Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1992

Volume 2, Number 18

[ Page 1165 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I am doing this on behalf of the hon. Minister of Health. There is a group here from Olympia High School in Washington State. They're being hosted by the Oak Bay police. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

P. Ramsey: Joining us in the members' gallery today are Dave and Shirley Bradley from Fort St. John. Dave and Shirley have been much involved in post-secondary education in northern British Columbia. They're good friends of mine and good friends of this government. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

M. Lord: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the precincts today three constituents, and long-time friends and neighbours, from the very beautiful Comox Valley: Leta, Daylen and Brennan Luchsinger. Would the House please make them welcome.

F. Garden: I have a great deal of pleasure in introducing three very special young people from my riding. As a bit of an introduction on their behalf, a few weeks ago they wrote me personal letters regarding the environment and how they hoped we, as parliamentarians, would do something about it. At that time I wrote back, thanked them for their letters and said: "If you're ever in Victoria, come here and we'll show you around, and you'll get to meet some of the legislators." So they're here today; they flew down. They got here by special permission from their school.

They went to work: they had a car wash that the teachers attended, bake sales at the school, a bottle drive and a garage sale, and finally helping their moms to get the money to bring them down here. I think this is impressive. Their names are Angie Dodsworth, Jessie Douglas and Jillian Brickwood. They're all from the Bouchie Lake School grade 6 class, and they are accompanied by Jillian's mom, Penny Brickwood. Would you give them a real Victoria welcome.

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I have a second kind of introduction to make. There will be three students and their teacher in the precincts in the course of the day, but because the three of them are in wheelchairs, they won't be in the gallery today. They're from Oak Bay Secondary School, and they're part of the Oak Bay Secondary integration program. Their names are George Callahan, Andy Danchella and David Forbes, and they will be accompanied by Marnie Jones. If you see them in the legislative precincts during the day, I hope you will say hello to them. I urge you to welcome them here today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD AUTONOMY

J. Dalton: Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address the issue of school board autonomy. I personally have many concerns that I'm going to express this morning about what I feel is the erosion of autonomy at our local school board level.

Many school trustees have recently expressed frustration that their local decision-making authority has been eroded. In fact, it is more than just frustration that they express; there's actually a fear that these boards will lose their local authority. Trustees are elected to administer their school districts and are finding more and more, however, that the requisite power to do so is being dissipated by factors beyond their control.

Last weekend I had the pleasure to attend the annual convention of the B.C. School Trustees' Association in Vancouver. It was quite an enlightening experience. As I sat there for over an hour, I heard many trustees during a debate on a particular resolution bring up as part of their argument that they feel their local decision-making authority is being very seriously undermined. So I heard both criticisms and complaints of that nature from many delegates, and there were 400 or 500 delegates at that convention last weekend.

Quite naturally, these trustees are concerned about being elected to perform a function, yet are now finding more and more that they're in a situation where they cannot properly carry out that function. I think it's also significant to point out to the House that we're talking about school trustees. They are entrusted with local authority, yet that position of trust is certainly being questioned more and more. In particular, trustees are concerned that their elected positions are being watered down to the point where they feel they can no longer carry out their stated responsibilities in an effective manner.

I've heard similar statements expressed at school board meetings. I've had the occasion recently, because of budget problems and things of that nature, to attend local board meetings. Certainly one of the main themes that comes out of these meetings is the erosion of local autonomy. A great deal of frustration and concern is being expressed by trustees at their board meetings. It's a particular concern to me that trustees, who are dedicated to their positions and are well intended, find themselves forced into this very difficult position.

Trustees, I'm sure all members will agree, serve a valuable purpose in the administration of education. They serve a very valuable purpose if they're given the right authority to deliver quality education to our children. Trustees, as all members will know, are now elected for three-year terms. That's a significant length of time to elect people to a local school board. Yet more and more the trustees are finding that these three-year terms really don't carry the authority and the decision-making capacity that quite rightfully should go with such terms in office.

[ Page 1166 ]

Two main factors are contributing to the erosion of local board autonomy. The first -- and I'm sure this will come as no surprise to any member in this House; we've already had the Education estimates -- is a problem of funding, or more accurately, underfunding. The block funding system, as we've discussed in this House in estimates and as has been discussed quite widely in the public eye, is bringing to many districts a very real problem of underfunding. Of course, underfunding translates into this whole question of erosion of authority. In theory, I have no quarrel with the block funding formula. Its philosophy is that all districts be treated equally, and that's a good concept. Education should be provided on an equal basis to all students in this province. However, the current funding system is bringing all districts to a common level, which is producing -- and there's lots of evidence of it -- an erosion of local program offerings. Boards are being forced more and more to eliminate and reduce programs. There's another unpleasant aspect to this: they're also being forced to lay off both teachers and non-teaching staff.

Trustees have no capability of addressing local needs if they are not provided with adequate funding to do so. Therefore the whole question of planning and administration at the local level really becomes only a token -- more a gesture than a reality. The message that's been given to trustees because of underfunding is: seek public office and get elected, but don't expect that you're going to be truly effective at the local level or that you can provide the quality of education that you were no doubt motivated to be in a position to do. Funding -- or the lack of it -- will dictate what trustees can do at their local school-board level. Local initiatives are being defeated by underfunding.

There's another factor that I would also like to address. It deals with the collective bargaining process. Each board, as the members will know, bargains with its local teachers' association. Such a process should produce an agreement that is favourable to the district where the bargain is agreed upon. However, present circumstances -- and in large part they are also financial in nature -- do not allow the desired result to actually occur.

It's of interest that at the same convention of the B.C. School Trustees' Association that I attended last weekend, there was a resolution being debated at great length on provincewide bargaining. I understand that this resolution comes before the convention each year. This year it was passed for the first time. We had a situation where out of frustration....

The Speaker: Hon. member, your allotted time has elapsed.

The member in response.

[10:15]

B. Copping: I appreciate the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano bringing forward the challenges that our government and the education system face. We are certainly very aware of the funding problems that took place in the school system. We inherited the devastation that took place during the '80s. We are going to face these challenges.

We have a different approach, perhaps, from the previous government. You are going to see a true partnership. The Minister of Education recognizes how essential a partnership in governance is. That's why the word "cogovernance" is finally going to have some meaning. You're no longer going to see a top-down approach in the governance of our school system. We recognize all the key players. The Minister of Education has to provide stewardship and leadership for the entire province for the sake of the children in all districts. But within each district there is no end of people who are partners in the system: the trustees, the staff, the parents, the community, the students, the children. We respect that. We look forward to facing the challenges together. We certainly respect the decisions of local school boards, their collective bargaining rights, which is why we are respecting the decisions that school boards are making with respect to the increase in funding that did come out in education.

We are very proud that in very tough times the Education budget received the highest priority. It went up 9 percent, with special funding for ESL, for computer, for capital to get children out of portables, for growth districts, and also to feed the hungry children. So yes, I think that you are going to see a very different approach under our government. You are going to see a true partnership in education.

F. Gingell: It's most interesting to listen to this debate. Many of us started our political careers in school boards.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP government were in opposition for 16 years. During those 16 years, there were opportunities for them to consider and come forward with proposals and new methodology to bring new life to our school system.

It is critically important for school trustees, if they are going to have the responsibility for determining the programs and operations of the schools in their district, to have the ability to raise funds. They have to have the ability to raise taxes. To try to do it through a referendum method simply isn't workable. It's critically important for them to come up with solutions, not to spend their time blaming the previous government. They must come up with solutions.

If school boards are going to continue to have responsibility, they must also have authority. If they aren't going to have the right to raise funds to finance the programs that they deem appropriate within their school districts, then we may as well get rid of them. If the provincial government is going to have all of the say about the amount of money that can be spent in the schools, there isn't any point in trustees determining how much, but only how it is going to be spent. We have to come up with some solutions.

I'm sure that no school trustee who now sits in this House as an MLA will disagree with the concept that school boards have to have the means to make decisions about the amount of money that is spent on education in their school district. We need a solution. Thank you.

[ Page 1167 ]

J. Dalton: I appreciate the remarks of the previous two speakers. Certainly I welcome the opportunity for us, on a cooperative and collective basis, to address these issues of erosion of school board authority. I think all members will agree that an effective local board has to have the capability to deal with its funding problems adequately to be able to provide the programs that are built up over a number of years in school districts and hopefully to add to those programs.

I did make some comments, and I wish to restate them. Local school trustees are dedicated to their positions. I think that they, with the right power-making structure, can be effective and can contribute in a very meaningful way to the delivery of quality education for our children. The fundamental aspect is that education is an investment, and we all know that. A proper way to manage that investment is by allowing locally elected trustees to perform their functions with the correct power base that is warranted and that they must have.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE

B. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, last night I had the honour of representing the government at a remembrance for victims of the Holocaust at a synagogue in Vancouver. This was a new synagogue. Ironically, it was built after their old synagogue was burned to the ground by an arsonist. Hundreds of people attended this remembrance, which is held every year -- politicians, church leaders and leaders of various ethnic groups. A large number of those present were Holocaust survivors. They quietly mourned the loss of their loved ones: their children, wives, husbands, parents and grandparents.

The murdering of six million Jewish men, women and children during the Second World War was a crime of unprecedented bestiality. They were murdered for one reason and one reason only: because they were Jewish. One-third of the world's Jewish population was destroyed. The murdering of six million Jews by the Nazis was carefully planned and meticulously carried out. The Nazis were the first to combine hatred and technology.

When Pope John II made his celebrated visit to Auschwitz in 1979, he stood before the memorial plaque to the Jews and stated:

"This inscription commemorates a nation whose sons and daughters had been destined for total extermination. This nation traces its origin back to Abraham, who was the father of our faith. This nation, which received from God the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' experienced a particular measure of killings."

However, although all Jews were victims, not all victims were Jews. Millions of non-Jews were also slaughtered by the Germans -- the shooting down in cold blood of unarmed, defenceless Greeks, Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechs, Russians and Dutch, and men and women of a dozen other nationalities, all of whom were civilians and in no way were connected with the military action. Among those murdered were as many as a quarter of a million Gypsies, tens of thousands of homosexuals and tens of thousands of mentally handicapped. Also murdered were several million Soviet prisoners of war -- shot or starved to death long after they had been captured.

However, the Jews had the distinction of being marked for total extinction. It was the Jews alone who were marked out to be destroyed. Every Jewish man, woman and child in the concentration camps.... Jews were not people; they were numbers. Many of the people who I saw last night had those numbers tattooed to their arms.

What makes the Holocaust historically significant is its uniqueness. There's no precedent for it in Jewish history nor in the history of any other people. Hitler and the Nazis wanted to murder all Jews because they were Jews. If Jesus, Peter and Paul had been alive during the Second World War, they too would have been exterminated if they had been in Germany.

The world must be constantly reminded about the atrocities, or humankind will soon forget them completely and deny that they ever happened. This horrific lesson of man's inhumanity to man must be remembered by future generations so the tragedies of all humankind will not repeat themselves.

At this time, hon. Speaker, I make an appeal to all political parties and groups to avoid extremism and to be forever vigilant in protecting human rights and fighting discrimination. There are signs that the radical right, which has as its basic tenets anti-Semitism, denial of the Holocaust, prejudice towards blacks and other ethnic groups, continues to try to make its way into the mainstream political parties. An example of this was in the United States, where the former head of the Ku Klux Klan ran in the presidential primaries.

Closer to home there was a candidate in the last provincial election who was an adviser to convicted hatemonger Ernst Zundel, who tried to prove in court that the extermination of six million Jews during the Second World War was a hoax. That same candidate for that particular political party attended meetings of the Canadian Free Speech League together with the B.C. Grand Titan of the Ku Klux Klan. He was a publisher of the New Westminster newsletter called Insight. A copy of this publication carried articles that claimed the Holocaust was a hoax and glorified Adolf Hitler and Rudolf Hess. Once his background became public during the last election, the political party for which he ran accepted his resignation.

At this very moment a hate conference is being planned in the interior by Ms. Eileen Pressler. I've just been informed that last night, during their planning session, there was a riot in Salmon Arm at which children were injured. Ron Gostick, a well-known anti-Semite, attended.

It is being planned by Ms. Eileen Pressler, who, incidentally, was appointed by the former administration to the Thompson-Okanagan alcohol and drug review committee. Her background is well known. At a B.C. Freedom of Speech meeting she distributed a publication called "Protocol for World Conquest," which purports to be a memorandum for the world Jewish conspiracy. She heads the Council of Public Affairs, which publishes the Patriot's Adviser. Recently that publication published a telephone number which 

[ Page 1168 ]

had racist messages, not only against the Jews but also against the blacks and other ethnic groups.

The guests of honour at this hate conference which Ms. Pressler is organizing will be Jim Keegstra and Malcolm Ross. Jim Keegstra was charged and convicted of wilfully promoting hatred in his classroom against the Jews. He also attacked the blacks and the Catholics. Keegstra believed that Hitler was a positive force in Germany. The second honouree will be Malcolm Ross. In his publication "Web of Deceit," he refers to Anne Frank's diary as a hoax, and states that a conspiracy exists in Canada of international communism, international finance and international Zionism. In his publication "Christianity versus Judeo-Christianity," he talks about the Holocaust hoax plus the support of the World Council of Churches for Marxist terrorism.

[10:30]

Much to the credit of the Vernon community and the church groups, the conference was condemned. To quote a Vernon alderman, Patrick Nicol, who is also the general manager of CJIB: "The good news is that the community took a leadership position." Rev. John Cline of Vernon's First Baptist Church stated that ministers in Vernon were preparing to issue a statement condemning this conference.

It might be asked: what harm does the teachings of the likes of Keegstra and Zundel and Malcolm Ross and the Presslers do to our youth? "Canada could have been better off had it supported Adolf Hitler in the Second World War," says an essay by one of Keegstra's former students, Sherron Moos. She goes on to state: "Canada wouldn't be in the mess it is today if we fought with Hitler instead of against him. The main belief of the Jews is to hate and to kill." And Mr. Keegstra, their teacher, approved of these comments.

Hon. Speaker, I know that all of us in this Legislative Assembly deplore prejudice, racism, bigotry, the Keegstras, the Zundels, the Malcolm Rosses and the Eileen Presslers of our society. During the first term in office, we will have the opportunity of enacting legislation which will enhance and protect the rights of all of our citizens.

I conclude, hon. Speaker, by quoting Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century parliamentarian: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men" -- and women -- "to do nothing."

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.

D. Mitchell: Last night I too attended a special community observance, Yom Ha' Shoa, a remembrance of the Holocaust. It took place at the Temple Sholom, a Vancouver synagogue. It was a solemn event; it was a very moving experience. It marked a remembrance of the greatest evil of our age: the systematic attempt, during the Second World War, to exterminate a people. This was Hitler's monstrous war against the Jews of Europe.

At this special observance last evening, I met with many members of our Jewish community, and a number of survivors of the Holocaust. Among the speakers was the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. He spoke very eloquently last evening about the need to be vigilant in the fight against prejudice. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview, I believe, is the first practising member of the Jewish faith to serve in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. That's a remarkable event, I believe, in the sense that British Columbia is and always has been a diverse community and a pluralistic society. I believe that he adds an important dimension to this House, and I think we should all be proud to be members of the Legislative Assembly and to have as our colleague the member for Vancouver-Fraserview.

There is no room for partisanship on an issue such as the Holocaust. We must all be on the same side of this issue. We must remember the evil represented by Hitler's attempt at genocide: the deliberate and planned killing of more than six million people -- more than a quarter of them children. It can never be forgotten by either Jews or non-Jews.

