Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1992

Volume 2, Number 21

[ Page 1245 ]

The House met at 2:10 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce to the House a former Premier, Rita Johnston, who has joined us on the floor of the Legislature today. She, like me, didn't expect to be sitting on this side of the House. I know you're much more used to seeing her sit on the other side of the House. Rita is someone whom I think all members of the House have been and are fond of. I would like you to join me in sincerely welcoming a very fine lady to this chamber, the former Premier of British Columbia, Rita Johnston.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would also like to express some very warm welcoming words to Rita Johnston and say that she looks terrific -- relaxed, tanned and has a benign look about her. I can say that we have been friends for a long time. I went on an extensive trip through China in 1978 and got to know Rita extremely well at that time. We've been friends ever since. Rita, on behalf of the government, I too would like to welcome you and wish you and George well.

G. Wilson: I too would like to welcome the former Premier to this House -- following the now Premier in his welcome of the former Premier. I have a particular affinity -- albeit about an eight-second affinity -- for the former Premier. I would certainly like to welcome her back to this House. I think we should acknowledge the contributions of this fine British Columbian, who has given so much to the people of B.C.

B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I'm delighted today to welcome a family that is very special to me -- well known to yourself; they are your constituents -- all of the Angelos. Mark Angelo was my first patient when I graduated and stayed as a patient until I ended up here. I got to know the others as they came along. Mark depicts how fortunate Canada is by people who chose to move to this country and take their citizenship here. He was raised in Hollywood High. His mom was sister to Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind. He came to this province and has become one of our foremost advocates and experts in a provincial river strategy. We welcome the entire family. He is also a very close friend of Mrs. Rosenbloom. I would like to welcome Kathie Angelo, Mark Angelo, Kelly Angelo and Lindsey Angelo.

D. Mitchell: I would like to ask members of the assembly to welcome to the public galleries today Prof. Don Balmer from the political science department at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, who's here today with 18 students from throughout the United States. They're here for a special parliamentary seminar. I had a delightful meeting with them this morning, and I know that they are meeting with other members of the House this afternoon. They are here for a special parliamentary seminar, as I indicated, to understand how our Legislature works. I would ask only one thing: if they figure it out, would they please let us know? Would you please welcome them.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Would the House welcome nine residents from Kiwanis Village in my constituency. Kiwanis Village is a well-known retirement residence for Victorians. They're also accompanied today by their activity coordinator Serena Tait. Will the House please make them all welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like the House to welcome some distinguished guests from my riding in Sechelt. I wonder if the House would please welcome Chief Thomas Paul; former Chief Stanley Earl Joe Dixon; Gordon Anderson, the financial adviser of the Sechelt Indian government; and Graham Allen, their legal adviser. I would point out that former Chief Stanley Earl Joe Dixon celebrates a half-century on this earth today, he's 50 years old. Please make them welcome.

[2:15]

J. Pement: I'd like to introduce to the House today some members from my constituency and from the District of Houston: Mayor Tom Euverman, council members Ted McAfee and Dan Parish, their administrator, Kip Gaudry; also, from Vancouver, Mr. Don Fairburn, president of NW Energy Corp.

C. Evans: I'd like to introduce to the House my wonderful niece Sara Kahn and a few of her friends. I will read their names so they can read them in Hansard: Katherine Bechtel, Elena Burn, Jarad Dickinson, Mary Christine Hulse, Anne Jackson, Alexis Johnson, Erik Johnson, Michelle Karch, Margaret Kruger, Wood Moyle, Mark Rogers, Summer Rosswog, Brenda Shum, Melissa Toney, Phillip Wong and Kristine Zaback.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, on behalf of the MLA for Cariboo North and myself, I would like to introduce to the Legislature 13 grade 9 and 10 students from Likely Elementary Rural Secondary School in Likely on Quesnel Lake, which is a mining and forestry town. Along with them are Marty McClusky, their principal; Lisa Kraus, their teacher; and Louise Nelson, a teacher's aide. Please make them welcome.

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this is Mental Health Week, and I'd like to introduce people from the B.C. Mental Health Communications Council who are in the gallery today. From the Canadian Mental Health Association, we have Barbara Grantham, Merry Wood and Catharine Hume; from the B.C. Friends of Schizophrenics, Anne Bowles; from the Manic Depressive Association of B.C., Robert Winram; from the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C., Winnifred Miller; and from the West Coast Mental Health Network, Julle Mayo, Gladys Lloyd, John Sheckleton, Ann Alexander, Georgine Foley and Alex Verkade. Would the House make them welcome, please.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, it is with some deep regret that I rise today to pay tribute to David Brousson, a former Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly 

[ Page 1246 ]

for North Vancouver-Capilano, who passed away on Sunday last.

Dave was first elected to the Legislative Assembly in a by-election in the summer of 1968 and was re-elected in the general elections of 1969 and 1972. He reluctantly resigned his seat in 1973, when his private business commitments became too demanding to allow him to continue to serve as an MLA. Dave Brousson was a very hardworking member for his constituents, and he will be remembered by those who served in this assembly while he was here for his leadership on a variety of issues such as saving the Skagit Valley, which is still an issue today. He also worked on an Iona Island ferry crossing from the mainland to Vancouver Island -- still an issue of discussion today -- and on many other topics of interest to his profession, which was engineering -- and, of course, the work he performed on behalf of many constituents in North Vancouver.

After leaving the Legislative Assembly, Dave was appointed to the joint board of teacher education by the Social Credit administration in 1977. Earlier he had been appointed by the NDP administration in 1974 to the board of trustees for the Islands Trust. In recent years he gave yeoman service to the British Columbia Institute of Technology, the University of British Columbia, Lions Gate Hospital and a number of other provincial and national agencies.

He was, of course, the federal candidate in 1984 in West Vancouver-Capilano for the Liberal Party. Of some interest to this parliament were Dave's comments at the time, when he took to task the patronage appointments of his own federal Liberal Party, calling them intolerable and unacceptable. He said at the time that these types of appointments should be announced by government, but validated through the parliamentary process.

Dave Brousson was a model parliamentarian, an accomplished businessperson, and a citizen who admirably served his constituency and his community in retirement as well. He was an honest individual, above reproach, a friend to many. He was a husband of Trix, a dedicated father and grandfather. On a personal note, I might add that he was a close personal friend of mine and a strong supporter. He played an important role in my decision to enter public life.

I would ask that all members of this parliament join me in asking our Speaker to send sympathies in written form to his family.

Hon. T. Perry: On behalf of the government, hon. Speaker, I would be delighted to second the suggestion of the opposition House Leader that you send condolences to the Brousson family.

I knew Dave Brousson when the Skagit Valley issue first came to public light in 1969 or 1970. He was one of the few politicians in those days eager to get involved with working directly with a citizens' group on a conservation issue. He used to attend meetings of the ROSS committee. I remember attending one in his living room at one time -- the old Run Out Skagit Spoilers, or ROSS, committee -- and he maintained his interest for many years along with John Fraser, the Member of Parliament, and many other Members of the Legislative Assembly. He was someone who distinguished himself for a long-term commitment and serious commitment to an issue. Without his help in those early days, I think it might not have been possible to save the Skagit Valley.

He was also someone who served the universities of British Columbia and the B.C. Institute of Technology. Most recently he was a very valued member of the University of Victoria board of governors, someone who represented the broader provincial context of the University of Victoria, not just the local community. From discussions with members of that board and the University of Victoria, I know how sorely he is going to be missed there.

I join with all members of the Legislature in regretting his passing and extending condolences to his family.

The Speaker: On behalf of the House I will ensure that those condolences are sent.

Introduction of Bills

GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
MORATORIUM ACT

Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Golf Course Development Moratorium Act.

Hon. B. Barlee: I move the bill accompanying the message be introduced and read a first time now.

This bill provides the legal framework to deal with golf course and other golf facility applications that have been received by the Agricultural Land Commission and were in process in November 1991, at the time the golf course development moratorium was implemented by regulation. Until repeal of the relevant provision of the regulations under the Agricultural Land Commission Act in November 1991, golf courses and related facilities were a permitted land use in the agricultural land reserve, subject to terms and conditions set by the Agricultural Land Commission. In November 1991 that provision was repealed, and the golf course development moratorium regulation was enacted under the Environment and Land Use Act to put golf facility proposals on hold, pending recommendations of the Agricultural Land Commission. As a result, those proposals that have received local government third reading approval by April 6, 1992, on rezoning and those courses that did not require it have been exempted from the moratorium. This bill will cancel the remaining applications without compensation. In addition, this bill establishes in section 4 conditions on which 42 proposals that were exempted effective April 6, 1992, by B.C. Regulation 122-92 will be allowed to proceed.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 1247 ]

Hon. T. Perry tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for the fiscal year 1990-91.

Hon. A. Hagen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Education for the fiscal year 1990-91.

Oral Questions

SECHELT INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

G. Wilson: My question today is to the Premier and has to do with the settlement of the Sechelt Indian government claim. I'm aware that the Premier has been extensively briefed on this matter by the Sechelt Indian government, and I'm also aware that this settlement is not being held up by the federal government.

Given that the Premier has committed to a 25 percent share in the settlement of claims, and given that the federal government is committed to a 50 percent share, and insofar as the Sechelts have announced that they are prepared to commence negotiation on the proposition of a 75 percent settlement, with 25 percent being handled through arbitration at some later date, will the Premier today instruct the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to start negotiations with the Sechelt Indian government immediately for resolution?

Hon. A. Petter: The commitment of this government was to pay a fair share up to 25 percent with respect to settlements of aboriginal claims, not a categorical 25 percent. Secondly, as I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware, a Treaty Commission is being established which will oversee the treaty negotiation process in this province. I'm very optimistic that the Treaty Commission will be up and running in the very near future.

The question will then arise as to how the Sechelt band fits within that overall framework of the Treaty Commission, if it does, and whether or not it might be handled independently of that commission. I have instructed my deputy minister and officials to consult and to advise me on that issue.

G. Wilson: A supplementary to the minister. He has repeatedly said that his government is interested in negotiation, not litigation, and has repeatedly indicated that they want to get speedy resolution of land claims. Notwithstanding the facts that we're talking about up to 25 percent and that we have a Treaty Commission in place, can the minister explain -- when we have self-government in place, when we have already established the specific claim and when we have agreement basically on the number of dollars involved in the comprehensive claim -- what is stopping this government from negotiating a resolution to the comprehensive claim today with the Sechelt Indian government? There is no reason why this government cannot pursue that course.

Hon. A. Petter: We are very anxious to negotiate, and that's why we accepted the recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force, which recommended the establishment of a Treaty Commission. We don't intend to undermine that process by proceeding with negotiations in advance of that process. We intend to proceed with negotiations in an orderly way that takes account of that process recommended by the B.C. Claims Task Force, the Treaty Commission, which should be established in the very near future.

G. Wilson: My final supplementary is to the Premier. The minister and the Premier are well aware that the task force makes it very clear that there is a possibility for individual claims to be advanced where there is a potential resolution for those claims. The task force does not say that the government has to find another way to stall so that there is no proposition for a resolution of the question. Insofar as there is no reason that this government cannot come to a satisfactory conclusion with respect to the Sechelt Indian government, will the Premier today instruct his minister to commence negotiations so that this claim can be resolved?

[2:30]

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware that many first nations in this province are very anxious to get on with negotiations, as are we. But there is such a thing as process. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition isn't aware that there's such a thing as process. One of the functions of the Treaty Commission will be to provide a process whereby all first nations can proceed to the treaty negotiation table and feel that they are being dealt with fairly. The fact that a particular first nation resides in someone's constituency -- or any other reason -- ought not to be the consideration; it ought to be which first nations are ready to proceed through the treaty commission.

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question today is to the Premier. Can the Premier explain why he bothered to put people through the charade of holding public hearings on the constitution when in fact he has demonstrated so clearly that he's prepared to sell out to Quebec even before he gets to the bargaining table? Can the Premier explain why he has rejected an equal, elected and effective Senate when British Columbians have demonstrated so clearly that their number one priority in any constitutional deal is a triple-E Senate?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think British Columbians' first priority is a united Canada. I was very pleased to be able to give the message directly to Premier Bourassa yesterday that British Columbians are going to work very hard to make sure that this round of constitutional change is a success. It means that, in the Canadian tradition, we're going to have to do some compromising, some give and take. I expressed that very clearly to Premier Bourassa. As a matter of fact, I made it clear yesterday that the issue of Senate reform is one of the priorities of British Columbians and that that issue is going to be before the negotiations. I also made it very clear that it is important that Quebec be at that 

[ Page 1248 ]

negotiating table so that those matters can be negotiated.

J. Weisgerber: It's discouraging to see the ease with which the very skilful and very experienced Premier of Quebec has managed to snooker our Premier. Doesn't the Premier understand that the kind of thinking and position that he's trying to set for himself is exactly the same rationale that got us the Meech Lake accord last time?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As a member of the party that rushed.... Your own Premier rushed to sign the Meech Lake accord; I don't know why you're disowning it so rapidly. I may say that I think we want to leave a lake behind us and deal with a country. That's what this is about -- a Canada round, this time. This is a new government that is going to be a positive player in the Canadian constitutional process. It's well underway right now. As a matter of fact, our minister for constitutional affairs is in Saint John, New Brunswick, right now, working on some of those details. I think we'd be better served if the leader of the third party would urge Quebec to come to the table so that we can get a negotiated settlement to our constitution.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: At least one party from this government learned something from the Meech Lake accord process.

All across this country, British Columbians have told us loud and clear that they don't want any special status for Quebec, that they want to see each and every province treated equally. Will the Premier agree today to take to those negotiations the position that there should be equal status for all provinces in Canada and no special status for Quebec or any other province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was quite prepared to take that position before the last election, during the last election, and I still say that. Even though Quebec may be a distinct society -- and it is; it has a distinct language, culture and the Napoleonic Code -- it will not have special status. This means that we are saying no to sovereignty-association. Quebec, we want you in Confederation -- and a renewed Confederation -- but you're either in or out. Sovereignty-association is not on the table. You cannot have political sovereignty and economic union. I've made that point very clear: yes to distinct society, but no to sovereignty-association and special status.

MUNICIPAL TAX RATES

A. Cowie: Municipal tax rates across the province are rising at an astronomical rate. The figures include 17.8 percent in Port Moody, 18.2 percent in Kelowna, 20 percent in New Westminster and an outrageous 28 percent in West Vancouver. What message does the Premier have for the mayors of these communities?

Interjections.

A. Cowie: Supplemental, again to the Premier.

The UBCM, in a special executive meeting recently, called for the immediate restoration of the supplemental homeowner grant for the 1992-1993 fiscal year. Will the Premier agree to a delay of the repeal of the supplemental homeowners' grant for one year, allowing for negotiations between the province and the municipalities?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We finally had a question from the hon. member that's answerable.

The question was: will we either raise taxes on other British Columbians or go out and borrow more money? The answer to both is no, we will not do that. These are difficult times. We've had to clean up a very substantial financial mess from the previous government, and we are well along the way to dealing with that. But if the answer that the Liberal opposition are bringing forward is that they either want to increase the size of the deficit or increase taxes on working British Columbians, the answer is no to both.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

A. Cowie: Perhaps I can remind the Premier of a more recent statement he made during the election campaign: "I want to stop downloading of new burdens on local government. I want to work with you to review the whole question of tax fairness. We need a review of the property tax."

Who are the mayors to believe -- the Premier when he was electioneering or the Premier who is scrapping the homeowner grant without a shred of consultation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Speaking about consultation, none of the taxpayers of British Columbia were told that the deficit the taxpayers were going to be facing wasn't going to be $395 million; it wasn't going to be $1.2 billion; it was going to be $2.5 billion for this last fiscal year. This government was prepared to say yes, we inherited a financial mess, but no, we're not going to just let it sit there and fester and have more and more deficit and have this province's finances become even more of a mess. We made sure that the tax measures taken were fair and that they were fairly distributed. All British Columbians know that we cannot live with deficit financing, and we are not going to live with deficit financing. We were able to reduce the deficit at the same time that we maintained the basic health, education and social services for British Columbians. A tough budget but a fair budget.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

W. Hurd: A question for the Premier. In light of the dire economic straits in which he has described the government finding itself, we are wondering if the Premier is comfortable with the $600 a day being paid to one of his former caucus colleagues as a consultant in the Aboriginal Affairs ministry.

Since the minister has acknowledged that the stipend is "a bit high," could the Premier explain how his 

[ Page 1249 ]

government arrives at salary figures for their patronage appointments?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I was away yesterday when this matter was first brought up, meeting with Premier Bourassa. I understand that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs took that question on notice yesterday. He will, I understand, be answering that question at the end of question period.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

Hon. A. Petter: Last day the leader of the third party asked a question relating to contracts held by Gordon Hanson and Associates with my ministry and with the First People's Heritage, Language and Culture Council, which I took on notice. The question contained a serious allegation, and I want to provide a comprehensive answer.

Prior to my ministry retaining Mr. Hanson's services, he informed me that he had established some form of relationship with the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council -- a Crown agent with majority aboriginal representation on the board. I asked my former deputy minister at the time to take steps to ensure that there was no institutional conflict between Mr. Hanson's relationship with the council and his proposed contractual relationship with my ministry. My former deputy minister determined that no such conflict existed. Moreover, a provision was placed in Mr. Hanson's contract with my ministry, by which Mr. Hanson undertook to avoid any conflict or perception of conflict while engaged as a ministry consultant.

Yesterday the leader of the third party suggested during question period that Mr. Hanson had been, as he put it, double-dipping while receiving remuneration from the council and from my ministry. Following question period I spoke with Mr. Hanson and with Chief Manny Jules, who is the chairman of the council, and reviewed information concerning Mr. Hanson's relationship with the council. In the process, I learned that Mr. Hanson's relationship with the council took the form of a contract proposal initiated at the request of Chief Jules and made conditionally effective by means of a letter sent by Chief Jules to Mr. Hanson on December 12 of last year. I understand that this contract was subsequently terminated by the council in January.

I also learned that Mr. Hanson entered into a second 10-day contract with the council in late January. There could be a perception that the terms of this second contract imposed obligations on Mr. Hanson that were inconsistent with the contract with my ministry. Accordingly, I have asked my deputy minister to refer this issue -- along with the question raised yesterday by the leader of the third party -- to the deputy Attorney General for review.

In my opinion, it is important to clear the air on these matters, and I believe that an independent examination by the Deputy Attorney General is the best way to do so. In the meantime, I have instructed my deputy minister to suspend Mr. Hanson's services with my ministry while these matters are under review.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, on the ministerial statement that was provided....

The Speaker: With respect, hon. leader, the minister rose to answer a question that had been taken on notice from yesterday's question period.

[2:45]

G. Wilson: On a point of order, the detail that has been provided by the minister on that question goes well beyond the amount that would be normally provided in question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Wilson: Because the response goes well beyond that which would be normally provided in the bounds of question period, I request the right of reply.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I do have the question period from yesterday in front of me, and the minister clearly stated that he was answering the question on notice. It is the Chair's interpretation that his answer was certainly within the scope of the question, and there is no right of reply to an answer taken on notice.

G. Wilson: Then I request leave to reply.

Leave not granted.

Ministerial Statement

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Hon. E. Cull: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Copies of the statement were sent to the opposition offices a couple of hours ago, and I see them nodding that they have received them.

This week, May 4 to 10, recognizes a serious health issue that impacts on us all. That issue is mental illness, and this is Mental Health Week. One in six British Columbians will experience serious mental illness such as manic depression or schizophrenia sometime in their life. Mental illness knows no social boundaries or age limits. It can strike anyone at any time. Because mental illness most often strikes during the twenties and thirties, it can be a tremendous blow to both an individual's earning potential and their self-esteem. It's important to the recovery of individuals with mental illness that they have the understanding and support of not only their family and friends but also the general public.

The British Columbia Mental Health Communications Council, of which I introduced some members earlier, representing the major mental health organizations in this province, is working to achieve greater public understanding during this important week. These organizations will be sponsoring events and 

[ Page 1250 ]

activities throughout the province to engage the public in a two-way discussion on this important subject.

The council's activities are a significant part of the Ministry of Health's plans to deal with mental illness. A five-year plan is being developed to provide a framework for the delivery of a combination of mental health services intended to promote mental health, prevent mental health problems wherever possible and treat those suffering from mental disorders. These services, representing a major restructuring of the mental health system, will involve specialized mental health services, along with a variety of supportive living, employment, education and social and recreation programs. The budget for mental health services has been increased by 27 percent this year to start the work on that.

The core of this plan is the creation of caring communities capable of taking responsibility for the broad mental health concerns of residents of all ages in their midst. Communities must play a pivotal role in helping people with mental and emotional problems to achieve lives of dignity and to assume meaningful and viable places in their families, social networks and the mainstream of society.

We have much work to do to break down the fears and harmful myths that isolate those with mental health problems. I ask all members in this assembly to join with me in this important mission of making your communities caring communities and in passing on the word to your constituents about the valuable contributions that people with mental illness have to make.

L. Reid: As the minister stated, May 4 marks the start of National Mental Health Week in Canada. Throughout British Columbia representatives with the Mental Health Communications Council are hosting public education events that highlight the need for all persons to have adequate housing. Housing is the issue in Mental Health Week. This council has brought together a unique collection of people, including organizations representing family members, people with mental illnesses, community health organizations, mental health professionals and government.

For the most part, persons with mental illnesses are like anyone else who is sick: they are sometimes unable to work, and they always need a place to live -- a home, not an institution. Imagine recovering from a severe illness and having the added pressure of convincing someone that your illness will not be a detriment to the neighbourhood. We need to understand that the needs of people who have mental illnesses are the same as for everyone else: acceptance into a caring community.

We're all aware that adequate shelter is a basic need shared by everyone. This shelter should not just be a roof over our heads, but a stable home base from which we have the security to build our lives as we choose. A sense of home and security are as important for people with mental illness as for anyone else, and efforts toward rehabilitation are often not successful until personal housing problems are resolved. A comprehensive range of housing should be made available not only in Vancouver and the lower mainland but also throughout the province. This is critical in order to ensure that people who require a specific type of housing are not forced to move away from their family, friends and community.

In closing, I can assure you that the Liberal caucus will work diligently to ensure that housing opportunities for the mentally ill are found in abundance in our province.

L. Fox: On behalf of the Social Credit caucus, I would like to offer my voice in recognizing the importance of Mental Health Week. Approximately 150,000 people in our province -- one in every six British Columbians -- suffer from some form of mental illness, such as schizophrenia, manic depression or Alzheimer's disease. About half of these are clients of public mental health services; the rest receive mental health care through their family physicians or a fee-for-service psychiatrist.

In 1990 our Social Credit government began a B.C. health initiative to strengthen the community services for the mentally handicapped to enable these people to live more independently. By adding some $20 million to the base mental health care budget, we hoped to improve the quality of life of the seriously ill by allowing them to move out of institutions and into the community. Over the long term this sort of initiative will reduce the strain on provincial institutions such as the Riverview Hospital and allow us to deal more effectively with those who must be confined to institutions by separating them from those who require less consistent supervision.

During the first year and a half of that initiative, our government created the Provincial Mental Health Advisory Council and provided new funding for such initiatives as mental health research, increased housing, community-based mental health services and public education to create more understanding in the community of the needs and aspirations of mental health patients.

We believe the funding of mental health services is not just an expense but an investment in the future of British Columbia. The personal and social costs of the 150,000 mentally ill people are enormous. Any progress that government can make towards improving their treatment and increasing their participation in society will be welcomed by our caucus and British Columbians everywhere.

Our caucus urges the government to continue to expand upon the B.C. mental health initiative, and we're happy to stand in support of Mental Health Week '92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Pursuant to standing order 2(2), I would like to inform members of the House that we will be sitting tomorrow.

Secondly, I'd like to advise members of the House who are members of the Special Committee to Appoint an Ombudsman that the meeting which was scheduled to start at three o'clock is now scheduled to start at 2:30, and if those members would hurry, they should be able to make the meeting on time.

[ Page 1251 ]

Thirdly, hon. Chair, I'd like to call Committee of Supply, both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before calling the vote for Committee B, may I alert members and others to the fact that in Committee A this afternoon we will be continuing, and I expect finishing, with the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

On vote 58: minister's office, $308,000 (continued).

C. Tanner: I must congratulate the Chair for sort of short-circuiting the system, and see if we can get it out of the way. While I'm inclined to agree that I might perhaps be wasting my time because of the answers I'm getting, I think I'd better have a few more attempts this afternoon.

