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)
FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 12, Number 9
[ Page 8845 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. D. Miller: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the Enquete Commission of the German federal parliament. The commission is visiting North America July 10 to 24 as part of its preparatory work on a report about preventive measures to protect the earth's atmosphere. They have visited Ontario, Alberta and now British Columbia, before concluding their trip in the United States.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Keith and Janice Roudebush from San Diego, California, who are in the gallery today.
PLANNING FOR OUR FUTURE
M. Lord: As you drive into the Comox Valley, you are greeted by a sign that welcomes you to our community. It also proclaims that you are now in the recreation capital of Canada. Indeed, the Comox Valley is one of the most beautiful places in British Columbia, but we have been discovered. The natural environment and the quality of life that attracted people like me and my family to come and live in that community have now begun to attract many more.
The Regional District of Comox-Strathcona is likely to grow by over 50,000 people in the next 30 years. That is 32 people per week, every week, for the next 30 years, or, to put it another way, over 4 people per day every day for the foreseeable future. That kind of growth has strained the ability of our region to provide necessities, such as housing, employment, schools, transportation, water and waste disposal. Urban settlement and development has sprawled into outlying rural lands. As urban areas have expanded, they have encroached on streams, rivers, agricultural lands, wetlands, forest lands and green spaces.
In the Comox Valley we are also concerned about the social quality of our community life. By social quality I mean those intrinsic elements that shape the well-being of our community and of the people who live there, those factors that make our community livable in every sense of the word. Do we feel safe and secure? Is there a sense of belonging, of ownership, of pride in our community? Are we accepting and supportive of those among us who are emotionally, physically or mentally handicapped? Is there tolerance and understanding, and indeed, celebration of cultural, racial and religious diversity? Is there a shared belief that striving together for these values is essential for our dream of a good community?
We worry about what will happen if planning does not take place. We are experiencing some of the effects of lack of planning in the valley right now. We see development decisions and boundary expansions occurring outside any overall plan. We see a massive influx of population, without any apparent comprehensive framework of planning that targets, controls and affects future growth. We see jurisdictional disputes over water and sewage occurring between municipal, regional and provincial governments. We see traffic problems growing daily. Our relatively peaceful lifestyle is being continually threatened by development pressures. We see large tracts of privately owned forest land that have languished for years in the property tax shelter category of managed forest land now being taken out of that category, logged off and sold for residential development. We see our farms and our prime agricultural land constantly threatened and squeezed, not only by unbridled development, but by growth that is allowed to continue without any due consideration to its impact on our groundwater. We see our quality of life threatened. We see the aesthetics of our built and rapidly building community changing. We see the effects of continual privatization of what were public areas and social spaces, by the proliferation of large malls and superstores.
What will happen to the Comox Valley and many communities on eastern Vancouver Island if the current unplanned development continues? Land supplies for single-family dwellings will be exhausted as urban sprawl eats up our beautiful valley and the Comox peninsula. There will be a need for more road construction and a greater reliance on cars. Pollution from automobile emissions will become part of our daily lives. Farmers who are already just barely hanging on will throw up their hands. Social problems will continue to grow -- increasing rates of crime, poverty and homelessness.
Many citizens of the Comox Valley are not prepared to embrace that kind of future for our community. We know that a different approach to planning must be taken if we are to manage our environment in this rapidly growing part of British Columbia. After years of calling in vain for some kind of regional planning process, the people of the valley have taken matters into their own hands. We have decided that the traditional "decide, announce and then defend" approach is no longer acceptable.
Recently an initial round-table meeting took place where citizens from a broad base of the community sector came together to agree on the need for a visioning process in our community. We will provide a forum so that communities can give their views. People can answer questions about how much land we should set aside for habitat protection; how we can reduce automobile use in our community; whether we value farms and farmers, and if we do, how we can best protect them.
I am proud of the people of my community for taking the lead on comprehensive community planning. Together we will go forward -- community, municipal and provincial governments -- to plan a model which will allow everyone to have a hand in envisioning our community and in shaping the future growth of the Comox Valley. We will shape that growth in a way that will sustain our quality of life. But we
[ Page 8846 ]
must act now. If we do not, the future of our community will be decided for us and for future generations.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Comox. I will introduce my remarks by saying that even though I have not had the pleasure of being in the Comox Valley recently, in my youth I spent a lot of springs there, because very good family friends allowed us to come and visit. In fact, the member will probably be interested to hear that I once fell over one of the cliffs overlooking the Comox harbour when we were out goofing around, as some of us have been known to do.
As the member has commented, the pressures on the Comox Valley -- as elsewhere in this province, and of course, in the world in general -- have changed the face of that area over the years. I must take advantage of the opportunity to revisit the Comox Valley when I can. The member has certainly made some very valid points with regard to the population pressures that we're all experiencing, and commented about the round table, a local initiative that many communities are undertaking, which is certainly to be applauded. I would make a comparison with the north shore of the greater Vancouver region, which is the area where I live, because the round table on sustainability has just filed some initial reports, and it's important to consider some aspects of those reports, particularly the Georgia basin discussion. I say that because Comox is, of course, at one extreme end of the Georgia basin, and the community where I live, which is a true urban setting, is another part of the Georgia basin. I think we can all profit from reading those initial reports and participating at the local, the regional and, as it expands, the provincial level in the discussion that the round-table opportunities provide.
[10:15]
The member commented on not just the population pressure that Comox and other areas are experiencing -- I certainly know that pressure, living in the greater Vancouver area -- but also the pressures on transportation, housing, social services and planning in general. We all see this. We see it by the loss of farmland. The member commented appropriately, coming from the Comox Valley, that the agricultural area of the region is certainly under attack -- if that's the correct term. And that's unfortunate. Even though I suppose it's inevitable that we will look at agricultural areas in order to expand housing opportunities, I think we all have to keep in mind that by doing so, we are giving up something we will never regain.
Recently the Greater Vancouver Regional District held a series of regional conferences in several municipalities. I attended one in North Vancouver, and one of the points of discussion, which members may want to consider, was that we have to address whether we're going to allow the pressures on the agricultural land in the Fraser Valley to continue. I have every sympathy for the problems the member for Comox Valley has addressed, knowing that the Comox Valley is, I suppose, a microcosm of the pressures being put on the Fraser Valley. These are things that I think we can all look to as examples and profit from doing that and, as the member has commented, make sure that planning for the future happens now and becomes something that we will all address. Most importantly, it should be a community effort. Each and every one of us should go back to whatever community we come from with that message. We have to sit down collectively and plan for the future.
The member's comments are well taken. I'm certainly going to take some of those back to my community and sit down with the other community leaders to see if we can profit by sharing some of the ideas the member has expressed. I thank the member for her comments and look forward to her response.
M. Lord: I appreciate the comments of the member for West Vancouver-Capilano. When he comes back to the Comox Valley to visit the place where he obviously spent so many happy summers, he will find a great number of changes. In fact, the very cliffs he fell off as a child are now crumbling into the sea because of work that was done there to create a sewage outfall. As the MLA representing that area, I'm working with the Ministry of Environment and the regional district there to help stop those cliffs from falling into the sea, as happened to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
I also appreciate the member's remarks because he lives in an urban area. He has lived through some of the pressures that we are now feeling in the Comox Valley. The remarks I have made apply to communities across British Columbia.
The key to our future quality of life is planned sustainability. The recent B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy clearly states that sustainability means being able to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. We have an obligation to ensure that as we shape and build the future of British Columbia, we do it in a way that benefits not only present British Columbians but also succeeding generations.
In the Comox Valley we are going to work together to build a vibrant, dynamic and sustainable community through qualitative rather than quantitative development. That will be achieved only when a community plan is established in which the full value of our environmental assets and all impacts of human activities are considered.
COMPETITIVE SPORT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY
H. De Jong: It's a pleasure to rise to present this statement. I assure the Speaker that it will be non-political today.
In less than a week, the B.C. Summer Games will be starting in Chilliwack, our neighbouring constituency. It's going to be a great event. A month from now, the Canada Games will be well underway in Kamloops. Next year, in the Abbotsford-Matsqui community, the Western Canada Games will take place under the auspices of the Matsqui-Abbotsford Recreation Commission.
Each of these events will cause an explosion of gifts and talents in a very competitive way. For each
[ Page 8847 ]
participant this will be the culmination of training and practice as well as a determination to achieve their highest goals. The beauty of such events is that there are no losers. Every participant in whatever sport they participate in will provide the very best in competition. It's not only for the public to enjoy and appreciate, but most importantly, it is an honour and privilege for each participant to participate in such an event, which they will be able to look back on throughout their lives.
In the Abbotsford-Matsqui community, the committee that is chaired by Jack Robertson is very enthusiastic about this upcoming event. The mission statement basically contains three goals: to encourage active community participation in the total event, and promote the themes of hospitality and friendship. Everyone in the community, whether they take people into their homes or provide services at the event, will be remembered by those who visit. It will also strengthen the community in terms of getting together on such an important event. Of course, that will result in a legacy of community pride and accomplishment that they will never forget.
The committee has arrived at several goals that ought to be met, and I just want to go over some of them. One of the main ones is to develop a positive and enthusiastic feeling for sports before, during and after the games. That's the most important thing the community can do. In making sure that there is total community involvement, we leave a legacy of facilities, equipment and amateur sport in the community. Another goal is to ensure spectator satisfaction and a positive experience for the corporate sponsors, athletes, coaches and officials.
I want to talk a little about the corporate sponsors. This event is going to cost about $9 million to put together in the districts of Abbotsford and Matsqui. Between the local and provincial levels of government, there's about $5.2 million put together. But the other $4 million is expected to come from donations, contributions and sponsorships in the community. So it's not a small event for a community of 90,000 people to undertake.
It is not only a commitment, it is something that people have to feel for. This doesn't just come about overnight. In our community in particular we can look back on the councils of both municipalities and the people of the community having always supported sports as important -- and not simply for the reason of being sports. We feel very strongly in our community that sports provide another avenue for young people to follow that brings out their enthusiasm and skills, and also takes up some of the time that so many young people have. When you ask about how they spend their time, they often say: "I am bored to death." Of course, when people have nothing to do and become bored, it often develops into a situation that is less acceptable -- and in many cases, a problem -- to the community.