It's important to note that the remembrance of the Holocaust holds much significance for non-Jews as well, because the Holocaust, which represented the bureaucratization of evil, was an attack on all humankind. The member for Vancouver-Fraserview perhaps said it best when he called for all political parties and groups to avoid extremism and to work hard, to work with a passion, in protecting human rights and fighting against discrimination.

In reflecting on the Holocaust, we should realize that even in our own country there is a very small minority who would prefer that we deny the Holocaust ever happened. They distribute hate literature in the form of "corrected history." This is sad; in fact it's tragic. We must fight against such wilful ignorance. We must fight against the ignorance of anti-Semitism.

When remembering the Holocaust, we should also remember that the Jewish people use the phrase "never again." Never before had such a massive atrocity been perpetrated on a people. Never again can it be allowed to happen. Never before, never again. This applies to any form of discrimination, prejudice, racism or hatred. We must aspire to the principles of tolerance, and we must never forget the Holocaust. Soon we won't have any more survivors of the Holocaust. As time passes on, so too do many of the remaining survivors. But we must be vigilant and we must remember: never before, never again.

B. Simpson: I'd like to thank the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi for those remarks. This is a matter of importance not only to the Jews throughout the world, but to all humankind. We have an obligation to inform young people and future generations how unique, how unbelievable and how exceptional the period of the Holocaust was.

None of us in this Legislative Assembly can understand the pain of a mother whose child is snatched from her hand and thrust among those earmarked for the gas chambers. We cannot let the Jim Keegstras, Ernst Zundels, John Balls, Eileen Presslers and Malcolm Rosses in our society trivialize the magnitude of the Holocaust and instil in our youth the prejudice which helped bring it about in the first place.

[ Page 1169 ]

We as legislators must prevent social conditions from arising which will facilitate future dictatorships. Millions of unemployed, living in poverty and without an adequate education, serve as fertile ground for the racists. Hate literature has surfaced in our schools; synagogues and churches are being defaced and burned. Telephone numbers such as Liberty Net, which Eileen Pressler is behind, are attacking all ethnic groups. It is important that we learn from history. We must mobilize right against wrong. We legislators must not fear to enact laws that will enhance and protect our minorities. Young people today take their freedom for granted and do not realize its worth. Our social systems grant an unprecedented measure of freedom, prosperity and security.

I wish to conclude by reading from our prayer book -- the conservative synagogue -- from one of the survivors of Auschwitz:

"Not far from us flames were leaping up from a ditch -- gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load -- little children. Babies! Around us everyone was weeping. Someone began to recite the kaddish. I do not know if it has ever happened before, in the long history of the Jews, that people have recited the prayer for the dead for themselves.... Never shall I forget that night, the first night in the camp. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a sun and sky."

SAFE AND EFFICIENT ENERGY

R. Neufeld: Northeastern British Columbia is the hot spot. Northerners have known it for decades, but others have only found this out over the last few years. An executive vice-president of a major energy company described northeastern B.C. as a development hot-spot for North American resource companies. By 1991, more than $1 billion in exploration expenditures in the northeast was forecast.

Natural gas production is the lifeblood of northern British Columbia. The industry prospers in the north and draws major business investment to our area's communities. We value the economic contributions of the natural gas industry and the value of natural gas as an efficient form of energy. Yet its value often goes unnoticed by consumers in the south, who heat their homes with natural gas, cook with natural gas or have hot showers with little thought as to the source of the energy. Some products made from natural gas include the gas itself, propane, butane and sulphur.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that took thousands of years to produce from the time when plants and animal materials were first buried beneath layers of rock and soil. Once removed from the ground, it is transported through thousands of kilometres of pipelines to processing plants in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, and Pine Pass. The natural gas is processed there and then transported through a large 36-inch pipeline to southern B.C. and the Pacific U.S.

The gas produced in northern British Columbia is for domestic use and for export to the United States. On any given day, 1 billion to 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas is transported south through pipelines. Since the start of deregulation of Canadian natural gas markets in October 1985, B.C.'s participation in the export market has grown dramatically.

Natural gas is colourless, non-toxic and odourless, although an odorant is added as the gas is fed into the distribution system. This odorant is an important safety measure, as it adds a distinct odour to the natural gas so that it can be smelled in the event of a leak.

By using our energy more efficiently, we can lower our energy bills, become more competitive in world markets and decrease the demands of the production of energy on the environment. Natural gas accounts for almost 30 percent of Canada's primary energy needs and employs thousands of people. From a residential perspective, almost 45 percent of Canadian households use natural gas as their principal heating fuel.

Exploration for oil began at the turn of the century, but it wasn't until the 1950s that development of natural gas resources in northeastern British Columbia began. The construction of massive processing plants at Fort Nelson and Fort St. John came shortly after it was determined that these reserves were in great enough magnitude to warrant construction. In 1957 the first line was completed from the Peace River district to Vancouver. The northeast, which was a sparsely populated area, was opened up through road and pipeline construction. The growth in the number of communities, farms and ranches increased revenues to the province and diversified life in the north. In fact, B.C.'s natural gas and petroleum industry is the largest net contributor to the provincial coffers.

The demand for energy is increasing, especially for an energy source as efficient as natural gas. There is a need for either an additional supply of gas or the creation of storage areas in the lower mainland. This arises from the fact that the capacity of producing wells, processing plants and existing pipelines is used to its maximum during the winter. Just remember that when it's cold in the lower mainland, it's extremely cold in northern British Columbia. The cold weather drastically increases both the margin for breakdown and the amount of time necessary for repairs and maintenance. In addition, with the increase in the B.C. population, particularly in the lower mainland, the demand for natural gas is continuing to rise. This increased demand, in combination with northern winters that hamper natural gas production, makes it necessary to have storage facilities in the lower mainland. This would enable wells that are normally shut down during the summer to produce at a constant level year-round. Experience has proven that natural gas wells will produce more if they are able to produce at a reduced level constantly throughout the year, as opposed to a higher rate during the winter and shut in for the summer.

We in the north live near wells, and travel over pipelines of all sizes both close to and far away from populated areas. The natural gas and oil industry has a phenomenal safety record. This doesn't mean to say, however, that we can take our record for granted; it does mean that we must continue to be very careful as to where we install pipelines and wells, or locate 

[ Page 1170 ]

storage basins. With increasing numbers of people realizing the benefits of natural gas, we must be cognizant of the demands placed upon the industry. This means that as legislators we should do everything in our power to encourage a healthy expansion of this industry. Natural gas is a product that is supplied by Mother Earth. It is environmentally friendly, has less of an impact on the ozone layer than other fossil fuels and has a minimum effect on air quality.

Hopefully, today I have been able to shed some light on an often misunderstood form of energy that we are increasingly depending upon. As we expand our knowledge of the impact of our energy consumption, natural gas will surely play an enhanced role in British Columbia's economic future.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's a pleasure to respond to that kind of enthusiastic and optimistic statement about the future of natural gas in British Columbia. I share that optimism. I share that sense of the value of our natural gas resource. It has been a pleasure, in not only the time that I was critic for Energy in British Columbia but also as minister.... Since I've been minister, I've been up in the northeast visiting the communities of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek and Chetwynd, being very careful, of course, to go to Charlie Lake to discuss the situation in the northeast with our own officials, particularly relating to natural gas.

[10:45]

Natural gas is our major petroleum resource in British Columbia. Oil is a resource of limited amounts, but we have lots of natural gas. That's a very fortunate thing for this province in times of environmental concerns, when we want to conserve energy in many ways. Natural gas is assumed to be -- and many studies make it out to be -- the space-heating fuel of choice. We have done the best we can to indicate that new buildings and so on should be built for the long term, and that often means that natural gas is the choice of fuel. Our ministry is working very hard to see that that happens where the fuel is the obvious choice.

I might say that this ministry has been able to keep our royalty structure as fair and equitable as can be. We have a royalty program that is highly competitive with what happens in Alberta. They have more gas, but they do the same sorts of things. We have done that. We continue to attempt to make a very stable economic investment climate so that the exploration and production in British Columbia will continue. While exploration has been diminishing in the last year or so, we're doing as well as anyone.

With the recognition that we're all saying fine things, and we all want to repeat them, I will take my chair and let the official opposition member respond to your statement.

D. Jarvis: There's not much time left, so I will probably start somewhere in the middle of what I was going to talk about before. We have an abundant supply of natural gas. We also have the problem of air pollution. One of our major air-pollution concerns is auto pollution.

We have the natural solution at our fingertips, that being natural gas. I recommend that this government should actually be promoting, at full speed, the use of natural gas for transportation. British Columbia is falling behind other provincial jurisdictions across this country. Why haven't we been promoting this abundant fuel as a benefit to the people of British Columbia? We in B.C. have more natural-gas refuelling stations than any other area in North America. So why are we so far behind? The evidence is there. Compared to gasoline, when natural gas is used as a fuel, there are close to 60 percent fewer harmful emissions. We have an opportunity for this government to encourage B.C. motorists to convert to natural gas. We can follow the lead of other provinces across this country by offering assistance for the installation of natural gas. The Ontario government, for example, is now paying up to $1,500 to motorists to convert to natural gas, and then there is a supplement from the federal government of approximately $500. At this time, neither the previous government nor this one has decided whether or not they are going to make any assistance payable to motorists who wish to convert to natural gas.

This province should also bring in a clean-air policy, which in turn would promote the use of natural gas as a fuel for transportation. We have an energy source, but we do not use all of its benefits, which are endless -- benefits in promoting jobs and using cheap fuel. We would have fewer repairs and cleaner air all round.

In actual fact, natural gas is our major utility. This government has to play a strategic role in directing the best way of using it. Natural gas is not only an environmental benefit but also an economic opportunity.

I see that there are a couple of minutes left. I want to congratulate our member for Peace River North. He was right on track with his remarks.

R. Neufeld: The natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island was a vision of the previous government. The economic benefits of the pipeline project are substantial. For example, $90 million will be spent in some 28 communities. Local governments along the route will benefit by the payment of more than $40 million in taxes during the first ten years of operation. Construction alone will create about 1,100 person-years of employment. Vancouver Island residents will now have what other British Columbians have enjoyed for years: a source of clean, efficient energy. The conversion to natural gas on Vancouver Island will reduce the burning of residual oil by more than two million barrels per year. As a result, more than 300 barge movements of oil per year in the Strait of Georgia and Juan de Fuca Strait will be eliminated.

I just hope that the current government will continue the great strides of the previous government toward rural gasification. We must endeavour to bring natural gas to each community in British Columbia, especially to those users in the north where the product originates.

During the first part of the address I mentioned the importance of our roles as legislators in promoting the use of safe and efficient energy sources. Consequently, 

[ Page 1171 ]

I'd like to mention two bills that impact on the natural gas industry and users. One of the bills is only a step away from becoming legislation: Bill 8, the Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act. It's interesting that section 13 of this bill contains a hidden tax which will come into effect five years from now. It's a one-time hit for B.C. drivers who have made substantial investments in converting vehicles to natural gas.

The second one is Bill 18, the Energy Council Act. This is my favourite example of a government looking after its own people. This bill creates a council that duplicates the role of the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry. Dick Gathercole was appointed to head the council, with a salary of $100,000, before the bill was introduced in the Legislature.

Natural gas is safe, efficient and economical. It's unfortunate that the current government is actually destroying tax incentives for people to use cleaner fuel.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, statements are not to reflect upon legislation that's before the House, and, as a matter of fact, they should not be argumentative. However, I am going to permit you to continue, keeping that in mind.

R. Neufeld: The previous government realized the environmental and economic significance of the natural gas industry. It's a shame that the actions of the current government don't reflect the amount of lecturing they did on the importance of environmental awareness. Actions have always spoken louder than words.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS AND SAFETY

G. Janssen: I rise with some pride today as a motorcyclist. May is Motorcycle Awareness Month, and I'd like to address the House today on that subject. A subject that is misunderstood in British Columbia is the subject of the motorcycling community. Perhaps I should acquaint members of the House with some of the terms used by the motorcycling community: Harley-Davidsons are known as "hogs," BMWs are known as "beamers," Japanese motorcycles are known as "rice-burners" and the new superbike is known as a "crotch-rocket." Not only is the motorcycling community misunderstood, but the government, through the Attorney General's office in the past, has turned a blind eye to this segment of the community.

In British Columbia in 1990, class 6 licence-holders totalled 195,774, yet total motorcycles insured numbered only 61,856. I'll return to make some comments as to why that is. Government statistics also prove that 66 percent of all motorcycle accidents are caused by the other driver -- that is, those in vehicles. I'm glad to say that the Attorney General's department, under this administration, is involved in updating and clarifying motorcycle standards for licensing -- hopefully with tiered licensing, proper apparel when riding, better training and stricter licensing requirements.

The British Columbia Safety Council does provide rider-training courses for both new riders and experienced riders in British Columbia, but due to time and financial restrictions, these excellent courses are not available in all areas of the province. In fact, we find it still possible for anyone -- including a 16-year-old like my son -- to take a 200-cc motorcycle to a driving examination and receive a class 6 motorcycle licence simply by riding around some pylons, braking in a straight line and riding half a block down the street. With licence in hand, this 16-year-old can go to the nearest motorcycle dealer and buy an 1,100-cc motorcycle producing 160 horsepower with such options as nitrogen shock absorbers and dual disc brakes on both wheels -- a bike capable of accelerating to 100 kilometres an hour and coming to a full stop in less than eight seconds. He can then go to the ICBC office and buy himself insurance one of those rockets on two wheels. Then we send him out into traffic. If that weren't irresponsible enough, the law actually allows this inexperienced rider to ride down the street dressed in no more than a bathing suit.

We must address the question of rider training, proper testing, proper riding apparel and, of course, insurance costs. But we must also address the responsibility and the awareness of the car driver, whose answer after an accident always is: "I'm sorry, but I didn't see the motorcycle."

I'd like to address the insurance rates in British Columbia. For a 1991 Harley-Davidson touring motorcycle, in 1991 the rate for the basic premium was $843; in 1992, $1,077. Liability of $1 million: $127; now $138. Comprehensive: $1,013; today, $1,520. The total premiums: $2,428; today, $3,159 -- a one-third increase. These rates are before a 40 percent safe driver discount. Compare this to vehicles: a 1992 Pontiac Trans Am, declared value $28,000 -- double the price -- can be insured for $1,414 under the same conditions. Perhaps some of the Clerks might enjoy the next statistics: a 1992 Jaguar XJS V12 coupe, declared value $76,630, can be insured for only $1,767.

These are totally unacceptable. There is an actuarial study being done by ICBC which has been four months in the making. We still haven't seen the results. They are promised for the middle of May.

[11:00]

ICBC collects $1.96 for each premium collected for traffic safety, yet virtually none has been used in the past for safety education and awareness for motorists. Over $100,000 was collected from motorcycle drivers. This year, thanks to this government, some of that $100,000 will sponsor ads that will appear on radio, TV and bus stops, making motorist in cars aware of motorcyclists.

These high premium rates also affect the economy. Dealers and repair shops who sell and repair motorcycles will obviously have less business. We must address the problem of the awareness of motorcyclists by car drivers. We must address the awareness of the premium rates charged to motorcyclists, who are being unfairly treated in this province at this time.

D. Symons: In response to the member's statement, I would only say that I totally agree with his endorsement of Motorcycle Awareness Month. The object of this is to increase the awareness by individuals of all the other vehicle-user groups in the province. And there 

[ Page 1172 ]

are the safety and visibility needs of both street and off-highway motorcyclists in B.C.

Last year in B.C. there were sales of about 4,000 new units, and about 2,700 of these were legal ones, with 1,300 being the off-road variety. In Canada there is about $169 million worth of motorcycle sales and business per year. It's a large industry. There are close to 60,000 motorcycle registrations, and almost 200,000 people have a class 6 licence in B.C. allowing them to operate a motorcycle.