As I said this morning, I have a huge sheaf of letters here from all sorts of people who are concerned about the decisions this government has made. I'd like to read just two of them. This one is from the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia. It's addressed to Mr. Clark, Minister of Finance:

"The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. believes that the 1992-93 budget allocation for the Ministry of Tourism is bad business for both the public and the private sector of British Columbia. 'When you cut your marketing budget, you cut your revenue,' says Council chairman Pat Corbett. The current government's budget for tourism marketing has been slashed by over 37 percent. 'Would Coca-Cola cut its marketing budget in a bad year? Would Proctor and Gamble? Would Montana State? The marketplace void created by these budget cuts will be filled by B.C.'s competitors,' says Corbett. 'When you lose market share, everybody's revenue goes down -- government and business.' Considering that tourism generates $1.05 billion in taxes, with the B.C. Ministry of Finance receiving over $460 million of this revenue, and B.C. municipalities receiving over $140 million in tax revenue, the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. feels that the Minister of Finance better find a way in a hurry to identify funds for an immediate short-term supplementary marketing strategy for this current year.' If Mr. Clark errs on this, general revenues to the province will suffer and decline. Those of us employed in the tourism industry realize that where you cut your marketing budget, especially by 37 percent, you lose revenue and market share. If this trend continues, you will no doubt end up bankrupt.'

"The Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. encourages the Minister of Finance to do what is right for the province; that is, in very short order find a couple of million dollars for marketing Super, Natural British Columbia."

[3:00]

I have another one, from the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island, and I have many more from private operators. "Tourism budget cuts hurt everybody. Following, please find the latest press release from the tourist councils of British Columbia..." -- oh, this refers to the previous one.

"The NDP election platform stated: 'Tourism is vital to our economy. We'll boost it. A New Democrat government will aggressively encourage tourists to come to B.C. by protecting our spectacular environment that draws tourists to British Columbia, working closely with the industry to address taxation, transportation, accommodation, and training issues, actively marketing all of B.C.'s nine tourist regions and coordinating tourist services.' To the tourist associations, this provincial budget shows rejection of the importance and value of billions of dollars, numbers of jobs and small businesses that tourism in this province supports. The tourism regions, in actuality, stand to lose double the amount of the budget cuts announced by the ministry. Partners in Tourism funds are activated by the private sector's 50 percent contribution. Private sector businesses who benefit from tourism in their region must first commit their dollars to the coordinated marketing projects. Therefore the total marketing dollars generated through this partnership are at stake, not just the government's contribution. For example, the 47 percent cut in TAVI's budget of $348,000 translates to 696,000 actual marketing dollars lost. Tourism is a clean, green industry. With the inevitable shrinking of our natural resources, can we afford not to invest in tourism?"

Over the lunch hour I had occasion to talk to a couple of these tourist associations -- two of the regions -- and they tell me that you're not in negotiation with them. They can't find somebody to sit down with, and in fact they're having the immediate problem that they've had to invest this summer's dollars already, and the position you've left those tourist regions in is that they're gambling. They're gambling on the fact -- because you don't have a plan -- that they've invested this summer's money, and what they're looking for now is not for new money, from their point of view, but for money to cover the investment they've already made. In fact, any extra that you give them over and above what is spent will be used to advertise the ski season hence, not the summer season coming.

Could the minister assure the House that the regions that need the money -- and in the minister's description, as being absolute gold in the industry -- are going to receive immediately at least the decreased amount of financing the minister has promised?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe we covered most of these issues this morning, and I must inform the member that in fact negotiations are ongoing with the writer of the letter, which you so eloquently quoted a few minutes ago. The chair of the Partners in Tourism....

C. Serwa: On a point of order, I notice that the general apathy and disinterest of the government members in the affairs of the Legislature and in the best interests of the people of the province has resulted in no quorum in this Legislature. I would suggest that a quorum be convened.

The Chair: Point well taken; I will now ring the division bells.

[ Page 1252 ]

Hon. members, it appears we now have a quorum, and the debate will continue.

Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you, Madam Chair; I notice even a member of the third party strolled in after the quorum bell was rung.

C. Serwa: Fifty percent of the members on our side are here, so the same should be true for the NDP.

Hon. D. Marzari: A full 50 percent -- all three of you. I'm pleased to see you in the House.

Mr. Pat Corbett, who is the chair of the Partners in Tourism program and of the association of the nine regions, is in active negotiation and is working through budgets with the nine associations, I am assured by my senior staff. These negotiations began on the morning of our budget debate some weeks ago. The final numbers are not tallied, and they will be put forward to this House the second they are available.

Can I assure the House that suddenly more millions of dollars will appear out of the blue or out of the taxpayers' pockets for marketing in the regions? No, I cannot assure the House of that possibility. I can assure this House that the associations themselves will be respected and that the relationship between the government and the associations as partners will continue to be respected; that the three items you quoted as party policy -- most notably protecting the resource and working closely with the industry, actively and aggressively marketing, and coordinating tourism services -- all stand. They stand for this ministry; they stand for this government.

Will extra millions be made available this year? I would doubt that very much, Mr. Member. It would be very nice to think that we had millions of dollars; it would be very nice to be a knight in shining armour and appear with extra millions of dollars in the form of styrofoam cheques or whatever to offer to the industry for marketing purposes. That, however, is not in the books, because the money is not in the books. This year we will do with what we can: we will market smarter; we will focus our marketing; and we will do our best to ensure that schedules are not thrown off. Spring activities have to do with winter season. I'm aware of that, and the associations have not been told to curtail all activity. They are presently pulling together what they normally do in spring, which is winter marketing.

So it's no to the second question and yes to the commitment to the Partners in Tourism and to the association.

C. Tanner: I'm pleased to hear the minister say that she would do what she can; but "do what she can" is not good enough. She's left the tourist regions hanging out to dry, because at the meeting you went to immediately after leaving this House on that Thursday morning, you told them: "I'm sorry, I thought it was going to be a 5 percent cut; it looks more like a 40 percent cut. Now we're going to divvy up what's left for you people to operate with. We'll give you the money for the organization, but we haven't got anything or very little left for marketing."

That is a bad economic decision. You've made an error, Madam. Whether it was you, whether it was your deputy minister, whether it was Mr. Clark, whether it was the Treasury Board -- who knows who's in charge over on that side -- whoever made the decision made it in error. There are now nine regions hanging on the very words of you, the minister, this afternoon. They don't know where they stand. They don't know whether they're in debt; they don't know whether they should invest more; they don't know which season they should be advertising for; and they can't commit their own dollars until they know what you've got. I don't think the minister has adequately answered this question.

The minister said this morning that in marketing beautiful British Columbia in the United States, she felt that we had an opportunity to sell British Columbia in California. As a consequence, she made a trip down there to promote, I think, the film world, but she also spent some time down there promoting B.C. It seems to me that it's a peculiar set of circumstances that when you are supposedly marketing and promoting British Columbia, you would close the British Columbia tourism office in San Francisco. Why would you close that office when in fact that is one of your target areas for marketing?

Hon. D. Marzari: The San Francisco office was closed a year ago, long before this government came on stream.

C. Tanner: Does the minister intend to reopen it?

Hon. D. Marzari: You have just very eloquently outlined a number of priorities that exist close to home in terms of injecting dollars to the close-in markets through our Partners in Tourism. I would suggest that were money ever to become available, we would look first and foremost to our close-in markets and not necessarily to the reopening of offices on the west coast.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister's taking my advice. I've worked for months to get it ready for her, and I hope she will take my advice further and reinvest dollars where they're best spent.

The Ministry of Tourism and the marketing division within her ministry is presently undergoing two audits, one from the AG and another from a North Vancouver alderman, Bill Bell. Can the minister tell this House what those two audits are about?

Hon. D. Marzari: There is a routine audit being conducted inside the ministry by the comptroller general at present, and there is an audit of marketing procedures being conducted by a consultant to make some assessments about the effectiveness of our existing marketing practices.

C. Tanner: Is the consultant an alderman from North Vancouver called Bill Bell, who's a member of the NDP?

[ Page 1253 ]

Hon. D. Marzari: The name of the consulting firm is Pradinuk Advertising, which is the firm that has been contracted to do this particular contract inside the marketing division.

C. Tanner: Could the member inform the House who the principals of that company are and what their expertise is for doing this audit?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will take that question on notice and bring a full and detailed list of the principals involved with Pradinuk Advertising to the House.

C. Tanner: The second part of the question, as to the expertise of the company...?

Hon. D. Marzari: I will bring the qualifications of this company to be involved with an audit of the marketing back to the House.

C. Tanner: The minister suggested this morning that the 2 percent gross of hotel room tax rebate that's going directly into the ministry.... I understand it is a precedent to collect the tax and have it go directly into the Partners in Tourism program. Is that a commitment your ministry is continuing to make?

Hon. D. Marzari: Perhaps I should outline something about the hotel tax for the member. The hotel tax in British Columbia, which presently sits at 8 percent, in the early seventies was a tax that was collected by municipalities in this province. The provincial government took over the hotel tax. I'm not sure whether the former government increased it to 8 percent, but 8 percent is the position where it now sits.

Municipalities have the possibility or the potential of requesting the provincial government to allow them to tax an additional 2 percent on top of that 8 percent, which is handed back to those privileged communities. So now there are five municipalities in the province which receive 2 percent in addition to the 8 percent.

There was a policy of the previous government to take 2 percent of the 8 percent and devote it to marketing in tourism. However, this never materialized. So it was a policy which remained on the books somewhere but never actualized itself in terms of real dollars to the marketing division of the Tourism ministry.

[3:15]

At this point the policy of this government and of the ministry is to rationalize, focus, spend better, market better and research better to ensure marketing dollars are going in the right areas and that the demographics are lined up; that we have a reasonably good idea who is coming and how much they are spending and what our potential and future markets should be. There never was an actualization of the previous government's 2 percent, and it is not a policy of this government.

L. Hanson: I thought I heard in the preliminary remarks the minister made this morning that the removal of the asbestos from the museum is complete.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's in the process of being completed. The final dollars are being spent. You can look out your window and see the orange chutes, attached to the Fannin building, taking the remaining bits of asbestos out of the last six floors of, I believe, a 12-storey structure.

L. Hanson: The cost of removing the asbestos is not in this year's budget. It was in last year's budget, and has been allocated as such. When do you anticipate that it will be complete?

Hon. D. Marzari: The packing and the removal of all the artifacts which were stored in the building is complete. The inventorying has been done by the museum staff; it was a mammoth task. However, the actual removal of this infernal asbestos will take -- I am told -- until the fall of this year; a remarkably tedious procedure.

L. Hanson: I have some familiarity with the problems that were being experienced with that removal, and it was a tremendous task. I just forget what the total cost was, but it was in the $12 million range, or something like that, so it was obviously a very large task.

I see, by the estimates for the allocations to the museum, that there is some considerable decrease in the amount of money for the museums, as in others. What is the museum doing to compensate for that? Are they restricting their hours, or what in their operation are they doing to offset that revenue?

Hon. D. Marzari: The museum's operating budget will be reduced by $500,000 to $600,000 this year. In the blue book, $1.3 million showed up as a cutback in the budget. It isn't in this year's budget. It was in last year's operating budget, so that's why you see that $1.3 million cutback in culture and arts. The museum is still working on its operating adjustment to the $0.5 million cutback at this point in time.

L. Hanson: In the budget for the museum.... I'll have to beg your indulgence, because I can't remember the name of the program. The program where underwater exploration was being done through the museum, is that to be continued this year or has that been discontinued?

Hon. D. Marzari: That is the Jason Project, and yes, it is being continued. In fact, the museum is actively pursuing fund-raising activities to maintain the quality of the presentations and special programs that they put on by creating partners in the community, through private corporations, to ensure that the planned programs will continue. There is every intent for museum activities not to cut back on major projects, such as the ones we've talked about.

L. Hanson: I'm pleased to hear that, because the Jason Project was very well accepted around the province and certainly would be a loss if it were to be discontinued.

[ Page 1254 ]

To continue along that same line to get some understanding of the budget difficulties and how they affect various operations, how have Barkerville and Fort Steele fared in your budgetary process this year as compared to last year?

Hon. D. Marzari: Barkerville has fared quite well in the budget by having received an additional three people to work as security in the Barkerville precincts. Barkerville is being upgraded and sprinklered for fire so that as a heritage resource it will not burn but will be protected. That, of course, is being done in consultation and in full partnership with our partners in Barkerville, the Friends of Barkerville Heritage Society, who have been working very hard over the last two years preparing a report with the cultural division of the ministry to ensure that Barkerville remains a strong and thriving tourist destination and heritage location.

Fort Steele, similarly, is receiving fire upgrading, and its safety standards will be upgraded. I believe that an additional one or two people are being given to Fort Steele to ensure that it is safe for tourists and to preserve the resource.

L. Hanson: I know that there was difficulty, particularly at Barkerville, with fire protection and the risk of losing that historic site. While I understand that the sprinklering of both operations is a very necessary process for protection, I would like it if the minister could tell me how those two operations fared in their promotional budget for attendance and promotion of the sites this year versus last year.

Hon. D. Marzari: The code 40 money, which was set aside for promotion of both the sites, remains intact, so Barkerville and Fort Steele will receive the same amount of support as they have received in the past. We hope that will result in an increase in the number of visitors.

L. Hanson: I am pleased to hear that, because they are two very important sites in British Columbia's tourism potential.

I have a special interest, as the minister well knows, in the Festival of the Arts, because it is being held in my own community this year, near the end of this month. I expect that maybe the minister will be in the community to visit the Festival of the Arts. Has funding for the Festival of the Arts been affected by financial difficulties?

Hon. D. Marzari: This year $800,000 has been secured, which is the equivalent amount -- status quo -- as last year. There is considerable interest, of course, in the Festival of the Arts. There isn't a young person or an arts and culture group in the province that is not aware of the festival or has not participated in one way or the other.

We are taking a careful look at budgets and ways in which we would like to help the Festival of the Arts to rationalize its programs and to produce a better show. That's what we'll be doing over the next while, but this year the budget is protected.

L. Hanson: The hotel industry has long been concerned with the level of taxation that is applicable to its operations, particularly the additional tax on drinks -- which I know is not the minister's responsibility. They have been very concerned about the level of taxation on their rooms. I'd like to have the minister's opinion on that method of raising funding for tourism, although I know it doesn't all go to tourism; it goes into general revenue and then there's an allocation.

Of the communities increasing the government levy of 8 percent to 10 percent with a prepared tourism promotional plan, does the ministry actively promote that in the communities? It's true in a number of communities, but not in all communities.

Hon. D. Marzari: As a technique of raising dollars for tourism marketing, the 2 percent has been very valid. We as the government do not go out and actively promote it. All we can say is that it's available to communities if they wish to come forward.

Some concerns have been expressed around that additional 2 percent on top of the 8 percent; that perhaps it's not coordinated well enough, either between communities or between communities and the provincial government. That remains to be seen. I think that Vancouver and Victoria have done an excellent job with that 2 percent in terms of promotion. I have just been told that Whistler doesn't necessarily see as much of that money as they'd like to see, because some of that money goes into municipal infrastructure, which in turn upgrades the tourist value of Whistler. We do not go out and actively promote the additional 2 percent, but it is available.

Smithers is also a recipient of that 2 percent. I should tell you that across the country a room tax is pretty much an accepted tax -- if you can say any tax is an accepted tax. Newfoundland charges 12 percent room tax. Nova Scotia and P.E.I. charge 10 percent. Quebec is the only province that doesn't have a room tax. It has a sales tax of 8 percent, however. Ontario is at 5 percent, but it has a special commercial concentration tax in Toronto, which brings that up. Eight percent room tax in British Columbia is not out of the spectrum of what has been accepted across the country for room tax. It would be -- in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the marketing division of the Tourism Ministry -- a good idea to spend some of that money and allocate some of that money on marketing and tourism. However, that isn't at present a government policy.

L. Hanson: I would expect that the minister recognizes the difference between an added-tourism tax in communities like Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler, and would recognize the difference in communities like Prince George, Nelson, Trail and the Kootenays. The small hotels in most of those communities are not only an asset to the tourism industry but are also an asset to the community, because they are usually the gathering place for minor conventions, community meetings and that sort of thing. The B.C. and Yukon Hotels' Association has long been concerned that the viability of those operations in the smaller communities is very seriously threatened, not just by the room tax but also by the 

[ Page 1255 ]

alcohol tax and the other things. I'd like to hear the minister's opinion of how important those hotels are to those smaller communities in relation to tourism.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: I have before me a position paper on major issues affecting the British Columbia hotel industry which was prepared in February, 1992, for my perusal by the British Columbia and Yukon Hotels Association. It's an excellent presentation from the body which represents hotels from small to medium to large across the province. They are very clear and succinct in outlining their impressions of what liquor tax, for example, does to their business. They are very clear about what they are asking from this ministry and from this government. They are asking for a long-term commitment to tourism marketing, of course, and stability in the ministry itself; long-term planning, strategic planning that they can plug in with, and consultation, obviously. I have worked with them -- I've spoken to them twice formally, and on numerous occasions informally -- and I intend to work with them around tasks that need to be done, such as to look at implications of the 10 percent alcohol tax, for example. It was a major relief and a major struggle during the budget process to ensure that an additional 2 percent restaurant tax didn't go onto our food and beverage services across the province; in fact, that in itself was an accomplishment.

The ministry now is looking at taxation structures: not just the alcohol tax, but the GST and the provincial sales tax in terms of the amounts they collect -- or don't collect -- and the ways they are collected. It is the opinion of many that the additions at the bottom of the check -- food, beverage, alcohol, hotel tax -- are very often disincentives to the traveller. We are looking both provincially and federally at ways in which we can mitigate some of the downsides of the GST, and we're certainly looking provincially at the alcohol tax.

L. Hanson: Just one final question. I'm sure the minister is aware of it, but the hotels have made me aware of their concern -- and certainly before the budget was brought down -- that there might be an imposition of a tax on meals. They've now given me to believe that after the increase in corporate tax, the tax on assets and the increase in school tax to businesses, they're not so sure that they wouldn't have exchanged that for the meal tax. But in any case, the minister is aware of the difficulties that those hotels are facing in the smaller communities, and I think generally in the smaller communities is where the greatest need is. She also recognizes what an important part they play in the smaller communities.

So, with that, I'll relinquish to my colleague.

C. Tanner: If I might just add my comments on the preceding conversation between you and the member down the row here, the biggest shot in the arm that you could give this industry would be to remove that tax. The cost to the government, in my view, would very easily be more than replaced by the increase in business. If it were advertised and promoted that every time you came to B.C. you weren't stuck with another 8 percent on the bottom of your bill, I think you'd find that all the other jurisdictions would very quickly copy you. You'd have a year's jump on them, of course, and you'd have that much more business.

The fact of the matter is that as you and I both know, when business is rough, you offer inducements and you advertise more heavily or you promote more widely. You don't pull in your horns. It's a bit like when a retail business is in trouble: instead of opening the store hours longer, they go in the back room and close the store for five hours while they talk about it. That's exactly what your ministry is doing.

Irrespective of the income it brings in to the government, the removal of that tax, particularly in light of the report that you got from the vice-president of the Business Council, would be more than offset by increased business, particularly in the smaller areas of this province. Would the minister like to comment?

The Chair: Before you answer, minister, may I remind both sides of the House that only the administrative action of a department is open to debate in this venue. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

Hon. D. Marzari: Fine, thank you, Madam Chair; it's good to be reminded every so often.

I was simply going to ask the member where he would choose to raise the $60 million in general revenue that the hotel room tax generates for the coffers of British Columbia. That $60 million, properly spent, I could think of 100 ways to spend in Tourism alone. But I would ask the member if he could think of how he would raise that $60 million in a deficit year.

C. Tanner: I can think of a number of ways, and they start with some of the people in your department, Madam. While you're sitting with your department heads talking about it, people out there are trying to make a living and to generate revenue for this province, and you're killing them. You're not hurting them with the policies of this government, your treasury department, your Minister of Finance and yourself in giving them any promotion. You're not promoting business; you're killing it out there. You should have spent more money in your department; that's an area you could easily spend it in.

In that same view, perhaps the minister could tell us if she has commissioned any value-for-money studies or return-on-investment analyses with regard to tourism. In particular, could she tell us what the results were?

Hon. D. Marzari: As of this moment in the overall administration, I have not commissioned a value-for-money audit. I have commissioned a contractor to look at the marketing division of the ministry to ensure that our marketing money is best focused and best spent.

I have started conversations with the comptroller general about the possibility of doing a value-for-

[ Page 1256 ]

money audit on the Tourism and Culture ministry, because we are a small ministry and the balance inside the ministry is very delicate. For example, the whole wage bill in Tourism is $3.7 million; it is not a substantial amount.

So when you're talking about staff not doing their jobs while people outside are dying, those are very dramatic words. But you must know that the ministry itself is very small, and the services it provides are very crucial. So I would not be quite so dramatic in suggesting that we toss out the staff that gives the support the industry wants. The industry wants stability and continuity, and I intend to see that the industry gets stability and continuity. That is what is going to help them survive, and that is what I intend to do.

But I do have the beginnings of a conversation, as I say, with the Finance ministry and the comptroller general about the possibility of doing an ongoing, comprehensive value-for-money audit as the ministry makes its management decisions and moves down the line to implementing a strategic plan. I can think of no better way to prove the value of a comprehensive audit and a value-for-money audit than to start with a small ministry as it is beginning to develop a long-range plan. I'm hoping that something comes of this effort on my part.

L. Fox: Throughout this morning and early this afternoon I've listened very closely and with great intent to what the minister has had to say.

Before I get into that, let me first say that I personally take no issue, Madam Minister, with the fact that you've hired a deputy who has a similar philosophical approach and similar management wishes to yours. I perceive that if I were in the same position, I would want to have an individual beside me who would agree with my ideology as well as my management style. So I understand the need and your rationale for hiring your deputy.

I would, however, like to point out that in terms of why and how you justify the budget cut to your ministry, a lot of your answers this morning and again this afternoon have referred to a financial mess left to you and your government by the previous administration. There are a couple of issues that I'd like to point out with respect to that.

While I agree that Music '91 was well-intentioned, I also agree that Music '91, for whatever reason, got out of control. It came in at far over the budget that was planned. Although it did that, it may very well have created a net gain to the province in terms of its overall impact on the local municipal economies of those communities that were fortunate enough to host the Music '91 program.

While you suggest that the last fiscal year was a financial mess, for five months of that year, Madam Minister, your government was in power and could have taken the necessary steps to ensure that there would have been less of a deficit at the end of the year. That's one point. The other point is that in my observation of the spending of your government during those five months, you used that opportunity to look after some of the wish lists that each of you had prior to being elected.

Let's come to the 1992 budget year. This budget, without question, was a budget of choices -- choices that were clearly made by your government rather than the choice of trying to balance the budget. You've made a choice to hire 1,549 new employees, of which, I note in the budget, 13 are in your ministry. Your Finance minister has quite effectively put forward a smoke-and-mirrors report that is now being seen as such almost daily by the people of British Columbia. That, of course, is the Peat Marwick report. It was very effective and gave you the platform on which you could use the previous mess to bring in the largest-ever deficit tabled in this House.

I suggest that there are other opportunities that could have led to balancing the budget and giving you more opportunities in your ministry to go on a more effective marketing campaign, whether it be through the Partners in Tourism exercise or directly by the ministry. Both opposition parties in this House have suggested the $200 million that has been committed towards a fixed-wage policy. All these issues impact your particular budget and the opportunities for marketing tourism in this province.

[3:45]

I should also point out that there are many other issues on the revenue side that are negative issues to tourism. I speak now of the increase in jet fuel, which will increase airfares to many parts of this province. We've seen articles in the newspaper already that have confirmed the arguments we put forward that the jet fuel tax was going to be a negative item in tourism.

We'll soon see a capital tax increase. Many of the hotels that supply the rooms for our tourists and that create our tourism are going to be impacted in a negative way, whether they make a profit or not.

All these factors make it appear to me that this government does not recognize the impact and the opportunity of tourism. In fact, it's the opposite. It seems to have.... If you take the cost of the 13 employees out of your projected budget, I submit to you that it's more than a 10.5 percent decrease. In fact, without those employees, there is a percentage decrease of substantially more than 10.5 percent.

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe that the House is going to transfer to a debate around Transportation estimates, but I cannot resist one partial answer to your.... I'm pleased that the member chose the Ministry of Tourism in which to make his major address on the budget. Of the 13 employees registered with my ministry since the new budget year.... They reflect my own office -- in fact, my own position -- my staff, and the deputy's office and staff. Most of the rest are, in fact, conversions from contract to employee status. So the money was already being spent. We were just plugging people into FTE employment. That was not an increase, in fact, in dollars. We added two security people for Barkerville and Fort Steele. So that answers that question.

