Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1992

[ Page 977 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I'd like bring the House's attention today to the visitors I have in the gallery: 75 students from Mission Secondary School and their teacher, Mr. Jones. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, would the House please join me in welcoming Marg White, a resident of West Vancouver-Capilano, and her friend Shirley Embra of Victoria-Beacon Hill.

H. Giesbrecht: On a rare occasion, it's a pleasure for me to introduce someone from the riding of Skeena. We are fortunate to have with us in the gallery today three members of the Kitimat City Council: Ray Brady, Graham Anderson and Tom Goyert. With them is the municipal manager, Jim Gustafson. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Copping: I am very pleased to have a friend here, Mondee Redman. She worked very hard to get me nominated, yet I still consider her a friend. Would the House please make her welcome.

F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce one of the premier whitewater upside-down canoeists from the Cariboo, my constituency assistant Steve Hilbert.

N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, we have with us today a group of students from Delta North, and with them are a number of exchange students from the province of Quebec. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Lali: Hon. Speaker, just when everybody thought I wouldn't have any more people in my riding to introduce, I come up with one more. I would like to introduce to the House my constituency assistant Audrey Basaraba. Within New Democratic Party circles, whenever you mention the name Audrey, everybody asks which one, to which I always reply: Audrey Basaraba from Falkland. Please make my constituency assistant welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House probably the most formidable constituency assistant of all 75 ridings, and if you haven't had a chance to talk to her yet, I'm sure you will: Lois Mor.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Speaker, I see in the gallery someone I should introduce to the House. I'm fortunate today to have my constituency assistant Gail Murray here. Would the House please make her welcome.

C. Evans: All of us here are people who decided we wanted to run for office and were happy enough to get elected. I'd like the House to welcome a person who's more humble than those of us who are here -- Donna Macdonald from Nelson -- and who could be the MP if she wanted, but hasn't as yet decided to be.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The Municipal Finance Authority Amendment Act, 1992, contains amendments allowing the Municipal Finance Authority to expand short-term investment and interim financing pools to more public agencies, including school districts, hospitals, universities and colleges. The provisions will allow such public agencies to reduce their borrowing costs and take advantage of the higher returns on investments provided by the Municipal Finance Authority. This will permit more cost-effective and productive management of the taxpayers' money.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased to introduce today Bill 23, the University Amendment Act, 1992, which contains proposed amendments to the University Act and the College and Institute Act. The purpose of these amendments is the following: (1) to repeal section 80 of the University Act, which prohibits university faculty from forming faculty associations or trade unions pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act; and (2) to authorize public colleges and institutes to grant an associate degree in arts or science on successful completion of a two-year academic program that complies with provincial standards.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 23 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting Petitions

D. Mitchell: I'd like to lay on the table a petition by citizens of Horseshoe Bay, British Columbia, who are concerned about the lack of consultation with respect to reports that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is going to institute all-night sailings.

[2:15]

[ Page 978 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I too have a petition. It is with regard to a gravel pit on Crown and municipal land in south Langley, specifically between Zero Avenue, 8th Avenue, 224th Street and 232nd Street. A group of residents are strongly opposed to it.

Oral Questions

STEWART-FIRESTONE CASE

D. Mitchell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General.

Interjections.

D. Mithcell: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite would like me to refer to you as Mr. Speaker, and I'll do so.

My question is for the Attorney General, and it's with respect to the out-of-court settlement in the Stewart-Firestone case, which was finally settled on April 14. In an earlier question the Attorney General stated that the settlement had been reached between the parties. Yet news reports since that time beg for a further clarification of this matter. Therefore, can the Attorney General confirm who precisely initiated this settlement? In particular, can he confirm that it was counsel for the Minister of Labour who initiated this out-of-court settlement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I cannot confirm that, simply because it's not the case.

D. Mitchell: A supplementary question to the Attorney General. As it is clearly in the public interest to clear the air over this issue, could the Attorney General's lack of response to this have something to do with the fact that this settlement included a confidentiality agreement which may in fact prohibit or inhibit any comment on the settlement?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the question suggests debate and asks the minister to express an opinion. I would ask you to precisely state the question in an objective fashion.

D. Mitchell: Can the Attorney General confirm, with respect to this out-of-court settlement, that there was a confidentiality agreement signed among the parties?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Often in settlements of court cases there are confidentiality clauses. There was one in this case as well.

D. Mitchell: Surely the Attorney General must recognize that any signing of a confidentiality agreement between the Minister of Labour and the Crown constitutes a potential conflict which undermines a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy: responsible government. Does the minister agree that a private confidentiality agreement cannot bind the Crown and should not prevent this government from releasing information about this out-of-court settlement?

Deputy Speaker: The first part of the question, as a preamble, is argumentative. However, the second part of the question is a matter of seeking information.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, members of the House should know, if they don't, that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services was not a party to this agreement, in the sense that the issues involved occurred long in advance of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin taking that ministerial responsibility. There is no question whatsoever, nor should there ever be any suggestion, that this was an issue involving the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. This issue took place some years ago. Some of the loose ends in the proceedings occurred following the swearing-in but continued to have nothing whatsoever to do with that member's ministerial responsibility, nor with any cabinet member's ministerial responsibility.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why taxpayers' money was used after November 5 to defray the Minister of Labour's legal costs in regard to the Firestone case, when the Attorney General has confirmed that government policy continues to preclude ministers from having their personal legal costs paid with taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have answered this question previously, and I thought the answer was quite straightforward at that time.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously it wasn't straightforward at the time. It continues to be a stonewalling effort by the government on these questions for some reason.

Can the Premier then explain why taxpayers' money was not used to pay his Minister of Labour's settlement costs? He has argued it would be appropriate to pay legal service costs where appropriate; then why not the minister's legal settlement costs? Why did the Premier decide that the minister's settlement costs were not appropriately paid by taxpayers' money?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's very unfortunate that the members opposite continue to misuse the English language. It's very clear that the present Minister of Labour, when this lawsuit was initiated, was not a minister. This has no relationship to his ministerial responsibilities whatsoever. This lawsuit was initiated around events of a few years ago that involved a Social Credit Attorney General who misused his office very badly. It involved a government where 12 out of 20 ministers had to resign because of conflict or in disgrace. I don't think that the member over there should throw stones and misuse the fact that this was not a ministerial responsibility. It was a private lawsuit. I have already explained that the government expenditures, the taxpayers' expenditures.... If members would go back and read Hansard, they would see that I 

[ Page 979 ]

have explained that yes, there was taxpayers' money to cover the legal costs of Mr. Stewart. I said that those costs were $93,000 and that the member from Esquimalt was reimbursed through the caucus global budget of the NDP caucus at that time. That amount came to approximately $36,000. That was the taxpayers' money that was involved. This is a clear....

An Hon. Member: Waste of time.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Not a waste of time at all. It's important for the taxpayers to know that. But to try and have this government go behind a confidentiality agreement of parties in a private lawsuit is improper and uncalled for.

Deputy Speaker: Final supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, what we were asking of the Premier was whether or not he would advise whether taxpayers' money had been used to pay the settlement costs; and if not, why would he consider it appropriate to use taxpayers' money to pay legal costs but not to pay settlement costs? That seems like a logical question.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, if I could perhaps assist.... Take your seat, please. The problem that the Chair has is to make a clear distinction between matters that happened prior to this administration taking office and matters that have happened since. I would ask the questioners to phrase their questions in a manner so as to elicit information, rather than argument and asking for opinions. Then we would be able to have at least an objective response on policy. If would that assist the member, it would certainly assist the Chair.

J. Weisgerber: Let's try this another way. The Premier is either unwilling or unable to tell us who paid the member's settlement costs. So be it.

We will be satisfied if the conflict-of-interest commissioner can confirm the Premier's opinion that there is no cause for concern with respect to this matter. Will the Premier at least ask the Minister of Labour to voluntarily provide to the conflict-of-interest commissioner a review of the settlement to remove any reasonable suspicion of a possible conflict of interest involving the minister or his benefactors? Will the Premier ask the member to refer the details of the settlement to the conflict-of-interest commissioner?

Deputy Speaker: The question again poses a problem for the Speaker, because it asks the Premier to take an action, which is not specifically asking for information, and I am having some trouble with that.

As I say, the Chair is having some problem with keeping the question in order. As the House knows, the Minister of Labour has no responsibility for matters which happened prior to his becoming the minister. We are getting into areas of nuance that I would ask all members to be very cognizant of.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I believe that we have answered the questions put forward in a forthright way and quite diligently. I think what's happening now is that members on the opposite side are now pursuing this strictly for cynical political purposes. They have been told where taxpayers' money has been involved; they haven't accepted that. The member for Okanagan West, in a letter to the auditor general and to the Deputy Attorney General, requested that they investigate this matter. They are investigating this matter. Those results will be before the House. The leader of the third party knows about that. He's just piling it on now.

We've been informed by the Minister of Labour, who was then the Attorney General critic in the opposition caucus, that there was no taxpayers' money involved in the private lawsuit.

The last two points, so we can clear this up.... I'm sure they're going to continue to pile on, because the opposition and the third party are clearly demonstrating a lack of fairness on this matter. The innuendos that they are directing towards a member of this Legislature are very unfortunate. They are asking the government to intervene in a private lawsuit. They are assuming that there were settlement costs, which we don't know. Nobody on this side of the House knows that. They're assuming that there was a settlement, and they're assuming that we can look behind the private agreement in this lawsuit. This has gone way beyond inquiring in the public interest. It is strictly a cynical misuse of this question period by the opposition and now by the third party.

W. Hurd: Another question, again to the Premier. He's quoted in the media as saying that the whole incident -- referring to the Stewart-Firestone case -- was unfortunate, but using taxpayers' money to settle the case was cheaper than allowing it to go to trial. Can he confirm to this House how much the taxpayers saved?

Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock on a supplementary.

W. Hurd: A supplemental question to the Attorney General. The opposition has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the legal fees and damage awards assessed to the Minister of Labour in connection with the Firestone case were much higher than the $36,000 reported as having been paid from the caucus global budget, and that some of those costs were paid after he became minister. Will the Attorney General confirm whether the legal fees and the damage award were more than the $36,000 reported by the Premier in this House?

[2:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Like other members on this side of the House, I'm having some difficulty in understanding where the questions are going. We have been giving all of the information that has to do with the government for some time now. The $36,000 figure refers to the legal fees incurred by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. That amount -- as has been 

[ Page 980 ]

noted a number of times -- was paid for out of the NDP caucus global budget, when we were in the opposition position. The settlement costs that the government and the taxpayers incurred totalled $12,500, and that dealt with Mr. Stewart. That's it; that's the total amount of taxpayer moneys that went to settlement costs. There's an additional $80,500 that went to legal fees for Mr. Stewart. The government paid for that; the Attorney General's ministry paid for that; the taxpayers paid for that.

Part of the question was: is settling cheaper than going to trial? The settlement cost to the taxpayer was $12,500. I think most members in this House know that that's certainly cheaper than having gone to trial.

A. Warnke: I think the House should be reminded that the agreement that has taken place only took place on April 14 of this year, and that what we are discussing on this side of the House deals with those in November and December.

Deputy Speaker: Question, hon. member.

A. Warnke: My question is to the Premier. Following an earlier question in this chamber to the Premier concerning the rush to complete the out-of-court settlement in the Firestone suit, is the Premier now prepared to confirm that he received a letter dated November 27, 1991, notifying him that he might be subpoenaed as a witness in that trial in December?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't recall receiving such a letter. I will have our records searched to see if such a letter was received.

Deputy Speaker: The bell ends question period, hon. members. I will point out that it was an additional minute, due to the number of interruptions.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would like to answer a question taken on notice on Thursday, April 23.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Hon. A. Hagen: On September 24, 1991, the board of school trustees of Surrey School District 36 included an addition to Guildford Park Secondary, a new Scottsdale secondary school and a new Fleetwood secondary school in its 1992-93 capital request.

The board requested $15,409,800 for the Guildford Park Secondary School addition. This estimate, along with the estimates for all projects requested by school boards, was adjusted to reflect the anticipated inflationary increase from September 1991 to the time of the construction. The estimates were adjusted in the same manner as in previous years, and the adjusted amount for this project is $16,188,290.

The board requested $23,235,600 for the new Scottsdale secondary school. It was originally intended that the school would have a capacity of 1,100 students. As planning was finalized, it was decided, jointly with the district, that the capacity should be reduced to 900 students. The decrease in capacity reduced the cost estimate. However, a portion of the reduction was offset by the inflationary adjustment, and the adjusted amount for this project is $22 million.

The board requested $18,198,400 for a new Fleetwood secondary school. It was originally intended that the school would have a capacity of 800 students. As planning was finalized with the district, it was decided jointly that the capacity should be increased to 900 students. The increase in capacity and the inflation adjustment both increased the original estimate. The adjusted amount for this project is $20,500,000.

I have reviewed the request from the Surrey School Board for the above projects, and I do not understand the source of the hon. member's figures.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply in both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000 (continued).

J. Weisgerber: I understand the minister is probably waiting for some staff. In any event, I refer the minister to a letter that I believe he sent to all members on March 31 of this year. He indicates, in the current budget, that capital construction was $363 million in 1991 and this year it's reduced to $181 million -- a reduction of roughly 50 percent. I am wondering whether the minister supports that kind of reduction in spending, certainly an unprecedented reduction in spending in British Columbia to my knowledge. I don't recall that kind of slash to the highway capital construction budget in this province. I'm wondering whether the minister supports that kind of reduction and how he would explain the decision to reduce spending in that magnitude.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We could, I think, start off by correcting a misunderstanding of the member opposite. I have a graph which I can provide him a copy of. It shows the year 1988-89. At that time I believe the member opposite was a member of a government that spent less money on the highway capital construction program. If you cannot recall that in memory, sir, you have a short memory.

With regard to your general comment, yes, I support it. Under the fiscal conditions that we find ourselves in, it is more important to put the limited funds that we do have into education, health care and social services.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's a shame, then, that the Premier didn't choose to make you Minister of Education, Health or Social Services, if that's where your interests lie.

[ Page 981 ]

An Hon. Member: That's not what he said.

J. Weisgerber: It certainly is what the member said. I think a lot of people, after the Premier announced his cabinet, wondered why a rookie MLA would be given what has traditionally been one of the major portfolios. There was a great deal of interest, perhaps, in why the member for Burnaby North didn't get there -- and I guess that's in bad taste as well. But I think it was clear fairly soon after November 5, when the minister agreed that the cancer clinic in his own community wasn't a priority and one that he had campaigned on. It was clear even before the budget was brought down that the minister was promoting a 50 percent reduction in the ministry spending estimates.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Indeed he was promoting....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. member, if you're going to heckle, at least stick around for the first part of the comments.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly he didn't.

Here was a rookie MLA, a new minister, who starts off, as I understand it, defending the cuts to the Highways budget. I don't think anybody could argue that spending has to be restrained in all areas of government, but I don't believe many British Columbians would agree with the decision of this government that the Ministry of Highways should be singled out for the kind of reduction that this government has seen. I'm curious about the decision of this government, based on the fact that the Peat Marwick report was critical of the lack of spending in this province to maintain the infrastructure. Clearly highways is one of those areas in which you have to continue to maintain the system. This government, while it was quite happy to accept the criticisms of the previous administration by Peat Marwick, appears to have flown in the face of their recommendation dealing with Transportation and Highways. I wonder if the minister can explain the contradiction in the approach taken versus the recommendations in Peat Marwick.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That had to be one of the longest non-questions in the history of this chamber. Number one, I didn't go about promoting a reduction; I went around signalling that there would likely be a reduction. Second, if the member opposite feels that we haven't chosen the right areas, I would be glad to entertain from him a letter, with the schools and hospitals in his riding that he might wish to close in order that we could further highway projects in his riding. And if he'll be so kind as to provide that to me, I'll pass it on.

As to the lack of rehabilitation, you're correct. The previous administration had shown a woeful lack of understanding of how to maintain a system. The Peat Marwick report will tell you just that. In a period of severe fiscal restraint here, we have managed to increase the amount of money being dedicated to the rehabilitation of the existing highway system. We've taken a very commonsensical, fiscally responsible decision that at this time we will not add to an infrastructure and will maintain what we have. When we get out from under the fiscal -- and, I might even add, ethical -- mess that the previous government has left behind, we'll attend to the matter of adding infrastructure as we are able to afford it.

J. Weisgerber: It's unfortunate that either lack of experience or lack of willingness on the part of the minister suggests that the only solution to more highways spending is to close hospitals or schools. That simplistic approach demonstrates a lack of experience. Surely to goodness, in a $16 billion budget, your government could use a little bit more imagination in finding ways to look for economies. If you're looking for a suggestion, I won't have to write you a letter. I'll tell you today: get away from the fixed-wage policy. Abandon it today, and put $200 million more into the capital construction budget. That will be a start. So instead of having a $181 million capital budget, you could have, simply by abandoning the fixed-wage policy of this government, a $380 million highway capital project.

[2:45]

Clearly you don't have to go around closing schools and hospitals. Those kinds of scare tactics and nonsense don't warrant any further debate in this legislature. Let's talk about the Ministry of Highways budgets and about the need to maintain the system. Indeed, there is a rehabilitation budget roughly equal to last year's, but surely the minister understands that capital construction doesn't necessarily mean building brand-new highways, that if you're going to totally rebuild a highway, it is a capital cost and not a rehabilitation cost, and that we've got to start with rebuilding the major arteries in this province from time to time.

If in fact you're going to rebuild a highway, four-lane a two-lane highway or twin a bridge, are those rehabilitation projects or are those capital projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate the member opposite's comment on arteries, because it was certainly the hardening of the arteries in the previous administration that led to its demise. I guess the voters passed judgment on what they saw as the technical competence of the Socreds, and we have but a small rump left. I think that probably indicates a valid judgment there.

A rehabilitation project, by definition, does not increase the capacity of the roadway; it is a rejuvenation or a restoration of the roadway. If there is an increase in capacity involved, it falls into minor or major capital.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the voters do pass judgment. They passed judgment on October 17, and they're going to pass judgment in another three or four years. If you want to get a hint of how that's going in Kamloops, do a 

[ Page 982 ]

bit of a straw poll around your community. I suggest that you will find folks there thinking about the choice they made in your community.

In any event, if the minister wants to talk about politics and the judgment of people, I'd like to ask him about the effect of his decision to cut back on capital construction on the contractors and the people who work for them in British Columbia. What does he see as the effect on the construction industry of those changes in the amount of money allocated to capital construction?

Before I sit down and listen to his answer, I suggest that he may want to confer with his staff to find out whether the previous government had embarked on a policy of a five-year construction budget in order to give some continuity and level of activity that would allow contractors to make long-term decisions and to get a sense of what government was planning in the construction industry year to year and over a five-year term, rather than to see the kinds of peaks and valleys -- particularly valleys....

My question to the minister is: does he understand the effect of his actions on the highway construction industry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Having been involved for some 20 years as the principal of a firm that I helped create, I have a full understanding of the impact that my decisions have had on the industry, which will probably result in some 2,000 jobs not being created in the sector of roadbuilding and as many as 220 jobs in the consulting engineering profession. I took the time to meet with both of those groups well before, in order to be straight with them, to look them in the eye and to tell them myself that it would be coming.

I would also point out that the capital construction projects we have created in health care and in education will be offsetting those numbers to a substantial degree.

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to avoid the temptation to start talking about the fixed-wage policy and whose jobs are being created and whose are being eliminated in that field, but just so we understand, the minister says that somewhere between 2,200 and 2,500 direct jobs have been affected by his decision. He shakes his head, so perhaps I'll sit down and let him clarify it for me.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We might run you through a quick course in addition. I said 2,000 in the construction side, 200 to 250 on the engineering side -- a range of 2,200 to 2,250 is my best estimate.

J. Weisgerber: This is going to be fun. I suggested that the range was going to be between 2,200 and 2,500. The minister says no, between 2,200 and 2,250. I suppose that there's something there that's worth pointing out; I'm not sure what it is.

In any event, it seems to me that the majority of those jobs -- or a large number of those jobs -- are of people who live in the Kamloops area. I'm surprised. Perhaps the minister should be given credit for having the courage to inflict the kind of pain in his own constituency that he obviously is doing as a result of that decision, and I'm not certain that there is a question there. It's a fact that the highway construction industry in British Columbia is centred in Kamloops, so I want to take the opportunity to commend the minister for making those kinds of tough decisions. It takes a lot of courage to inflict damage on your own constituency in the interest of the greater good of the province, so I guess the minister should be commended.

I'd like to move on to some questions regarding the ministry's activity in obtaining right-of-way gazetting on disputed Indian reserves around British Columbia. It's a longstanding problem, and it's one that I know the ministry's been working on, but I would like to ask the minister if he's had any success over the last few months in finding a resolution, particularly in the area of Mount Currie and perhaps Fountain Valley and some other particularly sensitive locations around British Columbia.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was indeed a very difficult situation left behind for us to inherit. I find that the ministry is in trespass in excess of 500 places around the province, and there are other problems related to the 1911 Gazette on top of that. I am pleased to say that we have established a process of negotiation where we have now resolved only two or three incidents. We are perhaps close on another half dozen.

Our efforts are being well received within the aboriginal community to the degree of the Gitsegukla band holding a feast in my honour in order to thank me for resolving a problem within a few months that they had been unsuccessful in even entering into rudimentary negotiations on with the previous administration over 15 years.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister would be a bit more specific on where he has enjoyed these successes. I'm understanding the minister to say that he has obtained gazetted rights-of-way in a number of reserves in British Columbia since he took office. I'm wondering what kind of success he's having, particularly at Fountain Valley.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Gitsegukla is the one that has been resolved and signed. Alert Bay was a second one. There are three or four others that are getting close: the Penticton band, the Boothroyd, the band near Lytton -- the Fraser Canyon Indian band, I believe. There are one or two others. I could provide you with a comprehensive list of the ones that we feel we're getting close to resolving. There are a number with the Adams Lake band. As I say, I can easily offer a list, if you require it.

L. Fox: To follow up on that, I have a question with respect to those negotiations. Do they allow for permanent access for other British Columbians -- outside of the aboriginal people -- through those properties? Or is that part of the negotiations?

[ Page 983 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The settlements that we're seeking would be to obtain fee simple title to the lands that we are presently occupying with our right-of-way or with our roads -- where in many places throughout the province we have strayed outside our earlier legal rights-of-way. When we're finished the negotiation, we will have full rights to public access along what will be legal corridors.

L. Fox: I'll bring up a particular band about which I wrote the minister a letter -- you may not have seen it yet -- on April 23. It was on negotiations between your ministry and the Stellaquo band, near Fraser Lake. In these negotiations there has been no consideration given, by your negotiator or by Highways, to the concerns of a resident that lives through this reserve on a farm they have occupied since 1960 and their predecessors since 1921. It was originally deeded sometime around 1900. It was one of the very first pieces of deeded land in that area. Just so I get it on the record, these people are Bob and Jacquelyn Peters. They are extremely concerned that if these negotiations are to be concluded as they are presently being put forward, they will not have legal access to their farm. I would like your comments on that.

[3:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally speaking, the settlements that we will negotiate will assure public access through the rights-of-way that we are negotiating for. In the specific instance that you are speaking of, the Peters have been given assurance that either their right-of-way will be protected or we will provide them with alternate access to their property.

L. Fox: That's reassuring. I know that one negotiator stated that.

The other side of the coin, Mr. Minister, is that at the same time they've asked if it would be okay if an independent appraiser could do an appraisal on the farmland. That question, having been put to them, obviously, as I'm sure you can appreciate, rang off many bells. They feel somewhat threatened that their best interests may not be looked after through this process. But if I can achieve your assurance today that they will, either through that road or through another road, have legal access to their land, that would satisfy me. I heard you state that, so I don't know if it's necessary for you to repeat it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We will assure access.

L. Fox: I shall look forward, then, to your positive response to my letter, which is along those lines.

How many more of these kinds of things are out there in terms of the other negotiations? Are other British Columbians receiving the same kind of consideration as the Peters?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry has catalogued in excess of 300 cases around the province where there is, broadly speaking, a trespass issue. But we anticipate that by the time the process is completed, there will be in excess of 500 identified cases.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to extend an invitation directly to the members of the third party and to the member of the fourth party that if you have any questions relating to B.C. Rail, the hon. critic has offered to have B.C. Rail questions available tomorrow afternoon -- any that he may have. I could arrange to have a couple of people from B.C. Rail over for just the afternoon, rather than keeping them waiting. Or conversely, if you think tomorrow morning is satisfactory, I could easily move their schedule to tomorrow morning.

L. Fox: I appreciate knowing when those individuals and your staff will be available, and we'll certainly hold the questions pertaining to B.C. Rail until that time.

I have another concern. I was busy writing you letters on April 23. I wrote you a letter on behalf of a Mr. Erickson, who lives in an area called Manson Creek. The particular land in question is no longer being serviced by the Highways ministry. It was one of those roads that fell through the cracks with respect to forestry usage, highway usage, energy and mines usage.

