Hansard — Tuesday, April 1, 2008 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		10717

Tributes		10718
	Ralph Hutchinson
	L. Krog
	World women's curling championship in Vernon
	Hon. T. Christensen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10718
	Surrey Board of Trade export awards
	D. Hayer
	Canadian poetry
	L. Krog
	Guthrie House
	L. Mayencourt
	Volunteer firefighters
	B. Simpson
	Michelle Stillwell and employment of disabled persons
	R. Cantelon
	Metchosin Community Association
	M. Karagianis

Oral Questions		10720
	Investigation into ICBC vehicle sales
	C. James
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	H. Bains
	M. Farnworth
	Funding for post-secondary education
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. Coell
	B. Simpson
	A. Dix
	K. Conroy
	Comments by Liberal MLA in Children and Youth Committee
	S. Fraser
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Recommendation from Sullivan mine accident inquest
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. K. Krueger

Petitions		10725
	S. Fraser
	D. MacKay
	C. Trevena
	C. Puchmayr
	C. Wyse
	M. Sather

Committee of the Whole House		10726
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008 (Bill 2) (continued)
	G. Coons
	Hon. C. Taylor
	B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills		10732
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Third Reading of Bills		10732
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008 (Bill 2)

Second Reading of Bills		10732
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	J. Brar
	C. Wyse
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)
	Hon. O. Ilich
	C. Puchmayr
	R. Chouhan
	J. Brar
	K. Conroy
	N. Macdonald
	H. Bains
	A. Dix
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. O. Ilich

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10756
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. K. Falcon
	R. Chouhan
	H. Bains
	J. Horgan
	J. Brar

C. James: It's my pleasure to introduce two amazing constituents in the Legislature today. Pippa Blake and Penny Goldrick are involved in a number of activities in this community — everything from social issues to environmental issues, sports and fitness. We've been very fortunate to have their energy contribute to our community.

But it was their latest adventure that I just want to take a minute to talk about, because it really was an inspiration to those of us not only in Victoria but all around the province. Pippa has been an active hiker and climber her entire life and has always dreamed about trekking in the Himalayas. When she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1991, she thought her dream was finished. Last fall with the hard work and support of her two sons, her partner Penny, the Rise Above Barriers Society and two extraordinary Sherpas, Pippa fulfilled her dream and reached Mount Everest base camp.

When Pippa arrived back in Victoria after this amazing adventure, her comments spoke to us all. She said: "I hope it sows a seed in people's minds that there are a lot of things you can do if you believe you can."

Pippa is donating the trail rider that she used for the climb to Recreation Integration Victoria, an organization that helps disabled people. But I want everyone in the Legislature to know that they're not stopping there — at heading off to Mount Everest. They're already planning their next trip to look at hiking the 485-mile pilgrimage trail in Spain.

It's a real inspiration to all of us that someone with disabilities is able to continue their fitness adventure in life, and I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased today to let everyone know that we have 80 visitors from Queen Mary Elementary School in Vancouver–Point Grey. They're grade 5 students. They're here with their teacher Ms. King and a number of parents.

As you know, hon. Speaker, Queen Mary is an exceptional school. My wife taught there. My boys went to school there. It's got to be one of the great schools in British Columbia, and I hope we'll make them welcome.

B. Simpson: I have the distinct pleasure of introducing a very good friend of mine from Quesnel, Mary Gradnitzer. Mary is an amazing individual in our community. She's a seniors advocate who works very strongly with our seniors community.

She also happens to be a very strong supporter of mine and has been the membership chair in our constituency association for a long time. We just had our AGM, and she signalled that this is really the last year that she's going to be membership chair. That's okay. There are lots of other people who will take care of that.

Mary is here today with her sister from Toronto, Janet Goodfellow, and a friend of her sister, Miriam May. I ask the House to make them feel very welcome.

R. Hawes: If the members, particularly the ones who bring their computers in, were to look at the wiring, I hope they would realize that it's there because the former Deputy Speaker from the last parliament pushed very hard and had a very big fight, I know, with the Clerk's office to go against tradition and have that wiring put in place.

Our colleague John Weisbeck, former MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country, is in the gallery today. He tells me that he played 140 rounds of golf last year, so he's saying there is life after politics. Could the House please make John welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce a very special person in my life, my first grandchild. She was born on March 18, and her name is Chloe Amrita Sanford. Please join me to welcome her to British Columbia.

Hon. P. Bell: I, too, would like to pass on a warm welcome to the students from Queen Mary. That was my alma mater as well.

I would like to add that the government caucus members and cabinet members had an opportunity to meet with B.C. Wood officials earlier today at lunch. I know they had a variety of meetings, and I know they have some this afternoon with the opposition as well.

B.C. Wood is a tremendous organization that represents the value-added sector. On behalf of the Minister of Forests, I would certainly like to welcome all of them.

We're joined in the gallery today by Grant McKinnon, who is the chair of B.C. Wood, Brent Comber, Mike Friesen, Sam Froese, John Gillis, Tony Pistilli, Brian Hawrysh and Brian Menzies. I'd ask that the House please make them very welcome.

I did skip one on purpose because he's also a constituent of mine, who runs a tremendous value-added business in Prince George called Northern Capital Wood Products. He makes the best kitchens and the best value-add wood products probably anywhere in North America. I'd ask that the House please make Wayne Ward very welcome as well.

J. Horgan: I had the pleasure to dine with some winners of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca in an auction for lunch and a visit to the precinct for question period and a tour after that. Joining us today are Hanny Pannekoek, Hugo Sutmoller and Liz and Mike Graham. They participated in a fundraiser to raise money and awareness about multiple sclerosis. So would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Visiting in the gallery today are two very fine constituents of mine, Brian Small and his wife Shirley. Brian will be known to a number of people around Victoria as the former manager of the chamber

of commerce. He served that for a long period of time and was well missed when he left that post. He has also taken up many sports in his spare time, of which I understand tennis is one. He's an enthusiastic tennis player, as many will attest to. I hope the House will please make welcome Brian Small and his wife Shirley.

L. Krog: Yesterday in Nanaimo, the member for Nanaimo-Parksville and myself attended the celebration of life for the late Justice Ralph Hutchinson, and I felt it only appropriate to mention his passing in this Legislature.

He was a prominent central Island lawyer, a great counsel in his day, a fine judge, a rather remarkable mountaineer — 20 first ascents, partly with larger teams — a great wine writer for The Advocate, a devoted father and husband, a gentleman and a man with a great sense of humour.

I join with the member for Nanaimo–Parksville, whose constituent Justice Hutchinson was, in celebrating his life and recognizing his contribution to the legal profession in this province.

Hon. T. Christensen: Last week the North Okanagan was rocked by the top women curlers from around the world. Twelve countries gathered in Vernon.

On March 20 the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts and I had the foresight to adopt Canada's team, who is actually from Winnipeg. We're pretty confident that was a major point in leading them to the gold victory on Sunday. They certainly welcomed the opportunity to be honorary B.C. citizens for the week. I can tell you that the fans in Vernon stood behind Team Canada throughout that week, and congratulations to Jennifer Jones and her team for a well-earned victory.

It was an opportunity for residents of the North Okanagan to get a little bit of a taste of 2010 and what we can expect just under two years from now. It was an exceptional experience for the whole community — lots of excitement.

I would ask that the House please acknowledge and congratulate the over 500 volunteers and the organizing committee for pulling off an exceptional event, making Vernon, making British Columbia and making Canada proud of the types of events we can host right here in our province.

D. Hayer: Last week I had the privilege, along with the Minister of Economic Development, to attend the Surrey Board of Trade's second annual international trade dinner and Surrey Export Awards. This dinner highlighted the remarkable international trade that Surrey business people have developed in the markets across the Pacific Rim and throughout the world.

Surrey Board of Trade is the only one in Canada to showcase and recognize companies engaged in international trade, which is driving our economy and creating a future for British Columbia's workers and our entrepreneurs. As we move further and further away from our dependence on the United States as the main market for our products, the Asia-Pacific nations become more and more important.

Our business people, particularly those in Surrey, are solidifying B.C.'s connection and our future as North America's gateway to international trade. We're in the right place at the right time, and the efforts of our government to encourage and develop these trade links speak strongly of the vision needed to keep the economic surge progressing.

The progress, vision and entrepreneurship were the highlights of the Surrey Board of Trade's awards ceremony, which chose from many dynamic Surrey finalists four companies that are leading the way.

In the agricultural and primary products exporter of the year category, Punjab Milk Foods took the award. Winner of the emerging technologies exporter award was Patton and Cooke Company. Winner of the manufacturing exporter of the year award was Bekaert Canada Ltd., and in the service exporter of the year division, Fraser Surrey Docks was the award winner.

I ask all members of the House to join me in congratulating these very forward-thinking Surrey-based companies whose owners and employees are the ones who make them very successful.

L. Krog: April is National Poetry Month. Poetry has played a great role in Canadian history. The famous explorer Henry Kelsey opened his journal dated 1693 with a rhyming prologue. The subject of many of our greatest poets has been historical events. Jonathan Odell in 1812 wrote about the battle of Queenston, Upper Canada. The Canadian Boat Song, celebrating Canadian working-class people, appeared anonymously in 1829. It speaks of the oarsmen working on the St. Lawrence.

Aboriginals. George Copway, an Ojibwa poet, wrote in 1847 Once More I See My Father's Land. Women play more than a significant role. Isabel Valancy Crawford, in 1884, wrote about that quintessential Canadian icon — the canoe. We all know what Pierre Berton said about the definition of Canadians. Canadians are those who can make love in a canoe.

Bliss Carman wrote about something in 1929 that has been the subject of many Canadian hunters' interest, and that was Wild Geese. Pauline Johnson in 1892, of course, wrote The Song My Paddle Sings. What Canadian school child of a certain generation didn't

memorize those lines, including my sainted mother who at 91 is watching this today.

Of course, Robert Service was our first great internationally known poet. The Shooting of Dan McGrew — who hasn't heard those words spoken many times? Of course, first published anonymously in 1915 by John MacRae, what Canadian has not shed a tear on Remembrance Day listening to the words of In Flanders Fields.

The great radical F.R. Scott wrote about our geography in Laurentian Shield. Al Purdy wrote something close to home, The Cariboo Horses. Robin Skelton wrote about one of our great national birds, the eagle, in 1974.

I encourage, quickly, all members in this House to go out and buy a book of Canadian poetry today.

L. Mayencourt: This past fall I had the opportunity to witness a small miracle that is taking place in Nanaimo. It's happening at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre, and it is a place called Guthrie House.

I've talked a little bit about therapeutic communities like the one we have started up in Prince George, but this is a therapeutic community that resides in Nanaimo Correctional Centre. It's important because it is a new approach for helping people recover from their addictions but also deal with some of the lifestyle choices and values and personal histories that people have beside them.

In the therapeutic community at Guthrie House, there are four phases of the program. First, inmates come into an orientation phase where they learn a little bit about the therapeutic community. They go through primary treatment, and then they re-enter the general population and work through a transition phase, followed by an aftercare program which happens when they are released from prison.

The picture of the people who access this program is pretty clear. They are experiencing health risks. They have had experience with social crises. Their drug use is generally out of control, and they have little or no capacity that they can demonstrate to maintain abstinence on their own. Their social and interpersonal function is diminished. Finally, their drug use is either embedded in or has eroded to a socially deviant lifestyle.

The program that we have going at Guthrie House is subject to evaluation, and there's some really great work being done to show what's going on there. But more importantly, I saw these miracles face to face. These are individuals that have had a lifetime of crime. They are prolific offenders, and they have had the opportunity to change their own opinions about their own values, about their addictions, about their families.

I can honestly say that in the eyes and in the faces of those men that I saw at Nanaimo Correctional Centre, there are true miracles. People will….

B. Simpson: Every year the Professional Fire Fighters Association comes down to the Legislature to hold our feet to the fire, to coin a phrase, on their issues and concerns. Each year that's happened that I've been an MLA, I've recognized the fact that I get to speak to the Prince George Fire Fighters association, because my communities are served by volunteer firefighters.

Volunteer firefighters are critical, and they cover a large part of the province of British Columbia. I think it's critical that we recognize the contribution they make to our communities. Many of these people are not just volunteers for firefighting. They're volunteers in all manner of activities throughout the community.

They spend enormous amounts of time training to protect our communities. They spend enormous amounts of time fundraising not only for their own needs for equipment and facility upgrades but also for other community events.

In many of my communities those volunteer firefighters are also our first responders. Where we do not have ambulance coverage, those folks go and take the training they need in order to provide that first response, to stabilize critical patients before the ambulance can get there.

This weekend, and the reason that this tribute was stimulated, I get to attend a pancake breakfast. It's a sugaring-off event for birch syrup in my riding. The company that is doing that has decided to use it as an opportunity to thank the Bouchie Lake fire department and hold a pancake breakfast. It's a mix of business and a thank-you to the community.

It struck me that I think all of us as MLAs could foster those kinds of thanks in our community, if they're not already there. So I ask this House to join me today in thanking all of the volunteers who spend the amount of time that they do making sure our communities get the protection and the professional services they need. I ask the MLAs to join me in finding ways to make sure we thank those volunteers on a consistent basis year over year.

R. Cantelon: I think the members in this House are well aware of the challenges and the plight of persons with disabilities. Of the 300,000 persons with disabilities — not all of them physical — in this province, only 44 percent find regular full employment.

Something happens. It's more than just physical. There are mental challenges, whether it's lack of confidence or other things that happen. People don't always get back into the marketplace.

Not all people are affected this way. Michelle Stillwell, who is a quadriplegic and lost the use of most of her limbs early in life, persevered. In 2000 she was a member of the gold-medallist basketball team. She suffered another setback with a spinal complication

and then took up sprinting. She won the silver medal in the hundred metres and the gold medal at last year's world championships. In fact, at a later meet she came within 4/100 of a second….

Individually, they can meet the challenges. But collectively as a government, what are we doing? We certainly have the 10 by 10 program, which seeks to improve the employment circumstances by 10 percent by 2010. I'm sure it's something both sides of this House embrace as a motive. But what are we doing as individual members? How are we supporting this? The minister's council has engaged 56 communities to support this.

I'm working with Michelle Stillwell, and she has volunteered to help make it happen — to do something in the community, to work with individuals, to work with and challenge the municipalities and businesses in the community to employ more people with disabilities. I can tell you that with her competitiveness and her drive, she's going to make a difference and make it happen.

Today I stand before you and talk to all the members on both sides of this House and ask the question: what are you doing in your riding to make it happen? What are you doing to work with the people with disabilities in your riding to make that connection with employer to employee to help the employment?

I can promise you that Michelle is going to make a big difference in our riding. She's going to be very assertive and very aggressive and help make it happen.

M. Karagianis: Today I'd like to share with the members of this House the story of the Metchosin Community Association and Metchosin Community House. The Metchosin Community Association was formed in 1993 as a non-profit community-building organization open to all members of the community to encourage and organize a variety of educational, recreational, cultural and other community activities within Metchosin. In its early years the association facilitated planning for Metchosin youth and seniors, started the neighbourhood response program, and promoted community awareness and involvement.

In 1999 the association's board of directors arranged to lease for $1 a year a rundown residence located next to the Metchosin municipal property. Months of volunteer efforts and assistance from the Juan de Fuca parks and rec led to the opening of the Metchosin Community House eight years ago.

Within a year the community association took over day-to-day operation of the house, supported by annual fundraising efforts. The district of Metchosin, which retains ownership, provides limited funding to help with maintenance.

Today the Metchosin Community House serves as an information and resource centre for the entire community. Twice a week it becomes the daytime home to many seniors in the community, in conjunction with VIHA's adult day program.

Other partners include the Emergency Operations Committee, Juan de Fuca parks and rec, Pearson College of the Pacific, Sooke school district and the West Shore Arts Council. On any given day the community house may be an art gallery or a poetry café; a gourmet dining venue; a place to learn beekeeping, tree-grafting or archaeology; or a place for young and old to have fun together. Most of all, it's a place of comfort and gathering, supporting the volunteers and community-minded citizens who exemplify all that is good about living in Metchosin.

I know the members will join me in acknowledging the exceptional contribution of the Metchosin Community Association.

C. James: ICBC told the public that several employees purchased vehicles from its chop shop. What ICBC didn't tell us was that 22 managers bought cars in a scheme that gave them first priority to cherry-pick those cars over private buyers.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can he confirm that as a result of an internal investigation into this scam, at least three officials at ICBC have been fired?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I was appointed to this position about an hour ago, and I'm going to take the question on notice.

C. James: I do, on a different question. I understand that the Solicitor General was just appointed. I would think that he'd have been briefed on such a critical issue in his portfolio. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker….

C. James: The Premier's handpicked CEO, Paul Taylor, who oversaw ICBC while the scam was going on, has said: "Sorry. It won't happen again." Well, sorry isn't enough. Paul Taylor isn't….

Paul Taylor isn't taking the rap. He's just saying that it won't happen again. My question to the Solicitor General is: will he commit today to release the internal investigation from ICBC?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said, I will be meeting with the deputy minister and staff of the ministry, and I will take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the Leader of the Opposition that there are no supplementals on questions that are taken on notice.

C. James: It's a different question and a different person for the question to go to.

C. James: British Columbians certainly deserve better than an internal investigation that the public doesn't know about at ICBC and no response from anyone in government. ICBC is trying to sweep this under the rug, thinking that an apology from Paul Taylor is enough. Well, it's not enough.

I would like to ask the Premier: will he commit today to release the internal investigation done by ICBC so that the public can know exactly how this scheme occurred?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I will be meeting with the deputy minister. I have not at this point had the opportunity to meet with him, and I will take her question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Just a second. Member, three times this question has been taken on notice.

H. Bains: They are looking for some answers. While this scam was going on, ICBC tried to get away by saying that several employees purchased these vehicles, as if somebody down on the shop floor was involved in this scam. But it turned out that 22 managers in the scheme gave them the first dibs — senior managers personally benefiting from a scheme of their own design.

So my question is again to the Premier. Will he tell us that the ICBC managers were involved, and what senior vice-presidents purchased any of these rebuilt cars?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I appreciate the member's question. As I said to the previous questions on the same subject matter, I will be meeting with the deputy minister and staff in the ministry, and I will take the member's question on notice.

Remember, there are no supplementals on questions that have been taken on notice.

H. Bains: It's a different question, and then I'll go to a different minister.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat for a second. This is three, four times. This has to be a different question — okay? Proceed.

H. Bains: It's a different question, and I was just starting to read the question.

H. Bains: ICBC's report says that there was some evidence that facility and staff time was used to repair employees' vehicles — no details, no explanation. So my question is to the Attorney General. Can he confirm that the senior managers of ICBC used ICBC mechanics and repair shops for their personal use, and can he tell us how widespread this practice was and who was involved?

Mr. Speaker: That is the same question as before. Members, it's going back to the same intent as the original questions.

M. Farnworth: This is a very serious matter that goes to the heart of the public's confidence in ICBC, and it goes to commitments that were made in this House.

Yesterday we had a Solicitor General who was perfectly capable of answering questions on this issue in the House — the current Attorney General. A cynic might say that we've got a new Solicitor General today to avoid answering questions on a very serious issue.

M. Farnworth: This government, we know, has a problem with accountability, but this is the wrong way to go about being unaccountable.

M. Farnworth: Can he confirm whether or not there is a criminal investigation into what has been taking place at ICBC?

Hon. J. van Dongen: This question is about the same subject matter as the previous questions, and I will take the question on notice.

M. Farnworth: This is directed to the Attorney General. The last time I checked, the Attorney General was still responsible for the criminal justice branch in the province of British Columbia. This government has used "It's before the courts" so many times that I'm surprised they haven't got it trademarked. They've used "It's under investigation" so many times that I'm surprised they haven't got that trademarked. Now we're getting a new response: "On notice." Fine — on notice.

But to the Attorney General, who's responsible for the criminal justice system: can he tell this House whether (a) there's been a special prosecutor appointed in this particular case? Or (b) is there a criminal investigation underway on what's been going on at ICBC?

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding of the question is that it relates to ICBC. That is within the Ministry of Solicitor General and Public Safety.

Hon. J. van Dongen: My understanding is that the question the member asked is within my ministry. I have not as yet had the opportunity to meet the deputy minister and the staff. I will be doing that shortly. As such, I will take the question on notice.

R. Fleming: College and university presidents, students and faculty groups across British Columbia are dealing with this government's sudden cuts to the Ministry of Advanced Education's three-year budget plan. Every day a new impact of these cuts emerges.

Just this morning UBC's board of governors was forced to reduce 400 student spaces and cancel 32 faculty and staff hirings in engineering and business at its Okanagan campus. In fact, every school in every part of this province is being hit by this government's reckless, last-minute cuts.

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why won't the minister listen instead of breaking the budget commitments he made?

Hon. M. Coell: Only the NDP would see a $38 million increase in my budget as a cut. Only the NDP would see a 40 percent increase in my budget, since we became office, as a cut. Only the NDP would see an increase in every institutional budget this year — a cut. And only the NDP would see a 1.5 investment in infrastructure in this ministry — a cut.

Hon. M. Coell: …has been on any campuses lately, but there is $1½ billion worth of construction building new classrooms. I don't know whether they can remember voting against $1 billion worth of increase in research in our institutions, but they did.

R. Fleming: You know, only this minister would see hundreds of pink slips and thousands of cancelled student spaces, which are being debated at board of governors meetings…. Only this minister and only this government would see that as an increase.

This minister's actions are making rushed and panicked decisions at all 25 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. right now. Those are bad decisions that are going to be made, which were supposed to be avoided in three-year budget service plans in the first place.

At least two of B.C.'s major universities have said that they won't cut further, and they're asking permission to run deficits. Last weekend UNBC's president said: "The minister's cuts shouldn't be put on the backs of students."

Will the minister show that he gets it, stand up for students today in this House and honour his original funding commitment and reverse these cutbacks?

Hon. M. Coell: I repeat for the member: a $68 million increase in a budget is not a cut.

Let me personalize for this member, because I know he represents the same area that I do — Greater Victoria. Has he been up to UVic to see the $200 million worth of construction up there?

I know he would have liked to support the medical school, but didn't. When we announced $100 million for climate change solutions, what did the NDP do? They voted for it. Isn't that nice?

Since we've been in government, a 40 percent increase in the budget for advanced education…. And the NDP voted against every one of those 40 percent increases in this ministry.

B. Simpson: Well, it's unfortunate that the minister sees this as a joke and that this side of the House over there sees this as something to laugh about.

B. Simpson: This is not something to take lightly. The University of Northern British Columbia and the College of New Caledonia went through a very difficult budgeting process on the presumption that this government would follow through on its promise of three-year stable funding. They finished very difficult decisions about program cuts and staffing levels only to find out on March 20 that this government was going to cut their base funding by 2.6 percent. That's why the boards and the presidents of the College of New Caledonia and UNBC have got into a public spat with this minister.

The minister is challenging the member for Victoria-Hillside to go see the capital projects. Well, I have news for the minister. Capital and operating budgets are a little different. You're cutting operating budgets. That's the debate here, so if we can stick to the operating budgets, it would be helpful.

I challenge the minister to this week go up to Prince George. Instead of writing letters to the editor debating the boards and presidents and questioning the veracity of their statements, go up to Prince George, sit with those folks and tell them exactly how a cut is not a cut.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there's a new campus in Quesnel, in that member's riding. I think there's a new medical school at UNBC. I think there's a new sports facility at UNBC. I think there are new medical students at UNBC. I don't know how much of an expansion this member has missed, but this is the biggest expansion in post-secondary education in 40 years.

B. Simpson: Not for my edification but for the minister's edification, the minister again in his response shows a gross misunderstanding of the difference between capital funding and operating funding. What's the point of having all that new capital if the boards and the presidents can't operate the programs in those new facilities? That's the point. Again the minister is saying that his cut to operating funding, despite a promise to stabilize three-year funding, is not a cut.

So again, here's my challenge to the minister. The Prince George region is the region that's going to be the most impacted by the mountain pine beetle epidemic. We need every opportunity for every citizen to engage in the changes that we need to make economically and socially. Instead of cutting base funding, will the minister commit today to restore that 2.6 percent and add incremental funding for the targeted programs that the minister is going to tell them they have to deliver with that cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member misses the point. I mentioned that the budget for advanced education has gone up by 40 percent since we've been in government. That's the operating budget.

The member probably doesn't realize that when we built that new campus in Quesnel, we actually increased the funds in their operating budget to run it. When we built the medical school in the north, we increased their operating funds to run it — and when we built the sports centre and we built the teaching centre. This is the biggest increase in post-secondary education in 40 years, and you don't like it because you voted it against it.

A. Dix: The presidents of the colleges don't like it. The boards that you appointed don't like it. The students don't like it. The faculty don't like it. Nobody likes this government's budget on post-secondary education. In Vancouver Community College 1,000 — mostly ESL — student spaces are gone, and the minister is laughing and celebrating. Thirty-six instructors

are gone, and the minister is laughing and celebrating. At SFU over 50 faculty to lose their jobs when cuts to programs and departments are forced on them by this government, by that minister.

When will he stand up for students? When will students have to stop paying the price for his lack of clout at the cabinet table, hon. Speaker? When will he come to Vancouver Community College and fight there to ensure that those thousand student spaces aren't cut?

Hon. M. Coell: I know the member would like to return to the golden age of NDP frozen budgets for years and years and years. No development on campuses. This government has taken the opportunity to develop the campuses throughout this province, which didn't happen in the '90s — add to the budgets to make sure that those programs are there and to make sure that we're serving the people of British Columbia.

A. Dix: Well, the thing that was frozen in the 1990s was tuition fees, which this minister has raised by 100 percent in British Columbia.

A. Dix: Now, after soaking students on tuition fees, he's cutting programs. When will the minister stand up…? If he wants to defend his record of cutting student spaces, of cutting positions, of cutting important programs, of cutting funding to ESL, let him stand up and do it. What we need in British Columbia is a Minister of Advanced Education who stands up for students and stands up for colleges and universities.

I ask the minister to get up now to say that he will fight for those positions, that he will fight in the cabinet for those positions, and not give up and allow our post-secondary education to be sabotaged in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: The member mentions the '90s. Let me go back and look at the '90s when he was a chief adviser to the government. No new nursing spaces in the '90s — period; 83 percent increase with this government. No new medical spaces with that government; 100 percent increase with this government.

Hon. M. Coell: When we needed more nursing spaces in this province, we added 85 percent more. We're going to add more because we've asked the colleges, institutes and universities to focus on nursing, to focus on trades and training.

K. Conroy: Well, Selkirk College in the Kootenays doesn't agree with the minister, nor does the president, nor do the staff, nor do the faculty. It's the oldest community college in B.C., and it is facing cuts. Somehow this minister puts out a press release saying that they're getting an increase, but in fact they're facing cuts. They are facing $1.8 million in deficits because of this minister's cuts and this government's cuts.

I'll quote. Let me quote the college president, because the minister seems to have trouble connecting: "We're going to have to cut programs and services and not serve our communities to the extent that we had hoped."

So $1.8 million in cuts. This college has done its darned best to try to make services meet for the Kootenays, for students of the Kootenays. And what does this minister do? He does nothing to make sure that students in the Kootenays get the services they deserve. So how about stand up today, rescind those cuts and make sure post-secondary education is provided in rural B.C.?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, every institution, every college, every university in this province is getting an increase in their budget this year — a $68 million increase in their budget this year.

What we've asked them to do is target their funding to nursing spaces, to trades and technology — the things that British Columbians desperately need right now. I have confidence that they'll do it.

S. Fraser: The chief councillor for the Moricetown band, Ron Mitchell, wrote to the Premier on March 17: "On behalf of the Moricetown band council, I am requesting that the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine be removed from the Standing Committee on Children and Youth immediately. The member made some insensitive and misinformed remarks at a meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth on March 12, 2008."

It is the Premier that made the appointment. Does the Premier think it is acceptable, given the request from the Moricetown band, that the member remains on the committee?

Hon. M. de Jong: If the comments are the ones that I believe the member is referring to, I've had a chance to review those. I don't think anyone on this side of the House and the government has anything to apologize for with respect to the efforts that we have made to effect genuine reconciliation amongst first nations. There is tangible evidence of the work that is taking place. We're proud of that work. We are proud of the partnerships that we are forming and continue to form. We are proud of the respect with which aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples are conducting themselves with

one another, and we are proud of the genuine reconciliation that is the hallmark of a new relationship in British Columbia.

S. Fraser: There's no pride from this side of the House. It's obvious the minister has never spoken with a survivor of residential schools.

Concerns are being raised across the province. Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council president Tom Happynook called the comments despicable. As Ron Mitchell's letter says — and I'll go on: "The member has not only offended the people from our community but the thousands of first nation people who were forced into residential schools throughout Canada."

Will the Premier do the right thing and apologize to the community of Moricetown and to first nations all over the province and all over the country for the remarks made by the member of his government?

Hon. M. de Jong: There was, in my view, no attempt and no intention on the part of the hon. member to malign or show disrespect for anyone. In fact, if the member carries on in the transcript of the proceedings, I think he will come to find that other members of the committee made similar commentary.

I think it's time for the member to step back and appreciate the fact that during the course of debate, members ask questions. There was no intention here to malign anyone.

The new relationship is built on a foundation of respect for all British Columbians, for first nations, for aboriginal peoples, for understanding the history and for understanding the injustices that have taken place in our past. This government and the members of this government caucus have demonstrated in spades our commitment to that new relationship.

N. Macdonald: My question relates to the Sullivan mine tragedy. A coroner's inquest jury heard evidence for a week last summer in Kimberley, and they made a number of recommendations about what needed to take place. Among those was recommendation 12. Recommendation 12 is clear. There needs to be an increase in penalty provisions with regard to enforcements of the Mines Act to reflect the seriousness of non-compliance.

It's been almost two years since four deaths in Kimberley. The question I have for the minister responsible is: when is recommendation 12 going to be fully implemented?

Hon. K. Krueger: There were two investigations by the chief inspector of mines as well as the coroner's inquest and the jury recommendations.

As the member knows, there was a thorough review by a code review committee, which is comprised of three union representatives, three management representatives and chaired by the chief inspector of mines. All of the recommendations that came out of the code review committee with regard to the Sullivan tragedy…. I would like to pause to express the government's ongoing sorrow about the loss of life that occurred in that tragedy and empathy for the families and friends who lost loved ones.

All of the recommendations were incorporated in the OIC, which has been provided to the member. Recommendation 12 would involve an annual inspection of 9,000 sites around the province. Many of them are no longer operating mines, obviously, and it would not be a good use of the government's manpower.

We have one of the best safety records of any heavy industry in British Columbia, and the member asks about penalty provisions….

S. Fraser: I have a petition from residents of Denman and Hornby islands and also Courtenay-Comox calling for a freeze on the B.C. Ferry rates.

D. MacKay: I have a petition here signed by 66 people from the Hazelton and Smithers area asking the government to cancel the carbon emissions tax that was set into force in the budget of 2008.

C. Trevena: I have a petition to present — on the day that ferry fares have gone up yet again by more than 4 percent — from more than 400 people from Cortes Island, Alert Bay, Malcolm Island and Comox-Courtenay on the central Island asking for a freeze on ferry fares and a review of the Coastal Ferry Act.

C. Puchmayr: I have a petition from 202 people throughout British Columbia opposing the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement.

C. Wyse: On the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the trade, investment and labour

mobility agreement, I have a petition here from 560 people from around the province looking for open debate on this item.

M. Sather: I also have another petition signed by British Columbians, 348 of them, calling on the government to debate the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 2 and, in Committee A, continued estimates debate. For the information of members, the debate continues on the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; S. Hammell in the chair.

G. Coons: I do have a question on section 83 and a couple more after that. While we believe it's important to support the development and expansion of ports, we believe it can't be done at the expense of downloading onto cash-strapped municipalities.

The original plan in the ports competitiveness initiative was scheduled for four years, and this new initiative, I guess, is going to be ten years. We've seen a lot of municipalities concerned. Vancouver has lost almost a million dollars since 2004 in the unilateral capping of their municipal taxes. Port Moody saw a 35 percent decrease in port taxes, and they had to increase taxes for their taxpayers by 3 percent. Delta got $300,000 but lost a revenue of $600,000.

