[ Page 4923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Purchase tax on sale of Expo lands. Mr. Sihota –– 4923

Mr. Williams

Farm-the-forest program. Mr. Harcourt –– 4924

Mayors' program on silviculture. Mr. Harcourt –– 4924

Motorola takeover bid on Mobile Data International. Mr. Clark –– 4924

Burrard hydro plant. Mr. Rose –– 4924

Tabling Documents –– 4925

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 4925

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Jacobsen

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Jones

Mr. Williams

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4948

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4948

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE: I am very pleased today to introduce some visitors from England. They are the parents of one of our researchers. Mr. Fred Eve and his wife Gibby are here. Mr. Eve is a Conservative councillor from the English borough of Gravesham, if I've pronounced it correctly. Obviously Fred didn't counsel his son very well, because he is working for the NDP, but would you welcome them anyway.

MS. A. HAGEN: Visiting the buildings today and in the chamber this afternoon are Andrea Spence and seven of her classmates from Herbert Spencer School in New Westminster, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Yip and Mrs. Price. I would like the members to note that these young people have been here on an in-depth tour of our Legislature, including a visit to the legislative dining-room this morning, where they met a goodly number of people from both sides of the House. Would you join me in welcoming them to the chamber this afternoon.

MR. BRUCE: Some more of my constituents from Cowichan-Malahat are here in the House today. I would like to thank the other members of the House who introduced some other members of my constituency here yesterday while I was not able to. I know you all want to get in on the act. Would you please welcome three good friends of my family: Ivan and Joyce Shorter and Mrs. Jean Farmer.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE TAX ON SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that all homeowners are required to pay property purchase tax, in keeping with the act, at the time of registration. On May 2, 1988, in response to questions during estimates, the Minister of Finance said: "The property purchase tax will be paid in total at the time the registration takes place." Will the minister advise this House whether or not that comment was accurate and whether, indeed, the property purchase tax was paid in total at the time of registration, as the minister said?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I take it the questioner is referring to the Expo lands. I didn't hear his introduction.

The process, as I understand it, is that the taxpayer makes a payment on submission of the statement of value, and that has been done.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the minister saying that a statement of the actual or determined price has been made?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I understand the process, the purchasers, or in this case the winning bidder, fill out a form — the exact title I'm not sure of — and submit with it a cheque to cover their estimated property purchase tax. That process has been followed as required by the act.

MR. WILLIAMS: On May 9 you said the public is entitled to know the amount, and so they are. But now you're in effect saying: "The public be damned." How do you justify one kind of law for the super rich like Mr. Li Ka-shing and another kind of law for everyone else?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am indebted to the member for that question. because he's pointed out once more to me that I'm not perfect in all respects. While that gives me some personal discomfort, I think it is important that the House be fully informed at all times. Therefore I'm happy to oblige the member's curiosity.

The fact of the matter is that the issue of the property purchase tax to be paid on the Expo lands was very high profile and had excited the interest of members of the opposition and the media. In my haste to show full and open government, I suggested, apparently incorrectly, that the property purchase tax paid by the purchaser would be made public once the figure was agreed upon. I have been advised by my staff that the issue of taxation is a private matter between the taxpayer and his government. Therefore I am unable, by virtue of law and legislation, to deal in a public way with the sums involved.

When I indicated to the House — and I think I did; although I haven't read Hansard, I'm willing to take the hon. member's claim that I did — it would certainly have been my impression that I would have wanted to do so. When I made that statement to the House, I made it incorrectly. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House naked in this respect. If the hon. members or the House would be more comfortable if I issued an apology, I am pleased to do that now.

The issue is whether a tax matter can be discussed publicly. I am advised by members of the Attorney-General's ministry and my own taxation officials that it is a private matter between the taxpayer and the government. If in the fullness of time there is a difference of opinion between the taxpayer and the government as to the value of the tax to be paid, and if, as a consequence of that difference, the government through their officials....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, just a minute. I am happy to sit, Mr. Speaker. I thought they wanted full information, but that's fine. You'll be sorry.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA: I have a couple of points. First of all, the minister is quoted as saying that items under negotiation.... The minister recognizes that under the act perhaps the amount paid may be confidential, but the value of the property is not. The question to the minister is this: is the minister now prepared to tell this House exactly what we got on that Expo deal? What is the value that's stated, Mr. Minister? Is it $140 million? Is it on a present value basis or not? That's what we would like to know. What is the value stated?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I was attempting to get into this discussion when certain members objected to the length of my reply. But I am happy to rise again, and we'll get into it a little bit more thoroughly.

Dealing with the question of the valuation, I am advised that the taxpayer — in this question, the purchaser of the properties — filed one form which dealt with the total payments to be received by government which, in my memory

[ Page 4924 ]

is in excess of $300 million. Was it $325 million? I believe the original debate focused on a figure of $325 million. My understanding is that this is the figure submitted by the taxpayer.

I will just remind the members of the opposition that they took exception to the government's claim that there was $325 million in this deal, and they wanted to talk in terms of net present value which, as I understand it, brings it down to around $145 million.

The members of the opposition — in my judgment — must not be allowed to have it both ways. If they wish the government to claim that the price was $325 million and therefore the property purchase tax should be based on that figure, I am quite happy to accept the argument. The fact of the matter is that the opposition has said the deal was not for $325 million, and I can pull quotes from a variety of members who have made that claim. It really is for net present value. On this issue, the answer quite simply is: the opposition cannot have it both ways. The information submitted by the taxpayer was in that global cash requirement over a 15- or 20-year period, and that totals about $325 million.

May I just add one more illuminating feature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

FARM-THE-FOREST PROGRAM

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Premier, can you inform the House whether the government has approved the proposed farm-the-forest program put forward by the civic officials in Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer the question to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

HON. MR. PARKER: No, we haven't approved farm the-forest.

MAYORS' PROGRAM ON SILVICULTURE

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. Can the Premier tell the House why the Vancouver Island mayors' program, which was very successful last year, has not been renewed for 1988?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

HON. MR. PARKER: The Vancouver Island mayors' program and the farm-the-forest program offered by the Cariboo municipalities tied into a job-training program that was administered in part by the Ministry of Forests and Lands and the Ministry for Advanced Education and Job Training, with funding coming primarily from Social Services and Housing. It was to assist those on social assistance to get some job experience and training in the silviculture worker program. That program is not available to us this year, and therefore the funding for that particular phase isn't in place.

However, through our regular budgetary process in the Forest Service, silviculture programs are taking place in those communities. Our district managers are explaining those programs to the municipal and regional district board members so that they understand the impact on their communities — who's involved, who's employed, what the job opportunities are, what moneys are being spent, what the programs are, what the benefits will be, what services are being supported in the community.

MOTOROLA TAKEOVER BID OF
MOBILE DATA INTERNATIONAL

MR. CLARK: A question to the Premier. MDI — Mobile Data International — of Richmond, a B.C. high-tech success story, is now the subject of a takeover bid by the American multinational Motorola. Motorola is a huge company that is MDI's major competition. This takeover, Mr. Premier, has grave consequences for the future of high tech industry in British Columbia. Is the Premier concerned about this issue, and has he at least sought guarantees from Motorola that they will maintain the 400 jobs in Richmond?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this would be a matter for the Minister of Economic Development. I'll defer to the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for the question. We have not made any overtures to the corporation, it being a private sector transaction. As a matter of interest, if a transaction takes place, we would certainly be interested and would perhaps be in touch with the firm. But I don't think it would be in the best interests of a private sector transaction for us to interfere in advance. There may not be any transaction at all, as I understand it from the press; we don't know. We would not initiate that kind of interference at this time.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the minister. I expected the minister to take a rigid ideological position, but the province has a stake in the survival of this company and also has some money indirectly in the company by way of Discovery Parks — venture capital and all of that. So has the minister decided now, at least upon reflection, to seek guarantees from Motorola that they will maintain R and D investment in British Columbia and the jobs in Richmond?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this has not been a matter that has come before the Ministry of Economic Development. We have, as I say, a general interest in making sure that jobs are preserved in the province. If there were a transaction taking place in that respect, we would be consulted if there were any outstanding loans to do with the ministry or Discovery Parks.

I will take as notice the question regarding Discovery Parks and the ongoing interest of the province. I believe that interest has been discharged, but I can get further information on that. I'm just going from memory. We would not interfere, as I say, in a private sector transaction.

BURRARD HYDRO PLANT

MR. ROSE: My question to the Minister of Environment is of importance not only to my riding but to all of the lower mainland, including the Fraser Valley. B.C. Hydro is now going to be allowed to export power from the Burrard Thermal generating plant, despite a 1985 Hydro brief which said that there was little prospect of this happening in the foreseeable future. It was for peaking power only at that time. In the name of open government, will the minister now insist on or authorize full public hearings to be held in the area before this export is permitted?

[ Page 4925 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is asking a question of future policy, and I would question, as well, whether he's asking it of the appropriate minister. Under the Utilities Commission Act, the Minister of Environment has a responsibility for energy permits, but that's only in conjunction with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. So I may be an adjunct to that legislation and to that hearing process, but I'm certainly not the main player.

MR. ROSE: I wouldn't want to put down the minister's influence, power and ability to be the main player.

The minister issued the permit for these emissions to be discharged into the air despite the fact that the area, Port Moody, is probably the most polluted, ozone-laden area in the whole lower mainland. I'd like to know what justification the minister has for issuing a permit, without public hearings , that's going to threaten the health of the people of my riding and the whole lower mainland.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take that question as notice, but I'll advise the member that the GVRD in this case monitors air emissions for us in that area, and if they have any concerns, they'll be brought to my attention.

MR. ROSE: I have a question relating to House business There are a couple of resolutions standing in my name, Nos. 70 and 71, that have to do with the reduced urban postal service and the closure of a number of rural post offices. I wonder if the minister could advise the House when these two resolutions will be brought forward for debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The House, of course, is aware that resolutions are brought forward numerically, unless leave is given. It could be some time, really, before we get to 70 and 71. We'd have to get to 56, Ducks Unlimited, first. But in the fullness of time we'll be addressing that question.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988, pursuant to section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

On vote 51: minister's office, $280,605.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to clarify a discussion we held yesterday, on the ownership of St. Ann's Academy. I did not have accurate information, and I would like at this point to advise the House that the property was purchased by the province from the sisters, transferred to BCBC and subsequently to the Provincial Capital Commission. It was not a donation.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for that information. However, it does not take care of the problem we have with St. Ann's or the PCC.

Just one question to the minister before I move on and finish with the Islands Trust. I wonder if the minister read this morning that one more council, North Saanich, has asked that the PCC be opened to the public. Is the minister today prepared to open Provincial Capital Commission meetings to the public?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As of today, the answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE: I have one more matter relating to the Islands Trust. It's not directly in the minister's responsibility, but I'm sure the minister has been made aware of the situation that is of concern to the Islands Trust council and particularly the chairman, that being the latest logging activities on Saltspring Island and the ability of the Islands Trust to have any say or control over the logging, particularly over 4,800 acres of managed forestland on Saltspring that have been purchased by a number of private individuals from MacMillan Bloedel in the past four months.

Much of this land is being heavily logged. It's of extreme concern to the island and the Islands Trust. It has an incredible environmental impact upon Saltspring Island. I wonder if the minister has under advisement to give to the Islands Trust or to have discussions with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) some policy or something in legislation that will permit the Islands Trust to have some say in that kind of activity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Apparently there are interministry staff discussions taking place, but it's not quite as simple as it may appear. The regulations on logging on private land are rather complicated, but I can assure the member that discussions at a staff level are presently taking place.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know if I have to ask leave to make an introduction, because the individual I wish to introduce is sitting here on the floor of the Legislature. If leave is required, I take it I've got it, and if not, I'm going to make the introduction anyway.