Your ministry initiated discussions on a resource road policy about two years ago. I'm sure that I don't have to explain the purpose of the resource road policy to the minister, but perhaps I will, just so that it's on record. In many areas of the province, as you well know, we have three and sometimes four different jurisdictions over roads. I was kind of pleased to see this policy go forward, because as a member of the committee.... You're suggesting you are no longer using their findings as your guide tools -- certainly the initial program, the Freedom to Move program. We identified that, in fact, there was much overlap in terms of planning, maintenance and long-term roadbuilding with respect to all three ministries. We had asked the province two years ago to consider a one-management structure for all roads, and the initiative was taken on by the Ministry of Highways to look into the feasibility of whether this could happen. If you're aware of this initiative, is it still moving forward? Is there still consideration being given to one ministry handling all roads -- Forests, Mines and Energy as well as Highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The process is underway, in that the policy has been drafted. But we have been holding back on implementing anything, partly waiting for the Commission on Resources and Environment to get underway and to define and make choices and recommendations about the kind of land use that we're going to do. But the idea of having one ministry responsible for all roads is still alive.

L. Fox: The reason I asked the question is that, under the policies today of the Ministry of Lands, if you have a lease on a settlement area and you wish to acquire it, you cannot acquire it under the present policy unless Highways guarantees you access. Therefore there are many people out there -- Mr. Erickson is 

[ Page 984 ]

one -- who are not able to buy their land because they no longer have so-called highway access. They have road access, but they do not have highway access.

I recognize that you're going to be looking at the resource policy, but I would ask that you give consideration to moving forward with the network that we have, because it is really unfortunate that these people are penalized by this particular policy. I have requested the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to review their policy as to whether or not a forest road means access and so on. But in the interim, this individual cannot buy his land.

The other thing is that many individuals live on forest roads, and the only time they have access is if the Ministry of Forests authorizes its maintenance. If there's no logging on that particular road in that particular year, that road is not maintained, and in the winter months it is not snowplowed. We have a lot of people out there who are not guaranteed access to their land. So I would respectfully request that the minister review this policy and make himself aware of it, perhaps with the idea of bringing it forward as quickly as possible.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Part of the problem in the past has been that the different ministries had different standards for their roads -- for good reason. Part of the problem is the cost -- a financial consideration. If there's logging going on back there, the logging company can be paying for the maintenance of the road.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Indirectly, that's correct, but to a certain set of standards. When that economic use of the road is finished, there may be a few people at the end. We're looking at a policy that will accept, in some instances, a lower standard for that road, bringing it under the control of a single ministry. But by leaving it at a forestry standard, it saves us the considerable capital cost of upgrading it to our standards.

There is still the consideration of maintaining those roads year-round, at considerable cost and for the benefit of perhaps just a few people. From their point of view it's certainly desirable and perhaps essential, but from the other point of view it could be a major cost driver.

L. Fox: Just by way of explanation, it's not so much once a forestry road is vacated. Particular woods are cut in one area; next year they're cut in another area. It moves back and forth. The confusion is where one winter they have access and the next winter they don't. From their perspective, if they had no access, they would recognize that and deal with it. What becomes difficult is that they never know when they're going to have access, because it can change virtually within a given week.

I want to approach a bit of a philosophical problem that I have. Our leader touched on it earlier, but I want to broaden it a bit. As a businessman, when I look at the overall budget -- and I'll home in on yours -- I'm extremely concerned when I see the areas being cut. I recognize that we have limited funds. I'm not arguing that the government didn't have to have a restrained budget. Probably because I'm a northerner I'm concerned when I see the areas that we're cutting. Highways, 15 percent. That's only one of those areas. I'm not going to go on; you know the other areas as well as I do. I am really concerned, because if we're ever going to have the dollars to build schools and hospitals and to meet our social needs -- education, health and so forth -- we're going to have to have a good, solid economy and a good climate to do business in. The cuts to highways are substantially affecting our area. Highways are not a pleasure or a luxury; they're very much a necessity.

Let me just deal with Highway 16 between Prince George and Vanderhoof. I could probably go right out to Prince Rupert and have the same kinds of concerns. For 60 miles in each direction -- or, if you want, 100 kilometres; I was up there when it was posted in miles, so I have a tough time not relating to that -- there are only two passing lanes. As the mayor of Vanderhoof for eight years, and previously as a school board chairman with a perspective on busing, I've argued that Highway 16 needs improvement, but we haven't seen it. That road accommodates 250 trucks a day, hauling logs from Fort St. James to Prince George. Some of them haul two loads a day. They haul all the chips that go from Burns Lake right through to Prince George. It has all your truck traffic heading to Alaska. It has horrendous truck traffic on it, and yet we only have two passing lanes. Given the fact that you have cut your budget, have you got anything in your budget for improvements to this situation on that strip of the road?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate the member's comments regarding the importance of roads -- broadly speaking in the hinterland, which is, of course, where I am from as well. We had some very tough calls to make, and, of course, there are some things that you can defer with less pain than others. We felt that we could defer an interchange or a bridge for a year at acceptable social costs, but we felt we could not defer on schools, on getting kids out of portables, on earthquake-proofing schools and on some of our basic hospital demands. Those we could not defer for a year. By statute children have the right to a place in our education system.

We had these tough choices to make, and I know from my engineering background that the decision that I made impacts economically not just on the people who are not working, who might otherwise be, but also on the general economic activity that roads facilitate. I am well aware of that. I am well aware that the transportation mess in the lower mainland contributes not just to economic woes but it also contributes to environmental woes and, yes, even social, where people are held up unnecessarily for hours at a time. I am well aware of all of that.

With respect to the specific road that you are speaking of, Highway 16, the Yellowhead, I do point out that it's a very long road. Yes, there may only be a 

[ Page 985 ]

couple of passing lanes, but the typical traffic is only in the 3,500 to 4,000 vehicles a day. By the standards that we have elsewhere in the province, it is such a light load that it is very difficult to justify major expenditures to work toward a multi-lane road. Within reason, as we can, I fully agree with the idea of putting in additional passing lanes where possible and trying to build it up that way into a safer road. In terms of the overall priorities of the city, when we are dealing in some congested areas with 80,000 cars a day, it is difficult to justify a lot of expenditure where we have 4,000 a day.

L. Fox: I would like to point out to the minister that as the north goes, so goes the south. Look at the amount of dollars -- and I invite you sometime to look at the numbers -- that the North Central Municipal Association has put forward with respect to the amount of dollars that flow out of the north and come into the lower mainland. I also invite you to come up to that section of Highway 16 that I'm referring to and travel on it on a Friday night and on a Sunday night and virtually all weekend. I'm not sure where you got the 3,500 vehicles a day -- and those may be correct; I do not have those numbers before me -- but I can tell you that the type of traffic, if those numbers are correct, is substantially different than having just cars. Long lines of logging trucks create an extreme hazard, because people get tired of following behind these logging trucks and start to take chances in order to get by them. That's what creates accidents.

If you looked at the revenue that comes from fuel taxes on that strip of road, you would give it a lot more priority than you're presently giving it. However, I'll leave it at that. I'm going to do some research with respect to those numbers and give them to you at a later date in written form, because that was part and parcel of the development of them. The minister and the government would find them extremely interesting.

The other day, when we talked about municipal participation and particularly boundary extensions, you made comment that you had $6,000 in your budget.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Six million.

L. Fox: Six million? Oh yes, that's right. I'm not used to dealing in those big numbers. How much of that is due to commitments entered into in prior years that you're fulfilling in your five-year agreement, and how much of it is money available for boundary extension this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In general, the amount budgeted has exceeded the requests for restructuring. So there's no backlog to catch up on. We're anticipating for the present year, even though we've reduced the amount from seven-odd million to six, that we will still have sufficient within the budget to satisfy all the requests that would flow through municipal affairs to us for restructuring grants.

L. Fox: I understand; I went through the program. I understand that when you enter into these agreements, it's a five-year phase-out agreement. Obviously some of the $6 million has to meet agreements signed prior to this year. How much of it is unallocated, and how much is committed to agreements signed prior to this year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take this specific question on notice and give you the hard numbers as soon as they're available.

L. Fox: Thank you.

Previously, with respect to that program, the Ministry of Highways played a large role in negotiating that settlement with the municipalities in terms of identifying what the maintenance costs would be in that phase-in period and entering into that agreement. Can you tell me if there's been any extra emphasis given in upgrading those particular roads in terms of the environmental requirements needed in some of these areas -- like dust control and so on -- with respect to those roads over what was done prior to your administration?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As part of the incorporation agreement, not only might there be some improvements to the road -- drainage, the road surface or what have you -- prior to restructuring, but following restructuring they could also apply for cost-sharing grants to upgrade the roads, where I believe we pay 75 percent of the upgrading cost.

L. Fox: I find that interesting. Is that more than alternative roads? Is that the total road grid going into the new boundaries that you're talking about?

The Chair: There was an agreement to permit the Premier to make an introduction, hon. minister. I believe everyone is aware of that, so I'll recognize the Premier for just a moment. He has a statement to make.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a statement I want to make; it's an introduction that I am delighted to ask leave of the Legislature to make.

The Chair: I believe leave was agreed upon. Nonetheless, if it's agreed with everyone, proceed.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the distinct honour of welcoming to British Columbia two Canadian space pioneers who were our astronauts in the recently completed Discovery flight of January 22-30, 1992. I would like the House to give a very warm welcome to Dr. Roberta Bondar and Major Ken Money. They are the two astronauts who were on the space shuttle Discovery mission, more formally known as mission IML-1.

I think we were all there with the two of you when you were in space, seeing this beautiful planet of ours. I was talking to Roberta and Ken about what Canada looked like from the air -- a magnificent, huge, wonderful country. They felt very proud to be able to count their blessings at being Canadians, and I think that's a good message to all Canadians: instead of thinking of what's wrong with Canada, look at what's right with Canada. Certainly here are two people who are what's 

[ Page 986 ]

right about Canada, and we would like to give you a very warm welcome to British Columbia.

The Chair: We now proceed with the Minister of Transportation on vote 60.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The municipalities have to apply and the ministry has to agree beforehand on which roads will be accepted as part of the grid system. Costs have to be worked out on all of that. Everybody has to sign off on it before the residents would be put to a plebiscite or what have you. The total is known beforehand and can be budgeted for. I hope that answers your question.

L. Fox: I was going to ask if this could be retroactive. When my municipality expanded its boundaries, it didn't get that opportunity. Is this a new policy? How old is this?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The program has been around for some time, but the application for capital participation has been here for about three years.

Going back to a previous discussion about the Yellowhead Highway and the fact that it would be nice if there were more than two passing lanes in either direction, I just asked my officials to give me a very rough figure. First of all, we have to stress that the way to go is to add passing lanes. If you were to try to upgrade the 850-some kilometres between Prince George and Prince Rupert to four-lane all the way, an exceedingly rough cost for doing that would be on the order of $4 billion.

Both Highway 1 up the Fraser Canyon -- which has higher traffic and a good mix of trucks too -- and Highway 3 across the southern side of the border are fundamentally two-lane roads. A number of passing lanes have been added to the Fraser Canyon portion. They each have volumes of around 5,000 a day. You can see the magnitude of the problem facing any government trying to address these issues.

The direction we should be going on the Yellowhead is to put in more safe passing lanes to make sure that people aren't held up behind those trains of trucks or that trucks are not held up behind trains of trailers. People can get on their way more safely.

[3:30]

L. Fox: The problem I'm having with those general numbers is that they don't reflect the peaks. When you talk about X number of vehicles a day, usually they take a traffic count, extrapolate it over so many days and that's your average. I would invite the minister to come and drive that road at any time between now and the end of September. Even as far as Highway 27 up to Fort St. James, that's when all the boats and RVs are coming out for the weekend. Trucks are still hauling. You've got the shoppers who are travelling back and forth between smaller and larger communities. I invite you to come and have a look, really see the pressure that is put on that highway and then argue the same thing: that we should extrapolate this same kind of rationale throughout the whole highway. However, I'll leave that.

There is an agreement with the feds with respect to sharing costs on Highway 16, as it is the Trans-Canada. How are negotiations doing with respect to increasing federal participation so you might achieve some of these improvements, which you quickly flagged with the scary figure of $4 billion? Perhaps you could give us a progress report on how you're doing with respect to it.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was an agreement on the Yellowhead with the federal government to the tune of $16 million, but it has expired. We have received no money from the feds on the Trans-Canada system for decades.

I don't at all want to leave you with the impression that I am dismissive of the concern that you have. It's real; I understand. The peak-traffic problems are real. I see it driving east from Kamloops along what is fundamentally a two-lane Trans-Canada Highway all the way over to the Alberta border. I see it up the Golden hill, up the Kicking Horse. I see it running north of Kamloops. I see it coming in from the northeastern suburbs of Vancouver -- these horrible traffic jams. There are the jams on the Island. Without a word of a lie, we could expend $5 billion in the next few years on highway and transportation problems and not waste one cent.

The problem comes in when even if you look at the spending graphs over the last eight years, the average for capital might be in the order of $300 million. When you're trying to attack a $5 billion budget -- or some might even say a $10 billion budget -- $300 million at a time, you're losing ground almost every year even at that rate.

So I have proposed a number of ways of approaching this. I've first proposed that we change the process of funding highways and go to capitalization, where we could say we're going to complete, for example, the Island Highway. As construction proceeds and as demand occurs, we could borrow up to $1 billion and pay it off through a sinking fund over the next 30 years -- but get on with the road.

I've also proposed that the feds ought to be paying a little more on the parts of our highways that are part of the national highway system. There is some movement in the direction of a national highway policy. The first stirrings have occurred over the past few months -- such that we call upon the feds to spend a decent amount of money on the Yellowhead and the Trans-Canada -- both on the mainland and the Island. Lend us a hand. Other parts of the country are lent a hand from time to time. We need it now.

Lastly, I've thrown out the notion that at least in the greater Vancouver area, where there is, all by itself, $4 billion or $5 billion worth of pent-up demand, we could proceed with borrowed money to construct some needed bridges, roadways or tunnels, and use a user-pay philosophy. We could introduce modest tolls in order to create the sinking fund and get on with it. Other than those alternatives, we could run further into debt on the deficit side or not build the roads. I prefer a 

[ Page 987 ]

combination of capitalization and the possibility of some selective tolls.

L. Fox: I know that you stated with respect to tolls and with respect to that whole philosophical approach you're using that you had run something up the pole in order to see what kind of response it got during question period. Have you had the opportunity to deal with this within cabinet, or are you still running it up the pole to see what my response might be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, it is not government policy. It has not been discussed in cabinet. Had it been discussed in cabinet I probably wouldn't have told you, because I believe in my oath of cabinet confidentiality.

L. Fox: That's the kind of answer I thought I would get.

I want to go back to transportation with respect to the other $6 million or $6.5 million in transportation regarding municipal programs. How much of that is in the airport assistance program?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's been a major cut there. It had been running in the order of $4 million a year; the budget for this current year is $400,000.

L. Fox: Obviously you're not doing much other than perhaps a little planning with respect to local or municipal airports. Has that $400,000 been allocated? Is it there to be available for application?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The lion's portion of it has been committed. There is a relatively small amount left, but of course we're early in the fiscal year as well.

L. Fox: Given the fact that there has been a downturn in terms of dollars put into the program, has the program itself had any changes with respect to what it takes to qualify?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there are no fundamental changes to the program. It is just strictly a case that, under the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, was one of the areas that had to give for at least this fiscal year.

L. Fox: You may have stated this the other day and I apologize if I missed it, but given the fact that we've only dealt with a little over $6 million in that area, could you expand on what the other $6 million goes for? Is that for alternate roads through municipalities?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Is the $6 million that you're referring to now with respect to the municipal incorporation grants? I don't quite understand the follow-on from the ATAP program, or the airport program. There's no connection between those two, and further, there's no connection between that and the secondary highways programs or the bridge assistance programs. It's strictly the incorporation programs.

L. Fox: Perhaps I can rephrase my question. You just show $12.829 million in transportation policy planning and municipal programs under STOB 82, and of that I am under the understanding that your air transportation assistance program is in there, as well as your restructuring program with municipalities. That leaves, in my view, something around $6 million that has been.... I guess I was wondering what that allocation was for.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The program is made up of $0.4 million for air transport assistance; $1.5 million for bridge assistance, where we may agree that we would like to encourage them to upgrade a bridge because it indirectly serves our purposes; secondary highways for capital projects, $4 million; secondary highways for maintenance, $0.6 million; and then the municipal incorporation grants of $6 million. That would total up to the amount you referred to.

L. Fox: With respect to the capital portion of the secondary roads, it's $4 million dollars, if I heard you correctly. Is that presently available for municipalities to apply for, or has it been previously allocated? Is it committed dollars?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They have been applied for in the process of evaluations, and I think recommendations are going back to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. My staff have prepared, from the applications, a list of what they have selected and that will be on its way to me shortly for approval.

L. Fox: Could I ask what the total requests were in that category?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total of the applications was $4.8 million, and the total again for the budget is $4 million, so the total for the recommended list is going to be about $4 million.

L. Fox: Does the maintenance area of this same section include sharing with respect to traffic lights, railroad crossing lights, and those kinds of traffic control mechanisms used jointly by highways and the municipalities?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, that $0.6 million would be related strictly to the day-to-day maintenance of the travelling surface of the road.

L. Fox: There's only one other area I had, and I guess it's more a philosophical question than crunching numbers. It becomes increasingly concerning to myself, as well as to a number of individuals whom I have talked to, particularly in northern B.C., with respect to the makeup of our road base. It seems that we spend a lot of money in resurfacing these roads only to see the heavier trucks within a very short time dish them. Are we exploring the idea of having different road surfaces that would handle these weighted trucks, or are we looking at changing our regulations with respect to the 

[ Page 988 ]

load levels or the number of axles or whatever in order to reduce this kind of wear?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the matter of the rutting -- or, as you call it, the dishing -- of the road, it is, of course, an ongoing concern. We try to address that on a maintenance basis through the rejuvenation of the travelling surface. In order to try to prevent the problem from developing in the first place, we are looking both at the utilization of stronger asphalt and at enhancing the strength of the subgrade.

L. Fox: I know that there have been presentations made to Motor Vehicles, particularly to the licensing, with respect to adding extra drive axles to the trucks. In essence, instead of a tandem truck you would have three drive axles. It has been rejected by the Ministry of Highways engineers because of a safety factor. Yet it is being used in the Northwest Territories and some parts of the States. Can you tell me if you are presently reviewing that particular area to see whether or not that would help reduce this rutting?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You could raise that question in the estimates of the Attorney General. That is his responsibility.

D. Jarvis: I have a couple of short questions pertaining to my riding over in North Vancouver-Seymour, the Lonsdale area. You have in your wonderful brochure here -- which, I may add, is a superfluous expense, but nevertheless it is very nice to have -- that we have $80,000 since March 31 to be spent on the Lonsdale interchange. Can you tell me what that is for? I am under the impression, having driven over it in the last couple of days and the last couple of months, that it was completed well before.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're correct in your observation that the construction is complete. It is a reflection of some payments due to contractors that had not been completed. The $80,000 is strictly the tail end of payments on previous contracts.

D. Jarvis: I have another short question, and I believe another member is going into it in more detail later on. It is the infamous Westview interchange. I would like to know where your plans are for that.

That leads into my third question. It regards a sound barrier and a Mr. James in the 200 block West 25th, which is ostensibly the Upper Levels Highway. The government has examined it and found out that there is a high decibel of noise, and they say that there should be a sound barrier up there. This is on the north side of the highway. The excuse is that they will not do it because they're waiting for the Westview interchange to be put in. Are those people in that area going to have to wait months? Years? What's the situation with that? Why not put in that sound barrier in that area -- in the 100-200 block of the Upper Levels Highway -- now?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The reason for constructing the sound-attenuation walls at the same time as the overall project, of course, is just a matter of the economies of scale within a contract. It can be done less expensively. The interchange would likely have been underway this year, save for the fiscal situation we find ourselves in. It will stay relatively high on the list of priorities. Should sufficient funds be available next year, it will proceed. They will have to wait until that time for the sound barriers to be constructed.

L. Fox: I got so excited there by all your answers, I forgot the most important question of all. It relates to the Freedom to Move document. Countless hours of volunteer work were put in. People from all walks of life participated in public hearings throughout the province -- people from the rural community, people from urban areas. A dedicated crew of volunteers travelled around, particularly in our region, and spent a week on the road developing the priorities based on the wishes of the people. I guess the reason for the question is that I was a bit concerned about a statement you made on Thursday in the estimates. Do I understand you correctly in that you have thrown all this out, and that it's no longer going to be useful for your government and your ministry to understand the wishes of the people of British Columbia, and specifically Prince George-Omineca?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: What I had indicated was that the specific animal called the "Freedom to Move account" is no longer operative. All of the information that was picked up in the public meetings and in the planning is still part of the planning, still part of the priorities. I'm sure that in the process of selecting the projects that we carried out, or that we are proposing to carry out for this year, both in terms of capital and in terms of rehab, ministry staff made use of that information. I know they made use of something, because not a single recommendation came from me, politically, as to what projects ought to be done this year. They followed the normal priorities that they had all over the province, and put forward those projects as this year's program. I'm sure that they made use of the information picked up in the public meetings that you refer to and the public meetings and the planning processes that have occurred all over the province, and will continue to do that kind of thing.

J. Weisgerber: I'm encouraged to hear that the minister intends to continue the process, or at least one similar to it.

The regional transportation planning process, through the regional advisory groups, asked each of the eight regions in the province to form a committee, to get membership from around the region and to agree on priorities. When we started this project two or three years ago, I was skeptical about taking citizens from an area as large as the Peace River region, for example, and getting them to agree on a series of priorities for capital construction and rehabilitation.

All of us were pleasantly surprised at how realistic the expectations of most British Columbians are, in relation to the transportation system in this province. Clearly, most of them wanted to see improvements on 

[ Page 989 ]

the existing structure. There isn't, in my mind, a huge demand for new roads. There is certainly the desire, particularly in the north and central parts of this province, to see significant improvements to the transportation system.

I would genuinely encourage you to look at that system as it exists and to support its continued activity. There are, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said, individuals who volunteered countless hours of time to hold public meetings and talk to their constituents and people from local government, regional government, etc. I think it has been a very useful exercise. If the minister wishes to comment, that would be great.

I would like to ask a reasonably short series of questions with regard to projects in my own constituency that basically flow from the prioritization of the regional transportation committee.

In region 8, the northeast region, the clearest priority for every community was the completion of renovations or new construction and rebuilding of the Hart Highway, particularly in the Pine Pass area -- the bottleneck on the one road leading into northeast British Columbia. There is about a 25-kilometre stretch that is currently under construction. I'm hoping to get confirmation from the minister that the project will be completed as had been scheduled, I believe -- over the next 18 months or so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before I comment directly, I made this invitation available to the members of the third party before the leader of the third party came back in: if you have any questions relating to B.C. Rail, I'm going to have some officials here tomorrow afternoon, if that would be convenient. If, in concert, it's decided to do it tomorrow morning, that would be even better. It would facilitate some meetings that my officials have to go to. If the critic would agree to that, we will schedule it for the morning.

With regard to the public process, I'm in full agreement with the member opposite that there's a wealth of wisdom in the public, if you make a legitimate effort to consult them, as I have in a previous life as a consultant, at public meetings on behalf of clients. The public is full of very practical ideas. They're economical; they're patient. If you go the whole route, certainly it takes some time and there are some costs associated with it, but it's the only way to do it. I have no problem at all relying on the wisdom of the public, and I will continue to do so.

With regard to the specific project that you raised -- the Hart Highway -- the member opposite may know that we have budgeted for the current fiscal year some $4.9 million to proceed on elements of that. That is one of the larger new projects that we're undertaking in the coming year. Yours is a reasonably large district, but you can appreciate that inasmuch as we're only spending some $180 million over 75 ridings, the average is closer to $3 million. We're so magnanimous that we're giving you a $4.9 million project right there in your own back yard.

[4:00]

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I understand that it will work fine for both of the opposition parties if tomorrow morning you have some people over from B.C. Rail. We certainly would be happy to accommodate that.

On the $4.9 million I'm not certain. My memory doesn't serve me well enough to know whether or not at that level of expenditure.... The goal initially was to see the road completed and paved in 1992. Clearly we're not going to meet that objective. There is highway work to be done -- construction grade work, preparation and paving. I'm wondering if you could be more specific as to when, in your budgeting or projections, that would be completed.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The worst segment, some 6.5 kilometres from Link Creek to West Pine Creek, is under construction and scheduled for completion this calendar year.

J. Weisgerber: I'd just as soon try to find out, if I could, when you expect that 25-kilometre section.... I'm not even certain of the length, but there's a project that includes three bridges and a considerable amount of grade work. What I'm trying to find out is when that new road, which is really the last of the old Hart Highway, will be reconstructed. Will that be completed within this calendar year, or will there be work left to do after this calendar year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, this will not complete the whole project. Depending on fiscal considerations, it could still take several calendar years to finish the whole thing.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously there is a great desire in the Peace region to see this completed. I expect the minister understands that there is one road that connects the Peace River region of British Columbia with the rest of the province, and that's the Hart Highway through the Pine Pass. There simply are no practical alternatives to travelling over it, so we'd like to see it concluded as quickly as possible. Having said that, I will try to move on to something else.

In conclusion, could the minister give us a sense of the total cost required to complete the project? We know that you are going to spend just under $5 million this year. Is it going to cost another $20 million or $25 million to complete it? If that's the case, are we looking at four or five years at the current spending levels?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take the question under advisement and give you an accurate answer.

J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. I don't want to spend a lot of time on that. Perhaps I can just pose a series of questions that the minister may want to get back to me on. I appreciate that he had written that I might call and get some information. I attempted to do that a couple of times. Perhaps I wasn't as persistent as I should have been in getting through.

