2005 Legislative Session: 6th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 27, Number 15

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Youth in Philanthropy

S. Orr

Czorny Alzheimer Centre

D. Hayer

2010 Olympics countdown events in

Cariboo area

W. Cobb

Oral Questions

Surrey Memorial Hospital services and

termination of Fraser health authority CEO

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Bond

J. MacPhail

Surrey Memorial Hospital services and

Health estimates debate

J. Brar

Hon. S. Bond

Hon. G. Bruce

Cancer clinic in Prince George

P. Nettleton

Hon. S. Bond

Health care services in B.C.

E. Brenzinger

Hon. S. Bond

Severance payment for Fraser health

authority CEO

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Bond

Reports from Committees

Standing Committee on Education

A Future

for Learners: The Path to Renewal of Education in British Columbia

R. Stewart

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 5): Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Falcon

J. Brar

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 5) (Bill 12)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 5) (Bill 12)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 5) (Bill 12)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 5) (Bill 12)

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 6): Officers of

the Legislature

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 6) (Bill 13)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 6) (Bill 13)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 6) (Bill 13)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 6) (Bill 13)

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 7):

Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

Hon. M. Coell

J. Kwan

B. Lekstrom

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 7) (Bill 14)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 7) (Bill 14)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 7) (Bill 14)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 7) (Bill 14)

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates (No. 8): Ministry of

Advanced Education

Hon. I. Chong

J. Kwan

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 8) (Bill 15)

Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 8) (Bill 15)

Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 8) (Bill 15)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary

Estimates No. 8) (Bill 15)

Royal Assent to Bills

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act,

2005 (Bill 3)

Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act, 2005 (Bill 4)

[ Page 12039 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm privileged to introduce some very

special and talented young guests. Before I do so, I'd like to just preface my

remarks. There's no question as to our government's and our Premier's commitment

to literacy, and this is evidenced by the literacy summit we held last November,

as well as the matching funds towards the Raise-a-Reader campaign, and mostly

recently in the throne speech, where one of the goals is to have the most

educated and literate jurisdictions on the continent.

Last November I invited all grade 6 students in my riding of Oak

Bay–Gordon Head, including home-school students, to participate in an essay

contest, the title subject of which was "B.C. is the Best Place on Earth." I am

delighted today that five essay winners joined me, along with their parents, for

lunch in the dining room and then a very brief tour of the Legislature.

I would like to introduce to this House a young lady from Willows

Elementary, Wynter Caron, and her father, Bradley Wotis. Also from Willows

Elementary is Alex Gurney, with her father, Mr. Blair Gurney. From Arbutus

Middle School, Megan Griffin, with her father, Jim Griffin, and her mother,

Susan Phillips. Also from Arbutus Middle School, Miranda Meijer, with her

mother, Gina. From Gordon Head Elementary, Jessica Round, with her father,

Adrian. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

[1405]

S. Orr: Today I would like to introduce five very special

friends that are visiting us today. First is a very, very dear friend of mine,

Vicki Kuhl, who is no stranger to this community. Vicki is a former Saanich

councillor. She is now on the Saanich police board. She is a director of the

Victoria Airport Authority and also serves as a governor for the Victoria

Foundation. With her is Paul Senez, who is the coordinator of the Victoria

Foundation Youth in Philanthropy program, and also three wonderful students who

are involved in the Youth in Philanthropy programs. Two students are Kate

Dearden and Alan Manning, and they're here from Oak Bay Secondary. The other

student, Katrina Kala, is from Lambrick Park Secondary. Actually, both of these

schools are in the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head's riding, and I know for a

fact that she visits and is involved in these schools all the time. Would the

House make please make all my guests welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: In the House today I have some guests from

my constituency: 19 members of the Probus Club of Sidney, with Alan Lester as

their leader. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's a privilege to rise in the House today to

introduce a guest of one of our workers, Devon Keller, from the PAB. Today we

have one of her friends visiting us from Toronto, Ontario. I understand that

this is not her first visit to beautiful British Columbia. Apparently it seems

to be growing on her. So I would like the House to welcome Joselyn Nalasco to

British Columbia and to the Legislature.

C. Clark: On my own behalf and on behalf of the member for

Chilliwack-Kent, I'd like to welcome the former Attorney General of British

Columbia, Alex Macdonald — my favourite silk-stocking socialist — to view the

proceedings from the gallery today.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Elsa Bokelman. Elsa is a

constituent from Maple Ridge who is here on behalf of a number of specialists

and GPs from South Africa that are…. She was here to discuss immigration issues

with the Minister of State for Immigration Services and the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Could the House make Elsa welcome.

V. Anderson: Today we have in the Legislature 90 energetic

young students from Jamieson Elementary School in Vancouver, in my riding. They

are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Milo Wu, Ms. Flora Chen and Ms. Yvonne

Lam, and by their parents. They are here to attend question period and learn

look forward to meeting them after they have been to the Legislature, but would

the House make them welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is Bernie Pauly.

Bernie is finishing her dissertation for nursing. Bernie has also been very

involved in, and on the board of, the James Bay Community Project, as well as an

active parent in South Park Family School and an all-round great community

person. I'd ask the House to please make Bernie very welcome.

Hon. P. Wong: In the gallery today we have several guests

from China: Mr. Ri Tao Ni and his assistant, Ms. Susanna Xu, and Ms. Yan Zhang.

They are coming here to look for business opportunities in British Columbia.

Would the House please make them most welcome.

P. Nettleton: I would ask that you join me in welcoming two

dear friends from Victoria. These ladies are long-time residents of Victoria —

seniors. Please join me in welcoming them today.

[1410]

Hon. P. Bell: Today I see we're joined by one of our

legislative interns, who also happens to come originally from the riding of

Prince George North, attended UNBC and graduated with a degree in political

science there. I ask that the House please make Alayna van Leeuwen welcome.

P. Nettleton: I had a birthday a few days ago, and I think

the effect of that is beginning to show. In any

[ Page 12040 ]

event, I forgot to name my dear friends from Victoria, Joy and Pauline

Culpersmith.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, although he is not present in

the House, I would like you to join me in wishing a happy thirtieth anniversary

to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and his wife, Debbie.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) YOUTH IN PHILANTHROPY

S. Orr: There is nothing more satisfying than being able to

stand up in this chamber and talk about positive things, especially when it is

about our youth. Positive stuff that involves youth, in my opinion, is what

makes the world go around. They are our future. In fact, they are the reason I

do this job — to try and make a better future for them.

I first talked about the Youth in Philanthropy program in 2002,

when it started. This is an in-school, extracurricular program, funded by the

Victoria Foundation, which is designed to engage young people, driven by values,

in learning how to make grants to local charities.

Youth in Philanthropy started in 2002 with three high schools

involved, and it now has grown to six. The schools are Belmont, Frances Kelsey,

Lambrick Park, Oak Bay, St. Michaels and Vic High. Some of the organizations

that have benefited from this program are the Victoria Transition House, the

Land Conservancy, Kiwanis Emergency Youth Centre and PEERS, and that is just to

name a very few.

The students who participated learned about these organizations,

thus giving them a better understanding of their community. The kids in this

program really care about helping people, and they find out firsthand what it is

like to be a philanthropist and how good it feels to give.

I am very pleased this program is growing, and I would like to see

it grow across our province, allowing all kids the opportunity to know what it

is like to be a philanthropist, so that they can take that knowledge into the

future with them and know how good it feels to give.

CZORNY ALZHEIMER CENTRE

D. Hayer: In late January I was honoured to help begin

construction of Surrey's new Czorny Alzheimer Centre, a centre that will not

only care of those suffering from the most tragic of diseases, but a centre that

demonstrates the remarkable caring and contributions of a Surrey-Tynehead

family. That family is the Stewarts — relatives of our member for Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Chick and Marilyn Stewart and their family not only

contributed 8.4 acres to build this fabulous home for those suffering from

Alzheimer's disease, but they have also contributed $10 million in capital

funding to build a 36-bed facility. The generosity of the Stewarts was spurred

by Marilyn's desire to honour her father, Michael Czorny, who battled the

debilitating disease for nine years. Marilyn Stewart recalled how powerless she

felt trying to help her father deal with Alzheimer's.

She and her family are now helping many other families today and

well into the future with this exceedingly generous donation. The Czorny

Alzheimer Centre is named for Marilyn's father and mother, Michael and Nancy

Czorny. It is located on 66th Avenue and 168th Street and will house 36

Alzheimer's patients in their home-like cottage on a secure park-like ground

complete with a stream. The new centre created by the Stewarts will provide the

care needed by seniors in Surrey, while helping facilitate their independence.

[1415]

Czorny Centre, the first stand-alone facility for Alzheimer's

disease in the Fraser Valley, is scheduled to open next spring. It will benefit

our growing communities and serve as a model for the rest of the province. The

people of Surrey and all of British Columbia can be very proud of the caring and

sharing demonstrated by the Stewart family, and I ask that all members of this

House join me in applauding their munificent generosity toward aiding those

stricken by Alzheimer's disease.

2010 OLYMPICS COUNTDOWN EVENTS

IN CARIBOO AREA

W. Cobb: "Let the Countdown Begin" was the headline in the

100 Mile Free Press as they got ready to show the Olympic spirit by

celebrating the five-year countdown to the 2010 games.

Mayor Barnett is the local committee chair in 100 Mile. She raised

the Spirit of B.C. flag at the South Cariboo visitor information centre to bring

awareness to the games. Joining the mayor were Bev and Jeff Kendy, who are

co-chairs of the 2006 B.C. Northern Winter Games to be held in 100 Mile at that

time.

In Williams Lake they co-ordinated the flag-raising ceremony with

a winter carnival, which they hoped to be the first annual. The carnival — even

though we had a little shortage of snow — was a huge success and brought many

families into the downtown courthouse square for the festivities. The carnival

was sponsored by the business improvement area association and of course tied in

the Olympic theme for the first event.

Earlier this week, John Furlong, head of the Olympic bid

committee, spoke at the chamber of commerce lunch and also spoke to about 550

students on the opportunities available leading up to the games. I was available

to drop the commemorative puck at the minor hockey tournament, and they also

received a Spirit of B.C. banner.

In Cache Creek the ceremony was held at the elementary school. The

students marched out one by one and took their place around the flagpole. Mayor

Ranta read the proclamation, and a drum ceremony was performed by the Bonaparte

band elders. The flag-raising ceremony in Ashcroft was performed by the cadets,

[ Page 12041 ]

with Legion members on hand for the event at the landmark fire hall and Mayor

Anderson reading the proclamation.

