1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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, JUNE 1, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 16

[ Page 13041 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Hon. C. McGregor: I'd like to remind members of our House that this week is Environment Week in British Columbia. In that regard, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the winners of the 1999 Minister of Environment awards, who are here in the visitors' gallery this afternoon.

In the individual citizen category, I'd like to introduce: Barbara Hall of Kitimat, with Greg Scott; Dalton Langham of Powell River, with his wife Elaine; Eliza Olson from Delta, with her husband Walter Davyduke; and Donald Pettit from Dawson Creek, accompanied by Barbara Swail.

Awards recipients in the youth category are represented by two teachers responsible for the program, Brad Talbot and Doug Grunert from Kelowna. The winner under the government category is the regional district of Central Kootenay, represented by Elvin Masuch and Reinhard Trautmann. In the community/non-profit category, we have Lisa Fleming and Marina Stjepovic from the Langley Environmental Partners Society, and Bev Day from the Orphaned Wildlife Rehabilitation Society of Delta, accompanied by her husband Ralph Smith.

[1410]

We also have Craig Murray and his son Clifton, who are here to represent award recipient Nimmo Bay Resort Ltd. of Port McNeill, in the business, labour or industry category, along with Alan Thorne and Lorne McNeilly from Chase, representing International Forest Products, Adams Lake division.

In the environmental education category, we have John Clarke from Vancouver, representing the Wilderness Education Program, and award recipient Freda Pagani and her husband Jim Carruthers and their daughter Helen. Finally, in the communications or media category, I'd like to introduce George Mortimore from Victoria and his wife Margaret. Would the House please make all these award winners welcome.

M. Coell: I'd just like to add, on behalf of the official opposition, congratulations to the recipients of the minister's awards. We're all very proud of the work they do and hope that they continue to do that work to protect and enhance our environment.

Hon. I. Waddell: Here in the galleries this afternoon are 28 grade 5 students from Corpus Christi School, led by their teacher, Miss Francis, and other adults who are with them. The school is in my riding in South Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to extend personal congratulations to Don Pettit. He is an environmentalist from Dawson Creek who is very active, very much involved in the community and lives in an innovative, environmentally friendly house. He is joined here today by his partner Barbara Swail. I particularly like Don and wouldn't ever think of him as particularly "petit," but I hope the House would make him welcome.

R. Kasper: I'd also like to welcome George and Peggy Mortimore here. I've known both of them for close to 25 years. George, with his writings and musings over the years, has been well read throughout the community. Congratulations to George and Peggy.

G. Robertson: With us this afternoon are two North Islanders, Craig Murray and his son Clifton. I've known them both for many years, particularly Clifton. He's good friends with my daughter Kimberley. Craig is here this afternoon as a recipient of the minister's environmental award for tourism and business. Craig and his wife Deborah and his family are proud owners of Nimmo Bay Resort, which is on the cutting edge of ecotourism -- on a global scale, I would say -- and caters to clients from all over the world. They've done an outstanding job, and I'm very proud of them. I ask that the members please make them welcome.

G. Hogg: In the precincts today are 54 students from the riding of Surrey-White Rock. They are students at Chantrel Creek Elementary School, a school renowned for its athletic, academic and cultural expertise and knowledge. They're here with their teacher, Joe Frank, and some parents. I wish the House would please make them most welcome.

E. Conroy: An old acquaintance of mine is here to accept an environmental award, and I'd like to congratulate Eliza Olson. Notwithstanding that, her husband -- a good old tugboat partner of mine for many years -- is also here with her. Would the House please make Wally Davyduke welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHILD,

YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCATE REPORT

L. Reid: Today the child, youth and family advocate reported that this government is failing children and youth in government care. They continue to focus on administrative restructuring rather than on the critical need for service. We have heard this over and over again from the children's advocate and from the children's commissioner. It's time for this Minister for Children and Families to answer Joyce Preston's question. How many times does this government have to be told? How many children have to suffer?

[1415]

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated just earlier in a scrum, Joyce Preston is an advocate, and that's what she does. Her job is to advocate on behalf of people who have some concerns . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . . with the ministry. She saw about 2,000 people last year; those are 2,000 people . . . . Our ministry deals with between 60,000 and 80,000 individuals in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: The 2,000 people that she sees, of course, are ones that have problems, and I'm not underestimating that

[ Page 13042 ]

those individuals do have problems. However, she does not see the many people who receive excellent services from the ministry. She doesn't talk to those students, those young people and their families who are well served.

That is what I think she should be focusing on: what we do deliver, how we deliver those services . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . . the excellent services that are being delivered by our staff and by our community partners out there.

The Speaker: I recognize for a first supplementary the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: Joyce Preston is the voice of children in this province. As recently as last month, she wrote to this minister, saying: "Please do not reorganize yet again. All the time and money that should be spent on resources for children are instead going to expensive and time-consuming administrative reviews of management." Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us why she continues to ignore the advice of the children's advocate by wasting money on bureaucratic disasters?

The Speaker: I recognize the Minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. The minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: The advice that we got . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . . was that we maintained a system that was bureaucratically heavy. We restructured, and we reduced . . .

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. L. Boone: . . . our number of regions from 20 so that we could in fact take those dollars and reinvest them into our areas. We estimate that we've saved about $2 million by restructuring. That is $2 million that we can reinvest into services for children and families. I think that's good news. I think that's something that we should be doing, and I'm certainly not going to take advice that is not in the best interests of children and families in this province.

C. Clark: The last time we asked this minister to take Joyce Preston's advice, she said that she'd start listening to the child advocate if she'd just call her once in a while. Well, you know, we've had the 1995 report. We've had the 1996 report, the '97 report and the 1998 report. We have had four reports now, and this minister still isn't listening. When will this minister put aside the excuses and stop hiding behind every excuse in the book that she can cook up? When will she start listening to the people that have the real credibility on this issue -- the child, youth and family advocate?

Hon. L. Boone: We have listened to Joyce Preston. In fact, last year she said that we should be increasing the number of foster families. We have 750 new foster families this year. Last year she talked about training, and this year we will be implementing some integrated training for social workers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: We have acted on a number of the recommendations from the past year. We will be acting on recommendations from this year, and we will continue to act on recommendations that we get from any individual out there that brings forth good ideas and ways for this ministry to improve.

However, we will not act on those recommendations that consistently demand that we simply spend more and more money, because we simply do not have more and more money to invest in programs on an ongoing basis. We will continue to improve the delivery of our services. We will continue to work with our partners out there . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister, finish, please.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . to make sure that the decisions we make are in the best interests of the children and families out there. We will listen very closely to those people . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . when they try to speak to us and when they actually take the option of speaking to me.

[1420]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: If the minister would start listening, she'd hear what the child advocate has to say. That's that it's time to stop studying, it's time to stop reorganizing, it's time to stop adding bureaucrats, and it's time to act to start protecting children in British Columbia. The child advocate points to 14 reports and over 1,000 recommendations -- and still this ministry is in chaos. When will this minister recognize that it is time to stop wasting money on endless administration and endless reorganization, get her priorities straight and start protecting children?

Hon. L. Boone: If the hon. member over there actually listened to the advocate, she would have heard both the advocate and the child commissioner stating that our child

[ Page 13043 ]

protection system is working very well and that in fact children are protected in this province. And she points to those things. If you'd listen to her . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. L. Boone: She points to the fact that the risk assessment tool is working very well and that a number of different things that have been brought in by this ministry in the past year are in fact working extremely well. So yes, she is critical of some parts, but she does recognize that there are some areas in which we are doing well. As I pointed out, the child advocate's office is one . . .

The Speaker: Finish your point.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . that deals with people who have a problem. They don't deal with the many people who are well served and who are in fact . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . receiving excellent services from the ministry.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister would turn to page 30 of the report, she would see what the child advocate says, and that is that this government has its priorities all wrong. I think that not just this minister has her priorities wrong; I think the whole government has its priorities wrong. What does it say about a government when you've got a Premier who's got enough money to spend . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

C. Clark: . . . for flitting around in a charter helicopter to deliver business subsidies to profitable companies, for photo ops with empty-hulled fast ferries before they're built, but every time we come to this House and tell the minister that she doesn't make children a priority, she stands up and says that the cupboard is bare? What does that say about this government's priorities?

Hon. L. Boone: It's amazing, coming from that member over there -- demanding more and more money, when in fact every year we have put more money into this ministry. That member and that party over there . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. The minister has the floor, members.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . are demanding tax cuts to corporations. That member and that party are demanding that we balance the budget, and they criticize us every time we make our choices known -- that we are investing in children, we are investing in families, we are investing in health care and education . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . and the things that are important to us. That party over there says: cut taxes to the rich; cut taxes to the corporations . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, I have to interrupt you.

I recognize the member for Peace River South.

DRUG USE IN PROVINCIAL JAILS COMPARED TO FEDERAL PRISONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday Reform MP Randy White charged that drugs are just as easy to get inside prisons as they are outside. He quoted a Corrections Canada report stating that 46 percent of inmates in federal prisons in the Pacific region use cocaine, heroin or marijuana on a daily basis. What assurance can the Attorney General give this House that the situation is any different in our provincial jails?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member recalls, there was a review done by the former chief of police from Vancouver, Bob Stewart, with respect to our corrections facilities. He made several recommendations, which included having protocols with the RCMP, as well as perhaps dogs and devices that detect the entry of drugs into our corrections facilities in British Columbia. All of those recommendations have been implemented.

[1425]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Drugs on the streets are an enormous problem in this province. They are putting our children at risk. Easy access to drugs in our jails, I believe, continues to be a problem. Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay has ordered a sweeping review of the situation in federal prisons. Given the recommendations in 1997 by former police chief Bob Stewart, which I've read carefully, what confidence does the Attorney General have that anything has changed here in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General is not in the habit of . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . entering into speculation on these issues. We had a problem. We ordered a review. Those recommendations came in. We implemented those recommendations. My hon. colleague the Minister for Children and Families yesterday announced funding for detox facilities outside of the prisons to deal with issues that arise.

[ Page 13044 ]

I have been asking for two years for the federal government to announce a national drug strategy to deal with drugs across the country. And I have said that there are three elements of that drug strategy: tougher sentences for big smugglers and big traffickers; more education, prevention and support for those that need to be cared for; and thirdly, a comprehensive spectrum of treatment and the like, including a drug court in British Columbia. I'm asking the federal government to deal with those issues.

