1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 24
[ Page 6983 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. T. Perry: I have the very special privilege today to introduce to members of the House Mr. Gary Malkowski, a visiting member of the provincial parliament of Ontario. He is the first elected deaf politician in the world who uses American sign language. He's with us today on the floor of the House. He is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training in Ontario. He has an enormous number of qualifications. I won't strain the House's patience by listing them here, but suffice it to say that he has greatly distinguished himself in service to the deaf community in instructing deaf culture in Ontario. He has been a very welcome addition to the Legislature there. It's a great privilege to have him here with us. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming Mr. Malkowski.
K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a group of students from William of Orange Christian School in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Approximately 15 grade 7 students, with their teacher, Mr. Mel Deglint, and several parents are presently on a tour of the precincts and will be joining us in the gallery at approximately 3 p.m. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and in wishing them well in their visit to Victoria.
Hon. E. Cull: As the Minister Responsible for Seniors, it's my pleasure to introduce a number of senior citizens' counsellors who are in the gallery today: Alan Bartlett, Mission; Harry Burrow, Crofton; Caroline Clayton, Armstrong; Russell Hammond, Comox; Helen Kuhne, Quesnel; John Oostenbrink, Abbotsford; William Pennycook, Vancouver; Ruth Schell-Christian, Penticton; James Stott, Prince Rupert; Louise Foulis, Ganges; Edith Smith, Sidney; and from Victoria, John Travis, Eiji Tsukijima, Prue Cunningham, Monthelene Ramsfield, Dorothy Jenkins and L.A.E. Jones. They are in Victoria planning their conference for this fall. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.
L. Reid: I'd like the House to please make welcome a dear colleague, Karen Legeer, who is visiting from the riding of Surrey-White Rock. Also in the gallery today is my legislative assistant, Terri Cunningham.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's been wonderful for me to have my wife Sharon visiting to attend the Minister's Environmental Awards at Government House. She is present with us in the gallery. Would the House please join me in making Sharon welcome.
H. Lali: I have some very special people joining us in the gallery today. My 22-month-old son, Ajhmair, my wife, Rani, and our new baby, Suman, are sitting up in the stands, and also our special babysitter, my good friend, Par Sihota, who works in our communications department. Would you please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: I rise in the House today to pay tribute to Larry Lillo, who died last Wednesday. Larry, the artistic director of the Vancouver Playhouse, was one of the leaders of Canada's theatrical community. His vision and his spirit are the legacy he leaves to his colleagues and to theatre audiences across this country. Over the past 20 years he directed at major theatres across Canada, including two years in Ontario as artistic director of the Grand Theatre in London. In 1988 he came home to Vancouver, where he had attended UBC and had co-founded Tamahnous Theatre in the early seventies. While he was artistic director of the Vancouver Playhouse, the company flourished and audiences grew to expect consistently high standards. This week he was to have received the Vancouver Professional Theatre Alliance's Jessie Richardson Award for lifetime achievement.
I would like the House to express condolences to his partner of 13 years, John Moffat, Larry's mother Ruth and the large number of family, friends and colleagues who will remember his creativity, his leadership and his vision.
The Speaker: With the concurrence of the House, the Chair will ensure that those condolences are sent.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTINUATION AMENDMENT ACT
G. Farrell-Collins presented a bill intituled Educational Programs Continuation Amendment Act.
G. Farrell-Collins: This bill rectifies the inherent errors in the Educational Programs Continuation Act by granting to employees and employers of school districts that may be included under part 2 the same rights, processes and protection granted to the Vancouver School District under part 1. In particular, it rectifies a major error of the current act, which places employees in limbo, with no collective agreement, while arbitration is in process.
Bill M222 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.
INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE BARRIERS
L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. While the Premier is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on travel and promotion in his lackluster attempts to increase trade, why is the Minister of Economic Development supporting trade barriers with our sister provinces?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not supporting trade barriers; I'm supporting the removal of trade barriers
[ Page 6984 ]
where it's not detrimental to legitimate provincial policy interests.
L. Stephens: We can't place walls around our regions either. Our regional industries need open markets, and they need competitive market access, which is important as well. Is it a coincidence that this minister comes out against national economic cooperation on the same day that a $50 million make-work project is announced under Build B.C.? And does this government really believe that government spending is a preferred path to economic growth in British Columbia?
[2:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is reading the headlines -- and not reading what our carefully constructed statements say. We are prepared to enter into negotiations to remove barriers to interprovincial trade. What the member, and all members of the opposition, also have to do is read the report that I released. It said that B.C. probably has the least to gain from the removal of international barriers because most of our trade is directed internationally. But we are prepared to examine anything that can be removed and to do so on an advanced timetable. We have supported the efforts of other provinces to fast-track these negotiations.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Stephens: How much taxpayers' money was spent on that study? Has it been, or will it be, released to the general public?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As of tabling it with the ministers of internal trade. it is a public document. I don't have the exact figure, but it's only in the tens of thousands. It was a modest study of the literature on barriers to interprovincial trade and quantitative analysis of those. As the member probably knows, the figure often touted in the media is that there somehow would be a $6 billion saving to the economy through removing interprovincial trade barriers. Our study argues to the contrary. There's approximately $700 million, and most of those are being dealt with already by sectoral processes -- beer and wine and agricultural products.
PERSONAL TAX RATES IN B.C.
F. Gingell: During the budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that even with the new revenue measures, B.C. would have on average the second-lowest tax rates in Canada. Yesterday a Peat Marwick study said that in 1994 B.C. will have the highest tax rates in Canada. Does the Minister of Finance still state that B.C. has the second-lowest personal income tax rates in Canada?
Hon. G. Clark: Perhaps the member has to read very carefully what Peat Marwick said, or what I said.
I want to clarify the issue for the member. We have on average the second-lowest personal taxes and sales taxes in Canada, and the lowest property taxes in Canada. But because of the surtax on those who are at the high end -- over $100,000 a year -- it's true that we now are not the second lowest when it comes to the wealthy in this province. Previous Social Credit governments and the Mulroney government in Ottawa shifted the burden away from the rich and onto working people, and we have made a modest shift away from that direction. Some of that burden has now been shifted away from working people and onto the wealthy.
F. Gingell: I'm just amazed that this minister has the audacity to stand up in this House and suggest that people who earn more than $100,000 a year don't work. That's a bunch of baloney.
Why is it that this minister finds Peat Marwick Mitchell a very reliable source when he wishes to, but pooh-poohs them when they say something different? Haven't you paid your bill yet?
Hon. G. Clark: We're delighted to know, with these kinds of questions, where the opposition comes from. If they want to represent those who make more than $100,000 a year, we'll represent the rest -- the 98 percent of British Columbians who make less than that. It's clear that the member opposite subscribes to the trickle-down theory: that people making more than $100,000 should get a tax cut so that it will trickle down to everybody else. I ask the member opposite whether they've been trickled on lately. Those are the kinds of policies we've come to expect from Social Credit and this opposition, policies that we reject on this side of the House.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: The minister should learn to read, hon. Speaker, because if he read his mail, he would know what 90 percent of the taxpayers of this province think about his policies.
While the Premier was away on his $200,000 junket trying to sell this province to Asian investors, his Finance minister was busy jacking up every possible fee, toll and tax in the province. How can the international community have any confidence in what the Premier is saying when his own Finance minister is doing just the opposite?
My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier admit that he was again absent when the province's tax policies were being discussed in cabinet? Or was he just not listening?
The Speaker: The Chair has advised previously that presence or absence in cabinet meetings were not an appropriate tack for question period.
[ Page 6985 ]
CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND CUTTING PERMITS
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Can the minister confirm that as of today no cutting permits have been issued to MacMillan Bloedel or Interfor, pursuant to the government's decision on Clayoquot?
Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: The government has repeatedly claimed that it is committed to stabilizing the economies in affected communities. Page 17 of the government's response to Mr. Owen was particularly clear on that position. Is the government simply afraid to issue the cutting permits that are consistent with its announcement on Clayoquot? Is that why the local logging industry is still out of work?
Hon. D. Miller: It is significant to note that when the government made the very difficult decision with respect to Clayoquot Sound, the forest companies involved generally expressed their approval of the decision. Secondly, when the government responded to the issues raised by Mr. Owen, my understanding is that the response was received with unqualified approval. In other words, Mr. Owen is quite happy with the approach we've taken. We have made a commitment to develop world-class standards for forestry in Clayoquot Sound. We are providing that information to the public of this province, and we intend to see that through. If at any time there is some hiatus in the issuance of cutting permits, it will simply be in order for us to establish standards that the people expect, and that will ultimately, in the long term, protect the workers and forest companies in this province.
R. Neufeld: The minister can only waffle around for so long on his decision, and then the people have to go back to work. We're not talking about Mr. Owen; Mr. Owen is still at work. But virtually all activity in the Kennedy Lake division has been shut down. Roadbuilding, sorting and hauling have all been shut down over the last two weeks due to this government's inaction. Yarding operations are scheduled to stop any day. If the government is still committed to its decision on Clayoquot, when is it going to issue the cutting permits so that the people affected can get back to work?
Hon. D. Miller: It's a bit much to have the opposition parties talk about waffling around. Neither of the opposition parties has gone on record to say what they would do with Clayoquot Sound. We have had four different positions enunciated by the Liberal caucus -- and I don't know how many by the Social Credit caucus. This government is prepared to make tough decisions and balanced decisions, unlike either of the opposition parties.
BAMBERTON DEVELOPMENT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
G. Wilson: I rather wish that my question was to the Minister of Labour so we could get his new look on camera. Compliments. But unfortunately my question is to the Premier. On Monday I asked the Premier if he would join me in requesting Mr. Hughes to look into the perceived conflict of the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the Bamberton question. The Premier said that he understood that the process was underway. Could the Premier tell us today what process he believes is underway?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I unfortunately cannot obtain the same look that the Minister of Labour does when he goes to his barber. I can't even get a half rate when I go to my barber. As a matter of fact, he says he's charging me the full rate because he has to charge a finder's fee. I find that very unfair.
In finding the question the member asked me, he asked if the process was underway. I understood that the member himself launched the process under section 15, that he has written to Mr. Hughes and that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has had a conversation with Mr. Hughes. We should now let that process be completed.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: So what we understand is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, at his request, has had a private meeting with Mr. Hughes and that some government personnel have requested a private meeting with Mr. Hughes. Can the Premier confirm today that the government, and in particular this Premier, has taken no action with respect to the government requesting Mr. Hughes to look into this matter?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member has launched a process, as he is entitled to do under section 15 as a member of this Legislature. He should let that process complete itself. Rather than anticipating what Mr. Hughes is going to say, he should let Mr. Hughes consider the member's letter and his request, and when Mr. Hughes reports back we'll have Mr. Hughes's answer.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Let me once again come back to the Premier. Insofar as this Premier and this government has taken no action on behalf of government with respect to a request, will the Premier today join with me in a written government request to Mr. Hughes to look into this action and fully investigate the activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to Bamberton?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I am respecting the choice that the member himself made to pursue this matter as a member of the Legislature, rather than to proceed in a
[ Page 6986 ]
different way. The member himself chose the process that's now being pursued.
WELFARE FRAUD
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. Recently she said in this House that she had requested and was receiving monthly reports from her investigators on fraud in order that the public might know the exact situation in this province. Will she undertake to table those regularly each month in this House?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm really quite happy to answer this question, because for the first time here in British Columbia we have a tool to measure our successes. In December 1992 we began a monthly reporting process of fraud, something the previous administration completely overlooked and never provided for the ministry or, indeed, for the public. I have repeatedly offered that information, both to the members of this House and to the public. We have a communications department, and it will welcome any inquiries as to information. We are moving on our good management initiatives.
Hon. M. Sihota: I've got a note here from the Leader of the Opposition wondering who my barber is. I want him to know it's the same barber that Barry Melrose has.
[2:30]
F. Gingell: Who's Barry Melrose?
Hon. M. Sihota: He doesn't know who Barry Melrose is. My gosh! [Laughter.]
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. M. Sihota: Boy, that's just shocking, hon. Speaker -- that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know who Barry Melrose is. It's a game called hockey. He's the coach of the Los Angeles Kings. Anyway, that's another story; I'll talk to you about it afterwards. In any event, hon. Speaker....
With that said, I advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the Douglas Fir Room.
I call committee stage on Bill 25.
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 25; E. Barnes in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
J. Tyabji: Yesterday in second reading we were looking at the land registry and how it would relate to the overall inventory that Lands and Parks is putting together. Could the minister clarify how extensive the registry they are putting together will be.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's an existing registry; it is not a new registry.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
J. Tyabji: Further to the questions I was asking under section 4, under section 6 we have established the "Crown land registry to record...lands administered by...." -- blah, blah, blah. I'm wondering to what extent this is a departure from the past. During the estimates we have been canvassing a Crown land registry and the new computerization, and I know that in Bill 26 -- which we'll get to later -- there is also a site registry. But within the Crown land registry, is there any new information the minister can offer with regard to the inventory for Crown land, similar to the discussion we have been having in the estimates?
Hon. J. Cashore: The amendment will authorize the Crown land registry as the single, automated record of provincial Crown land. It will provide a clear record of the acquisition and disposition of public land. It has the responsibility for maintaining the record of provincial Crown land holdings that has existed within the ministry since the 1870s. The purpose of the Crown land registry is to maintain an inventory of the provincial Crown lands administered by government, including those administered by all government ministries.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to know if there is going to be any kind of public process about this, or public reporting of the Crown land registry.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, it is open to the public.
A. Cowie: My question to the minister is in regard to Crown land leased to private individuals for cottage purposes. There are a number of these sites around the province. Will this be a separate registry from the Crown land itself, or will it fall under the normal Crown registry?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It's all part of the one single registry that exists for all Crown lands.
W. Hurd: Just a question regarding Crown land, once it's sold and falls into a delinquency position on taxes. Does it continue to show up on the registry, or does it go off? Then is it dealt with in any specific manner? I'm aware of specific problems in the province where Crown land has been acquired, and then some purpose has been brought forward on the land and it has fallen into arrears in taxation. Then, I assume, it
[ Page 6987 ]
goes back to the Crown. Can the minister advise the committee on when it shows up again on the registry?
Hon. J. Cashore: Any land that is forfeited for non-payment of taxes within a prescribed time is turned over to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to administer. Then there's a period of time when the process of revesting could apply. During that time, should the owner manage to secure the ability to maintain ownership of the land, then that becomes the result. If the previous owner fails to do so, then it becomes inventoried as Crown land.
A. Cowie: With a full registry of parcels of Crown land, will there also be attached to each one of these parcels a properly suitable land designation? For instance, if a parcel of land is suitable for a ski resort, will that information be available? If it's suitable for cottages, would that sort of information be available?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, but that information is available through other means.
J. Tyabji: Under section 6,4.3(5) we talk about the exemptions from the Crown land registry. What is the purpose of those exemptions? Why would they not at least be indicated somewhere in the registry and designated as we have them listed under (a) to (e) in subsection (5)?
Hon. J. Cashore: Subsection (5)(a) to (e) is subject to other legislation. With regard to (e), it's subject to the dedication and vesting of subdivision plans.
J. Tyabji: Will there be any overall registry of lands as we've canvassed before? Is there any intent by the minister, in addition to what we've got under section 6 here, to have something so that everything can be cross-referenced in some sort of universal inventory?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is the registry of what the Crown owns. It's the registry of all surface interests in that land.
J. Tyabji: Section 6,4.3(6) says: "No action may be brought by any person against the Province for loss or damage caused by reliance on the records of the registry by that person for any reason or purpose including, without limitation, reliance for the purpose of establishing priorities of interest or reliance on the completeness of the records." As I said in second reading, the way I read this is that if a homesteader -- someone who is third generation -- had their title or deed filed in a regional office and there was a clerical error somewhere and the regional records were in dispute with the Crown land registry, that person has no recourse, and we would automatically go with the Crown land registry. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: Section 6 is a disclaimer. It should be quite standard in this type of legislation because of the enormity of the scope of the registry. The example that the hon. member gave would refer more to the land title system than to the Crown land registry.
J. Tyabji: Very specifically, then, if a parcel of land appeared in the Crown land registry as Crown land, but an individual who had homesteaded alleged that there should be a regional record showing that it is indeed private property, how does that translate under this section?
Hon. J. Cashore: If it's private property, that information would be in the land title system as well as in the Crown land registry. It would be in both of those locations.
J. Tyabji: I understand that if it was private land, then it should be with those other registries. The point I'm trying to make is that mistakes will happen, as we know. We had the Beaver Lodge lands issue, where the 1931 letter showing what should have happened to those lands somehow got lost, and they ended up in the Crown land registry when they should have been designated experimental forest. Is there a possibility that this section could be interpreted so that an individual who may have followed the same process as Beaver Lodge lands believes they have title to land, but somewhere the record-keeping has fallen short and the land is in the Crown land registry? That's how I'm reading this, and that's why I would like some assurance. If this is the case, what's the appeal process? The clause seems to exclude any possibility to litigate.
[2:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that example, a trust would be registered on the Crown land registry.
A. Cowie: We've established that there are various Crown parcels, and these are identified. We've also established that there are other means of finding out how the land could be used, such as community plans, regional plans, area plans or whatever. Will the ministry be advertising and promoting for this use various parcels that they have under this registry?
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member could be a little more specific with regard to "this use," I might be able to focus more.
A. Cowie: The province has done plans showing various lakes and areas suitable for cottaging, for instance. The parcels that are now identified are in the registry. Having established that these parcels are suitable for recreation, will the Crown be advertising them? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Hon. J. Cashore: That question is clearly not related to this section, or if it is, I have not been informed in what way it relates to this section.
A. Cowie: At the present time there is no way of knowing what lands in the province are available for recreation. This would be a perfect system of identifying and cross-referencing that. A person
[ Page 6988 ]
wishing a cottage site could go to the Crown and find out through this registry where there are suitable sites, and then apply. That would be a perfectly good way of using this registry.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is the land information system for marketing, which is a subsystem of the Crown land registry. It operates out of the same office. We put out a regular catalogue identifying those opportunities.
A. Cowie: Also, now that we have a land registry, the recent Ministry of Municipal Affairs report on housing recommends that Crown land be used for affordable housing. Would these parcels where the ministry wants to do housing be identified through such a registry?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is contained within the registry -- as long as it is clear that it is not the registry that is referred to specifically in the act, but the one that I referred to in answering your question: a subsystem that's associated with the Crown land registry. The answer is yes.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to know if there is going to be any public accounting of the disposition of the Crown lands, and in what manner that would happen. More specifically, is there any intention of one of the Crown corporations being B.C. 21 for Crown lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: This does not change in any way the relationship that we have with Crown corporations; we continue the same relationship that we have always had. In answer to the question about accounting, yes, the annual report would be tabled in the House.
D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that section 7 doesn't really change any of the relationship insofar as dealing with Crown corporations goes. Certainly the government has the ability to grant land to Crown corporations; it has done that in British Columbia from time immemorial. Why is this amendment required? Why is section 7 in this bill required, if it makes no substantive change?
Hon. J. Cashore: The reason is that the existing wording is ambiguous regarding the authority of the minister to limit Crown grants to Crown corporations and other government bodies for specific public purposes. The existing wording is also unclear regarding the type of government bodies eligible for Crown grants. The wording that you see before you clarifies and improves the previous wording.
D. Mitchell: Is the need to clarify that ambiguity the result of any specific plans that the government has with respect to the activities of Crown corporations? Has this section of the bill, in particular, been inspired by some work that is currently ongoing by the Crown corporations secretariat? Is that why it was required?
Hon. J. Cashore: No.
V. Anderson: I'm wondering what controls, accountability or reporting there is in that section. If something is done in a neighbourhood, and the people around wish to appeal that, how do they appeal the decision of the Crown? Is it appealable, and to whom does one appeal?
Hon. J. Cashore: All decisions made under this section are subject to order-in-council. Therefore they are reported publicly, and in that sense they are subject to public scrutiny.
V. Anderson: You say public scrutiny, but if a community wanted to appeal, where and how would they present that particular appeal?
Hon. J. Cashore: They could appeal to the minister.
W. Hurd: My understanding of this section is that it gives municipalities the right to redesignate a Crown land parcel for a use other than for which it was originally granted. Just to follow up on the point made by my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, I assume that the original Crown land grant would be subject to the normal municipal requirements of a public hearing. Or is that something that would be monitored by the ministry if, indeed, a request was forthcoming to redesignate the Crown land for a different use within the municipality?
Hon. J. Cashore: The statement of the hon. member is correct about the purpose. Where it relates to a municipality -- the question about review -- it's my understanding that it would be, but that would be pursuant to the requirements under which that municipality operates, which I think are pursuant to the Municipal Act. But it would be my expectation. For example, if the land in question was a fire hall, I would expect that it would be subject to appropriate processes that would enable the people of the municipality to have their input at public hearings.
I am not saying that in an official capacity, because I can only comment officially on the act itself and on the clause within the act. But we would fulfill our part of that, and then those questions about review would be handled within the requirements of the municipality.
W. Hurd: Where the land grant has occurred for some type of park, wilderness or green space within the municipality, and the municipality elects to change the designation in some way that might allow for future development, would this be something that the ministry would expect to enforce -- the prior requirements of reapplying to the Crown lands ministry to have the property so designated? Or would that be a typical situation where the municipality would simply be able
[ Page 6989 ]
to redesignate the land to another type of area protection without having to be bound by the previous requirements under the act, which clearly spelled out the need to reapply and go through the same bureaucratic channels?
Hon. J. Cashore: If there was to be an application for a change, they would have to receive the permission of the minister. If, for instance, it was changing one specified use to a commercial use, they would have to pay for that change.