I notice on the floor, seated behind the minister, the former mayor of Esquimalt, Mr. Ken Hill. I didn't notice Mr. Hill when he walked in, and I must say it's a pleasure to see him. I would ask that all members of the House join me in welcoming Mr. Hill, who served until last year as the mayor of Esquimalt. On behalf of all of us on this side of the House, we extend our welcome to former Mayor Hill.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I will join, but I won't ask leave to join in greeting the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission, the deputy minister to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the Provincial Capital Commission. Mr. Hill and I have some disagreements on a process, but I still think we can talk to each other. I hope we can.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I happen to represent the capital region and have some concerns, Mr. Member.

I want to read part of Mr. Gilbert's letter to Mr. Mel Couvelier concerning the logging on Saltspring Island. I think it really puts in a nutshell the concern of the Islands Trust and why time is of the essence in dealing with this issue.

[ Page 4926 ]

There are 4,800 acres in this fairly substantial logging process that is going on. It's incredibly dramatic for that island. Mr. Gilbert says: "The Islands Trust has a mandate to preserve and protect the environment, and is expected to regulate orderly development, compatible with the rural nature of the islands. I am sure you will appreciate that our job is impossible, given these circumstances. Investor confidence in the island has been shaken by these events, as development proceeds without apparent control and the local government appears powerless."

Can the minister give us a time when we might expect some resolution to this very important issue for Saltspring Island?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I'm afraid I'm not able to do that at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: I have put it on notice to the minister, and I hope we will get some report back on that as soon as possible, because it is of grave concern on the island. I don't have the exact reference, but my understanding is that it is a large portion of the forested area of Saltspring. A substantial percentage of the island potentially could come down in the very near future.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm told that the Islands Trust already has some limited power to control logging where it might create an environmental hazard. May I suggest to the second member from Victoria that if he has some specific suggestions as to how this situation could best be handled as far as logging on private property is concerned, we would be very pleased to hear from him.

MR. BLENCOE: Without going into detail, I will just recommend that somehow we take a look at the Islands Trust or the council. The private operators have to come to the council to get some permits....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I wish that member would leave this House. He's a continual nuisance in this House. Go back to Antigua, will you!

The only suggestion I have is that we look at some way that the Islands Trust or the council can be involved in permit issuance for such activities.

I want to leave the Islands Trust because there are a number of things I want to cover today, and hopefully we will get finished today on Municipal Affairs and transit. My colleague from Surrey, I believe, will be dealing with transit.

An issue has come to my attention today that I want to take up with the minister and deal with right away. It is to do with firefighters' rights and access to private property. It has been reported to me that the acting fire commissioner has stated that some fire departments in British Columbia are operating illegally, due to absent or inadequate bylaws allowing them access to public property. Without proper bylaws, fire departments can be refused access to private property, and individual firefighters may be subject to legal action if they do not enter a property to fight fires. This problem is particularly acute in smaller volunteer departments in the province.

I am wondering if the minister is aware of this situation, and how many departments in the province are presently operating under such restrictions or insufficient or nonexistent bylaws. I'll have some more questions after that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the second member from Victoria, you will recall the introduction of Bill 30 that was dealt with last year. This provided a level of protection, and we are now working with local government and providing them with advice on recommended model bylaws that they should be introducing in order to ensure that the protection afforded under Bill 30 is available to firefighters throughout the province. We don't have any idea of the numbers.

MR. BLENCOE: A further question to the minister: are you conducting an organized program of updating bylaws of all fire departments? Is that an ongoing process? Are you reviewing all of them?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, the ministry is not reviewing them, but we are assisting with advice to local government in order that they ensure their bylaws are in order.

MR. BLENCOE: In my estimation, this is a very critical and dangerous situation. The fact that many smaller communities don't have adequate bylaws is part of small communities not having the resources or the experts to draw up their bylaws. What they have relied on is a full-staffed Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where we had adequate staff time to consult and help local government draw up such bylaws. Because this ministry has been downsized, its importance devalued and the number of staff in these areas that could advise local government cut dramatically over the last few years, we are now getting to a situation like we have with fire departments, which have bylaws that clearly don't guarantee access to private property to put out fires or protect firefighters who, if they don't go in because they're not protected by bylaw, could be subject to legal action.

Once again we have this government's continuation of restraint and cutbacks in key public servants in key ministries, which is resulting in such situations across the province. One area that I found out today is that not the right bylaws in a number of communities.... The minister cannot tell me how many communities are involved, and I would suggest that this minister better find out how many communities are involved. If you don't have the right bylaws and these communities are not prepared, you're asking for all sorts of legal problems. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The member for Victoria appears to be waving a memo in the air. If he would like to provide me with some specific information that is a bit more precise on which area has the concern or who is expressing the concern, I would be pleased to address that particular situation. I can assure you that I have nothing but the highest regard for local government and the fact that they are, to the best of their ability, ensuring that all of their bylaws are kept in a current and satisfactory state. We have very capable and competent staff in the ministry who are always ready, willing and able to provide assistance to ensure that whenever local governments do not have resources available to them, they can always call on the ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: I presume the minister knows who the acting fire commissioner is. It's the acting fire commissioner

[ Page 4927 ]

who has made these statements. I would suggest that the minister really should be on top of this. If she can give assurances to this House that her staff will immediately start to work on this issue.... We don't know how many communities across the province, because of the lack of support from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in terms of adequate staff to advise them on proper bylaws, on legal implications of bylaws.... We now have a situation where there may be numerous communities in this province that don't have the appropriate bylaws to ensure adequate fire protection.

MR. JACOBSEN: I'd just like to go back momentarily to the matter of logging on private land. I just wanted to say to the minister that British Columbia probably has the best foresters in the world, barring any nation. I know the minister is very courteous, but I would caution her against seeking from the second member for Victoria advice on how that problem should be handled, because there are people who can provide that information and, I think, provide it very well. I think the source she is referred to might not really be a very good solution to the problem at all.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to thank that member for his comments. I think that's his second speech since he arrived in this House.

All I want to say is that we take environmental issues and those beautiful islands seriously. The Islands Trust is not asking to curtail logging operations; they're asking to be involved in the process. You've got 4,800 acres of land on Saltspring that supposedly could come down any day, and I think there is some valid concern. That's all I am raising, Mr. Chairman.

I suppose that member over there thinks that if the marketplace determines everything, anything goes in British Columbia. I would suggest that's the problem with this province today.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The sheep are in the House today.

The minister was going to respond to this issue of fire bylaws in terms of maybe putting an emergency team on it to ensure that we deal with it fast.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I wasn't going to respond to putting on an emergency team. What I was going to say was that along with a number of bylaws that local governments have a responsibility to deal with, this forms part of their jurisdiction and responsibility. It would seem to me that it would be entirely out of line for us to zero in on one sector of their responsibility, go in and start looking over their shoulder and asking them to prove to us that they have adequately dealt with that type of situation. We provide assistance and advice through the ministry. On a daily basis, staff in this ministry work very closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which is the organization that truly represents all levels of local government in the province. If there is a severe problem in one area or another, it is addressed as quickly as possible.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present staff members who are on the floor and acknowledge the very significant and valuable contribution they have made towards the operation of the functions that fall within the responsibility of this ministry. Representing B.C. Transit we have Mr. Stuart Hodgson and Rick Krowchuk. From the Ministry of Municipal Affairs we have the acting deputy, Ken MacLeod, and Larry Seminiuk, and from the Provincial Capital Commission we have the chairman, Ken Hill, and staff member Larry Beres. I would like the House to acknowledge the dedication and hard work that all these people put into ensuring that the tasks that have been given to them are handled in a responsible, efficient and effective manner.

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to leave this fire thing for a couple of minutes, because I get the feeling the minister is just trying to haze over it and get it out of the way.

Your acting fire commissioner has said that fire departments in British Columbia are operating illegally due to absent or inadequate bylaws allowing them access to public property. It seems to me that's a very serious statement and a very serious situation in the province. We have no idea how many communities in this province are working under inadequate bylaws for the safety of citizens and private property. I suggest that the minister should immediately say to this House that she is going to get details of the situation and ensure this House that these bylaws are going to be dealt with and that the people of British Columbia are going to be adequately protected. The acting fire commissioner has made these statements, and the minister seems to think that's not a major issue.

MR. R. FRASER: Prompted by the remarks from the second member for Victoria yesterday, I took it upon myself today to have a tour through the former St. Ann's Academy, and I was impressed by how marvellous that institution must have been at one time. Certainly the location, the grounds and the plantings were wonderful. The building, however, is something different. I was all over that building, from the basement to the attic, looking at the stairways, the partitions inside, the ceiling treatments, the floor coverings and the doorways, I would have to differ from our friend in Ottawa who said that the interior of the building was "true heritage." In fact, there have been so many renovations inside the building that I doubt there's much heritage value left.

What I was impressed with relates to the subject just brought up by the second member for Victoria, which is fire safety. I would be very surprised to find that the building met fire codes, in spite of the fact that renovations to the interior include several fire doors. I note that the stairways — which are quite interestingly done with quite nice banister treatment — go right from the basement to the upper floors. Should a fire start in that building, there's no doubt that those stairways would act as chimneys making the fire proceed much faster. No doubt when the windows on the lower floors were broken, the rushing air would act like vents into the basement and furnace, and with the exterior walls made of brick, there's no doubt that building would be an inferno in no time.

What little I could see of the structural part of the building suggested to me that there was very little steel in the building, and that it was undoubtedly mostly heavy timber-frame construction, which is an interesting way to build and not unlikely in the time the building was put up. But right now, it is my view that anybody who works above the second floor is straight out of their minds. I was pleased to see that the Handicapped Action Committee was on the main floor and

[ Page 4928 ]

had two ways to get out of the building, both at ground level with no stairs. Anybody who works on the upper floor of that building should, in my view, be asking some questions. I would like to have the minister assure us that the building is safe, at least from a fire point of view. I think that building is a monumental task to rebuild, just from a safety point of view — let alone architectural integrity.

With respect to the suggestion from the member opposite that firemen can't get into public properties, I suspect they can. Maybe they cannot get into private properties. I suspect the minister will be prepared to advise the House that she will be asking the various districts around the province to ensure that their firemen have access to properties.

But first of all, St. Ann's Academy: that, I suggest, is a problem building.

MR. BLENCOE: I believe the minister wishes to respond to the first member for Vancouver South. I am really pleased that there are other members, like the member for Vancouver, showing a great interest in St. Ann's. It's nice to see that. It is a beautiful building; you're absolutely right. But he may not have read the concept plan that was done in 1986 by a number of well-known engineers. I'm sure you know some of those engineers. They put a terrific proposal together, and they dealt with some of your concerns. The result is that we can deal with them. Unfortunately, there hasn't been the political will to deal with this building, from the provincial level, in keeping with the historical significance of that site. I am of the opinion that we could have the Canada West national arts and cultural centre on the Pacific coast....

HON. MR. REID: Does Victoria want to put up the money?

MR. BLENCOE: Look, you can find the money for the B.C. Lions. You can find the money for half a billion dollars in Coquihalla overruns. You can't find the money for this incredible institution in our midst? I can't believe that. This community feels you can do it if you wish. I wish the members from Saanich and from Oak Bay would come in and enter this debate, because they are involved in this. We have this site.

I'm pleased the member from Vancouver has taken the time to look at it, and I recommend the concept plan to him. Maybe he could convince his colleagues from Victoria....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it can be done.

The minister wishes to respond.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. BLENCOE: I can only conclude that the minister is finally choking up over St. Ann's and at long last would like to acquire some provincial funds, but she seems to be stymied by the member from Saanich, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Obviously, it's not in his riding, so he's not concerned about St. Ann's. It is not in the riding of the member from Oak Bay, the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), so he's not concerned. If they're listening on their boxes.... I'm sorry, the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) is here listening intently. I'm glad he's here. If the Finance minister and Attorney-General are listening in their offices, I would hope they would come in and join the debate on St. Ann's. I hoped we would finish the debate on St. Ann's, but it seems to be continuing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I apologize for the break.

I am led to believe that the fire commissioner's office has restricted the use of St. Ann's Academy to a maximum of 100 people, the lower three floors only, and that it must be upgraded to safe fire standards within four years.

I would be interested in knowing who the memo was sent to that the member for Victoria has been waving around. It is my understanding that Mr. Dumala has been advising local government and suggesting that they check their bylaws to ensure that they are legal and that they do fit in with the protection that was brought in last year under Bill 30.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: On the fire issue, would the minister agree today to conduct an investigation into the situation re bylaws dealing with fire access?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know whether the word investigation is appropriate, but I can assure you that my staff will be looking into the matter to ensure that appropriate steps are being taken and that local government are well aware of their responsibilities in this regard. Certainly we can make a commitment to continue to provide the best advice possible to local government, to ensure that their bylaws are properly in place.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it goes back to the fact that we have a lack of staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs these days to give advice to smaller communities. I would remind the minister that there are some communities that don't even have any bylaws in this area. I think we need to find that out right away, because we could be asking for some serious trouble. Perhaps this ministry had better start to take a look at its staffing levels, because I don't think this is an isolated case in terms of service to smaller communities in the province of British Columbia. The minister has agreed she'll do some investigation.

I want to move on to another topic, and that is revenue sharing, unconditional grants — all the things that usually are very boring and mundane to most people, but that to local government are, of course, absolutely critical. Revenue sharing was $204 million in '85-86, $223 million in '86-87, $231 in '87-88 and $239 million in '88-89. However, I note that municipal grants went down about 20 percent, and regional district grants have gone up dramatically. Does the minister know why that is happening? The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) would be interested in that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Is the member referring to the unconditional grants or to the sewer and water portion of the grants?

MR. BLENCOE: I've confused planning grants with revenue-sharing. I apologize. The planning grants, which were predominantly municipal, now are going to regional.

[ Page 4929 ]

I'm looking at my supplementary memo here: municipal planning grants, $500,000; regional districts, $450,000. In '85-86 the grants were municipal, $627,000, regional districts, $220,000. Municipal grants have gone down 20 percent between'85-86 and'87-88, while regional districts have gone up 104 percent. Is there a reason for that?

I'll get back to the other part in a minute. I apologize to the minister for confusing the two.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's project specific, so there's no hidden agenda or program to start moving more of the money over to regional districts versus incorporated areas. It really is need and project specific.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to cover the unconditional revenue-sharing. I've listened to the minister's speech over and over again in various places, and she refers to stabilizing unconditional grants at $100 million. I would remind the minister that what she didn't tell all those municipalities and elected officials is that since 1982 we have not had anything higher than $100 million in unconditional grants. Actually, in '85-86 it dropped to $90 million and $95 million. The impression given by the minister is that she has done a marvellous thing in stabilizing it at $100 million. Can local government expect to see an increase in that portion? It is, as the minister knows, an extremely important component of the operations of local government, and it's stuck at $100 million.

[3:00]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess it depends on how you set your priorities. I place a very high priority on assisting local government in improving their infrastructure needs. It's part of the revenue-sharing program, hon. member. If we increase the unconditional grants, we're going to decrease what we see to be available in the sewer, water and road portion to assist in infrastructure. We are quite comfortable in being able to maintain a $100 million lid on the unconditional portions of the grants, and those moneys are distributed to the municipalities to use as they see fit.

I can see that in the next ten years we're going to have to place more emphasis specifically on funding assistance to allow municipalities to correct some of the infrastructure problems they are faced with. If we can keep the unconditional portion at $100 million and see the rest of our revenue sharing going towards the infrastructure assistance, I think that most communities would be very happy with that. That's what I hope to be able to do.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me switch to the infrastructure issue. The Leader of the Opposition talked about it yesterday. I just want to touch upon it briefly today, and then we can move on to something else.

The minister announced sometime in April, I believe, that immediate infrastructure repairs require approximately $100 million in the province of British Columbia, and she announced that she expected to make a presentation to cabinet about major problems and where the money should be allocated. We know that $100 million is only a start on what's required. As the minister is aware, the FCM and the UBCM have done detailed analyses of the requirements of local government infrastructure. Many of our communities are old. Their underground services are at the end of their time. We are facing a major rebuilding in the province of

British Columbia. We all know that other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, have put off maintaining or rebuilding their infrastructure and consequently today face astronomical bills — billions of dollars — because they refused to deal with it. We need to have a program laid out clearly as quickly as possible.

We know, of course, that we've been asking the federal government to participate; thus far they have not done so. We would hope that maybe they'll drop their submarine program of $8 billion to $16 billion and put some of it towards infrastructure in this great country.

As I said, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that B.C. needs $400 million for water and sewage improvement, and apparently the federal government is willing to participate. However, I'd like to ask the minister: has the minister presented her case to cabinet yet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The program is presently working its way through the system. I expect that in the next few months we will have identified.... And that's the problem. We have to identify a funding source. But, hon. member, we may be able to have our cake and eat it too if the economy continues to grow at the present rate, because, of course, our revenue-sharing is based on an increase in revenues to the province. So with the projections that we have been led to believe for economic growth, as far as I'm concerned things are looking very good for the revenue-sharing program. Where we had $25 million to put into the infrastructure programs this year, I'm expecting to have considerably more next year. I would expect that within a very short period of time we will have identified a funding source that will allow us to increase the amount of money that we're able to advance to the local communities to assist them in upgrading their infrastructure needs.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister said it's making its way through the system. Does that mean you have presented it to cabinet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are other stops.

MR. BLENCOE: There are other stops. So you're not sure of what cabinet's response is or what the feeling is in cabinet these days towards such a proposal.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Until a matter is dealt with by cabinet, it is difficult to predict the response. But as the member knows, this program has received fairly extensive publicity, and I have not received any negative comments from the members in cabinet, so I would assume that if I'm able to put forward a strong argument, as I know I am going to be able to do, we should be able to come forward with something before too long.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware that the Alberta government recently made $500 million available to municipalities in Alberta to do this very thing that we need to do in British Columbia? You're not aware of that. Maybe it might be very useful to take a look at the Alberta situation, and look at their programs. They have done it, and I think they're to be complimented. They have decided to....

Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment here, part of the problem with this kind of issue — sewers and water and underground services — is that it's not a very attractive area

[ Page 4930 ]

for governments to get into. Without getting into the going over of history, we've tended to look at projects that have a lot of glitter and attention and that prior to elections may look good. But these kinds of issues don't get much attention. Consequently, local government has struggled.

I might also suggest that the provincial government may wish to reconsider reversing the funding formula for sewer and water grants. We used to have a formula in the province that 75 cents out of every dollar for rebuilding our sewer and water was paid for by the provincial government and 25 cents from local. That formula — I forget the date — was reversed some years ago. Is there any consideration of bringing back the old formula so that local government can at least know that there is greater financial support from the provincial government to rebuild this infrastructure — at least that formula being returned?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The record of this government will show that assisting local government with infrastructure funding has always been a very high priority. The member from Victoria correctly referred to a program that was in effect in the late seventies and early eighties whereby the province did pay 75 percent of the cost of infrastructure. That is why we do have a system right across this province that is far better and in better shape than is the case in any other province in Canada. But there comes a time when we feel that we have addressed the majority of very serious situations; now the communities are going to have to pay, the local taxpayers.... As the communities grow, they are going to have to pay a larger proportion of these costs.

It appears that in some communities we have problems that those communities are not able to address on their own. The answer is not simply to say the province is going to pay a larger percentage so that more of the sewer, water and road works can be done. It is important that we determine a funding source that is going to allow us to put more money into this type of program to allow us to assist communities, not only to upgrade their failing infrastructure, but to assist them in opening up new areas for development that is important to a lot of these communities throughout the province.

There is no question at all about this ministry's support for an infrastructure program. We realize that it will provide almost immediately several thousands of jobs and be a real shot in the arm to the economy right across the province, not to mention the assistance it will give to all of our communities. It is a very high priority as far as this ministry is concerned. It has been a high priority; it continues to be a high priority. We will continue to see that the local government receives as much assistance as we can possibly give them in this area.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I believe she is sincere in what she is saying, but I do have to say that local government has heard — not necessarily from this minister — the same comments from this government and others over the years: "We want to rebuild your infrastructure." But along comes another project that can gain a lot more attention, and that is where the money is dropped.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Absolute rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE: That's not rubbish. It's time that the bluff was called and this government showed that it is deeply and sincerely interested in local government and that it's prepared to put the money up front in a special five-year program for rebuilding infrastructure in the province; not saying, "We're working on it," or "We're looking at it." We are three, four, five or six years behind this one. Alberta has moved ahead. The '84 figures of $400 million done by the FCM — that's four years ago. The costs have grown. We have no estimates now of how much is required.

Not to downplay the minister's sincerity, I have to say that local government continues to wait for a program. There are communities in desperate trouble. In my own community we are considering dumping far more raw sewage out here into the saltchuck because we can't get support from the provincial government to allow us to do the proper treatment.

A correction. I believe the minister is interested in treatment. We've just got to get the local players to be more interested.

Generally, though, there hasn't been enough interest from the provincial government in rebuilding infrastructure in the province. Other projects have had a higher priority, and sometimes, in our estimation, those have been questionable priorities. In our estimation, there is no higher priority than ensuring local government is healthy in terms of its infrastructure, its support system and its services.

We all talk about economic development and opening up for growth. If those communities are not in great shape, we won't get the economic development. All you have to do is ask the captains of industry. When they consider moving into a community, there are certain things they look for. One is the services — what is in good shape, what's there.

It happens to be a very important issue and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible. I hope we can hear in the next few months the announcement of a major infrastructure rebuilding program in British Columbia.

[3:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have a lot of patience, but the member opposite is going over the same discussion time and time again. He attends most of the municipal conferences that I do, and he has heard me on every single, solitary occasion say that the infrastructure needs of the communities' are a high priority in this ministry. I guess it doesn't really matter; nothing is ever enough.

The comment that disturbs me most of those I've just heard from the member is that in his own community there are infrastructure problems that we have not addressed. I have just checked the list that we have before us, and we don't have any applications from the city of Victoria for sewer and water grants. The member has not, in my year and a half in this ministry, come to discuss any of his constituency-related concerns with me. I have to say that a good many of his colleagues have done so, from both sides of the House — so I have to assume that we don't have a problem in the city of Victoria.

In the capital region we have several sewer, water and road grant programs that have been approved this year, but not as a result of any great effort made by the member opposite. We are dealing, Mr. Chairman, with a revenue-sharing program made up of a portion of the revenues taken in by the province. As long as the revenues continue to increase, our revenue-sharing program will continue to grow, and we will thereby be able to assist as many communities as we possibly can to upgrade their infrastructure program.

If the member has a specific concern in the city of Victoria, he should maybe talk to the council and ensure that

[ Page 4931 ]

they put forward their application for funding assistance to the ministry.

MRS. GRAN: I can no longer sit here without making a comment about the diatribe from the other side of the House. I recognize that the system is such that the members on the other side of the House commit themselves to speak for a certain length of time regardless of whether there is content or not.

Having been a municipal politician, I'd like to say that this minister has the complete confidence of the total of the UBCM, and I've heard that many times from many areas of this province. This minister understands her ministry; she responds to concerns. And I think it doesn't serve the member opposite well for me to hear that he hasn't even taken his concerns for his constituency to that minister.

In the future, when you're doing your discussions on that side of the House, I think you may well do your homework by at least going to the minister and taking the concerns of the constituency that you represent. I've been in her office I couldn't count the number of times with concerns from an area — the member might be interested to know — that has probably ten times as many problems as Victoria does. Langley is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the entire province, with a long list of needs. This year, considering the percentage of grants given, we did very well. I can tell you, Mr. Member, why we did well: it's because the MLAs representing that area did their homework.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the member for Langley for her first speech of the session and remind her that I was not talking about making application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs; I was talking about lack of sewage treatment in this community as an example. I was talking about the fact that the formula has been reversed for such support. I've already asked the minister to reconsider reversing the formula back again, so the member may wish to take back what she is saying.

Quite frankly, I will continue to pursue these issues because they are important to local government. This government says it believes in local government and they're going to rebuild the infrastructure in this province, but we haven't seen any action yet. That member gets up and talks about how UBCM respects that minister. My job on this side is to ensure that this minister does her job and gets things going for local government, so I make no apologies. I'm glad that the fourth or fifth person on the other side has gotten up to defend the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Great. She probably needs all the defence she can get.

I will leave that infrastructure question by saying we'll believe it when we see it. We hope that in the next year we'll have a major announcement on an infrastructure program that will start to address the needs of local government, not just, "We're working on it, we sincerely believe in it," and no action — which we've had for the last few years.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would just like to clarify that point before we get into another discussion. How can you say that more than $100 million spent every year is no action? As I stated earlier, it doesn't matter what the amount is; it's never quite enough.

We have a very substantial increase in the conditional portion of our grant budget this year. The member doesn't even pay attention when I'm trying to respond, but for the record, the conditional and unconditional portion of our budget is continuing to grow. It is a high priority. I don't want any false impression to be left by the member from Victoria that this government somehow doesn't care about the infrastructure needs of local government. We certainly do, and we will continue to press for additional funding in order to continue the program of support that we've had for many years.

MR. BLENCOE: I was going to leave this issue, but after that comment, I can't. Local government has been asking for years — the record is there, the studies have been done — and you haven't done anything. You spend half a billion dollars on the Coquihalla, a waste of a heck of a lot of money, and local government continues to struggle and can't maintain its services.

We need an answer for local government. Local government wants to know that this problem is going to be announced as soon as possible; no more "We may be going to get to it," or that you sincerely believe in it. Let's have the program announced. Let's see that cabinet has endorsed it. Let's rebuild the infrastructure in the province.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We could go on here for three or four days talking about the specifics of this program. It's very clear that the member opposite doesn't understand the guaranteed funding source for this type of function. This is not anything to do with the Coquihalla. This is nothing to do with SkyTrain. This has nothing to do with the convention centre in Victoria. It's nothing to do with any of the other projects.

MR. BLENCOE: Tell us about the $800 million overrun on the Coquihalla.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'd be pleased to tell you about that. It's just so obvious that once again the homework has not been done.

The old programs, $100 million, the new program, $25 million, the unconditional portion of the program, $100 million; and the member continues to stand up and say the local governments have been waiting for years. I don't know what he means they've been waiting for years. He's got a nice grin on his face: he's obviously not serious when he throws out that statement. We have been assisting the local government in their infrastructure needs, and we will continue to do so.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to leave it there by saying the minister can have all the ministers of defence she wants, but in my travels the frustration level is there. They've heard minister after minister saying they're going to do something about it, and nothing has been done. Many municipalities are facing real problems with their infrastructure, and I hope that when we're doing these estimates next year we can at least announce the start of a major infrastructure rebuilding. The ministers of defence — the member for Langley, the member for Vancouver and all the others who've gotten up in the last few days to defend the Minister of Municipal Affairs — hopefully will also be able to defend their position next year in terms of the infrastructure program that we lack in the province today.

I have here a brief from the Greater Vancouver Regional District finance department. It has just come to the attention

[ Page 4932 ]

of our caucus. I haven't read it all yet, but it has some fairly interesting statements. Apparently there have been some disparities in the use of property tax assessments on a provincial base in determining which way certain grants are calculated for the greater Vancouver area. According to Gilbert Blair, the chairman of the board of directors, that disparity is of the order of $180 million per year and it's going to get worse in the years ahead as the reassessments of residential property in greater Vancouver rise in relation to the rest of the province.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether the minister's staff have looked at the full implications of this. I have to say that our staff have not done that yet, because we've only just got it. But there would appear to be some really serious recommendations and implications in here. I'm wondering where the minister will be going with this and what discussions will be ensuing in the next few months.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For the information of all members, I did have a meeting with some of the executive, including Mayor Blair, in my office last week. I will be meeting further with them — I believe it's this weekend — to discuss their report. But they are, in our opinion, mixing apples and oranges when they confuse the revenue-sharing grants and the education financing. Really, the responsibility for our ministry, as I see it, is to deal with the communities in the entire province, not one portion of the population. I expressed that to the members who met with me last week, and I have told them that I have already made a commitment to the members of the UBCM to discuss on a provincewide basis the taxation concerns, the revenue and expenditure concerns that they have. We will be doing that on a provincial basis, not on an isolated regional basis. In the meantime, I will be meeting with the board of the GVRD to outline our response to their report. We don't necessarily agree with all of their assumptions, but we're meeting with them and we'll be discussing whatever concerns they have. They agree to a provincewide meeting taking place.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave that one and I'm sure we'll get further updates.

I want to move to the issue of homeowner grants and people who leave the Veterans' Affairs jurisdiction. I have a letter here from a person in Vancouver which I think outlines the problem of this homeowner grant situation and people who fall between the ages of 60 and 65. It says here:

"In British Columbia, a grave injustice is being done to veterans' spouses who are widows or widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. This is done due to the fact that at age 60 they transfer from the Veterans' Affairs department to the Department of Health and Welfare. They then are denied the right by your department of the $250 extra through the provincial homeowner's grant for reduced taxes oil their homes."

This is a letter sent some time ago to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I think I brought this to the minister's attention before, and I'm wondering if anything has been done about it, because I have a number of letters from people who leave Veterans' Affairs and then lose this homeowner grant. Has anything been done?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Can we pull the information on that together and respond a little later?

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. I'll put that over here then, somewhere.

Moving right along, I have a couple of issues that came out of some of the regional association meetings, and I wanted to ask the minister where she is at in terms of the recommendations. This one comes from the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. It's regarding a minimum property tax. The recommendation requests the provincial government to enact the necessary legislation and regulatory controls to effect a minimum property tax of $1 for those individuals earning less than $10,000 per year and for those couples earning less than a total combined income of $15,000 per year. I think this is a good idea and something that should be studied. I'm wondering if the minister or her staff have had a chance to look into this yet.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I understand it, there are similar systems in Ontario and Manitoba, but it would certainly be a fundamental change. I don't really have a response on that at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: You're right, it would be a fundamental change. Given what's been happening the last few years with the squeeze on property owners who have less income and seniors, it may be something that needs to be reviewed. I would certainly be hopeful that the minister— and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) in particular — could have some discussions with looking at a minimum property tax situation. I'll leave that one, unless the minister wishes to say anything further on that.

Another issue that has been brought to my attention in my travels is privatization of highways maintenance. There has been resolution after resolution at all municipal association meetings. I'm sure the minister has heard from many municipalities asking the provincial government to reconsider the privatization of highways maintenance. I think 80-plus municipalities have now voiced their concern. I recognize this isn't directly in the minister's responsibility, but the minister is responsible for local government and, I hope, listens to local government. I'm wondering what representation on behalf of those 80-plus municipalities who have indicated their concern with highways maintenance she has made to the ministers responsible in cabinet to see if she can have any influence on the privatization of highways maintenance.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I really think that the voices from local government are very adequate. I have made no representation with regard to this particular program, because I happen to support the government position.

MR. BLENCOE: Here's a case, then, where this minister has said over and over — and probably says more than any other minister — that she believes in local government and consults with local government and believes in what they say, and yet we have an overwhelming response from local government. I think virtually every municipal association in this province has said: "Please do not privatize highways maintenance." It's a dramatic statement right across this province, and yet we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs not prepared to even recognize that local government is saying something quite dramatic.

[ Page 4933 ]

It would appear that only when it's in the interest of the political agenda of this government is this government prepared to stand up for local government and back up what they want to see happen in this province. Over and over again, that has become abundantly clear as we go down the term of this government in office. I would hope that this minister would try to use some of her influence to convince the government that privatization of highways maintenance is a crazy idea.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know how I could possibly make that type of statement when I don't believe it.

I would like to respond to an earlier query with regard to the widows and the home owner grant and taxation. Apparently there's a difficulty in trying to determine the eligibility when there's a change in status. I guess the most I can tell you is that the matter is presently under review.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that answer There are a number of people who fall into that category. I've got a number of letters over the last year, and hopefully we can start to resolve that one. I will leave that one.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Another minister of defence is braying from the folds over there. The next issue I want to move to is the Logan Lake situation and the cabinet decision not to expand the boundaries of Logan Lake. My understanding is that Chris Woodward, the then deputy, wrote a letter last fall to the council in Logan Lake indicating that the only step left in the plan to expand their boundaries was a resolution by the council stating their desire. It seems that the ministry was very supportive of the boundary expansion concept that Logan Lake required. Because of time constraints.... I'm not going to go into the background of why Logan Lake feels they need it. Suffice it to say their case has been made, and I think they have a case.

My understanding is that it looked like everybody was on board for extending the boundaries, but suddenly this didn't happen. Maybe I don't have to go through any more of this. It would appear that the ministry was on board and everything was proceeding, and then, for whatever reasons, cabinet decided not to go ahead with this extension but go the grant route, which is really a short-term solution. I'm wondering if we can see some permanent resolution to this issue in the very near future.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I'm hoping we'll be able to see a long-time solution as well.

MR. BLENCOE: What would you consider to be a longtime solution — a permanent solution?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That would reflect on future policy, so I can just give you the assurance that as long as communities require assistance, we will be there to assist them.

MR. BLENCOE: Does the minister agree that the district of Logan Lake makes a good point? I have a letter from the mayor here. Does the minister agree that the mayor makes a good case, and is she supportive of that case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have addressed their financial concerns by way of a grant, and I don't think anything further is required.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has to know that the longterm solution is extension of the boundaries to take in the mines that created the community. Is the minister saying that the permanent solution is this ad hoc band-aid grant system?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are several ways that the financial problems of Logan Lake and of several other communities can be addressed. We have chosen to assist them this year by way of a grant, but the process of reviewing better ways or alternatives of assisting are continually ongoing, and I really don't think we have to say that one way is better than another. As long as the communities are able to survive financially, we feel that we are addressing our responsibility.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to leave this topic very quickly, but just a philosophical or global question.... Part of the problem of Logan Lake.... It's not a unique situation. The province is growing; many areas are becoming far more sophisticated. Villages are becoming towns, towns are becoming larger towns, and we have these problems all over the province. I am wondering what the minister's policy is on this kind of growth. We get into conflicts over amalgamation issues like Logan Lake, where territory should clearly be within the boundaries of the municipality. Is it the minister's policy to keep hands off totally and not try to encourage what is really part of a normal growth syndrome?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We don't have a hands-off policy. We attempt to address each community's situation on an individual.... Are you interested in hearing the answer, hon. member?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We address each community's financial problems on an individual basis. It is not possible to have a policy that would address all the financial concerns of the communities in the province. Each case is different. We have restructure grants; we have planning grants. And in this case we have a special grant to the community of Logan Lake to ensure that it will survive.

There was a suggestion that this is a problem in growing communities and in the province as it continues to grow. The problem with Logan Lake is not because it's growing; it's because it is shrinking, and their financial tax base is shrinking. This is where Logan Lake has run into a bit of a problem. But the concerns are well known to the ministry. We had the inspector visit the community last year and do a thorough review of its financial situation. We are well aware of the problems in that community, and we are addressing them.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't consider these interim grants, these ad hoc band-aid solutions, as the real way to go. I just hope, and I know — having talked to the mayor of Logan Lake and others at length — that they are really counting on this government to consider a solution more in keeping with the case they have made and which has been justified. I'll leave it there.

I want to talk briefly about local elections and some of the issues that have arisen. We're moving right along here, Mr. Chairman. It's too bad that the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission.... I hope he hasn't come for naught today.

[ Page 4934 ]

Every year I bring up the issue of local elections; there is always something that comes to our attention. Last year, for example, I brought up the whole question of some people in the province having more than one vote because they own property. It has come to my attention on a number of occasions.... People have actually admitted to me that they have voted in the community they live in for the council and the school board, then gone to downtown Victoria to use their property vote for the council, and then voted a second time for school board — they cast ballots twice.

We can look back; a number of issues have been raised about local elections. I'm not going to go through the whole enumeration thing, or which voters' list...or not to have a voters' list, because one day, I hope, that will be dealt with. In my estimation, we really should have some appropriate voters' list that can be used.... We went through this in the last election, and luckily we got through it. The minister made some changes, but without authorization of the Legislature.

[3:45]

I have also had a letter from a candidate who is complaining with, I think, some valid comments about the returning officer casting the deciding ballot in a tie. In the opinion of this candidate, the returning officer was clearly not unbiased, and was well known....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Who was?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the point I make is that that kind of breaking of the tie in such an archaic, old-fashioned way may not be appropriate today, and maybe we need to take a look at that and other issues.

My basic question is: what is the minister doing to review local elections and procedures?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have had discussions with the UBCM and the municipal officers' legislative committee, and we're seeking technical advice and suggestions as to how some of these little kinks can be ironed out. I would suggest that when all is said and done, our election process is working very nicely, and we have very few complaints or reasons for complaint. It is a matter under advisement at this time; and as advice and suggestions come in, we attempt to address those concerns.

MR. BLENCOE: At the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities meeting, there was a recommendation to delete the three-month residency requirement for electoral registration in local government elections. Does the minister agree that might be a good idea?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I'm aware that it is a subject of discussion. I can assure the member that that matter is under consideration.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave that one. I'm sure we'll be coming back to that next year, and there's a lot more that can be covered under it.

I want to move on to a topic that I think is of great interest to the minister and one that I think she's been involved in, and that's the Bible Fellowship Missionary Society — the complex on 66A Avenue in Surrey. First, could the minister explain to this House her involvement in that society?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have any "involvement," Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister advise this House what she has done on behalf of this society in either a public or a private way?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It would have been nice if I'd had a bit of forewarning. I could have pulled the file on this, because my recollection is not entirely clear. What I do recall is that I brought forward a private member's bill that would ensure the religious and educational operation on this property would be eligible for the same type of tax exemption as other places.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hate to interrupt, but during estimates we discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister, not a private member's bill when the minister was a back-bencher; nor items that happened in the riding but are not related to the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the point and appreciates the learned advice.

MR. BLENCOE: The reason I raise the issue is that it is a municipal issue. Municipal taxes are being forgone or not paid on this particular property. It's a well-known one in Surrey. It's a great controversy in Surrey because all the residents of Surrey are having to pay the bill for no taxes being paid on this facility — a massive complex. Now they want to build townhouses on the site and be forgiven taxes for that. I wonder if the minister can tell us: is it accurate that the print shop on this Bible Society land...? By the way, the minister is quite correct: she did bring a private member's bill through this House, and therefore is personally involved. I recognize that.

The print shop, which printed the federal voters' list during the '84 federal election, and printed the campaign literature for you, Madam Minister, and Socred-backed Surrey Non-Partisan Association municipal and school board slates, has no business licence and pays no taxes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not really sure whether that's accurate or not. I would suggest that that's probably up to local government. It seems to me that they have good taste.

MR. BLENCOE: Could I ask the minister responsible for Municipal Affairs — and therefore, hopefully, interested that taxes that should be paid are indeed paid.... I would suggest that the print shop that printed the minister's literature, and printed for well-known Social Credit-backed organizations, is a business and has done stuff for the minister on a political level. She steered through this House important legislation, and now we understand this business has no business licence and no taxes are being paid by this business, supposedly under the guise that this organization is nonprofit. I would suggest that this print shop is profit and the minister is aware of that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not sure whether this really relates to my estimates. Number one, I would suggest that the business licence is certainly a responsibility of the local government. Whether there are taxes paid or not paid, or if there's an exemption on a print show that would be within the authority of the Assessment Authority. I really would suggest that this line of questioning is rather out of

[ Page 4935 ]

order. If the member for Victoria feels that he wants to put me on a hot seat or question me, it would be more appropriately done in question period.

MR. BLENCOE: The reason I didn't do it in question period is because it allows for greater discussion and response from the minister.... I asked the minister a question. As Minister of Municipal Affairs, and obviously concerned that appropriate tax exemptions are done correctly, will the minister agree to take a look into this complex, into the print shop and the catering business that this organization runs, and see whether it has the right to not pay for a business licence or taxes. I think that one might be of interest also to the member for Surrey.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It isn't too relative, but as a taxpayer in Surrey, I would like to think that everybody who is supposed to be paying a business licence would be paying a business licence and that Surrey council and their administrative staff would be doing their job in ensuring that that was the case.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to point out that I think it behooves the minister, given her connection, given the work they've done for her, given that she's Minister of Municipal Affairs, given that she has an inspector of municipalities and all those things to oversee these sort of things, to ensure that this matter is cleared up that there isn't a conflict of interest and that this organization does rightfully have, in law, the right not to pay business taxes or business licence or any real property taxes on some of these operations. I would hope the minister is prepared to clear that up.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: With a wink and a nod, the member for Victoria sat down, but I'm not sure what we have accomplished. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you refer to the fact that we are supposed to be dealing with vote 51, the minister's office. If you have some questions of me in another vein, they should be better put to me at question period.

MR. BLENCOE: I was prepared to let this go if you were prepared to investigate it, but you're not. Would you state and let us know in this House if the print shop in the Missionary Society complex print your literature in the last campaign?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, the member has for years indicated that what we need in the province is local autonomy on behalf of elected officials, and that's certainly what we have in this case. Now he argues that the minister should intervene. Let me tell the member, and you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, let me finish mine because I'm pointing out that the member is being irrelevant. Section 400 of the Municipal Act allows a council to do various things, including giving tax exemptions to those bodies it feels are appropriate to tax exemptions under section 400 of the Municipal Act. Therefore, if the member has any questions about tax exemptions, they should be addressed to that municipality and not the minister.

Secondly, with respect to finance and the Assessment Authority, that would be better addressed to the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure the member is also aware of that. So this line of discussion, Mr. Chairman, has been totally out of order.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to join the second member for Victoria in furthering this line of questioning, because I think it's extremely relevant. Not only is it relevant because the minister brought in a private member's bill prior to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm awfully sorry, but that is definitely out of order. It deals with legislation that has been before this House, been debated and been passed. It certainly is not germane to the discussion of these estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: I think it is germane to these estimates. We're dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the minister governing the actions of local government. We're dealing with the minister who, hopefully, is interested in the fact that local taxes should be collected on appropriate property. This minister has been involved and has passed legislation, and the people of British Columbia are entitled to have some answers from the minister in this particular instance. She's the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and no taxes are being paid on this institution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, everyone knows that we do not debate rulings of the Chair in this House. That's probably enough said, and we'll proceed with the debate on vote 51.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What we're debating here is the minister's performance, the minister's office and the work that the minister has come to build her reputation on. We're talking here about a situation not only under her responsibility as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but very clearly in her own community, and therefore her responsibility as the elected member.

The situation for the Pacific Bible College and the housing society exists because of the actions of this minister. They exist because of the very actions of this minister and her performance in the past year. We are talking about this minister's responsibility to fulfil her mandate, so that the people of this province can be assured that everyone is treated fairly and is held responsible to the same laws and the same equity. In this example, this particular facility has been given preferential treatment. If this particular facility and the taxpayers of Surrey cannot be assured that they're getting fair treatment, then how can any action that this minister is involved with be...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, I hate to be repetitious, and I've said so hundreds of times. But let me put it to you this way. Section 400 of the Municipal Act allows the local authority to grant tax exemptions — that's clear. If the members opposite are stating that legislation should be changed, that's not for the estimates, because estimates do not allow for discussion of changing legislation.

[4:00]

If the members opposite are debating a private member's bill that passed some time in the past, that's out of order as well. What we're here to discuss is the administrative responsibilities

[ Page 4936 ]

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to the operation of the ministry — not legislation or the necessity for legislation or past private members' bills.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, I followed the government House Leader with some interest and intensity. I'm not sure we're really discussing what he's discussing though.

In my view, what we're discussing is a piece of property within a municipality, and I was on the committee. I won't mention the bill because that would be past bills, and I wouldn't want the Chairman to become exercised about that. But my recollection of it is that this piece of property is forgiven municipal taxes and school taxes for the purpose of conducting a religious organization — whether it's a school, college or whatever. It's upon that basis that they were forgiven taxes. If they are, on the contrary, engaged in a public business of printing for profit or for gift, that's quite another matter. That's really what we're dealing with. We're not dealing with the past act at all.

I think perhaps the request of the second member for Victoria for the minister, in her capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs, is to look into whether or not this Bible college — or whatever its name is — is in fact engaging in a business, contrary to their tax relief or to the information given us or the assessment authority or the municipality or the school board. That's all he asked for. Look into it. Are they clean? Are they legit? Or are they operating some kind of scam and getting a tax break to boot?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the two hon. members for standing on their feet and advising the Chair in such an appropriate manner. If the minister will sit down, I would just like to say one other thing on this. My comment is now directed to all members who might wish to speak in this debate.

I repeat what I said once before: it is an offence against the rules of this House to debate legislation which has been properly debated and passed in the House previously. Whether we discuss this directly or in an indirect way, and that is the way that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) was approaching the subject latterly.... Either way, we're still out of order. If you can direct your questions in a different manner so that you will not be out of order, the Chair would much prefer it that way.

MR. BLENCOE: You're right, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for us to canvass this issue, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been instrumental in aiding and supporting this organization. Right? Mr. Chairman, it comes to our....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: And sponsored the bill — I can say that, I hope, in the House — that gave this complex major tax exemption.

Now we've discovered that there's a print shop. The minister is the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with all those staff, to conduct proper investigations and see that things are done properly. We've now discovered that the print shop, which is basically running a profit organization, has been involved in working for the Minister of Municipal Affairs in her capacity as a candidate in Surrey, printed her literature, printed other well-known Socred literature, has no business licence, and pays no taxes in Surrey. There are other components of this conflict that are of concern to us, but right now this is the one that we're highlighting, and it's the one that sticks out a mile.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in her capacity not as a friend or worker or whatever for this society, but as the minister: is she prepared to investigate the situation that I have brought to the attention of the House today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, are you now going to allow discussion on the subject? I don't feel that I should be muzzled when the members from the opposite side of the House have been free to carry on. I have no problem discussing all of the background, right back to day one, on this subject. I thought it had been well canvassed. The local press had pages on it. I don't see what there is left to do today, other than to somehow suggest that this member, through my ministry or whatever, has done something that is out of order.

The Assessment Authority determines whether or not exemptions are legal. Only educational and religious-purpose properties get exemptions. Right across the province, similar educational institutions receive exemptions. I'm not sure what it is being suggested was done that is so far out of the norm.

Either we all get a crack at this, Mr. Chairman, or I think you should discontinue the discussion on the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister latterly was talking in general terms, which is quite acceptable. I find nothing out of order about that. But the previous discussion is definitely out of order. If hon. members persist in this line of questioning, I will have no recourse but to ask them to take their seats. So perhaps we can go ahead with some other line of questioning that is relevant to the minister's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try and heed your sound advice, Mr. Chairman. I hope you recognize, though, that this is an important issue because we're dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I brought up this whole issue — the problem of conflict.... You have the minister of state and the conflict over that; you're working for the Kootenays and all that. I think these are critical issues.

Let me ask you this, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's my understanding that the 90 townhouses that are to be constructed may very well be exempt from Surrey's development cost charge bylaw. That would mean that the citizens of Surrey would pick up the nearly half a million dollars of development cost charges for roads, sewers and water. I'm wondering if the minister has any comments on that issue, given the background to this particular complex.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the best of my knowledge, there is no provincial legislation that gives development cost charge exemption to any possible future development on this property. The bill was very clear that only the part of the property that was considered to be used for educational or religious purposes was exempt. If the use of the property changes, the Assessment Authority would fall into place, and they would then have to make a determination as to whether whatever happened on the property was liable for taxation.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a final question, Mr. Chairman. Could I get some agreement from the minister that she's

[ Page 4937 ]

prepared to look into this matter, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I don't see what there is to look into. I would suggest, with the direct pipeline that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley and the member for Victoria have to the mayor's office in Surrey, that if they have an area of concern, they should be expressing it in that way.

MR. BLENCOE: I think the minister is trying to escape this one, but she's definitely implicated. The fact that she fails to conduct an investigation into the actions — and her own actions — I think is very telling in this particular case. The record speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman.

I want to move on to another issue very quickly if I may: the issue of assessment amendments that were introduced and have been postponed — the new formula for charging industrial properties. As you know, we have created a new resource industry property class of taxation. As the minister is aware, many communities are waiting for the introduction of that new classification; unfortunately, it has been deferred. My colleague from the Kootenays is aware of this. Many communities are waiting for this to be introduced.

I wonder if the minister can shed any light on what's happening in that area. Will the communities waiting for that new formula have good news very soon, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, this item does not fall within my mandate, but my acting deputy tells me that the matter is being worked on by the ministry responsible and UBCM. Really, I don't have anything further to state on this, because it's not something that I have been involved with.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll go back to the Bible society, if you want.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What do you know about the ministry? Haven't you got any relevant stuff?

MR. BLENCOE: We have another minister of defence over there.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that it's not directly within the mandate of the minister, but as Minister of Municipal Affairs, when it comes to taxation issues, and particularly small resource communities, I'm sure she hears their concerns. Delegations or representations have been made to her on this particular issue. I would like to know if she will at least give an undertaking to the communities that are waiting for this new formula to be introduced. Has she made or will she make representation to the Minister of Finance to ensure that this new formula — this new category — is introduced to stabilize assessments for these communities?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There can't be a member of the House who wouldn't support the type of situation where we would have a stabilization factor. It is being looked at. There's no question that I will indicate support when the matter comes forward, and the support would be for a formula that would best serve the local governments.

MR. BLENCOE: Some of my colleagues want to talk about transit in a minute. I just have one request to make. I wonder if the minister can give us an interim report on the Save-On-Foods investigation, and what's happening in that situation. I have a couple of questions to follow up on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We haven't received a interim report. I'm sure that you're as informed as I am, by way of the openness of the meetings and the publicity that the meetings have generated. That's called open government and open hearings.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad we have open government in Vancouver We don't have open government in Victoria or in the Provincial Capital Commission — 22 years of closed meetings. The deputy minister is here, and he knows how closed those meetings are, and the millions of dollars that have been spent. But I'm glad we're open in Vancouver. It is a shame.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The leader is absolutely correct: the PCC is a shame to this community, and hopefully the minister one day will open it.

I want to ask the minister one question relating to the issue of Save-On-Foods and the unfortunate collapse. The issue has been discussed that local government sometimes doesn't have all the powers it needs to conduct this kind of investigation itself. Some people I've talked to say they did, some say they didn't. I have mixed reviews on that issue. In the interests of local autonomy and of local government being able to do some of these things like investigation themselves, is the minister reviewing these issues which would in future allow local government to investigate on its own without the provincial government being involved — if the local government decides that's in their interests, of course?

[4:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was just going to ask if the member would suggest that it would be appropriate for local government to investigate itself. I think the matter of whether or not they would really like to have that authority is something that is yet to be decided. I would hope that after the commissioner has completed his inquiry, we will have some recommendations from him. If they are in line with the fact that possibly local government should have more authority to carry out this type of investigation, we would certainly be looking at it. But I would not like to presuppose what is coming in by way of recommendations from the commissioner, so before his report is tabled I think it would be inappropriate for us to start guessing what we should or should not have done.

MR. BLENCOE: I have one other matter. It's the minister of state system, which is under a separate vote. I will deal with that under a separate vote and allow my colleagues who wish to have some discussion on transit to do so.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has no surprise at all in store. As she sees me stand here, she knows precisely what I'm about to raise: the matter of HandyDART and, more specifically, a vehicle for my constituency. It's a subject that the minister and I have had considerable discussion on, and I appreciate the fact that she has been forthright with me in the past year or so. We have

[ Page 4938 ]

had considerable correspondence; I have a large file building. Moreover, we have had numerous conversations on the subject.

For the record, and simply to refresh the minister's memory, I will remind her of the most recent correspondence I had with her office, namely a memorandum sending along to her copies of some 50 letters from individuals in my community saying that yes, indeed, our time has come. We deserve HandyDART. We've been given assurances for some time. When will that day arrive? As I say, the minister is certainly familiar with that.

Moreover, based on conversations I have had with the minister, I have now drafted what I call a pro forma letter. My letter gives the same message to one and all: that I am in conversation with the minister and the assurances I have. The assurances are specifically that our request is now being treated as "a first priority," and moreover that the vice-president of the greater Victoria operations for B.C. Transit has informed us that the Nanaimo system will be included in the budget development activities to commence in fiscal '87 and to apply to fiscal '88-89.

My question is a very direct and very specific one. I'm wondering if the minister can advise me now whether I can inform my constituents that at long last our day has arrived. Our ship may not have come in, but perhaps a handyDART vehicle we'll have. Would the minister care to respond to that direct question?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I thank the member for his interest in that particular service. There's no question about it; it is really one of the most popular services provided through B.C. Transit in the entire province. Unfortunately, there never seems to be quite enough money to go around to fulfill the demand for that type of service. As you are aware, the Nanaimo service is the number one priority, and it is our hope that, working within the budget available to us, along with some cost savings that we hope to generate in other areas, we will be able to accommodate that service this fiscal year.

MR. LOVICK: Just to clarify, if I might. I certainly don't mean for a moment to be critical, because I know the minister is doing what she can with limited resources. I accept that, and we appreciate whatever assistance we might get. I have no allusions about an abundance or a superabundance of money. I'm wondering, however, whether the minister might be able to give me a more specific answer on the time-line. Let me just give you a brief illustration of why I do that, Madam Minister.

I'm sorry to say that this has become a problem within my community. A number of people, especially those who are active in the disabled community, are saying: "We aren't going to be fooled by the responses that you're getting, Mr. Lovick. We have been given those assurances before, and we no longer have much faith in them." Sadly, that is a perception that's out there. I don't fault anybody for it; I merely say that it's a perception that's out there. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me a somewhat more specific idea of the time.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: All going well, we should be able to have the program firmed up by the fall. Can we say by the fall?

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that, and I appreciate the effort.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to make a few comments about the transportation situation in British Columbia.

We have B.C. Transit and the commission which review the provincial budget for transportation and deal with some of the specialized transportation problems in the province, one of which we've just talked about — the handyDART system, where we've made some substantial progress over the last ten years and have taken over a bunch of charitably run transit systems and amalgamated them into ones that now provide a reasonable level of service. Although if you talk to the disabled community, they still think substantial improvements can be made, particularly with regard to the request to study the retrofitting of buses in Vancouver and Victoria.

I see that Stu Hodgson is here, and I know that an experiment was done along one of the routes in Victoria to change the buses so that they kneel, so that the bus stairs go down to make them accessible to the disabled community. I'm aware that Rick Hansen, the coalition for the disabled and many others would like to see that implemented far more widely than the handyDART system. They want to see the disabled have access to the existing bus service and not have to phone and make reservations.

I would like to ask the minister if there is going to be quick action on this request from a broad variety of leaders of the disabled community — from Rick Hansen to a number of others involved in the coalition for the disabled and other disabled groups. If the minister could enlighten us on what point that project is at, I'm sure the disabled community in British Columbia would like to know.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I feel truly honoured that for the second day in a row we have the leader of the official opposition in while we're discussing this important budget. Your presence here is really appreciated.

The matter of retrofitting the existing transit fleet is presently under discussion; there's no question about that. At its meeting on March 28 the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission instructed B.C. Transit staff to investigate and report on a recommendation on this topic from the Vancouver Region Custom Transit Advisory Committee.

An assumption has been made that new vehicles to replace 1,094 buses in the B.C. Transit fleet would cost an additional $14.2 million if fitted with lifts at the factory and that retrofitting would be more costly. So it's not a subject that can be dealt with quickly or lightly, but it is being looked at by the staff, and it is expected that a report will be back to the commission by September.

MR. HARCOURT: Thank you for that response, Madam Minister. I look forward to that report, and if the B.C. Transit research people who prepare that report could send a copy to me, I would like to have it.

You've also heard the concerns of some smaller communities which, of course, are the direct responsibility of B.C. Transit, so I won't comment on them further. You've heard from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), and our member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has some concerns about the smaller communities, which he'll make you aware of.

I would like to concentrate now on some of the major transit crises that we face in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which serves half the people in British Columbia. It's a very difficult transit area, as you know, Madam Minister. It takes in a land area that's twice the size of metro Toronto, with half the population.

[ Page 4939 ]

I understand the problems of dealing with that diverse population in that huge land area. But having said that, in the last five years we have gone through a massive cut of budget and service and an increase in fares that is unconscionable. I think it's particularly unconscionable for people in parts of Vancouver — for example, the West End — where they ride 12 blocks and pay $1.25; yet people can come in.... I know there are zone fares now that make up that inequity a bit, but it's still a very unfair situation, in terms of the 35 percent cut that we faced in real dollars from 1983 to 1986.

When I was a member of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission we had, as the flak-catchers for the provincial government, the unenviable task of raising taxes dramatically, of cutting services, and then, on top of that, of trying to incorporate those cut services into the new rapid transit system. Those cuts have not been restored. There has been a deterioration of the service to people throughout the region and a continuing decrease in service. I was just reading reports from members of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission that sounded like 1983 or 1984 — different people, but basically saying the same things.

I think it is unfortunate. I hope the minister will be reviewing it, because it's harming the local economy. It's making it very difficult for the key users of transit, who are mostly low and modest income people. It is something that....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Yes, there are a lot of low-income citizens in the West End. If you would like to talk further about that, Mr. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan), I'd be glad to show you the poverty in the West End and the people who are suffering there from rent increases, lack of housing, cutbacks in services and lack of an increase in social assistance. Yes, there is a great deal of poverty and suffering in the West End, but I'm talking today about transit. I will enlighten you about the problems that our citizens are facing.

[4:30]

The real problem — and this is the issue that I want to talk about — is the financing of the rapid transit system. I've been talking mostly about the deterioration of the bus service, but the major area I would like to talk about today is.... I'm not going to dwell too long on where I think the mistakes were made in 1979 to 1981. The first mistake was a very clear one of choosing the ALRT system instead of the conventional rapid transit system, which would have been half to no more than two-thirds the cost of the ALRT system. The second mistake was to build the Alex Fraser Bridge instead of a bridge right next to the Pattullo Bridge that could handle the ALRT across to Surrey, which I've always supported — supported right from the beginning — and have three lanes of traffic on that bridge; then to have taken the Pattullo Bridge, which is one of the more dangerous bridges in British Columbia, with four lanes on it when it shouldn't have four lanes....

MR. R. FRASER: Tell me how you figured that out.

MR. HARCOURT: I figured it out — through you, Mr. Chairman, to an engineer who should know better — through listening to engineering experts, listening to engineers from the regional district and from the engineering profession who aren't dropping cars through the roofs of shopping malls. These are engineers who advised us that the most appropriate way to have provided transit in greater Vancouver would have been to go with the conventional rapid transit system at half the cost of the ALRT and to have built another crossing along with the Pattullo Bridge. With the savings we would have realized, we would then have been able to deal with the extreme problem that we have right now of getting any extension of the ALRT because of the cost.

With the saving of almost two-thirds of a billion dollars that could have been realized just by not going ahead with those two projects and by going through with the other ones that were supported by a large number of the political and municipal leaders of the regional district, we would have been able to build the extension, not just to where it's going now. which is just across the Fraser River into Surrey, but right up into Whalley and possibly beyond, and we could have got on with the other very serious problem in greater Vancouver. These two high-growth population centres, akin to Mississauga and Scarborough in Metro Toronto, are Surrey, particularly North Surrey, and the Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge and Mission areas. There is a transportation crisis building, particularly in those areas not served by rapid transit, and that is out to Coquitlam and Port Moody and along the north side of the Fraser River.

It was tragic that we made those decisions back in 1979-1981 to have a glitzy new toy for Expo — a glitzy new bridge. Instead of building for the experts and the visitors to Expo, we should have been taking care of the business of the people living here before, during and after Expo. We should have been proceeding with those two projects: conventional light rapid transit and double-bridging the Pattullo — changing the Pattullo Bridge to one-way traffic on three lanes. However, we didn't do that, so we are dealing with the present reality

The present reality is that the financing formula for rapid transit doesn't work, because it is based on a compromise by the now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), a compromise from the previous Social Credit cabinet, to finance the construction of the capital works part — the right-of-way for the rapid transit system — like a secondary provincial highway, which is fifty-fifty cost-sharing. It's the submission of most municipal leaders in the Greater Vancouver Regional District that that rapid transit system is the same as the 401 freeway. It is an urban highway on steel, and the capital costs of that right-of-way should be treated like an alternative to a freeway. It should be 100 percent financed by the provincial government, because it is an alternative to a six- to eight-lane freeway. It is an alternative to 100 buses an hour along Hastings Street. That LRT is another form of freeway, and it should be financed that way.

The reason we are at a standstill on the extensions of rapid transit is that the local mayors, rightly so, cannot put that cost onto their property tax. That's already suffering and is already going to have to deal with the crisis forming in the basic infrastructure of municipal services — which you didn't want to comment on yesterday — where we should be going in a bipartisan way to the federal government and pushing them to do the right thing. They cannot afford to extend the rapid transit further into Surrey and, most importantly, to extend it to where we have a real problem along the Barnet Highway, through the Burnabys and the Coquitlams to Port Moody. We should certainly be extending the rapid transit to the Brunette exchange by the 401 freeway, to the

[ Page 4940 ]

Lougheed Mall and down to the Coquitlam town centre. And we won't, because the financing formula means we can't afford to do it.

Madam Minister, I would like to urge you to sit down, not just to do a further study, but to come up with the kind of financing formula to build rapid transit, to meet with the members of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, so that we can get on with providing people in greater Vancouver with the rapid transit system they need and deserve, and so we can then get on with the balancing of roads and rapid transit, which is the backbone of the regional district's plan for the region. I would like to know what plans you have to sit down and renegotiate the financing formula for rapid transit in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

MR. R. FRASER: I would like to start by commenting briefly on the remark of the Leader of the Opposition that he talked to engineers who told him that the Pattullo Bridge was unsafe — not the kind of engineers who drop cars on groceries. I would just like to make it quite clear to him that if in fact some engineer was responsible for the collapse of that building in Burnaby, then he should be properly chastised by the association — or whatever action takes place. There's no question about that in my mind — never has been. However, we are not sure, so for him to cast that doubt is not proper, in my view.

Secondly, when I asked him where he got his information on the bridge, it was a legitimate question — I was interested. If you say the bridge is unsafe — some engineer says it's unsafe — then something should indeed be done. Maybe the bridge should be closed if it is not safe enough to travel on — there should be no question about that.

When we get into matters of judgment, when it comes to traditional or conventional versus rapid transit, there is no doubt in my mind that we shouldn't be building, nor should we have built — and I'm glad we did not build — what is considered to be a conventional rapid transit system, which is at ground level with ground-level crossings. That's out of date; that's old-fashioned. That's exactly the kind of design that gets people into level-crossing fatal accidents, which we want to avoid. That's exactly the kind of system that doesn't permit the transportation system to get from A to B in a decent amount of time, and that's why they should be avoided. That's exactly the kind of system that's difficult to increase the capacity of, and that's why we want to avoid it.

We want to have a system of transportation in the Greater Vancouver Regional District other than highways that will give us the potential to increase the load. With the transit system the way it is, we could put on more trains and increase the capacity without doing anything really serious in the way of construction. I happen to think that the layout of the transit system was reasonable going across the river to Surrey and attaching itself to a huge population that will want to get downtown. There is no question about that.

I would not be surprised to find that a great deal of thought went into the placing of the Alex Fraser Bridge so it could serve the whole of Surrey-Delta down there that heretofore had trouble getting into the centre of town. It's important to remind ourselves, I guess, if we have to, that it's so typical of the opposition party wanting to do everything that's old-fashioned and out of date. They like to do it because it's easier to sell things that people recognize, and more difficult to sell things that are untried, or presumably untried, but are reasonable and have been successful and visible in other communities.

I guess we could remind ourselves that there are elevated transit systems that have been around for many decades, Chicago being one that I can recall from my travels as a youth. It's important, for example, to have a transit system that prevents us from having to build another highway through the lower mainland and across the bog, which is very important. When we find out the impact of the transit system, of course, it's quite remarkable. If you want to look at the effect of what the Bay Area Rapid Transit had on the San Francisco area, I think you would be impressed with what a system can really do.

I just want to make those points about keeping up to date and going ahead, and I for one am very proud of the fact that the technology on that ALRT was Canadian. It somehow seems to be one of those odd circumstances about Canadians that we fail to want to recognize or accept Canadian engineering talent, when we should be exploiting it and making it more available around the world. Little do we know about what kind of contributions Canadians make to engineering, but I presume you all saw an article recently that pointed out that a man named Turnbull, who was a Canadian engineer, actually thought of, conceived, designed and built the variable-pitch propeller which made flying the viable alternative that it is now.

It is of course with great pride that I point out it's Canadian technology that we have on the rapid transit, and it's Canadian technology that we should be exploiting, because that's how we make this great country grow.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the Leader of the Opposition, I was a little surprised that you asked if I would agree to meet with the mayors who serve on the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. I couldn't count in the last year and a half the number of meetings that I have had with that commission. We were almost homesteading at the transit office in an attempt to come up with a funding formula that would be good not for one year, two years or five years, but for ten years.

On March 28, Mayor Lanskail, who is the chairman of the commission, and the mayor of West Vancouver and I issued a joint press release outlining the terms and conditions of the new funding formula which makes provision for up to three extensions over the next ten years. That funding formula is presently in place. Further to the numerous.... I was going to say hundreds of meetings, because it certainly seems like it. There were certainly hundreds of hours spent arriving at that funding formula, ensuring not only that it would be fair to local government but that the province would know well in advance what the responsibilities were.

Further to that, the commission has asked for more say in how the operation of transit is conducted. On May 24, Mayor Lanskail sent a letter out to all of the participating mayors and councils in the lower mainland inviting submissions. His exact words were: "to invite submissions from municipal councils within the region in respect of the form, structure, organization and operational policy of the transit system." That is the next phase in the, hopefully, restructuring and body that will be responsible for not only the current transit operation but future extensions in the lower mainland.

For you to suggest that I haven't been meeting and that we don't have a formula in place, hon. member.... I am at a loss to understand why you would make that type of statement.

[4:45]

[ Page 4941 ]

Without going into the entire funding formula with you, I would suggest that under the old formula when you sat on the commission, the capital costs and new extensions required approximately a 35 percent contribution from the province. The new formula sees the province paying in the neighbourhood of 74 percent of capital costs on new extensions. I think that the recognition of its responsibility by the province has been tangibly expressed.

I want to speak further on the type of system that was selected: this Canadian system that certainly has been acclaimed not just in the country but right across the world. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we even had the British....

MR. BLENCOE: You sold the right one for a dollar.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, your system that was really so worthwhile — to the member for Victoria. That was really a wonderful investment that the NDP government made.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a good system. It's all over the world now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that system is certainly all over the world. But the SkyTrain system that was selected for the lower mainland has been recognized as a superior system.

We have had, as I mentioned in my opening comments, some 2,800 transit specialists — these are mayors, councillors, planners, engineers and specialist reporters from all over the world — visiting the lower mainland to tour the system. We have had British television visiting the lower mainland so that they could film the tunnel safety aspects of our system, following the disastrous fire in the London Underground. It is well recognized, and we have pages of people that have visited. We've had them from China. I can't even read some of the.... We've had them from China, from Thailand, from the Philippines, from Beijing — a community that you and I visited a few years ago, hon. member — and from Spain. We've had elected representatives from across the United States as well. We've had them visiting us from Honolulu, Hawaii. They are considering the installation of a similar system, it is so highly regarded.

For you to say we should have chosen a less desirable system because it may have cost less.... I think it would be interesting for you to view — and I have it in my office if you're interested in looking at it — a BCTV clip that was done on the new Portland system. It was considerably less in cost than our SkyTrain system, but it does not have the potential for growth, and it is at level crossings and causing nothing but problems at those level crossings. They may have saved money in the initial installation, but there is no future to that particular system, and if they want there to be a future, they are going to have to spend considerable sums of money to elevate it in order to properly accommodate the numbers of people that it should really be available to.

I would also like to mention again the economic benefits that have been generated in and around our SkyTrain stations. We have investment values totalling well over $5 billion. If you use the spinoff spending on $5 billion, you see that there's been in excess of $15 billion spent in the lower mainland as a result of the SkyTrain coming in and that decision being made. I think our Premier, who was the minister responsible at the time the decision was made, should be congratulated and commended, not criticized continually.

Hon. member, I think ten years from now even you are going to stand up and say: "What a very wise decision that was! That system was excellent." This will be another Expo-type statement that you're going to make: you didn't really like it to begin with, but it was wonderful in the end. Well, this is SkyTrain. You feel that you have a responsibility to criticize, hon. member, but really it's a super system.

Demands for extensions are being addressed at this time. The new funding formula that we have in place will allow for extensions in a fair and amicable way. I would hope that you will come out and support what we have been doing. I can tell you, the efforts made by the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, the board of B.C. Transit and the staff at B.C. Transit has been absolutely outstanding in the past year and a half.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to clarify some of the points the member for Vancouver South made about the Pattullo Bridge. I'm not saying that the bridge is structurally unsound; I'm saying that it's a dangerous bridge to drive on, because the four lanes of traffic are too narrow. The police reports and the traffic engineering studies show that very clearly. The idea was to have it be a three-lane one-way bridge instead of four lanes with two going one way and two going the other.

Secondly, you're right: the ALRT system is a Canadian built system. I visited the plant of the UTDC, as it was then known, which was a Crown corporation of the Ontario government. I saw not just the ALRT there, though; I also saw a conventional light rapid transit system built in Canada. So it's not a question of being Canadian or not being Canadian. There were conventional Canadian systems that could have been purchased. The $5 billion of investment that occurred around those stations would have occurred with a conventional rapid transit system.

Basically the tone of your remarks is that it's a nice shiny toy, and what's another half a billion dollars? You said the same thing for the Coquihalla: what's another half a billion dollars? The reason is 18 crossings. We've got 5,000 stop signs and stoplights in greater Vancouver. Oh, my goodness gracious, another 18 crossings! Gee whiz! It's going to ruin traffic in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to have another 18 crossings.