In terms of the prisons, I say to the hon. member that our situation is much, much better than the federal corrections because of the review that we did and because of the actions that we've taken over the last year or so.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: One would assume that our federal prisons are at least as secure, or more secure, than our provincial jails. And still we know that 46 percent of the inmates in federal institutions use drugs on a daily basis. With all due respect to Mr. Stewart, I didn't see anything in his report that attempted to quantify the use of drugs in our provincial jails, nor do I hear anything from the Attorney General to suggest that he has any sense that the use in provincial jails is any less than it is in those federal institutions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would stack Bob Stewart's recommendations any day against KPMG recommendations on whether or not drugs exist in a particular correctional facility. He's a former police chief from the city of Vancouver and has a tremendous, impeccable record in serving the people of British Columbia. I think it's important for us to recognize that in correctional facilities in British Columbia, you don't have the kind of criminals -- serious, violent and long-term offenders -- that are found in the federal facilities.

And people in the provincial facilities stay for a very short time, and one assumes that they are from a different background, by and large. Therefore the problems that do exist are being taken care of . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, Attorney General.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: . . . and it is my view -- and it may be uneducated at this time, but it is my view -- that those problems don't exist in this province to the extent that they exist in the federal facilities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CHILD,

YOUTH AND FAMILY ADVOCATE REPORT

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister for Children and Families. Every working member of this Legislature knows the concerns they get in their constituency office about the worsening conditions for children in this province. The children's advocate and the children's commissioner have brought that home to us again and again. Services to children in this province were reorganized in 1996, reorganized again in 1997 and are being reorganized again in 1999. As the children's advocate put it: " . . . more change, but still with no guarantee of more services."

[1430]

Will the minister tell us why she is allowing her ministry to undergo yet another radical transformation that is doing absolutely nothing to help the children of this province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. I'll recognize the minister when members -- all members -- come to order.

Hon. L. Boone: Only a Liberal who advocates tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for corporations and a $3 billion cut in budgets would stand there and say that we are not providing enough in this province for children and families.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order. All members, come to order.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 44: ministry operations, $462,849,000 (continued).

[1435]

K. Krueger: Just before the lunch break, the minister and I had commenced a discussion about my constituents Lois and John Huyder and their business, Humersong Gardens, adjacent to Wells Gray Park in the vicinity of Clearwater. The minister made some positive comments about the general attitude of British Columbia civil servants.

For the most part -- at least prior to the patronage appointees, which have struck the civil service with a force for the last nine years -- we share the view that the civil servants of British Columbia -- the portion of them untainted by patronage appointments -- were and continue to be highly principled, well motivated and desiring to provide civil service to the public.

The Huyders are an example of what is happening to people throughout British Columbia, where the government of B.C. actually stands in the way of their efforts to create jobs, to build businesses, to use their entrepreneurial skills to advance the economy of this province and, of course, to advance themselves.

To recap briefly, the Huyders began the development of a viewing garden on 15 acres of their property two years ago.

[ Page 13045 ]

They worked like Trojans, and they have it coming on stream. The property is located in Greer subdivision, one-quarter mile off the Wells Gray Park road, bordering Candle Creek. It's 25 acres in size.

They had a legal hurdle in order to get approval from the ALR and the TNRD to develop a viewing garden on their site, and they succeeded. They had approval to develop the garden, construct an administration building and washroom facilities and develop a parking lot. Next, they wanted to prepare a concession and gift shop within the administration building, but they were informed that the portion of the site where the buildings are to be located would have to be rezoned to accommodate that. Again, the ALR approved the rezoning of the half-acre to commercial.

The TNRD -- that's the regional district -- said that the rezoning could be done and kept within the existing land title. Public health authorities agreed -- in fact, they were very pleased with the plan for septic facilities and so on -- that the parking lot, septic system, etc., wouldn't have to be located entirely on the one-half acre that would be rezoned commercial. Then the Ministry of Highways got into the picture.

I read the somewhat absurd letter -- or part of it -- into the record before lunch. The civil servant says:

"Notwithstanding that the ministry's formal approval pursuant to

section 54(2) of the Highway Act, is not required MOTH does have concerns regarding this development."

Then he says:

"The C-4 zone should be created as a fee simple lot registerable in the Kamloops land title office and a site plan will have to be submitted showing parking based on MOTH requirements for the proposed development. The site plan should also include existing and proposed utilities, internal vehicle circulation, drainage features of the proposed road improvements, storm water retention/drainage on site and show approved septic location."

Then -- and this just seems incredible to me, having said that he really didn't have authority to be holding up this project in the first place -- he says: "The ministry grants preliminary layout approval, valid for 180 days, subject to" -- and there's a whole list of subject-tos.

"

(1) If deemed necessary, Mountainview Road to be established 20 metres wide or three metres beyond any cuts or fills, whichever is greater.

"

(2) Proposed road to be cleared, constructed and paved to ministry standard, including a 15-metre radius cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of the district Highways manager, with drainage complete to outfall.

"

(3) Provision of properly engineered drawing, showing the vertical and horizontal alignments, to be submitted to and approved by the district official prior to the commencement of any works. All drainage works should be included on drawings and indicate direction of flow and outfall.

"

(4) Creation of a viable fee simple lot registerable in the Kamloops land title office.

"

(5) Approval of an acceptable site plan, including parking, GFA of-permitted uses, storm water drainage and septic system prior to bylaw approval."

Well, most entrepreneurs, when they get this sort of gobbledegook from government, are tempted to just throw up their hands and walk. That's what a lot of them have done. We all know that. British Columbia has been exporting jobs to Alberta, Washington, Oregon -- everywhere but B.C. -- for the last nine years because of this government. This government is supposed to be trying to turn that around.

[1440]

But this is something that is happening to my constituents right now. They're being utterly stymied in their effort to bring on this very worthwhile and attractive project that everybody approves of, apparently, except the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Mrs. Huyder goes on to say:

"When we met with Highways to discuss this, they suggested that we approach the ALR to have more land released for rezoning. But if we expand the commercial lot to satisfy Highways, we would then have no road access to the gardens themselves or our home. It is my understanding that we really don't need Highways approval for rezoning, because of the distance we are from a well-travelled road.

"The TNRD was not happy with Highways, because apparently their requirements vary, depending on the application. The rules aren't always the same for everyone. Many . . . business people suggested we just go ahead and put the concession in after the building is up. However, we want to serve fine desserts, baked on site, and we want public health's stamp of approval. The whole project is big and expensive, and we cannot take the risk of being shut down. To generate enough revenue to make Humersong Gardens a thriving business and to satisfy our customers, we need a concession and gift shop and, of course, to put together the financing, we must be zoned correctly.

"We are not trying to slip something past the system here. We have designed everything to do with this project -- the buildings, septic, parking, washrooms -- all to accommodate many customers. Our design far exceeds the requirements of public health, Highways and the TNRD. We want our facilities to accommodate our customers for many years to come. We have received tremendous community support for this project. It has the potential to generate additional revenue throughout the community."

Mrs. Huyder goes on to point out that if a development like theirs keeps tourists in the area for an extra day, everyone in the whole Wells Gray Park area benefits. That's exactly what we're trying to do in the tourism industry up and down my constituency -- up and down the North and South Thompson valleys. She says:

"We would open with a staff of 17, and that number will increase each year as we add to the existing garden and begin development on the remaining ten acres . . . . " She sums up: "It has become obvious to us that there are exceptions to the rules and regulations for new development, and we need to know what they are. We have many questions and concerns, the first being: why can Highways stop the rezoning if we really don't need their approval? Secondly, why do they insist on a separate land title if the TNRD says it can be done both ways?"

Now, I really didn't want to take up too much -- this much -- of the House's time on this issue. If I could have a commitment from the minister that he will assign someone to work with these people and make sure that this lunacy stops, so that they are allowed to proceed without these expensive barriers and hurdles being put in their way -- if the minister will give me that commitment -- we'll move on.

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the member opposite for reading those letters into the record. As I said to him in the morning, we'll have staff look at this whole issue. Obviously the hon. member is sticking up for his constituents, and so he should. That's why constituents elect us to represent them in Victoria, and I think I'd have to commend the hon. member for that.

But at the same time, in terms of all of the smaller details that the hon. member is looking for, I've asked staff to look for that information. They were trying at lunchtime to find that, all of it, and were unable to do that in time. So they'll still continue to do that.

In terms of the comment that the hon. member made about B.C. exporting jobs to other areas, that's nonsense, hon.

[ Page 13046 ]

Chair. Since January of 1998, the unemployment rate in British Columbia has actually dropped by a full 1 percent. Last year, in 1998, there were 121,000 new jobs created in British Columbia. We led the entire country in new job creation. There were 34,000 jobs created in January of 1999 and another 12,000 created in February of 1999. So the facts obviously prove the hon. member wrong.

[1445]

K. Krueger: I thank the minister for his commitment on working with the Huyders. We will leave that issue, because I trust him to do that.

One final issue out of the Clearwater area. There's an intersection known as the hub intersection, which is the point where the high school is separated from the businesses where high school students go to spend their money at lunchtime and after school. Students dart across the roadway, and it's a risky situation. In my previous life, as a road improvement project, ICBC and the ministry actually did some work on the intersection to try and make it safer, but it continues to be a concern.

The parent advisory council has asked me to try and do something about it. They want at least oversized school signage at both ends of the highway school zone to forewarn traffic, which does come in off an arterial highway and is just slowing down for town speed limits at that point. That would be a preliminary solution. A longer-term solution would be a pedestrian-controlled walk signal or a pedestrian overpass, which of course would be a rather pricey solution.

The district Highways manager has attempted to help. This has been in the ministry's plans and efforts for years now. I know that there's generally a consideration of traffic warrants and so on before some of these facilities will be installed. But counter to that process runs common sense, which dictates that when we recognize a dangerous situation, especially involving children and young people, we'd all rather we dealt with it before somebody got hurt than after. These things do have a way of getting fixed after there's been a fatality or a tragic accident. I wonder again if the minister would commit to having staff try to expedite a solution to this problem.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes.

M. Coell: Good afternoon to the minister and staff. I have one issue that I would like to deal with. My riding encompasses the southern Gulf Islands. There is a subdivision on Mayne Island that I wish to ask the minister some questions on. Wood Dale Drive on Mayne Island is a subdivision of approximately 100 lots. It was subdivided or the approval of the subdivision was given, in 1969 and 1970 for two subdivision plans. They are 23397 and 22879, for the minister's staff. It's my understanding that in those days, the ministry probably didn't do any geotechnical studies or environmental assessments of subdivisions on the Gulf Islands. I wonder if the minister can confirm that for me.

Hon. H. Lali: The answer is yes.

M. Coell: The reason I'm bringing this subject forward is that I met with approximately 35 residents of Wood Dale Drive on the weekend. They have received, through the mail, a copy of a study that the ministry completed on their properties. They've also had all of their assessments downgraded by the assessment authorities. The rock slope stabilization study of Wood Dale Drive basically makes the properties unsaleable and unbuildable. Approximately half of the lots have cottages and houses on them; the other ones don't. They're now not able to receive building permits without further geotechnical studies.