One of the most disturbing statistics dealing with motorcyclists is that over two-thirds of all the accidents affecting motorcyclists are caused by non-motorcyclists. Unfortunately, drivers of cars and trucks don't take the necessary precautions when dealing with motorcyclists, and the result is a large number of very serious accidents.

For motorcyclists, professional training, avoiding alcohol and drugs while driving and protecting themselves with appropriate clothing and helmets and a well-maintained machine can contribute to their safety. It turns out that 86 percent of motorcycle riders that died in single-vehicle accidents were impaired. This reflects somewhat the same concept with automobiles -- alcohol is often a contributory factor.

It turns out that this is only a small proportion of the accidents and injuries and deaths to motorcyclists. Many car drivers do not adjust to the motorcyclists in traffic, and there are various ways that car drivers should do this. Research shows over two-thirds of car-motorcycle accidents are the result of a car turning in front of a motorcyclist; they are not aware they are there. Motorcyclists and motorists need to mix in traffic without causing harm to each other.

The profile of a motorcyclist is hard to see because it appears further away in your rear-view mirror, and it seems to be travelling slower than it actually is. Because it is difficult to judge the motorcyclist's distance and speed, car drivers need to take a second look and sometimes a third look to make sure exactly what is taking place with this vehicle behind them. The small size makes it more difficult to spot in traffic than another car.

Some motorcyclists take advantage of their small size and manoeuvrability, and they may cut between cars and put themselves in places where drivers cannot see them. If motorcyclists behave in an irresponsible way, that's unfortunate, but we must take account of that and make sure that we don't kill them because of their foolishness. We have to be alert for motorcyclists who may appear unexpectedly. Also, motorcyclists position themselves in the lane to be seen -- it's to their advantage -- and often this means that they're going to be sitting in the left-hand portion of the lane, which may seem to a driver to be the wrong side, but they have a better view of traffic movement from that position. It also means that motorcyclists are going to move to the other side or to the centre depending upon the conditions in which they are driving. This move to the centre lane or even to the right side to avoid traffic or to be seen on the other side of the road sometimes causes drivers to lose track of where motorcyclists are. So you have to be careful when you see them about where they disappear to.

Most drivers take for granted the ability of their automobiles to handle minor road -- such as potholes or railroad tracks. For motorcyclists these become major obstacles, and they have to manoeuvre around them, which, of course, makes their driving seem somewhat erratic to a driver of an automobile.

Intersections are the most likely place where car-motorcycle collisions occur. As I stated earlier, it's usually the result of the car driver not seeing the motorcyclist and turning into the motorcyclist's path. The following distance is also important. Often because the motorcyclist is smaller, the car tends to follow too closely. If the motorcyclist has to stop, it's the same thing as rear-ending another automobile. The catch is, of course, that the motorcycle is a much smaller vehicle; there's very little protection for the driver of the motorcycle, whereas in a car at least you have some cushioning as the metal squishes. This does not happen, and that's why motorcycle accidents are much more serious to the person involved.

The next thing they have to be careful of is passing and being passed. I know I'm sometimes guilty of this when I pass cyclists and motorcyclists.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired.

G. Janssen: I'd like to speak, just in my closing remarks, about the work of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists and its affiliates in British Columbia, who take part, as many members are aware, in toy rides just before Christmas. For instance, over 300 took part in the ride in my home riding of Alberni; and over in Vancouver, well over 3,000 motorcyclists took part in the toy run.

Motorcyclists have raised over $2 million for charities in British Columbia, with those charities being hospitals, women's centres, disability groups, the Salvation Army and muscular dystrophy. In the Canada-wide Ride for Sight, a one-day event, motorcyclists raised over $1 million for research and study into retinitis pigmentosa. All those dollars went to the Retinitis Pigmentosa Foundation, and presently two doctors working at UBC in this field are funded by dollars supplied by the motorcycling community in Canada.

I hope that the issue raised in the House today raises awareness among members, and that in the future they partake in motorcycling events in their community and support efforts of motorcyclists throughout British Columbia. One of those efforts, of course, is taking place at noon next Thursday, May 7, at the rear of these buildings, where a 15-minute ride will be held for the MLAs. I hope they all partake, and I hope they listen to the concerns of motorcyclists after the event. I remind members that it has been the practice to invite the motorcyclist who has taken you on that ride down for a short lunch.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes statements.

[ Page 1173 ]

Orders of the Day

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).

D. Symons: I would like to begin my remarks by saying that I have quite a large number of more or less specific questions to ask. I recognize that in most cases I would expect the answer given, to begin with, to be the one that we've heard many times, and that is that they have had a very difficult time with the financial situation they have inherited, that there is a limited amount of money, and that they've used this money very wisely in dealing with the problems. I will accept that this would be the answer for many of them, and maybe we can shorten the procedure, because we'd like to wind this up as much as possible. If I will accept that, you can say ditto, or something, and then move on to just the specific answer.

What I am really after here in these cases is.... I realize, in many of these problems that have come to my attention from various areas of the province, that what they are looking for is an idea of when or whether it will take place, and what priority it might have. Perhaps we can focus on that rather than on the financing, which I do understand you are having difficulty with.

The first question may or may not be a financing question. This is one that deals with gravel being used on the highway. It seems that the gravel used in the outer parts of the province in winter when there is snow on the roads is now quite large pieces. It's a lot more gravel than it is sand, which used to be used years ago. I have a letter from one driver who reports that he had seven cracks in his windshield, two broken headlights, one broken flasher lens and extensive paint chips, and this was on one trip between Kitimat and Kelowna a few years back. The use of gravel rather than sand on our highways is costing ICBC and us, the drivers, hundreds and thousands of dollars in unnecessary claims for windshield replacement.

This is also a concern of one of the members from the side opposite. The member from North Coast spoke in a previous session on concerns he had about the use of gravel and not sand on the highway. I wonder if the minister might respond. As a matter of fact, I think he gave the figure of $200 million per year in replacing windshields through ICBC. Not all of that will be from gravel damage on winter roads, but no doubt a significant amount of it would be.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The material used, or the crush -- commonly referred to as sanding the highways -- hasn't really been sand for a long time because, of course, sand simply blows off the road quite quickly with the passage of a few trucks. It's a crush, and the size of that crush was reduced a bit about three or four years ago, and it has stayed constant since.

It's a difficult problem with ever larger trucks on the road, because if you don't provide those trucks the traction that they need, the consequences can be very severe accidents. It's a matter of balancing off -- avoiding severe single-or multiple-car accidents versus damage to windows and/or paint jobs.

I'm pleased to advise you, however, that I've put out a press release indicating that because of the number of complaints received, we're going to carry out a fairly careful study of it starting next fall. We're looking for the cooperation of ICBC, among others, in order that we can more fully address the problem.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for the assurance that they'll be looking into it. I'm sure that many drivers in the northern parts of this province -- and even in the southern areas -- where there is significant snow in the winter will appreciate that study.

The next question I have regards the intersection of Highway 97 and Highway 3 near the city of Osoyoos. They have spent a significant amount of money moving the water and sewer lines. There are two things here. One is that they have moved all this, and they are concerned about the consultation process. It appears that the city only found out that this was put on hold by accident, in a sense, when there was some discussion with B.C. Gas. They found out that B.C. Gas knew that the highway construction was not continuing before the city itself had been informed of this. I'm somewhat concerned about the communication. From responses I've got from some areas, they say that communication with the Highways department is very good, but there are still some areas where this communication has not taken place in the best way possible.

A second question in here also. In the announcement that the Highways department is postponing further construction at that particular site, you used the term "buttoning up" the site. I'm wondering if you might define that Highways term "button up" so that I and the community there will know precisely what will be done.

A third part to the question on that same intersection is: is there a timetable now in place as to when it will be unbuttoned and completed?

[11:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We've had to postpone construction projects all over the province. Where some preparatory work or some stages of work had been done, we've had to shut it down for a period of perhaps a year or more. That has occurred in many places. I've discussed it with many mayors, including a couple of discussions with the mayor of Osoyoos. We also sent staff to speak to the mayor about what was happening.

The highly technical term "button up" simply means that we're going to neaten up the site a bit and try to make it acceptable for a period of inactivity such that it's not an eyesore and is safe to use for that interim period. We will be unbuttoning them when the fiscal situation improves.

[ Page 1174 ]

D. Symons: I gather by the last answer that it's rather indefinite. They don't have any definite answer as to when it may be continued.

Another concern I have, from speaking with some of the highway construction companies, is that when you close a project down and begin again at a later date, it adds considerably to the cost of that project. It can often add maybe 50 percent or so to a project if it's closed down for any length of time. Since there are a large number of projects around the province that are closed down, how much is this going to add to the construction cost when these projects do eventually get carried forward?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There may be a misunderstanding there. We can start and stop projects without interfering with the cost of individual contracts. In the instance of Osoyoos and many others around the province, we would have had to call new contracts. A new contractor might have won the work. There would have been new mobilization charges. In putting a project on hold for a period of time, we are not adding further to the cost. It is not as though we are breaking contracts; we are taking a break between contracts.

D. Symons: The answer seems a little bit at odds with some of the information I was given, in the sense that buttoning up a site and then unbuttoning it does seem to have some costs involved, I would think.

The next question moves on to the area of Parksville. I am sorry; I have simply put these together in the order they've come to me rather than in geographical order, so we will be jumping around a little. Of course, there are three areas there.

One is dealing with the Island Highway as it comes near the city of Parksville. They are concerned that the drainage along the bypass route isn't really connected into the city's storm sewer system. They're going to have difficulties with the runoff from the highway at that point. I'm wondering if there are some plans underway to clear that up.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The matter of the drainage is under review between our staff and local staff. But you can be assured that in the end, we won't make their drainage problems worse.

D. Symons: Another concern they have regards the planning involved at the Craig's Crossing intersection. Basically the desire expressed to me was that they want to be involved in the planning process. They feel they've been somewhat left out of it at this stage, and they would like more input at an earlier stage.

I'll just ask the second question, to save bouncing up and down here. Another concern they had was the enforcement of the Highway Act over non-conforming and non-permitted signs in their area. Apparently there are a fair number of signs that do not conform to the Highway Act, and they feel that the Highway Act should be enforced on these sign owners.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With regard to your latter point, when we put up the large informational signs, we were going to be taking down a lot of the private informational signs at the same time. The previous administration blocked the removal of some of the private informational signs, but it's our intention across the province to be visiting these issues and to remove them. The policy will be -- in consultation -- to remove private signs from the public right-of-way.

With regard to your former point that someone was claiming lack of consultation, I think the record is clear: there has been tremendous consultation in the whole process of the Island Highway, and that process will continue.

D. Symons: I'm pleased about the removal of non-conforming signs or at least getting them to conform, because they are an eyesore. I have driven that highway quite often along that area. It's a pretty area, but the signs spoil it.

We revisit next the city of Castlegar, which you and I have visited a few times before, and the much-promised return of the ferry until the bridge was built. My focus before had been on the ferry and the ferry port. What I would like to look at now is the bridge, because that was supposedly due to be built in 1992-93 as part of the Celgar pulp mill's expansion and modernization project.

When this project of the Celgar mill is completed, there are going to be very heavy trucks, if they do not have the bridge, using Castlegar's only through-street as access to this pulp mill. This is going to create a great deal of heavy traffic and traffic hazards -- safety things -- in the city of Castlegar. They are very concerned that this bridge be started as soon as possible. Can you give them any time-line as to when that may take place?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: After my meetings with the townspeople at Robson, on that same trip I met with the mayor and council in Castlegar, the Chamber of Commerce, and representatives of Celgar, and I explained to all of them the financial circumstances. We have completed the design of the structure, survey of centreline is in, property acquisition is more or less complete, but the funds are not available to commence the construction of the bridge this year and possibly not next. It is a project that has a high priority, and if funding permits next year, it will be proceeding.

D. Symons: One other question. In that same area they are also concerned about the realignment of the intersection of Highway 3 and 22. Would there possibly be some date that that may be worked on?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Ditto.

D. Symons: We'll move to a local area now: the intersection at McKenzie and Highway 17, Rainbow Park. I gather from earlier comments we've had on this area that the intersection is to be completed. I wasn't quite sure if that was a partial completion or a temporary arrangement, pending the rest of Highway 

[ Page 1175 ]

17 into Victoria, or whether that's the complete project at that point.

While we're at it, the rest of the question deals with the rest of Highway 17, Swartz Bay to Victoria. Will any of that also be worked on in time for the Commonwealth Games?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The situation at the McKenzie interchange.... The work proceeding this year is a minimal amount to make sure that we make full use of the detour, in which we have some $1 million invested and to which we have legal right only up to October '93. If we're not off that bypass by October '93, we will be faced with the possibility of some legal action, which might cost us some money. We've undertaken some $1.5 million worth of work this year to get preloads in place, to do some excavation and button up the site. We will then open it again to completion of the bridge and the rest of the structures in the coming fiscal year, with a view toward having it complete several months before the Commonwealth Games.

With respect to the rest of the Pat Bay Highway, other than the work that is going on at Lands End interchange now and some safety work in a few limited places, the rest of the work will await the recommendations of the Capital Regional District transportation study, which we would expect to be submitted next year.

D. Symons: Thank you. In that same area, I guess the concern raised by the individuals who have contacted me is that it seems a disruption has been going on for quite a while -- up to two years now -- and they're concerned that this may carry on, and from your answer I gather that that may be the case. They said in the original plans, when this was presented to the community, that they were basically promised a park, promised sound mitigation, and promised community access. They are waiting for those promises to be fulfilled. In the process of doing the minor work you referred to at the intersection, will there be there some sound mitigation there? Will there be the appropriate community access in a safe manner rather than a temporary one? And will that promised park materialize?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The traffic will be put on to the bypass in preparation for the excavation and placement of fill of preload on Highway 17. The noise attenuation barriers, the berms, will be constructed and seeded. We made a rather generous offer to the local council to conclude the issue of Rainbow Park, but they have turned down that offer.

D. Symons: I'm sure they will be very pleased about the sound berms being put in there. Can we move to the town of Creston? They have concerns over the widening of the main highway....

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yes, we're visiting the province. I'm learning a great deal about the province through this process.

They have concerns about the bypass construction that should be taking place in the north and east central business core.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Local agreement is still lacking on what that bypass should be. Until such time as there is local agreement, it wouldn't proceed.

D. Symons: I would gather by the correspondence I have that the local disagreement revolves around some highway beautification to go along with the roadwork. If you were to get the agreement, would there be some timetable for that particular project?

[11:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The bypass issue is a provincial issue in that the decision at hand is whether to bypass the city of Creston completely or to continue the road through. There's a separate issue on widening and revitalization along the existing road through the city. That is primarily a municipal concern where they then apply for some cost-sharing dollars.

D. Symons: The next question involves the city of Hope. As the hon. Finance minister can discover, we are moving around the province very quickly here. They've been involved in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and they commented to me that they appreciated this involvement. So your comment earlier about being involved.... Hope was very appreciative of that assistance. They are concerned about the rehabilitation of the Fraser bridge. I have another quote, which I won't read, from one of your members that asked something in the past about that. This bridge is 65 years old and has had a great deal of use over that time. They want the rehabilitation of this bridge as soon as possible. They would also like if possible -- it was planned that this might be a three-year project -- that it could be compressed somewhat. Since tourism is so vitally important to the livelihood of Hope, any long-term rehabilitation program could affect the economic well-being of that community. Can you again give us a timetable for that particular project? Is it going to be possible to compress the time-line in doing the project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The bridge that the hon. member opposite is referring to is the old Kettle Valley bridge, which used to be a shared railway-highway bridge. I'm pleased to say that the final design for the rehabilitation of that bridge will be occuring this year. The actual work on the rehabilitation will proceed when funds permit. I'll also point out that within the next couple of weeks, I'll be touring the site with the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet to have a closer look at the problems on the ground.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to extend a welcome to the class of young people who have just joined us in the gallery.