We are concerned in the region with the paving of about 20 kilometres left on the Heritage Highway, the 

[ Page 990 ]

connection between Dawson Creek and Tumbler Ridge. The road grade is completed. It has sat for about a year, and it is now ready for paving. I'd be interested in knowing when we might expect to see that paved.

We're also interested in the repaving of the Rolla road, north from Dawson Creek to the Clayhurst bridge and north of there. We're particularly concerned about the completion of the access road to Monkman Park, which was a unique project undertaken a couple of years ago, involving the Ministry of Forests, the forest tenure holders in the area, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the Ministry of Parks. The road is very nearly completed, but it does require some additional work, which everyone was hoping would be completed this year.

If the minister has any information he could give us on any of those roads, I would be delighted. If he would give me an undertaking to get back on them, that would satisfy me as well.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All of the projects you mentioned are ready to go, in terms of design. When we proceed on construction will be totally dependent on the fiscal condition. I would hope that we will be able to proceed on some of them in each of the several coming fiscal years. If projected growth rates are borne out and if all the problems that we're aware of are resolved, it will be sooner; if not, obviously later.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to pursue one last series of questions, and then I'll allow it to move on.

In the northeast part of British Columbia you have basically an extension of the Prairies. As a result, you have a grid-road system similar to what you'd find in Alberta or Saskatchewan. I take it from the minister's nod that he's familiar with that. That's a situation I not only will talk to you about here today but have talked about to other Ministers of Transportation. The points raised in Peat Marwick on maintaining the system are particularly applicable to the grid-road system in the northeast. It's basically a gravel road with various levels of road construction. Some of them are pretty basic; some of them are fairly high-grade roads. But there needs to be an ongoing commitment from the ministry and the government to maintaining and improving that rural grid-road system. The graveling of the roads themselves is probably the major component. The maintenance contractor probably has a responsibility to maintain culverts and those kinds of things. The roads simply deteriorate over time. The gravel is pounded off or pounded into the roads.

In my opinion we simply aren't putting enough money into the grid road system, and we haven't for some time. I'm hoping that the minister can give us an indication, which is motivated to some degree by the Peat Marwick report, that regarding this issue of maintaining and rehabilitating the grid-road system across the province, wherever it exists -- but I'm most familiar with it in the northeast -- there will be, within the ministry, some new emphasis or perhaps a substantial increased allocation out of the rehabilitation budget directed toward those kinds of roads.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the North Peace and South Peace districts about $1.5 million is being spent in the rehabilitation of gravel roads, which is to say mainly the regrading and application of fresh amounts of gravel.

J. Weisgerber: I want to sincerely thank the minister and commend the government for that commitment. Having said that, as the MLA over the last few years, it was my analysis -- and more important than my analysis -- and my discussion with the local staff that they would like to see about $1 million per constituency, north and south, per year on an ongoing basis invested back into the grid-road system. I'm not trying to be critical. I think that $1.5 million or $750,000 per constituency in that regard is an excellent start forward, and I do commend you. I would encourage you to continue funnelling money into that grid-road system, because it's important. As I drive around my constituency I'm quite honestly amazed that I don't hear more from my constituents about specific examples of lack of gravel, particularly on the road.

I'm going to conclude by thanking the minister, because I think that's a genuinely worthwhile commitment to the Peace region regarding the grid-road system.

J. Dalton: Mr. Minister, I have in front of me an MLA briefing package on 1992-93 capital and rehabilitation projects. I know that some MLAs in the Liberal caucus have received this, and I've talked to some other MLAs who have not. I have not, as yet, received a personalized copy for my riding of West Vancouver-Capilano. Do I take that to speak volumes, that there's nothing happening in the way of projects within my riding?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that a letter went out to all MLAs of all parties. The packages have been available in my office, and quite a number have dropped by or sent somebody to pick them up. I have in front of me copies of the ones that are in your own personalized package -- just waiting for you. There's not a great deal. But on bridge projects, there is about $400,000 for the Lions Gate Bridge and about $100,000 for a couple of interchanges. But the larger amount for Lonsdale, the $80,000 in the budget, is actually to pay for work already completed. So it's a little dry in your neck of the woods this time around.

J. Dalton: I rise with a smile. I shouldn't be laughing, because the particular point I want to raise in a moment is certainly not a laughing matter to many of my constituents.

I thank the minister for his response. I actually have not seen the letter inviting us to come by and pick up the package, although I will certainly see that that is done. Obviously, however, the information contained therein is brief, at best, as the minister has admitted.

Earlier today when I was in my office -- and this is why I actually came back into the committee -- I overheard one of my favourite topics, Westview, being discussed by the member for North Vancouver-Sey-

[ Page 991 ]

mour. I raise that point, Mr. Minister, and I don't want to go over old ground, because I know your response. You said that Westview will not be dealt with this year, and that's not unexpected, I must say. I was not happy, however, to hear your response that perhaps next year.... Obviously that was a very guarded comment.

[4:15]

I raise Westview in particular because the Upper Levels Highway forms the southern boundary of my riding, and Westview is right at the very integral part of my riding. The southern riding next to mine is North Vancouver-Lonsdale. The Upper Levels Highway carries on through my riding into West Vancouver and beyond. Westview has been a sore point on the North Shore for many years. I've been a lifelong resident of the North Shore, and I think back to probably 25 years ago, when some of the corner lots of Westview were bought up in order to hopefully put in an overpass or an interchange. Today is 1992, and we still haven't got to the point of a real prospect of Westview being brought on-line.

The point I want to make to you, Mr. Minister, is that it is not only an inconvenience to many of the people who use that highway -- both North Shore residents and others -- but there's a real safety problem with the absence of a Westview interchange or even the prospect of one being constructed.

As the minister knows, Lonsdale has now been completed, and we could even bring in some discussion about the Cassiar connector, which produces an excellent free flow of traffic until you get to the Westview intersection of the Upper Levels Highway. In particular, the safety problem that I see -- I'm not aware of any specific accidents, but I can almost guarantee there are going to be some -- is that as you head west through the Lonsdale interchange and you go downhill toward Westview, suddenly and unexpectedly, I'm sure, people find a traffic light.

The traffic light at Westview is, to my knowledge -- other than the one at Cache Creek, which I've commented on earlier in this House -- the only one left on the Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia. It is going to be a safety problem, so I would like to hear from the minister, if possible, some specific assurance that the Westview project will not be given short shrift or shunted aside for next year, and that this traffic bottleneck and safety hazard will be attended to.

I might also point out that there's a major shopping centre at one of the corners of the Westview intersection, and I know that it is very difficult to access. There have been accidents at the shopping centre entrances. The problem is that the traffic light causes traffic to back up. There are vision hazards and many difficulties.

Perhaps the minister would care to respond, and I can get back to my constituents with a ray of hope and some light at the end of the tunnel.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it's self-evident that I agree with the member opposite that we need an interchange at Westview; I think that goes without saying.

It doesn't go without comment, however, that it's the last traffic light on the Trans-Canada. I can think of about four or five of them in Kamloops. But at least from Horseshoe Bay, particularly if they go the Coquihalla route and we eliminate the Westview one, the next one will be in Kamloops. That's correct. It's about a $45 million project to undertake, and as much as we would have liked to have been able to proceed even with some elements of it this year, it is not possible.

I'm guarded about next year, simply because I really have no idea as to exactly what the fiscal fortunes of B.C. are going to be. I guess I know the projections as well as anyone. If the projections hold out, I would anticipate that we'll have a slightly fatter construction budget, and we can start to undertake either all of the projects or at least part of the projects. I would like to be able to give the member opposite assurances that we would proceed in the next fiscal year, but I am unable to give that assurance and would not want to mislead you on it.

If you would believe it, and it might be difficult, there are quite a few intersections in the province that would stand higher in terms of accident records. So we have not only that particular problem to solve but many others as well.

D. Symons: I'd like to continue just a little bit on that last thought. I have some concerns with what you say of the projections for the next fiscal year, that there might be a slight increase. I'm not so sure that that will even take care of inflation which might occur over that period of time, nor really take care of the fact that it's not just this year that the Highways ministry has been in a sense shortchanged. It's been going on for quite a few years, and the actual maintenance and rehabilitation programs are under par for what they should be for just maintaining their own. A slight increase will not keep up with just the status quo. We're going to need something more than that.

If we can, I want to get back to the estimates in the book. On Friday afternoon I was just about to start with the capital construction section of that under vote 61. I notice under here that there are some significant expenditures. One of them that drew my attention was the $220,000 under the information and advertising publications section. Are these expenditures necessary for that advertising, and could there be less advertising or more effective use of tax dollars in that way? What sort of advertising publications does this figure cover?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is some $250,000, which is about one-third the magnitude that it was the previous year. It represents a sort of a rock-bottom figure for just the routine advertisements that the ministry must put out: road closures, project tenders, weight-limit restrictions -- putting them on and taking them off. A wide variety of notices like that must be published in newspapers across the province. It's been reduced to about the very least it could be reduced to.

D. Symons: I hope the minister will accept this next question in the vein that it was asked by one of the honourable members who is now on the opposite side, but was on this side a couple of years ago. His question 

[ Page 992 ]

at that time was: is the cost of changing the name of the past minister to the current Minister of Highways on the highway signs contained in this advertising, and how much might it cost to reflect the change in government, the change in minister, by changing signs?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to say to the member opposite that one of the first decisions which I took upon assuming the office was that my name would not go up on those signs. We saved a lot.

An Hon. Member: You have a nice name, though.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's a mellifluous name -- melodic and other things.

We saved probably tens of thousands of dollars by not replacing signs all over the province. We used the simple expedient of getting some appropriately coloured tape and covering up the name of the previous Highways minister -- no offence meant. At the present time, the policy is that we will not put on these signs elements that could be changeable. I anticipate that you will not be seeing my name on the signs. It is not because I don't need the advertising; it's because it would not be fiscally prudent to do so.

D. Symons: I commend the minister. I think that's great, because when we become government, that's something I would make sure we do. I certainly hope that the other ministers will catch on, and that hospital signs and all the other ministry signs that may occur where a sign is needed won't mention the minister. I think you might set a very good trend so that the next government will have to follow suit on that. I would certainly commend you for doing that; I think it's very responsible.

R. Blencoe: Was that the main difference between you and the Liberals?

D. Symons: Well, I think what may be on the signs, if something must be there, are the various ways in which the taxpayer pays for it, whether it be provincial, federal or municipal. But other than that, the dollars are paid by whatever pocket is being picked from the taxpayer. That's the way it should go on the signs -- and the only way. We don't have to name the ministers, because it's the people who pay for it. I congratulate you for making that move.

Under the heading of "minor highway capital construction," could the minister outline for us the projects covered under this subheading and maybe just give us a flavour for the types that are considered minor projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: By definition -- and it's really just a matter of convenience -- minor projects are those that are less than $50 million. Major projects typically are projects that run on for several years, such as the Island Highway; they would be above $50 million.

If you just want half a dozen examples, I could read a list: the Vedder interchange on Highway 1 out of Chilliwack; the Stave River bridge at Mission-Kent; some minor design work on the Trans-Canada Highway east of Kamloops, $60,000; construction on Highway 3 at Sparwood in the East Kootenays. Those are the sorts of things. The amounts range from very low design costs -- I see figures here as little as $60,000; some of it is property acquisition and individual amounts as little as $10,000 -- on to construction costs in the $4 million to $5 million range.

D. Symons: I assume these would include the Westview interchange, the passing lanes referred to earlier and this type of thing that would most likely come under minor highways construction.

If we can look at some of the individual major construction jobs, there are quite a few questions going. I notice that there are nine of them listed under the votes that would be, by your definition, something over $50 million. These nine have actually been ongoing. If I look back even two years in estimates, I find the same nine down there. There don't seem to have been any added to it, nor none taken away. So I would like to follow through with each of those nine to see what stage they are at in the process, and when we could expect the completion of them and the possible adding of new major capital construction in the province.

The first one named here is the Fraser River crossing and connectors. I assume this would include the new Fraser Bridge and then the east-west connector in Richmond. How far along is that project at the present time? What percentage of it has been passed, and how close are we to completion of that project?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount expended to date is in excess of $500 million, and yes, that was the new Annacis crossing. Had we had full and bottomless-pit funding, we might have expended up to $32 million this year on it. The actual amount to be expended for the current fiscal year is in the order of $2 million. We have work to do on the Hamilton and Westminster interchanges. There's some utility relocation work to be done and some property to be acquired, but the full scope of work that would be within the Fraser River crossing and the connectors to it has not been defined.

D. Symons: This would be a project that you might define as "with room to grow." As the communities around it grow, I suppose by your last statement that this will grow to match the needs. The total was $500 million. You said that $32 million could be spent this year, but you're down to the $2 million that's budgeted for it. There's obviously a fair percentage of the project as currently seen that has still to be completed, I would assume.

I wonder if we could move on to the next project, which is the Okanagan connector. It's one that I was taking a look at back in March, and we were discussing various aspects of the Okanagan connector. Again with that one, how far along...? Well, it's obviously quite far along. There's only a small amount being expended this year. Will the $520,000 that's budgeted for it complete all the work on the Okanagan connector?

[ Page 993 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The expenditures to date have been some $220 million, with anticipated project costs -- and these are all in 1987 dollars, by the way -- being about $225 million. So it's in the very final stages of tidying up. I see some property settlements and some other very minor costs related to project management and helping out Peachland with the water supply. The budget for the current year is about half a million dollars, with perhaps another $2 million to follow at some time.

With respect to your question on the Fraser crossing, I might mention that one of the major unknowns right at this time is the Queensborough Bridge and what we might do with that. It might be cheaper to tear it down and build a new one than to upgrade it to current earthquake standards. That decision is in the process of being studied.

D. Symons: Knowing the Queensborough Bridge quite well, I can see the problems with the off ramps and on ramps on the north side of that bridge. There could be some real problems just trying to upgrade the current structure.

On with the Okanagan connector. It now ends up in the Peachland area. Are there plans that in the future the highway will be continued up the west side of Okanagan Lake, rather than funnelling all the traffic...? A good portion of it now goes over the floating bridge.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's an open question on that end. We're contemplating a new bridge crossing over Okanagan Lake, tying in with a partial bypass around Kelowna. There's a possibility of something on the west side. Eventually we will have to deal with the problem. Part of this falls under another category here, the Highway 97 project. But somehow or other we've got to develop a better connection all the way up to the Trans-Canada. The project hasn't even reached the point yet where it has been scoped out. At the present there is no intention of extending another Coquihalla connector someplace else. But we do have some problems on Highway 97 that we have to solve.

D. Symons: You must be able to see my notes here, because my next questions are about crossing Okanagan Lake at Kelowna and the problem of a north-side connector through the city of Kelowna. As the bridge traffic flows through the downtown core of the city, the traffic situation becomes quite difficult. The Coquihalla has been sort of a mixed blessing to that area in that it has managed to bring even more traffic into an area where there were already difficulties.

That brings us again to the problem of Highway 97 from the U.S. border up to the Trans-Canada. You say that the whole picture isn't drawn for that road construction in the Okanagan. I am concerned. Is there no long-term planning? There must be some regional long-term planning. This has been a problem for decades now. Surely there must have been some plan put in place a considerable time back, and you're working toward the development of that plan in order to alleviate and get ahead of the problems that are developing. That area is growing at a fantastic rate now.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I didn't mean to indicate in a previous answer that there is nothing underway or nothing specifically planned on Highway 97. There are a whole variety of upgrading programs for segments of the road between the border and Salmon Arm, and even over toward Kamloops. There is much additional work left to be done.

The budget for the current year on Highway 97 is about $5.5 million to address sections along the road. Some areas where we simply have not had the cash, we've had to, as I've said, button up a few sites and leave them in a uncompleted condition for another year.

I was referring earlier to trying to get additional Coquihalla traffic through or around or across Kelowna somehow and connect it into the road going north. That part of the connection has not yet been resolved. We are expending some $50,000 on a study relating to the second bridge crossing in Kelowna. I've met with the mayors of Sicamous and Salmon Arm; I met in Kelowna with the mayors of Vernon, Kelowna and Penticton; I've met separately with the mayor of Penticton; and I have discussed all of these problems along there on the phone a couple of times with the mayor of Osoyoos. I gave them our assurance that we are well aware of the problems and that we're working on them as quickly as our funds permit.

Some of the remaining sections are very expensive -- very expensive rock work, very expensive property-acquisition problems and some environmentally sensitive areas along there as well. We don't want to destroy the lake shore unnecessarily. We don't want to cause unnecessary up-slope problems. It's very, very expensive and is being done in bits and pieces. It was started by the previous administration over a number of years, and we're carrying it along to completion. The expenditures to date have been some $62 million. I cannot offhand give you an estimate of completion, but I could provide your office with that if you'd like.

D. Symons: I guess I have concern -- and you might not have meant it in quite the way you said it -- when you say "bits and pieces." I am concerned that we don't build our highways that way, and that may be the way it is going to happen with the Island Highway as well: where we do a little piece here and a little piece there and eventually all these pieces get joined together. By the time it is finished the highway needs a total rehabilitation program again. It can be spread over a long period of time if that is the approach we take to highway building, I would think. I know that there is a good amount of Highway 97 that seems to be four-laned now. There are just some sections in there that produce bottlenecks because of the fact that they aren't four-laned. It would be great if that could be carried on to complete the project and make it viable for the communities involved. I know the mayors up there -- I've spoken to a few of them myself -- have great concerns over the delays that are occurring in that area and the traffic that is generated through their towns.

[ Page 994 ]

The next area here is the Cassiar connector, and we have discussed that fairly well in previous questions. I believe you've given the indication that the amount budgeted for this year will pretty well complete that connector. That just confirmed that, I guess.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Relatively speaking, there is minor work to complete on the Cassiar -- some of the noise-attenuation walls and finishing off some of the planting of what look to be large window boxes stacked up. Those will all be planted and irrigated. We've got some additional seeding or sodding to do in some places. There is one off-ramp which will take the traffic coming north on the Cassiar, just after the tunnel, and lead it down around to the docks. If I'm not mistaken, it will be wrapped up in October. The ramp down to the port will be open in June. Final pavement would be on that ramp in June; landscaping and noise barriers completed by October. I think the total amount involved is in the order of $5 million -- closer to $8 million, I am advised -- to wrap up the project this year.

D. Symons: I'm sure that the residents in the area and the people driving that route, and it's a goodly number, will certainly appreciate that it's always nice when a project is drawn to a completion.

Carrying on to the last figure here, because it's in the same neighbourhood as the Cassiar connector.... The last item under the highways capital construction is the Second Narrows Bridge and approaches. I wonder if you could outline what the project is for that, and how far along that project is now. Will those approaches be on the north side, or is it going to be the Vancouver side? North or west, I'm not quite sure of the direction at that point. I guess it would be the south side -- Vancouver side -- or the north side on the North Shore. Is that where the major portion of this work is going to take place?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Cassiar connector has been built to accommodate six lanes. It's presently configured as four with fairly wide shoulders, but it is designed to accommodate six; whereas, of course, the Second Narrows is six. But we have two additional lanes that we would like to get on there to accommodate the traffic that comes in from the side.

On the far side, all the way up the cut onto the Upper Levels, there is a great deal of money to be expended ultimately to raise the standards on that side. So when we talk about the Second Narrows Bridge and the approaches, we're fundamentally talking about the North Shore approaches. To upgrade the bridge, we're contemplating an expansion from six to eight lanes on the bridge, plus all of the improvements that need to be made on the north approaches. We could well be talking a quarter of a billion dollars.

[4:45]

D. Symons: So that was about $8 million for the bridge, and you'll have in excess of $200 million for the.... I misunderstood.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The structural changes that would be required to add two lanes on the bridge would be in excess of $100 million, and although we haven't scoped it -- and I don't mean to call this out as a definitive price -- there could easily be $100 million or more on the far side to bring those approaches and interchanges up to snuff.

D. Symons: Then by the amount that's budgeted for this year, this is just very preliminary work on that. When those are done, I guess this will impact again on my colleague's Westview interchange. We certainly want to make sure the whole thing will go along at that time.

This is at what stage of the work? Has there been work done before? Is this more or less the beginning of this project, or how far along is it? We've got an awfully long way to go, by the figures you've given me.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That whole project is at what you would call the conceptual engineering level, with some very, very preliminary design effort being done to try to scope the project.

D. Symons: I wonder if we can take a look at the Island Highway, which is a sore point in many communities along the Island here. It has been a long time coming, and they see its completion date as a long way off. There isn't a great deal of money budgeted for this, considering the scope of the project. I'm wondering if you would give us an idea of the time-frame of this project, which sections might be priorities and when we can look at a more or less completed project.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're correct in your observation that there has been only a start made on this project, and that the funds being expended this year are very minor. The current cost estimate is $1 billion plus, and the amount expended to date has been about $135 million, so it's not much more than 10 percent complete. We are looking at a budget allocation for the coming year of about $26 million. If you are interested, I can indicate roughly how that $26 million is going to be expended.

D. Symons: The mean amount.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's some on the inland Island Highway project, which would be just north of Parksville. About $1.5 million is going to be expended on the Nanaimo inner route; that will be mainly design and some property acquisition. There will be about $1.5 million on the Goldstream-Nanaimo reach and about $5 million along the Pat Bay Highway, and that's about it for the major project elements. As I say, it will total about $26 million in the current year.

You can see that even if we get to expenditure rates of $100 million a year, we're looking at the rest of the decade. It is my hope that my colleagues and members opposite will join me ultimately in supporting a revised method of funding so that we could capitalize this project. If we do that, I might see the possibility of delivering the project by the turn of the century.

[ Page 995 ]

D. Symons: Yes, my concern on this is that as it delays, property acquisition costs and construction costs are going to go up. So the figures in your estimates now are going to be ballooning as time and delays take place. This becomes very important to the possible completion date; in a sense, the sooner we get it through with, the less the cost will be in the long run, because we're going to have these factors increasing costs as it goes along.

I have some specific questions dealing with the Island Highway that I'll get back to after I finish with specific capital construction ones. But one thing you mentioned in your answer a moment ago was the Pat Bay Highway. Would the majority of the figure that you gave me apply more or less to the McKenzie intersection, which is currently being worked on?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's been pointed out to me that in our preliminary budget allocation for the McKenzie, we planned on expending just short of $4 million. Construction of the bypass and features associated with the bypass, like the detour route, is underway right now. Because of a decision I took last week, we will now be expending about $1.4 million further at the McKenzie interchange. As I outlined in the House last week, we will proceed with the excavation of some of the old alignment of McKenzie Avenue and move material to form what's called a preload on the part of the Pat Bay Highway that's immediately north of the intersection. That's in preparation for full-blown construction in the next fiscal year. I took that decision to save the investment that we've made in the bypass and to assure everyone that the project would be completed in advance of the Commonwealth Games. In addition, we're spending about $1.25 million up at the Lands End interchange. The total on the Pat Bay is going to be about $6.6 million.

D. Symons: You mentioned Lands End, and that brings up a point that I'm not quite sure of. Where does the Highways ministry end and the Ferry Corporation begin? Is it at the gates of the ferry compound? This question impinges on a question I have for the other end, in Tsawwassen. I'm concerned about the parking that we have at the terminals. A good number of people have contacted me regarding the fact that they would love to go on the ferry as foot passengers, but parking is extremely difficult for them. This would be one way of cutting down on the number of people who are using the ferries. I know that that's not under your jurisdiction right now, but certainly parking at the end is a problem. Is that your problem, or is that the Ferry Corporation's problem?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's the Ferry Corporation's problem. There have been some negotiations back and forth as to exactly where our responsibilities end and B.C. Ferries' responsibilities pick up. It's somewhere this side of the toll booths for the ferry. They've got some additional space out there, because occasionally their lineups back up into that area. Roughly speaking, that's where the responsibilities are transferred.

D. Symons: On the Island Highway again, we've mentioned the Nanaimo inner route. Have all these decisions -- going along the various courses of the decisions -- been made in consultation with the communities involved? How much involvement has there been with the regional area and the immediate community where this is taking place? How much input have they had before the final decision has been made?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A great deal. Many, many. I have met, just since I took office, with groups from Nanaimo, and on three occasions I met with the mayor and a portion of her council. Extensive input. And there will no doubt be extensive consultation before the final details of the design of the inner route are finalized.

L. Reid: My riding is Richmond East, as you know. We've had some difficulties on Highway 99 with the lack of appropriate bus lanes. Is there going to be some provision in place to ensure that a bus lane runs down the middle of the highway as opposed to the far lane, which does not allow any safety factors to be considered in terms of vehicles needing to pull over?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The B.C. Transit part of it belongs, of course, to another minister, but I would point out that there was no criticism of the conditions of the highway associated with the accident. The reason that the bus lane was in the first instance put on the right-hand side was to facilitate the exit and re-entry at the Steveston Highway. If the bus lane is on the inside, the bus can't get off. There are some discussions ongoing, however, with B.C. Transit to see whether it might not be placed with suitable protection -- a guard rail or concrete barrier -- separating it from the regular traffic.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

L. Reid: I appreciate the comments, because I believe that the research has borne out the fact that bus lanes should be on the inside of highways, and I would trust that we'll continue to look very carefully at that area.