The countdown to 2010 has indeed begun.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SERVICES

AND TERMINATION OF

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY CEO

J. Kwan: In 2002 Kathy Kinloch, an executive director with

the Fraser health authority, said the emergency ward at Surrey Memorial was

stretched, and it needed a capital expansion. In December the Cochrane report

put forward recommendations for changes to emergency care. Last month Fraser

health authority CEO Bob Smith sent a memo to staff raising alarm bells about

overcrowded emergency rooms. But the government has done nothing.

Why is the Premier making Bob Smith the fall guy today, when the

situation at the Fraser health authority has been a mess since the B.C. Liberals

reorganized health care into chaos?

Hon. S. Bond: We absolutely agree that there are growth

pressures in the Fraser health authority and, in particular, facing Surrey

Memorial Hospital. But as we've pointed out numerous times, demographics are not

new to anyone. As we move forward, we are today making sure that we are going to

move forward rapidly and aggressively to address the pressures that face Surrey

Memorial Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a

supplementary question.

J. Kwan: The government knew as far back as 2002 that there

were growing pressures in the emergency ward. The fact is that B.C. Liberals are

the ones to blame for the crisis at the Fraser health authority.

The government can try to blame Bob Smith and make him the fall

guy three months before an election, but the buck stops with this Premier and

this government. If Bob Smith really wants to be blamed, can the Premier explain

today why the Minister of Health — actually as recently as yesterday — defended

the Fraser health authority on the handling of the emergency care in this House?

The Minister of Health defended the Fraser health authority's actions as

recently as yesterday.

Hon. S. Bond: We've made it clear that there is work to be

done in the Fraser health authority. Let's look at the track record of what this

government has actually managed to accomplish in the period of time we've been

in Victoria.

[1420]

We are actually going to see the delivery of a new hospital in

Abbotsford, which people knew about for how many years — a decade? — prior to

this. We have seen a response by the Fraser health authority to deal with the

short-term pressures, but we expect more.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further

supplementary.

J. Kwan: Certainly, the people of Surrey expected more from

this government and this Minister of Health. Bob Smith was paid $320,000 a year.

This government spent more than $50,000 just to move him out here from Halifax

to take the job. Here's what the former Minister of Health, now the Minister of

Finance, had to say about Smith's on-the-job performance: "I believe he has done

a first-class job as the CEO of a multibillion-dollar organization." Again, to

the Premier: how can British Columbians have any faith in a government that gave

Mr. Smith glowing reviews but then fired him at the first sign of political

trouble less than three months before the election?

Hon. S. Bond: Health authorities are large and complex, and

there comes a point in time where it is perhaps necessary to have a change in

leadership. In fact, that was certainly evident in 2001 in Victoria — wasn't it?

We're actually going to see a new direction in the Fraser health

authority, because we believe the people of the Fraser health authority deserve

the best quality health care they can access.

J. MacPhail: Government's motto is "Shoot first and then

find out what's wrong later." Here's what the former Minister of Health had to

say about complex organizations: "He is worth every dime of that salary we are

paying to provide leadership for an extremely complex organization." That's what

the former Minister of Health had to say about Bob Smith.

Well, what's happening at Surrey Memorial under this government's

leadership? The average wait time for Surrey Memorial in the emergency room is

six to eight hours. The emergency room today is 42 percent above capacity.

Surgical wait times are exploding since this government took over.

Again to the Minister of Health: after three years of giving Bob

Smith their full support up to and including yesterday, despite ongoing chaos in

emergency rooms, what changed last night to warrant his firing this morning?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's talk about the accomplishments of this

government in terms of health care. We have record health care spending in the

province of…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

[ Page 12042 ]

Hon. S. Bond: …British Columbia. In fact, across the province

we've added almost 70,000…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Let us hear the answer, please.

Hon. S. Bond: …new procedures across the spectrum in terms

of people's ability to access hips — new hips — and knees and angioplasties.

This is a government that has an aggressive plan for reform…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. S. Bond: …and we are going to continue to move

aggressively toward improving health care in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: Let me remind the Minister of Health and the

Premier that on top of Bob Smith's salary, this government paid his predecessor,

Pat Zanon, $700,000 in severance to make room….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let us hear the questions and

the answers.

J. MacPhail: I'm fine with this. It shows how little they

understand the problem they've created, Mr. Speaker. It shows just how little

they understand what they've done to patients.

They paid Pat Zanon $700,000 in severance to clear the way for Bob

Smith because they thought Bob Smith could be trusted to do their dirty work.

You see, Mr. Speaker, they don't get it.

Again to the Minister of Health: what did she learn between

yesterday's question period, when she defended the Fraser health authority, and

this morning that finally convinced her that their hand-picked candidate that

cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars had to be sacrificed to

cover her political hide?

[1425]

Hon. S. Bond: Let's talk about the mess we had to clean up

when we got to Victoria. Severance is a perfectly good example of that. In fact,

we now have the most rigorous standards in the country in terms of termination

expectations. I'm always surprised….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm always surprised…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If we're going to continue with

question period, let's have some order in the House, or we'll stop it right

here.

Hon. S. Bond: …that a former Minister of Health would

actually be able to stand up and continue to point fingers across the floor of

this House, when there was not one single FTE in the previous government that

was responsible for planning in health care.

SURREY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SERVICES

AND HEALTH ESTIMATES DEBATE

J. Brar: Since becoming an MLA, I have heard nothing but

horror stories about patient care at Surrey Memorial Hospital. With a large and

growing population, the Surrey Memorial Hospital is not equipped to take care of

patients properly and provide quality care to the patients in Surrey.

Can the Minister of Health tell us how much it's going to cost to

expand the emergency room and how much it's going to cost to build the necessary

long-term care beds to take the pressure off acute care beds?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, while there are always

challenging circumstances that occur in the health care system, the men and

women that serve every day in the health care profession are extraordinary. The

vast majority of experiences that people have in the British Columbia public

health care system are exceptional. A great deal of work has been done in terms

of looking at the need to expand Surrey Memorial Hospital. That work is being

done. We expect to see that expedited as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge

has a supplementary question.

J. Brar: The minister says they didn't know how much money

it was going to cost but says there are plans and all that kind of stuff. I have

been hearing that since the by-election. When the by-election took place, all

those kinds of plans…. I don't know where those plans are, and where the money

is, I don't know. But can she tell us how much it will cost or point to

dedicated funding in the budget?

There's one simple reason why so many of my constituents did not

vote in favour of this government in the by-election. They simply don't trust

this government.

Will the Minister of Finance…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please, hon. members.

J. Brar: …commit today that he will allow this House to

examine the health estimates in detail so we can find out ourselves whether

these promises are real?

[ Page 12043 ]

She is talking about plans. Show me the money. Where is the money?

Hon. G. Bruce: The work of the House…. The government has

business to undertake. We will be undertaking that business here. We're all

here. We're doing supplemental estimates now around the clock as we sit here.

We've been going at it. You've had minutes and hours on all of the supplemental

estimates as we're here. The people's business of this province will be done in

this House. And when it's finished, we will go to the polls, and once again

British Columbians will elect good government in the province of British

Columbia by returning this side of the House to government.

CANCER CLINIC IN PRINCE GEORGE

P. Nettleton: Rumour has it that the cancer clinic has been

approved for Prince George. If that is the case, has the Minister of Health

Services been instructed to hold back on the announcement closer to the writ

being dropped in order to achieve maximum voter impact?

[1430]

Hon. S. Bond: The member should be well aware of the

process that we're undergoing in terms of the cancer strategy. Currently the

northern health authority plus the provincial health services authority are

doing a study on how we can improve cancer care across northern British

Columbia. I've made it clear that that report has not yet been received. We

expect to receive it within the next couple of weeks.

HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN B.C.

E. Brenzinger: As the health care system slowly erodes due

to operational cutbacks and poor planning on the asset side, it means that this

government has not anticipated growth and, hence, has not built hospitals to

serve regions where the population is increasing. British Columbians are

witnessing an unacceptable rate of misdiagnosis, infection, unclean facilities

and unnecessary deaths.

What threshold needs to be reached before the Minister of Health

recognizes that there is a health care crisis and that Surrey Memorial Hospital

is the second-busiest emergency ward in the country and needs to be given the

funding to operate properly?

Hon. S. Bond: In the budget recently brought down, we'll

see that the health care budget was increased by $1.5 billion. By the end of

next year, in fact, the Fraser health authority will have received an additional

$200 million.

SEVERANCE PAYMENT FOR

FRASER HEALTH AUTHORITY CEO

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health wants to blame

everybody else except her Premier and herself for the absolute failure of Surrey

Memorial Hospital to deliver quality patient care. This morning she fired Bob

Smith and blamed him for all of the problems.

If Bob Smith is the problem at Surrey Memorial Hospital, why are

this Premier and this government paying him $300,000 in severance pay?

Hon. S. Bond: We've already made it perfectly clear. We

have the most rigorous standards in terms of severance in the country, and we

will adhere to the expectations that are laid down in legislation.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.

Would the members please take their arguments outside the House. The member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville has the floor.

Reports from Committees

R. Stewart: I have the honour to present the report of the

Select Standing Committee on Education for the fifth session of the

thirty-seventh parliament entitled A Future for Learners: The Path to Renewal

of Education in British Columbia.

I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Stewart: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Stewart: I move that the report be adopted, and in

moving adoption, I wish to make the following comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Education was mandated to assess

the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations contained in the

committee's 2002 report. The preparation of this 2002 report was, in fact, the

first time in almost a quarter-century that the Select Standing Committee on

Education had asked the people of B.C. for their opinions on our education

system. The results of our review of that report concluded that increased school

board autonomy, a simplified funding formula and a new comprehensive

accountability framework had provided British Columbia students with world-class

learning opportunities.

[1435]

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the

committee's report, and I would like to thank the organizations who took the

time to provide us with

[ Page 12044 ]

their thoughts. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all

members of the committee for their input and dedication throughout this

important process.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

(continued)

On vote 37(S): ministry operations, $550,000,000 (continued) .

J. MacPhail: Just before we broke for the noonhour, I was

asking questions about the Sea to Sky Highway and the fact that the government

now has to account on taxpayer debt for the portion of money that was supposed

to be paid by the private sector.