[ Page 1176 ]

The Chair: Shall leave be granted?

D. Symons: I guess that's a belated question.

On the next question, we move back to Vancouver Island and Ucluelet. There are two concerns; I'll read both of them off.... Highway 4 between Sutton Pass and the Ucluelet-Tofino junction: they feel this needs upgrading and is in desperate need of that, and they're wondering what the government's intentions are on that. Also, the road into the village of Ucluelet itself needs some straightening and upgrading and possibly some beautification as it gets into the townsite itself.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There would be nothing for those projects in the current year's funding, but the municipalities can consult both with local Highways people and with their local MLA to see whether or not some of it might be moved forward in the coming fiscal year.

D. Symons: We move up country again, to Revelstoke. The concern there is regarding the slashing of the airport assistance program from $4 million to $400,000. They have an application in for some airport improvements in the Revelstoke area for the $400,000 -- the complete amount that has been budgeted for this year.

I'll just move on to another topic they had as well. That was a concern over the Trans-Canada Highway, particularly in the Three Valley Gap area. They feel that some upgrading there is critical. Either of those, please.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With regard to the ATAP funds, yes, we've had a very dramatic cutback here, which means that many of the community airport projects are again -- like many highway projects -- going to have to be put off a year in the name of fiscal responsibility.

With regard to the question at Three Valley Gap, there has been preliminary work done there, but nothing is intended for the coming fiscal year. It remains a relative priority in the area, and work will proceed when funds are available.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, while we're on the subject of airports, I was wondering what your ministry's position is with respect to the new Vancouver airport authority. What's your provincial policy with respect to airports? How much input do you hope to have? What are our provincial aspirations with respect to that facility?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think the very unfortunate element -- the whole thing about the privatization of the Vancouver airport or turning it over to a local authority -- is that the federal government dealt the province out of the whole process. We had little or no influence. We are left with the position of being able, I believe, to nominate one member to that board; but we will be looking to what measures we can to increase our representation on that board.

F. Gingell: My second question was actually going to deal with the makeup of that board and the method used with the nominations from the various organizations and whether you had any concern with that.

To go back to the first question I asked in relation to what our provincial aspirations are. Do I take it that our provincial aspirations are that the province should play a major influential role in the airports of this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's our view that the Vancouver airport is British Columbia's airport. The activity through that airport has a very major economic impact on the province. We feel that the provincial government should have played a vital role in the whole process, but as I've said earlier, the feds dealt us out of the issue. We have pointed that out. From time to time we're certainly indicating some improvements, such as the third runway, that we would like to see go ahead. But under the agreement by which the airport was passed over to the local authority, we simply have no influence.

F. Gingell: Prior to my being elected, I was the chairman of the Boundary Bay Airport commission, which was a local, council-appointed body to look after the interests of the municipality of Delta with respect to the Boundary Bay Airport. In that role, I discovered that the Vancouver airport authority has a great deal of interest in what happens to Boundary Bay Airport, has a great deal of interest in what happens to Abbotsford Airport, and is very keen on the Vancouver airport authority having a major say on all the lower mainland airports that are part of the commercial, rather than private, field.

I do encourage you, Mr. Minister, to do your best in dealing with your federal counterparts to ensure that local representation is an important part of the makeup of various airport authorities through the devolution process, and clearly, I agree with you on the question of provincial representation.

In the Freedom to Move special account, which has just been wiped out with the stroke of a pen, there was a provision and a policy in its act that set it up for the province to assist in the development of airports throughout the province. Can you advise us, please, what role your ministry intends to play in this coming year in assisting local communities to play an active role in responding to the federal government's devolution proposals for local airports? Do you have some funds to help them on their way?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Freedom to Move account first. With the exception that it funded the ATAP program, it didn't have anything else to do with the issues that you're raising. It was easy to wipe out as an account because it was a non-account -- it was a BS account.

I think that before we get involved in any policy development with regard to the smaller airports, we'll want to observe what is developing with respect to the Vancouver airport; and then, in the process of consultation with communities, develop a policy. We're certainly interested in doing that, but I think -- taking one 

[ Page 1177 ]

step at a time -- we'd like to see the situation with the Vancouver airport settle down first before spending too much time on the smaller airports.

F. Gingell: Just one further word on that subject. Be careful that the devolution process doesn't happen too quickly. There have been a lot of discussions going on on that subject.

If I may now turn from airports to ports, I wonder if the minister could give us some thoughts and ideas as to what the provincial policy on ports is. What are our provincial aspirations as to ports? I appreciate that it is a federal jurisdiction, but the province of Alberta has taken a very active role in trying to make themselves part of port development in British Columbia. It turned out to be a rather expensive exercise for them -- through the Fraser-Surrey docks, as you probably know. But I would appreciate some understanding of your ministry's aspirations and policy with respect to ports.

[11:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think it's fair to say that we have a vital interest in the development of the ports. I think probably the top of the agenda, or near the top, is to obtain from the federal government the control of those ports. It should be the business of the province of British Columbia. I believe that we know how to develop and run those ports every bit as well as Ottawa -- or better. We cannot put up with a situation indefinitely where substantial dividends flow out of Vancouver port to Ottawa while some of our competitors south of the line pick up subsidies in the form of local taxation. If we're going to be competitive, we're going to have to be competitive on the ports side as well as in many other elements of our society.

We're going to be striving to improve the transportation system in and out of the ports, and we'll be cooperating with the existing port authorities. We've had meetings with Mr. Reid of Vancouver port regarding their plans for Roberts Bank. We discussed the impacts that that will have on the transportation system in Delta and what we expect them to contribute toward the solution of those problems. I've also met on numerous occasions with people from Fraser port.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That's correct. We'll also be meeting in the not-distant future with the North Fraser Harbour Commission.

F. Gingell: I am really pleased to hear that. I served on the Fraser River Harbour Commission for 12 years, from 1975 to 1987, and was chairman of it in '85-86-87. I don't think that we ever met with the provincial minister at any time during those 12 years, other than at meetings like WESTAC, AMRAC and those things, so I really am pleased to hear you say that and encourage you in that role.

You brought up the subject of Roberts Bank, which is, as you appreciate, in my constituency. I am very concerned about the infrastructure that will be required when the development of the container terminal takes place. The local community is, of course, concerned about additional traffic through an already overloaded Highway 17 and Highway 10 and the problems with the tunnel, but one of the major issues which I really do believe should be addressed early on is the concern of the farming and agricultural community there. They already have a very difficult time dealing with the use of, and load levels on, roads that they use to carry out their business operations.

The railway line from Roberts Bank to join up with the main line, as you are aware, goes straight through a farming community. What assurance can you give us that when this proceeds, the needs of the farmers will be seen and recognized with respect to overpasses, fencing, ditching, irrigation and those kinds of matters?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In my meeting with Mr. Reid of Vancouver port I indicated that from the province's point of view, the port project -- should they go ahead with the container port project -- should be paying for the improvement of infrastructure, all the way from the container port up to and including an interchange on Highway 17, because there's no other reason for that interchange except the port traffic movement. At the same time I would point out that the total number of vehicle movements associated with the container port is not that great. I'm advised that it's in the order of 400 vehicle movements a day, which is quite small compared to the sort of vehicle movement counts that we have already. The key is the improvement of the access road right up to 17 so that all of the side roads are not used for the container port and Roberts Bank traffic.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that the number you've got is only 400 vehicle movements, but they're going to be 400 very big vehicles containing containers. I can just see the backups at Highways 17 and 10, which are already very bad and getting substantially worse. But I am pleased that we've had this opportunity to bring out our concerns, and that you are cognizant of them.

While you're on the subject of Highway 17, I appreciate that the subject has been canvassed -- not by me, but by my colleague. I will take this opportunity to once again stress the concerns of the Tsawwassen-South Delta community about the inadequacies of Highway 17 and the inadequacies of the intersections of 52, 56 and No. 10. I have lived in Tsawwassen for 33 years, so you can appreciate that I've seen some very major changes taking place. Every year the traffic just gets worse, and we don't seem to see it improving.

During the course of the last election, I was under the impression, from what was said by the member who held the seat prior to me, that the perimeter roads to take traffic away from 17 and get them onto No. 10 were all planned. They were just about ready to start construction, but I discovered after I became the MLA that that really wasn't quite the case.

If I may, I'd like to deal with just one more subject, which I refer to as the South Fraser perimeter road that will hopefully tie in Highways 99, 91 and 1. I would hope that it would go all the way through to give much 

[ Page 1178 ]

better access to the Fraser-Surrey docks and through that whole industrial area there.

I have been sent a copy of correspondence from your ministry to the municipality of Delta which indicates that the province expects the municipality and the corporation of Delta to participate in the cost of that road. That was somewhat of a surprise, because that road clearly serves Delta, Surrey and Langley. It would be a major interconnection of four major, important provincial highways. I was wondering why, all of a sudden, the ministry would consider that it might be a local municipal cost.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If I could refer back for a moment to the earlier question when I mentioned the 400 vehicles -- just to put it in context -- the traffic on 17 now at that point is at about 36,000 vehicles a day. So it's about a 1 percent increase, although I take your point well. It's a big 1 percent increase, and that's why, in my view, an interchange will be required.

On the perimeter road, I've met with Mayor Johnson on this issue and it also came up indirectly with both the Fraser River Harbour Commission and Vancouver port. Our position at the time is that there is a substantial local benefit in constructing the road. We are looking at it still as being a major municipal road. But in the spirit of open and honest government, we're open to discuss the cost-sharing implications, and many other things.

Coming back for a moment to the Highway 17 issue, you probably are aware already that the eventual solution is a new Highway 17 to get away from the existing 56 and Highway 10 intersection problems to get it out of that area and probably swing it a little further south to a new major interchange with 99. That would be the long run.

I would like to compliment you on your questions. It was very gas-saving. You stayed all in the same area, whereas my hon. critic took us on excursions through the province from Revelstoke to Vancouver Island and back to Creston -- and it took a lot of gas.

F. Gingell: Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. As a member of this House who sits in this beautiful building every day, I really did appreciate him getting me out of the House for a few minutes and taking me on a little trip around. I hope he was using the right kind of gasoline.

Mr. Minister, in dealing with the question of a new Highway 17, there are a lot of considerations. We must not forget the considerations of wildlife and the environment -- all that land there -- and the concerns of the agricultural community, which are very great. It's all very well for us to have an agricultural land reserve, but the agricultural policy and the policy of the government has to recognize the problem of farmers trying to survive and operate their farms in a growing urban environment.

I thank you very much for your answers and I make a plea, an important plea, that when dealing with matters that deal with the road and infrastructure situation within the constituency of Delta South, I would appreciate being involved and being asked to come to meetings with the mayor or with the council during my tenure in this seat. I do believe it is an important part of an MLA's role and we will all work more efficiently and more effectively if we are included.

[12:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will be glad to extend you that cooperation. I just wanted to make sure and clarify a point. I said a few minutes earlier that we could, on the new Highway 17, get away from the existing problems at 56th and 52nd. The offtake of the new route would probably occur past that point. We would be looking at putting interchanges at 56th, 52nd -- at one or the other, or perhaps both. The alignment would stay where it is now, and then cut off past that point.

C. Tanner: Just a quick note to the Minister of Highways. I want to congratulate him on the ribbon of red that runs down his chest. The only improvement I could make to it is that if he'd look to his left a little, he could see what we'd really like to see on this side of the House.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would put out that in light of the tremendous cooperation I've received in this difficult fiscal period from the mayors around the province, this tie was presented to me by the mayor of Kitimat. So I hold it up for all to admire, and it is perhaps about the correct tone. One can get too bright red in these issues.

D. Symons: I assume then that the tie is not aluminum.

In order not to tire you out, I will stay in the lower mainland for a moment here. I wish to go back to a non-highway issue, to the Vancouver International Airport expansion. I gather that the B.C. government has some sort of agreement with the federal government over the principle of land compensation for the loss of habitat when that third runway goes in, and that it's based on a no-net-loss approach to habitat.

I have a couple of questions dealing with that. Will all of the Sea Island land that's north of this new proposed runway be protected as an environmental preserve? I'll just ask all the questions so they can all go at once here. Does the government accept all the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment Review report that took place a while back, and when will the government make public its report on its position?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member opposite will have to ask those questions perhaps of the Minister of Environment during his estimates. I am not familiar with the issue.

L. Stephens: In Langley city we have a number of railway crossings that have become extremely disruptive to the orderly flow of traffic. There are five of them. The completed Langley-Surrey road-rail grade separation study clearly identified the major conflict of cars and trains, and the need to act. Could the minister 

[ Page 1179 ]

comment on when the citizens of Langley can expect to see some action on this pressing need in our community?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The resolution of grade separation between road and rail is, I'm told, about a $100 million problem. It seems to be a problem without a resolution at this time. From time to time we get cooperation from the railways and some cost-sharing on some of these items. At present there's no solution to the problems that you've outlined. No doubt they're very real.

L. Stephens: Am I led to believe that there is no plan underway to speak with the railroads in order to come to some kind of agreement?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No doubt talks will go on. The issue is the expenditure of up to $100 million, which would result in an increase in safety and convenience in that specific area. Even if we had $100 million in the next fiscal year, it's a question of whether that would be the best and highest use for that money in terms of the overall improvement to the highways system in British Columbia. We're aware of it. Talks will go on with the railways. It's hard to see how we could realistically undertake to solve the problem in the time horizon ahead of us.

L. Stephens: I'm sure the minister is aware of how serious this problem is in Langley. I would encourage you or some members of your ministry to come out and visit us on any day of the week that you would care to. It's becoming a very major problem. Safety is an extremely important factor in this as well.

There's another question I would like to ask the minister. It has to do with the bridge on 51B Avenue in Langley city that the government has committed to build. I would like the minister to reconfirm that this bridge will proceed.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: My advisers are not familiar with that designation. It may be a revenue-sharing project under Municipal Affairs. If you could provide me with the details of it, I could obtain an answer for you.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to follow the line of questioning of my colleague for Langley. We share the same region and certainly the same concerns. We had a commitment from the last government to do significant upgrading on the 200th Street corridor, which connects the Trans-Canada Highway with Langley city. For the most part it does follow through my colleague's constituency, but it certainly has an effect on the whole township area and Langley city. The improvements to 200th Street have been coming along quite nicely and are well advanced, to the point where the mid range of 200th Street from the interchange of the freeway down to the rail crossing will very shortly be a very good set of roads; a great improvement to the city of Langley.

However, we still have the problem with the rail grade separation in Langley City itself, which cuts off 200th Street from Langley City; and at the other end with the 200th Street interchange and the freeway, which is very inadequate for the level of traffic that it now has to deal with. I'm wondering if the minister could give me a sense of where the improvements to the 200th Street interchange rank on the list of priorities.

I understand the commitment that's been made to 200th Street to bring it up to the interchange, and now I'm wondering what the plans are for that interchange and the improvements that are hopefully going to happen in the near future.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The 200th Street project itself -- elements of that -- will be proceeding in terms of a minor project to the amount of some $1.6 million; that's to confirm your statement that improvements are taking place along there.

The interchange with the Trans-Canada is deemed to be part of the overall Trans-Canada study, from Langley all the way to, I suppose, the Cassiar connector. This is one area that is certainly not funded in the coming fiscal year, but it is an area that is of substantial interest with respect to the one funding alternative that I've spoken about before; and that is reaching to federal funds. They have not put any money into the Trans-Canada system for decades in British Columbia, and only minor amounts into the Yellowhead system.

There are the first stirrings of a national highways policy for the purposes of funding infrastructure renewal, and we would certainly look to that as one possible source of funds to carry out the upgrading of the Trans-Canada all the way from Langley to the Cassiar connector.

I want to make sure that that's kept in the context that we still want to look primarily at public transit -- commuter rail, rapid transit, bus lanes and many of those others -- as opposed to simply attacking the problem by building more highways.

G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the answer, and there are a couple points I'd like to come to in that. I certainly agree, and it's certainly a position of this opposition, that we should be stressing public transit over the use of highways. The real goal is to get people out of their cars and into a more efficient and environmentally friendly form of transportation. We would certainly work with you on any proposals or any plans that are headed in that direction.

Your comments on that twigged in my mind comments that I've heard continually from my constituents -- and I'm sure my colleague from Langley has heard the same, right out to the Abbotsford area -- with regard to the service that was provided during the Expo event; the rail service that was provided from, I believe, Abbotsford all the way into Vancouver to bring people into the Expo facility. I know the rail line exists, and I don't know to what extent it's available, but if it was made available during that period of time.... I'd be interested to hear comments in that regard. I don't know if that was brought up earlier when we had the 

[ Page 1180 ]

B.C. Rail people here, but I'd certainly be interested to hear that.

The one question that I do have particularly, given your last comments: I believe you said that there was a $1.6 million allotment for further improvements at 200th Street. Does that include any improvements at all to the interchange, or is that strictly the improvements to 200th Street itself, leading up to the interchange?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those projects are strictly on 200th Street. They do not pertain to the intersection or the interchange with the Trans-Canada.

G. Farrell-Collins: I was just wondering if you were conferring with your staff with regard to the rail transit link into Vancouver; perhaps an answer sometime later would be good. I would be interested to hear your comments on that.

Again I come back to 200th Street itself and the whole concept.... I don't know the planning that went into improving 200th Street. I don't know to what extent the interchange was a factor and to what extent the rail grade separation was a factor, but I see us headed for a position now where we're going to end up with, at some point -- I think it's six lanes even; three either way -- for the most part two lanes either way, so four lanes. It's a nice set of road structures with a bottleneck at both ends -- i.e. the rail grade, particularly at that intersection. I'm not talking about the whole rail grade -- the other four crossings in Langley -- but specifically the 200th Street one. Perhaps there might be some plans for some sort of improvement to that area.

I don't know if there's money to do the full separation if it's going to cost $100 million. But what are the plans for that -- maybe even in the interim or a temporary plan? What are the plans for the 200th Street interchange? Is it listed anywhere as a priority, or is it merely under study with the whole Trans-Canada route itself?

I'd like to know how the planning for the 200th Street section itself relates to the interchange that's at the one end and the rail grade that's at the other end. It seems to make the whole improvement futile.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The rail grade at the one end we've discussed earlier today. We recognize that it's a problem and that we have the fiscal constraint of not being able to attack that problem this coming fiscal year, and probably not for several. It remains, however, as an item to be attended to.

At the other end, back to the Trans-Canada, I think it's appropriate to keep in mind again the Transport 2021 study that's occurring in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and inputs into that study from further east are provided by Highways. We've got to look at the intersection here in the context of the overall transportation problems of the lower mainland and look to the recommendations from the 2021 study as guidance for the direction we should be going.

[12:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have some specific concerns about the 200th Street interchange, because it is a little unusual, in that 88th Avenue has become a major thoroughfare into the new Walnut Grove area, which is growing at a dramatic rate and is bisected by the 200th Street thoroughfare. As a result, we end up with the interchange itself at the highway, which is very congested. Then in addition to that we have 88th Avenue, which is becoming a very high-volume road that has a traffic light right at the interchange, and that has proved to be a real big problem. I go through that interchange at various times of the day -- early mornings and the evenings in rush hour.

Given the fact that we have a major industrial centre developing along the north side of the Trans-Canada Highway at Port Kells, which is part Surrey and part Langley, we have a lot of large vehicles -- trucks, etc. -- going through this interchange and intersection at the same time. The congestion is quite profound.

There were some suggestions put forward by the municipality to the minister, and they were specifically looking at a new freeway overpass similar to what was shown in the Aplin and Martin ultimate concept plan that was done for the ministry in 1988. I'm wondering if there are any plans to follow through on that, as it concerns 88th Avenue itself.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again I would have to refer back to the overall problems at the interchange, including the one that you've identified having to do with 88th. They have to be looked at in the context of the overall intersection problem, which has to be looked at in light of the overall Trans-Canada problem. So we're still going to be looking to the 2021 study for some guidance on that, and looking to some cost-sharing, perhaps with the federal government, for a source of money to address the whole thing. In addressing these problems, we can also look to some of the other alternatives I've mentioned of borrowing funds and getting on with some of these projects and then paying down a sinking fund -- rather than expense these projects as we go. If my colleagues and members opposite agree with that as an altered funding formula for highway construction, and if we can get cooperation from the federal government, perhaps we'll be able to make some major improvements along the whole Trans-Canada system.

While I'm on my feet, if I could come back to the earlier issue that the member for Langley mentioned on Avenue 51B I can report that it's under active consideration within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs revenue-sharing program.

G. Farrell-Collins: Given your comments with regard to the 200th Street interchange and the suggestions put forward by the Aplin and Martin study in 1988, I'm wondering what sort of a time-frame the people in that area are looking at with regard to the further study of the whole Trans-Canada itself. When are we expecting that to be completed? And when could the people in that area anticipate some sort of remedy being taken to the 200th Street interchange? Do we have 

[ Page 1181 ]

a time-line, and also do we have a ranking as far as priority goes for this project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Our Trans-Canada Highway study is not quite wrapped up, but it's getting to the point where it will be wrapped up. It will be combined with, or fed into, the 2021 study, which will be completed next year. I guess the member will have to wait until we see that report, and I believe that will be the fall of next year. It's quite a major study being undertaken. We will probably be using that as guidance for the start of investments the fiscal year after next.

G. Farrell-Collins: So I assume we're looking at perhaps this coming under the budget estimates in 1994. That being a possibility, I understand then that we're looking at an overall solution to this problem, hopefully, sometime in the future after that -- perhaps the following year, '95, or whatever. Perhaps we're getting more into some technicalities, but given that there's no long-range.... The plans for the 200th Street interchange are very much more long-range, but are there any very short-range plans as far as widening instead of making, for example, the on-ramp into two lanes? Are there any plans to do anything there at all?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have problems all the way down Highway 1 -- all the way down the Trans-Canada. If we try to attack them one on-ramp at a time, all we're doing is, in an unplanned way, aggravating the problem all the way down the system. We really feel that it's necessary to look at it in a holistic way. We've got to have a look at the entire Trans-Canada study again, feed that into the 2021 study and come out with an overall solution, rather than attack it one interchange or one on-or off-ramp at a time.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a final question for you then, and maybe I'm giving you a chance to take a political shot at your predecessors. I apologize to the members of the third party, but it's a question that's really struck my mind many times as I've driven down the road. How was the planning for 200th Street -- the expansion and the vast capital expenditures for 200th Street itself -- related to the problem of the two bottlenecks at the end? Were they not considered at the same time, or should we perhaps have waited for 200th Street also? Or are we trying to do this on a step-by-step basis?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would have no idea how the previous administration did it. It was probably through some combination of magic and crystal balling, but I'll have to leave that unsaid.

D. Symons: While we're in the Fraser Valley, I'd like to ask a question that relates to something the previous member asked to do with the area of Walnut Grove. I've had correspondence with a resident in that area, and she was concerned. I guess it's a little bit my fault for pressing you on the release of the inland ferry report, because in there I think are mentioned three other ferry routes that it recommended could be discontinued. Suddenly that's raised concern in those areas -- and about the Albion ferry, for number one.

I guess the first question here in the series would be: are there any plans in the near future to discontinue that ferry? Are there any plans that a bridge could be built across the Fraser River at that point -- be it a toll bridge or a free bridge? Or could there be a private bridge in there, and could we have that as a free enterprise one? Just to finish off the other areas also mentioned in that inland ferry report, could you give them assurance that their ferries will remain intact?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no plans to discontinue any of the inland ferry routes. As to replacing some of them with bridges, that is something that would be studied very carefully. The Albion bridge, for example, is at least a $200 million structure. We would have to see that it makes economic sense before proceeding. Once we're satisfied that it might make economic sense, it would have to fit into the overall fiscal capability.

D. Schreck: The question of ferries brought up by the member opposite in an interesting way reminds me of a favourite highway improvement project on the North Shore in my riding. I know that the members opposite commented earlier in the debate on the Westview interchange. I think that our government deserves particular praise for the innovation it has shown in getting more value for money from our B.C. Ferry fleet through the evening crossings that were announced earlier this week and the pricing strategy that it reflects. That definitely is an improvement in transportation strategy for the entire province.

The relevance of that improvement of transportation strategy to the West View interchange is that the traffic going to this improved traffic connector will flow through the Westview interchange. I am drawing that to the minister's attention and asking the minister to consider, at the conclusion of this summer's experiment, whether that is all the more reason for the high priority already being assigned by the minister to move it even higher up the priority list for consideration as soon as fiscally possible.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We will certainly be taking issues like that into consideration. As you've pointed out, it is already a relatively high priority. As soon as fiscal conditions permit, we will look toward proceeding with the completion of the West View interchange and thereby eliminating the last light between Horseshoe Bay and Kamloops.

D. Symons: I have a further question that relates back to the private members' statement earlier. I'm wondering if there are plans beyond the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes that you are planning on the Barnet-Hastings corridor, and whether there are any other areas that these may be planned for.

Just carrying that into the member's statement on motorcycles, would it be possible that some of the bus lanes -- for instance, the one along 99 -- could include motorcyclists as well? It would move them out of the 

[ Page 1182 ]

mainstream of traffic, where they are more hidden, into an area that's more open, and give them an opportunity for a safer trip along that highway. Could it be possible to include high-occupancy vehicles in the bus lanes -- three or more passengers -- as well as motorcycles? Are you planning on introducing any other areas that aren't currently bus lanes or high-occupancy-vehicle lanes?

[12:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the high-occupancy-vehicle -- or HOV -- lanes, in addition to the Barnet-Hastings corridor, they are being considered on the Trans-Canada, on the Second Narrows Bridge and for Highway 99. In any instance where we can provide a lane to facilitate that, and perhaps in conjunction with queue-jumping to further facilitate it, we should look at it.

With respect to opening up the high-occupancy-vehicle lanes for motorcyclists, it's an interesting idea, but it's a bit of matching apples and oranges in the sense that they're to be dedicated to mass movement, so to speak. It's an idea, though, that some consideration could be given to.

D. Symons: I'm pleased to hear of the consideration of other routes on high-occupancy vehicles, because I think anything we can do to encourage people to move out of their automobiles, or at least double-up and triple-up in them, is good. I think we need some encouragement and discouragement to get that sort of thing where we don't have just one person travelling in a vehicle. It will certainly help our congestion on the highways if we can move in that direction.

I'm back on my provincewide tour, and the next question I have is on Port McNeill and the concerns in that area about the road between Port McNeill and Beaver Cove; the feeling that there are six corners in that road that need straightening, or at least a lessening of the degree of the curve -- particularly at Misty Lake and Cluxewe Bridge. Are there any plans in the immediate future for improvements of that portion of the highway?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I request just a bit of clarification first of all. You're speaking of the area between Port McNeill and Port Hardy?

D. Symons: Port McNeill and Beaver Cove.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Beaver Cove being south of Port McNeill? I've not been there, so I apologize for not knowing which side of Port McNeill it's on. You asked the question, so you ought to know.

D. Symons: Sorry, I haven't been there either.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have a member opposite weighing in that Beaver Cove is between Port McNeill and Port Hardy. In that instance, we've got a couple of bridge projects going on in that area, some resurfacing projects and some road-upgrading projects. A substantial amount of work is occurring in that area. It would probably be more straightforward to provide you with a copy of the document which shows about eight projects occurring in that area.

D. Symons: I'd appreciate that so I can keep up on the area as well.

Another concern expressed by the town of Port McNeill was over the Island Highway. I guess much of that Island Highway project is being put on hold again because of fiscal restraints. It is, however, of great concern to many people on the Island, as you are no doubt already aware. In fact, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith less than one year ago said in this House: "Finally, after 22 years of this government" -- meaning the opposite party -- "promising it, we have a schedule for the Island Highway." It seems that that schedule has now been put aside, which is too bad, after 23 years of waiting.

If I can move on to another district, which is still on Vancouver Island but at the opposite end -- the district of Metchosin. They've been speaking with the ministry on this: it's a proposal for a school speed-limit sign with a flashing beacon in order to give greater safety to students in that area. They've applied for a grant and it has not yet come through.

While I'm speaking on this one, the same sort of situation occurred when I was on a visit in Kelowna. A group of parents took me out to the Winfield School on Highway 97. They showed me the highway sign, which was the normal thing we see in the cities at the side of the road, indicating a school zone ahead. The concern there is that a large truck passing along, as cars are on the outside, would totally hide the school sign from the cars, and we'd have the problem of drivers moving along at too rapid a rate in a school zone.

Another concern is that the sidewalk put in when the highway improvement was done there leaves the students walking on a sidewalk right next to the roadway where trucks are moving at quite a good speed and create somewhat of a suction as they go along. Would it be possible that this beacon arrangement could be put in there as well as in the Metchosin area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The flashing light or the beacon, as you referred to it, is a good system. It's desirable in that it can catch everybody's attention much more readily than a standard sign beside the highway. I'm not familiar with the circumstances that you've raised with respect to the Kelowna situation, although I do recall some correspondence that may have something to do with this particular instance. Nonetheless, we would be pleased to have local staff look into it. If the use of a flashing light is more appropriate, we would look to make that kind of minor improvement.

D. Symons: I have seen the actual situation at Winfield and Highway 97 -- where Winfield Elementary school is located -- and I would highly recommend that that be looked into as an area where the safety of children on their way to school is involved.

[ Page 1183 ]

Can we move up country again to the town of Fernie. There is concern over the reconstruction, widening and landscaping for Highway 3 through the city of Fernie. They say that this has now been delayed for the third time. They're somewhat concerned because Fernie becomes the gateway to the province from Alberta. They feel that the lack of improvement in that area certainly creates a poor impression on people entering our province for their first visit.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the sake of fuel efficiency, I do think this question should have come up after Creston, but letting that pass.... Unfortunately, we're not able to proceed with this particular -- I believe it's a downtown revitalization project. We have embarked on many of those around the province and will continue to. When funds permit, no doubt we will look at this one again.

D. Symons: I apologize for the lack of order of my questions. Unfortunately these questions here are an outcome of the fact that these discussions have gone on quite a long time, with a little break in between while we were discussing bills. These are ones that have come in over the last few days from the areas that I'm questioning. I'm simply putting them in the order that they've come to me.

I'm moving again rapidly to another area closer to your area -- the town of Lillooet, where there is concern over the funding for the 1993 downtown revitalization program. Apparently they're in discussion with the ministry, but they have somewhere around a $650,000 difference in their calculations of what the cost-sharing might be on that. To a city the size of Vancouver and to many projects, $500,000 is not very much, but to the town of Lillooet, that's quite a sum of money. Are you aware of that situation and whether they might be able to resolve that difference so that Lillooet can go ahead with this revitalization

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With any of these projects, if the local officials are doing their jobs, they are going to try to get as much for their communities as they can. Sometimes even the local MLA tries to put an oar in the water on their behalf, and that's pretty good too.

With respect to Lillooet, I'm pleased to inform you that the member for Yale-Lillooet and I will be visiting the town -- or village? -- of Lillooet in about ten days' time. Among other things, we'll be discussing that revitalization program.