My question -- I believe this is your jurisdiction -- is on car-pooling. Is there some kind of incentive to encourage that kind of traffic on our highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't know that I can agree with the member's comment that it's well established that the bus lane should be on the inside. They are on the inside in some instances and not in others. One problem you have when you put it on the inside and put a barrier beside it is that if somewhere along a several-kilometre reach you have a bus that is suddenly inoperable, you have a completely blocked bus lane, and other buses in that line are going nowhere. If you have it over on the right-hand lane, you can at least get it over onto the verge of the highway, and you still have a bus lane. So it's a bit of an open question as to where the bus lane should best be.

[ Page 996 ]

L. Reid: My question was pertaining to car-pooling. Are there any incentives in place on behalf of your ministry to ensure that we treat the road infrastructure with more care and provide more incentives to people to reduce the number of automobiles on the road?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have not only within the ministry itself a car-pooling program, but the construction of the Barnet-Hastings Highway includes a high-occupancy-vehicle lane. In public comments that I've made in a number of forums -- most recently when I floated the balloon of tolls -- I pointed out that one way tolls can be used in an inventive manner is that you can have no tolls for cars with three or more passengers, van pools, buses or what not; but if you want to take your tonne and a half of metal into town all by yourself, you've got to pay a toll.

[5:00]

We're very cognizant of the general idea. I'll speak for myself. We do not solve the transportation problems of either the Capital Regional District or the Greater Vancouver Regional District by building more lanes, bridges, tunnels, concrete and flying ramps. Even though as an engineer I happen to believe that all of the above are beautiful, they don't solve the problem. We have to be inventive. We have to make some improvements to our traffic system. We may well need a bridge across the Pitt River. We may at some time in the future need a bridge across the Fraser at Albion or need to enlarge the tunnels at Deas Island, but I believe this should be done in a very measured way.

Whatever is done ought to be done in such a way that it fits in with public transit -- bus, commuter rail, rapid transit, SkyTrain or SeaBus -- and we should use an overall policy of some improvement of the roadway system. After all, our commercial vehicles need to use the roadway system. It benefits all of us economically to have an efficient roadway system, but we should be encouraging people to leave their cars at home or to at the very least car-pool.

L. Reid: Certainly your last comment is very well taken: i.e., it's appropriate to encourage folks to leave their cars at home. The residents of my riding are very keen cyclists. They wish to commute by bicycle in and out of town. We have not made adequate provision in the riding of Richmond East for that. Certainly the entire riding of Richmond needs some extensive work. Two of the major concerns are the Oak Street bridge for cyclists to enter town, and the tunnel to enter through Ladner, Tsawwassen, etc. Any provision to ensure that cyclists' safety is uppermost in the mind of the government....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it's completely fair to say that in years past highway designers paid little or no attention to the needs of cyclists. It's understandable, because it has only been in the last few years, relatively speaking, that the idea of bicycle commuting occurred to anyone. The cost of building an additional lane on a bridge such as Second Narrows or Port Mann is in the tens of millions of dollars, and one would not have done that 15 or 20 years ago to accommodate one or two bikes a day.

But we have entered a new period where more and more people are going to want to ride their bikes. In fact, the transportation studies occurring both here in the capital region and in the greater Vancouver region are incorporating not only elements of public transit, elements of car pooling and high-occupancy lanes, but they'll be keeping cycling in mind as well.

We have made efforts to make the Cassiar somewhat cyclist-friendly. We can't run them through the tunnel; it's simply too dangerous. For good reasons, highway engineers like to separate high-speed traffic from low-speed traffic. I have been pressed on numerous occasions by, shall we say, professional cyclists, by people who commute long distances: "Why can't I be on the freeway? Why can't I go through the tunnel?" Well, it's not as simple as that. You cannot say on a sign "cyclists permitted if they are very competent, mature adults with a lot of experience." We cannot mix 13-year-olds going through a tunnel for fun with professional commuter cyclists.

There are some places that we just simply cannot allow cyclists, in the name of safety. Deas Island Tunnel would be an example. But we can in those instances pursue the idea of bus racks on transit vehicles, or I have been told that in some instances on the Deas Island there is a trailer pulled through a few times a day during certain periods. But maybe that's not enough. Maybe we have to think a bit more about either extending that service even further to make it a more frequent service to ferry bicycles, and that in new construction in progress we pay a significant amount of attention to the needs of cyclists, right from the shoulders of the road, right through the bridges, right through the entire project.

L. Reid: I too would like to float a trial balloon. I'm curious to know if the idea of special transit cars to carry bicycles has come up in discussion at the cabinet table, so folks who take their bicycles part way can also involve themselves in transit or in the LRT, and hopefully arrive safely at work.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You would have to put that question to the Minister of Finance when it's his turn.

D. Symons: If I just cycle along on that chain of thought for a moment.... I was at a meeting in your office a while ago; it was a group of people from the Bicycling Association. Having used the Deas Tunnel shuttle service that was there, I have found that in my case, because I'm getting a little older and not so fast as these professionals to whom you refer, I don't make it back from the ferry quite in time for that last shuttle through there. One of the people made the recommendation that you might consider the tow-truck on standby there waiting in case it is needed along that portion of the freeway. It could be used as a shuttle service sort of all the time rather than having an occasional shuttle service with a trailer there. Have you

[ Page 997 ]

carried that thought forward at all, and is there going to be any movement on that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I recall the conversation we had in my office, but it is pointed out to me that the tow-trucks are there for emergencies. If something happens in that tunnel, we have to be able to access it and do something within minutes -- as quickly as possible. If the tow-truck happened to be on a shuttle service pulling a rack of bikes through the tunnel in the opposite direction, it could be many minutes, ten or 12 minutes before it could get turned around and get back to the crisis. So for that reason we cannot spring it -- we would have to provide an additional vehicle at additional cost in order to provide that service.

D. Symons: Yes, I guess I would go back to the previous comment of the hon. member on this side about possible bicycle racks on the buses that go through. It would be another way of looking at that problem, having it more frequent, because they go through hourly or even every half-hour most of the day. That's, again, another minister's responsibility.

Going back to the tunnel, which is a great problem in our area of the province, I have heard a suggestion that the Steveston Highway onto the freeway through the tunnel ramp.... Consideration is being given to closing off that approach and making it so that the last on ramp to the freeway and through the Deas Tunnel would be at the Westminster Highway entrance. Is there any validity to this? Maybe you can assure us that it isn't taking place. There would be an awful lot of people on the south end of Richmond who would be terribly inconvenienced by such a move.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: For years and years -- probably ten or 15 -- before I was Minister of Highways, I often wondered why they didn't close that entrance, because what happens in situations like that.... Another example is a minor park entrance on the causeway going up to the Lions Gate Bridge. That entry of a few vehicles queue-jumping from elsewhere can cause massive tie-ups all the way up the causeway. It's a problem of streamlining cars in.

Having said all that, it has been looked at as a means of streamlining the flow into the tunnel. It would be faster; you would not have nearly the lineups entering the tunnel if it were not for that entrance. But there has been no decision on closing it, nor is a decision even pending.

D. Symons: I am reassured by your statement, because there would be 30,000 people on the south side of Richmond who would be terribly inconvenienced for access to the tunnel if that were the case. It would add a good number of miles and that much more pollution for them to get down to the Westminster entrance and then double back basically to where they started from.

One other question dealing with the Hastings-Barnet corridor. You discussed it briefly a moment ago and said that you were thinking of a high-occupancy.... Built into it now is a high-occupancy-vehicle lane. Is that project on target? How far along is it? Is its targeted completion date likely to be met, or has it also been postponed by cutbacks in the Highways ministry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The estimated project cost is $90 million. Expenditures to date have been $18.7 million, with allocations for this year of $9.6 million. You'll see that we're only about one-third done on the overall project.

D. Symons: Is there any projected completion date, then? This will certainly help a great deal the traffic on the feeds into the Trans-Canada or onto Lougheed Highway. They have a more direct route from the north shore of the Fraser in through the Barnet connector.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The target date for delivering the HOV lane is 1995, but the delivery of this project, like virtually every other major project, will depend on future fiscal situations.

D. Symons: Tied in with the Barnet-Hastings corridor, there has been a suggestion -- and I think it was more than that -- that there would be a water connection between the Port Moody end and the SeaBus terminal in Vancouver. Would that come under the Highways ministry, or is it going to come under B.C. Ferries, or is that some private enterprise project?

[5:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The initial concept was to have it operate under B.C. Transit. Now I'm not pretending to be the minister responsible for B.C. Transit, but I can tell you that nothing too much has come of that particular notion, partly because there are some very severe tidal currents in the vicinity of the Second Narrows Bridge. There's a very onerous speed limit through that area, which is extremely low -- like five knots, seven knots or something. By the time you've added in that element, probably not too many people would be interested in riding on it.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways relating to the Sea to Sky Highway, Highway 99. I've certainly had an opportunity to discuss that highway corridor with the minister, and we've had some good dialogue. The committee may be interested in knowing that we had a delegation of five mayors meet with the minister. It was a very good meeting, and some good information was shared. I think that there is some good dialogue continuing now as a result of that.

My question to the minister is a general one, and it relates to Highway 99. It's a much-travelled route with a very high volume of traffic. Over the course of the last number of years there have been a number of studies into alternate routes, alternate ways of accessing the whole corridor from different watershed routes. I'm just wondering if the minister could inform the committee today as to the status of these various studies. Are they on hold? Are they simply not viable in the foreseeable future? Or are alternate routes still under active consideration by his ministry?

[ Page 998 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member has said, there are several alternatives. There are a couple of pass-through watersheds: Capilano and Seymour. Further to the east you have the possibility of some routes up Indian Arm on both the east side and the west side. But there are major problems associated with all of them. With the watersheds.... Enough said. It's a major problem. There are possibilities on Indian Arm but with tremendous costs involved. Hence a decision was made some years back to proceed with the upgrading of Highway 99 rather than pursuing any of the others.

It's my personal view that all options ought to remain open. We can spend $100 million on the Sea to Sky Highway, but we're not going to solve all the problems. Parts of mountains are still going to come down and land on the highway from time to time just because of the very nature of the coast, as you would know. I think that the possibility of an alternate route into the Whistler-Pemberton area ought to be kept alive, but there is no study of any magnitude going on at this time.

D. Mitchell: I take it, then, that there are no immediate prospects for alternate routes. But from what the minister has indicated, we shouldn't close the door on these possibilities for an alternate route into the Whistler-Pemberton area for some time in the future.

The immediate focus before us, then, would be to take a look at the existing artery -- Highway 99, the Sea to Sky Highway -- and address some of the problems that it poses. Those problems, of course, relate to safety and access. I think those are the main concerns of the residents of the diverse communities along that highway, communities with different needs, ranging from Horseshoe Bay up through Lions Bay, the Brittania Beach area, Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton.

The needs can be summed up, I think, in two main categories: safety -- the residents of those communities who use the highway every day for their personal and business use want to have some assurance that the main highway they use is a safe one; and access -- economic accessibility for their businesses and for their livelihood needs to be assured. There are some very legitimate concerns under both of those headings, safety and accessibility, right now.

In terms of your budget for 1992-93 for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, obviously we're not going to be able to address all of the concerns this year, and I think that's clear from the budget. One resurfacing project is going ahead and I want to congratulate the minister and the ministry for proceeding with this one. It's the resurfacing project at Brandywine to Nineteen Mile Creek for some $4.75 million, which is an important project to be proceeding with.

Could the minister indicate to this committee, today, how the decision was made to proceed with that project and not other projects along the highway? Certainly there are others that could have been looked at, which from a safety standpoint could have been addressed as well.

I'm not criticizing this project by any means. I'm just wondering how the decision was made to proceed with this project, to spend $4.75 million on this one resurfacing project, and not to proceed with, say, straightening out the highway or addressing some of the other dangerous portions of the road where there are accidents from time to time.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the member might know, a pavement has a certain economic life. The pavement in that area had reached the end of its economic life, and if you don't rejuvenate it at that point, you will run into much larger reconstruction costs in a fairly short order. Given that we had very limited overall dollars, I instructed my staff early on to put as much as we could into rehabilitation to save what we currently had and forestall on major improvements. Broadly speaking, that's why -- as well as having travelled the road -- I could guess where some of the sections that you're referring to were portions that could be reconstructed entirely. The cost of that kind of reconstruction is an order of magnitude greater than the rejuvenation and maintenance of what we've got, and that was the reason for that particular decision, aside from the goodness of my heart.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for the goodness of his heart; it's much appreciated. Can I simply confirm that with respect to your budget for 1992-1993, the $4.75 million that's going to be spent on this resurfacing project falls into the rehabilitation category of the budget? As part of this question, could I ask if there are any other extra moneys being expended on Highway 99, under either the maintenance or capital construction categories?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll confirm your first point that the repaving falls under rehabilitation. The member wasn't present just an hour or so ago when I outlined that if the project does not increase the fundamental capacity of the road, it falls into rehabilitation. If it's adding another lane or putting in a bigger bridge -- changing the capacity of the road -- then it falls into capital. So the project that is going ahead is a rehab project. On the capital side, no, there is only some planning and some project management, a very minor total of $280,000 being expended on that side.

D. Mitchell: With respect to the dangerous spots on Highway 99, for the benefit of the record and the committee and for the minister as well, I wonder if I might just mention a few of the other priority areas that have been mentioned to me as the MLA along the highway that will, over the course of time, need to be addressed. There is some urgency for some of them because of safety issues. In fact, just this weekend we had another terrible accident on the Sea to Sky Highway at Furry Creek. I believe it was a head-on collision, and it was the third time in just a little over a month that we've seen a serious accident at this particular spot involving police, ambulance and rescue personnel. It is an expensive proposition when police, ambulance and rescue personnel have to be brought in on a regular continuing basis. That's an expensive cost for the province to bear over the course of time.

[ Page 999 ]

By spending some money on fixing the highway and fixing the section of road now, we might not only save lives and save damage to personal lives, but there might be some economic savings as well to the province in terms of the rescue operations and the hospitalization costs that are associated with these. This is a place where there's a minor bend on the road at the bottom of a long hill. At the time of this accident the highway was closed for more than an hour, causing a five-kilometre lineup, which was very difficult for weekend motorists going up and down the highway.

One of the RCMP officers attending the accident commented that the highway was simply not built for the amount of traffic that it carries. This is an interesting comment that I've certainly heard time and time again from many people. The Sea to Sky Highway carries a huge volume of traffic. I'm told that the portion from Horseshoe Bay to Squamish alone carries a volume of traffic much in excess of what the Coquihalla Highway carries on a daily basis, and that doesn't deal with the Whistler traffic, which is over and above that -- especially the weekend traffic to Whistler, which is a huge volume.

In terms of dangerous spots on the highway, I mentioned the bottom of Furry Creek Hill, which is a very dangerous place where we've had some terrible accidents. At Squamish we have the entrance to Weldwood, and also Carney's Disposal at Highway 99 in Scott Road by the Mamquam Bridge. There's also the curve by the entrance to the highway gravel pit at Brunswick Beach and the curve coming down the hill to Britannia Beach on the south end. The canyon area, throughout the highway, is all on very narrow winding road with no shoulders; most of the passing lanes in the area end on curves or on crests of hills, which creates some problems.

There are the entrances to Lion's Bay, both ends of Lion's Bay -- very dangerous areas where we've had some terrible accidents. Murrin Park needs a left-turn lane. Tunnel Point has a very bad passing lane where there's a need for work. There's a need for a left-turn lane into the park at Shannon Falls. The entrance to the Klahanie Restaurant and the ferry service to Woodfibre need turning lanes. In many areas of the highway there's a real need for turning lanes.

Magnesia Creek has a very difficult 30-kilometre-per-hour curve. We've had one fatal accident, one bad injury and one tanker-truck rollover at that spot.

There are a lot of accidents on this highway on cautionary corners as well. A starburst sign to warn drivers to slow down might assist. These are small things that might help to save lives and prevent tragedies.

The Porteau Cove bluffs need repaving and relining. When it's dark and raining in the Porteau Cove area and the train's coming, you lose all perspective as to where you are on the highway. We've had a lot of vehicles driven into the ditch in that area. These are recent accidents that I'm referring to.

[5:30]

Just one final one. I might mention the passing lane areas on the Newman Creek part of the highway. Both ends of the passing lanes are subject to a lot of complaints about erratic driving -- people driving too fast into the curve as it narrows into a single lane.

A lot of these areas are dangerous points on the road. Certainly driver education and more safety on the part of motorists would help a lot. But I wonder if sometimes a passing lane could be added at low cost in some of these areas to help alleviate the frustration of drivers who are building up behind slow drivers. Southbound from Squamish are long stretches where there are only double-solid lines. We receive many erratic-driving complaints from people taking chances by passing on solid lines.

These are some areas of concern. These are only a few; I won't mention any others. We need to address some of them. Your Highways staff are familiar with the road. It's a dangerous road. In addition to the resurfacing work that is being done, is there any possibility whatsoever that some inexpensive work might be done to add a passing lane or to address some of these kinds of spots on the road that I've just mentioned and help to address some of the safety concerns being brought forward by the motorists who use Highway 99 on a daily basis?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I wouldn't challenge or minimize any of the many danger areas that you've mentioned. We could probably hear a somewhat similar list from virtually every member in the House concerning one or more roads in their areas. It's a stupendous challenge that we face, but it always comes back to money.

We met, as you recall, with the five mayors from the communities, and I extended to them an invitation to identify the key safety problems in or near their communities and submit them so that we could at least try to take those into consideration and address them in the next fiscal year.

In some instances a passing lane, left-turn lane or something may be possible. Overall, in most of the areas where a passing lane could be installed at little or no cost, it has been done. For the other areas, if you're going to have a major relocation of a road, it might not be the wisest thing from an economic point of view to invest a quarter of a million or half a million dollars in a passing lane that you're going to abandon in just a few years. In other places where there isn't the necessary width right now, the provision of even a passing lane or left-turn lane would be an extremely expensive undertaking.

So I think we must look primarily to the overall reconstruction of the road. It's a very expensive proposition, and it just fits into one of those $10 billion worth of pressing needs around the whole province. It's going to be up to all of us to see if we can identify them and, through being very careful with the taxpayers' dollars in a whole realm of areas, deliver to the taxpayer -- the travelling public -- within a reasonable length of time the product that they need.

Again that relates to my earlier point of perhaps adopting a method of highways funding by capitalizing major projects -- and the Sea to Sky Highway could be one of those projects -- such that we can borrow the money

[ Page 1000 ]

and get on with some of this. We have to think of how we can create or fund the sinking fund to pay it off.

For some of the bridges and tunnels around Vancouver, I have suggested that tolls may be an alternative. Certainly with respect to other new highways, the citizens who would benefit from those might well want us to consider tolls if this would deliver to them a product of great value, not only economically but in terms of safety and the other social impacts. Maybe that should be considered, because short of either running up the deficit, not doing them or not undertaking worthwhile projects in education or health care, we don't have the money. That's the central problem that all of us -- in good faith -- are facing. I recognize the problems you've outlined; they all need to be solved. But we're not going to be able to solve them all this year; that's certain. Many of them we're not even going to be able to undertake next year.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not quite sure I've figured out how to ask a question of a minister sitting behind me. I've never done this before.

In the city of Vancouver there are not many provincial highway issues, aside from perhaps the Cassiar connector and, of course, the long-ago fight to prevent the freeways. But there is an issue relating to transportation in general that's of great concern, which is the proposal for a Vancouver bikeway network. I know I've discussed this with the minister informally. I and the Minister of Environment have met with cyclists who are proponents of the bikeway network, which is a concept to facilitate transportation across the city in a safer manner, dealing with some of the problems raised by the member for Richmond East and by the member for Richmond Centre a few moments ago in this fascinating debate.

I wonder if the Minister of Transportation and Highways can give me any indication of whether he has had a chance to explore with his ministry staff some of the issues raised by bicycle proponents for urban areas, which technically fall, I suppose, within the road network of a city like the city of Vancouver, where the city is sufficiently strapped financially that we don't see too much hope of action at the municipal level in the near future. One hopes there might be some possibility of joint federal-provincial-municipal action to bridge different cities and provide a safer commuter cycling network for people commuting across the city of Vancouver.

The Chair: The Minister of Advanced Education.

Hon. T. Perry: It is so rare for members in this chamber to think before they respond that, if necessary, I'll cover for my colleague for a few minutes while he has a chance to think.

The Chair: The minister is now on his feet.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are many communities in the province that don't benefit from Ministry of Transportation and Highways funding at all. Victoria is one, and in Vancouver the only participation we have is, I believe, the Cassiar connector and some of Marine Drive. I would put it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to submit a proposal for a bikeway that then might be vetted and approved by Transportation as part of a cost-sharing program. Unfortunately, Vancouver has very little to draw on in the way of even cost-sharing programs because of the lack of secondary highways through the city.

The idea of a bikeway or bikeways is something that the GVRD Transport 2021 study is undertaking. I cannot promise any direct or indirect funding for it; I can certainly promise support for the notion. Perhaps the idea should be raised with Municipal Affairs to see if some kind of joint funding might be extended to the concept of bikeways.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll take that answer as great encouragement. I'm speaking as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, of course, with many constituents, probably thousands of them, who see their principal mode of transportation as the bicycle. They are worried about relatively high accident and even fatality rates because of the difficulty of cycling in the city. I think that's an interesting idea to approach the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'll naturally pursue that. I am encouraged by the minister's willingness to consider the bicycle as part of the transportation network in British Columbia.

L. Fox: I came back into the assembly because I'm really perplexed and actually rather confused, and my staff is as well. Earlier this afternoon when the member of the official opposition asked you about the 1992-93 capital and rehabilitation project briefing packages, you suggested that they were available to be picked up at your office. I can tell you I've been trying for the last hour to get one, and your staff is being less than cooperative. I have not yet been able to get it, and other members as well have not been able to get it. So I would respectfully request that the minister either instruct his staff to have them delivered to our offices or make them available so we can have them prior to these estimates being over.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: When the matter of these packages first came up -- I believe last Thursday or Friday -- at that point in time I checked and there had only been half a dozen requests, and they had been delivered, so I'm puzzled as to your reference to lack of cooperation. I know my staff is quite busy on a variety of things, but I'll give you assurances that the packages will be made available. I'm just a bit puzzled as to what the problem was. I'll look into it.

D. Mitchell: For what it's worth, Mr. Minister, there has been some confusion over the packages in terms of distribution within the caucus of the official opposition as well, but I don't know what to attribute it to. However, I did receive mine very late last week and I thank you for that. I think it has been a communication problem between members and your office perhaps.

I'd like just to finish up by asking one or two final questions about the Sea to Sky Highway, Highway 99.

[ Page 1001 ]

The minister indicated that the complete upgrade of the highway is really what we have to face over the period of the next little while. The challenge is really the complete upgrade of the highway.

Given the fact that this is one of the most heavily travelled highway arteries in the province, given the special volume requirements on Highway 99 -- the Sea to Sky Highway -- is it possible for the minister to give any indication in a general way as to what period of time we're looking at for this complete upgrade that he referred to? Of course, there will always be ongoing maintenance required on this kind of a highway -- on any highway, indeed -- but in terms of the project that you were referring to in terms of the complete upgrade, addressing all of the safety concerns that need to be addressed, what period are we talking about? How many years will it take to do that? What are the ministry's current estimates on that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't have a totally accurate scope, but we're probably talking about a project on the order of magnitude of the Island Highway. We're talking $700 million or more, and in all likelihood at least the rest of the decade to complete it.

D. Mitchell: In terms of the method of financing a project of that magnitude, the minister has indicated that the options are quite limited. They include either funding it out of the ministry's operating budget using a different kind of depth financing, where these kinds of projects would be financed on a separate basis through a highway authority of some kind, or perhaps through some kind of a user-pay facility, through a highway toll. Is it possible for the minister to indicate to this committee today whether the last option, the toll option, is actively under consideration by the government? Would, for instance, motorists along the Sea to Sky Highway, Highway 99, be facing the possibility of tolls along that highway in the near future?

[5:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The idea of user-pay through tolls is not under active consideration by the government. It is certainly under active consideration by me. There's no intention in my mind that it would apply to the Sea to Sky Highway, but if the member opposite would like to start a petition in his constituency in favour of such a toll in order to advance its construction, I would be more than willing to entertain it.

D. Mitchell: I certainly won't be initiating such a petition. However, I can assure you, as a result of the comments today, you might expect one to arise spontaneously. People are concerned. They want access, they want safety issues addressed, and they want some assurance that it's going to be done over some reasonable period of time. If the minister, not the government, is interested in tolls -- and I'm not sure what the distinction is between the minister and government, because you are a member of an executive council and presumably there is some ministerial accountability on a collective basis -- I would only ask one thing: that before any tolls are implemented on any highway, there be some significant public input and some consultation with the people who use that kind of a highway artery on a daily basis. That kind of meaningful consultation needs to take place before that kind of an approach is implemented.

I have one specific question that I have not had a chance to ask with respect to the Sea to Sky Highway, and it's with respect to the community of Squamish. I know that the minister has received some representation on this matter from the mayor of Squamish, but I'd like to know if it would be possible to provide an answer to this committee today. It's not dealing with a safety issue, but it's dealing with the economic viability of the community of Squamish. The minister will be familiar with the proposal near Squamish which is referred to as the Discovery Village project. There's a highway-access problem here.

The Discovery Village project would create a $40 million-plus development for the community of Squamish and would generate some 350 full-time jobs. The community and the council of Squamish are very interested in seeing this project proceed, but there's a problem. The problem as it has been expressed to me -- and I'd like some clarification of this -- is that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, up to this point, has not permitted a new left-turn access off the highway into this proposed project.