[1440]

I would like to ask the minister about the logic behind the

accounting principle that when a commitment to a capital lease is made, it is

defined as a public liability. Could he explain that accounting principle,

please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member knows that we as a government,

as part of our openness and transparency, are the only government — that I'm

aware of — in North America that is now following generally accepted accounting

principles, otherwise known as GAAP.

In terms of the logic which belies the accounting profession and

the auditor general's possible requirement that the financing portion of the

private sector partner's contribution be considered a capital lease…. I can't

begin to totally understand the arcane nature of accounting policy and the

requirements thereto, but I can say this to the member: we will, as always, be

fully compliant and GAAP-compliant. That is why, through an abundance of

caution, we are ensuring that as part of going forward, we will include that

portion of the private sector financing as part of the total government debt, in

anticipation of a pending ruling by the auditor general.

J. MacPhail: This is why it is such a mockery to not debate

the estimates of this new budget. This minister can't answer the question, and

we're not going to get any access to the Minister of Finance. The answer he just

gave is ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous.

Once again the citizens of British Columbia are being harmed by

the secretiveness and the scaredy-catness of this government. They're going to

run away without answering any of these questions.

My information is this. When a contribution is determined to be a

capital lease, it means that the person who will be doing the leasing is taking

no risk and that the only risk is to the taxpayer. That's why the debt

associated with that capital lease has to be assigned to the taxpayer. It has

got nothing to do with GAAP — nothing. We faced this in the 1990s; we faced it

in the 1980s.

Perhaps the minister could tell us: what is the risk factor that

the private sector is now not taking and that leads to the auditor general's

conclusion that this is a capital lease?

Hon. K. Falcon: There is no change at all in the risk

profile. The only difference is that as the owner of the asset the government of

British Columbia…. That is primarily why the accounting rules require that the

capital lease be included: because we will be the owner once the work is

completed. That is why this drives that accounting issue.

[1445]

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, it's ridiculous for me to

pursue this line of questioning with this minister, because he doesn't know what

he's talking about. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, and frankly,

it's embarrassing for us to continue this discussion.

What we do know is that since this government made the

announcement that they were going to have this wonderful public-private

partnership on the Sea to Sky Highway, it has all fallen apart. There ain't

nothin' left of it. The government has to assume all of the risk, and that's why

they're being charged the full accounting for the debt. That's why this is, and

that's the difference from what happened last announcement.

I don't know why they don't just admit it. It's a publicly owned

highway. It's public money that's covering off this highway. At best, the

private operator is getting a good advantage to make a profit at the taxpayers'

expense, which is, of course, typical of this government. It's absolutely

typical of this government, under the guise of public-private partnerships, to

have them all fall apart except for the portion where the private operator gets

to make a profit at taxpayer expense. That's the nub of this issue, plain and

simple, and it's right there in the budget plan.

It is unfortunate that the abuse of this House doesn't allow for

that to come out, except for with the opposition. If we could actually debate

the estimates, perhaps the Finance minister would be able to explain all of

this. But oh, no. We're not going to get to do that. No. We're going to have

people stand up, like the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who stood up and

said, "Blah, blah, blah. Can you tell me why you're so wonderful, government?"

instead of asking hard-nosed questions about the Sea to Sky Highway and how his

constituents

[ Page 12045 ]

are being raked over the coals because of that. The minister of highways

can't even explain what a capital lease is — can't even explain it. It's

embarrassing.

Under the gateway project, what's changed with this supplemental

estimate?

Hon. K. Falcon: Prior to answering that, I want to touch on

something the member said. I can't let that go by, because she is trying to

impugn the benefit of P3s. As a government that single-handedly set the standard

for public tax dollars being wasted on megaprojects that went disastrously

wrong, it is amazing to me that she can stand there and critique a process

called P3s — public-private partnerships — whereby you do have risk transfer,

where the taxpayer doesn't have to take it all on the chin when something may go

wrong.

It's funny that she mentions Sea to Sky, because on the Sea to Sky

we had a great example of that when the Rutherford Creek Bridge collapsed.

Instead of the taxpayer being on the hook for that, the private proponent was

responsible for replacing that, at their cost, when something went wrong — not

us as the taxpayers.

The other thing I will say about Sea to Sky is that I really want

to take a moment to recognize the incredible work of the contractors and their

employees who have been doing the work there. It is ahead of schedule. It is

under budget. They have been doing exceptional work in very challenging

circumstances, and I have heard this positive feedback from mayors up and down

that corridor. I have heard this feedback from travellers along that corridor.

It truly is a great success, and try as that member might, she will not be able

to impugn the fact that it will be a great asset for British Columbia.

[1450]

Speaking of the gateway program — something I'm very excited about

— the key difference here is that we've added $200 million. Those dollars will

be utilized for planning purposes; for environmental assessment work; and for

some partnering with the federal government on some potential capital aspects of

that, which we're currently negotiating. So there are very, very many strong

benefits coming forward as a result of the gateway program.

J. MacPhail: I didn't find out what changed except for $200

million. Where is the money being allocated?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, I just said that, so I'll say it

again for the member because she may not have heard that part. The dollars will

be allocated in a whole range of areas. They're going to be allocated towards….

It could include everything from property acquisition. It will certainly include

substantial planning work. It will include a very substantial public

consultation process, which has already begun. It will include some potential

capital initiatives that would be undertaken.

There is a whole range of issues that will be…. Some will be

dependant on what level of federal government involvement we have. More

importantly, what this recognizes very clearly, I believe, is this government's

very strong commitment to moving forward with the gateway program.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps I could have just a few more

specifics. Could he name a capital project that's going to benefit from this

$200 million? For instance, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the

expanding of Highway 1, which is a gateway project, cost $1.05 billion. The

minister tried to announce that during the recent Surrey–Panorama Ridge

by-election. He spent a real whack of money there. How much is going toward the

twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of Highway 1 in '05-06?

Hon. K. Falcon: We are in the midst of negotiating with our

partners on this. There are negotiations that take place with local governments

and with the federal governments. I expect we will have more to say in the

coming months about that, but at this point I'm not prepared to talk about that

just because we haven't concluded those negotiations. Upon conclusion of those

negotiations, we will, of course, be talking about that in the coming months.

J. Brar: On the Port Mann Bridge, you know, there's a

history there. I saw, during the by-election, that this was the number one issue

for the Liberal government. Yes, I understand that they have to negotiate the

project with the federal government, but what are you going to negotiate? Do you

have a plan? How much is it going to cost? Do you know about that? We want to

know how much it is going to cost and what your plan is on this.

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, as I have said many times

before, we're in the midst of determining the scope of that project. We have,

for example, wanted to include improvements to all the interchanges along the

No. 1 highway to ensure that we work with municipalities so that traffic flows

in and off the freeway will be improved. That is ongoing.

We've always said that the total cost, when you include the

interchange work, is likely in the $1.4 billion range, but again, that scope is

something we're in the midst of establishing. This is all part of our plan of

moving forward with the gateway program. It is a very important part of that.

We also happen to believe that there will be strong federal

interests in the gateway program, because of the enormous impact it will have on

the economy of British Columbia and on the ability to move not just people but

goods throughout the lower mainland gateways. The South Fraser perimeter road,

the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, the widening of No. 1 and the improvement

of the interchanges and, of course, the North Fraser perimeter road are all

critical parts of that gateway program.

J. Brar: What I want to know is: is there any money — even

a single dollar — allocated for the construction of the Port Mann Bridge?

[ Page 12046 ]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned to the member, we're in the

midst of negotiations right now. I will be saying in the coming months where

some of those dollars will be going, so I would ask the member to stay tuned.

[1455]

J. Brar: I have difficulty understanding that when you are

going to negotiate, particularly…. We have this bridge and we need to twin it.

The minister, at this point in time, doesn't know how much it's going to cost.

What I'm asking is: what is the cost of twinning the bridge? Do you have any

money allocated in the current budget for the construction of the bridge from

your side? Leave aside the federal government.

Hon. K. Falcon: The bridge portion at this point is

estimated to be about $800 million of the $1.4 billion. As you can see from the

substantial financial commitment just over the next three years alone — almost

$300 million towards the gateway program…. Again, I will have more to say on

what, if any, of the capital portions of that will be in the coming months once

we conclude some negotiations that are underway.

J. Brar: The minister is saying that the money we have

allocated is about $300 million at this point in time for the whole gateway

project. Out of that, can the minister tell how much money is going to be

allocated for the Port Mann Bridge?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said, no, I can't, because we're in

the midst of negotiations right now. We'll have more to come in the coming

months. Once we conclude those negotiations, we'll have a better sense of what

portions we are able to move forward on immediately. Stay tuned, because in the

coming months you'll know that.

J. Brar: The total cost for the Port Mann Bridge is $800

million, as per the minister's estimates. So the total money allocated by the

government at this point in time, $300 million…. Is the minister expecting only

$5 million more for the gateway project from the federal government?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're in discussions with the federal

government and have been for some time. I'll be very candid. I am seeking every

possible penny I can out of the federal government for this project. The reason

I'm doing that is because I actually think there is a strong Canadian interest

here. Canada benefits when British Columbia benefits from making up for the

historical lack of infrastructure investment that the previous government did

not make in lower mainland infrastructure.

This is very, very important for Canada. I expect that the federal

government will recognize its importance to Canada, and I expect to get every

possible dollar I can out of federal government contributions to a project that

will have enormous pan-Canadian benefit.

[1500]

J. Brar: I'm trying to understand the numbers here. The

total cost for the gateway project, as projected by the minister, is $1.5

billion, if I'm correct. The money committed by the government for the next

three years, up to year 2008, is $300 million. My question is: if the government

does not get the remaining almost 80 percent of the money from the federal

government, is this government committed to elevate the funding from this

government? If that's the case, what is that? How much is that?

Hon. K. Falcon: We will cross that bridge when we come to

it. What I can tell the member is that I think it is very important to recognize

that these dollars are a very substantial commitment to moving this project

forward as aggressively as we can. I do happen to think — I'm always hopeful and

optimistic — that we can bring some federal dollars to the table.

I think the federal government will recognize — with, hopefully,

even the encouragement of the member opposite, who is from Surrey and knows how

challenging it is for residents of Surrey just to access Highway 1, whether it's

from 152nd, 160th or 176th — what a problem that is for the residents that

member serves. I hope that member will be joining me in writing and pushing the

federal government to contribute to this very important project.