V. Anderson: I'm trying to clarify this. In our particular constituency, we had an in-care facility for children, which was on government land within the municipality. That was torn down, and now two houses are going on that same property. Does this kind of thing require appeal through the government -- other than just a hearing in the municipality, which was not very effective or proper?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's always difficult to respond to a specific example without knowing more details of that example. It's possible that we had authorized the two houses in the first place. But given the amount of information the hon. member gave me in asking the question, the answer would be yes.
A. Cowie: Section 7 states that the Crown can transfer authority to the Build BC Act without cost. Similarly, it says that it can grant land to the municipalities. My question has to do with open space within municipalities. I'm thinking of a specific example near the Langara Golf Course. There's about a two-acre parcel beside the YMCA and the golf course that is owned by the Crown. They actually paid for it. Would that also be transferred free, or would there be a cost?
Hon. J. Cashore: When the hon. member said that he was referring to section 7, I think he made a specific quote. I'm not sure that I was able to identify the exact part of the section he was referring to. I wonder if he would identify very clearly the portion of section 7 that he's referring to and restate his question.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
A. Cowie: Maybe it's just my notes. I'm referring to the repeal of section 48. I have it as section 7. It says, essentially, that the Crown may transfer lands to the Build BC Act authority -- the new Crown agency -- for free. It's transferring from the Crown to this agency free. It can also transfer to municipalities, regional districts and those authorities. What I'm trying to get the minister to say is that he will give this park space in Langara to the municipality free, rather than having the municipality pay for it. The last government, the Socreds, put a tremendous price on this land that no one could possibly pay. I was hoping this government might transfer it free.
The Chair: Hon. member, could you please refrain, and get back to the bill.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member has now made two references connecting this section to Build B.C. To the best of my knowledge, Build B.C. is not mentioned anywhere within this entire miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I'm having a difficult time following the question. If it's my fault I apologize, but I would appreciate it if we could have a very specific reference that enables this member to frame a question around a linkage with Build B.C.
[3:00]
V. Anderson: Forget about the reference to Build B.C. It's simply in this act that it's transferred free of charge. This portion of land between the Langara Golf Course and Langara college is Crown land. The question is: will that be transferred free to the municipality so it could be used by the community?
Hon. J. Cashore: It will be dealt with on its own merits if an application is made. I will not answer that question in the House, because it requires appropriate process.
V. Anderson: When property is sold, as it can be under this particular section, do proceeds from that sale go back into a particular pot for replacement of other land?
Hon. J. Cashore: All revenue flows to the Crown land account, which is a subaccount of the consolidated revenue.
V. Anderson: I'm not sure whether this is in order or not. In that regard, are you able to tell us how much is in that Crown land account at the present time?
Hon. J. Cashore: It has an opening balance of about $50 million.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister tell us if the powers conferred on him by section 8 would apply to Crown corporations as well? In other words, would the minister have the same powers to amend or replace a Crown grant that had been previously granted to a Crown corporation?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
D. Mitchell: I'm trying to think of an example. If a Crown corporation such as B.C. Rail, for instance, had been granted some land by the Crown and if that land was no longer being used for the purpose it was initially granted for, would the minister, at his own discretion, have the power and authority under this section to amend that grant, even by taking the Crown land back to the Crown from the Crown corporation?
Hon. J. Cashore: Most land granted for railway purposes has a reverter, which means that when it
[ Page 6990 ]
comes back because it's no longer being used for railway purposes, it would then revert to the Crown.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's answer to the question. The reason I was using B.C. Rail as an example was that that Crown corporation now has a specific mandate in the area of property development. That Crown corporation has diversified into a number of other businesses aside from rail cargo, and is now a property developer in its own right. I'm wondering at what point the minister would use his discretion and his powers under section 8 of this bill to deal with the situation where a Crown corporation, such as B.C. Rail, was developing properties that had been granted to it in the past but perhaps might now be in conflict with community values. There might be some environmental considerations or other community considerations. Would the minister be able and willing to use his authority, then, on behalf of a community? Is there a potential conflict there in terms of dealing with a Crown corporation? Who would decide?
Hon. J. Cashore: The minister would only go as far as enforcing the provisions of the Crown grant, whatever it may be.
Sections 8 and 9 approved.
On section 10.
J. Tyabji: This is one of the most critical sections of the bill. Section 10(56)(1) states: "If a person does anything that is an offence under section 57(a) to (g), the minister may, on notice to that person, do one or more of the following." How will notice to that person be enacted?
Hon. J. Cashore: Notice will be formally served in writing.
J. Tyabji: Will there be intervention by the police or any third body? Is notice in writing through lawyers? Is that at the site? How is that going to be enforced?
Hon. J. Cashore: Preferably it is served in writing and in person by an officer of the ministry.
J. Tyabji: Subsection (1)(a) requires the person to cease the unauthorized occupation of the Crown land, give up possession of the land and restore the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister. If a hiker on Crown land had been trying to cut a hiking trail through the Crown land, would that be considered unauthorized occupation and activity that required restoration of the land?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is not intended for that use. The Forest Act is the statute under which that sort of consideration would be a factor.
With regard to some of the points made in second reading relating to this section, I wish to inform the hon. member that the need for these changes in this section was made clear to me before the end of 1992. We are dealing with pressing issues. I would also point out that the Outdoor Recreation Council, which is an umbrella group not supportive of any political party but which represents a great many groups dedicated to outdoor recreation, has been in the forefront of presenting this government with reasons for the kinds of changes reflected here.
There was nothing whatsoever -- and I say again, nothing whatsoever -- in this act that has anything to do with events in the Clayoquot, either past events or events that may happen in the future. I just want to emphasize for the hon. member that if government were contemplating such an action, it would certainly not be within this type of a statute. Even if we were considering having such powers within the purview of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, it would probably happen under the Environment Management Act, where we already have that power. The powers already exist to do the things that we are being accused of by introducing this bill.
J. Tyabji: Is the minister suggesting that the Outdoor Recreation Council is supporting this section of the bill?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Outdoor Recreation Council supports the general changes that are being made to the legislation so that we can more effectively deal with the circumstances that obtain in the province at this time.
J. Tyabji: With respect to unauthorized occupation of Crown land, restoring the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister under (a) and (b), if the minister is not trying to restrict access to the Crown lands by groups he might deem not suitable in terms of their activities, what are the specific conditions that necessitated this bill? I'll get to (c) after I hear his answer.
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps I could give one example. Correspondence has recently been received by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast regarding trespass by fish farmers on abandoned aquaculture sites. That would be a good example indicating the need for this legislation.
J. Tyabji: Under 56(1)(c), if the person commits an offence, the minister may require the person to pay to the Minister of Finance a sum of money considered by the minister reasonable in the circumstances. If we want to follow up on that one example that the minister used -- and I don't know that I buy that as being a typical example, because I don't know that aquaculture farms would constitute a typical example of Crown lands -- by what criteria will the minister be deeming reasonable in terms of penalizing people who are trespassing under section 57?
Hon. J. Cashore: What would be reasonable would be to recover costs for cleaning up the mess, and that is outlined very specifically within the bill.
[ Page 6991 ]
J. Tyabji: When we talk about restoring the land to a condition satisfactory to the minister, though, it seems to me that that does allow a lot of arbitrary decision-making on the part of the minister. If I'm to understand that it's going to be direct costs, I'm assuming that those costs are going to be assessed by an independent body, so that the minister will have someone else go in and say, "Okay, this is what it costs," and have it invoiced in that way. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: The basis is the cost to cure the problem that has been created by the trespasser. It's not to be punitive; it is to be fair -- in the stewardship of the land and in the interest of the taxpayer.
J. Tyabji: Since the idea is not to be punitive, I just want to get this on record, so that if we stray off this we can come back to the minister's comments. If it's not to be punitive and it's only to pay back for direct costs, I'm assuming that those costs are only going to be costs as they would be identified by a third party -- someone who is assessing physical damage or something of that nature -- rather than, for example, what the government might perceive to be costs on a specific section of Crown land.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's either that the individual would do the reclamation himself or herself, or that we would hire a contractor to do it. That's how it would be done, and it's very clearly spelled out in the legislation.
J. Tyabji: Obviously there's no reference to a contractor in the legislation. Under 56(1)(d) we have the bill saying: "Cancel any lease, right of way, easement, licence of occupation, permit or other disposition held by the person under this Act." I'm assuming that we're talking about the specific incident that is considered to be an offence. That is not spelled out in the bill. And I'm assuming, for example, that if someone were deemed to have committed an offence under this bill on a specific Crown land site, they wouldn't then have any rights or privileges to another site yanked under the act.
Hon. J. Cashore: It all depends on the circumstances. If the individual were to hold a log-handling lease, for instance, and started storing logs off the lease, they might have their lease privileges rejected. The lease could be terminated if they persisted in a use on an inappropriate site.
[3:15]
J. Tyabji: In 56(1)(e) we have that the minister may: "Direct a sheriff or public officer to seize on behalf of the Crown all improvements, goods, chattels or other materials on the Crown land or in or on water on the Crown land." I think that's a little bit frightening in terms of private property being appropriated by the government. What is the intent of the government with regard to the materials that would be seized? For example, if it turned out that someone had built some improvements on Crown land, like a dock, and had their own boat tied up to the dock, my reading of this would say that the ministry could therefore seize all of these things because of an offence that might be committed on the land. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: This clause is very similar to the wording in the parts of the act that are being replaced. That provision was already there. That provision is standard. You'd find this kind of provision in a number of situations.
J. Tyabji: That still doesn't answer the question. Am I to understand that someone who had a Crown land lease and had made improvements on that and had private property, such as a boat or a trailer or something like that, the government could seize them because of an offence that is deemed by the minister to have been committed on the land? If that's true, by what avenue does the person receive their private property back?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a power that must be held in order to have an effective enforcement when a directive is given. It must be administered with very great sensitivity, which is the case among the staff of the lands branch at the present time.
J. Tyabji: Under section 56(1)(f), the minister may require the person to remove any improvements, etc. I'm just wondering in what instance the minister would seize private property rather than direct the person to remove it. If we look at section 56(1), it says: "...on notice to that person....." Am I to understand that before the minister would seize the boat, dock, trailer and all the things on the Crown land, notice would be given that it was being planned? Why would that be the plan, rather than the way that is outlined under (f), which says that these improvements should be removed?
Hon. J. Cashore: An example would be a foreshore fill, where a party has come in and filled the shore. Under this provision you could require that it be removed. Again, this provision is very similar to the one that exists in the present wording.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the notice that will be given to the individual who, under section 57, may be deemed by the minister to have committed an offence, could the minister please give us an example -- other than the aquaculture one -- with regards to Crown lands, and most particularly Crown lands where there may be some forestry licence in place? Is there an instance where the public would be deemed to be committing an offence and receive a notice like this from the minister? I'm looking at section 56(4): "If a person to whom this section applies fails to act in accordance with the notice given under subsection (1), a public officer...may, on notice to the person, require...a penalty of up to $1,000 for non-compliance with the notice." I'd like to hear some concrete examples from the minister of where this would kick in.
Hon. J. Cashore: This provision already exists within the Range Act and other similar acts and
[ Page 6992 ]
legislation elsewhere in Canada. An example would be where buildings have been constructed inappropriately.
W. Hurd: Just a question to the minister about how this entire section relates to or dovetails with the new interim guidelines for aboriginal use of unoccupied Crown land, for which we understand there is unlimited access for purposes of hunting and fishing. Would the provision of item 4 enable the ministry to proceed independently of any determination by the Attorney General?
Hon. J. Cashore: The intention would be to be complementary with any arrangement that we have with aboriginal people. I don't know if the question was really clear. When the hon. member refers to item 4, I assume that he's referring to section 56(4), is that right?
W. Hurd: Yes, that's correct. Assuming that an offence were committed under section 57(a) on Crown land, would the minister be able to proceed by way of direct demand to an aboriginal nation or to any member of the aboriginal community for payment?
Hon. J. Cashore: Being cognizant that in some instances aboriginal peoples have special status, the answer would be yes; but there are some instances where, given that special status, other considerations would be brought to bear.
W. Hurd: The minister indicated earlier that his ministry is in receipt of letters of complaint or concern. Would it be possible for an individual, a fish and wildlife group or any other outdoor group to initiate an action under 57(a), or would an action be entirely at the discretion of the minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: People can write, as they do on quite a regular basis. In the final analysis, though, it would be the decision of the minister as to when to proceed.
W. Hurd: For my own clarification, I would welcome an explanation again from the minister as to why, under item (4), we're dealing with such a dramatic increase in the amount of a fine, from $100 to $1,000. Surely that amount in many cases wouldn't be sufficient to rectify any damage. Could the minister advise us why the increase amounts to almost 1,000, or 900, percent? Maybe the first question I could ask, Mr. Chairman, is whether the $100 fines under the previous legislation were levied that often and whether this represents a major new revenue source for the ministry, given the frequency of offences.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, there is an error in the hon. member's assumption: this is not replacing a $100 fine; this is new. As I said before, this is also consistent with the Range Act and with legislation elsewhere in Canada. Being an administrative penalty, the purpose is to avoid costly litigation; therefore the penalty must be such that it will have the desired effect. It is an appropriate amount, given the present circumstances, and should assist by avoiding costly litigative procedures. It's also consistent with some very successful approaches elsewhere. Where an administrative penalty is applied by a regional official, it would be subject to appeal to the minister.
W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that explanation, but it was my impression that the basic fine for trespass on Crown land was rising from $100 to $1,000. Is the minister now saying that assumption was incorrect?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a $300 fine as part of a litigation process within the existing legislation, which is also being changed in this act. But that has nothing to do with administrative penalties.
V. Anderson: Following that up, the $1,000 fine is like a parking ticket in another circumstance. It's an administrative ticket, given for whatever reason. But I understand that if that administrative ticket is left unpaid, then, as we move into the act, it becomes in effect a certificate which automatically turns into a court proceeding. So it has more bearing than it appears to have just in this area. I know I'm reading ahead, but it has a bearing on this. It seems to me that it becomes a certificate, so it's not only a $1,000 fine but it's also the precursor to a court action. It is essentially the same as a parking ticket in that regard. Is that right?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. Like a parking ticket, it has to be enforceable. There are times when that enforcement has to go through the court system. But the effect of the administrative penalty provision is that it should be much more effective in achieving the desired result, and less costly.
V. Anderson: Talking about this section earlier, the minister said that the reasons for bringing this section into being arose from issues that occurred in 1992 and prior. Would he give some illustrations as to what those prior issues were that brought this into being?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. There are many examples. I'll give them under categories. Examples requiring this kind of trespassing enforcement are: illegal log dumps and storage; unauthorized fish farms, which responds to a concern of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I'm sure he'll be glad to see it here; illegally filled foreshore, which is an example I gave a few minutes ago; and unauthorized cabins. I can tell the hon. member that when I went down the Tatshenshini River last year there was a guide outfitter's cabin that was very intrusive, and it was in an area that had not been authorized.
[3:30]
I think we're all familiar with the old saying that the world is your oyster, and that you can just go out there and do what you want. The fact is that there's no more grass beyond the mountains. There's no more land out there where people can go and just do their frontier thing. In the interest of the people of B.C., we must have a very careful way of caring about the land. So whether
[ Page 6993 ]
it's a guide outfitter's cabin, or a multimillion-dollar corporation that is illegally cutting a line through pristine wilderness, there has to be a way of enforcing our intent so that that doesn't happen. The intent in this legislation is not to be punitive for the sake of being punitive; the intent is to have a regime in place that enables us to appropriately protect the land.
L. Fox: As the minister knows from second reading debate, the third party really doesn't have a lot of problems with the bill. But I have a couple of points that I want to clarify. The minister talked a few moments ago about unauthorized cabins. It begs the question, will these owners -- perhaps better qualified as squatters -- have the option of going through a permitting process, or will an arbitrary decision be made that it's unauthorized and has to go?
Hon. J. Cashore: Always the first consideration is whether or not you can legalize it. If it turns out that you can and you proceed to do so, then they would have to pay back rental for the unauthorized use of the land during the time they occupied it in that manner.
I must say, I have a lot of affection for these people. They're part of an era that is tremendously significant in our history, and it's with some sadness that I see us now being required to go through a transition. I know my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a real concern for the heritage value of cabins that were built in parts of the province perhaps 80, 90 or 100 years ago and some concerns about being able to ensure that we recognize it as part of our heritage. At the same time, we have reached that critical mass in terms of the use of the land where we simply cannot allow it anymore. It's one of those difficult ethical considerations that as a society we have to come to from time to time, and we've come to that point now.
I think it's very important that in administering this we do so in a way that shows we have a respect for all of the people we're dealing with. It's a difficult issue to try to administer, but we do need to have the enforcement capability there in order to do it properly.
L. Fox: With the passing of this bill, will there be a deadline for individuals to apply for permitting, or will the permitting opportunity go on until such time as all of these anomalies have been dealt with?
Hon. J. Cashore: Circumstances would not change in that regard, in that we have an ongoing process now. Many of those guide-outfitters, for example, who have built a cabin know whether it's on an illegal site, so they could presently be applying for that. We would carry on the administration as in the past, but with this additional administrative clout.
L. Fox: One further issue. I have in my possession a copy of a letter sent to the minister yesterday by the West Coast Environmental Law Association. Is the minister aware of the letter, and has he had a chance to peruse the contents of the letter on this particular section?
Hon. J. Cashore: I haven't seen the letter. I was at a meeting all morning, and I believe that someone mentioned it to me. Could the hon. member clarify if this letter relates to the connection that's being made with the Clayoquot?
L. Fox: No. So that the minister can comment for the record, I'll read a quote from the letter that is particular to this section. "Although we understand the Land Act currently prohibits `use without lawful authority,' the wording of the act as it stands suggests that there must be some permanency to the use before it becomes illegal." They are suggesting that if there isn't an area for permitting all uses, it may negate the classing of something as illegal. Is that a concern or not?
Hon. J. Cashore: It doesn't change the legalities of trespass occupation. If it was a trespass before, it would continue to exist.
L. Fox: One further question asked in this letter:
"We understand the intent of the amended section is to allow the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to deal with commercial back-country users -- such as heli-ski operators -- and squatters. However, in attempting to regulate this sort of use, Bill 25 appears to criminalize the right to access to Crown land, which all British Columbians take for granted."
Although I'm sure I know the answer to that, perhaps the minister would like to comment for the record.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: I can't say how much I appreciate that question, because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record that that is clearly not the intent. I want my words on the record saying that, so that members of the public can realize that I've been willing to put this on the record: that is absolutely not the intent. As a matter of fact, the intent really is to protect Crown land so that it can be available in the most appropriate possible condition for the public. It's the very opposite to that concern. The intent of this legislation is to ensure that the public is able to enjoy Crown land in the state that it should be for their enjoyment.
L. Fox: I know that I know the answers to all the questions, but for the purposes of the record I will ask this. I quote from this letter:
"Our concern is that by making it an offence to use Crown land without lawful authority or to construct works without authorization, generally accepted public uses of Crown land will be prohibited. There is a potential for abuse of the section by ministry officials unsympathetic to public uses such as wilderness viewing, trail access construction to raise wilderness preservation awareness, or legitimate protest of controversial logging."
Would the minister like to comment?
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, on the contrary, there is no change in this act with regard to those concerns that are cited. I have the greatest admiration for the West
[ Page 6994 ]
Coast Environmental Law Association, but I hope they would be aware that this bill does not change the legislative regime with regard to those items that they're expressing concern about.
Any legislation is always as good as the people who have the responsibility to administer it. I would have to say that I'm very pleased with the record of the people who do administer this legislation, but in the final analysis it is appealable to the minister. Again, I want to say for the record that one of the purposes of this legislation is to ensure the protection of the land for public use. To somehow find in here a means of keeping the public from using the land would really be the opposite of its intent. Having said that, I think we all know that with our large population, the multiplicity of recreational uses and the fact that there are different uses of the land, we need to have some way of managing that in a thoughtful and useful way.
R. Neufeld: I'm pleased to learn that the Minister of Agriculture has brought up his concerns about cabins and that type of thing in the wilderness where he comes from. I represent an area of British Columbia that has a tremendous number of lakes and mountains, an awful lot of guiding and outfitting and trapping, a lot of cabins that were built many years ago and probably some cabins built recently on lakes for fly-in fishing, where that's the only access. I also know of an instance in my constituency where a cabin that had been there for years was burned down because of some discrepancies between the ministry and the person who owned the cabin. I feel for what the minister is saying about the fact that ministry staff will be very careful in their determination. I appreciate that, but sometimes, after the fact, it doesn't help. Some of those cabins can be used for search and rescue. People go down in aircraft in those areas. If you go down in an aircraft and you're able to walk away from it, some of those cabins can be pretty handy when it comes to being able to stay alive.
I wonder if you could give me a bit more assurance that ministry staff will be very careful, understanding and consistent before they go out into the mountains -- and I'm talking about my constituency, which is huge -- and make determinations with regard to some of those cabins. As I've said, we know that in the past that has not always been the case. We have to be careful. There is some heritage out there that we all have to look at really carefully. You can only access some areas by aircraft -- not all of the public is going to be able to get into them -- so there has to be some discretion. Often the legislation is so rigid that ministry staff can say: "I followed it to the letter of the law" -- and actually they did -- "and everything is fine." But there has to be some kind of buffer and appeal.
Hon. J. Cashore: Again I welcome the opportunity to put my words on the record on this. The last resort is to destroy or burn down. That would happen in an instance where there is a real public controversy. An example, which I cited awhile ago, is the unauthorized cabin on the banks of the Tatshenshini. The first attempt is always to try to find a resolution that doesn't necessitate that. One way the person who has erected on the site can participate in that process is to make an application to have it legalized.