It is this kind of thing -- an experience such as Chilliwack will experience next week, Kamloops the following month, and Abbotsford next year -- that will again make people aware of how important it is to be behind our young people when they participate in sporting events. But it will also encourage even the four- or five-year-olds to take part in those little soccer games and whatever may be taking place in the community. That is what really builds a community: when the parents and children work together for the good of the total community. That is what I see coming out of this sporting event and the many others that will take place in British Columbia this year.
H. Giesbrecht: I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for the opportunity to respond. I share his appreciation of the importance of government assisting in competitive sporting events, and of the value of these sporting events in terms of both the economy of the community and the health and enjoyment of the participants and spectators.
I want to perhaps bring a different perspective to the discussion, in terms of the importance of these competitive events for areas of the province which are frequently not able to host them, perhaps because of the distances people have to travel or the lack of facilities. I've had some experience, on at least two occasions in the last eight or nine years, in the Skeena. In 1986, Terrace hosted the B.C. Winter Games, and last February they were in Kitimat. I have had some experience participating in an official capacity and as a volunteer, and I can certainly share the member's view that these games are appreciated and that they build community spirit. There's a great deal of enjoyment among the people volunteering, and it creates a kind of forum for hundreds and, in many cases, thousands of people to share in the success of the games.
I want to congratulate not the previous administration but the administration prior to that, which introduced the B.C. Winter and Summer Games and designed them specifically so that they could be in communities that don't always get to host all of the other major events. I was certainly impressed in 1986, when Terrace hosted them, by the level of organization and support that was available to the smaller communities so they would be able to do that. "Sport" is defined in the dictionary as "physical activity engaged in for pleasure," and fortunately it comes in many forms so that most of us can enjoy them as well -- anything from chasing a rubber sphere around a field to something like tai chi. Many of these activities lend themselves very well to competition, which is, of course, a natural addition to sporting events because it increases the intensity and the level of skill and hence makes them enjoyable for spectators. Therefore we have major sports competitions around the province.
It's important to mention that many of these sporting events involve thousands of volunteers at the lower levels that feed into these sporting events. They contribute by way of coaching, refereeing or being officials at many of these games, and without them, we likely wouldn't have many of the community or sporting events we see today. More than 540,000 people, or one in five British Columbians, belong to a provincial sports organization, and many more participate in some capacity. The best measure of success is the level of involvement throughout the province. The benefits of physical activity in keeping people healthy, physically and mentally, can never be underestimated, and thus
[ Page 8848 ]
we could argue that, in the long run, it also reduces the cost of health care.
[10:30]
It's natural that communities should host these major sporting events. The benefits to the communities, as the member has said, are significant: the athletes, the enjoyment and the health, the learning and skills, and as an aside, learning to win and to lose graciously. They learn to love the sport, and the opportunity for friendly competition is good for everyone. It enables them to set goals for themselves for even higher levels of competition, and it raises the profile of the community. There are also economic benefits in terms of building community pride that shouldn't be underestimated, and it leaves a legacy, in most of these cases, of facilities that then can be used in future by the citizens.
I'm pleased that the government has increased the overall budget for sport and recreation to $28 million, up from $27.6 million last year. The block-funding grants to sports organizations has been increased $198,000 to $5.02 million, and these increases have been achieved through the innovative new process Sport Discovery, a comprehensive performance-based evaluation process that provides a fair and rational allocation system. The same criteria to measure the achievements of all 71 sports organizations in the province are being used to improve their performance in delivering sports opportunities to all British Columbians. Over and above the $5.02 million in block funding for sports groups, the province provides more than $3 million in other funding which benefits sports organizations. There is $1.5 million for the athletes....
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.
H. De Jong: I have to apologize to the member for Victoria sitting just two seats away from me for not having mentioned the Commonwealth Games which are to take place in Victoria next year. Certainly the Commonwealth Games are no less important than the other games that I have mentioned. In fact, the other night when I was travelling home on the ferry, I happened to run into Rick Hansen, who we all know for his achievement and determination. He noticed the Commonwealth pin on my suit -- it immediately caught his eye -- and he said: "I like to see people wearing that pin, because it's so important for all British Columbians and people of the Commonwealth." So my apologies, but at the same time I'm equally enthused about those games as well.
Just to get back to the history and background of the Western Canada Summer Games, Regina was the first city to host the games back in '75. Successive events were held in Saskatoon, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg. Some of the notable athletes to participate have been: Diane Jones-Konihowski, Carolyn Waldo, Susan Nattrass and Willie DeWit, who happens to be a second cousin of my wife and a young fellow that we're very proud of. I know that all of the people in the Peace River area are very proud of Willie DeWit.
As I said earlier, there is a legacy from these events that is most important: the community pride and the personal fulfilment, especially for the volunteers. In conclusion, I want to encourage all people in all of the communities where games are held to fully participate. They will not only enjoy those things during participation but, having worked on such an important event for the enjoyment of so many people, will feel a lasting effect of satisfaction.
COMMON APPROACHES TO NORTHERN ISSUES
J. Pement: I just want to say that I'm always in awe of the diversity of the province. The member for Comox spoke about growth and development as a concern to her area, and I'm also going to be speaking about growth and development, but with a northern perspective. The nuances, dynamics and differences between one part of the province and the next are really interesting.
My topic today, common approaches to northern issues, is a subject that I'm most enthusiastic about. As an MLA and longtime resident of the north, I, along with others in northern communities, want to ensure that regional and especially northern concerns are always current and are addressed by all levels of government, our provincial and federal governments in particular.
It is indeed exciting for me to speak to you today of the Northern Ministers' Conference that will be held in Bulkley Valley-Stikine, in the northern community of Smithers. The conference will be held in October of this year. It will bring together ministers responsible for northern and regional development throughout Canada. Represented at the conference will be seven provinces and two territories. The discussion will focus on northern issues and approaches to resolving those issues across Canada. It will be a conference of sharing ideas about different programs that each of the provinces and territories have developed, and talking about the negative and positive aspects of those programs in the development and planning stages. It's a very exciting prospect.
On behalf of the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, I had the honour of attending last year's conference. That two-day conference, which was held in June in Sudbury, Ontario, explored the topic of communities in transition. The discussion included such topics as the global economy, its impact on northern communities, and the particular difficulties involved in sustaining the economy of the single-resource-industry communities that are part of the northern part of the province. We also talked about technological changes affecting the resource industries, in particular the amount of jobs and employment that come from technological changes. We discussed environmental demands that are part of our society today, as well as land use strategies. Further discussion and topics took in aboriginal issues -- how we must move towards stability and self-sufficiency for the native people, and the support needed by the native people to ensure that that will happen.
The delegates discussed individual provincial and common approaches to assist communities faced with
[ Page 8849 ]
restructuring and downsizing of the resource industries. This is all across Canada; it is not a situation only in B.C. We also talked about changing markets, the globalization and continentalism of trade, and how that is affecting our northern communities in terms of resource production and how the markets are working these days.
In order to sustain the economies and the development, it was agreed that we require, first of all, at the community level itself, an understanding of the issues of resource supply, the global market and environmental demands; that has to be discussed at the community level before we can even begin to start planning on the provincial level. We talked about an economy that has to be adaptable because of the fluidity of the markets of today -- we have to have flexibility in our economy.
We particularly talked about the value-added side of the resource industries. We also talked about having to recognize the social initiatives that come as part of the overall development and planning process of a healthy economy in our communities, and that it's the responsibility of all within a community, as leaders and citizens, to ensure that we work towards raising people out of the poverty situation.
We talked about achieving economic diversity in our northern communities, and that we have to build on local strength. First of all, we have to identify our local strengths and build on those strengths. Development is really based on research and planning, and if we are going to have diversity in our communities, we have to set up projects and developments that are self-sustaining and self-sufficient. We cannot depend -- as has often happened in the past -- on subsidizing programs in our communities. We have to deal with the time element in the development of our communities. We recognize that time is of the essence in pulling together programs and in getting on with the planning and actual development itself.
In the last decade, huge strides in technology and communications have resulted in the north becoming less isolated. I think we've suddenly recognized -- with the fax machine, etc. -- that we are much more in communication with our lower mainland counterparts, even in the last five or six years. Our province has benefited from the resources, and those who have worked in the resource industries as well. It is only really in the last decade or decade and a half that British Columbians have fully recognized the social values of our natural heritage. We are all asking for due diligence in the economic use of those resources, but with due diligence comes accountability and responsibility.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that your time has expired.
A. Warnke: It's with pleasure that I want to respond to the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine for her comments this morning. Indeed, I also want to share the enthusiasm for the Northern Ministers' Conference to be held later this year in Smithers. It's most appropriate that we put a lot of emphasis on this conference, because it is my firm belief -- through an experience that I've had throughout Canada as a matter of fact -- that the northern tier of all our provinces is the economic and, I would say, even the cultural basis of what it is to be a Canadian.
To understand the culture of Canada does not necessarily mean understanding the culture of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. If you want to see a commonality of what it is to be a Canadian, do take a look at the people throughout the northern tier of our provinces, and we will discover there is a lot in common between people of the northern prairies, people of British Columbia, people of northern Ontario and people of northern Quebec. Indeed, in my experience, there's a lot of commonality between the peoples of northern Quebec and northern Ontario, compared to northern Quebec and southern Quebec and Montreal. So the peoples of the northern tier in some sense really define what a Canadian is, and are more in touch with what it is to be a Canadian and what Canada is all about.
I share also the analysis by the hon. member with regard to the issues that are facing northern peoples, but let us just focus on people of northern British Columbia. Economically, as the member points out, the problem is to establish, develop and reinforce a stable economic base, simply because the local economies are so resource-based. Therefore it is necessary to ensure that this economic base is stable and secure for the future. And secondly, I think what's extremely important, economically speaking, is that we develop a transportation substructure, and indeed, that's the main gripe among many people of northern British Columbia. What we have to recognize are the tremendous distances that still exist in northern British Columbia. How do we bring people and goods together in that region of our province? We can only do that by developing the transportation substructure.
Politically, there is a complaint among the people of the north about the attitude and the approach of the provincial and federal governments. What they would like to see is the elimination of a chronic battling with Victoria -- the provincial government, the bureaucrats and so forth -- in order to get Victoria attuned to their point of view on a number of issues.