J. Brar: I understand the need for the Port Mann Bridge,

and I have said that from the very first day. The question I have is…. I'm not

going to stand up here and support something which is not viable, which is not

workable. My question again is: do we have a workable, fully developed business

plan which you are going to present to the federal government and which has all

the estimated budgets of every project?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it might be helpful for the member

to know that on a project of this size and this scale, whenever we approach the

federal government, it's with numbers that are of what I call an order of

magnitude. The reason is that until you go through the public consultation and

the consultative process with all of the respective municipalities…. Some of

that can change, and that will impact costs. What you do is establish an order

of magnitude so that people have a sense, especially the federal government, as

to how much we're talking about in terms of the magnitude of the project.

The other thing I would say to the member — and I think it is very

important — is that this 200 million in additional dollars that has now been

contributed towards the gateway program is just the beginning of an ongoing

process. What I would say to the member is to not get himself overly concerned

about the construction-cost funding portion, because of course, you know we have

to go through the environmental assessment work and the public consultation

work. This will allow us to accelerate that work and get through it. The outer

years that you don't see here will be where you will

[ Page 12047 ]

need the very substantial capital dollars for the actual construction itself.

J. Brar: This government has been talking a lot in the past

and even today about how we should run the government as a business. I

understand that. But any business, even if it's a very small business, has to

start with a full-blown business plan which includes everything from market

analysis, consultation done and all the projections in the budget to information

from their partners. I don't understand, at this point in time, if you don't

have a business plan to start with, on what basis you are going to negotiate

with the federal government.

Can you tell me whether you have a business plan or are in the

process of developing a business plan where you have full and complete

information after doing the necessary work to get the business plan completed?

[1505]

Hon. K. Falcon: The member likes to keep talking about

business plans, so I would refer him to a couple of things. One is that the

federal government, Transport Canada, did a study which showed that congestion

actually costs the lower mainland economy — wait for this — $1.5 billion

annually. That is the lost economic cost to the economy of the lower mainland

because we have traffic gridlock and there has not been historical investment

made by the previous government in the transportation infrastructure.

The Port Mann Bridge, in particular, was built in 1963. That was

40 years ago. The population of the GVRD 40 years ago was about 800,000 people.

Today it's three times that number, and there still has been no new investment.

The final thing I would say to the member is that yes, we do have

a business plan. That business plan will be part of the public consultation

process and will be shared, because we are in the midst of, as I've said to the

member….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I keep hearing heckling from the member for

Vancouver-Hastings, who was the leader in a government that did absolutely

nothing for lower mainland infrastructure at all for the decade that she was in

power.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: "HOV lanes" is apparently this member's

answer to what she did to solve the transportation gridlock crisis in the lower

mainland. Unfortunately for the member, the HOV lanes didn't solve the $1.5

billion worth of congestion challenges we face in the lower mainland.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: We are actually moving forward. The member,

along with the public, will be able to peruse the business plan that will be

shared with all the public during the consultation process. Part of these funds

will go towards making sure it happens.

J. Brar: Well, finally. This is the first time I've heard

that there is a business plan; I don't know at what stage, though. I would like

to know: is the business plan complete at this stage? If not, on what day will

it be completed, and can I get a copy of that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The business plan will go out to the public

through the public consultation process, which will take place in the fall. The

business plan will incorporate the public consultation that we hear, and any

final refinements will be made to the business plan as a result of that public

consultation.

J. MacPhail: So we've got no business plan, no public

consultation. We have a failed announcement that didn't work during the Surrey

by-election. We've got this government having done absolutely nothing along this

corridor in its four years, and all of a sudden we learn that they're expecting

the federal government to pay 80 percent of the project.

Could the minister tell me where, in the history of Canadian

federal-provincial relations, the federal government has ever paid 80 percent of

an infrastructure project?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I have to say that I never cease to

be amazed by the unbelievable things that come out of that member's mouth.

Apparently an over $300 million commitment this year and three years out isn't a

commitment and apparently isn't doing anything. That member had a decade to do

something and did nothing. A band-aid solution was one thing they did on the

Port Mann Bridge, and that's all it was. We are actually engaged in the most

massive infrastructure program that the lower mainland has ever seen.

Now, this member talks about 80 percent federal dollars. You know,

the member is just frankly, as usual, wrong. We go to the federal government and

ask them to be partners in projects like this, and as the member knows, there is

a substantial amount of work that has to take place before you ever actually

start the major construction process. What we are doing is demonstrating this

province's commitment to moving that forward by undertaking these expenditures.

We will be building that bridge. We will provide a twinned Port Mann and a

widened Highway 1, and it will be an enormous benefit for British Columbians in

the lower mainland not just today, but well into the future.

[1510]

J. MacPhail: I guess the proof is in the pudding. Here we

are, days away from the end of this government's first term, and they've done

nothing. Here we are, days away from this government's term, and they've

committed $300 million on a $1.5 billion pro-

[ Page 12048 ]

ject. They have no business plan — none, zero. They've done no public

consultation, they've done no environmental assessment, and people are supposed

to say: "Oh gee, that's a good record." Well, their record stinks, and we know

that. They'll be judged on that record come May 17.

The reason why I say, "Has there ever been a federal government

that's committed 80 percent to an infrastructure project?" is because that's

what the minister said. He said: "The project costs $1.5 billion. We've

committed $300 million. We have no plan. We've got nothing to negotiate with the

federal government, and we're expecting the federal government to come up with

the dollars." That was the answer to the question.

We in the opposition can only assume that they're expecting the

government to come up with $1.2 billion. Oh wait, there's another possibility.

Let's see. Maybe in the year '09…. Let me see. How many years away will that be,

and how many of those people will even exist on the other side? Maybe in '09 the

government…. Well, I should say the Liberals. The Liberals might say: "Well, if

we're elected to government, we'll commit more money."

Again, this government — and particularly this minister — have

such poor business acumen that they think…. Well, actually, it's been tested. It

was tested in the by-election. This minister stood up and made the big promise

about the Port Mann Bridge. I don't think anyone believed him.

Wait. Does his mother live in the riding? No, his mother doesn't

live in the riding. So maybe nobody believed him, and that's why he did so

poorly as the political lead in that by-election. His commitments are so false,

they're like cotton candy. They're backed up by absolutely nothing, and we see

that from the questioning.

When are the negotiations going to begin with the federal

government? Do they start after the business plan has been done next fall?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member just doesn't quite

understand that the fullness of my political genius strategy will be fully

exemplified on May 17, when we will again revert to seizing the opportunity of

winning that chair back.

I will say this to the member. She's wrong again. I have to say

it's getting a little tiresome having to say that all the time. It must be

difficult being proven wrong so many times. She's wrong that we haven't started

consultation, because actually, we have. In fact, consultation is underway as we

speak. She's wrong when she says we haven't consulted. Actually, we have

consulted with all of the councils up and down the corridor. She's wrong when

she says we haven't done environmental assessment work, because we've actually

done extensive environmental assessment work. It's not completed yet. We still

have more to do, but it's well underway. Again, I find myself in this position

of having to point out that the member is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As far as the government commitment, let me just say this. Unlike

a previous government that — as one of their members used to say, "We used to

make announcements we had no concept of ever fulfilling…. Unlike a government

that used to make announcements that had no dollars to fulfil…. For example, the

$125 million mental health plan comes to mind. Not one dollar was put aside for

that. Unlike that kind of a sorry, tragic….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry, I hear a voice. I do believe the

voice is the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasantness or whatever. That member

should know that she was actually a leader in creating that tragic decade of

broken promises and broken dreams.

What we have done instead is actually put into place over $334

million from this year and going forward for the next three years to actually

open up British Columbia. We are builders again in British Columbia. We are

creating opportunity. We're not going to be like the naysayers on the opposite

side, who can find a thousand reasons why you should never do anything. We're

doing it. We're building. British Columbia is growing again, and that's why

we're going to be re-elected so massively on May 17, 2005.

[1515]

The Chair: The member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge on vote

37(S). Let's get back to the debate.

J. Brar: The minister has said that they're working on the

business plan. My question is pretty simple. What specific steps are they going

to take to build the complete business plan? Can you tell us?

Hon. K. Falcon: There'll be several stages that we will go

through. We will finalize our consultation with the cities that are involved in

the corridor. We will complete our engineering and environmental work that is

underway. As I talked about scope of project, I talked about the fact that we've

already begun the environmental assessment work. That work will be completed. We

will continue negotiations with the federal government, because obviously we

think that they should be an important player in this, and we're hopeful they

will be. Then we will go out in the fall to the public for consultation on the

entire project, including the business plan that we put in front of them.

J. Brar: The benefit-cost analysis is a very important part

of developing a business plan. Can the minister tell: has the gateway program

done any benefit-cost study of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion?

Hon. K. Falcon: Our preliminary benefit-cost ratio for the

entire project is 3.3. The portion for the Port Mann was actually substantially

higher. I haven't got the exact number, but it was in excess of 4.

[ Page 12049 ]

J. Brar: There is a consultant report that Vaughn Palmer has

reported on, but it's not published anywhere on the gateway program website. Can

you tell me what that consultant report is?

[1520]

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I'll need more information on that.

I'm not familiar with the consultant report that Mr. Palmer has commented on.

J. Brar: Can the minister tell me the scope of public

consultation? Where will that take place, and what community will be part of it?

What municipalities will be part of it?

Hon. K. Falcon: We're already consulting with

municipalities about this issue. We're actually in the process of designing the

public consultation process. What I can tell the member is that public

consultation is something I think…. Frankly, I'm very proud of how our ministry

handles that. We've done a substantial amount of work throughout the province,

whether it's Kicking Horse Canyon or Sea to Sky Highway or whatever the case may

be.

I can tell you that it will include features you see in all of our

public consultation processes. It includes open houses, it includes meetings

with stakeholders, and it will include community meetings. It also includes

pretty substantial website feedback criteria, where we allow people to enter

onto the website and provide feedback from there. It's a very open process that

allows maximum opportunity for the public to have their input.

J. Brar: Mr. Chair, you know, this is a very huge capital

project we have. I think we must have a lot of things very clear in our mind at

this point in time. The stakeholders — who are they? Can you tell me the list of

those people, who they are?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is not a comprehensive list but will

be sort of typical of the kind of stakeholders that typically have input in

these kinds of things. It includes the Trucking Association. It includes the

railway operators. It includes the ports. It includes the B.C. Automobile

Association, various user groups, members of the general public, etc.