I think members of the public would recognize that that is a responsible approach. We're not going to be administering this in a draconian way; we're going to be administering it in an appropriate way. For instance, in your area, hon. member, the regional director of lands in Fort St. John is someone who, I believe, would use a great deal of discretion in dealing with that. In the final analysis, it could be appealable to the minister.
R. Neufeld: The Alaska Highway in my constituency was, of course, built by the federal government, and it is maintained by them. But the province has authority over the right-of-way. The right-of-way is fairly wide; I believe it's 300 feet along the whole length of it. There has been a lot of controversy about signs. Some signs are on Crown land, of course, because most of it is Crown land north of Fort St. John. But there are some older buildings, and some buildings have been erected which I think are infringing on highway rights-of-way, which would be Crown land under the province's jurisdiction. I wonder how we will handle that. We're talking about buildings that were built a long time ago, sites that have been in place since the highway was built. What kind of process are we going to go through to adjudicate those situations?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Transportation and Highways would have the lead responsibility in the example the hon. member has outlined.
V. Anderson: Because of a comment the minister made earlier, I presume that he will be giving due consideration and encouragement for the preservation of heritage facilities, which have a historical concern, and that he will be cooperating with heritage groups in trying to preserve those.
Hon. J. Cashore: We work very closely with heritage groups in evaluating these circumstances. As I said before, I know the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be watching this very closely as well. He has been in on many occasions to meet with ministry officials and me on this topic, and has regaled us with stories that were reminiscent of his television program.
Anyway, I won't go on with that, hon. Chair, because I'm getting off topic. But I do want to assure the hon. member that we will be continuing to consult very closely on the heritage concerns.
V. Anderson: I'm delighted to hear that, because although it's not in the forestry area per se, we have a heritage building in our riding. It was the original infirmary prior to becoming part of Pearson Hospital, which is on Crown-owned land at this point. They are currently dealing with that as a heritage site in order to use it in the community as a heritage museum. So we
[ Page 6995 ]
will be following that up with the minister. I'm glad to know that the precondition of concern is there.
As mentioned earlier, I would ask if we might have a comment about the compliance with an administrative request, which now, under section 58, becomes a certificate which then becomes a court order. Would the minister like to comment on that switch. How does a certificate fine become a certificate, and what are its implications?
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to ask the hon. member if he would kindly be very specific in the portion of the amendment to section 10 to which he is referring, because we were not able to understand the question.
While I'm on my feet, I want to say that another individual in cabinet who is very concerned about heritage issues is the Minister Responsible for Tourism and Culture. She also makes sure that we are very cognizant of these issues.
V. Anderson: It's under section 10, listed under 58(2). It indicates that if the person fails to pay the penalty after service that had been mentioned previously.... Then, referring to 56(4), this now becomes a certificate, and in effect it automatically becomes a court order. Am I correct in that? If so, how is that being handled?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
V. Anderson: I'm trying to understand the actual implications of section 58 in relation to what has gone before. Could the minister just please explain the implication of 58.1?
Hon. J. Cashore: The implication is exactly as the hon. member has said. It could potentially then move into the court process.
J. Dalton: I am going to follow up on what my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has raised, because I confess that the more I read these four subsections brought in under section 10, the more uncomfortable I am. I have a feeling that if we're not dealing with double jeopardy in the law, it could be quadruple jeopardy.
Let me take the minister through this possible scenario. I'm looking now at the new 58.1, which is the last part of section 10 in the bill. Would the minister agree that trespassing, for example, could be an offence under section 57?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
J. Dalton: Given that possible scenario, section 58.1 is providing that if, for example, someone is convicted of trespass -- we're talking now of basically a criminal or quasi-criminal matter in the provincial jurisdiction -- they could also be ordered under the new section 58.1 to compensate the Crown for any loss or damage caused by the trespass. Is that not also so?
Hon. J. Cashore: The reference to it being criminal is incorrect; it's not criminal. It's not appropriate to use that term in reference to this legislation. But to the second part of the question, the answer is yes.
J. Dalton: I did correct myself; I did say quasi-criminal in the provincial jurisdiction. I agree it's not a criminal matter; that's only federal. Provincial laws, of course, create things which in the legal world we sometimes describe as being quasi-criminal in nature.
We now have a situation where somebody may have been convicted under section 57 for trespass. They may have been ordered to compensate the Crown under section 58.1 for any loss or damage as a consequence of the trespass. If I can take the minister back to 56 in the first part of section 10, we could also have a scenario where someone has been ordered to make restitution for the very thing that has given rise to both an offence of trespass and compensation to be ordered under section 58.1. Is that a possibility?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a possibility, but it's managed with discretion.
J. Dalton: All right. I won't pursue this any further. I think the minister has satisfied me. We do have some rather intriguing possibilities.
We're also looking at some very significant increases in current penalties, but we will come to this under the next section. Perhaps I'll just make one comment. It seems to me, hon. minister, that many of the people you may be trying to prosecute -- or in some other way trying to enforce the law against -- are not likely to be ones who are going to be in compliance with the laws. The Crown may find itself in a difficult situation of trying to prosecute or otherwise enforce the penalties under these provisions. It may in large part be an exercise in futility. Putting aside the concerns that I've already voiced, we're looking at some very serious questions of double, if not other jeopardy.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, that is not an appropriate use of the term double jeopardy. This is a normal process. One measures an administrative penalty; it comes into being. In most cases it works. When it doesn't work, then the next stage clicks in. That's not double jeopardy.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
V. Anderson: Could the minister explain why there is such an increase -- from $300 to $20,000 -- under section 11? There was some question earlier about the $1,000 increase in the other particular portion.
Hon. J. Cashore: The current maximum fine of $300 under the present legislation, which may be levied by the courts for a Land Act offence, is not a sufficient deterrent. I think we all agree with that. Why such a whopping increase to $20,000? The proposed trespass fine exceeds the range of Saskatchewan by $5,000. In
[ Page 6996 ]
other provinces where there are trespass fines, these ones are considered to be very low by their provincial authorities. This fine is within the range of similar statutes and resource legislation in British Columbia. In most instances administrative means would be used to resolve these issues, but as I said before, you need a deterrent that recognizes the importance and value of the land to the people of the province.
As I listed when I was asked for examples -- and that was only a partial list -- there are activities going on within the province that need to be dealt with, and there has to be a deterrent. It's a deterrent in the last analysis, and a deterrent that would provide considerable leeway within the decisions of the courts. It is the opportunity to administer a penalty of that amount where, for instance, a corporation was involved in wilful neglect, and therefore that is not too great a potential deterrent. But again, I think hon. members would agree that our courts do exercise discretion in the administration of the instruments that are available to the courts. This legislation makes it possible for the court to consider a variety of ways in which to address a particular instance.
The bottom line, hon. member, is that the land out there is finite. We simply cannot go on saying that it goes on forever and that there's always more. Every bit of land is a responsibility of, and an asset of, the people of British Columbia.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's reason for the extension of the amount. Could he explain the difference between the charges or why a person might be fined up to $20,000 in this category as compared to the other category of $1,000, which then also goes to the courts? What's the distinction? What falls under one area, and what falls under the other area?
Hon. J. Cashore: If the hon. member thinks about the Motor Vehicle Act, he would have a good example of how the system works. It's an administrative penalty, the potential being up to $1,000. It works in a different system. There is provision to go to court if that doesn't work; it does not preclude the opportunity to go the litigative route if that's the choice given the severity of the circumstance.
J. Tyabji: Based on the line of questioning that we've had so far with regard to the minister and ministerial staff and people who are judging whether or not an offence has been committed, I'm a little concerned that under section 11.... The original act as amended will read: "Every person who is convicted of an offence against this Act, for which no penalty is provided, is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days, or to both the fine and imprisonment." So far in our discussion on this bill, when we've talked about notification and follow-up, it has been more or less about officers of the minister. Now we're talking about the police being involved and convictions and, I would assume, court cases.
In second reading we talked about the resources of the ministry as opposed to the resources of the individual. Are we then talking about a civil conviction, or a criminal conviction? I'm not sure how this breaks down and how we moved from talking about things being enacted by officers of the ministry to talking about the Criminal Code.
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: No charges are proceeded with unless Crown counsel approves.
J. Tyabji: So the way I'm understanding this is that even though in previous sections we have ministry staff basically deeming whether or not there should be an expropriation of private property because of an offence, now it would have to be Crown counsel deeming that the offence should go to court. Is it correct that a fine will not be imposed unless the charges are laid by the police officers rather than through the ministry?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to ask the hon. member to restate the question.
J. Tyabji: Although in the previous sections the offence could result in an officer of the ministry expropriating private property if the ministry deemed it appropriate, in this instance the fine could only be levied against the individual if they had to go to court. They could only go to court if they had been charged by a police officer. For example, we couldn't have an official of the ministry levying a fine on the individual.
Hon. J. Cashore: The proper term is a "peace officer." In regard to the point the hon. member is making, this is no different than the situation that existed prior to this legislation.
J. Tyabji: That is my point. We have the original Land Act from 1979, but there is a differentiation here with regard to the offence. So far, when we've been talking about the offence as deemed under section 57 of the act, that was something that someone within the ministry was deeming -- the minister doesn't want to say "punitive action" -- what the appropriate action should be with regard to removing the lease or the rights and privileges for Crown land and expropriating private assets. That was all done by ministry officials. I am surprised to see convictions and potential imprisonment set out in section 11 of the original act. I'm wondering why the ministry wouldn't have chosen to have fines levied through the ministry rather than going to court through what appears to be a criminal conviction.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's standard procedure. One is an administrative measure; one is a litigative measure. That's the line of demarcation. Depending on which one of those situations obtain, the process is different.
J. Tyabji: Why has the minister chosen to make this a matter of litigation, keeping in mind how much more that costs the ministry, and keeping in mind...? Let's say a hiker has cut a trail on Crown land, and for the purposes of this act that is deemed to be an offence and
[ Page 6997 ]
the ministry decides to press charges. All of a sudden it is incumbent on that person to have financial resources to deal with the litigation. That's where the question is coming from.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are circumstances where the issues are extraordinarily complex and where the court is the appropriate venue to sort that out. The use of the courts should not be abused, in the sense of being brought in indiscriminately or inappropriately. That is why it is subject to Crown counsel's approval. There are instances, in the judgment and wisdom of Crown counsel, where they would say: "Yes, in these circumstances it does behoove us to go the court route." That instrument is available in lawmaking, and this is a law.
J. Tyabji: So through this bill, in effect, the ministry will not be levying fines over $1,000 to people unless it is deemed by Crown counsel that it should be litigated?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
V. Anderson: I would just like to follow up and clarify what the minister is saying. If they feel someone is in breach of the rules or regulations, the minister is in a position, through his officials, to impose a fine of $500 or whatever, and if you don't pay, then you go to court. So you are given a choice of paying a fine of $1,000 or risking having to pay $20,000.
Hon. J. Cashore: You can't do both at the same time; you have to choose to go the route of an administrative penalty or the route of charges. If you started on the route of an administrative charge, you would have to follow that route through.
J. Dalton: I have to disagree with the minister on that. It seems to me that the administrative penalty could be levied under the previous section and, at the same time or before or after -- whatever you like -- there could be a prosecution under the provisions of the offence section. One is an imposed administrative penalty and so, if the Crown chooses, is ultimately a civil liability. The other is a prosecution under the offence provisions in this amendment.
Hon. J. Cashore: We're dealing with a wide variety of circumstances here. In general, if you issue the administrative penalty and in some instances it doesn't work, then you have the option of going to the courts on the basis of that administrative penalty, when you're following that route. I'll leave it at that.
D. Lovick: Hon. Chair, I wonder if the House would give me leave to make a very brief introduction.
Leave Granted.
D. Lovick: I have just returned from having a pleasant meeting with a group of some 25 grade 5 and 6 students from McGirr Elementary School, along with their teacher, Mr. John Secuur. We had a nice chat. I'm happy to note that these students are now in the gallery. I'd like to make them welcome on behalf of my colleague the member for Parksville-Qualicum, in whose riding these students are from. Would the House please join me in making these people welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: I just want to make it very clear that if you're going the route of the administrative penalty, and if that does not succeed, and if there is a continuing trespass, then at that point in time you could decide to go the litigative route. But in the reasonable application of this, you would try very hard to make the administrative penalty approach work.
Section 11 approved.
On section 12.
J. Tyabji: I'm wondering why this bill has amended section 106 of the original act to allow the rate of interest to be prescribed. Why would the minister want to be able to prescribe the rate of interest?
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be unfair if some people made use of process to avoid paying a fine. They need to know that if they do that, it would be subject to the standard rates. That should be an understandable and reasonable incentive for the timely payment of the fine so that we can keep the Minister of Finance happy.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: I would like to introduce to the House a couple of constituents who are visiting Victoria today. Surrinder and Kartar Bains are in the gallery. I ask all members to make them welcome.
J. Tyabji: The reason I'm wondering why we need section 12 is that we have proposed section 58, "Enforcement of payment," under section 10. With regard to the penalties, it says: "bears interest at a prescribed rate." Or is section 12 only in reference to section 11 and not to the rest of the bill?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I apologize; I did not get that question. I would beg the indulgence of the hon. member to please ask it again.
J. Tyabji: I think the minister meant most humbly beg.
I was wondering why we need section 12 when we already have penalties being deemed to bear interest at a prescribed rate in proposed section 58 under section 10. It seems redundant to me -- unless section 12 is only in reference to section 11, which I don't believe the bill makes clear.
Hon. J. Cashore: Unless I still don't understand the question, it seems to me that the question is: given that there's another section of the bill that sets the amount of the penalty, why would you have section 12
[ Page 6998 ]
to set an interest rate? If that is the question, I suppose the next question is: why didn't you do all of this in that same section? I don't know. It has to do with legislative drafting.
But the question may be: why would you apply an amount of interest to a fine when there is a failure to pay that fine? If that is the question, I would only answer the way I did before. There should be a penalty for that, because it isn't fair to individuals who pay a fine promptly when there are other individuals who don't pay a fine promptly.
J. Tyabji: Actually, no, that wasn't the question. This is where I don't understand what's happened. In the proposed section 58 under section 10 we have: "If a person is required to pay a penalty...the penalty is due and payable...and bears interest at a prescribed rate." So we already have that there. That whole section is on enforcement of payment and interest rates. Then in section 12 we have an amendment that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations, including prescribing the rate of interest. Unless we're saying that the prescribed rate of interest that is referred to in proposed section 58 under section 10 is outlined in section 12.... If that's the case, all I need is clarification of that. That's one part.
The second part is: why does it just say "for the purpose of section 58(1)," rather than saying for the purpose of all of section 58?
Hon. J. Cashore: In section 12 it says: "may make regulations, including regulations prescribing the rate of interest for the purpose of section 58(1)." There could be further additions to that section, and in that case it would be through regulations prescribing the interest rate in perhaps more than one instance.
J. Tyabji: Perhaps it's because I don't understand why this was drafted. Proposed section 58 under section 10 talks about a prescribed interest rate, and then section 12 talks about interest "for the purpose of section 58(1)." Is that maybe a mistake, and was it meant to say "for the purpose of section 58"? Or is it that 58(1) is different from 58.1?
[4:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: It's not a mistake. This makes provision for prescribed rates in section 58(1), which is the only place where we need to prescribe rates.
Section 12 approved.
On section 13.
J. Tyabji: When we have a bill before the House that is an amendment to the Waste Management Act, why would we have this portion, sections 13 and 14.... Why would we have this section of it in this bill? What is the purpose of that?
Hon. J. Cashore: This amendment does not apply to contaminated sites.
J. Tyabji: Is this amendment more applicable in the Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act than it is in the Waste Management Amendment Act?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, in that this is a miscellaneous statute which is dealing with some minor amendments -- relatively speaking -- to a number of different acts. It is fitting and appropriate in this bill.
J. Tyabji: When we were in second reading stage, the minister talked about the Waste Management Act. Section 13 says: "No person shall construct, establish, alter, enlarge, extend, use or operate a facility for the treatment, recycling, storage, disposal or destruction of a special waste...." Is that the reference he was making to underground storage regulations?
Hon. J. Cashore: Section 13 deals with the wording of section 3.2 of the original act, which contains a redundant reference to a permit, approval order, waste management plan and the act. Other sections of the act establish requirements for permits or discharges and storage of special waste. This section should simply establish the requirement for special waste facilities to be operated in compliance with the regulations. The existing wording has caused confusion in the past, and this new wording improves our ability to be successful in enforcement.
Sections 13 and 14 approved.
On section 15.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the pollution prevention orders, is this what the minister was making reference to in second reading about what he is expecting to happen with underground storage as it affects gas stations or small businesses, for example?
Hon. J. Cashore: No.
J. Tyabji: To what extent does section 22.2(2) differ from what we would call somebody who is potentially contaminating a site? Isn't "an activity or operation has been or is being performed by a person in a manner which is likely to release a substance that will cause pollution of the environment...." what we're also dealing with in Bill 26? Not that I want to proceed with this, but it seems to me that there's a lot of overlap there.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no; this is preventive. This is to prevent contamination through an order.
J. Tyabji: Obviously we'll deal with it in Bill 26. We do have some preventive measures coming in Bill 26.
Could the minister give me an idea of how, for example, in the process of monitoring the activities of these persons as they are defined, the manager will be acting in any manner so that they will know that a person is doing this? Is it going to be through a public
[ Page 6999 ]
reporting process or in the manager's daily rounds of the neighbourhood? How is that going to happen?
Hon. J. Cashore: It will be through circumstances that are brought to our attention.
J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that this isn't what we call an initiative of the manager, where the manager will.... As the minister said earlier, this is a preventive measure. Will the manager be taking any action to bring to his or her own attention potential activities that may be occurring? Is it only going to be in a case where it's brought to their attention by the public? If so, in what manner will the public be bringing it to the manager's attention? How will that happen?
Hon. J. Cashore: There are a variety of ways. It could be by somebody phoning the Surrey regional office and advising them of an occurrence they are concerned about. It could be a conservation officer, in a routine review, observing a situation. Sometimes good enforcement people might be out to observe some event and notice that something else is happening, and then they would make sure that the appropriate follow-up is taken. There are a variety of ways in which a manager would become aware of a situation where there was the potential need for a pollution prevention order.
J. Tyabji: For example, if a development was in process and a septic field was being put into an area where someone hadn't met the perk tests or where the activity was going to result in pollution and that came to the manager's attention, would that then fall into the pollution prevention order if there was the potential for groundwater contamination or, worse than that, surface water contamination as a result of a faulty septic field?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, it could. But normally a septic tank type of example would be under the purview of the Ministry of Health.
J. Tyabji: I find it a bit frustrating. I'm thinking of a specific example where for the last nine years there has been a bit of a tennis game going on between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health with regard to surface water pollution from a faulty septic system. I'm talking about the Wood Creek subdivision, as the minister may be aware. When I was reading this, I had some hope that perhaps the pollution prevention order here would finally be the kind of legislation under which the developer could be called to task to prevent the further pollution of that area. That's why that comes to mind. I'm hoping that the Minister of Environment would therefore be able to take action under this legislation.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the answer is yes. I think we have heard about the Wood Creek example, but it's not one that I know the details of off the top of my head. If it's a situation where the septic system is not yet operating but the way in which it's constructed is such that you can be sure that once it starts to operate it's going to be bad news, yes, that could potentially be addressed under this legislation. But we would have to remember the role of the Ministry of Health in dealing with these issues.
However, if this septic system was already operating -- if it had already been permitted and was underway -- it would not be subject to a pollution prevention order; it would be subject to a pollution abatement order, which is already provided for in another part of the act.
J. Tyabji: Obviously I can't stray off this bill. I can't possibly ask why, if there is already legislation in place, it hasn't been dealt with in the last nine years. So I won't.
The Chair: You came through the back door very well there, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the potential future construction of sites, if there was an existing development and there had to be some pollution abatement and there was some construction underway, I'm assuming that this legislation would then apply.
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, not in an abatement situation. That's dealt with elsewhere. But if it were a pollution prevention situation, the answer is yes.
J. Tyabji: Subsection 15,22.2(4) states: "An order under subsection (2) may authorize a person or persons designated by the manager to enter land for the purpose of preventing the pollution." Could we get some details on that? How does that translate? For example, what are the limitations on preventing the pollution? Is that something for which the ministry could order the construction of some kind of dam or change the land or put something in place and then bill the person responsible. Is that how that can be interpreted?
Hon. J. Cashore: If I'm looking at the same section, it simply enables the manager to authorize persons to enter land for the purpose of preventing pollution. It would enable the person who is working on behalf of the ministry to enter that land and deal with the situation.
J. Tyabji: In my mind I have images of large corks being put into big hoses where pollution is coming forward, which I don't necessarily have a problem with it if that's the intent of the legislation. But what does "prevent the pollution" mean? Do they go and put a little sign on it saying that this will be dealt with, or do they actually take action? For example, if a hose were emitting waste water and pollution was occurring, would the ministry have the ability to go onto that land, prevent the pollution by whatever means necessary -- if that meant reversing the flow or stopping the hose or however that happened -- and then have the person responsible for the pollution deal with it in terms of the costs and whatever would happen on the other end? Is that what the section deals with? In preventing
[ Page 7000 ]
pollution, do you have a little red cape on and do you sort of fly in there and solve it? How does that translate?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure how far I want to go with this one. The section that the hon. member is referring to is clearly authorization to enter property. That's all it is, pure and simple. With regard to the question, I'll say again that it is not a question of abatement. The pollution hasn't started yet. In an instance where the ministry becomes aware of a circumstance where pollution is obviously about to start, it is important that officials have the ability to be on site. The contamination of an aquifer could be in question. The ministry has to be able to enter the site to investigate the situation and begin a procedure to deal with it.
And no, hon. member, nobody is wearing a little red cape, but somebody could be wearing a conservation officer's uniform; somebody could represent one of the technical aspects of the ministry. Having gained access, they would have to assess the situation and advise on the necessary steps, given the circumstances.
J. Tyabji: I understand that the pollution abatement legislation is separate. So if it's something that has occurred in the past or is ongoing or has just started, this legislation isn't going to.... This is pre-emptive legislation. Is that correct? It's not preventing; it's pre-empting. Okay, that's fine. I have no further questions on this section.
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't think I heard that word clearly. It's preventive legislation.
C. Serwa: In recognizing the expanded powers of the regional waste manager, there is no adequate definition of pollution. What is the determination of pollution? Is it indicated in degree? What type of pollution? Could the minister advise how that determination will be made, and on what basis?
[4:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: Pollution is defined in the act. If the hon. member would like me to, I would be willing to read that into the record.
C. Serwa: No, thank-you very much. Is the minister confident that the definition of pollution is adequate and effective within the expanded parameters of the regional waste manager so that there can be no question? I have not seen what constitutes pollution described to a degree. The concern here is that the lack of a firm, fixed definition may provide too much latitude and too much uncertainty.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is judgment involved on the part of the manager, that's true, but the manager's decisions are subject to appeal. Since this question has been asked, I would like to read for the record the act's definition of pollution: "the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment." I do recognize that this is a broad definition, as it should be. Let's bear in mind that the managers are trained and experienced people who bring that to bear at this stage of their decision-making.
C. Serwa: I appreciate that it's really a broad definition, which is perhaps part of the problem. There's a fair bit of subjectivity in determining a substantial change to the environment. How does the regional manager make a determination on that? That's the question.
Hon. J. Cashore: The recommendation of the regional manager would be based on past experience and on the probabilities of the situation -- knowledge of what happens when similar circumstances are allowed to carry on. That kind of experience would be brought to bear.
Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 25, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 16.
EMPLOYMENT INVESTMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 16; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm waiting for questions on section 1. I thought perhaps I could give some explanation. This section permits employee venture capital corporations to deal in fractional shares. Fractional shares are parts of shares, such as a half or a quarter. This is designed to allow investments made in round amounts, such as $1,000 or $3,500, to be processed without having to handle small leftover amounts. For example, if an investor wishes to invest $1,000, and the price per share determined under the particular plans evaluation formula is $7.03, only 142 whole shares could be purchased. This would leave $1.74 of the $1,000 tendered uninvested. Handling these small leftover amounts is costly and makes payroll deduction plans difficult to administer. By having the ability to issue fractional shares, the employee venture capital corporation would simply issue 142.2475 shares to the investor -- in my example -- so as to completely invest
[ Page 7001 ]
the $1,000 tendered. This way there is no leftover amount to cause problems.
L. Fox: As we suggested during the second reading stage, the bill really streamlines the process, allows some accommodation and reflects what happens and should happen in practice. As a party, we will be supporting the bill and really don't see a lot of need to go through the process at any great length.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 16, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Committee on Bill 15, hon. Speaker.
ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 15; E. Barnes in the chair.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report astonishing progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply B on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: $375,354 (continued).
L. Fox: Given the organizational difficulties, both parties are obviously having difficulty deciding which critic should be in the House at this time, because it seems that it changes very rapidly. Would the Chair give us a few moments so our respective critics can get back into the House? We just went looking for the Advanced Education critic because of the previous....
The Chair: The request is granted, hon. member. We will just wait.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't mind making a few remarks on the Ministry of Environment estimates. As members know, members of the executive council sometimes don't get a chance to participate in this debate, as we used to when we spent some time on that side of the House. We proceeded to become quite effective in opposition after many years. I know that members opposite, after many years in opposition, will improve in their jobs, and I know they will have a lot of opportunity to practise their respective roles.
[4:45]
I would like to make a couple of comments on the Ministry of Environment estimates. I think this is an area where so much is being done that is positive in terms of environmental protection and promoting real improvements in the quality of the environment in British Columbia. In fact, so much is being done that generally I don't think we're doing a good enough job -- if I can say this to criticize my government -- of communicating the kinds of initiatives we've taken.
Just off the top of my head, I want to review some of the progress that we've made. When I talk to environmentalists or people in my community, they're usually astonished to realize that we've protected the Khutzeymateen, where there has been a long-fought battle by the environmental movement to protect one of the last grizzly bear preserves in British Columbia and, in fact, in the world. That was done without much fanfare by the Minister of Environment. I applaud him for moving to protect that wilderness area. I hope and expect the government will move further to ensure that that area is protected in perpetuity, because that is indeed a major environmental victory -- one which I think the government can be proud of.
Look at the legislation on waste management -- the member for Nanaimo did a lot of work on waste management legislation -- and environmental assessment, and a variety of other major legislative initiatives, some of which are before the House today, but I won't discuss them here. They promote the sound treatment of waste and toxic waste, the reduction of waste, recycling and a whole range of initiatives in that regard -- more in one year than we've seen in many years under previous administrations.
Look at some forest practices and land use decisions; look at the initiative in the protected-areas strategy to double the amount of parkland. I think it rolls off your tongue very easily to go from 6 percent to 12 percent of the province's land mass in parks. We're not there yet, but we have made significant progress in dramatically enhancing the amount of land that we're preserving for future generations and protecting for park or wilderness designation.
Look at the Parksville flats acquisition by the government, where we worked with private sector groups to preserve a pristine area; look at the work being done in the Boundary Bay area to protect the vital
[ Page 7002 ]
habitat; look across the province at all of these hot spots. There has been significant action by the government to move to protect, preserve and enhance wilderness values in protected areas. The old-growth strategy is another major initiative. I must say, it's one of the few started by the previous administration. This administration has continued and enhanced it to protect the dwindling supply of ancient forests. We want to make sure there's a working forest to protect and create jobs, but we also want to ensure that we protect -- for our heritage, for our children and for the future -- tracts of ancient forests from harvest. We want to protect and preserve those kinds of initiatives.
The Minister of Environment has taken action to ban the illegal sale of bear parts. Poaching is and has been a big problem in this province. I might say that Treasury Board approved the budget which dramatically increased the number of conservation officers, so we can police and enforce good-quality regulations -- some of which have been on the books for some time but have been ignored.
So when you look at the preservation of parkland and wilderness areas, at waste management, environmental protection legislation, at recycling and toxic waste initiatives, and when you look at the protected-areas strategy and the old-growth strategy, when you look at those initiatives -- all of which took place in about a year and a half -- you can see the dramatic gains have been made in environmental areas. I'm very confident that, with this minister and the government's commitment in this regard, this is just the beginning of continuing to lead the country -- in fact, North America -- in protecting and enhancing our environment.
As we all know, in British Columbia you don't have to go very far.... It doesn't matter whether you're a business person, a Social Credit voter or even a Liberal voter, because across the province there is a high degree of support for environmental protection. There's a high degree of support for aggressive action by government to stop pollution, to preserve elements of old-growth forests and ecosystems which haven't been protected. There is a high degree of support regardless of party lines or region. I know the steps that we've taken in the first year and a half have been significant; they've been major. But I know that there are more steps to come.
I just wanted to take this opportunity to interject in this debate -- because I haven't had a chance to do that very often -- to congratulate the Ministry of Environment for the work that's been done to date. I know this is just the beginning of continuing to lead the country on environmental awareness and environmental protection.
F. Jackson: I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Jackson: It is quite something to follow the Minister of Finance.
I have a rare pleasure today. In the gallery, from Rayleigh Elementary School in my constituency, is a group of grade 7 students with their teachers Mr. Blackwell and Mr. Atkinson. These young people put on a concert today outside in the rain -- a very gallant performance. They have spent some time touring the House and have now come to see how we behave in this most august chamber. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and follow the Minister of Finance, with his high-profile recognition of the importance of the Ministry of Environment. While the Minister of Environment wasn't exactly dancing on the tables, I know that his toes were tapping a very busy and happy tune when he realized that the Minister of Finance was actually on his side. I sincerely hope that fine speech indicates that the Minister of Environment has impressed the Minister of Finance with the important role that his ministry has to play in B.C. I also hope that the Minister of Finance will recognize that role and enable the Ministry of Environment to continue to expand on the fine job that they are already doing. So I thank the Minister of Finance very much for that speech. It's certainly an important speech to go on the record.
I would like to put a few questions to the minister on the State of the Environment Report for British Columbia. The minister knows full well that the environment is in fact very important. The State of the Environment Report for British Columbia is a thoroughly researched and very well-written piece of work. It not only documents what the current government is striving to do and has done in their brief period as government, but it also recognizes a long history of environmental concerns on the part of British Columbians and British Columbia governments. The state-of-the-environment report takes a snapshot that we can use as a foundation and for future assessments on the progress that we're making. And indeed, we all recognize that we must make progress. The question, though, is not with the report per se. The question to the Minister of Environment is: how do we stack up with other countries around the world; how do we stack up with other jurisdictions?
Right now, with the breakup of the socialist group and the Soviet Union, we're hearing all sorts of horror stories coming out of those areas that were kept under control. Communication was not available on the amount, degree and type of pollution that occurred in those countries, whether they were industrialized or not. Certainly the Haida people, as they paddled towards Paris, I believe, were appalled at the conditions of the major rivers in France.
We hear all sorts of concerns about our jurisdiction. But on the whole, the state-of-the-environment report indicates that while we haven't arrived, our journey has been fairly successful. We always can and must strive to improve our environmental record, our cleanup and our monitoring of what's transpiring. Perhaps the minister would indicate whether he has any comparisons with other jurisdictions, either in Canada or in other countries in the world.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I would like to say how much I appreciate the words of the Minister of Finance and his excellent grasp of the length and breadth of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and
[ Page 7003 ]
Parks -- which, after all, covers a spectrum that's as expansive as all outdoors. I was very pleased to see that the hon. Minister of Finance has such an outstanding grasp of those issues. I think all members are aware that he could actually give a speech like that with regard to any ministry of government, because he is cognizant of what is happening in all those ministries.
I couldn't agree more with the point he made that all of us on the government side have to recognize that we haven't succeeded in telling the very positive story with regard to what has been accomplished. He listed many of the accomplishments that have taken place during the last 18 months, and I think it's an outstanding record.
With regard to the question from the third party's Environment critic, I do appreciate his remarks with regard to the state-of-the-environment report and the specific question about how we in British Columbia stack up in comparison to other jurisdictions. I think that's an excellent question. It's a question which one could go on about for a long time, because there are many jurisdictions with which to compare ourselves.
Just to get a bit of perspective, let's remember that in British Columbia, with a population of approximately 3.3 million, we have responsibility for an area which is the size of Germany, Switzerland and France. When you compare our population to the total population of those three countries, we're looking at something in excess of 100 million people. They face enormous issues over there compared to the issues that we face. It's kind of interesting when you look at the international comparisons; sometimes you will find people in one country having a perspective of what's going on in another country. For instance, from my perspective I could say that I am very concerned about the environment in Europe. After all, because of acid rain the Black Forest is dying. People in Europe are so fond of referring to the cathedral nature of our old-growth forests, yet in some instances their very cathedrals are crumbling because of pollution -- especially acid rain.
If we are acting globally, we need to find ways that we can cooperate rather than take potshots at each other. B.C. is doing well, as the state-of-the-environment report says, and so it should. Given the amount of natural area that exists within this beautiful province, B.C. should do better. Let me give one very specific comparison.
Those of us who live in British Columbia like to think of our province as being the finest in Canada. The fact is that B.C. has the highest incidence in Canada of water-borne disease within water systems. Beaver fever has to be taken very seriously, and that's why we have embarked on an ambitious program to bring our water legislation up to date and to recognize the fact that the present water legislation is only allocation legislation; it does not deal with quality. We very seriously need to take well-planned, incremental steps towards having the appropriate legislation in place that not only deals with water as allocation but also recognizes the importance of groundwater along with surface water, given that groundwater is not presently protected in the Water Act.
[5:00]
We will very shortly be going out to the people with a discussion paper on the stewardship of the water resource. That follows up on previous discussion papers that have gone out, including a study done by the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.
On top of that is the water export issue, which is very serious. We have a tremendous responsibility to ensure that we have an appropriate policy. As I've said many times, my own feeling is that creating value-added jobs here is the way we should approach it. We should not be considering large-scale diversions that create jobs somewhere else.
In terms of comparing us to other jurisdictions -- the member mentioned areas behind the Iron Curtain -- one could have any kind of base line for comparison, but I think the most useful base line is one that recognizes that there are serious problems of neglect with regard to pollution in many of those areas. This is, if not a responsibility, an opportunity for us to be looking into ways we can assist people in that part of the world with technology, where technology will help. But let's always remember that a technofix is never a solution to environmental problems; it also has to be concomitant with an environmental ethic, which means that we change the way we think and we change attitudes.
As I look to the gallery and see many young people present, I think that perhaps one of the things that is wrong with our society is that children haven't done a good enough job educating their parents. I know that in the area of the environment, children do have a role in educating their parents. I applaud you for that and encourage you to continue to push us on these environmental issues, which are so important to your future and the future of your children.
C. Serwa: I appreciate the minister's response to what was a fairly broad question. There's no argument from this side of the House with respect to the degree of the concerns we share. The minister quite accurately pointed out that it's often easier to point to some other jurisdiction and talk about their faults rather than looking at ourselves. That seems to be part of human nature.
The minister also touched on an area with respect to water. Certainly the issue of surface water and underground water is a very important. There is concern not only with the volume pumped from the aquifers but also with drilling and the potential for polluting those underground water sources. In an area such as the Okanagan, a substantial portion of our domestic and irrigation water comes from underground aquifers, as I believe it does in the Cariboo and in the lower mainland area. So there's a great of deal of concern there.
It's poetic justice perhaps that the Minister of Finance is in the House at the present time listening intently to this debate. One of the realities that prevails is the problem the Ministry of Environment has processing water licence applications under the current act. I don't know what the time delay is, but at one time it was approximately two years. The challenge there, of course, is the limitation on the staff resources in all
[ Page 7004 ]
regions of the province. There is a very heavy demand. If the minister is talking about expanding their role, and not specifically for high-demand areas for groundwater but incorporating groundwater resources throughout the province, then we're looking at a tremendous increase in the number of individuals that will be required to look after the expanded Water Act. I am very interested in how the minister proposes to be able to handle the role of expanded responsibility under the expanded Water Act, over and above the present demands on the Ministry of Environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, in going out with the study, we have to take it one step at a time. I believe that the information that will be available to the government as a result of that process will be very important and valuable. However, the hon. member makes a good point, and that is that we have to be fiscally responsible when it comes to the cost of infrastructure and increased staff. We're starting with the issues that are most important to deal with in the short term. Through this process, which will be part of the discussion paper process, we will be better able to identify where it needs to begin. We're going to have to assess the need and deal with it one step at a time and in a way that is achievable, given the need to be fiscally responsible.
C. Serwa: Still on the topic of water, organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the B.C. Wildlife Federation continue to express concern that there is no accommodation under provincial legislation for the legitimate use of water for fish or wildlife. I think we recognize that fish is fundamentally a federal area of control. The province has been allocated the responsibility, but under the British North America Act, for some reason fish are federal and not provincial in nature. As a province we control the water resources. At the present time there appears to be no protection with respect to the legitimate use of water for fish and wildlife resources. These organizations would like some sort of comment from the minister that he is aware of this and that some accommodation will be forthcoming, perhaps in legislation.
Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the comment of the hon. member. I know that he is very familiar with the B.C. Wildlife Federation. As he is aware, I have extensive contact with them and with other groups concerned about water quality issues as they relate to biodiversity, and specifically as they relate to fish. I would say in answer that every time I've had the opportunity to speak publicly on the issue of water I have put my name and what I've said on the record; that is, that we need to recognize the importance of fish and use of the water resource by fish to biodiversity issues and, therefore, their importance not only to economic issues and the way in which people make their living but also to lifestyle issues. There's a number of tremendously important issues that we need to address as we revise and update this legislation.
C. Serwa: Moving to another topic, earlier we discussed Boundary Bay at great length. The minister recognizes the importance of estuaries with respect to international obligations and not just national and provincial interests. There is a great deal of concern from conservationists about all of Boundary Bay in that the title to the foreshore rests within the Ministry of Lands at the present time, which is perhaps not the appropriate place for foreshore title to rest. At this particular time we have a Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks who has the flexibility, through new legislation, to perhaps look at this particular issue and contemplate whether it would not be appropriate to convey the title to another government ministry, such as the Ministry of Environment, where there would be more confidence in the permanency of the utilization of that very important estuary area. Or perhaps title could be negotiated into the hands of an organization such as the Nature Trust of B.C.
Again, if we look at the long-term involvement and at the migratory birds and abundant raptors that frequent the area, the people in the lower mainland who recognize that as a rather wondrous place are vitally concerned. They are also concerned with the amount of land that's publicly owned. It is fundamentally agricultural land that was accumulated primarily for the purpose of development -- to expand the coal-loading facility or the ferry terminal. Perhaps other facilities could be utilized. As property values make it impossible to have those facilities elsewhere, it could start to compromise what is a very special piece of the province's environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: We're all aware that Boundary Bay is an area that has had a great deal of attention and is of great concern to the residents of Delta and Tsawwassen. We know that there are a number of issues that involve the study that is underway on the backup lands. There's the port corporation. And so many have put themselves on record as seeing agriculture and wildlife as the primary uses of the area. I know that people are anxiously awaiting the results of the studies that have taken place. Some of the studies are now complete; others are in the process of completion. There's a need to bring some of those findings together.
With regard to the issue -- hypothetically put, I guess -- of the responsibility for the foreshore lands being given to a different ministry, the fact is that this ministry is now incorporated as three, so it's a branch of a ministry. It's appropriate to say that the environmental ethic is present within all three of those branches of this ministry, as it is within other ministries of government. We need to be working to ensure that the Ministry of Environment is not the only place where you will find an environmental ethic. Part of my role is to ensure that the ethic is operative in all components of government.
Be that as it may, we have to take seriously any suggestions that come along with regard to administration. Clearly, with regard to the question of a wildlife management area -- and I know that my colleague from Delta North agrees -- we definitely need to see a wildlife area there. I have made a commitment that we will have that issue resolved by November of this year.
[ Page 7005 ]
We also know that there are a number of other considerations that people are looking at that relate to wildlife diversity in the area, including the possibility of a Ramsar designation. We're looking at that. We're going to see the result of all this process coming to fruition with something that everyone will be very pleased with.
L. Hanson: I'm pleased to hear the subject that we're on, because it's the same one that I want to question the minister on, on a couple of issues -- actually, just one issue. I did, in some previous discussion with the minister in estimates, ask some questions about the erosion control program that was in place in streams around the province. The minister acknowledged that there was a program in place; he also acknowledged that there was no money to fund it, so the effect of the program was less than helpful to those people with that difficulty.
I recently was shown a process that has been used in Switzerland for stream protection. I wonder if the minister is aware of it. It's a basket that is manufactured; people fill them with rocks, and the longevity and sturdiness of that construction seems to far outlast the riprap projects that are currently very popular for bank control. I guess the question I'd ask the minister is: has he looked at that? Would he consider a program that the ministry might supervise where, under certain circumstances, it would supply the baskets and the landowners would be responsible for actually using them?
[5:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I think we are all aware that different approaches are needed in different circumstances throughout the province. I have not seen this myself. If I were to volunteer to go to Switzerland and see it firsthand, that might be seen as a junket, so I won't be doing that. We would be interested in finding out more about that, and I would appreciate it if the hon. member from Vernon would give us any material that we could review within the ministry. If that were within the realm of possibility and did have an application to our circumstances, we would certainly want to take a look at it.
L. Hanson: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister. For your knowledge, although I don't have confirmation of it, this sort of construction has been used in some areas by the Ministry of Highways when there has been a stream problem or something like that to do with road construction, so there may be some knowledge there that the minister could take advantage of. It seems to me that it wouldn't be quite as costly as the other program that is in place without any money to fund it, and it might be used under certain circumstances. I will gather as much information as I can and give it to the minister, but I think your colleague the Minister of Highways may have some experience and knowledge in his ministry.
R. Chisholm: I have referenced water, and I'm going to go on to fish farms again a little bit. I have a letter from a scientist by the name of Alexandra Morton, who lives in this province. You might have received this letter -- I'm not too sure. I will quote just a little bit of what she says about fish farms and what is affecting our natural species in this province:
"As a scientist, I cannot ignore voluminous circumstantial evidence warning that fish farms should be widely spaced, carefully placed and closely monitored. You apparently discovered in Sechelt that salmon farming is not popular and seem to have attempted to cloak it here in the wilderness of Kingcome Inlet and the Broughton Archipelago. I have failed to convince you to protect these waters from the harmful effects of intensive fish farming, and I will however persist and thoroughly document the effects of the fish farming experiment in British Columbia waters."
Apparently, rules that were in place in some of these areas have been disregarded. She goes on to say:
"The B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association printed a fact sheet, and it said under federal and provincial regulations and policy guidelines, that fish farms may not be located within three kilometres of an existing fish farm, within one kilometre of a park, near sensitive fish habitats -- i.e., herring spawning areas, rearing, food supply or migration areas -- or within areas identified by the coastal resource identification studies as no-opportunity areas for finfish aquaculture. All of these guidelines, once considered important, have been violated in the Broughton Archipelago."