Even at that, I think the study shows that many of the lots would be unbuildable even with those studies. I'm just wondering what prompted the ministry to do this study at this time.

Hon. H. Lali: We went in and did some geotechnical studies in response to some of the concerns by individuals there who were not getting building permits.

[1450]

M. Coell: I seem to recollect a number of issues like this throughout the province, where the ministry has approved a subdivision plan and the subdivision is completed, but they're not able to get building permits from the regional district that they're in. Is there some onus on the province, when they're approving a subdivision plan, to make sure that those lots are buildable? Or is the onus not on the ministry?

Hon. H. Lali: The onus on the ministry is to employ the standards of the day.

M. Coell: I would think the standards of the day in 1969 and 1970 . . . . As the minister has said, the province did not do a geotechnical study or an assessment at that time. I suspect that by the standards of today, the layout of the road system would be quite different, because studies like this would have been completed. With the study the way it is . . . . It's global in nature; it looks at the entire subdivision. It doesn't look at individual lots and the effect of potential rock slope slippage on individual lots. Does the ministry intend to go back now and redo this study with regard to individual lots?

Hon. H. Lali: No.

M. Coell: As I said, I think there are some other issues. I believe Whistler had a situation where the ministry approved a subdivision that was not able to be built on. I believe there was one in the Kootenays at some time. The minister may want to comment on those. Is there a liability question with regard to a subdivision approval by the ministry when people go to build on them and the government -- either at the Highways level or the regional district level -- does not approve building permits?

Hon. H. Lali: Each situation is different and is handled on its own merits.

M. Coell: This particular situation puts a large number of people at a financial loss, not through their own making but through the purchase of these properties with the intent to build on them. Then they find out that with this study and with the devaluation of their assessments, they're not able to build or to sell. There aren't any banks or mortgage companies willing to loan money on a piece of property that has the potential of rock slippage.

I know that this issue is going to be of further interest to the ministry, and I would be more than willing to try to set up a meeting with either the minister or the minister's staff to deal with this issue on a global basis with the residents. I wonder whether the minister would be willing to undertake that.

[ Page 13047 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

M. Coell: I thank the minister for that, and I will endeavour to have the residents contact his office directly. It is an issue that I think probably needs some further dealings with ministry staff and probably the regional district staff here to sort it out before this hardship becomes unbearable for this number of people. I thank the minister for his offer.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to participate in the Transportation and Highways estimates today. First of all, I would just like to say that Langley has been quite fortunate over the last couple of years in the transportation projects that have been undertaken there -- or are going to be, shortly. That's the Highway 1 and 200th Street interchange -- we are eagerly awaiting the award of the proponent to begin the construction phase there -- and also the resurfacing projects that will be taking place this summer. We also have the Highway 10 at Langley bypass safety projects that have been proposed. That's one of the ones that I would like to talk about today.

I discussed this briefly with the Minister of Labour during the ICBC estimates and said that there's been some significant concern in the riding about the proposal to install a median from 200th Street to the Glover Road area. This particular strip is quite problematic because of the commercial development that lines both sides of the bypass.

[1455]

I think the minister is aware that there is quite a significant city commercial development that is planned to go in there. There's going to be a lot of traffic in that corridor -- quite a bit of traffic -- that is going to need some access to those businesses that are on either side of the bypass. I know there are some proposals to put in a couple of left-turn lanes both ways, at 202nd Street, I believe, and another one at 204th Street. The difficulty with that is that if that's the case, there really should be some access roads on both sides to allow access to the businesses that do front on the bypass.

That is a possibility: some access roads to resolve that kind of problem. I think there's probably enough land there to do that. The ditches are not filled in, so there may be a possibility to address that problem by access roads. Perhaps the minister could comment on that.

Hon. H. Lali: There are some good ideas and suggestions put forward by the hon. member. Actually, that whole issue of the Highway 10 at Langley bypass is a fairly complex issue, and I commit to have staff work with the hon. member. I'll work with the hon. member. Actually, I've worked with the hon. member on the 200th Street-Trans-Canada Highway overpass there. A lot of good things have happened in the last year or so that the hon. member has been working with me, and I'll certainly commit to work with the hon. member to make sure that we can come to a resolution on this issue as well.

L. Stephens: I would be very pleased to do that. I think there is a genuine concern and a genuine goodwill on the part of the city and on the part of the businesses that are affected to try to find an adequate solution for all parties and everyone concerned.

Another issue that I'd like to raise is one I have raised before. Again, it's for the city, and it consists of congestion again. I know the minister is familiar with Langley, just the sort of physical shape of it and the fact that we have rail lines. One rail line runs smack through the middle of the city, and we have three major roads where that particular rail line intersects. Over the past number of years, going back about ten years now, there has always been a consideration that there could be -- or should be -- a rail overpass.

As time has gone on, the various plans that were proposed and put forward at the time . . . . The windows of opportunity have closed on those particular proposals, so what we have now is a situation at 200th Street and the Fraser Highway -- or to be more specific, Logan Avenue -- where the people making a right turn to go onto 200th Street are actually sitting on the railroad tracks. This has caused a lot of problems. The federal Department of Transport is very unhappy, the city is very unhappy, and motorists are extremely unhappy.

There has been a suggestion that we need to have a rail overpass somewhere between 200th Street and 206th, for instance, or 204th. With the kinds of road alignments that the township has undertaken in the last little while to develop the Willoughby area and the Willowbrook area, it appears that perhaps 204th Street would be the most advantageous for all concerned. If we could get a rail overpass right at that 204th and bypass area, as opposed to 202nd, which is the one that was proposed at first . . . . That's a lot of congestion there, for a lot of reasons that we all understand.

[1500]

The ministry has said that this is not a provincial road, and it isn't a provincial road. This is in the city, but these are very expensive undertakings, and we need to have some participation with the province to make this happen. As time goes on, the problem will simply increase, as it has today. While we do have an opportunity there, because we don't have . . . . We do have some vacant land up there, so perhaps this can be . . . . At least some studies can be done, some proposals to develop a particular rail overpass in that area somewhere.

I wonder if the minister could comment on whether or not he would be amenable to at least ordering some studies to see whether or not that particular proposal would be worthwhile.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member raises a very good issue. Again, it fits into that whole theme of competing priorities and competing demands all across the province, in every region of the province.

Certainly this is a very, very expensive solution to the issue at hand. It's something that would require cost-sharing among a number of different levels of government and agencies, not the least of which are the federal government and the provincial government, as well as the GVTA, the railroad companies themselves and also the municipality itself. I'm certainly willing to work with all of the other entities to make sure that we come to some sort of a resolution sooner rather than later.

L. Stephens: I will accept that. It's not much, but I will accept that. Probably what I'd do is ask the minister if he in fact is pushing the federal government. I agree with the minister when he talks about how important and how expensive these kinds of projects are -- and they absolutely are. The infrastructure program that the federal government is making noises about now -- to bring forward another agreement for further infrastructure programs -- could be one project that

[ Page 13048 ]

may fall within that, with the provincial, the federal and both municipalities perhaps funding this particular project. So I'd like to ask the minister: is he in fact advocating with the federal people to bring forward another infrastructure program?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, I'm glad that the hon. member has asked that question. Since day one of becoming minister, one of my roles has been to push the federal government and to work with the other provincial transport ministers to lobby the federal government to start investing in transportation infrastructure in this country. It is so vital that we do so. Across the border into the United States, the U.S. Senate has passed a bill authorizing $213 billion worth of improvements to their national highway system over the next six to seven years.

It's obviously something that we've been pushing for here. B.C. had the pen to write a paper on behalf of all the other provinces, calling on the federal government to cost-share 50-50 with the provinces a ten-year rebuilding program of our transportation infrastructure, whereby the feds would kick in $800 million and the provinces would bring their 50-cent dollars of $800 million. So it would be $1.6 billion a year over ten years, or $16 billion. That's the minimum investment that is needed, according to some national studies that were done, in order to stay competitive with the Unites States.

Certainly we've been pushing the federal government. Now, what shape or form any funding from the feds may take, we don't know. But they have made the commitment that they'd be willing to work on a bilateral basis. Rather than have one policy for everybody across the nation, they would be willing to work with individual provinces.

[1505]

The hon. member mentioned an infrastructure type of a program. I guess it wouldn't be, in the stricter sense of the word, as we've had the past, where municipal projects were funded by Canada, B.C. and the municipalities or the appropriate regional district. Rather, we would also be looking at programs that would serve the provincial or national goals in terms of transportation. So certainly I'd be more than happy to continue the lobbying that we're doing with the federal government to make sure that of the $700 million a year average in fuel taxes that they take out of British Columbia, we'd at least get a portion of that back to reinvest in this province.

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little bit about the Fraser Valley regional summit that was held in Langley in February. It was put on by the chambers of commerce in the Valley, and it included chambers and representatives from Chilliwack down to Surrey, and also Maple Ridge and Mission on the other side of the river. It was very well attended. Some of the common themes that came forward from that particular summit were around transportation and the infrastructure sessions that came from that.

I just want to read into the record the competitive disadvantages that the group as a whole came up with in regard to the road system. It says:

"There is limited access to the Trans-Canada Highway throughout the valley, and furthermore, there is limited access to the GVRD via transit -- rapid transit, in particular. The eastern portions of the valley need to bring rail access to Vancouver. We must remember that some 70 percent of goods and nearly all of our tourism are transported via road. Transportation represents approximately 20 percent of the cost of production. The cost of congestion to transportation in the lower mainland represents 20 percent of trucking costs.

That means that congestion in the lower mainland adds approximately 4 percent to the cost of production for 70 percent of our goods. It is extremely detrimental to productivity, even in the valley, because the majority of our goods pass through, or near to, the GVRD."

The whole focus of that particular session was to identify the transportation and road infrastructure needs of the Fraser Valley. One that was identified was the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road. This one, of course, provides the commercial routes to the docks and the airports in order to move those goods that I was just talking about.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about what the condition is with the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road.

Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I was not aware of the Fraser Valley regional summit. Actually, it's the first time I've heard of it. I'm just talking to staff here. I don't think anybody was invited to be a part of that. In any case, it sounds like a lot of positive information and recommendations will come out of this regional summit. Was it held earlier this year? Yes. If there's a report that has been done and finalized, I'd be more than happy to receive a copy of it from the hon. member and to take a serious look at some of the recommendations that have come forward.

The hon. member mentioned some of the issues, and obviously a lot of those would fall under the GVTA. The GVTA is responsible for a lot of the transportation issues in the lower mainland, and they're working very closely with the provincial government so that we don't end up having the GVTA and the provincial government going in opposite directions. They're to work parallel with each other on these types of issues, so I'm looking forward to a copy of the report that the hon. member has talked about.

[1510]

The one issue she referred to specifically was the South Fraser perimeter road. The preliminary engineering for the alignment is being done this year, and it has a budget of approximately $640,000 for 1999-2000.