Plus we have to consider that municipalities were given the task of managing hazardous waste and policing of ports, which was downloaded by the federal government. Now it seems that there's more downloading and no real fair compensation. I was wondering why the minister had a ten-year time line for the extension of this versus a more workable, say, four- or five-year time line.

Hon. C. Taylor: As I mentioned earlier — I'm not sure that the member opposite was here at the time — we did extensive consultation. Without question, we heard from people who had different opinions on this.

One of the goals of this port competitiveness tax is to make sure that business has certainty about its future within the ports in the various municipalities — and to encourage investment, which is positive for municipalities as well, of course. While a lot of the terminal operators and port businesses would have preferred a much longer time line, we felt that ten years gave certainty enough that business would make some of those major investments that the municipalities talked to us about and certainly wanted. But at the same time it would, in ten years, allow an opportunity to review this again.

Just for the record, the first time we did it, it was for five years, and then this time it's ten years.

G. Coons: Again, as we go through this, the minister said that they had considerable consultation. As we look at quite a few initiatives and programs that this government does, we start to see the initiatives having lots of concerns for municipalities.

I just want to make a comment before we move on. I believe that the downloading on lots of municipalities…. I'm sure the minister heard in some of their consultations that there needs to be a fair compensation. A lot of the municipalities don't believe they are getting a fair break on this initiative by the government.

B. Ralston: Section 84 extends the property tax cap on new investments. Is the minister able to give the House any sense of the likelihood of new investments, or is this simply there to attract new investment? Or is there any likelihood that this cap will be determinative of any investment decisions that are about to be made?

Hon. C. Taylor: Certainly, in the first five-year period there have been new investments that are captured by this, but this is done to attract new investments. I don't have a specific example for the member opposite.

G. Coons: This section, dealing with the formula for the compensation of local governments from 2009 to 2018, is an interesting section. I'm just wondering. When calculating the annual payment, what tax year does the formula use? Does it use the current tax year?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not sure I've got the question exactly. If not, please ask again. What we are doing in 2009 is taking the inflation since 2004, adding that and then taking inflation forward.

G. Coons: I was more looking at…. Back in 2004, when the base rate was calculated, it was based on the tax rate of, I believe, 2003 tax figures. So until 2018, will it still be based on the 2003 tax figures, or will it be current tax figures as we move along?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, it will, with the inflation from the 2004 period to 2009 and then increasing with inflation each year.

G. Coons: In other words, back in 2004 it was based on the 2003 tax figures. So as we move along — say, for the 2009 year — will it be based on the 2009 tax figures of the properties that are within the port municipalities, or will it still be based on 2003 figures?

Hon. C. Taylor: The original was based on the 2003. The formula actually fully compensated the municipalities for the difference between that 2003 rate and what we were capping it at. What we are now going back and doing is taking that full compensation from that period, but adding the inflation that would have happened each year as we went along, and then tying the future after 2009 to inflation each year.

So your compensation goes up and then will go up with inflation automatically, going forward. That was something that the municipalities did come to us and ask about, so we believe this is positive for them.

G. Coons: I guess that's a concern I've heard through a lot of port municipalities — that for fair market compensation, yes, you're increasing it by the cost of living, but it's based on values back in 2003. By 2015, let's just say, the values will be quite out of whack, and the gap that municipalities will be losing seems to increase.

Basically, when we look at this section, there's going to be new rates. You said it's going to be increased with the rate of inflation since 2004 and then with inflation for each year after that. What is the percentage rate that the base rates are going to increase by from 2004 till 2009?

Hon. C. Taylor: We don't have, of course, the final year's numbers that would result in the specific answer for 2009. But it looks like approximately 11 percent over that period of time, and it goes from $4.5 million to $5 million.

G. Coons: So the CPI will be increased by about 11 percent? Okay. That's going to be based on current CPI as far as we've got going. With the figures I've got, if it continues at the same rate, it will be close to 13 percent. So if it is close to 13, that's what it will be.

B. Ralston: This section is, I believe, the mechanism that the minister referred to earlier, which enables a municipality using provisions of the Community Charter to negotiate a separate agreement with port operators. Can the minister advise how this might work in practice?

Hon. C. Taylor: This came, actually, fairly late in the process, but it came from the North Vancouver municipalities, who said: "Why don't you give us the opportunity to negotiate with the port industries, and if we can come to a mutually acceptable solution that may be different from the other municipalities but we both agree to, why don't you allow us to do that?"

We agreed and also have promised to continue the compensation. So they don't lose the compensation if they do another deal in terms of what that tax would look like. This is specifically from those municipalities who want the opportunity to see if maybe they can do a design for their municipality's solution.

B. Ralston: I'm sure the municipalities appreciate the opportunity to make their own provisions. In some sense, I guess, every tax is a negotiation with the public. But does the minister have any concerns about the mechanism here, where a municipality will be negotiating privately with individual port taxpayers to negotiate the taxes that they're about to pay? It seems to me there may be some public policy concerns about that approach.

Hon. C. Taylor: It is simply using the provisions of the Community Charter which already exist.

B. Ralston: What obligation would there be on the part of a participating municipality, aside from announcing the conclusion of the negotiations, to advise the public of what's taking place in the course of these negotiations?

Hon. C. Taylor: As elected officials, of course, they would carry the responsibilities of accountability and consultation with their community.

The North Vancouver municipalities were really looking for an opportunity to be imaginative and to honour the policy which we as a government support, which is to encourage port development and to do it in a way that suits them. But it will happen only if the port operators and the municipality all agree, and we will continue to honour our compensation package.

B. Ralston: So I take it there would be no obligation on the part of individual port operators to enter into negotiations with the city, should they wish to initiate them. It would be at their discretion, and they wouldn't be obliged to enter into agreements.

It seems to me that if the municipality is one side of the negotiations, there may be a number of port operators, and force majeure may apply to a single holdout or something like that. I can well imagine that kind of situation.

So what's the mechanism for the negotiations, or is that just left to the discretion of the individual municipality?

Hon. C. Taylor: The member opposite is correct that people have to be willing to enter these negotiations, and the section does say that it is for a specific

property. So the municipality might decide to work out a negotiation with a particular property but not find that everybody else agrees.

B. Ralston: It looks as though the minister's officials are packing up, so perhaps we should wait a minute until there are others arriving. Perhaps if I might then, Madam Chair, just briefly wait.

This section initiates a series of sections bringing about changes in the Property Transfer Tax Act in section 88 — most notably, an increase in the first-time-homebuyers program threshold for eligible residential property from $375,000 to $425,000.

I appreciate the change that's being made obviously. But has the minister engaged in any discussion about tying the increase in this particular qualifying value to inflation or some index? There is a concern broadly felt, I think, about a lack of access to the housing market, given the rising real estate values in many parts of the province.

This is a program which does assist first-time homebuyers. It requires legislative change each time to advance the threshold. Has the minister thought of or is the minister prepared to consider a mechanism that would see that exemption rise with the price of real estate or fall if it should fall at some point?

Hon. C. Taylor: There are options, of course. But if you indexed it, for instance, to inflation, it would be less than this. So what we have tried to do is index and match it to what's happening in the housing market, which has been very strong, as we all know, in British Columbia. So that's the reason for the lift. We anticipate that we will continue to lift the thresholds as the housing market in B.C. continues to be strong.

B. Ralston: Well, rather than the straight CPI, there are other subindices of various commodities and prices within the consumer price index. I believe there's one that deals with real estate. Would it not be possible to undertake that kind of mechanism — if not in legislation, through regulation — that would offer a continuing support to first-time homebuyers who, I'm sure the minister will agree, are increasingly scrambling in a very tight market, given the present market prices in many parts of the province?

Hon. C. Taylor: Indeed, that is why we've been raising these thresholds, and we have used a reference to what has been happening in the housing market so that we reflect the great changes that have been happening. That's why we're raising the threshold for first-time homebuyers from $375,000 to $425,000. We do that every year. We make the analysis, and then we make the announcement as to what that threshold would be.

B. Ralston: I take it that the minister is not looking prospectively to the future — or at least the ministry, perhaps — to devising some other mechanism to revise this, other than legislatively each year. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Taylor: I believe that the member opposite is asking us to lock it into that relationship. The danger there is that if prices drop, then you would be lowering the threshold. We prefer to make the analysis year by year so that you have more discretion and presumably might choose not to lower the threshold.

B. Ralston: I understand that this section deals with "the fair market value of a home transferred from Habitat for Humanity." I think members of the House will be familiar with this organization which helps people, in a kind of work bee, build houses for little or no cost other than the cost of land. I'm wondering why this section is required in the legislation. It seems to be, although commendable activity, a relatively rare occurrence.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is part of many sections you'll see that refer to the 70 percent mortgage requirement that was there. In removing that requirement, we have to take it out of all the other sections — for instance, the Habitat section — because it's no longer necessary.

B. Ralston: Yes, this is the more general section about the proposition that the minister referred to just a moment ago. It appears that the present requirement, in order to qualify for the first-time-homeowners exemption, requires that the purchaser or purchasers have a mortgage of at least 70 percent of the value of the property.

That requirement is now being removed, which would suggest that if you're in a fortunate position where you're able to buy a house with 50 percent down or 75 percent down, you will still be eligible for the first-time-homebuyer exemption. It seems, at the very least, a little counterintuitive. Can the minister explain what the purpose of this section is?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this certainly came to my attention. I'll speak personally first, but I know it came to the ministry's attention as well. Complaints were from parents, in many cases, who felt that this requirement really worked against some of the more unusual financial relationships that are happening.

Often, with a young person starting out, the family does help a bit, but it's not a formal mortgage. So that would mean the child would have to actually go to the bank and get a 70 percent mortgage even though they might not need that because the family could help a bit.

Or perhaps the first-time homebuyers actually had enough that they could put a bit more in down payment, yet we were saying: "Well, even though you may have been able to save that and put it towards a house, we're still going to force you to take out a 70 percent mortgage even if you don't have to."

This was really driven from consumers, people complaining that this was too rigid. It worked against some of the issues that young people and families were dealing with. So we have agreed and have taken out that requirement.

B. Ralston: Does the minister have any idea of the likely take-up of purchasers in this position based on the information that the ministry has received?

B. Ralston: This section is amendments to the Social Service Tax Act. These are, as I understand it, amendments on the application of the tax on personal property brought into British Columbia to allow for the adjustments of tax payable on a motor vehicle if the seller accepted another vehicle on account of the sale. So this would be a trade-in situation. Is that what this is design to accommodate?

B. Ralston: This section talks about the passenger vehicle rental tax not applying to passenger vehicles leased for eight consecutive hours or less, or more than 28 consecutive days.

Later, in section 121, there is a reference to what I think are called car co-ops or car-sharing organizations. I'm wondering if there is some relationship between what's proposed in removing this tax and section 121, which refers to changes to the tax in relation to what are called car-sharing organizations or car co-ops.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. This does relate to the co-op car share programs. This is on a go-forward basis. Perhaps when we get to 121, we can talk about what it is specifically.

B. Ralston: This proposed amendment imposes a tax on either contractors, such as tradespeople, or their clients at 7 percent of the value of the materials they use to make improvements to real property.

I suppose my question is: is this double taxation, or is this attempting to clarify an existing practice? I'm not clear what the purpose is here.

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, this is intended to simplify and clarify current practice.

B. Ralston: Just so that we're clear, there's no intention — I wouldn't expect that there would be, but it always pays to ask — to engage in double taxation using this section.

B. Ralston: Section 68.3 gives an exemption under the Indian Act. Section 68.4 says that if contractor and client enter into an agreement, the client is liable for the tax. The contract is considered to be a retail sale of the tangible personal property by the contractor to the client.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm sorry. We're not certain what provision the member opposite is referring to.

B. Ralston: Let me attempt to clarify it, if I can, just by reference to the section. Section 101 proposes two new sections — 68.2 and then, over the page in the bill, 68.3. In 68.3 there's a reference in paragraph (a) to "an exemption under this Act or section 87 of the Indian Act (Canada)." I'm wondering what the relationship between the Indian Act and this proposed amendment might be.

Hon. C. Taylor: We are not able, of course, to tax in terms of the Indian Act. What this does is allow that exemption to flow through to the contractor who might be working, for instance, on a reservation. Rather than a first nations individual having to actually buy the materials, this exemption flows through to the contractor, who wouldn't have to pay the tax because it's going to be used and built on the reservation.

B. Ralston: This section adds an exemption when dental and optical appliances are sold — an exemption from tax. These are promotional products, as I understand it. Ordinarily, these are fairly big companies which are engaged in promoting their products to members of the professions such as dentists, optometrists or physicians. I'm wondering why the ministry is proposing this amendment, given that both sides of the transaction seem well able to bear the costs.

Hon. C. Taylor: These items are already exempt when they're being sold, so it just matches up that they're exempt when they're samples.

B. Ralston: Is this to clarify the existing practice? If they're already exempt, I'm not quite sure why there's necessity for the legislation.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a new exemption. These products are exempt when they're sold. But the law has said in the past that when an optician, for example, receives a sample, he or she would have to pay tax and therefore would be far less likely to give samples to patients or clients. By removing the necessity for the optician to pay the tax on samples, we believe it's better consumer service that they would have more free samples they might be able to try.

B. Ralston: Just to close on this. As I understand it, typically a sample is given away free. Was the present practice that PST was required to be paid on samples that were given away?

B. Ralston: This is the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act. There's a long list of tax exemptions that are given to this authority. Are these simply exemptions that are being transferred over to the new authority from the previous one — the TransLink structure — or are they new exemptions or the opportunity to give new exemptions? Is this new legislation?

B. Ralston: As I understand it, unless I'm mistaken, the transportation…. There's a new agency that's been created in a reconstituted form under the act that was passed last session. What I'm interested in is this list of exemptions. Is that simply transferred from the old act, giving the new agency the authority to grant the same exemptions? Am I correct? You've said it confirms a present practice, but I'm interested in legislative authority.

Hon. C. Taylor: In the past, exemptions have been total. What this allows us to do is be more specific and so exempt the public part of it from tax. But if there is a private part to the development as well — for instance, in a parkade — it would be subject to tax.

B. Ralston: The authority here in the section appears to be given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to grant these exemptions. I'm just looking at section 3.2 or, alternately, (3) following sub (e) — "a major crossing." So that's the authority that gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, the authority to grant these exemptions on behalf of the authority. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: Just for clarity, this section is the fund or the operation of the fund that's referred to in sections 1 and 2 of the bill under the Arts Council Act. This is the section that describes the mechanism for controlling the operation of this fund. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: This section under the Transportation Act refers to the repayment of any surplus remaining from those tolls or charges when the system is concluded. Can the minister advise: what is the purpose of this particular section?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is an enabling section that allows us to pass regulations that will enable us to comply with GAAP accounting rules.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister could, just so I understand this, give an example of where there might be an obligation or a requirement to repay surplus tolls. I'm sure there might be some interest in that.

Hon. C. Taylor: A specific example is the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan road. In this situation, you collect tolls, and the commitment is that they're used to maintain and improve the roads. If there are dollars left over after those maintenance and operating expenses have happened, then the commitment is to return those dollars to the people who paid the tolls. This allows that to happen.

B. Ralston: Yoyo-Desan is a resource road in northern British Columbia with probably relatively few users. Is that the only proposed or envisaged use of this section?

B. Ralston: This refers to the changes in the Financial Administration Act to, as the minister described it, equalize compensation for MLAs who serve on

boards and commissions or, as I would prefer to characterize it, to give an additional expenditure to those MLAs.

But the purpose of this section appears to be to make it retroactive to July 1, 2007. Why is it being made retroactive when most of the provisions in this act are from the budget date forward or from the present forward? This reaches back almost nine months, and I'm wondering why that decision was made.

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, we come down to the question of consistency. That's when the other per-diem amounts were brought in for other MLAs, so this matches that. Of course, that is why the July 1, 2007, date is used.

B. Ralston: This was the section that we referred to earlier, in dealing with my question about car-sharing organizations or car co-ops as they're sometimes called. There was an issue that arose with car co-ops both in Vancouver and in Victoria. It was raised by the MLA for Victoria-Hillside and, I believe, the MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, who were concerned about these changes or the application of the Social Service Tax Act.

Is this in response to the concern that was raised at that time — that given the benign nature, I suppose, of the commercial arrangements that are contemplated in car co-ops and their generally positive approach to the public use of cars, they're now being exempted clearly and squarely from the application of the Social Service Tax Act?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes. What this section does — and this, again, is in response to the car-sharing organizations — is exempt what went on before April 1, 2008. They weren't collecting the tax anyway, so it's a forgiveness for that period of time, and then the new rules come into play.

B. Ralston: Just so it's clear, what the minister said is that they weren't collecting the tax, they won't be liable for it, and they won't be obliged to pay it going forward. Is that right?

Hon. C. Taylor: If I can be clear, it forgives the liability that would have happened previously. They weren't collecting the tax anyway. But going forward, it is under the new rules, which is the eight-hour lease arrangement. So they would be responsible to follow the new rules, but what this does is forgive the past.

B. Ralston: If I could turn back to the section. If there's a lease for longer than eight consecutive hours or for more than 28 consecutive days, then the tax doesn't apply. That's the new rule, then?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's correct. As of April 1, 2008, passenger vehicle rental tax applies to all leases over eight consecutive hours and 28 days or less. I believe that's what the member opposite said, and that is what the new rules are.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move the amendment to add section 121.1, standing in my name on orders of the day.

Hon. C. Taylor: This amendment adds the transition section, 121.1, which ensures the transfer of $150 million supplementary estimates to the BC150 cultural fund, to ensure that it's effective on March 31, 2008.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move the amendment to add section 125 standing in my name on the orders of the day. This amendment changes the commencement of section 113 to March 31, 2008, and adds the commencement for 121.1.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2008, reported complete with amendments.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 11, intituled Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, in the hands of the Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I now move that Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read a second time.

This bill proposes a number of amendments to the assessment and taxation statutes administered by the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The amendments in this bill reflect our commitment to continuous improvement in customer service, streamlining and simplifying legislation, promoting fair and efficient tax administration.

The bill proposals amendments to the Assessment Act, the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Income Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will support the government's 2007 throne speech commitment to use new approaches to address the challenges of housing, homelessness, addictions and mental health. The creation of a small-unit supportive housing assessment class will allow eligible properties to be designated as such. The introduction of the new valuation methodologies will allow actual value of properties in the new class to be reduced by regulation to minimize taxes paid.

Amendments to the Assessment Act will enhance taxpayer fairness and equity for long-term leaseholders of accommodations properties used for short-term rentals. The introduction of the classification methodology for long-term lease accommodation properties will provide equitable and fair tax treatment similar to strata accommodations.

Amendments to the Social Service Tax Act will streamline and simplify legislation by clarifying how taxes apply to multi-jurisdictional vehicles. Motor vehicle dealers and private sellers will continue to be able to sell vehicles intended to be licensed for multi-jurisdictional use without collecting social service tax at the time of sale.

Amendments to the Hotel Room Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act will promote fair tax administration by ensuring all taxpayers claiming refunds under these statutes will be treated equally. By eliminating a six-month limitation period, all taxpayers will be able to claim refunds of taxes paid in the previous four years.

Amendments to the Hotel Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act will streamline and simplify the legislation by ensuring it encompasses all types of refunds and claims, and by removing outdated language.

Removing references to the outdated concept of mistake of law will ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equally.

Amendments to the Insurance Premium Tax Act will streamline tax administration by simplifying and clarifying requirements for filing returns. Increasing the time permitted to file a return and clarifying how interest provisions apply to a taxpayer other than a taxable insurer will reduce confusion and encourage compliance. Clear, consistent and fair tax application improves customer service and ensures that taxpayers clearly understand their responsibilities.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act will increase clarity by harmonizing provincial and federal income tax requirements, ensuring the act is fair and equitable and accurately reflects current provincial policy and administrative practices.

This amendment will ensure that the B.C. pension credit continues to have the same structure and eligibility criteria as the federal pension credit. An individual resident in British Columbia who claims a federal pension credit will also be able to claim a British Columbia pension credit.

Amendment to the Tobacco Tax Act will expand the director's authority to cancel a permit or retail authorizations for reasons other than non-compliance.

Finally, all of these amendments proposed in Bill 11 are consistent with our government's goal of providing continuous improvement in customer service excellence, streamlined legislation, and fair and efficient tax administration.

I'm pleased to respond to the second reading of Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. The second reading of this bill comes on April 1. This bill must go beyond the spirit of April 1 and offer some real, serious, simple and meaningful solutions to customers.

The key purpose of this bill as defined by the minister is to bring improvements in customer services, streamlining and simplifying legislation, and promoting fair and efficient tax administration.

In order to improve customer services, one is required to know what the customers want. To find that out, the ministry has to get into an extensive consultation process with the customers to make sure the ministry understands the customers — what they need, what changes they want and what changes will in fact make the changes defined as customer-friendly changes.

This is the first successful step that will be important to take to make sure all of the changes proposed in the act will make sense for customers. The second step will depend on the successful completion of the first step, which is consultation with all the stakeholders.

At this point in time I would like to ask whether the consultation process was inclusive of all stakeholders or not. How many consultations and how many participants attended? Were all regions of the province covered and given a fair chance to provide feedback on this particular bill? Was the process inclusive of all the stakeholders we have who are going to be impacted by this particular bill?

This bill seems to be a housekeeping bill, based on the information we have at this point in time, after the second reading stage. The housekeeping items include adding and repealing definitions and offering some clarifications for acts listed in the bill.

There are some areas where we have some serious questions to ask, where we need fulsome discussion and debate at the committee stage. I will certainly ask questions to ensure that all those changes and amendments are in line with the spirit of the bill, and that is to bring improvements in customer services, streamlining and simplifying legislation, and promoting fair and efficient tax administration.

The proposed amendment to the Assessment Act gives the cabinet the ability to classify property as supportive housing property and also to reduce the assessed value of the land. They already have the power to create a new property class under subsection 19(14) and under subsection 19(14.01).

The government does not give municipalities the ability to rezone land for supportive housing, as this bill suggests at this point in time, and this will interfere with the local government control over land use as well.

Section 4 of this bill creates section 20.4 of the act, which provides cabinet with full powers to set regulations that will reduce the assessed value of supportive housing property. This will reduce the property taxes that the owners will have to pay, but it will also reduce the tax revenue for local governments towards the province.

In 2007 the UBCM considered resolution B153 by Vancouver, which asked for more funding from the province for supportive housing and for these infrastructure funds to be linked to new zoning laws, allowing for the zoning of supportive housing. In the resolution committee comments they recommended decoupling the two, noting that they had been in consultation with the province over the zoning issues. The amendment succeeded, and the resolution was passed. We don't know, at this point in time, the consultation process which has taken place after that or what the outcome of that is.

We must make sure that the bill is reflective of the consultation that the ministry has had with all of the stakeholders and, particularly, with the local government toward the province, because they are very, very important stakeholders in this particular bill.

Therefore, at this point in time I tend to say that in principle I support the bill, but at committee stage we will have a number of questions on some areas. We will go along as more information is offered by the minister, particularly, as I said before, on the issue which I listed before on the Assessment Act as well as the interjurisdictional purchase situation.

I would like to conclude my comments. Thanks to the minister for providing very brief information. I will conclude by saying that in principle I support the bill. We have a number of questions to ask at committee stage, and then we can go from there.

C. Wyse: In following up with my colleague, likewise, as the critic for local government affairs, I have some questions that I will be pursuing both at the committee stage of this particular bill as well as with the minister's staff, who I have been in touch with.

It is one thing for legislation to have the cabinet set into place the classification for property taxation, such as the supportive housing property classification. However, it also becomes important when that classification is simply put into place, whether it is cabinet that actually designates that to the property being talked about so that the zoning aspect becomes removed from the local government and has been transferred over to cabinet. That is an exceptionally important principle upon where the decision is made.

As the situation exists here in British Columbia and has for long periods of time, it is the local government where the opportunity for people to talk to their decision-makers upon such items as the classification of property presents itself.

To have legislation that potentially could remove that availability to the local taxpayers is something that requires more extensive questioning at the committee stage.

With that, hon. Speaker, having voiced these general concerns, I will follow up with them at the next stage. I thank you for this opportunity to present the concerns that I have for my critic area.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Small Business and Revenue closes debate.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd like to thank the members of the opposition who have expressed their comments — especially the critic, for expressing his support of this bill. But I think it's important that I just make a couple of closing comments here.

Our government prides itself with respect to consultation in the area of dealing with adjustments and on the ongoing commitment to customer service in the area of taxation. Since 2005 we have conducted two consultation processes. The first consultation, phase 1, was a very, very extensive process. In that area I want to thank and just remind all members that I was ably assisted in that first phase of the review by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. We then moved on to a second phase of discussions.

As the member for West Vancouver–Capilano will attest, we have exceptional staff in the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue who have worked extensively with stakeholder groups in all regions of the province of British Columbia. In fact, in the first series of consultations, phase 1, we conducted 21 consultations throughout the province.

The staff have developed an excellent network and relationships in all regions of the province of British Columbia to make sure that these important issues are canvassed, that positions are understood and that we find solutions that will continue us on our goal of continuous improvement in customer service, streamlining and simplifying the legislation to ensure that the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia know fair well what their obligations are and that they can fulfil those obligations.

We know that a vast…. Almost 99 percent of all British Columbians want to comply with their known tax situations.

So I look forward to the members' questions with respect to our consultation process, our goals and our achievements with respect to streamlining and simplifying.

With respect to the amendments to the Assessment Act and, in particular, the area of providing a new assessment class for small, supportive housing, I think it's important to set aside political rhetoric and to join together in this House, join together in municipalities across British Columbia, because so many people talk about the need to address the housing challenges of the homeless, those with addictions and those with mental illness and mental health issues.

Our government, under the leadership of our Premier, clearly stated over a year ago at UBCM — I believe it was in the fall of 2006 — our government's vision of working with municipalities to provide a partnership so that the issues of homelessness, addictions and mental health, through new approaches to housing, could be facilitated.

I am pleased with that. We reaffirmed that in the throne speech a year ago, and now we're moving forward to fulfil that commitment of our government.

I move that Bill 11 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that Bill 11 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call second reading of Bill 13, intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, in the hands of the hon. Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services.

I'm very pleased to introduce second reading of this bill. With this legislation we are strengthening protection for farmworkers, we are streamlining the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we are amending the Labour Relations Code to provide for timely labour relations decisions, and we are making an administrative change to the Workers Compensation Act.

The amendments to the Employment Standards Act strengthen protection for farmworkers and reaffirm this government's commitment to ensure the safety of workers in British Columbia. They are part of the government's package of farmworker protections announced in 2007. They are in response to the tragic accident last year that killed three farmworkers and injured several others who were travelling in a vehicle operated by a farm labour contractor.

Since that tragedy we have taken a number of steps to support and better protect farmworkers. We have added enforcement staff to the employment standards branch and conducted 100 site inspections of farms, interviewing more than 3,000 workers.

Farm labour contractors are now required to post seating requirements in each vehicle, and WorkSafe has

hired six additional enforcement staff for agriculture, with one more position pending. Cross-ministry initiatives that provided…. Farm labour contractors who transport workers in vehicles without enough seatbelts are now fined $598. The commercial vehicle safety enforcement team and the RCMP have stepped up their roadside safety blitzes.

An interagency committee was established and supports increased monitoring of farm labour contractors by regulatory agencies. The committee is performing valuable work and now has a website where the public can go to see the committee's achievements.

The amendments that I am introducing today will further protect farmworkers in British Columbia. Specifically, the changes are to allow for the suspension or cancellation of a farm labour contractor's licence for significant WorkSafe B.C. or motor vehicle violations and to allow government to bill a farm labour contractor to recover the cost of transporting stranded farmworkers when unsafe vehicles are taken out of service in roadside inspections. This fee will be established by regulation. This legislation will also prohibit farm producers from using the services of an unlicensed farm labour contractor.

These changes are supported by the B.C. Agricultural Council, representing B.C. farm producers, and address suggestions put forward by families of the workers killed in the March 2007 accident.

There is minimal financial impact for government from these amendments, as the fee is intended to recover costs and not to secure revenue. In fact, our goal is that farm labour contractors will always transport their workers in safe vehicles and in a safe manner and that we never have to collect this fee.

Enforcement of these provisions will be managed within current operations budgets. These amendments to the Employment Standards Act reiterate our government's commitment to protect farmworkers.

The amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act address recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the act. With these amendments, government continues the tradition of enhancing the privacy and access provisions. This will ensure that it not only remains the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada but also stays workable and relevant for the public, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and public bodies.

Specifically, the bill ensures that the time period for transferring an access request commences only when a public body has sufficient detail to identify the records and the applicant's authority to request the records. This will ensure that a public body does not run out of time to transfer a request because it was unable to determine the specific records the applicant was requesting. This addresses a special recommendation of the special committee.

The bill will permit school boards to disclose personal information to museums and archives for archival or historical purposes. This, too, addresses a recommendation of the special committee.

The bill strengthens the Information and Privacy Commissioner's inquiry and review processes. It will allow the commissioner to require applicants to attempt to resolve complaints and requests for review with a public body before the commissioner opens the file. It will ensure that if a matter is referred back to an applicant in such a manner, the related time does not count against the 90 days the commissioner has to review the matter.

It will protect the commissioner and his staff from testimonial compulsion. It will enable the commissioner to order a public body to perform its duty to sever accepted material and to disclose the remainder within a reasonable time specified by the order, and it will allow for the enforcement of the commissioner's orders as orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. All of these amendments address recommendations of the special committee.

The bill also requires employees and service providers of public bodies to notify the public bodies when they become aware of an unauthorized disclosure of personal information. This enhances privacy protection by ensuring that inappropriate disclosures of personal information can be addressed immediately by public bodies.

Public bodies will be able to routinely disclose predetermined personal information that they can currently disclose in response to access requests. This enhances public accountability by permitting public bodies to proactively release this predetermined information.

These amendments show that government is committed to responding to the recommendations raised by the special committee that reviewed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

I note that when government announced its intention to make these changes, Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis expressed his support for these changes. He said that these procedural amendments will improve the processing of freedom-of-information requests as well as improve his office's processes of appeals and complaints about access requests. I'm pleased that these changes will assist the commissioner, and I believe this is one more example of why B.C. continues to be a national leader in both access rights and privacy protection.

The changes to the Labour Relations Code introduce a new requirement for the Labour Relations Board to make decisions on complaints or applications within time periods prescribed by regulation. This change will improve the timeliness of Labour Relations Board decisions, which will better serve the needs of employers, trade unions and employees in British Columbia.

The proposed amendment responds to concerns raised by businesses, unions and employees about LRB time lines. Delayed decisions are bad for business, bad for unions and bad for employees in B.C. Protracted disputes at the LRB can distract the parties from

addressing more important issues, from making progress at the bargaining table, from developing good labour management relationships and from working together to develop successful enterprises.

Providing businesses, unions and employees with timely decisions allows them to move forward and focus their resources and energies on productive endeavours. These changes will mean better service and more accountability.

There is no additional financial impact for government from this amendment, and the LRB supports the need to ensure timely decisions and is improving its case management system and internal processes so that it can meet the time limits. The specific time lines will be established by regulation.

The changes to the Workers Compensation Act provide that workers advisers and employers advisers will be appointed under the Public Service Act as employees of the Ministry of Labour rather than by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The workers advisers and employers advisers are divisions of the ministry that provide independent advice, assistance, representation and training to workers and employers concerning workers compensation issues.

Converting the advisers to regular public service employees will streamline the appointment of these important public service positions. Specifically, it will remove an unnecessary step for cabinet and the ministry to process an order-in-council for all new workers advisers and employers advisers appointments.

It will also allow the advisers to participate in all elements of the ministry's human resource plan, including in-service postings, temporary appointments and other developmental opportunities provided to public service employees. This, in turn, supports our government's commitment to the growth and development of its employees and our commitment to make the public service an employer of choice.

This change will have no impact on the services provided to workers and employers in B.C. The cost of the workers and employers advisers program will continue to be recovered from the WorkSafe B.C. accident fund.