I wonder if the minister could comment on this project, as to whether or not there is some specific reason as to why a left-turn access would not be provided, given the tremendous economic benefits that would be provided to the community of Squamish -- a community that could use an economic shot in the arm right now.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before answering your specific question, I might mention, for the benefit of the member for Prince George-Omineca, that if he were to return to the House, I have a present for him.

With respect to the question at hand, yes, the council and the mayor have requested on a couple of occasions a new left-turn lane, but we have a policy on major highways to try to minimize the number of intersections and particularly the number of left-turn lanes. We have pointed out that we are going to signalize an intersection on either end of the proposed development. We have suggested that there could be frontage road access then off one or the other of those intersections. That leaves a reasonable distance between intersections. After all, the primary function of the highway there is to accommodate through-traffic, and to try to maintain the average speed of that traffic.

Very often we decline the opportunity to put in extra zones of conflict, or additional intersections. We prefer to see either right-in, right-out access or to go to the closest intersection and come back via a frontage road. That is the decision that has been passed on, and confirmed, to the mayor.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[ Page 1002 ]

D. Mitchell: One final question on the Sea to Sky Highway, I know that this issue has been canvassed earlier in the review of estimates; it's the issue dealing with the privatization of highway maintenance. Would the minister comment on whether the ministry is satisfied with the level of maintenance on Highway 99, and whether or not there is any review ongoing of the levels of maintenance on Highway 99, and how the ministry feels about the process of privatization? Has it been successful as far as this major highway artery is concerned?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The whole matter of the privatization of the maintenance of highways will be reviewed probably in the coming fall or winter. As you know, we're into a new three-year contract for the most part, so there's no great pressure to act with undue haste on this.

In the correspondence that I've received from across the province -- and I cannot speak off the top of my head about correspondence from the member's constituency -- generally speaking, there seems to be some degree of disenchantment with privatized maintenance. I am not about to draw conclusions before I see the results of a study or proper review. It's too early at this time to state whether or not money is being saved, whether or not the standards that we have set are being met and how those standards compare with what the typical practice was before.

I believe it's an open question. We will be conducting a review with public input and in an open fashion. It's only after that has been done that I will make up my mind as to whether we will continue with that policy or not.

D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this to the minister. Could the minister describe for the benefit of this committee the process of auditing contractors who are providing services on highways under the privatized maintenance program? For instance, on the Sea to Sky Highway which we have been discussing, what is the process of reviewing the performance of contractors? What kind of audit takes place, addressing issues like safety and the quality of work performed, to ensure that it is satisfactory and to review public complaints which may or may not occur? The minister has indicated that a number of people in some areas of the province have expressed disenchantment. Could he just briefly describe the process of review, the process of auditing performance and the success or lack of success of the highway maintenance program now that it has been privatized?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have an extensive quality assurance program and quality assurance people who travel the roads regularly noting the condition of the roads. We have a set of rather rigorous standards regarding pretty well every aspect of maintenance: the condition of the shoulders, ditches and culverts under the roads; the travelling surface of the roads; and in winter, of course, the depth of snow or ice, the use of the salt, the kind of aggregate being used and the rapidity of response, how many hours from the beginning of a snowfall until the contractor is on the road. All the standards are spelled out in the contract, and our quality assurance people are on the road on an ongoing basis to ensure that that is happening. It includes things like monitoring the safety conditions along the roads.

We have within the contract, then, the means to withhold payment, for example, if certain elements of the maintenance are not being done, if rough areas of the road are not corrected or culverts are not maintained within a certain period of time. And I believe that if our inspectors notice something and then give notice to the contractor, again, they have a certain time to respond and make right whatever was identified to them.

D. Mitchell: I know that a number of other members wish to participate in this debate, but seeing that the hour is getting late, I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before moving the adjournment motion, may I just say to the members that we will continue in this committee in this House tomorrow with Transportation and Highways estimates, and in committee A we will go back to Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 1003 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,
FISHERIES AND FOOD

On vote 13: minister's office, $282,139.

Hon. B. Barlee: It is my honour and privilege to present the 1992-93 budget estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Perhaps I should preface this with a number of points and statements.

The British Columbia agriculture, fisheries and food industry is very large and extremely diverse, perhaps much larger than most casual observers realize. From producer to consumer, B.C.'s agriculture, fisheries and food sector is an $11.4 billion industry, and it employs approximately 208,000 British Columbians. The food and beverage industry is the second-largest manufacturing industry in British Columbia. It is larger than pulp, petroleum, natural gas and mining. This sector -- and this is quite important -- grows at a steady annual rate of somewhere between 3 percent and 5 percent, and it is generally recession-proof, unlike some of the other areas.

The province's 19,000 farms are 98 percent owned and operated by British Columbians and provide over 30,000 jobs. The real dollars generated in this industry circulate largely within the province's economy, not to international corporations or to offshore interests. These are essentially British Columbia dollars.

On the fisheries side, the 16,000 fishermen who harvest 45 different species off B.C.'s coastline, support an industry with a landed value of over $0.5 billion annually. It also supports a further 8,000 jobs in spinoff. This sector delivers employment to people in far-flung corners of the province, in the urban areas, rural areas, and coastal centres. It also represents -- this is quite important -- about 4.5 percent of the total workforce in British Columbia. That is not generally understood.

Our food industry's efficiency is such that B.C. is 60 percent self-sufficient in foodstuffs, even though barely 5 percent of our land is arable. That has risen from 50 percent about a decade ago to 60 percent today. It is also extremely diverse. We have 175 commodity sectors; that is more than any other province in Canada. It ranges from hazelnuts to sheep. It's quite astonishing.

A couple of other things I should point out to the assembled members is that Canadian food costs average 11.8 percent of our income. This is the second-lowest in the world, compared to about 27 percent in Spain, 21 percent in Italy, etc. We are quite well positioned. Food self-sufficiency is important to 98 percent of all British Columbians, and we think that healthy farming and fishing sectors support the medical and social services of many rural and coastal communities and provide that steady source of income that seldom varies. However, the British Columbia food industry is at an historic crossroads and is being influenced by factors far beyond the province. Some of these factors are: the GATT negotiations, which are presently going on and may be concluded this year or early next year; the supply management issues; globalization of trade; the free trade agreement and the NAFTA agreement, which may or may not be signed.

[2:45]

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has always been an economic development ministry. It is a revenue-producing ministry. We have implemented programs which significantly impact the stability and development of rural and coastal communities. Many small towns up the coast and in the interior feel the impact of the ministry. In our traditional role as an economic development ministry, we want to protect and strengthen the resource base upon which we depend. We also want to make some strides to win in the new global environment, which is changing significantly. We are stressing the importance of environmental sustainability and food quality. Fortunately, we have a very high reputation internationally as far as food quality is concerned. We want to protect the environment through soil and water management programs, waste management codes and practices, and participation in the federal Green Plan. We are also attempting to resist the federal initiatives that are designed to off-load costs from the federal government to the province.

While we work at economic development, we want to ensure that our policies and programs also accomplish a number of new things. We think our ministry impacts upon the quality of life in British Columbia -- not just in the interior, not just in the coastal towns, but all through the province. We want to improve the chances of survival of rural and coastal communities, many of which depend upon our ministry. We want to expand the ministry's constituency through the consultative process.

We recognize and involve rural and coastal women in government decision-making affecting our sector. We have a number of such individuals on boards. Some of those are composed entirely of women.

We feel it is our responsibility to protect our food lands, and it's quite a responsibility. We intend to restore and maintain the integrity of the agricultural land reserve. We think we are there to manage change.

We support the efforts of other ministries that lead government policies in the native land and fish settlement process.

We include farm labour in the consultative process -- which is really quite important. We involve consumers in decisions affecting the food industry as well. Many consumers are on our various boards.

In the 1992-93 fiscal year my ministry plans to address these objectives with a budget of $93.5 million and a staff complement of 448 FTEs. We will begin to meet these challenges in this budget.

Perhaps I should add that we are attempting to look down the road into the twenty-first century. We're looking for niche markets, for options, for alternatives, and we're analyzing the present and potential competition that we may face ten, 15, 20 years down the line.

[ Page 1004 ]

What does the industry face in the world? Globalization, which is leading to new products and new competitors in our markets. For instance, China is becoming a new competitor, as is Chile. We're getting significant competition from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and so on.

The GATT may change the policy structure under which our agricultural policy operates, so it may impact us significantly in supply management. The federal government -- as I alluded to before -- is off-loading, which means we have to pick up some of that slack.

There are concerns about federal mismanagement of our fisheries resources, allowing access to B.C. fish stocks to go to foreign processors. In other words, we're exporting B.C. jobs. We think they should be in British Columbia. We are at the mercy of an increasing number of transnational corporations -- for instance, Shell Oil, Imperial Esso, Cargill, and a number of the others. These are huge corporate entities.

This is what various people in the industry have asked me to fight for: preserving the traditional values in new and innovative ways. Most of these players are not afraid of change. I don't think they're afraid of shouldering their part of the fiscal restraint we're facing. But when times get tough, people tend to go back to the basics. They tend to go back to the land and the sea. When downturns occur in forestry, we see people leaving that sector and returning to fishing and farming. I'll elaborate on that slightly.

The growth during a recession in new and added jobs in the agricultural employment curve represents people who are not on social assistance. In other words, we are a shielding ministry. We went over the 1983 economic recession, and -- all members should realize this -- during that period virtually every other revenue-producing ministry lost jobs, and according to the Ministry of Finance, we gained 10,000 jobs. In a period of recession and economic downturns, we tend to gain a number of jobs. And 10,000 jobs is significant. If they were to fall back on the good offices of the government, if they were to fall back on welfare or other areas, this would probably cost the government somewhere between $104 million and $138 million. That's more than the entire budget of this ministry. We are a shielding ministry; we're a social ministry; we're an economic ministry. We're a ministry that impacts in a number of other areas. We impact in small business, in tourism, and so on. So it's really quite important.

Fisheries management decisions must be closer to the communities that depend on fisheries for livelihood. I have travelled up to the north part of the Island, along the east coast and the west coast. In some areas they hadn't seen a minister ever. It was in the 1960s when they'd last seen a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food in some areas. We think the province must ensure that fisheries management on the west coast doesn't leave us with the problems that are being experienced on the east coast. The problems on the east coast have been draconian. We're trying to get around that, and we're continuing discussions with the federal Minister of Fisheries. We want maximum value from all fish species. You may have heard an announcement about ten days ago concerning hake. We initiated this process with the federal ministry. They have so far carried through reasonably well.

In aquaculture, the stakeholders want a new framework for a diversified, sustainable industry that is consistent with protecting our environment and creating employment opportunities in our coastal communities. We feel aquaculture is a potential area of very good growth. Hake-processing is an example, but there are other areas in aquaculture where we are extremely well positioned. We have some competition in Chile, Japan, China and the United States, but fortunately our conditions allow us to be very well positioned.

Challenges due to the previous government have been reversed to a degree. We are going in a slightly different direction. I covered that rather briefly several minutes ago. We are looking to the future. We feel that this is a ministry that can gain a significant number of jobs despite the economic conditions. But my ministry has had to shoulder some share of the responsibility for fiscal management, so we are targeting operations at $93.5 million and 448 FTEs for the 1992-93 fiscal year. In doing so, we have redirected and reallocated some resources to meet these changing demands. This is a ministry that hits a lot of significant changes, and the change is almost day to day -- usually because of global economic conditions.

We have decided to put about $710,000 in the food industry development area. This $710,000 is to strategically plan and implement a program which will work with the entire food chain to create awareness and loyalty, and integration of B.C. quality food into our domestic and export markets. We work with all sectors, right from the basic producer to the retailer side. What we seek is access to information, expertise and a process to work together. It cannot be done by one sector. The producers cannot do it alone. The producers must be there; the processors must be there; the labour force must be there; the retailers must be there; the advertisers; and right down the line. This is what we're trying to do, and I think we're making some steps in the right direction in this process.

An intensive, consultative process involving all food industry stakeholders will be implemented. Actually, we are implementing this. What we've done essentially.... I met with some of them this morning, and they're quite pleased with the direction in which we are going. I'm going to Vancouver tomorrow to meet with six of the major mayors in the greater Vancouver area. We are moving towards targeting the leakage across interprovincial and international borders. We have to implement what is loosely referred to as a "Buy B.C." process. I think it's extremely important.

The farm management program is recognized as a business priority in this year's budget. The provincial portion of the national farm management program will receive another $100,000. This will complement $500,000 of anticipated federal expenditures in that area. There will be a total of $600,000. This is an important investment, because it essentially helps farmers manage internal and external changes as we move into a different economic climate, a new global economy. That $600,000 is well thought out, it's good strategy, and I think it will prove to be that.

[ Page 1005 ]

The commitment to strengthen and enhance our human resource base within the ministry is demonstrated with an additional $90,000 allocation to staff training to enhance service quality to ministry clients. We felt that was an area to put some money into, which I think will help us.

The throne speech reconfirmed government's commitment to supply management. Perhaps I should allude to this: our commitment to supply management has been longstanding. Essentially, we led the charge across the country with eight of the other ten provinces who are also committed to supply management. We managed to focus the federal government's attention on the importance of supply management. In British Columbia's case it represents about 41 to 43 percent of our total farm product. It's about $450 million basic dollars per year.

We realize our marketing boards must have the administrative flexibility to manage change. An additional $150,000 is provided to facilitate and enhance the work of the B.C. Marketing Board, which is sometimes called the superboard.

The success of the ministry's information technology.... Perhaps I should stop here and explain what it is. We have a highly efficient ministry in disseminating information. We're putting another $200,000 investment into that to continue to provide staff and clients with sophisticated tools to increase their work efficiency. I'm not dissatisfied with that. I think we've done a remarkable job over the last decade, but I think it's necessary to keep it up. This network extends the information resources of my ministry to every region of the province to enhance the work of education and technology transfer to industry stakeholders. This part of the ministry gets the message out not just to farmers but to everyone that is involved. All the stakeholders receive benefits from this particular program, and I think it's necessary. Individuals in the B.C. fruit-processing area were very keen on it when I was talking to them this morning. It works well.

Changes to the global economy are impacting every sector of the B.C. economy, and agriculture is no exception; we are being significantly impacted.

The ministry is committed to providing our traditional levels of support to our client groups in many new ways. Expectations of improved commodity prices have allowed a reduction in farm income insurance budgeting. In some areas our traditional prices have gone up, so we are allowed to reduce the FII payments or budgeting. Expenditures in NISA are increased to reflect full provincial participation for grains and oilseeds and expected expansion of the program to include a much wider range of commodities. So we anticipate NISA will not just be grains and oilseeds, but a number of other sectors as well. Funds have been provided to allow the province to enter a long-term agreement with the federal government to fund the GRIP program for grains and oilseeds producers. Instead of the ad hoc payments, we're trying to get into an insurance type of payment that will not be attacked by the Americans under various programs such as the FTA or the GATT.

[3:00]

In summation, this budget reflects the recognition by this ministry and the government that change will be the norm during the 1990s. I don't think there's much doubt about that.

This province's food sector is well positioned to take advantage of this change, and we are looking at that now. B.C. enjoys some significant advantages as a food producer. We enjoy a variety of climates, enabling us to produce a vast variety of foods. It is quite remarkable, and no other province can compare. We have a highly skilled, knowledgeable force of farmers, fishermen, food processors and technologists. More than any of our competitors, we enjoy a worldwide reputation for a pristine environment in which top-quality food is produced. That is true whether you're buying B.C. salmon or B.C. apples or whatever. That's why we are well placed in the international marketplace.

I think it is extremely important that our domestic market is growing faster than in any other province in Canada. We grow at an average of about 3.5 to 5 percent per year; this is through good years and bad years. Right now we are experiencing an economic downturn, but the ministry is coming through it quite well.

We are situated very advantageously on the edge of the Pacific Rim, with easy access to two of the largest economies in the world: the United States and Japan. Out of those two, you'd think we would export more food to the United States than to Japan. Well, certainly in aquaculture and fisheries we export much more to Japan. It is a growing market, and we are positioned so that we can probably take advantage of it.

Essentially, this budget is about positive social and economic impacts in a time of recession. It's about helping industry through a time of significant change. The key to industry's success and prosperity will be in its ability and ours to manage and change efficiently and effectively. We have a strategic plan right down the line, from now into the twenty-first century. We have a choice: do we depend on others to feed us or do we look after ourselves? I think the answer is obvious. We have to feed British Columbia now, five years from now, ten years from now and well into the future.

We support the family farm, not just for economic reasons but also for social reasons. We think it should be viable, we think it is the keystone, and we think it should be relatively prosperous. That doesn't mean that every farmer -- or fisherman -- can succeed, but our success rate is really quite surprising. We also support the family fishing businesses, and well over 95 percent of those are in British Columbia hands. We have changed in this respect: we intend to be proactive instead of reactive, to be innovative, and to facilitate development of new products and markets for B.C. farms. We have to look down the road.

I walked through several supermarkets today. Out of thousands and thousands of items on the shelf -- and we had a number of experts there -- we provided somewhere between 2 and 2.5 percent. We could probably provide 12 percent. Some of these stores do a magnificent business. So this has a significant impact on us economically. If you walk down the shelves and take a glance at some of the shelves.... We walked down 60-foot sections, and in some of them there was

[ Page 1006 ]

not one product from British Columbia. Some came from Alberta, some from eastern Canada, some from Australia, some from New Zealand, and many from the United States and other parts of the world. We have to be able to get into that area, and that is what we're working towards now. We will use the best market intelligence to serve our customers with excellence -- which I think we do -- and provide the finest-quality food to our consumers. Again, we have a step-up in our competition in that area.

Our values and the ways in which we promise to do business are profoundly dissimilar to the previous government. I intend to honour those values in the coming year and the years to follow.

R. Chisholm: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your words. Mine are slightly different, I must admit. Either way, we'll debate that in the near future.

The 1992-93 budget has done nothing to ensure that British Columbia's agriculture industry will survive. The Agriculture budget for '92-93 has been slashed by 16.1 percent, while the total government budget expenditures have increased by 4.7 percent. In the spirit of constructive criticism, I will explain why this is poor fiscal management.

There is no short-term or long-term plan for agriculture. Therefore I will give alternatives to ensure a strong British Columbia economy. This Legislature must be committed to establishing an agriculture and food security policy for British Columbia. Food security is the ability to provide British Columbians and all Canadians with safe, high-quality food at reasonable prices, taking into account our resource base and climatic conditions in a manner which is both environmentally sustainable and economically feasible for the family farm.

We must be committed to ensuring that British Columbia farmers are competitive and have secure access to international markets for the commodities in which we have a natural advantage. The objectives of food security are: financial security for B.C. farm families as key players in the agrifood industries; sustainable agricultural practices which promote the long-term security of our soil and water resources; security for B.C. consumers, to ensure that only safe, wholesome food enters the B.C. marketplace.

To fully understand how to implement these objectives, let us reflect on British Columbia's agricultural history. This is a large province, yet only 4 to 5 percent of its total land mass is arable or potentially arable. A further 12.5 percent has some agricultural capacity. Annual British Columbia sales in the food sector total in the billions of dollars, with exports outside Canada accounting for $1.3 billion. That is an increase of more that $290 million since 1986.

This is British Columbia's third-largest industry. The province produces the equivalent of 60 percent of its food requirements -- and a greater variety of products over a wider range of geographical and climatic conditions than any other area in Canada. British Columbia agriculture employs 210,000 people. Agriculture remains the economic backbone of numerous rural communities, home to many generations of farm families and processing industries.

Even though the number of farms has been dropping rapidly in the last few years, it is a little-known fact that the farmer -- who is a primary food producer -- receives a very small share of the retail price paid by consumers. For example, farmers receive 10 cents for the wheat in a box of cereal. This is an insignificant share of the consumer food dollar.

Self-sufficiency is important to British Columbia. Although we remain a net exporter of agricultural goods, imports have increased at a greater rate than exports. We are losing ground. Today the British Columbia agriculture industry, and its dependent rural communities, face a future at risk. British Columbia's key agricultural exports are dependent on global markets, and the past decade has seen vicious trade wars, collapsing commodity prices, high interest rates and an overvalued Canadian dollar. B.C. farmers are also threatened by the GATT negotiations, the free trade agreement, cross-border shopping and the recession. The British Columbia farmer is in a financial crisis. It is difficult to imagine, but in spite of an average capital investment of over half a million dollars and long hours of farm labour, the average farmer in Canada and British Columbia earns $17,000 per year from farming. This is well below the poverty line. Total farm debt in Canada is over $22 billion. It is not getting any better. And B.C. has its share.

To address the farm income problem, the British Columbia government must maintain orderly marketing systems so that farmers can get a fair price for their products from the marketplace; aggressively promote and defend British Columbia's interests, and work to secure fair international marketing arrangements to help stop the destructive trade wars and unfair trade practices of some countries; initiate measures to reduce farm input costs and improve competitiveness so that B.C. farmers can compete internationally; and redesign stabilization programs to provide economic security when problems arise beyond the farmers' control.

I believe farmers must get a fair price from the marketplace. I urge this government to maintain our orderly marketing system for the benefit of both consumers and farmers, and to lobby the federal government to negotiate a strengthened and clarified article 11 at GATT. We the opposition believe that the government has an important role to play in agriculture's financial measures, and in considering how input costs and bureaucratic red tape can be reduced so that the British Columbia farmer can compete. Safety net programs can be redesigned so as to provide secure stabilization programs for farmers. Reduce the ministry's operations and increase spending on the farmer, not on the bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo that we have these days. This '92-93 budget did just the opposite.The bureaucrats got an increase, while the farmers got a decrease.

As opposition critic for Agriculture, I support an enhanced commitment for research and development and application in agriculture to promote diversification in food processing and to ensure that the industry is modern and competitive. The use of ethanol and

[ Page 1007 ]

other renewable fuels produced from biomass is a means of reducing pollution and utilizing British Columbia's grains and other crops. A commitment to sustainable agriculture, including training and management, ensures the preservation of our soil and water resources. Keep our fertile soil in the agricultural land reserve. We cannot make more once it is destroyed, for it is not replaceable. For consumer protection and information this government must maintain strict environmental and safety standards for foods produced in British Columbia, and it must ensure that imported foods meet these same stringent requirements. A provincial information and communications program will make British Columbians more aware of the importance of a viable agrifood industry. Unfortunately the present Agriculture budget has failed on all of the above accounts.

[3:15]

Fisheries have been relegated to nothingness in this budget, yet the fishing industry is one of the largest in the province. As the minister said, the landed value to the economy of British Columbia's annual seafood catch is over $500 million. Value-added processing would double that to $1 billion if we'd invest. The industry employs over 5,500 fish-plant workers and about 15,000 fishermen. These would increase if we'd invest in that industry. About one-third of all groundfish is currently being exported directly to the United States and various other countries unprocessed. Hundreds of fish-processing jobs and millions of dollars in revenue are being lost to the United States because of the export of unprocessed products and because of the factory ships that lie off the 200-mile limit. This does not include joint-venture hake operations on the west coast that pump millions of dollars of processing revenues overseas. If all types of seafoods are included, 35 percent of all seafood products are ending up in foreign processing plants.

This cannot be tolerated any longer. These are Canadian resources that should be and could be used to generate Canadian and British Columbian jobs. It is time for this Legislature to implement tough legislation to protect jobs. We must enact legislation that will guarantee that fish caught off our coast will be processed here if the capacity exists. This type of legislation was introduced by the American government. It was called the Magnuson Act. When your government was in opposition, it promoted Bill M206, which has not been promoted since. In case the minister doesn't realize it, that was a mirror of the Magnuson Act. If it is in conflict with GATT, then I should take it under advisement and look at whether the American one is in conflict with GATT. The budget does not indicate this government's commitment in this area, even though the Supreme Court of Canada, in December 1990, ruled that this was a provincial and not a federal matter. So it's the provincial government's responsibility to act.

Thank you, hon. Chairman, for the time for this speech. To the minister, I propose that we discuss these subjects: the budget itself, then policies on the ALR, then agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, in that order, if you so wish.

Hon. B. Barlee: On the budget, although we did shoulder our share of restraint during this time of economic downturn, no other ministry is in a better position than we are for several reasons. We are the only ministry of agriculture in the Dominion of Canada that grows from 3 to 5 percent per year. That is weathering the storm fairly well. We're a very tightly-knit ministry.

A couple of figures will interest the hon. critic. We have 2,200 loans under ALDA. These loans are usually around $75,000 each. Bankers expect 5, 6, 7 or 8 percent defaults on those. Our default in this area is under 1 percent. This is the best loan default in government. Nobody can touch it. Bankers would blush if they had this. They would think they were dreaming.

We are well-positioned in other areas. We've made remarkable strides in the greenhouse area as far the production of the ginseng, hazelnuts.... It goes on and on. We're taking advantage of these niche markets. We're the world leader in ginseng production. Great market! We produce some of the best hazelnuts in the world. Also a secure market.

When we're going into these markets, we're not going in blindfold. We're going in looking to see where our potential competition will come from. If it comes from the States, we're looking at that -- seeing what the market is down there; whether we could move into their market, and whether they could move into ours. We're looking offshore; we're looking at the Pacific Rim; we're looking at Europe; we're looking at South America. We are really being proactive in this. We have a long-term strategy, and I think it is going to work.