L. Stephens: The information I have says that this particular piece of road will be completed by 2006. Is that still the time line that the ministry has in mind? Is that not something that can be done earlier than that?

Hon. H. Lali: There's been no decision taken at this point. The completion date that the hon. member cited was something that we approximated for the year 2006. It has to go through the environmental review process, and we're also looking to see what kind of a contribution the federal government may or may not want to make to this particular project. It isn't one project that has been singled out; rather, we're still working with the federal government to see and identify what kind of funding would be coming forward from them so that we can take a look at some of the priorities throughout the province. This is one project that I know federal minister David Collenette is also interested in.

L. Stephens: I know the federal government is interested in this. I remember that about two or three years ago the present Minister of Finance in fact did a tour and was well aware of the significance of the South Fraser perimeter road. I

[ Page 13049 ]

wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not part of the discussions with the federal government are that that particular piece of road would be designated as part of the national highway system. This is something that the region feels is necessary -- that the south perimeter road be designated as part of the national highway system.

Hon. H. Lali: We have not got to the point of actually sitting down to talk about the nitty-gritty issues and the specifics of all of that. We're waiting for the federal government to actually make a firm commitment and also to give an indication as to what kind of dollars they're looking for in terms of investing in the national transportation investment strategy, and how much of it will come to British Columbia. Once we have that, then we can sit down and actually talk specifics about what project to move forward with. At this point, we'd only be speculating, because we really don't know what kind of participation we're going to get from the feds.

L. Stephens: We will be monitoring that situation to see how it moves along and to try to move it along as quickly as possible. Perhaps if the minister would provide me with the address of the federal minister responsible, we could get a letter-writing campaign of some kind going to try to move this forward.

The other huge issue for those of us in Langley and the White Rock and South Surrey area is the border crossing. I know the minister is aware that the U.S. is in the process of upgrading their system down there in Washington State and Seattle -- the Guide Meridian upgrade. The U.S. is going to be spending something like $30 billion in that part of the U.S., which in fact will dump a whole lot of people right at the border there. I wonder if the minister has some plans in place or is considering what we're going to do on this side of the border when that project is completed, or underway.

[1515]

Hon. H. Lali: Border crossings are actually a very integral part of the national transportation investment strategy. It's not just the east-west highway links that we're interested in, in terms of federal participation in transportation projects, but also border crossings, which are very, very vital for the economy of Canada, and especially of British Columbia. They are very much a part of our national transportation investment strategy.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could explain what the province's role is in that planning. The U.S. is well underway. Perhaps the minister could talk about the province's role and how the province is encouraging the federal government to become involved, and what each other's responsibilities are.

Hon. H. Lali: The ministry is continuing to work with Transport Canada on ways to not only improve access to the border but also improve truck movements once they are at the border. This is something that we are working with Transport Canada to do -- and obviously with officials across the border, as well, to see what their plans are. Obviously you'd want to be able to coordinate on both sides of the border, rather than Canada doing one thing and the Americans doing something completely the opposite. So there's some good cooperation that is taking place between B.C. and Transport Canada.

L. Stephens: I hear what the minister is saying. I guess I would just like a little bit more detail than that. There's a lot of concern in the trucking industry and among the people who go back and forth, particularly in my area. I think we just need to have a little bit more assurance than that that there's more than just talk going on. The U.S. has committed to their Guide Meridian upgrade. They've allocated $30 billion. They have a plan in place.

The big fear for us on this side of the border and in my community is: what happens when we don't have anything put in place when this Guide Meridian upgrade is completed? It's a huge, huge problem for us, and we need more than just: "Well, we're talking to the federal people about it." So if the minister could tell us in a little bit more detail about when they're meeting with the federal people next or what has been agreed to or just something so that people can see that in fact there is something actually happening, as opposed to just conversation.

Hon. H. Lali: We've actually also supported a Transportation Equity Act-21 -- otherwise known as TEA-21 -- application that would provide funding for using technology at the border crossings. Also, I'd be more than happy, actually, to set up a briefing for the hon. member with staff who will be able to fill her in on all the details as to what kind of work is being done on this.

But there are a couple of other avenues. There's the council of transport ministers of Canada -- ministers from all provinces and the federal Transport minister. We get together on a quarterly basis to talk in depth on issues such as this -- a national transportation investment strategy, including the border crossings. There's a committee of the deputy ministers of transportation across the nation, as well, who are working together to develop these kinds of strategies. If the hon. member wishes, I'd be more than happy to set up a briefing between her and my staff.

L. Stephens: I would like to take advantage of that, and I think probably my colleagues on this side of the House whose constituencies are affected by it would as well. So we will try and coordinate that and go through it. That would be very helpful.

Part of this whole area that has been talked about before is 16th Avenue as a major transportation corridor. Again, that was a proposal that was put in place a number of years ago, and I think it was part of the Socred government's Freedom to Move plan. Could the minister talk a little bit about that and whether or not that is still something that is being considered? If so, how far along is that?

[1520]

Hon. H. Lali: That particular issue is not under consideration at this time. It's actually an example of one of the issues that have been moved over to the GVTA, and it's their responsibility. Actually, it shouldn't have been our responsibility, I've been told. It shouldn't have been the responsibility of the ministry to begin with. So it's gone back to where it rightfully belongs, which is the GVTA.

L. Stephens: Which brings me to probably the biggest issue, and that's the integrated planning of the ministry, the GVTA, the Fraser Valley regional district and the GVRD. We're all in the same geographical area, and there needs to be some integrated planning around transportation. That means that everybody should be sitting down talking about what their needs are. So I would like the minister to tell me that's

[ Page 13050 ]

happening, because if it isn't, then it's a very inefficient way to provide transportation services to our lower mainland and Fraser Valley region. So I would like the minister to talk about integrated planning and whether or not that is in fact happening. And if it is, what are the directions that that is taking?

Hon. H. Lali: Integrated planning is happening. I support it, and it will continue to happen. Now that we have the GVTA, it will actually move further ahead, and I think we will get more progress with the GVTA there now.

L. Stephens: Well, perhaps included in that briefing we can talk about integrated planning, as well, and what's required for the lower Fraser Valley and the lower mainland.

I was going to ask about the river crossing between the north side of the Fraser River and Langley, but my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove is here, and I'm sure that that's what he wants to talk about. So thank you, minister. Those are all the questions I have.

D. Symons: Just a brief follow-up on the question and the comment made by my colleague. That is the business of the U.S. spending a large sum of money in the northwest sector of the United States on highway and transportation infrastructure. It's up in the billions of dollars. The ISTEA program is going to have fantastic implications for the lower mainland here, because if we don't do something to at least . . . . We can't match it in dollars; we don't have that much.

But if we don't do something to at least improve our transportation infrastructure, particularly for commerce in this area, we're going to find that shipping and planes and things of that type that use that as a gateway to the North American continent are going to move from the Vancouver gateway to the Seattle and Portland gateways. One way or another, we're going to have to do something to make darn sure that our transportation infrastructure out of Vancouver leading to other parts in eastern Canada and to the United States is at least as user-friendly as what's south of the border.

If not, we are going to lose a lot of business, and we can't afford that.

I'm just wondering what you're doing in planning for that. I don't like to use the word "matching," because I see that dollar-wise we can't do it. But what are you doing to plan to mitigate any effects that that large U.S. expenditure of money may have on us here?

Hon. H. Lali: As I have stated on a couple of earlier occasions, we are working doggedly with the other provinces and the federal Transport minister to make sure that we have a national transportation investment strategy in place in order to stay competitive with our trading partners like the United States, who are actually taking a significant chunk of our interprovincial truck traffic, which crosses the border into the States and takes the interstate east or west between the Great Lakes and western Canada.

[1525]

Certainly, even in the absence of any participation from the federal level, the provincial government is not sitting back and waiting solely for the feds to come in. Last year we increased the capital budget for transportation by $100 million for this year. We've upped it by $210 million from two years ago. We've got a record $490 million investment this year, which is the largest sum invested in transportation projects in this province in the last ten years. So we're moving forward with that. Also, I want to mention the hon. member's Motion 41, which is on the table, and I'll continue to work with my House Leader to make sure that comes forward.

R. Coleman: I would like to spend a few minutes with the minister on an item from the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows that's been in the media. It relates to a crossing that MLAs on my side of the river weren't invited to -- relative to a press conference that had to do with some planning money. I'd like to have the minister's understanding of the ministry's involvement in this crossing, and maybe an explanation of what the thought process is.

Hon. H. Lali: In response to the question by the hon. member, the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows -- who is sitting in the chair right now -- has actually made an announcement of $125,000, I believe, about a couple of weeks ago, to do some studies so we can have some options for remedies in terms of another crossing of the Fraser River in that particular spot. So we are working with other players, such as the GVTA and others, to try to see if we can come forward with a plan and some options.

R. Coleman: Perhaps the minister could tell me the terms of reference for this study and the area that's under study -- the boundaries of the study -- on the south side of the river and on the north side of the river.

Hon. H. Lali: This study looks at the feasibility of these routes as well as the Albion crossing. It's being studied as a potential low-level, lower-cost option, because of its existing supporting road network to the Fraser River and its location east of the major port marine traffic. Other low-level clearance options will also be explored.

R. Coleman: I'm wondering if you could be just be a bit more specific on the area, the distance -- whether it's between 176th and 232nd on the north and south side of the river, or what the parameters of that study and area are -- so that we could have an understanding on our side of the river of what that study area is.

Hon. H. Lali: We're actually looking at a fairly wide

section of land there, from Highway 15 across to the Albion ferry area.

R. Coleman: One of the calls that came into my office -- and my colleague from Langley made reference to some other calls that we've had -- tells us that there are actually five different options for crossing areas along that corridor. Is that true?

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually four, not five.

R. Coleman: What would those four options be?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to give a little note of caution, because I don't want to end up alarming anybody who may live in the particular area. These are approximate general areas with these names attached to them, rather than an actual road or a stretch of neighbourhood which may exist. They are what are generally known as the Albion crossing, Cottonwood connector area, 200th Street area and the Barnston Island crossing. These are all just big circles on the map, as

[ Page 13051 ]

opposed to specific lines. What the study will do is try to narrow that down to an option or two that I think would be most preferable.

[1530]

R. Coleman: I guess then there were three; I say that somewhat facetiously. But one of the problems when government chooses to have announcements on studies on one side of a river which affect another side of the river where 40,000 people will be affected is that you do get alarm within the community.

The one crossing out of the four that the minister mentioned -- I understand that you're dealing with roads and where they're going to connect -- is at the Albion crossing, which is Fort Langley. Just for the minister's information, Fort Langley is the birthplace of British Columbia. It has a historic fort in it; it has a very strong heritage culture. Just so the minister understands, recently someone wanted to build some industrial buildings on industrial land in that community. The public hearings went on for five days and are not completed as yet.