British Columbia is not split into urban and rural, as many people in the lower mainland like to define it. There are many small cities and towns in the northern parts of our province that have to be promoted and fostered, and we have to recognize this. Former Prime Minister Laurier once said that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. In terms of quality of life, I happen to agree with that assessment. The twenty-first century also belongs to Canada. But more importantly for our purposes, we have to recognize that the twenty-first century belongs to British Columbia and to the north. Therefore the premium is on planning that must occur now, in this decade.
R. Neufeld: I'd like to speak briefly to the issue because I also represent a northern riding, as does my colleague from Bulkley Valley-Stikine, who represents the largest riding, I believe, in British Columbia. I represent the second-largest. On issues in the north I
[ Page 8850 ]
agree very much with what she talked about -- on due diligence for decisions made regarding people and resource extraction in the north, and that we need that sustainability. This transcends political grounds. Too often decisions are made by the multitudes and masses in the south as to what should happen in the north. We would like to see more issues and decisions regarding the north -- on our resources and people, our aboriginal people and those types of issues -- made in the north for people in the north, because that's whom it definitely affects. I commend the member for bringing those words of wisdom to us, and thank her very much.
J. Pement: I'd like to thank the members for their attention to the issues of our northern communities. As for having representation in Victoria, I think we have some good members who are going to ensure that Victoria and the bureaucrats, etc., are going to know what the northern issues are.
Also -- back to the conference that's going to happen in Smithers -- there is a focus and theme for that conference that members should be aware of. That theme is skills training, literacy and job creation, all of which are issues and part of development in terms of getting programs up and going in the north and in our small communities.
I have to remind members that my largest community is Smithers, and it has a population of 5,000. You can understand some of the difficulties. Not only is it a large constituency, but also the population is spread out across that constituency. In order to bring people together to talk about and resolve these issues, conferences such as the Northern Ministers' Conference that bring a big focus to our area and those issues are really important. I also think that as representatives ourselves, as MLAs and even local government representatives, we have a responsibility to ensure that these issues are always in the eye of government and are addressed. Certainly the Northern Ministers' Conference will help.
I'd also like to take a couple of minutes to talk about this government and some of the initiatives they have covered in the short time they've been in government. They've supported and given more emphasis to the regional advisory councils. They've put in economic development officers throughout the province to deal with some of the issues. The incorporation of the B.C. 21 program -- particularly the forest worker development program -- has created 119 jobs in Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I think that's very important. The Trade Corporation, and also the Job Protection Commission.... These are all strong programs that are going to help this constituency.
NUCLEAR SHIPS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA PORTS
D. Symons: I'd like to remind the House that little more than a year ago this Legislature passed a motion declaring B.C. a nuclear-weapons-free zone. We requested the federal government to conduct a full, public environmental review of the possible dangers involved in allowing nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered ships into our ports and waterways. As most members know, I'm very much in favour of such a review.
Nuclear-armed ships visit Canadian -- including British Columbian -- ports regularly, despite the statutory requirements of the federal environmental assessment and review process guidelines. This is possible because orders-in-council in 1991 passed pre-authorized visits of nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed warships to Canadian ports. This use of the royal prerogative completely ignored legislation that would require an environmental assessment of such visits. The Atomic Energy Control Act, the Canada Shipping Act and its dangerous goods shipping regulations, as well as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, were all circumvented by orders-in-council. I and others feel that these orders-in-council were not legal. It is argued that cabinet orders cannot exempt foreign nuclear ships from legislated safety regulations that are designed to protect the Canadian public.
As a result of the government's circumventing its own laws in a questionable manner, a group of citizens in the Vancouver Island Peace Society, centred here in Victoria, brought a suit against the federal government to compel it to hold an environmental assessment, as required by law. The applicants sought:
"a writ of mandamus or relief in the nature thereof to compel the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and/or the Minister of Transport to: (a) conduct an environmental screening or initial assessment to determine whether, and the extent to which, there may be any potentially adverse environmental effects from the aforementioned visits of nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed warships to Canadian ports and, specifically, to Esquimalt and Victoria harbours; and (b) to refer the proposal to conduct the aforesaid nuclear ship visits to the Minister of Environment for public review by a panel; and (c) to otherwise comply with the environmental assessment and review process guidelines order...in respect of the aforesaid nuclear ships visits."
The judgment in this case came down on June 18 of this year, and it was against the applicants. The loss of that case is the main reason that I raise this issue in the House today. I will not go into the lengthy reasons given by the Hon. Justice MacKay except to mention two of his more curious findings. First, he reasoned that the acts cited were not intended to apply to foreign vessels. I find it reassuring to know that environmental and shipping acts in this judge's mind do not apply to foreign military vessels. Secondly, the Department of National Defence argued that the visits of these warships was an essential component of Canada's security policy, whose objectives are to contribute to strategic deterrence and demonstrate our clear commitment to and solidarity with our naval allies.
While I agree that the visits demonstrate solidarity with our American allies, I have difficulty, however, believing that these visits are an essential component of our security policy. If that is the case, I would question the validity of that policy. As for strategic deterrence, I ask: against whom? Do we have Iraqi submarines lurking offshore, or are we in danger of a Somali invasion? It would appear that our Defence department has not yet realized that the Cold War is over.
[ Page 8851 ]
In times of war or the real threat of war, the safeguards afforded society are often relaxed. Canada is no exception. Employment standards, freedom of speech and even environmental concerns are secondary to national security and the importance of winning the war. I see no such danger now that would justify curtailing environmental concerns. Indeed, I would argue that environmental security is in the interests of our national security and, indeed, of our survival.
I am not suggesting that we are all in imminent danger from a nuclear explosion or a nuclear reactor meltdown if a nuclear vessel were anchored in Victoria's harbour across from this legislative building. The problem is that we do not know what the probability is of a nuclear accident occurring. The scientists at NASA, moments before the Challenger space shuttle exploded after takeoff, would have reassured you that such an accident could not occur. The same would be true for Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor accidents. They would tell you that they had all the safeguards in place to prevent any possibility of such an accident. That is why we need an outside agency: first, to evaluate safety and the probability of some unwanted occurrence; and second, to determine the damage, environmental or other, that would result if something did go wrong.
Accidents do happen; the unforeseen can occur. We must weigh the likelihood of such an event against the desirability of nuclear-carrying ships visiting our harbours. Is that gain worth the chance? Without an independent and thorough assessment, how are we to judge? Without it, why take any chance? Plutonium is one of the most carcinogenic substances known. One kilogram, evenly distributed, is enough to kill every man, woman and child on this entire earth. Some radioactive isotopes in weapons and reactors have half-lives of over 10,000 years. A Chernobyl-type accident in Victoria would make the land from Sooke to Swartz Bay uninhabitable for decades, and the cleanup and related expenses would run into tens of billions of dollars. Why take the chance? It is time again to tell Ottawa that without a proper environmental review, these weapons are not welcome in our waterways. Let them know that the sailors are welcome, with open arms, but that they should check their nuclear weapons and reactors at the border before coming in. We do not let handguns in, so why should we welcome nuclear arsenals?
C. Evans: I think it's pretty clear that the people of B.C. are sick of partisan politics, rhetoric, finger-pointing and blame. They're sick of the dinosaur politicians who used to take action, or not take it, simply because they had the power to do so. In this Legislature we now have three parties instead of the old two, because I think there has been a change in how the people of B.C. want the politicians to do the people's business.
On Thursday, April 23, 1992, this House voted almost as one. All three parties -- and indeed the leaders of all three parties -- voted 51 to one to oppose nuclear-armed and -powered vessels coming to British Columbia. That debate and that event were models of non-partisan democracy -- the exact kind of thing the citizens of B.C. are asking us to do as politicians. Even the one elected member who voted against that motion was treated with respect, as was his due, in this House on that important day.
The Federal Court has rejected that all-party support and has said that it doesn't matter what the representatives of the people of B.C. -- all three parties -- want. The Federal Court has said that the federal government has the power -- not through debate or through getting all the parties together, but through an order-in-council -- to say: "To heck with the people of B.C. We'll do it our way." It has said that the federal government has the power to say that their own shipping and environmental laws can be circumvented by nuclear-powered and -armed ships from the United States and Britain. Those aren't all of the countries in the world, or even in NATO, that have nuclear capacity; that's just a couple of them.
[11:00]
I think we all think that that kind of arrogance is typical of the Mulroney era, when an individual was better known for selling out this country than for managing it. But that's not the kind of democracy the people of Canada want today. Let's be clear: it isn't necessary to receive such ships from around the world if you're in NATO. Denmark doesn't. It isn't even necessary for cities in the United States to receive such ships. Boston harbour, the home of the American navy and the place the of tea party, won't let the ships in, and New York city doesn't let the ships in. But the Mulroney government got into a cabinet room and said: "We will."
Hon. Speaker, those days are over. That kind of nonsense politics in this Legislature is over, and it's mirrored perhaps in Canada. Canada has a brand-new Prime Minister -- from the west coast, happily. Perhaps she understands; perhaps she has some loyalty; perhaps she knows where her own constituents stand. Certainly she knows how all three parties in this room voted last year. Happily, as a woman, she'll perhaps want to toss away the parochial old-boy politics of the past and not cut deals with the likes of Mr. Bush.
We don't need to have costly, wasteful court appeals of this judgment. We can avoid all the cost and all the trouble of going to appeal after appeal of this judge's decision. Here today, I call upon the new Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell, to stand up for the people of B.C., all the parties in this Legislature and the future, and say: "It wasn't my idea. I negate the order-in-council. The laws of Canada will stand, and we will obey the people's wish."
D. Symons: I really have very little more to say. I guess I can say amen to what the previous member has said, because indeed that is where it sits today. The Federal Court has decided against the applicants who wanted the environmental review process -- and indeed enforcement of the law of Canada, in this case. The people who brought that forth, the Vancouver Island Peace Society, are going to continue the fight. They have launched an appeal against that judgment on very strong grounds; it could indeed be appealed, and
[ Page 8852 ]
has every likelihood, I would suspect, of being overturned.
But in the meantime, the onus is really on the federal government, because they use this backdoor method of allowing those ships to come in without a proper environmental review of their danger to our harbours and the people of Canada. The federal government could quite easily, on initiative, without going through the courts, simply take away the 1991 orders-in-council that allowed those ships in.