As far as being positioned, and taking a slight reduction in our budget.... By the way, the hon. member used a figure of 16 percent, which really is inaccurate, because last year the actual stated budget was $103 million, but with the special payments it jumped up to $111.5 million. So that's not a 16 percent reduction. It's not even close to 16 percent. I think we are proactive. The ministry is positioning itself very well for the next year, for the next five years, for the next ten years, for the next 20 years.

One of several other questions that the hon. member referred to is our policy on the agricultural land reserve. We're on record -- and our party has been on record since 1973 -- as supporting the principle of the agricultural land reserve. It is not perfect, but I believe it's hallmark legislation. I have no problem with it at all. I believe that the Agricultural Land Commission... which we do not interfere with, by the way; we do not interfere with the decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission.... The agricultural land reserve governs 11.7 million acres in British Columbia. We think this is very important.

Any advanced jurisdiction in the world takes care of its greenbelts. We think that greenbelts are exceptionally important for a number of reasons. One is that we can become economically viable as agricultural producers, but there are other impacts as well. Those greenbelts in the Fraser River delta, the central Fraser Valley and the upper Fraser Valley, in the Okanagan, in the north and in the Cariboo have an impact upon the quality of life of every British Columbian. There are

[ Page 1008 ]

jurisdictions around the world that I consider sophisticated which have guarded their agricultural land reserves extremely well. An example is Oregon; another example is Hawaii.

We as a party and as government feel -- and historically we've felt this way -- that this is a very important part of the whole agricultural scene. Any moves we have made in this area have been to protect the agricultural land reserve. Once that land is lost, it is seldom regained.

You mentioned agriculture in general -- kind of a broad question. I'll allude to that again. We are quite aware that agriculture has an impact on everyone in British Columbia. Certainly our standards of food production are among the highest in the world. There's not much doubt about this. We have a very good reputation overseas. In fact, on the Pacific Rim our reputation is quite enhanced. The Japanese, for instance, and the Hong Kong merchants will buy from British Columbia far in advance of our American competitors. We have extremely strict laws governing our food production. This is extremely important.

As I mentioned -- I alluded to this very briefly, if the hon. member remembers -- we think that agriculture impacts a number of other areas in British Columbia, not just quality of life. We think there's a very close tie between tourism and agriculture. Other jurisdictions around the world have realized this. The English have, for instance, what they call AONBs or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Most of these AONBs are pastoral areas; that is, farming areas. They realize -- and they've been in the business for literally hundreds of years -- that tourism is the fastest-growing business in the world. My ministry is aware that tourism is probably the wave of the future. So preserving these agricultural greenbelts is extremely important, not just for the quality of life in British Columbia but for the potential tourism industry. We think there's a very close link between tourism and these agricultural greenbelts, and we have to preserve them. If we do preserve them, certainly our tourism industry will do well.

In fact, there was a study done in the Okanagan in 1983 that indicated that just over 50 percent of all tourists who came to the Okanagan came because of the agricultural greenbelts there. This impacts not just on tourism but on small business, on those small towns in the Okanagan, like Armstrong, Enderby, Oliver, Osoyoos and Keremeos. They depend on that agricultural dollar. A lot of small businesses depend on the tourism dollar.

We have, I think, a broader perspective, a more holistic view of the value of agriculture. My ministry is aware of this. We're looking way down the road. That's a very brief statement on that.

As far as fisheries and aquaculture are concerned, we know that this is one of the growing areas in our ministry. We have been up the coast a number of times. We've gone up to North Island; we've gone on the eastern part of the Island; we've gone on the western part of the Island; we've talked to producers; we've talked to processors; we've talked to everyone in the business, and they say we're going in the right direction. I think we are going in the right direction.

When we compare our potential with all of our potential competitors -- whether they are in the United States or Chile or Norway or Scotland or Japan or China -- we are better positioned. In some areas we're recognized as the world leaders. Even the Japanese are coming over to see what we do in certain areas of aquaculture. So I think we're doing very, very well. My ADM in this area is very keen on it and pointed out a number of times that this is the way to go. I think you'll find within four or five years that we will have probably hundreds, perhaps thousands, of extra jobs in aquaculture which we don't have today. We realize that when there's a downturn in fishing, forestry, mining or in gas and oil, we can pick up some of that slack in agriculture.

Those are some of the broad-based answers I will give to those rather broad-based questions.

R. Chisholm: I thank the hon. minister for his broad-based answers to my broad-based questions, which was more of a speech than broad-based questions. I'll now get into a questions-and-answers session and be a little more specific.

He's quoting to me facts and figures about how much the budget is, and I'm going to quote back to him his book. It's table B4: expenditure by ministry, consolidated revenue fund -- 1991-92, $96.4 million. It goes on to the revised forecast of $111.5 million, and it goes on and on. The estimate says it was $93.5 million, with an increase or decrease. In this term it was a decrease of 16.1 percent. Just to clarify the books, your book states 16.1 percent. I'm going to make a suggestion that even that is not enough. The budget has decreased expenditures for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to $93,458,000. The budget claims this is a 16.1 percent decrease in funding. If you take into account the 3 percent growth in the British Columbia economy forecast by this government, would the minister agree that this is actually a 19 percent decrease? I would like to know your opinion on that one, Mr. Minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: This is table B4, and when you include the $111.5 million, this includes special payments. If you include the special payments, indeed that would be a 16.1 percent decrease. But every year you have special payments. Our $93.5 million will undoubtedly have special payments. It may come up to $99 million or up to $105 million or up to $106 million. We don't know. That's why you cannot take this as the absolutely precise figure, it includes figures that came along during the year and built that total up to $111.5 million. So I don't think that that's accurate in the true sense.

I should perhaps make a comment on the 3 percent growth rate. It's true that the various ministries are probably experiencing about a 3 percent rate. To stay even with inflation, you should have 3 percent extra. I think that applies to most ministries. I do not think it applies to Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because we have been able to weather the economic storms over the last ten years extremely well. It's a very tightly run ministry, as you can tell from all the defaults -- we have less than 1 percent -- and as you can tell by the year-to-year growth. We can have a downturn; we can

[ Page 1009 ]

have a recession. People fall back on the land. We have a steady 3 to 5 percent average. We're the only ministry of agriculture in the Dominion of Canada that has experienced this growth over one full decade. I think we will continue to experience it, because we're looking down the line at the niche market. In fact, we're invading some of those markets now, and we will be invading more in the future.

I'm meeting with all sorts of people as far as our potential in this area is concerned. These are experts in the field. We're going outside the ministry. We do not stay strictly within the ministry. We go outside to experts in the field. I go out to the entrepreneurs, the processors and the retailers. They may not all agree with me politically, but I'll tell you what they do: they agree with us economically. They know we're going in the right direction. And we are going in the right direction. We are looking down the road. We're being proactive. I think you'll find this is correct. When we sit down next year, I think the hon. member might even agree, might even admit, that we have again grown 3 to 5 percent. It will probably be closer to 5 percent,

[3:30]

R. Chisholm: Generally, when an organization makes a budget, whether it be a homeowner, the Bank of Montreal or Toronto-Dominion, or Safeway, they take into account all accounts when they make the budget. They don't have hidden agendas, like you were stating you had with these other payments. That is not the way to make a budget, Mr. Minister. If you say that we are growing in agriculture, they why are we not enhancing the growth by helping out different areas of the agriculture industry such as the grain growers or the Cloverdale people, or whomever, instead of not helping them out at all and then having these massive amounts of bankruptcies?

Now To The Question: why does the minister feel Agriculture and Fisheries was able to withstand a 19 percent decrease in spending while the government's total spending was increased? I might add that the former government you mentioned had a decrease in Agriculture too, so I wouldn't quote them in your answers.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think that anyone familiar with the agriculture scene will realize that we do not dictate world conditions. We do not dictate world prices. Prices in grains and oilseeds took a free fall several years ago; they went down to historic lows. Prices in apples go up and down like a yo-yo. Prices in various other commodities go up and down. We are also exposed to flood, famine, weather conditions. It goes on and on. In my own area, the tree-fruits growers, who are getting back on their feet, suddenly were hit by killing frost. Some of these growers hadn't been hit by killing frost, and they'd been there 36 years. It wiped out 95 percent of the Red Delicious crop in the Oliver, Osoyoos and Keremeos area.

We cannot possibly foresee that. We take those year-to-year averages so that... This ministry, unlike other ministries, cannot be absolutely precise. We don't know what the FII payments are because we don't know what world prices will be; we don't know what market conditions will be; we don't know what economic picture is coming down the line. We don't know whether GATT will be completed this year or next spring, and that will have a significant impact upon us -- probably negatively, as far as supply management is concerned. We certainly cannot control the climatic conditions. I wish we could. We cannot.

So there is always a little bit of manoeuvrability, a little bit of leeway, and we must have that to run the ministry. I think we do that quite well. We're always quite close; we will never be precise.

R. Chisholm: We'll get to the prices and the frost and the floods and the snowstorms and hail later on in the debate, Mr. Minister. In the meantime, I suggest that you could be a little more flexible when it comes to the different agricultural areas in this province.

Now to my question -- if we can proceed to the votes, which is what I was trying to discuss in the first place. Vote 13, the minister's office, is up by 4 percent. The total operating costs of the minister's office are up by 112 percent, from $7,500 to $15,900. Office and business expenses -- No. 30 in vote 13 in the supplement to the ministry -- are up by 180 percent, from $3,500 to $9,800. Can the minister please explain what has caused such a drastic increase?

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, I can tell you, perhaps in reverse, what has not caused the increase.

First of all, like most other ministers, I was offered a 1991-92 vehicle. I said, "No thank you, I'm quite happy to drive my 1983 vehicle," so we saved some thousands of dollars there. My 1983 vehicle is quite comfortable. When I go abroad, or when I go into British Columbia, first of all I see if there's a relative in the area. That may be in Williams Lake, or it may be Grand Forks; I have relatives all over the place. Unfortunately, only a few of them are of my political persuasion, but that's because we had first cousins marrying in the family, and there were some problems. That's a gratuitous remark.

K. Jones: The rest are Liberals, are they?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, the Liberals on my mother's side of the family.

For instance, the last time I went to Creston, it was the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association annual general meeting, so I put up at very expensive digs: $30.25. I hope the opposition will forgive me that vast amount for my lodging that night. I hesitated to spend that, but I wasn't going to sleep in my car.

Any expenditures that we have are essentially office costs, and because we are getting out into so many areas of the province, those office costs do come up. When I travel to the various areas in the province and visit all the offices that we have.... And by the way, I intend to visit all of them, including our one man in Vanderhoof, who's retiring. I'd better get up there before he does. But I will visit him.

K. Jones: When are you coming to Cloverdale?

[ Page 1010 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: Cloverdale? I've been there already. I'll be back again; we had a great visit.

I think I've been very careful of expenditures. The expenditures you talk of are in the thousands, and they're important. I realize that the taxpayer pays this; no one is more aware of that than I am. I think you will find that we will be careful in our expenditures, but because I'm a proactive minister, I tend to get out to these various areas.

Some people have never seen the Minister of Agriculture. The other day I stopped by in the Nicola country. Some old farmer was hammering in a fence post. I walked over to him and said, "How are things?" and he said: "Who are you?" "I'm the Minister of Agriculture." "The hell you are!" "Yeah, I am. Why did you say that?" He said: "Never seen a Minister of Agriculture, and I've been here for 40 years."

So I drop in on these farmers, and most of them have never seen the Minister of Agriculture, present company excepted. I think they should see the Minister of Agriculture. I think they should ask me these tough questions, and some of them do. As you well know, hon. member, many of them are not of my persuasion, but I do think most of them realize that we're going in the right direction. So if it does cost several thousand dollars extra to run my office, it's not wasted money. I'm very tight; it comes from my Scottish background. Okay?

R. Chisholm: I'm just going to go cursorily over the budget and then on to things more on policy. But I seem to have heard that John Savage got around the province quite regularly too. So there's another minister that did.

My next question is on vote 14, operations of the ministry. Operations experienced a 6 percent growth in expenditures. In particular, the advertising budget received a $78,000 boost. This government increases taxes on all goods, which encourages people to cross-border-shop, buying their produce and dairy products while they're down there. Now they want to encourage Buy B.C. Unfortunately, their tax policies are only encouraging people to say "Bye-bye, B.C." Will the minister explain the $78,000 increase in advertising and no production?

Hon. B. Barlee: You've hit an area that I'm really quite fascinated with. First of all, I should allude to the previous minister's travel. He travelled by air quite a bit; I seldom do. If you compare our respective travel allowances, I think you'll find mine significantly lower.

Concerning Buy B.C., let me go over this very closely, because I'm going to be talking to the six major mayors of greater Vancouver tomorrow. The leakage we have to the state of Washington is essentially caused by two things: significantly higher gasoline prices in British Columbia vis-�-vis our American counterpart -- approximately 53.9 cents compared to about 31 cents, not all of which, by the way, is taxes.... In fact, the multinational oil companies have reached in with what I call their black profit; they hate me for it. They take an extra 9 cents and blame it on taxes. In some provinces it's 15 cents extra.

The other driving force -- excuse the pun -- is really the GST. That is federal, not provincial. We don't collect provincial taxes when they come across the border. The federal GST is the second-most-important driver of cross-border shopping.

Now let's examine cross-border shopping. I think we should examine it very closely. First of all, it's the consumer's way of punishing the government, usually the federal government. They punish it very well. For instance, in 1989, 15 million cars crossed the border into Washington, Idaho and Montana -- all of which abut British Columbia -- averaging probably 1.8 persons per car. That is a lot. That grew in 1990 to about 17.7 million, up almost 20 percent. It will probably go to 20 million cars this year -- that is 55,000 cars per day. Let's envision this: that's cars bumper to bumper from Vancouver to the Okanagan Valley going across the line every day. What are they doing? They're carrying Canadian dollars. Those are one-way dollars; they do not come back.

What does this cost us? Well, I'll tell you: 14,000 jobs per annum in British Columbia. It costs us $1.5 billion in direct leakage or loss. If you use a multiplier effect of three on that $1.5 billion, which is average in business, $4.5 billion is not circulating in the province. That impacts every small business in the province; it impacts our labour force. These are dollars that do not return.

The American strategy is nothing short of brilliant. It is this: keep gas prices low. How do they do that? By a road tax. If you are driving a 1992 car, they slap a tax of $1,000 or $1,200 (U.S.) on your car every year with your licence, and then they lower their gas tax by 10 cents. They don't have much of a state tax on gas.

Now how does that work? Why does it benefit them? Because they're doing it all the way across the northern borders, right from Maine through North Dakota, Washington and Idaho. They lower their price of gas, so it acts as a magnet to Canadian consumers, and the magnet works like a charm. It draws Canadian consumers down to the great malls in Washington State or Fargo, North Dakota, or Maine, and it prevents their wheel traffic from coming into Canada, because they don't want to pay $2 a gallon.

I am suggesting that we adopt a road tax. Then we can lower the price of our fuel down to 38.9 cents. That means we are in the ball park; that means we would cut that border traffic by about 50 percent. How do we know this? From the polls. We've run a whole bunch of polls on it. The first attraction is gas. When that goes down to 49.9, there is immediately a reduction of around 40 to 50 percent in the border traffic. What if it goes down to 39.9? Then we're competitive; then we don't take this horrific hit we're taking.

The federal government has finally adopted my figures. Two months ago they said it was costing Canadians $1.5 billion. On the radio this morning they finally admitted it's costing $6 billion. Where did they get the $6 billion figure? From us in Quebec City, when I went back to talk to the three ministers of agriculture from Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario, and I stated what it was costing each province. It's costing Canada $6 billion. Use a multiplier of three, and that's $18

[ Page 1011 ]

billion. It's costing us staggering numbers of jobs -- over 50,000 -- across the country.

Blaine is the busiest customs port in Canada. Nothing touches Blaine. That's why I'm going to discuss it tomorrow with the major mayors of greater Vancouver. I discussed it this morning with the processing industry; I've discussed it with the unions; I've discussed it with the producers. We will have the first stage of a Buy B.C. program underway, hopefully, by June. I think it is very important.

[3:45]

R. Chisholm: I have to agree with some of your observations, Mr. Minister. But there are different ways of putting the gas price down. Collecting the 6 percent coming across the border is one way you could do it, to put it back into the coffers. There are other ways -- tolls going across the borders. It's done in Ontario, but we can debate that later.

The question I asked you was: what happened to the $78,000? I'd appreciate it if you could give me an answer. Where was it spent?

Hon. B. Barlee: Mr. Chair, could we have a clarification of where the $78,000 number came from?

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister asks for a clarification on your figures.

R. Chisholm: I'm talking about the $78,000 increase in advertising for the "Bye-bye B.C." program. If you take a look at the budget for Agriculture, you will note that there is a difference of roughly $78,000 in the costs. That's what I'm looking at. Where has that gone -- the operating costs, which would be part of your "Bye-bye B.C." program?

Hon. B. Barlee: Could the member be more specific and point it out? We can't find that difference in our figures.

R. Chisholm: I'll get back to you with this question. Two or three people want to ask questions, and they're on a time limit. I'm going to let them jump in, and then I'll get back to this one with the minister right after these individuals have their chance.

A. Warnke: It's indeed a pleasure to ask a question with regard to the Agriculture estimates. It's rather unfortunate that I will have to leave today for a rather important function. It's not due to anything secondary about agriculture; I agree with the minister than agriculture is certainly one of the most important, if not in some ways the most important, industry in this province.

I would like to ask a general philosophical question; but believe me, it has a rather concrete application. Indeed, in some ways it may even be one of the most profound or inviting questions as to how we govern ourselves. It concerns an argument about the existence of two ministries. I'm sure the minister has heard the argument about two ministers. There's a provincial Ministry of Agriculture and a federal Department of Agriculture. To digress for a moment, the argument often put forward is that this is an example of redundancy in the system of government, a duplication that illustrates just how inefficient government has become. I must state at the outset that I don't agree with that point of view.

We obviously won't debate it here, but in response I would suggest that both ministries are absolutely essential. At the same time, I do not want to see a debate generated whereby we have to choose whether we support the federal Minister of Agriculture or the provincial Minister of Agriculture, considering -- and I will not elaborate much further -- that both the federal and provincial levels are absolutely necessary. If nothing else, we have seen, in the context of the North American free trade agreement being proposed and in the free trade agreement as practised in the last four or five years, how federal legislation can severely impact on a particular province. Indeed, the argument has been put forward how the free trade agreement has impacted severely, let's say, on the Okanagan region.

Therefore I am very interested, first of all, in the minister's position. That is a very general -- almost philosophical or policy -- view. But it has a concrete purpose as well, as to where the ministry is headed in terms of enhancing the interests of the province and of the agricultural industry. I wonder whether the minister could help out in terms of any research being conducted and funds being allocated in the ministry towards research, and whether there has been any examination of issues, such as the cost-efficiency of the Agriculture ministry for the province vis-�-vis the federal ministry -- those kinds of statistics comparing the two ministries. I would argue that we need a federal Department of Agriculture, but I would also argue very strongly that we need a provincial Ministry of Agriculture. I would like to pose that general question to the minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very thoughtful question from the member for Richmond-Steveston, and it requires a logical answer. First of all, I should preface my remarks by saying that there tends to be a cross-jurisdiction in some areas. We don't think that's entirely harmful; in fact, sometimes it's helpful. We have made a conscious effort to include federal employees in our long-term direction. Our letters go into various other federal departments. We sometimes use their scientists on contract when it's cheaper. For instance, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is based right in the dominion research station in Summerland. They are right there, capable of taking advantage of the research they're doing in the tree-fruits area. They're doing the bulk of the research in Canada. This is very important.

Another thing we've made an attempt to do -- and I think successfully.... For instance, we have included ex-federal scientists or Ministry of Agriculture employees on a number of our boards. We have a different look at the problem we are facing. We have on the boards consumers, producers, scientists, ex-employees of the federal government and ex-employees of the provincial government. We have a very broad-based look at the

[ Page 1012 ]

boards. We feel that will give us a number of different answers. We don't want all the same answers. We do not entirely depend upon our own ministry for all the answers. We know all the answers aren't there.

Those are several things we're doing. We realize we were left out of the free trade agreement as far as the north coast and west coast fishery is concerned. We are moving now. We have close contact with the federal Minister of Fisheries, the hon. John Crosbie, and with his deputy. They are understanding the question. Again, I think they're aware that it's cross-jurisdictional.

In response to the other member, we have made considerable strides. For instance, we had a 5,000 tonne hake allocation last year. The federal government assures us that this is now going to become a 25,000 tonne allocation. We're a little concerned about one paragraph which causes us some uneasiness. We're having that clarified now. We're going through all the routes. It was a good, intelligent question, but we're covering that. We haven't done all the work we want to do, because we've only been here for five and a half months. By nine, ten or 12 months, we will probably cover most of that area.

Research in the agricultural field is basically in the hands of the federal government. They have about 1,200 employees in the fisheries area; we have about 40. They have much more ability, both financially and in manpower, to do research. We receive that research from them. There's lots of information passed back and forth between the ministries. Of course we have other areas which we fund. We fund the University of British Columbia, which I think is quite important -- as does the federal government as well. A number of our staff people also serve on the federal committees; we almost always have a staff person serving on a federal committee. That was a precise question. Generally, we have covered that area.

We cooperate with research and development. Where we need help, we inform the federal employees. There is quite a lot of cooperation between the two jurisdictions.

A. Warnke: First of all, the minister has outlined a very positive response on the different jurisdictions. One particular phrase he used cannot be overrated -- that is, to have governments "provide a different look." It is along that line that I was heading. That's an excellent choice of words. As well, I'm pleased that the minister has outlined how the federal and provincial governments actually work together at a very concrete level at the research and development stage. That's extremely encouraging.

There are a couple of concrete questions. I do not want to take away from my colleagues who might also want to ask those questions, but the impact of the free trade agreement on the Okanagan.... The minister has outlined that very briefly. I'm wondering what he sees in the Okanagan, and how the ministry is responding to certain questions -- whether there is a similar approach, and whether adequate moneys are used to protect small farms in the Fraser Valley. I'm sensitive to that, being from Richmond, where we are trying to protect our small farms in the face of development. The minister also used two figures: 1,200 federal employees.... Just to qualify it, is that in the province or is that national?

Hon. B. Barlee: The province. I'm sorry I wasn't more specific.

A. Warnke: That's very good.

I believe his ministry is also concerned with fisheries. I have to ask this question on behalf of my constituents in Richmond-Steveston, as to their future in the fishing industry -- especially in processing and canning: how does his ministry intend to develop a strategy to enhance the fishing and fish-processing industries within the province?

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that's a thoughtful question, Mr. Chair. I think I should comment in order. In respect to the Okanagan Valley and our attempts to turn it around, what we did there, essentially, was to provide some direct payments to the growers. Those were ad hoc payments -- not the method we would prefer. Because of the severe economic conditions of many of the farmers there, which we felt impacted on agricultural land reserve and on small business in an area that already -- in many parts of the Okanagan Valley, with the exception of Kelowna -- had been hard hit by the recession, we felt that payment was necessary.

Coupled with that, we had more long-term strategies in place as well. What we did in the Okanagan Valley was this: we provided almost $4 million to the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for research and development, market enhancement and so on. I think that was necessary.

Another major move was the $3.3 million we provided to a new state-of-the-art facility for the sterile insect release program. This means that we can now curb the depredations of the codling moth in the Okanagan Valley. This program is underway now. It will come into full force in about two years and will give us a significant step up on all the opposition around the world.

No one has this program. I should give the federal government its due here; the cost is equally shared by the federal government. They see the necessity of it as well. It will mean the eradication -- it has been tried before, so it isn't a shot in the dark -- of the codling moth in the Okanagan, Similkameen and Creston Valleys. We will be able to put on the fruit we send overseas to London, Hong Kong, Japan and everywhere else in the world that this is the lowest percentage of sprays used on any apples in the world -- except those that are strictly organically grown, and that's very hard to quantify.

[4:00]

At the same time, we awarded some of those farmers who had planted new varieties such Empire, Golden Gala and so on, for looking to the twenty-first century. They went for some years without any recovery of those moneys. We provided them with some funds, because they had been looking down the road. We felt

[ Page 1013 ]

they were doing what we wanted the rest of the Okanagan Valley to do.

The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority is there because we want to take a hard look at what we think they can do in the years to come, if we are to face the GATT, which would have a significant effect on agriculture not only in the Okanagan but all across British Columbia. They're poised there to look at the markets, the potential, and the research and development -- what we need in the final analysis to face our competitors in the state of Washington, for instance, which is staggering competition. In China they have half a million acres under production in apples alone. We have 26,000 acres in the Okanagan; we're dwarfed. The Chinese are coming over to see how we do it, and we are showing them -- which is very questionable, of course.

As far as the Fraser Valley is concerned, I think it's a good question. What we managed to do through the ministry was this. The federal government gave out slightly more than $80 million for horticultural aid because of the impact of the free trade agreement and various other impacts such as dumping. We managed to get $16.1 million of that basically for the dairy farmers in the Fraser Valley, who had suffered some significant losses. That $16.1 million is just over 20 percent of the total for all of Canada; we represent something like 12 percent of the total. So we got more than our share.