So you can imagine, when this announcement was made about a possible crossing at Albion, what happened to the telephones in my particular constituency office. I want to make it clear to the minister that this community has made it clear to me that to take a bridge through downtown Fort Langley, the historical portion of that community on Glover Road, is just not something that this community is prepared to support.

As a result of that, I think the minister should be aware of that and put that direction over to the people who are doing the studies -- that somehow this has to bypass the downtown historic part of this community. Because if you want a firestorm in the future -- if you want to light one -- you can have one by simply trying to put it through the downtown core of that historic community. On the main road of that community, a number of heritage buildings are affected already because of the Albion ferry. But you can imagine, if you built a bridge, what the capacity would change to. I think it should be noted to the minister that it's a huge concern in that community.

I was very surprised that we were not made part of the announcement or brought up to speed on this particular issue, when it affects a community that can be so volatile relative to its protection of heritage. I'd like a guarantee from the minister that in the future, if we're going to make announcements on this crossing or we're going to be dealing with this study, that the MLAs in the area -- both myself for Fort Langley-Aldergrove and the member for Langley -- are well informed on what's happening.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to state to the member that anytime we're embarking upon doing something in terms of building a project, it all starts with an idea -- there's an idea in somebody's mind. I'm sure there are a lot of people in that area who have had the idea of another crossing for a long time. Since I've become minister, the one individual who's actually carried the ball on this one is the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, who's sitting in the chair right now. He's been lobbying fairly hard for this for a number of years and continued to do so when I became minister. I just want to point out that it starts with an idea.

Obviously, after the idea, we made sure that there would be some moneys available, and that's the $125,000 for studies. I take the member's caution quite seriously. That's why I started my comments a few minutes ago on a cautionary note -- not to alarm anybody that . . . . The four options that we're looking at are general vicinities rather than any specific line that has already been drawn on a map.

It starts with an idea, and then the idea is put out to the general public. There will be consultation, and the ministry is listening. The municipalities -- such as the historic Langley area -- and people who live in the vicinity are quite welcome to air their views. That's what we want to hear, and we'd actually be very interested in hearing the viewpoints of MLAs on both sides of the river -- what their views are. Obviously the MLAs will be fighting very hard to represent the views of their respective constituents. That's what this whole issue of consultation is all about.

I also want to caution that we have not even begun the process yet. All we've done is . . . . Actually, it was an idea in somebody's mind. We've announced the funding for the study, but we haven't even started the process of consultation. Obviously, when it gets off the ground, the MLAs will be an integral part of the consultation.

R. Coleman: I think as soon as you have headlines -- "Maple Ridge Pushes For Bridge to Langley," "MLA and Mayor Back Latest Bridge Plan," "Highways Ministry to Study Low Level Option" -- in the local papers in Maple Ridge and Mission that come across the river to Langley, you've started a process. Simply put, the public are part of that process, and they read newspapers.

[1535]

I think that we should be cautious about saying who's lobbying for what. Not that long ago -- on April 6, 1994 -- the comment from the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in the local paper was that this was a silly idea and that tolls haven't even been dealt with. We've had this leap from there to 1999. All of a sudden, it's no longer silly; all of a sudden, it's an idea that might make some sense.

I just think it's important that the people in my community understand that this process will be transparent and that they will be a part of it. I warn and caution you that if it isn't transparent, you'll probably not be able to put the bridge where you want to put it. If you try and put it in the wrong place . . . . I can honestly tell you that people in that community will not stand for certain portions of a crossing that affect some of the historical perspectives of that community. I caution you on that.

I have another series of questions I want to ask the minister about. I'm not going to ask about the 200th Street interchange in this year's estimates. I have been briefed, and I have seen the package that's been prepared. I understand it's out for . . . . I guess we're calling it an IPO or whatever. There is a competition relative to a private-public partnership on 200th Street that we're hoping to see take place.

On a recent tour of the Fraser Valley, I was asked by the mayor and council of Mission to canvass with the minister the status of the Mission bypass. There was an extensive study done by Dillon Consulting in March of 1996. I've read the study. I don't know why, but I did. It's quite extensive; it's a large study. I wonder if the minister could -- for the benefit of the people of Mission -- tell me: what is the status of this particular study? What is the status of the planning that goes on from here for the Mission bypass? What options for the

[ Page 13052 ]

change in land use, relative to private-public partnerships, have been looked at for this particular corridor? These were certainly some things that were at the top of everybody's mind when we were in Mission, and I'd like to know what the status of that is with the ministry.

Hon. H. Lali: Obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows as to his comments on a particular crossing. Likewise, I cannot speak for the media as well. We have absolutely no control over the media and what they may say or what they may print regarding this $125,000 announcement. That's something I guess the hon. member will have to talk to the media about, as to why they printed such headlines.

Again, I want to assure the hon. member that we haven't begun the process yet. All that we've done is that the hon. member from Maple Ridge has made an announcement of some moneys -- $125,000 -- and we will now, subsequently, begin the process of consultation. During the previous question, I committed to the hon. member across the way that MLAs and communities and individuals living in those communities will be consulted. The hon. member will have his chance to give his viewpoints on that.

I think the member should take heart from my statement and also from the fact that he and I worked together to make sure that the 200th Street, Langley interchange would become a reality. I think he knows the history of that quite well; I don't need to inform him of that. So if I told that hon. member that there will be consultation, then he needs to just take heart from that particular statement.

I've just been given a note: there's a little correction to my other notes here. The budget available this year is $150,000 -- not $50,000, as it says in my notes. It's $150,000.

On the issue of the Mission bypass, I know it's one issue that the hon. member for Mission-Kent has been quite upfront on. He's been lobbying successive Ministers of Transportation and Highways to make sure that the issue would move forward. I want to give credit where it's due, as I've obviously done in the past, with credit due to both the member for Langley and the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on the issue of the 200th Street interchange. This is one issue where the member for Mission-Kent has been lobbying fairly significantly.

[1540]

In terms of the scope, the ministry is pursuing the completion of this design to conform to preliminary design level.

This includes the following aspects: confirmation of typical sections; selection of access options, including accesses to municipal roads west of Railway Avenue, as identified on the 1998 design plan -- potentially to Stave Lake Road -- and accesses to the two businesses currently using the extension of North Railway Avenue, which is Highway 7; confirmation of construction staging options; review of landscaping and drainage and the utility requirements; review and confirmation of Horne Street intersection interchange options; and sixth, consultation with stakeholders, especially regarding access, and one public open house describing the options for the east leg of this.

R. Coleman: Just for the benefit of the people of Mission, could the minister then tell me what time frame the ministry sees for this particular project in its evolution over the next five to ten years for that community? It's just an answer that they've been asking for.

I do take heart -- heartily, I guess -- from the fact that you don't believe everything you read in the newspaper, hon. Chair. But the fact of the matter is that there was a press conference, and the members from the south side of the river weren't invited, and we're the ones that had to answer the questions in the riding. I know that the newspapers . . . . I'm not going to blame that on the press, because I don't think the press conference on the crossing -- the announcement of the study money -- was called by the press. And I was of the understanding that it was $150,000.

But it's more . . . . Now that we're on the Mission side, I'd like to know . . . . And I do take heart, hon. minister, relative to the success . . . . We've had some success with 200th Street and, obviously, with the initiative of my community on 208th Street, which has taken some of the pressure off 200th for a better design. Frankly, it's a good thing that my council can work with the ministry to try and successfully solve some of these problems. I mean, I think it's an example that some other communities might want to follow.

At the same time, I just wonder if we could get that time frame on the Mission project.

Hon. H. Lali: Quite frankly, we don't know at this stage. Once the study is completed, I think we'll have a better idea as to the time frame for any kind of engineering and construction that may take place on the Mission bypass.

R. Coleman: Maybe the minister could just, then, explain to me what is to be accomplished by the study that you're proposing now, versus what the one from March 31, 1996, accomplished -- what more needs to be accomplished by an additional study. This is actually quite an extensive document that covers everything from the background to alternative context, to environmental evaluation, to land use analysis, to mapping, to colour overheads. It's quite an extensive study. I'm just wondering what the new study is supposed to accomplish that the old study did not.

Hon. H. Lali: This study, in comparison to the 1996 study, goes into further detail and definition on this whole issue, especially in regard to the access component of the bypass.

R. Coleman: When you refer to the access component, are you talking of access onto the bypass itself or the changes of access off the old Highway 7?

Hon. H. Lali: Both.

R. Coleman: Could the minister enlighten me as to what the cost was for the 1996 study and what the budget is for the 1999 study?

[1545]

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have those figures here with us right now; certainly we'd be able to prepare those for the hon. member for later. If he actually wants a detailed briefing on this, I'd be more than happy to arrange that for the hon. member.

R. Coleman: Actually, that would be helpful. If we could arrange that briefing, maybe we could arrange it so that the members of Mission council are also available for the briefing,

[ Page 13053 ]

because they're the ones that brought it up to me. I think it's an area where they would probably appreciate that information; but I'd appreciate it as well.

I have no further questions. I'm going to pass it on now to the member for Okanagan-Boundary, who has some issues he needs to canvass.

B. Barisoff: I just want to touch on a few constituency issues. One is that the residents of Beaverdell are quite concerned about Highway 33 and a traffic light in that area. It's the traffic coming up from the entire Boundary country on their way to Kelowna. But apparently there's an unsafe area there. They've been in contact with the ministry. I'm just wondering what the status of that might be.

Hon. H. Lali: That is an issue we are not familiar with. Certainly we'd be happy to look into some details. We just don't have any information right now.

B. Barisoff: Another issue that I bring up every year . . . . First of all, I'd like to commend the ministry for doing the intersection between Tue-El-Nuit Road and Highway 97. But the wooden bridge, the McAlpine Bridge, that crosses the Okanagan River on Highway 97 -- I've brought it up on a number of occasions for a number of years. It's a concern that I have about what's going to happen there one day. I'm just wondering whether, in the short term or the long term, the minister has got any plans for that bridge.

Hon. H. Lali: I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. I know that it's fairly important for him, and he's been lobbying for that. Unfortunately, it's not on the list for next year. It is moving up on the priority list subsequent to that, but it's not something that's going to be in this year's budget.

B. Barisoff: It's not as much a concern about lobbying for it. When I listen to the minister talking about safety, I think it's more of a safety issue than a lobbying issue. I don't know how many wooden bridges . . . . In fact, I think the minister mentioned in the House a month ago about not having any wooden bridges left on major highways in British Columbia. This happens to be one of them.

The other issue that I have, of course, is McIntyre Bluff, a corner that has been of great concern. Last year I brought up that issue -- whether he'd contacted ICBC to see if there was a way of going together to fix that dangerous corner.