As the hon. member mentioned just a moment ago, it's curious that only three nations were mentioned in those orders-in-council, but since that time Soviet warships have visited Canadian harbours on the east coast. I would think that our national security that they talked about in the judgment was against the Soviet Union. We seem to now welcome them into our ports. But again, the nuclear weapons should not be here.
I thank the members in the House for listening attentively, and I urge their support for this appeal to the Federal Court.
The Speaker: That concludes private members' statements for this morning. The hon. member for Richmond Centre is rising on what matter?
D. Symons: Leave to make a motion, and asking leave of the House.
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member.... The hon. member may be using standing order 49 to ask for this leave.
D. Symons: I believe so, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. member may be choosing to apply standing order 49, but the practice of this House and previous Speakers' decisions indicate that is only applicable when we are in motions on notice; therefore, since we are already in orders of the day, unfortunately, hon. member, I cannot allow that request to be....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Hon. member, I am explaining that we are not in routine business under motions on notice, which is the only time that standing order 49 could be applied. Regrettably, I must say that your request is out of order.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is not always possible for government to accommodate the desires of members of the opposition; it can only happen if there is discussion. If the hon. member had taken the liberty of discussing these issues with me, perhaps we could have done something.
In any event, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; R. Kasper in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).
W. Hartley: I rise because I was very pleased with the recent announcement by the minister that he struck the Northeast Sector Transit Review Committee, and named Len Traboulay, the mayor of Port Coquitlam and chair of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, to put together a committee from the northeast sector. I am very pleased that two of the 13 members of that committee -- Wayne Oliver and Ron Paley -- are members of my constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. The importance of having citizens such as these on the committee, of course, is that they are very involved in the everyday transportation problems of the northeast sector, and bring their knowledge and expertise to that committee.
The recommendations that have come out -- and that have been fairly highly publicized -- to meet the needs of the area include commuter rail service and HOV lanes, which could be in place by 1995 or 1996. The recommendations also talk about a longer-term strategy to develop rapid transit for the northeast sector, but in the immediate term see commuter rail as something that could be put in place in less than two years, depending on how much of the commuter rail system is involved.
The importance of those recommendations is underlined.... I did a recent transportation survey for the area, which involved extensive input from the community. I will read just a few statistics that I was able to put together from that survey. A commuter rail system from Vancouver to Maple Ridge is considered the number one priority by 35 percent of the survey respondents. A bridge over the Fraser River to Langley at 232nd Street was the first choice for 27 percent of the respondents. A bridge over the mouth of the Pitt River, tying into the Mary Hill bypass, was the first priority for 20 percent of the respondents. So in that order, we have commuter rail as the obvious number one choice for the residents. I was pleased to see those statistics. Certainly from an environmental perspective, commuter rail holds much more promise for the area rather than simply building more roads, putting in more traffic lanes and seeing more clogged arteries -- which we have today -- in the long term. No doubt we're going to need -- it's recognized as the second and the third priority -- a bridge of some sort in the future, but today we're dealing with transit, and I'd like to deal specifically with that issue.
Commuter rail, as pointed out not only by the committee.... Certainly in my years of involvement in politics in the northeast sector, all the parties involved and all the mayors of the municipalities of the northeast sector have recognized commuter rail as one of the solutions to a growing problem. The federal government prior to the last federal election announced a $16 million package. It was announced by the Conservative member for the Mission-Port Moody riding at that time, who is now a Senator, I understand. But we won't
[ Page 8853 ]
hold that against the announcement he made. The present Member of Parliament for the area, Joy Langan, year after year has gone to the federal government and made sure that that $16 million federal commitment is still there in each budget year.
From the number of petitions, it's obvious that people who live in the area see commuter rail as one of the solutions to the growing transportation problem. So we're not alone in saying that it's a viable and considerable opportunity to solve that problem. Not only is there the existing right-of-way to the area and the possibility to share that right-of-way with the freight movements of the CPR, very impressive statistics are coming forward in regard to travel times. With a commuter rail system in place, to go from Maple Ridge to downtown Vancouver would take about 56 minutes of travel time in peak rush hour. Some commuters in our area are spending upwards of two hours a day in rush hour morning and evening, so some of them are travelling anywhere from three to four hours a day in rush hour.
I don't need to explain what that does environmentally -- the spewing out of fumes in snarled traffic. I think we're all familiar with what that's like and its impact on the environment. What we're looking at is possible quick relief of a problem with minimal construction disruption. We're not going to be closing roads while we put together a commuter system. The highways are not going to be impacted. The possible start-up time is anywhere from 18 to 24 months from the decision to proceed. It's a modest capital cost per passenger, and the longer this system is in place with a growth of ridership, the more we will be looking at decreasing costs, which you do not find in other forms of transportation.
[11:15]
The area that I want to address today for the minister's comments.... I'm certainly looking forward to his comments in regard to the study that was done and the recommendations of the Northeast Sector Transit Review Committee, but also the opportunities for B.C. Transit that this brings. There will be local government involvement. Public meetings could be held to determine a regional transit planning system for the area. Certainly commuter rail is going to complement the existing bus service. This is the opportunity to expand the bus service so that we get connecting links to commuter rail stations. A local consultation process will ensure the regional planning that we've all talked about for so long and have been looking forward to putting into place. This commuter rail system is the impetus to move along on planning initiatives.
Hon. G. Clark: I can't help thinking about the comments of that great parliamentarian, MLA and MP from Coquitlam, Mark Rose, who said, in reference to Senator St. Germain, that being a Member of Parliament is a thankless task and being a Senator is a taskless thanks. Now Senator St. Germain is in that august House. When he was a Member of Parliament he suggested there would be $16 million forthcoming from the federal government for commuter rail. Now that he's a Senator we expect big things from Senator St. Germain. We'll be following that up.
I'd like to back up and talk about transit initiatives, particularly in the northeast sector. When this government took office, it became clear that former governments had not been investing enough money in infrastructure development in the province. It also became clear that all B.C. Transit had done was look at a $1 billion system for Richmond. I think every member of the House agrees that rapid transit to Richmond is required, and preferably to the airport and Delta as well. Anybody who's looking at transportation planning in the lower mainland would agree that this is a required initiative. Government has to begin the planning work.
Planning work has been done on that quadrant of the lower mainland. There was a citizens' group; the MLA for Richmond, Nick Loenen -- now a Reform Party candidate in the next federal election -- sat on the committee. After we took office and the Premier gave me responsibility for transit, much to the surprise of some people, I continued funding the citizens' committee -- including people like Mr. Loenen -- for a further six months so that they could report their findings. Despite our differences in these chambers -- referring to a former member, Mr. Loenen -- all members, regardless of party, try to represent and advocate for their constituencies as best they can. Mr. Loenen worked very hard in this House trying to represent his constituency. The citizens' group did an excellent job of gathering the information and presenting the options for government. All of that work is worthwhile, still useful and makes sense. Preliminary engineering and planning work for possible transit routes to Richmond have taken place.
It became striking, however, that there had been no work whatsoever done in recent memory in the northeast sector, other than some early work done on commuter rail between '72 and '75. There was some talk about commuter rail by the previous government and the federal government, but they actually hadn't done any real work in terms of numbers, etc. It is also clear to anybody living in the lower mainland, as I do, that the biggest area of gridlock is in the northeast sector. There are serious transportation -- not just transit -- problems in that quadrant of the lower mainland.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
With the kind of phenomenal population and economic growth we are seeing in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, it's clear that investment in those communities by the province is required. As the member alluded to, we set up a committee of citizens from the northeast sector to review all of the work and studies that have been done in the past and to make some recommendations to government about how to proceed. I want to join with the member from Maple Ridge -- who has stated that that committee has done excellent work on behalf of the government and their constituencies in reviewing all of the options -- in saying that it made some very pragmatic suggestions to the government. They
[ Page 8854 ]
suggested that they need conventional rapid transit -- in a variety of options -- in that quadrant of the lower mainland. But they went further than that. They said that the pragmatic short-term solution of commuter rail -- fairly inexpensive by transportation and transit standards -- merits consideration.
As government, we have taken those recommendations and set up a very sophisticated and professional group working with transit, headed by Brian Sullivan, a consultant out of Calgary. The government has brought up Carl Englund -- whom I think is the leading expert in North America on commuter rail -- from New Hampshire; he spent some time up here. The CPR has been very cooperative and very interested in commuter rail -- and that's different, as I understand it, from the past. For the first time we are getting a real handle on the capital and operating costs, the carrying capacity, and the benefits and disadvantages of commuter rail. We are finally getting some real, hard information.
It's unfortunate that numbers are bandied around about how this is an expensive option and that it's really not efficient. Most of those numbers are based on information which floated around ten years ago, much of it by the CPR, which wasn't particularly interested in the project. So there is a lot of false information out there about the costs and the cost per passenger. We are now getting professional, concrete information about the capital and operating costs of commuter rail, the likely passenger loads that it might carry and the effectiveness of commuter rail. The final report should be in by the end of August. In the early fall, cabinet will have to make a decision.
As I said earlier, Richmond is deserving of some transit initiatives; we have to review that very carefully. We also have to review the northeast sector. In a scarce environment -- in terms of fiscal environment -- we have to make some very tough decisions as to which we proceed with first. It's not a question of whether we proceed with conventional rapid transit or ALRT to Richmond, or whether we proceed with ALRT or commuter rail to Coquitlam. The fact is that in this huge, burgeoning lower mainland, with the growth pressures we face, all of those options are likely going to be required if we are going to end the gridlock -- not to end it, but not to exacerbate it -- which anyone can foresee looking out over the next decade.
So it's not a question of if we proceed; it's a question of how and when we proceed, and the most cost-effective way in which we can protect the taxpayers while we provide approved service.
It's no secret to members of the committee that I am very sympathetic to commuter rail. The early work being done by these professionals is proving that it is much less expensive than previously anticipated. No transit initiatives are cheap, but neither is highway construction. Some of the highways costs are very expensive. As you know, government has been committing increasing resources to road construction, but we also have to commit those kinds of resources to transit initiatives.
I can say for the record that the members for Coquitlam-Maillardville, Port Coquitlam, Mission-Kent and Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain have been aggressively working on behalf of their constituents to promote commuter rail. I say without any hesitation that the members from Richmond for the other party have also been advocating on behalf of their constituencies. Those members in those constituencies know, as I do, that the number one issue for the people living there is transit and transportation, and it is dealing with a growing problem.