D. Symons: I thank you for that answer. I'm sure they will look forward to meeting with you and discussing it personally, because the letter they sent to me indicates that there are some concerns over that difference in the method of calculating the cost-sharing.

Can we move again, in one of these rapid moves, down to the town of Sidney? Sidney has some concerns. Again it deals with Highway 17, but it's the intersection of Beacon and Highway 17 particularly. They want to have continued discussions on the design and location of the overpass and the intersection there. In the interim, they would like an upgrading of that particular intersection to enhance its capacity and safety.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The construction of the interchange has been delayed, along with most other construction along the Pat Bay Highway under the moratorium that the CRD requested and was granted some time ago. I'm aware that the municipality would like to see a substantial improvement to the existing intersection, but it is the ministry's view that it would not be the most appropriate use of limited funds to invest minor capital at this point only to see that minor capital taken out when the Beacon interchange comes about. We have discussed this with the municipality. We would be looking to make modest changes to the intersection to try to ameliorate the traffic problem in that area, at least to some degree, but not to the degree of change that the municipality has requested.

D. Symons: I'm pleased to see the member for Kootenay in the House, because the next question, if we can just change from the thought we've been on -- highways and so forth -- is a question she asked in the House a couple of years back. Does the ministry have a specific policy for cattle drives on B.C. highways? Is there a provincial policy in place now, or is it done on an ad hoc basis? Now that you've formed government, I'm wondering whether that problem has been addressed.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we have such policy, and I'll be pleased to give you a copy of it.

I would like to move that the committee rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; R. Kasper 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. G. Clark: I'd like to wish everybody a nice weekend of rest. Come back to work on Monday. With that, I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

[ Page 1184 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 11:09 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

R. Chisholm: We left off last day on the $150,000 over last year's level. That was on the B.C. Marketing Board. I have one last question about that. You stated that there were some appeals involved in the amount of the overage. What appeals were these?

Hon. B. Barlee: In reply to the member for Chilliwack, we have the answer for that; I was questioned the other day about why there was an increase. Since the B.C. Marketing Board is now disclosed as a separate vote, an increase in operational dollars is required to cover expenditures previously supported by the ministry. Now that goes directly to the marketing boards. This increase includes travel, professional services, and office and business expenses.

The B.C. Marketing Board is, as the member knows, a quasi-judicial body. It provides the avenue of appeals. There are a number of appeals before the Marketing Board at various times. They are usually low in number, but in the past several years the number has increased significantly: ten in 1989-90; 19 in 1990-91, so it's almost double. This is why there is increased funding in this area.

Appeals are not conducted on a cost-recoverable basis. The increase in budget will assist the Marketing Board in pursuing these issues to the various levels of the legal system. That's essentially because the appeal numbers have almost doubled, from ten to 19, so we have to let them have more funding to handle that.

R. Chisholm: The one left outstanding on the last day was an approximate $78,000 boost in the advertising budget. You were going to get back to me on that. Can you tell me what that entails?

Hon. B. Barlee: I certainly will. Money is not specifically targeted for Buy B.C. The additional money is actually to be extended to the food industry area. We believe strongly that our position in British Columbia vis-�-vis our share of the marketplace in the food industry.... For instance, I went on a tour with the Food Marketing Council a couple of days ago. They took me on a tour of various parts of Victoria -- Thrifty Foods and so on. We looked very closely at what percentage we're getting out of the food dollar in British Columbia. Essentially their best guess was 2 percent. We went through one area where there was 60 feet of packaged fish products. As you know, we're one of the leading exporters of fish products in the world. Yet out of that 60-foot counter, we had absolutely zero in packaged fish products.

Therefore we think this money is well expended. Some of it will be for redesigning ministry publications and some for addressing consumer needs. We feel -- and our polls indicate this -- that most consumers want to buy British Columbia products and produce, but we haven't done enough in the past to steer that particular agenda. I think this amount of money is probably well spent and well detailed towards that area.

R. Chisholm: I noticed that the building occupancy charges on vote 14 were $204,300 more this year. If the ministry is downsizing costs, why the $200,000 increase in charges for space? Where is this newly required space? How much of this is owed to BCBC? How much vacant space does the ministry now own or rent?

[11:15]

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially that increase is because of two areas: the food industry branch.... We feel this money is well expended. I believe the member would agree that we must achieve a greater share of the market, and most of it is value-added for value-added. In other words, if we send out the raw product, we get X number of dollars; if we send out a finished product, or a value-added product, we can access probably three, four, five -- sometimes ten -- times as much as we would get for the raw product. When we're looking at an expenditure of $204,000, which is $700 per day actually, it isn't a great deal.

One of the other areas where some of this money is expended is the Kelowna branch, for rental. These funds go to BCBC.

There is no vacant space. We are a very tightly run ministry, and I don't think we have vacant offices anywhere in the province. I would be very surprised to find one vacant office under my ministry.

R. Chisholm: You're going to have to explain this value-added to me, Mr. Minister. I'm asking a question about rental space, and I'm not too sure what the province is doing in the value-added area -- other than incentives for small business or business to get into it. I'm not too sure what we're querying. I'm asking about rental space at $204,000.

Hon. B. Barlee: The bulk of this money goes to the food industry branch, which is shifting gears. We're going in a slightly different direction. We feel that we have essentially been worried about the export market and the raw product going into it.

We'll take fish, for an example. If we send out the raw fish, we don't get nearly as much as if it's packaged or canned fish. So that's why we're putting more money.... As you know, the funding in the ministry is watched extremely carefully. We prioritize various areas, and this has been a high-priority area for us. We think the money for the food industry branch is extremely well expended, and that it will give us many times the returns we're spending on it right now. The Food Marketing Council agrees with us most definitely, 

[ Page 1185 ]

and so do most of the other entrepreneurs and businesses in British Columbia.

R. Chisholm: There also seems to be a dramatic increase in the cost of acquisition of furniture and equipment in the Agriculture and Fisheries budget. There appears to be a $235,000 increase -- over 260 percent. What could possibly explain that increase?

Hon. B. Barlee: Most of that goes into three different areas: the Kelowna office, which is relocating; the food industry branch office, which we think.... But $135,000 of that is for Kelowna, for one particular area. As you well know, we have to concentrate on that area; it's the area of the most significant growth in British Columbia. We're trying to track that. We also have an additional staff of about ten FTEs, most of whom require some furniture -- although they are on the run most of the time. The other is the food industry branch in Victoria. There's Kelowna, Victoria and some new full-time employees. But the bulk of it is going into the Kelowna area.

R. Chisholm: Can you please give me a rough idea of how the $20,000 in vote 14 -- item 95, administration and support services -- is spent? This is referred to as expenditures under that.

Hon. B. Barlee: We checked that. It is simply a chargeback from Treasury Board for banking services. I think it's $20,000. That's a general standard procedure through Treasury Board.

R. Chisholm: Administration and support services in vote 14 is more than 6 percent higher than last year. Why are the administration and support services not reduced, when assistance to farmers is? Is this the government's idea of doing less with more or more with less?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are a number areas where we have increased the budget. First of all, we are -- rather wisely -- increasing the base adjustment for game farming. Game farming has been a recent phenomenon in the area. It has some potential for the future. We're monitoring that very carefully, so that does receive an increase.

Of course, building occupancy is part of this. This is for the food industry, which I've alluded to before. We're doing quite well on information technology generally, which we think is very important. But we thought we would fund a little more in that area. That means we have more information to give individuals contemplating entering a certain area -- a niche market or another option -- which allows them to make a sound business judgment.

Finally, we are devoting a significant amount of that money towards upgrading and staff training. We have to have people who are very well versed in these particular areas and who are capable of handling the requests that come in. We felt that we needed a little more money there. It isn't a massive increase, but I think it's necessary.

R. Chisholm: The financial programs have decreased by over $1 million. Can the minister explain the reasoning behind this?

Hon. B. Barlee: There are a number of figures here. If you follow them through, there is a $50,000 decrease in the ARCS, or administration, because that program is essentially finished. There is a base adjustment in the NISA program agreement as well, which is significant. There is a base adjustment in the grape and wine residual policy. GRIP, of course, is down, because there are fewer people in GRIP. The grape and wine internal reallocation of the base budget is also down, because we've completed much of that program. The tripartite internal reallocation of the base budget is also down by $0.5 million. All of those are down basically because either the program is coming to an end -- we have done much of the work in that program -- or there are fewer applicants in those areas.

R. Chisholm: How much in the way of lottery funds went to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year, and how much is expected this year?

Hon. B. Barlee: There were a lot of lottery funds last year, but unfortunately we did not get our share. We got about $185,000. As you know, the lottery funds totalled slightly over $200 million, if I remember correctly. We haven't got the figures here, of course.

I would anticipate and hope that we will go the route of Oregon, and that we'd get a significantly higher proportion of lottery funds. I think this is necessary. Some jurisdictions are really well poised for the future, and I would hope that we would be able to increase that funding.

R. Chisholm: We have roughly 61 fairs around the province per year. How are you financing them now, and how will lottery funds -- or the lack of funds affect these fairs?

Hon. B. Barlee: A very good question. I've been working on this for the last three days. The fairs actually receive approximately $372,000, which is about $186,000 each. Half of the funding is from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as you know. The fairs range from the PNE right down to the small fairs like the Rossland fair. The funding for those fairs ranges from $50,000 for the PNE, which would be at the top of this list, right down to about $400. That has been, prior to this time, split between the Ministry of Agriculture and, I believe, the Lottery Corporation. Now the Lottery Corporation is, as you know, not funding this area.

I would assume -- and I'm quite sure I can say this in all safety -- that we are going to be funding those fairs. In fact, I look for a slight increase in the funding, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, some of these fairs have been extant in British Columbia since the 1890s. There are fairs in British Columbia that have been here since 1891, and they're part of the mosaic of the province. They serve the province very well, and I'll tell you why. If we have 

[ Page 1186 ]

a fair, say, in Rock Creek -- and excuse me for picking my riding; I may be a little biased there -- we have people coming all the way from Kelowna, Trail and Vernon, and that creates a lot of economic activity in the immediate area. Not only that, the economic activity sometimes draws visitors from the United States -- which is quite a surprise to me sometimes -- and they spend a great deal of money locally. So the fairs are generators of income. They also keep dollars in British Columbia. We're very aware of that.

[11:30]

Some of the fairs have grown dramatically in size. I think they should receive.... The smaller fairs should receive approximately a 5 percent increase. I would anticipate that I will be able to achieve that, although we are very careful of monitoring programs that are going to cost more money.

In the fair area there have been individuals.... There are about 12,700 volunteers in the fair area. Some of those volunteers have worked only for years; some have worked for decades. I know volunteers who have worked for 40 years for one fair, building the fair up. Whether it's in the Chilliwack area.... As you well know, Chilliwack receives -- I believe, if I remember correctly -- slightly over $20,000. It's not as big as the PNE, but much bigger than most of the fairs in British Columbia.

The fairs are right around the province, from the boundary country to the north, from the East Kootenay right to Vancouver Island. They are a very important part of our social activity, of our economic activity, and they are showplaces for the agriculture community as well.

R. Chisholm: I'm going to clear up a couple of questions that came up on the last day, and then we'll get on to policy areas, rather than just questions and answers on $10,000 and $20,000 amounts. I think some of the policy areas are much more important.

Hon. B. Barlee: I agree.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to know your stand on harmonizing the PST and GST -- collecting the PST at the border -- to help the cross-border shopping situation we've got, and on possibly lowering the gas tax to regain money in the coffers. If you are in agreement with this type of plan, what are you doing with the cabinet to convince them to go this route?

Hon. B. Barlee: I have my own ideas on that, but essentially this is not under my purview or my aegis. Any harmonizing of the GST with the PST comes under the Ministry of Finance, and we have had a number of discussions concerning that at the government level. But that is more properly asked of the Ministry of Finance.

R. Chisholm: The next question that was left up in the air was concerning the farm safety program. Do you support the self-policing system proposed by the BCFA? If so, how do you intend to assist them with the WCB?

Hon. B. Barlee: This, of course, again comes under the Ministry of Labour. It's essentially a direction from them. We have, however, had ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Labour and the BCFA, and we are having discussions with the Workers' Compensation Board.

As you well know, the farming community generally has one of the lowest rates in British Columbia. There are several fatalities per year in the farming community, quite often through electrocution or tractor accidents -- those are the two major areas. Usually there are about two or three deaths per year, which is regrettable. But considering the number of people who work in the farming and fishing community, it is really quite minuscule compared to many other groups covered by the Workers' Compensation Board.

R. Chisholm: Mr. Minister, I was looking for your opinion, and to see what your stand was on those two questions. I realize they come under the other ministry when it comes to the final implementation.

Hon. Chair, during the minister's introductory speech, he took credit for the farmers surviving in hard times. I don't believe that the government was any help at all; the farmer survived only because of his intestinal fortitude and tenacity. This leads to my question: in the next downturn of the economy, how do you intend to help the farmer, when you are cutting back on insurance funds and assistance programs?

Hon. B. Barlee: I pointed out the success of the ministry over the past decade in shielding a lot of people from economic hardship. With our emphasis on research and development, we can help. In parts of the interior there's a depression, not a recession. A number of people are falling back on the land in that area. We encourage that through more funding for research and development, which we are doing through various other offices of the ministry. That's why we are giving high priority to certain services that we provide to the public and to the farmer, which will give them a competitive edge over their counterparts from Washington State.

Our record on bankruptcy in the farming community is quite admirable. I can say again that under our ALDA plan we have less than a 1 percent failure rate. That is staggering when you look at the business failures all around the province. No bank anywhere has a 99.3 percent success rate. It simply does not occur.

R. Chisholm: Now we'll get on to the ALC. The minister dismissed the Land Commission chair last fall, supposedly to save costs, and he closed an office in Victoria. How much did he save by that move? Was that the only reason for the layoff of the chairperson?

Hon. B. Barlee: The termination of the position of full-time chairman was a logical step. The savings are approximately $200,000 per year. Some of that has gone directly back into the hiring of extra full-time employees in the Agricultural Land Commission, which was badly needed. We closed the Victoria office, as you are aware. It was a logical downsizing in that particular 

[ Page 1187 ]

part of the Agricultural Land Commission apparatus. That money is better expended on several employees -- two or three -- who are now in the Agricultural Land Commission catching up on the backlog of work that has been facing them for a number of years.

R. Chisholm: Now that you have downsized, will the structure of the ALC remain the same? How much longer will Kirk Miller remain acting chair? Will he become chair, or will you have a chairperson?

I want to make a statement along with this, so that you know where I am coming from. The ALC came into being in the seventies. The farmers supported it on the condition that they were supported in return. If you support the farmer, he will protect the land along with the ALC. When are all the farmers going to be supported fairly and equally to protect the land we are so ardently trying to protect?

Hon. B. Barlee: The decision concerning the present acting chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission, Mr. Kirk Miller, is under consideration right now.

In answer to your other question, we should consider the overall picture of the farming community. Basically, it is this: there is no other sector in British Columbia that has grown at a steady rate of 3 to 5 percent per year on average for the last ten years at least. We anticipate that if our long-term strategy is successful, that rate will continue; in fact, it may even improve. If you are looking at an average growth rate of 3 to 5 percent per year, when the average growth rate across Canada in some industries has been a minus quantity and others are very lucky to break even.... In others, 1 percent is considered a relatively good performance. We are growing at 3 to 5 percent. The member would be challenged to name any other major industry that is growing at this rate. After all, we do employ 208,000 people.