Hon. H. Lali: I apologize to the hon. member. We'll have to get back to him on that particular issue.

B. Barisoff: It's the Vaseau Lake corner. I think I inadvertently said McIntyre Bluff, but it's the Vaseau Lake corner. It's been an issue that I've brought up on a number of occasions, probably every year since I've been elected.

The other real concern that I have, of course, is Highway 3, which goes through the minister's riding and through Keremeos and Cawston -- the southern Trans-Canada Highway. I'm just wondering whether the minister is looking at considering any upgrades on the entire

section of Highway 3.

[1550]

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, shortly after becoming minister, one of the commitments I made was to visit all regions of the province personally and drive many of the roads. I'm happy to say that I actually drove Highway 3 all the way from Hope to the Alberta border -- the entire length of it -- with members of my staff, to take a look firsthand and meet with the regional districts, first nations, town councils, as well as chambers of commerce and individuals along the way. I believe that it was a three- or four-day trip I embarked upon in order to take a look at some of those issues, especially some of those issues related to safety.

There are a number of projects that are being funded and will be funded, actually, next year and years after, in terms of protecting the integrity of our roads and bridges and also resurfacing, which includes repaving and seal-coating. Also, there are three bridges in the Kootenays that are being replaced in this year's budget. So there is quite a significant amount of investment that is taking place on Highway 3, and we'll continue to do so in the future.

B. Barisoff: I think that if it took the minister three days to drive from Hope to the Alberta border on Highway 3, it's probably an indication that there needs to be some work done on that highway.

B. Barisoff: I doubt if he was riding a bike.

Carrying on, I'd just like to ask the minister . . . . He knows a little bit of the history of why day labour was brought into the province, what criteria there were for it and what ultimate effect was supposed to take place by having day labour with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. H. Lali: Day labour has been with the ministry from whenever we got into the business of actually building roads, and it's just one of the ways to get the projects done. It also benefits local communities.

B. Barisoff: The minister indicates that it was one of the ways of getting projects done. I'm just wondering whether the minister would clarify that, on a particular day-labour list, it would mostly stem from hiring local contractors in a particular area, based on seniority or whatever it might be that keeps local people and local areas working. It's been something that the assistant deputy minister probably instituted way back when, maybe, and he'd understand how it has worked and whether it has been a successful application of hiring people from the local area for a number of years.

Hon. H. Lali: Like the member opposite, I come from a small rural community, and I understand the importance of day labour and local hire for local communities. This is actually just one of the tools that we use to achieve local hire on local projects in rural communities, and we continue to use it.

As a matter of fact, this year I believe we're actually increasing the use of local hire, especially in the Kootenays, where there was a large outcry over several years by residents of the Kootenays and local elected officials, who wanted to see more local people working on local projects financed by the B.C. government in the Kootenays. That was one of the stated goals and objectives, actually in the form of a recommendation, that came out of the Kootenay summit in Castlegar in

[ Page 13054 ]

October last year -- to have more local people working on local projects. Obviously day labour is a component. It's just one way of achieving local hire.

[1555]

B. Barisoff: In my former critic portfolio, as critic of Transportation and Highways, I actually got a lot of calls that related to day labour. I would just like to maybe get the minister to give his assurance on that for all of the small contractors throughout the province of British Columbia that the concept of day labour, the way it has been instituted and worked quite successfully over the years, will actually stay in effect for all of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: Let me give my assurance to the hon. member that the whole issue and concept of day labour is alive and well, and I support that.

B. Barisoff: Just in closing, then, I would hope that for all the small contractors in British Columbia, the minister would make sure that as many of these projects throughout B.C. can go to the . . . . I don't want to call it the old model; I want to call it the model of day labour that has been so successful.

A good point made by our critic here, that the traditional method of day labour that has been so successful in the province of British Columbia and given a lot of small contractors and small business people the ability to make a living in the province of British Columbia . . . that that whole traditional concept will stay in place and that more projects will be put out on a day-labour basis, the way it used to be, so that a lot of these people can reap the benefits of staying in business in British Columbia.

G. Hogg: There has long been a recognition that there are some economic benefits to be generated both through transportation and through tourism in the Cascadia corridor. Former Premier Harcourt in 1992 approached the greater Vancouver regional district, asking them to look at and deal with the notion of Cascadia. In doing that, he had meetings with then Governor Booth Gardner of Washington State, talking about how there could be economic benefits generated by the whole Cascadia corridor.

The member for Richmond Centre previously made reference to a number of the activities which have taken place in the state of Washington and, indeed, in the state of Oregon. ISTEA and other pieces of legislation from in the federal government in Washington have given them a number of options in terms of developing corridors as they lead to the Canada-U.S. border. There has been a lot of work done in that area, and there has not, to all appearances and in my opinion, been as much work done on the Canadian side to complement the work that is being done.

One of the specific examples is that Los Angeles is now talking about developing and expanding their container port facilities, and we have advantages in Vancouver of being some four hours by water closer to the Orient and to the trade corridors that are available to us there.

Washington and Oregon want to participate in the corridor. We have the Cascadia Institute in Vancouver and the Discovery Institute in the United States that are both working to build this. My fear is that we're going to see the corridors developed on the American side and come to a crashing halt as they hit the Canadian border, and we might not be able to take advantage of what might be offered to us there. My question to the minister is whether or not there has been any planning or any meetings that have taken place. Are there any dollars which may have been allocated to look at the evolution and development of this corridor on the Canadian side?

[1600]

Hon. H. Lali: We're actually very supportive of that concept and also of the work that the Gateway Council is doing. Also, my parliamentary secretary, the member for Rossland-Trail, is very much involved in these kinds of issues. He is also the government representative on PNWER, which is the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, who hold regular meetings to discuss these kinds of issues.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

G. Hogg: Is there any further planning that's taking place? Are there going to be any announcements with respect to some cooperative sharing and planning that will enhance the evolution and development of the Cascadia corridor? I understand that Mr. Harcourt is going to be chairing part of it, and that the Governor of the state of Washington is putting together a working committee with some political representatives on it.

I'm wondering whether or not the province of British Columbia is prepared to support that type of initiative and be involved in that type of cooperation so that we can ensure that every advantage is possible for us in British Columbia to take advantage of the economic possibilities that will be there, through both trade and tourism.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member mentions the north-south corridors as part of this Cascadia issue. I'm very supportive. Actually, a component of the national transportation investment strategy is to deal with those corridors that are north and south through the B.C.-U.S. border -- the border crossings and also some of the road links leading up to the border crossings, which obviously lead to our east-west links, such as the Trans-Canada Highway and other east-west highways that exist.

As I mentioned earlier, my parliamentary secretary actually keeps me updated on the progress on these kinds of issues. He's obviously working hard making sure that we have these kinds of north-south links, which won't just stop at the American border with Americans spending billions of dollars, as authorized by the U.S. Senate, and then finding that when they come up to the U.S.-Canada border, on B.C.'s side things aren't quite up to the same kind of standard.

So we're working with the other provinces and also the federal government to access some funding on a cost-shared basis between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that our national transportation investment strategy will also incorporate this kind of vision.

A. Sanders: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

A. Sanders: In the gallery are 25 students from St. James School in Vernon. They're accompanied by their teacher Maggie Carty, Kelly Bibby, Denis Brunelle and Dave Poley. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

G. Hogg: I take the minister's comment to be a resounding endorsement of the notion of Cascadia -- and wanting to

[ Page 13055 ]

work with and build on that and take advantage of the potential that it offers us. I expect that you will be approached -- if that has not already happened -- through your ministry for participation in a committee to work towards that end. I trust that we will be able to do planning and have resources in place to best take advantage of the economic benefit which will be generated for the whole Cascadia corridor.

[1605]

Moving from that, but perhaps consistent with that theme is the notion of the 152nd-32nd overpass exchange at Highway 99. I have briefly discussed this with the minister once previously. I've been briefed on the matter by the mayor of Surrey and the mayor of White Rock and through the chambers of commerce, and they advise me that it is an interchange which is being developed through land exchange -- and therefore not requiring provincial tax dollars at this stage -- but that it offers a south exit south.

It is of value and advantage to commuters who are coming back to the Surrey-White Rock area from environs north of the area on Highway 99; however, it doesn't provide us with the opportunity to take advantage of trade which may be coming from the south. With the exchange rate now tilted more in our favour, it seems an ideal time for us to be taking advantage of all of those Canadian dollars which once went to Bellis Fair and environs south of the border -- to now take advantage of trying to attract American dollars into the South Surrey, Surrey and White Rock areas.

I know that the long-term plan for this included a full interchange which would allow a flow of traffic heading off north at the 152nd-32nd area but that that is not the case at this point in time.

Could the minister apprise me of the planning, of what in fact is in place, and of what is planned for this interchange at this point?

Hon. H. Lali: There are two parts to the hon. member's statement and question. On the issue of Cascadia, I am actually giving my resounding support for protecting the trade corridors, both east-west and north-south. There's a lot of good work that is done by Cascadia on these types of transportation issues, and certainly on those aspects of it I would give my resounding support. Obviously, in terms of protecting our trade corridors, we want to remain competitive with our trading partners across the border in the States.

The 152nd Street interchange -- there's a lot of work that is being done on this particular issue. Unfortunately, I don't have my appropriate staff here to give me the details of that. It's an issue that perhaps should have been canvassed under the BCTFA, and the staff from the TFA are not here with me right now. But I'm willing to work with the hon. member and to have staff work with the hon. member to give him the appropriate information that he needs.

G. Hogg: I appreciate the offer to have staff work with me and/or with Surrey and White Rock and the chamber of commerce to effect that. I know that the mayor has sent a letter to the ministry seeking a meeting, and that was sent some two months ago. He has not, as yet, received a response and is quite anxious about that because of the number of businesses within the community who are anxious to work with and participate in this.

I guess my next question to the minister would be, then: can he ensure that there will be some type of formal response, which will go back to the mayor of White Rock in response to his correspondence? I'd be prepared to take advantage of the offer you've made to have you and/or your staff meet, perhaps over here . . . . I'm sure a delegation of the mayor and members of the chamber of commerce and of the Surrey council would be happy to come over and meet with you to talk about the options and the things that they want to look at or the possibility of there being some private involvement in the development of the northern ramp.

I appreciate that there are some benefits to be generated for the businesses in the area. Perhaps there's some potential for a further public-private partnership in terms of the evolution and development of that and speeding up the phasing, which . . . . I understand the off-ramp is now at a phase which is down the road at some undetermined point in time. It is important to that community that they take advantage of that off-ramp and what it has to offer as quickly as possible.

So if I'm getting the minister's assurance that he will have the mayor's letter responded to and, further, that he will arrange for a meeting so that we can fully discuss the options which might be available to that community and to the ministry to effect a northern off-ramp, then I would be satisfied.