J. Brar: Does this list also include…? You mentioned the

word "municipalities." I understand there are a number of municipalities that

are going to be interested in this project and also maybe a number of

communities which will benefit or be impacted by this project. Does the

government have any list of different municipalities you are going to consult?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I mentioned, those consultations with

the municipalities are already underway. They are key players in this whole

process, because we want to ensure that we work cooperatively with them to

ensure that traffic flow is moving to the benefit of, frankly, all the players.

I think the easiest way to explain to the member in terms of which

municipalities…. It's virtually all of them, except those on the north shore of

the Burrard, and Richmond. Excepting those ones, virtually everyone else is

involved in that consultation discussion.

[1525]

J. Brar: The consultant report…. I have more specific

information on that. This is from the Vancouver Sun . It's June 26, '04.

The headline is: "Ten years, $6 billion in roads and bridges." In this

article

Vaughn Palmer reports, on the second page: "The consultant report released last

month forecasts annual revenues starting in the $40 million range at the time of

completion in 2007, rising to $50 million by 2010." Does the government know

about that consultant report at all?

Hon. K. Falcon: Based on the numbers I'm hearing, I think

the member is referring to the Fraser River crossing, otherwise known as the

Golden Ears project. That sounds very suspiciously to me like the numbers,

exactly, for that Fraser River crossing.

J. Brar: We will come back to this one with more clarity

later on.

I know the minister has been talking about tolling the bridge. Are

these net benefits that the minister is talking about greater or fewer under the

toll scenario? I know the minister has been talking about tolling the bridge at

some point in time. Under a benefit analysis, are these net benefits greater or

fewer under the toll scenario?

Hon. K. Falcon: We have provided the cost-benefit ratios.

Those are ratios that do not include tolling. Should tolling be contemplated as

something that would move forward, we would obviously undertake those and

determine what those benefit-cost ratios would be.

J. MacPhail: I've been listening, and I wanted to explore

some of this issue about what the benefits and costs are. The minister is

talking about ratios. I actually want to talk about net benefit and costs. Does

the minister have any net-benefit-and-cost analysis?

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: When you have a benefit-cost rate of 3.3,

that coincides with a net benefit of more than $6 billion.

J. MacPhail: What discount rate was used for future costs

and benefits?

Hon. K. Falcon: Eight percent.

J. MacPhail: Over what period of time?

Hon. K. Falcon: Twenty-five years.

[ Page 12050 ]

J. MacPhail: I heard the minister say that that's for the

Fraser River crossing. But does that study also include the Port Mann Bridge?

Perhaps he could tell us the range of the benefit-cost study. I have some other

questions on that.

Hon. K. Falcon: That rate of 3.3 includes the whole gateway

program. It does not include the Fraser River crossing. I imagine GVTA probably

did its own assessment on the Fraser River crossing.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I may have missed this. This study is

public? The minister is making this study to which he is referring public?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, this is part of the draft business plan

that will be coming out in the fall as part of the consultation process, once

we've completed our discussions with the cities and determined the other issues

that I mentioned to the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge.

J. MacPhail: Well, I assume this study will be made public.

Can the minister tell us what the title is of the study on which he's just been

answering questions, so that we will know to make sure that it's made public?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a working paper. I don't believe it

has an official title. But I can tell that member that in the fall it will be

fully released, and the member will be able to share it and enjoy it along with

the rest of the public.

J. MacPhail: Well, we'll see whether we'll be enjoying it

or not. I'm not quite sure why this study isn't released now. It doesn't give

any disadvantage to anyone who may bid on the project, including the federal

government — no disadvantage whatsoever. I assume the study is for the project

and not the proponents. So no, I don't in any way trust the government to do the

right thing and release this at all.

What costs around environmental impact does the study take into

account?

Hon. K. Falcon: They do include environmental impacts.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Which ones?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have those numbers with me, but

again, they will be released in the fall as part of the public consultative

process.

J. MacPhail: What did he expect we were going to talk about

under the $200 million? Oh, thank you. You committed 20 percent of ferry money

to a project that you haven't got any business plan for — no business plan.

We're trying to figure out what other studies you've done.

Does the study take into account lost transit revenue or impacts

on highway safety?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

J. MacPhail: Why can the minister tell me that, but he

can't tell me what the environmental impacts are? Are greenhouse gas emissions

taken into account?

Hon. K. Falcon: I don't have all of that information with

me. As I said to the member, it will all come out in the fall. You will see

everything, and you can fill your heart with all the information that will be

there. There's lots of it.

[1535]

J. MacPhail: Well, that's completely insulting to the

voters — completely insulting. But actually, I guess we could use that quote in

an election ad showing that this government doesn't have any substance behind

its promise — nothing. Given their record of broken promises, the voters will

go: "Uh-huh, you're right. Let's be scared. Let's be very, very afraid."

What traffic pattern modelling did the government use? Was it from

the regional transportation plan or their own?

Hon. K. Falcon: We jointly developed a traffic modelling

program with TransLink, and that's the model we're using.

J. MacPhail: Does TransLink have this study to which the

minister refers?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've said to the member before, this is

all still preliminary work that is underway. We'll continue to work on this. Of

course, once that work is completed, we will share all that work with all the

stakeholders, including TransLink.

J. MacPhail: Whenever the minister gets into a corner, all

of a sudden it turns out to be just preliminary work. He can answer some

questions but not others — all sounds pretty iffy to me. Why? Because it is

iffy. The money ain't there; the study ain't there. The partners aren't there;

the public isn't there. No one's there except the Minister of Transportation

trying to buy votes. That's the only reason we're having this discussion at all,

because he's trying to buy votes.

The minister said that the benefit-cost study was for the entire

gateway program. Well, is there any specific cost-benefit study done for the

Port Mann Bridge or the Highway 1 project? It seems to me that in order to do a

cost-benefit study, you have to do it on the individual parts. I don't think

this government is going to be able to get enough money from the other partners

to do even one part of this project, let alone all three.

Hon. K. Falcon: I already answered this question for the

member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge. The member for Vancouver-Hastings wasn't here

when I answered that, but as I indicated, we did also do a separate rate for the

Port Mann Bridge portion of it. I

[ Page 12051 ]

didn't have the exact number, but I knew it was well over 4.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, just for the benefit of a seasoned

member, he was just unparliamentary — number one.

Number two, it's his job to answer questions no matter who they

come from. He's not supposed to discuss who is not in the chamber, Mr. Chair.

God forbid that be done for his government — I'll tell you that.

Number three, he did not…. I asked this question before, and he

said the study was done for the entire gateway project. It's got nothing to do

with what previous question was asked. He said the study was done for the entire

gateway project, not the Fraser River crossing.

J. Brar: There are numerous neighbourhood groups —

including the livable region coalition and the recently merged Langley

conservation network, Surrey environmental partners — who are opposed to this

project.

My question to the minister is: has the minister done any

consultation with those groups, or is there any plan to do that consultation?

[1540]

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've mentioned repeatedly, there will be

full public consultation in the fall. All those groups will have every

opportunity to avail themselves of the numerous and many consultative events —

whether they're open houses, community meetings, the website or what have you.

J. MacPhail: How far geographically will the consultations

go? The four exits from Highway 1 flow into the constituency of

Vancouver-Hastings. What consultation is going to be done in the riding of

Vancouver-Hastings? Specifics, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've already indicated that we're still in

the midst of designing that consultative process in consultation with the

municipalities. As I've already said before and I'll say again, all of the

municipalities are involved except Richmond and the North Shore.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me see — the fall. Could we have a

date of when it's going to be started — the consultation, this grand project?

Oh, I know. Well, then let me ask for this commitment. Will the minister commit

to revealing all of the work that hasn't been done in preparation for this as he

rolls out his election goodies?

The minister didn't want to answer that question. That would be

called truth in advertising, and I know that's anathema to the Liberal

government.

I'll tell you something, Mr. Chair. If this minister raises the

phrase "Port Mann Bridge" once, he will have to be held accountable for all of

the work that he hasn't done in Surrey, in Burnaby, in Vancouver, in the North

Shore, where he hasn't…. It's not even on the radar screen amongst the public or

the city councils, including TransLink and GVRD, that he's done any outreach

whatsoever on the planning of the Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1.

He's shaking his head. Well, stand up and tell us, because that's

all we've been asking. He's saying: "No, no. That's not true." Well, that's all

we've been asking. Tell us what the outreach has been. Let me know right now

what discussions he's had with the city of Vancouver about the effect of this

gateway project on Vancouver-Hastings.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'm forced to once again say the

member is wrong. We actually have engaged in consultation with all of the

councils. We have engaged in consultation with the GVTA. We have engaged in

consultation with the GVRD and the GVTA board, and we will continue to do that

as we go forward with a public consultative process, which begins in the fall.

I don't have the level of detail that the member wants for the

specific riding of Vancouver-Hastings, because we're in the process of working

with the staff at the municipalities to get that information. Then we will come

forward with the full and complete public consultative process.

J. Brar: Do we have…? In a business plan, we usually have….

A good business plan should include some sort of time line on different issues.

Does this government have time lines about when the consultation process is

going to start, when it's going to finish and when the government actually plans

to start — any projection of dates — the actual construction of the bridge?

[1545]

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member raising the issue

of business plans, because business plans are very important before a government

undertakes major capital projects. As the member well knows, there was no

business plan for the fast ferries. That was one of the reasons why the

taxpayers found themselves in such a horrific situation, where almost half a

billion dollars of taxpayer money was wasted. That should give the member real

encouragement.

We are still, as I mentioned to the member, designing the process

and working with the municipalities. That consultative process will start in the

fall. Typically, a consultative process on a project like this will last

probably…. Six to eight months is the likely time frame we're talking about. As

a result of that public consultative process, we will be able to finalize a lot

of those kinds of issues into the business plan that the member talks about.

J. Brar: Is there any tentative date you have in the

supposed business plan for when the construction of the bridge is likely to

start?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the fact of the matter is that

you can't. You can't until you've nailed down the environmental assessment work,

because believe it or

[ Page 12052 ]

not, you actually have to know what impacts are going to be created. You

can't until you've completed the engineering, the scope of engineering work

required. The public consultative process is a big part of that because you're

going to hear from the….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here? No.