As for the business of whether or not the government is committed to tourism, I can only say that the 

[ Page 1257 ]

last four hours in this House this morning and this afternoon -- as we've gone through questions and answers -- have been a testimony to the number of things that have been done and the number of things we are going to do and are wanting to do and are capable of doing with existing staff complement because of smarter marketing and because of better strategic planning. I am making an assumption that the member will bear with us and go through this estimates procedure and hear some of the technical detail and ideas going forth from the ministry right now as we consult with our partners in marketing, our regional associations and our sectoral industrial colleagues.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Lord in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

D. Symons: At the time we adjourned last day, I had only a very few questions left. I would like at some time to go into a summation of everything that's taken place, but I'll save that for a later date.

Back to the specific questions. These seem to be from the municipalities that have raised these questions with me -- in some cases a wish list -- and the one I have from Maple Ridge falls into that category. They have quite a few concerns in that area. They want a high-level bridge crossing at the mouth of the Pitt River and connectors to it. I think this has been commented on. I believe this is where the trial balloon was floated regarding this particular issue. Is there any hope you can give them for a crossing at the Pitt River?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The residents of that part of the lower mainland are certainly in need of some improvement in their infrastructure. We will be looking to the recommendations of Transport 2021 by the GVRD, and some of the outlying communities that are not part of the GVRD, such as Maple Ridge. The ministry gathers information with regard to those demands, and feeds that into the Transport 2021 study. We will be identifying, and they will be recommending, out of that. It is a very major project, or it would be -- in the $200 million-plus category -- in order to give the clearance required. It will certainly be a project that is a way off. And yes, there is the possibility of looking at alternative funding.

D. Symons: In the same area, the next suggestion, question, or wish they have is for a new bridge crossing the Fraser River. I suppose this would replace the Albion ferry. They suggest placing it near 230th Street. They are also asking if they might have more input into the location of a northern transportation corridor through the district. They suggest that this bridge connect the northern corridor with the Trans-Canada Highway and eventually the U.S. border, so we will have a sort of interconnection of those three areas. Are there any plans for something like that in the future?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We certainly will be consulting with the community. I've already had a town meeting there and have had several delegations from those communities visit to discuss their problems, as well as the problems identified by members of this House. We will be consulting on the potential location of the freeway -- should we go in that direction -- and certainly in regard to a new bridge over the Fraser. We're talking a quarter of a billion dollars, so that might be quite some time away.

I'm sorry, but you'll have to refresh my memory on the third point.

D. Symons: It was the bridge connecting into the Trans-Canada Highway and carrying on to the U.S. border, making a north-south corridor-connector.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That will come back to the Transport 2021 study. There is the potential for extending it all the way down, and connecting it up with 99 at some point, in order to bear that part of the traffic.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to respond to a couple of points that the member opposite raised when B.C. Rail was here. I can read you some answers to your questions, or at your choice, I can provide you with a copy of the letter. You had asked about annual remuneration of the B.C. Rail board; you also wondered if they had a mission statement. I'm prepared to provide you with that information, either orally or written.

D. Symons: I think written would be fine. It would save the time of the House.

Just one last question for the Maple Ridge area, and this concerns the completion of the Mary Hill bypass. They would like it upgraded to four-lane standard. Also, I have had some concerns expressed to me about the whole interchange system with the Mary Hill bypass, the Trans-Canada, the Lougheed Highway and the Cape Horn interchange; it is quite a nightmare to manoeuvre between one and the other of those. I'm wondering if there are any plans, again, to redesign that and make it much more traffic-friendly.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The Mary Hill bypass is a longstanding and well-known problem. One of the major problems is the grade crossing of the CP. There may be about a $25 million bill associated with improving anything at that point. The interchange as a whole has been studied as part of our Trans-Canada study -- part of the Highway 1 study; a separate consultant -- and the results of the Trans-Canada study will be fed into the Transport 2021 study. Again, we look forward to the recommendations of that study in order 

[ Page 1258 ]

to help resolve the problems at the Cape Horn interchange.

D. Symons: Just one remaining specific area question. It's one of my own concerns that I've heard over the past few years. There are three aspects to it. It's the Duffey Lake-Lillooet road, in there. There seem to be some land claim problems in that area, some problems upgrading the road to make it more traffic-friendly and problems with safety -- mudslides, etc., occurring in that area. What is the future of Duffey Lake Road?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The section through the Mount Currie Indian reserve is the sole remaining piece of that road not paved; it's a ten-kilometre length. We have been attempting to establish some communications, which would lead to negotiations, through the good offices of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but I cannot at this point in time report progress on that item. It is something that I certainly want to see solved to the satisfaction of all parties so we can complete that road and make use of the not inconsiderable tourist potential, for one, and to give an alternate transportation route into the interior should there be some of the problems that we are aware of that can occur in the Fraser Canyon.

With regard to the mudslide on Highway 12, there are several difficult points along that road that need to be addressed. The member would be pleased to know that I am going to carry out an inspection on the ground within a very short period -- next Monday or the Monday after, I'm not certain -- and in particular will be looking at all the problems on Highway 12.

D. Symons: I appreciate that answer. I'm down to the last of the questions; I'm sure that will make the members happy. There are some questions on the order paper that have been there since pretty well the opening of the House, and I would request again that they be looked at and maybe answers would be forthcoming. Also, in the debate on the supply bill there were some questions taken on notice, and I would look forward to answers to those.

[4:00]

Is it also possible that I could have a list of the highway projects such as supplied in these little books? Maybe not give me 75 of these, but maybe the page in there; possibly just a computer printout. I would appreciate having the information in this for each of the ridings in the province. If that could be supplied -- if it's possible a computer could put out the particular printing in here for each individual riding -- I would very much appreciate that.

Would it also be possible that I might have a briefing book for the Highways ministry? I know such books exist. That would again greatly assist me in my job as Transportation and Highways critic.

With that, I would leave it to other members of the House to continue questions that they might have.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the issues raised in interim supply, a draft letter has in fact crossed my desk, and I think it's back at the ministry for finalization. As to your request on the highway projects throughout the province, I'll take that under consideration. Your last point was the briefing. I would suggest that you contact Vince Collins, my deputy minister, and arrange for a couple of hours of briefing at your convenience.

L. Hanson: I have a few questions about specifics, and I suppose now is as good a time as any to canvass them. There's been a lot of difficulty in that section of the Trans-Canada Highway just outside of Golden -- a fair amount of study being done, I believe. If my memory serves me correctly, it has been the site of a number of very serious accidents. I don't know the exact name of the road, but there's quite a hill and a piece of road that is very winding and twisting and ends up on a bridge. That has been an area of great concern to the travelling public.

I wonder if the minister might be able to tell us where they are with the examination and what the plans are for that piece of highway.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are well-known problems in the Kicking Horse Canyon coming down to Golden, and there has been a severe accident there. That was where the truck carrying steel, I believe, crashed with a bus. There have been studies. Members opposite happen to be hitting a whole number of problem areas that are solvable for in the order of $200 to $250 million. It would take a major project to probably move the road to the other side of the Kicking Horse River and bypass the present road altogether.

But there is a second area which, from your description, seems to be more to the west of Golden, where the Trans-Canada makes a rather large switchback on its way up to the Pass. Where you referring to that second area?

L. Hanson: No, I was referring to the area where I think there have been a number of accidents. The most recent one was about a year and a half or two years ago, between a truck carrying steel and a bus. That was the area that I was concerned about. I recognize from some past experience the costs of these various projects and some of the limitations. By the same token, I suppose there are some things that eventually have to be faced and rectified, because we can't continue to have those difficulties.

I have another question regarding a highway. I know that there has been a fair amount of work started on this. I'm trying to get some understanding of when the completion date might be -- and how high a priority it might be within the ministry -- on the famous Beatton River crossing.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll go back for a moment to your previous comments about the Golden hill and your recognition of the costs. One area in which I plan to actively press the federal government is for participation in a national highways program. They have not invested in the Trans-Canada within British Columbia for decades, as the member opposite would know. I think it's about time that they did so. We will 

[ Page 1259 ]

apply some of those funds with some of our own to start to resolve some of the major problems along the Trans-Canada.

With respect to the Beatton River bridge, presuming that we have no fiscal surprises in the coming year or two, we see it as a high priority that we would be delivering probably in the '93-94 fiscal year.

L. Hanson: Yes, I certainly support the minister's attempts to have recognition by the federal government of some of the highway problems in British Columbia -- not only the need for some of those repairs, but the recognition of how difficult and costly it is to build roads in British Columbia compared to the rest of Canada. I would think that, without any question, you'd have the support of every member in this House to try and get that participation. I have some reservations about how successful you might be, but certainly we would support that initiative.

Mr. Minister, a rather minor one -- and it's a bit confusing to me -- is that in the capital rehabilitation briefing package there's some $80,000 allocated for 32nd Street in my home community. Could one of your staff give me some indication of what that might be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is a contingency amount on a longstanding settlement item on the 32nd Street overpass.

L. Hanson: Mr. Minister, you shouldn't come to my community and mention settlement, because the 32nd Street bypass has had some difficulties with settlement. In any case, thank you.

Another local question that I would like to get some indication from you on is regarding a small section of Highway 6 on the way to Lumby which has long been in the planning stage and long been, in the community's eye, a high priority. It's my understanding that that has been abandoned for this year. Could the minister give some indication of when it might be resumed or how far the planning and design work is for that section?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That section of road was identified in the regional transportation study as being a problem of relatively high priority and likely would have commenced the current fiscal year if the fiscal situation had permitted. It will remain relatively high on the priority list, and when fiscal conditions permit, we will proceed with it.

L. Hanson: Having had some experience in the ministry before, I could go on for some time on the various projects. I'm not sure that I can't find that information by talking directly to you, so I will spare you that.

I'm interested in the minister's opinion and attitude towards the highway signage policy that is in place. There seems to be some concern by the business community about the flexibility of the sign policy. I'm wondering if the minister is aware of the sign policy in detail and how he may feel about reassessing it and creating maybe a little more flexibility in the ability of businesses to sign for recognition of their operations.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The general policy, which was probably developed partly under your administration and partly under the administration of ministers before you, is of beautifying the highways and keeping them beautiful by keeping a lot of private signs out of the right-of-way. It's an excellent policy. All one has to do is drive through parts of the United States, where it's a continuous clutter. They have taken something that's potentially quite pretty and have ruined it. The policy of going to our large signs, where we put in the names of the various businesses in an orderly and well-maintained way, is the way to do it.

If you are referring to parts of the province where we still have some private signs up in the public right-of-way, it continues to be the policy of the ministry that we will look to the eventual removal of all of those private signs.

L. Hanson: I'm sure no one in British Columbia wants our highways to become a second example of the United States, such as the Burma-Shave signs and those sorts of things. I do hope, though, that the ministry will continue to ensure that there is a method of appeal to some of the decisions that are made in the regional offices, so there truly is the reflection of a flexibility and a recognition of need. Sometimes I have seen that get lost. I just hope that the minister will continue with that policy.

As I've said, I could go on for some time with these various questions. I know the minister exhibited a sense of humour the other day when he suggested that engineers could do anything. I might just point out to the minister that part of his discussion the other day was that he no longer has his name on the signs of the projects around British Columbia. Might I suggest that that's because there are so few projects, and maybe the minister is embarrassed to have his name on the signs. In jest, again, Mr. Minister.

[4:15]

I know that my colleague for Okanagan West was giving the minister a number of suggestions -- and some of them rather innovative -- about various areas that he might look to for extra funding to carry on the highways work that British Columbia obviously needs. I believe one of the issues was the fixed-wage policy, and the minister suggested that somebody had been smoking something funny. I know that engineers can do anything, but if the minister is sure that the fixed-wage policy is not going to cost British Columbia taxpayers any money, he had better check his slide rule, because I think it's stuck somewhere.

In any case, Mr. Minister, thank you for the answers. From the point of view of the critic for the third party, I appreciate that. I have had, as I said, some knowledge of the ministry in the past, as you are aware. I am truly disappointed in the amount of money that is allocated to capital projects. I think that if you had your druthers, as the saying goes, you would probably like to see more on construction in capital projects also. Hopefully, Mr. Minister, your suggestions, or your hopes -- not guarantees -- that next year things will allow some of those projects to continue that are very much needed in 

[ Page 1260 ]

British Columbia.... I certainly hope that is the case too.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I appreciate your reference to slide rules, but this being a very technologically advanced party, I can barely remember what slide rules were. It might be that we have had a change of calculation mode in the last year or two.

With respect to signs on the road, I can only say that I've been handed this -- and it's a good emblem. There is no need to fear the very sensible decisions that will be coming out of the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: I wasn't going to rise on this, but I couldn't help but rise after the comments from the member opposite. It couldn't be more timely, as I was just reviewing a letter from BCBC which comments on the first two projects that were advertised under our fair wages and skills development policy. I think we should be stressing fair wages there. The first project went to a non-union company, but it is $300,000 lower than the corporation's internal estimate. The second project did go to a union company, but it is about $1.1 million lower than the estimates by BCBC. So the fears that have been rampant by the members opposite about the fact that this is going to cost this government money are totally unfounded. The facts speak for themselves, Mr. Member.

W. Hurd: I welcome the opportunity to question the minister on a few projects pertinent to my own area of Surrey-White Rock. In particular, I have a question pertaining to the possible resumption of passenger train service by Amtrak on the Burlington Northern line. There have been a number of trial balloons floated about this initiative over the past few months. There appears to be a real effort building on the part of Amtrak to resume service on the line. I'm just wondering if the ministry has developed any strategic plan or any idea about what they'd like to see regarding passenger service on the Burlington Northern line once it passes the 49th parallel and proceeds to Vancouver.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The particular Amtrak project is a trial balloon, and nothing more, raised by someone interested in election in the United States. At the present time I don't think it's overly feasible. Nonetheless, the ministry has not received any formal approach regarding this potential project.

We have a request under consideration from, I believe, the state of Washington regarding the potential for a high-speed train connecting Portland through to Vancouver. But at the present time that is something that would be far off and very costly.

If I could just add, under the Transport 2021 program we are conducting an inventory of rail in the area so that we will have a better idea of the potential for commuter rail. Should something come to pass with regard to Amtrak, that might include commuter rail coming up from the White Rock area.

W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the Congress in the United States has actually appropriated quite a large contingency fund to resurrect some of the passenger lines throughout the United States. I understand that the Seattle-to-Vancouver line occupies one of the higher priorities. I'm getting quite a few calls of concern about the possibility of trains on this particular corridor reaching speeds of upwards of 120 to 130 kilometres an hour, in order to make the high-speed run from Vancouver to Seattle. Does the minister or his staff not see some rationale in investigating this proposal now so that if there is the possibility of a commuter-train component to that run, we can make our wishes and concerns known to Amtrak as soon as possible?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't think that your constituents need concern themselves about this too much at the present time. I don't think there's any track in the province that could handle sustained speeds of this order. Should the time come that a high-speed train link does become a reality -- and we should take that seriously -- it would have to come complete with overpasses. You simply cannot operate a high-speed rail system like that where you have level crossings and possible zones of confrontation with other ground traffic. There is nothing in sight regarding anything like this -- no need for any worries about high-speed trains and our present limited capabilities at level crossings. Should it ever come about, it will be well planned.

W. Hurd: Further questions about the Burlington Northern line, in particular the movement of dangerous cargoes on this line. I am referring specifically to sulphuric acid, chlorine -- dangerous goods that are passing not only through the waterfront in White Rock but also through the Boundary Bay area, which is ecologically sensitive and a world heritage site in terms of being a bird sanctuary. Just a question about the entire movement of hazardous cargoes: is there any intention by the ministry to more closely monitor what is moving on lines like the Burlington Northern through ecologically sensitive areas and heavily populated areas before the idea of passenger-train service is contemplated? Is that something the ministry is actively pursuing?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Several of the questions that the member opposite has asked I think were asked on his behalf by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale -- a very similar question to what you've just asked. The jurisdiction for the movement of goods on those lines is a federal matter and not a provincial matter.

W. Hurd: That would also pertain to the costs of cleanup and, if there were a derailment, the costs of dealing with the environmental problems that might accrue? Is that also a federal responsibility?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, they would be.

W. Hurd: Just pursuing other issues of concern to the region I represent.... I refer specifically to the future of 176th Street in south Surrey, which is the designated truck route from the Trans-Canada Highway to the border. The minister may be aware of a letter 

[ Page 1261 ]

I wrote him recently about a serious accident that occurred at the intersection of 16th Avenue and 176th Street. I'm just wondering if there are any immediate plans, in view of the population growth in the entire Surrey area, for this rather critical intersection to be dealt with, either via an overpass or underpass or some other route, to minimize the danger to the travelling public.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The level of traffic at the intersection you've mentioned does not warrant a grade separation. That in no way downplays the potential for an accident or the multiple-death accident that occurred at that corner when, if I'm correct, the lights failed due to a power failure. There certainly are areas, particularly where you have a light at the bottom of a hill with an intersection.... This is something that I have not yet tried out on my ministry, but at utterly critical situations like that where there is a power failure, I think that we ought to consider the possibility of a battery-powered system which can kick in and at least give flashing reds, so that tragic incidents like that can be avoided.

W. Hurd: Further to the situation on 176th Street, the minister may be aware that the 16th Avenue interchange occurs at the bottom of a rather steep grade. This being the major truck route from Highway 99 or Highway 1 to the border, I'm wondering if there's any provision for a mandatory brake inspection for truckers before they come down that rather steep grade -- which, I might add, is a four-lane road -- and speed towards the international border. This raises the issue of mandatory brake checks throughout the province.

This intersection is of particular concern, because if there is a power failure as the minister has described, and the trucker misses the flashing lights at the top of the hill, it's virtually impossible for that truck to come to a complete stop by the time it gets to the 16th Avenue intersection. This was probably a contributing factor to this tragic accident which involved the loss of a family in my riding. I would ask the minister whether there's any possibility of a mandatory brake check for this particular hill leading to the international border.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I understand that the area in question is fairly well developed, such that there could be a substantial cost to putting in a proper truck pullout along there. Nonetheless, my officials would be quite willing to sit down, perhaps with officials of the Attorney-General and local officials, to determine whether investment in a brake check would be warranted.

[4:30]

W. Hurd: Further to the truck route to the border, is the ministry concerned at all about the movement of truck traffic to the international boundary, and in particular the rather serious congestion that occurs at the truck crossing on 176th? Is there any provision for possibly rerouting truck traffic to the border or eliminating this particular grade altogether? I might add that this constitutes a hazard not only coming south towards the border on 176th at 16th, but also going the other way towards Cloverdale and the grade at 32nd Avenue. Is the ministry at all concerned about the truck traffic movement to the border and the likelihood that we're going to see a significant increase in the amount of trucks, the type of cargo being moved and the whole issue of public safety on that particular route?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no easy solution to the problem, but my officials indicate that this has not been a problem of major magnitude. There may well be congestion, but there is no simple solution to it. Nonetheless I think that looking at a solution should be considered, because anything we can do in terms of clearing commercial vehicles through quickly and ending congestion is ultimately an economic benefit both to the northwestern states and to our own economy.

W. Hurd: Further to that particular intersection, it's my understanding that 16th Avenue, which connects the Abbotsford airport with the 99 freeway from the border, is destined in the future to be a major perimeter freeway connecting the Abbotsford airport with the international airport in Richmond. Would it not be more appropriate for the ministry to establish 176th and 16th as a priority area in terms of planning for future traffic movement on the lower mainland?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The possible upgrading of 16th was looked at and was recommended by a regional study under Freedom To Move as something that should be done, but with a very long-time horizon -- not within ten years probably. The issue will be looked at again in the process of Transport 2021, so we will wait to see the recommendations of that study.

[Mr. Kasper in the chair.]

W. Hurd: Further to the 16th Avenue project and the potential for Abbotsford airport becoming an international destination -- a second airport, as it were, in the lower mainland -- has the ministry plugged any studies into the future of the Abbotsford airport as a destination point for international flights as an alternative to Richmond? Would that have the impact of making 16th Avenue more of a priority area, if it were patched into an alternative use for the Abbotsford international airport?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Any studies that would entail upgrading or modifying the use of the Abbotsford airport would be a federal matter. We're not aware of any such plan. Until such time as the federal government or a local airport authority come forward with a proposal and advise us as to the consequences and implications of their proposal, we have nothing in mind in terms of a study related to that.

W. Hurd: Returning briefly to the issue of the border, I understand that the municipality of Surrey has pledged funds for a cost-sharing proposal to upgrade 8th Avenue, to improve the rather serious traffic problems that have occurred in the south Surrey area. 

[ Page 1262 ]

In view of the fact that the municipality has pledged to involve itself in financing this project, I'm wondering whether it is a priority of the ministry in the next year or so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no funds planned for expenditure in the current fiscal year with regard to 8th Avenue. It may be something that will come in a coming fiscal year.

W. Hurd: Further, one other traffic issue in the south Surrey-White Rock area would be the possibility of a third interchange on the 99 freeway. I believe that there's a proposal for 32nd Avenue that has the active support of the municipality. In view of the rather serious traffic problems experienced by people in the Surrey-White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale areas with access to the freeway, I wonder whether that particular project is contemplated as a top priority for the ministry in the coming fiscal year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There have been meetings at the staff level and at the political level regarding that. There is agreement on an interchange but, as I understand it, not on where the interchange should be located or perhaps the exact design of it. But there is an agreement in principle that there should be an interchange. It will proceed on a priority basis when funds are available.

W. Hurd: One other issue I had hoped to canvass with the minister was the entire question of privatized highways contracts. I note that when the government was in opposition there was a great deal of concern expressed about the monitoring that was in place to ensure that privatized road contractors were meeting their responsibilities. If this question has been asked previously, I apologize to the minister. I've tried to follow the debates at closely as I can. I'm just wondering if there are any funds allocated in the current fiscal year to improve the monitoring of the performance of private road contractors in the province, particularly in heavily travelled sections like the Coquihalla Highway, Highway 1 and other major arteries.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are approximately 140 people across the province who are part of our quality assurance program. Those numbers haven't changed from last year to this. That program will carry on.

W. Hurd: I'm a little bit confused. There was a problem identified by the opposition under the previous government regarding the performance of some road contractors in the province. A concern was expressed that there wasn't the appropriate monitoring in place to ensure that the terms of the contract were being met. Surely the ministry, in light of those problems, must have some mechanism or some program in place to deal with the problems identified with privatized road maintenance over the past three years.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just to correct something I said a few minutes ago about the 32nd Street interchange, we do have agreement on the location. The design is not done, nor do we have agreement on the timing. It will happen when funds are available. But I had said earlier we did not have agreement on location, and that was not correct.

With regard to the monitoring of the maintenance contractors, as part of the new contract and the process of selecting new contractors for the new -- roughly -- three-year contracts, we insisted that they have a management plan in place, and a full description of it such that we would better be able to evaluate their capabilities in carrying out the maintenance program.

I receive letters on an ongoing basis from around the province complaining of specific items, from snow removal to potholes to the size of gravel being used, but by and large we're satisfied that our quality assurance program is on top of the problem. It does determine, by constant monitoring in the field, what is happening; and when we find a contractor not responding in time, or not taking care of that section of the road in a manner in which they should, then they are so advised. We have penalty clauses within the new contracts that we can make use of in order to increase the probability that they will do it right in the first place.

W. Hurd: I'm still at a loss to rationalize some of the problems that have occurred previously with privatized road contracts, and whether there are any new initiatives or new personnel deployed in the field for monitoring. Are there more resources available in the field? Are there more inspectors in the field or within the various ministerial branches of Transportation and Highways to ensure that the contracts are being honoured and that...? What are the reporting mechanisms? What new programs do we have to eliminate some of the very real problems that occurred in the past two or three years in privatized highways contracts?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I said in my previous answer, the new contract has penalty clauses involved in it such that.... In the previous contract there was only one penalty clause, so to speak. You had to take the entire contract away. So things would have to get pretty bad, and they did in part of the Cariboo area, to the point where the contractor lost the contract. That has been corrected by the addition of penalty clauses to address it on a step-by-step basis. I think, as well, that the first three years was a learning process both ways, and for the new contract, as I said before, part of the selection process was to evaluate the contractors' management plans.