The government knows that and will be taking action to deal with it. We want to make sure that the action protects the taxpayers and is the most efficient way of moving, and we will be making some very critical decisions this fall about capital spending on transit and transportation initiatives. I don't want to give the member any false comfort; we have to make sure this makes sense. I've been trying to get in to see the federal Minister of Transport to see if any federal funding is still available, as was committed in the past. I may follow up with Senator St. Germain as well, because there were commitments made, and we want to make sure those commitments are there.
But I do want to say, having done the work so far, that it looks very promising. The executive council will be making some key decisions in the fall -- and government generally -- on some major transportation initiatives around the province and, in this case, the lower mainland. I say to the members: keep up the good work and keep the pressure on. We're working hard on it, and I hope we'll be able to make an announcement in the early fall that will help your constituents.
D. Streifel: I rise on two points at this time. The first is to seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: In the galleries today are two very dear friends from Mission: Linnea Battel and her son Mike. Linnea is a very active community worker; she is very interested in heritage, in her community and in the issue before us today. I ask the House to make them welcome.
I can't resist the opportunity this morning -- a rare occasion for the Chair of Committee of the Whole -- to enter into the debate on the examination of the Finance minister's estimates when we are dealing with commuter rail.
Interjections.
D. Streifel: I hear the barking and heckling again from the Liberal opposition and the Socred opposition, and I thank them for that. Most often I'll rise to the occasion, and that heightens the tone of the debate. Under these circumstances, I would ask the opposition to listen to the questions and comments that are before us this morning, because it's an issue in the Fraser Valley and the northeast quadrant that transverses party lines like none other.
The initiative of this government to move toward commuter rail signals a very major change in the commitment to transportation, which will aid Richmond and other areas. I fully sympathize with the
[ Page 8855 ]
transportation needs in the Richmond area, but I think it's important to begin with a couple of comments about what doesn't exist or what is there in the northeast quadrant of the Fraser Valley. To leave Mission, you have one partially built highway and a very overused bridge, and to grant any relief within the foreseeable future is going to require the whole House to go forward on an initiative of commuter rail. When you leave Richmond, you have the choice of a tunnel, several bridges, several highways or public transportation.
[11:30]
The northeast quadrant lost its access to public transportation when it was privatized by the Social Credit government. Our only major commuter link, which was Pacific Stage Lines, has been gone for a number of years and has been replaced by a very overused and dedicated private contractor who is having a tough time making ends meet. If we are going to achieve success in moving masses of people into the next century, we have to do it in a wise and sensible manner in areas that will accommodate passengers. Perhaps the member for Richmond Centre would be interested to know that a part of my pressure on the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for this issue, will be to include such items as bicycle racks on these trains as well, because there's a strong bicycle lobby in that community.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: I'm heartened by the comments, but I probably have a question or two in the end. The standing orders around examination of estimates provide for a bit of an introduction to a question. Unlike question period, hon. opposition, we do have the time to roll a bit of a question.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the direction from the opposition. They are correct. I've been remiss in addressing and acknowledging the Chair in this.
I've lived in that area for 19 years, and I commuted for 19 years there. When I was first driving the road from that part of the valley into the city, it was a drive of 35 to 40 minutes. My constituents tell me now, and from what I experienced myself in the last few months before I was elected -- that this drive has ballooned to between one and two hours. My constituents tell me that that's not good enough. They need relief. This member stands in support of the constituents on this issue. The Finance minister feels that there's been pressure up to this point; hon. Chair, the pressure has just begun.
I'm heartened by the statements of the minister suggesting that we will be looking at this in the fall, and the possibility -- I stress the word "possibility", as I accept there's not a commitment to this yet -- that we could have a service running within the next few years. If it's going to be a full service, a Cadillac service, I would ask the minister to consider advancing the timetable on that. The important aspect here is to move individuals as commuters, not necessarily to build a Cadillac service from the get-go. We have students that learn in portables. Commuters could stand in portables if it meant getting on a train and not having that two-hour drive. I'd ask the hon. minister to consider and possibly comment on that.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: I would say again that this issue is a cross-party boundary issue and the most important issue in the Fraser Valley. I notice the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is nodding in agreement, and I think he recognizes the importance of this, because it signals the possibilities for not just the north side of the river but also for the south side of the river. We could become a very strong lobby group, with the skill that that individual has in lobbying. We could enter into a strong lobby group to bring the whole Fraser Valley eventually into a method of transportation that fits a growing community and a growing area.
I would ask the minister as well not to discount the possibility of expanding the system to service more areas of the valley during the initial stages of commuter rail. When we compare ridership costs of what's available on SkyTrain, it's a system that's possibly not affordable for us. We recognize the difficulties in putting finances towards bridges and roads. We ask again that the members of this House on all sides join us in our lobby and in our struggle to bring a transportation system to the valley that will be expandable and affordable for the future.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to spend a great deal of time, because the opposition has already canvassed all these issues to some extent in the minister's estimates, as we did last year. I don't recall last year, though, the same members who are up now, standing up then and canvassing the Finance minister about how important these transit issues are. It was the Liberal opposition that was bringing those issues to the attention of the Minister of Finance. I would challenge the people from that northeast sector, when they get their mail-out from the members who live in that area, which I'm sure this whole debate is orchestrated for, to -- if my parts aren't blacked out -- go back and look at last year's debate in estimates on Finance and see who stood up and asked the Minister of Finance about the transit issues in the Fraser Valley and in the northeast sector, because it certainly wasn't these members. It was the members of the Liberal opposition. I would hope that they would go back and take a good look at that, and I'm sure that the Minister of Finance is going to stand up and tell us that all these members have been canvassing him quietly in meetings, caucus meetings and on the phone. I would say that for government members, that's usually the way it's done; it's not usually done to take up the time of the House to ask those questions, but I'm glad to hear their comments finally after two years.
Hon. G. Clark: It's a puzzling remark from the member opposite, because we have canvassed this. I think there was one question this year on commuter
[ Page 8856 ]
rail; I don't think there was any last year from the member, but I will canvass the record on the northeast sector, because I haven't heard any advocacy other than from government members. I will also say that I look forward to members of the Liberal Party supporting commuter rail, because their questions were more critical than they were supportive of advancing that initiative, unlike the members who have spoken already in this debate. But I'll canvass the record, because I know the record will show that members in the northeast sector have been advocating this consistently since we took office, and I haven't really heard much from the Liberal Party on that.
In any event, I want to follow up on the member's comments, because I heard a criticism from the member for Mission-Kent, and I accept that criticism. His constituents are telling him that the government has to move faster than we have. We all feel that we've got to get on with this, but it is a big expensive proposition and we want to make sure it's done in a cost-effective and rational way. As part of reviewing commuter rail, we took a commuter rail trip that CPR put on. They had a Budd car, and we went out to take a look at the route. We had mayors from the municipalities along the route; Lynn Stephens, an alderperson in Vancouver; and members of the Legislature. I'm sorry, it's not Lynn Stephens. I apologize. One of Gordon Campbell's alderpersons -- Lynne Kennedy. That's correct.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Well, she got elected in a by-election, and she's new.
In other words, what I was trying to get at is that it was a non-partisan group of elected officials, as well as staff people from the Ministry of Highways and B.C. Transit. We took the route out there, and I was very surprised at the 1950's technology and the 70 kilometres per hour along that stretch from Port Coquitlam to Mission. Almost no capital costs are required for that stretch, except for some computerized signalling to ensure that it makes sense.
Initially, most of the commuter rail options looked at that little stretch from Port Moody, literally, to downtown Vancouver. Now we're really looking from downtown Vancouver to Mission. When I got to Mission, I was very surprised -- and the member had told me about this -- to find literally a heritage train station, although unfortunately part of it is burned. It's quite spectacular. I don't know what the date is, but it's a very old facility. It was a beautiful station. The member for Mission-Kent advises me that something like ten years ago this was an active station that people used for Via Rail and others. It has fallen in disrepair, no question about it. When you think about not only the transit initiatives but also the possibility of some redevelopment of that heritage station and some of the tourism and other aspects that might go with that; the revitalization and the mission, which some of the municipal and community people may be interested in; and some feeder routes of bus transit down to this heritage station, it's a very exciting concept. When you compare that with the cost of an interchange -- and I don't criticize my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- very few interchange projects cost less than $50 million. When you look at the current capital cost estimates of around $80 million and then look at some relatively modest enhancements, such as bringing a heritage station back to life and putting in some feeder routes, they are fairly modest cost initiatives that have real potential not only to alleviate some of the congestion but also to lead to other kinds of revitalization initiatives and economic and tourism opportunities in that community.
It was good for me to take the hands-on route. Speaking for myself, sometimes we're stuck in Victoria a bit too much. So when the member for Mission-Kent is advocating on behalf of his constituents, as he is regularly, and talking about things like heritage stations, sometimes ministers -- speaking for myself -- have other things to think about, and we listen but we don't really hear. So going out on the route with those members and actually seeing it on the ground and talking to the CPR, you can see that this has real possibilities. It just encourages us further to do the necessary work to see whether or not we can make this a reality.
I'm very optimistic, but again, we still have some detailed work to do to see whether or not this makes economic sense vis-�-vis some of the alternatives. I just want to make that pitch for Mission, because it really was a surprise to me -- and I guess it shouldn't have been, having lived here all my life -- to see that there are other possibilities which kind of feed off, if you will, a commuter rail initiative.
R. Kasper: Just to touch on something members of the opposition raised, I rose in this House last year during the ministry's estimates debates, on transit issues in particular. I pointed out to the minister that I was concerned about a gas tax being applied in the Greater Victoria area. I wasn't opposed to a gas tax, but I wanted some assurances from the ministry and from B.C. Transit that the tax dollars generated would accommodate services for outlying regions, in particular for the Western Communities and the Saanich Peninsula. I know that the minister did pass on those concerns to the Victoria transit commission, and the bulk of those dollars generated are going to go to improvements for those outlying regions. So I have to applaud the minister for that.
I also touched on the issue of commuter rail. I'm sure the minister is aware that we don't have the luxury of having a Senator from the region I represent. So perhaps to give myself some comfort as far as a commuter rail, I would just like to bring to the minister's attention that within the Western Communities, we have a population base of some 50,000. If one calculates the communities of Mill Bay, Cobble Hill and Shawnigan Lake, there are approximately another 12,000 people living in that area. That's 62,000 people. If the Bamberton project were to proceed, we would perhaps see another 20,000 people. With the anticipated growth of Mill Bay, Shawnigan Lake and Cobble Hill that's already slated in their community plans, we are reaching population figures similar to those of the
[ Page 8857 ]
Maple Ridge and Mission areas, which would further justify the need for commuter rail.
We also have the advantage of the existing E&N rail line. I'm sure most members here would agree that that is vastly underutilized because of mismanagement and policies dictated from Montreal and Winnipeg that are totally out of touch with the needs and requirements here in British Columbia, in particular in the greater Victoria area. I would ask the minister to give me and the citizens I represent some comfort that the government will look at this issue. To substantiate that, studies were done in 1973, 1979 and 1983, commissioned through the regional district when it had transportation planners, which earmarked both highway improvements and the utilization of light rapid transit or commuter rail to service future population growth within the western region. I know that there has been a lot talk bandied about on a light rapid transit system. Personally, I don't think we can afford $120 million to $140 million on a brand-new dedicated route for light rapid transit. What I'm suggesting is that we come up with a version that is more palatable -- a more balanced approach utilizing the existing E&N rail link, perhaps bringing that service up to the 1990s and the year 2000 as opposed to what's been going on in the 1890s.
I would like a comment on that and, if I may, with the Chair's indulgence, I will ask a question relating to rural taxation.
Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. The one-and-a-half-cent-a-litre gas tax in Victoria, and provincial funding, will result in a 25 percent increase in bus service in this region, much of it in the outlying areas. That is a dramatic improvement in public transit in this community, and I'm very proud of that. It's better than we are doing in other areas, so there have been some very positive moves.
[11:45]
For the record, I want to say that I agree with the member that commuter rail is an option which has to be more seriously explored. It's one of those ones that keeps coming up. We are putting a lot of energy and work into seeing whether we can make commuter rail work in the northeast sector. If that works, the expertise we gain there can then be more easily applied in other areas. This is not an easy matter; this is different from other types of transportation. As I said, we have brought some international experts to help with this, and CPR has some very solid expertise back east in the railway network. They have been applying their expertise to this situation, and I think we can learn from that. It is a logical step, then, to review other initiatives which will be required, such as those here on the Island. I agree with the hon. member on that. It's not a question of if; it's another question of when we can come to grips with this question.
R. Kasper: I appreciate those comments from the minister and would hope it is sooner rather than later. I can agree that we have to build expertise and apply what we learn on the lower mainland to other parts of the province.
In the area of rural taxation, I have to congratulate the minister for the adjustment that was made to the tax rate for residential properties. Last year it was $1.80, and it was rolled back to $1.45, striking a kind of balance there with the assessment value increases, because we were on a two-year cycle. I'm aware that the Union of B.C. Municipalities has been addressing this whole question of rural taxation throughout the province for police and road services, and it's my humble opinion that they have come to a bit of a grinding halt. It appears that they can't reach a consensus on what types of recommendations they should be making to the provincial government, because it's such a broad issue and we are dealing with such a diverse province. We have needs and wants from different regions that may not suit every part of the province. We have urban centres with demands that are much higher than those required in rural communities, but these areas are paying the same price. They may not be getting the same level of service in road maintenance and/or police services.
Just in some preliminary review of the level of policing that's occurring in the province, on the boundaries of regional districts I've seen a marked difference of anywhere between $1.50.... Policing costs would be $150 per capita down to a low of $55 per capita. These costs are borne by all provincial taxpayers in order to provide those services, so there appears to be a bit of a skew here. Some areas are costing taxpayers a little more money, and some areas are getting less service than is justified or warranted. I'm sure that if more investigation were done into the issue of road maintenance, we would see similar inequities.
I have canvassed the minister on this on a number of occasions, and what I'm asking for is some method to speed up and resolve rural taxation in British Columbia as a whole. It's my view that we're dealing with a very antiquated system of collecting taxes provincewide. It was designed to be viewed as one municipality, with the costs apportioned among all of the people living in the municipality. We're dealing with a standard that has been in place for some 15 to 20 years, and each of those regions is very diverse. The minister may want to comment and give me some comfort there, because I feel that the current system isn't fair. It isn't equitable, and we've got to do something about it.
Hon. G. Clark: I have to stop short of giving the member comfort on this question, but the province does have a problem, one that's very similar to the problem that municipalities have. Some municipalities are facing serious questions with respect to assessed value and relative value. It's what we call a zero-sum game. If the government of British Columbia announced a zero rural property tax increase this year, some communities, like Sooke, I think, would see a 14 percent increase in their rural property taxes because of assessed value, and communities in other parts of the province, such as the north perhaps, would potentially see 10 percent or 15 percent cuts in their property taxes. What the member is saying here in the House -- and he's correct -- is that the cost of servicing those communities varies. It may be the opposite, or it may not; it may be the same.
[ Page 8858 ]
Right now we have an assessed value system for the entire province, and it's a somewhat crude mechanism, if you will. The UBCM has set up a committee that the Ministry of Finance is actively participating in to review this question because of the concerns that have been raised. Again, it's one of those questions where if someone wins on the current system, someone else loses, so it's hard for committees to come to consensus because there's that natural tension. But they are working on it, and we're participating in it. As a result of the member's request, Ministry of Finance staff are doing some independent work with the Municipal Affairs ministry to canvass some of the options that exist in other provinces. I've invited this member to participate in that kind of review.
I want to be candid. I'm not optimistic that there will be any quick fix to this. First, you have to be very careful when you move in one area that you don't cause more problems than you solve. Secondly, we certainly don't want to take any action without support, or at least some understanding, from the UBCM and the municipalities that it's something we're going to work very carefully on. As a result of this member's aggressiveness, if you will, we're certainly going to take action to try to do some work on this topic to see if there's something we can do to deal with some of the concerns that the member has raised.
K. Jones: Because of the time limit, I'm going to put a series of questions forward. I'd like to support the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca's attempts to get the Colwood crawl augmented with commuter rail on the E&N. I think that's a very practical way of resolving some of the growth needs of that area. I'd like to support the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and the member for Mission-Kent in their attempts to get the commuter rail in the north sector of the Fraser. As far as highways problems, I'd like to note that this government last year cut $108 million from the Highways budget, which has probably exacerbated the deteriorating condition of our highways that's been going on for quite a while. I think we have to progress from that. The Minister of Finance knew why he had to do that, and he made that decision.
I wanted to have the minister's assurance that the commuter rail facilities will be funded through the tollbooths on the Lougheed Highway, as the Minister of Highways has indicated his method of funding these various improvements to transit and transportation are included. I'm sure that was the intention of the minister to follow through with that, although I think that there may be some concern among the people travelling on the Lougheed Highway as to the slowness of the traffic resulting from tollbooths being placed there, just as there would be a problem on Highway 1 coming into the Port Mann in my riding.
I'd like to ask the minister to seriously consider another area of commuter rail, and that is the one that would go from the Scott Road SkyTrain station through Surrey, Newton, Cloverdale, Langley, Aldergrove, Abbotsford and Chilliwack, an ideal route for light rail -- that has previously been light rail; the old Interurban had already established a route there, until the large corporations decided that rubber and gasoline were more important than rail were and did away with the old streetcar and Interurban trains. This area is an ideal one to proceed with because the government already owns the right-of-way. It's not like you have to negotiate with another carrier from eastern Canada, such as the CP Rail on the north side of the Fraser. On the south side of the Fraser, Southern Railway operating on B.C. Rail's right-of-way, should pose no problem. In fact, Southern Railway hardly ever runs on that, so they shouldn't have any conflict with commuter rail requirements. The rail facilities go right through the centres of these communities, and it would be very easy to provide accommodation for parking and easy transfer to that rail, and then to connect directly into SkyTrain. So you don't have to push this commuter rail into the downtown core, but you've got the very great capability of the SkyTrain to carry those people rapidly into the core areas where they need to go, whether it's New Westminster, Burnaby, Metrotown, downtown Vancouver or even to the North Shore, they have an easy route to go through there.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
Does Transit have any involvement in the high-speed rail plans between Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, which is part of the Cascadia planning studies? Would there be some consideration of that route as a means of coming out of Vancouver when that route is not used for the high-speed rail units as a commuter rail facility? It seems like it would be a very ideal facility, but I'm sure it's not going to be used all the time.
I'd like to ask about another area. I understand that some studies have been done in Transit over the last year. Could the minister give us an indication of the types of studies done, the purpose of the studies, what the findings were and what actions resulted from them? What implementations of improvements were resulting from those? Could you detail all the studies that have been put forward?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I want to make it clear that no decision has been made to impose tolls on any highways or bridges in British Columbia.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: No. We are reviewing that question. Certainly no decision has been made to impose tolls on a highway to pay for a rail project, other than the Coquihalla Highway, which existed before we took office. So no decision has been made in that regard.
Secondly, on commuter rail down the valley, out in Chilliwack, I am actually also sympathetic to that. I think the order of preference, though, for an analysis in the lower mainland on commuter rail would be the CP Rail line out to Mission, first of all. Lots of work has been done on that. Second would be the Burlington Northern, which goes from Coquitlam, through the Burnabys -- where you could possibly hook up with BCIT -- and then back down through the waterfront.
[ Page 8859 ]
Burlington Northern is very interested in that. They are an American company that is very aggressive on commuter rail. There are some trade-offs to be made there, with respect to whether you would do a HOV lane on the Lougheed. If you did that commuter rail route, you probably wouldn't do HOV lanes on the Lougheed; they would be competing, in other words. That is not really the case with CPR and the HOV lane on Barnet; they don't really compete.
Thirdly, I want to make one point just for the member's clarification, because I am sympathetic to it. The GVRD is not sympathetic to a transportation initiative which would push growth further into the south side of the river. I think the regional governments would be hostile at this time to pursuing a commuter rail line out to Richmond. They would like to see the development on the north side of the river, which is why the transportation infrastructure investments at this time would likely go there. It is something that makes sense in the long run but is not under active consideration at this time, except that we are certainly looking at it.
[12:00]
Finally, there is not a good fit between commuter rail and SkyTrain -- I think the member has to know that. A commuter rail train has the potential to bring in, I don't know, a thousand people. It is the opposite of SkyTrain, which has fairly low volumes. SkyTrain has small cars, and moves a relatively small number of people on extremely frequent service: every one and a half minutes at rush hour. Commuter rail has hundreds of people coming in once every half hour or every hour. Say you were to take commuter rail, in this case, down the valley, and stop at a SkyTrain station. If those 600 people got off to get on SkyTrain, it would take an hour to clean them out, if you will, unless the train was completely empty -- and it isn't. If you have a SkyTrain system operating at, say, 80 percent capacity, or something like that, and you take.... I know this is some detail because the Burlington Northern route goes down the Grandview cut. Intuitively you would think that the Commercial Drive-Broadway SkyTrain station would be a perfect spot for a commuter rail station, but if 500 or 600 people came down from the valley or Port Coquitlam on the Burlington Northern commuter rail and got off at the Commercial Drive station, the advice I get is that that would take an hour and a half. They would all be in the station, with the trains coming every one and a half minutes to pick up 20 or 30 people at a time, because that is almost at full capacity. It is not that it can't be done, but you would have to really look at it carefully. There isn't a very good fit. Commuter rail is dedicated, high-volume transit: it goes into downtown and drops people off. Hopefully, you would want something like 50 percent of the people taking commuter rail to be able to walk to work. So that is the difference.
With respect to high-speed rail, Transit has no involvement in any activities with respect to that, except that transportation planners at B.C. Transit are obviously monitoring it. But to my knowledge -- I could check for the member -- I don't think that they are anything beyond simply an interested observer in the exercise.
K. Jones: Just to elaborate on what the minister stated with regard to this commuter rail commuter rail coming in to the valley, it would be servicing the existing population, not increasing the growth of that area. The GVRD is focusing its development on the Coquitlam and Surrey city centres. By coming into Scott Road, you would actually have traffic going in two directions, not just the one direction downtown. You would have traffic coming into Scott Road and going to the east into Surrey centre. With Surrey centre projected to be the same size as Vancouver's downtown centre, it would split your loading very effectively by coming in on that route.
So you should consider that not in the traditional manner but in the future manner of things. The emphasis of the GVRD is not to extend into the north corridor either; it's to go only into the Coquitlam area with the concentration and not to extend up into the Coquitlam corridor. I think in both cases we're servicing the existing needs of the community. It will not push further development, because I think the GVRD will use planning guidelines to control the type of growth that will occur there.
R. Neufeld: It may seem strange for a member from the northern part of the province to stand up and ask questions about B.C. Transit, but it is an issue that I think transcends all political boundaries. We in the north also depend on B.C. Transit, specifically Fort St. John -- I know Dawson Creek does -- and we appreciate it very much. There are other issues, and I was interested to hear the member for Mission-Kent talk about people leaving to go to work who can take ten different routes out of Mission-Kent to get to the city.
Anyhow, there are areas in the north, specifically my community, where the present government has decided not to continue building roads out to an area where there is only one road to go on. So I would like to encourage that kind of thing.
The rural taxation issue that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca brought up, of course, is an issue in the north also -- and, I think, in all of rural B.C. I would like to say that I very much support public transit. I think it's very important in the lower mainland. It's obviously a large issue, and it's good to see that the Minister of Finance really got out in the country to Mission, so he could see what took place out there.
I have some specific questions of the minister. In the Vancouver regional transit system from 1992-93, the operating costs have increased by 10 percent or more -- just the operating costs. Maybe the minister could tell us why there was that large increase.
The other question is on absenteeism, which I read about in the papers, and what takes place there vis-�-vis Victoria and Vancouver. Maybe the minister has some rates of absenteeism on B.C. Transit in Vancouver and in Victoria and what the cost is to the Transit Commission. Those are two things that I am interested in.
[ Page 8860 ]
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the member is correct. B.C. Transit is a Crown corporation that provides transit services not just in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island. There is a small communities program that is very successful in partnership with municipal governments. As a conscious policy this year in the tough fiscal environment, we squeezed as much money as we could into those small communities. This year, I am very pleased to say, we increased the budget for the small communities by 8 percent, which allowed us to do some very interesting things in small communities where there is a high degree of support and also participation by municipal government -- in fact, much higher than in Vancouver or in Victoria.
The member asked the two questions. First of all, with respect to the operating costs of the Transit Commission just before the election, the previous government, Mayor Campbell and others dramatically increased the service plan. How it works at Transit -- much like other areas of government -- is that commitments are made at the end of the fiscal year for a huge expansion of service, and the bills don't come home until the next year. What happens three months before the election is they decide on a 10 percent service expansion. Then the government gets elected, and the actual bills come home the following year. So the annualized impact of service changes. Hospitals do this, and so do a lot of public agencies. They have a small amount of money. Instead of spending it on what they have a budget for, they take it and spend it at the end of the year, and then the annualized costs are larger. That's a general problem of government.
So part of it is the annualization from previous service plans and part of it is increased service. We try to keep pace at least with population growth of some 2 or 3 percent. So we've provided funding for that growth, particularly in communities such as Maple Ridge and other areas. Part of it is inflation, wage increases and the like. It is a bit large; it's coming down, but we have to work on it. Of course, administrative costs are down minus 1 percent, I think, which is good news. We think there's more room there, and some of the minor capital and other things have been cut down.
In terms of sick days off, the member is correct. I have no hesitation in saying that this is a problem with B.C. Transit. In Vancouver, it's roughly 20 days per year for a bus driver; in Victoria, it's 12 days. I think the provincial average in the industrial sector is about 8 or 9 sick days. These days are very expensive for the government. We're working very hard to try to bring them down. Even if we just brought them down to the level of Victoria, which has the same system under the same corporation, it would be very advantageous. I will say, though, that when you compare B.C. Transit to other transit systems, the time lost due to sick days is not as out of line as it appears. It may be a stressful job, and it may be that a high degree of illness goes with dealing with the public, as well. We don't discount that.
During the last negotiations, we got a creative response to this. Under "banked overtime" in the contract, it says: "up to five days of banked overtime." The contract is explicit. It says: "There will be a corresponding reduction in sick time." The union has agreed with the management to work on this. I don't want to say that it's a guaranteed success; it's something we have to work on. But the union has acknowledged it. They've made a very innovative attempt to deal with it, and I'm confident that we'll bring it down over time. Obviously, what it means is more resources available to expand public transit -- to hire more drivers and offer more service out in the communities, which I think is so sorely needed.
D. Streifel: I'll just take this opportunity to get a minor correction on the record for the member for Peace River North. Mission has but one road, much like areas of the north.
R. Neufeld: Okay.
D. Streifel: It's areas like Richmond that have many options.
R. Neufeld: I stand corrected.
D. Streifel: I think it's important to note that the member for Peace River North recognizes the difficulties in transporation in the area that he represents. This member in particular has an understanding and sympathy for that, because we suffer much the same.
I'd like to address two issues regarding commuter rail.
Interjection.
D. Streifel: Yes, that will be part of it as well.
The minister knows that the need for commuter rail in the valley go far beyond the need to move commuters in the mornings. There are also possibilities for tourism and heritage enhancement. But the reason I stand here for a second time, hon. Chair, is with regard to an issue that's quite important. It was raised by the member for Abbotsford yesterday. It has to do with small holdings, small farms and taxes and farmgate receipts. In this last budget, the amount of farm income that needs to be generated in order to be described as a "farm" was increased from $1,600 to $2,500. I think it's a sensible way to go. It's been a long time since the farmgate receipts were increased to reflect a more realistic approach to genuine farming. The application of the tax during this budget came forward and was applied in the middle of the cropping year. Whether you were raising sheep, chickens or a harvested crop the application of the tax came in the middle of a cropping year. Has consideration been given to this small group of farmers to phase-in the tax over a period of time and make it more compatible with the cropping year, as opposed to applying a tax in the middle of a year which causes genuine difficulties for these individuals to raise the money? The groups that have contacted me have said that they fully support the necessity to raise the farmgate receipts, but they would like it to be raised at a time in a cropping year when they are able to meet those demands. I ask the minister's comment on that.
[ Page 8861 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and just by way of background, the farmers have certain tax preferences. The farming community has consistently come forward to government to suggested that we raise the farmgate receipt amount to something like $7,000. It would actually save many millions of dollars to the government if you had to earn $7,000 worth of receipts before you got the tax benefit. Of course the farming community has said: "If you can raise that many millions of dollars by doing that, then put it back into the Ministry of Agriculture in farming support initiatives."
The problem with that is there are a lot of small farmers who don't make that kind of money. They've had tax advantages that start at $1600. Originally I thought there was good logic to raising it, because we're not trying to subsidize hobby farmers who are just living there. But we do want to try to phase it in a bit. I thought the $1600 to $2500 this year was a modest phasing-in of what many people, particularly those in the legitimate farming community, had been advocating. But some members and I have had some letters from people saying that while they support it, there's a problem with the implementation of it. I guess it is that you have to buy more calves or chicks or whatever in order to generate the receipts that are required to maintain the tax preference. So it's under review to see if we can find a way to maintain the $2500 and give people some flexibility so they can make the necessary investments to generate the receipts.
[12:15]
I haven't got any good news for the member here in the House. All I'm saying is that it's under active review in the ministry to see if there's a way we can do it. I'm quite hopeful there is, but at this stage I don't have any positive information.
D. Symons: To begin with, I'm surprised that the member from Mission-Kent wasn't aware that there's a Highway 11 as well as a Highway 7 through Mission. Indeed, I believe the member from Peace River North one-ups him on the number of roads he has there.
I'm pleased to be able to stand up this morning in this what I'll refer to as a "photo-op" morning. We discussed the ministry estimates late into the evening on Wednesday and again yesterday afternoon. We wrapped up rather early, I guess, so that we would have this opportunity for government members to stand up and be recorded by Hansard and have their picture taken on the video. They can take this back to their ridings and say I've asked these wonderful questions about your interests in our.... I'm just curious why they didn't do it the last few days. As a matter of fact, I've heard the answer to many of the questions asked today over the last few days. I was just curious about that.
To correct a mis-impression given by the minister earlier during my questioning dealing with commuter rail, I was only questioning the concept of commuter rail to make sure that, in whatever we put in place, the dollars will be well-spent. I'm quoting from the estimates here in yesterday's Hansard -- just to make sure that I'm reading from authority. I said: "I like the idea of anything that will get people out of their cars. If commuter rail will do it, I will commend the government for being able to get people to ride commuter rail."