This is a wide-ranging bill with wide-ranging benefits for British Columbians — benefits for farmworkers, whose protection will be enhanced through several changes to the Employment Standards Act; benefits for freedom of information made stronger through improvements that streamline the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada; and benefits for workers and businesses through timely decisions by the Labour Relations Board.

I'm very proud of this legislation, and I look forward to our discussion around it.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I look at this legislation, and I see that after everything that has transpired in the last three years — actually, we can even go back to 2001 in this province — with respect to health and safety, with respect to how working people are treated, with respect to how farmworkers have lost their rights to many of the provisions under the Employment Standards Act…. To hear the minister rise here and speak on this amendment to the Employment Standards Act like it is some great new direction or some great direction that this government is going, I find a bit disingenuous.

I do respect the minister. I understand that the minister is not seeking another term, and I understand that possibly it was a very scripted presentation that the Labour Minister did for the people of British Columbia right now. I think what I need to do is go into some of the details and some of the history of what has happened in the last little while in British Columbia with respect to farmworkers.

Farmworkers, especially farmworkers in the hand-harvest sector, no longer benefit from many of the provisions in the Employment Standards Act. They don't get statutory holiday pay. They are forced to work long hours without overtime. Their simple means of payment is the weight, at the end of day, of what they pick or what they produce. Having that as replacing any basic decent minimum wage is certainly heading in the wrong direction on how we treat and respect people in that field of work.

It should be noted, also, that many of the people that are working in the hand-harvest sector in British Columbia are predominantly women from the South Asian and the Asian community.

Also, in British Columbia — and I will touch on that in my comments a little later…. I should add that British Columbia, under this government, now has the most atrocious child labour provisions in North America, even worse than in Mexico and Bangladesh where children have to be 14 years of age to work. Here they can work as young as 12 in heavy industries.

This bill, again, does not address that. I was certainly hoping that after the hours that I've spent with this Labour Minister and with the previous Labour Minister during the estimates process…. During that estimates process the issue of child labour has come up on every occasion. I was hoping that something in this legislation would address this serious situation that we have with child labour.

I've listened to the government, both the previous Labour Minister and this Labour Minister, when they're surrounded with their advisers, speaking about child labour, about how one parent can authorize whether a child can work in an industry. There aren't a lot of restrictions as to what the child can do in that industry. My concern has been how that parent is able to understand whether or not that is a safe environment that that child is in.

At one time someone from the employment standards ministry would go and look at that worksite and would make an evaluation, and they would set some limitations or some restrictions with respect to what that child could do in the workplace. That is not happening. Now, the government says to us that a parent can actually go down there and make that evaluation.

I think: here's a single mom at home, maybe working at minimum wage. A 12-year-old child wants to go

work or has an opportunity to go work somewhere and gets a note from the mother. Maybe the mother goes down there and looks at the worksite to decide whether that is a safe place to work or not. What qualifies that parent to even understand ergonomics or to understand the mechanics or the health and safety of a workplace?

It sometimes takes people many years of engineering school to be able to understand the health and safety of different machinery — how a workplace needs to be set up and how to interpret health and safety regulations as they apply to specific machinery — and the lessons that were learned over the years of people being seriously injured or dying on the job. Those are all incorporated.

How can just any parent have the ability to go into that workplace and come to that conclusion, when the employer says: "Yeah, this will be safe for Johnny or Janie to operate this piece of machinery"? How does any parent have the ability, really, to objectively look at that in a safe, engineering manner, to say yes or no that that is safe for their child?

We need to look at two recent incidents. It hasn't been shown yet through WorkSafe B.C. whether or not these two young people were actually working on the jobsite or whether they were merely going to the jobsite with a parent. Either way you look at it, for those two young fatalities on that jobsite, both of them were under the age of 15 and were on that site with a parent or with a guardian. They weren't working on the jobsite, maybe. Let's give them that. Nevertheless, the parent who was versed in that jobsite wasn't able to identify the hazard that led to the fatality of those. It must be just horrible for the parent to be reliving that over and over again.

So we need strong legislation. If you're going to expose a child to working on a site or in an industry, you're going to have to have legislation that has some kind of professional evaluation of that site to ensure that we are not exposing our children to risks on the jobsite. It saddens me that I don't see that in the legislation.

I should preface this that we're not talking about a lemonade stand or a newspaper route. But even on a newspaper route, children have to be careful about how they deliver those papers, what time of day they go out and areas that may be of risk. Even with your children selling Kool-Aid on the curb, a parent has to talk to those kids about making sure they're vigilant, that they're not being exposed to predators or anything else. There's a certain amount of safety that a parent can do.

When it comes to industrial equipment and machinery and to machinery on the jobsites, I do not feel that the legislation we have today…. I am adamant that the legislation that we don't have today is problematic, and I only would encourage the government to bring forward legislation that would throw some protection onto any young worker working in a workplace.

Employment standards. I know I've also canvassed this through Labour estimates, with respect to the decline in complaints by workers since the closing of the numerous employment standards offices. Well, there's one reason you're going to have fewer complaints — when you have fewer offices. The other is that they've basically gone to a self-help program.

A lot of people will call the self-help program. I must thank the government for at least taking our offer to look at putting some of the self-help programs into different languages so that people that do not have strong English skills or English as a second language at least will be able, hopefully, to access something in their own language. Again, many people that have difficulty in English or that may not know English at all wouldn't be able to access even the other languages by going through the self-help kit.

What happens is that you now log on to a computer. You look for the violation. Let's say that you're not being paid fairly by your employer. You get that form off of the computer. You print it out. You fill out the form. This is probably where it ends. Now you have to go serve it to your employer. You actually physically have to go to your employer and say, "I'm serving you with a violation of the Employment Standards Act" — on wages, on working conditions, on verbal abuse or what have you.

Well, that's certainly a daunting task for an immigrant worker who has difficulty with the language, who is trying to maintain some level of employment. Now the decision has to be made whether they proceed with such an action against their employer or merely abandon it. What I'm being told is that many people abandon it at that level.

We've gone from where you could at one time pick up a telephone and talk to an officer and explain the situation to the officer. The officer could do an initial investigation and then work on a mediation to bring the two sides together to try to resolve it without trying to end the working relationship of the person filing the complaint. I think that was a fair system.

Unfortunately, the other side decided that that wasn't a fair system and went to a different format. That is not one that is comfortable for workers, especially for immigrant workers. A lot of workers are intimidated when they have to serve their employer with a document on working conditions or other matters.

The legislation doesn't address this. It doesn't deal with fixing that problem, and it's a problem that I believe needs to be resolved, that needs to be fixed.

The other is that the legislation — section 2, section 13 — talks about how a person "must not engage the services of a farm labour contractor unless the farm labour contractor is licensed under this Act." We talk about farm labour contractors. We have some crossovers between two different ministries on what a farm labour contractor is here in British Columbia. And then what is the relationship to a farm labour contractor, let's say, in the Philippines, in India, in a foreign country, in a Third World country or in Mexico?

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending the parliamentary committee on immigration. One of the topics of the many submissions being made was

migrant workers, temporary workers and foreign workers. I was actually quite shocked to hear some of the comments that were presented at the parliamentary committee.

One of the comments was that in some of the countries it has been identified that there is a labour contractor…. Where Canada has a law that you cannot charge a worker for the services of a labour contractor, an employer can. An employer can hire a labour contractor to get labourers, to get workers, but it can't be charged to the worker.

So now here we have a foreign country where a labour contractor can operate in violation of the laws in this country and in this province. There's nothing in legislation today that makes that link from the labour contractor in British Columbia to the labour contractor in a foreign country or a Third World country.

I know that Manitoba has just introduced legislation. I don't know if it has passed yet, but the legislation is a bonding, and it also has an obligation to a contractor in the other country. The contractor here that is required in order to get the worker from the other country — the contractor that the employer has purchased the services for…. If that employer-contractor here is in violation or if the contractor in the other country is in violation of our laws, the bonding and the licensing will be affected by the contractor here. It probably doesn't go far enough, but at least it goes in a certain direction that will try to ensure that somebody isn't profiting.

In the commission one of the submissions spoke about the labour contractor that is also charging the workers in the foreign country. They also have a loan company linked to that same contractor. So the loan company loans the worker money, and the money goes to the worker. The worker buys the services of the contractor and then gets sent over here for a job. There are direct deductions made by employers that the worker has to sign an obligation to, and those moneys are sent away to pay for that debt.

That is certainly the wrong direction that we're heading when it comes to how we respect workers, workers from other countries and workers from British Columbia. So we need to ensure that we go further than this legislation.

This legislation — certainly after what happened in British Columbia with, initially, the Sunar fatality, where the coroner made numerous recommendations — took many years and, unfortunately, three more lives before there was anything. We need to look at everything in the context of what can happen with the lack of legislation here, what can happen with how we deregulate it in this sector, and what we need to put back to ensure that these things don't happen again.

We're seeing it in forestry, Madam Speaker. We saw the reckless pen of deregulation rip through the forest industry like a wildfire, and then after a lot of lobbying from the steelworkers and certainly from this side, we were able to finally have a forestry coroner. That coroner said precisely to the Labour Ministry, to the B.C. Forest Safety Council, to WorkSafe B.C.: "There are issues here with the direction that you have gone that need to be addressed to bring safety back into the workplace."

So to take a pen and gut legislation just for the sake of gutting it, saying: "Oh, we're against red tape. We're against regulation, so we're going to deregulate everything." Then you see the fallout of it. Then you have to come back and say: "Whoops. Too many people are dying in the forests. We had better bring some of this regulation back."

That's not the direction you go. You need to sit down and look at the impacts of actions of government. The impact of the actions of this government in the field of health and safety, in the field of child labour, in the field of farmworkers and respect for farmworkers, has been nothing short of atrocious. It saddens me to see that, after all this time, this is the legislation that we're getting when there's a need for a whole lot more.

You know, I've talked to people at WorkSafe, and a lot of people shared the concerns. I'm sure they shared them with the government when the government was basically tearing up health and safety regulations, at the same time they were tearing up workers' contracts and nurses' contracts and health care workers' contracts. Around those same times, you know, I met with people from WorkSafe B.C. that were concerned, and they said that there was going to be an impact to this, and we started to see the impact.

We've seen some change now. Just before the Gramlich inquiry, I know that the government instructed more inspections in the forests. I think there were 300 inspections that happened in the forest in one-spot inspection, and out of that, 600 violations were discovered.

So almost every inspection found two health and safety violations, which shows that not only do you deregulate the regulations or deregulate the mandate, you also send a message to the industry that we're not going to be out there checking on you. Things seem to flow to the lowest common denominator.

When it comes to a competitive industry where you have 6,700 independent forest companies, some one-person companies, people are going to take chances because they need to make money, and they want to get that contract again. They want to be able to get the next contract. We saw the impacts of the reckless deregulation, and now we're seeing little bits of it put back in again.

We talk about this great new direction and this great legislation in the context of fairness and worker fairness, but where is the worker fairness? Where is the fairness when an agricultural worker from Mexico can come into Canada with a guaranteed wage that's above the minimum wage that's being paid in British Columbia? And we've seen that. We've seen the contracts. Yet if somebody from British Columbia is doing that work, they're working in the hand-harvest sector, and they're getting piecework.

So what is the reasoning to destroy the local working economy for hand-harvest workers, for fruit

pickers or berry pickers? What is the science here to make sure that they receive less money, and then employers will say: "Hey, I can't find anyone to pick my produce. I need workers from Mexico." So you bring in workers from Mexico on the seasonal agricultural workers program. They work eight months, and then you can send them back to Mexico. You don't have to worry about: were they exposed to any chemicals while they were here? Are they going to have any industrial disease? Are they going to get sick when they're 60? No, they're already gone. They're back in Mexico — wow.

That's not how this country was built. If that's how this country was built, I don't think any of us would be here. Our parents came over here, and they did the heavy lifting. My dad worked in the farm industry. He worked as a labourer in the farm industry with six kids, and I remember him coming home, the smell of pesticides all over him and the tailing pond, the pond where they got their water from to irrigate the plants. The little three-bedroom house that eight of us slept in was right there by that pond.

I remember that smell of herbicides and pesticides. It was a daily thing in the summertime. You had people with the big smokeblowers, and they were smoking up the fruit trees to kill some kind of an aphid or something like that.

So those are the people that came over. Thank God that we didn't have this government in those days because at the end of eight months, you know, my dad would have been sent out of the country and back home to Austria. We wouldn't have been here to raise a family and to have grandkids and to be able to prosper while we built this beautiful British Columbia.

Where are we going with this? So that somebody can maximize a profit, we're actually selling out our rights, I think, as British Columbians — our sovereign rights. People come in here from other countries. They can't vote. They can't complain without a fear of repercussion. They don't even have access to the Human Rights Code, because a human rights tribunal…. I think it's the operating engineers that are dealing with one human rights case of a foreign worker.

To date it's cost over $200,000 to represent one person on a human rights violation. So here's a worker making maybe $15 to $18 an hour having to hire a lawyer that probably makes about $1,000 an hour. How does that person have access to all the judicial processes to get resolve through the human rights and through the courts to assert their rights that are being violated while they're guests of Canada, guests of British Columbia?

So we're not heading in the right direction. It's great that we have to have…. We support the fact that if a van breaks down on the side of the road or a van is…. Actually, it doesn't even say "broke down." It's pulled over and deemed to be unsafe. Well, first of all, there should be a better way of ensuring that that van isn't unsafe, because what's happened before this legislation can be enacted is you've got a bus or a van full of people driving in an unsafe bus, driving in something that could create many fatalities or a fatality.

We're saying that now they're picked up from the site. They're taken to the farm. So now the farmer benefits because the farmer gets the workers, and then at the end of the day the workers get transported back to where they were picked up. The direction we should be going is ensuring that there is no way that those vans ever get on the road. Just to put legislation in after the fact is certainly not as progressive as one needs to be.

You know, there used to be the agricultural compliance teams. They were an interesting concept. The federal government was involved, the provincial government, Workers Compensation, employment standards. They went to farmsites, to worksites, which were farms, and they found all sorts of things. They found unsafe vehicles. Sometimes employers hadn't paid taxes. I think something like $80 million in unpaid revenue to the province was discovered through these agricultural compliance teams.

This was a good thing. When they went on to the farms, what they were able to find would actually pay for those services. This government decided that that wasn't fair to the farmowner, so they were eliminated. The teams were eliminated. We've seen the outcomes. Now we have…. I think, the minister mentions six more inspectors. I think there were four. I thought my information in estimates was that it was six total. But I'll explore that when we get into the committee stage of this.

We have 19,000 farms in the province — 19,000 farms, six inspectors. When the government was first elected, the memo from the now Solicitor General to Graham Bruce, who was the Minister of Labour at the time, with the now Solicitor General asked the Labour Minister to see if he could not do compliance inspections during the hand-harvest time because it was disruptive.

Well, you don't want to inspect violations of farmworkers when the farmworkers aren't on the farm. You want to inspect those farms when the workers are on there. That's when you know what the situation is on the farm. That's when you know whether they're being paid properly. That's when you know whether they're remitting their taxes as they were supposed to remit. That's when you know when that bus parked there…. You can inspect it and see whether that bus is safe enough to take farmworkers home that night. Those are the times when you go onto the sites. You don't go onto the sites when nobody's farming.

Again, we certainly could make the province a better place for farmworkers in British Columbia, and it really wouldn't take much. It would just take a matter of putting back some of what was stripped recklessly from the Employment Standards Act, from the Workers Compensation Act, from the agricultural compliance teams.

It wouldn't take much to bring some respect and dignity back to those workers who really put the food

on our table. They put the food on our table. They're the ones who go out there and work from sun-up to sundown, and they get no statutory holidays. They get no overtime.

Sometimes in the hand-harvest sector, when those berries are ripe, a big piece of machinery goes through there, and it shakes all the easy pickings off. Then they send the workers to go in after, trying to get enough weight to even equate a minimum wage. I submit that it's not unreasonable to think that some days they're not even getting what is the minimum wage.

I know the government uses averaging. They talk about how much an average farmworker can make in the hand-harvest sector. Well, with those numbers, I think some of us would want to go do that — get out in the sun, and do a good day's work out there.

C. Puchmayr: The other thing where I've seen a real change, which isn't addressed in this bill is…. This government boasts about being the most open and transparent government "ever," I think the term was. Was it "ever"?

We're seeing an extreme difficulty in getting the most basic information about workers' fatalities in British Columbia. Why would it be so difficult to know that a worker died in British Columbia on a certain job site?

In estimates I think the information was that at the end of year, there is a…. It's published at the end of the year, at the end of the fiscal. I thought the whole idea was that to understand how you prevent an accident is to find out about the accident and know about the accident and post-haste to do an investigation into the accident so that you can prevent accidents.

I always thought that that was sort of a real natural direction for the Workers Compensation Board, at one time, and now WorkSafe B.C., as it's called. I thought that that was really a natural direction to go — to notify people; let it out.

If you have a child or a youth that's working a summer job so that they can go to university, and it happens to be a job — for instance, roofing, which has a high incidence of falls…. If somebody falls and dies doing a roofing job, and my son's doing roofing to get himself through university, I'd like to be able to open a newspaper and sit down with him and say: "You know, you are in a dangerous job. Look what happened here today. You have to be careful."

Now, unless it happens in sort of a news area…. If it happens in Fort St. John, you might get it in the local paper up there, but the chances are you won't get it here. There used to be these alerts that came over on our e-mails from WorkSafe. I don't get them any more. I don't know why. They'd warn you about back injuries or about working safely in this, because we're getting a high incidence of back injuries.

Don't you think somebody dying on the job is important information to know, that you can share with other people, and look at? When the young man died in the crane, the crane was hanging off the guide rail of the bridge that's building the Canada line. It was pretty hard for the media to miss that. So it opens up a lot of discussion about where we are at with crane safety.

There's been another deregulation in how people are trained in cranes and how people are certified in cranes. I know there are public hearings again by WorkSafe B.C., and one of the things they're looking at now again is cranes. They've deregulated — basically, compromised, in my opinion — the safety training in cranes, and now they're looking at it again. So things like that get you thinking about: "Hmm. Have we gone too far? A young worker died operating a crane. What caused it? Do we need to bring in some better training to ensure that that doesn't happen again?"

The other one, when it comes to freedom of information…. I know there's some stuff here on freedom of information, but it doesn't go far enough. I want to give you two examples of reports. There was the Sullivan mine report, which was done by the Mines Ministry and also by WorkSafe B.C.

The WorkSafe B.C. component, which talks about the paramedics that perished on that jobsite — the four fatalities — goes into a lot of detail about what happened on that site. When you read that, you know that there was a deficiency of oxygen. You're not quite sure yet what it was, but you know there was a deficiency of oxygen. Later in the report it has the analysis that came back and the tests. So right away people in the mining industry or paramedics and firefighters are able to say: "Okay, we need to approach this differently. We need to look at how we go to these sites."

Now we have Murrin Construction, where the blaster died when he was trying to connect a wire, and they were trying to set a charge off with a flashlight battery because he didn't have a blasting kit with him. You read that report, and there is so much that is deleted from that report where it starts to talk about the experience of labour on the site, and then it's all deleted.

You want to know: was the person that was not the blaster supposed to be in that spot on the site? Was their training adequate? What was the supervisor's training? What is the relationship there with his training? There is so much that is eliminated from that report that it serves no purpose in preventing future fatalities. I don't know for what purpose we would want to eliminate that from a report.

Now, hopefully, there will be a coroner's inquest. Certainly that's something that this side's working on. Maybe the new Solicitor General will work towards ensuring that there is an inquest. Once there's a coro-

ner's inquest, every bit of detail is public knowledge, and you can clearly look at what happened on that site. Why did it happen? What do we need to do to prevent it from happening again?

That doesn't exist right now, not when we're starting to head into more whiteout, more whiteout, more whiteout. What purpose does it serve to give that information to the public or to other organizations, to other workers that are working in that same field? Why wouldn't you arm them with the knowledge that this is exactly what happened on that site? Here's what shouldn't have happened. You know, read the report, and then start making changes. But to keep that information from the public….

Again, that was in the Carmanah Valley. What's the valley going into the Olympics site? If that wasn't one of the Olympic projects, it might have happened somewhere else in British Columbia, and it might not have been noticed to the same degree.

We need to get full disclosure of fatalities in British Columbia that die on the jobsite, and we need to do so for the sole purpose — not to lay blame; not to say the employer was wrong or the worker was wrong — of preventing another serious injury or fatality. Something that simple, and it's not in this legislation. Again, we're not giving disclosure to vulnerable workers in British Columbia.

We just had the commissioner's report on worker safety in the forest. Unbelievable what is being said about the ambiguity and the confusion that exist in the field because of, again, the reckless deregulation. If the inquiries are showing this and the coroners' inquests are showing this, why doesn't the new legislation show this?

This is the opportunity — okay? The coroners are finished. The inquiry commissioner is finished. The reports are on the table. The reports are here. They're public information. We're in a legislative session. The government says they have lots of legislation this session. It's in the pipe. It's going to be just flowing out. Why isn't that in legislation? Why isn't it?

This would be such an appropriate time to bring in that legislation, to ensure that what has happened in the forests turns around and prevents more people from dying in the workplace. Here's the place where you do it.

Forest roads. Again, a little section of the forestry code or the forest revitalization agreement versus the old code, taking out an engineered standard of a road…. Something as small as taking out an engineered standard means that you can build any road you want, and no one can come in and say: "That is an unsafe road. You can't operate on that road."

There is no penalty. There is no prescription. There is no standard. How can you write an order on something that has no standard? Very crafty way of handing over a huge saving to a forestry company and at the same time, the end result…. I would only hope that it's just that they haven't looked at it. The end result is that people drive off those roads in logging trucks. People have accidents in the forest industry and log hauling because of the lack of enforceable standard that was created by the zeal of deregulation.

The other issue with respect to asbestos. We're seeing workers and we've seen workers fighting, to their last breath, the compensation board for exposure to asbestos. I'd certainly like to see a complete ban of its use. I know there are certain restrictions that are imposed. I know there are a few mines left in Canada, but they mine, I believe, almost all for export — if not, 95 percent of it.

I don't think a worker should fight to their last breath a system that is supposed to be there to assist them in a time of need. There's no legislation that even deals with that issue.

In my closing comments…. Here was a real opportunity missed. After Labour estimates, after inquiry commissions, after coroners' inquests into worker deaths, after seeing the new direction of secrecy with fatalities in British Columbia, here was a real opportunity for a progressive government to come out and say: "Yeah, we were wrong. We were wrong. We went too far, and we're going to change it now."

Some of the clauses in here are things that died on the order paper last time, which were already passed and weren't executed by the Lieutenant-Governor. We had such an opportunity to really do something here, and the government missed the boat.

R. Chouhan: On March 7, 2008, over 100 people got together in Abbotsford to remember those three farmworkers who were killed a year ago. That reminded me, in the past, of the deaths of three children who were drowned in a pond of water on a farm in 1980. That gathering on March 7 this year also reminded me of Jarnail Deol, a young man who was working as a farmworker on a machine with pesticides. He got killed because he was exposed to those pesticides all day, working without the protection the farmworkers needed. This is what I'm talking about in the early '80s.

I started organizing farmworkers in 1979, and we formed the Canadian Farmworkers Union in 1980 on April 6. With a collective effort from many like-minded people, with strong support from the trade union movement, the community organizations and the religious community, we were able to convince the government of the day to bring some necessary changes to the Employment Standards Act. Although it took us many years, some changes were brought to the Employment Standards Act to check those labour contractors, to make sure that they were covered under the act to protect farmworkers.

Still those protections that we were able to secure were not enough. It took the NDP government, which came to power in 1991, to bring whole-scale changes to the Employment Standards Act, to the Workers Com-

pensation Act, to make sure that farmworkers were treated like any other worker.

Several steps were taken to ensure that workers, when they got to work, would be paid on time because many of them work on a piece-rate basis during the work season, would be paid properly, and that their produce they pick would not be shortchanged by some unscrupulous employers. Many other provisions of the Employment Standards Act were extended to farmworkers like other workers.

Unfortunately, in 2002 and 2003 changes were again made to the Employment Standards Act, and many of the protections that we were able to enjoy under the previous government were reversed. As a result, many of the farmworkers were again left without much protection.

After the death of three farmworkers last year, we heard many statements made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture that certain steps will be taken to ensure that an accident like that never happens and that farmworkers will be protected like other workers. I respected that. When I heard the Minister of Labour making those statements, I saw sincerity coming from her as she stood there and made those statements.

Now we have the opportunity, by bringing some of these amendments to the Employment Standards Act, to make sure that the statements made earlier were true — that we truly believed in that. But we have missed the opportunity. We didn't see those changes that we expected to be made in the Employment Standards Act.

The amendment that we have seen under Bill 13…. On one hand, I appreciate that at least the farmworkers who would be stopped at the roadside during the road checks would be provided transportation to the fields to work there. My question is: what about the time they would lose while they're standing and waiting to be transported to the farm? The number of farmers that they would be losing there….

Then, in the amendment, the minister said that they would be taken to the field so they can work eight hours. That means for the two or three hours that they were at the roadside, they then would be taken to the field and would work another eight hours? So they would lose the time. If they were like other workers and if they were in that situation, they would have been paid overtime or would be working at the farm for a total of eight hours, including the time they would have spent at the roadside.

The question is: why are we treating farmworkers like second-class citizens? Why don't we extend the same rights to farmworkers as other workers? These are the people who work longer hours under very difficult working conditions, yet they are treated like they don't exist.

I know that the minister responsible, the Minister of Labour, would never do this kind of thing. I appreciate it, and she's a very decent person. However, the question is asked again and again why farmworkers are not getting the same treatment, the same rights as other workers just because they are from certain communities or they are elderly.

There's a very serious question that needs to be answered. Many of the farmworkers who work in the fields are elderly men and women. But during the season, you would also see many children there — school-age children and young children as well. The mothers and the parents can't afford to have day care on their own, so they take children with them.

The time has come that we stop treating farmworkers like second-class citizens. The time has come that we extend the same rights to the farmworkers, like hourly minimum wage, overtime, vacation and everything. All aspects of the Employment Standards Act should be extended to farmworkers without any delay.

Earlier my colleague from New Westminster was talking about self-help kits. Even though the ministry has now translated some aspects of the so-called self-help kit into different languages, it's still no help. First of all, farmworkers don't have time to have access to a computer, to log onto the Internet to get to that program during the working days. They work longer hours. Secondly, they don't have the skill. They don't have computers. They can't afford to have a computer.

So what we have had in the past was employment standards officers or industrial relations officers who would meet with the farmworker in person if they had a complaint so they could resolve those issues, so they could mediate some of those issues or disputes that they might have. That's what we need to have, not a so-called self-help kit through the Internet which is absolutely meaningless — no help to farmworkers.

Despite the fact that some changes are being made in the Labour Code and the Employment Standards Act, the working conditions remain the same in the fields. If anybody wants to make a comparison with the kind of working conditions we had in the early '70s and '80s, just watch the documentary called A Time to Rise. It's only 38 minutes long. It will describe very beautifully what kind of conditions farmworkers had in those days and what kind of conditions farmworkers have now, so that people can understand the necessity to have strong laws to protect farmworkers.

I would also like to talk about the issue of migrant farmworkers. Many of those workers come from Mexico in the thousands now to work in our fields. The issue that we raised last year — and it still remains there — is the issue of dispute resolution. When they arrive at the farm, their passports are taken away from them by the farmers. In case they have a dispute, they would be sent back. They won't be allowed to speak to anybody. They don't have the same coverage as other workers.

Many of these issues are still outstanding, and we need to make sure that farmworkers are treated equally before the next season starts, which is coming upon us very fast. We need to get there.

As WorkSafe B.C. said in its report regarding this accident, the accident that occurred on March 7, 2007, was preventable. We can prevent those kinds of

accidents only if we are diligent, if we are concerned, if we are conscious about those workers who provide food for everybody and work day in and day out. But it seems like we have failed them, so we have to do it now. We have to move quickly. We have to make sure before the next season starts that these measures are taken and are there to protect farmworkers.

I hope that when we propose some amendments at the next stage, the minister will take them seriously and will put them into the act so that farmworkers can enjoy the same rights. With that, thank you very much for this opportunity.

Madam Speaker, as you know, there are a lot of farmworkers who live in my riding as well as in many other ridings in Surrey. I would like to start by saying that we first need to understand who they are when we talk about farmworkers, because it's very important to understand the individuals and the workers involved in this situation when we set up a policy to address their issues.

A lot of those people are seniors, and they certainly have language challenges in terms of speaking the English language. That's one category of people, and they are seniors. The second category of people who work at farms, I would say, are relatively new immigrants who may have the language skills but do not have even a little bit of understanding about the rights of workers in this community, in this province and in this country. That is another challenge we have when we set up a policy to address their concerns.

A significant number of people among farmworkers are women. They, of course, are another group of people who go to farms. There are those people who usually end up working at the farms. Just to make it clearer, I understand from the farmworkers' community that they are the most vulnerable workers we have in the province of British Columbia as far as understanding their obligations and also understanding their rights in this province. We have to go the extra mile to make sure that they understand what their rights are and that they have the same protection as other workers.

The other thing I want to say is that to understand the farmworkers' community, we need to understand their life as to how it's different than other workers. I have many friends who work at farms. Their day starts at four o'clock when they get up and get ready. Subsequently, they cook their food for the day, and they go out. They pack everything. They go out and wait for the van.

Then the contractors, who go from one place to the other, start picking up people. He finally comes and picks up those people between five and six o'clock, and then they have to travel. It depends on where the farm is. It could probably go up to an hour and a half to two hours of travel time just reaching the farm.

Subsequent to that, they start working. Those working hours are long hours. It could be ten hours. Then they start coming back. I've seen the majority of those people, during the season, come back after ten o'clock.

So they're out there starting at five and coming back about ten o'clock, and they don't have much time to even cook or rest for the next day. That's the life of a farmworker, which is much different than any other worker that we have in the province or in the country.

I know a story. You know, this is a professionally qualified veterinarian who came to this country as a landed immigrant. As you know, Madam Speaker — because I know your work with the immigrant community — there are a lot of professionals who end up working at the farm, and farmworker is their first job and first hope.

This person also ended up working at the farm. In the same way he started his work at four o'clock and going through all the layers. He came back after ten o'clock. He was not prepared. He had never done this kind of job, standing the whole day picking berries or fruits and all that, so his body and mind were not prepared to react or adapt to this kind of situation. Of course, he had a lot of pain in his body.

The first thing he decided to have to relieve his pain was a glass of wine. He did that, and after that, he tried to remove his shoes — farm shoes which were big for him, but he tried. He couldn't do it because his body was not, as I said before, conditioned to work at farms. Both his feet were swollen.

He was given advice by his fellow farmworker to have one more glass of wine and then just sleep like that and get ready after four hours to go the next day. Now, this may look a bit humorous on one side, but this is the real story of a farmworker. This is also the real story of a lot of newcomers, which includes professionally qualified professionals who unfortunately don't get their professional credentials accepted in this country.

The safety of farmworkers has been an issue for a long, long time. I remember that since I came to this country I have heard that, and I have watched the movie which my fellow member just mentioned, A Time to Rise, about farmworkers. This issue has been going on, as per my knowledge, for over 30 years. There are a lot of people out there in the community who have been working actively on behalf of farmworkers to make sure they have the rights, the protection and the safety they need.

I would like to mention a few names. I know that one of the persons in the community is Charan Gill, who has been a significant part of the farmworker union movement and who has done lots and lots of work for about the last 30 years on behalf of farmworkers.

We have another individual who is vice-president of the Farmworkers Union at this point in time. His name is Pritam Perdesi. He has done the same. Jawala Singh was also a president when some organization in the farmworkers community was going on, and there were a lot of attacks on the people who were trying to organize them. My friend the member from Burnaby has been part of this movement, as well, from the very beginning.

There are many more people who have done lots and lots of work to make sure that the farmworkers are

treated equally to other workers in the province. The B.C. Federation of Labour has done a lot of work, and Jim Sinclair has been outspoken on this issue as well.