Some growers, such as the raspberry-growers and the potato-growers, will be getting significant amounts. But we're still trying to position them, because some of those areas are at risk economically. We're aware of that, so we're looking at the possible niche markets and the other areas where we have alternatives and options. I think we're not completely happy in some of those areas. We realize we have a lot of work to do. My ADMs and my directors are quite aware of this and are working in that direction.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

I'm sorry, I didn't answer one question. Like the member for Richmond-Steveston, we're very concerned about fisheries.

We feel we should maximize.... We catch a lot of fish, but a lot of them are either processed by the factory ships -- for instance, hake or some of the groundfish -- or in the United States. We feel very strongly that those processing jobs belong in British Columbia. There were plants in Richmond that had -- I'm trying to recall all the figures, but I will say 800; it's a little more -- around 800 employees, and they have under half of that five years later. They were working 11 months; now they're working 16 weeks. I'm saying that we've got to get those jobs back.

The Americans, of course, are constantly striving to maintain those jobs in the United States. We're going after the federal government, because it's basically their responsibility, to drive them into position. I think that the federal minister is getting the message; certainly I think the hake announcement is a step in the right direction. The hake announcement will be followed by other announcements for other groundfish and other species in the aquaculture area.

We're quite aware that there are a number of areas in which we can enhance our job opportunities. We're not too concerned about the Russian factory ships and all the other factory ships; we think those jobs should belong in Steveston, Richmond, Port Alice and Price Rupert and so on. I think you will find as time goes on that we have made a significant impact. We've made that impact already; in six months I see great strides being made. We have really managed to impress upon the federals that we mean business in this area.

A. Cowie: Certainly agriculture is important to this province; I recognize that. I also recognize that the Agricultural Land Commission does an extremely good job. I've started by saying that, and I now have some general criticisms.

The Agricultural Land Commission was essentially set up for the control of greenbelts -- looking at them and preserving them. In fact, that was taken away. I wonder if that is still an objective as far as the minister is concerned. If it is an objective, what measures are there in his budget to start to bring back the control of greenbelts?

While he's answering that, might he get into explaining where...? Agriculture does blend with many other important things, like tourism. I agree with him; it also blends with recreation. When it comes to recreation -- this will save us a lot of time if I can get this out, and then we can get into specifics -- there are going to be huge conflicts in the future. The greatest conflicts are not going to be between urban developers and agricultural people; the real debate is going to be between recreation, environmentalists and agricultural people. I think it's very important that we look at some of the original objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission if we are to preserve agricultural land in a meaningful way and have the appropriate legislation.

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, that's a good question, Mr. Chair. My background in this is that I've always felt -- as I think the member for Vancouver-Quilchena feels as well -- that it is a positive piece of legislation. It is not perfect, but it certainly far outweighs the other alternatives.

I have to allude to certain areas that have recognized the value of the agricultural greenbelts -- and I use that term advisedly. I don't necessarily split them. I think the agricultural greenbelts, rather than the farms.... There is perhaps an important distinction there. For instance, the city of London -- the old city, which is one square mile -- is around 14 percent greenbelts. They have kept those greenbelts intact for literally centuries, recognizing -- as I believe the member for Vancouver-Quilchena recognizes -- that they have other values.

They have a greenbelt value; they have a recreation value, which we're aware of. But there's another thing we have to take into consideration. The total equation is this: if we are to keep those greenbelts intact, then we must make sure that the holder of those agricultural land reserve lands has a reasonable chance of making an adequate living. I'm not saying a princely living; I'm

[ Page 1014 ]

saying an adequate living. For instance, real estate in Vancouver is very high. In the Okanagan it's very high. In southern Vancouver Island it's extremely high as well. There's a lot of pressure on the land presently in the ALR -- extreme pressure. Some of that land is selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre.

I think as a government we have a responsibility to say to those farmers: "Yes, you are in the ALR...." And they're not alone. Many of those farmers think they're in the ALR, but they're not, as far as being locked in goes. For instance, the highest real estate value -- some of the highest in the world -- is on the various islands of the state of Hawaii. If I remember correctly -- and I probably do -- they passed Bill 185 there in 1961. That was 31 years ago, far before our agricultural land reserve act. That bill ensures that the islands of Hawaii are divided into four areas: urban or residential; industrial; park and recreation; and agriculture. They consider it to be the second-most-valuable bill in Hawaiian history, next to their constitution. The amazing thing is that despite the pressure on the land in Hawaii -- and there is significant pressure -- they have kept it almost intact for 31 years. So that is a jurisdiction that is looking down the road, as we are.

We had a problem with the golf course issue, because we inherited order-in-council 1141, which was passed June 30, 1988, by the previous government to allow not the developers.... I draw a distinction between the developers and the speculators. I don't mind if a person wants to develop some land; I do object if they want to speculate on agricultural land. The speculators were allowed to get in there and pick up this land. A lot of them were only interested in speculating. That's all: a quick flip, a quick turn. We blocked that by essentially rescinding it.

Now we did inherit some problems, in that many of the golf courses that came in under order-in-council 1141 had already been built, so we let them through. If I had had my druthers on this.... I didn't get a choice. Essentially we have turned back the clock, saying: "This will not be allowed in the future." And ELUC was allowed to rule on it. Although ELUC is still on the books and probably will be for several months, eventually it will be done away with as a form of appeal. I don't think there should be an appeal to the Agricultural Land Commission. I think this is a stand-alone Crown. This is a ministry that must operate independently. I do not interfere in their decisions. I don't come up to them, as was rumoured to have happened in the past, and say: "Look, we'd like such and such, and such and such." I don't play that game. People come to me all the time and say, "We have a piece of land..." and I say: "Don't even discuss it with me." If you discuss it with me, for sure it will be refused because it is not my job -- although this is under my aegis -- to interfere in the decision of what I consider a stand-alone body.

In brief, I think the agricultural land reserve is a very valuable piece of legislation. We have to look at all the lands under the reserve, the whole 11.7 million acres. We're going to be facing continuous pressure. I think our major job as a ministry is to make sure that those farmers at least have a reasonable chance of economic success. Not every farmer is going to achieve economic success. As you well know, in private business, the failure rate is fairly high. Fortunately, in farming, it isn't very high, but there are individuals out there who would rather have their land turned into a subdivision than into a farm. I prefer the latter.

A. Cowie: The minister answered a number of questions that I hadn't asked, but I appreciate it because I won't have to ask them now. I appreciate the 1961 Hawaii legislation. I also have a feeling that the ALR on its own simply will not preserve agricultural land. One has to deal with the farmer himself. I think you agree with that. One has to plan agriculture with other uses, and that's why the Hawaiian legislation was so successful. My fear is that we have the agricultural land reserve by itself, and some municipalities adopt the ALR as part of their official community plans. Others use it instead of zoning, especially if they have a strong philosophy to do that.

There's a large grey area around what you've called "greenbelt." I have personally lived and worked in Britain, Scotland and other places, where greenbelt was very successful. It is used for golf courses, parks, forests and for other purposes. In Britain they have gone beyond the greenbelt in pockets. They plan differently than we do here. We tend to sprawl; I call it "slurbalizing." We don't have very good planning legislation for land use planning and we haven't for ten years. I think we would agree on that.

[4:15]

If we're going to preserve agricultural land, we should do a study to make sure that we're preserving the very best. I would like to see some of the lower-class land -- maybe classes 4, 5, 6 and 7 -- in some situations where especially it's intermixed with urban lands.... There are many cases like that in the lower mainland, especially around Kelowna and Kamloops. There are many areas where one could implement a very wide greenbelt area. In order to do that, one has got to allow golf courses, parks or forests, and zone them to ensure that they aren't later put to an urban use. One way of doing that is to buy the development rights. Another way is to get a covenant that goes with the land and says that it can never be used for anything else. I feel we're really timid in this grey area. I could go on and on about this; it's my favorite subject. But I think we're losing the battle at the edge. I think we have to do something stronger than just rely on the Agricultural Land Commission.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very thought-provoking question. Some parts of it I agree with, and some parts I disagree with.

To qualify that, I think I should say this. You mentioned Kelowna in your preamble, and I was brought up in Kelowna; my formative years were spent in Kelowna. My uncle, who is an old Conservative -- he was so right-wing he used to dismount on the right-hand side of his horse -- owned much of the city of Kelowna. If you go to Kelowna and you go on the outside -- what is now the centre of Kelowna, Orchard Park -- we owned it all. That was the Barlee stretch. They took that land....

[ Page 1015 ]

I should perhaps elaborate on this. When I was a kid, a teenager and a young man, Kelowna was one of the most beautiful cities in British Columbia. It had few equals. There were some cities on the Island that could touch it -- certainly Victoria was one, and Duncan. In the interior there were Nakusp and Grand Forks. What has happened under successive city councils in Kelowna is that.... I agree that there was not a long-term plan in Kelowna. For instance, if you examine the city plan of Kelowna.... Outside of the regional parks, an ordinary city will have 12 percent of its land in parks; Kelowna has half of 1 percent, except for Mount Knox. They have maximized some of the finest greenbelt land in the province, and turned it into housing and industrial development. The Kelowna that I knew in the 1940s and 1950s was a very gracious city with a low crime rate. You could go away and leave your house unlocked for a month. Now you can't leave it unlocked for 30 seconds. The traffic was minimal; the crime rate was minimal. The taxes were almost non-existent.

So what did they do? The speculators came into Kelowna. Unfortunately many of them were on city council, and I've had this argument with them. These speculators had no thought, no long-range feeling for a town that was very gracious. It had the ambiance of very few towns. And what did they do? They turned it into blacktop. I'm saying that you cannot leave this to most city councils, because city councils change. Municipal authority changes, and you get individuals in there who are bent on speculation and who want to make a quick turn. Therefore the provincial government must have a hand in this.

I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying that some of your ideas are not without merit, but certainly when I think of the city councils I have known, I would be very chary of letting them have control of the agricultural land reserves within or close to their city limits, because they would destroy them overnight. As you say, they would go out and not up, and they would eat up that agricultural land and blockbust all the way around the line. I'm saying that our developers who are true developers in Kelowna.... All you have to do is take a drive out to Glenmore, which when I was a kid was a magnificent area. All the orchards were still intact. What did they do to Glenmore? They removed hundreds and hundreds of acres from Glenmore, and they turned it into walled condominiums. What are they doing to a golf course in Kelowna right now? They're deaccessioning it, because they are very shrewd. I'm trying to save that area. Mountain Shadows is the name of the old course, and they're probably going to turn that into an industrial development.

We, as a government, cannot afford to say okay, we'll take a chance on this city council. You might be fine for ten years, but in the eleventh or twelfth year that city council may change. It may be captured by the speculators and not by the developers. That land is gone, and once lost it is never regained.

A. Cowie: I have three or four questions, but right now I'm only going ask one, because I get such juicy, lovely answers. I really appreciate them. I really mean that.

When it comes to relying on municipalities, I'm afraid I share your view. I'd also extend that as far as commercial, residential, and industrial land. What I was getting at earlier -- and you brought it up -- was the Hawaiian plan in 1961. In that case, the state did have a state plan. This is what we have to look at. We've got an upcoming provincial economic plan looking at resources and the environment, and that's a good way of looking at it provincially and regionally. What I assume I'm hearing here is that there's a need for the province to get a good, firm hand on the agricultural land. I hope I also heard some flexibility when it comes to looking at the greenbelt areas, because I can tell you, having many years of experience in Vancouver, that there's no more land for golf courses or playing-fields. There's more population coming in at approximately 10,000 persons per year, and those people are going to continue to settle in urban areas such as Burnaby and central Surrey. They're going to have to have recreation space. Somewhere along the line there's got to be a little bit of flexibility. At least the poorer lands should be changed into recreational use. There has to be more than the agricultural land reserve in order to make sure other lands are actually preserved as agriculture. I'm going to leave it at that today and pass it back to my associate here. I'll have some questions for tomorrow after you've gone through that.

Hon. B. Barlee: You made some good points, and I'll concede that. I do think that any long-term plan, any agricultural land reserve or similarity, should be revisited and redefined. I mentioned with the acting head of the Agricultural Land Commission that we think that there are probably some lands -- a very small percentage -- within the ALR that should be looked at. When you mention that there are not lands available, there are approximately 100,000 acres available outside the Agricultural Land Reserve between Chilliwack and Vancouver, including the larger areas. We think those 100,000 acres are sufficient for the expansion for the next number of years. Not all of it is easy to build on; some of it is in the mountainous areas.

As far as golf courses are concerned, I'm a golfer. I just turned down a grant to my own golf club, which shows that my biases are relatively well in place. The problem with the golf courses is that you are restricted to a percentage of the population that is usually in the higher-income bracket and who will be able to avail themselves of that golf course, thereby cutting out probably 75 or 80 percent of the other people who cannot afford the fees for that golf course.

You can do it through municipal golf courses to a degree, and I concede that. But I'm saying that there is enough room at the present time in Vancouver -- and we have several studies indicating that if there is such a huge demand for golf courses, there is enough land outside the agricultural land reserve -- to allow these golf courses to be developed. Unfortunately, some of the golf courses that were picked up under order 1141 were for speculation only. I think we both know this. Some were not, but some were.

[ Page 1016 ]

So we are already looking at remapping the agricultural land reserve and taking into consideration those class 5 and class 6 lands. But I cannot see a vast change in it, partly because I am -- and have been for a long time, although I'm an entrepreneur -- a long-term believer in the value of it, even with its warts. We must realize that, in the long term, any lands we ever let out of the agricultural land reserve.... People say: "Yes, it can be brought back into production." But it is very unusual, almost unheard of, once you take those lands out of that protective belt, that they ever get back into agricultural production.

I think there is a larger issue at stake here. The major corporations, which I alluded to very briefly -- Shell Oil, Imperial Oil, Cargill -- are looking at genetic transfers of seeds and all the rest of it. These corporate entities are looking down the line and saying: "We know what people have to have." They may not need gas and oil by the year 2000, because we might have electric cars. And they may not need some of the metals, because they're being replaced by plastics. But do you know what we do need? We need food. And these guys are looking down the line; their long-term strategy is well in place. We have to be prepared to counter that. We have to have lands within British Columbia, when we're looking at a very restrictive land base of only 5 percent -- one acre out of 20. I'm saying we have to defend that.

We provide 60 percent of our food now. We have to be prepared to provide more than that. If we take that long-term view, that very broad perspective, we have to realize a lot more things than just the agricultural land reserve. Probably both of us realize, if we look at the strategy of the multinational corporations, that they want to control that marketplace. If they get control of agriculture, our 11.8 percent of the average income is going to jump like it does to Spain -- 27 percent. Then we're economic captives. I'm saying put the brakes on.

There's some merit in what you say, that golf is important. I think it is, but I think we still have ample room within this whole general area of approximately 40,000 hectares -- about 98,000 acres -- which can pick up the golf courses we need, down to 1996. We've got separate studies on it as well. Some of these studies are done by golf course developers, who say that we're getting close now -- with the new golf courses that we let through -- to being okay in that area.

We haven't got all the answers, but I'm saying that we have to be very careful if we let anything out of that reserve.

H. De Jong: Before I get into many of the questions or comments, I want to say that I was happy to note that the minister said that several of his relatives were of a different political persuasion. I just want to assure all of you here that I'm not one of those relatives.

It's interesting when we talk about the Ministry of Agriculture and the farming community. Some people may think it's all very cut and dried. I agree with some of the things the minister said at the beginning in relation to a budget to be forecasted. I suppose that if a farmer could forecast a whole year of weather, and if he could forecast the level of interest that he's supposed to be paying on outstanding loans -- often many of them are floating loans -- and if he knew how market conditions would run through the year, I suppose he could work out a pretty good budget too, a pretty tight budget.

[4:30]

The same applies to the Ministry of Agriculture budget. I don't really take issue with the fact that there may not be sufficient money in some of the areas of the budget now. But I think that if the willingness and the commitment on the part of the government are there, when the needs really arise, the government does come around to assist the farmers.

When we talk about assistance, it's often thought of as cash in the pocket. In some cases, that may be necessary from time to time. But I don't think -- at least I wouldn't want to suggest -- that the agricultural community should become dependent on government handouts. I don't think the farmer really wants to be, either. Farmers generally are a pretty determined bunch of people. Yes, they may be different in terms of approaching things, and may not always agree on how things should change or what methods should be used to achieve a change. But generally they're a pretty independent group, and yes, they want to achieve what they have set out to do, which is produce a crop of whatever it may be and have that crop available to the marketplace, to the people of British Columbia.

I guess one of the bigger questions among the agriculture community is the one dealing with finances. While there have been some programs that used to be pretty goo -- federal-provincial joint initiatives -- some of these seem to have fallen by the wayside and others were discontinued. I'm thinking specifically of the ARDSA program. Many good drainage and irrigation installations were initiated during those years, not simply to help one farmer but to help hundreds of farmers in a given community.

I would like to ask the minister whether there is any discussion of reinstituting those type of loans that are of a farming-community nature such as drainage programs and large irrigation installations, etc.

Hon. B. Barlee: I thank the member for Abbotsford for his gracious statements and his concerns for the farming community.

To answer some of those questions, we are, as you know, attempting to get away from some of the ad hoc payments, partly because some of these will be either amber or red if the GATT goes through, as the member is well aware; therefore they would be countervailable.

As to some of the community-based programs, this is an area we are looking at very seriously. The member has indicated that there should be more emphasis upon these programs. I think there should. However, in this era of retrenchment as far as my ministry is concerned.... The member is very familiar with the ministry. We are seriously looking at this area, as far as drainage is concerned, which you mentioned. I think drainage is extremely important, certainly in parts of the Fraser Valley, where it impacts on the entire farming community. I think this will be given high priority in the next budget. We probably would have achieved it in

[ Page 1017 ]

this budget if we had not taken a significant cut. I anticipate that by 1992-93 some of these broader-based programs such as drainage, weed control and so on will be included in what I consider a proactive strategy.

H. De Jong: With the federal election not too far off, it may be a good point of strategy to approach the federal people on that. I think they have received a fair amount of blame for the elimination of that particular program. Certainly the farming community would be not only happy but well served by the reintroduction of the ARDSA program.

There has been a lot said about the agricultural land freeze and the agricultural land reserve. I don't think the agricultural community really has a problem with the agricultural land reserve as such, except perhaps in some areas, and I will get to that a little later. Generally, during the 15 to 20 years that this has been in place, the agricultural community has taken a certain amount of comfort from the agricultural land reserve. What it has done, as we all know.... This particularly pertains to the Fraser Valley and perhaps the Okanagan Valley too. In the mid-sixties there was a lot of subdivision for five acres, two acres and so on, which really put an artificial price on land in terms of agricultural production. It made it very difficult for a young farmer in particular -- but for any farmer, really, who was growing a crop or producing any kind of produce -- to buy land on the basis of what the land could produce.

Worst of all.... This was considered after the introduction of the land freeze, and while I was in local politics for many years we tried to stay away from that, because there was a lot of suggestion that perhaps the cutting up of class 5 and 6, and even perhaps down to 4, wouldn't be that bad. If it was cut up.... I'm not saying that there should be no subdivision at any time within the agricultural land reserve. Some of them are essential, because we do get more of the high-tech type of farming industry that is in the lower mainland particularly and I'm sure elsewhere, where they do not require acreages larger than 20 acres -- perhaps in some cases only 10 acres, if it's a nursery type of operation. But when you take the situation of cutting up class 4 land for the purpose of providing homesites in a rural setting, this again takes away from the land being available, and all of a sudden the poorer land gains a higher value than good land in terms of soil classification. It's not a wise move for any municipality or regional district to pressure the government to allow class 4 and class 5 land to be subdivided for home-size parcels.

In many cases, particularly in the upland areas of Matsqui and perhaps Langley and so on, you'll find that you have a mix of land. In fact, even on our farm in Matsqui Prairie we had some class 4 land and some class 5; mainly 3 and 2, but there were pockets there. Are you going to separate these pockets? It's dangerous stuff.

Again, I think the agricultural land reserve has its place and certainly is not a hindrance to agriculture as such. It may be to some of the developers who would like to get their hands on it. However, I think we should also recognize that from time to time.... We all know that we're in a fast-growing province. Populations expand and different services are required in terms of land for residential purposes and otherwise, commercial and perhaps even some industry. They're talking about expanding our markets, but if we want to expand our markets internally in British Columbia, then we should allow the growth to happen.

Some people say: "Stack 'em up higher, like they do in Japan." Generally, I don't think that's the lifestyle of Canadians except in the larger cities. I think many small communities -- and I can say that Abbotsford-Matsqui is still a small community -- do not really cherish the thought of having 16- or 20-storey highrise buildings. Nor are they suited for it from a safety point of view, because they haven't got the equipment to service those high buildings for fire purposes, safety purposes and otherwise.

I know the minister doesn't want to get involved with the Agricultural Land Commission's operation as to exclusions, but when a community can prove the need for additional land for expansion, which ultimately will help the agricultural industry in selling its product, what are his general thoughts on some levity in that area as to what has been happening in the past?

Hon. B. Barlee: I appreciate the considered remarks, specifically at the start of the member's address, that he realizes the agricultural land reserve serves not only the farming community but the populace at large. Certainly in places like Matsqui and Abbotsford and so on they have a quality of life, but according to our maps -- and we have studied this area quite closely -- there are still thousands of acres in that general area where expansion can take place, and these thousands of acres are essentially outside of the agricultural land reserve.

We are afraid of several different things. We are afraid of impacting upon the ability of the farmer to farm. In other words, if we blockbust in certain of these areas, whether it's class 4 or class 5 or class 6, as you well know, we take a chance of impacting negatively on the infrastructure of farming. A lot of the neighbours, for instance, who are right next to a farming operation do not appreciate the farming operation, and we have to be extremely careful of that. The Agricultural Land Commission itself rules on only one thing: whether or not that land should be protected for future generations. I cannot find many flaws in that basic argument. There are perhaps some exceptions. Certainly the member for Abbotsford, who knows that area extremely well, knows there are some exceptions to that, but there are not many.

In that larger equation we still have tens of thousands of acres that can be used for -- shall we use the word "development"? I would have great difficulty in reaching in or directing the Agricultural Land Commission -- which I do not direct anyway, and purposely not -- to look at those lands as a possible source of future subdivisions or industrial expansion. I believe that in the long run, when I'm long gone out of this job -- in the twenty-first century; I don't care if it's 2001 or 2002 -- we have to look down for our children and our grandchildren. The areas that have not done this have

[ Page 1018 ]

bitterly rued it. All you have to do is take a look at the major cities of North America, which in some instances were veritable paradises. Los Angeles, 50 years ago, was remarkable. Look at it today. There are areas in Los Angeles where the police cannot patrol in an armored car, because they will not get out alive. You cannot go for a walk in Central Park in New York, because you may not come out alive.

[4:45]

I'm saying these greenbelts have a much greater impact than the immediate concerns. I'm saying that the greenbelts have -- I alluded to this, and the member knows this as well -- a much greater appeal, a much greater value than farming specifically. I'm saying they have all sorts of other values; they have social, economic, greenbelt and tourism values. It runs right across the board.

Again, I come back to your initial argument that we are trying to protect only one acre out of 20. If I put 20 acres in this room, we're trying to protect that small corner. I'm saying we should protect it as a society. This runs right across the parties. The member for Abbotsford and I agree on many things. We are not the same politically, but we have that long-term vision. I think you value those lands as much as I do. We may have a slightly different approach, and certainly some of the members from the official opposition party have a slightly different approach. But I don't think anyone can disagree with the long-term concept we have. That long-term concept is: if I take this room and cut it into 20 parts, the developers can have 19, but they cannot have the twentieth part.

H. De Jong: You made a very important point, Mr. Minister. The Agricultural Land Commission only deals with the application from the agricultural point of view. While there are those needs of fast-growing communities.... We can say yes to maybe 1,000 or 10,000 acres elsewhere in the lower mainland that could be used for expansion that's not in the agricultural land reserve, but those areas do not always have the services available to accommodate those developments. Neither are they always situated in close proximity to the main traffic arteries from where people will travel to and from work.

Would the minister -- when the need is shown in the community -- perhaps consider the establishment of a non-political advisory committee? When I say non-political, I mean no local or provincial politicians on that committee, but a committee of independent people of various backgrounds within the community, a good cross-section of people to evaluate the proposal made by such a local council or regional district board -- whatever the case may be.

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, this requires a responsible answer. I can answer that in reverse. The Agricultural Land Commission does work with the local governments. There are occasions where they will allow lands out of the agricultural land reserve. For instance -- I recall this from memory; it's not on the papers -- between 1973 and June 30, 1988, there were 72 applications to take golf courses out of the agricultural land reserve. They allowed 64 percent to be taken out. Those lands were in essence class 5 and class 6, which did not impact significantly or negatively upon our capability of producing food in British Columbia.

There's a danger involved here. The member for Abbotsford has followed it through to a degree. The Agricultural Land Commission is this independent body. You mentioned that independent people should perhaps take a look at it. The classic example of independent people.... How do you get an independent board? You elect them. We elect councils all the way around the province, whether it's a village council, a municipality or a city. But unfortunately, many of them do not have that long-range view. Many of these individuals....

I mentioned the city of Kelowna as a classic example. My old uncle owned most of the city of Kelowna for 50 years, from the 1890s right to the 1940s. As soon as the developers got hold of it, as soon as the city council changed hands from prior city councils which had said: "Look, we have a gem of a town. Let us protect it." All you have to do is drive through the city of Kelowna today to see what's happened. I alluded to Los Angeles, and I mentioned New York City. These are the worst examples. These are the very worst that we could ever expect. These are individuals who call themselves developers. They said the services weren't close enough, so we had to have them in the city. And what do we get? Essentially we get a slum. I don't want to see the slum extend from Vancouver to the Fraser Valley. I don't want to see this cheek-by-jowl living from one end of the Okanagan Valley to the other.