[4:45]

Having said all that, there are still elements of the privatized maintenance that I'm not satisfied with. I have announced that we will be conducting a comprehensive review of the whole program, which I expect will get underway this year. We will determine whether the public is receiving value for money paid, whether the job is being done in accordance with the standards set and whether the personnel of these companies, the employees, are being treated in a fair and equitable 

[ Page 1263 ]

manner. When the results of that review are available to me, then I will make a decision as to whether we will stay with privatized maintenance.

W. Hurd: To the minister, does he have a budget for this audit? I assume it will be done during the current fiscal year. Can he advise the committee how many dollars will be expended in this monitoring process?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have some discretionary funds available, and I will scope the work that I expect to be done and see to it that that scope of work can be done and a product delivered within the discretionary amounts that I can set.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to take you into Peace River North for a while, and I'm not going to waste your gas running around. I'll start in Fort Nelson specifically. As I understand from the rehabilitation program, there is one new project of $4 million: the Fort Nelson Airport Road paved slide area for realignment.

The minister may not be aware, but I'd like to explain a bit about the people in the construction industry in Fort Nelson, who have depended upon government contracts in the past. They work in the oilfield in the wintertime -- in Fort Nelson it is specific to the winter. There are operational programs that go on with the oil patch, but basically any construction or drilling goes on in the wintertime. And it's the same with forestry. It happens only in the three months of winter. In the summertime they depend on a little extra work from the government on a day-rate basis.

There's one hill in Fort Nelson that the last administration said for a couple of years that they were going to look at, and it didn't happen. Or the ministry had started studies into the type of soil. That's the Clarke Lake Road and the hill that crosses the railroad bridge and starts out into Clarke Lake. I wonder if the minister could explain if there is any way that we could start that project this year, because there has been a tremendous slowdown in the oil industry and the logging industry in the north, and maybe that will help a little bit.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the road that you mentioned -- was it Clarke Lake hill? -- I understand that there are some fairly severe soil conditions along that alignment. It will not be a simple matter or an inexpensive matter to solve it. There are no funds intended for construction on it this year, and I don't think there are any for design. It is something that would be looked at within the regional priorities when funds are available.

With respect to your question having to do with day labour, there were some ten or 11 projects announced in your constituency -- extremely generous of me, I might say. I believe about half of those could have some day-labour input. I'm well familiar with the problem. I have met with delegations representing day-labour interests. I understand the economic stress that they're under. I have had to advise them -- and I started that last January, I guess -- that we were going to have a shortage of work for them this year, but we would try to make sure that what work we did have was spread around evenly. By putting more money into rehab and less into capital projects, we also thought that we might be able to afford the greatest amount of employment for day labour.

R. Neufeld: Carrying on with that particular road -- what they call Clarke Lake hill -- parts of it are privately owned by Petro-Canada. It goes onto part of a road that's owned by Mobil Oil, then another part of the road that's owned by the government and ends up in the Desan oilfield -- a piece of road that's owned by the department of mines and energy. This is a road that is used extensively. There's a high traffic volume, especially in the wintertime, in regards to the oil patch and to moving rigs and all the things that go along with that. A tremendous amount of dangerous goods goes down that hill and along that road.

If you haven't driven that road, maybe you should take some time when you're up there, if you get a chance. It is deplorable in places. Each company says, "I'm not going to fix my piece of road, because you're not fixing yours," and the government kind of feels the same way. The department of mines doesn't ever seem to have anything in their budget to fix that piece of road. I shouldn't say ever; they have done some work to it and some upgrading. Is there a possibility that your ministry could take that whole piece of road over and maintain it? I don't think it has to be brought to a highway standard, but a better standard than it is right now and under the control of one ministry would make it much simpler.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: This road would be an example of what might be able to be handled under a resource road policy. There is no intention to move that legislation forward this session, but that is one way of addressing the problem. The Ministry of Energy offered that we should take that over this year -- take it in -- but it would have cost something in the order of $500,000 for the additional maintenance costs. I'm wondering aloud: I wonder if the ministry couldn't serve a sort of catalytic function by getting the different owners together and suggesting to them that a joint maintenance program, conceivably with some input from the province, could in fact be put together.

R. Neufeld: That might well satisfy the problems. The $500,000, I guess, from the Ministry of Mines, of course, is just a transfer of funds from that ministry to yours. It would still be looked after under one umbrella, which is the Ministry of Highways -- that's what I was hoping for; that we could get to that place. I'll leave that, though, and be in touch with you again on it.

I want to say a few words about tolls and that type of thing, just so that you know that in the north.... I know that your responsibility ends at approximately Mile 83 on the Alaska Highway, but it traverses British Columbia to around Mile 600. That leaves about 520 miles of road that's federally operated and maintained -- and capital construction on it -- other than a short piece through the town of Fort Nelson. If you talk about tolls, people, especially in my constituency of Fort Nelson, are quite upset, because they feel they've been paying a 

[ Page 1264 ]

toll for years in the form of gas tax to the province, in the form of permits to the province, on a highway maintained by the federal government. Hopefully, if tolls come into place, you will take that to heart when you think about tolls in the north, because they may not appreciate it up there. I'm not sure whether or not that will have any impact on you.

We'll go a little south now to Hudson's Hope. I believe it is Highway 29. Is there anything in the future, with the repaving of that piece of road from Fort St. John to Hudson's Hope, by any chance? I think the ministry looked at it fairly closely last year, but I don't know whether they made any decision on it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There has been consideration of the relocation of the entire road, but that relocation is in turn related to the potential or possibility of developing Site C. There has been some understandable hesitance about investing in the existing road and not knowing how long that investment might be good for. I guess we will have to hold to see what developments come along with regard to Site C. Those questions would have to be put to another minister. There is, I believe, the one road-upgrading project in your booklet on Highway 29 -- Halfway Hill. That relates to some realignments in order to improve safety.

R. Neufeld: To resurface a piece of road that was built last year. In the booklet that you provided us, the rehabilitation projects, you have bridge projects: Highway 97, the Taylor Bridge, at $1.63 million. That's a project started a couple of years ago. Is $1.63 million the total for that construction project, or is that what you're spending just this year, not what has been spent before?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount of $1.63 million would be the funds anticipated to be expended this year.

R. Neufeld: So the repainting of that bridge was more than $1.63 million -- is that correct? If it was, how much was it?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We don't have the total of the contract here, but I can provide that to you.

R. Neufeld: I read with interest in the paper about the Minister of Finance talking about the fair wage policy as it would apply specifically in the north with Alberta contractors and people coming in doing work at less than fair wages. He made remarks on this specific contract on the bridge. Do I understand that the fair wage policy is applied to highways, or not?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, it does not apply to highway projects. I believe the minister was pointing out that there might be some benefits to northeast British Columbia should it apply in the future.

R. Neufeld: Another resurfacing project is Highway 97 from Charlie Lake to Mile 83. This is a continuation of a project that started last year at $1.56 million. Is that just the part that's to be expended this year or is that the total amount of dollars for the whole contract?

[5:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That amount, some $1.56 million, is for this year. All of the figures on your sheet relate to expenditures anticipated for this year.

R. Neufeld: Can I ask the minister to provide me, not immediately, with what the bridge contract amounted to in total dollars, and what the upgrade on Highway 97 was in total dollars? It's nothing that has to be done right away -- just for my information.

The other item, of course, that's of great concern in Fort St. John is the Beatton River hill. I'm sure you're aware of it, and I'm sure your ministry staff is aware of it. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to drive on that hill at any time, but I would say that the best time to drive on that piece of road would be in the wintertime, in the fall in a freezing rain storm with a few trucks and some rigs on the move and that type of thing, because you will soon see that that hill is.... The only reason it hasn't claimed a life in the last number of years is because the people there, who live there, who use it continuously, know how dangerous it is. If it was in a highway system, I think we would have had some tragic accidents. I believe the last bridge is being completed this year for that project, but there is no money towards the building of the road. There is a certain amount of slippage happening on that hill all the time. It could, conceivably, in the spring or during the summer in heavy rains, slip more than expected and we could lose it totally. That would leave that part of British Columbia being serviced out of Alberta.

We have a problem with that part of British Columbia already being serviced too much, with every facet, out of Alberta. It would be a great benefit if we could see some strides being made towards the construction of that road. I can understand the minister -- and I've sat and listened quite attentively for hours -- about people asking for dollars for roads and some of his responses, but I would say that this specific piece of road poses a tremendous amount of danger. There are an awful lot of dangerous goods in the form of crude oil, diesel fuels and gasolines being hauled over that road on a constant basis. It happens steadily. There's heavy equipment being hauled on it, and if you meet wide loads on it, you have to stop so the wide loads can go around the corner. There are tremendously sharp corners, and it's a very dangerous piece of road.

I know it was started a number of years ago, and I would certainly encourage you to look very favourably at completing that piece of road, even to get it to a gravel stage, rather than making people use the old highway. The old highway has been left to deteriorate on purpose simply because it was in the plan to build a new road, and there's not much sense in maintaining it to a high degree if at some time you're going to abandon it.

I would like to know your response to that, how you feel about it, and to invite you when you're up there to get hold of my office, and I would, in all seriousness, be pleased to show you what I mean about the transporta-

[ Page 1265 ]

tion industry that uses that hill on a constant basis. I have been involved in the transportation industry for quite a number of years, so I am quite well versed in what happens over there and the problems that would be faced in Fort St. John if all supplies and services were to start coming out of Alberta until we could get a road built and end the problems of trying to get it back into Fort St. John. There are some tremendous problems there with dangerous goods, with losing a lot of economic activity to Alberta, and danger to life and limb.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I had a delegation in my office from the area several weeks ago. They brought along a set of photographs that they took. Although I have not driven the road myself, I am fully appreciative of the situation as you describe it. It looks like a slide waiting to happen, and indeed it would sever the road. On the other hand, it would not make too much sense to spend millions of dollars to stabilize the slide in view of the near delivery of the project.

I said earlier that in the '93-94 fiscal year we would be in construction, but I'm advised that we could not complete it until the fall of '94. So technically it would be in the '94-95 fiscal year before we were able to deliver the final product.

As you've identified, virtually everybody has been seeking more funds. I'm pleased to note that in your constituency, even though we have not addressed all of the problems you've identified, we are putting in something in the order of $7 million, which is, approximately speaking, 4 percent of the rehabilitation projects, when typically we're running closer to 1.5 percent. We agree with you. We are investing the funds up there. Unfortunately, we don't have enough to address them all. I am aware of them, and at some time I would like to take you up on your offer to drive the road. Perhaps you could keep it open for later, and you might even be able to have a small charge for a thrill ride.

R. Neufeld: It would be a thrill ride, I can assure you.

There is some $7 million worth of rehabilitation going on in the Peace River North electoral district, and as I said, a couple of those larger projects are continuations of projects that happened before. So I do, on behalf of the people of North Peace, thank you for it. I know the difficulty you're having. If there's any way you can see your way clear to do some work on the Beatton River hill, I would appreciate it -- the people of North Peace would be very appreciative -- because the grades are in excess of 10 percent in places on that hill.

J. Tyabji: There are a few things I'd like to ask you for specifically for the Okanagan, which is the region that I'm from. The first is what you'd call a housekeeping item. I know you've been contacted by one of my constituents who has some concerns with regard to the Coquihalla Highway and the need for fog lights. I'm wondering if you are aware of the concern. What is the contingency plan for the area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In order to keep the costs of the Coquihalla connector within the acceptable bounds -- I think that was $225 million -- a variety of things had to give. One of them was the availability of power along the entire road. There is power that comes into a number of points. There's another aspect of fog lights: if you have fog lights in some areas but not others, you are tending to encourage people to perhaps drive a little faster than they should in the lit areas, and when they hit fog at the extremities of the lit areas, you're inviting a problem. We haven't looked at putting in lights continuously through the areas that are subject to fog, hence I can't advise you as to what the costs might be. It would be fairly costly, and that would be a consideration. I'm well familiar with the problem, and I recall several letters outlining that concern to me over the winter.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to ask the minister if he has driven the connector in the fog, and if he understands just how dense it is. I do tend to disagree. I don't think putting fog lights there would have people drive any faster. I know that when I've driven in the fog, you have to go very slowly. It's almost impossible to see anything. You can barely see cars coming towards you; you can hardly see lines on the road. It is only a big problem in a few pockets. One of the people who has brought this concern to me is a man who's involved with the privatization.... He believes that it is very much a safety issue. The first question is: have you driven in the fog and to what extent? Other than that, are you planning to study it? If so, what could be an indication that you could give to the people, who have these safety concerns, as to when they can expect some kind of answer one way or the other about fog lights?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have driven the road when there was fog. It was not, however, a particularly severe fog. I have driven the first section of the Coquihalla under dense fog circumstances, as I have driven a number of other locals through dense fog. I'm well aware of the hazard. I'm well aware of the feeling that you have that there is something looming up behind you, even if you're driving at a reasonable rate. The problem is money. We have sections of roads all through the province that are subject to fogging, but to provide fog lights -- and I agree that it is a safety issue -- wherever foggy conditions occur would just be extremely expensive.

J. Tyabji: Just to end on this, I understand that the problem is money. That's basically the answer that we've been getting for all the portfolios. However, the other part of the problem is safety, and this is a very critical issue. I would say this is the number one issue in terms of safety on the Coquihalla connector -- these dense pockets of fog where you cannot see. Some people are exceeding the speed limit and the safety limit and jeopardizing people who are doing the speed limit. I would urge the minister to definitely take a look at this.

Going on from that, I would like to talk again about the Coquihalla connector and the impact that it's having 

[ Page 1266 ]

with regard to some of the other roads in the area. I recognize that it wasn't this minister who put in the connector; however, the impact that it's having is now his responsibility. One area is the Glenrosa interchange between Westbank and Peachland, which, as I am sure the minister is aware, has been the site of numerous very severe accidents. It's a very dangerous area, and as the minister is no doubt aware, Kelowna is growing very rapidly. With that growth we're getting a lot more traffic. Peachland is one of the fastest-growing parts of the country. We will get increased traffic with the connector, and Kelowna is a more popular spot in the summer. So all of these different elements, particularly the impact of the Coquihalla connector, are making that one intersection very dangerous. I know the minister has been contacted by the regional district asking for some action on the Glenrosa interchange.

First of all, I understand the first answer you're going to give me is that there's no money. But we've identified the problem and we'd like to know what you see as a solution. And how soon can that solution be implemented?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The traffic growth rate on the Coquihalla has been somewhat ahead of original projections -- not vastly ahead, but somewhat ahead -- and no doubt that aggravates the problems at the other end just slightly. The modifications to the interchange in question are in the final stages of design, and we're in the final stages of property acquisition. It will be a priority item along the whole 97 project and will go ahead when funds permit.

[5:15]

J. Tyabji: Now that we're talking about the 97 project, I'd like to talk about two specific areas: the Okanagan Lake bridge and the construction and upgrading of Highway 97 between Winfield and Oyama. With regard to the Okanagan Lake bridge, I think the minister must recognize what an incredible problem we have right now with traffic congestion. I know already that his ministry is taking steps to move some of the signals and change some of the structure of the bridge, heading down from Westbank to the bridge, but that's not going to be enough. We've heard talk of a second bridge north of the existing bridge or south of the existing bridge, of trying to four-lane this bridge and of getting a bypass through the city of Kelowna on a northern second bridge. What I want to know from the minister is: does he see a second bridge or expansion of the existing bridge as a solution? If he does expand the existing bridge, what is he going to do with the traffic congestion as it heads north through Kelowna?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I had a meeting in Kelowna with the mayors of Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton, and a variety of these questions were discussed. I had staff from the regional office there at the time. There are tremendous problems. I suggested one quick solution to the mayor was that we could make the existing floating bridge one-way west, but after he thought about it for a second he found he couldn't agree to that. It certainly would alleviate traffic problems in a hurry.

Within this year's budget there is a $50,000 study of the bridge problem generally. Alternatives that you have mentioned have been considered. In my meeting with the mayors, I recall that at that point they favoured a second crossing that was somewhat north and would tie into a partial bypass at least. But it comes back to that somewhat magic figure that I've used several times earlier today -- that is, a couple of hundred million dollars to build such a bridge. That of course does not address the costs of the upgrading on either side. Enormous problems.

I guess there are many communities which would envy Kelowna the growth and economic activity that's occurring, but concomitant with that are all of these traffic woes. It's going to take us a long time to sort them out.

J. Tyabji: What I really need to know, then, is: when the $50,000 report is finished, and when it makes a recommendation for the second bridge, how long will it be before we see the second bridge?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: What's happening in Kelowna is an almost textbook case of the consequences of rapid growth that was not well thought out in terms of the implications -- with heavy job concentration still being on one side of the lake and a lot of new residential areas on the other. It's not at all clear whether the $50,000 study will in fact recommend a second bridge or even a very costly upgrading of the existing bridge. We don't know right now how to approach the problem. Maybe we have to go back to considering ferries across Okanagan Lake -- maybe fast ferries. I don't know. At the present time I'll have to ask that you be patient and wait until we see the results of the bridge study, and we'll discuss it further at that time.

J. Tyabji: What I would like to know from the minister, if possible, is what I can tell the people in Kelowna, both municipal and from the regional districts, when they say to me: "How long will it be before we see any resolution to the traffic problem?" I understand there is no money. I fervently believe there is no question that the report is going to recommend a second bridge and at the very minimum, if not a second bridge, definitely an expansion of the existing bridge. There are no two ways about it. When that report is finished, no matter what it recommends, it's going to cost money. It's going to make a recommendation that sees a resolution of the problem.

That being said, is there a five-year plan? Is it going to be ten years? How long will it be? Whatever direction the ministry is taking should overlap with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the planning at the city and the regional district level. If it's going to be ten years, perhaps they should start looking right now at how they can deal with whatever they can in terms of zoning, in order to make sure they direct traffic in this direction or that direction. If it's going to be only five years, they will make different plans. But it's very difficult for the people of Kelowna and the regional 

[ Page 1267 ]

district and the planners there to understand what kind of direction they should take, unless they have an idea as to how long it will be and what kind of direction the minister has.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The very short answer is: I don't know. The longer answer is that we are a long way from even determining what the questions properly are, let alone the answers. At $50,000, that would hardly even qualify as a prefeasibility study. That is truly a very minor study. A proper study of the alternatives for transportation in that area could easily be $500,000.

We have to consider the upgrading of Westside Road, for example, in order that through traffic be bypassed. If it stays within a recommendation of the single bridge, then we still have all of the traffic going right through the heart of Kelowna and all the way down 97 -- very undesirable.

Perhaps this is one of those areas where another balloon should be floated, and the folks in the Okanagan area ought to consider whether or not, if a bridge could be delivered within ten years, they would be willing to pay a toll for it.

J. Tyabji: That brings me to my next question. How long do you foresee tolls will be charged on the Coquihalla? It was originally supposed to be a temporary measure.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't think there's any intention of removing it in the foreseeable future. You would have to put that question to the Minister of Finance, as it is a revenue issue.

J. Tyabji: My last question comes from a person who lives in Keremeos, and his concern is with regard to any contracts that might be within a 150- to 250-mile radius. I understand that a large contract was just tendered in Osoyoos. This person wanted to know what the plans are for the area within a 200-mile radius of Keremeos or the Osoyoos area, because his interests are with regard to highway construction. He just wants to know if he should have any hope of continuing with the business he currently is working in.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The individual can probably go into the district office and can certainly go into the regional office and determine what the tender calls are likely to be within the radius that he or she would be considered for as day labour.

C. Serwa: I am really pleased to have the minister with us again. I had given the minister suggestions on how he might accumulate about $2.5 billion, but I see from his responses that he has decided that his priorities lie elsewhere. I lament that, because I think I've indicated the continued importance of the transportation system in British Columbia in our sort of macro discussion.

At the present time I too would like to talk about a few areas of concern in my particular constituency. Obviously the Okanagan Lake bridge -- which is right in the centre of my constituency -- Highway 97 and the Glenrosa overpass are the areas that I would like to talk about.

First, on Highway 97 there is the difficulty of moving an additional volume of traffic through the central Okanagan through that Highway 97 corridor, and you've indicated an awareness of that. The reality at the present time is that because of the higher speed, we're moving as much traffic with three lanes on the bridge as we're moving with six lanes through Kelowna. So it's difficult for me to understand how a second bridge -- other than providing some sort of insurance -- would satisfy that particular demand.

Again, Mr. Minister, you mentioned the study with respect to the continued upgrading of Westside Road. I see a small sum for its continued upgrade, but what we're looking for is something on the status of a Coquihalla -- if not a four-lane, then definitely a two-lane, to move through traffic more speedily on their westward or eastward way, up through the Trans-Canada and east towards Alberta.

As Highway 97 goes through Kelowna, we have a number of intersections. Left turns are obviously a very challenging problem, because that particular corridor serves three major interest groups. One is the through traffic, the other is tourist traffic and the third group -- and growing much larger -- is the local traffic. Are there any plans to facilitate the flow of traffic through that 97 corridor by the coordination of signals or perhaps the elimination of some turns or some sets of lights at some intersections and blocking off roads? Truly that pulsating traffic is building up, and that's a very significant problem at the moment.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: By and large, the comment that the bridge is handling what the six lanes handle is well taken. It's my understanding, and the complaints that I have received are, that at times the bridge does act as a choke. There has been a lot of effort made to minimize the number of openings of the bridge, but there is certainly a strong feeling passed to me that either the bridge has to be expanded or another one has to be built. But I would not take either of those decisions lightly, for reasons previously given.

I think that we have to encourage Kelowna to continue the development of the grid-road system, and we have contributed a fair amount of money and cooperation in that area to move as much of the local traffic as possible off 97. Perhaps further things can be done there.

[5:30]

Your points on closures of some intersections are well taken, but you know that the business community usually has a lot of resistance to that. It is something that I think should from time to time be negotiated with the local government. On an ongoing basis, we try to maximize the through volume by very careful timing of the phases of the lights. Until such time as a bypass at Kelowna is built, we will simply have to continue managing the traffic as best we can.

C. Serwa: Going again to Okanagan Lake bridge, one of the real problems that certainly involves the 

[ Page 1268 ]

safety of the travelling public as well as a great deal of frustration is obviously the times that traffic flows and the lanes are open one side and the other. At the present time signalization is not effective enough. I know that there are some thoughts and some plans, but it seems to me that unless you change the signals so you have traffic lights far enough back that indicate whether two lanes or one lane are open, you should block both lanes of traffic and alternate signals. Rather than traffic all trying to get into one lane and jamming up, and then other traffic going through on the other lane and cutting in right at the front, if you stopped and alternated traffic.... If there was only one lane, you would have to do this. If you had two lanes open in that direction, then both signals would be green and the traffic would flow unimpeded. But it seems to me that, especially on the west side of the lake, where we have a fair descending grade and whether it's wet conditions or winter conditions, we have a substantial traffic hazard with cars braking and cutting back into the line for the single lane..... What are your plans for improving the signalization on Okanagan Lake bridge? I think part of the frustration could be alleviated and an enhancement of traffic flow could occur.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Some additional length of warning is one thing that should be considered. I think the idea of stopping both lanes and then giving them alternate go signals would probably not work. That typically causes a severe backup problem that might in the end cause more problems than it solves. Any time you get into a merge situation -- and this can be seen anywhere in the province -- a high-volume merge situation is a bottleneck. It exists there. There is no easy solution to it. But I think longer advances, advance warnings of which lanes are open, whether the bridge is open or not, is the way to go at the present.

C. Serwa: Recognizing, as we do now, the tremendous growth and the rapidity of that growth in the Kelowna area.... Kelowna, by the way, is larger in population than Victoria, which is somewhat surprising. It's the fiftieth-largest city in Canada. Recognizing that growth impacts all of the areas -- and you yourself mentioned Westbank, for example, as a substantial residential community -- my next question is with respect to the Glenrosa overpass.

Glenrosa Road services a downhill and cross-country ski area. There's a substantial increase in non-resident traffic in winter months when conditions are slippery. The population of the Glenrosa area has grown to almost 5,000 people, and it's expected to grow to perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 people. This is the only means of access and egress for the Glenrosa area. The ministry has come up with what I believe is a splendid design, and there is a real safety concern with the intersection and the signalization on a fairly steep slope.

One part of this -- and I've written you a letter on this -- is that it is imperative, for traffic safety of the travelling public, whether they're on the Highway 97 corridor coming off the Coquihalla connector or they're local traffic coming off Glenrosa, that we act as quickly as possible on that particular overpass. That problem is not going to go away; there is no other solution. The consultant and your staff have done an outstanding job in coming up with an admirable and quality solution, and I would ask you to consider acting as quickly as you can on that.

I know that there is $500,000 in your budget now for property acquisition, but this project, of all of the projects, is the greatest concern to traffic safety in the heavily congested central Okanagan area. Do you see that project going ahead within the next year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I certainly take note of your "admirable and high-quality" job, because we in Highways have admirable and high-quality staff.

The Glenrosa, as I answered earlier, is in the final stages of design and property acquisition, and it would be a high-priority item. The intention will be to proceed when capital funds are available.

J. Dalton: Mr. Chairman, I will be necessarily brief, because I have only one item in my package to question today. It is dealing with the rehabilitation program for the Lions Gate Bridge, which I'm happy to see on the list, because there are certainly some needed repairs to that structure. Specifically, the repairs are designated to bearing components and to the sidewalk. Anyone who has driven over the Lions Gate Bridge recently will certainly agree with me that the sidewalk is buckled and worn. It's definitely in need of repair, and I'm very happy to see that. Can the minister tell me what is meant by repairs to bearing components?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It refers to the component of the bridge sometimes referred to as bearing plates, where the superstructure is resting on the pier cap. You have to be careful that those are freely moving to allow expansion and contraction of the bridge; otherwise you can overstress structural members with possibly severe results. It's a case of bringing the bearing plates up to snuff.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that answer; I suspected that's what it was. I don't have any engineering qualifications. The bearings have been worked on. In fact, I think they just finished the last one recently, so that the bump on one part of the bridge that caused a lot of traffic slow-up has now, happily, been repaired.

However, there's one other point about the bridge I want to draw to the minister's attention and get his reaction on. The road surface itself of the bridge is definitely in need of repaving or whatever can be done. The surface is very rough, and as the minister I'm sure is aware, a lot of traffic goes over that bridge every day of the year. So is there any possibility or any prospect within the ministry of repaving Lions Gate Bridge?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are ongoing efforts through maintenance to try to keep the travelling surface as smooth as possible. My recollection is that the bridge itself is quite a bit smoother than the causeway. But there are no plans at the present time to resurface the bridge.

[ Page 1269 ]

J. Dalton: I would be remiss, coming from the North Shore, if I did not at least go on record as asking one question of the minister about any prospects for a third crossing. I know we're talking eons away. The third crossing has been discussed since I was a baby, and I guess it will probably be discussed when they plant me in the ground. So I am curious. I don't expect any hopeful response, but is there any prospect or any planning for a third crossing? We would be talking ten or 15 years for anything such as a tunnel or another bridge, or whatever, to be even possibly constructed, even if we started to seriously discuss it today.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's certainly nothing on the horizon with respect to a third crossing. But the possibility of widening the Second Narrows Bridge is under active consideration, and there have been discussions from time to time with the city regarding whatever improvements could be made at the First Narrows Bridge. But I think that by and large we have to look to a transit solution rather than a third crossing, which would simply put more traffic into the heart of downtown Vancouver.

The Chair: Shall vote 60 pass?

D. Symons: I hope the answer to that question will be yes in a very few moments.

I would like to thank the minister for his patience and his openness in this rather long, drawn-out discussion of the estimates and spendings. In particular I would like to thank his staff, Messrs. Collins, McKeown, Doyle and Hogg. I look forward to meeting you and using your expertise in the coming year.

The minister has explained, particularly in relation to capital expenditures, that projects will not proceed this year -- and possibly longer2- because of the financial mess that this government has inherited. I have some difficulty with that as a pat answer for a virtual cessation of all maintenance and rehabilitation work. However, I appreciate the minister's willingness to consider other, innovative ways to finance roadbuilding. He floated a trial balloon on the use of tolls. Well, I know what keeps those large balloons up. Tolls become another form of taxation. Motorists already pay high taxes in the form of fuel taxes and motor vehicle licences, and these moneys are not dedicated to roads. Tolls might have merit in very limited cases for financing an alternative route or for convenience. However, I'm against the concept if it would grow into a way of paying for most highway construction.

Another method of capitalization that deserves consideration is tax-free bonds. This would, of course, involve the cooperation of the federal government. It might be a better approach than planning on more taxes or tolls.

I'm concerned that when Bill 4, the Freedom to Move initiative, was repealed, there wasn't any replacement for some of the good portions of that act. It had allowed for some flexibility in financing and carrying out projects; that has now been removed. I'm also concerned about the need for an integrated approach to the transportation needs of this province. Some of the complaints from municipalities over lack of consultation might have been overcome if all the transportation components were under one ministry. Transit, Ferries and Highways need to work together in a coordinated fashion.

[5:45]

I find it incredible that there is a transportation planning council but that it has not yet met. They should be meeting regularly. In my estimation, this government has not placed enough importance on transportation and highways. Worse, they have not recognized its importance.

Postponing needed improvements to the road infrastructure. We have heard from members on both sides of the House of these needs. Postponing these needed improvements neglects the effect this will have on the future economic viability of the province.

I just might read from what is often quoted, the Peat Marwick report. The Peat Marwick report makes some reference to roads and maintenance. It says: "Regular preventive maintenance is essential to preserve the value of public assets over the longer term and to avoid costly capital and repair expenditures. The report concludes that preventive maintenance was reduced below prudent levels or suspended altogether by a number of agencies." Insufficient maintenance was identified for highways. I realize that this is before your government came to office; nevertheless, your government has not addressed these problems. "Overall, the report concludes that insufficient preventative maintenance has...sharply increased future expenditure requirements for both more extensive preventive maintenance and capital replacement." That is not taking place in this budget.

Good roads are an investment in B.C. They produce economic development by helping industry and commerce and by promoting tourism. Taxes and tolls discourage such development.

The ministry is underfunded. There is not enough financing even to keep up with the needed rehabilitation and upgrading. Cutbacks in the second half of last year and inflation negate any supposed increases in the maintenance and rehabilitation budgets.

Members on the government side of the House appear to agree with what I have been saying. The member for Nanaimo said in this House in 1990: "...aggressive upgrading of the transportation infrastructure is desirable...." One doesn't deny that. We have not injected the kind of capital we need to maintain the system at the level it ought to be. At an earlier date, that same member said that transportation was the key to development, not only in his riding but throughout the province.

The member for Prince George-Mount Robson said: "We would love to see a little extra money put into providing quality roads...." Well, sir, we agree. We would like to see this ministry begin to be given a higher priority.

A final note, this time from the NDP election campaign booklet, "A Better Way." Promise 27 says:

"Local services are running down and need fixing. We'll help. Local roads, bridges, sewers, water and sewer treatment systems and other facilities badly need upgrading in many areas of the province. A New 

[ Page 1270 ]

Democrat government will help local governments get the job done. It's a sound investment" -- and I agree. "It's a realistic source of jobs. And it's better to start now, before the cost of complete breakdown becomes prohibitive."

That, sir, is my concern with the financing of the ministry under question. This government has lost its way. Maybe it needs better transportation and highways, better planning and better priorities; then, with these, this government can find its way again. I fault this government for not funding this ministry adequately. The minister has done, I guess, what he could with the limited resources supplied to him. I would hope that in the future the minister will be more successful in receiving adequate financing for his ministry.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The statement that you quoted from our material is of course a concise and brilliant summation of why we should have a good transportation system. With 20 years of business background, I know that a transportation system is at the heart of any economy. In particular, I know that the surface transport system is going to play a critical role in our economy over, probably, the coming decade or more, as the infrastructure that we have inherited wears out and as our population and the economic pressures increase. Were it not for the lamentable state of the fiscal cupboard we inherited -- that's new phraseology, if you notice -- we would no doubt be doing far more this time around. But plain common sense and fiscal prudence tells us that we've got to get the deficit under control. We've taken the tough decisions to do that. And one of those tough decisions entailed a significant cut to my own ministry's budget.

I would point out that even though we are in these times, we do recognize the need to maintain what we've got, and therefore we see a substantial increase in the percentage of our budget that is going to rehabilitation -- a modest increase in absolute dollars but a substantial percentage increase. We are still short of what we should be. We should be probably $250 million a year, about 2 percent of the infrastructure, in order to maintain it properly. We are at only $180 million. But I did take a purposeful decision to stress rehabilitation at the cost of not undertaking any new construction -- simply wrapping up some old construction.

I look forward to ongoing debate in this area and to intelligent criticism from the members opposite. I look forward to wholesale support of my alternative funding methods. I'm sure the members opposite all wish to deliver good transportation infrastructure to their constituents. I've enjoyed the past several days -- several days more than I hoped I would enjoy, but nonetheless I have enjoyed it -- and I look forward to working with you to solve British Columbia's transportation problems.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $822,849,000 -- approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

The committee met at 2:57 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Chair: Before we begin, I've been advised by Hansard that these microphones are a little different from the ones in the House, and you should be aware of that. If you're engaging in private conversations, it tends to sometimes pick those up. So if you're going to have a conversation, you may wish to slide your chairs back from the microphone or go out in the hallway.

Anyway, we'll carry on with business.

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

R. Chisholm: Would you care to elaborate on the question I left you with this morning about the Egg Marketing Board and the conflict that exists? Do you want me to repeat the question?

Hon. B. Barlee: As I said this morning, we believe that the rules are fundamentally sound and that they are strong enough. There's not much doubt about that. We know that there have been problems under another government -- not under ours -- and that some of these problems have existed for seven or eight years. Again, this was not under our government's aegis. We feel that if these matters are not settled adequately, we always have another recourse to further legislation.

R. Chisholm: What does the minister intend to do about the dissident egg producers?

[ Page 1271 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, the dissident egg producer problem is going before the courts and I cannot comment fully on it. We have looked at the legislation which is on the books now, and we feel it is adequate. We believe that this question will be resolved in December of this year. If it is not, we will take another look at the problem and are quite prepared to implement further legislation.

R. Chisholm: Will the minister have all policy initiatives pass through a poultry specialist who is familiar with the situation of the former?

[3:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: We always consult with a number of experts in the field -- sometimes outside experts, sometimes experts within my ministry, sometimes contractors, and so on.

R. Chisholm: With the problems that we're having with all of the marketing boards at one level or another, does the minister intend to consult with the people who have to deal with the marketing boards to maybe iron out some of these problems?

Hon. B. Barlee: Consultation with these individuals who deal with the boards is an ongoing process. I believe, as the member for Chilliwack is aware, that we have provided $150,000 extra to the marketing boards to assist them in their ongoing work.

R. Chisholm: I am referring to your department, which governs the marketing boards, Mr. Minister. Are you or your staff going to go out and talk to these dissident farmers, their organizations or their groups?

Hon. B. Barlee: That is more properly the area of the various supply management boards -- maybe the Chicken Marketing Board, or the Egg Marketing Board or the superboard, which is the BCMB. We feel that consultation is necessary. We have a steering committee, which the deputy minister does chair. We're discussing it with virtually everyone, including the consumers.

R. Chisholm: I want to read a couple of newspaper excerpts on marketing boards to the minister. I certainly hope I'm reading it right -- that he is supporting marketing boards. One is from Modesto, California.

"Here in the land of agricultural free markets, perfect growing conditions and plentiful irrigation water, [the speaker] considered how Canada sells poultry, eggs and milk.

"And he's envious.

"If Canadians think getting rid of marketing boards will mean cheaper eggs, chicken, turkey, milk and cheese, they're dreaming in technicolour, concludes the University of California poultry farm adviser.

"Instead, small farms, rural jobs and regional development opportunities will be destroyed."

They will be going to the large corporations.

As a dairyman, Tom Sawyer almost has it all -- this one comes from the United States:

"He's got a heavenly climate -- winter and summer, his huge, tin-roofed dairy barns need no walls. The only time his 800-plus cows go indoors is to be milked.

"Inside the barn, state-of-the-art computers track the production of each cow and monitor feed through a radio transponder around its neck.

"And Sawyer's herd eats well and cheaply -- byproducts of the dozens of other crops grown throughout the bountiful San Joaquin Valley.

"To top it off, Sawyer and his cows enjoy a magnificent view of the famous peaks of Yosemite National Park from his Diamond S Dairy near here.

"The only thing missing: Profit.

"So while Canadian dairy farmers tremble at the thought supply management may soon end, Sawyer has joined the growing body of American dairy farmers that want the U.S. to adopt a milk-marketing system like that enjoyed by Canada's 33,000 Canadian dairies.

"Some polls indicate 75 percent of the 140,000 dairy farmers in the United States want a supply-management system."

Without profit, "Sawyer stays in business -- barely -- thanks in part to up to $6 billion nationally in subsidies from taxpayers that make U.S. milk processors rich and keep dairy prices cheap on grocery shelves."

I certainly hope that this government is intending to back the dairy marketing boards and the Egg Marketing Board. There are problems with these boards, and the problem with these boards is somewhat on the government's side. They have to back the system that they put in place. They have to back the rules that they've implemented, and they cannot continually evade the responsibility of enforcing them. Will the minister enforce the rules that were implemented by the boards and by your ministry, or are we going to continually have what we've had in the past?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that requires several answers to a very long question. First of all, I don't think anyone can question our commitment to the marketing boards. We have essentially led the charge all the way across Canada; we convinced seven other provinces under the GATT negotiations to resist the American attempt to undermine our marketing board system or our supply management system. I think that's acknowledged by virtually every other province in Canada, and certainly by those individuals and provinces that are concerned about the fate of the supply management system.

Secondly, the member for Chilliwack states that certain American farmers are envious of the marketing board concept, and indeed they should be, because the public probably pays much more for food in the long run when they don't have supply management. The reason behind this is that supply management controls supply; therefore, we don't have the vast surpluses that occur in the Common Market or in the United States. And if those vast surpluses -- mountains and mountains of surpluses -- occur in either of those areas, the public is asked to pick up the tab. We're saying that supply management is the right route to go. We have committed our support to supply management right from the throne speech on. If we find, after this court 

[ Page 1272 ]

case, that the rules are not adequate, then we will resort to further legislation.

We're encouraging, by the way, our U.S. counterparts to get into supply management. Some of them are slowly getting the message. Our system, which has worked very well for most Canadian provinces, certainly in those that have supply management as a significant factor in their agricultural community. That message is getting out to other countries. They realize it's an advantageous system, not only for the farmer and the government, but also for the consumer.

R. Chisholm: Back to the budget. There appears to be an almost $400,000 increase in salaries for financial programs, yet there is a decrease of $735,000 for contributions. Can the minister please account for this? Compared to last year, what contributions have been reduced, and why the increase?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, what we should consider here is the direction the ministry is going. I believe the ministry has the responsibility for going in new directions; certainly farming is going in new directions. Therefore there are certain old programs that are cut: the ad hoc programs are cut; other programs that probably are not as useful as they were five or ten years ago are cut. You'll notice that the increases in the budget are, I think, increases that should have been in the budget. Certainly game-farming, which is a new phenomenon, has increased by $320,000; facility matters have increased by $438,000; training has increased; public affairs, which I think is important because we're hitting the consumer, has increased by $100,000; information technology, which has increased by $200,000, is important to the consumer, to the producer, to the ministry and to all the stakeholders; the Marketing Board has essentially received $150,000, as I alluded to before; and one of the major increases is in the food industry branch, which is the part of the ministry looking at value-added products. Value-added products is the route we have to take in the twenty-first century. We cannot simply take the raw material and expect to get a decent return. I concur that the ministry is shifting its priorities, and I think we must shift our priorities. This is an example of it.

R. Chisholm: Under the national farm business management program, the federal government has recently agreed to contribute $1.5 million over the next three years to B.C. farmers. Under what new existing programs will the provincial government provide matching contributions?

Hon. B. Barlee: After consultation, we have $100,000 immediately available, plus other existing funds in the farm management system. We think this is adequate. It is, again, a shift in our priorities, which is advantageous and will prove so in the years to come.

H. De Jong: I have a few short questions on a variety of topics, and I'd like to get through all of them. The first one deals with the water licence fees. Apparently the ranching communities are quite concerned that the water license fees have increased by a substantial amount. I'm sure that the Minister of Agriculture is aware of this concern. Perhaps he could outline his position on the increase of about 25 percent and in some cases up to 55 percent.

Hon. B. Barlee: I believe the sum of those increases was up to 25 and more. The average was 16 percent, if my memory serves me correctly, and I imagine it does. Those fees had not been increased for about eight or nine years. When you look at it that way, it's an increase of about 2 percent per year, which is less than the increase in the cost of living. Although this was a significant increase, and one that hit some in the ranching community, in the whole context it probably wasn't as draconian as it seems.

H. De Jong: I'm not so sure whether it's 2 percent over a period of years or 16 percent in one year. I think the 16 percent was the big increase in one year. That would be very difficult to overcome, particularly when we talk about leveling the playing-field between the various provinces. I'm not sure what they're paying in Alberta for water, but certainly there are other measures of subsidization there. I think a 16 percent increase in water, which is a natural resource, is a considerable shot in the arm in terms of revenue to the government, and it's a hard one for farmers to take.

The other question I have is in the changes in the exemption status. I know this is inter-ministry related between the Minister of Agriculture, in particular, and the Minister of Finance. On many occasions farmers purchase a piece of equipment which is new on the market; we've had incidents of calf hutches, egg conveyors, etc., coming along each year. The first farmers, who are quite often the guinea pigs for trying out the new equipment, are also the ones who pay the 6 percent social service tax on it. Is there any change in the exemption procedures? Are they reviewed more often? If a farmer has already paid social service tax on a piece of equipment, can that tax be collected back after a change has been made to include the equipment in the exemption list?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. First of all, we realize that any general increase in fees along the board are rather difficult on the farming community. We have ongoing discussions about any increase in fees. We want the playing-field to be much more level than it presently is. As far as farm equipment is concerned, we have included more in that list of exempted equipment. There is also ongoing consultation with the other ministries -- specifically the Minister of Finance -- stating that virtually all of that equipment should be tax-free as far as provincial tax is concerned.

[3:15]

H. De Jong: So can we be reasonably assured that the farmers don't have to wait the whole year before something gets added to that list? I would gather that from the minister's answer.

The other item I'd like to touch on relates to the marketing boards -- in particular, the Milk Marketing 

[ Page 1273 ]

Board. The Milk Marketing Board has, for some period of time -- I think it's about four or five years now -- allocated new quotas for new producers, young farmers in particular. Their intention was to start about ten new farmers each year on the building program. In order to accommodate sufficient pounds of quota -- there's always quota sales held, as well, from one farmer to another -- a 10 percent portion of that quota is set aside for new farmers in the industry. I think the farming community has gone along with it generally, although somewhat reluctantly; they see the need for expanding the industry and, of course, want to see the younger farmers get involved.

I will put a proposition to the minister. If the minister were a milk producer who had sold part or all of his quota for the purpose of getting partially or totally out of the business -- but you had substantially enjoyed your farming stint, as most farmers do, and were sympathetic to the young farmers and had contributed 10 percent of your quota toward a building program -- and an applicant had his name on the list, because there's quite a waiting-list, I understand, and someone's name came up who really had no intention of farming at all.... The application goes to the milk board. The fellow who made the application has made some arrangement that this quota be what they call "managed by someone else," which is different from what it used to be. The question is whether any doctor, lawyer, or anyone who has no connection with farming can be on this waiting-list. The way I understood it was that if a new farmer was to get into the business, he had to have facilities, and the facilities had to be approved by the dairy inspector. From what I can gather, none of this is happening at the present time. The farming community has been very supportive of the marketing board system, in particular the supply management system. But as I view the situation such as I have described, if there's any way that we allow a good, sound management supply system to be destroyed, then the actions of the milk board will allow a good supply management system to be destroyed -- if, in fact, the scenario I have described is taking place, which I understand it is. Perhaps the minister may wish to comment on that.

Hon. B. Barlee: It's a good question. I think the member for Abbotsford realizes that the B.C. Milk Marketing Board is the overseeing body. If people have questions, I believe those questions should properly go the B.C. Milk Marketing Board. If they then are not satisfied, those questions should go to the superboard. The superboard, after all, does have a supervisory ability to govern the Milk Marketing Board if they are not carrying out their duties in a proper manner. I think there are two safety valves in there. One is the immediate board. I would like, however, more information from the member concerning this. The other is, of course, the supervisory capacity of the superboard.

H. De Jong: In answer to the minister about getting information from the Milk Board, I agree. I've tried to get that information for the last three weeks, specifically from the Milk Board offices. I simply cannot get an answer on whether it is in fact happening and whether I have the scenario completely right. I'm bringing it up because it's under your ministry's jurisdiction, even though you do not want to get involved in the details, which I can understand. I just want to bring that up because I believe that you have fought hard for the supply management system, which we agree with and our party agrees with and the farmers agree with. A situation like this may be fine within the other categories. I don't know whether the chicken or the eggs or anyone else set aside a portion when they sell a quota. I believe that the new shippers are only allowed on the basis of increased sales and available quota. Quite often it's distributed to the existing farmers and not to new shippers at all, except for the broiler industry, which has a slightly different system. But there is no contribution by the farming commodity when they sell their quotas like there is in the dairy business. I think the dairy businesses are very proud of their supply management system. It has worked well for them. Surely the farmers wouldn't want to see it broken down, because, as I've expressed, similar situations may occur in some of the other commodities.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's an interesting question. I believe that when we instruct the various marketing boards -- including the B.C. Milk Board -- they have explicit instructions to consider all the stakeholders: the new producers who want to get in, the producers who want to get out, the consumer and everyone else. If there are questions about the conduct of a specific case, I would appreciate having more information, and I will certainly follow it up.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I must apologize, because I promised you before lunch that I wouldn't ask any more questions. But a subject happened to come up during lunchtime, after I had left this committee room this morning. It's a subject that is close to my heart, and that's ethanol as a fuel.

The federal government gives ethanol the same treatment as other cleaner alternative fuels like natural gas or propane. I was really pleased that the provincial government in this year's budget encouraged the use of both ethanol and methanol by excluding provincial taxes completely on 85 percent blends. Your car can't use an 85 percent blend, and my car can't operate on an 85 percent blend. I'd be pretty sure that no one here has a car that can use it. Other than the ones that are going to be specially built, the only cars in regular use at the moment are ones that drive in the Indy 500 car races. They use 85 percent blends.

You in the provincial government do encourage cleaner alternative fuels. You encourage propane and natural gas by exempting them from tax. I guess it isn't relevant as much these days, but you even tax unleaded gasoline at 2 cents a litre less than you tax leaded gasoline. Of course, I hope you can't find it now.

Why don't you encourage the use of ethanol in 5 and 10 percent blends, which your car and my car can both use? Only exempt the ethanol. You don't need to exempt the total blend. You're talking about exempting tax on the ethanol only. That will be one cent in a 10 

[ Page 1274 ]

percent blend, and half a cent in a 5 percent blend. This will make it economic to sell ethanol-blended fuels. It will encourage the construction of an ethanol distillery in British Columbia; it will encourage fuel marketers to offer ethanol blends. Ethanol blends -- depending upon the state of your engine -- mean 40 percent fewer harmful emissions. Farmers will benefit, Mr. Minister.

I told you this morning that I believe you are the champion of our farmers. If you want to be a champion for the farmers, encourage your Minister of Finance to exempt the ethanol in ethanol blends. It will create jobs in agriculture; it will create jobs in manufacturing; it will diminish the carbon balance in the atmosphere. We will all benefit, and we will benefit at negligible cost. I encourage you to press this, and I can assure you we will all make Mother Nature happier.

Hon. B. Barlee: We have had a very close look at ethanol. Two other provinces have also had a close look at it: they are Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In each instance it has, when it was conducted by the government, cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money.

We are looking at a plant in Minnedosa, Manitoba and Lanigan, Saskatchewan. These are presently leased by Mohawk. It's a very costly procedure. We haven't given up on it, but we're proceeding with, shall I say, the utmost caution. We realize that it is an attractive alternative fuel, and all our information and intelligence lead us to that conclusion as well. But the negligible cost stated by the member is actually significantly more than negligible. We realize there may be a place for it in British Columbia. Certainly I think the farmers, specifically in the Peace River block and other parts of British Columbia, would benefit. But we have to take a more wholistic view and a very broad perspective of it to see what the costs are and how much we have to subsidize this plant for. which would undoubtedly come into the equation.

Although we have not jumped on the ethanol wagon -- excuse the pun -- we have not completely given up on it. When we look at examples where it has been tried and was touted very highly as being the answer, it really has not been the answer in those two provinces. That's not to say that it won't be in the future, but we have not put it on our highest priority list because of the significant start-up and other costs.

[3:30]

R. Neufeld: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the minister is completely aware, with all the representations that have been made to him since he became minister, that the Peace River area supplies about 90 percent of British Columbia's production of grains, oil seeds and fine seeds.

I have a brief that was presented to the minister earlier with some of the cost disparities between Alberta and British Columbia. I know some of the questions have been asked before, but just for my own information, could the minister say whether his ministry is planning on a farm fuel subsidy of some kind within his budget so that farmers in British Columbia have the same advantage -- or even close to the same advantage -- as the Alberta farmers?

Hon. B. Barlee: I thank the hon. member for Peace River North for the thoughtful question. We are attempting -- and have not succeeded in every area -- to level the playing-field between the Peace River farmers on the Alberta bloc and those on the British Columbia side. We have achieved some things. We have some figures here, which I think should be read out. The rate for crop insurance generally favours the farmers in British Columbia; there's not much doubt about that. Fertilizer prices are comparable now. At one time they weren't, because they had a fertilizer subsidy in Alberta; this is no longer the case. Generally freight and elevator charges have been almost exactly equal, with a few exceptions. On balance they come out about equal. Alberta has subsidized interest rates, but they have generally not benefited Alberta producers because of the low commercial interest rate. B.C. property taxes have been reduced to just about the same as Alberta -- not much difference.

I think we are going in the right direction. Alberta has a distinct advantage in fuel rebates of about 10 cents a litre for diesel and 4 cents for gasoline. I have had ongoing discussions with other ministries that are impacted by this. We believe that inequity should be addressed; it was not addressed this year. That is part of my ongoing concern as Minister of Agriculture. I believe the playing-field should be level, and that particular part of it is not.

R. Neufeld: As for crop insurance, the brief I have says that Alberta is favoured, and you say British Columbia is. Could you please explain to me the difference between your interpretation and that of the B.C. grain-growers?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I can clarify that. For years the farmers on the Peace River side and on the Alberta side have had a subsidies. This is the last year of their subsidies, and we will be in a better position. This subsidy comes to an end, and most of their other subsidies are coming to an end as well. The fertilizer subsidy is a classic example. So we will be at a slightly advantageous position, which I think is heading in the right direction.

R. Neufeld: You also mentioned that land taxes decreased for farms; I understood in the budget that land taxes for farm use increased a certain amount. I don't know the significance of it, or whether it makes a huge difference or not, but I believe it did go up.

The other one that has to deal with insurance is vehicle insurance, which is much cheaper in Alberta for farm vehicles -- and I make that distinction -- than it is in British Columbia. Could you comment on both of those -- the one on the land taxes and the other on vehicles? Is there some way your ministry can address that?

Hon. B. Barlee: The land tax in British Columbia is just about the same. There is a difference, evidently, in the equation between the taxes on the farm home in British Columbia and the taxes on the farm home in 

[ Page 1275 ]

Alberta. I haven't got all the details of it. I will try to get equal properties. I will take that on notice.

As far as the other statement concerning vehicle insurance, there is not much doubt that the member is correct here. Our vehicle insurance has been under ICBC, which has been rather poorly run. Evidently we're looking at another increase next year, which I don't look forward to and certainly the farmers don't. So that would place our farmers in the Peace River on the B.C. side at a disadvantage to their Alberta counterparts.

R. Neufeld: In fact, in the submission I have the total difference in cost-per-acre advantage to Alberta was about $19. With what the minister has told me about reductions in the fertilizer, of course, and the crop insurance, this should be starting to come a little bit closer. The farmers in north and south Peace will certainly appreciate that. In the budget for 1992-93 I notice that some $18 million less is being spent. Could you please explain to me what that $18 million is comprised of?

Hon. B. Barlee: In answer to the member for Peace River North, that $18 million is about 16 percent all told. Under ARDSA, which is discontinued, there is $6.65 million and $860,000 in administration fees. That's almost $7.5 million directly under ARDSA. Our income insurance under NISA was not required; that's about $725,000. The beef study is now complete, so that $250,000 is not there. For fish relocation we have placed other funds under the fisheries branch; that particular grant is no longer needed. Grains and oils seeds administration of $83,000 is no longer needed, nor is bilateral negotiations of $300,000. The grape and wine residual program of $250,000 has been concluded so that is no longer required. The Avalon of $50,000 is no longer required. The target adjustment of almost $2 million -- $1,975,000 -- is taken from the FII premium. We have most of the funds lost by the ministry covered under two major areas -- most of it under ARDSA, and target adjustment under FII premiums.

R. Neufeld: I'll go on to one other item that I'm not familiar with: the BC Foxbreeders Association and their subsidies from the federal government. Some of their people asked me questions about it, and it seems that they're treated differently from some of the other farmers. Does it come directly from the federal government or does it go through the provincial Ministry of Agriculture first?

Hon. B. Barlee: That comes directly from the federal government and has done for a number of years, as far as I know. It's one of the 175 areas under our jurisdiction, but that part of the program is not under our jurisdiction. As you know, we share programs with the federal government sometimes. Sometimes the programs are exclusively ours and sometimes exclusively theirs. This is one program that is exclusively theirs.

R. Neufeld: The difficulty that some of the foxbreeders have with that is that they don't really have a strong representative voice to the federal government through the Fox Breeders Association. They would maybe feel a little better if the Ministry of Agriculture took it over. Is there any possibility that on behalf of the foxbreeders they could do that?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a valid suggestion. We have taken unto ourselves to inform the federal minister, the hon. Bill McKnight. A number of letters have been exchanged stating that the fox producers are not happy with the current situation, and we're carrying on that dialogue. My relationship with the federal minister is quite good, and sooner or later he tends to shift a little bit. They are under some pressure economically, as you well know. I would anticipate that we will make some headway in that area.

R. Neufeld: I was also interested in your quotes on ethanol of a subsidy of 43 cents a litre. I had discussions with the Minister of Economic Development in regards to the study being done by your ministry and his ministry on ethanol plants. I know there are some being build in Alberta at this time. I didn't realize that the amount per litre was that high. The Minister of Economic Development certainly didn't tell me that, other than saying it would take a fair amount of money for infrastructure to be put into place. He didn't say it would be that much a litre. The farmers in the north and south Peace would really look forward to seeing an ethanol plant up there so that they could sell their grain locally and make it more viable.

Hon. B. Barlee: Again, it's a valid question. The price is 43 cents a litre from our Saskatchewan and Manitoba counterparts. That is blended. If you blend 10 percent it comes down to 4.3 cents a litre but the actually cost of producing that is very high at around 43 cents a litre. I remember that from a letter I read rather closely, because I know that the farmers in the Peace River block are interested in that. It may be that new technology will allow us to decrease that price. If we can get the price down to 20-odd cents per litre and then blend it to 10 percent, that comes down to 2 cents per litre. Then it comes into the equation where it is economically feasible. At the present time -- and I believe that the study born out by the other ministry will verify this -- it probably does not pay. That isn't to say that it won't pay now or in a year or a year and a half, depending, again, on technology.

R. Neufeld: Going back to the grain farmers in the North Peace and their production of fine seeds, before the change in administration there was some headway made in using red fescue grown in the north specifically for undercover for forests and on the rights-of-way of highways and of B.C. Rail. Is that still in the process? How long can we expect it to be before we will start using our own products in the agricultural industry in British Columbia?

[ Page 1276 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: That was flagged, of course, by some of the farmers from the North Peace area who were looking for alternatives: Ross Ravelli, Frank Breault and Jim Collins, and so on. We have followed this up with both ministries concerned with it. But the numbers we were originally given do not really jibe. It makes a difference of probably only several hundred thousand dollars with those two ministries, not several million dollars, as we originally anticipated. So there is some relief there, and we are following it up, but it isn't the relief we anticipated.

R. Neufeld: You spoke about farm-gate prices and retail prices and said that you were doing something about them. Can you expand on that a little so I can understand it? You said earlier this morning that you were going to try and get it a little closer. Can you tell me exactly what you have in mind there?

Hon. B. Barlee: What we're trying to do, and I hope successfully.... We're getting all the players at the table for the first time, running from the producer to the worker to the processor to the wholesaler to the retailer. In order to achieve some sort of economic balance for the farmer, we have to get them at the same table so they can understand.

We've been successful in certain areas. We went out with the Food Marketing Council the other day, and they're starting to understand the other parts of the equation. People don't understand it until they're opposite the other individual discussing it face to face. This is the first step in an ongoing process. I anticipate that this will be further refined into what will hopefully be a coherent and long-term "Buy B.C." process in which all players will benefit. That means that hopefully the producer will get more, and I believe he will.

There are ways to do that. Only part of it is through advertising, because it's what we call a push-pull strategy. We are taking the best of programs from other jurisdictions, and other jurisdictions, by and large, have not been successful. Certainly Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta have not been successful. Washington has been somewhat successful; Oregon has certainly been successful. We will use the millions of dollars they have spent to our best advantage. We believe that in the long-run both the producer and the retailer will benefit. The retailer will benefit because we hope to keep many of those dollars that are now flowing south of the line in British Columbia -- coming back home again. I think our long-term strategy is fairly well thought out. It isn't complete yet. I anticipate that we will probably be in the first stage of this process sometime in June.

[3:45]

R. Neufeld: It's going to be sometime in June before the "Buy B.C." program is fully in place?

Hon. B. Barlee: My statement on that was that the first stage of this would probably be in place by June.

Let me read the member a quote from the "Bill Good Show" of April 13, 1992. This was on an open-line show with the Premier, the first minister. During this hour-long show he stated: "We have asked our Minister of Agriculture, Bill Barlee, to introduce a very aggressive 'Buy B.C.' program and show the advantages of shopping in British Columbia." There are some measures that we're taking in the short term.

R. Neufeld: I have one last question. When the minister became the minister, he initiated a $30 million program for the tree-fruit industry, thus inflating the budget by about $15 million. So the budget obviously was coming in under budget. I would like you to advise us if at the end of the day, at the end of your 1992-93 budget, you find that you're coming in under budget by quite a bit, would you be willing to spring for a $30 million subsidy to the grain industry or the farmers in British Columbia and run a deficit of some $15 million on your estimates.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm very delighted to discuss that. The former government gave $275 million over ten or 12 years. Those were all ad hoc payments. When we make a payment to a specific area such as tree-fruits, we think there must be a payment made not just to ad hoc. Part of that payment -- which, by the way, was only half what we originally promised -- is for looking down the line at new marketing techniques, researching our market, seeing where we have advantages over our competitors and replanting -- the whole thing.

I believe that the $30 million was very well spent. It was an investment in that community -- first of all, the tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan. This is a perfectly legitimate argument. In the Okanagan there are five seats that impact upon the tree-fruits industry: two are held by the Social Credit Party, two are held by the NDP and one is held by the Liberal Party. So this was not a partisan political gambit on our part. It was a new look at an industry that deserves a long-term look at strategy. It wasn't done by the previous government; there was no strategy; it was always ad hoc payments. We are getting away from that.

The former government promised money towards the sterile insect release program. The promise was great, but there was no money. We provided that $3.5 million along with our federal counterparts. That will place us on the leading edge of ways to reduce spraying in the orchards. It will give us a terrific advantage over our competitors. We're replanting certain varieties -- whether it's golden Gala or Empire or a number of different varieties. We think that is the only way to go. The market has to take care of itself. This is the way to get the market poised for the future.

R. Neufeld: I'm interested that you talk about partisan politics, because basically I was not talking about partisan politics and who occupied which seats in the Okanagan. I'm not saying that the tree-fruit industry -- as you've heard me say before -- was not in need of some subsidy of some kind. I believe that the previous government gave subsidies to the orchardists -- maybe not on the magnitude of $30 million as you did, but that was at a very convenient time. I would like you to reply.... After telling me all that transpired before, would you be willing to run a $30 million deficit 

[ Page 1277 ]

in your ministry at the end of 1992-93, like you did with the previous administration's budget, to help all the farming industry in British Columbia?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we have to be fiscally responsible. This was a high profile promise in that area that had been made in 1990, when we assumed that the government was operating in a fiscally responsible manner. We found that we inherited a significant problem, and I won't dwell on that. That's been dwelled on enough already. But certainly we cannot afford any more ad hoc payments, whether it is to the tree-fruit growers or to any of the other growers that are in difficulty in the province. They really fall into three or four groups: the vegetable growers, the grains growers, the oil-seeds producers, and, previous to that, the tree-fruits growers. We think we have to look down the road at more innovative measures and creative solutions, and part of that lies in the marketplace.

R. Neufeld: Can you tell me why you think you have to be fiscally responsible now, but when the administration changed you weren't fiscally responsible with this particular ministry -- or a number of other ones, but we're talking about your ministry? Because the budget did increase drastically. Can you tell me why the change of heart?

Hon. B. Barlee: There's no change of heart at all. It was a high profile promise -- part of our platform of 48 points, which I think we all read. I intended to keep that part of it. That was part of our long term, and I have no problem with that. I think it has placed what I think was a threat in the industry -- threatening 8,500 jobs -- in rather a good position.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously it's the profile of the promise that drives the spending of the government, not the particular needs of the industry. Like my colleague in North Peace, I don't have any argument with putting the tree-fruit industry or any other sector of the agriculture industry on solid footing. What we and the grain farmers in Peace River are having difficulty with is the isolation of one industry; of looking at a whole range of sectors in the agriculture industry -- many of which are in difficult times -- and selecting and isolating one of them for specific and unusual assistance. We're not arguing whether or not the tree-fruit industry needed help, and we don't begrudge them the least bit.

What we do have a great deal of concern with is that, in our opinion, the grain industry is in at least as difficult a position as any sector in the agriculture industry. If the minister hasn't heard the statistics before, I'll repeat them. In 1981, grain sales at the farm gate in British Columbia were $60 million. This year they're predicted to be $20 million 1992 dollars. With inflation, that would be less than $15 million in 1981 dollars. I defy you to identify any other significant sector in agriculture that has faced those kinds of difficulties.

Before you jump to respond -- and I hope you will -- I think it's important to understand that this isn't a one-year anomaly. In fact, farm-gate receipts have been falling since 1981, and we're faced with an industry that expects things will improve every year, and they don't. All we're looking for.... I know nobody likes ad hoc assistance, but clearly the GRIP and the NISA programs aren't sufficient to meet the needs of the industry this year. What I believe the National Farmers' Union and the B.C. Grain Producers' Association have been asking of the minister is some special assistance in this fiscal year, recognizing that the existing programs aren't doing the job and that a significant number of farmers who have held on for at least five years through very difficult times are on the verge of bankruptcy. Those farmers are desperately looking to this government for some help. The minister, after his travels up to Fort St. John, came back and reported that some $16 million in government money was being directed towards the grain and oilseed sector in agriculture. He neglected to mention that about $15.5 million of that was federal money and that very little of it was coming from the province. Further, he neglected to note that it simply wasn't enough money. The question that I keep asking, that my colleague is asking and that farmers in the Peace River country are asking is: will the minister look again at the crisis -- and I don't think the word is an exaggeration -- in the grain industry and consider making some special payment this year?

I would conclude by noting that special payments in previous years were not included in the budget, but the need for them became obvious as the fiscal year unfolded. Some special warrants or other special processes were found, or some extra money was found in the ministry. We're asking the minister to take another look at the crisis in the Peace River grain industry and consider some help for an industry that is in crisis.

Hon. B. Barlee: We've gone over this very carefully. We know that there has been a freefall in prices -- not just in the grain industry, but in the vegetable industry, the apple industry, the berry industry, and on and on. There are groups under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture that are having difficult times. So we took a hard look at it, and the figure that we come up with.... It's verified. I received, for instance, a long letter from Frank Breault, who's an old friend of mine, and I visited a number of farms in the Peace. I understand their plight.

When you compare -- and we have compared them -- the apple producers of the Okanagan with the grain producers of the Peace.... The apple producers received, I believe, on average $6,900 each. The grain producers of the Peace have received very close to $16,000. My estimate of $16,000 is based on total payments to be made under the GRIP, NISA and FSAM programs. The estimate I received by letter is based on interim payments only; Mr. Brio's estimate is based on the number of Canadian Wheat Board permit books. Unfortunately, one family can have more than one permit book, as we both know. So that is really not as accurate an assessment as I would like to have.

Total payments of $13 million to $14 million under the three programs means an average of just about $16,000 per grower. I'm not saying it's enough, but in 

[ Page 1278 ]

comparison to what other growers received, it's pretty close. Of that, the member stated that the provincial government contributed about half a million dollars. You're out -- it's closer to $3 million than to half a million; it's between $2.5 million and $3 million. I do, however, acknowledge that there is a problem with the federal government's processing of the payments to the farmers, and that's significant.

If you want the specifics on the $13 million or $14 million, I can give you the specifics; I think I should. The NISA account is $2.5 million -- half a million dollars of that is from the provincial government. The farm support and adjustment measures program is all federal government -- that's $5 million. The gross revenue insurance plan is federal and provincial. The provincial cost there is almost $2.25 million. So we have $2.7 million. Our share is not as large as the federal government's, partly because the federal government has made this cash infusion to governments all the way across the prairies -- specifically Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta; plus, they assumed that the Peace River block was also hurting. So that is not exclusively unique to British Columbia, where the federal government comes in with a large cash payment to the grain and oilseed producers.

[4:00]

So two of those are indeed shared programs. They are basically federal, and one is a completely federal program. When you analyze our figures, there has been some admission from one of the letter-writers in the North Peace that some of the farmers have already received $15,915. That's within $85 of $16,000 -- that's pretty close.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that with the grain and oilseed program.... I believe that in 1989-90 British Columbia was the only province to match the federal payments dollar for dollar, in recognition of the substantially higher costs of doing business in British Columbia. Whether we like it or not, it costs more for fuel in British Columbia. There is a whole range of costs for grain-farming in British Columbia which are higher than in Alberta -- roughly $20 per acre, according to a study we did through the Ministry of Regional Development in the northeast region.

I would never suggest that the programs available in northeast British Columbia weren't available across the prairies. The argument I would make is that, given the additional cost of doing business in British Columbia, it is essential that there be something more than simply the payments that are made to other prairie farmers. There are additional costs -- $20 an acre -- to doing business in British Columbia.

We have a couple of options. We can reduce the cost of doing business here. The minister is keen on getting rid of taxes on fuel. That would be a good place to start. There is a 10-cent-a-litre difference between the provinces. There's about 2 or 3 cents in provincial tax. The rest of it is federal tax. In fact, Alberta underwrites the cost of fuel for farmers across the board. If the government philosophically is opposed to ad hoc kinds of programs, and if the minister is as enthusiastic about reducing fuel prices as he has professed to be, then here is a place to start. Here is place where he can grab the bull by the horns and deal with this issue directly. It would be welcome, and I would congratulate you. It can be done; it should be done. It's something that I lobbied the previous government to do. Let's focus some attention on that.

Before I sit down, let's also recognize that when we talk about per-farm assistance -- and I'm reluctant to keep going back to what's happening in the Okanagan -- the minister protests too much about these payments. I suspect the fact of the matter is that an orchardist -- the average orchard operator -- in the course of his business has significantly lower input costs than the average grain farmer in the Peace River country. Most of the grain farmers in the Peace River country have very large acreage and very large fuel costs. If we are going to compare the assistance given to various farm groups -- that's not where I'm focused, but if you're going to do that -- then let's compare the income of the various groups, let's compare the expenses of the various groups, and let's look at the shortfall in the various sectors. Then I would be much happier to consider whether or not $16,000 to an orchardist is the same as $16,000 to a grain farmer. It may be.

You're much closer to the orchard business than I am. It goes without saying: your constituency's right in the middle of it. Obviously you would know a lot more about orchards than I would. My constituency is right in the middle of the grain-farming industry, and naturally I know more about it than I do about the other. Let's not get too caught up in how much we gave to each farmer. Let's consider how much each farmer needed to stay in business, and how much each industry needed to put itself in a viable position. I think those would be much more useful measurements.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the member for Peace River South mentioned $16,000 for the orchardist. They received about $6,900, which is under half of the average received by the Peace River farmer in the north. I'm not saying the Peace River farmer didn't deserve more; I am saying we are trying to be fiscally responsible. We had to balance.... For instance -- if the member went over our original statement -- the orchardists were to receive $48 million plus $4 million for the sterile insect release program. We have given them $30 million. Out of that, only $25.5 million came out of extra funds. That is under half of what they were originally promised. The Peace River farmer gets at least the $16,000 that he was promised by both the federal and provincial government, and we're aware....

R. Neufeld: There are lots of promises he didn't keep.

Hon. B. Barlee: Oh yes, there probably are. Part of the reason for that, of course, is that we were faced with a significant reduction in what we considered to be the deficit we were anticipating. That was done by a body of individuals who were not in the political realm, so it can't be laid back on us. Both members might conclude that the budget deficit was much larger than 

[ Page 1279 ]

any of us anticipated. We had to wrestle with that, and we did.

Another thing was mentioned which I think deserves some thought; the member for Peace River South mentioned $20 an acre. That is an in-house study. According to the latest federal government study on that, it's between $7 and $8 per acre. There is a difference of a little over two and a half times as much. We have that study if both members would like to take a look at it for their edification some time.

Again, we know that there is need in various sectors of the farming community. I'm quite aware of that. Certainly the recent beef study -- which was commissioned by the provincial government; and I think it was a good study -- indicates that there may be other areas where we can be very innovative in the Peace River district. Both of you are welcome to have a copy of that. We haven't got too many copies to go around. We're watching our pennies; we'll give one copy to the two of you.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I'm going to forgo the temptation to get into the budget debate all over again -- and how large the deficit was, should have been or could have been.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. If what you are saying is, rather than providing ad hoc assistance to grain farmers, you're going to look for ways farmers can diversify, that's interesting and encouraging. But understand -- you should if you don't -- that most grain farmers, as a result of this tremendous drop in revenue over the last ten years, have little or no equity left in their farms. If they were to decide tomorrow to diversify or change their focus from grain to beef.... First of all, if all of them did it, we would be then working with the beef industry to figure out what we were going to do with the glut of beef that was on the market. That's something you have to think about pretty carefully before you get into it. One or two or a dozen farmers can move from grain to beef; but I'll tell you, if you turn the Peace River country into one big cattle ranch, you're going to have more cattle around than there is a capacity to process. Secondly, you're going to find that grain farmers can't go to the bank and say: "I need $100,000 to buy fence and breeding stock." The bank won't wait at least a year -- perhaps longer than that -- for any kind of cash flow. It sounds nice, and people have been coming to the Peace for years telling us how we could and should diversify. Unfortunately, there has never been any money to do that with.

What we're clearly looking for is some kind of an undertaking from the minister to take a second look at this whole issue. We're doing our level best to explain to the minister how serious we think this issue is. We're not doing it in a partisan way; this is not partisan politics. It's a crisis in our region, in our constituency, and one that we're concerned with. The fact that the government seems not to have recognized....

Hon. B. Barlee: The hon. member for Peace River South puts forth a good argument, and it's a legitimate argument. We concur that there is immediate need. We know that, like many other farming groups, their equity has been significantly impacted. We've done some studies on that: some of them are in fairly good shape; some of them are in very poor shape, like farmers in every group that have been threatened. There's no doubt about that.

We are, I confess, looking at diversification. Some farmers in the Peace River block have successfully diversified into bison; some are looking for other avenues and options. I have taken a second and third look at it, but unfortunately, we have three different groups who are in exactly the same position as the Peace River farmers. All of those groups have received some help. The raspberry growers, for example, have received significant help; the vegetable growers have also received some help; and the hard-pressed Peace River farmers have received some help. I know it isn't adequate, and I regret that.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could give us a sense of what he feels. We know what the industry has been asking for. With the analysis that his ministry has undoubtedly done, what is the minimum assistance that we will see so the vast majority of farmers at least survive one more season? Has he calculated...? He says that the cost of doing business in British Columbia is $7 or $8 higher. I would be interested in the study because, like everything else, it depends who you've compared. Is he thinking that the $7-or-$8-an-acre payment is something that he can consider this year?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the budget process is laid down.

I should comment on the equity of British Columbia farmers compared to other farmers: we have the lowest rate of bankruptcy out of all the ten provinces. Last year, in 1991, there were only 19 -- I believe my figures are correct -- bankruptcies of farmers in British Columbia. That is all. It is really quite remarkable. When you compare that to any other industry, our bankruptcy rate is infinitesimal. The farmers tend to fall back on their own good offices, on their own knowledge. I'm not saying that's adequate, but I'm saying that these options are not, during this year, open to me.

[4:15]

I am looking for areas out: I'm looking at the fescue problem; I'm looking at the beef study. I'm going up there again this month, and I'll take a few hits. The Peace River people are pretty decent to me. They know I am concerned about it, even those who are not of my political persuasion.

An Hon. Member: They are all good people.

Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, they do tend to be. I'm rather fond of the area.

I am saying that I'm not accomplishing miracles this year, but I think when we sit down again next year -- and undoubtedly we will -- you will see a significant shift. I'm not promising anything this year, because I can't make a promise I can't keep. I'm saying that we are moving in the right direction, and that I believe we 

[ Page 1280 ]

will achieve those alternatives that we require in the Peace River country, as well as the other areas we're concerned about.

J. Weisgerber: I suspect that you would find bankruptcies, in western Canada at least, to be primarily in the grain industry. What you have are a relatively few farmers in British Columbia all concentrated -- or almost all concentrated -- in the northeast, whereas provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have far greater numbers of grain farmers. So to simply say that we have the lowest bankruptcy rate, and therefore there's not a serious problem, doesn't fairly reflect the issue. It is a relatively small industry, insofar as it's concentrated in one area; and as a percentage of the agriculture industry in British Columbia, it is much smaller than it would be in any of the prairie provinces.

Let me just finish with this. In 1988 and '89, the feed grain assistance programs were introduced and extended -- either '87-88 or '88-89. Both of those programs were introduced and approved after the budget had been tabled. They were not included in the budgets of the Minister of Agriculture in those years, nor was the special assistance given on the cost-share programs between the federal and provincial governments -- the grain and oilseeds programs. So to simply say that the reason grain farmers in the Peace River country are out of luck is that they're out of sync with the budget cycle is, with all respect, not a good enough answer. If the government decides that it wants to provide, and should provide, and needs to provide assistance for grain farmers, there are always opportunities to go back to cabinet, to go to contingencies, to go to any number of sources outside the ministry, and also to look within the ministry.

I'll wind this up by saying that, regardless of how long this debate might take, the real debate is with the grain farmers in the Peace. Quite honestly, I don't think you're going to find them satisfied in any way or simply accepting the advice that there's nothing more you can do -- the budget cycle has run its course, and they'll have to wait till next year, and you hope that maybe there's going to be something in next year's budget.

Hon. B. Barlee: The member for Peace River South makes a good case for the Peace River farmers. There are, however, tens of thousands of acres in other parts of British Columbia -- T�te Jaune Cache, Bridesville, Armstrong -- that are also grain-producing areas, and they are in a similar position. I'm aware of it. Some of them are in my own riding, so I'm not totally unaware of this at all.

In answer to another question, I think that we should realize that in 1990 the provincial contribution to the ad hoc special-grains program was about $2.5 million, so that's another $2.5 million there. This is about the same as this year. In fact, this year it's slightly more -- it's about $2.7 million. So we have not abandoned the Peace River farmers; we're quite aware of them. They are part of the whole picture, and the picture, generally, is encouraging. There are areas where it's discouraging: this is one of the areas where it is discouraging. It bothers me; it bothers you. I hope that we will be able to rectify this this year -- a very difficult task for me.

L. Stephens: I would like to ask a couple of questions. The first one is in regard to the ongoing GATT agricultural negotiations. This agreement will probably describe acceptable policies on stabilization, define some trading rules and provide for, or eliminate, marketing boards. I've heard the minister say that he is in support of our present marketing board systems, but could the minister comment on the proposals for the substitution of tariffs in place of supply management? Would declining tariffs work, and why? Or would they not work, and why not?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, "tariffication without exception" were the words used by Arthur Dunkel, who is the director general of the GATT negotiations. Arthur Dunkel has, I believe, a long-term strategy in the best interests of the United States, and tariffication without exception is a long slippery slope. Tariffication is there; the tariffs will be increasingly lowered year by year, and eventually we will have to face the American economic might. I believe that is part of their long-term strategy.

I stated before that their long-term goals are essentially to destroy our supply management system. That is the strongest link in the chain. When you destroy the strongest link in the chain, the rest of the chain comes apart pretty easily. I believe that they would then probably tackle the beef industry -- the cattle industry -- and go on to various other sectors. Then I believe -- and I mentioned this once before -- we would be at the mercy of the multinationals: Shell Oil, Cargill, Imperial, Esso, and so on. The multinationals are not getting into the food business because they like it, they're getting into it for a profit. They have controlled the gasoline market admirably well, and I believe they would like to control the food market.

We have not taken a backward step on supply management. We have led the charge right across the country. I think we've effectively done this. We've certainly focused the federal government's attention on supply management. I was the only member to speak to the Conservative agricultural caucus, who listened very, very carefully. I also spoke to the Liberal agricultural caucus and to the NDP agricultural caucus. I think all the caucuses got the message and carried that to the federal government, to the benefit of the supply management system.

So the GATT negotiations right now are at a standstill. I do not think that will last long, partly because the Americans have put Baker on the agenda, and he tends to fast-track their negotiations. We have to defend the supply management system at all costs, and I have done my level best to do that in the six months I've been here.

L. Stephens: Could the minister tell us if they've been in consultation with other provinces, notably the western ones to have a united front on this issue with the federal government?

[ Page 1281 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, there is not a united front: eight of the ten provinces believe that we should protect the supply management system. Alberta and Manitoba do not, although Manitoba is starting to shift a little bit. We have about 80 percent of the provinces, which is probably about 85 percent of the entire population of Canada. They are all onside. I've had meetings in Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec City concerning supply management and other issues that impact upon us economically. Generally, we're onside regardless of our politics.

L. Stephens: I have one further question, and this has to do with the Buy B.C. program that you mentioned earlier. You also went on to say that the program would be beginning in June -- next month.

Hon. B. Barlee: The first stage, I believe.

L. Stephens: Would you elaborate a bit on what that first stage would involve and whether or not this has anything to do with the election promise of promotion money for the agricultural industry?

Hon. B. Barlee: I elaborated on this the other day when the member was not here, so I won't spend much time on it. Essentially, a Buy B.C. policy is a series of policies; it's a push-pull strategy. Most of the provinces in Canada try the pull strategy -- pull your consumers back from the United States. It doesn't work at all. Also, an entire strategy based simply on PR, TV and radio does not work. That's why we're getting all the players at the table. It has to be a strategy from within the community or from all the stakeholders involved. We are doing that. I have seen literally all of the stakeholders, and in consultation with them, we have devised the shell of a fairly good strategy. This strategy will take place in certain stages. There will probably be four or five stages, and I hope the first one will begin in June.

R. Chisholm: I am very glad to hear your views on decreased tariffication. That's rather enlightening.

I want to talk about this level playing-field a bit more, not only with Alberta and the rest of the provinces, but with the United States. I'm going to read a couple of statements from an analysis of the U.S. farm support program by the Canadian Department of Agriculture policy branch. It states that the federal and state governments spent $6 billion (U.S.) on dairy subsidies in 1989 to keep the price of milk down. It also states that California farmers received $454 million and Florida $253 million from their state governments, much of it to defray the costs of growing winter crops for export to Canada. In addition, California farmers received $2 billion in crop insurance, disaster payments of $1 billion, $1.2 billion in industrial development bonds and up to $1 billion in low-cost irrigation water. This is not including the hidden subsidy programs that the 28 counties that were studied came up with. In total it came to $9.1 billion from Washington, and $3.1 billion from the states.

We're talking about level playing-fields, and we're talking about why our farmers are taxed rural school tax, which we just increased. I wonder what the minister's views are on that.

A bit more on the fuel tax. Does he realize what wage controls will do to the farmers? The proposed increase in the minimum wage, along with the last increase, is a real problem, especially for farmers in the labour-intensive commodities, such as vegetable-and fruit-growers. Each increase means a cutback in acreage and fewer workers employed. I realize that people do not work for nothing, but what does the minister think he can do about levelling this playing-field with our neighbours south of us?

The Chair: Hon. members, I'll bring your attention again to standing order 61: the debate and the questioning should be restricted to the administrative action of a department. Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate. The necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I would just caution the hon. members again to deal with the estimates under discussion and help the Chair and the committee stay in order in the proceedings.

R. Chisholm: I'll rephrase the question slightly, hon. Chair. We won't talk about the proposed increase in the minimum wage; we'll talk about the last increase, which presented real problems in wages between here and south of us. It presents a problem to the farmer.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the U.S. subsidies will be subject to restraints if the GATT is passed. That's the first step. So it would have to be a level playing-field there. Secondly, there are farmers that have difficulty with the minimum wage, but most of the farmers in the Okanagan that I know -- and I know them quite well -- pay about $7 an hour. Most of the other farmers in various commodity groups also pay around $7 an hour, which is significantly above the minimum wage.

R. Chisholm: I realize this one's a federal issue, but maybe you can suggest to your federal counterparts that this might help our farmers. They are causing hardship for our farmers with the GST on farm wages. Farmers have to pay it and wait three months to receive it back. This adds up to thousands of dollars per month, which is quite an investment for a small farmer. My question is -- and you could ask your federal counterpart: why is this even charged on a zero-rated commodity? All it does is inconvenience farmers and government agencies, and cost money to administrate.

[4:30]

Hon. B. Barlee: We've already flagged that issue with our federal counterpart, and he understands our position precisely.

R. Chisholm: The next area I want to go into is pesticides. Has the ministry commissioned any studies regarding the effects of farm-use pesticides on the water supply of the lower mainland and/or the effects of the long-term use of pesticides on the Fraser River?

[ Page 1282 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: We operate under very specific rules, of course. The lead ministries there are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment. We are also a player at the same table.

R. Chisholm: How much of the budget has been allocated for education in the use of pesticides and chemical enhancers?

Hon. B. Barlee: This lies with the various commodity groups. For instance, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority has tens of thousands of dollars to educate the individuals under their jurisdiction as to the correct handling of pesticides and so on.

R. Chisholm: Can the minister give me an overall total of what is spent on education in the use of pesticides in all groups?

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, we have some help from the Ministry of Environment, which also runs courses for pesticide management and is spending, again, tens of thousands of dollars. I don't have their exact figures, but it is a program that they have been following quite closely and enhancing.

R. Chisholm: The U.S. is now starting to stop shipments sent south, using the excuse of chemicals that are illegal in the U.S., but their product is coming into Canada and into B.C. specifically. What does the minister propose to do about this tactic?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are aware of the U.S. harassment tactics. It's nothing new. We have discussed this with our federal counterparts. I think they're aware of it, and they're becoming more stringent in their rules for U.S. produce coming north as well.

R. Chisholm: Still on chemicals: Ronilan, for instance, which is used in the United States but is not allowed in Canada, prevents beans from mildewing. Beans are imported for processing by Fraser Vale Processors, because we cannot protect our farmers' beans. If we cannot afford the time and money to test all these chemicals, why do we not use the American data as a base and test further if needed, utilize some of the beneficial chemicals, and stop hindering the competitiveness of our farmers?

Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, we have proposed that to the federal minister, the Hon. William McKnight -- to allow us to use American pesticides that are proven not to be harmful to the consumer.

R. Chisholm: What was his response to that petition?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we can give the member some assurance that the federal government is finally moving on this issue.

R. Chisholm: The minister stated in opening remarks that we have a high reputation for produce going out of this province, but there's a very poor reputation for produce coming into this province from Mexico, the U.S. and Chile, for instance. Products are being delivered into B.C., particularly from California, which are suspected of being sprayed with pesticides which are banned in this province. When grocery clerks clean the produce that is shipped to them, their sinks fill with the foam created by the chemical as it is being washed off. Is the minister aware of such products, which are sprayed with banned pesticides, entering this province? How are they inspected?

Hon. B. Barlee: Unfortunately, this is a federal problem, not ours, although we are aware of it. We have indicated to the federals that we're not happy with it.

R. Chisholm: If it's the federals' responsibility, do you not have any responsibility for the inspection of food in this province?

Hon. B. Barlee: We do not have that under our jurisdiction, unfortunately.

R. Chisholm: I'll leave that one for a while, hon. minister. I would like to talk about hogs and the Hog Marketing Commission. B.C. hog and pork industries have a large growth potential. The hog industry produces less than 30 percent of the pork consumed in the province of British Columbia. British Columbia is in the best geographic position to compete for markets in Washington, Oregon and California, all of which produce very little pork. B.C. hog market volumes declined by 70,000 head over the past two years and are expected to decline 15,000 to 20,000 head in 1992. This represents an almost 25 percent decline over the three-year period. How will the minister assist this industry in recouping these losses?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member knows that hogs are one part of the industry that is very cyclical. A hog producer stays in the business, and he will burn his mortgage sooner or later. People in hogs are quite aware that there are highs and lows in the marketplace. It has traditionally been in hogs, and almost exclusively hogs. That is why there's a decline in the number of hogs in the last couple of years. We're going through a period of decline in hog prices. We have, however, a study being done with the hog producers now. We have commissioned a $50,000 study, and, of course, they have some support under NTS and FII. Generally speaking, hog producers, although they are going through a low period, are in relatively good shape.

R. Chisholm: I'd like to talk about the FFA in reference to hogs. The feed freight assistance program was designed to subsidize the cost of feed grain transportation into B.C. The current subsidy rates, per tonne, are $11.50 for the Fraser Valley, $24.60 for Vancouver Island and $4.50 for the southern interior region. In 1989-90 about $1.2 million in FFA benefits were paid to British Columbia's hog industry. The FFA program is important in maintaining British Columbia's competitive position relative to Alberta hog producers.

[ Page 1283 ]

The NTS cost-of-production model estimates the Alberta cost per hog is about $7.40 lower, including about $3 per hog in Crow offset benefits. This more than offsets the $6 higher market return received by British Columbia. Removal of the FFA benefits would increase the Alberta advantage by about $3 per hog. Does the minister support FFA benefits?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly we support the benefits, and they're still in place. There's certainly no difficulty in losing that at the present time as long as the equation doesn't change. We have ongoing discussions with our federal counterparts concerning all programs that impact on hogs or any other commodity.

R. Chisholm: The B.C. farm income insurance program was designed to address periods of very low national tripartite stabilization program payments and guaranteed margins. The program made only two quarterly payments of about $3.50 per hog since January 1989, and has generated surplus funds of about $2.5 million. The B.C. HMB has proposed an increase in the FII support margin to $48 for the first and second quarter of 1992 in order to offset a significant reduction in NTS support for those periods. Is the minister in agreement with this decision?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've already increased that payment for the next two quarters, after consultation with the hog industry, to $48.

R. Chisholm: The question was: are you in agreement with this decision?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes.

R. Chisholm: In its election platform on agriculture, the NDP promised to invest in research and development, including funding for the Agriculture Canada research station in Beaverlodge, Alberta, which is vitally important for Peace River farmers. Will the minister assist in funding the Beaverlodge research station for special programs for the British Columbia fine-seeds industry, as requested by several Peace River farm organizations?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are not giving any funds to Beaverlodge specifically. We do provide, however, in partnership with UBC and the industry, $150,000 to that university alone. We also provide $135,000 for demonstration of agriculture technology and economics, which is fairly important. The faculty of agricultural sciences at UBC, Ministry of Advanced Education, gets another $6.0 million. The Science Council of B.C., again under the Ministry of Advanced Education, gets anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000. The Agriculture Canada research stations, which would include Summerland and the Island, gets somewhere between $12 million and $14 million. So we work in consultation with our federal counterparts and with other ministries as well. I think the funding is fairly good.

R. Chisholm: I'm on a little different tack, hon. minister. I'm going to talk about Surrey for a minute. Surrey farms increasingly serve as storm drains for new upland urban development, resulting in crop losses. But there is no financing plan in place for developing the necessary regional drainage. When government exerts such a high degree of control and influence over a sector of the economy, it also creates an obligation to keep the sector viable. How does the minister propose in the budget to insure against crop loss from improper drainage?

Hon. B. Barlee: Our ADM met with some of the Surrey farmers the other day and discussed this problem. Because of the significant impact of urban development in Surrey, Delta and other areas of greater Vancouver and the lower mainland, this falls back on the farmers. The costs are millions and millions of dollars, which we think properly belong under the venue of the local government of the area. However, we are expected to pick up the tab; that's why we're having ongoing consultation with the farmers in those areas.

R. Chisholm: While you have those discussions, which we seem to hear an awful lot about from this minister, the farmers in Cloverdale and Surrey are going bankrupt. When are the discussions going to be over, and when will someone pick up the tab and put in the pumps and drainage systems required?

[4:45]

Hon. B. Barlee: Our record of bankruptcy is probably the best of all provinces as far as the farming community is concerned. Possibly one farmer went bankrupt in the Surrey area; I would doubt very much that it was more than one. We had a total of 19 bankruptcies in the entire province last year.

R. Chisholm: I'm glad you're isolated from it, hon. minister. Maybe you should go down and talk to those farmers again about how close they are to the bankruptcy line.

Protecting agricultural land from urban drainage runoff is important. Inadequate drainage is a serious problem in Cloverdale. It has been greatly exacerbated by the urbanization of the surrounding upland areas, resulting in a rapid flush of runoff water to the farmlands during rainstorms. Last year's August rains immediately destroyed 15,000 cases of lettuce, as well as other crops such as celery and fancy lettuce. Over the longer term, the frequent inundation of the area degrades the soil. Recent projects funded by the federal-provincial ARDSA program have provided important improvements to regional drainage. This program has now ended, but much remains to be done before drainage can be considered adequate. Programs to replace ARDSA are under discussion, but nothing has been agreed upon. Resolution of drainage problems is key to the long-term survival of their farmland and to the coexistence of urban development and rural land use. When can these farmers count on help from your ministry?

[ Page 1284 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member knows that crop losses from flooding are covered under crop insurance, and most of those farmers would have crop insurance.

R. Chisholm: Again, I don't think you answered the question, Mr. Minister. Whether they get crop insurance is not the point; the point is whether the land will be viable to farm in later years. The point is that we are burying crops due to this problem, and we stick our heads in the sand and don't address the problem. The problem is the drainage. They've asked when they are going to get help from your ministry. I'll ask the question again.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think I stated that we have had ongoing discussions with those farmers out there. They are protected in the short run. We're not saying that that's the long-term answer, but it is an answer. When somebody is protected by crop insurance, indeed that helps them over the economic hurdles that they are facing. There is a problem there, and we elaborated on the problem this morning. Most of that problem is caused by urban development in those very communities, whether it's Surrey, Delta or a number of other communities out there. When they build in the upland areas and they pave over those roads, that water comes down. It doesn't sink into the ground. We are asked to accept the entire economic burden. We don't that properly belongs entirely to the Ministry of Agriculture.

R. Chisholm: I understand your point of view, hon. minister, but you must realize that you are the minister. You are the leader in this province to take care of this problem.

My next question is in reference to the Cloverdale Lettuce and Vegetable Cooperative. Those in the Fraser Valley express the following concerns.

"Due to the dumping of U.S. product in B.C. in 1991, our markets were severely depressed. Our cooperative has completed the assistance required for the British Columbia Vegetable Marketing Commission to prepare for anti-dumping proceedings concerning iceberg lettuce, cauliflower and celery. The commission, in turn, has commenced the process. Our co-op will pay in excess of $50,000 in legal fees for these actions, adding to our total cost of production for 1992. We have been informed that assistance from the provincial government towards meeting these costs would be a violation of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Anti-dumping rulings alone are not sufficient, because our past experience has shown us that some wholesalers will always find ways to get around the rules."

Will the minister introduce legislation to address this?

The Chair: Hon. members, I again caution you and bring your attention to standing order 61, which requires that the requirement for legislation be left out of these debates. I would appreciate the assistance of the hon. members in this matter.

R. Chisholm: What is the government doing in support of these producers?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've done quite a bit, actually. We have managed to access from the federal government, by exerting significant pressure, almost exactly $16 million. Out of that $16 million, $6 million goes to vegetable producers in the Fraser Valley -- the very ones you are talking about. As far as legislation is concerned, that is, unfortunately, not under the aegis of the provincial government; it is a federal jurisdiction.

R. Chisholm: Why is the minister not assisting in the court cases of this particular group?

Hon. B. Barlee: Essentially that is not a free trade agreement issue, and the government does not pay the legal costs in dumping actions. Those are private sector costs. It basically falls back on the federal government as the jurisdiction that should be responsible for them.

R. Chisholm: The minister should read this morning's paper and see where farms are going bankrupt and are selling off. You are losing them. This is a vegetable grower on the Island -- not Cloverdale, but right here in Saanich. Mr. Minister, my statement is that we are losing, and we are losing because of a lack of leadership. I think it's time you went down and talked to these people and possibly addressed their problems.

I'll go on to another question, Mr. Minister. We've been buoyed by the NDP's promise of an effective marketing campaign of close to $3 million per year for B.C. agricultural products produced on agricultural land. To be effective, this marketing campaign must be directed in large part to the product wholesalers in order to have 100 percent support of our product during our marketing season. We believe that the marketing campaign is absolutely essential to our survival. So far we have not had a conclusive announcement on this program, other than today's announcement of June 1 for phase one.

In order that our members can make intelligent planting decisions, it is imperative that any marketing campaign be in place before the 1992 cropping season begins in June. You've stated phase one will be in place. Can the minister guarantee that it will be in place? When will phase two happen?

Hon. B. Barlee: Concerning the first question on the position of the producers on Vancouver Island, one part of the equation wasn't mentioned, and that was the invasion of the golden nematode. The nematode simply destroyed many of the crops from those farms. You're talking about the Michells and the Vantreights, and so on. I'm quite aware of it. In fact, I've had Michael Vantreight in here discussing the situation with me. They were given a buyout by the federal government that they didn't think was adequate. They cannot go with their traditional crops, because we don't want the golden nematode to spread to other parts of British Columbia. That's why they are in a rather difficult financial position.

Secondly, concerning the marketing campaign and the first, second, third, fourth and fifth parts of that campaign, I think it will be effective. I don't think it will be perfect. We'll have to refine it and probably redefine 

[ Page 1285 ]

it as we go along. But part of this marketing campaign is not just advertising, as I stated before. Everyone has to be there. That's why the first phase will, I hope and anticipate, get off the ground in the middle part of June.

R. Chisholm: I'll quote from the article. You were holding the wrong article, Mr. Minister.

Hon. B. Barlee: I didn't need the other article; I know it.

R. Chisholm: It says:

"Instead of selling onions, carrots and potatoes by the tonne, he's selling off some of the best farmland in Canada bit by bit to buyers who hope it will someday be sprung from the agricultural land reserve.

"Michell is tired of plowing vegetables under and growing for less than he can sell, and he's not alone.

"The vegetable industry that once dominated the Saanich peninsula is on the decline and could wither if nothing changes, farmers say.

"'We shut down growing vegetables,' says Michell. 'We didn't grow anything last year. We lost too much money'."

Hon. B. Barlee: I essentially answered that question. The reason this industry on that part of Vancouver Island is in difficulty is because of the invasion of the golden nematode, and that's why their traditional crops cannot be grown.

R. Chisholm: I'll go onto another area, seeing as we're getting nowhere with that one.

The problem of disposal of mortalities involves the Matsqui landfill, which should not legally accept dead animals. They have, under varying conditions, done so, including at times only those in a frozen state. In response to restrictions, some farmers have found creative and unsanitary methods of disposal to be easier and less expensive.

Along with this issue is the growing problem of manure disposal. As fewer people use their remaining acreage for farming, our options for disposal of manure have become more restricted. Layer manure is more concentrated than that with litter in it, so ours requires somewhat different handling. What does the minister propose to do about these disposal problems?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've already visited probably the most advanced plant in North America. It's in the Abbotsford area, and this guy will get rid of the morts, chicken feathers, manure and everything. They are putting it in cubes, and it's a remarkable success story.

R. Chisholm: We were talking about cross-border shopping a while back. Cross-border shopping is a major concern to producers and retailers in the Fraser Valley and in my riding of Chilliwack. Reasons for cross-border shopping include cheaper gas prices, no PST or GST, cheaper dairy prices, beating the GST -- a consumer backlash -- cheaper liquor and cigarettes, ease of crossing border, and ease of smuggling. Effects on the economy.... Trends are multiplying at an alarming rate; the greater the publicity, the more people want to try it.

Our current lack of policy has encouraged and allowed a new pattern of shopping habits to emerge. U.S.-bound shopping habits: they go further south, more purchases, more commodities, banking, postal facilities, transportation. Loss in volume: the B.C. retailer is at even greater disadvantage, with the lower volume and higher prices. Loss in confidence: the whole country is suffering, not only B.C. There is a new pattern of vacationing outside of B.C. and outside of Canada. American tourists to Canada in 1990 and 1991 declined. Visitors to Canada complain about gas prices.