Interjection.

The Chair: Order, please, member. Member, just listen,

please.

Hon. K. Falcon: If the member for Vancouver-Hastings would

actually listen, she might learn a thing or two here. As I indicated, there will

be a full consultative process, and the public will have an opportunity….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, of course they do, member. They will

be able to have their say.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, please. You'll have an opportunity to

ask questions. Just listen now, please.

Hon. K. Falcon: As a result of the contributions of the

public, we can then nail down all the elements of the business plan when we have

completed the public consultative process, when we have completed the scope of

engineering work and when we have completed the environmental assessment work.

That's actually how you build a business plan that makes sense.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, I'm apparently being lectured by the

member opposite on how to do a business plan. I can't help but remind that this

member was the one who actually had no business plan for fast ferries. In fact,

when the board dared to suggest this might not be a good use of taxpayer

dollars, you fired them, and you put a new board in place made up of people who

didn't have a clue how to undertake a major business project.

It's a little bit difficult for me to hear this member lecture me

on business plans. I'm sorry; it's a challenge for me. But I can assure the

member that our business plan will include all of the information that needs to

be there. It will be fully shared with the public. The public will have full

input on that. That is actually how you move forward on a major project and

protect the public purse.

J. MacPhail: Well, the one infrastructure project that I

was responsible for, the millennium line, came in under budget and on time.

In fact, what this government has just said is that they have no

construction date. They have no construction date in mind. What they're going to

do is go to the public, I guess, and say: "Hey, when would you like the project

started?" It's like a hippie kind of thing. "Hey, man, any idea when you'd

actually like to reach nirvana?" Then you work back from there.

Maybe there would be an epiphany among some certain public groups

where they would say: "You know, I just love it when Capricorn comes together

with Aries, and I think that would be a good day to start construction." Then

others may say: "We don't want you to start construction at all, and it makes

sense for us to have that input, because you don't have any plan anyway — no

construction date."

This government has no business plan, no public consultation

planned, no construction date planned, no budget. This project is a fake — an

absolute fake. Can the minister name any other business plan that…? Well,

actually, no. That's an unfair question, because this government hasn't built

anything. That's an unfair question.

[1550]

Okay, let's look at the RAV project, then. There are construction

dates for the RAV project. Was that wrong? The public consultation is ongoing on

that. They've got construction dates in there. Are they wrong to do that?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, they're not wrong at all. That project

is obviously much more well-advanced. I couldn't help but note that the member

mentioned how she was responsible for the millennium line. Boy, that triggered

some fond memories, like how they overrode the environmental assessment process

and overrode local governments so they could ram it through without the

appropriate environmental assessment work.

You know what? We're not going to do that the way you did that,

member for Vancouver-Hastings, because it was appalling — what you did. In fact,

I would encourage the member and her new member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge to

read some of the headlines from back in the nineties when you overrode the

environmental assessment process — made a mockery of what was supposed to be

there to protect the environment.

That is the record of that member, and that's not how we're going

to do it. That's why I'm proud. When this member says we have no commitment,

I'll tell you, I think most British Columbians would say $330 million is a

pretty significant commitment. I think most British Columbians would say: "We

are proud of a government that actually is going to undertake the full

environmental assessment impact and not shortchange it the way that member and

her government did."

We will not run roughshod over public consultation. We will not

run roughshod over environmental assessment impact. We are going to do it right.

It will be a business plan that will stand up to scrutiny. Frankly, it will be a

stark contrast to the absolute legacy of mismanagement and roughshod overriding

that the

[ Page 12053 ]

member's hopelessly incompetent government undertook during their decade of

dismal economic performance in British Columbia.

J. Brar: I keep hearing different scenarios of this whole

project. The consultation will start sometime in the future; the negotiation

with the federal government will start sometime soon, and so on. I think the

minister, by now, would understand that the government works from year to year

in different budgets.

What I don't understand at this point in time is how the minister

is going to present his case to the federal government in asking for the

partnership — for money — without indicating any date, any budget year to the

federal government. Can you explain that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the federal government were the

ones that came up with the study that demonstrated there's a $1.5 billion annual

cost to our economy as a result of congestion and gridlock. The federal

government, perhaps more than almost anybody, is keenly aware of the huge

challenges that gridlock and congestion cause. That's why we are working with

the federal government, together as partners, to help solve this problem and

move forward in British Columbia so that we can have a transportation network

that actually works for British Columbians.

J. Brar: The GVRD argues that the Port Mann Bridge does not

support the livable region strategic plan, which is the region's

long-term plan. What is the government doing to ensure that their concerns are

addressed?

[H. Long in the chair.]

[1555]

Hon. K. Falcon: We've already started that dialogue. We've

met with the board of the GVRD. I'll remind the member that the liveable region

plan has not been updated in over ten years. I was speaking to the chair of the

GVRD, and the chair was telling me that they are actually beginning the process

of updating that liveable region plan so it reflects the reality that's out

there. I encouraged them to do that. Of course we will continue, through the

public consultative process, to ensure that they have every opportunity. We will

work with them as they work through a new liveable region plan that will be

updated to reflect the reality of growth and what's happening.

J. Brar: If in this case the GVRD does not come to the

table, will the government push through with this project and override the

interests of the GVRD, even if it resolved to oppose the project?

Hon. K. Falcon: Our intent is to work with the GVRD. I

believe we will be able to fashion a working relationship. We may not agree on

every issue, but I do think we all agree that congestion is a major problem, and

it needs to be dealt with. I look forward to having a constructive relationship

with the GVRD. I actually have a very good working relationship with the chair

of the GVRD, who supports the gateway program. I think that working with other

members of the GVRD, we can fashion a consensus and move forward in a positive

way for all British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Here's what the Minister of Transportation

said on September 8 of last year about congestion: "You cannot build your way

out of congestion completely."

I searched all sorts of transportation plans to try to find, in

North America, where adding capacity has reduced congestion at all. There's not

one transportation study or analysis that shows where adding capacity has

reduced congestion — not one single one. So maybe the minister could show me or

tell me where I should look. Clearly, my research is faulty. What jurisdiction

in North America has he looked at where adding vehicle capacity has reduced

congestion?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm not surprised the member will take that

position. In fact, it's exactly why there was no investment in transportation

infrastructure throughout the province. One thing that this government and our

Premier recognize is that there is a direct correlation between the economic

prospects of British Columbia and its transportation network.

The fact of the matter is that we know that when we talk about

economic corridors…. I did say that — and I always say that, I should add to the

folks in this House — you cannot build your way out of congestion. I accept that

as a given, but I also accept that Highway 1 and that corridor is the most

congested corridor in the entire province. It's a congested corridor because it

was built 40 years ago when we had a third of the population that we have today.

The other thing I would say to the member is that we also

recognize that this is just one piece of our bigger transportation plan to deal

with the challenges we face. That's why we are part of a $1.7 billion rapid

transit project for the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line. That's why we are

contributing $170 million towards the northeast sector public transit. That's

why we continue to fully fund a transportation plan with B.C. Transit, and

that's why this gateway program is so critical.

Remember, at the end of the day we have to move goods in British

Columbia too. Not all of those goods go by rail and air. Some of them go by

truck. We also have to make sure that we recognize that the tens of thousands of

truckers and the businesses that rely on getting their goods to market must have

a network that they can get through. That's why this is one piece of a big

transportation vision and a plan for British Columbia — a plan that we set out

and introduced late in 2002 for British Columbia called Opening up B.C. I'm very

proud of that plan and the leadership our Premier had in fostering and putting

together the plan, and also the leadership that the former Minister of

Transportation had in setting out that plan.

[ Page 12054 ]

[1600]

J. MacPhail: Let me just take this a little bit more

slowly, then, for the minister. It's congestion that causes the economic

malaise. That's why I looked for studies that would demonstrate that adding

capacity, the way this government is doing, reduces congestion let alone

eliminates it — that adding vehicle capacity, reducing congestion, would solve

the economic dilemmas faced by the trucking industry. So I searched for studies

all throughout North America, and I couldn't find any that proved anything

except the opposite point: adding vehicle capacity does nothing for congestion.

It does absolutely nothing for it. That's why I asked the minister for his

study. That's all. It's just a basic, factual question. What studies does he

have to show that congestion will be reduced by the gateway project? What

comparators elsewhere has he examined?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I will say to the member is that the

member needs to look at the successful economies in the world today, and to look

at…. For us to be successful, an economy like that of British Columbia, a small

trading province competing around the world, needs to have a comprehensive

transportation plan that includes investment in public transit and appropriate

investment in infrastructure.

The member should know that the northeast sector of our oil and

gas is exploding in growth. One of the primary reasons is that they came to us

and said: "We need to be investing in transportation, roads and infrastructure."

As a result of those kinds of investments, we now see drilling happening not

just in the winter season but year-round.

That's what the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan P3 was about: an award-winning

private partnership, a $40 million road built up in the northeast sector, which

is now helping to continue the huge, explosive growth in economic activity in

the northeast sector. This member has challenges understanding that, and I get

that. This member philosophically opposes making these kinds of investments, but

I can tell him you that as part of an overarching transportation plan, these

investments are very important.

The one and a half billion dollars that congestion costs the lower

mainland each and every year is a cost on the economy that affects every small

business person in the lower mainland. It affects every part of this province

because even in northern and rural British Columbia, when they're shipping their

goods by truck to get to market, and when they're sitting in that congestion for

three or four hours a day, it actually impacts their ability to be competitive.

That's why we're making these investments, and that's the economic

plan we have for British Columbia: to get ourselves into a position where

British Columbia is a world-competitive economy. That's exactly what we're

doing.

J. MacPhail: I take it from that, with the minister

shifting ground from the gateway project up to the northeast corner of the

province, that he has no studies. He has none — absolutely no studies to show or

demonstrate that what he is going to do will have any impact on congestion

whatsoever.

The studies I looked at, just for his information, are from the

cities of Phoenix, Houston, Los Angeles, Seattle, Montreal and Toronto. Those

are the studies I looked at. The minister can't even name one study to prove his

point that adding capacity actually reduces congestion. I have all those studies

that show adding capacity has zero effect and sometimes a negative impact on

congestion, and the minister doesn't even have one study.

Let me ask this, then: what is the effect on ridership on the

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line when the gateway project is fully

implemented?