Can you answer this letter with regard to why this has happened, and is your ministry now taking steps to ensure that it doesn't happen in other areas of the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Given that we have spent at least two hours in these estimates on this very topic and canvassed it widely -- even though I strayed a bit beyond my jurisdiction, given that the issue comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food -- we have granted great leeway to this discussion, and I would refer the hon. member to Hansard for the discussion that has already taken place.
R. Chisholm: I will go on to another area that I know wasn't covered in Hansard. Fish farms in the migratory patterns of salmon that come home to spawn only require one pound of fish pellets to feed them to produce a pound of fish. In a fish farm completely alienated from any waters other than the fish farm itself, it takes a pound and a half. That means that those fish are eating everything else in their path. What is your ministry doing about ensuring that this does not happen? This is going to have disastrous effects on our natural species of coho and such.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, as I said before, this does sound to me very much like a subject we have canvassed very extensively. When we receive referrals such as this, we discuss them with Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We review that and try to come up with the best possible way to deal with it.
R. Chisholm: Considering that I was the one asking the questions, I'm quite sure I know what I was asking, hon. minister. But if you want to evade this
[ Page 7006 ]
subject, I'll go on to another one, and that is the chemicals and antibiotics used with the fish. If this is not part of the environment, your area, and if we're not putting it into the environment, then we mustn't be using it. But for some strange reason, we have all this evidence that we are using antibiotics and chemicals on these fish farms. Is your ministry monitoring the chemicals and antibiotics that are being used? If so, how are you ensuring that the antibiotics and chemicals that are bad for human health are not being used at present?
Hon. J. Cashore: That's primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
R. Chisholm: We'll go into another area, hon. Chair. This is about pesticides and herbicides that are used in agriculture. Does your ministry have any responsibility toward the land that these pesticides and herbicides are used on, or is this strictly agriculture? Does your ministry talk to the other ministry, or are you alienated from each other? Is your ministry having studies done on pesticides -- what we use, and what is dangerous to humans and human consumption? If so, can you give us an update on it, please?
Hon. J. Cashore: We receive referrals from companies that have been contracted to apply pesticides. We consult with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and advise them on various applications. Yes, we do take this issue very seriously, and we work closely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
R. Chisholm: Well, I'm glad you're monitoring that. Can you tell us what the state of that is? At Globe '92 it was pointed out by Loblaws' vice-president of environment that since 1960 the use of fertilizer by farmers has increased by 900 percent, and their use of pesticides has soared by 3,200 percent. With those kinds of percentage increases since that time, is your ministry monitoring this to ensure that we do not go over the limits and endanger the human species?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're doing some monitoring on the Abbotsford aquifer. This also comes under the purview of the water paper I have referred to. I have acknowledged in the House that the province's water legislation is hopelessly out of date, and we are addressing that promptly and appropriately. In doing so, we are ascertaining the best way to address the issues the hon. member is referring to. As I said a few moments ago in the House, not only surface water but also groundwater is incredibly important. We take this issue seriously. We are seeking to deal with it to the best of our ability, given the human resources we have. We are seeking to get a better priority on this as a result of the discussion paper process.
C. Serwa: I have just a few questions in wrapping up. A great deal of concern was expressed at the annual general meeting of the B.C. Wildlife Federation with respect to the substantial reduction -- amounting to 12 or 13 percent -- to an already stringent budget in the fisheries, wildlife and integrated management section of the Ministry of Environment. That is dramatically different from the total budget of the ministry. I see that some of that has been taken up by the native affairs branch, which has gone from $495,000 to $871,000. The concern that was expressed to me by members of the federation is that all of our general concerns with respect to the quality of the environment have a great deal to do with the entire ecosystem and with biodiversity.
The Ministry of Environment has now indicated that this particular section of the ministry should expand. Formerly their focus was more or less on animals which were consumed in hunting and fishing. Now that mandate has been expanded to invertebrates, and they have been given a much larger responsibility. When the budget is being squeezed and squeezed in that particular section of the ministry, there are many questions as to whether, even with the high degree of commitment that those individuals have, they can continue to provide the necessary protection.
I know full well that the minister has concerns, but all of our global efforts, done in mitigating pollution or whatever, are done for one reason: to keep the green end vital and alive. I think if anything in this province warrants the term "splendour undiminished," it's the green side of the Ministry of Environment.
Perhaps the minister can explain why that happened -- why that particular section took such a beating, and how he can accommodate that.
Hon. J. Cashore: We set priorities right across the ministry. We found those areas where we could identify savings. We did that in a very careful way. We looked at a number of aspects of the ministry. It isn't any particular part of the ministry that took a beating, although I know that given this hon. member's interest in that particular area, that would seem especially hard hit to him. The fact is that the message we've heard constantly from the opposition party is that this government should not be spending. But I appreciate advocacy, and it's interesting to hear advocacy on behalf of my ministry's budget within the House.
I think we have to recognize that all of us have a responsibility in this province to find ways to cut costs, reduce the deficit and at the same time apply a very careful and thoughtful approach to making the best possible of the resources we have. I think that quite often in doing that, we end up finding better economies in the way in which we operate. I think we've done that. I'm very pleased with the way in which the staff of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has been able to produce what they do produce, given the financial constraints.
I don't want in any way to suggest that the issue the hon. member is raising is not important. It is important, and it's important for a number of reasons. Biodiversity was mentioned, but it's also important as an economic generator.
C. Serwa: I appreciated the minister's statements, with the awareness -- as he is well aware -- that it is an economic generator. It's recognized that those actively
[ Page 7007 ]
engaged in the environment -- through hunting and fishing, wilderness travel, camping, whitewater rafting, that sort of thing -- contribute approximately $3 billion annually. So that segment of government operations is indeed a great revenue generator. Often that is not noted, and sometimes I suspect the budget accorded the Ministry of Environment fails to note that.
[5:30]
As a brief closing statement, I would like to say that I certainly appreciated the candid nature of the Minister of Environment's responses to questions. I've appreciated and enjoyed the responses, and I am well aware of the challenges. From my perspective, of all the government employees I've been associated with, no others indicate greater commitment or dedication. I've not met an employee of the Ministry of Environment, whether in Victoria or at the region or district level, who looks at it as simply a job. These individuals are dedicated and committed, working far harder and longer than any of us have a right to expect. So I compliment the minister and certainly acknowledge the competence, dedication and commitment of all those associated with the ministry. I applaud that.
Vote 32 approved.
Vote 33: ministry operations, $203,330,372 -- approved.
Vote 34: corporate inventory initiative, $6,340,000 -- approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
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. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 58: minister's office, $410,000 (continued).
D. Symons: If I may, I would like to revisit some specific problems before I continue my tour around the province.
One thing we talked about a couple of days back was the asphalt plant at Cordova Bay. From Hansard -- I went back to review what was said -- the minister basically implied that everybody was happy. I was asking two questions in general to do with the McKenzie interchange. The answer was: well, people are quite happy with the results of things. I contacted a Mr. Lorne Rideout, who is involved in a community group that has some concerns about that asphalt plant. His implication was that they are not at all happy, even today, with the ministry's intentions regarding asphalt-making for that particular project. I think what he's really waiting for is a response to letters that he has sent to the minister. They've also invited the minister up there. I gather they're having some sort of a ceremony that they want him to partake in. They mentioned something about tar and feathers. They sure would like him to attend their ceremony.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issue of the asphalt plant and its location -- a plant that will be required to complete the work on the McKenzie interchange -- has not yet been resolved.
D. Symons: I thank the minister. I guess that's what they're concerned about. The implication seemed to be that they felt it was going ahead.
If we could leave that and move back to our trip around the province, I think we left off, before we went into other particular corporations, at Nanaimo. I'd like to move up-Island a bit to Qualicum. The people in Qualicum seem to have some concern that the bypass there be constructed north of the town to the Horne Lake interchange, before the section opens between Parksville and Qualicum Beach. Their concern, if it only goes up to Qualicum, is that they'll get an awful lot of through traffic ending up in Qualicum. They would like to see that bypass route completed before that portion of the highway is opened up. Could the minister assure them that they will not face the traffic increase that would occur if the road terminated at Qualicum?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the work on the inland Island Highway and the bypass past Parksville proceeds, we would wait until we reached a suitable tie-in point to Highway 19 to open any portion of it. We would not open the portion just up to Qualicum.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that, and I am sure the people up north will be pleased to hear that.
There is also one other problem in that general area, and I believe it has to do with the construction of the
[ Page 7008 ]
highway along there, too. There is some realignment of the road near Pym Street where it joins the Island Highway. This has created a dangerous intersection and there is need for reconstruction of that particular intersection; and there are two schools in the area. Could the minister see his way clear to correcting this problem?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll have to take your question on notice and provide you with a written answer.
D. Symons: If we can move on, then, to Alberni, the city is promoting a ring road that would provide an alternative escape route in the event of a tidal bore, which I am sure the minister is aware can happen in that particular canal. Besides safety, this would provide other benefits to the area.
I'll just go on to list some other problems they have. They are also desirous of getting a link highway from Cowichan Lake through Alberni up to Cumberland. This would provide a shorter route to the northern points of the Island as well as an alternative route out of the Alberni Valley. Finally, they are concerned about cost-sharing with MacMillan Bloedel the paving of an 11-kilometre stretch of the Bamfield road, which would enhance tourism in the area and assist in its economic diversification. Could you give me some comments on those particular projects?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think we are seeing a bit of a pattern here, in that the hon. member has apparently written each community around the province to determine what sorts of problems they might have or what their wish lists might be. Most of these issues were discussed with mayors, councils, regional chairpersons and members in the course of regional meetings of associations of municipalities. I believe all the issues just raised now were raised at Port Hardy by Alberni.
I would point out to the member opposite that each of those items he has named costs money. Each of them involves expenditures -- sometimes pretty extensive expenditures. The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot be looking for decreases in the cost of government, in taxes and in services, yet increases in expenditures.
All of those issues raised have legitimacy from a local point of view. We will try to deal with each of them. I would point out that the road down toward Bamfield is a private road that the member is asking us to spend public money on, which is a questionable practice. We should be very cautious of spending public funds on private roads. Other than that, again, I recognize the legitimacy of the local concerns, and will continue to deal with the municipalities on an issue-by-issue basis as funding permits.
[2:45]
D. Symons: I realize the constraints upon the ministry's finances. These communities would maybe like to have another kick at the can in getting the minister's attention on these. I'm willing to bring them forward for them, because it's part of the learning process for myself as well, as to where these problems are around the province.
I suppose they really would like to know some sort of time frame. Could the minister tell me which portions of the Island Highway will be worked on this year; that is, which sections are or will probably be funded through the Transportation Financing Authority? In May you indicated that we will be seeing some work this year north of Parksville. Could you be more specific?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The details of the work to be done on the Island Highway through the Transportation Financing Authority will be made public in the not distant future.
If the member is on a learning curve as well, I would point out to him that Port Alberni is concerned about a tsunami, not a tidal bore.
D. Symons: Some concerns have been expressed regarding a link or rather the lack of it between municipal planning and those in the ministry who give final approval for access roads to the highway, frontage roads and so forth. It seems there are three levels involved: the developer, the municipality and the ministry. Some concern has been expressed to me that developers can get turned down on access at the regional district level, but they can turn around and go directly to the ministry and sometimes get approval for a development. There needs to be better coordination and cooperation, and I'm wondering if you might just tell me how this works and whether this concern brought to my attention is a possibility.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I strongly suspect that there is some confusion. It is far more likely that developers will get approval from a regional authority and be turned down by the ministry, because our responsibility is for the safe movement of people and the efficient use of our highways as they pass through or near communities. We're very concerned about unlimited access. We have seen the capacity of highways destroyed by not guarding against excess numbers of vehicles having access, and then we end up with unsafe roads, congested roads and poor-efficiency roads. I make no apology.... In fact, I encourage the ministry to develop even tougher guidelines for access. But we are always willing to work with both the municipality and the developer to determine if there are acceptable alternatives, particularly in the way of frontage roads or access off arterial roads -- perhaps at the back of a development. But, by all means, we wish to restrict access onto our public highways.
D. Symons: I looked twice at that letter as a matter of fact because that was also my impression: that it would be more difficult getting a permit from Highways than the local authorities. But that's not what he said in the letter, so obviously it's a person with a particular problem.
On Port McNeill, last year I asked some questions about the Silux corner and the bridge over the river at
[ Page 7009 ]
that point. A truck overturned there on May 11 of this year. While travelling there myself last summer, I discovered you had to make a right-angle turn to go onto the bridge, and immediately after coming off the bridge, you make another right-angle turn. Within 100 yards or so of the old bridge, the new bridge crosses the river, with no road connected to it. I don't know if, between the time I was there in July of last year and now, that has been connected up, but it would seem logical and sensible to me that that small connection, for the cost involved, would be worthwhile.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member may be referring to the Cluxewe crossing. It's about a $2 million problem in order to make the appropriate connections. There are some geotechnical difficulties there. It takes time, and it takes money. It's on a priority list, and when funding permits, we will get to it.
G. Wilson: I have three sets of questions and, depending on the minister's responses, they shouldn't take too long.
The first set of questions has to do with the lower Sunshine Coast and the status of the regional highways priority list that was established under the previous goevernment, in which there was a ranking of all the projects that had priority. I'd like to know what the status is now, a year and a half or two years into the mandate of this government, with respect to those priorities. Not one of those projects has been completed, despite the fact that one -- the highest-priority project -- was started. I understand that some $2.5 million to $3 million was spent on it, and it is now eroding away as it sits there incomplete. I refer, of course, to the Gibsons bypass. Can the minister can tell us what the status of these projects is, what kind of funding is going into them, and what we can expect with respect to the completion of that priority list on the lower Sunshine Coast?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: By and large, we have paid attention to the priorities for projects across the province that were determined by the regional transportation committees. There is a lot of good work done in those committees. I think that deserves to be said, and the results of that work deserve to be considered in determining what work can be done from year to year.
As the member knows, it is a matter of available funds. I spent a full day looking at the highways along the Sunshine Coast both on the ground and from the air. I agree that it would be nice to be able to finish the work on the Gibsons bypass. The cost of doing that completion through all phases of the work is about $15 million. Last year, in making the apportionments around the province, the constituency of the member opposite received its full share of the transportation dollars that we had to spend. It was not enough to do a great deal, but we had priorities that required attending to in virtually every community around the province. I would like to get onto it. It remains a priority and, as soon as funding is available, we will do what we can for the completion of the Gibsons bypass.
G. Wilson: Could the minister tell this committee what the estimated loss on that project is going to be -- of dollars already committed, spent and put into phase one? Actually, it's phase two, I guess, because they built phase two first instead of phase one. So you've got this section of highway that isn't connected to anything usable and has undertaken expenditures. Maybe the minister could tell us how much money was spent on phase two, and what the projected loss is in terms of the cost of rehabilitating the amount of road construction that has been done, given the tremendous erosion that has taken place there as a result of the lack of completion of the surface on phase two or the connection of that section to any usable highway.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I've observed some of the erosion that has occurred along the incomplete road embankment, so I'm aware it's there. In terms of its magnitude as an engineering problem or a cost problem, it is not severe -- a few thousand dollars, perhaps. It is not a major item. Nonetheless, I do not want to see the ongoing deterioration of a roadfill in place, and we will be proceeding with paving that section of the road this year in order to stop any further erosion.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might tell us how the assessment of a few hundred thousand or a few thousand.... I forget what the words were. How was that assessment made? I understand, through independent assessments by road engineers, that the loss is substantial and that the amount of money that has to be spent on re-upgrading and bringing that surface to a pavable level this year is going to take up a substantial proportion of moneys that could otherwise be spent on a worthwhile project, had that been completed. So could the minister tell us how he determined what that loss was, exactly how much money is being spent on the paving and whether or not that paving will allow a connection to the existing highway, so that that surface can in fact be used this year?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: In flying over the site by helicopter, I observed the loss of material through surficial erosion. In my judgment, although it looks eroded and it is eroded, the total quantity lost is not great. I don't know whether it might be dozens of cubic metres of material. It is not large. Reshaping that slope will be a relatively insignificant cost, and we will be spending about $1.2 million on paving it this year. No, it will not be connected to the existing road system at this time.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us, then, what the rationale or the wisdom is of paving a section of highway that will not be connected to any existing highway and can't provide any surface? If you're prepared to put $1.2 million into that, given that erosion is taking place, why would the minister not spend the further sums of money that are necessary to connect it so that this surface can be used?
[ Page 7010 ]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member goes back and looks at his first question, I think he was asking what we are going to do about the ongoing erosion along this section. I'm telling you what we're going to do. We're going to put in a base lift in order to forestall or eliminate further erosion along this section.
With respect to connecting it in, if we had the additional several million dollars to do the additional work required -- the additional modifications of intersections -- we would do it. We don't have the funds this year. The only way they can come is to increase taxes, or to decrease services or the volume of work being done someplace else. I've made some difficult decisions across the province in areas where the traffic situations, the congestion, the threat of accidents, the safety hazards and the inconvenience are much more severe than in the Sunshine Coast. I've tried to make an apportionment of what limited funds I have across the province on that basis, and I feel I've done so in a fair way.
So, number one, we're doing it in order to prevent the ongoing erosion -- which, I take it, you would think to be a good idea. But we do not have the additional several millions to put the final lift of paving on and make the other improvements necessary to connect it in.
[3:00]
G. Wilson: I'd just like to review what the minister said, so that when constituents in my area read this in Hansard -- as they will -- they understand the rationale here. It was my understanding that the erosion was of substantial amounts, and in fact was causing a substantial loss in dollar figures to the ministry. This minister, I understand, has said that in fact it is not a substantial loss, that just a few thousand dollars are lost here, that the amount of erosion is minimal or insignificant in the larger picture. So as a result of this "not much loss" or "insignificant erosion," we now hear the minister say he's going to take, I think he said, $1.2 million of very scarce resources, and he's going to pave this section of highway to stop that insignificant erosion and loss on that section of highway.
But he isn't going to connect it to any usable highway. So we're going to have a highway that's connected to nowhere, paved at a tune of $1.2 million. The people of the Sunshine Coast who got their "fair share" from this minister are going to have seen somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million plus $1.2 million -- $4.2 million -- spent on a piece of highway that doesn't even take a car, that you can't even drive on. How can the minister possibly rationalize that as a sensible expenditure of $4 million, plus or minus, of taxpayers' money, when you've got a piece in this section of road that you can't even drive on?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will take under advice the member's suggestion and perhaps will not proceed with the base coat paving this year. I can easily redirect the $1.2 million, which would then become available to other extreme traffic congestion problems around the province. That may forestall the completion of the project a year. If the member opposite thinks that that would be more correct and more wise public policy, I'll take that under advisement and cancel the project.
G. Wilson: That kind of response, I think, is most unfortunate from this minister. It basically represents the kind of planning it would seem this minister puts in place. I can tell -- having talked to engineers, members involved in highway construction and people involved in his own ministry -- that this project is not only deemed worthwhile, but has sat number one in this regional list of priorities for a number of years. It's been promised to the people of the Sunshine Coast for close to 20 years. It is a project that this government -- when they were running for election -- said would be completed within the first two years of its mandate.
Now the minister is saying that fact -- that he's going to spend $1.2 million on a section of highway that isn't even going to be able to take an automobile -- means we should take the $1.2 million and apply it somewhere else in another area or constituency. I think it's really insulting to the people of the Sunshine Coast. If this minister is going to spend money wisely, it would seem that the appropriate way to proceed on the Gibsons bypass would be to commit the dollars necessary to complete the project. Amortizing that over a number of years -- which I understand is available through this new Crown corporation that has been struck called Build B.C. -- gives this minister, as he has said in the House, the right to be able to borrow money to complete capital projects.
Can the minister tell us, then -- now that he's got this great Crown corporation that can allow him to borrow huge sums of money -- why he would not set this project down as one of the key projects, and why he wouldn't put in place the capital financing that's necessary, amortize it over the number of years required, and build the project from the Langdale terminal to completion next to the Pen Hotel? This is what the people of the Sunshine Coast have expected would be done within the first two years of the mandate of this government.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps the member opposite is just striving to get some good material for a mailer -- I'm not certain. What I hear every time I stand up is: spend, spend, spend. This must be one of those spending days. It isn't one of those let's-reduce-taxes days, let's-rein-in-government-spending days. The member opposite would like me to commit to a mere $10 million or $15 million for his riding. Of course, if we multiply that by 75 -- somewhat more than that because his is a relatively small riding in terms of roads.... So if we were to multiply it by 100, he's only asking me to come up mystically and magically somehow with $1.5 billion in order to accomplish the wish lists that he and a lot of others on that side would have.
I'm here to tell the member that I have to make some tough decisions. I've been allocated some $80 million by Treasury Board for capital projects this year, and it has to be apportioned out across the province. The portion of it that you are getting in your riding is fair. It might
[ Page 7011 ]
even be a tad more than fair considering the magnitude of the problems in your riding vis-�-vis the magnitude of the problems in other ridings.
If you don't want the base coat work, just tell me. If you don't want it, I will move the money elsewhere, perhaps some of it to projects on the Sunshine Coast, perhaps projects elsewhere. So if you don't want it, just let me know.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister has reviewed the accident fatality rate on the Sunshine Coast highway. If he has, could he tell me what that accident fatality rate is in comparison to other highways in the neighbouring region, excluding the Squamish Highway?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We don't have that information on hand, but I would be pleased to obtain it.
G. Wilson: I would suggest that the minister do obtain it before he starts to suggest that the traffic needs and the highway construction needs in my riding are less important than those in other areas because of congestion.
We're not talking about congestion. We're talking about a goat trail built primarily in the l950s that is taking 1990s traffic and that is totally inadequate. Improvements have been promised to the people of the Sunshine Coast by both the former government and now this government in every election since 1968. And as a result of that, the people have come to expect that a project that was started would be completed. It's not a question of not having the base coat, because if erosion is a subsequent problem, then my suggestion is that the minister take care of that through the base coat. But if you're going to spend $1.2 million, it is my understanding of the engineering study that has been done, that in fact you could at least do phase one and an interim connection to the existing highway system that would allow that section of highway to be usable. I would suggest it is something that needs to be looked at and considered, and I would like the minister to comment on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: To make this section of road usable, to connect it in the way in which the member is suggesting, would cost approximately $5 million. I don't have that kind of money. Again I would point out that in the estimates of B.C. Ferries, the member was telling me: "Spend more money, spend more money." He wanted $8 million or $10 million for a terminal at Powell River yesterday; today he wants either $5 million or $15 million on a project -- and at the same time is saying we should cut taxes. You can't have it both ways. I am giving you a fair share of the capital funding that I have this year.
G. Wilson: There's a difference between requesting a prioritization of moneys that are being committed and saying that we have to generate additional income through taxation. This government has generated more income through taxation than previous governments and has managed to spend it on anything other than highways. It's not a question of asking for more money, as the minister fully knows and is well aware. It's a question of a prioritization of dollars that are coming in so that we can, in fact, have this money properly committed.
But insofar as the minister is committed to spending $1.2 million on the paving of a highway that will not be usable, I will let him justify that in the minds of the public and of those who might want to look at this section of highway to nowhere that has cost us about $5 million, I believe. Can the minister tell us how much money has been spent to date on this section of highway that is now going to be non-usable?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Expenditures to date have been approximately $7 million.
G. Wilson: I think that more or less summarizes my point: $7 million on a section of highway that isn't usable. It just doesn't make a lot of sense. Granted that much of that money was committed under a previous government, one would assume that there would be a prioritization of expenditures, having already put that kind of investment into a project, to at least make that project worthwhile to the public that is going to have to use that highway. However, if the minister wants to justify $7 million on a highway to nowhere, that's up to the minister.
I will move on, because my time is relatively short, to two other items that are important in this region. Could the minister comment, please, on the responsibility and liabilities in the Ministry of Highways, and how much of it is the responsibility of the local contractor, with respect to flood management and flood control in ditching and in creek and culvert use in the Powell River area? The minister is aware -- and I appreciate his response to me a couple of days ago with respect to one particular issue that he has looked at.... But in terms of flood management and flood control, it seems that the buck is being passed between the local contractor, who says it's not his responsibility to look after ditching and flood control, and the Ministry of Highways personnel, who say they have no money to look after those issues. A number of residents in those areas have had loss of property in real terms because of a lack of maintenance in those regions. Could the minister tell us who is responsible?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd like to correct the record from a previous statement. The member opposite referred to this as a road to nowhere. I really don't think the Sunshine Coast is nowhere. It's a very beautiful area, it's a very good road to be building, and I don't think you should refer to it as a road to nowhere.
With respect to the latter point, if you can provide me with the details of the location you are speaking about -- the creek, the ditch, whatever details -- I'll indicate how it is being handled, with either the local authorities or the contractor.
G. Wilson: In fact, the minister has already done that in a couple of instances. I did thank him and do
[ Page 7012 ]
appreciate his interceding on a couple of those questions. The principal areas of flooding that I am referring to are along the Sunshine Coast highway in the region between the Saltery Bay ferry terminal and Westview. There is a series of developments in that region -- in the Black Point area as well as in the areas in and adjacent to subdivisions on the south side of the Sunshine Coast highway -- that have been subjected to substantial erosion as a result of flooding and stream maintenance. Those are the areas I am talking about, but I am talking in a more generic sense. Where does the obligation and responsibility, or the liability, lie? Does it lie with the maintenance contract and, if so, how is that covered? Or does it lie with the Ministry of Highways?
In passing, with respect to the road to nowhere, nobody knows better than I do that the Sunshine Coast is a beautiful area. It's my choice of residence. However, when you have a highway that's had $7 million spent on it and that doesn't connect to anywhere, that's perhaps a road to nowhere.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The contractor is responsible for routine maintenance, and that includes routine maintenance of ditches and of drainage structures. If something extraordinary happens.... That cannot be closely defined, but if there is a major washout, then we may negotiate an extra fee for the contractor to go in and repair it. If the damage is serious enough, it might go into a rehabilitation budget. If it's flooding of a general nature, it may not be the ministry's responsibility at all; it may go over to the Ministry of Environment to deal with the problem. It's a case-by-case analysis on the extraordinary events; other than the extraordinary, it is covered within the lump sum contracts with the contractor.
G. Wilson: Is the minister satisfied that in the case of the Powell River-Sunshine Coast highways contracts that are let, there is sufficient money for the contractors for that kind of maintenance? Is the minister confident there is enough? They lead us to believe that there isn't.
[3:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The specifications and all of the conditions required for the contract were well known by the bidders on those contracts. The very fact that this contractor's bid subsequently won the contract convinces me that there is sufficient money there -- otherwise, they wouldn't be the contractor.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's comment. That's something that we'll certainly use as we press those contractors to do the kind of maintenance and rehabilitation work that's necessary.
My last point with respect to the Sunshine Coast has to do with what my colleague the opposition critic on Highways raised. It has to do with access. I'm sure the minister is aware, having driven over at least a portion or maybe all of the highway -- I don't know, but he's flown over some of it -- that the section that runs from Langdale to Earls Cove is a very narrow and winding highway, as it is from Saltery Bay into Westview. It's an area where there is increased residential development, and there is increased pressure on that development for subdivision of lands that traditionally have not been subdividable, except in fairly large blocks.
In the rezoning that has been undertaken, there is clearly a move to try and restrict the densities of development because of highway access. Nevertheless, some properties have been developed where the kinds of densities of development that are permitted are excluded by the highway access regulations, because of limited sight distances and a whole series of other legitimate highway concerns -- and I'm not saying they are not legitimate.
The terrain here does not lend itself to frontage roads; it doesn't lend itself to any kind of easy solution. Yet we have subdivision permits and development plans being put forward that seem to be frustrated, by developers, because the Ministry of Highways is taking an extremely hard line with respect to these sight distances. In several instances, however, industrial and commerical development activities that have taken place on the Sunshine Coast have not received the same kind of aggressive attention. There is a perception -- and I don't know how real it is -- that in fact there are two sets of rules: those for residential development and those for commercial and industrial development. I wonder if the minister can comment on that, because I think it's important to have it on the record that that is not so -- if that's true.
Secondly, and more importantly, can the minister tell us what kind of flexibility there is within the Ministry of Highways to work out alternative solutions -- because clearly, if we are going to support the kind of development that is taking place in the Sunshine Coast, we are going to have to make some kinds of exceptions to rules, or at least we're going to have to spend some kinds of dollars -- and whether those dollars come from the taxpayer, which they hopefully would not, or from development expenditures by the developer, to alleviate the very restrictive problems we have with access to properties on the Sunshine Coast?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I said in response to an earlier question, I encourage the ministry to take a fairly tough approach in limiting the number of accesses and in doing a good job where the accesses are permitted. This may be partly a land use issue, as to which land should be subdivided and which land shouldn't be. Also, we frequently work with developers to make modifications at an access point -- deceleration lanes, acceleration lanes, left turn bays, in some instances signalization for right-in or right-out and a whole variety of things. Some of those must be done at the expense of the developer, of course, but we're certainly open to discussing those kinds of possibilities with them.
I am certain that we are tougher on the commercial access points than on the residential, because typically there is more vehicle movement. There are also larger vehicles entering and exiting the highway, which leads to greater danger. The fundamentals that I have asked the ministry to keep in mind are safety to the travelling public entering the highways and travelling on the
[ Page 7013 ]
highways and avoiding the kind of congestion that has destroyed the effectiveness of some of our roads in the province.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister can tell us whether there is a process or procedure for a review of the policy that is currently in place with respect to restricted access highways. The alternatives you have just referred to are often simply not in the cards because the width of the highway is too narrow or because severe rock terrain makes it difficult because of hill and valley configurations. There's a whole series of reasons why the kinds of things the minister referred to aren't there. Yet properties have been purchased -- some previous to the updated community plan. In some instances where zoning has been put in place, people have bought property with the expectation that they can subdivide. They find that, in putting in such a subdivision, Highways becomes the principle reason why they can't realize their investment. Hotel Lake is one example. I think the Ministry of Highways is well aware of the incredible problems that developer has gone through and the frustration that person has with the ministry -- to the extent that the Ministry of Highways is probably not on his Christmas list.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to appeals, first of all, the developers can always go back to the region itself. If something is not worked out at the region, they can write to headquarters. If they're not satisfied with that, they can write a letter to me. At various regional municipality meetings, the mayor and council or regional district have raised issues on behalf of their constituents to ask whether or not such-and-such an access question might be revisited. There are many routes of appeal -- through their MLA, of course. On the one hand, as I say, I'm asking the ministry to take a reasonably tough line. On the other hand, I never hesitate to indicate to the ministry staff that we also need to realize the needs of communities, to try to work with communities and show a little flexibility in key areas. All told, I think it's a fairly good process. I have to say, though, that in most of the appeals that have come to me I have sided with the ministry.
G. Wilson: But I understand no formal review is underway of the current procedure or process with respect to limited access highways. With that, I would yield back to the critic for Highways, save for a parting comment on the urgent need for highway construction on the Sunshine Coast. Clearly our "fair share" has delivered very little in the way of any real improvement, yet the lower Sunshine Coast is one of the fastest-growing communities outside of Surrey, I believe. It is an extremely dangerous highway, and I would welcome the minister looking at accident fatality rates. Indeed, I would make those available to him and hope they might change his opinion of how priorities for highway funding should be established in his ministry.
D. Symons: Maybe I could correct just one thing before I carry on, and then I wish to turn it over to other members who have asked for an opportunity to jump into the debate at this point. In my comment about Cordova Bay, I shouldn't have trivialized it by talking about the tar-and-feather ceremony. I made that up, not the people there. But what they are really desirous of is to have the minister come out and see that this is really a residential area that this is in. I shouldn't have put it the way I did, because that didn't get the message that they really want across. They want to see you out there and have an opportunity to see the situation they're concerned about.
I have just two other questions on Sechelt then, and I'll put them both together. Then I'll turn it over to other members who have questions. I believe that funds have been committed by previous administrations for realignment of Highway 101 through the downtown core of Sechelt. The final phase was postponed, and the good people of Sechelt are looking forward to completion of that project, allowing them to carry on with their downtown planning and all the rest of the development there. At the same time, the Rat Portage hill is a serious safety concern. I've heard of this over the years, and it needs some realignment along there. Is there any chance of either of those projects carrying forth in the near future?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, there won't be any work done on the Rat Portage hill this year. Again, it's a case of available funding. With respect to the minister's comment about the residents of Cordova Bay, a delegation came in and saw me in the office. We had a very reasonable discussion. They put all their concerns forward. Their MLA has made representations on their behalf. I'm familiar with their situation. As I said, the final determination has not yet been made.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I will start by thanking my colleagues in the opposition parties for this opportunity to get into the debate. I appreciate the chance.
I'm going to begin my questions to the minister; they are relatively few in number but pointed very clearly to where I come from. I want to begin by offering him a ceremonial copy of a cartoon that recently appeared in the Nanaimo Daily Free Press, which caricatures me as the local MLA making a statement. The statement I am making is: "In spite of difficult financial times, highways projects on Vancouver Island are progressing." Needless to say, the background is gridlock with cars jumbling up and piling around each other. I thought I might share that with the minister. Having said that, I know he is well and truly familiar with Nanaimo's problems. He and I and also his staff have had numerous conversations. Also, we have a rather voluminous file of correspondence on the subject.
I want to start, though, by simply posing the question. I recognize it's difficult, because a number of things are hanging fire until we see where B.C. 21 goes and until we discover what kind of mood Treasury Board is in. I'm wondering if he can begin by giving us some indication of how soon we will know what is
[ Page 7014 ]
happening with the Island Highway project. A number of people -- not just in my constituency but up and down the Island -- are starting to ask that question with greater urgency in their voices. It's worth remembering that this is not a new debate. This has been going on for at least 20 years. In fact, one of the great moments in Hansard occurred when the hon. Bob Strachan -- at that time Leader of the Opposition, I think -- was sitting in the House and a member opposite was saying that what we needed to do on Vancouver Island was create more bicycle paths. Bob Strachan's response at the time was: "We've already got a bicycle path; it's called the Vancouver Island Highway."
[3:30]
Happily, we've made considerable progress since that point. The fact remains, however, that we are still anxious to see those other important chunks of what has been called the goat trail. Let's call it highway. What is the progress report on that? More specifically, of course, I'm concerned about my own constituency. I wonder if the minister could begin by giving us a bit of an update on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Certainly investment in transportation on Vancouver Island is long overdue. I have had my ministry do an analysis of spending on a regional basis, and I discovered that Vancouver Island had the lowest per capita investment in roads and bridges over the past ten or 15 years. I have, of course, driven the road only as far as Campbell River. As it was during the summer, I witnessed firsthand the congestion -- particularly through Nanaimo and north of Nanaimo -- all the way along it right from the outskirts of Victoria. It's a billion-dollar question or somewhat more than that -- perhaps $1.2 billion in 1993 dollars. So it can't be done quickly.
I would agree with the member in terms of the cartoon. Of all of the communities in the province, Nanaimo ranks right up there in terms of the ongoing congestion problem. Part of the reason that a decision was made last year to proceed with the inner bypass -- the so-called parkway -- versus the outer was that the outer bypass would not solve the local transportation problems in Nanaimo, whereas the inner will. We'll see the number of lights through Nanaimo cut from something like 23 or 24 down to something like four or five. That would certainly be a vast improvement.
The Nanaimo section has a priority in the overall planning of the Island Highway, because there is no sense in developing capacity further up the Island if it has to get through Nanaimo. Nanaimo is the key section of road. When the Transportation Financing Authority is in full operation.... We are in the process of bringing through that process a recommended work program for the next several years. It is no secret that Nanaimo reckons large in those plans. We are already being pressed for our plans nearly on a daily basis by residents along the alignment of the parkway. We're impacting on lives, and we would like to be able to help those people as quickly as possible. Perhaps I could leave it at that. If the hon. member wishes to pursue some particular element, I could speak to that, rather than an extensive ramble.
D. Lovick: I want to thank the minister for the answer. It's good news for the great majority of people in my constituency.
I want to pick up on the point that the minister left off with -- namely, the impact on those people whose properties have been identified as required for the completion of the parkway project. As I said earlier, the minister and I have shared voluminous correspondence from a number of my constituents saying: "We know they are going to take the property. The question is when. What am I to do in the interim?" I recognize that that's a very difficult question and a major problem. I just want to confirm with the minister that the answer is in fact that we will be able to respond to those concerns imminently, assuming that the B.C. 21 and the Transportation Financing Authority decision is coming down and assuming, moreover, that Nanaimo is on the top of the list. Is that a fair construction?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it is. I have been writing back to residents of your community and assuring them number one, that I am aware of and understand and share their concerns about how this is impacting their lives; and number two, that we are very close to the point where we will have the funds in hand to proceed with property acquisition.
The designs of two sections are finished; there's a detailed design nearing completion on the other two sections through Nanaimo. So we have a quite accurate determination of the properties that will be required. As soon as the Financing Authority is empowered, we will acquire the funds and shortly thereafter acquire the properties we need.
D. Lovick: I appreciate the answer, and I thank the minister for it.
The last question I want to raise is perhaps the most difficult. I note that the minister is accompanied by four officials from the Ministry of Highways, who have all heard me go through this process before in my days as opposition Highways critic. It's a difficult one because it's a public policy issue, and I don't think that governments anywhere in this country have yet grappled with it satisfactorily. I want to simply canvass the issue for a moment with the minister.
I am talking about what economists and engineers usually refer to as the externalities of a project: the fact that when we build something or create a project for the public good, we want to be sure the public is better served by what we produce. However, the reality is that there are also casualties. There are people who suffer, at least in the short term, as a result of that publicly good project. The legal principle, by the way -- I am sure the minister knows this -- is usually referred to as injurious affection -- namely, that people are hurt or are impacted negatively. In law, I discovered to my chagrin, the track record of government dealing with people who perceive themselves to be injuriously affected by public projects is that people's protection is just about nil. In fact, Supreme Court judgments have
[ Page 7015 ]
come down and effectively said that individuals have almost no rights. The only exception to that is when people's property is directly affected, and therefore they have a remedy by compensation.
It's the other area I want to deal with, however: those individuals whose properties are adjacent or contiguous to a development and who are injuriously affected. What I want to put on the table at the moment is what I think amounts to precedent on the part of the provincial government, whereby government says: "Yes, we have an obligation to do something to help those individuals." The precedent I'm referring to is a report by Stephen Owen, when he was the ombudsman of the province in November 1987: public report No. 8 by the ombudsman's office that deals specifically with SkyTrain in Vancouver.
I'm not going to describe at great length everything Owen did in that excellent report. He does, however, say a couple of things that I think have resonance and significance for all of us who would make public policy. The principle that Owen articulates is a fairness principle. He says that individuals who are adversely affected by a publicly beneficial project deserve some recognition of that injury.
The form of recompense is not compensation in most cases, because we simply can't afford that; no government can afford that. What he talks about -- and what the burden of the special report No. 8 really is -- is mitigation. He argues the case that when people own properties before the development and they have every reason to believe that they will have the right to the uninterrupted enjoyment of their property, and then, as a matter of conscious and deliberate public policy, their rights or their quality of life are adversely affected, we as government and we as society ought to do something.
I could quote great chunks of this report to the minister. I suspect that he is familiar with Owen's report. I know his staff certainly are. I think my reading of the document is correct. There is a principle enunciated there that says we the people, through our governments, have an obligation to do whatever we can within certain reasonable limits to ensure that the adverse impact on individuals is somehow lessened or otherwise mitigated.
By its very name, the concept of parkway says that it isn't going to be just a major throughway. I think I heard the member the other day singing the old song about "the railroad runs through the middle of the house since the company bought the land," and, of course, that did happen in the past. Happily, government is beyond that, but we need to consider ways in which we can mitigate impact.
Owen's SkyTrain report talks about landscaping, about barriers and, most importantly in my mind, about a rebate system. The rebate system is a means whereby individuals who pay dollars to ameliorate or otherwise mitigate the negative impacts on their properties can then go to the government and say, "I have spent this money on double glazing windows, on improving my landscape or on building a fence," and perhaps have some opportunity to get back some of that money in the form of a rebate.
I guess that is my question to the minister. I recognize that it's a thorny and difficult public policy issue. I think, however, that given the reality of highways constriction today -- the fact that more and more we are going to be building improved transportation networks through established neighbourhoods in cities.... The minister is from Kamloops -- he's certainly familiar with what happened there -- and I'm from Nanaimo where we're facing the same kind of problem. It will happen in more and more communities throughout the province via transit, light rapid transit, railways or highways. It's bound to happen again. I think we have a public policy issue that needs to be addressed. I certainly hope it will be addressed on behalf of my constituents, because they have a legitimate claim. To say that I, who used to have a relatively quiet, comfortable quality of life may no longer have one, simply because we are now building a four-lane road through....
I recognize that there are no such things as absolute rights and absolute guarantees about the right to enjoy property -- nor should there be, quite frankly. We can't provide those guarantees. I think the other side of that, however, is that we do have an obligation as a government, as a matter of policy, to do what we can to mitigate and soften or otherwise lessen those impacts. I would welcome the minister's comments on that rather longer statement than I intended to make, and I ask the members opposite to please indulge me that. I apologize for taking longer than I should have.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I am certainly aware of the problem. I'm aware of the sentiments, and I'm aware of the kind of impact that would have. All arms of government -- and certainly Transportation -- do a far better job now than ten, 20 or 30 years ago. Indeed, we will be doing landscaping, and there will be noise attenuation. If you look back to the previous government's work when the Cassiar connector was constructed, a great deal of public funds was expended to control, in the construction of the Cassiar tunnel, the impact on a neighbourhood. I applaud them for that decision; I think it was a good decision.
[3:45]
It's a difficult business, because some people, even adjacent to new freeways, will see appreciation in their particular area and in their own land. People who are fortunate enough to own property near future interchanges will see substantial benefit in the construction. All will see benefit in terms of convenience and safety in their travel through their own community. We have also worked closely with neighbourhoods, with other areas of government and with institutions to align the road carefully and to move it about here and there in order to minimize the impact. All that said, we still have impact, and some people still suffer some form of injurious affection.
I think it is a topic worthy of cross-ministry debate, because it is potentially a very costly item, and we should not enter into that or indicate through any forum that we are about to do it. We have to think long and hard, listen to people, and to experts in the area and search our own souls as to what public expense we
[ Page 7016 ]
are willing to create in order to help those injured persons. I take your comments as I'm sure they were intended.
D. Lovick: Again, I appreciate the sincerity and thoughtfulness of the response.
In my description of Owen's report I neglected to quote him directly and, for the record, I would like to enunciate some of the principles in his own words. According to Owen, the basic governing principle is as follows: "All public institutions owe a duty of fairness to individual citizens which extends beyond their narrow statutory mandate." That's rather a dramatic enunciation of that point, and I agree with it.
The Ontario Ministry of Highways published a report in which the following statement is made. A transportation agency, according to that report, should have "a greater obligation to adjacent residents where the houses existed first." Again, this is just acknowledging the point that if in fact the neighbourhood antedated or preceded the project, then there is a greater obligation. I think the minister would agree with me that that is defensible.