These are dollars that we guard very carefully. They are made-in-British-Columbia dollars; they circulate in British Columbia. The government is aware of the economic impact. That's why we are prioritizing it in all areas; that's why we are looking down the road to the future; that's why we are seeing what our competition is doing, what our potential competition might do, where we are facing market challenges and what we can do to insert ourselves in other markets.

R. Chisholm: In reference to the ALC again, will you be resurveying the complete province for land and grade of land? Will this finally be done in a scientific manner, rather than as it was the first time it was initiated?

Hon. B. Barlee: We alluded to this very briefly the other day. The agricultural land reserve is hallmark legislation. I think that any sophisticated country does protect their land extremely well. We should not be an exception. We have an advantage and a disadvantage. Our advantage is that we have many diverse food products in British Columbia. The disadvantage is that 5.05 percent of the land -- approximately 10.7 million acres -- is covered by the agricultural land reserve. We have to guard that extremely carefully. We're aware when a certain area suffers a significant economic impact, but we think that we have shielded most of those areas from this impact. Sometimes they are heavily hit by a free-fall in world prices, and that has happened in British Columbia.

Again, we are looking for alternatives. For instance, in one area in the northeastern part of British Columbia, the grain farmers and oil-seed producers experienced a staggering fall in prices in the last several years. We have a report before us now which may help us: the Sparks report, which the government has received in its first draft. We looked at the rough draft. The agricultural communities, specifically the cattlemen, will be looking at the complete draft and coming back with suggestions. We will let the experts analyze it, both in my ministry and outside the ministry. We believe in a great deal of consultation with the various groups that are affected.

R. Chisholm: I think the original question was.... When the ALC was originally developed, it was done by a process you could call faulty. What I'm saying now is that we are protecting lands which in some cases should not be protected, and other lands that should have been protected are not. When are we going to rectify this situation and protect the farmland that needs to be protected?

Hon. B. Barlee: I would question the term "faulty." I think that any government with any social conscience would embark upon schemes such as the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve act. Certainly it was done in other jurisdictions. I mentioned Hawaii the other day, where Bill 185 was passed in 1961. Essentially that act has stayed intact. Oregon, another one of our southern neighbours, is a typical example. They have a land act there which is very similar to the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission Act that we have. Quebec, for instance, patterned their agricultural land act after British Columbia's. The agricultural land reserve in British Columbia is really the focal point of study for many parts of the world. It has, in essence, worked extremely well for us.

We must be aware, of course -- and I think the member pointed this out -- that there is an infinitesimal amount of land within the agricultural land reserve that should be re-examined and perhaps redefined. That's probably true. We discussed this, and it is under consideration now. We have made no definitive statement on that, because it requires long-term analysis. We know that there's pressure on the land in southern Vancouver Island, in the Okanagan and in the lower mainland. Much of the pressure on that land is from the so-called speculators. I make a division between the speculators and the developers. In almost every area there is other land available outside of the agricultural land reserve. Certainly that is the case with the golf course situation. The Argyle study, completed I believe in 1990, said that people wanted to dip into the agricultural land reserve; they wanted to dip into lands 

[ Page 1188 ]

that are very easily "developed." They didn't have to dip into the agricultural land reserve. Those speculators were looking for quick profits. They can go elsewhere.

[11:45]

There's hundreds of thousands of acres in the lower mainland, for instance, that can be developed for golf courses. Right now we have enough golf courses developed until 2002. We're into the twenty-first century. We don't need a lot more golf courses in British Columbia.

Looking at redefining and refining the agricultural land reserve, that's a lucid and quite reasonable question. We're looking at that, but it's a go-slow process for us. There have been, by the way, 11,000-plus hectares excluded from the agricultural land reserve in the lower mainland due to this ongoing review process. So there are certain areas where the Agricultural Land Commission has allowed land out of the agricultural land reserve. I mentioned the other day that 72 golf courses came before the Agricultural Land Commission between 1973 and 1988. They wanted land out of the agricultural land reserve. The Agricultural Land Commission looked at those areas under review, and they allowed 64 percent of those 72 golf courses to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve, because they did not impact upon the reserve itself. They did not impact upon our ability to produce food. In other words, those are class 5, class 6 or worse land.

R. Chisholm: While we're on to golf courses, which is a little bit off where I was going, I'll ask the question now: with the golf courses that went before the cabinet.... What the ALC recommended and what the cabinet finally approved -- were there any differences? What, if any, were those differences?

Hon. B. Barlee: The member knows that this reflects upon cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet considered all of the various aspects and factors.

R. Chisholm: Considering the reputation of the ALC, with politicians dabbling in it and popping land out of it, what insurance or guarantee can you give to the farmers that farms will be protected once cities encroach more severely, which they are starting to do now with the vast urbanization that is going on, especially in the Fraser Valley?

Hon. B. Barlee: I should make a definitive statement here that we, as a party and as a government, have made it very plain that, although the ALC and the ALR are under my ministry's aegis, I do not interfere with their decisions. Their decisions are made solely on the basis of whether land is capable of good agricultural production. That is a very important decision. I do not interfere, because I should not interfere; it is not my business. I'm not about to say that there was interference before; I would assume that there was a weakening of the process. When you look at OIC 1141, which was passed on June 30, 1988, it indicates that somebody was trying to get in there.

The Agricultural Land Commission works very closely with local governments. They are restricted. Their focus is narrow, and indeed it should be; they cannot take into consideration all the economic factors. Their main consideration is keeping our food supply and the land capable of producing that food supply intact.

A. Cowie: I've come in at an interesting time. I'd like to ask the minister a number of questions -- not too many -- about what we were just talking about: municipal councils and the use of the agricultural land reserve. Many councils use the agricultural land reserve as a form of controlling land when they should be zoning land. I could list many pieces of property throughout the province.

I have a little bit of a pre-statement: I fully support agricultural land reserve, and I said that the other day. It should be independent; it is independent. Some councils use the ALR instead of dealing with the zoning. They simply say it's ALR; therefore it can't be used for any other purpose. In some cases they know darn well that the land is completely impractical for agricultural use.

I'll give you one example only: Big Bend in Burnaby is completely surrounded by industrial uses. The GVRD has its smokestack right beside it. I know for a fact it would cost anywhere from -- I'll use a very wide range -- $10,000 to $50,000 to improve the drainage and make it into agricultural use. You can buy agricultural land within three or four miles of that site for.... Let us use a large sum -- $20,000. Why would anybody want to spend $50,000 to improve that land above its cost -- which would be more like $70,000 -- to make it into agricultural land just to please the municipality, which wants to hang on to that land as a symbol that they still have agricultural use in that community.

Hon. B. Barlee: In response to the decisions by the municipal councils in various parts of the province, I cannot guide their decisions as far as land is concerned. They may use this as a shield or a cover. I don't find that too difficult; I can quite accept that.

The other area, Big Bend. I'm not familiar with that specific part because we have 11 million acres in the agricultural land reserve. At this precise time it may not have value as an agricultural pocket of land. This area may have some value as a greenbelt, and it may eventually have value as agricultural land. We have to be very careful when we give up any of these even potential agricultural land pockets that are governed under the Agricultural Land Commission or the agricultural land reserve. I look very hard at any area where there has been an attempt by local government to withdraw land from the agricultural land reserve. It has been done in a number of areas of British Columbia, and I singled out one area in the Okanagan the other day. That was to the great disservice of the people living in that city.

The greenbelts are important. It is the hallmark of a great society to protect them. Frankly, there may be exceptions, but these exceptions are few and far between. I would rather err on the side of caution than the other way.

[ Page 1189 ]

A. Cowie: We don't have a different philosophy; we have a disagreement in implementation. The Agricultural Land Commission has absolutely no mandate to deal with greenbelts. It did. You should bring it back. When you bring it back, give it some bone and give it some money. Then we will be in total agreement.

In the meantime the Agricultural Land Commission can't talk about greenbelts except in general philosophy, as you did. This is where the confusion lies. There was a very costly legal case recently in Delta -- Delta tends to set precedents in legal cases -- where, in fact, Delta lost. They essentially established a number of greenbelts -- which a lot of people wanted; there's no question about that -- but they had no money to pay for them. There was no way they could implement it; it was far beyond their community plan. They had to go back and redraft their community plan.

I would doubt whether they are still within their legal mandate, because they have to show with that community plan a five-year budget for purchase of land which they have set apart for park and public open space. They simply cannot take a piece of land, designate it as public park and essentially freeze any potential development. They cannot do that legally.

If we are to get into greenbelt philosophy and implementation, let's do it. Let's use it, as we said the other day -- and I won't go back -- to purchase the development rights. Let's use public money innovatively to preserve land. It's absolutely true that the public, especially people living in urban centres today, are mostly rural romantics. There was a complete analysis of two public hearings -- one on Terra Nova and one on Spetifore -- and while a lot of people talked about preserving open space, only 1 percent of people tied preservation of open space with growing of food. I can provide those documents for you.

You have a lot of people out there who are rural romantics -- I happen to be one myself -- and they want to preserve open space. There is no way of doing it except to use community plans, in some cases not within their legal mandates. It's in this area that the government owes a great deal of.... They have to make clarifications and change the legal mechanisms if they are going to properly create greenbelt spaces around municipalities -- which, by the way, except in Britain and a very few places, have never worked by zoning alone. There has to be a more creative way of doing it, such as I suggested with the purchasing of the development cost rights.

Maybe you would like to comment generally on that.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'd be delighted to comment generally on it. First of all, I concede that there is a debate going on, both publicly and within the various councils around the province. Some have taken the route of Delta, and they have my admiration. They are not always right. I think the intention is very honourable. The Delta council -- if I may speak for them; I've talked with them -- is looking well into the twenty-first century. There is indeed a problem of money if we are to retain the greenbelts. Delta is light-years ahead of most other councils.

You will find in some cities of British Columbia that the number of parks is one-half of 1 percent. It's really quite staggering to me that in some of the old cities of Great Britain where the real estate values are simply skyrocketing right out of sight.... For instance, the Inner Mile -- I don't know if I mentioned this the other day or not. In what we call the old city of London, there's one square mile with about 12 percent parks -- Queen's Park, Regent's Park, and so on. They have kept those intact, regardless of the real estate prices and regardless of the cost.

Those people who are interested in real estate should bear in mind several things: in any great city, in any farsighted municipality -- you can take Palm Springs or a number of different areas all across North America where the real estate values have skyrocketed -- in almost every instance, they have been extremely careful to protect their agricultural areas and greenbelts. That actually enhances real estate values.

I'm concerned about the difference between a speculator and a developer. A number of individuals in the real estate industry are speculators: they simply do not care. There are some developers there. I had a talk with some real estate individuals the other day from the Okanagan, and they agree with me. What we have in certain parts of the Okanagan is essentially urban slums. I don't think that's necessary. This is one of the great areas of British Columbia. It has natural beauty, a chain of lakes and the difference between the desert country and the alpine regions. I'm saying, let's slow it down. If we were to open up the Okanagan to the various councils, in most areas we would have strip development right through the Okanagan, to the great detriment of the public at large.

In many respects we have a similar philosophy. I'm trying to take what I hope is a larger view, a broader perspective on this. Once we lose this land, it's lost forever. You don't get it back; that's all there is to it. I can think of a number of parcels of land that my family has owned over the last 100 years in the Okanagan and elsewhere. Once this land was taken out of the ALR, it was gone. There is simply no reversal to that process; it's almost impossible to reverse it.

[12:00]

I'm saying, let's take it easy on this. Let's take a very hard look at it. I know there's debate going on in various areas, especially where the pressure is high. The pressure is high in the three areas of British Columbia which I have mentioned before. We are trying to resist this pressure, because hopefully we will have a very farsighted look, protecting not just our generation but the generations to come after us. I think we have a duty to protect that land. In the long run, people are going to change that.

There are rural romantics; I will accept that statement. But I think the next natural step is running from the rural romantics who want greenbelts right into the farming area, because the farming area is extremely important. It is slowly falling under the jurisdiction of some of the great multinationals of the world. These guys are quite aware of what they want; they want vast profits. When you look at Shell Oil, Cargill and Imperial Oil, they aren't doing it for the fun of it. These guys are 

[ Page 1190 ]

getting into the agrifood business because they know that it's very important. They know that in the twenty-first century this will be important to their bottom line.

Those individuals work on 50-year plans. We can't work with the old two-year and three-year plans anymore; we have to look decades ahead. We have to have a strategy to meet the strategy of the multinationals. We have to have a strategy to preserve both the greenbelts and the agricultural land reserves.

A. Cowie: As the minister knows, the Liberals are working on a 60-year plan, so we're even ahead of the multinationals.

Hon. B. Barlee: You wish. Was that a 60-minute plan or 60 years?

A. Cowie: Sixty years. It has even been endorsed. We've been criticized for it, as a matter of fact, from your side.

It's unfortunate in some ways that the minister's prime experience.... He has really been jaundiced by Kelowna in the past -- for quite good reason. It's a disaster. I assure you that in other parts of the province it isn't quite as bad.

As a matter of fact, in 1976, when the ALR came in, the people who got hurt were the little guys who had one acre, who were all out there speculating. In fact, when you talk to the large developers -- the true developers -- they didn't get hurt. They didn't have large land banks. Now there could have been some people with some, but I can remember that time and the analysis. It was the little guy who was speculating on his one acre up in Surrey and Langley who got hurt; it wasn't the Wall and Redekops, or people like that. Most speculators, as a matter of fact, get hurt sooner or later anyway because of government restrictions and things. A wise developer will not get into speculation on any long-term basis. The multinationals may, because they outlive governments.

I want to get back very briefly.... I promised my colleague I wouldn't go on forever, because we on this side don't want to do that. I want to talk about the practicality of greenbelts and the different kinds of greenbelts. It seems to me that if you want to restrict urban development.... Take Delta. Take Ladner, which has a plan to restrict development, except for the Genstar parcel, which is designated for development someday, or at least to be considered for development. The servicing is all done in such a way, except for that portion, that it's very costly to go beyond particular boundaries, where density is now taking place in and around the centre, rather than sprawling out -- except for east Ladner, which is just as bad a disaster as Kelowna.

Essentially, if the minister really wants to protect agricultural land, he has to work very closely with municipalities and make sure that the servicing plans are done in such a way that it is difficult to go out into these lands. When it comes to buffers, the Agricultural Land Commission has said in the past -- in fact, Mr. Seaton has said in the past -- that a fence is just fine. Well, it may be in some cases, but I disagree with him. You have to have more than a fence. It's easy to take down a fence and go next door. It's hard to tell a landowner who has poor agricultural land, when two stub roads have been built facing right into that land.... It's hard for anybody with any common sense to think that a road is not going to go out there someday. So it's very important that the agricultural objectives be tied in with the community plans, and they haven't always been in the past. There's a lot of catch-up, if that's the case.

Also, it would seem to me that buffers -- and I'd like some comment on this -- can mean all kinds of things. Buffers can be golf courses; buffers can be parks. They can be schools, recreational playing fields, strawberry farms, forests. A buffer can be many things, as long as the covenants on the land make it absolutely certain that it's not slated for development for some other use -- because even a farm is a development. Maybe you'd like to comment on that, because those positions haven't always been made clear.

Hon. B. Barlee: I've known a number of developers. I'm actually still friends with a number of them; with the speculators, I am not, as you may well have guessed. Even some of the developers who have moved into these areas may indeed have the best interests of their area at heart. But when most of the developers want to go on holidays, they head for Hawaii, which has an agricultural land reserve, and has had since 1961, and has seldom breached that act; or they head to Palm Springs or to some other marvellous area that has greenbelts intact. So the word "development" is possibly a misnomer. There may indeed be a number of developers around that are interested in converting agricultural land to other uses, but I don't think they are specifically developers; I think they are probably closer to being speculators than developers.