Hon. K. Falcon: The answer is it will have virtually no

significant impact at all on ridership. In reflecting on what the member says, I

can only assume that the member feels the way she does because their economic

plan, or at least the result of their economic plan, was actually to slow down

the economy of British Columbia to such an extent that perhaps infrastructure

wasn't needed.

I suppose it is kind of like their small business plan. Their

small business plan is to take large businesses and, through regressive

regulatory and tax policy, reduce them to small businesses. Sadly, in many cases

they just fled the province for a greater opportunity elsewhere.

[1605]

That appears to be the plan that the member has, but I'll say

this. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's part of the great

choice that British Columbians will have in front of them. We are builders in

this province again. We're not afraid to be builders. We're not afraid to ensure

that we have a comprehensive transportation vision that includes some of the

most massive investment in public transit we've seen in the history of this

province, that includes certainly the most massive investment in road and

rehabilitation infrastructure improvement we've seen in this province. We want

to ensure that British Columbia is going to be not just competitive but the most

competitive economy in the country. We are going to lead the nation in economic

growth and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I know that flourish of rhetoric probably

impressed the Minister of Transportation, but unfortunately, it's all smoke and

mirrors. This government actually hasn't invested one single cent yet in any of

these projects we're talking about — not one cent. That's why he can't answer

any questions. That's why he can't tell us when the construction date is going

to be.

I would just remind him that each and every year through the 1990s

a half billion dollars was invested in roads and bridges and transit — every

year. This government has done nothing. Now they're going to make an election

promise — a latter-day election promise —

[ Page 12055 ]

saying: "Oh, trust us. If you vote for us again, we promise to invest

something."

The government doesn't have any study whatsoever to show that

adding vehicle capacity reduces congestion — none. But he just said that he can

absolutely, factually tell me there will be no effect on ridership of the

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line with the building of the gateway project. How

does he know that? Can he tell me what study he's done?

Hon. K. Falcon: Our preliminary analysis suggested there is

virtually no impact. We're talking about two very different corridors, and

therefore it's demonstrating in our preliminary work that there is virtually no

impact whatsoever.

J. MacPhail: Is it the entire gateway project that the

minister is talking about — upon which those analyses have been done? The

minister is nodding yes. Perhaps he could describe the analyses then, please.

When the minister stands up and says there's virtually no linkage whatsoever

between the rapid transit line, SkyTrain and this gateway project…. Perhaps he

could just tell me.

Hon. K. Falcon: The preliminary and initial runs of the

traffic model don't indicate any impact. Now, the member knows these are very

complex and complicated technical models that we go through. But, as I say, the

preliminary information is that there is virtually no impact.

J. MacPhail: Does that include the South Fraser perimeter

road as well in the impact study?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes.

J. MacPhail: I would love to see that study, then. I'd just

love to see it. Could I have a copy of it, please? Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll let

the minister answer on the record.

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've indicated on at least half a dozen

occasions, the member will have full access to that in the fall when the public

consultation process begins.

[1610]

J. MacPhail: What's the problem with releasing it now? I

don't understand that. The minister just went on record saying he has a study,

and it shows that there will be absolutely no impact. I'm just very curious as

to how that could be. I'm skeptical. I'm sure a whole bunch of people in the

GVRD would be skeptical as well. Let me ask this: does the GVRD have that study?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member keeps referring to it as a

study. I've said again that this involves preliminary work on initial runs of a

traffic model. As I said, in the fall when we begin the public consultative

process, we will share that with all the stakeholders and all members of the

public including that member.

J. MacPhail: I guess, then, that it's not a study. They

looked at some traffic patterns, and the minister concludes that there is no

issue. Hoo, boy, that's really comforting. I think the minister is just making

it up as he goes along. And the public is supposed to have confidence in him or

his government?

Let's find out what other studies the government's done on this.

Claims to be the big enviro-guru; says the former government, on the millennium

line, overrode environmental assessment. That's simply not true. He knows that.

It's the greenest project, the cleanest project under budget, done in record

time. It turns out that the municipalities, after consultation, welcomed the

project, as did the public. Of course, they were actually involved, unlike this

government, where you have to take the minister's word.

His word has been challenged. His word has been challenged,

actually, in the hallway — about the truthfulness of the things that he has said

in here. And then he's had to apologize. Now, that was about matters of criminal

activity. You're right. That was about criminal activity raids on the

Legislature. That's true.

The Chair: Member, will we please stick to the vote? I

don't think it's necessary to go through the characters of people.

Interjection.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I certainly will.

But it certainly isn't out of line at all, just for the minister's

benefit. I'm just actually reiterating the facts that are on the record in

Hansard . I do see that they're troublesome. The facts are troubling to the

Minister of Transportation, and I can understand why.

The government argues that building the bridge will reduce our

greenhouse gas emissions. I asked the minister about that. He had no evidence of

that whatsoever. He didn't even know whether that was part of his study when I

asked him about that a few moments ago. But if you go to their climate change

policy, they actually claim that the building of this bridge is part of their

climate change policy. Whoa. There's a leap. It's not even a leap of faith.

Increasing highway capacity will actually encourage more cars into

the system, fewer transit trips — despite what the minister alleges, and for

which he has no evidence whatsoever — fewer walking trips, fewer trips that

actually encourage anything other than the use of the car.

My question is this: what evidence does the government have that

tells us that we're actually going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through

going ahead with the gateway program? That's what their website says.

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, let me preface my comment by

reminding the member that again she's

[ Page 12056 ]

wrong. I have lost count of how many times she's been wrong. That member

actually rammed through the millennium project over her own environmental

assessment policies of her government of the day — a shameful display of

government arrogance and brutality on the people who were concerned about those

issues.

What I will say regarding greenhouse gas emissions….What the

member should know is that actually having traffic idling 16 hours a day in

traffic isn't really good for the environment. That might be news to the member,

but it actually is not helpful to have cars sitting there three and four hours a

day, each way, trying to get through a traffic corridor. That's bad for the

environment.

[1615]

Part of the great thing about the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge

is that we now have additional options to consider — options like, for example,

public transit corridors, bicycle paths, new HOV lanes, the consideration of

dedicated commercial lanes — ways that we can continue, through demand

management models, to actually improve the environmental impact while at the

same time freeing up the most congested corridor in the province. That's exactly

what we're going to do.

J. MacPhail: Is that part of the business plan — each and

every one of those?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. Again, it is part of the preliminary

business plan that we're working on. It will go to public consultation in the

fall to ensure we get full input, because we may get some more good ideas out of

the public consultation process. But yes, that is part of it.

J. MacPhail: Boy, it seems that everything we ask is part

of the business plan. It seems to be pretty fully shaped. Why is the government

hiding it?

The minister doesn't want to answer. Interesting. No wonder this

government wants to shut down this Legislature: they actually don't want to

answer the questions. So we're supposed to trust the government that all of

these greenhouse gas–reducing ideas are included.

When I asked the minister just moments ago whether he could even

tell me whether that was part of the study, he didn't know. Reducing greenhouse

gas emissions. He said: "Oh, I have no idea." He says: "I don't know. I'll get

you that information." Now it turns out that, oh, they're a model of it. Let me

see who they trust — British Columbians.

Well, let me ask this to the minister: what study has he done to

show that congestion will be reduced and that cars will idle less? What exact

studies has he done?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, as I have said to the member many

times, these are the preliminary results we have, based on the information that

we've done to date. We continue to work on that and gather that information.

During the public consultative process in the fall we will fully and completely

work through that information as we get more input from stakeholders and members

of the public.

J. MacPhail: I don't think the public is going to do a

study on reducing congestion. The government presents to the public their

studies on how this is going to reduce congestion.

My gosh. This is pretty basic stuff: what studies will the

government present to the public to show that their gateway project reduces

congestion, and what will that study demonstrate?

Hon. K. Falcon: That will be included in the information we

bring forward in the fall and share with the public for public input.

J. MacPhail: Is the study being done right now? Who's doing

it? How much is it costing?

Hon. K. Falcon: The work is part of the work being

undertaken by the dedicated project team we have on the gateway project. They

will continue to do that work, as they will continue all the other preliminary

work that is underway in terms of environmental assessment work, engineering

scope, etc. Once we enter into the public consultative process in the fall, all

that work will be shared with all members of the public and all stakeholders.

J. MacPhail: I need more specifics than that. Surely, the

study has already been set up, because a congestion study has to be done over a

period of time — on a monthly basis; also on a daily basis and an hourly basis.

Who's doing the congestion study? Over what period of time? When

will it be completed? And how much does it cost? The gateway project team can

tell me that.

[1620]

Hon. K. Falcon: I've answered this multiple times. I'll try

one more time. This is part of the work that the project team is undertaking.

The project team is undertaking a whole range of work associated with this

project. They will have all of that information available as the consultative

process begins in the fall. All the stakeholders, including that interested

member, will have every opportunity to have input once the information is shared

in the fall.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell me the terms of

reference for the congestion study that the gateway project is undertaking.

Hon. K. Falcon: As part of the business plan, all of these

areas get fully explored. In the fall in the public consultation phase of this

project, all of the information will be shared with interested stakeholders,

members of the public and, of course, the member opposite.

[ Page 12057 ]

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe I could then take it one step back.

Are there terms of reference for a congestion study? I won't even ask the

minister to reveal what they are. Are there terms of reference?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are terms of reference for all

technical studies that we undertake in respect to the project.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister name the technical studies,

please?

Hon. K. Falcon: They're on a whole range of issues. I don't

have them at my fingertips, but they're on a whole range of issues the project

team is undertaking that will, again, be made fully available in the fall public

consultative process.

J. MacPhail: I can hardly wait. Everybody's going to be

real busy.

Tell me how big the gateway project team is that is doing all of

these studies the minister keeps referring to. How many people are dedicated to

this?

Hon. K. Falcon: The core team is about 24 individuals. They

in turn, of course, will engage and utilize consultants.

J. MacPhail: It's ridiculous to suggest that a team of 24

can do all of these studies. The minister knows that, and the staff knows that.

No wonder the public is cynical about these pre-election and election

announcements that this minister makes. He's got nothing to back it up.

Will the congestion study include the level of greenhouse gas

emissions and the effect of the project on greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon. K. Falcon: Part of the analysis will include that.

Again, that will be part of the information that comes forward in the public

consultative process.

J. MacPhail: What is the link between the congestion study

and the study on determination of the level of the greenhouse gas emissions? Is

this a model that the government itself is making up starting from scratch, or

are they models that they've examined and that they'll be replicating?