Again quoting Owen, I note this is dealing precisely with the final point made by the minister: "It is not fair that one group which suffers the intrusion of the system -- literally at their back yards for some -- should bear this additional cost with absolutely no mitigation of the negative effects." That's the basic practical principle used. I'm confident, from what I have heard from the ministry, that we are going to do everything we can to mitigate those effects and impacts on my constituents. I'm delighted to hear the minister say that he recognizes the problem and sees that this perhaps should be an interministerial initiative. It is, I think, a major public policy question that I hope will be addressed.
L. Hanson: I might take a minute to set the scene for the minister, although I'm sure as soon as soon as I get into it he'll recognize what I'm concerned about. We have a native band on the west side of Okanagan Lake, and a number of roads go through the reserve. The main road roughly follows the contour of the lake, but an awful lot of other roads go across the reserve to private property -- dwellings, some commercial operations and so on. The band has just issued a warning to the effect that they're going to blockade the road. That's a threat, and I don't know whether it will in fact become a reality.
At first we thought that the reasoning behind the possible blockade was a question of the alignment of the road belonging to the government, in terms of a dedicated right-of-way. Apparently, a couple of curves on the road have been realigned over a period of years without really reflecting that in the legal right-of-way. We thought that was the reason they were suggesting it might be blockaded. We find now that that isn't the case. In fact Highways is not absolutely positive -- nor is the native band absolutely positive -- about exactly where those locations might be. I know there's a process by survey and so on by which that could be found out. But that doesn't seem to be the issue.
The issue seems to be that they are more concerned with their ability to partake in the forest industry issue and the management of the TFL for which access is through these roads. I think they also suggested that maybe during the transfer of a licence there was a drawback of 5 percent of the AAC, and that they would like to have access to that. They're using this blockade as a means to pressure the government to negotiate their issues. If you talk to the actual people, there might be some minor variations to that. The fact is that the closure they've announced, even though it hasn't actually happened yet, has put about 60 people out of work. That includes fallers and people directly involved -- truck drivers, road builders and so on. I don't know what the effect may be on the production facilities there. I'd like the minister to comment on is whether this is something those people can expect to go on facing for a number of months. Or does the minister have some plan to deal with it that would reopen that road fairly expeditiously?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We do have a large number of areas around the province where the ministry is in fact in trespass. That's probably not disputed by anyone -- perhaps 500 places around the province. I've entered into negotiations with a number of bands to try to resolve those situations, so that the province ends up with fee simple ownership of the proper right-of-way. I have cautioned people that I would not likely countenance a blockade. I'm aware that linkages are being made to other non-transportation issues. I hope that no such blockades occur. I don't think they would be productive. If they do occur and if the right-of-way for the road is in fact clear title, then I would have to turn the matter over to the Attorney General ministry to see that the road would be reopened.
L. Hanson: I can appreciate what the difficulty is, because I have had some personal experience with that problem. The reason I've asked the question is, of course, that the number of people who are currently out of work as a result of that are wondering how long this may go on or if they may have an opportunity of getting back to work. They've faced about a two-month closure already because of spring break-up. Now they're just starting back to work, and they can't get there. I recognize the difficulty and the problems with the issue. What they're looking for is some assurance from government that there will be some action fairly quickly, so they can open the road again. I know the issues that have been brought into these disputes will not be settled quickly, and I think everybody recognizes and accepts that. But the issue of the road closure itself is the one where those people are looking for some kind of action, so they can get back to the workplace.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is my understanding that the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs are also working on a resolution of this problem. Again, I would state quite explicitly that I have a firm hope that no actual blockades will occur.
[ Page 7017 ]
H. Lali: I've got just a couple of small questions to the minister. The first one is on the air transport assistance program. You're quite aware of the plight of small rural communities, especially in the interior and the north, as far as trying to expand their local economy and provide jobs for the local people. You are quite aware that the unemployment rates are fairly high in some of these small communities. Also, due to the small tax base in these communities, their leaders are often looking at good transportation and communication links, which are very important to the economic survival of these small communities.
Also, because of the small tax base, the communities are often dependent upon federal and provincial programs, in terms of trying to build some of their communication and transportation links, like the small airport. One such program is the ATAP, which I know the Social Credit government provided. I understand it's still available. What amount of money is available to small communities through that program?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Indeed, to many communities a functioning airport -- appropriate lighting, some amenities at the airport and pavement, of course -- is quite important. They see it as an economic opportunity for a variety of reasons, not the least of them being tourism.
[4:00]
The ATAP was funded at about $4 million per year. We have reduced that to about $500,000 last year and again this year as a result of the general financial pressure on government. In answer to your question on the amount, it is $500,000 this year. That is allocated already. As financial conditions permit, this is one program that I would like to see brought back up to a higher funding level for the reasons I have mentioned.
I would also point out at this time that the member for Yale-Lillooet buys his clothes in Kamloops, and it's much appreciated.
H. Lali: I would like to thank the minister. Since I'm contributing to the economy of his riding every time I purchase my clothes in Kamloops, hopefully he can channel some Transportation and Highways funds into my riding in exchange for me buying clothes there.
Interjection.
H. Lali: It would probably balance out in the end.
If I can make one recommendation to the minister for next year's budget, it would be that he work with his colleagues in Treasury Board to increase those funds under the ATAP that were made available in the past.
I live in Merritt, as the minister is quite aware, and we have some major problems at the airport there. The city of Merritt hired professionals to do a study on the present runway, and the report that came back recommended that a full reconstruction of the runway be undertaken. The estimated cost of this work, if it was spread over four phases, is about $2.4 million. This report was filed with the most recent Transport Canada inspection, and it also stated that the runway is of very poor condition due to pavement heaving, and that major rehabilitation is required.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
I have a specific question related to the Merritt situation. When I was an alderman on city council in Merritt we had applied for some funds under the ATAP for installing a taxiway, a runway, an apron, an edge-lighting rotation beacon, lighted windsock, apron lights and electrical services. Indeed, funds were approved to the tune of $370,000, which was supposed to be in four phases, I believe. An initial $92,500 was sent to Merritt city council. Due to the changeover in city personnel during the 1990 municipal election and also the election of the new municipal council at the time, the runway situation worsened and the lighting project was delayed as time passed. The remaining 75 percent of the funds for this project was never forwarded to the city.
The ATAP agreement, signed in November 1990, was amended to allow Merritt to undertake a geotechnical investigation of the present runway. A portion of the funds that was already forwarded was spent on that. Of the original $92,500, there is still $44,500 remaining in the ATAP funds with Merritt right now. The city was advised in 1991 that any expenditure of these funds would have to be approved by ATAP. I received a phone call a couple of days ago from Mayor Clara Norgaard of Merritt. The city has requested that ATAP approve the expenditure of the $44,500 in question on a taxiway paving and apron expansion project. They have provided a fairly good rationale for this in that the proposed paving can be accomplished in such a way as to improve the drainage away from the runway. Safety is of prime concern here. With the improvement, an expanded apron will enable airplane taxiing and storage further away from the helipad facility that exists. This project would complement the overall needs of the site and, in my opinion, does not conflict with the needed reconstruction -- the $2.4 million that we talked about -- or the lighting program. This project would open up some of the lease areas on the airport property, allowing the Merritt airport to begin generating some revenue.
As I indicated the last time I got up to speak, small communities like Merritt throughout the interior are heavily dependent on tourism dollars and often look to federal and provincial governments to help them in providing services. Again, I wonder if the minister would be willing to assist the city of Merritt with its request to expend the $44,500 in the way I have mentioned.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I understand, the allocation has been made in the past, and this is a case of a reallocation within the account for the reasons given. The issue has been raised by the city of Merritt, and it is in the ministry for consideration at this time. The rationale of the city seems reasonable to me. As I said earlier, we have no additional funds. We have the $500,000 allocated, but these are moneys from a previous year. On that basis, I would think that the
[ Page 7018 ]
request is reasonable, and I would look upon it favourably.
H. Lali: That is correct. The funds in question are already sitting with the city of Merritt and are not for any additional projects that may be required. That could follow suit later.
I just want to turn my attention to a couple of projects in the riding that had been promised by the last administration before the election. These are capital projects, and I would like to commend the minister for supporting the rehabilitation component of Transportation and Highways funding. Last year Yale-Lillooet was fortunate enough to receive $10 million in rehabilitation funding. It may seem like a lot compared to some of the other ridings in the province, but Yale-Lillooet, as you are aware, has the most extensive road mileage in highways of any other constituency. For 1993-94 that rehabilitation component has been increased to almost $l3 million. I can tell you personally, Mr. Minister, that my constituents are quite happy about the fact that rehabilitation funds for Yale-Lillooet are being extended to keep up with Highways projects that have been in existence for a while. However, virtually no capital projects have come into being, and I would like to talk about two of them. One in particular is the Summit-Whipsaw bridge project on Highway 3, also known as the Hope-Princeton Highway.
Prior to the last election, the previous government said that they were going to commence work on a $45 million project in two phases starting in the spring of 1992. Over a year has passed since then, and questions are arising in the community. I've been receiving queries not only from the town council there but also from the chamber of commerce, individual business people and citizens who want to see this project go ahead. My question to the minister is: what has happened to that project? Why hadn't work started in the spring of 1992 or, indeed, in the spring of 1993?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not certain, of course, what was in the mind of the previous administration when they made such a promise. I have no idea whether or not there were interesting events pending. But to spend nearly $50 million to resolve one problem on one road is something I cannot support. I can support solving the problem, and I can support addressing the real concerns of safety around the Whipsaw Creek crossing. Indeed, we are going to be doing some work there to improve the approaches to the bridge for that purpose. I have strong doubts as to whether the project was ever real in the first instance, but that question might have been asked in some hypothetical estimates session that never occurred.
I recognize the concerns of the community. We have to approach this in a fiscally responsible way. I know you have raised the issue with me before, and I know that the folks in Princeton have a safety concern there. We'll have to look at making some improvements to the alignment of the road. At some point in time when funds are available, there may be an ability to make some modest investments -- perhaps a relocation of the bridge in a minor way. But the original notion that $55 million would be expended to resolve the problem at one corner is not likely to proceed. Of course, I have informed the mayor and council in Princeton of that. As well, I would point out that much of the pressure on that road has been alleviated by the completion of the Okanagan connector. Although there is still a modestly high number of travellers who use the road, winter is a particularly dangerous time for that intersection. We owe it to them to make the critical investments required to resolve the safety issues.
H. Lali: A confusion still exists in my mind and also among the residents of Princeton. I just want to ask another question on that particular topic to help clarify the situation. Having listened to your answer, am I to believe that this project was never considered in reality or in any seriousness? May it have just been an election promise made on the eve of an election? Were there any structural or engineering studies or designs done that could have been taken to public tender? Were any moneys expended on studies of this particular project? Were any moneys allocated in the last budget before the present government took over? Was it in any five- or ten-year plan prior to you taking over as minister?
[4:15]
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can't speak to the intentions of the Minister of Transportation in the previous administration. The only place the project existed that I am aware of was on the priority list for a regional transportation study. There were no designs and there was no investigation carried out, to my knowledge. This year we will be expending approximately $1.5 million in the vicinity of the existing bridge to improve it. I am told that there were some funds, but I'm not certain of the amount that was spent on some engineering aspects of the project.
H. Lali: Yes, I understand the $1.5 million being expended this year is for rehabilitation of the present narrow bridge. It has nothing to do with the $50 million project envisioned a couple of years back. So I just want to be clear before I leave this room that there was no comprehensive design work or comprehensive engineering study done that could have been taken to public tender by the last government.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There was some geotechnical work done in the area to define the nature of the problem. It's very rugged through there, as you're well aware. But it never got past some conceptual designs.
H. Lali: My last point is on another one of the projects in my riding, namely, the Trans-Canada Highway bridge crossing the Fraser River at Hope, which you're quite familiar with -- I'm sure you've driven it. One of the problems with this bridge is that it is fairly narrow and it has a metal top. There have been quite a few accidents in the past; and I believe there have been fatalities as well, due to the safety problem that exists. Again, in conversations with the local people in Hope and with their town council.... This
[ Page 7019 ]
particular project was discussed by the last government. Quite a few options were put forth. Of the two they outlined, one was to replace the bridge, which would have cost tens of millions of dollars. The second was to do some major capital rehab work on the bridge, to widen it and/or work on the approaches -- one approach to the bridge is at almost a 60-degree angle. That project was estimated to cost about $10 million to $12 million. In last year's budget $300,000, I believe, was allocated towards some study for this bridge, and due to the budgetary crunch that work was not carried out. In this year's budget there has been no allocation of funds for any kind of design work, and this project has been deferred. On behalf of the people of Hope, I would like to ask the minister: what is the present status of that particular project?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, I can't speak to the intentions of the previous administration. The status of the work at that time was that some preliminary investigation had occurred and some conceptual designs were available.
The status of it now is that.... First, the funds were expended last year on the preliminary design studies and getting into, but not completing, detail design. Because of the budgetary constraints this year, we're not proceeding with the work this year. It is, I believe, somewhat in excess of $10 million to actually do the project. But what needs to be done, and is not budgeted for this year, is the completion of detail design -- and then on into construction. When that might be scheduled is, of course, purely a budgetary matter.
H. Lali: This is the last question I want to ask the minister. This is another project where for the people in Hope there's some confusion similar to the confusion created in Princeton over the Summit-Whipsaw project. The last government had said that, the next spring, work was going to begin on the $10 million to $12 million major rehab of this particular bridge. Before I sit down, I just want to be clear that there were no detailed comprehensive drawings or structural designs undertaken by the last government which could have been put out to public tender for this project.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The status of the project when I took office was that some investigation and conceptual design work was done. There had been no detailed design work undertaken at that point.
L. Hanson: The member for Yale-Lillooet is obviously fishing for information so he can go back and say there was never any intention to do those projects. I think the minister would admit, in fairness, that the preliminary work that was being done on both projects did in fact put the Ministry of Highways in a position of being able to go into some planning the following year, with some funding in the budget if it was available, that would ultimately make the project a reality. That's what was promised, not construction. The member is asking if those plans were in place so that you could go to tender. It was never said that there were plans in place that you could go to tender on. I just thought I'd like to get that on the record for the member's benefit.
H. Lali: Perhaps, if the hon. member who spoke before me knew the situation firsthand in Princeton and Hope as to what some of his party supporters had been telling people on the eve of an election -- that these projects were going to commence, and that the government was going to spend this money.... Since our government has come into power.... Obviously there were no plans in place to start construction on these projects by the previous government. Those same Social Credit supporters have continued to say that everything is ready to go, that it was the New Democrat government that decided to put an end to all of this -- the others are the ones who have broken the promises. My reason for putting these questions on the record is to gain information as to what the status of these projects was upon this government taking office. If there is any misinformation that has been spread out there, it has been done by the supporters of the member's party over the last year and a half. The fact of the matter is that they made the statement that they were going to start construction on these bridges, on the eve of an election to try to gain votes.
Interjections.
L. Hanson: We're going to have an election campaign right here. No, seriously, I think it's fair that we should have these things on the record. The minister said, in fairness, that it was difficult to comment on the intentions of the previous administration. I think that is fair and proper and that he shouldn't comment on the intentions of the previous administration. If there are supporters of our party or any party who are out there making political statements, the member for Yale-Lillooet is, I believe, mature enough to know that all sorts of things are said during an election campaign. If we wanted to get into that -- about promises during an election campaign -- boy, could we have a lot of fun. Even in the minister's riding, we could have a lot of fun. The fact is, for the record, it was the intention to do those things, and I don't think this sort of discussion is the correct discussion for estimates.
H. De Jong: It's been a rather interesting afternoon here. For a while I thought the member for Nanaimo was going to sing the song about the railroad through the middle of the House, but he stopped halfway. The member for Yale-Lillooet appears to have the idea that he will get more highway projects if he buys his clothes in Kamloops, so I'm just beginning to wonder whether I'm buying clothes in the right community. However, I think I'll remain with the store where I've always bought them because they have served me well, regardless of highway potential in our community.
At the same time, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. The first one is about the realignment of the westbound lanes at Barrowtown and the grade separation. That was, I believe, back in 1986-87. The intent was to make Highway 401 truly a freeway from Hope to Vancouver -- or from Vancouver
[ Page 7020 ]
to Hope, whichever way you look at it. I guess the only advantage to that level crossing is that the two parts of the highway are a distance apart, so there is a chance to cross over, and then you can try to get onto the other two that go westbound. The people in that particular area are certainly at a great risk by having to cross this four-lane highway all the time. I believe that the initial design was done back in 1986; it was redesigned in 1990 or 1991, with the full understanding by the community that this project wouldn't be delayed any longer. In fact, I attended an open house at the Sumas pump station, where all the plans were thoroughly reviewed by the community. The community was relatively happy with the proposals and were certainly expecting that this was going to be built. My question is: when is it going to be built?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Sorry for the delay. We've just completed an overpass a little further east from that location, and I was trying to determine whether that was in your constituency or in the Chilliwack constituency.
[4:30]
The progressive conversion of all the level crossings between Hope and Vancouver to overpasses and closing off the level crossings is something that we should continue with as many funds as we can reasonably commit. It is a safety issue. I recall in my mind's eye several of the corners in the two separate two-lane sections, particularly the westbound ones, that need realigning. The level crossing just east of the Vedder Canal, in particular, and the narrow bridge there could certainly stand upgrading and replacement. As funds are available, those are the kinds of projects that I would support.
H. De Jong: The question really is, though, whether a start is going to be made on that project this year. I see the minister nodding his head. Oh, it's not going to be started this year. I suppose that will disappoint the people in the community.
My further question is: can the minister give any direction as to the projects that are going to be done under B.C. 21? Could this project be done under that program in order to speed up the safety measures for that particular section of the highway?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The transportation projects that will be carried out under the Transportation Financing Authority.... It will certainly have a major input in the selection of those projects. A project such as the one you're referring to -- an upgrade on the Trans-Canada Highway -- would be eligible for that. I would point out to the member opposite that, although I have acknowledged that there is a level of danger there and that it would be desirable to upgrade to overpasses -- proper curvatures, proper bridges -- we do have many other transportation problems around the province that are more pressing. The difficulty is dividing up the limited funds between many worthy projects on some basis of fairness and priority. In the process, the volumes of traffic and the accident records of various portions of our system have to be taken into account. I cannot tell you off the top of my head where this specific project would stand in an overall provincial set of priorities. I recognize it as one that should be done and will be done when the funding is available. I cannot commit to a specific time frame for that. It is a project that would be worthwhile.
H. De Jong: I thank the minister for his answer. I certainly hope that he can see fit to get it done as quickly as possible. Yes, the people in the area are concerned. But I think that many people travelling along Highway 401, even though the speed limit is posted at 100 kilometres an hour, go 115 kilometres an hour. It certainly is a very dangerous crossing.
Over to Highway 11, then. Starting at the U.S. border, I know that some temporary, remedial work has been done on waiting lanes. I understand that there has been some agreement reached between the ministry staff and the district of Abbotsford on a pending development along Highway 11. Can we see any work being done in conjunction with that development? What are they providing as well as the finalization of Highway 11 through Huntingdon?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: There were some roadway changes made down at the Sumas crossing last year after a series of consultations between representatives of the community and myself. It is my understanding that those works have been completed, although it has not yet been tied into the system. There's some minor work being done on 11, near the proposed development centre. Those are works that would be in fact paid for by the developer. Beyond that, we are not expending any funds this year on 11 south of the Trans-Canada. North of the Trans-Canada on Highway 11, in a section that you would be familiar with, we are spending about $1 million on a rehabilitation project.
H. De Jong: Since the minister has brought up the rehabilitation project, I'd like to get back to that one. First of all, I notice that this rehabilitation project consisted of scraping down about two inches of the existing pavement. It's being piled along the road or pushed into the berms. I understood that that stuff is usually used in a new mix and put back onto the highway, but it appears that it's all dumped along the side of the highway.
What concerns me more is that at the Harris Road crossing, where traffic lights are in existence, the centre alley, you might say -- the five or six feet between the travelled lanes -- was also scraped out. But on an uncontrolled crossing like Fore Road, the five or six feet of pavement was left, which created a ridge right in the middle of the road.
There has been a safety concern expressed by the ministry. In fact, that's why they put those closure signs up for Fore Road. If there was a safety concern by the Ministry of Highways about that road and that crossing, surely they wouldn't leave a two-inch lift in the middle of the road where people have to cross to get on and off Highway 11 from Fore Road. So I would like to have some comments as to whether in fact the minister can agree with those kinds of measures: to rip
[ Page 7021 ]
off the pavement and dump it on the side where it appears to be going to waste, and secondly, to leave a ridge on an uncontrolled crossing.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You've raised several points. I want to try and touch on all of them -- if I miss any, remind me.
With respect to the material that is scraped off the road, if it is alongside the road at present, it must be there temporarily because it will be recycled. It will be hauled over to a pit at some location and used as recycled material for new asphalt.
With respect to the ridge that has been left along the centre, what's happening is that a centre median is going to be placed along and around the curve past Fore Road, whereas at Harris Road there is not going to be a centre median. There will still be cross-traffic at Harris Road. So the material there has been milled off the road and will be replaced, presumably with a new top layer of asphalt. At Fore Road, the present unmilled section along the median is where the median barrier will sit. During construction there may be a ridge that might be a bit dangerous, but I presume that the area is appropriately signed, and that appropriate warnings are given to the public that the ridge occurs and will be there through the construction period.
The reason for putting the median at Fore Road is safety. It is an intersection on a curve, which is not desirable. It is my understanding that the mayor of Matsqui has in fact requested that the median be placed there.
