maintenance contracts in general, because I know that we're running out of time. I'll try to ask a couple of explicit questions.

With respect to the maintenance contracts, the minister has already raised the issue of the weather conditions we're experiencing. One of the things I try to do to educate my own constituents…. I've gotten in trouble because there are some people who choose not to like the maintenance contractors, and in my MLA report on Shaw I've found myself defending them.

One of the issues, of course, is that continuous hub season. We don't get our normative winter setup on our roads. We're floating around plus 2 to minus 2 all the time. As the minister is probably aware, we have the mountain pine beetle issues on hydrology now that are looming. We have the road impacts, which the ministry has put additional resources to, and so on.

Do these ten-year maintenance contracts have the ability to make adjustments forward to take into consideration adaptation to climate change and some of these exigent circumstances that we're now experiencing? Is there an ability to adjust the contract to take those into consideration?

Hon. K. Falcon: The experience in the Ministry of Transportation with respect to issues like the challenging winter that we've just gone through or are just

getting through is that in the long history of Ministry of Transportation we see this periodically and, hopefully, not too often.

This was a once-in-20-years event, based on our calculation. The last time we saw these kinds of snow accumulations in certain parts of the province was about 20 years ago, so they are periodic in nature. In a winter like this there's no question that the contractors are going to get hammered, in the sense that they're going to have to be pulling in extra equipment, extra workers — all those kinds of things.

What we hope doesn't happen is that they have a winter like this again the following year. It would be, certainly, something that they wouldn't welcome, although they would deal with it. What typically happens, though, is that there'll be other winters that are much more mild in nature, and then they'll make out very well because they won't have all the additional expenses and the challenges that they face in the kind of winter we've had.

The other thing that's important to point out is that we do have an annual inflation factor built into the contracts that recognizes things like fuel, labour costs and equipment and that's based on industry indices, which we also utilize to build annual increases into the maintenance contracts.

I just want to make sure I'm not repetitive so that I don't waste any of the member's question time. I think I've made all the points.

B. Simpson: I do note the time. I just want to make some concluding comments.

My question to the minister has to do with living in a world of climate change where we've got seven more years here. We are not seeing normative winter patterns. This year yes, we got more snow, but in previous years we were getting that failure of the roads to set up — that plus or minus 2 — on a continuous basis, which has huge costs and so on.

I've spoken with the Ministry of Transportation staff, with Interior Roads services and HMC. I guess I would just raise it as an issue with the minister that it is an issue for them that the circumstances have changed and are changing.

One of the difficulties they're expressing to me is that because of the way the maintenance contracts are structured and because of that kind of backward look on setting the plan, they believe that we're going to be in some difficulty here and that they may end up in non-compliance situations with no room to make any moves there. It's just an issue I'd raise with the minister because we do have to close down.

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 — 41

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

	NAYS — 29

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


	YEAS — 42

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

	NAYS — 27

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