Job losses. The 1991 estimated job loss for B.C. is 11,000, due to Canadian purchases in the U.S. Economic activities: every dollar lost to us never comes back. Every dollar spent in B.C. multiplies three to four times in the economy. Business relocations across the border, incentives, tax-free havens from municipal and federal taxes.... Agricultural loss, 1991: B.C. milk sales lost approximately $90 million to the U.S.; approximately 20 percent of B.C. milk production was lost. The question to the minister is: what does the government plan to do about this trend? What negotiations has he had with the rest of his ministers, not just the ones outside of this province?

[5:00]

Hon. B. Barlee: I'd be happy to answer that, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in leadership, we led across Canada.... We went to Quebec approximately ten days ago and had a meeting in Quebec City with the governments of Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia, representing about 80 percent of the population of Canada and about 80 percent of the cross-border shopping as well -- perhaps a little more. Cross-border shopping costs us about $6 billion across the country. We're probably losing close to 50,000 jobs. Those are indeed one-way dollars. In British Columbia we have the busiest port in Canada -- Blaine is the busiest customs port. We have 25 percent of the crossings.

We have done literally all the research we have to do on that. Now we're coming up with a counterstrategy that other governments in the dominion are very interested in; in fact, even the federal government is. We'll be unveiling some of that counterstrategy in June.

R. Chisholm: I already know your answer on the harmonization of the PST and the GST not being your responsibility.

Does this government intend to put on tolls at the border or have toll roads going to the border?

Hon. B. Barlee: I very much doubt it.

R. Chisholm: July 23, 1990 -- this is Hansard I'm quoting from, Mr. Minister:

"The industry is complaining that the reason people are going across the line is the cheap price of gas. But I'm saying that this government benefits from that. Sure, the dairymen lose $72 million, but the government gains. Why does the government gain? The government gains because this government -- who says they don't 

[ Page 1286 ]

tax consumers -- taxes them to the blasted hilt. This government charges more per litre than the federal government, and they're greedy as the devil. The federal government charges about 11 cents per litre; the provincial government charges 12 cents. That's 23 cents between the two of them. Is there some tacit agreement between the oil companies and the provincial and federal governments? I can go across and buy Shell gas in the United States for 32.9 cents; I come to Victoria and pay 59.9 cents.

"What does Shell make on it? Well, let's examine Shell's role. Shell makes a gross average of 37 cents a litre in Canada in Canadian funds. What does it make in the States? It makes 24 cents a litre, so it's making 13 cents a litre more. Instead of paying 59.0 for unleaded gas in downtown Victoria, you should be paying 46. Is there some sort of agreement between the multinational oil companies and the provincial and federal governments? It sure looks like it. Every penny of that tax produces...$26 million in direct revenue to the provincial government. So that 12 cents is producing about $250 million, if my figures are close. I got several figures from the ministry; they waried somewhat.

"I am saying that you are penalizing the dairymen. We're letting these people pick up gas in the States because you're making $250 million. So what if the dairy industry is losing $72 million? So what if Canadian jobs are going down the drain? This government is making $250 million on charging our consumers a heck of a lot more than they should be paying for gas."

Now that this member is the Minister of Agriculture, will he pressure this government to reduce the gas tax?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the hon. member's figures are entirely incorrect. The federal tax is about 14.8 cents and ours is 10 -- so that's out. One cent on each tax part in the gasoline price is not $26 million; it's closer to a little over $50 million. Of course, only about 25 to 30 percent of the population can advantageously buy gas in the United States, because of the distance from the border. We are probably losing 18 percent of our total gas sales in the lower mainland; not very much on Vancouver Island, because few people would take the ferry across to pick it up; certainly not much in the northern or central parts of B.C. The provincial government is really losing a great deal of money. We're losing $1.5 billion a year in sales; we're losing probably another $70 million a year in gas taxes to those individuals who shop across the border. So it pays us to target the Americans to try to get this lost business back into British Columbia, which we're doing.

R. Chisholm: I'll quote again, Mr. Minister. That was from Hansard on July 23, 1990. Those are your words; those are your figures, just so we have it straight. They may have changed now, but the principle is still the same. It's the same problem and is causing the same results: people going across the border. This government has got to address it.

I have a petition from the aboriginal people of this province. It comes from the Western Indian Agricultural Corp. Ltd. -- the WIAC. It works to support native agriculture initiatives in British Columbia through educational and financial assistance.

Information provided by the WIAC indicates that there are approximately 1,000 aboriginal farmers in British Columbia, most of whom range in age from 35 to 45 and have between a grade 6 and grade 9 education. Some have informal agricultural training and training-related activities. Aboriginal farmers engage primarily in beef cattle production and have, on average, five to ten years' experience. Other agricultural activities such as sheep, poultry, vegetable and fruit-tree farming are generally undertaken by less experienced farmers.

According to the WIAC, there are 4,000 to 5,000 aboriginal people -- on reserves and off reserves -- who have expressed an interest in agricultural activity, but who have neither the financial resources nor the skills to begin. Agricultural activities provide a unique opportunity for economic development and the utilization of Indian bands' natural and human resources.

We have been giving out money to other areas of agriculture. My question to the minister is: how much is provided to this area, and how much is provided to education overall out of your budget?

Hon. B. Barlee: The ministry does not have specific programs concerning the aboriginal peoples or the first nations. However, they are quite free to come in under other financial programs that the ministry has. For instance, farm income insurance covers the Cook's Ferry Indian band, the Osoyoos Indian band -- which is right in my area -- the Doig River band, and so on.

In the tree-fruits area, certainly the Inkaneep vineyards are covered. We have a number of regional irrigation projects that are covered. Some of those are the Inkaneep orchards in Osoyoos, the Kamloops Indian band, the Toosey Indian band and the Neskonlith Indian band. Neskonlith is on the north shore of the South Thompson River.

We have a number of areas where they can come in under our umbrella, and some areas where they are participating by themselves. We also have a full-time staff person.

R. Chisholm: The question was about how much support you are providing, not the insurance programs. I would like to know how much you are spending on education for these people and, overall, for the whole province.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think I should reiterate this. A number of the aboriginal or first-nations people take advantage of the extension programs that we provide for the farming community at large. We haven't specifically said; "This program is for the aboriginal people, and this program is for other people or other individuals within the farming community." They are quite capable of accessing all of those financial programs. Indeed, they do access a number of those programs, in many cases quite successfully. A number of Indian farmers and aboriginal farmers in my area have done extremely well. As the member mentioned, many of them are in their traditional areas, such as cattle and so on.

R. Chisholm: What has the minister specifically done to bring more aboriginal people into the agricultural industry?

[ Page 1287 ]

Hon. B. Barlee: We have had several meetings with the WIAC, first of all, and I know some of those individuals. We also have for the first time appointed a full-time staff person to work exclusively with the aboriginal people in opening up our programs to them. The only program that we have not opened up to them -- and we really can't -- is the ALDA program, because it requires some assets. We cannot touch the assets on an Indian reserve, of course.

R. Chisholm: Back to the mortality problem and the problem with manure disposal. You answered as far as the Fraser Valley is concerned. I'm wondering what your overall view and your overall plan is for the province with regard to the manure which is seeping into the water supply and with regard to mortality problems.

Hon. B. Barlee: The codes of practice are in place, and the B.C. Federation of Agriculture is working hand in hand -- where these problems are very evident in various parts of the province -- with the other outfit I mentioned in the Fraser Valley. We think this will be resolved in the not-too-distant future.

R. Chisholm: At this point, I'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague. He has a couple of questions he'd like to ask.

K. Jones: I'd like to go back and explore an area that my colleague the member for Chilliwack talked to you about earlier, with regard to the differential between the pricing that commodities are given at the farm gate and the retail pricing. What do you see as being the causes of the cost differential between the Marketing Board price -- namely, the farm-gate price -- and the retail price? What are the factors involved in between that cause the price differential?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the Marketing Board does ensure that the farmer gets a good price. That's why we are firm supporters of the supply management system. Producers under that system make a reasonable profit. Surprisingly enough, because they make a reasonable profit, they also pass some of that on to the consumer. We have the second-lowest food prices in the world -- 11.8 percent -- second only to the United States, by a fraction. Those farmers who are in the supply management system are much better off than their U.S. counterparts.

The price at the farm gate versus the retail price is an ongoing problem around the world and has been, unfortunately, for several thousand years. The farmer has to come up with a method. One of them is the supply management system. This is, in my estimation, one of the methods to fight that ongoing problem. The other method, of course, is to look for value-added products in various commodities. For instance, in your area in the Fraser Valley -- I mentioned this very briefly -- the hazelnut producers have 72 or 74 value-added hazelnut products. They can't really make it in hazelnuts, but when you look at value-added, it does help the difference between that farm-gate price and the eventual retail price.

K. Jones: I appreciate the response that the minister gave me, but it wasn't an answer to my question. My question specifically was: what are the factors the ministry is able to identify that cause the difference in price between the farm gate and retail?

Hon. B. Barlee: Part of that, of course, is due to the levers the retail industry might use, such as food flowing in from the United States, New Zealand, Australia, various parts of the Common Market, and so on. But the whole picture is not really that bleak. A 20 to 25 percent increase in realized net income for B.C. farmers is predicted by Agriculture Canada -- that's their study, not ours -- for 1992. In 1991 the average income went up 15 percent. That's significant in a year of economic downturn. I think we're making some progress there: 15 percent one year, 20 to 25 percent this year.

[5:15]

K. Jones: I hate to repeat myself, but the question was: what are the factors the ministry has identified as causing the difference between the price at the farm gate and the price that people see on the food shelf?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly there are differences. Labour costs impact upon it; processing costs impact upon it; packaging. We're aware of all of this, but when I look at the overall picture, it is improving. There's not much doubt about it that certain of our industries are getting about 50 percent of their actual production costs, which is pretty good. When that 50 percent leaves the farm gate, they're getting $5 out of $10. Cattlemen are an example. Then it goes through the wholesaler, the processor and the retailer, and they divide the other 50 percent.

K. Jones: Since the minister has referred to the question of beef cattle, I would just like to quote from government statistics. Statistics Canada figures indicate that over the seven-year period from 1983 to 1990, the farm-gate price edged up only 28 cents, whereas the retail price increased by $1.62 per kilogram. I don't think that's just a small amount; that's fairly substantial. Perhaps I could aid you. Perhaps some of the problem is in the distribution process. My indication is that that may be the major cause of the difference. Has the minister looked into the distribution process between the producer and the retailer and determined just how much impact that has on the price people are paying, and how the Canadian distribution cost compares to the U.S. cost?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's an involved question. Certainly the Americans have a distinct advantage; they have a network of highways that serves a population of approximately 248 million versus 27 million, which is significant. We have to go longer distances, so their unit cost is much less. Certainly our distribution costs in 

[ Page 1288 ]

Canada would be higher than those of our U.S. counterparts.

K. Jones: The minister appears not to have too much in the way of concrete information as to the cost of distribution -- I believe he has responsibility for food -- and the difference between the Canadian cost and the U.S. cost, which has a great impact on why people go across the border and buy from U.S. producers and retailers rather than making their purchases here in Canada. There appears to be a group of businesses operated in Canada that has control of a segment of the market, which allows them to control the price. Perhaps you could look into that. You could maybe address the information you found in that area. Perhaps you could just work with those items and give us some idea of what your ministry knows that will help consumers, and what action we will go into later.

Hon. B. Barlee: I've gone over this a number of times. We have the second-lowest food prices in the world: 11.8 percent versus 10.5 percent in the U.S. Spain, certainly an industrialized country, has 27 percent; Italy has 21 percent -- I think we should compare this; and France has 21 percent. We are on the leading edge of the lowest prices in the world.

Who is the villain? I don't know who the villain is. I do know that the farmer is getting more -- 15 percent more last year -- and is projected to get 20 percent to 25 percent more this year by a federal study, not by ours. So the farmer is doing significantly better. We have the lowest bankruptcy rate in Canada. The farming communities' receipts are going 3 percent to 5 percent per year, and I think we're doing a pretty good job. I don't say it's perfect or that we can't improve it. We will be looking at ways to redefine it and refine it, but I think we're doing a pretty good job.

This is the way the marketplace operates. It goes from the producer, then to the processor, then to the wholesaler and then to the retailer. Out of all those individuals, we find now that much more is going back to the original producer, which is where it should be.

K. Jones: For instance, in the chicken area, you're probably fairly familiar with that....

The Chair: Order, hon. members. I appreciate that this room has the appearance of being a little less formal than the main House, but it would aid the Chair and the proceedings considerably if we would direct our questioning and our replies through the Chair.

K. Jones: I stand corrected, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, to the hon. minister: in the chicken pricing area, since 1980 retail prices have increased by $2.20. That's 87 percent. Wholesale prices are up by $1, or 64 percent. Farm-gate prices have inched up just 30 percent, which is only 28 cents. You're saying that the farmer is getting a better deal; he's got an increase. Yes, he's got an increase of 28 cents spread over ten years or so, yet the retail price has gone up by $2.20.

There is a differential in there that the people of British Columbia are getting fed up with. I believe it's your ministry's responsibility to see that it is addressed, so that the people in the middle are not able to take so much that it makes our own agricultural business unviable. Our farmers are not finding enough money in their returns to be able to continue to farm in my riding and in the adjoining ridings of the Fraser Valley. Many places throughout Canada are faced with a similar problem, but specifically in British Columbia.... The differential between what's in British Columbia or in Canada versus other parts of the world doesn't matter. We don't market within the rest of the world; we're not competing with them as much as we're competing here in British Columbia and in Washington State. That's where the competition is, and that's where we have to address ourselves.

I'd like the minister to be very specific: what action are you prepared to take to reduce the amount of profit-making occurring in the distribution process?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, this is a fallacious argument, and I'll tell you why. The chicken producers are making their highest net income in history. They've never hit incomes like they've been hitting in the last few years, because they're very cost-effective. Their food costs are less. Where they used to have 4,000 or 5,000 chickens on the farm, now they've got 30,000 chickens, so the unit counts are coming down. They're very happy. The chicken producers are staying in business and doing extremely well.

K. Jones: The minister seems to be wanting to defend the retail price and is not prepared to address the problem area: the distributor. Between the price that the producer is getting and the retail price.... You already said the retailer isn't getting very much, so it's got to be the distributor, the processor-distributor. And that's a very, very large return. The return in Canada in that area is almost equivalent to the price difference between Canada and the United States. The differential that occurs in Canada's distribution process appears to be where the differential is, and that's what makes the Canadian producer less competitive. I find it hard to believe that the ministry has not been seriously looking at this. Or is it afraid to tackle the really big people in this industry -- the H.Y. Louies, the Jim Pattisons and the large companies that operate combined distribution and retail operations?

Hon. B. Barlee: Well, I think we're picking and choosing. For instance, if you went down to Blaine, Washington, today you would find that their boneless chicken breasts are more expensive than they are in Canada. There are areas where they're cheaper; there are areas where they are much more expensive. If you went down to Los Angeles, you'd find that their chicken prices are significantly more.

So I'm saying that the Canadian consumer generally, and the British Columbia consumers, are getting a very good deal. If they're getting a good deal -- which they are -- and if the farmers are getting a good deal -- which they are -- I don't think the system works too badly.

[ Page 1289 ]

K. Jones: I think we've got as much of a response as we'll get on that subject.

I'd like to go into one other area that is of great concern to my riding, and that's the area of anti-dumping. There's a considerable amount of dumping that our farm people -- particularly in the vegetable fields -- are concerned about, and they don't feel that the provincial government is putting enough pressure on the federal government to protect them in that area.

While we're on that, I'd also like you to explore the area of why farm support funding has gone down, and also the problems.... No, I'll take that up in another question.

Hon. B. Barlee: I don't know whether the member was here before, but I answered the anti-dumping question before: this is not our jurisdiction. We have flagged this with the federals time and time again. They are slowly coming to the realization, and they are tightening up in this area.

K. Jones: One of the most serious areas of concern in our area is drainage, particularly in the lower valley, and there seem to be a lot of problems in getting drainage funding.

The Chair: Hon. member, order. This item has been extensively canvassed in these proceedings this afternoon. If you would aid the Chair in addressing new questions that come under the administration of the minister's office, it would assist us in keeping these proceedings in order.

[5:30]

K. Jones: What I believe was addressed was drainage in the South Delta area, not in the Cloverdale area. We have different types of drainage problems there. Specifically, we're talking about drainage funding, and I don't believe the question of funding for drainage was explored previously. I was wanting to know what help the ministry would be prepared to bring forward in funding for the drainage that is really impacting on the market garden areas of the lower Fraser Valley. Also, what is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to do to assist in resolving the Ministry of Environment roadblocks that are constantly getting in the way of attempts to provide adequate drainage to the farmlands?

Hon. B. Barlee: I have covered this about three times; perhaps this is the fourth time today. We've discussed Surrey, Cloverdale, Delta and Langley. The essential question remains that this is a problem that was really brought about by the municipal governments in those areas, because they built in the upland areas and paved over those areas so that the water comes down in a rush and floods those fields. So we now have a drainage problem that did not exist ten years ago. It will probably be worse in two years, if they continue building at the present rate, because the population is skyrocketing in that area. We think that part of the responsibility lies with the municipal governments in those areas. Of course, the old ARDSA program covered it at one time, but it is now finished. We're in consultation with a number of farmers in those areas, and we are looking for options, but it isn't entirely our responsibility.

K. Jones: Yes, I agree that it's not entirely in your area. That's very true. But as the Minister of Agriculture, do you not feel that you have an advocacy role to look after the interests of farming, and therefore be bringing whatever is necessary in the way of assistance to the municipalities to deal with their problems that are impacting on the agricultural land, or at least pressure upon them to make the provisioning? I think most municipalities right now are faced with inadequate funding to handle a lot of their infrastructure requirements, and they're doing the very best they can. But at the present time we have our agriculture being drowned in the runoff from the adjoining developments. We have to do something for the farm people, not just say it's somebody else's responsibility.

Hon. B. Barlee: We haven't been totally remiss. There is about $1 million available under ALDA, which is not the same as ARDSA, but it is another program. We have had ongoing consultation with people in the Surrey area, for instance, looking at their proposed engineering techniques, which we think are flawed. That is continuing. We are looking at the cost-benefit analysis. There are millions and millions of dollars involved, which is significant in a small ministry. As I say, we are not the only players in this game.

K. Jones: I'm very sensitive to your difficulties in that, but I think we need a strong position on the part of the Agriculture minister to deal with this issue -- both at the municipal and at the federal levels -- so there is adequate funding on a shared basis to make sure our agricultural production will continue as a viable entity. Otherwise, it will be washed out to sea and we'll have absolutely no agriculture in British Columbia -- in this major market area of the lower mainland. We have to have a real, strong advocacy role.

I know that you have done a very fine job for the tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan -- naturally; that's your riding. You're very familiar with that area and the many problems they have. We'd certainly like that kind of funding in the Fraser Valley. What was it, $47 million? Something like that? You could correct me on those actual figures. I'm not quite sure of what they were, but I know it was multimillion dollars in the way of support funding.

Our people in the Fraser Valley are now saying that they can't continue in the agriculture business. They're under a lot of pressure to turn the land into townhouses, condominiums and golf courses. You're trying to stop some of that, but you're not providing them with alternative possibilities. They have to have a vehicle to maintain their viability if you're going to force them into staying in agriculture. Many of them would like to stay in agriculture, but they're getting very frustrated.

Hon. B. Barlee: One of our ADMs has indicated that if they take a close look at our consultations, the 

[ Page 1290 ]

cost-benefit analysis and redesigning, we're quite willing to go back with the federals and discuss a shared program with them.

K. Jones: Thank you very much. I'll now defer to my colleague.

J. Tyabji: The first subject that I'd like to touch on is the minister's direction with regard to the racetrack. I know that this is an issue which touches a couple of portfolios. There is an issue, I would say, that has been of great concern to the horse-racing industry, and that is with regard to getting a one-mile track in place. I know the minister has done some background work on this, and I'd like to know which direction he's planning to go.

Hon. B. Barlee: Although we're aware of the problem and have some input into it, it is basically under the administration of the Attorney General. Federally, racetracks come under the Ministry of Agriculture; provincially, they come under the Attorney General.

J. Tyabji: Are there any recommendations that the minister would make to the Attorney General, seeing that racehorses, and obviously the horse-racing industry.... It is a very thin line. As the minister knows, my father has some racehorses and therefore is part of the horse-racing industry. There's so much overlap there, and there's no question that breeders of racehorses have been asking for quite some time just for the direction. In order for us to be world-class, and in order for us to have facilities that will attract the revenue for the racing industry.... Therefore, not just in terms of revenue on the side of the racetrack, but also in terms of the agricultural area where the horses are being kept, so that that becomes a viable industry, they really need to know what direction there is, because they're having a hard time getting any direction from the government.

Hon. B. Barlee: We're aware of the economic value of the industry -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- increasing probably significantly each year. We have a latent interest -- perhaps more of an interest than any other ministry except the Attorney General's. We have had discussions with that ministry; but essentially the eventual decisions will be made by the Attorney General, not by the Minister of Agriculture.

J. Tyabji: I'll go to the second subject, the Buy B.C. program that the minister introduced a little while ago. I'd like to know what the overall strategy is, what kind of game plan there is in place already, and when we can start to see some concrete examples -- for example, television or other advertising with regard to Buy B.C. On top of that, I'd like to know if the minister has been working with some of the existing large retail outlets to canvass their support -- for example, using sections in their floor plan for B.C. products, very similar to what we see in the legislative dining room, where we have B.C. products highlighted.

Hon. B. Barlee: I have canvassed this a number of times. I don't believe the member for Okanagan East was here when I went over it fairly carefully. First of all, we realize its importance as far as the economy of the province is concerned. It impacts significantly on us -- about $1.5 billion per year. It costs us 14,000 jobs. There are 55,000 cars per day on average going across into the U.S. That's like stretching the cars bumper to bumper from here to Kamloops. We realize that the programs that have been inaugurated by Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta have not been successful. They've been what we call a pull program. It has to be a push-pull program.

We've examined other jurisdictions such as Washington and Oregon. The most advanced of those jurisdictions, by far, is Oregon. We're taking some of the leaves out of Oregon's book and working on that. In other words, they spent millions of dollars finding out where it works and where it doesn't work. We'll also be travelling down there. We have all the stakeholders, including the Food Marketing Council, at the table -- which is rather interesting.

In fact, we were discussing one of those issues you brought up the other day. We went on a tour of the various outlets of Thrifty Foods in Victoria. We found that we are really at a disadvantage in that area. Approximately 2 to 2 percent of the total volume in the store is British Columbia produce. We think it should be around 12 to 12 percent, so there is significant gain. These are big dollars. Most of those are taken by our traditional competitors from the United States, some from Europe and certainly some from Australia and New Zealand as well.

What we're looking at is a stage-by-stage process, part of which would be advertising and part of which would be very close consultation with the players in the industry who really know what's going on. We have two contractors working on it now. The advertising would be manyfold. It wouldn't just be TV; it wouldn't just be radio. It would be newspapers and so on. We think the program should be long-term. We think it should be year-to-year -- in fact, probably in five-year segments, rather than two-month segments as has been the practice up to now. We hope to stop the geometric growth. It is growing geometrically. Probably 20 million cars passed into the United States this year; 70 percent of those are one-day shoppers.

We're aware of the problems; we've done a lot of work on this. It would take me three hours to explain the whole process. That is more or less the shell of the process.

J. Tyabji: With all due respect, it wasn't cross-border shopping I was referring to so much as the marketing aspect of the Buy B.C. program that was announced last fall.

As for concrete examples of what can be done with the retail sector, I'm sure the minister is aware that when many companies -- for example, Sun-Rype -- want their product to be carried in a major retail outlet, they have to pay for a listing. I'm wondering if the minister has approached some of the existing retail outlets and discussed with them the advantages in 

[ Page 1291 ]

terms of goodwill, public relations and, of course, just all-around benefits to the local economy; and perhaps making some concessions to B.C.-produced products, highlighting them in their store so that when people go to their supermarket they're automatically picking up local products over products from somewhere else; and if some of these retail outlets are planning to make concessions, having some leeway that they would then offer to products that are B.C.-grown -- like Sun-Rype juices, or anything like that.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we have discussed a pilot project with the B.C. Food Marketing Council with one of the major stores in Victoria, which has about five or six outlets in the lower part of Vancouver Island. We think it gives us a very effective pilot study, because they don't go to the mainland; they shop in the lower part of Vancouver Island. This is Thrifty Foods. We have had very good success with Thrifty's up to now. We think we should elaborate on that and continue with this pilot study, and that discussion is underway right now.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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