Hon. H. Lali: Certainly I'll have my staff dig up the correspondence requesting the meeting and have that correspondence responded to as soon as we possibly can. Also, I'll authorize my staff to set up a meeting with the hon. member's mayor and council so that we can discuss the kinds of issues that the constituents of Surrey-White Rock need to have dealt with.

G. Hogg: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, and I will be in touch with the mayor and council to arrange for that meeting to come forward in the next couple of weeks. They're most anxious to hold that. So thank you.

[1610]

R. Thorpe: I'll try to be quick here.

As the minister knows, there has been a fair amount of discussion, albeit through newspapers, with respect to highways in the Okanagan and other parts of the region which the minister represents. I think it would be a lot more constructive if we could get people together to sit down and talk around a table. I'm just wondering if the minister would agree if I worked with his staff to pull together a meeting of the mayors of Peachland, Summerland and Penticton and the regional district. We could get everybody around a table and have a very open, two-way discussion so that everybody understands each other's agenda, and we can attempt to move forward in a very constructive way.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm glad that the hon. member raised that. As a matter of fact, my staff is already actively working to set up a meeting with the mayors of the three major cities in the Okanagan to discuss these very important issues. Also, a copy of the correspondence, I believe, has been sent to Mr. Paul Mitchell -- I keep confusing him with Paul Martin -- who is representing the Coquihalla Connector Coalition.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate that answer. I was also thinking of South Okanagan. It's a relatively small community when you look at the province. It appears, hon. Chair, that the minister wants to work in a very positive and constructive way, and I would ask that he please keep me and the member

[ Page 13056 ]

for Okanagan-Boundary informed of these things. Perhaps he would think it would be very constructive to have us as part of that meeting so that, again, we can all work together for solutions for all British Columbians.

Hon. H. Lali: I've had the opportunity on three occasions to meet with some of the mayors and councils, especially in South Okanagan. I've had a chance to meet with the Keremeos mayor and council on a couple of occasions and also on my tour on Highway 3 from Hope to the Alberta border. Certainly I'm willing to continue to meet with mayors and councils in the Okanagan in the future. I make that commitment.

R. Thorpe: I suppose that perhaps the minister didn't hear one little caveat: that I also requested that he include me, as the member for Okanagan-Penticton, and the member for Okanagan-Boundary in those meetings. I would just like to have the minister comment. Would he like us to be part of building the solution for the future, or would he prefer to have us excluded?

Hon. H. Lali: Pardon me if I gave the impression to the hon. member that I was going to exclude him and his colleague. Obviously, when these meetings are set up, we'll let the hon. members know so they can participate as well.

R. Thorpe: In the spirit of cooperation and building solutions . . . . I realize that the staff that were here yesterday from the TFA aren't here, but I have to ask this question. I hope that the minister will take it in the very serious context that is intended. As a result of debates yesterday on HCL, I have had some calls from constituents. They're not from big contractors; they're from workers, and they're from workers' families.

In the context of some of the minister's comments yesterday, I would ask: what is the minister's response to some of those workers and families who have had a long history of working in the business and in the area? I'm talking about South Okanagan. What are those individuals and their families to do now, since they're not getting called out to work because they are not part of HCL?

[1615]

Hon. H. Lali: This issue was actually quite thoroughly canvassed in the BCTFA estimates yesterday. This government -- and I'll repeat some of the comments I made earlier -- is thoroughly committed to supporting small businesses throughout British Columbia. Some of those small operators that the hon. member said he had a dialogue with last night are quite welcome to bid on any HCL project anywhere in the province; they may choose to do so.

R. Thorpe: Yesterday I recall the minister, without staff support, giving the answer that one of the reasons that he was pushing the HCL model was to stop discrimination and some of the other things that he cited in his discussion. Some of these people and their families, who have had a long history, are now feeling that they're being discriminated against because they do not have a union card. Can the minister give those individuals and those families any reassurances that his government is not discriminating against them?

Hon. H. Lali: Again, the appropriate place to have had this discussion was under the BCTFA, and we did have a fairly thorough and lengthy discussion on this yesterday. We have moved on since then to the ministry estimates.

R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I thought yesterday I detected, late in the afternoon, a spirit of cooperation from the minister, and I'm a little . . . . Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the minister's approach and the minister's attitude here this afternoon, because working families and working individuals in British Columbia do not work according to a bureaucratic system that takes place in this chamber and this province.

They try to get up and go out to work and understand what's going on, and I would very much appreciate it if the minister would not give a bureaucratic answer and would show some understanding to those individuals and those families that now feel they have been cut adrift by this government that reportedly says it cares so much about people.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member obviously fails to understand the whole issue of HCL. It is quite evident from the kind of comments that he is making here today that he and his party fail to understand what HCL is all about and how it operates. For the member's benefit, I will repeat the comments that I made yesterday.

Any operator -- any contractor in British Columbia or even outside of British Columbia -- is free and clear to bid on HCL projects, whether the HCL project is on Vancouver Island or it's on Cache Creek to Height of the Rockies or even in the lower mainland. The hon. member should know that. I also want to let the hon. member know that on the Vancouver Island Highway, 60 percent of the contracts actually went to non-union firms.

In terms of the Cache Creek-Height of the Rockies HCL project, any individual is allowed to go and register their application with HCL in terms of trying to access employment on these particular projects. And the hon. member's assertion that somehow this government is abandoning small business is just not supported by the facts.

[1620]

I'll share some information with the hon. member on the Monte Creek interchange, which is near Kamloops. Almost all of the projects went to firms . . . . And they're all small business firms. These are not the big companies like Brentwood Construction or Dawson Construction or Coquitlam Ridge Construction, but some of the smaller outfits such as JW Chauhan Consulting out of Kamloops, R. Devick and Sons Cattle Co. in Kamloops and also Newport Structures, CRG Enterprises, Ptarmigan Gravel, Bomac Electric and others -- like Terradisk Surveying, Burcon Slipform and Lyons Landscaping.

These are all small businesses in the vicinity of the worksite at the Monte Creek interchange. They include Valley Curbing out of Kelowna, which was successful, and others as well. These are all small businesses who are successfully bidding on and accessing those particular contracts.

Again, on the Kerr Road and Craigellachie worksites, which were identified yesterday, there are small operators and small businesses who have been accessing some of these contracts -- such as Toucan Pro Traffic Control out of Salmon Arm, T-Jo Wood Grinding out of Chilliwack, etc. So obviously the record provides otherwise from what the hon. member across the way is trying to emphasize here.

R. Thorpe: All I'm trying to do is deliver the messages that I received from some of my people that live in my constituency and also from nearby constituencies.

So what the minister is saying, hon. Chair, is that he totally supports this model, that this government totally supports this model, that it's good for small business, that it's not

[ Page 13057 ]

going to be disruptive for small business and that it's not going to be disruptive for families. If that's the case, I ask the minister this very simple question: is he prepared to come into the area, meet face to face with those small operators and tell them how good this is going to be for their businesses?

Hon. H. Lali: It's surprising that the members opposite insist in going over some of the issues that were thoroughly canvassed for nearly two hours yesterday in terms of HCL. Again, this is an issue . . . . I've given the member a couple of answers already, even though it's an issue that was dealt with under TFA; the member is quite well aware of that. He was here during the TFA estimates. We canvassed these issues under the TFA estimates. Obviously we've moved on from TFA and on to the ministry estimates. Obviously my TFA staff is not here today with me; I have my ministry staff with me. I think the hon. member knows the rules. I think we should move forward, on to the ministry estimates.

R. Thorpe: I'm surprised that the minister had to consult to the left and to the right on whether he could come into the region and have a meeting. Could the minister please answer the question? Will he come into the area and meet with the people that he says will not be adversely affected, who believe they will? Will you please come and meet with the people -- yes or no?

The Chair: The member continues.

R. Thorpe: I'd just like the record to show that the minister refused to answer the question. Therefore the constituents who asked me to ask those questions must recognize that the minister is not prepared to come into our part of British Columbia and tell them what a wonderful deal HCL is for them and their families.

D. Symons: A few questions here. Each year the B.C. Chamber of Commerce puts together a document on policies that the chamber would like to see implemented in the province. They go ministry by ministry, and there is a

section for Transportation and Highways. I do not intend to read all of the various recommendations they have; it's a good number of pages.

[1625]

But there are just two that I'd like to read into the record and maybe have the minister make some comments on them. One is to do with high-occupancy lanes. I won't read the whole thing, but toward the end they say: "The chamber recommends that the provincial government should (1) establish specific operations procedures for lanes, based on peak-hour usage, (2) consider licensing vehicles for using these lanes, (3) consider no restrictions for use of these lanes in off-peak hours." I'm just wondering if the minister might comment on those recommendations from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

Hon. H. Lali: Each one of the HOV lanes is different from the other. We can't actually take a blanket approach as suggested by the chamber. Also, trying to have two different sets of rules during a 24-hour period is unworkable and confusing to the travelling public. If you look at the heavy truck traffic, it starts at 6 a.m. in the morning and goes until 7 p.m. in the evening.

D. Symons: I somewhat agree with the minister, in that different situations can occur in different areas. It's also very nice for drivers, though, to know that things are rather consistent, so that they don't have to say to themselves: "On this road I do such-and-such during certain hours, and on the other road I can't do this." Anyway, we'll have to debate that later on.

Another question that the Chamber of Commerce had dealt with is Highway 37. It's an upgrade, and it's one that's been on their list for a few years. Basically, the chamber is recommending that the government accelerate the upgrading of Highway 37 to current standards, giving the highest priority to the widening of the highway and replacement of the existing temporary Bailey bridges with modern structures. I'm wondering what the . . . . You're spending a fair amount of money in the north, and I appreciate that. But I didn't hear any mention specifically of Highway 37; maybe it went by me.

Hon. H. Lali: I'll read the list of expenditures over the past five years on Highway 37. In 1994 it was $3.5 million; in 1995, $4.7 million; in 1996, $3.2 million; in 1997, $1.8 million; in 1998, $6.27 million.

D. Symons: The numbers sound big until you realize that Highway 37 is 500 kilometres long. I suppose there's a lot of highway there to be worked on.

I wonder if we might take, now, just a short trip to Vancouver Island, for my next series of questions deal with local issues here. The first one deals with the traffic on the Pat Bay Highway to the airport. As they go north from here, just from where we are, you head north up the Pat Bay Highway, and you want to turn off on McTavish. There is a provision for cars to pull in there for making a left-hand turn to head onto McTavish to the airport.

The problem is that the traffic that is going that way now ends up frequently being . . . . More people want to make that left-hand turn than there is space for in the left-hand-turn lane there. There's a pullout for them to make a left-hand turn; that gets full. Basically, what's happening now is that those people are backing up onto the main highway itself. That creates a traffic hazard, particularly when the light's green, and people are whizzing along and don't notice that there's the tail-end of a car sticking out that can't quite get into the traffic bay. Are there any plans to extend that traffic bay for the left-hand turn at McTavish, on the Pat Bay Highway?

Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for raising that issue. We'll take a look at it. There is rapid growth taking place, so obviously there's a result in traffic because of that. We'll have a close look at the issue that the hon. member raised.

[1630]

D. Symons: Coming a little closer to home, then, the Malahat Highway near Goldstream -- I think we've had three people killed in two accidents in that area in the last short while, this year alone. The police have suggested possibly larger signs and floodlight warning lights or something. The ideal thing would be to four-lane it -- but that's a bit of a problem, I suspect -- and have a median or a barrier down the middle of the road. But since there have been deaths there, and there are likely to be more if nothing is done, what are you planning to do to make that area a little bit safer?

It's the area just outside of Goldstream Park, I believe. It's within a 500-metre area that these two most recent accidents have occurred.

[ Page 13058 ]

Hon. H. Lali: There are many challenges no matter what we try, but that doesn't mean we give up. Obviously the ministry reviews all of the coroner's recommendations. We'll continue to seek responsible solutions. The ministry works cooperatively with the RCMP and other agencies to determine the appropriate improvements which can be made.

I was wondering if we can have a five-minute recess.

The Chair: If the members agree, we'll have a five-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:32 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

D. Symons: Just picking up on the Malahat again and the answer the minister gave, I think we all recognize that we can't have every highway done in such a way that there will be no accidents on them. There are people who are going to drink and drive, as much as we know that that's totally wrong and irresponsible. People fall asleep at the wheel, and other things happen on the highways. You can't predict them. You can't possibly build a highway system that would prevent those accidents. But that portion of the Malahat does seem to have problems more frequently than those places I mentioned a moment ago.

I have a letter on my desk, which I suspect the minister has as well, from the Cowichan Valley regional district. I won't read the whereases, but it ends up with: "Now therefore

be it resolved that the Cowichan Valley Regional District strongly urge the Premier, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Transportation and Highways critic" -- so you see, I'm drawn into this as well -- "to complete the Malahat Highway widening project." They're basically begging that that project be completed. I believe it's part of the Island Highway project. I'm just wondering, again, from the timetable on the Island Highway project and the timetable that might now be adjusted slightly: when will that Malahat Highway program and the widening of it be finished?

Hon. H. Lali: I don't know if the hon. member is aware that it is not currently part of the Vancouver Island Highway project.

D. Symons: Well then, as not part of the Island Highway project, I wonder if the minister might give the people of the Cowichan Valley and me some idea of where that widening of the Malahat and fixing-up of some of the safety problems along it is in your agenda.

Hon. H. Lali: There are huge environmental considerations on this particular project. It will actually take a long time for us to come back with any kind of a recommendation on that, as a result.

D. Symons: I have a question from my own riding -- or close by, at least. It's not in Richmond; it's in South Delta, actually. It's the ramp that leads off River Road as you're turning on to Highway 99 to go through the George Massey Tunnel, and it merges with Highway 99 at that point. There have been a number of truck rollovers there in the last few years. Fortunately, we have not had a car beside a truck when the truck decides to roll over. They're probably going too fast onto that turn as you come off River Road and are swinging onto Highway 99.

There was an accident a year ago, I believe, and at that time, there were some comments that something was going to be done about that particular approach onto Highway 99 and through the tunnel. A truck turned over just last week. The problem is still there. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give us some idea about what's being done about that particularly dangerous section.

While I'm at it, I'll mention that also on Highway 99 in Richmond, where you turn off the Westminster Highway . . . . Primarily it's the trucks that seem to be making a left turn off Westminster Highway. They've been going west and they're turning left to turn onto the on-ramp for Highway 99 to head south. That's another place where trucks seem to roll over. All too often I do see a truck on its side, and I've felt very lucky, in a sense, that there has not been a car on the other side, because there's a place for cars to be there at the time one of these rather large trucks rolls over.

Hon. H. Lali: There's actually been only one accident since the additions were made a year and a half ago. However, as part of the Highway 99 and Highway 17 HOV project, the announcement that I made . . . . Actually, I think it was late last year, and the hon. member was present. As part of that, the geometry of this ramp will be reconfigured to allow for improved safety. The Highway 99 and Highway 17 HOV project will be completed in the fall of 1999.

[1645]

D. Symons: I'm just going to flip through a few things here, leaving out the ones I think I know the answer to -- and we'll hope I'm right. Another one here that's a concern to people in the Fraser Valley is the Mount Lehman interchange at Highway 1. Again, it's cars coming off Highway 1 as they're heading east. They go up a little incline to where the overpass is at Mount Lehman Road and the highway, and they back up at that point.

The problem, as I mentioned with the Pat Bay Highway, is that sometimes those backups get back on to Highway 1, where traffic is moving at a good clip, and it presents a dangerous situation. I know the city of Abbotsford has raised this issue with the minister. Can you give them some assurance that it's being looked into and that there's going to be some remediation of that problem?

Hon. H. Lali: This is an issue that I'm aware of. I met with the Abbotsford council earlier this year. This is an issue that both the TFA and the municipality are actively working to try to find a solution to.

D. Symons: Good. Back to Richmond -- or near Richmond, anyway. The minister made some comments last year -- last September, actually -- about some problems. Well, the problem was there, and you were going to remedy it. That was the problem with the signalling to and through the Massey Tunnel. There was a comment last year: "Later this year, or early next year, the ministry will spend $300,000 to upgrade the Massey Tunnel lane control system. The new system will be similar to those currently in place on the Lions Gate Bridge and the Pitt River Bridge."

[ Page 13059 ]

I drive that weekly, and I haven't noticed a change. Now, were the changes made? Or are they still coming? Or indeed, were the changes such that they weren't noticeable to the drivers but still might have created some improvement in that situation?

Hon. H. Lali: The money is actually there for improvements this year. It's $287,000 -- roughly $300,000 -- for design and upgrade of the Highway 99 lane control system at the George Massey Tunnel.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, because I was somewhat concerned that maybe some improvements had taken place and I hadn't noticed them. I don't know if they would have been that much of an improvement if they hadn't been noticed. You're indicating that it's still coming -- good.

Another question -- and this is a rather interesting one. It just arrived in the mail for me today, actually. It's a follow-up of a letter that a lady sent me just before Christmas, which expressed some concern about the signage along Highway 1, as you're heading west and as you get near the Langley turnoff there. I forget the street number for the moment, but it leads onto the Langley bypass in that area. I drive it quite frequently.

Apparently there's a sign there that says, "To B.C. Ferries," or something to that effect. This woman followed the sign. Unfortunately, she wanted to go to Horseshoe Bay. She just saw this sign -- she's not from this area -- "To B.C. Ferries," so she went to B.C. Ferries at Tsawwasssen and discovered that the ferry she wanted wasn't there. She was trying to head out to Langdale on the Sunshine Coast and got confused by the signs and was somewhat disturbed by that fact.

So I'm wondering if there might be a little way of identifying the fact that there are two B.C. Ferries terminals from that point on for people who are new to B.C. or new to this area and who do not know that we have Tsawwassen and Horseshoe Bay as B.C. Ferries terminals. Could that signage thing be improved a little bit? Just a question.

Hon. H. Lali: Them hon. member actually raises a very good point. Quite frankly, it is something that I hadn't heard before, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. We will have a look at the issue that the hon. member raises. Also, I know that the member is aware of this, but for the benefit of the House, there is a comprehensive signage review that is taking place in terms of the signage policy all across the province. Certainly issues such as this could be forwarded on to that particular committee as well.

[1650]

D. Symons: I think that's great, and that's all, basically, that I was asking: that somebody would look into that particular situation there. There may be a few others that will clue them into the situations that might be similar in other places.

Just a question here too. There's a newspaper

article from last November, in the Prince George Citizen , that says: " 'Construction of the two new lanes on the John Hart Bridge will start in the spring,' provincial Highways minister announced Monday." I now have a Prince George paper of April 17 of this year that says: "The bridge construction will start this fall." I'm wondering if the minister might tell me -- we're a few months after that -- whether this fall is still on the

schedule or whether that project is going to continue to have a moving horizon.

Hon. H. Lali: We are actually starting work on the John Hart Bridge. The project is going to tender right now, and once the tenders all come in, we'll have the award of the contract set for the fall so that the shovels can go into the ground.

D. Symons: If we can move up-country to the Kootenays and to the Moyie bluffs . . . . I read that apparently there is design work going to be done on that particular area. There also is a danger and accident record in that area. The concern I have is something I had also with the Three Valley Gap one. As the minister said a few minutes ago, I've travelled the highways, and I've been along the Highway 3 corridor a couple of times and took as long as the minister did, too, because I stopped in each community, spoke to mayors and chambers of commerce or anybody that wanted to talk about road issues in their area.

I also made a habit of dropping in at the district or regional highway offices, introducing myself and saying hi and asking them to see whether what they could tell me basically coincided with what the mayors and the chambers of commerce were telling me about the needs in the area. In almost every case, I found they were all in total agreement. The problem is, really, the highways. One would say, "We have to wait for approval and where this project is in the priorities of the ministry," and so forth. But they generally knew the problems.

But in both those cases, whether it was the Three Valley Gap one -- in the Revelstoke office or in the office in Cranbrook . . . . They had the plans -- I saw them, in both places -- for the Moyie bluffs, solutions for the problems there. Yet we're talking about doing the design work now. I'm just curious, when you can see that at least it's not the full plans for it, but it certainly is a conceptual design plan they have. It seems that we always read about doing design work. It seems that design work for many of these projects was done years ago.

Just a little bit of a dusting off would bring them out, and you could move on with the project rather than saying again: "We're looking at designing."

Hon. H. Lali: The issue of the Moyie bluffs has actually been thoroughly raised by the MLA for Kootenay, who also happens to sit on the BCTFA board. She has raised this issue quite loudly over the last number of years that she's been elected.

I'm pleased to say that we made an announcement for half a million dollars for the realignment of three sharp corners through Moyie bluffs, on Highways 3 and 95 between Yahk and Cranbrook -- these are "Jones corner," "Truckers corner" and "Tunnel creek" -- in order to improve safety and traffic flow.

D. Symons: I think the last question I have in this series of moving around the province deals with Highway 31 and some concerns that the rehabilitation of that particular highway is one that has also been long overdue. The people in that area are somewhat concerned about that particular project, and I'm wondering if the minister might just give us some flavour for where it is on his priority list.

[ Page 13060 ]

[1655]

Hon. H. Lali: Highway 31 is actually a fairly long highway. I believe it is around 100 miles or so. If there's any particular spot that the hon. member is most interested in, I'd be more than happy to hear that.

D. Symons: I'll pass that on at another time, then, rather than discuss all of that now. I'm tr