[1625]

Hon. K. Falcon: Those are technical details that I'm not

aware of and I don't have at my fingertips, but I can assure the member that

that is part of what the project team is undertaking. The project team, of

course, once they conclude and gather all that information, will share that with

the public during the public consultative process in the fall, which all

stakeholders, the public and the member opposite will have an opportunity to be

part of.

J. MacPhail: Well, I guess all the government members just

want to say "aye, aye" to a $200 million expenditure and that it's ridiculous

that the opposition would ask for this technical information, because the

minister doesn't have it with him.

Yesterday the Minister of Forests didn't have his information with

him. I still haven't received it. Today the Minister of Transportation says:

"Trust us. Give us the money. We don't have any of the studies. You can't have

access to them. They're not done; they're not public. I can't give you the terms

of reference. I don't have any studies elsewhere to show that what we're doing

is the right thing to do."

Here's what every other study showed. Every other study showed

that when you add capacity, congestion is either the same or worse, and

greenhouse gas emissions go up. I've named the studies where that's

demonstrated.

This government seems to think that although the minister can

provide me no evidence whatsoever, all of their studies — which we have no

details on — will prove exactly the opposite. He can't name the terms of

reference. He can't name the range of studies. He can't name the time line. He

can't tell me who's doing them, and he can't tell me what the budget is for

them. But, oh, we're supposed to trust this government that their studies will

show what no other jurisdiction has ever achieved.

Well, I'd like to say gee, if you believe that, I've got a bridge

for you to buy. But unfortunately, in this case it's true. British Columbians

are going to have to buy a bridge, to the tune of $800 million. This government

can't…. I should say, actually, that this minister can't demonstrate one single,

solid, factual basis upon which we should invest in that bridge — not one. He's

got no construction time line. He's going to leave it up to the people to decide

the construction time line. He has no plan for consultation. That'll roll out.

He's got no budget. He's got no technical studies. This is the equivalent of

asking people to buy a pig in a poke. It is shameful that these Liberal MLAs sit

here and allow this to happen.

Vote 37(

S) approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report

resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[1630]

Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. K. Falcon: Forthwith. I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 22, 2005, be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

[ Page 12058 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $550 million. This sum is in

addition to that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act,

2004-2005, and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and

expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 5)

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates

No. 5).

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: The use of supplementary estimates is

consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the operations of programs

for the 2004-05 fiscal year, as outlined in the supplementary estimates (No. 5)

tabled earlier. The bill will provide the additional funds required to defray

the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 2005. In accordance with established practice, the

government seeks to move this bill through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of

this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one

sitting.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to

second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 5)

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 12 be now read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the bill be now referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 12, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No.

5), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 5)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; H. Long in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:35 p.m.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:35 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No. 5),

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Supplementary Estimates

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: supplementary estimates (No. 6) for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen moved that the said message and the estimates

accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:39 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 4-D(S): Elections B.C., $545,000 — approved.

[ Page 12059 ]

[1640]

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that we rise, report resolution and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall it be considered as read?

Hon. C. Hansen: Forthwith. I move the report of resolution

from the Committee of Supply on February 22, 2005, be now received, taken as

read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $545,000. This sum is in addition to

that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of the Supply Act, 2004-2005, and is

granted by Her Majesty to defray the capital expenditures requirements of the

province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I call Committee of Supply for the

consideration of vote 5(

S) regarding the information and privacy commissioner.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:44 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 5(S): information and privacy commissioner, $115,000 —

approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:45 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: Forthwith. I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 22, 2005, be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $115,000. This sum is in addition to

that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, 2004-2005, and is

granted by Her Majesty to defray the charges and expenses of the public service

of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I call Committee of Supply to consider vote

6(

S) regarding the budget for the ombudsman's office.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:47 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 6(S): ombudsman, $20,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that we rise and report resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:48 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: Forthwith. I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 22, 2005, be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $20,000. This sum is in addition to

that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, 2004-2005, and is

granted by Her Majesty to defray the charges and expenses of the public service

of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

Motion approved.

[ Page 12060 ]

Hon. C. Hansen: I call Committee of Supply to consider vote

7(

S) regarding the budget for the police complaint commissioner.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 4:49 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

OFFICERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

Vote 7(S): police complaint commissioner, $105,000 — approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

resolution.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:50 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply reported resolution.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the report be considered?

Hon. C. Hansen: Forthwith. I move that the report of

resolution from the Committee of Supply on February 22, 2005, be now received,

taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that there be granted from and out

of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $105,000. This sum is in addition to

that authorized to be paid under

section 1 of the Supply Act, 2004-2005, and is

granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public

service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 6)

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates

No. 6).

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, the use of supplementary

estimates is consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act. This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the

operations of government programs for the 2004-05 fiscal year, as outlined in

the supplementary estimates (No. 6) tabled earlier. The bill will provide the

additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of the public

service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. In accordance

with established practice, the government seeks to move this bill through all

stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: We'll pause for a moment while we distribute

the bill.

Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the bill

will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to

second reading forthwith.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 6)

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 13 be now read a second

time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be now referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 13, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No. 6),

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT, 2004-2005

(SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES No. 6)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 13; H. Long in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:55 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 12061 ]

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:56 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13, Supply Act, 2004-2005 (Supplementary Estimates No. 6),

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Supplementary Estimates

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the

Administrator: supplementary estimates (No. 7) for the fiscal year ending March

31, 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen moved that the said message and the estimates

accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply

The House in Committee of Supply; H. Long in the chair.

The committee met at 5 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

On vote 17(S): ministry operations, $40,000,000.

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a moment to

outline why I'm requesting this. In February the province started negotiations

with the Peace River regional district and its member municipalities to renew

the MOU on oil and gas revenue allocation. The oil and gas sector is spread

widely over the rural territory, and these local governments do not have

adequate industrial tax base support. As a result, historical infrastructure

deficits have arisen in some municipalities in the Peace River and Northern

Rockies regional districts.

These deficits are principally in the formerly rural subdivisions

that were originally developed with low service standards in specific areas

around Fort St. John. The $40 million will address these deficits. Under the

proposed MOU the Peace River regional district will continue to compensate in

lieu of access to the rural tax base.

It is proposed that an unconditional grant in lieu of taxes for

the region also be increased by $8 million. That was $12 million in the previous

year and will go to $20 million effective April 1, 2005. The $20 million, when

added to the existing municipal infrastructure tax proceeds in the Peace River

district, brings the total annual proceeds from industry in the region to about

$29 million in total. The $40 million is a one-time cash payment to open and

close, I guess, the new MOU. I think it's very good news for the northeast, and

they'll put that money to good use for infrastructure throughout the area.

I might add that the Fair Share agreement dates back to 1989, when

the provincial government and the Peace River regional district reached an

agreement where the province would transfer $12 million per year until the

fiscal year 2007-08. There was a reopener clause in that MOU, and that could be

triggered after five years. That had begun.

In April 2004 the provincial government provided a one-time

payment of $6 million to the communities in the PRRD in recognition that two

years would pass before the mid-term negotiations could be expected to conclude.

I'm very pleased that the negotiations have been successful. I look forward to

questions from members in the Legislature.

J. Kwan: The government had put out a press release on

budget day announcing this spending. Why did the government wait until budget

day of 2005 to announce this 2004 spending?

Hon. M. Coell: The negotiations had just reached a point

where we could do that, and it seemed an appropriate time.

J. Kwan: So it has nothing really to do with the

pre-election goodies that the government wants to announce three months in

advance of the election.

Maybe the minister could tell me where the $40 million came from

with the existing budget. Is it unspent dollars within the ministry, or is it

new money that came from contingency? Where did the moneys come from for this

2004 line item?

Hon. M. Coell: It's beyond the budget. It would be coming

from new growth in the economy and new funds into this ministry.

J. Kwan: We understand that the northeast communities have

been lobbying for $80 million as opposed to $40 million. Is another $40 million

built into the 2005 budget?

Hon. M. Coell: No. This is the offer that was made, and the

$40 million is what we hope would be the only payment.

[1705]

J. Kwan: This is locked in for how many years? Is there

another reopener in terms of potential negotiations for the MOU in the future?

Hon. M. Coell: There is a proposed escalator in the yearly

budget, but the MOU hasn't been finalized yet, so I can't say whether there will

be a reopener at some point in the future.

[ Page 12062 ]

J. Kwan: The February 15 news release states, "Allocation of

the $40 million will be determined by discussion with the local governments in

the region and the province. Negotiations continue toward finalizing a new

memorandum of understanding before the end of the month," which the minister

just acknowledged that he has not yet completed. Who is doing the negotiations

at the moment?

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Vince Collins, on behalf of the

government, is the negotiator.

J. Kwan: What will the total amount be now — the total

investment dollars in the northeast part of British Columbia for the last fiscal

year — with this additional $40 million?

Hon. M. Coell: The total would be the $12 million that was

in the budget and allocated, plus this $40 million one-time funding.

J. Kwan: This is one-time money, so with the negotiations

that are coming — or that will be finalized — it is not anticipated that there

will be any more additional dollars. This is not ongoing over a period of time?

Hon. M. Coell: The total dollars would be the one-time

funding of $40 million, and then we've added or offered $8 million on top of the

$12 million for $20 million a year consistently after that. There would be an

escalator cost added to that $20 million, as well, over the years to come.

J. Kwan: The February 15 release also refers to the annual

funding of $20 million. Is that spending in the 2005 budget then — that $20

million?

Hon. M. Coell: That will be in the 2005-06 budget, the $20

million.

J. Kwan: Does this have anything to do with the $135

million northern trust initiative that was announced several times last year?

Hon. M. Coell: No, they are not directly related.

J. Kwan: Is there any relationship with this year's budget

that includes $366 million invested in the northern forestry and the energy and

mining area? Does this have anything to do with that budget item, or is that

completely separate also?

[J. Weisbeck in the chair]

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, it's separate as well. This is really

to do with the Fair Share agreement that dates back to 1998 and had the reopener

clause in it. I think what the communities in the northeast were hoping for is

that when it got to this stage, when they reopened, there would be a lump sum

payment and then an increase in the yearly funding to cover infrastructure. It's

really a stand-alone amount of money dating back to the Fair Share agreement.

J. Kwan: Yes, I remember the Fair Share ag