There are a number of answers, as far as dealing with our suburban problems. There's no magic bullet. But I will say that the Agricultural Land Commission sees fit on occasion to withdraw lands from certain areas that they feel will not impact the agricultural capacity of those lands.

I don't have a great deal of sympathy for the developer -- and I'll use that term in the larger sense -- who has to pay extra money to go beyond the city boundary. If he's interested in developing land, that's one of the costs.

When I think of the cost of lakeshore in Kelowna.... I'll give you an example: the cost of lakeshore in Kelowna in the 1950s was about $200 a foot. We own Manhattan Point in Kelowna as well as some other land. We have, I think, 900 feet of lakeshore. That was worth about $20,000 in 1960-something. That same piece of land and lakeshore in Kelowna is now selling for between $4,000 and $5,000 a running foot, so that would be worth about $4 million. There's quite a difference between $20,000 and $4 million.

What I'm saying is that the price of land goes up continually, as does the price of servicing the land. I haven't a great deal of empathy or sympathy for developers who have to face the extra dollar. They're just going to tack it on to the price of land.

[ Page 1191 ]

The lots in Osoyoos, the town I live in.... I could have bought a lot about 300 yards from my home about 15 months ago for $26,000. That lot is now $90,000. So I think that the developers can indeed afford -- if they make a wise choice as far as business is concerned -- to develop the land that is beyond the agricultural land reserve. If it means going on to the slopes of a mountain, that's fine. I'm saying stay away from the valley floors.

We're being relatively hard-nosed about it because we think that that land really should be preserved, despite all the other questions that the member brought up, some of which were very well-thought-out. I'm saying we have to look at the larger issue.

A. Cowie: One final question. I think we could both go on forever on this.

The minister probably should be the Minister of Municipal Affairs, at least for a little while, to get some of these things out. It might be kind of fun for him. He's really into developers and development. Anyway, my experience is.... And again, I want to absolutely emphasize -- for my own protection -- that I support the Agricultural Land Commission all the way. All I'm concerned about is that the Agricultural Land Commission knows that certain land is not good for agriculture. They know darn well that it won't work. I would like to see the Agricultural Land Commission have a little more bone when it comes to dealing with some of the municipalities. I'm absolutely sure they do in private, but I also suspect that they will never go against a municipality. Therefore I question whether they are truly independent in some instances. I would like to see them really be independent and make their statements and occasionally tell municipalities, when it's absolutely obvious that they should get off their particular bandwagon and they're trying to use the Agricultural Land Commission as a foil for decisions that they should be making themselves.

Hon. B. Barlee: I can't comment to the member for Vancouver-Quilchena on the reasons various municipal governments do fall back on the good offices of the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission. They're probably like some other politicians who tend to protect their flanks; I think they're doing that. I don't mind if they lay the blame on the Agricultural Land Commission. That doesn't really offend me. In fact, I think it may serve the public well in the long run, because if they're using this method to preserve agricultural land -- which I think is valuable -- I don't mind. I don't say it's the best method. I would concur that there may be better, but I don't mind if they fall back on the broader shoulders of the Agricultural Land Commission to defend agricultural greenbelts.

M. Farnworth: I have a question for the minister on much the same topic as the municipalities, concerning the Agricultural Land Commission and ELUC. It's quite true that a lot of municipalities have attempted to coerce the Agricultural Land Commission and to put a great deal of pressure on parcels of land that they see for either future industrial or housing developments, and in some cases it's been a problem.

But at the same time, they've also had.... I know of a number of examples in my own constituency of Port-Coquitlam where delegations of five-acre farmers would come to the council and say: "We want out." The council would bend and say, "Gee, that's a good idea," and they would go to the Agricultural Land Commission, and the Agricultural Land Commission would say no, and rightly so. But my question is: when the municipalities ask for these large tracts of land for either industrial or residential use, and they're turned down by the Land Commission, they've previously been able to make use of ELUC -- which I think was even more willing to bow to the requests of municipalities than the Land Commission was. I'm wondering if there's been any response from municipalities to the Minister of Agriculture complaining about the new process, now that ELUC is not functioning the way it used to.

Hon. B. Barlee: Concerning ELUC, you know our historic stand: we did not think there should be an appeal beyond the good offices of the Agriculture Land Commission. ELUC is still on the books, but there is a significant consideration that that will change.

H. De Jong: To assist the discussions here this morning.... I just dropped in; I don't know what happened before. There was a comment made about the one acre in the agricultural land reserve, at the time it was instituted back in '73, that was subject to the ALR regulations. To clarify that point, any parcel less than two acres within the agricultural land reserve was not subject to the regulations; however, the local municipalities may have had control over that through the zoning bylaws, stating that within that given area, a five-acre parcel was the smallest parcel size. We cannot blame everything on the Agricultural Land Commission, because there was that freedom on parcels below two acres, unless the municipality decided it was inappropriate to cut two acres into two one-acre parcels or four half-acre parcels. That was their decision, not the ALC's.

[12:15]

Buffers were talked about a lot when I was on municipal council. When you have a growing community that needs more land for housing from time to time, where are you going to put the buffer? That is the most difficult question. What does a buffer mean? Are we allowing, for instance, a five-acre subdivision in a given area around a town site because of a setback regulation that a person couldn't put up a hog barn, or a chicken barn, or any size of cattle operation? I don't think that's the route to go.

Through proper advance planning and, in particular long-term planning.... This is where I come back to my statements the other day. When a town needs expansion, a strong community plan should advocate such changes to the plan, not because of the wish of a developer or a person that wishes to sell his property, but purely on a good planning basis. I would like to see greater input into that process, particularly in view of the -- as the minister has stated -- possible elimination 

[ Page 1192 ]

of ELUC, and not dealing with these applications beyond the Land Commission. There has to be some appeal process between the Agricultural Land Commission and the local government that makes the application, because the Agricultural Land Commission has only one purpose and one area of jurisdiction, and that is whether to release it from the Agricultural Land Commission on the basis of its land quality, not on the basis of expansion to towns, which was made very clear by the minister the other day.

I do want to talk a little about the moratorium on golf courses. I was not totally surprised that this moratorium came about. I was partially supportive of it. I was a bit shocked that it was as strong as it was. I don't disagree with the process following the initiation of the moratorium; I must say that. I would like the minister to place himself in the position of a person that had made an application for a release from this moratorium. The Land Commission has probably given a lot of consideration to all of these matters.

I have a letter that was addressed to an applicant. This letter is from the B.C. Land Commission, and it's in follow-up to the removal from the moratorium. I have difficulty with this kind of.... I asked the minister a question in the House about it the other day, but I thought I would follow it through a little better here. One of the conditions states:

"...that the removal from the moratorium is specific and applies only to the person, firm or corporation that made the proposal and will not apply if the lands (or any interest in land) or assets involved in the proposal are sold, transferred, leased or otherwise alienated or if there is a change in control of the firm or corporation which made the proposal."

My question is: on what basis was the proposal accepted by the Land Commission? Is it on the basis of the proposed land use, or is it on the basis of who made the proposal? As I read this line, even if they change a lending institution which has an interest in the property because they are becoming involved in the financing, that proposal could not proceed. Perhaps the minister has some comments on this.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's rather a wide-ranging question that requires a number of answers. I'll try to answer those in order.

First of all, referring to buffer zones. As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and I discussed, buffer zones could constitute farmlands, parklands, recreation lands, greenbelts and so on. I happen to believe that some of the municipalities in British Columbia, especially in those areas that are under great pressure, have an insatiable desire to eat up the agricultural land reserve. This is the case in the lower mainland and the other two areas I mentioned. I think the member is very aware of this. I think that we should have proper planning.

I can cite a number of cases, which I elect not to do, where the planner in question has recommended to the city councils that they preserve certain areas. The city councils have ignored his recommendations. In some instances, the city councils have gone as far as to de-accession parkland that had been there for 50 years and turn it into housing. I am saying that we have a responsibility, and until the civic governments.... There are exceptions to the rule; I'm painting with a broad brush. But generally speaking, we are the watchdog of this land, and we must be the watchdog of this land.

As for the appointment of the Agricultural Land Commission and whether there should be an appeal or not, if you are asking me personally, I think I should respond to that. I think they are the appeal, and I'll tell you why. The act has been there since 1973, so that's almost 19 years. If people want to break that act, then they write the Agricultural Land Commission. My Liberal opponents and my Social Credit opposition will be interested to know that I have been very careful. Out of the five members on the Agricultural Land Commission, one is Liberal, one is Social Credit, one is NDP and two are unknown quantities. I have not played politics with this. You probably know whom I'm talking about. I have tried to be evenhanded and fair-minded about the appointment of the Agricultural Land Commission. I kept these members on, because I felt they were giving good service to the people of British Columbia. I'm not particularly concerned whether they vote Liberal, Social Credit or NDP. That is not my job. My job in the appointment of the Agricultural Land Commission is to make sure that these people are above and beyond politics, which they are, in my examination of their careers. Some of them are very prominent Liberal members and Social Credit supporters. I have no problem with that. I'm saying there cannot be an appeal beyond that, because if you appeal a professional body -- which is placed there because of its ethics and knowledge -- I fail to see what that serves. They are the appeal body. You do not appeal an appeal body, except in the higher courts. I really don't think it's necessary.

It does question their judgment. I don't want to question the judgment of the Agricultural Land Commission. I trust their judgment, and I do not discuss their judgment. If somebody comes to me and says: "Mr. Minister, I think we have a good...." I say: "Don't talk to me. Talk to the Agricultural Land Commission. I am not an appeal board." Indeed, I should not be on the appeal board, nor should anyone else be. I feel it is founded on a basic democratic principle that we have chosen them; we have not chosen them through partisan politics.

If you wish, I will be quite glad to give you the names of those individuals. I won't say what their politics are, but you can certainly find out. You will find that I'm telling you the truth. This is something I do not want to interfere with.

As for the member's last question.... It is a question we considered. This is basically on the ability to transfer title. In other words, individuals who may have operated under OIC 1141 and elected to take land out of the agricultural land reserve.... We have tried to prevent, as I was discussing with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the difference between a developer and a flipper. The developers, in most instances, had third reading from municipal council. If I were a prudent investor, and I'm using that in a broader sense, or even if I were a developer or a speculator, and I had examined the political scene in 1990 and 1991, I would 

[ Page 1193 ]

have said: "Now hold it here. The Leader of the Opposition, the present Premier, has stated unequivocally that we would not allow, and we would immediately cancel, OIC 1141." I would have immediately rushed to municipal council, wherever this land was, and made sure it went through the various readings. If they did not do that, they were imprudent, they were speculators, they were flippers, and we are trying to prevent the flipping of properties.

We feel that they should have had -- excuse the agricultural term -- all their ducks in a row. If they did not, then they were not prudent investors. So if they were not prudent investors, really they shouldn't be in the business. We're not about to protect them for a misjudgment in so-called investment. I consider they were not investors; I consider them in another area perhaps.

This is my rather short answer to this, but I think it's reasonable.

A. Cowie: One specific question. I believe it's the intent of my colleague to deal with the ALR today. I want to deal with the ALR in Delta, and I want to deal with the backup lands very specifically, so it's a specific question. If growing of food is important and relates to agricultural land, if that's truly the case, then will the government make an example and have that land -- the 4,000 acres -- turned over in perpetuity to farming in some way, so we stop playing around with that land, where certain people think that it can be used for industrial purposes, backup for port facilities, etc? Will this government actually show an example and have the finest agricultural land in North America...?

Hon. B. Barlee: Some of the finest land.

A. Cowie: Some of the finest land -- thank you -- in North America; at least in B.C. it's the finest. If it's for the government to have that desire, it is also the municipality's desire, because it's in their official community plan. You would be leading the way if this government were to do that.

Hon. B. Barlee: Despite our political differences we have quite a few philosophical similarities. The 4,200 acres I'm referring to in Point Roberts are actually in the ALR now. I do not see any immediate change in that. It is, as you say, some of the finest land in North America, and certainly probably the finest land in Canada. We're quite aware of its impact and of its importance. We've discussed this with the Delta council. In fact, we had a meeting with them last month, so we're aware of their concerns.

[12:30]

H. De Jong: I want to come back to some of the answers that the minister gave to my questions. What the minister stated today and what he stated last week about the function of the Agricultural Land Commission being limited to exploring the value of the land that was expected to be released, or had been applied to be released, for the growth of a town or city, or whatever it may be.... It seems to me that there is something wrong and something lacking in that process.

With the limited ability and guidelines that the Agricultural Land Commission has from your government and from the previous government.... They're the same, because nothing has changed, basically. There has to be a broader view extended on those particular applications that deal with a legitimate expansion of a townsite. If it can be proven -- and I'm sure some of the applications can be -- that there is a strong need for additional land for residential and related purposes, in order to keep the lot prices down in a given area and also because the expansions of a town are needed.... The pressures are there.

For the Land Commission to be able to deal only on the basis of the value of the land in terms of agriculture production, I think we are lacking something. The agriculture community needs additional home markets. They need additional people to participate in those home markets. If this government is going to stymie that process.... I believe they're on the wrong track by eliminating the final step of appeal that used to be available through ELUC. I beg the minister to consider with his cabinet colleagues putting in some other process of appeal, unless they're prepared to extend the limitations that are now on the Land Commission in terms of making a decision on those applications.

I have one more question on the agricultural land reserve. While I was minister for a short time in the previous year, we visited quite a number of agricultural groups. One of those was a number of people from the Kelowna area, and there was a big application to have about 1,800 acres excluded from the ALR. Speaking with those people, it became very clear that if in fact there was an opportunity to cut some of the larger parcels into five or ten acres -- whichever was more suitable for the applicant -- and continue on a fruit-growing basis on those properties, perhaps under a new program, they would be quite prepared to drop their application for exclusion. The reason they gave was that it was simply not economical to farm those properties in their present state, with the present size of property, because they needed a part-time or full-time job in addition to the farm operation to sustain the costs of that farm. I was wondering if the minister has some comments on that particular situation, and whether he would be inclined to support smaller parcels if indeed it can be proven that those would be more acceptable and perhaps more efficient in terms of the fruit-growing operations in that area.

Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member raises some interesting questions. First of all, the Agricultural Land Commission does consider a wide variety of criteria. It has let land out where it does not impact upon the immediate area as far as the other farmers are concerned, where it does not constitute block-busting and where it does not have any other significant impacts upon the farming community. There are many examples where they have allowed the community to withdraw land from the agricultural land reserve. But as for your comment on the lower lot prices, if we were 

[ Page 1194 ]

to allow land out, I would wager a considerable amount of money that the lot prices would not go down at all.

First of all, the speculator does not participate in the whole operation or the whole question as to low lot prices. He wants the very highest price he can obtain. Lot prices change from day to day. In the city of Penticton, you could pick up a building lot four months ago for $40,000. I think there are two building lots left in Penticton; they are $70,000 each. It has nothing to do with availability; it's simply to do with demand for lots in the Okanagan.

We can always play this game. They can always show that they need more land. They can always show that there's urban expansion. Indeed, there is. But a study was completed by the Agricultural Land Commission which I think is very important. It shows that there is from a little over 20,000 hectares -- about 50,000 acres -- to almost 100,000 acres available in the lower mainland for urban development. This is above and beyond the agricultural land reserve.

So I think there is more land there. The reason the speculators and developers don't want to develop those lands is that it's more expensive. That's a choice they have to make. They're in the business; I did not force them into the business. I'm saying that that cannot be a specific consideration of the Agricultural Land Commission. They have to take the broader view. They have to take a more holistic attitude, which I believe they are doing.

The member and I are not very far apart on many things. In this particular area, there is a divergence; we go down slightly separate paths.

However, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 12:37 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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