The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca brought up the question of commuter rail out to the Western Communities, and he stated some numbers there. Just for comparison sake, I would like the minister to remember that in Richmond we already have in excess of 100,000 people. We also happen to share a rail line that comes out to Richmond, and since we have that larger population, I think there are real problems. I sympathize with the government and the transit authority in trying to decide on all of these things, but I am concerned that these might become political decisions rather than transportation decisions. This is one area where I think we have to make sure that they're based on need and the way it can serve the public rather than on the way it might serve the political interests of the party in power, which has been the case in this province in the past. I certainly hope it will not be the case in the future. I hope that Richmond, along with every other community, will stand a fair chance of receiving whatever is its just due in transportation issues.
Something that concerns me in relation to this is that awhile back I did hear the government touting the idea of running what would basically be a streetcar line along Broadway, carrying it out into the northeast sector. My real concern with commuter rail and the glorified streetcar thing along Broadway is use. Cost has to come into it, I'm sure, but we have to build a system that people will use, and I'm not sure whether something embedded in the traffic on Broadway will indeed create the ridership that would be intended in order to relieve the traffic jams and entice people out of their cars. We do have one system in place that we know does that, because SkyTrain did get people out of their cars. SkyTrain has exceeded the projections for ridership. I would just caution the minister that we do have a method of rapid transit that has proven to be one that people will ride, and I'm not so sure that these other methods are going to work. Maybe you should consider more use of express buses for outlying areas and maybe more use of HOV lanes to get those express buses closer to the destination areas of most commuters. That's something I think we can almost implement tomorrow. We don't need a two-year or a three-year plan to do that, which we do need for rail. We need even longer for SkyTrain.
I wonder whether the minister would respond to that, and then I have another question.
Hon. G. Clark: Those are obviously constructive comments from the member. I think we've had more debate in these Ministry of Finance estimates than at any time since I've been in the House, so the member is correct that a lot of this information has been canvassed.
I share the member's concern. It's not good enough just to have something up and running for the sake of having something up and running; it has to work. SkyTrain does move a lot of people fast; people like it, and people ride it, so from a transit perspective it's had
[ Page 8862 ]
a very positive effect. It is, of course, extremely expensive, and from a fiscal perspective, obviously we would like a better fit, but we don't want to compromise the transit goals through false economy and some short-term financial goal. I agree with the member that we have to look very carefully at any LRT or ALRT options to ensure that they in fact achieve the purpose of promoting public transit -- getting people out of their cars and moving them faster and more efficiently through public transportation.
Just one point on the express bus question, which I'm also sympathetic to. There is some time lag there as well. It takes about a year now to order articulated buses and the like. The board of directors of B.C. Transit is in the process of reviewing our capital plan, and I think we probably will be pursuing some enhancements. You're right that as a short-term solution it's the most cost-effective way.
I am very disappointed in the Vancouver City Council not allowing that HOV lane down Granville, which would have promoted transit. I hope members opposite appeal to the mayor of Vancouver with respect to that decision, particularly those members from Richmond. That would have done a lot to alleviate transportation problems in Richmond, at least in the short-run. It's very disappointing that they chose not to do that. Nevertheless, buses can provide a cost-effective and quick solution, if not a short-term solution, to some of the transportation problems.
D. Symons: Before we wind up today, I have to thank the minister for his very open and candid responses to all of the questions. For me it has been -- I don't think we could use the word pleasurable -- as pleasurable as we may expect in the situation we find ourselves. I found him very open in listening to suggestions and explaining things well to me; I appreciate that and thank him for it.
In relation to your last comment, in the near future I hope that I will be having a closer relationship with the mayor of Vancouver and that I will be able to twist his arm at that time and see that he might have his eyes opened to the needs of Richmond. He has been very protective of Vancouver, and I guess that's his job as major of the city.
I would like to revisit something that came up, I believe, on Wednesday evening. I didn't pick it up then, but I have noticed the numbers now. At that time I was talking about the relocation of the transit headquarters from its current spot in Marpole in Vancouver out to Whalley. We looked at the prices and the area involved and so forth, and I did a little working out of numbers. It would appear that in this move from Marpole to Whalley there will be 32 percent more space in this new building. Is this to accommodate a growing bureaucracy in B.C. Transit? I'll get to that in a moment. On top of that, you're paying higher rent of about 20 percent at this new location. I thought the building looked pretty nice where it was; I have been in the offices there. If you take those two factors together -- 32 percent more space and a 20 percent rent increase -- you are paying in excess of 60 percent more for your new headquarters. The riders of B.C. Transit, the people who are paying their Hydro levy and the people who are putting gas in their tank and paying a gas tax, are all paying that extra 60 percent for these new palatial offices out in Whalley. I don't know if that's really the proper use of the taxpayers' and the transit users' money in fiscal times like these. That's a phrase that the member keeps using all the time: in these tight fiscal times. I ask for an explanation. In light of the fact that the head report on the operating budgets of B.C. Transit implied that there was an awful lot of duplication, triplication and quadruplication of services at the management level, you're opening more space in a more expensive building at a time when you should be downsizing and reducing costs rather than increasing them.
Hon. G. Clark: The lease was signed on the project before the change in government. We were locked into a lease on that Surrey townsite. I remind the member that the board of directors approved that lease and Mayor Campbell was on the board. It really was a very expensive proposition.
I also want to be clear, though, that there is a place for Crown corporations trying to be good corporate citizens and playing lead roles in redevelopment projects. There's nothing wrong with the concept of getting out of leased space in Vancouver and building or leasing a facility in the new town centre in Surrey. I support it. The only problem is that this is fairly expensive space relative to the market today. Also, the increased additional space which they've rented is quite expensive. I'm concerned about it as well. The idea of a Crown corporation participating in an exciting redevelopment in any community is a worthwhile initiative, but we want to protect the taxpayer. I'm not confident that the taxpayer was protected in this deal. The leases were signed. We have had discussions with Interwest and others to see if there are accommodations. We're certainly reviewing it.
We can use the extra space if we put more operations in the head office. In other words, if we have the space, we'll use it. It will not be to expand the numbers of people working at Transit. In fact, we're going the other way. Administrative costs are down and we intend to bring them down further. The new CEOs had explicit instructions that they're not to expect significant increases in the budget. The number is coming down modestly. The space is leased. The government will use it to the extent we can, or Transit will use it for other facilities. But the cost is a bit higher than I would like -- and I don't have any hesitation in saying that -- and the size of the space is a bit more than I think is optimum. Having said that, the good news is that the Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, is participating in an exciting and major redevelopment project in Surrey. So it's not all bad; there are some very positive aspects to it as well. But it's a bit more expensive than some other options that might be there.
Just as we're wrapping up, I'd like to commend that member, in particular, for the very knowledgable questions he has asked on transit and for the fact that he has obviously taken this part of his area very seriously. I think the questions were informed and without the usual rancour and partisan debate we've come to
[ Page 8863 ]
expect. I think that it makes for better public policy when we have that kind of discussion.
V. Anderson: I listened to the minister talk about HOV lanes, and I just had to respond to that. In the minister's own riding, as well as in the Vancouver-Langara and Marpole areas -- where he was disagreeing with the citizens of Vancouver -- we are aware that there is a concern about transportation. But we're also aware that when working out transportation policy, we need to be concerned about communities and neighbourhoods. It was that concern about communities and neighbourhoods that the Vancouver City Council was struggling with. As has been experienced before, neighbourhoods have been destroyed by pass-through transportation. That has happened along Kingsway and in other areas. We don't need a simple plan, whereby vehicles are transported regardless of what happens to the neighbourhoods through which they go.
[12:30]
The concern we have is that there is no plan that protects and develops neighbourhoods within the city. In the new developments, they're looking at that, and so they should. The transportation system is there to develop and coordinate the community. But in the process, we have to make sure that the businesses and residential areas of communities that are already developed are not destroyed. I want to stress the need to integrate the planning and redeveloping of what is already there with what will be there in future. Vancouver City Council was responding to the citizens of Vancouver, who particularly asked that a plan be brought forward that did not destroy the community just for the sake of transportation. We understand the need for transportation, but not at the expense of the people who must bear the brunt of it in local communities through which it passes.
Hon. G. Clark: I think that's a fair comment. Coming from Vancouver-Kingsway, I can tell the member that when they put elevated SkyTrain right through the heart of my community, it was absolutely appalling and had major consequences. Sometimes in our communities -- mine like the member's -- commuter traffic coming in from the suburbs and cutting through our neighbourhoods is very disruptive. I share the member's concerns about that. On the other hand, bumper-to-bumper congested commuter traffic through the neighbourhood and the horrendous gridlock that takes place also takes its toll on communities, so we want to make sure we try to balance those two interests. With that, hon. Chair, I am delighted to conclude my estimates debate.
Vote 35 approved.
Vote 36: ministry operations, $82,127,840 -- approved.
Vote 37: Crown corporations secretariat, $10 -- approved.
Vote 38: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 -- approved.
Vote 39: contributions to British Columbia Transit, $232,740,000 -- approved.
Vote 62: other appropriations, management of public funds and debt, $988,000,000 -- approved.
Vote 63: other appropriations, contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $30,000,000 -- approved.
Vote 64: other appropriations, government accounting systems strategic plan, $3,801,000 -- 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.
Hon. G. Clark: I move this House do now adjourn.
The Speaker: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: My reading of standing order 2 is that quite clearly this House is to sit until 1 o'clock, and that indeed on Fridays we have private members' day. It appears that there are still about 25 minutes left for private members' day. I would hope that we would be able to call Bill M201, a bill put on the order paper by the member for Parksville-Qualicum, and begin second reading on that debate.
The Speaker: Thank you for raising that point of order, hon. member. The Chair has the standing order referred to and notes that it includes the phrase "unless otherwise ordered." The motion has been made for adjournment, and the Chair can only entertain that motion for adjournment at this time.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 25 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Priddy |
|
Pement |
Beattie |
Schreck |
|
Giesbrecht |
Conroy |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Clark |
MacPhail |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Kasper |
| Brewin | ||
| NAYS -- 7 | ||
|
Neufeld |
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Symons |
Anderson |
Jarvis |
| K. Jones | ||
The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]