When our people came into the Okanagan they were ranchers and small businessmen. It was an Eden. The bunch grass grew as high as a horse's belly. There was nothing to touch it. And what have the speculators and the so-called developers done? All you have to do is look at the city of Kelowna in 1950 and look at it in 1992, and see what they've done. And what do they do? They pocket their millions of dollars and walk away from it. They go to Hawaii to spend their holidays. They go to Palm Springs, where they've kept the quality of life. I'm saying that we can't lose it. I think the member, in his heart of hearts, agrees with this -- that that's the danger of letting some "independent" look at these lands. We cannot afford to let them do it.

That's why I cannot afford to interfere in the decisions of the Agricultural Land Commission. I can only give them a general direction that I, as minister -- and they're under my aegis -- think we have to protect that one fraction of British Columbia that we are empowered to protect. I'm not being so obdurate that.... I realize that there are flaws in the agricultural land reserve. It is not perfect. I'm saying that this is the finer, long-range alternative. This is what you and I and all the members here would like in the twenty-first century. If we can preserve some of the values in these towns..... And it won't be perfect. I'm facing a barrage from these speculators -- and I don't call them speculators for want of another term. They're not developers. If you think back on the individuals.... I know many of them. Many of them are old friends of mine. They don't have a feel for this province.

[ Page 1019 ]

We cannot afford to take a backward step, to take any chance of alienating these lands. Yes, there are some points you made that were well thought out. There are some points you made where you pointed out the weaknesses in the system, but overall it's basically sound. Overall it's a system that does work well and has passed the test of time in those jurisdictions all around the world where they have not deviated.

One of those jurisdictions is in Oregon. They have a land act there. They've drawn a line: you shall not come into this area with industrial development, with recreational development, with potential housing developments. You simply do not. They took a poll in Oregon, and they took a poll across the United States last year. They polled thousands of respondents, and they said: "Which state do you want to live in?" Practically everybody said Oregon. It was a runaway winner. Why? Because the people and the politicians of Oregon looked far down the line and said: "We cannot dip into those agricultural lands." I think they're way ahead of the game.

People around the world are looking at British Columbia, because basically we have been successful. We have not been perfect, and I'll admit that to the member for Abbotsford. He knows that, but he also has a deep feel for the land, as I do. I'm saying never reach into those lands, because once we do, we don't get them back. They're gone forever.

H. De Jong: I appreciate what the minister is saying; however, I have to disagree with him somewhat. When an elementary school cannot be built because of a land freeze on the property, when a college cannot be expanded beyond its current property -- which should have been bigger, rather than cluttering up a small site with all kinds of buildings -- I think that the government has to look at it. The Land Commission can make its decision on the land, whether it's class 3 or 4 or 5, and decide it shall not come out of the land reserve. Reality states, and in fact proves, in our community in particular, that certain lands should have been removed. Then to remove six acres of what was nothing but about 200 acres of swamp is ludicrous. That is not a rational or wise decision by the Agricultural Land Commission, and this is why I'm asking for another body to look at applications of this nature.

However, having said that, I will get on to another area. I noticed that there is a substantial increase in the money made available for marketing boards. Could the minister elaborate on what is intended in terms of the additional expenditure?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there's about a $150,000 increase for the marketing boards. That is to ensure that there's overall supervision of the various boards. As the member is very well aware, we have a number of boards in the Agriculture ministry, and we feel that they need some extra money to enable them to operate efficiently. They really have not been funded well enough.

Essentially I'm talking about the boards that govern supply management. Supply management is not perfect, but it's pretty good. Partly because of our supply management system, we have the second-lowest per capita costs in the world. We do not produce the vast surpluses that other countries produce. They have mountains of butter, mountains of wheat -- many mountains of wheat in Europe and the United States. Because of supply management, which is a quota system, we generally do not produce vast surpluses, so we do not require vast subsidies. I think that that's very important, and that this $150,000 is really well spent. Certainly it will help the various boards that we have.

By the way, the boards are made up rather interestingly, as the member for Abbotsford is quite aware. I do not play political favourites, and most people in my ministry know that. I have purposely kept people on the boards who are not of my political persuasion, because I feel that some of them are very clever in their own way. They just aren't clever enough to see politics the way I see it, that's all. But they have other advantages. I have reappointed many of those individuals. It shows how generous I am: I've reappointed Liberals; I've reappointed members of the Social Credit Party.

F. Gingell: You could find one?

Hon. B. Barlee: Oh yes, indeed. Actually, quite a few of them are on my various boards.

I feel that it goes beyond politics. I don't mind what a person's political persuasion is; that does not particularly bother me. I just reappointed an individual to one of my boards who is by no imagination even vaguely inclined to our direction. But after looking at his background, after looking at what he'd done on the board, I felt he was a very valuable member of the board. I had no problem reappointing him -- much to his great surprise, by the way.

The boards represent a cross-section of the populace. We operate with about 41 percent of the vote -- that's all -- and the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and some of the independents have the other 59.

[5:00]

F. Gingell: Sixty-one.

Hon. B. Barlee: Incorrect. Actually, it's 40.6 percent, so it's 58.4. If you want to place a little bet on it, I'd be glad to take your money.

I'm saying that we have on all the boards, from the superboard down.... We do not hold the vast majority of votes. They're inclined to listen to my direction -- some of them -- but that isn't why I left them there; I left them there because most of them are doing a fine job. I'm saying that to strengthen these boards, we put in $150,000.

Alluding to the Fraser Valley College, that decision is still being reviewed. That's why I'm saying that in some instances -- very rarely, but in some instances -- we will be revisiting the agricultural land reserve. That should have been done ten years ago, as the member is probably well aware. Any landmark legislation, any legislation worth keeping, should be reviewed. We are willing to do that. That's not to say that we're going to let every church or school or college that wants a bit of agricultural land to get it. They've been turned down in my own riding; one of the prominent churches was

[ Page 1020 ]

turned down. I had no quarrel with it. They did, but I didn't.

I'm saying that it will be reviewed. I discussed it with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, and we will be looking at it. The Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, for instance, is going over, with all the latest computer equipment, what we've got in the land reserve in the Okanagan Valley, and whether it properly belongs in that reserve. Probably most of it does; probably 99 percent does. Maybe 1 percent doesn't; I don't know.

It will be reviewed; it will be revisited. But it will not be revisited by an independent board, because I have seen what the independent boards have done to this province in the last 40 years.

H. De Jong: Perhaps the minister is not in favour of an independent board. Some of his comments were sort of intriguing, though: he may have another idea as to how these applications can be reviewed. Certainly the minister and the Agricultural Land Commission should give some recognition to community plans that are well based and well founded through the local government process. This should be recognized in that decision-making process as to whether the land should be released from the agricultural land reserve -- not in terms of an expansion to a town for whatever purposes.

Back on the marketing boards, does the minister foresee, in the event -- which we don't hope for but it's a possibility -- that the protection we have enjoyed over the last number of years under the GATT agreement may erode in the next little while and that the marketing boards should look at the situation differently? I'm thinking specifically where many of the boards have been boards of control -- because of the great urge on the part of the farmers to produce more -- rather than true marketing boards. Marketing board, as the term suggests, means to market more product on behalf of the agricultural community. Is the minister forecasting a change in the approach for marketing boards, particularly in the event of the GATT negotiations?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, concerning the GATT negotiations, as the member for Abbotsford is probably aware, I led the charge across the country and cobbled together some alliances with seven of the other provinces -- eight out of the ten, including ours -- that forced the federal government to recognize that the marketing boards and the supply management system were the linchpin of agriculture in the three major provinces -- Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia. Ranging between 40 and 45 percent of our agricultural production, these are dollars that circulate within those provinces. When we make an agricultural dollar, unlike a dollar in forestry, gas and oil, or mining, almost all of those dollars stay in our local area. Whether it's Agassiz, Chilliwack or Cloverdale, these are very important dollars. These are made-in-British-Columbia dollars.

We have not changed our stance on this: we told the federal government we have no fallback position. I told this personally to Michael Wilson. I mentioned this personally to Bill McKnight and to the American negotiators. We do not entertain a fallback position. We believe the American strategy is to undercut this most important part of our agricultural system. Once they do that, they will take aim at the other sectors, such as farming in the cattle industry. They are doing that now.

What they didn't get under the free trade agreement, they want under the GATT. What they don't get under the GATT, they'll want under the free trade agreement. What they don't get out of the North American free trade agreement or the GATT or the Canadian-American free trade agreement, they will get under countervailing, if they can, or harassment at the border, or any other unethical method that they think is possible. They do not operate from a position of ethics. I told them that personally. For instance, in fisheries we have 17 treaties; they have broken 13. There are four more to go. That shows how they operate.

They're nice people. I have a few relatives down there. Some of them are nice; some aren't so nice. But their negotiators are a very hard-nosed bunch of guys. They come well prepared. I talked with them at.... I was amazed at how much they knew about me. When they sit down at the table, they have it all laid out. We go in there with a couple of guys who really don't have a clue, and the free trade agreement is a classic example. Did we get taken to the cleaners? It passed through the House of Representatives like a knife through butter. It went through the Senate like it wasn't even there.

The Americans are no fools: they don't sign an agreement unless they know they have a distinct economic advantage. They used to talk about Manifest Destiny -- 54-40 or fight. Heavens! They're going to achieve that economically. These guys are on the run all the time. Why do you think they've got mall after mall sitting on the Canadian border. I don't care if it's Fargo, North Dakota, or Bellingham, Washington. Those are the magnets to draw our money over the line. Is it having an effect on us? Darned right, it is. We're heading down to third-nation status, unless we take a long look at how to counteract their economic strategy, and they're light years ahead of us.

We are not budging on the GATT. The Americans want a war, and this is an economic war; it is not negotiation between two equals. We're treated like the cabin boy, and they're the captain. I'm tired of that, and they know it. They even took a shot at me in the Spokesman-Review the other day. I even read some of their periodicals to see where the hell these guys are coming from -- excuse me, where they are coming from. Believe me, they're very hard-nosed babies. I haven't much sympathy for them. If we can make it tough for them, you bet. That's why I'm the point man and U.S..... Buy B.C. is essentially cross-border and Buy B.C. coupled together. That is why I'm meeting the mayors of greater Vancouver tomorrow.

You mentioned one other thing: local governments should be allowed -- because they are duly elected -- to make decisions to pull land out of the agricultural land reserve. I can go up the Okanagan Valley, starting with Osoyoos and going up to Oliver, jumping into Okanagan Falls, up to Kaleden, up to Penticton, into

[ Page 1021 ]

Summerland, into Westbank and into Kelowna; and if you had let those regional governments in any of those places have their way, it would be an urban sprawl. I forgot Keremeos. We would destroy our production capacity in those areas and affect all the other areas, as I have mentioned in our long-range discussion here. You cannot allow it, because the decision they make lasts forever and they're only concerned about today. We're concerned about 20 years down the road; about 30 years down the road; about 100 years down the road. We cannot allow it to fall back into the hands of individuals we really don't know a lot about, who are looking only at the immediate. It's cheaper to build a sewer line 200 yards than it is two miles. That's really not good enough.

H. De Jong: I was glad the minister mentioned that the Buy B.C. program was a good initiative undertaken about a year ago. On that, though, I was just wondering whether the minister, or the ministry, is intending to change the tone of the program somewhat. It appears, from the comments I hear from the general public.... You know, they say, "Why patronize British Columbia?" I think we could improve the Buy B.C. program if we zeroed in more on the quality of the products. We may have to state some of the facts about the quality over and against the U.S. quality. I'm sure that, among dairy products, the standards that are maintained on farms in British Columbia are substantially higher than they are in Washington. I'm sure that applies to some of the other products as well.

[5:15]

Another question I have is on the education aspect of agriculture. We talk about the family farm, and I guess the family farm can be seen by different people from different perspectives. Is the family farm just a farm that's passed on from generation to generation? Is it the size of the farm, or is it truly a family-operated farm? There are probably three different types of farms, and perhaps even more, but I think the important one is where the family is involved in the farm. From what I can gather, some of the young people, due to the high-tech era we're going into, feel they are not qualified unless the education programs follow the high-tech industry that is available for agriculture.

There's a famous saying that the best government is the government that teaches others how to govern themselves. That's in the broad sense, but I think it also applies to education. I would like to know what steps, if any, are taken to expand the educational role in the ministry -- in particular to the young farmers who wish to get into farming.

Hon. B. Barlee: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a good point, and it's a rational overview. I think we've made some steps in this area that the member will appreciate. First of all, we are participating in a federal-provincial program, which this year allows $600,000 to go into farm management. This is certainly part of the educational process. It isn't all we should be doing, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. It's a recognition of what you were alluding to, and it will help farmers, some of whom have a very high level of education and some of whom do not. Most businesses fail because they have not followed the rational procedures that a business should follow. This is why we have put $600,000 into farm management. The average figure -- and I stand to be corrected -- is that about three out of five businesses usually fail inside a decade. It varies from industry to industry. The restaurant business, of course, has a high mortality rate; farming business has significantly less.

This is one of the programs that we are moving towards. We are also putting several hundred thousand dollars into our information part of the ministry, which we do get out to the various players -- not just the farmers but the processors, the wholesalers, the retailers, and so on. This essentially covers part of that problem. It's an ongoing process. We will prioritize this even more in the future.

Concerning Buy B.C. -- and I take a different tack here -- on April 13, which was just a few days ago, the Premier indicated on the Bill Good Show that I would be leading a long-term Buy B.C. program. A long-term program is not -- and I'm not singling out the previous government -- putting signs at the border and urging people to buy B.C. By the time they see those signs 50 yards from the border, they're doing 80 km/h, and you couldn't stop them with a howitzer. So what you require is a long-term strategy. That's why we have all the players at the table -- and I do mean all the players, from the retailers down in a long-term Buy B.C. strategy. This long-term strategy means that we have to have these funds in place. For every million dollars we put in, we can probably access at least $3 million more from the various players. So if we put in a million, we would have four million. If we put in two million, we should have eight million and perhaps more.

Now this requires what we call a push-pull strategy. We are studying five jurisdictions right now: the province of New Brunswick, where their "pull" strategy has not worked; the province of Ontario, where their "push" strategy has not worked; the province of Alberta, where their "pull" strategy hasn't worked; and the state of Washington and the state of Oregon. Out of those five jurisdictions, only one has really been significantly successful, and that's the state of Oregon, where they tried the push-pull strategy in consultation with everybody who is concerned. It has worked extremely well for them. I think the state of Oregon is farsighted. I don't think their plan is perfect, but what my contractors are doing now is looking at all of these jurisdictions to see which part of their strategies will fit us.

We are advantageously positioned, as the member well knows, in that we have such a wide diversity of products, and in some of those products we have really unlimited markets; there is relatively little competition. In others, we have some very severe competition, but we are well placed, and as you alluded to, our standards of health are much higher. We do not use the sprays they use in Mexico or the United States, so our health standards and our standards for food production are generally accepted around the world as being top quality.

[ Page 1022 ]

This Buy B.C. program, of which I hope to have the first stage starting in early June or mid-June, will first attempt to impact on people choosing British Columbia products by choice. For several hours this morning I toured several of the supermarkets in Victoria with some of the industry big boys. We looked down shelves -- 60 feet of shelves -- and there wasn't one British Columbia product in 60 feet. In many instances where we had the products, our packaging was not good enough. People buy with their eyes. So we're looking at this and we're saying: where can we impact? We shouldn't have 2 percent of the dollar; we should have 12 percent.

Now, that 10 percent of the grocery trade is staggering. We've lost head offices in the last few months to Calgary, Alberta. They have taken 200 jobs here and 50 jobs there, because we were not proactive and we were not looking down the line. We've got to reverse that trend. I'm saying we can only do that by getting all the players at the table, and we have got all the players at the table. The last part of that puzzle, the last part of the equation, are the mayors of Vancouver and the satellite cities around. I'm meeting Gordon Campbell tomorrow morning at 7:50. That's another part of the puzzle. I've already met them, but this time we get on a formal basis and outline what we want to do. This is part of the answer, and I think the rest of it will be coming later on this year.

H. De Jong: One of the other areas the minister mentioned was diversification within the agriculture industry. A lot of products are grown in British Columbia that can't be grown elsewhere, and obviously there are markets for those products. One of those markets is for a specific type of apple, which apparently can be grown very successfully in the lower mainland as well as on Vancouver Island, and not as successfully, I understand, in the Okanagan. The raspberry growers have had some very difficult years, similar to the fruit-growers in the Okanagan. I know they have made approaches to the minister for some help in that respect, and I'm also very well aware of the establishment of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and its mandate and its special allocation for funding.

If a change in production of a particular crop can be beneficial to one area as well as to another area, and while there may not be a program on the books at the present time that could be made to suit that change, is it possible that perhaps the minister could take another look at that? The raspberry growers have certainly had difficult years, and I don't expect it to be a whole lot different this year. It may be slightly improved over what it has been in the past, although some were financially strapped and have not pruned their canes and that sort of stuff. They basically did not expect any money to come from it this year and were therefore already on their way to change but didn't have the money so badly needed to plant those apple trees.

I was just wondering whether the minister has given any further thought to help the growers in the lower mainland, in particular those who are changing from raspberry production to the new kind of apple that is suitable for the lower mainland. I would just like to see it on a limited basis, particularly to help those in desperate straits.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good point made by the member for Abbotsford. We realize that the raspberry producers were hard hit, and under FSAM 2 -- I mentioned this before, but I don't know whether you were here -- which gave the province $16.1 million, raspberry growers got about $2 million of that. So some areas received relief from this. There was a freefall in raspberry prices, as you well know.

We are willing to work with any of the raspberry growers who are looking at diversification. When I talk about diversification in the Fraser Valley, we have some options. In Agassiz, for instance, a guy named Henry Wigand, whom you probably know, has 200 acres in hazelnuts. He grows the finest hazelnuts in the world. He was named hazelnut producer of North America. There are hazelnuts in Turkey and Italy and the United States, specifically in Oregon, and in Canada. We only have 200 acres in hazelnuts. We could have 10,000 acres and still have a market. The market is there.

There are some disadvantages and some advantages out of those 10,000 acres. It only costs about $100 an acre to plant hazelnuts, but it takes seven years to get into production. But if you get into production in 1992, your great-great-grandchildren will be picking hazelnuts off those trees in the year 2113. Not bad. They last well over a century at almost 100 percent production. There are 72 value-added products out of hazelnuts alone. I received a crash course in hazelnut education from Henry Wigand. This guy's a walking encyclopedia of hazelnuts. He showed me all about them. I couldn't believe it. I bought $30 worth and gave them out to MLAs and the press, and they beat a path to his door. You can grow hazelnuts this big. I should have had some to pass around the room. It's astonishing.

This is an area where we can diversify. Our ministry is looking at all of these areas, whether it's kiwi fruit or hazelnuts or whatever. We recognize that some of these traditional areas are not going to make the grade, so we're quite willing to work with those growers who want to diversify, who may have to diversify. Mind you, we haven't done all of this work in five and a half months, but we have prioritized it. That's why I think we're going in the right direction.

The points you made were well thought out, but we were quite aware of them. We are being proactive in this area.

H. De Jong: The difference, of course, is that hazelnuts take seven years to get a crop while Jonagold apples take two or three years, I understand. It's not just planting the trees; it's carrying the mortgage load on the property that comes again every year. That's what makes it difficult to change from one type of crop to another.

[5:30]

Just on a little different subject, I understand that the agriculture community has had fairly attractive rates with the Workers' Compensation Board over the last number of years. The Workers' Compensation Board has done a reasonably good job in the agriculture

[ Page 1023 ]

community. However, the agriculture community has always been somewhat afraid of the inspections being carried out by the Workers' Compensation Board. Various components of the agriculture community are self-policed in a number of situations. I recall a poultry sanitation committee being appointed in the central Fraser Valley some 15 years ago, where the industry was doing its own policing, and it worked extremely well. There is a great fear among the agriculture people that if the Workers' Compensation Board is going to carry out inspections, like they do in any other industry, but perhaps knowing very little about the agriculture industry, they may find themselves making changes to accommodate the expectations of the Workers' Compensation Board that are not necessarily essential to safety but are very high in cost.

I understand that they've had meetings with you and the Premier to discuss the safety program. I understand that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture is quite prepared to establish these safety committees throughout the province. I was wondering whether the minister has any idea as to how the ministry could assist him in establishing that link between the Workers' Compensation Board and the agriculture industry so that this indeed can happen and so that some proper guidelines are being prepared for those committees as well as in relation to the Workers' Compensation Board's expectations.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I should say that this particular area is not governed by a ministry, as the member for Abbotsford knows. It is basically under the purview of the Minister of Labour. There was concern with some of the farmworkers not being covered, and we have been on record as saying that they should be covered.

There are certain points we have to be aware of. First of all, the farming community generally has a rate of about 3 percent. Some other industries, because of their low incidence of accidents in the workplace, have up to 10 percent. We had a meeting again with the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture last week, and they were very concerned about this. We have encouraged consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture -- that's already underway as we sit here -- and the Workers' Compensation Board. I anticipate that there will be some meeting of minds between those two separate bodies. Certainly the farming community is concerned about it, and I'm aware of the concerns. That's why we have made sure that the process between the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the board of the WCB is continuing. I anticipate that they will find a resolution which will satisfy both parties.

R. Chisholm: I've heard a bunch of questions from my colleague, and I'm wondering about a couple of answers that didn't seem to be forthcoming. The first one was on the B.C. Marketing Board, which has increased $150,000. I never did hear why its operating expenses increased by $150,000. The salaries and benefits remain the same, but operating expenses have doubled. It's not that much money, but they did double.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I have instructed the ministry to go in a somewhat new direction for the marketing boards, partly because of the GATT negotiations, which, if they are concluded, may have a significant impact. Consumers, in the last three or four years, have a much greater stake in the decisions made by the marketing boards. We realize that. In fact, we have some consumers sitting on the committees and the boards as consumer representatives.

We think that the system is evolving in the direction we want. Our steering committees involve 11 deputy ministers -- including our ministers -- several producers, processors, consumers and the institutional trade. If we are to make the marketing boards work -- and that includes the so-called superboard, the British Columbia Marketing Board, which all the other marketing boards are under -- then we have to provide it with adequate funds so it can work in a new global environment. The new global environment means that we are under pressure from various areas. We are certainly under pressure from the United States, which is using our area principally as a dumping ground. We're aware of it. That's hard to combat. There are other pressures on the marketing board system. One of them is the consumer pressure, and we're aware of this. The marketing board must be responsive to the consumer. They must be responsive to outside pressures, such as the United States, principally California in the central valley, and other jurisdictions that are using Canada as a dumping ground -- one of which may be New Zealand. The money spent there, which is not a lot of money, is quite important.

As you know, the superboard supervises the other boards. The other boards that come under that umbrella of the marketing system are all supervised by the superboard. It's basically a sound system. Because there have been people challenging the various boards, the workload has increased significantly. There are a number of appeals, so I think we have to strengthen the system. I think this is part of the way, recognizing that there are areas where they need to be strengthened. Part of that is affording them more money.

V. Anderson: The member for Abbotsford was going down some of the areas in which I also would be interested and concerned. I'm thinking particularly about the smaller farms, and the families and persons related to those farms. Thinking about those for the moment, the young people or new farmers trying to get into farming -- which is not an easy thing with the kind of financial outlay -- and those who are in farming and the break-even point begins to threaten them with foreclosures, what kind of assistance or options are available to them? Is the government increasing the options that might be available to those two particular groups?

I notice there's a whole list of financial support systems here which make up about half of the budget of this ministry. I was wondering about those two areas at the moment: new farmers or young families trying to get in, and others on the verge of being foreclosed because, for one reason or another, they just can't make it over the present circumstances.

[ Page 1024 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a good question, and I think we have some programs in place -- certainly ALDA, which I mentioned before. We have about 2,200 loans out under ALDA, of which under 20 have not responded; there have been under 20 failures there. This is a good program: loans up to $75,000. The rate of failure is staggering. No other ministry can touch it. So our procedures in governing ALDA are very good. When you have, I think, 17 failure rates out of 2,200, that's very, very good. So this is one of the forms we have.

There are some loan guarantees for other high-risk operations where they are not capable of getting other loan guarantees. We look over them extremely carefully, and we tend to go towards the cooperative enterprise. Our record there is excellent. Like any other business, it is not easy for new farmers getting into the business. We have this on high priority, but as you will probably recognize, this would require significant dollars by the government. In times of economic duress, we're having to be very careful.

We cooperate with our federal brothers on programs. These are loan programs, and some of those are for new farmers. We are getting some new farmers into the business. The most attractive way to entice anybody into this business is our record; and our record is, among the business enterprises in British Columbia, quite enviable. Our record of success is excellent. It's really staggering. As for foreclosures, the Farm Debt Review Board is basically in the federal government. Seldom do they take that drastic measure. They almost always fall back with other alternatives. The number of farmers going bankrupt compared to the number of farmers in business is infinitesimal, partly because we have this diversification. Farmers are quite creative in many respects. If one crop doesn't work, they'll fall back on the other.

I hope I've answered that question. The time is drawing close. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada