1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2331 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 2331

Oral Questions

GAIN rates. Mr. Cashore –– 2331

Cost of promotional dinner. Mr. Barnes –– 2332

Mr. Williams

Royal Columbian Hospital. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2333

McLeod Lake Indian band. Mrs. Boone –– 2333

Haidas in South Moresby. Mr. Miller –– 2333

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Savage)

On vote 7: minister's office –– 2334

Mr. Rose

Mr. Miller

Mr. Serwa

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 2341

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Jones

On vote 49: ministry operations –– 2357

Mr. Blencoe

On vote 50: municipal revenue-sharing –– 2357

Mr. Blencoe

On vote 51: transit services –– 2358

Mr. Williams

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 44). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 2359

Third reading

Local Election Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 45). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 2359

Mr. Williams

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Davis)

On vote 24: minister's office –– 2361

Hon. Mr. Davis

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Mr. G. Hanson

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Guno

Mr. Rabbitt

Ms. Smallwood

On vote 26: British Columbia Utilities Commission –– 2385

Mr. Clark

Appendix –– 2386

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. ROSE: I'm pleased today to welcome back a former

colleague and 14-year veteran, our old friend Don Lockstead from

Mackenzie. He's somewhat changed since he was here. He was telling me

he has made great progress; when he was young he had three vices, but

today he said: "I quit one, one quit me, and I still smoke." We're very

pleased about his remarkable longevity, and I wouldn't be surprised if

he darkened one of these doors again sometime. So I wish him well.

MR. LONG: I'd also like to welcome Don here today. because

over the last 15 years he has probably been one of the most popular

citizens in the whole riding of Mackenzie. I think he did a terrific

job in the past, and I'll probably be meeting him in the future, it

seems. So I'd like everybody to make him feel really good and welcome

here.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd just like to echo that and associate

myself with the remarks of the opposition House Leader and the member

for Mackenzie in welcoming Don Lockstead back — a true friend of this

Legislative Assembly and a true friend of democracy. Good to see you,

Don.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have

three wonderful people from the North Shore in Vancouver: Dudley Kiel,

Tom Mason and Betty Waters. Dudley Kiel and Tom Mason are prominent

businessmen in the Vancouver area. Betty Waters is my constituency

assistant in North Vancouver-Seymour. Would the House please welcome

them.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two

visitors from Ottawa. The first is Rob Sutherland, an active worker for

the New Democrats in Ontario. The second is a constituent of mine, my

Member of Parliament — for a little while yet at least. I can't quite

see him there. I'd like the House to welcome Ian Waddell.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the House to extend a very warm welcome to Peter and Karen Ashby from

West Vancouver.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the House to join me in

extending a warm welcome to Mr. Bob Sullivan of Terrace. Mr. Sullivan

is an educator in Terrace and a longtime friend of our family.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a person

I'd like to recognize. He's a former administrator of Delta,

transferred into Kelowna, and a very good friend of mine, Mr. Stewart

Fleming.

MR. MILLER: In the House today is my wife Gayle Ballard, who

has come to see why we take so long to conduct the business of the

province. And from the safety of the floor of this chamber, I have to

advise my wife that I may be working on Saturday.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I too would like to welcome Don Lockstead. He knows

why we sit here so long in the summer.

He used to like those drives back to his riding on the weekends so

much he just couldn't wait to get down here. We miss you, Don. You were

elected in 1972 — one of the most reasonable and friendly members that

ever sat in this chamber.

I would like to introduce Dr. Anne Autor of Vancouver, who is a

research scientist at St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British

Columbia, and who also is a member of the Law Foundation and was the

chairman of the compensation advisory committee for judges. I would

ask the House to make her welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Visiting in the gallery today is Jim

Randall, vice-president of Inland Natural Gas. He has come to see how

decisions are made in this boardroom. So I would like the House to make

him welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Today I have two young friends that are guests

in the House, in the gallery. They are David and Shane Greenlees. Their

mother was a neighbour of mine for years in the beautiful Nicola

valley, where she grew up. They are visiting from the northern

community of Mackenzie. I would ask the House to give them a warm

welcome.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Crandall, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, presented a report, which

was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, the Select Standing Committee on

Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services begs leave to

report as follows:

"That the

preamble of Bill PR401,

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter, has been proved and the committee recommends that

the bill as amended in committee proceed to second reading; that the

fees paid by the applicants for proposed private bills, intituled

Society of Management Accountants of British Columbia, and

An Act

respecting Columbia Bible Institute, during the 1986 session, be

refunded, as the Legislative Assembly was dissolved before the bills

could proceed through all stages.

"All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. CRANDALL: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

GAIN RATES

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Minister of Labour, who

has the responsibility for human rights. Has the minister been advised

that the GAIN regulations illegally discriminate against young people

under age 26, and has he advised the Minister of Social Services (Hon.

Mr. Richmond) that immediate action is needed in view of the July 6

decision of the Human Rights Council?

HON. L. HANSON: I believe I would call on the Attorney-General to reply to that.

[ Page 2332 ]

HON. B.R. SMITH: The ruling that was handed down by the B.C.

Human Rights Council in the case of John Boyles is a ruling, I'm

instructed, that applies to the old Human Rights Act and affects

payments that should have been made during the period April 1 to

September 14, 1984. It does not place any obligation on the ministry to

compensate the recipients of income assistance adversely affected by

the differential in any future period, nor is it a decision under the

new human rights legislation, which was not in existence at that time.

I might say that I don't think we will be appealing this

decision because there is a case on this very issue squarely before the

Supreme Court. That case is in the process of being argued now. It

would be my view that we should await the decision of the Supreme

Court. If the Supreme Court of British Columbia decides that the

regulation on 26-year-olds violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

then the government will respond by changing the policy. But I don't

think the process is appeals, appeals, appeals.

I think we should leave this decision aside because it is something

that happened in the past under old legislation. We should await this

case which is currently before the courts. It's not going to be long;

we're going to have a decision very shortly. We should look at that

decision and do whatever the Supreme Court tells us to do.

[2:15]

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary question to the Minister of

Labour. Discrimination in 1984 is discrimination in 1987. I would

remind the Attorney-General the decision that was brought down by the

Human Rights Council was pursuant to the Human Rights Act which is

presently in force. This has the effect of a class action, which is

stated very clearly within the judgment that was rendered.

My question to the Minister of Labour is this: notwithstanding court

actions, but given this decision, which is a very clear decision and

must be adhered to in terms of its spirit and intent, has the minister

decided to give an undertaking that the government will immediately

accept the decision of the Human Rights Council and act upon it, rather

than changing the law to make illegal discrimination legal? Is the

minister prepared to give me that undertaking in fairness at this time?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in simple terms, I'm not prepared to give that undertaking at this time.

COST OF PROMOTIONAL DINNER

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial

Secretary. This weekend the government gave a large party for the

opening of the new Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre to some 2,000

guests who were wined and dined and entertained to the tune of

$500-plus per plate. That amount of money has been estimated to be

sufficient to feed people who are going to the food banks on a weekly

basis, for six months.

I think the party — though well-intentioned in terms of promoting

the trade and convention centre — is quite an extravagant and lavish

way to spend taxpayers' money, in light of the fact that there are

literally thousands of people in this province without food, clothing

and shelter. How does the government justify spending this amount of

money for a one-night party?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Unfortunately the jurisdiction for that

particular event falls within the purview of another minister, and I

think you ought to direct it to the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), when that person is present.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Could

he advise us what guidelines he uses and his protocol people use with

respect to expenses for dinners? Would a $500-a-plate dinner for 2,000

people costing $1 million meet the Provincial Secretary's guidelines?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the first hon. member for

Vancouver East is not hearing very well. The responsibility for that

meal and for that evening falls within the jurisdiction of the hon.

Minister of Economic Development, and if you wish, I'll take it on

notice for her.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could make it simpler and

clearer. Has the Provincial Secretary ever approved dinners at $500 or

$512 a plate for anything under his jurisdiction, since he handles most

entertainment and most protocol matters for the government? What are

the restrictions on spending per dinner in British Columbia under your

jurisdiction?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this is a very pressing and

urgent question: has the Provincial Secretary at any time in the past

ever paid $500 per dinner? Now I understand that this is really

relevant to question period. The answer is no, I have not.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question is: what is the outer

limit? What is the stratospheric limit? Does it equal the member for

Shaughnessy's Marie Antoinette taste? How close does it come to the

member for Shaughnessy, and is the Provincial Secretary prepared to

spend equal funds for the Vancouver food bank, which would feed many,

many thousands of citizens for six months?

HON. B.R. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has

always been courtesy in this chamber to address questions to ministers

who are here — she was here yesterday — and not to address them

obliquely to other ministers to embarrass people in their absence who

can't speak in their own defence. If she was here, that member would

learn that much of that event was donated by private enterprise and

wasn't paid for by the taxpayers.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it's really very rare that points of

order are raised during question period. We have agreed that this not

be so, and we don't do this in the normal way. We can understand it's

sometimes necessary, but when a point of order is used to smuggle an

argument into debate during question period, it is a clear abuse of the

rules, and it's a spiked-helmet contempt of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the point of order, there will be two minutes added to question period.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Can the

Attorney-General give this House assurance that those who contributed

$750,000 to that dinner

[ Page

2333 ]

will receive no contracts from government, especially with respect to the convention centre?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm happy to answer that objective,

non-argumentative question and to say that those people will receive,

from all over the world, offers of people to come to conventions in

Vancouver in the next ten years. That's what they'll receive.

ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

MS. A. HAGEN: My question is to the Minister of Health. The

psychiatric day centre of the Royal Columbian Hospital is slated to

close as of September 1 along with the palliative care unit. As the

minister well knows, the New Westminster area is a major centre for

mental health care.

Will the minister assure the House that this essential program will

not close until the same services — that is, a well-staffed psychiatric

day service — are available, so that patients will not back up the

already over-stressed emergency and psychiatric services of our

hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK: Referring to the closure of the psychiatric

ward and the other issue in regard to palliative care, it's now being

looked at by my ministry. We do not expect anyone to be let out of the

hospital without another place to go. I believe I discussed this with

the hon. member just a day or so ago. I am going to look into that very

closely and find alternative places to put these people, and it should

be done in an orderly fashion.

MS. A. HAGEN: A supplementary to the minister. The hospital

clearly says that these programs keep people out of the emergency ward

and move them more quickly out of psych wards. Could the minister give

us some indication of his plans for community services for mental

health? If the option is in fact to have these services available in

the community, can he now assure us that these services will be

maintained so that they are fully adequate and accessible to the mental

health clients in this particular region?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, normally hospitals get in touch

with us when they have a change in policy or when they change their

programming. In this case, they went to the news before they contacted

me. It's very unfortunate that this happens, but it does happen from

time to time; therefore it becomes an issue even before I have a chance

to look at it. I can assure you that this will be looked at very, very

carefully, and that we are always concerned with giving patients the

best care.

I should also mention that not all hospitals can do everything for

all people. So we are looking into ways of perhaps defining which

hospital does what service and what program. This is what's going to be

looked at in the very near future. As a matter of fact, my senior

people are in contact with the hospital now.

McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

The McLeod Lake band has cut the access road to the reserve, and therefore to

Carp Lake Provincial Park, to try to get action leading to a settlement on Treaty

8, which I have spoken to you about. Will the minister agree to meet with the

McLeod Lake band in order to get negotiations underway as soon as possible and

help avoid any sort of dangerous confrontation, such as happened yesterday?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

question. Treaty 8, signed urgently and most recently in 1899, is

McLeod Lake Indian band was first negotiated with by the government of

Canada in 1892, according to the information that I have. In that

process, they were included in Treaty 8. The McKenna-McBride commission

of 1893 met with the McLeod Lake Indian band. When the federal

government, through whatever ministry they used in 1899....

Unfortunately, Alex Macdonald isn't around, because he used to be able

to remind us who was the minister responsible at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Davis?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Watch that!

However, within Treaty 8, in 1961 the federal government negotiated

a quitclaim settlement with the Fort Nelson Indian band, and they are

included in Treaty 8. The federal government purchased land from the

province of British Columbia and did the settlement with the Fort

Nelson Indian band, which is included in the same area. We have made

that same offer to the federal government: that we would make land

available for them to settle with the McLeod Lake Indian band.

That's not going to solve the immediate problem of the blockade of

the road, a problem that's being dealt with by the Minister of

Environment and Parks as well as by staff within my ministry. However,

your question was.... I know you're being coached, so do you want me to

wait until your coach is finished?

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: How do you know she wants to hear the answer to the question?

Anyway, the answer is that if they want to meet with me, I'll be pleased to meet with them.

MRS. BOONE: Then why have you not answered their phone calls?

I understand that they have phoned you every other day since they first

put up the blockade on Carp Lake. You haven't received a phone call

yet? Can you assure me, please, that you will phone them today and talk

to the McLeod Lake Indian band?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They must be phoning you to tell you that they're phoning me, but they're not phoning me. I'll give them a call this afternoon.

HAIDAS IN SOUTH MORESBY

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations, whose previous statements on white trash are only too well

known. Could the minister explain his recent statements concerning the

Haida Indians? He has made suggestions that they could be living

exhibits in a South Moresby park.

[ Page 2334 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: One shouldn't say anything around here with

tongue in cheek, but I'm afraid I have the habit of doing that, and

occasionally these things come back. But I'll explain this.

When I met with the Haida Indians, some of them said to me that

South Moresby is the traditional area where they used to live, and when

the smallpox came through the Queen Charlotte Islands in the early part

of this century, many of them moved, or were moved by the federal

government, to settlements on the northern island and in and around

Skidegate. Some of them have expressed to me that they would like to

move back to South Moresby. That was part of the discussion that we

have had. If in their negotiations with the federal government and

their negotiations.... When they were discussing the matter with the

provincial government, they said: "It's part of our claims, it's part

of the place we used to live, and some of us would like to go back and

re-establish residence there."

If my remarks were misconstrued, or if I even said something that

would mislead people into thinking that I expected the Haidas to be

some kind of living exhibit in a park, that's not what I meant to say

at all. But what I did mean to say — and what I will clarify right now

— is that some of the Haida people would like to live in the Moresby

area. That's the statement they have made to me. And if they would like

to live in the Moresby area, that's a negotiation they are now going to

have with the new landowner, which effective Saturday is the federal

government.

[2:30]

MR. MILLER: Given the track record, I don't think "tongue in

cheek" is acceptable. Given the incredible boorishness and

condescending attitude inherent in that kind of statement, would the

minister agree to do two things: first of all, apologize without

qualification; secondly, advise the Premier that he's not capable of

carrying his portfolio, and offer his resignation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is argumentative and really wasn't a question.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES

(continued)

On vote 7: minister's office, $241, 948.

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of questions having to do with the estimates book. Maybe it will give your staff an opportunity to get here.

The question concerns an item on page 39. About a third of the way

down the page, there is an item called "Farm Products Industry

Improvement." Below it is "Livestock Protection," of some $20,000. Have

you got it? Page 39, under "Special Accounts," item number 3 is "Farm

Products Industry Improvement," and there is a zero amount.

Then we get over to the details on page 48, under the heading of

"Farm Products Industry Improvement," where there is a disbursement of

$10 million, and I wondered why the item appears there in the detail

and didn't appear in the

summary. I'd like to know what item that

disbursement is for.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: That disbursement is proposed for Farmco.

MR. ROSE: Last night we were told we were doing an item in

miscellaneous statutes for $10 million for the same destination, for

the ethanol plant. Is that not the case? Didn't you tell us last night

that the Farm Product Industry Act has run down to $200,000? That's its

present sitting position. The $10 million we're asking about here is

enabling legislation.

What I want to know is whether the $10 million is the same $10

million you told us about last night, or is the total that you're

giving to the farmers for the ethanol plant.... You know, where you

launder the money; you give it to the farmers and they in turn give it

to the plant. They never actually touch the money. It's a kind of new

rural Mafia for laundering money. Is it $10 million? Is this the same

$10 million that was in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act last

night, and why are you asking for it twice? That's the question.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is being put in the budget, but we need

the enabling legislation that was put forward last night to have it put

in there, because the industry act was drawn down.

MR. ROSE: The minister is telling us, then, that it is not a

new $10 million, so the total isn't $20 million; it's the same $10

million. That's fine.

I now have a number of questions dealing with free trade. Is it the

position of the B.C. government that under any free trade agreement

with the U.S., marketing boards and supply management will be

maintained? Is that the position?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Yes.

MR. ROSE: Has the minister got any studies to determine what

impact this possible free trade will have on the food-products

processing industry? Because the core of free trade is to remove

tariffs on everything, including food products. How can our food

processors continue to compete with low U.S. prices on often-subsidized

items such as chicken and chicken pies and that sort of thing?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Well, it's not only that — if I may, Madam

Chairman, address the hon. member — it's also packaging standards and a

number of things that we're very concerned about. If in free-trade

discussions we open all those standards and health regulations, etc.,

to be equivocated on each side of the border, then we are in fact

going to lose. We know that. So we are cognizant of the fact, and we

are dealing with the federal government on the basis that we want that

standard and also the industry to survive in B.C. It is a source of

many jobs for the province.

MR. ROSE: If we do get a free-trade deal, and that's by no

means a certainty, and the idea is to phase in over a 15-year period,

can the minister tell us what his position would be on that in terms of

the survival of the commodity marketing

[ Page

2335 ]

board and supply management boards? Also, if the marketing boards

disappear, what impact will that have on the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I know what the hon. member is getting at.

There is no doubt in my mind that it would put pressure on the

agricultural land reserve, because if agriculture can't survive in the

competitive marketplace and it's placed at an unfair disadvantage....

And I qualify that statement by saying "unfair"; you have to address

fair competition. I think Canadian and also B.C. agriculture, given

fair competition, can compete, but until it's addressed on that basis,

the pressure would eventually fall back. If the industry falls down,

the pressures would be on the ALR as well.

MR. ROSE: Do I take it, then, that the minister is not only

opposed to including agriculture in any free-trade package right now —

those things that are already not part of free trade, such as beef,

grain and a few other things like that, and raspberries and blueberries

— but is opposed even to the 15-year phase-in? The idea is that there is

supposed to be a complete reciprocal arrangement within 15 years. Is he

opposed to the long term as well?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, to the hon. opposition House

Leader: not precisely to the whole long-term implications, because I

believe that by addressing it on a fair basis, we can be competitive.

So on the 15-year time-frame, that's the time-frame that gives us the

opportunity to be in that sphere. But if in the time-frame of that,

there's unfair competition.... There again, you get into a number of

acts that exist in the United States, and unless those can be fairly

addressed, I don't see how we can compete fairly. The 15 years won't

make any difference.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure that I understand what the minister

said precisely. He's opposed to it, but if we could compete fairly,

he's in favour of it. We know that the climate is not going to change.

Would the minister agree, though, that over the phase-in period there

would have to be a change in labour standards vis--vis the two

countries? He's already said packaging standards vis--vis the two

countries. There are pesticide standards, energy and fuel costs, hydro

costs, water costs and all this other stuff.

Does the minister think that the Americans will be changing to our standards or that we'll have to change to theirs?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't think you can say you would change

one standard to the other. You have to quantify on the basis of what is

fair on each side. What will work? That's what we have to bring to the

bilateral trade discussions. Put it on the table; let's address it.

In our conference two weeks ago in Regina between the ministers of

agriculture — and I can use only that one particular area — and the

state secretaries of agriculture, there was very real concern about how

we could fairly address what project or particular act gives

advantages, say, to the U.S. as opposed to Canadian agriculture. I

think it's going to be a long drawn-out proposal to try to resolve

those differences. I don't think we'll do it in the time-frame that is

allotted in this round.

MR. ROSE: I'm not talking only about this round. I don't

think you'll do it either. The phase-in period is supposed to be 15

years to complete free trade.

What I'm asking the minister is this: with U.S. agriculture being

seasonally advantaged, with different standards and cheap labour —

often much of it illegal immigrants — isn't it likely that, with their

having 20 times the size of our production and maybe more, because of

various things we needn't go into now, we will be forced to move to

their standards, rather than vice versa, in order to have that level

playing-field? Isn't that really what amounts to agricultural

integration with the United States?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think it's a good question the hon. member

asks. It would not be my intention to give in to lower the standards to

which we've become accustomed. I think we have become accustomed to a

standard in this country, and if we are supplying the necessary

ingredients for a healthy diet in the way of food through our ministry,

whether it's Fisheries or Agriculture, to say that we should give in to

competitive forces from below the border.... I do not entirely agree,

and I have defended that position.

MR. ROSE: If we did have free trade, that would envision the

removal of all tariffs. Would that, then, in the minister's view, since

he supports free trade except for agriculture and a few other

things....? Does he really think that means the removal of all customs?

Could I go down to Blaine from Sumas or Mission, or from White Rock

to Blaine and buy all my food products down there? Is that what he

means by free trade? Who is this free trade for? Is it for the citizen

or the industries?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope free trade is identified as to how it

relates to the public as a whole, both in the U.S. and in Canada, not

whether it's industry or specific to one sector. I think we have to

identify the fair trade. Your question relative to crossing the

border.... I would certainly think there would still be customs. I

don't see how there couldn't be customs in place.

The other thing is on tariffs, etc. Seasonal tariffs, I would hope,

and would be defending on the basis of production in Canada being to a

large extent seasonal.... Consequently those seasonal tariffs have to

be in place, because the commodities shipped in from the U.S., on many

occasions through the winter, are much higher than we are able to

produce them for here. We still can't produce them and be competitive.

But on the same basis, when we're in production in the summer months in

Canada, their prices are substantially lower, causing very low returns

for many of the agricultural products that are sold to wholesalers and

eventually through to the consumer, because they've made their money

during winter production.

MR. ROSE: If the minister is in favour of free trade.... I

know he's not obtuse. He's very open, and these are questions that I

have in my own mind quarrelled with myself about. If we have free trade,

I don't see why I can't go down to Blaine and buy my groceries. We

already heard the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) give us the

figures from Butter Fat , the dairyland magazine, and how serious that

is. So is the minister in favour of citizen free trade?

[ Page 2336 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister says he's opposed to free trade. This

is not really on agriculture, but it's the same thing: could I go down,

then, and buy a car? That's free trade. We have sectoral free trade now

in autos, but it certainly doesn't mean that I can go down and buy a

car in Seattle. I can't. They are $300 to $500 cheaper down there, but

I can't do that.

[2:45]

We want to have free trade, but we don't want the people to have

part of the advantage of free trade, because I can't go down to Blaine

and buy a quart of milk. So I think there are a lot of questions in

there that need to be answered.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I don't disagree with what you're saying. I

think where we can provide an environment for freer and competitive

trade, that's fair enough. But I don't see how Canada and the U.S. can

come to grips with saying that there will be complete free trade. I do

not see that happening.

MR. ROSE: The U.S. has already said that they reject the idea

of dispute-settling mechanism. A lot of people, even in the

agricultural sector, want a freer trade because they can't stand the

hassles, whether it's the carrot producers in the Maritimes or the

potato producers or the wheat producers or the hog producers or any of

these people. They can't stand the hassle of non-tariff barriers. If

the U.S. is not willing to give up those things, then I don't think

there's anything in it for us.

Let's look at the wine industry. The parliamentary secretary sitting

over there — I'm not sure whether he's the first or second member for

Central Fraser Valley, but there he sits — argued one Friday morning

that all agriculture should be exempt from free-trade talks. Is that

the position of the government?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I do not believe that all things should be

free trade, because a number of the agriculture items exchange across

borders with the same applicable duty on both sides of the border. It's

administrative things, applying a duty in grains, as an example.

They're offsetting duties either way, so they are technically free

trade.

Some of the beef sector is the same way. Those things could

continue. What I would think they would do is take the administrative

work out of it, instead of adding — for instance on one particular

grain — three cents a bushel, either way. That technically would make

it free.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister would also agree that a number

of other things, such as apples and soft fruits, are particularly

vulnerable. For instance, the U.S. can write off cherry orchards as tax

breaks; doctors and lawyers do this over eight years. We can't do that.

So do you expect the Americans to change that? That's your seasonal

tariff; that's how it clicks in and protects us.

Actually it comes down to you really don't want free trade at all.

It just sounds good; you know, everything is free. What representations

has the minister made to our own economic development committee — which

deals with the problems in free trade — on the various agricultural

sectors, especially the wine industry?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I think we're crushing grapes. Incidentally, on

three occasions I've taken the opportunity to defend the value of the grape

industry of the province of B.C. and specifically, as I said this morning, the

Okanagan Valley. It is a valued part of the Okanagan economic development. It's

in its infancy, really. The grape industry has gone through an awful lot of

transformation, as you can well appreciate, because they went heavily into red

grapes and have now swung largely into white and are trying many European varieties.

A number of the programs you referred to this morning about grants relate to

transferring to varieties.

The Okanagan Valley is doing its best to change over and be

competitive not only in the type of grapes but also the quality. The

quality of Okanagan wines has substantially increased. In fact, they

are winning a number of worldwide awards. In the 15 years, that may not

necessarily be enough time to phase it in.

The other concern I have is that if we don't phase in, then that

$140 million industry goes somewhere else. My position has always been

to defend it and keep it in Canada. If it's got a potential of making a

good economic generator to the province and the country, we should try

to keep it.

MR. ROSE: Yes, I'm not sure that with the best will in the

world, in view of the unlevel playing-field, that may be possible, even

with the best efforts we can muster.

Is the minister then saying that he supports the idea of the wine

being part of the free-trade talks? It's not a supply management board.

Or is he opposed to it? It's part of the processing industry as well,

and according to the grape growers and the wine industry especially —

I'm not talking about the big ones; I'm talking about the estate

wineries — they say they're dead in the water. I just want to get an

idea of how the minister feels about this, because currently they are

part of the free-trade talks.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I can tell you, Madam Chairman, I have

categorically stood behind the grape growers and said I was opposed to

opening it up on wines. I feel we should keep the wine industry. It's a

great contributor to the Okanagan, as I've already said.

MR. ROSE: One of the difficulties with farmers right across

British Columbia and Canada is that the subsidies make up part of their

income. The figure I have is roughly 12 percent. The U.S. figure is

roughly 50 percent. In the EEC it's about 70 percent. Is the minister

not concerned that Canadian farmers, with the best will in the world,

cannot compete with input costs being what they are and with all the

rest of the costs of production — land costs and fuel costs? If he is

concerned about their inability to compete — because it's not on a

level playing-field; it's a craggy playing-field, full of ditches and

troughs and valleys in which you could disappear — the alternative is

to either increase subsidies here or try to convince other people not

to. Again, I think the matter is subject to a lot of long-term

negotiations through GATT and other things. What is the minister

prepared to do in the meantime? I read the figures this morning, and the

number of people leaving the farms is deplorable — and to me no

programs to keep them on or help younger people in the industry.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, on the issue of the

subsidies that exist around the world — and I think the hon. member has

mentioned some numbers — I'm well aware of those numbers and have been

arguing for the 12 years that I've been involved in agriculture that

when we get

[ Page 2337 ]

into the subsidy wars, we are destroying a natural marketplace. It's

never been more evident than it is presently in the grain prices. The

subsidy wars have rewarded and encouraged excess production. Treasuries

in the EEC and the United States far exceed Canada, Argentina,

Australia and New Zealand. We cannot win the subsidy war. I have taken

the opportunity, along with the same ministers in the other nine

provinces in this country, to say that we must address the discussion

relative to world subsidies next week.

We are also, I might inform the hon. member, going to discuss

multilateral, bilateral GATT agreements. That's one of the top priority

items for discussion in the first ministers' conference on agriculture

next week.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister opposed to subsidies?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I shouldn't say I'm opposed to subsidies;

I'm opposed to the extent that may have got to where countries cannot

compete one with the other. If it's a minor adjustment stage of a

subsidy to correct something that's different between provinces or a

difference between countries, that's fair enough, but they are totally

out of hand. We even have the same situation between the different

provinces. The rates of support of the agriculture sector vary

substantially from one province to another.

MR. ROSE: If I understand the minister correctly, when he

says little subsidies, that's like saying small sins are okay, but big

sins aren't. That's really what he's saying. It's like being a little

bit pregnant. Once you get on the subsidy road, what is too much?

Marketing boards and supply management and farm income insurance are

all examples of subsidies. What you seem to be objecting to is that

some countries are more lavish in their subsidies, making it difficult

for our farmers. Is that the case?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, I don't think you should

confine those statements to agriculture. A number of programs — and you

can call them tax havens, tax retreats or tax breaks — are a form of

subsidy to some extent. They don't just exist in agriculture; they're

in every sector. Those are the types of things that get out of hand and

when they enter into competition between countries, get distorted so

badly that one country is not going to be able to stay in the business.

MR. ROSE: So subsidies are okay as long as they don't get out

of hand? When they get out of hand, it means that we can't keep up. For

instance, my friend from the Fraser Valley will know that you can

probably buy eggs for half the price across in Sumas than we do, say,

in Abbotsford. Is that a subsidy....?

MR. WILLIAMS: Or milk.

MR. ROSE: Or milk or whatever. We have a studied, deliberate,

if you like, scarcity — or at least supply management. I have no

objection to that. I have trouble when it's argued that somehow we're

after a marketplace economy when we know that's a pile of nonsense. It

exists nowhere in the world, and our farmers can't be faced with a

market economy, or any other segment of our society, when everybody

else in the developed world is doing that. As a result, we all have had

a higher standard of living. But I think what's good for the goose is

good for the gander.

I'll leave that now. I don't think there's much more point to be

made, but the point is that we get a lot of doubletalk. We believe in

free enterprise, yet we believe in supply management. We don't think

big subsidies are good, but little subsidies are good. We think there

should be a marketplace economy and that the world should operate as if

it was God ordained and God-given and if you'd just get the hell out of

the way, everything would work fine. Everything we've got in our

society, from hospitalization to unemployment insurance to workers'

compensation and all the rest of it, is to protect people from the

vagaries — the brutality, if you like — of the market system. I haven't

got a great deal of faith that by leaving this to the market system

it's going to be enough.

We have to decide as a nation whether we want to become a

sovereignty-associated state with the United States in all things, or

whether we want to develop what we can on our own internally. Economies

with far lower populations than our own do far better than we do,

because they use a partnership between the state, the workers and the

government, and they plan. I can name you those places — and it ain't

done on the free market economy.

I've got a little question here, which may be considered a minor

one, but some people wanted me to ask it, so I'll do it. Apparently

there was a cannery closed down in Summerland. It was bought by the

Pattison megalopoly in '84 and closed in '86; 100 jobs were lost. The

facility was bought with the help of a $42,000 agri-food grant by your

ministry — agri-food development between Canada and B.C.

None of the previous workers were hired. So it appears to me.... It

has been opened up by Beaven's Orchard Cannery. They bought it out with

the help of the ministry. What steps did the ministry take to give the

former workers rights to their former jobs? Here is a clear example of

successor rights that were violated, and I'd like to know what the

ministry has done about that.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Madam Chairman, I don't have the details of

that particular transfer from one ownership to another, on

successorship or whatever, but if you would like to have the answer, I

can bring it back to you.

MR. ROSE: I can understand how the minister may not have

every little item at his fingertips, but it's quite a serious one to

the people who lost their jobs. Naturally it's more serious to them

than anyone else. What I'd like the minister to do is give me an

undertaking to have the policy directive that when, through the use of

public funds, an assistance is given to take over or assist in the sale

or purchase of a facility involving food and food products, the policy

will be that the people who have been working there will have the first

chance at new jobs. Otherwise there are no successor rights.

[3:00]

Supposing you have a union such as the cannery workers or whatever

in that plant, and you don't like the union. So you sell the plant to

somebody else — in this case with public funds of $42,000 — and then

the people hire non-union workers at perhaps half the wages. Well, I

don't think that's tolerable. I don't think low wages help any of us.

It doesn't help the local community, because there isn't the money to

spend. It doesn't help anything. It might help in the export or

something, but if we get into that bag, where we're trying to compete

with Taiwan and Korea, we'll never get anywhere.

[ Page 2338 ]

I have a few other small items I'd like to deal with, and I'm

waiting for my colleague to come in, who'd like to do some aquaculture

discussions.

I mentioned this morning, Madam Chairman, that the 1986 census

reveals that the average age of a Manitoba farmer is 28 and the average

B.C. farmer is between 50 and 55.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

I wonder: are there any policy initiatives contemplated? I know it's

asking for what's going on in the future, and sometimes this is

considered not in order. But as I mentioned this morning, there has

been no act since the Bee Act of 1977. There has hardly been a torrent

of legislation pummelling this chamber from the Ministry of Agriculture

in the last ten years, in spite of the fact that there have been some

extremely serious problems.

Is there any plan to prevent farm foreclosures? If you write these

down.... I've got a series of them, and I'll read them very slowly.

That's one.

What is the status of right-to-farm legislation, farmers' rights,

having to do with intensive agriculture and the problem that's caused

by that in urbanizing, if not urban, areas?

What programs do you have to encourage young farmers to stay on the

land? Are there any programs to support part-time farmers, and have

them, instead of having to work off the farm, be able to receive enough

income from their farming operations to make a living? There are

programs in other provinces like that. I'm trying to find the precise

reference for it, but the minister was talking about that this morning

— a national policy. I don't know whether he wants to bring down

everybody else to our level or to bring us up to their level, in terms

of the things I'm talking about.

Facilitate the transfer of farm property from retiring farmers.... A

lot of farmers can't retire, because that's their pension — their farm

— and they have to charge their family, often their sons. There are

programs in Alberta and Manitoba to facilitate these transfers, often

in the family. Does the government have any policies in these areas? Is

it something he'd be prepared to work on with us on this side of the

House? Maybe the minister could encourage the select standing committee

to do some travelling around, to junket around B.C. in our free time, as

if we didn't have enough to do — not that I need any more trips with

standing committees.

We'd like the minister to consider this. His colleagues have a lot

of respect for him; we on this side of the House do too. We didn't like

much what he did yesterday — the ethanol plant — but we won't rub that

in too much.

Brinkman — I quoted him this morning too — found higher levels of

financial stress in B.C. agriculture than in any other part of Canada.

Two thousand farmers left the land in the last five years. If the

farmers are leaving the land, that puts pressure on it for subdivision

as well. "If we can't make any money on it, why not chop it up and sell

it?" I heard that this morning from the member from central Okanagan.

If you can't make a living on the farm and you're stuck with it, and

now you won't even let me sell it for another purpose.... So you've

frozen me into poverty in perpetuity. That's a serious problem; I

wouldn't minimize it at all.

Just let me read about some of these programs in Manitoba. I

mentioned Alberta and Manitoba. We've got a young farmers' rebate

program. It provides farmers under 40 years of age with a 4 percent

rebate on the last $50,000 of their principal, for a long-term ten-year

or five-year period. Available in Manitoba is a part-time farmer

program. They can obtain loans for both capital and operating. There's

a farm start program, again in Alberta and Manitoba; a beginning farmer

program; a loan guarantee program in Alberta; in Manitoba, a farm

development guarantee program; a Family Farm Protection Act; farm

foreclosure.... So these things are all in existence, but they aren't

in existence here.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What the hell's the point in trying to keep people on the land if they can't sell it anyway?

But there are programs the minister talked about which are marketing

programs. The problems are not production anymore; they're finance and

marketing. Would the minister agree with that? I wonder if he would

care to ruminate a little bit about some of the things he might be

interested in doing to solve or at least ameliorate some of these very

serious problems.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I thank the hon. opposition House Leader. You can call it "ruminate." I'm not going to get indigestion on it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I said I hope I don't get indigestion on it, if we're going to ruminate here.

MR. ROSE: Have you got four stomachs?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I hope not. I might look like it.

Let me assure you, Mr. Member, that we're well aware of the number

of foreclosures. Not only are there foreclosures, we're also aware of a

number of farmers who don't even go through the process; they

quitclaim, or they turn the keys in. A lot of those aren't even a

matter of record. They've left the land.

For a good example, in the Peace River district of this province in

excess of 100,000 acres will likely not be in production this year

because the farmers have left the land. It's a substantial figure, yet

we know there is stockpile after stockpile of grain in surplus. In

Canada we're short of No. 1 wheat, but that may be eliminated this year

with a good crop. We're short on the specialty areas where there is a

market, and yet there are excessive stocks in Canada of some of the

feed grain sectors.

You talk about part-time farmers: how do they make a living? On a

number of occasions we've had discussions on part-time farmers: the

level at which they farm, what they've got themselves involved in, what

criteria could be plugged in to make them eligible for provincial

programs. The previous guidelines were that if they earned more than

$50,000 off the farm, they would not be eligible to qualify for

interest reimbursement or for a number of other farm programs.

You asked a question on right-to-farm legislation. That's one piece

of legislation you will probably see very shortly — not in this

session, but probably in the fall session or in the spring. We are

working very diligently on that one. Bill 62, as you will recollect....

I believe the hon. member previously from Central Fraser Valley brought

in Bill 62 with a number of recommendations relative to setbacks,

intensive agriculture, etc. The agricultural protection act that we're

[ Page

2339 ]

working on — or, as you call it, right-to-farm legislation — is

being drafted to make sure that all those guidelines can be adhered to,

between the responsibility of the agricultural community and also the

responsibilities of the urban community expanding into the farm area.

Retiring farmers who wish to get out of the business — maybe

transfer the farm to their son — can, under the federal Income Tax Act,

transfer without capital gain to a family member. There is a provision

in the act. If a young farmer wants to start today, there's a number of

programs that we've put in.... I won't take credit for them, but the

ministry, through consultation with the industry, has implemented

programs where, when a person decides to stop farming, his allotment

for a right to a market is held back at 10 percent for the provision of

a young farmer or a new farmer starting up.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: In supply management systems, or whatever.

We are now holding back 10 percent for a provision for the startup

people to have a chance to get into the business. Those programs were

implemented very recently and after thorough discussion with the

industry and with ministry staff.

MR. ROSE: Referring to the earlier comment about a national

program, I don't know how that will work. The provinces vary. I know

that the Peace River farmers' union wants feed freight assistance from

the Peace River to Vancouver Island — I mentioned some of this last

night — and I don't know if that has been accomplished. They're

concerned about hay imports from the U.S. I think the minister and I

discussed this once before and decided that it was probably the

conversion of the barley price that determined the hay price down

there. But it's not much help to know that. Being able to name it

doesn't necessarily solve the problem. There's a fertilizer rebate in

Alberta: $50 a tonne for nitrogen and $25 for phosphates. We don't have

that. They're asking for a forage seed-down program; I don't think

these exist as well. There are tax removal and rebates for farm fuel —

you talked about an ethanol plant. Anyway, in Alberta it's 52 percent

lower than B.C. in terms of the cost.

I'll leave that, but those are programs that might be helpful, other

than, say, your ethanol plant. Your ethanol plant may or may not be

financially viable; it may be pie in the sky. A million bucks a job is

a big-ticket item. That's like a Candu reactor or a tar sands plant.

That's what they cost: a million bucks a job. That seems to be a

tremendous input, and there are probably things that could be done more

effectively and cheaply. They won't be as flashy. You won't be able to

point to them and touch them and say: "You know. we built this."

I won't repeat the rather spirited debate of last night over ethyl alcohol

— part of it stimulated by it, I think. I’d just like to leave you on

a kind of global note. The western Premiers in their last meeting recommended

Canada reduce that stockpile you just talked about by feeding the hungry people

of the world. The act says you can buy, transport, dispose of products. Your

budget has been cut in half in five years in real dollars, so I wonder if the

minister would ever consider that sort of thing. Would you support a resolution,

perhaps, to the standing committee so we can have a look at this and make certain

kinds of recommendations? The population five or ten years ago was at three

billion. It's approaching six billion now, so whether we've got surpluses

or not, certainly the world isn't going to have any for very much longer.

This is an urgent and ongoing problem, and I think, despite the

gripes we have, we are the luckiest people in the world when you really

come right down to it. I mean, we have our little interpersonal

problems. I want to leave this on a rather high note before I turn it

over to the high flyer from Prince Rupert over there. It really is a

very serious thing. We have substantial problems. We have gaps

enlarging between the affluent in our society and the destitute. That's

not to say we're without problems, but compared to many places, we're

living in heaven here. We just want to make it a little more heavenly

by helping some of the others who perhaps are not as fortunate.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: With regard to the comments about the

concerns that the farmers in the Peace River had for some of the

programs, I have visited there three times since January and consulted

with the group you mentioned and a grain producers' group up there. I

am planning to go up there very shortly to meet with the chamber of

commerce to see what ideas we can put forward to improve the

agricultural situation in the Peace River in conjunction with the other

groups.

[3:15]

On a number of occasions requests have come forward to our ministry

as to how we could help. I mentioned last night the special grains

program we're working on for the Peace River, and that's outside of the

budget that we have here. That's a special appropriation that I felt

was addressing a direct need, where there was extreme hurt from the

marketplace. We're doing the best we can to try and get the best result

for the dollars we have to work with.

As for the $50-an-acre plow-down program, we've been looking at that

one. We don't think we can touch the fertilizer rebate program that

Alberta has.

The second thing is that the grain program that existed and the fuel

rebate — just taking those two in Alberta, our neighbouring province —

amounted to $338 million. Fuel to the farming community in Alberta was

at 9.7 cents a litre. That's what farmers in Alberta were paying for

fuel.

In the new budget that has come down in Alberta, they have upped

fuel, I believe, 5.1 cents a litre. They have reduced the grain payment

from $21 to $13 effective July 1. So they have had to come to grips

with overexpenditures in trying to keep their farmers in operation as

well.

The real crux of the problem lies with the federal government coming

to grips with an overall policy for the country, and that's the

position we're taking forward next week — how important it is to

address it on a national basis rather than each province two-bitting

one another, trying to upstage one another in a program.

MR. MILLER: I just briefly want to ask the minister about an

issue of some concern in my constituency and of some concern as well to

the southern B.C. coast, and that is the whole situation with regard to

the unfair trade practices charge or allegation that was put forward by

some dozen U.S. fish processors who basically charged that there is an

unfair practice because Canada prohibits the export of some species of

salmon and herring without those species first being processed in

Canada. Of course, the United States does not have similar provisions.

[ Page 2340 ]

As I understand it, that charge, if you like, has been referred to

GATT for some kind of resolution. But the potential impact in British

Columbia could be quite severe. There are thousands of shoreworkers'

jobs in British Columbia, and I'm quite cognizant — very aware — of the

economic benefit of those jobs to my community of Prince Rupert.

I should add that because Alaska does not have the processing

capacity to deal with the huge salmon harvest taken there, Prince

Rupert processes a fairly large chunk of the Alaska pink run, creating

lots and lots of jobs. I'd like to know from this minister what this

government has done in terms of filing statements of defence or

position papers, or allying themselves with the Canadian government and

trying to do all they can to protect the shoreworkers' jobs in the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that we have

submitted our case as to the value of the processing sector in not only

the wild fishing stock but in aquaculture that could also benefit the

processing sector. We have made that statement to the Ministry of

Economic Development, which in turn has related it to the federal

government. We are following up very closely on those statements and

comments.

We've asked for review on the follow-up material that will be put

forward to see that the proper material is sent to the federal

government. We feel, as you have stated, that it's very important to

keep those onshore jobs and the processing industry surviving in

Canada, and specifically on the west coast.

MR. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce to this House

some friends from Chilliwack: Tsako and Louise Czander, with their two

children, Trichelle and Tiffanny. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: Without belabouring the point, and hopefully

taking just a few minutes, is it possible for the B.C. government to

actually take a position in terms of discussions at GATT? Or do you

really have to rely on sending forward a position paper to the federal

government?

You know, it's a long way from here to eastern Canada, and the

people who may be carrying that case forward.... It would seem to me,

given the importance of the issue in terms of the kinds of jobs

produced on the B.C. coast, that we should actually have somebody on

the ground. Let's not just send a paper; let's send a paper in

somebody's hand who is prepared to fight and argue quite vociferously

and quite strongly, so that B.C.'s position is well represented.

We saw what happened on the east coast with the referral to the

world court of fishing-ground disputes on Georges Bank. The next thing

you know, those jobs can slip away pretty quick. Is the minister

prepared to send somebody representing the B.C. government to be on the

ground at those GATT deliberations, to make sure our position is put

forward properly?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to send a person

to represent us, and we are very vociferously presenting our case to the Ministry

of Economic Development, who in turn is relating it to Ottawa. We are also relaying

it to Ottawa.

As you well recognize, it is a federal jurisdiction. But I'm very

willing to make sure that we have a person strongly arguing our case

for the west coast fishery.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a few

minutes and address, through you, my comments to the minister. First of

all, I would like to say to the opposition House Leader how

entertaining it is to listen to him trying to make political hay on an

agricultural issue.

As one who comes from Okanagan South, I would like to state the

importance of agriculture to the economic health of all of the

Okanagan, and of my constituency in particular. I come from an area

that is not protected by commodity supply marketing organizations,

therefore my perspective is substantially different from the bulk of

the agricultural supply areas in the lower mainland.

We're faced with a problem at the moment with the Washington State

herd reduction plan. A surplus of hay is being sent across into Canada

and sold to markets that are normally supplied by hay-growers in the

Okanagan as well as in the Kamloops area. It's very difficult to

compete, as the cost landed here is below our cost of production. I'm

concerned about horticulture, tree fruits, apples and soft fruits.

I substantiate the remarks of the second member for Okanagan South

(Mr. Chalmers) with his concern about the grapes and the wine industry

in the Okanagan. I would like to inform the minister that our input

costs in horticultural areas have not declined. Land costs are high,

water costs are high and increasing, labour costs are high, energy and

fuel costs are increasing, spray material costs are increasing, and packing

charges are increasing. We are caught in an area where we have to

really recognize that agriculture is the shock absorber in an

inflationary economy. We are virtually in a dual economy in Canada, in

my view, and when we talk subsidies to agriculture, I perceive

agriculture as one area that is not really subsidized. What we are

doing with agriculture is asking it to absorb high, inflated input

costs on a local market, and then telling the producer to sell his

product at the world price.

I don't know what the answer is. They have tried various programs in

the States. Parity was one, where they endeavoured to maintain a

purchase value or price of a commodity parallel to inflation. We are

concerned very much about the impact of free trade on agriculture, as

you are, and you are well aware of our concerns there.

We can't simply legislate farmers to stay on the land. The

opposition House Leader has made his point about the ALR and lamenting

the loss of lands. Our problem is not the shortage of land; our problem

really, as far as price structure goes, is the ability to oversupply an

available market. We have this situation which exists, and I would just

like to say that it has to be addressed. We have to look at innovative

marketing, perhaps, rather than stress the emphasis on volume

production, on quality production. It will continue to be a very large

portion of our economy. As the populations increase in the Okanagan, I

can see a better opportunity for agriculture, as is the case in the

lower mainland where we can sell directly from the producer to the

consumer without the higher transportation costs.

Agriculture is, and will remain, a very important part of the

economy of British Columbia, and as a member of your committee I would

like to have the opportunity to endeavour

[ Page

2341 ]

to explore a system whereby we can work together to encourage the

viability of the agricultural sector. It is exceedingly difficult,

because I have people in my constituency who have owned places outright

and are now living on second and third mortgages.

MR. ROSE: I did forget one very important riding

consideration. I touched on it earlier. I want to know the minister's

reaction to the proposal I have on the order paper as a resolution. In

order to preserve farmland, and Colony Farm in my riding, some 600

acres there.... It's not being sold at $6,000 an acre. That's probably

what it's worth, but it hasn't been sold for two years. It's

degenerating. People want it preserved as farmland, and there have been

some recent what I think to be absurd proposals. They were sort of just

scams and schemes and development things.

The proposal I was making was to have it transferred to agriculture

so it could be leased — it's now under BCBC — in smaller parcels. It's

two large 300-acre parcels. I worked it out on the map the other day

at $5,000 or $6,000 an acre, and it's worth about $3 million. But if it

were leased in smaller parcels on a long-term lease, a 20-year lease,

say, for blueberries, or if a syndicate of a number of growers could

take it over, would the ministry be interested in having that land

transferred for the purpose of the lease program under the agricultural

land reserve, as we do with Minnikhada farm, which is also in

Penticton, and is the estate of.... Former Lieutenant-Governor Hamber,

I believe, originally owned Minnikhada farm, along the Pitt River.

So I'd like to know whether the minister would be interested in that

proposal. There is also the possibility that BCBC could lease it, but

now they're under orders to sell it. Well, I doubt if it will be sold

as a viable farm. They lost the milk quota; that was privatized in '83.

What I'm afraid of is that we're going to have like what we had with

the 150-acre golf course right in the middle of Richmond. That's what's

going to happen to this.

I've talked about the farm before, and I won't go into the arguments

pro and con, or all the interesting things I could talk about there.

It's very important to the community that this be preserved. And if it

could be preserved for agriculture, for leasing of a commodity which is

doing very well on a long-term.... At 20 years and $250 an acre, as I

mentioned this morning, you'll get your $3 million back and we'll have

preserved 600 acres of the best farmland; or if not the best, virtually

the best — among the best, anyway — in the lower mainland. It would be

an island of serenity in a chaotic sea of urban life, if that isn't too

poetic.

I wonder if the minister would be interested in a proposal such as that, and what would he be prepared to do about it?

[3:30]

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The answer is yes. I can tell you unequivocally that I've had a couple of pretty fair agricultural proposals for that farm.

Vote 7 approved.

Vote 8: ministry operations, $61,447,939 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll say hello, through Hansard , to our good friend Garde Gardom, who will be reading the Blues in a week or two, or Hansard .

Vote 9: Milk Board, $367,973 — approved.

Vote 10: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $1,142,802 — approved.

Vote 11: agri-food regional development subsidiary agreement, $8,130,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 48: minister's office, $235, 919.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to start off this afternoon by

talking about B.C. Transit. I know the minister is aware that I have

done some work previously with citizens' groups in the lower mainland

around some of the concerns about public transit and the effects of the

transit decisions made over the past year or so. I'm particularly

interested in some of the policy decisions the ministry has made in the

recent past and the direction it's going in turning over the transit

commission to the municipalities and in creating a transit authority.

I wonder if the minister could start by talking a little bit about

those plans, about her intentions and also about the progress of the

transit funding formula.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In response to the member, probably the

very most I can tell you is that it is actively being worked on at this

very time. We have a deadline of April 1, 1988, and we will have no

problem in achieving that deadline.

MS. SMALLWOOD: That was in regard to the transit authority.

Does that also pertain to the funding formula? Can the minister give us

any information? My concern with regard to the funding formula

specifically is in regard to the current formula and what we saw late

last fall, with the Hydro levy being paid down by some additional

moneys that were found in increased ridership during the Expo period.

Can the minister indicate to us how long the money in that paydown

will last, and whether or not we will see an increase in the Hydro levy

back to the $5.30 before the new funding formula is prepared in April

of next year?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I doubt very much if there would be any

alterations during this fiscal year in the level of fee charged. It is

my hope that we will be in a position, in cooperation with the transit

commissions, to announce a new funding formula before this fall,

although our deadline is to have the new authority and funding formula

in place for April 1 .

You do realize, of course, that decisions with regard to how the

local share is raised are made by the transit authorities, not by the

minister or the ministry.

[ Page 2342 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm assuming that the minister is referring to

the transit commissions and to the transit commission that is now in

place in the GVRD. Can the minister tell us about the time-lines for

those negotiations? I understand that.... I'm trying to get at what the

minister meant by that. Is she saying that there may be a change to the

transit levy, and that that would be a decision of the transit

commission?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The funding formula is made up by

percentage figures, and at this time there is a surplus in the

Vancouver transit system. It appears very unlikely that there would be

any increase in either the Hydro or the transit levy, because of the

surplus that is available, but those decisions are made by the local

commission, not by the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Many of the citizens who have been involved

with the decisions around SkyTrain and public transit in the lower

the decision-making process itself. I understand that part of the

accountability process will be addressed when the transit commission

becomes an authority. I realize that this is a future decision, but has

the minister given any consideration to how that body can be more

accountable to the actual ridership and to the people who pay the bills?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The transit commissions are made up of

locally elected representatives. I'm talking of the commissions, not

the board of B.C. Transit. In the Vancouver area particularly, they're

made up of mayors who represent the various communities involved in the

Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. Surely, through the locally

elected representatives — in this case, with one exception, they happen

to be mayors — there should be availability for public input.

As far as further means of access by the public, no, I haven't

really given any thought to that. I felt comfortable with the fact that

there was already an available route for the citizens at large to take

through their locally elected mayors.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the last while, in particular with some of

the bus changes that have taken place, people in the lower mainland

have seen some local councils, through their representatives, engage in

representing their communities by trying to ensure that those bus

routes are maintained or that new bus routes serve that community.

However, that hasn't been universal. There have been other

municipalities that ran their local.... When the constituents have

raised complaints, the mayors or their representatives have referred

them to the commission, rather than using their office and the council

as representatives. So there has not been a direct link with all

municipalities to the local level.

Would the minister consider, through legislation that governs the

commissions, some sort of instruction to the representatives that would

open those channels of communication with their local municipalities

and the constituents affected by the bus-route changes?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really think that those avenues

are open. They may not always accommodate the requests made by the local residents.

I can assure the member opposite that I haven't been overly impressed with

some of the changes that have been made to the routing, and I have asked Mayor

Don Ross of Surrey, who is the chairman of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission,

to pay special notice when changes are being made and to ensure that any affected

local residents have an opportunity to speak on those changes. But I really

think that the avenue is there for public input, and certainly the fact that

we hear from the public when changes are not to their liking would suggest that

they are taking advantage of that opening and that avenue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Like many other ministries in your government,

what you are saying is that the people affected have the right to

appeal, that they have the right to have something to say about it

after the fact. You're acknowledging the fact that they are not

included in the actual decision-making process and that that process is

one that excludes the ridership. I would submit to you that the only

input that people have after the fact is appearing at the commission —

I will agree, in a public forum — but it is not a two-way street.

Information is not provided, and most of the decisions made by the

commission are made behind closed doors, with the exclusion of the

public.

As I've pointed out to the minister, I think if you care to look at

it, you can identify the municipalities that have been actively

involved with their constituents to influence the decisions — again,

after the fact — and actively involved trying to represent their local

ridership on the bus routes. The point is that there are major

municipalities that have totally relinquished that possibility or that

involvement. The only thing I can deduce from what the minister is

saying is that if the local municipalities don't like their

representatives, they should change them. If the minister is appointing

the representatives, what avenues do the local citizenry have to change

that representative? Are the representatives to the commissions

appointed by region, or what is the rationale?

[3:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, to the member, they are

appointed not by region but by area to ensure that all areas within

the service area are covered with elected representation. But the

commission meetings are open to the public, with the exception of

property and personnel matters and litigations. So those types of

discussions are certainly open. The commission meetings are not closed.

Those I have attended have had members of the general public in

attendance as well. So there is an opportunity for input.

But I think we have to accept that some of the decisions for service

and route changes are made as a result of experience with utilization

of the service. And if you have a service that regularly only has two

or three people on a bus, you are going to have to look very seriously

at how long you're going to continue that service. But, Mr. Chairman,

let me assure the member that as minister responsible for transit, my

idea of a transit system is one that truly serves the needs of the

people in the area, and if we aren't serving the needs of the people in

the area, we aren't providing a good transit system. So that's

certainly a goal I have set, and staff at transit are very well aware

of that goal.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm pleased to hear that that is the priority

for the minister. It's one that I would certainly share with her. I do,

however, have some concerns about the recent bus changes, as she also

has expressed them. I have concerns

[ Page 2343 ]

not only about the level of service that is offered to communities

such as the ones that both the minister and I represent, but also about

the overall impact of ridership on the whole system. I would point out

to the minister that when the outlying communities were undergoing

route changes, several people that contacted my constituency office

were quite frustrated when they talked to the administrators

responsible for those changes. They were told: "No one likes changes,

and you'll get used to it." It wasn't an open sort of discussion about

the needs of that ridership.

Some of the changes were not changes that reflected the

underutilization of particular buses or particular routes. I believe

that the commission and the people responsible readily admitted that it

was a centralization of the services, that it was a way of ensuring

ridership on the actual SkyTrain route. It was a centralization of bus

services to SkyTrain which does not acknowledge the overall needs for

public transportation in the whole of the lower mainland. I think that

what we're seeing by the reduction in ridership is the fact that that

system is being designed to deal with the huge costs incurred by it as

the number one priority, and not the priority, as the minister

suggests, being one of serving the needs of public transit in the lower

mainland.

Now I understand that the SkyTrain, ALRT, was designed and

originally projected to carry 12 to 15 percent of the total passengers

for the lower mainland. At this time the figures I have are that it is

carrying 23,000 passengers per day, which is approximately 7.6 percent,

which is quite a bit lower than the projected target for the overall

ridership in the lower mainland. With these kinds of decreasing numbers

and failure to meet the projected percentage, how does the minister

hope to be able to cover the costs incurred by the system? Does she see

the need for an increase in the actual fare charges for the SkyTrain

and for the bus service?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm having a bit of a problem accepting

the statement with regard to the reduction of ridership. There is no

question that we have a reduction of ridership as compared to last

year. But then we didn't expect the ridership in 1987 to be what it was

in 1986. I can also fully confirm the statement made with regard to

emphasis being placed on utilization of the SkyTrain facility. There is

an awful lot of taxpayers' money invested in SkyTrain, and there is no

question at all that we are attempting to take full advantage of

SkyTrain because of the type of service it is and because it is such an

acceptable service. There's no question at all that we've directed a

lot of the bus routes right to the SkyTrain stations. The ridership, as

I understand it, is as should be expected if we compare it with the

Expo year, which was excessive.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The point I was making about reduction in

ridership did not relate to the numbers as they were influenced by

Expo. The point that I was making was that the original projection for

the percentage of ridership for the whole of the lower mainland was

that 12 percent to 15 percent of the total ridership in the lower

mainland would use SkyTrain.

What we are seeing now is that the percentage of the total ridership

is 7.6 percent for SkyTrain, which is considerably less than the

original projected ridership for that system. The point that is of

relevance here is that the payment of this huge cost that was incurred

by putting this system in place rode on those numbers.

It was projected that you would need 12 percent to 15 percent of the

total ridership to be able to deal with this cost. While we're seeing

half of the projected ridership, my question was: would the minister

see an increase in the cost to that 7.6 percent to be able to make up

the difference? Where will we make up the difference in the cost?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have quite a collection of numbers in

front of me, and I don't have the 12 percent figure. According to the

numbers that we have, we're looking at something in excess of 9 percent

ridership on SkyTrain, and I think it's certainly worthy of note that

this is a fully integrated system between the bus, the SeaBus, SkyTrain

and handyDART. I don't think you can really zero in on one facet of the

operation.

I'm just not sure where the 12 percent has come from, because I don't have that figure here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The 12 percent was provided in the initial

discussions between the province, B.C. Transit and the GVRD when the

system was first talked about. When the minister says this is a fully

integrated system and that we can't talk about SkyTrain in isolation,

and then at the same time admits to the House that, yes, the buses are

being centralized because this is a major expenditure of public money,

that is a contradiction.

What the minister and the transit commission are doing is treating

the SkyTrain as a special entity. It is centralizing all of the

services to SkyTrain and ignoring the integral needs of other

components of the lower mainland transit system. What we have seen by

this centralization of transit system, I would suggest to the minister,

has been a reduction in ridership. To support that statement, I would

direct the minister to look at the last go-round of actual fare

increases and some of the comments of the planners of the transit

system, where they said that this increase at the fare box would reduce

the ridership from the outlying communities by 1 percent.

One percent of the ridership at that time meant that there would be

a reduction of 1,500 riders per day. Every decision — the fare

increases, the centralization of buses to that service — has its cost,

and those costs are reflected in a reduction of ridership. Rather than

encouraging riders, encouraging the use of public transit to pay for

the cost of this system, there have been policy decisions since Expo

that have actually caused a reduction in ridership and a reduction in

the use of public transit in the lower mainland.

Those were your own figures, and those are your own officials that

have made those comments. Perhaps the minister could tell us — if,

indeed, her priority is public transit and the support of a transit

system — why she is allowing her officials and the transit commission

to make decisions that, by their own calculations, reduce the ridership.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The latest report that was brought

forward by the transit officials regarding the SkyTrain popularity is

certainly worthy of note. We have a release here dated July 7, and, Mr.

Chairman, I think that the numbers are worth reading into the record.

The commencement of SkyTrain service in January 1986 introduced

substantial changes to the transit system in Vancouver's lower

mainland. In order to determine the impact of SkyTrain on the travelling

habits of lower mainland commuters and to solicit public attitudes

towards SkyTrain, a survey of SkyTrain riders was undertaken during the

week of

[ Page 2344 ]

March 23 to 27, 1987. SkyTrain riders responded well to the survey.

A total of 4,015 questionnaires were returned of the 12,535 distributed

at SkyTrain stations, and the following highlights some of the results

from the survey.

SkyTrain has attracted a substantial number of new riders. A total

of 44 percent of SkyTrain riders either did not use transit or did not

make their trip prior to SkyTrain. This suggests that the system may

have increased transit ridership in the SkyTrain corridor by as much as

70 percent or 80 percent. More than 50 percent of the riders who

previously made their trip by car believe SkyTrain has reduced their

travel time. More than 19 percent of all SkyTrain riders previously

made their trip by car.

There are a substantial number of facts that were derived from the

questionnaire that was distributed, all indicating a very substantial

increase in new ridership and acceptance of the service. I would be

very pleased to provide the member with a copy of this report at a very

early time, Mr. Chairman.

[4:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I look forward to perusing the report.

However, I would point out to the minister that this is an attitudinal

report, and that what we're talking about here is numbers. We're

talking about numbers that will affect the cost-sharing formula for

this system, and we're talking about actual numbers and actual policy

decisions that have been made by this government since Expo, which

have, by their own admission, reduced the number of riders on that

system.

I want further to point out an additional policy decision that has

been made since, and I'll go back a considerable time. I'll go back to

September '83 and compare it with actual annual service hours. We'll

take a look at what has happened from '83 to June '87. This is the

number of service hours provided by the transit system, by the bus

system in, I believe, the lower mainland. It also deals with the

substantial increase that took place during the months when Expo caused

an additional pressure on the service.

I would point out that since September '83 there has been a net

decrease in the annual service hours, and that net decrease is 142,386

hours. That is quite phenomenal when you consider that between the

months of September '86 and April '87 there was an increase; and

between September '83 and January '87 that's predominantly the only

block where there was an increase in the hours of service. This

increase in service hours during Expo never even made up for the

previous decreases in that time.

We have an increase in the population in the lower mainland. We

clearly should have an increase in the ridership. We should have an

increase in service if the objective was one of providing a public

transit system to serve the needs of the public and to encourage people

not to use their automobiles. Can the minister explain to the House why

there is a policy decision that has caused a net decrease in hours of

service to the public through the transit system?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know whether it can be referred

to as a policy decision. I would suggest that it would be a service

decision based on experience and on requirements of the service. It's

as simple as that. We will not continue to operate on routes that are

not being utilized to the level that it is expected they should be

utilized. We also must realize that with SkyTrain we are providing a

faster service, so this could in turn result in a reduction of hours.

But it's not a policy decision to reduce hours; it's certainly a

service decision.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would suggest to the minister that a study

of the service offered would indicate that the service has been cut

back as much as the hours have been cut back. The point that I made

earlier was that the routes that have been eliminated — not all; surely

some, but not all — were cut back because those routes weren't used.

But it was the number one priority of centralizing it to the SkyTrain.

What we saw, and what we are seeing now with the route changes in

the last couple of months, is people who had relied on the public

transit system reverting to using their cars, because the service

provided in the lower mainland since Expo has not even fulfilled the

levels prior to Expo. We are seeing such significant changes because of

the costs of this very expensive system that we are now forcing people

back to their cars.

The minister suggests that the system is faster. What we are clearly

seeing in my community, and the minister knows the community well....

We have people living over on the east side of Surrey who once took a

bus through the Port Mann to downtown Vancouver. With that system now

eliminated, we're seeing an additional 40 minutes; it's taking them

over two hours to get to and from work, using the SkyTrain. They're

having to revert to their cars, because two hours is clearly

unacceptable.

Those are policy decisions, Madam Minister, and if the minister does

not see that that is part of her responsibility of making sure that

this transit system works, then I suggest that the transit system will

not work until we have a new and different administration. I know that

there are several other members and many other issues that need to be

dealt with in regard to the transit system, so I'll give those members

an opportunity to also question the minister.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will phrase my questions and comments

together and ask the minister then to respond. They all deal with the

matter of custom transit, which is one of the mandates of B.C. Transit.

The first question I would like to pose to the minister is to ask

for figures that identify the dollars in the B.C. transit system

designated for custom transit, and to ask what increase in those

dollars there is over the previous year.

The second question I want to ask has to do with expansion of custom

transit services. They are presently firmly established in the lower

mainland, but I know from my discussions with the minister and with a

number of communities throughout the province, particularly as this

service pertains to older people and to disabled people, there are

communities that have done needs studies according to the terms

established by the ministry, and all of the spadework for the

implementation of services has in fact been accomplished.

I would like to ask the minister if she is able to advise us which

communities will have custom transit services added in this fiscal

year, and if she can give us any indication of what her plans are for

the further expansion of this service into other communities.

I have one other issue that's a constituency issue. Perhaps what

I'll do is ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chair, if she would care

to respond to those questions. Or would she like me to continue with my

third question and then respond to all of them together?

[ Page 2345 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Do all three.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'll perhaps continue with the third matter.

Some time ago I raised in the House a matter regarding the policy of

ridership for custom transit, and the minister has indicated that that

matter is under review. The issue was ridership for developmentally

delayed preschool children in the greater Vancouver area, who in many

instances have been transported to their schools through the custom

transit system. I'd like to acknowledge that the authority has in fact

indicated that those children presently being carried by that service

will continue to be transported. But there is still the issue of

ongoing policy, which is determined in part by the local authority; it

is also mandated under the transit act, which defines those people who

should be covered.

I've given some considerable thought to this issue, and I've had

some discussion with custom transit operators in our area, and there

certainly is a consensus among the operators that the policy should be

as flexible as possible. In other words, local operators — who very

often, as is the case in a good decentralized system, are able to

maximize services if the policy option is available to them — are

prepared to consider their options in transporting these children.

Given the increasing productivity of custom transit operators, I think

we can in fact very often rely on them to accommodate the needs of

these children. I'd like to ask the minister how that policy

development regarding the preschool children is coming along, and

whether she and the transit authority would give consideration to

having a policy that allows considerable latitude to the locally

contracted operator so that we don't cut off options for these children

to be transported to these programs in the most cost-effective way.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: On the first question to do with custom

transit, I can tell you that in the Vancouver regional transit system

estimates for custom transit service, we are looking at a budget of

$5,468,376, which is a decrease of $98,000 from '86-87. In the Victoria

regional transit system, we're looking at $930,181, which is an

increase of $28, 983. In the small community systems, we're looking at

$1,884,147, which is an increase of $214,732. The small communities

and paired transit systems: we operate in Abbotsford-Matsqui,

Alberni-Clayoquot, Kamloops-Kelowna, Maple Ridge-Penticton, Prince

George-Prince Rupert and Vernon. Those will continue, but decisions

with regard to new systems have not been made at this time.

On the transportation for special needs children, I think it's

important that the policy as originally designed be read into the

record. It was originally designed to transport handicapped people to

and from work and post-secondary education; to transport handicapped

adults and children to medical appointments; and to transport adults to

key social events. In some areas operators have included a few — the

figure given me is 15 — handicapped children for preschool trips as a

daily commitment. This was not the original intention, but it appears

that it has worked well in some of the areas, and B.C. Transit is

currently reviewing the policy concerning the busing of handicapped

children. I think it will all come down to dollars and cents, and there

is currently no budget for a major change in the HandyDART system.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Madam Minister, for the information.

On the matter of small communities and new systems, the minister has

indicated that no decisions have been made for any additional services

to be implemented this year. In the dollar figures that I've noted,

though, she does indicate a fairly significant increase in the budget

for those small communities, given reductions in the GVRD and a very

modest increase in Victoria. Would the minister be able to comment

about whether there are some budget amounts that would allow some new

services to be implemented in this fiscal year, even though specific

decisions about what communities would receive those services have not

been made yet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, it appears that Cowichan

Valley and Prince Rupert are both new services and will subsequently

amount to an increase in the budget, because there was nothing shown

for them in 1986-87.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just one final comment to emphasize the point I

have been making around the latitude available to local operators in

providing service to meet the needs of the community.

I appreciate the minister's comment that the children who have been

carried seem to have been integrated into the system. The point I was

making in encouraging the minister and the Transit Authority to

consider allowing some flexibility, recognizing that none of the custom

transit services can in fact meet all the needs of the community.... I

think community members and operators recognize that. But a policy that

allows for community decision-making and community latitude, given that

the productivity, particularly of this system, has been very

significantly increased by the cooperation between the operators and

the authorities.... I just want to emphasize again that I hope the

minister will do her best to allow that kind of latitude, which is

consistent with the way these services have operated to the benefit of

the communities in which they exist.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I'm well aware of the

valuable work the member has done in the community in this particular

area. Let me assure the member that the copy of Hansard will be

forwarded to the commission, in order that they may attempt to address

your concerns.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I feel that the minister has

been doing her best to answer the questions being asked here today. I

find the answers not all that satisfactory. I don't blame the minister

for that, because I believe that in inheriting this portfolio, she has

inherited a dog's breakfast. I think we could take a look at that by

looking at the recent history of transit.

Saner voices from all parts of the political spectrum and the

planning sector have been calling for a comprehensive transit plan for

the lower mainland for many years. What we've had has been planning

that has been subject to the vagaries of political concern. This has

put this minister into an intolerable position, in terms of trying to

administer this situation.

All we have to do is look at the reality of SkyTrain. I don't think

anybody is questioning the reality of having rapid transit; it's needed

and it's socially responsible. But when we look at the way it was

planned, it was fast-tracking to deal with the megaproject of Expo. Now

that that fast-tracking has

[ Page 2346 ]

gone by the boards and the political planning in terms of where it

was actually located has taken place, we're left with trying to pick up

the pieces.

We're left with trying to pay the costs, and all the people in

British Columbia have to deal with that. All the people in the lower

mainland have to try to deal with the kinds of problems that the member

for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) has been pointing out.

The fact that there would be decisions made — such as fare box

increases — and that officials from within the transit bureaucracy

would be saying they knew that by doing so, that was going to reduce

ridership....

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Michael) was sitting here a few

moments ago, and every opportunity he had, he would say, "aye, aye,"

wanting this to come to an end. I think he wanted it to come to an end

because he knows that the kinds of political decision-making that have

created problems within transit are also causing problems for the

highways system. So we have the problems on the Barnet Highway. We have

the problems of people on the 401 freeway trying to get into Vancouver,

and we have a system that's resulting in fewer people using the system

and more people going back to their cars.

Clearly the fast-tracking prior to Expo has got off the track. This

minister is left trying to make some semblance of sanity out of the

situation, and I really do congratulate her for doing the very best she

can, given the circumstances. But it really is a mess.

For instance, the mayors of the district have for a long time been

asking to sit down and take a look at the possibility of commuter rail

along the North Shore adjacent to Burrard Inlet and up into the Maple

Ridge area. All the people involved were willing to sit down and

negotiate on that and take a look at it. The mayors were willing to do

that. The CPR was willing to do that. My colleague the MLA for

Coquitlam-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) was willing to do that. The Members of

Parliament in the area were willing to do that.

Who wasn't willing? The one person who wasn't willing was the person

who at that time had responsibility for transit. That person, who

helped to create the mess, is now the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). She wasn't willing to sit down. Why? Because she

wanted to be able to rationalize all the dollars to go under the

political decision for the process that we now have, instead of sitting

down with those very sane minds that cross all parts of the political

spectrum. I never thought that I'd see myself during an election

campaign trying to defend the CPR. But during the campaign the Premier

of this province blamed the CPR for not being willing to sit down and

negotiate on commuter rail. It was the person who is now the Minister

of Economic Development who refused to sit down and negotiate on the

possibility of commuter rail.

On the point of commuter rail, I would like to ask the minister: is

she willing to instruct her officials to sit down with the people who

are involved in the various councils and the CPR, and look at the

possibility of commuter rail to help deal with the problems we have in

transit?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am pleased to tell the member that I

have asked my transit staff to pull the reports that had been done and

update them in a very preliminary way in order that I can be better

acquainted with the original proposal for commuter rail. I would be

pleased to share the report with you, hon. member, but I can assure you

that in discussions I had this very day with the mayor of Coquitlam, we

were in complete agreement that commuter rail would really not solve

too many problems in that area.

For a service dealing with the railway, we're looking at two trips

each way a day, with an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $45

million, in order to bring that about. If we want to have five trips a

day, we're looking at an expenditure in excess of $60 million — in 1986

dollars. Well, it's really hardly worth it. We would still be on

railroad property. We would own nothing. We would have put out an awful

lot of the taxpayers' money for very little service.

So can I assure you at this very time that in your area we will be

asking the newly formed authority to give the improvement to transit

service a very high priority, as we have been doing at transit at this

particular time. The fact that there are no tracks running out to

Coquitlam at this time certainly shouldn't suggest that the transit

officials have not been working on the problem. But there appears to be

more than just a servicing problem. In speaking to the mayor this

morning, I determined that even if we were in a position to give

Coquitlam-Port Moody 50 more buses, the road system is unable to

accommodate a speed-up in the service because of the population growth

in the area.

So commuter rail is not the answer, and I would be pleased to share

that report with you. I have no question at all that you will agree

with the decision made by my predecessor that that was not the way to

go. We are seriously looking at improvements to the transit service in

Coquitlam, and there's little doubt in my mind that we will be talking

about a SkyTrain to Coquitlam before too long.

MR. CASHORE: That is reassuring. I do not wish to get into a

discussion with the minister at this time with regard to whether or not

the minister and I agree that there should be commuter rail. I was

trying to make the point that it's very important, when planning needs

to be done, that all participants be available to sit down and look at

the possibilities, and that the possibilities were not looked at when

they should have been looked at. I still think it would be worthwhile,

notwithstanding the points that have just been made, that that

discussion take place, so that in the mind's eye of the public it can

be seen that this has been studied properly, and that now we can

understand why that is the decision that is being made.

W.A.C. Bennett, I believe, at the time of the building of the Deas

Island Tunnel — there was quite a bit of opposition at that time to the

decision that he'd made — made the statement that it was a triumph of

imagination over the cold, hard facts of engineering.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Gaglardi.

MR. CASHORE: Well, maybe it was Gaglardi. I think it was Mr. Bennett, but we won't get into that.

MR. S.D. SMITH: What did the NDP say about that tunnel? They said it was a tunnel to nowhere and they wouldn't build it.

MR. CASHORE: Well, I don't know if the second member for

Kamloops is wanting to build a tunnel up to Kamloops or not, but I

think that given the way that planning is going with this government

right now, the tunnel to Kamloops

[ Page 2347 ]

might very well be put ahead of some of the very urgent needs that need to be dealt with right away.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: The minister said that the people who are

appointed to the regional transit commission are appointed not on the

basis of region but on the basis of area. I would ask the minister to

name the areas and to name the members of the commission who represent

those areas.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Prior to reading off the list of names

that we have of members serving on our transit commission, I think we

should make it very clear to the hon. member that there's absolutely no

question at all but that we have by far the very best integrated

transit system in North America.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Canadian-made.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: And Canadian-made; that's very important.

But if you spent any time during the Expo season using our transit

system, and if you took the opportunity to talk to any of the tourists

using the system, you would have been absolutely convinced, and you

would feel the same way that those involved with the transit system

feel: that we do have the best system in North America, without

question.

Now on the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission we have Mayor Don

Ross of Surrey; we have Mayor Gil Blair of Richmond; we have Mayor

Gordon Campbell of the city of Vancouver, along with Alderman Phillip

Owen; we have Mayor Donald Lanskail from West Vancouver; we have Mayor

David Driscoll of Port Moody; and we have Mayor Thomas Baker of New

Westminster.

The Victoria Regional Transit Commission is made up of Alderman

Frank Carson of Victoria, Alderman Coell of Victoria, Mayor Howard

Sturrock of Saanich, Mayor Hill of Esquimalt, Director R. Nestman of

Sooke, Mayor Gretchin Brewin of Victoria and Mayor Norma Sealey of

Sidney.

[4:30]

MR. CASHORE: I would certainly take exception to the

statement that we have the best integrated transit system in North

America. I would like to hear

chapter and verse cited on that. Anyone

who has travelled on the system in Toronto would say that it's vastly

superior. We have people who are travelling from Coquitlam trying to get

into Vancouver, but because of the location of SkyTrain and the way

it's set up now in order to rationalize the political planning that has

been done, they have to travel in a direction parallel to where they

want to go in order to get over to the SkyTrain. The service has

deteriorated.

The member for Vancouver South may think that's quite funny, but

it's not funny to people in Coquitlam and the area out there who find

that the service has deteriorated. I can't think of any responsible

public official or politician who would advocate that, yet that is what

has happened. Statistics have been given by the member for

Surrey-Guildford Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) showing that the ridership has

decreased.

We also have the situation that this regional transit commission is

taking the flak for the political mistakes that have been made by this

government, and those people have been put in an impossible figurehead

situation. Until we have a comprehensive transit plan for the region

that takes planning seriously, we're going to continue to have the type

of divide-and-conquer thing where we find different municipalities in

conflict with each other. It's a conflict that's created by the

inadequacy of the planning that's done, by the political interference

of this Social Credit government in terms of transit matters in the

lower mainland.

I think this is a very serious situation. I just want to say that

with regard to the number of times I have appeared before the regional

transit commission and have had to deal with the bizarre situation of

the regional transit levy, which I believe the minister should assure

us, since it's an unfair levy, that she would remove altogether from

the hydro bill.... We've heard from students who have to deal with

these increases at the fare box, knowing that the maximum student loan

is limited. Yet some students have to pay over $800 during an

eight-month term.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Again the member for Vancouver South doesn't

seem to care about students, because perhaps he didn't have to worry

about transit when he was trying to get an education.

This government says that young people should get out there and make

it for themselves, and even in the transit system, roadblocks are being

put in their way to make this very difficult for them. I'll leave it at

that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the member for Vancouver South for that applause. I appreciate that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You will get some bright thought now, as you usually do, from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I didn't hear what the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) had to say, but I'm sure it was complimentary, as he usually is.

I want to move to more traditional municipal matters, to take us

away from Toronto and bring us to an area of the province that's not

too far from the steps of the Legislature: the Western Community. For

the benefit of the minister — and she probably knows — the Western

Community is that portion of my riding that is west of the municipality

of Esquimalt.

The minister probably is aware of the fact that for some time now,

or until very recently, that has been the largest unincorporated

urbanized area in the province. I believe it still is — or it's very

close to it, if it's not. We've recently seen the incorporation of the

municipalities of Colwood and Metchosin in that region, and I think

it's fair to say that both the municipalities have had their share of

growing pains.

I think it's also fair to say that they're doing remarkably well and that, talking to the municipal representatives on

[ Page 2348 ]

those councils, the relationship and communication between the

ministry and those municipalities and the unincorporated areas of

Langford, View Royal and Sooke have been very good. I must applaud the

minister and her staff for that, because that's a universal statement

that I've been getting when I meet with those officials.

MR. BLENCOE: However....

MR. SIHOTA: However, I want to very quickly canvass what I

view as the emerging municipal issues in that growing area, because I

know that they are going to be issues that will occupy the mind of the

minister, I hope, and the officials in time to come.

If I were to crystal-ball it a bit, I would think that, particularly

in Langford and Colwood, we are going to be seeing in the next few

years major problems and a major push to have the area sewered

properly. Right now the entire Langford-Colwood region is serviced by

septic tanks, and we've had phenomenal growth in the area.

We also have a very significant amount of bedrock in the area, and

we're now beginning to find that the septic tanks just aren't doing the

job. We're beginning to see development higher up, particularly in

areas such as Triangle Mountain. The runoff going down the mountain and

then hitting the homes at the foot of the mountain, which is going to

accumulate the water, then goes down the drainage dikes and tends to

smell up the whole neighbourhood to the point that it is the number one

municipal problem that I and the regional directors and the municipal

councils have in the area right now, to the point where prior to being

elected as a member of the Legislature I was engaged in a couple of

lawsuits against the Capital Regional District for improper enforcement

of regulations dealing with septic tanks — cases that are still headed

towards the courts and that, of course, have an effect on municipal

liability and all that kind of stuff, if one looks at it. And they're

scheduled to be in court next year.

Today — if I can bring it right up to date — we have a decision

being made by the Capital Regional District not to construct a 75-unit

intermediate-care facility in a particular site in the Western

Community because of problems with effluent and septic tanks and

sewering. And that's unfortunate, because the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck) and I have been working together very much, trying to bring

about the construction of that facility. Fortunately we've identified

another site that will work, but if that hadn't happened, we would have

been short of that much-needed facility as well in the Langford-Colwood

area.

If I look down the road, it seems to me that we're going to have to

have greater contribution and commitment from the province with respect

to the provision of sewers in the Western Community. I view that as

part of an overall municipal infrastructure program, and I'm sure every

other MLA will say the same. But I truly mean this, given the unusual

nature of the Western Community — its unprecedented size, its rate of

growth and its currently unincorporated status. I cannot think of

another region in the province that would benefit more from a

comprehensive municipal infrastructure program. That aside, I know

there are provincial programs for the assistance of municipalities to

encourage them to get into proper sewage programs. I'm wondering if the

minister could tell me what the criteria are for funding sewer programs.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are a number of ways in which the

program is approached. Generally, I guess the bad news is that it's on

a 75-25 percent sharing, with the province picking up 25 percent. In

rare, very serious circumstances generally pertaining to smaller

communities that have a very, very low tax base, we've been able to go

as high as 50 percent, and that is a new program we introduced this

year.

But if the information that my deputy recalls is accurate, we're

looking at a sizeable amount of money for the services in that area. I

would hope that we may be successful in bringing about the introduction

of the federal-provincial local infrastructure program. There is a

ministers' conference in August, which I understand has this very high

on the priority list. If we are able to convince the federal government

that they should be participating in these types of programs, the

chances for putting together assistance for your community will be far

greater. But it's a substantial amount of money. And it appears, if

what you've said is correct, that it's a situation that can't be

ignored.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, it's a great pleasure to see you in the chair — so you can't heckle. [Laughter.]

There is no doubt that this will become the emerging issue in the

Western Community; it's already a horrendous problem. We have people

right now who are buying homes and after six or eight months discover

that their septic fields aren't working. We have developers who aren't

properly building septic tanks to CRD standards. We have regulations

that aren't being enforced. We have court cases going on with respect

to the problems with effluent running off from other areas into

neighbourhoods. We have the diminishment of property values.

We now have the introduction of an additional property tax of about

22 percent on unincorporated areas, pursuant to the budget, so the

people living in unincorporated areas are going to be paying tax rates

equivalent to those of municipally incorporated areas but not receiving

the same services. Of course, they were willing to do that in the past,

but now, with the introduction of the budget measures, that's also a

factor.

Because of the quantum of money that's involved in bringing about a

comprehensive sewer type of a program in the Western Community,

particularly in Colwood and Langford, the tax bill for the average

residential taxpayer — I haven't calculated it — is going to skyrocket

incredibly, which makes it politically difficult, if not impossible,

for municipalities to move in that direction, because they know that

the whole issue is going to boomerang back at them when residents get

hit with those property taxes. It is a problem unique in the province,

I would submit, in that area, simply because of the unprecedented level

of urbanization in the Western Community that has gone on without

incorporation. We can see areas such as View Royal moving in that

direction without much difficulty, because it's a compact enough

municipality, but Langford and Colwood are a different story.

I agree with the minister when she says that the federal-municipal-local program is certainly a step in the right direction, and

I hope as much as everybody else does that that works out. In the

Western Community we not only have a sewer problem; we have Bilston

Creek, which is stopping development in the Western Community because

of annual flooding. They've had to have a moratorium on development

[ Page 2349 ]

around that whole creek, which is a natural area for development. I know the minister's assistant knows all about the problems.

[4:45]

We have Sooke, where we can't get clean water for half the year —

that's a bit of an exaggeration; for a quarter to a third of the year —

because all of the water from the Sooke Lake area is being diverted

into the city of Victoria, and the water for Sooke is coming from the

existing creek, and there's no pipe that runs through there that allows

clean water to run along Charters creek and into the main Sooke stream.

Then we have the need to upgrade the whole Sooke water system program

as it is, because the people who are involved in the fire department

will tell you, and it is universally accepted, that there's not enough

pressure in the current water system in Sooke to deal with fires.

So we have all of that, and my mind speaks, of course, for the

establishment of an appropriate municipal and construction program. I'm

not criticizing the government by saying that it is not doing enough,

but what I am saying is that that 75-25 formula is of help and not of

help, if you know what I mean. The 25 percent contribution is certainly

not significant enough to offset the phenomenal impact that a proper

sewering program will have on residential property taxes — or all

property taxes, for that matter. So there has to be a recognition with

respect to these communities, on the part of the ministry, to provide

for greater assistance than the 75-25. I know my colleague from

Victoria, the critic, will talk about an increase of that 75-25 formula

right across the province, and I would concur with those comments. That

may have to wait until we form the next government, but in the

interim....

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't wait