But unfortunately, the issue of safety of farmworkers becomes an issue and gets some attention, particularly from the government, when something bad happens, when an accident takes place in the province or when some lives are lost. That is not, in my opinion, the right way, and that is not the acceptable norm we have when we talk about the safety of farmworkers.

That is the same thing that happened here. As we know, last year four farmworkers lost their lives when they were travelling back to the farm. Here we are with the response to that situation, now talking about the safety of farmworkers and the rights of farmworkers.

I appreciate the initiative of the minister, but I must say this. We must go beyond the political game here. We must be very, very serious about the protection of farmworkers. We must be very, very serious to treat the farmworkers as equal to other workers in the province of British Columbia. As I said, this cannot continue going on for 30 more years. That is not an acceptable norm.

In this country there was a time when the Chinese immigrants were building the railways, and they faced many, many similar challenges. There was a denial at that time. Then after about a century, the government of Canada came out and said: "We apologize for what happened."

We need to learn something from that. We cannot build something similar to that, where we have to go back in history and apologize to the people and the farmworkers for not taking the right steps or actions we need to take for their safety and their well-being.

As my friend from Burnaby said before, it's hard for me to understand, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as a member of the community and from a commonsense point of view, that we have two different kinds of workers in this province — workers with no rights and no proper safety provisions, and workers with rights.

That doesn't make any sense, particularly when there were some rights given to these people after a lot of activists did a lot of work for many, many years. Those rights were taken away by this government, and I think that was a shame. That was a shame to do something like that, and that very clearly tells us where the priority of this government is, and that is certainly not respecting the farmworkers and the work they are doing in the province.

I also want to say that the government has to learn — and beyond that, to stop blaming the contractors when something goes bad. That's the standard practice I have seen being used by this government. When something goes bad, they go after the contractor. It's their fault, and that's not right.

There are people who are not, probably, doing the right thing, but the rules are set in this room. Rules must be rules which will actually provide proper protection to the farmworkers, and that is the responsibility of that side of the members, of the minister sitting there and of the government.

We have to go beyond that, because each time I see an accident or some lives are lost, we're out there and we see the government blaming the contractors. We need to find ways to make those people accountable so that we don't lose any more lives in British Columbia, and we start giving the due respect and dignity we need to the farmworkers community.

Just the concluding part. As I said before, it's hard for me to understand that we have workers who work long hours and don't have the same rights, the same benefits and the same protection for their safety. That's a very, very surprising thing for me.

When we talk about the minimum wage, those people are not even getting the minimum wage. These people work more than 15 or 16 hours a day. What they make, probably, in terms of the hourly wage may be less than $3 per hour. How can they survive with that amount of money? How can they live? How can a single mother working on the farm look after her kids with that amount of money? That is unacceptable. They have been constantly denied their rights to minimum wage as well.

I would like to conclude by saying that it's about time. We must bring the farmworkers to the level that the other workers have. They must enjoy the same rights, same protection and same benefits in the province of British Columbia. It's an opportunity, and I support the critic. We will bring some amendments. I'd appreciate if the minister would agree with that so that we can have something which is meaningful, which is useful, which finally brings some hope to the farmworker community. [Applause.]

I had the opposition clapping loudly. You'll still clap. You'll hear who I'm….

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to introduce some special guests in the gallery. I think we're hearing them now as I'm speaking. My brother Jeff and his wife Adeena are down with their daughters Dylan and Anika. Will the House please make them all welcome.

K. Conroy: I was looking forward to being able to respond to legislation in this session that would have fully amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. However, I was much disappointed, and it seems that in contradiction to what the minister has stated in her opening remarks, the amendments do not, in fact, accomplish that.

The amendments do not nearly address the recommendations of the Special Committee to Review

the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which reviewed the act in 2004, chaired by the member for Peace River South. The member might disagree with me, but it seems that the government has cherry-picked the least challenging of the recommendations made by this committee and put them into this bill. In fact, after reviewing the amendments, there are none of the recommendations that the official opposition, the media, the Campaign for Open Government, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and other stakeholders have been asking this government to make, to make it more open and accountable.

Indeed, I will give the minister her due. There are some changes to protect privacy, and the commissioner, David Loukidelis, has identified the need for this. However, I remind this House that the Premier is quoted as saying and has been quoted as saying fairly often: "We will be the most open and accountable government." Nevertheless, the results of the freedom-of-information requests prove otherwise, and it looks like this bill will not ensure that this in fact happens.

Most notably, the policy advice section, section 13. I think it's the dreaded section 13, as anybody who has requested a Freedom of Information Act would call it. It does not have the amendments that have been requested. This government has been caught abusing this section in order to hide politically damaging information.

I believe there are a number of examples where various ministries used the act to their own end. I believe the Kines FOI is one example — the example of the sexual abuse programs report, where Times Colonist Lindsay Kines was able to compare a report on the province's sexual abuse intervention program received through FOI legislation and an uncensored copy of the report that he just happened to receive.

What was uncovered was the highly arbitrary nature of censorship in the FOI request. The ministry censored the fact that the agencies that work with sexually abused children were "unanimous in their view that the program funding is insufficient, that the program is a 'critical element' of mental health services for children and 'deserving…a more explicit focus' and that there is a 'pervasive view among providers that the program has been neglected by government decision-makers over the past…years.'"

The ministry also censored out a list of the most common concerns expressed by agencies that deliver the program across the province, including a lack of money, low wages for counsellors and limited support for training. Not only was the potentially damaging information taken out of the documents, the government censors indirectly reversed some conclusions to minimize the political damage to government.

Will any of the amendments in Bill 13 stop this from happening in the future? Unfortunately not.

Another example of how section 13 of the existing act was abused was information received by the official opposition, where the research department was handed a handwritten note that was attached to a freedom-of-information document — a sticky-note, in fact, that was written on by a deputy minister, saying that it had to censor certain information from this document as it "contradicts what we have said to this point." So the information the opposition received in fact contradicted what the government had been saying all along on a certain issue.

Now, the only way they could have done this was by section 13. It has been proven again and again that the ministries are utilizing section 13 to not be open and accountable, to not provide information to people when they ask for it.

Changes to section 13 were one of the key recommendations that was done by the committee chaired by the member for Peace River South. This very report, which the member refers to in this bill, and these changes have not been implemented.

I believe it is important to look at those changes, changes that were not only recommended by the all-party committee but also by the freedom-of-information commissioner, the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association and the Campaign for Open Government.

Another change in this bill, which is in section 11 around transferring a request. The minister referred to this as…. The time frame would be extended so that people that had their freedom-of-information requests wouldn't be caught up in the time frame crunch. In fact, this amendment to this bill will make it so that ministries can now delay the process even longer and longer, and the recommendation in the bill gives it the ability to do so. People will wait even longer for their freedom-of-information requests to come to fruition.

I think that we know that the government record on freedom of information has been, in fact, quite dismal. The act has been amended six times since 2001. It has led to less accountability each time, and 16 changes that have been made to the Freedom of Information Act have made the requests much more time-consuming and much more difficult.

I think it's been proven that when groups…. They bring their concerns to the commissioner. It's been shown that this is, in fact, true. I think the group that brought their concerns forward around the Ministry of Environment request showed that the ministry was very heavy-handed in not allowing the information to be allowed out to people, and that, in fact, environmental groups were being discriminated against by the Freedom of Information Act in what the ministry itself was doing.

It's my understanding that the ministry is taking it upon themselves to do some training for the various ministries that are involved with providing freedom of information. I can only hope the Ministry of Environment is the first ministry to get that training, because it is one of the ones that has been proven most difficult to get information out of. I'm really looking forward to seeing that that training goes into fruition.

I think the other thing the government has done…. It's extended cabinet secrecy to B.C. Liberal caucus committees as well as to VANOC, B.C. Ferries, the climate action committee.

Now, when we heard the budget speech from the Minister of Finance, they were quite proud of their climate action committee. I would think that they would want everything that that climate action committee presents and brings to the public to be public information, to be information that everyone can access. It's important information, so why isn't it part of a government that wants to be open and accountable? That committee has been taken away from the freedom of information. So it has extended more secrecy to various committees within the government.

I think that it's been proven that…. The Premier has made statements, which when I listen to the minister talk about this bill — and I read through the bill and I looked at the recommendations within the bill — and I look at the various clauses, and then I look back at the Premier's statements over the years…. He's said that the B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in Canada. I don't see that happening with the amendments to this bill.

Another one is where he says: "We think openness beats hiddenness every time, and we want to be sure people can see what's taking place." It has been proven again and again that this is not happening. The government is not being open and accountable. There are far too many issues that are being kept private and secret and hidden away. I think that's an issue that needs to be addressed within this bill and isn't being addressed. The issues are not being raised within this legislation.

One of the things that I want to remind the chamber as well as the Premier is that when he was in opposition, he stated in a letter to the Campaign for Open Government: "When government does its business behind closed doors, people will invariably believe the government has something to hide."

Well, this legislation does little to appease people's concerns that business will continue to get done behind closed doors, because it will. There will be no way that this legislation will come forward, will bring forth the amendments to ensure that this doesn't happen.

In fact, the amendments do little, if nothing, to ensure that information is readily available when asked for, and we will still be entrenched in a campaign of secrecy that bodes well for no one.

I look forward to further discussions and debate in committee stage where we will be presenting amendments in a final attempt to bring reason and openness to a government that has been shrouded in secrecy — amendments that actually support a government that operates under a philosophy of true freedom of information and not under what we've been seeing under this government to date.

N. Macdonald: I rise to speak to Bill 13. Before I do that, I just want to echo something that the member for New Westminster said.

I've had the opportunity to work with this minister when she was with Tourism, Sport and the Arts. I understand that she's not going to be running again, and I want to take the opportunity to thank her publicly for the work that she did on the Sullivan mine tragedy.

An awful lot of the work that we do here, we do privately. What the public sees very often is the bluster and the acrimony. It's an important part of what goes on, but it's not the only part. I know she took special care to give a very human face to government, and I very much appreciate that. I just wanted to say that.

The part that I particularly want to focus on here is the freedom of information. I want to talk about what we have in place, and also the need that we have to improve the legislation and to give the public the tools to really find out what is going on within government.

With freedom-of-information legislation, it is clear that it is an important part of making this system work well. This is an adversarial system. It has evolved over many centuries in Britain and has moved here, based upon that central premise of it being an adversarial system. The idea is that the power of government is going to be challenged, and it is going to be challenged effectively.

The billions of dollars that are spent of the people's money, the billions of dollars that government spends of your money…. How that money is spent is going to be fully scrutinized. The policies that the government has the abilities to put in place, that restrict our lives, that put boundaries around what we can do, are thoroughly, thoroughly challenged. The thinking is that in that adversarial system, the truth will emerge. By the things that the government says — what they assert — being challenged, the truth will emerge for the public.

It's not unlike the legal system that we have in British Columbia and in Canada, where the same basic concept is in place — that you are going to arrive at the truth through what the Crown asserts, in a legal case, being challenged by a defence.

In the legal system, the government or the Crown has an obligation to put all of the information on the table, and it is recognized that that is the proper thing to do, so that the government or the Crown will be fully tested. The same thing should be taking place in this Legislature. We should be dealing with facts — all of the facts, on the table — and if the government policy is correct, if the way the government is spending money is proper, then it should be fully defensible.

But we as the public, we as the opposition, need to know all that we can to do our job properly, and freedom-of-information legislation is an important part of that. If it errs, it needs to err to the side of openness. What we have with this legislation is…. It does not move significantly in the direction to fix a problem that exists.

I want to spend a bit of time just talking about the experience that I've had, because the experience that I've had with the freedom-of-information rules is one that is troubling to me, and it should be troubling to British Columbians.

I'll just give you a time line of what I experienced when I took over as the critic for Tourism, Sport and the Arts. It wasn't long before we were starting to deal

with issues around the convention centre expansion project. In February the issue of poor management…. It became clearer just how wildly out of control costs were.

We had in April of 2007 the merging of the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion board and the PavCo board. At that time, staff in the NDP office here put in a freedom-of-information request. It started on May 10. We asked for the minutes for the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board, and we asked for any discussions, any documents that related to the merging of PavCo board and the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project board. Well, on June 7 that FOI was split, and on July 4 we received the minutes.

I have to say that the minutes were an incredible revelation to me because what you had was minutes that were completely and, as it turned out, arbitrarily severed. You had black felt covering everything so that you would get a page that would say "Discussion" at the top, and everything was crossed out — absolutely everything. So we had to go through a process of challenging that.

There was no explanation for which section of the Freedom of Information Act the severing took place…. You know, there was no explanation for the rationale for the severing. You went page after page. Sometimes you would get a signature, sometimes you would get the date or that something was carried, but overall, what you had was document after document blacked out. It told the public nothing about what it turns out they had a right to know.

To give you an example of how arbitrary it was, there was one section, February 15, where Director Lyons left the meeting at 1:53, and that was not severed. That wasn't crossed out. He left the meeting, but when he came back at 2:03, that was severed for seven months. So it's completely arbitrary. Presumably, he went to the washroom or went to answer the phone. There's nothing secret about it. There was no rationale. It was like a kindergartener was given a black marker and told to go through it.

How does that serve the public good? Well, it clearly doesn't. How is that anything other than a failing of the Freedom of Information Act in the sense that information that should have come immediately to the opposition so that it could challenge the government…? That's our job, and it's a job I'm proud to do, so that we could challenge the government and ask them questions on behalf of British Columbians.

What I want to say is that it is a system that needs to be improved. It is a piece of legislation that is fundamentally important to making the democratic system work. I know that there has been good work done in 2004, and there is an opportunity to improve this legislation. What I want to say in just the short time that I'm going to speak to this is: that's an opportunity that should be taken.

This is something that is not either an NDP or a B.C. Liberal issue. It is about good government, and whoever is in government should be fully scrutinized. That is in the public interest, and the public interest will be served by improving this legislation. Arbitrary, secretive attempts to keep information from the people of British Columbia are just fundamentally wrong, and we need to improve this legislation so that it deals with this issue.

H. Bains: It is my honour to stand here and speak about an issue that has been very close and dear to me personally and to my family. I also want to agree with the members before me, the members for Burnaby-Edmonds and Columbia River–Revelstoke, when they talked about the minister who, in our view, actually tries to do the right work and right job in order to fix the problems that exist for the farmworkers of this province. We do want to appreciate that.

Having said that, we also suspect that she faced many forces opposing her in her own caucus and the people she had to work with. It is tough to work under those circumstances when you believe in a cause, you believe that there's something wrong being done, you believe that you want to fix that problem, and you're not getting very much cooperation from the people that you expect. We want to thank you for the efforts that the minister made. Hopefully, you will leave a legacy behind in which we can say that at least someone tried on that side.

I want to go back and talk about some of the history behind this issue. When I came to Canada in 1971, as a 19-year-old, the first thing I noticed was that many of the people that came before me and people that actually came with me around the time that I came ended up working in the farms.

Talking to many of the activists at that particular time that ended up actually getting elected on this side of the House — the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and many others like Charan Gill, Harinder Mahil and Hari Sharma — are the people who were actually taking charge in the streets of Vancouver facing the Social Credit government of the day, who felt that the farmworker didn't deserve to be treated equal to other workers at the time.

I remember vividly, actually, one of those rallies that I attended. The minister at that time turned around and talked to the person standing next to me, bringing the issue and awareness about the plight of the farmworkers to the attention of the minister at that time. He turned around and asked him whether he was a farmworker, implying that it has to be the farmworker who actually knows what the issues are out there and that these people have no right to come and talk to the government on behalf of farmworkers. That's how ignorant those folks were at that particular time, and it took 20 years by those activists — 20 good years — to lobby those successive governments in the '70s and '80s, but nothing got changed.

Farmworkers continued to be treated like Third World countries. Statements were read and made in those days that if there was a hell on Earth, you could actually go and experience that being a farmworker.

Go to the Fraser Valley of the lower mainland, and you could experience how these folks actually had to live and work through their lives.

When my parents came in 1971, they went through the same thing. My father and my mother went and worked with a farm contractor. I remember that my wife used to get up at four o'clock in the morning and help them prepare their lunches and prepare them so that they were ready when the farm van came around five o'clock to pick them up. They didn't come home until about 9:30 in the evening. They were lucky because my wife was home, and she was able to help them in their daily housework, whether it was cleaning their clothes or whether it was cooking for them. They had a bed to go to, but many other farmworkers of the day didn't have that luxury.

So you're looking at 16 hours by the time you get up and prepare and get into that van, but getting paid only, and perhaps sometimes less than, eight hours. There is no recognition of them spending six, seven hours in the vans.

I might add that at that particular time the vans that were suitable for only 15 or 12 people were ramming something like 20, 25 people in those vans. They would remove the seats, put those boards along the line and simply push in as many as they could. We all know that there were very serious accidents, and many people lost their lives as a result of that.

I can tell you that no lobbying opened the eyes and ears of those governments in the '70s and '80s until the NDP government came in 1991. They made a serious attempt to treat the farmworkers as equal to everybody else. That's the legacy of that government. Guess what. We enjoyed those rights for the farmworkers for about ten years.

Then 2001 came. All of those rights were taken away from them again. Why? Because they were farmworkers, because they were immigrants, because they were women — most of them — and older people. They thought that no one was going to care about them.

That side of the government didn't care a thing about what they were doing to these poor folks. No wonder we are seeing those high-risk accidents that we have seen on the highways these days.

Anytime there was any issue on the road, the RCMP or the WCB would go and check those vans, and these poor folks actually paid again by having to stand on the side of the road for hours, sometimes in the rain. No one is there to give them a hand, to move them to their worksite or bring them home. That's the kind of stuff that these farmworkers went through daily.

What this government did was turn the clock back 20 years in 2001. No wonder…. Finally, this minister, I think, took some bold positions, despite the fact that it took some deaths on the road.

I want to thank the B.C. Federation of Labour for taking this issue head on. The B.C. Federation of Labour, as you know, represents all of the union workers in this province, and most of the farmworkers are not unionized members. But they took this issue because they thought that this is the right issue to take. I want to thank them for that. Jim Sinclair, Jessie Uppal and many others spent countless hours trying to lobby the government, trying to bring this issue to the forefront so that we could see some changes.

As a result, they brought in 29 recommendations. But I am disappointed that 29 recommendations weren't adopted by this government. They were all good recommendations.

The question always comes back, in this day and age, in this province…. We pride ourselves on being the richest province in the world. We pride ourselves on being the best place on earth. Someone should go and visit those Fraser Valley farms when the farmworkers are actually working there and take a look at what kind of treatment we are giving those farmworkers.

The question that always comes to my mind, at least, is: why does it seem to be unreasonable to the government that the farmworkers be treated equally to other workers? Why is it unreasonable for this government that they be covered by the same health and safety regulations that other workers are? That question continues to come to mind, and I just can't grapple with the answer. Why would that be the way this government actually considers the farmworker, as a third-class citizen of this province?

I will take a look at some of the other changes that are being looked at since 2001. The Employment Standards Act is another area that actually should provide the protection to the farmworkers or any worker in this province who hasn't had the luxury of enjoying union protection. I have dealt with many of those folks when I was in my previous job as a union official. They would come to me and see if I could help them, and I would try to help them as much as I could.

What the government brought in was instead of…. These farmworkers, if they have been treated wrongly or they haven't been paid according to the law, are now required to go through the self-help kit. Many of these folks can't read English, don't understand English and many of them actually can't read Punjabi. So the IROs are not there, as they used to be, to help these folks to process their complaints. Once again, the farmworkers took the brunt of those changes.

I am looking at the other changes that are being recommended on the WorkSafe side, under this bill, and it poses some questions about the workers' representatives and the employers' representatives — that they somehow should now be considered employees of WorkSafe B.C.

Now, I want to ask these questions. Hopefully, the minister will answer. How is that going to help the injured workers? How is that going to help the injured farmworkers, if they need help? How is that better than what we have today? I think those are some of the very key questions that the minister needs to answer before we vote on this bill.

I think the workers should be at the forefront. It should be worker-centred, rather than a money-saving

exercise. If it is a money-saving exercise, take a look at what we've seen in the last two or three years — what the injured workers have gone through, the WorkSafe B.C.

WorkSafe B.C. is saving money. Employers are saving money. But in the meantime, it's the injured worker who has ended up paying, in lower benefits and in delays in getting their claims adjudicated.

So if this is an addition to going in the same direction, I think it maybe is a bad idea. The minister needs to seriously take a look at how that is going to improve the injured workers' plight in this province before we rush into this bill and pass this.

I want to conclude by saying that we have an opportunity as legislators, and the minister has an opportunity, to leave a legacy behind — that the minister will be known; that there was one minister who actually made the changes and brought the changes and, once and for all, the farmworkers were treated as equal to all other workers in this province.

That's the legacy that we are looking forward to from this minister. I think this minister owes, and all of us owe, to all of the citizens of this province — especially to the farmworkers and their families — that they will be looked after, that they no longer will be considered second-class citizens or lower workers than other workers.

I sincerely hope that we can move in that direction so that no one in this province feels that they are left behind and that the farmworkers will once again feel what they enjoyed in the 1990s — that they are given the respect and the dignity that they once enjoyed in those ten years, which was taken away in 2001 and 2002 by this government.

A. Dix: It's a privilege, of course, to stand up and speak in this Legislature at any time. The subjects that we're dealing with today are some of the subjects that I think are the most important for those of us who are legislators to deal with.

First of all, basic rights of workers in the workplace. Rights that have been put into question in recent years, basic rights of the community to know what's going on in their government and their right to access basic information about what's happening in government and to have access to that information are in question here.

These are some of the most fundamental issues that I think we can talk about, and this bill, while it has the innocuous title of Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, in fact deals with some of these fundamental questions that we have to address as a society.

As members will know, there were significant strides made during the 1990s in particular — not exclusively in the 1990s, but in particular in the 1990s — with respect to protections of the rights of farmworkers. Members will know — and unfortunately, because of a lack of access to information, really, on how these things work and the meetings that take place — that sadly, even tragically, some of those rights were stripped away from farmworkers in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

You know, this is not a small matter. My dear friend the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who I think…. I recommend to all members the extraordinary film A Time to Rise, which features, amongst other people…. It doesn't principally feature my friend from Burnaby-Edmonds. He appears in the film with somewhat more hair, I must say, because he was a little bit younger. He's there both sharing a stage and sharing a cause with Cesar Chavez and others who had an enormous impact on the debate around labour standards in North America.

If you look at the film and the lives, what it does in an extraordinary way, I think, is feature the work and the lives of farmworkers. I think that what happened in that film and what is reflected in that film is something that all of us in British Columbia who don't have to struggle to earn a minimum wage, who don't have to get up at five in the morning, be transported long hours and not have their labour rights respected, should see. There is enormous honour and value in the work that was done and in the cause that my friend from Burnaby-Edmonds, amongst other people, led.

When changes were made to labour standards in this province that allowed some of those rights to be taken away, it was not a small thing. I think it's significant that the Canadian Farmworkers Union and others at that time, when those rights were stripped away in 2002, were never consulted, never spoken to.

There were, apparently, meetings between the government and contractors. But the workers involved, the workers who had fought 100 years for those rights in this province — not in California, not in another jurisdiction…. We are not talking about United Fruit in Central America but about this province. They had fought 100 years for some very basic rights. Those rights were taken away.

So when you watch the film A Time to Rise — again, I recommend it to people — and try and understand the distance between people who work as farmworkers and the centre of power in this province, the distance cannot be greater. It seems to me, and this bill touches on it a little bit, that it's our role and it's our obligation as legislators to close that distance. It's why I think I'm particularly privileged to work here with the member for Burnaby-Edmonds and the member for New Westminster who have fought so hard on this issue over the last several years.

I think we will be judged…. With the greatest of respect to the Canadian Bankers Association — who can apparently come here, have one meeting and get a $110 million tax cut — we have an obligation to hear other voices, the voices of British Columbians who struggle, work and fight, who should be represented here and whose rights should be respected in our province. In fact, the respect for those rights should be how we're judged as a province.

We're, of course, glad that any changes are made to improve and respect the rights of farmworkers, but

we're disappointed that some of the recommendations, particularly…. Let me read the recommendation. In the wake of a terrible accident which drove some of these changes last year, the B.C. Federation of Labour made 29 recommendations for improving the working conditions of farmworkers in the province.

They recommended, amongst other things: "Where enforcement measures result in vehicles being impounded, any farmworkers stranded shall be provided return transportation to their original departure point. In addition, eight hours' pay based on the prevailing hourly minimum wage rate shall be paid to each of them from the bond posted by the employer."

Now, that portion, that important portion of being paid…. You know, I come to work every day, and some days I come to work twice. But there's something very secure about the notion of having a regular paycheque. The idea that through somebody else's negligence, the contract that has been entered into between you and an employer can be abrogated, that your time can be wasted, and that that issue isn't dealt with in this legislation is wrong.

Obviously, we're happy that any changes are being brought forward, but that important part of the recommendation that says the work and the time of farmworkers has value — just like the time of a cabinet minister, an MLA, a deputy minister, a vice-president of ICBC…. Just like that time, their time has value. When they give an hour of work, when they have to go to work for some reason, that has value. Well, so do the lives and the work and the hours put forward by farmworkers.

We have a long way to go. I'm telling you it may take…. I'm looking forward to this, because I tell you, one of the first issues that any New Democratic government would deal with is the issue of ensuring that farmworkers have the rights that they deserve, the rights that every worker in British Columbia deserves. Farmworkers have those rights. You better believe that there won't be half-steps in that regard, because this says everything about who we are. Half-measures are half-measures, but what is required here are full measures.

This isn't some privilege. It shouldn't be a privilege to have the right to earn the minimum wage in a province where we have minimum wage laws. We have a disagreement with the government about what the minimum wage should be. They think $6 as the minimum wage is acceptable. We don't agree. We think it should be considerably higher.

That having been said, in British Columbia, if you do an hour's work, you should get an hour's pay. That's what we think on this side of the House. We think that in British Columbia there shouldn't be categories of workers whose work isn't valued sufficiently. We don't think that. Because some people don't have power, you don't get to minimize the value of their work. That's why we have laws. This is not the Victorian era. This should not be a return to the 19th century. We need to do better in this regard.

This bill? There are some good things here, but what it says to us is that we need a government in British Columbia that says, with respect to farmworkers and other classes of workers, that their rights should mean as much as the right of an MLA. The labour laws should apply to them as it applies to everybody else. There shouldn't be one rule for a worker who has a union and one rule for others who don't have those unions fighting for them.

We think there should be minimum standards and that employment standards matter. Beyond that, we think that those employment standards should be enforced by a government that believes in them and that believes that when a worker has those rights, they should be enforced by public servants who are dedicated to ensuring the law is applied.

The Ministry of Revenue is relentless if you don't pay your taxes. The Minister of Labour should be just as relentless if workers' rights are placed in jeopardy through no fault of their own.

I think this is an important issue. I know that the members are going to be dealing with the details of this at committee stage. But we have, on the one hand, miscellaneous statutes legislation that deals with this important issue of labour standards, which for us is a fundamental issue. It's always going to be a fundamental issue. Bill 29, taking away labour standards from farmworkers without talking to farmworkers…. These were low points for this government, and it's a profound difference.

There's also a difference between an opposition party that introduced freedom-of-information and privacy laws in British Columbia and got them passed through the Legislature, and a government that on 16 occasions…. Sixteen changes they've made to make freedom-of-information requests more time-consuming and more difficult. That's a difference.

You know what? I say this to the government. You never think this when you're in government, but sometimes political parties are in government, and sometimes they're in opposition. It is dangerous for a government to act towards a fundamental law of our province, freedom of information, as if they're going to govern for a thousand years.

As the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke eloquently said: "This is beyond partisanship." One day we'll be over there, and they'll be making FOI requests. We should respond to those FOI requests, and we should respect the spirit of a law that says you should have access to that information.

Instead, what we have is a government that routinely uses the FOI Act and section 13 in particular of that act to deny the public of British Columbia — MLAs, the media, citizens — the right to information they'd otherwise get. You know, it's fascinating, because you only get a glimpse into this sometimes. I'll tell you how you get a glimpse into it.

I can't wait to hear what the member for Peace River South, who's made recommendations that have been ignored in this bill and have been ignored by the government for years since his report in 2004…. My anticipation of his speech grows. Even as I speak here in the House, my anticipation of his speech grows.

I'm sure it's going to be outstanding, but I'm going to give him a little clue, because I want him to deal with this in his speech. I think it would be very interesting. Here's how you get an understanding of how the government abuses the law. You make an FOI request to the Minister of Health, say. It comes back, and it's mostly stroked out. You can't see anything.

This happened to me recently. It's the MOCAP case. My friend the Minister of Health and I have been before the commissioner for almost 13 months about an audit, about MOCAP — even before that. So it's going back and forth. He doesn't want the public to know what's going on with that program. He's determined not to show what's going on.

Here's how you find out, though. We had this in the case of a public agency, and I know the member for Peace River South is going to deal with this in his presentation. How you find out is that you FOI a document. Say it's the Minister of Health. I'm just using the Minister of Health as a possible example of this.

You get the document. It comes back, and you can't see anything in the document. So somebody leaks you the actual document. Now, this happened to me.

A. Dix: They leaked the possible document. They actually leaked the document.

A. Dix: They've been dozing off all afternoon. I think they, too, are waiting for the speech from the member for Peace River South. I think everybody on the government side is waiting to hear what the member for Peace River South will do on this important issue.

What happens is, you see…. You know, the Minister of Health is tricky. He's tricky. But what you do is get the document. Lindsay Kines of the Times Colonist got this on a really serious subject, where you get to see…. You leak the actual document, and then you get the document that they send you.

This happened to me. One of the things that they blanked out for policy advice in a document they sent to me in 2006 was a lengthy quote from a report by the children's commissioner, Cynthia Morton. This is a public report from 1998, and they blotted out the fact that they were quoting something that had actually been said by Cynthia Morton — that a public servant would actually dare, in this government, quote the former children's commissioner.

They thought that this was policy advice and that they could use those provisions to keep the public from seeing an eight-year-old quote from Cynthia Morton. This government, which got rid of the children's commissioner, wanted to eradicate the children's commissioner from history. She becomes an unperson according to the government.

This is the kind of conduct, with these very provisions of the act, that the government consistently does. Sadly, we don't know how often they abuse it, because it's one of those things. You can't tell what they're blacking out. We could catch them often. The only time you can catch them doing what they're doing….

This section of the FOI Act, this section where they have ignored our dear friend from Peace River South, that section of the act which they routinely abuse…. He called them on it. The member for Peace River South called them on it, and we're looking forward to his speech on this question. He called them on it. We are looking forward to his speech on this very precise point, this section of the act which they routinely abuse and continue to abuse — you know, hon. Speaker, it's shocking, and I know the member for Peace River South will equally be shocked — 16 times.

A government that used FOI… Oh heck, in opposition they used FOI. As soon as they got in the government, what did they start doing? Changing the law to make it more difficult to use FOI. Doesn't that say everything about this government?

Their criticism, in that case, of the 1990s — which is always fulsome at any time — apparently was that we were too open in the 1990s. That was their criticism of the 1990s. That's why they routinely protect themselves from the FOI law.

Having motivated my dear friend from Peace River South, having told them how much we anticipate his speech where he clearly will set out his disappointment, I'm sure, with a government that has consistently ignored his important recommendations that he made in 2004 with respect to the reform of the FOI Act….

I am going to say, finally, that I think, just coming back to the beginning of this speech, that these are important things that we discuss in the Legislature. Sometimes we disagree about these things. These are important questions.

The questions raised by this legislation are the basic rights of workers who have fewer rights than just about anybody who's watching on TV right now — all 50 or 60 of them — less rights than any of those people. That's an issue we're debating in this legislation, and it's why we take it so seriously. And the rights of the public to know. These are issues that have come together in this bill.

We as an opposition, on both of those questions, have profound differences between our view — a view and a commitment to openness in government, a view and a commitment to the rights of working people — than the government does…. These are the kinds of issues that both political parties will and should be judged on in the next election.

I can't wait. I can't wait for that election and for that debate in that election campaign. In the meantime, we have a government that is unfortunately, on both of those questions — on the rights of workers and on the rights of ordinary people in British Columbia to have access to information about their government — on the wrong side of those issues and on the wrong side of history.

B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and certainly, thank you to all members of the House. Heck, after all that talk, I was looking forward to my own speech as well.

The issue we're speaking about is Bill 13, and I've heard a lot of good discussion today. I mean, there is no question, regardless of which political party you're with, that the issue of the safety of our workers in this province should be paramount to everyone, regardless of whether you're on this side or on that side of the House, and I believe it is.

I think there's a difference in where we should be and how quickly we should get there on some of the changes, but there is no doubt in my mind that there isn't a single person that is in this chamber today or has ever served in this chamber that isn't here to try and improve the lives of not only workers but of every British Columbian in every decision they make. But the political system we live in is one where we have governments and we have opposition.

Opposition's job is to oppose on occasion, but I also believe that it's to agree, and we've seen that over the years that I've been here, for seven years. Every single thing this government has done hasn't been opposed, because there are things we agree on, and then we have fundamental differences on some others.

Bill 13. I'll make it very clear. I support Bill 13, and I'm certain…. I can't prejudge the vote, but from what I've heard, the members of the opposition will support this bill. But they believe that there are things that should have gone further in it, and that's fair. That's the democracy we live in.

We talk about a number of issues in this bill — labour standards, some issues around the rights of workers. I believe that the bill is enhancing those. What I've heard is that it doesn't go far enough. That's fair.

But I really want to focus my comments on the portion that deals with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I did have the privilege, and it was alluded to earlier, to chair an all-party committee of this Legislature in 2004. We spent about a year working on a report that I'm very proud of, and one that I stand behind. It made 28 recommendations to this Legislative Assembly.

I've heard — and I'm not sure if people have really looked into the homework — that the majority have been acted on. There are some that haven't, as of yet. If you look at the history of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it requires — I believe it's on the fifth anniversary or every five years — that a review is done on that act. A new review will be legislated or mandated under law very soon.

It came into play, I believe, in 1992 — and I'm going a bit from my memory now — under the previous administration of this province, the New Democratic Party. I think it was a welcome document, certainly from my perspective as a citizen of British Columbia at that time. I think it was a great move.

But it's a growing document as well. I believe that there was, during the 1990s, a review completed, again, by an all-party committee. I want to make this…. This isn't a shot across the bow or at anybody. Not every one of those recommendations was acted on at that time.

Together, we're going to work to make this piece of legislation a better piece of legislation. As I indicated, we had 28 recommendations that were put forward. Some have been dealt with in legislation, as has been referred to; some have been dealt with in regulation; and others, in policy adjustments within ministries.

I'm going to speak to one of the issues that I've heard members from the opposition speak to and one that I concur with, and that is a section 13 amendment, not only section 13(1) but 13(1) and 13(2). We made recommendations in our report in 2004 that recommended that we make alterations to those two sections.

Now, I don't like to pick out of those 28 recommendations that this is the most important and this is the least important, because I view them all as very important. But I can tell you that these two, sections 13(1) and 13(2), rank up there in my mind — not for government, in that sense, and not for opposition but, most importantly, for British Columbians. That's how I view that act.

I think these changes that we have and the vast majority of Bill 13 that we're speaking about deals with changes under the FOI Act. Would I have looked to have seen section 13(1) and 13(2) amended in this act? I most certainly would have.

I actually have put a lot of thought into this, and it makes very little sense. I think most people in this chamber in the years that they've worked here and as they continue their work…. If you put your name to something, such as a report that I had the honour of chairing in 2004, they'll stand behind that. I stood behind it in 2004 as this chamber did, unanimously.

I stand behind that report and those recommendations today, as I believe we all do. But I went as far as thinking, as a member of the government side of this House, that I was prepared to move an amendment to this legislation that's before us today during committee stage.

I think it's fair to say that when I watch democracy, an amendment possibly coming from myself…. I don't want to diminish my stature in this Legislative Assembly, but it may not pass. That's just traditionally, I think, the way governments work. Over the years that I've studied, certainly back through the '90s and the '80s and now in the year 2007, it's very similar.

So I tried to figure out a way that I could work with the minister responsible for this legislation and with my colleagues to make it a reality — that we could look at sections 13(1) and 13(2) and come up with something that was going to work and reflect what the report said and what the people of British Columbia who presented to our all-party committee had said they would like to have done.

I went to work on that. I want to give a great deal of credit to our minister here today, who I have had many discussions with over the last number of months, actually — and the minister before that, as well — as I

worked towards implementation of all 28. As I said, certainly they're not all there, but the majority have had work done on them. The majority have been implemented, as I said, either through legislation or regulation.

But I wasn't satisfied that my job was done, although the chairmanship's job that I did concluded after the one-year review of this. As I said, it's something that I take pride in, and I will carry through to the finish.

So in my discussions with the minister…. I won't take a great deal of time to talk about this, but I do want to lay out where I'm at. As I said, Bill 13 I support. I'm somewhat disappointed that sections 13(1) and 13(2) weren't included, but it is a very significant portion of that legislation, and I know that each member here has probably read it numerous times. I'm not so sure most British Columbians have. We usually don't deal with this as British Columbians unless you need it, but we are going to, and we've had a commitment from the minister to look at section 13 in a way that possibly will reflect the wishes of the all-party committee. Certainly, I think, an amendment at this time, as serious as this issue is….

I've seen amendments put on this floor from the opposition. The way our system works, to be honest with you, and I'll speak again across party lines, is that we get an amendment put on the floor and are asked to vote on it moments later, with no time to actually evaluate what that amendment really means, how it may affect the legislation or other parts of what we do here in British Columbia.

So I think, to be honest, and I'm a little off topic, we have to rethink how we present our amendments in this Legislative Assembly as well, if we want to get the fullest out of those amendments. Many times, whether it comes from the government side or the opposition side, there are good amendments.

I'm proud to be part of a government and a team and really, more so, part of a Legislative Assembly that from both sides is taking the idea that we as government will govern and that opposition will oppose when they need to oppose. But it doesn't mean that if a good idea comes from one side of the House or the other that we all can't agree.

I'm proud that I've been able to say that I've seen some of that in the seven years. It hasn't got to where I'd like it to be, but we're going there. I think British Columbians recognize that as well.

So in my discussions with the minister, they were very positive. In those discussions, I've changed my mind on putting forward an amendment to this because of the commitment that the minister made to me. I hope to reflect some of the comments that we've talked about, in the sense that she is prepared to look at sections 13(1) and 13(2), because it is about more than just 13(1), and look at it in a way, as I indicated earlier, that can hopefully, at the end of the day, reflect the intent of the all-party committee's recommendations.

Yes, would I like to have it in today? Again, I would. But I'm realistic. I'm realistic that if I were to move an amendment at committee stage — or members of the opposition — I'm not sure that that amendment will pass. It may be a great amendment, and it may be written exactly how we have to have it in the legislation.

I'm prepared, certainly with the word of the minister that she has given me — and I have the utmost respect for her — to work with her, to look forward to bringing amendments to sections 13(1) and 13(2) forward in what I would hope to be the very near future. Certainly, I can't determine that. I don't set the legislative calendar. I can't tell you…. I think most people who have been here for any length of time know that we aren't going to have amendments and draft legislation prepared, probably, in time to see something on the floor of this legislative session. But that's the way it works.

I do want to comment briefly on a couple of issues that were raised, and that was the issue of the severing of information through some documents and so on that's taken place. I had the opportunity to deal with some other jurisdictions in the Commonwealth that have FOI acts and so on, and I can tell you that although we may agree on some issues and disagree on some issues in that act, we have, I believe, one of the finest freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy pieces of legislation of anywhere in the Commonwealth. It is something that we should all be proud of.

The opposition should be proud that they first brought that forward. Our government should be proud that we're striving to make it a better document. Together we should all be proud that we're not doing it for ourselves but are doing it for British Columbians.

In closing, the other thing that I do want to point out is that there are many jurisdictions…. South Africa, for one, has a very wide-open piece of legislation under FOI. It is virtually anything goes. You can get access to anything, and this is what I found out, if the minister responsible for that legislation says yes.

That's where the big difference comes into play in British Columbia. We have an independent officer of this Legislative Assembly in Mr. David Loukidelis, a gentleman that I've gotten to know over the years in my work on this committee and my interest in it. I can tell you that we're fortunate to live in a democracy that allows us the right to have the debates that we have here to try and enhance each piece of legislation that we put forward. More importantly, the independence of the commissioner is something that I cherish and that I think each British Columbian, and each one of us as legislators, should be thankful for.

There are times when somebody applies for an FOI request and doesn't get what they expect. That doesn't mean it's a dead issue. They have the ability to go to the commissioner, independent of government. I know it may be frustrating. I believe, from what I hear, it was frustrating during the 1990s. It's frustrating during the years that we're in government. But you know what? It's something that we're going to work at making better, and we're going to do it together.

In closing, I will support Bill 13. I look forward to hearing from the minister her intent on sections 13(1) and 13(2), but I'm certainly satisfied. With the utmost respect to the minister, I understand that we will be dealing with that. And we will, I believe, very soon — and when I say that, I'm optimistic that very soon would be a time frame in the near future — see amendments to sections 13(1) and 13(2) brought to the floor of this House.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in this debate on Bill 13 and to follow the member for Peace River South, who raised some very important and thoughtful questions, some of which I will respond to. In fact, I think I'll make the focus of my initial remarks about the FOI provisions in this bill and some of the issues that have been raised around it.

It sounds kind of dry, but it's extremely important to the ability to understand how government works, what government is doing — to have access, freedom of information, to what their government is doing. It seems a pretty basic right. Well, for the longest time it didn't exist.

I would encourage the member, when he says that he would like to move an amendment but he's not sure if it would pass, to have faith in the members in this House, to have faith in the minister. This is her last term as minister, and I know that she wants to leave on a positive note and that recommendations that deal with sections 13(1) and 13(2) would be welcomed by this side of the House. With the member for Peace River's support and the minister's support, I have no doubt it would get the support they need to pass this House.

So I say to that member: have faith in your colleagues, and have faith in the opposition. Because we know….

M. Farnworth: We are there for you, as my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca says. We stand ready, at a moment's notice, to support good public policy in the form of legislation, in the form of an amendment.

You know, my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway raised some really important points that I want to expand on. We talk about freedom of information, and it means access to information. So we put in a freedom of information request, and we wait with bated breath because there is this legislation which is moved as a model. It's legislation which was introduced in the '90s to great public and critical acclaim — that this is what government should be doing, a model for the rest of the country; indeed, a model for jurisdictions around the world.

So when you put in a freedom of information request, you expect that there will be information on it, and my colleague, the future Minister of Health but currently the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, said…. You know, he gets the document back, and there's all this blocked out. I, too, have had that challenge.

I get the freedom of FOI requests, and I can't read anything. Then I think: "Hmm, maybe it's because I am now in my late '40s, that my eyesight…. I need reading glasses. That must be the problem."

So I put my reading glasses on and lo and behold, no, it's not my eyes that deceive me. The fact is there is nothing there. The page is blank. It is whited out. That is not freedom of information. That is a government obsessed by secrecy. That is a government afraid of the advice that it's been given. That is a government afraid to let the public know what is going on. The only positive thing in that is that I know my eyes are not getting any weaker. What it says is that this is a government that is far too secretive.

Whiteouts. In fact, I would not be surprised if the whiteout line in the budget has significantly increased since this government took power. I say that with some justification, because when you look at this government's record on freedom of information, you see a startling fact, and that is that they have made more than 16 changes to FOI to make it more time-consuming and more difficult.

Not one set of amendments, not two set of amendments, but 16 changes — 16 different ways to make it more difficult. Not just satisfied with: "We don't like this. This is far too open and transparent. Let's make some changes." Oh, no. That takes place, and then they find out, "No, that doesn't do the job either. We still have to give out all this information to the public when they request it, so we'll make more changes" — 16 changes to make it more difficult to access information, more time-consuming to access information, and more expensive.

More expensive for ordinary citizens, more expensive for small business, more expensive for non-governmental organizations, more expensive for the media, more expensive all around. Is it because there are financial considerations? Well, the act did make for what would be considered normal. No. "Excessive" is the word that people have used. "Almost usurious" are other words that have been used to describe the way in which this government has used financial costs to restrict the ability to access freedom of information.

Clearly, the actions of this government since they have taken office completely defeat the intent of freedom-of-information legislation. It's supposed to be sunshine legislation, to let the light of public scrutiny shine in. We know that they certainly appreciated it when they were in opposition. They loved it every day they were in opposition. But, by God, they sure couldn't wait to draw the curtains shut when they became government, and that's a shame.

Well, if they don't want to listen to the opposition, perhaps they will listen to the province's very own Information and Privacy Commissioner. What does he say? He called for….

M. Farnworth: I prefer to refer to it as the sunshine ball — the opportunity for the government to bring more sunshine in. I mean, they've got….

M. Farnworth: No, no, the obituary page I think is in the F section, Member.

Anyway, the Privacy Commissioner has called for an amendment to section 13 dealing with advice: "As it stands, the advice or recommendations exception I think unacceptably curtails the public right to know." He had a deep concern: "In this case, Bill 25, the predecessor of this bill, fails to address a serious imbalance that now exists between the public's right to know and government confidentiality. Not to amend section 13 would seriously undermine public accountability by allowing public bodies to possibly withhold broad swaths of information."

Well, that has been exactly the record of this government. They haven't held just broad swaths of public information confidential and away from the public. They've held enough to re-roof B.C. Place several times over.

They just don't get it. An all-party committee went out and came back with recommendations. Those recommendations were thoughtful. They were bipartisan. They had the support of the public. They had the support of both sides of this House, which, as many people know, does not happen every day. In fact, there are many days that pass before something like that does happen, sometimes months. But it happened. And it had the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner's seal of approval — an independent officer of this Legislature.

So what happens? It's ignored. That is a shame, because if this government truly is concerned about dealing with this issue, then they should take note of what was in the committee's report. They should take note of this opportunity, a second go-round, because Bill 25 died on the order paper. It could have been carried over and dealt with in a fall session, but they don't like fall sessions, so they chose not to deal with it there.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says that it's cold in the fall. But if they don't amend this, it will be very cold outside. It will be a very frosty reception from those who are concerned about the issue of freedom of information and open government.

Here we have a unique opportunity — as W.A.C Bennett said, a chance to take that famous second look. So I urge the government to take that second look, to listen to the wise words of the member for Peace River South.

M. Farnworth: Sage advice. In fact, it's such sage advice and so very thoughtful that I would commend the member for Peace River South to the Premier of this province if he's looking for another Solicitor General. He would make a great addition to the cabinet.

But I digress. The issue here is the amendments that I think I would like to see. My message to the minister is that if you don't want to listen to the opposition, listen to the member for Peace River South and introduce the amendments. We will pass them and support them.

M. Farnworth: Forthwith, as my colleague says. I love that word "forthwith."

Finally, listen not only to him, but listen to the freedom-of-information and privacy commissioner, who says that this is a fundamental flaw.

Minister, this is your last session. You said you're not running again. Take this opportunity. Seize this opportunity to put your stamp on one of the most important, fundamental pieces of legislation before us in this chamber.

Seize that opportunity. Make a great piece of public policy. Deal with the issues around section 13, and you will know that you have contributed significantly to public policy in the province of British Columbia. I urge you, Minister. Seize that opportunity, and seize it now.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services closes debate.

Hon. O. Ilich: I actually want to thank all of the members opposite, and some on my side too, for their comments today. I've listened very patiently to all of the things that have been said. I have to say that I have a lot of things to say in reply, but I obviously don't have the time.

However, there are just a couple of things. In 2001, since the members opposite have brought it up, the NDP applied section 13, in just a five-month period, 235 times. In 2007 we only applied it 182 times.

There are a few other things. For instance, in 2001 the NDP went over on their time 48 percent of the time. We've gone over 16 percent of the time.

One of the items brought up earlier is about the transportation of farmworkers, and that deals specifically with the bill. We're recommending that if farmworkers are stranded because of unsafe vehicles, we will take them to work. We're not going to leave a farmer sitting there with work to do. We're going to take them to work.

We're being criticized because we're not paying for them for eight hours and taking them home. We're going to take them to work. That's a benefit to the economy, a benefit to the farmers and a benefit to everybody.

There's a lot to say on this bill, and I look forward to dealing with it at the committee stage.

Hon. O. Ilich: I move that Bill 13 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

M. Karagianis: I would like to start off this afternoon asking a few questions about TransLink. The government on January 14 announced a $14 billion transit expansion plan, and I would like to ask some very specific details of the minister on what is included in that. Perhaps he could just generally outline the various pieces that make up the $14 billion transit plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the provincial transit plan. It is without question the most massive expansion of transportation, public transit, in the history of the province of British Columbia. It will effectively achieve what at best has only been achieved once per decade — and that is, typically, the building of one rapid transit line per decade. In the '80s there was the SkyTrain line that was constructed; in the '90s, the Millennium line; and of course, under our government in the 2000s, the construction of the Canada line.

Under the provincial transportation plan over the next decade — over 12 years, but most of it in the next decade — there will be three additional new rapid transit extensions — one out to UBC; one extending in Surrey and ultimately continuing right out to Langley, to Willowbrook mall; and also an extension, of course, out to the northeast sector, with the development and construction of the Evergreen line.

It is a plan that involves partnerships. There will be a very substantial commitment from the province, almost $5 billion. We felt it was important that we be the single-largest contributor financially to the package to demonstrate leadership, to demonstrate the provincial commitment. So we will be contributing $4.75 billion over the next 12 years as part of that plan.

We will also be asking TransLink to contribute $2.75 billion towards the plan, with $3 billion from the federal government. Of course, we have existing commitments. I think it's in the range of about $2.9 billion that is already committed or that construction is underway on, including major projects like the Canada line.

It will include nine new RapidBus lines. I know the critic knows this well, but for the benefit of the viewing audience, what RapidBus is, is really a rapid transit experience but using existing buses. The difference is that you try and design a line that will provide an advantage to the buses through dedicated laneways, through technology that allows them to change the lights as they approach intersections or through underpasses or overpasses at those intersections where you'll typically see traffic queuing.

This allows them to get by and get people to where they need to go very efficiently, very quickly. What it ultimately does is build a culture of ridership in areas that traditionally haven't got that ridership — feeding areas that, though rapidly growing, are still largely suburban areas that don't really have the density requirements that would justify an investment in a full rapid transit system. It is very effective.

The one that they have operating in Ottawa — I think it's called the valley metro, but I forget the particular name — actually moves more people on a daily basis than the Millennium line in the lower mainland moves. It is very effective.

It will also include a doubling of the fleet of buses in the TransLink fleet. That's over a thousand new buses. What that effectively means for the average individual in the lower mainland is that they will have a bus every 15 minutes, 15 hours a day, seven days a week.

That is a level of service that will really, again, drive that very important ridership that we're trying to achieve by having a very reliable and exceptional service being delivered on buses that will employ the latest technologies in terms of green technology — whether that's hybrid, electric, diesel-electric, hydrogen fuel cell or whatever the case may be. It will be the latest and greenest technology.

It also includes another 600 buses for outside of the lower mainland, which will again be the most dramatic increase in the fleet of B.C. Transit buses ever in the history of the province of British Columbia. That means in virtually every part of the province that has existing transit service, there will be opportunities for those communities to enjoy service expansion. B.C. Transit, of course, will be working, and we will be working, with communities to identify those needs and try and match the increased buses to those particular communities.

So that, at a high level, is an overview of the transit plan. It's something that we're excited about.

I have to say that one of the things I have found in my experience as Minister of Transportation, in dealing particularly with the federal government, is that if you're going to be asking the federal government for money, it's very important, first of all, to lay out a plan and a vision that's well thought out, that's defensible, that has partnership support and that has the support of the public throughout the province of British Columbia.

This plan has that in spades. With this plan, with the support we've got, with the participation we've got, I am very confident that we will see federal government support. We've already seen a very quick early indication of that with the $67 million financial contribution that the federal government provided for the Evergreen line as part of the budget announcement.

We were really pleased with that. It demonstrates a significant initial commitment, and no doubt there will be more to come. I look forward to having these discussions with our federal colleagues, who we deal with on a regular basis, so that together we can provide a transit system that ultimately will see British Columbia….

This is what the foundation of the plan is all about. We designed this plan really by saying to the staff: "What would it take for British Columbia to see a level of ridership that would be up there with the major leading cities of the world — whether that's London, whether that's Paris, whether it's Hong Kong — in that 22-to-23-percent range of ridership in terms of the folks out there that utilize public transit?"

In the lower mainland today it's about 12 percent. To effectively double that, this is the kind of plan that we need to have in place. Our vision is bold. The sweep of the plan is obviously very extensive. The dollars are huge. There's no question about that.

But we think it's the right vision. It's the right way to change the culture of the public in the lower mainland — particularly, I might say, in the suburbs that don't enjoy the same level of transit opportunities that folks in Vancouver do.

We also want to make sure of that in every part of the province even though, obviously, we recognize that the patterns of growth are very different. They're spread out over large areas. They're difficult to service efficiently by transit. We all know that.

As those communities are responding to the challenges of climate change, they're thinking about how to design their communities more efficiently. They're thinking about more densification. We believe that working with them, by providing effective transit, we can help collectively achieve the goal that we all have, which is to be leaders in reducing greenhouse gases.

M. Karagianis: In looking at the $14 billion…. I was just adding up as the minister was outlining. So it's $5 billion from the province, $3 billion from the federal government — although unconfirmed — and $2.75 billion from TransLink. That's roughly $11 billion. The $2.9 billion, I would assume, makes up the rest of the $14 billion plan, and that would be the Canada line.

That money has not been allocated as from the province, the feds or TransLink. Is that strictly from the private enterprise that's engaged in the Canada line?

Hon. K. Falcon: I apologize for this. In my rattling off of all the different contribution amounts, I forgot to mention $500 million from local government. That would be their share that they contribute under the formula we have through B.C. Transit, where we essentially have a shared formula for expansion. So that would be also included.

In terms of the $2.9 billion, the member points out — she's correct — that most of that, obviously, is the Canada line. But there is also the Port Mann rapid bus project. There's $180 million on that. There's $50 million on bus announcements that were made. I believe orders have actually been issued for both TransLink and B.C. Transit. There is the hydrogen highway project, for example, and some other investments that have been made in transit stations, facilities, etc. That makes up the balance.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much. Again, though, who is paying for those costs? The minister talks about the $2.9 billion being made up of some of the Canada line, but he's talking about the rapid buses and things. Where are they included in the province's contribution here? Again, I'm just trying to figure out, with the $14 billion, who is paying what portion of that whole transit plan or the whole $14 billion.

Hon. K. Falcon: To clarify, these would be dollars outside of the $4.75 billion. It will be made up of different levels of government. There will be some federal money, for example, on the hydrogen highway we talked about earlier, where it's a 50-50 split on the $89 million. There will be TransLink dollars, for example, on the Port Mann rapid bus system. Of the $180 million, about $30 million of that is TransLink dollars. About $150 million of that is provincial dollars. Again, those are numbers outside of the $4.75 billion of new dollars that are put into the transit plan.

Really, what it's talking about are the other investments related to this, additional investments being made by different levels of government. There would be some federal money there too, which I've also mentioned.

M. Karagianis: Certainly the Canada line is underway and has been included. How much of the $14 billion plan is actually underway or has already been

Hon. K. Falcon: The $2.9 billion would be the stuff that's already underway, and $11.1 billion would be the new projects that would be part of the transit plan.

M. Karagianis: So $2.9 billion is currently underway, and therefore $11 billion is entirely new dollars — a new project.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'll give both the capital and operating, for the benefit of the member. The investments being made outside of the lower mainland in capital would be just over $1.1 billion. Of course, operating, because the operating costs for B.C. Transit will go up to cover off all of those, would be almost $1.3 billion.

M. Karagianis: Just to be clear here, in the $14 billion plan that was announced, that is strictly capital. Or does that include operating in that $14 billion?

M. Karagianis: So $14 billion capital plan — $1.1 billion of it is outside of the Metro area, and $2.9 billion of it is already underway within Metro.

Now, does this include things like the bus orders that TransLink already had on order? Has that been included in this, or is this counted as new?

I would like to talk about how this money is now being put together by the individual entities. So the $2.9 billion — and again, I think the minister was not clear…. How much of that is capital contribution by the private partner building the Canada line?

M. Karagianis: That's $658 million. How is this public-private partnership structured? Is it similar to those that we were talking about regarding the huge bridge and highway projects, or is it a different kind of structure to this P3?

Hon. K. Falcon: The provincial commitment to the project is $435 million. Of that, $254 million was payments made during the construction phase — the current construction phase. The balance of the $435 million is made in the form of performance payments over the term of the contract, and those payments will be made over that 30-year term of the contract — less, of course, the construction period.

M. Karagianis: So in fact, this is structured very much like all the other P3s. The $254 million has been paid out during the construction phase when you hit certain thresholds. The balance is paid as performance payments over the coming 30 years. What do we get for that 30-year commitment, that contract with the private partner? What will they do for their performance payments? How are those broken down, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's an annual performance payment that is made to the subsidiary of TransLink, responsible for the oversight and operation of the Canada line. As I say, that is an annual payment that's made to them based on the project being available and operational. So as long as it's operating and meeting the criteria — and I'm afraid I don't have them at my fingertips — we're a funding partner.

I don't remember the details of TransLink's agreement with the concessionaire, to be perfectly honest. But I have a recollection that it has to do with…. It's got to be operational and available, and as long as it's operational and available — there may even be some qualitative issues there — the performance payment gets made by the province to the operating subsidiary of TransLink. Then subsequently they deal with the concessionaire.

M. Karagianis: If I look again at the numbers as the minister has outlined them here, the private partner is basically…. Their contribution is $658 million. We will pay back to them, via either the construction payments or the performance payments, $435 million. That's not a terribly good investment on their part if they're on the hook for over $200 billion. Where is the balance of that, and how does that get ratified?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, that's actually not quite the way it works, because there are, of course, other funding partners, as the member may recall. The province of British Columbia she knows about, and the government of Canada, of course, has $450 million in nominal dollars. Vancouver Airport Authority, remember, put in their almost $300 million. TransLink itself, of course, is investing several hundred million dollars into the project, and then there are some smaller, nominal amounts from the city of Vancouver.

M. Karagianis: Okay, that begins to look more like the kind of thing that would attract a private partner. They spent $658 million, and they have garnered to the project $450 million from the feds, $300 million from the airport authority, $200 million from TransLink, some few odd million from the city of Vancouver and $435 million from the province. That's a pretty good return on their investment. The contract is for 30 years.

At the end of the 30 years, does this revert ownership in its entirety to us, as in the other public-private partnerships we've been engaged in?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's correct. It reverts to TransLink, and they receive all the benefits of a system that'll be fully paid for, and all the revenues that accrue through that system will be to the benefit of TransLink.

M. Karagianis: The $180 million, roughly, of performance payments…. That comes out of the province, and that is given to TransLink so that they can then pay the private concessionaire of this project. Is that how the performance payments work?

M. Karagianis: In looking at some of the other pieces of the $14 billion plan, then, because that's the Canada line…. It is underway. In fact, I guess I didn't find out. At what stage of completion are we on the Canada line?

Hon. K. Falcon: The Canada line project is proceeding on schedule. It's proceeding on budget. It is scheduled to open in the fall of 2009. Every bit of evidence suggests that the concessionaire — as has been, fortunately, the case with all of our P3s — is delivering this project on schedule, on budget.

M. Karagianis: Of the plan here, the minister has talked about several other pretty large projects — the Evergreen line in particular. Is that going to be done as a public-private partnership?

Hon. K. Falcon: The business case that was done on the Evergreen line demonstrated that it was a very good candidate for a P3. We haven't ultimately made that determination yet. We have a process that we need to go through before making a final determination as to what the best procurement method is. My instinct, though, tells me that it has the same kind of characteristics as the Canada line in terms of some of the complexities and challenges and all the other things that the government thinks about when undertaking major capital project.

The business case did bear out that instinctual belief that it was probably a good candidate, but we still have some more work to do before we make a final determination on what the final procurement option will be on the Evergreen line.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member probably recalls that government now has a policy that any project involving in excess of $20 million of provincial government taxpayer dollars must go through what we call a P3 lens to determine whether or not it is a suitable project for moving forward as a private-public partnership. The projects that fall under the gambit of the transit plan will go through that same lens. Just as we in the ministry apply the same lens to all the projects that we're involved with, we will be doing so as part of the transit plan.

As I say, it really depends on the characteristics of the project. Some projects will end up being better candidates for P3s, as the Port Mann Bridge twinning looks to be a good candidate. Other projects, like the Pitt River bridge, for example…. After doing an examination, it was determined that the more traditional design-build method of procurement will work for that $200 million project. So it really depends on the project.

But any capital project with over $20 million of provincial government investment will be looked at through the P3 lens, given the results that we've seen to date.

M. Karagianis: I know that I didn't get a chance to follow up on this in our previous discussions, but why did the Pitt River not fit into that? Why did it not qualify as a P3?

Hon. K. Falcon: I guess, in pretty straightforward terms, the value of the risk transfer that was identified and the innovation that would be required to build the bridge wasn't deemed to be significant enough to enjoy the benefits of a full P3. It's essentially a bridge going from one side to the other on an existing crossing where we have existing bridges. So the decision was made to move forward in the more traditional — at least for us — design-build procurement method on the Pitt River bridge.

M. Karagianis: Well, I guess I don't understand what would be the difference. All bridges go from one side to another. All crossings are very much the same — a bridge crosses water. Why would the Pitt River bridge be different from any other bridge that we would build?

Hon. K. Falcon: The difference is that some projects are very different by their very nature. For example, in the Kicking Horse Canyon, where you've got a section as part of the P3 that includes not only the Park Bridge but 26 kilometres' worth of highway and some of the most difficult and challenging terrain in the province of British Columbia, there was enough of a risk transfer element there — and, certainly, enough of an innovation aspect that we wanted to see brought to the table — that made it an outstanding candidate, certainly more so than the Pitt River bridge, where we're talking about three kilometres in area.

I should say that the Park Bridge, as the member well knows, is a bridge that is receiving recognition from, virtually, around the world because of the engineering nature and scale and scope of that particular project. So it certainly rises to the standard of…. Not only was it a good candidate for P3, but the fact that it was delivered 18 months ahead of schedule and on budget, I think, demonstrates that, in that case, the Park Bridge and the 26 kilometres that were improved as part of that concession agreement were certainly worthy of P3 treatment.

But again, on the Pitt River bridge, a different situation. There's still some innovation on the design end in terms of bridge design, etc., that you can achieve through the design-build procurement process. But we're talking about, essentially, a three-kilometre area, and the determination was that it wasn't as good of a candidate for P3 as some other projects would be.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure that we'll explore some aspects of that in the future. May I ask, at this point…. We have a commitment from the federal government of really a very small portion of what their expectation is. The minister talked about $3 billion from the feds. We've had $67 million. What's our guarantee that the rest of it will be there when we need it?

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the things that I said when we announced the provincial transportation plan and I was asked the inevitable question about whether or not we would expect the federal government to come to the table with dollars, was to first of all acknowledge that we did not have the financial commitment yet from the federal government. I think that we needed to be upfront about that. The simple reason was that we didn't ask for it yet.

What we did do is we told them that we were putting together a provincial transit plan, that we thought that it was going to be exciting and that we thought it would be something that would not only pole-vault British Columbia into the leagues of the great cities of the world in terms of transit ridership, but it would be a way for Canada and the government of B.C. to work together to achieve mutual objectives around greenhouse gases and encouraging public transit ridership. The federal government was very supportive and have been very good, as we briefed them on that prior to the release of the transportation plan.

As I said in response to an earlier question that…. The second thing that I said at the announcement, after acknowledging that we did not yet have federal commitment, was to look at our record. The record of this government in accessing dollars from the federal government for major projects has been nothing short, I think, of spectacular. You would actually be hard pressed to go back in any era in B.C. and see the level of federal dollars under, frankly, all governments federally.

We have taken our lead from the Premier, who made it clear to all of us that he expects us to work with whoever the federal government is, to work constructively, cooperatively and to try and work in a manner that will move us away from the reputation that B.C. has, unfortunately, enjoyed federally — which is a little bit of a laughingstock sometimes, in terms of how we are viewed back east. We've tried very hard to counter that.

We've seen federal government involvement in the Canada line now. We see federal government involvement in the convention centre. We see federal government involvement in the Kicking Horse Canyon. We see federal government involvement in initiatives that we have identified to the federal government as being priorities. This is one.

I do have to thank the federal government. I want to thank Minister Emerson and Minister Stockwell Day. The Member of Parliament from the northeast sector was also particularly helpful — James Moore. All of them were very helpful and very supportive of the transit plan and moved very speedily, as I say, to commit $67 million towards that.

The other thing I would say to the member is that the federal government has a fund called the Building Canada fund, which is a national infrastructure fund that has billions and billions of dollars available for projects throughout the country. Canada's share over the next seven years is $1.1 billion. We will negotiate with the federal government to try and find ways to utilize dollars that may be available in funds like that. They have other national funds.

The one thing I will be taking forward to the federal government when I see them, as I do every time I have a chance to talk to them, is that we will be looking for new dollars from the federal government to help support this plan. We think that it's a great opportunity for the federal government, and certainly, the positive reception that the plan has received from the federal government, I think, gives me encouragement.

M. Karagianis: What exactly is the triggering mechanism, then, for this money? It's $3 billion from the feds. Where and how does that get triggered? How do you ask for that? Do you ask for it each time a project is planned? Tendered? Underway? Where do you see the trigger device in that?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's actually an excellent question. It's one of the other things that I pointed out to folks, particularly in the media — that the reality is that we actually…. We want the federal government's commitment, but we actually don't even need their money right now, because what we have to do is….

Typically, on a project-by-project basis, you have to go to the federal government with a business case, and you have got to sell them on the benefits of the particular project that you happen to be encouraging them on. Then you get their buy-in, and then you get their financial commitment for the project.

On the Evergreen line, it's one of the reasons why, when the previous TransLink board was asking us for an increased contribution, I was very clear about the fact that they needed to put together a business case. You can't just come and ask for money when you haven't prepared a proper business case which analyzes the real level of financial commitment that will be required and takes a very, very hard look at the technologies and the differentials between the technologies and what ridership levels would be, etc.

Working with TransLink, we did come up with a business plan, which we released publicly some months back. The federal government — and they're represented by James Moore, the MP for the area — were present at the release.

Mr. Moore made the public commitment at that time that now that they had a business plan to look at, a business case to look at which sounded like it made a pretty good case, he would go back and make his argument to his colleagues and the federal Minister of Transport and the Finance Minister back east.

He did that, and within a matter of weeks, really, when the budget came down, we had a $67 million federal initial commitment to the Evergreen line. That is lightning speed in the world of federal government, I can assure the member opposite.

That's really how it would work on every project. We've got a lot of work to do — engineering work, geotechnical work, work with the municipalities, probably some initial public consultative work — before we get to the point where we have a full business case flushed out and we're now at the stage of being ready to ask the federal government for money.

What the transit plan itself did was really lay out to the federal government a vision that they can read and understand. It laid out in very clear, concise terms what the time frame is for the dollars that we require from the federal government, where those dollars would be invested, what the provincial financial commitment was going to be, what the partnership commitment would be from local governments, from TransLink; and, of course, what we would need from the federal government.

I'm extremely confident, given the success we've had in dealing with the federal government in the past and what I believe is a very constructive relationship with the federal government, that the federal government will be there with us the whole way on our transit plan.

M. Karagianis: The minister talks about having done a business plan for the Evergreen line. That has garnered the federal dollars, yet the minister has said that there's no determination yet if it's going to be a P3.

How is the business plan built without understanding or including the P3 aspect of this? That certainly changes the business plan considerably. If someone else is going to build it and operate it and be responsible for it, that's a pretty different business plan than if we are doing that ourselves.

Hon. K. Falcon: The business case doesn't make a decision on how best to procure a project. What the business case does is look at the ridership numbers, at the technology and at the likely cost for constructing a major project. It actually made a recommendation to the extent that it said it thought it would be a good candidate for a private-public partnership, but that is a different evaluation process that needs to be undertaken.

The good news is that there now is a business case. I can tell you that the business case was…. I shared that business case, initially in confidence, with the mayors from the northeast communities. It was a compelling business case, even though it went against, perhaps, some of their earlier beliefs.

They were very professional, very supportive of the recommendations that came out of that. They subsequently went back to their communities. They did a lot more public consultation, and they have made recommendations now on moving forward. I do want to take this moment to applaud the leadership of the mayors from the respective communities, because I think they have really been exceptional as we have pushed hard to move this project forward.

M. Karagianis: I'd be very interested in knowing what the business plan at this point has determined is the price tag for the Evergreen line.

Hon. K. Falcon: The price tag that has been identified as part of the business plan is $1.4 billion.

M. Karagianis: Therefore, would this be put together in a very similar manner to the Canada line? Would we be looking at a very similar structure around the private partners' concession agreement?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're in discussions with TransLink right now about those kinds of issues. That's part of the analysis that we will undertake as part of how best to procure the project.

M. Karagianis: Has anything been spent at this point on engineering studies? Or is there any kind of bid process underway?

Hon. K. Falcon: The province, through my Ministry of Transportation — I believe it was two budgets ago — provided TransLink $2 million so that they could move forward with the planning and preliminary engineering development work. They have utilized that.

I am not aware of how much they have spent, but they would have spent considerably more than the contribution we made, because they would also be doing public consultative work. I know they've done preliminary environmental work. So there has been a fair bit of work done by TransLink. I just don't have the number, the dollar figure. But I know that we contributed $2 million to get that work underway and get things moving.

M. Karagianis: So I'm assuming, then, that the $67 million from the feds is just sitting there in an account waiting for something to happen. What is the condition…? What happens with the federal dollars when a P3 comes into play? The private partner foots a good percentage, presumably, of the capital costs upfront. How does the federal dollar…? How do they figure into that P3 contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer to the first question on the $67 million is yes. The member is correct. It's sitting in an account. We're very happy about that. We've got that ready to go.

The second is that the federal government in these projects typically contributes all of its capital during

the construction phase of the project. They will typically make milestone payments. So as certain milestones are achieved, they will advance payment dollars towards the project.

Of course, that's one of the reasons why having the project on schedule is very important to the concessionaires — to make sure that they are able to realize the payments from the federal government. Typically, the federal government gets in and out with payments during the construction period.

M. Karagianis: The federal contributions to the Canada line were $450 million. Right now the federal government has committed to $67 million on the Evergreen line, with a $1.4 billion budget. When and how do we get confirmation that the federal dollars are there for their share of this project?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member will know, there's a little bit of history regarding the Evergreen line. Initially, there was an unfunded commitment that was made, when we became government, for $170 million towards the construction of the Evergreen line. We agreed that we would honour that commitment and put dollars towards it.

In fact, the Premier announced that we would be increasing our financial contribution to the project from $170 million to $410 million. We have said to the federal government…. We expect that the federal government will match the provincial government commitment. So we very much appreciate the initial $67 million that was contributed by the government, and we're currently in negotiations with the federal government on how we're going to secure the balance.

As I say, I feel very good about the state of our relationship with the federal government, and I remain highly confident that we will have the federal government deliver on the balance of their commitment to match the provincial commitment.

M. Karagianis: What is the schedule now for the Evergreen line, for its construction completion?

Hon. K. Falcon: I've said publicly that it is the position of this government that that project will be complete by 2014. In order to move this along as quickly as we can, we work through the business case with TransLink, of course, to come up with a credible business case, such that we could take it to the federal government for action from the federal government. We've gotten immediate action out of the federal government for enough of a financial contribution…. It's enough of a green light to get this project going a.s.a.p.

We are now in discussions with TransLink, basically, on how to move this project forward just as expeditiously as we possibly can.

I have to again congratulate the mayors from the northeast sector. One of the things that the business case had pointed out was that there were options on the routes — a southern option, a northern option. Essentially, you can make an argument for either one. That's what the business case stated.

We went to the communities, and we said: "Look, you have selected a northern route in the past. I presume you want to stay with the northern route, but I need to hear that from you. You've got 45 days to go back and have whatever consultations you need to have. Come back to the government and let us know if that's still your position so that we can all get on, knowing that there's no uncertainly about the route." They have done that. They've all come back. They've all confirmed that they wish to stick to the existing route.

We agree with that decision, and now we're getting on with TransLink about figuring out how we can move this project forward just as quickly as humanly possible. The member probably knows me well enough to know that I am somebody that generally likes to move quicker as opposed to slower, and so I can assure the member opposite that this is a project that is going to receive very close personal attention by the minister. It is my expectation, which has been clearly relayed to my staff, that I want to do everything we can to work with TransLink to get this project underway.

M. Karagianis: When will this then be tendered, or will a decision be made on the public-private partnership aspect of it?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated, we are going to work with TransLink. My goal is to get into the procurement process as quickly as we responsibly can. It's my hope and belief that we should be able to do that this year, given the work that we're doing thus far with TransLink and the analysis that needs to be undertaken in terms of what is the most correct position to take in terms of procurement options, etc. But it's my goal and hope that we will do that this year.

M. Karagianis: The minister said that this is a specific project that is of interest to the minister, and he's going to take a real hands-on approach to this. What is TransLink's role in the Evergreen line project then if the minister is personally overseeing it and the government itself is taking the lead on this?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're working very closely in partnership with TransLink on this particular project. Where I'm taking the lead on this project is making sure that we get the federal government commitments we need to ensure that this project goes ahead. That has been the issue that has been most important to me — also working with them to make sure that we could present a very credible business case to the federal government, which we have now done.

The federal government responded, as I say, very positively to a well-thought-out business plan by announcing a $67 million commitment literally within weeks of receiving the business case. In all of my

experience of dealing with the federal government I don't believe that I have ever seen a response that quickly. In fact, as much as I love the federal government, I can tell you that they are not exactly famous, at least at the staff level, for moving with lightning speed. But they did move with lightning speed in this case. They need to be applauded for that, and I do applaud them.

As I say, we are working this out as a partner with TransLink. Both of us have the same mutual interest. That mutual interest is to get this project built and completed by 2014 to provide, frankly, something that has been long talked about. That is so often the case in governments that we've seen come and go. They do a lot of great talking and not a lot of great delivery. This is a project that will be delivered and built by 2014. We are going to work with TransLink in a partnership basis to do everything we can to make that happen just as quickly as we responsibly can.

M. Karagianis: What is the difference between this project then and the Golden Ears project where the minister said: "I don't know anything about it. I don't want to discuss it. I can't make any comment. I have nothing to do with that. That's TransLink's project"? I don't understand the differentiation between when the government opts into TransLink's business and when they don't and when they partner and when they don't. Could the minister please explain that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Sure, that's a pretty straightforward answer. That's a project to which we're making no financial contribution, so it's a TransLink project, just as they undertake many other projects, road improvements within their sphere of jurisdiction. I don't get involved in worrying about how they do the projects, how they deliver them, what they're doing — that's their responsibility.

Where I do take an interest is when we have provincial government participation in the project, particularly projects where typically what happens if we're going to get involved is that they're also asking us to bring federal government dollars to the table. That is when you will find that I take a strong interest in these projects.

Obviously, if we have a financial interest, I have an obligation to the taxpayers of British Columbia who are going to be investing dollars in this project to ensure that the dollars are well spent. But that's a project to which we have no financial contribution; therefore, I have no interest except as a Minister of Transportation that's eager to see the project provide a benefit to the residents of the lower mainland, which it clearly will.

R. Chouhan: A couple of quick questions. On March 10, 2008, the council of the city of Coquitlam and the city of Port Coquitlam supported the northwest corridor route for the Evergreen line. Subsequently, on March 17 the city of Burnaby affirmed its support for the same route. So my question to the minister is: could the minister confirm that the northwest corridor route would be the final route?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I can tell the member is that I very much appreciate the work that the local governments have done. They did a lot of work on that. They got back to us quickly, and we appreciated that. TransLink and ourselves are going to sit down and look at the recommendations that they made, and of course, that will weigh very heavily in the final decision. But I have to respect the fact that we're going to be working with TransLink on that as partners, and we will jointly make a decision on that thing in the final analysis.

As I said, we appreciated the work that those communities in the northeast sector did on going back to their residents, having a fruitful discussion and coming forward with the recommending and council resolutions with respect to the route preference.

R. Chouhan: Also on March 17 the city of Burnaby sent its report and some recommendations to the minister. I want to read those four recommendations to be on the record, and then the minister can make a comment about that.

The four recommendations. The first one was that council requests the province and TransLink to undertake an evaluation of the business case for LRT technology for the northwest corridor, taking into account the concern and questions raised in this report with regard to business case 2008, ALRT's assumption on service speed, ridership, operating and capital costs, interoperability and community service while retaining proposed funding commitments for the northeast sector rapid transit service.

The second recommendation was that council affirm its support for the northwest corridor as the preferred route for the LRT rapid transit line and request a provincial and TransLink commitment to adhere to the condition for Lougheed Town Centre, as outlined in section 4 of the city report.

The third recommendation they have made is that council requests the province and TransLink to reconsider the advisability of the anticipated P3 funding approach, given issues raised with regard to public accountability and transparency, transfer of revenue shortfalls to the public and certainty of system integration with the local community.

The final one was that the province and TransLink be requested to undertake further consultation with affected municipalities once the revised business plan has been prepared.

Hon. K. Falcon: The only comments I would say is that Burnaby regularly sends me council resolutions. I am usually in total disagreement with them. It shouldn't be a surprise to the member that this will be the same thing.

So what I would say to the mayor and council of Burnaby is to read the business case. We are not going

to use the light rail technology which they asked us to re-evaluate. The business case couldn't have been clearer about the fact that that technology would make absolutely no sense. Frankly, for them to even put a resolution like that forward obviously suggests that they have not read the business case, which was extremely overwhelming in that regard.

I don't remember what all the other things were, but the fact of the matter is that we are going to work with TransLink and move this process forward.

I encourage Burnaby to keep sending me their resolutions, which they do on a regular basis. It provides interesting reading.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask, then — continuing with regard to the $14 billion plan…. We've talked a little bit about where the Evergreen plan is, what kind of time lines we may expect and the process around acquiring the federal contribution as well as tendering for the P3 on this. The UBC line has also been identified as a high priority.

Can the minister tell me where that fits into the schedule and how it is going to be treated as far as P3 partnership and federal contribution?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's question: look, it's very early on, obviously, in the planning process for both the UBC line and the Surrey extension. TransLink will no doubt just be getting up to speed. There is a long way to go in terms of even starting the discussion with the municipalities, in terms of impacts on communities, the public consultative process, etc. So it's very early on.

What we have said as part of this plan, and what we've made very clear as part of this plan, is that we expect all $14 billion to be fully implemented and in place by 2020. That includes all the lines that the member is talking about. That includes the RapidBus lines — all nine of them. That includes the doubling of the transit fleet in the lower mainland. That includes the 600 new buses for the rest of the province. All of that is going to be completed by 2020.

In terms of when they get started on this and, you know, who goes where first and everything, I think that TransLink still has a fair bit of work to do in that regard.

M. Karagianis: So these are to be completed. The UBC line, the Evergreen line, the extended Expo line to Surrey are all to be completed by 2020. That would demand that many of these projects, including some of the RapidBus, are going to have to be done in tandem. Is that what the government expects?

M. Karagianis: How is the government prioritizing what will be done when, and where? I can see that the Expo line…. You know, the Canada line is nearing completion. The Evergreen line, if the minister is correct in his estimation, will be completed by 2014. How is the priority determined on what is next in the list of major projects that will be started?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that really comes out of the planning work that gets done. As part of the planning work, TransLink, working cooperatively with the provincial government, will do a bunch of planning work to figure out what is the best way to move these projects forward.

You have to think about issues of pacing. You want to make sure that you do these projects in a responsible way. There may be opportunities for joint procurement. There's a whole bunch of initial work that has to be done — initial planning work, frankly — before you can even get to figuring out what the priorities are and what's moving when and where.

Obviously, in some of the things like RapidBus lines, there are opportunities for early work to get done. It depends on the nature of the work that is required. There will obviously have to be some planning. In areas where you can see opportunities for adding additional lanes, where you've got the rights of way, where you've got a fairly good understanding of soil conditions, etc., you might be able to move quicker. Where there are overpass/underpass requirements, there's a possibility that maybe there's been engineering work done in the past.

I don't know any of those things off the top of my head, but I do know that that is part of what will happen as part of the initial planning work that needs to be undertaken to move this process forward. I can tell you that what we have done is made sure that we've included dollars in our plan and in the budget to get this process moving forward just as quickly as we responsibly can.

M. Karagianis: In the case of the number of answers there that the minister has given me that really are reliant upon TransLink, how do we ask these questions of TransLink, around their planning process? How much control has the government got over that?

Certainly, there's a great deal of controversy around the planning process and around TransLink's new governance model. The minister has said that where he's got a keen interest, like on the Evergreen line…. Obviously, a lot of hands-on interest there. But the minister seems to opt in and out of when he has control over the process or a keen personal interest or a driving ambition to get it moving forward and when the rest of it seems to be just a bit serendipitous. How do we determine, then, for communities what the priority is going to be?

The previous member, from Burnaby, talked about the concerns of several of those municipalities. I met most recently with the community of Surrey, with representatives from local government there, and they have a very, very keen interest in more buses, faster, and in that being a top priority of government. They're ready it go on this. They're ready to partner on this. They're eager to partner on this.

How would the minister determine that that's a high priority? If the local government says it's a high priority and they've got the dollars and the commitment and the planning there, how do they get queued up, then, in the priorities around this huge expansion plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member probably knows that the mayor of Surrey is a good friend of mine. The councillors are all people I know on a first-name basis and have known for many, many years. They made it very clear, under the previous TransLink structure, how totally disappointed they were with the transit plan that had been put in place for south of the Fraser.

It is our belief — the belief of the mayor and council of Surrey, and certainly the belief of this Minister of Transportation — that the level of service that is being provided currently south of the Fraser needs to be dramatically improved. I agree with the mayor on that.

I qualify it with only one thing — that the community south of the Fraser also has to think differently about how they develop. I am less than satisfied with the fact that there tends to be suburban sprawl. It's very difficult to service communities that are sprawled over very large areas.

I can tell you that the mayor and council of Surrey have shown great leadership in moving away from that. You're seeing more new highrises either under development or planned for Central City, which I think is very positive for that community. They are moving quickly to show leadership in that regard.

I actually met and spoke to the mayor prior to the preparation of this plan, to find out exactly what were the priorities of Surrey. The priorities of Surrey were to see SkyTrain out to Guildford and to see it extended along the Fraser Highway, ultimately out to Langley. That's exactly what was delivered as part of the plan.

The other priority that the mayor and councillors have talked to me about in the past is that they want to see more bus service. So what does this plan do? It doubles the bus fleet of TransLink — 1,000 new buses over the next 12 years. That will see service in the TransLink area every 15 minutes, 15 hours a day and seven days a week. I can tell you that that is a level of service way above and beyond what Surrey, even in its wildest dreams, was thinking they would actually receive.

This is what I mean by a transit plan that responds in a very, very real way. Now, the issue is: how quickly do you get this up and running? Obviously, there's some planning work that has to be done. I mean you have to order buses. You've got to make sure they're clean, green buses, which is consistent with the direction that we've laid out as part of the provincial transit plan.

Obviously, TransLink has a ton of work ahead of them. There's no question about it. The new TransLink board and the council of mayors have an enormous amount of work ahead of them. But there is no doubt in my mind — being on a first-name basis with all of those mayors; most of them are my personal friends and supporters — that we will do everything we can to move heaven and earth to make sure that they get exactly what they wanted — a transit system that folks south of the Fraser deserve, that they've been asking for 15 years, that is now going to be delivered as part of the most ambitious transit plan ever in the history of the province of British Columbia.

M. Karagianis: Is the minister saying, then, that he does endorse the south of Fraser area transit plan that's presented by the city of Surrey?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I endorse is what is going to be delivered as part of the transit plan, which is doubling the fleet of TransLink buses, which is a far more ambitious approach than any of the plans that had been thought of in all of these respective communities.

This is exactly the kind of thing that communities want to see. By doubling the fleet, TransLink will work, obviously, with the different municipalities to make sure that they allocate those in a way that meets the needs of municipalities. I have no doubt, based on the discussions I've had with the local community leaders and with TransLink, that they're well aware of the needs of Surrey. They now have the horsepower and the financial support to actually make those dreams become realized.

M. Karagianis: We now have gone through some fairly large components of this plan. There's a schedule for the Evergreen line. There's no schedule yet for the UBC line and no clear schedule either for extending the Expo, other than the expectation that the minister has that all of this will be done by 2020.

The minister talks about the expansion of buses over the coming 12 years. How does that work out? What's the schedule for the bus expansion, how many buses per year and where?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite must know that she's asking for the kind of detailed information that, obviously, is far ahead of the planning process. I mean, we just announced this plan a short while ago. TransLink has to even begin the process of planning before they start slotting how many buses this year, next year and the year after and where they're going to go, etc. I think that the member must know, and I would hope that the member knows, that that's how a responsible organization would actually plan a major capital program like that.

M. Karagianis: Well, in fact, it's part of the minister's $14 billion plan. I'm asking for details on it, and if the minister doesn't know, that's fine. Certainly we know that TransLink already has had an order in for a number of buses. We know that it does not meet the demands of the communities. Some of those will be replacement buses, and obviously the minister is talking about some new technology coming in. I would hope, when you're announcing something of this magnitude, that you'd have a bit of an idea on how you're going to deliver that.

You know, this is tied very closely with another major project here that the minister and I will be discussing, hopefully very shortly, which is the Gateway project. All of these things are intrinsically connected and if we're not going to deliver much of this until 2020, then it doesn't do the communities a lot of good in the coming years. So far we're looking at an Evergreen that won't deliver actual ridership capability until 2014, and the UBC line and the extended Expo well beyond that.

If they're not going to deliver ridership capacity until 2020 and beyond, and if these buses are not going to deliver ridership until 12 years or more from here, then it's a serious concern, I think, for those communities who are receiving pressure now, immediately, in their communities and are looking for confirmation of expansion before then.

I just talked about the South Fraser area transit plan, and they're looking at a much more aggressive schedule than what the minister has laid out here for the needs in their community. Certainly, the other pressure that we've got pushing on this transit plan — which is the Gateway plan, conceived originally without this transit plan — appears to be well ahead of any of this transit expansion. So we're going to see many more cars on the lower mainland, and we're going to see a lot more people commuting still. We're going to see that whole automobile culture build considerably in the years before there are any alternatives for these commuters.

I would think that would be a concern for the minister, especially given the commitment that the government has made to a serious climate change. It will be interesting to see how this particular agenda of delivering ridership capacity fits in with the thresholds that the government has set for this province in reducing greenhouse gases.

I think that it's a legitimate question to say: when are these buses being delivered? Where and how are they being delivered? Does the time line work with the other time lines that are running in tandem? The Gateway project and greenhouse gas emission thresholds are only just a few years past the 2020 deadline where the minister said we might have ridership on an extended line to Surrey or we might have more ridership capacity out to UBC.

Now, I understand that if the minister can't answer those questions, that's fair enough. But we have a huge commitment of dollars here, and it seems to me that there are a lot of questions hanging out there on a $14 billion plan that was delivered with a great deal of fanfare as being a significant response to community needs. If the details are not there….

Again, these are, you know, promises so far in the future that maybe the minister and I won't even be around to see the completion of any of these. Well, that's fair enough, I think, but we've got to be straight with the communities out there that are dependent on it.

When I talk to the communities in the south Fraser, they are looking for dramatic results much sooner than 2020 or beyond. They want some solutions now. Certainly, the ability to deliver buses is pretty easy. You can order buses. They don't take five, ten or 15 years to build, as do some of these major lines.

I know he is keen to be aggressive on projects like the Canada line and the Evergreen line. I'd like to see the same level of aggression on delivering the RapidBus lines and the expansion to existing lines. I think it's a fair question to say, you know, a large announcement of hundreds and hundreds of buses…. When and how are they going to be delivered?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, member, now you've done it. You've said so many completely outrageous comments that I am forced to have to respond to this, because you know what? I'll tell you.

I'm glad that the member finally went out and introduced herself to elected representatives south of the Fraser, most of whom I have known for at least ten years. I'm glad that the member, on the basis of her initial meeting, feels that she's now an expert on the needs of south of the Fraser, but let me tell you a little bit about south of the Fraser.

I'll tell you what they're tired of. They're tired of an NDP government that promised repeatedly that they would twin the Port Mann Bridge and that never did. They are tired north of the Fraser of an NDP government that said they were going to build a new Pitt River Bridge and that never did. They're tired of a government that promised to extend rapid transit all over the lower mainland and that never did, and they were tired of broken promises and of governments that made empty commitments.

They had $170 million, if you can imagine this — $170 million that they said they were going to contribute towards the Evergreen line, and they didn't fund a penny of it. This was so often the case, and this is exactly what we found when we came into government.

So here's the difference. This is now a government that, when we say we're going to do something, we do it. When we said we were going to work with TransLink and build the Canada line, that's exactly what we did, in spite of the sniping in the opposition from the members of the NDP.

When we said we were going to twin the Port Mann Bridge, I had to sit every year and listen to the NDP ask: "Where's the money? I don't see the money in the budget. Okay, well, there's some money in the budget, but I don't think it's enough money in the budget."

I don't hear them talking about the fact that we have over $600 million committed toward the Gateway project over the next four years. I don't hear them talking about the fact that we actually have the procurement process underway as part of the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. I didn't hear the applause and support for the $180 million RapidBus commitment that will form part of the new Port Mann bridge. And you know what? Every one of those things is going to get delivered. We said we were going do it, and we're doing it.

When we said we were going to twin the Port Mann Bridge, we're doing it. When we said we were

going to build the Pitt River bridge, we're doing it. It's under construction today. People can see it, and that is the difference.

When this member talks about how she doesn't see enough in here…. Gee, she wonders, is this really going to happen? Boy, has this minister done enough? Well, why doesn't the member try and read the budget? At the very least, read the budget and look at the fact of, over the next four years, 370 million provincial dollars for this provincial transit plan.

If this member cannot understand the fact that you actually have to do a little bit of planning before you start deciding where the buses go and what kind of buses you ought to order, we now understand why we had the financial fiascos of the 1990s. They didn't do that kind of planning. They went ahead and decided they were going to build ferries that they knew nothing about. They were going to make them of aluminum. They knew nothing about that, and they created the kind of fiascos that resulted in a bankrupt ferry corporation.

Well, that's not the way we're going to do it. What we are going to do is…. When we lay out a plan, it's going to be a well-thought-out plan. It's going to be a plan that has partnership dollars. It's going to be a plan that's got a business case. It's going to be a plan that involves the kind of planning work and research and homework that makes sure that when we do it, we do it right.

To have to sit and listen to this member, who was a staffer under the previous government in the disastrous decade of the 1990s, try and lecture us on how we need to move forward is just a little much to take. It is a little much to take, because you know what? We're fed up and tired of the ten years of broken promises.

I'll tell you that I will put our record next to that NDP government record any day of the week in terms of doing exactly what we say we're going to do. There's a member here from Surrey that is shaking his head. I can tell you that's the same member that talks about…. The day after the Leader of the Opposition says she's against the Port Mann Bridge, he goes into his local ethnic papers and radio and says: "Oh, no, no. We actually support it."

It would be nice to get the consensus position the NDP talk about. What the heck is it? Do they support it or not? It would be nice just once — sometime, somewhere — that we actually saw a position out of this government.

I can tell you what our position is. Our position is that we'll do exactly what we said we're going to do. And you know what? Look at our record.

Look at our record of getting the federal government dollars; look at the Kicking Horse Canyon; look at the Sea to Sky Highway; look at the Canada line; look at the Gateway project; look at the improvements on Highway 10 and Highway 15 and a quarter of a billion dollars; look at the improvements we're making in the northern part of the province and rural British Columbia — two-thirds of my ministry budget.

There you will see the evidence for a government that does what it says it's going to do, in direct contrast to the opposition, who made a lot of talk and achieved virtually nothing.

M. Karagianis: I still didn't hear in that diatribe anything about the time lines for delivery on this. The plans are not new for any of these lines. The Evergreen line and the UBC line have been discussed for years. It shouldn't be a mystery about what the time line might be on this. If the minister wants to give us another diatribe….

I'm asking for time lines. I'm asking what the schedule is for delivering on this $14 billion plan. I'm talking about the real concerns and needs of communities. I obviously have hit a raw nerve here. If the minister doesn't want to talk about when these buses are going to be delivered, that's fine. That's his prerogative.

Mine is to stand here and simply ask how we're going to deliver on a significant announcement here of dollars out to 2020 and beyond, and I think it's legitimate to say: "What's the time line? When are they going to be built? When are they going to be tendered? When is the engineering going to be done?" Those are legitimate questions to ask.

If they're not going to be done until 2014 or 2020, that's fine as well. Let's be frank about that. I don't have a problem in the minister just saying: "We don't have a plan. We're not going to think about that until after the Evergreen line is built or at some other time."

Certainly, the minister has said: "Whatever TransLink is doing, I don't know anything about it. That's their business. If our dollars are not there, I don't know anything about it." But in other ways, the minister seems very, very determined to lay out a plan for TransLink to follow.

They've already been told: "Here are your walking orders for the next 20 years. This is what you are building. Go and plan it." Well, their planning process is pretty much a technical exercise at this point because the plan has been shown here, unless they have the capacity to change this in some way that I'm not aware of.

If the minister doesn't have time lines on this, that is fine. I'll reread his comments to see if anywhere in there, there was a time line on the delivery of these buses and what communities can expect, because that's what is going on. Communities are asking: "When is this going to happen? We have this need, and when is this going to happen?" I think it's a legitimate question to ask, but if the minister doesn't, that's his prerogative.

I know that my colleague here also has a question, so I will cede the floor to him for his question, and then I will resume some discussion on other parts of this plan.

H. Bains: The minister mentioned that he's a personal friend of the mayor of Surrey and knows many of the councillors on a personal basis, which is a good thing. I think the minister and the members of the council need to work together.

The minister also said that before he put this plan together, he actually met with them, and they delivered exactly what they asked for. The minister mentioned an extension of the SkyTrain over to Guilford. My question is: in addition to that, was he informed that part of

Hon. K. Falcon: The member for Surrey-Newton would know well that TransLink is the organization that delivers services throughout the TransLink region, including Surrey. TransLink, as part of putting together a plan, listens to the different communities, etc. But TransLink makes their decisions in the best interests of the entire region and does their best to respond to all of the concerns.

The member should understand clearly what I said. I met with the mayor of Surrey prior to this to talk about what her view of rapid transit was, and the mayor provided some input which, happily, was exactly what ended up as part of the provincial transit plan.

I can tell you, at the end of the day, what TransLink needed and the planning that they've always done in the transit plan does is respond to every wish and dream of the TransLink organization. Everything they ever wanted to ever do but could only dream about — and never have the dollars and the commitment from senior levels of government to do — is now evidenced as part of this plan. That is the difference.

Surrey's own plans for how they would like the buses to work, etc., will inform the discussion and the planning that will take place. My only comment to the member opposite and the critic was that you've actually got to do that kind of planning. You don't develop plans, time lines, budgets, etc., without doing that initial planning. Obviously, you have to do that before you can start talking about time lines of when things get delivered.

That's what the initial preliminary planning does. It actually sets out what the time lines are for delivering them, how many buses you need and how many the bus companies can reasonably build over the period of time in which we need to fulfill the plan.

You need to make sure you stagger the bus purchases so that they're coming on line in a way that meets the needs of your labour force and the additional labour that's going to be required, and that meets the needs of discussions you're having with communities like Surrey in terms of how many buses they would like, where they would like the buses to go and where the growing parts of the community are.

At the end of the day, the most important thing that Surrey needed to hear was that there was a plan and a commitment — a commitment that doubles the fleet of TransLink's buses. A thousand new buses are exactly what south of the Fraser needed to see. How they get allocated, obviously, will form part of the planning process.

Surrey will, no doubt, play a big part of that. The mayor is chair of the council of mayors and is an influential person in her own right. I have no doubt that the discussions she has and the representations she makes on behalf of the residents of Surrey will be strong, vocal, focused and consistent with what the needs of the community are.

I have no doubt that this plan — this $14 billion commitment over the next decade and just beyond, twelve years — is going to fulfil all of those needs and perhaps even more. I am particularly excited, I should say, about the work that is currently being done in cooperation with Surrey as part of the RapidBus system that is going to be part of the Port Mann Bridge.

The underpass that is being delivered by Surrey at 156th is a very important link to connect the communities of Guilford and Fraser Heights and to provide the access ramps for the RapidBus that will feed the new $180 million commitment between TransLink and the provincial government.

We're well on our way. We've got strong support from the communities. Naturally, they will have their input into the process, and I have no doubt that we will be able to fulfil, in cooperation with our partner TransLink, most of the needs that are being identified by Surrey.

H. Bains: That's a very good overview of what is needed in that particular area. But I think one of the things that that particular mayor of Surrey has been asking for, as part of the overall transit plan for that region, is 500 buses now — not in 2020, not in 2013, but now.

The way that Surrey has grown, one of the fastest-growing communities…. All the predictions are that it is going to become the largest city in British Columbia in the coming few years — by the time, perhaps, of what the ministry is saying about the time line of delivering these buses.

I think the need will actually grow even further than what we need today. Today's need for Surrey is 500 buses. Can I ask this minister to comment on whether the message of Surrey — the council and the mayor — has been passed on, whether that was considered as part of the overall plan? How many actual buses will they be getting this year?

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, the member should not misinterpret what the mayor said. The mayor wants 500 buses; there's no question about that. But the mayor also recognizes this isn't pixie dust: you sprinkle pixie dust, and 500 buses magically appear.

You have to order the buses. The buses have to get built. It's a two- to three-year turnaround process to get the buses built. Then you have to bring them on line, and you've got to make sure that you know where the buses are going. You don't just dump 500 buses into a community willy-nilly and they're driving all over the place trying to find out what they're supposed to do.

I think the member must recognize that there is at least some level of planning that has to be involved before you do that. I know the member does, actually. He has to. The member should know that buses are being ordered every year by TransLink.

What TransLink has now is the certainty of knowing that they've got a major financial commitment from the province of British Columbia over the next four years of $370 million of real, new money towards the transit plan, as represented in the budget.

That will give them the confidence they need, as they go through the planning process, to figure out

what level of buses they can responsibly order and what level the bus manufacturers are capable of actually producing for them. I'm sure they're not the only jurisdiction in the world that's ordering buses. They will work their way through that.

It's a planning process. They will eventually get the doubling of the fleet. That's why we did it over 12 years, because this is a realistic plan. There's no sense talking about a plan that is completely unrealistic and that nobody can deliver on. We don't do that as a government. There's no point in saying we're going to have 500 buses for Surrey tomorrow when everybody knows it's impossible to deliver on a commitment like that.

We have to at least be intelligent about what we are capable of doing collectively with TransLink in terms of meeting the commitment to double their fleet. Part of that means ordering buses each and every year and recognizing that there's a two- to three-year buildout for those buses. That's what TransLink is going to do. That's why we will cooperate with them the best we can.

Obviously, they take a lead on issues like that. We'll rely on them for the best way in which they need to order them and get them on the streets and hire the workers and all the things that TransLink is responsible for. They will know that they have got a strong partner with dollars at the table, committed to making this plan happen in a responsible way and in a realistic way and not in a way that is going to raise expectations that will cause you to be, frankly, laughed out of your community.

The member knows full well that I know the community of Surrey very well. I'm an MLA from Cloverdale. I know all of the members of council extremely well. They're all personal friends of mine. I guarantee you that I will work very closely with them and make sure that we do everything we can as a province to make sure that TransLink has all the resources they need to meet the needs of Surrey.

H. Bains: I actually give a lot more credit to that mayor and that council than the minister would like to — although unintentional, I might add, on the minister's part. When the city council and the mayor say, "We need 500 buses today," they've done their planning. They know why they need 500 buses.

They just didn't pick these numbers out of thin air and say: "Let's see how many buses we could ask for." They did their planning. They knew where the community is, they knew where those buses are needed, and then they came up with a number. They said: "We need 500 buses. We could use those 500 buses today."

I think it's a fair question to the minister. I know the minister is working hard and diligently trying to solve that problem at that city hall. The question is, once again to the minister. The 500 buses that have been asked for — at what stage are they going to get any of those buses? Are they going to get 20 this year or 30 next year?

I understand that you can't just drop 500 buses onto those streets today or tomorrow. I understand that you need to order them. You need to bring them over into the city and place them strategically.

I think my question is: what is the plan for those 500 buses to be delivered that Surrey is asking for, that we need today?

Hon. K. Falcon: All I can say is what I've said before. TransLink is going to have to do the preliminary planning work to make sure that they order the buses and are able to deliver the buses on a schedule that is realistic, that is financeable and that makes sense. I have every confidence that TransLink will be able to do that.

I think we can keep going around the circle on this, but my answer won't change. It's got to be done and delivered in a responsible way. TransLink, I have no doubt, will do that. What we have done is made sure that we've provided dollars from the provincial government to ensure that we can kick-start this process. TransLink is no doubt — as we speak, I'm sure — working on the original preliminary planning in terms of bus orders and all those kinds of issues to help achieve exactly what communities want.

I also know that the one most important thing I always hear from those community leaders is that what they want, first of all, is a plan and a commitment. That is very, very important — a plan and a commitment and a government that's willing to follow through on that commitment. We've delivered a plan. We've made a commitment. We're going to follow through on that commitment.

Surrey is going to be ultimately well served by this, but we will also challenge the communities. I want to add this again. We will challenge the communities, including Surrey, to also think about how they develop their communities.

I can tell you that it is not at all helpful when communities are developed and planned in a manner that sprawls the population out over large areas, which make it very difficult to service by transit. It's also very expensive to service by transit. Also, as a resident that lives in Surrey, I am constantly frustrated by the fact that you have to drive virtually everywhere you need to go in Surrey. It is extraordinarily frustrating.

There are some bigger changes on the development side and the planning side in Surrey that also need to take place. As I said before, I think Mayor Watts has shown great leadership in that regard and is moving Surrey towards a community that is more compact, that starts to focus density in the different town centres — particularly in Surrey centre itself — and that starts building up, which will create ridership for the transit services we all want to deliver.

I can tell you that the RapidBus networks that we're talking about for Surrey are hugely important — up the King George Highway along the 99, which will serve South Surrey–White Rock and southern Surrey — to connect them with the SkyTrain and connect them ultimately with the Canada line through the Massey Tunnel and along the 99.

Those are also going to be very important — as will the RapidBus along the Fraser Highway connecting to SkyTrain and providing Langley, for the first time,

with a real, viable transit option that will build the culture of ridership on those corridors until such time as the actual SkyTrain extensions themselves can go out to those respective communities.

I've made the commitment financially for sure, but there's also the ongoing personal commitment I will make that we will do everything we can to work with TransLink. I know that TransLink, as the party responsible for delivering that service, will do everything they can to do it as quickly as they financially, responsibly can within the confines of what is capable of being delivered by manufacturers — making sure that they've got the labour pool to service those additional buses and that they can deliver the service on the ground.

I have no doubt that as they work their way through the preliminary planning, they will set out a timetable — exactly what the members opposite are talking about. Once they have that timetable and the time lines ready, they will then, no doubt, at some point make that public and then proceed on working to meet the timetable.

H. Bains: I gather from that that the minister has no time line at this particular time for the people of Surrey about those 500 buses and when and how they will be delivered. Anyway, I'll move on.

One of the other areas that the minister knows fully well has been in the headlines of many newspapers on a constant basis is the Pattullo Bridge. I would like to hear the minister's comment on why and how that got missed in this $14 billion project — the provincial government is involved, the federal government is involved, and the local municipalities are involved in it — knowing fully well that that is one of the oldest, dilapidated, most narrow and unsafe bridges.

Everyone recognizes — including the minister, I'm sure — that that bridge needs to be replaced now. Yet there's no plan in this huge megaplan that the minister laid out for those municipalities. The people of Surrey and others who are driving on that bridge or have to drive on that bridge on a daily basis are constantly reminding themselves, "Should we go on that bridge or not?" because of the very, very treacherous history of that bridge.

My question is to the minister…. I know that in the past they have said it's the responsibility of TransLink, but all of these projects include TransLink and the provincial government. Why was Pattullo Bridge missed out of this?

Hon. K. Falcon: See, you're not ready for me to move that quickly, are you, Chair?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just to back up a little bit here, when the NDP government set up TransLink back in the '90s, what they did was assigned what they called the major road network to TransLink jurisdiction and area of responsibility.

That included things like the King George Highway and most of the road network in the TransLink jurisdiction, including a number of bridges. We retained bridges that were on the provincial highway system, like the Port Mann Bridge or the Alex Fraser Bridge, and the balance went over to TransLink. It has been that way since TransLink was set up.

I happen to agree with the member opposite. The Pattullo Bridge was built in 1938. It was never…. Frankly, as with so much of the infrastructure across the province of British Columbia that we found when we came into office, there was such a deficiency of investment in the infrastructure of the lower mainland.

To put it in perspective, there had not been an investment of major infrastructure in the lower mainland since the Alex Fraser Bridge in 1986. The population has gone up three-quarters of a million people since then, and we know that over the next 25 years we'll see another million people moving into the lower mainland. So we had a huge amount of catch-up to do.

I can only deal with the sphere and area of jurisdiction, of responsibility, that I have as the Minister of Transportation, and I think we've been moving very aggressively on that. A $3 billion Gateway transportation program is all about doing that catch-up: twinning the Port Mann Bridge, building a new Pitt River bridge, building a South Fraser perimeter road and making massive investments that are long overdue in the lower mainland.

TransLink has the jurisdiction and responsibility for the Pattullo Bridge. It is their bridge; it is part of the major road network. They have the decision-making power about whether or not that is to be a priority for them. I happen to think it should be a priority. I'm on the record for saying that in the past, but it will be TransLink, ultimately, that will look at their entire system that they are responsible for and make a decision as to what part of the major road network should be a priority and what shouldn't be.

That was how it was set up, actually, by the NDP government, and we haven't changed that. That's still their area of jurisdiction. It is still their area of responsibility, and they are the ones that will make decisions. In fairness to TransLink, I do have to say that they are very much aware of the fact that this is a bridge that has had, frankly, a horrific number of fatalities — in terms of the severity and, I would say, even the number of fatalities.

It is something that I think is very much on the minds of any resident that lives on either side of the Pattullo Bridge. TransLink, to their credit, has spent a number of dollars and a lot of engineering time doing a review and an assessment of the bridge to determine what options they have available for either repairing or rehabilitating the bridge in a manner that could make it safer. For all I know, one of their options may be to look at a new bridge option. I don't know because I'm not TransLink. It's them. They have to do that homework.

I do know that as a resident of Surrey, when I drive across the bridge, they've now put provisions into

place that there are only two lanes available after a certain period at nighttime — I forget — in the evening hours. I'm not sure when that kicks in, but I think it's after ten at night or something like that. That essentially preserves the middle lane as not to be used, which keeps traffic separated from each other.

I know that there is a challenge for them to put in a median barrier, which is what most people will say. "Just add a median barrier." But that is a significant challenge because of the narrowness of the bridge, which was built in 1938, that never, ever imagined it would have the kind of traffic volume going over it that it did in 1938.

It's very different today. You can't put a median barrier on there for structural reasons, but also because there is not a width that would allow you to do that. There is what they call a shyness factor that motorists need when they're driving along a bridge. If there's a median barrier, they have a certain factor that they need to be away from it, and that doesn't allow room for cars beside them.

I don't doubt for a second that it's a challenge for TransLink, but they have to deal with challenges every day, just as I do as the Minister of Transportation. I'll deal with mine. They'll deal with theirs. I'm on the record as saying I've always believed that the Pattullo Bridge should be a priority, but ultimately, I think that's a decision that TransLink will make.

Up to this point, at least publicly, I have not seen any of the members of the previous board of TransLink state…. Although I think the mayor of Surrey has been on the record as repeatedly calling for a new bridge, I don't believe that under the previous TransLink board, at least…. That was not, obviously, a position that was universally shared by the board, and therefore, they did not make a decision to actually replace the bridge.

We'll have to see. Maybe under the new structure, with the new council of mayors, there could be a shift in direction. They may decide that that is an important priority. I don't know. But I appreciate the member putting that on the record — about the member's concern — because I share it. It's always my hope that TransLink will look at that and determine whether or not replacement of the bridge might actually make more sense.

As I say, I don't know what work they've done, what kind of rehabilitation work they could do to the bridge in terms of widening, etc. I just don't have that information in front of me, so I don't know what work they've done, what may be feasible and what may not be feasible.

H. Bains: I do appreciate the minister's answer on this, but it is confusing, though. The minister, on one hand, says that the Pattullo Bridge is the responsibility of TransLink. When you look at this $14 billion project, part of that $14 billion also is a TransLink responsibility — for example, the SkyTrain extension, new buses.

A number of those initiatives announced under the $14 billion also are the jurisdiction of TransLink. On one hand, the minister is moving into the jurisdiction of TransLink to deal with the issues of local transit areas. But on the other hand, when we are talking about the Pattullo Bridge…. I understand that it is a responsibility of TransLink.

At the same time, when the minister was considering this $14 billion project which includes parts of the TransLink responsibilities, why was the Pattullo Bridge left out? Was that an oversight? Was there was no planning to replace it, or was it not a priority for the minister to have that thing included in this overall project?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's actually much simpler than that. This is a public transit investment plan. It's for public transit. The whole point of the public transit…. That's why we called it a public transit plan, a provincial transit plan. We didn't call it a road and bridge infrastructure plan. We called it a provincial transit plan. The whole point of the provincial transit plan is to get people to ride transit.

Obviously, we're not going to be talking about the Pattullo Bridge in a provincial transit plan. But again, the major road and bridge network that TransLink is responsible for is part of what TransLink does. That's why they have a billion-dollar annual operating budget — to make decisions on what roads they pave, improve or widen; what bridges they rehabilitate or replace; whether they build a new bridge or not. That's why they decided to build the Golden Ears bridge. Those are decisions that TransLink makes, and that's infrastructure.

All I can tell you is that from the provincial government's point of view, in addition to having a provincial transit plan, we also have an infrastructure plan. It's called the Gateway transportation plan. That is a $3 billion commitment to trying to catch up with our areas of jurisdiction and responsibility, which are bridges and highways. We are making significant investments.

In addition to the $3 billion Gateway transportation plan, which includes the new South Fraser perimeter road, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, the replacement of virtually every interchange along that corridor out to 216th and the new Pitt River Bridge, we are also investing a quarter of a billion dollars in improving Highway 15 four-laning — as the member would know — and in Highway 10 four-laning to ensure that it's continuous from Langley to Highway 91, in improvements to Highway 91A, and in a new Howe Street interchange.

All of those improvements are part of the provincial area of responsibility, and we are investing very, very heavily. TransLink is responsible for making their own bridge and infrastructure investments, and that's what they will do. You should talk to TransLink about their own infrastructure capital plan. You should go to them and tell them that you think that as part of their infrastructure plan, they should make the Pattullo Bridge more of a priority. But we are talking about a provincial transit plan, and therefore, not surprisingly, it actually has to do with investment in transit.

I'm proud of the $14 billion provincial transit plan. I'm proud of the fact that over the next four years we

are investing $370 million towards that plan. I'm proud of the fact that we have already seen federal government support towards that plan on the Evergreen line. We will push that plan as hard as we can. I will use every ounce of ability that I have to work to bring the federal government in as part of that plan.

H. Bains: Perhaps I should ask this of the minister. Obviously, the Pattullo Bridge got missed by both plans. If we were to add more buses, whether they were going to use the Pattullo Bridge for buses to cross…. Again, it got missed. In the other plan, the highway and infrastructure plan that the minister mentioned, it got missed as well. Anyway, let's work with what we have.

I would ask the minister, and perhaps the minister can comment. A number of the law enforcement agencies and community groups, including the police, have been asking if perhaps we need to put something on that bridge to slow the traffic, to slow the cars, which is sometimes considered to be a major factor in those accidents. They have asked if perhaps they should put a fixed camera where people will know…. I could be mistaken, but the minister was on record as saying that we should have that camera on that bridge.

It's not those speed cameras that we're talking about. I can understand that the government was reluctant on that, because that was their policy. I don't agree with it, but that's their policy. But it's no different than the red-light cameras, in my view, in that we need to slow the traffic down to at least save one life or injury by doing that.

I would then ask the minister if perhaps he could lobby on behalf of all those people who actually have to travel on that bridge on a daily basis and dread driving on that bridge, not knowing who's going to be coming at them at what speed. He could lobby on behalf of all of those concerned folks to the new Solicitor General that perhaps he should rethink and put that red-light, or similar to the red-light, camera on the Pattullo Bridge so that we could slow the traffic and, hopefully, make that bridge safer for those who are driving on it until this bridge is replaced.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's recollection is correct. That was a position that I took as Minister of Transportation.

Of course, I wasn't the minister responsible for making the decision as to whether there would in fact be the kind of fixed camera that the member talks about. That was under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General. The position of the Solicitor General was and the position of government is that we are not bringing back photo radar, even if we try to narrowly define it to assist in this specific bridge case, which I believe even the Solicitor General acknowledged is a unique situation.

One thing that I can say has changed, and I've certainly noticed this, is that the policing and the enforcement of speeding over that bridge — and I'm sure the member has noticed this too — has improved very, very dramatically. It seems almost to be a rare case now when I don't come over the bridge and see the police on the Surrey side of the bridge with their radar guns in place and hidden and doing their speed control checks.

My understanding is that that has had, I suppose, not a surprising result in the sense that there has been a dramatic reduction in accidents, thank goodness, and a big reduction…. I don't believe there've been any fatalities in the last number of months, certainly, and hopefully maybe even years on the bridge.

The member is absolutely right to say that it still remains a very challenging bridge. It is very safe, if you're doing the speed limit. That's one thing we know for sure. If people are doing the speed limit, the bridge is safe.

It shouldn't be a problem for most of the travelling public, but there is a tendency in our day and age for people to exceed the speed limit and to drive impatiently, particularly at night. I think the combination of the increased enforcement and the steps that TransLink has taken to just utilize the outer lanes of the bridge during nighttime hours and overnight hours have achieved the desired effect.

The member is correct in pointing out that the long-term solution clearly is either a substantial renovation of the existing structure or a replacement of the bridge. I agree with the member on that. I just am not privy to any engineering work that has been done by TransLink or is being done or any assessments that they are doing, but I'm….

Hon. K. Falcon: The member wants me to lobby for the camera. I've made my position known on the camera. My position is on the record, as the member quite correctly pointed out.

The new Solicitor General, I'm sure, is probably going to take the position that we have taken as government, and that is that we are not returning to having photo radar in the province. I support the government position, and I believe the other steps that have been taken are steps that have resulted in the same desired outcome the member no doubt wants to see by installing photo radar on the bridge. That is a dramatic reduction in speeding, a dramatic reduction in accidents and a dramatic reduction, if not elimination — at least thus far, knock on wood, obviously — of fatalities.

It doesn't mean it precludes them from happening in the future, but certainly the improvement is something that has been noted and, hopefully, will continue.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask a couple of further questions with regard to TransLink and the board and then move into some discussion on the Gateway project.

The TransLink board has now been re-established under a new governance model that passed in legislation in the fall and has been given the task of doing a ten-year plan. Certainly, the transit plan that the government has laid out will form a pretty significant part of that ten-year plan and then, presumably, some of the other highway and bridge responsibilities they have that the minister has alluded to, whether it's Golden Ears or the Pattullo Bridge.

Now, I know that the transit plan here calls for TransLink to contribute $2.75 billion to this plan. Does the minister anticipate how that will come about, and was that done with the approval of the TransLink board? Was that an agreeable contribution on their part?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's a good question. It's important to recognize that the provincial transit plan is predicated on a provincial vision of how we collectively can achieve our goal of joining the leading cities of the world like London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong in terms of the percentage of transit ridership. We laid out that vision.

Our staff obviously consulted pretty extensively with TransLink staff, but the contribution amount there is a suggested contribution amount by the province. What we wanted to do was demonstrate that the provincial commitment as part of this transit plan would be the most significant.

We were not going to ask anyone at any level of government to make a contribution that was going to be more than the provincial contribution or even meet the provincial contribution. We wanted to ensure that when we laid out the transit plan, we stepped up to the plate with the largest contribution. And we did, at $4.75 billion.

We have suggested a TransLink contribution of $2.75 billion. Obviously, that will be a decision, ultimately, that will be made by the council of mayors. The council of mayors will reflect on how ambitious their vision is, whether it is more ambitious or less ambitious than the provincial vision. My hope is that it will land somewhere around the targets and the vision that the province has set.

Certainly, all of the feedback that I have heard thus far from the mayors and the members of the council of mayors that have spoken to me…. Many have met with me privately, both prior to and subsequent to the introduction of the provincial transit plan. Everything I have heard back from them is pretty much a strong chorus of support for the plan. Some may have elements in terms of how quickly we can move, etc. — but generally, strong support.

It is, at the end of the day, a decision that the council of mayors will make. They will determine ultimately what level of contribution they will make to the plan. They will decide whether they like the level of ambition and scope and scale of the plan or whether they want something different.

M. Karagianis: The $2.75 billion. I'm hearing the minister say that the mayors will approve whether or not that is an appropriate contribution from TransLink. That's in addition to the $500 million that is already committed from those mayors and their communities to the transit plan.

M. Karagianis: I believe that's what you said here: $500 million from local government will go into this $14 billion plan.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry, Member. I should clarify that; I probably wasn't clear. The $500 million…. It's funny that the member mentioned that, because that actually was a source of some confusion — and I take responsibility for that — even at the announcement of this project. Some of the local mayors said: "Well, hang on a second. We've got to come up with $500 million." They weren't really happy about that, but it was just not properly explained by me.

Of that $500 million, actually, not a dollar of it comes from the TransLink area. That's all the rest of the province. Those are the dollars that would be committed under the existing funding formula we have with B.C. Transit, where we essentially split the costs of the expansion that takes place in the rest of the province. So that $500 million is for the Kelownas, the Victorias, the Island — throughout the rest of the province. It does not come out of the TransLink region.

M. Karagianis: So the $500 million comes from communities other than Metro Vancouver.

M. Karagianis: Is that in direct relationship to the amount of expansion that those communities can expect, whether it's Kelowna or whether it's Victoria? Is that prorated on what they are going to get in the way of expansion?

Hon. K. Falcon: The $500 million refers to the capital that will be required to acquire the additional buses that B.C. Transit is going to be utilizing for all of the jurisdictions outside of the Metro Vancouver area. That is based on a formula that has been in place for a long time — the member would be aware of that — where roughly 54 percent of that contribution comes from local government, 46 percent from the provincial government. That $500 million represents the local government portion of the contribution.

M. Karagianis: The $2.75 billion, then, coming out of TransLink that they need to raise for this…. Is the minister saying that a good portion of that will come from metropolitan municipalities? Is that where a portion of that's coming from — the $2.75 billion?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, it doesn't come directly from the municipalities. Obviously, TransLink has several

funding streams, as the member knows. They've got farebox revenue, revenue from property taxes, revenue from gas tax revenues — which is, I believe, the 13 cents that the province has provided to them as part of gas taxes that are collected. That goes to TransLink.

Of course, they also have the new opportunities now to create substantial dollars out of rezoning opportunities around transit stations, both current and proposed. The combination of all of those areas is where TransLink would realize their $2.7 billion contribution towards the transit plan.

M. Karagianis: The only municipal contribution, then, would be the property tax portion. I know TransLink has just determined that for the budget year they are going to be levying a 2.6 percent property tax on both business and residential properties. Is that the only contribution from communities, from municipalities, to the TransLink budget?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is in part correct. The 2.6 percent property tax increase the member referred to was an inflation increase that the previous TransLink board had approved, which just came into effect. That is something that they have on a periodic basis — inflation increases to some of the revenue streams. That was approved by the previous board.

Basically, going forward, what the council of mayors will do and what the professional board will do is look at what the financing and revenue requirements will be for different plan proposals. The professional board are required by legislation, as the member knows, to work up and create some options for the council of mayors.

They will meet and consult with the council of mayors and other stakeholder groups in the preparation of those options. All of the options must show not only the service levels and everything else that would be provided as part of the plans but what revenue streams would be necessary to finance them.

They would then present those options to the council of mayors, and the council of mayors would select from amongst the options. That's where it really comes down to what level of aggressiveness the council of mayors wants to have. It's really up to them as to what kind of vision, ultimately, they want TransLink to be part of in terms of what kind of public transit future there should be in the lower mainland.

There is obviously, in this case, too, an enormous amount of planning work that's going to have to be done. There's an enormous amount of financial analysis that will have to be done. There of course is a requirement for the work that is prepared by the professional board to be reviewed by the independent commissioner, who will provide a separate opinion to the council of mayors on the options that are being put forward. That will take some time, obviously, but that's essentially how the process will work.

M. Karagianis: I do know from the legislation that at the end of the day, if the mayors determine that they are not prepared to support as aggressive a plan as may have been laid out in this $14 billion plan or otherwise, the board has the right to determine moving ahead and approving the budgets without that unilateral decision from the mayors.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, that's actually not correct. The way that the legislation reads is that the board, if it does not receive the endorsement of the council of mayors on any of the options that go beyond the current base plan and the revenue stream that they already have in place, will be required to work within the existing revenue stream.

That's really key to this, because it will be the council of mayors, as it should be, that will determine ultimately the vision and the level of ambition they wish to see in terms of public transit services that are to be provided for the lower mainland, and it will be they who will ultimately make the decision as to what level of ambition and aggressiveness they want to see in the implementation and execution of that vision.

Should they decide not to select any of those visions that would provide the kind of transit vision that is laid out as part of the provincial transit plan, then under the legislation the professional board will be required to just work on the existing plan that TransLink currently has in place.

For what it's worth, my sense — and all the mayors that I've talked to — is that I have no doubt that what they all want to see is an expansion. But they all recognize that they've got a significant amount of homework ahead of them in terms of the kind of financial work that needs to be done, in terms of the discussion over service levels and time frames and all those kind of things that they will have to spend the next number of months working with a professional board on. So they've got their work cut out for them. There's no question about it, but that's how the process works.

M. Karagianis: I hear the minister saying that if the council of mayors determines a different set of priorities around this transit plan, they could in fact determine at that table that their contribution will only go to a specific part of this transit plan that may or may not be in keeping with what the minister has laid out here. What happens to the plan then, if they determine a different set of priorities around how this plan has been laid out?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's probably worth noting, as I sort of alluded to earlier on and I will say more directly now, that we worked very closely with TransLink staff in the preparation of the provincial vision. It certainly was not put together in a vacuum. We wanted to know what TransLink had been working on, to make sure that as we built our transit vision, the transit plan for British Columbia, a significant component of the plan that would be delivered by TransLink was going to be consistent with the plans and the vision that TransLink had.

It won't be any surprise to TransLink what's in our provincial plan. It mirrors the kind of things that they have long wanted to do but, frankly, could only dream about because there was never any senior-level government commitment, particularly on this scale, in terms of stepping up to the plate and providing the dollars that would allow them to do so.

What will happen now is that the professional board is required to work up plans that are based upon the consultations, in large part, they will have with the council of mayors and, in addition to that, with other stakeholder and interest groups that will want to have input into the preparation of options. The options start right from the base option that currently is in place — that, frankly, most of the mayors, including the mayor of my community, have panned, didn't think were acceptable to their communities in terms of the boldness of the vision.

They will work with the professional board to create options, and it would not surprise me if the options align at least in some significant way with what the provincial transit plan says, because this has actually predicated a lot on the work that TransLink staff has been doing over the last many, many years. But that remains to be seen.

Obviously, there's a lot of work that'll have to be done by the council of mayors, by the professional board. I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, based upon what the mayors have said to me and what they said publicly, that they are all excited about the provincial vision. They're excited to make sure that they do their part in helping the province of British Columbia meet our greenhouse gas commitments. They want to make sure that they provide the highest and best possible level of public transit service in their respective communities, and the way they're going to do that is by doing things differently.

The way we do things differently is to think boldly, act boldly and invest. That is what is going to be required as part of this plan, and certainly that'll be what's required as part of TransLink. As I say, the council of mayors and the professional board have a lot of work that they've got to do.

I have every confidence in the leadership of the chair of the council of mayors, Mayor Dianne Watts, and the mayors that serve on the council of mayors, who I think are all very good people. They are all largely trying to drive towards the same goal, working in cooperation with a team of professionals who come from backgrounds that I think will inspire confidence in the public in terms of their ability to execute on whatever vision is ultimately selected by the council of mayors and will make sure it gets delivered responsibly, accountably and in a manner that delivers on the ground for the public of the lower mainland.

M. Karagianis: I realize that the $14 billion plan was built on existing planning within TransLink. I don't think that's any secret. I'm actually more concerned about the funding formula here. I think the mayors could very well see a certain breaking point on that. The funding formula, from their perspective, is based on fares, property taxes and gas taxes, and the legislation has those three fairly well linked as far as increases.

I think it's fair to say that there is not a lot of support out there in the public for increasing transit fares in the lower mainland at all. So that's an avenue that would be very difficult for the mayors to sell in their own communities, and I, frankly, would be surprised if they would be supportive of that.

Property taxes, of course, are going to have a certain limit as well, because it is the only source of income for municipalities. Having another level of bureaucracy adding to the property tax burden means that that's an avenue that will hit a ceiling pretty quickly as well.

The gas tax at this point is fixed. Really, it seems to me that the only avenue here that has a lot more flexibility in the future is this new real estate plan for land banking and real estate speculation. Do the mayors have any jurisdiction whatsoever over this land banking and real estate investment funding scheme?

M. Karagianis: Do the mayors have any authority whatsoever on the real estate and land banking and real estate speculation portion of the funding options that have just been offered up by TransLink? Do the mayors have a say over that, how that's done?

Hon. K. Falcon: To the last point first. Yes, obviously municipalities will be very important players in determining the rezoning process that will create the value, working in conjunction with TransLink on identified sites that would create the value and allow TransLink to capture that value for the benefit of helping to pay for it.

I think what the member will find is that this will be something that will likely be looked on favourably by the municipalities. In part, that's how they could accelerate and make these projects happen a lot faster — by ensuring that there are dollars that can be generated that will help pay for the cost of those lines.

The other thing I will say about that, and it should come as no secret to the member opposite, is that I am particularly supportive of this method of raising money. I think one of the things that governments in the past have just totally failed to do is capitalize and capture some of that economic value that is generated when taxpayers on behalf of government are making massive investments in rapid transit. It has not gone past other jurisdictions. They have recognized that opportunity. Jurisdictions like Hong Kong and Portland have recognized that there are opportunities there.

The final thing I'll say about that is that it also provides ridership, which is very, very important. What you want to do when you're making massive investments like that is ensure that you've also got ridership.

I think the kind of feedback we have heard from communities is that they want to be part of that solution, that they understand they need to change the urban form to create the kind of ridership and the reduction in greenhouse gases that we all collectively want to see as we move forward.

The final thing I'll say is just to the member's point about the $2.75 billion contribution that TransLink will be asked to make if they agree to sign up to the provincial vision. The member correctly points out that that will be generated by fares, property tax, fuel tax and some amount yet to be determined, obviously, by the extraordinary real estate potential that is available on the rapid transit lines.

I think it's important to point out that we structured this plan in a manner that basically said to TransLink that the federal and provincial government together are prepared to underwrite more than 70 percent of the capital costs of this $14 billion plan. That is a very significant commitment.

What we are going to be saying to the communities…. I've said this publicly, and I'll say it here today. There shouldn't be any surprise in any communities that form part of the TransLink region — that they will be asked to contribute towards a $14 billion transit plan. Of course they will. And of course they should.

I think that the provincial taxpayers are already making a very substantial contribution. We make that on behalf of provincial taxpayers because there is a provincial benefit. In an area of the province that has three-quarters of the population, if we truly want to reduce greenhouse gases and create a culture of public transit usage, we need to make the investments where we maximize the benefit. So it is always a reality in this province.

It is frustrating sometimes. I know that in my ministry budget…. Although on the road rehab side and on the capital side we may spend two-thirds of it outside the lower mainland, when you're making a significant public transit investment, by the very nature of where the population centres are, you will have a disproportionate amount within the lower mainland.

There is a very significant provincial contribution of $4.75 billion, and we will be asking — no question about it — the Metro Vancouver area to also make their contribution, as they will, through TransLink. The level of their contribution, of course, will be commensurate with whatever the level of vision and ambition the council of mayors wants to see. By every indicator that I have heard, by the overwhelmingly positive response and the claim that we heard from the community leaders as a result of the presentation of the provincial transit plan, I do believe that that support will be there.

I don't make any apologies for the fact that we will expect — and I will expect, as a resident of the lower mainland who will see the significant benefits associated with this — to contribute. I'm prepared to contribute, as I believe that most people are. I get that there will always be people that will have a complaint about having to contribute and think that everything should be done and have absolutely no cost to them.

But I think that the vast majority of residents, certainly, that I hear from throughout the lower mainland, are excited about the vision, are excited about the plan and want us to get moving on it. With our partner in TransLink, we intend to do exactly that.

M. Karagianis: That, I believe, was all in response to my question about what the mayors would and would not approve. I'm fascinated by the comment that the minister made that the government is underwriting 70 percent of the $14 billion plan. I thought the commitment was $4.75 billion from the province, the rest to come from other partners. That's not necessarily what I want to explore right now.

I am more concerned with just making sure that we've established here that the mayors will have the ultimate and final approval and/or veto on how the $2.75 billion is going to be raised by TransLink. That will come from a combination of fares, property taxes, gas taxes and this new real estate scheme. Now the minister says that the mayors will certainly participate in the land speculation, because they'll be the ones who ultimately do the zoning on the land that's banked by TransLink — which in itself opens up, I think, a huge number of questions about conflict of interest.

First and foremost, I do want to make sure that we are very…. The legislation, certainly, is very vague here around this issue of whether the mayors have final decision on any of TransLink's plans. The legislation would indicate that if the mayors make a decision that the board disagrees with, the board has the ultimate capacity to overrule that. That concerns me greatly, and I'm sure that the minister will want to clarify that.

Also, in looking at the finite ability of TransLink to fund this $2.75 billion, I refer here to a letter that the minister sent to the chair of the mayors' council, around the hiring of a commissioner. The minister says that if a commissioner is not appointed and hired by the mayors: "TransLink will not be able to access the incremental fuel tax revenue provided for in the legislation, nor to increase transit fares beyond the levels already authorized."

It seems to me that there are a whole lot of catchphrases in here that say that the mayors have to do a certain number of things and that it's not in their power to make those final decisions. It wasn't in their power to make the final decision on whether or not they hired a commissioner.

I do know that there was a great deal of resistance by the mayors to doing that. It was only once the minister had written to the mayors' council and said, "If you don't hire a commissioner, you won't get any kind of fuel tax and you won't be able to raise transit fares" — two key components in their ability to participate in the $2.75 billion that the minister has predetermined will be the TransLink portion of the government's $14 billion plan….

Hon. K. Falcon: The member, with the greatest of respect, is confused about how the structure operates, and that's probably understandable. It is a new structure. I'll try and walk the member through there.

First of all, the mayors are the final arbiters, as I've said many times before, publicly. I'll say it again here. All the professional board can do is operate on the base plan that they have available and the revenues that are currently in place. Any increases in revenues that would be required to fund additional expansions that TransLink would have to contribute towards have to be approved by the council of mayors. There's not any doubt about that. It is as clear as could possibly be.

The member then goes along and confuses the discussion I had with the council of mayors about an independent commissioner. The member should know that the independent commissioner position…. The only controversy about that is that the council of mayors was actually trying to recommend something that they thought made some sense. They were trying to look at a way to save money, and they were trying to figure out whether they could avoid having an independent commissioner and save the money by not having one.

What I said to them in the letter is that it's an interesting idea which I'd be prepared to explore with them. However, I wanted to point out two things that were important. One is that the legislation that we passed in the fall requires an independent commissioner, and the reason that it requires an independent commissioner is for transparency, to make sure there is an independent check on the work that is being done by the professional board, to make sure that there's a public complaint process and a public process that is put into place that will meet the needs of the independent commissioner to ensure that the public, in dealing with TransLink, has as open and transparent as possible a process that they can have.

I said to the council of mayors in my letter that I thought those were still important principles but that I'd be prepared to work with them if they can figure out a way that those principles can still be achieved without having an independent commissioner. I'm happy to have that discussion with them, but they have to understand that it would require a legislative change to eliminate the independent commissioner today.

Obviously, it would require drafting time. The member well knows from her term as a staffer in government that this kind of stuff doesn't happen overnight. What I suggested to them was that if they made that decision today, it would create problems for them in terms of their ability to access additional revenue streams that need to be approved by the independent commissioner, under the legislation as written.

Therefore, it was my respectful suggestion that what we should do is move forward with what is required under the legislation, that I would be quite happy to sit down with them and look at future options, and that as long as they met the need for public accountability and transparency, I was prepared to figure out alternative ways that we can achieve those ends.

M. Karagianis: So can the mayors refuse to approve the real estate speculation as a funding source?

Hon. K. Falcon: Before I answer that, I notice that the member keeps using the term "speculation." Apparently the member is horrified at the thought…. That a structure might actually figure out a way to have the value that could be captured when rezoning properties along the rapid transit line and utilize those dollars to help pay for the construction of rapid transit line is somehow, apparently, something that she finds very difficult to support.

It is just incredible to me that she would be offended by the prospect of TransLink being given powers by the province of British Columbia now to explore those revenue opportunities so that they can actually help reduce the impact on the taxpayers that she purportedly is so concerned about in terms of the level of property taxation.

Yet when provided an opportunity to generate what could be potentially a very significant amount of money as a result of real estate along proposed lines or existing lines, that…. Somehow this is speculation, and she says it in a manner that suggests that once again, I assume, the NDP will be opposed to this too.

I would encourage the member to read the editorials that have appeared in the papers in the Metro Vancouver area — like the Vancouver Sun editorial and like the Vancouver Province editorial — that talk about how this actually makes and potentially makes an enormous amount of sense and how in places like Hong Kong not only did they fund the transit line through the real estate opportunities that were made available, but they actually run it at a profit.

I know that "profit" is a word that the members opposite don't like, but profit can be a very positive thing in terms of reducing the costs for taxpayers and folks in the Metro Vancouver area.

I just want to state for the record that the reason we included those provisions in the legislation was to encourage TransLink to seek out those alternative revenue opportunities so that they could, in fact, minimize or reduce what they are going to be asking from the taxpayers, whether it's the small business base or the residential base.

I, for the life of me, cannot understand how the members opposite would have trouble with an option that will give TransLink the opportunity to raise potentially hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, which will go towards building a line that will then provide the ridership necessary to service and feed the line, will help us meet our greenhouse gas objectives and will create a community throughout the lower mainland that is driven more by public transit, cycling and walking than one that is driven by the automobile.

M. Karagianis: Well, I would respectfully ask the minister not to put words in my mouth or presume what my opinion is. Perhaps I will be more careful to

couch my terms in those more acceptable to the minister — "real estate opportunity" rather than any of the other potential terminologies that I might use there.

I would ask the minister not to presume judgment on my part or to presume that he knows what my opinion is of any of the real estate opportunities that may be available in the future. What I'm asking is: can the mayors refuse that — the real estate and land banking and land zoning opportunities? Can they refuse that as one of the funding streams that they use?

Hon. K. Falcon: Of course they can. I mean, the mayors and the councils will have the final decision on whether they will provide the respective zoning that would be necessary to create the value or what we've agreed upon now as the real estate opportunity along these transit lines.

But having said that, when they do that, they will also be recognizing that that could impact the pace at which the line gets built or even, indeed, the priority in which the line gets built.

You know, none of this comes just by magic. It will come through a partnership, and I have no doubt that those that come to the table and say: "Hey, we want to make this happen, and we're prepared to do our bit. We think that we've found innovative ways that we can create, through real estate opportunities, the ability to raise dollars that can help pay for the line."

I have no doubt that that will be of great interest. It certainly will be to the province of British Columbia, which will be a major financial backer, as will the federal government, in terms of moving the project along perhaps a lot faster. Yes, mayors and councils will have the ultimate decision-making as to whether they support something or not, and they will live, ultimately, with the benefits or the obligations that come with the decisions they make.

I have no doubt that exploring these real estate opportunities is the right thing to do. It ought to have been done in the past. We've missed those opportunities. We're not going to miss them going forward.

I'll just say this very upfront. It's also how we are going to bring about the change in urban form so that we can create communities that are more greenhouse gas–friendly, create communities where public transit is actually something that is going to be utilized very heavily and have communities that are going to be pedestrian- and cycling-friendly, not communities that are simply built around the automobile.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to participate again this year in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. At the outset I want to say that my relationship and the relationship of my staff in both Cobble Hill and Langford with regional staff in the ministry is excellent. I want the minister to be aware that phone calls are returned very quickly. Any issues out on the road, whether it be with road maintenance and some of the challenges that that faces in my constituency…. There's always a friendly voice at the end of the line and at least a sincere effort to try and accommodate the needs of my constituents. I want him to know that I appreciate that and so do the people in my community.

But having said that, there are a number of irritants, and he would be aware of many of those. I don't have a whole lot of time at my disposal because of the truncated estimates process this year.

There are a range of issues that I want to touch upon, starting above the Malahat. That would be an area called Renfrew Road, and attaching to that is Weeks road. The minister's staff will certainly be aware of some of the many challenges we have there. That's a road that interfaces with forestry roads. It's a public road that runs into a forestry road. There is a dispute over ownership of a portion of that. I'm wondering if the minister's staff have at their fingertips what the status of that dispute between TimberWest and the ministry…? Where that's at?

Hon. K. Falcon: For some reason, that is ringing a bell in my mind. I don't know. Have you written me on that, or has there been some…?

Hon. K. Falcon: Oh, maybe that's why. I just have a faint recollection of the issue, but I'm sorry to say that my staff aren't aware of the details of that right now. But what I can do is…. If I haven't responded to you in letter format yet, we can make sure we follow up and get you an answer.

J. Horgan: Well, there were two parts to the question. One was the status of the dispute between the forest company and the government. The other was the prospect of paving or, at a minimum, some form of chip seal on Weeks road — which I haven't discussed with the minister, so I'll just flag that. I see staff writing that down.

Weeks road and Renfrew Road — very contentious in the community, big challenges and lots of interaction, as I said, with regional staff on the issues. I think that it ultimately comes down to finding available dollars to try and find some fixes there. Then there's the conflict between TimberWest and the government. That's certainly in the hands of your solicitors, and I was just hoping for an update.

The other issue, of course, before I get down below the Malahat, would be the Malahat corridor itself. The minister will know that Stantec and the ministry completed a review last summer. We are now looking at another summer driving season. We've had a number of accidents since the report was received.

I'm wondering if the minister could update me and my constituents on what progress we can expect to see on improvements to the Malahat with respect to safety, with respect to RapidBus and — a personal favourite of mine — better lighting on those very, very dark nights up on the top of the hill.

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. We invested a significant amount of dollars in the report that

the member refers to. The report confirmed that the Malahat is safe and that it's got a crash rate well below the provincial average. In spite of that, we know that there are always things that we can do to improve, particularly, safety, which is always my priority in the ministry on corridors like the Malahat.

Since 2001 we have invested just over $9 million — I think it's $9.2 million — on improvements, primarily safety improvements, on the Malahat — extending the median barrier, the electronic changeable signs, pullouts and those kind of things. As we go forward, we're going to work on two things.

One is that we're in discussions with B.C. Transit about what kinds of transit options may be possible along that corridor. But we've still got some work to do in that regard.

We are going to work on implementing the safety recommendations that form part of the report, including the addition of highly reflective markings — which in part deals with one of the issues that the member mentioned. There are highly reflective pavement markings that can be utilized. That will allow you, when driving, to have your lights pick up a much stronger reflective marking, as a result of the reflective pavement marking that we utilize.

We'll extend the median barriers where appropriate. There are challenges in certain areas — as the member would well know — because of the narrowness of the corridor and the fact that we have got park on both sides. We'll construct pullouts for use by RCMP for enforcement, because we do believe that some of the accidents that do take place are a result of irresponsible driving and speeding.

U-turn facilities, where that's practical, to provide people the option so that in the event of an accident or something that blocks traffic, they have the ability to turn around…. I think a large part of the frustration for many folks is when they get trapped on the Malahat.

We're going to install more cameras to monitor road conditions. We have done a massive expansion of traffic cameras throughout the province of British Columbia. As a result of that, drivebc.ca is the most popular site in government. It's utilized very, very strongly.

We will make sure that we add more cameras on the Malahat, and we're going to upgrade weather monitoring capabilities so that we've got a better handle on what the weather conditions are along the entire Malahat corridor. We think that moving forward with those recommendations will have the desired effect in terms of safety.

Depending on how our conversation with B.C. Transit goes, if we are able to ultimately bring about some form of transit along that corridor, I also think that would be a very positive outcome. We've still got some discussions and some work to do in that regard, but as I say, I'm proud of the investments we've made in the Malahat — over $9 million since we were elected. We'll continue to make investments to ensure that it not only maintains the safe record that it has but actually improves upon the crash record.

J. Horgan: Certainly, if one is planning a trip, Drive B.C. is a very useful tool, but if you're on the Malahat and the truck in front of you turns over, you're stuck for hours and hours. The challenge for most of the people who live in my community who commute or use the corridor for economic purposes or for recreation is the reliability issue.

There are no other ways to get out of Victoria if you're on the Trans-Canada Highway. That was really the fundamental issue. I mean, we can quibble about safety and crash statistics and so on. I know the minister has those readily available. I don't want to get into a debate on that. I take him at his word and the report's word that the crash rate is at or below the average.

But it is a daunting road on a November evening, and that's not unique in British Columbia. I understand that. Our topography does not lend itself to leisurely drives on cold November nights. But for those of us on southern Vancouver Island wanting to get out of the capital city, it's a significant challenge once that traffic disruption occurs. All the signage in the world, all of the websites in the world, all the cameras in the world don't help you when you're stuck and you can't turn around and you've got nowhere to go.

I'm just wondering, in terms of dealing with B.C. Transit looking at public transportation options, if the minister has contemplated…? I guess that this is a natural segue down the hill into Langford and into the city. Has the minister reviewed the report by the Communities for Commuter Rail as well as the Island Corridor Foundation with respect to utilizing the E&N corridor to get cars off the road and to improve the reliability up and down Vancouver Island?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member will know that that — in reference to the most recent study that I think the member is referring to, on utilizing the E&N essentially from Langford in — is something that staff is currently in the process of reviewing. There are some significant questions that need to be looked into and may ultimately require a lot more homework in terms of ridership and costs. But at the end of the day our goal is to try and maximize in whatever….

Wherever we invest provincial dollars, it's a pretty straightforward decision, as far as I'm concerned. It's whatever will provide the highest possible ridership at the most efficient cost to the taxpayers. Obviously, we want to maximize the taxpayer investment.

We're still in the process of reviewing that, and more work needs to be done. As the member would know, the corridor study talked about the option from, essentially, Cowichan over the top of the Malahat in. I think the member would know that the recommendation was that it would be far better to try and service transit demand through the use of buses. That's why we are currently in discussions with B.C. Transit to see what kind of busing options could help meet that demand as the report recommended.

One of the challenges we have in the Cowichan area and in Langford is that B.C. Transit can't stop thinking about the bus. They need to think outside of the bus. We've had significant discussions and dialogue with B.C. Transit. They're a member of the Communities for Commuter Rail committee, which includes the chair of the CRD, councillors from Esquimalt and Victoria, the mayor of View Royal, the deputy mayor of Langford as well as other members from Colwood and Sooke and representatives from the Island Corridor Foundation.

I listened to the minister in his discussions with the critic about TransLink and the importance of ridership and density and the risks that were taken in Portland, the opportunities seized by communities working together.

I would argue to the minister that the Communities for Commuter Rail proposal, although it has been alleged that they lowballed the numbers in terms of the capital costs of upgrading the rolling stock, is doable and achievable. The private sector is at the table. The developers are at the table. So this notion — I haven't explored it with the critic, but I was listening intently to the minister's responses — of using real estate or development cost charges or some other tariff for development and the profit that would arise by providing densities along this corridor…. It's a golden opportunity in my community. It's a golden opportunity for south Vancouver Island.

I have a great deal of respect for the senior staff at B.C. Transit, but they've been doing buses forever.

Those of you who live on the lower mainland have the flexibility and the luxury of multimodal options when it comes to transit, whether it be a SeaBus or a train or a rapid transit system. Here in southern Vancouver Island we've been stuck with the bus, and people aren't using it. I don't think, based on the input from my constituents, that they're ready to get out of their car and get into their bus. But I hear an awful lot about the train, and so do other people in the community, not social democrats but members of the minister's party, who are enthusiastic about this.

I think that there are two issues at play here. There's the south-of-the-Malahat question, which is the flat land, the cheapest way to go. I think that it's 18 kilometres of track. It's relatively flat. There are a number of level crossings that have to be addressed. But that's the cheapest, fastest, quickest way to get the train established in southern Vancouver Island. The capital costs go through the roof as you start climbing up the hill.

I can understand that the minister would want to be cautious about that. But I did hear that he's on the way back to Ottawa next week or the week after to lobby for dollars for other parts of British Columbia. I would encourage him and ask him if, while he is in Ottawa, he's going to take the opportunity to talk to members from the Island, like the Minister of Natural Resources, about freeing up some dollars for commuter rail on Vancouver Island.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, one of the things that I will always do as a Minister of Transportation before I ever go to ask the federal government for money is make sure that we've done our homework, because one thing that I'm not going to do is look foolish or silly or look like we haven't done our homework. I am very interested in the work that has been done by the folks that are involved at the Corridor Foundation. But I think even the member would agree that….

When the member talks about Vancouver and then Greater Victoria, this is not a unique situation. I mean, in the rest of the province one of the challenges we have is that you've got very sprawled growth. You know, the population of the whole Greater Victoria area is about 367,000 people spread over a very large area, so it's very difficult to service by transit. If you are going to make a commitment, especially what could be a very significant financial commitment to a rail option like that, I think that it certainly behooves us — certainly me, as the Minister of Transportation — to make sure that we've done our homework and that we've answered some questions.

For example, the member would know — if the member has read the report, which I'm sure he has — that they determine the ridership based on taking a percentage of what the automobile traffic is. The member will know well that any business case that's going to look at ridership is going to be looking at a lot more than just taking a percentage of the auto traffic, applying that and saying that that will be the ridership. Obviously, ridership is going to be determined by travel time. It's going to be determined by issues of convenience and a whole range of issues.

I'm not in any way being dismissive of the efforts. All I'm trying to do is be honest about the fact that before I would plunge forward and make any request to the federal government for dollars towards something like that, I would make sure that we've done our homework, as we would hope…. The member, I am sure, is very familiar with what happens when governments don't do their homework and plow forward with projects. That's not something we'll do.

So we will work with the Corridor Foundation. We will, as we are doing, review the case that they put forward. We welcome the work they've done on it. I think that it deserves a lot of credit. I know that it is the culmination of a lot of input from a lot of people that have thought very, very hard about these kinds of issues. We will make sure that we do a proper review.

Any further questions that we will need to have answered — issues related to travel time, etc., to ridership, to making sure that all of us collectively know what the real costs are going to be — are so that at least when we make a decision to say, "Yes, let's go forward with this project," we make that decision on the foundation of real knowledge, factual knowledge, real facts.

It's so that we know that when we make that commitment that all of the communities that would be financially contributing would know what their contribution levels are going to be, that the province would know what their contribution levels are likely be, that the federal government will know what they're being asked for and that the real estate opportunities that the member is talking about have also been looked at.

So, all I'm saying to the member is that I think it's a great recommendation that's been put forward, but let's make sure we do our homework. Let's do our homework properly. Let's work with the Corridor Foundation, and let's get those answers. I think once we get those answers, we'll have a better sense of cost and true ridership, and then we can make a decision about whether that's the best use of provincial dollars or not.

J. Horgan: One of the challenges that we have as a committee is that there's always guesswork involved. What is the senior government thinking? What are the senior levels of government thinking? I'm asked regularly by people in my community, whether they be on councils or ordinary citizens: "Why is it that the province isn't at the table?" I talked to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who is regularly in my community, and she gets the same questions and is in a better position to answer those questions than I. Nonetheless, she too says: "Well, we're working on it."

So my question directly to the minister is….The committee is active, and it meets regularly. Will he commit to assigning a senior staff person to participate in the Communities for Commuter Rail coalition?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I will commit to is that our staff will continue to liaise with the committee. We will continue to provide the benefit of our experience in terms of how to achieve the best possible and the highest possible ridership, and how to do it in a manner that is respectful of the taxpayer investment that would be required. We will, as we are doing, review the proposal that has been put forward. Allow us to have some time to review that.

Once we review that, we will make recommendations and continue to liaise with the corridor group to make sure that we ultimately all know what we're dealing with — what the real facts are, what the real costs are and what the real likely ridership results are.

Once we have all of that information, then we are all better informed on how we can best move forward to achieve the solution that everybody wants, which, by the way, is the answer to the member's first question. The answer to the member's first question is…. He wants to know where the government stands.

Well, where the government stands is that we have made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 33 percent by 2020. We have committed to a provincial transit plan that is the largest, the most ambitious in the history of the province, that includes the rapid buses — the member knows — from Langford and the Western Communities into downtown Victoria and the university. That is one piece of the puzzle.

We're also increasing the fleet of B.C. Transit buses by 600. I get that the member opposite wants B.C. Transit to think outside the bus, as he calls it, but I would remind the member that buses are actually the backbone of a great transportation system. They always have been, and they always will be.

When we look at other options that we…. As this option has been put forward, we will definitely work. Our staff will liaise. We'll make sure that we do our homework. We'll make sure that we ask the right questions. It must be getting late in the day for the minister because I can see that my answers are sounding convoluted. The point is that we'll do our homework. We'll work with them and make sure that they ask the right questions and that we ask the right questions. Get that information. Then we all move forward on a foundation of knowledge and fact that we can all agree on.

J. Horgan: The minister talked about ongoing liaison. Can he quantify what that liaison has been to this point in time? My experience on the committee, which is very much hands-on, is that, aside from the very capable VP from B.C. Transit Mike Davis being an observer, there has been no MOT participation whatsoever, aside from receiving the report and belittling the numbers and not giving us any great sense of where we should go.

In our can-do community of Langford the issue is: "Show me where you want us to get to, and we'll get there." What we want to see from the ministry is: "Show us your road map, and we'll fill in the blanks." The guesswork makes it very difficult. The back-and-forth with documents without someone at the table saying: "You're going down the wrong track. This is where you should go. These are the reasons why."

You'll get a fairly receptive response to that. It's not happening at this point in time. So could you quantify just what that liaison function has been to this point in time? Maybe a name would help.

Hon. K. Falcon: The fact of the matter is that the corridor group has not requested subsequent meetings. We've actually been meeting with them whenever requested. My chief operating officer of the ministry actually brought over Doug Kelsey from West Coast Express to provide advice, not only to the corridor group but also to the ministry. Our chief operating officer rode the rail system from Victoria to Nanaimo on one of those specialized trucks that will allow you to ride on the rails, to look at the infrastructure, to look at the crossings, to get a better understanding of this.

We have always made ourselves available at the most senior levels of this ministry and will continue to do so. We get requests all the time. Our senior staff just had a meeting with another group. I understand that there may be at least a half-dozen groups out there that have one form of rail option they support or another. We're always willing to meet with all of them to try and get a better handle and provide whatever advice we can. We'll continue to do that going forward.

J. Horgan: There are a number of groups. The minister is correct, but there are two particular groups that should be of interest to the minister. I know the staff will be aware of the Island Corridor Foundation, which is a group of municipalities and first nations who secured public access to the E&N corridor. The minister is aware of that. His staff are aware of that.

The group that I've been working with most closely and most recently is the Communities for Commuter Rail, which is a collection of lower Island, below-the-Malahat municipalities, developers and others interested in this. They hired consultants. They accessed expertise at West Coast Express. They put forward a proposal, submitted it to government, and to my knowledge there has been no response back. That committee — very active, very committed, dollars on the table, private sector dollars, community dollars — looking for some direction from government….

The notion that RapidBus will resolve some of the transportation challenges within the lower Island is just not on. You could have the E&N corridor upgraded and taking commuters from Langford into town without disrupting the morning commute. It's an efficient way to go. It would help achieve the 2020 targets with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. Every corner of this project speaks to active participation from the ministry.

To this point in time, I'm not saying that it has been obstructionist. It just has been passive. What the communities that I represent like to see in their elected officials and in their public service is an active approach to these issues. The minister knows well how Langford approaches these things. I know that his staff worked very hard to come up with quite an innovative approach to accessing the Trans-Canada Highway. I don't want to get into that right now. I'm hopeful the minister won't take the opportunity to talk about it, because I've only got a few minutes left, and I'd like to move on to Sooke.

But just to finish off on the rail corridor…. Active participation by a designated individual in the ministry would be a tremendous asset to these communities so that there's someone they can go to on the end of the line and get a quick answer to a simple question, and they can advance the ball by trying to solve some of the challenges that the ministry sees in their proposal. That would be the request that they would make directly to you, and I make it on their behalf as their MLA.

I'd like to move now, if I could, to the West Coast Road and Highway 14 into Sooke. I only have a few minutes. I am indulging my colleagues in taking some of their time, but there are serious challenges on Highway 14. I have to say that if I had to flip a coin on what road I would rather drive on a rainy night in November — the Malahat or the West Coast Road — I'd probably opt for the Malahat. There are visual challenges. The painting on the road has been a long time coming.

More importantly, could the minister give me an update on the status of the West Coast Road improvements that were announced last year?

Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you to the members opposite for allowing the brief break there.

In response to the question of the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, over the last five years we have invested approximately $2 million in replacing the Minute Creek Bridge between Sooke and Port Renfrew and have also done some resurfacing work on Highway 14.

The member made reference to the commitment we made to deal with the bridges, the Sombrio bridges No. 1 and No. 2, which are about 57 kilometres, as I recall, west of Sooke. They will be replaced with two new two-lane bridges to replace the existing bridges, along with the approaches to those bridges.

I'm pleased to let the member know that, as committed, the tendering will go out this spring for that work, and we expect work to be awarded, obviously, once the tender process is completed. Construction will start immediately upon those tenders being completed.

J. Brar: I'm going to ask a simple question to the minister because this is about Surrey. Of course the minister is from Surrey and will be able to have the answer handy. This is about the border infrastructure program, which has a huge impact on my riding as well as on the minister's riding.

The border infrastructure program has different components, which include the expansion of Highway 10, the expansion of 91 and 91A, the expansion of the Queensborough Bridge, and then also the overpass on 72nd. I would like to ask the minister to provide some updates in terms of a time line. Are we on target as far as the time line is concerned on all of those components, or are we behind in some areas?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is correct. The border infrastructure program is a federal-provincial initiative, a five-year $285 million program to make investments and a whole range of improvements, right from Highway 11 out in Abbotsford to, of course, Highways 15, 10, 91 and 91A in the lower mainland.

What I can do for the benefit of the member is to let the member know that the project — one of which both the member and I watch on a daily basis, virtually, under construction — is proceeding on schedule. In fact, I'm advised that the No. 10 section actually looks like it's proceeding ahead of schedule. The contractor is doing an exceptional job there. What I'll do for the benefit of the member is just provide a quick overview on each of the sections. I think that's probably what the member is looking for.

Here's the status. We'll start with Highway 10. The improvement of the King George Highway–No. 10 intersection, as the member knows, was finished. That was in the fall of 2006. The final grading and paving from 122nd Street in Delta to 176A Street is underway, and we expect that to be completed by the fall of this year. That's the section that I'm feeling really, really good about. I suspect that they're probably going to beat that schedule.

The relocation of the Southern Rail, which used to go along right across 176th Street at No. 10, as the member knows, has been relocated and now goes underneath the bridges, which was completed in the summer of last year, if my memory serves me correctly.

Highway 11, where we reconfigured the interchange at Highway 11 and the Trans-Canada, was completed in June of '05. Highway 15 — which, for the members of the public, is sometimes known as 176th Street — is one of the most important commercial goods movement corridors moving down to the Pacific border crossing, the fourth-busiest commercial truck crossing in the country.

The urban Cloverdale section — the section right in downtown Cloverdale — was completed in the summer of '06. The new Roger Pierlet Bridge, which is the bridge just immediately south of No. 10 and 176th Street, was opened in August of '07. The final grading and paving that is going to be done from, basically, 32nd Avenue right to the Roger Pierlet Bridge and up to 68th Avenue in Cloverdale will be completed by the fall of 2008, so also the fall of this year.

The six bridges over the Nicomekl and Serpentine rivers that form part of the project are also scheduled to be completed and are virtually completed now but will be finished this spring. Basically, by the fall of this year No. 10 and No. 15 projects will be fully completed.

For Highway 91 and Highway 91A, the Queensborough Interchange, as the member knows, we're making safety improvements to the pedestrian and cycling sidewalks. The final contract for construction of the flyover and the pedestrian overpass structures and improvements to the interchanges will also be completed by the fall of this year. The Howe Street interchange, which I referenced earlier in discussions when I don't believe the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge was here, was completed and put into service at the end of fall last year.

One of the components that I have been asking questions about for the last two years — the last estimates and the estimate before — is about the 72nd and 91 overpass, which was not part of the update that the minister just provided. I know that there is an ongoing conflict going on, with the third party wanting direct access to the overpass. That's my understanding. My concern on that one is that if every other component of the border infrastructure program is completed, then 72nd and 91 becomes a bottleneck, because traffic is flowing smoothly from everywhere, and that's where people get stuck.

I have asked that question, as I said before, in the last two estimates. The response from the minister was that there is an ongoing conflict. So I would like to know where we are. Has that conflict been resolved, or is it still there, and what steps are being or have been taken?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate that. I share the member's frustration completely. I've been extraordinarily frustrated with this.

This was a project where we had a design that would have worked, that would have dealt with 98 percent of the traffic issues, but unfortunately, it was not supported by the corporation of the city of Delta. As a result of that, they insisted that they wanted a full interchange, which would have cost considerably more. I was willing to entertain the possibility of a full interchange, but it would require lands that were owned by a private proponent.

I'm now going back in recollection here, Member, so forgive me if I'm not perfectly accurate. My recollection was that they had not, at least up to the point that I last recall having this discussion, reached any kind of agreement with the private sector land owner in terms of what development opportunities there might be for the private land owner to provide lands that would be necessary for the construction of a full interchange.

The bottom line is — and I warned Delta about this — that there is a time line that we have to work to, and the federal dollars don't sit around forever. They're no longer there, and the opportunity has passed now to move forward on that project, and I think that's too bad.

We will have to look at it as part of any future project plans that we have. I'm always willing to deal with it, but I need to have the community of Delta and the council of Delta willing to work with us in that regard. We had a solution, frankly, that dealt with 98 percent of the traffic issues.

This whole thing was held up because Delta didn't like the idea of 2 percent of the traffic having to take a slightly longer route to get to where they needed to go. We disagreed vehemently with them on that. We felt that it was something that could have been done. They were insisting on a full interchange. Obviously, it cost a lot more money.

We were trying to find a way to work together to raise the dollars that would make that happen. We were unable to do so, and the opportunity has passed.

In the short term, Member, I'm sorry to say that there won't be anything happening at the 72-91 interchange. I'm disappointed with that, but in the future, Delta can hopefully come to some kind of agreement with the private land owner. If they're prepared to come back to the table, we'll always be prepared to work with them.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Item	Column 1 Provisions of Act	Column 2 Commencement
48	Section 113	~~By regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council~~ March 31, 2008
53.1	Section 121.1	March 31, 2008]