H. De Jong: My understanding is different, and a presentation was made by a number of property owners to Matsqui council. I think you will hear the contrary from Matsqui council very quickly. The mayor may have agreed to it from a safety point of view at one time. But he did not realize what had happened before, as I outlined here perfectly last week.
[4:45]
I think the minister understands the concern of the affected property owners. As we said last week, we have no problem with the closure of Fore Road, providing the access road -- which was in the early designs -- is carried through to Harris Road for a safe crossing for all vehicles. I believe the minister also understands that the affected property owners.... While a farmer may not make a trip to town 20 times a day, sometimes during busy times he has to make several trips to town. I don't think that having every trip lengthened by ten kilometres can be accepted, in view of the fact that a frontage road was promised. It was on the basis of that frontage road that some of the property owners rebuilt their facilities on the roads close to what they were before. It was for that reason, and now this is going to be taken away. However, I saw last night that the closure signs for Fore Road now have black plastic covers over them, except for the words "important notice" on top. Does that mean that Fore Road will not be closed?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: On the east side of Highway 11, we will be attempting to leave that entrance to Fore Road -- which I understand your personal residence is close to -- as a right-in, right-out exit. The other side, the west-side access to Fore Road, will likely be closed off permanently because that entrance comes into the inside of the curve on Highway 11; hence the sight distances are worst for that particular entrance. Looking at it here, I would order the ministry to close that entrance for safety purposes.
In 1969, an understanding was reached on a frontage road between Fore Road and Harris Road. I understand that there have been difficulties in dealing with the landowner there, and that it has not occurred. However, one can go from Fore Road back -- I'm not certain what the distance is to the next crossroad -- in order to connect with Harris and over. If the municipality's plan still calls for a frontage road along there, then I would be willing to look at that to see what the benefits are and what the cost would be. If it's reasonable, it is something that I could support.
H. De Jong: Let's deal with the safety aspect of that road first. During the construction of that particular section of highway, they had difficulty dealing with Mr. Derek Hougen on the property and with the demands that Mr. Hougen placed on Highways. There was a berm constructed on the east side of the highway from Fore Road to Aish Avenue. The width of that berm would have accommodated almost half of the road allowance. There was a new bridge built across Matsqui Slough to accommodate Mr. Hougen and no one else. That bridge could have served the entire area for a frontage road.
Every winter when the snow starts blowing from the northeast, that highway is closed because of snowdrifts -- complete whiteouts -- because the snow starts swirling around this berm and it piles up so fast that they can't keep the highway open. So if the Ministry of Highways is now going to put centre barricades on the highway -- and I agree with the minister that that will take the view away from those who wish to enter that road -- surely to goodness you're going to have another barrier on the road for catching the snow on that particular section. You'll have much more trouble on that highway than you've ever seen before. I would caution the minister, even though he has all kinds of engineering experts around, that the practicality of it is not good.
On the frontage road situation, it may not seem very much removal of rights-of-way from affected people along that stretch of road to allow only a right-on and a right-off turn at Fore Road. At the same time, whenever these people want to go to Abbotsford from the Aish Avenue-Fore Road area, they are required to drive an additional eight kilometres; it will be five kilometres one way. The member for Nanaimo brought up some interesting comments out of Mr. Owen's report, which we talked about earlier. The minister may have to look at that to see the effects these measures are having on property owners.
In light of that as well as the other matters that I've questioned the minister about.... I know the concerns I have will be there when the snow starts blowing. You will have a problem that's far greater than you can ever
[ Page 7022 ]
imagine. You've got nowhere to push the snow. The berm is on the east side, and the barricade is down the middle of the road.
A further question I would like to ask the minister is on the allowance for overweight logging trucks in the Prince George area. Apparently the Ministry of Attorney General has allowed overweight and oversize loads for log hauling in the Prince George area per se. I understand that the specialists in your ministry who deal with pavement have objected to this. I understand that everyone in the safety department has objected to it because of the height and weight of the loads. The industry is concerned about it, except perhaps for those in the immediate area where this is allowed. The overall industry has expressed strong concern about this measure. It's unfair, and it's a special privilege given to the Prince George operators. The minister's own specialists within the ministry have said that it's not a good idea, yet the minister seems to allow it. I would like to have the minister's comments on that.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Technically, it would be more appropriate to raise that issue in the estimates of the Attorney General. The motor vehicle branch, which issues the permit, is answerable to the Attorney General and not to me. I'm aware of the problem. I can say to the member that personnel and staff from Forests, from the Attorney General's office and from our ministry are working on this issue to resolve it. It is a province-wide situation; it is not restricted to the Prince George area. It is an item that I am particularly interested in because overweight vehicles, of course, have the potential of creating additional wear and tear on our highway system. I'm also aware, though, from the brief period of time in which I was sentenced to serve as Forests minister as well, that many operators around the province were pressing for the special permits on the basis that they could not determine -- even though they might have had the best intentions -- their weight that accurately in the bush, with the snow load and the ice load, and with sand and gravel being thrown up and deposited on the wood. They raised a whole series of arguments as to why some leeway should be permitted. In that period of communication, a strong signal was sent out to the industry that this was not going to be tolerated, and that we had to deal with it. They needed a little time to get their act together. I am now informed that the industry, the motor vehicle branch, Forests and Transportation will be working on a resolution of the problem.
H. De Jong: Hon. Chair, my final comment is that I'm, to say the least, lost in the expressions by the minister as they pertain to safety in particular. He doesn't seem to have too much concern about the overload of trucks, even though the industry is opposed to it generally. He doesn't seem to have a concern about a level crossing on Highway 401, which carries at least three or four times the amount of traffic that Highway 11 does. Yet he feels quite comfortable in closing a highway there and leaving a berm that creates a real problem in the wintertime and has for many winters so far. I'm sure the minister can look back at the cost of snow removal on that little section of highway alone and at the times when the highway has been closed. So I am appalled at this minister's attitude and also at the ministry's attitude, because in a situation like this what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I don't hear that from the minister or from ministry personnel. I'm very sorry that I have to end on such a negative note, but I hope that the minister has a very close look at the three aspects that we've talked about this afternoon, because they certainly don't seem to make sense in the eyes of the public or in my eyes.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Perhaps the member wrote out his concluding comments before he heard me. He should review Hansard and see what I had to say. I said quite clearly that I am concerned about the level crossing on Highway 1. I said I was concerned about the alignment, the narrow bridge and all those things. Plus, I pointed out that I supported the progressive elimination of level crossings. I think I expressed a fair amount of understanding and concern.
With respect to the overload issue, you've got your facts backwards. It is pressure from the industry that has maintained the overload permit situation -- not from this ministry and certainly not from this minister. I have expressed a lot of concern to trucking companies, to individuals, to my ministry and to other ministries about overload and the impact that is having on our highways, the deterioration and rutting of highways due to truck overloads. I have expressed lots of concern about that, and I have expressed it here today.
With respect to the closure on Highway 11, I was concerned with a safety issue. It is a dangerous corner, and I support the ministry's proposal to close off an entrance for safety reasons. It might cause you an inconvenience on your way to Abbotsford to go somewhat out of your way rather than be able to make a left turn at a dangerous location. But I would inform you that an accident apparently occurred at that corner last week when you were asking me about it. It is a dangerous corner. I have expressed concern about that, and am putting in measures to cause a safer road to exist.
[5:00]
The only thing you mentioned that I have not explicitly acknowledged is that the work being done might cause a snowdrift problem. That might be. I think we should look into it. I would point out that it is a problem that might exist on a number of occasions over a month or two of the winter. The road is open and the curve dangerous 12 months of the year. If it creates a snowdrift problem, let us address it with better maintenance, snow fences or whatever we need to do. That is an issue separate from the inherent danger of the corner. What I am speaking up on behalf of is the safety of the travelling public, albeit at the expense of having to go slightly out of your way to reach Abbotsford.
H. De Jong: I can't help but respond to that. The minister is talking about safety. I said safety, if it applies in one place, should also apply in another place. I think there's also an element of promise. We were led to believe, in fact we were shown the plans.... I have the
[ Page 7023 ]
plans at my home yet as to what this highway was going to be. That has not been fulfilled, and that was a promise given to us at the time. Now you are closing off this highway and you're reneging on the plans initially presented simply because Highways didn't have the guts to expropriate from Mr. Hougen the necessary property for Highways use.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will provide you with Phil Gaglardi's address and you can rant at him for the promise made in -- apparently -- 1969.
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I can tell what the problem was: there were all these concerns but not enough action. So let's get down to talking about action. We can also deal with the issues brought up today about promises made by earlier administrations, which I guess starts me off with the East Ladner bypass. That was promised by the Minister of Agriculture. During the course of the election campaign, we were led to understand that the drawings were all done. I know it's a subject that comes up all the time. The East Ladner problem really is a serious one. I was disappointed to see that it wasn't in this year's projects. I was wondering if you could let me know where that might be.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I suspect you might have been disappointed but not surprised. The relocation of Highway 17 past Ladner and over to a new interchange on 99, further away from the Deas Island tunnel, is something that's highly desirable and has been raised with me on a number of occasions by Mayor Johnson. It is an item that I could see fitting in under the Transportation Financing Authority. It is also something -- along with the comments of the member now absent on the problems on the Trans-Canada Highway -- that could be addressed if we could get a national highway policy agreement with the federal government. They draw about half a billion dollars a year out of the province in federal fuel excise tax, and put back in next to nothing with respect to highways: $17 million or $18 million over the last perhaps 25 years. It's not a very good rate of return for our fuel excise tax dollar.
It's a worthy project. I fully anticipate that when the strategic plan for transportation for the province is put in front of me in late summer or early fall, the works necessary on Highway 17 between the ferry terminal and 99 will be there. When we can carry them out is going to be partly a matter of the overall priorities within the strategic plan -- fitting it within the reasonable borrowing limits that will be established for the Transportation Financing Authority.
F. Gingell: During the course of the Environment minister's estimates we talked about the agricultural land reserve, the Roberts Bank lands and the issues that are coming up with respect to the additional traffic that that particular section of highway will be subject to when the Roberts Bank superport -- the container terminal -- is completed. The minister, I'm sure, is aware that there's now an additional specialty grain terminal plan for the other pad, so there will be a substantial additional amount of traffic. The port of Vancouver concerns me because they keep saying that at a maximum there will only be 400 vehicles a day. It's 400 huge vehicles; it's 400 trailers with double-sized containers on them. Is there any thought that your ministry can hold up the port of Vancouver to contribute more to ensure that the bypass will be a required part of their development plan at Roberts Bank?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hope that through the use of the phrase "hold up" you didn't mean the style where you put the mask on.
F. Gingell: Yes, that will do.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could we get that in Hansard, please? I believe the member said: "Yes, that will do."
I understand that it is in the order of 200 to 400 trucks a day. Compared to the total number of vehicle movements on Highway 17, that is not a great number. But I agree with you: they are large vehicles. I have brought to the attention of the Vancouver Port Corporation the matter of the expense of tying in any improved roads out to Roberts Bank. I would look to the corporation to provide funds for the appropriate interchange. A new interchange will, I believe, be required between the port road and Highway 17. That's on the record with the port corporation, and they have indicated an acceptance that that could be a responsibility of theirs. I would certainly want to resolve it, though, by friendly negotiation and not hold up the project in terms of delay at all, because it is a good, valuable and needed addition to the overall transportation system of British Columbia. I applaud the corporation for pressing ahead with it as a major project. As to its interconnection with our existing highway system, I will look to a contribution from them on their share of that. It would not extend to the general cost of the upgrade or the relocation of Highway 17, because I see that as a provincial responsibility.
F. Gingell: I understand that the port corporation has agreed that they will bear the cost of an underpass-overpass facility at Arthur Drive. Perhaps you could confirm that for me. The farmers in that area are really very concerned that when the road is built adjacent to the railway allowance -- the obvious location, the sensible place to build it -- they're going to have very substantial problems moving farm equipment. You've got a railway line and a highway with huge trucks on it going relatively quickly; and they're parallel, which tends to cause poor visibility. There is a need for some more overpasses. Your ministry completed in 1991 -- just before the election -- an overpass at 34B Avenue over Highway 17. That is a relatively low-cost overpass, I think, in relation to some others. Those kinds of overpasses are needed for our farmers to work in a reasonable manner. They are really going to be disadvantaged by the development that is taking place there. When we have a project that I think the community generally supports without question, it's a
[ Page 7024 ]
pity that an important part of our community will be disadvantaged. Would you like to respond to the question on overpasses or underpasses for farm traffic when that road is constructed? That is the time to build them. It's no good going back and building them three years later.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have put upon the corporation a condition of an overpass at Arthur Drive. The corporation also has to meet other conditions that are being set both by the ministry and by the municipality. As well, it is the corporation's responsibility to deal with the various landowners along the route that they will be upgrading. Presumably that will include, then, dealing with the farmers who need access over the expanded and busier road for their very legitimate agricultural purposes.
F. Gingell: As we move further north, that brings us to the Deas Island Tunnel. I was hoping that Build B.C.'s first announcement might be the sinking of another two lanes, because two lanes are all I think it would take. Seeing that you have your officials here.... There have been pro and con discussions about the possibility of sinking two more lanes reasonably close to the present four-lane tunnel, and about whether the engineering is feasible. I was wondering if you could advise me if it is feasible to sink two more lanes.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're possibly asking the wrong person because, of course, as an engineer I have to tell you that anything is feasible. But yes, it is clearly feasible. Other parties have suggested that a bridge should be built. That would be much more expensive, in my view, than sinking an additional two tunnels. When we do that work -- and I do think that two additional lanes are required -- presumably you will be on site to help me cut the ribbon at the tollbooth.
[5:15]
F. Gingell: It is very interesting that you should say that. I moved to Tsawwassen in 1959, so I'm used to going up to the tollbooth with my little ticket. We used to have a weekly ticket, and they would clip it.
I can remember that on one occasion I drove up to the tollbooth in front of Mr. Gaglardi, who was the Minister of Highways then. He got to the tollbooth and, being a provincial politician, flashed his pass. I was driving a big powerful Ford in those days, and I took off out of the tunnel -- and there was this streak of blue going down the highway as Mr. Gaglardi went.
People have phoned me recently and asked me to complain about backups. They phone all the time. I have been asking the question: "What would your attitude be if there was an additional two-lane tunnel sunk, and it became a toll tunnel?" I must admit that it isn't 100 percent no, by any manner of means. Quite a few respondents have responded positively. I would like to suggest that it wouldn't work just to have a toll tunnel on the two lanes; you might decide to have a toll going only in one direction, rather than in both directions. But it would seem strange to me that if you go through these two lanes, it's a toll tunnel, and if you go through the other two lanes, it isn't. Do you feel that that kind of a situation -- where you have an existing tunnel that was originally tolled, you sink another two lanes, and the alternative travel route is such a long way away you have to go all the way down to the Alex Fraser Bridge -- would fit the kinds of rules that you must have in your mind for a tollable structure?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think there are going to be circumstances where the toll-free alternative will have to be in the form of HOV lanes, and that for people who car-pool or van-pool or who use the bus there would be no toll. The general sense that I have, after looking at the transportation needs and the likelihood of deriving sufficient funds out of the regular estimates process, is such that it leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to get the job done is through the imposition of tolls.
To groups of people I have spoken to I have pointed out that you're paying a toll already. You're paying a toll in time -- if you're waiting 20 minutes or half an hour, that's dead time, coming and going. You're paying a toll in fuel, you're paying an environmental toll, and of the goods that are on the move in the city, part of the cost is the result of traffic delays and congestion. So it impacts on all of us. The tolls are there now; they're simply invisible, indirect tolls. When I put the question to people, "Would it be worth a dollar to you to save even 15 minutes of your time in the morning, or to have 15 minutes additional time with your family at night?" I find the majority of people say: "Yes, I would pay that." Just recently a cross-Canada study by a polling organization indicated 58 percent support for user-pay. The key is that the funds collected be dedicated to further improvements of the transportation system -- not just improvements on roads. I think we all agree that we're not going to solve the problem by building more tunnels, more bridges and more roads, but by substantially improving the public transportation system. Tolls, of course, are also useful as a possible tool for traffic demand management. I think some quite interesting things could be accomplished there.
F. Gingell: So your thought is that a toll on a new Deas Island Tunnel facility would not pay for just that one facility. That toll might go into a general pool for other transportation improvements throughout the province.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The toll, first and foremost, should be to pay either for a facility that has just been added to the system -- a totally new facility -- or for a facility that has been substantially upgraded, where capacity has been added. But in my mind, the project costs should not be restricted to just a portal-to-portal cost, for example. I think it's fair enough to look at the associated freeway costs leading up to it, the costs of perhaps queue-jumper lanes, HOV lanes for buses, and so on. And it has been suggested to me that in the instance of Delta one could look at affording the relocation of Highway 17 and the new 99-17 interchange. One could look at that as one large
[ Page 7025 ]
project paid for by a single toll that happens to be located at the tunnel.
F. Gingell: This is the second time you've responded in a way that has me hearing you say that we're really talking about relocating Highway 17 east, to be the main access into Highway 99. I must admit that my thought had been more Highway 17 as it exists, and you put in a new bypass to feed traffic onto Highway 10 and out subsequently to Highway 1. You would go north of 10 -- on 72nd probably -- and make an interchange to get onto Highway 99. But your thought is that you would like to feed the traffic onto Highway 99 further east than it comes in at present, because of the accumulation of all the traffic just prior to the tunnel.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, and some preliminary work has been done. Preliminary design of a relocation would put it near the main entrance to Tsawwassen and then swing it south and east from that point -- perhaps adjacent to the B.C. Rail right-of-way -- then across to 99 at a more optimal location. I have heard the mayor of Delta and some council members say: "Yes, do that please. We want to get 17 out of the midst of our community."
F. Gingell: Does that planning work include thoughts about access from River Road West into the highway system? You are probably aware that at the moment you can only get onto River Road West by going west -- the first turn as you come south through the tunnel. Presently, the only way you get into that huge community in the triangle between River Road West and Highway 10 is to go all the way down 17 to the Ladner Trunk Road, turn right, then go west and then go north again. It is really quite a circuitous route. Is there any thought that may allow traffic coming out of Ladner on River Road West to get onto Highway 99 going north?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Even preliminary design has not reached the level of detail to address something like that, but the thought of having an overpass across the highway connecting those parts of River Road is one idea. Some thought has been given to that. In the whole mix of whatever we're doing there, I believe we also have to recognize the need for the so-called perimeter road that would run all the way down from Surrey to the new port, the expanded Roberts Bank, and facilitate commercial traffic all along the Fraser harbour and out to the new Vancouver port facility. Both entrance to and exchange from a perimeter road is in the mix as well. Whether that ends up being all the way out at the new interchange where Highway 17 is or someplace else, we haven't reached that level of design yet.
F. Gingell: The minister is aware, I hope, that there has been a major land use study going on through the Ministry of Environment that deals with wildlife management in Boundary Bay, the agricultural land reserve, Burns Bog and all these issues. Of course, Burns Bog becomes an integral part of any plans to build a new industrial service perimeter road, which one would presume would either be a very upgraded River Road East or a new perimeter road on the edge of the bog and behind the industrial estate. Has your ministry had any input into that study to ensure that your future needs and concerns will be addressed in it?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry is a member of that committee.
F. Gingell: A few months ago -- I think it was in November -- we were able to have a short meeting with the chairman of the Boundary Bay Airport Commission and a discussion that really focused on Boundary Bay Airport. We discussed at that point -- and I have expressed my concerns to you before -- the need for the provincial government to have a much greater say in the development of airports in the province. I was wondering if you could advise if that has moved along at all -- whether there is any greater input by the province in airport development and whether you've been able to make any progress on that subject.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: We on this side are not quite certain of this. It's my recollection that the new airport authority has within its bounds of authority something to say both about Boundary Bay and about Pitt Meadows, as to how they will develop. We are in discussion with the airport authority on these issues, but as you know, we have only a limited presence on the board of the new authority. I certainly don't want to indicate that we have a great deal of leverage there. But the relations have been amicable. There are some land-side connections to the airport that they're interested in, so they're listening to our concerns. So we're in discussion. But I really can't report that things are much further along than the last time we spoke on this. Could I move....
[5:30]
F. Gingell: One more question and I'm done. There has been, it seems to me, in relation to highway signs.... A year ago you were sending notices out to people to get their signs down. There were some issues about which signs could stay and which signs couldn't, and it seemed that the position of your ministry changed somewhat with the reaction of some people -- or maybe it was just particular signs. Can you advise us what the current status is, and what the position of your ministry is on signs? Are you being as firm about them as you started to be a while ago?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Generally, yes. There was a developing problem with clutter that we decided was contributing to a safety problem that had to be addressed. We have done that. In various places in the province there were sometimes misunderstandings, in that, for example, we were only taking signs off that were within our right-of-way, although legally we have a right that extends back 800 metres from our centre line. We have not been exercising that right, nor did we wish our staff to, but in some places there were some
[ Page 7026 ]
misunderstandings. To try to resolve the issue, I struck a committee of citizens to give me advice on what sign policy should be with respect to tourist facilities and businesses along our roads. It's quite a large committee -- about 15 or 20 members -- with a variety of representatives of the tourism industry, of artisans, of bed-and-breakfasts, of the B.C. Automobile Association and others. They had a two-day meeting and have come up with some preliminary ideas. It's being pulled together, and they are going to have a second two-day meeting sometime in the latter part of June, I believe, when they will then come up with a set of definitive recommendations for me. I will certainly consider their recommendations to see whether we can improve our signage policy and meet the objectives of reducing the clutter and keeping the roadways safe at the same time.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:32 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]