Well, it certainly hasn't done it in Alberta. I've talked to the mayors and the people there. As a matter of fact, you have brought in as your interim manager Don MacDonald, who happened to build that system in Edmonton and who has said that it's a great system. It's working superbly. Cars and trains don't seem to hit each other. They seem to have these automatic bars that come down. I want you to know, Madam Minister, that not only is it in Edmonton and Calgary, but that conventional system happens to be in 200 other communities in Europe and North America. Do you know how many ALRT systems there are in the world right now, other than the one that goes around the track in Kingston?

MR. WILLIAMS: One and a half.

MR. HARCOURT: No, there are two. There's one in Vancouver, and there's one in Detroit that's a bloody scandal. That's not the fault of the ALRT people totally; it's the fault of

[ Page 4942 ]

venal contractors and municipal ineptitude. But don't ask the people of Detroit about their SkyTrain.

I don't need any lessons or lectures about selling the ALRT system. I think it has appropriate uses in certain cities, but not in Vancouver. As a matter of fact, Madam Minister....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: No, we won't, because we're not stupid with money like Social Credit is. We don't believe in wasting a half a billion on SkyTrain and a half a billion on the Coquihalla.

I want you to know, Madam Minister, that it does have uses in certain areas. I invited the governor of Bangkok here to see our system, and I visited Bangkok with the Lavalin people to try and sell that system in Bangkok, because it needs to be elevated there. They need to have that kind of system. We didn't need it in Vancouver, so you're comparing apples and oranges. I also took our engineers along to Shanghai to see if we could sell them the system in Shanghai, so don't try that putdown, those Social Credit negative politics. The sourpusses over there on the government benches are always negative, negative, negative.

I hear that the minister, who likes meetings, has been meeting with the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission.

MR. BLENCOE: When she's not in the Kootenays.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I think it's terrific that on occasion she comes back to the lower mainland and meets with Don Lanskail. I've met with him. He had a lot of concerns about rapid transit. I also heard the recent remarks of Gordon Campbell, the mayor of Vancouver, who says we can't afford to even build the extensions on that formula.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's because you left them in debt in the city of Vancouver.

MR. HARCOURT: As a matter of fact, I left them with a triple-A credit rating, which is a hell of a lot better than the province — a heck of a lot better than the province. You're going to suffer the other word tonight in Boundary-Similkameen.

It any event, I'm surprised and delighted that you have signed a document. We have never seen it. Would you be willing, Madam Minister, to table this new transit costsharing formula that was signed in March that you talked about, and here it is the middle of June and....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's a secret press release.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm not asking for a press release. If we relied on the press releases of this government.... If we didn't have any more press releases in this government, we'd put MacMillan Bloedel out of business. We don't want press releases. This is a NATO government: No Action, Talk Only. If you've got an agreement, file it, Madam Minister. We'd love to see it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I would just remind the House that we cannot file documents in committee. The only time they can be filed is with the leave of the House. Proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: If the member would like to have a copy of the report that was released outlining the funding formula, it would certainly be easily available to him either through my office or through the transit office. If he would like us to send it to him, we'd be pleased to do that.

MR. JONES: I just wanted to pick up a couple of items that were referred to by my two previous colleagues. I listened with interest to the very positive exchange with the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and the minister, and was quite envious of the kind of positive response that that member got. That member got a commitment for transportation for the handicapped in his community and was even able to pin the minister down as to a time-frame in which that commitment would be made. I commend the minister for that.

I would like to raise a similar aspect in the Vancouver area that concerns me, and I think the minister is aware of this. At the very same time as the beginning of National Access Awareness Week for the disabled, given that the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission planned to provide bus transportation for handicapped preschool children, that proposal was refused funding by B.C. Transit and your ministry. It was not a great amount, but I think an important amount; some $500,000 was required for that proposal. I think it's really symptomatic of an attitude problem.

The minister has to be aware that the children will be deprived their preschool education if they cannot have this kind of transportation. They're not the kind of young people who can look after themselves. I'm sure the minister is aware that this proposal is supported by Vancouver city council. Given the kind of positive response that I saw between the second member for Nanaimo and the minister, I'd like to ask the minister what sort of priority level this proposal has and when we might see the funding for this proposal.

[5:00]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That item has a very high priority with me personally. I will be continuing to seek a funding source for that, but I'm afraid I can't give you any firm commitment on that. I can assure you that it's not something that's being swept under the table. It does have a high priority with me.

MR. JONES: Could the minister comment on its relative priority as compared to the situation I described in Nanaimo?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm assuming that you don't understand the traditional role of responsibility as it applies to the commission and to the minister, but the priorities are set by the commission. The item mentioned by the member for Nanaimo was at the top of the commission's priority list. I would have to determine exactly where this item would fit into their prioritizing, and I'm sure you realize that it's a very significant sum of money. It's not something that can be dealt with just out of hand. There will have to be another funding source made known to them. So I'm going to have to work with some of my colleagues to see if we can secure additional funding to assist in that area. As far as where it fits into the commission's priority list, I'm not sure.

MR. JONES: Well, I can't disagree with the minister that half a million dollars is a significant sum of money. However, I think the needs of the handicapped children who are going

[ Page 4943 ]

to be deprived of preschool education as a result of this lack of funding is also a high priority. I would hope that the minister would use the influence of her good offices to ensure that this be placed on a higher priority, because I think it is a very high priority.

The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned some aspects of community traffic in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and one of the aspects I am very concerned about, primarily because it holds out some hope for many areas in my riding that are ravaged by commuter traffic. The hope that's been held out for some time — and it's gone through many a long convoluted process with various involvements at various levels with federal and provincial ministers and local governments — is the concept of commuter rail.

The minister is well aware of the tremendous traffic on the 401 — at rush hour, it's the longest parking lot in Canada — and also the tremendous amount of traffic that goes through my constituency of North Burnaby as a result of the lack of a decent transit system that could be augmented considerably by the addition of commuter rail to the existing transit system.

The mayors from Mission right through to Vancouver support this concept. It's a very simple concept of purchasing a window of time in the morning and the afternoon. The rails are there; the rolling stock is there. It is purchasing a window of time from the CPR so that those tracks could be used for a period in the morning and the afternoon during the rush periods. It would be a beautiful ride for commuters all the way from Mission into Vancouver, going by Burrard Inlet and the mountains. I think it would be a tremendous asset to the transit system we have.

I understand that at the annual meeting of the UBCM convention last September 24, the Premier of the province agreed that the provincial government would make available some $16 million for this project. I'm sure the minister is aware that the junior Transport minister, Gerry St. Germain, was recently given that cabinet position, and he was a staunch supporter of commuter rail. He ensured that local mayors who supported this concept had good access to Transport minister John Crosbie and had support from that minister. Mr. St. Germain at this time says he will do everything he can to ensure this.

I assume, as a member of the cabinet and the minister responsible for transit, that you would have some influence on the timing and the promotion of this concept, which would be of tremendous benefit to constituents in my riding.

I would like to ask the minister for her view on commuter rail, and how she sees it fitting into the transit system in the greater Vancouver area. Is she willing to promote the concept that the Premier said he supported — to the tune of $16 million — last September 24?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The understanding I have is a wee bit different, hon. member, from yours. The commitment that I understand the Premier made was that the province would put up 50 percent. This is the first communication that I recall seeing, and I don't have it in front of me. It was contingent, though, on federal funding. Every letter I have seen that has come from the federal government has rejected any financial participation up until this point in time. We now have Mr. St. Germain, who has been elevated to the cabinet and is in cooperation with my colleague, the Provincial Secretary and minister of state for the area (Hon.Mr. Veitch), reviewing all the information available with a view to somehow putting forward recommendations that can accommodate some form of commuter rail out to your area.

I can tell you that the staff at B. C. Transit have cooperated fully by bringing forward all the information they have had. Mr. Hodgson tells me that as recently as Sunday evening, he had a discussion with the hon. Mr. St. Germain on this very subject. So it is actively being pursued at this very time.

Some of the background information that was given to us is a wee bit scary, and we're looking at cost estimates of $77 million, which would result in an estimated cost of approximately $14 per passenger, based on one million passengers per year. That would have a significant financial impact on our overall transit funding formula. It's something that would have to be looked at in all seriousness, as to whether or not that is the best way to service your community.

I think you can find comfort in knowing that there is a review being done at this time. The provincial government and the federal government are cooperating on this review. I expect that we will probably have the results of that study before too long.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. JONES: I certainly have a different understanding than the minister. I hope that I'm right, because it's my understanding that federal Transport minister John Crosbie had pledged government support for commuter rail between Mission and Vancouver.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's not true. I have his letters.

MR. JONES: Okay.

Could the minister, then, tell me when this scary figure of $14 per passenger — the study that produced that figure — came about? Did that come about through any negotiations with the CPR, or is it just some figure that the minister is throwing out?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that figure is a result of negotiations with the CPR. It seems that every time you negotiate with them they want more money, so the negotiations don't seem to work in our favour. The 1981 analysis was reviewed and updated: CP revised its $2 million cost estimate to $35.5 million, and total costs were now revised upward to $61 million. They're not the easiest persons to negotiate with. I would hope that the study may bring forward some alternatives.

You should also know that if this does become part of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, we'll have to get the members of the commission on board. Up to this point in time they have declined to support commuter rail to your area. That is another little predicament that we're faced with. The reason for their rejection of support was based on cost.

MR. JONES: I really wonder how serious negotiations can take place unless there is a real commitment on the part of the federal and provincial governments to go ahead with this. I'm suggesting that serious negotiations have not taken place; that these figures that are quoted are not the figures that would be produced if the federal and provincial governments and the CPR got together and got into an actual negotiation situation where there was a real commitment to providing this

[ Page 4944 ]

kind of transportation service for the people of the lower mainland — strongly supported by the mayors, right from Vancouver out to Mission.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: The mayor of Burnaby, the mayor of Port Moody, the mayor of Port Coquitlam, the mayor of Mission, the mayor of Coquitlam: all those mayors support this concept, and the minister knows that.

I think your government is going to see the wisdom of this proposal. I think that you are going to take it seriously, that you are going to get that support that I suggested was already there with the federal government, and that you are going to sit down and negotiate a reasonable price. I think this is going to go ahead, and it's going to be your ministry, then, that will be responsible for implementing it. I wish you luck with that. That's my prediction of what's going to happen, and that would be in the best interests of the people of the lower mainland.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The one question I can ask you, then, is: are you suggesting that this is a decision that the provincial government should be making independent of the body that is presently in place and supposedly responsible for participating in those kinds of decisions? The Vancouver Regional Transit Commission is the body responsible for transit on the lower mainland. One would assume that if it was to be extended out to Port Moody, and as far as Mission, it would be an extension of their jurisdiction.

Under our new agreement the commission, the board and the ministry, the provincial government, would have to agree to extensions. The commission, at this point in time, said that because of the cost they are not prepared to go for those extensions. Are you suggesting that we should ignore the recommendations of the commission and lay an extension on them that would result in all of the taxpayers in the lower mainland picking up that bill, against the wishes of the Transit Commission, who feel that they have an agreement that allows them to participate in those kinds of decisions?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a series of questions for the minister, starting off with a question that reflects the concerns of a couple of different members on our side — the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). This is in regard to the ombudsman's report of 1987 dealing with the noise levels on and near the SkyTrain tracks.

In February the minister announced that B.C. Transit would seek $1 million to reduce the effects of the noise on residential neighbours. What has happened to this process?

[5:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is an item presently before the Treasury Board for a $1 million expenditure, but in the meantime considerable work has been done, particularly on the wheels. According to the note I have here, several modifications are in progress to reduce the noise levels to the specifications originally laid out, which were for very quiet operation; and, hopefully, even to reduce them further. It states here that a revised truck steering mechanism, resilient wheels and rubber inserted between the wheel and its rim, special powdered metal compound lubrication, noise absorption barriers and accurate wheel alignment fixtures have been undertaken.

They are constantly working on the noise situation as it has been identified for some time now. We are presently waiting for the Treasury Board to deal with our $1 million request, but there is activity underway to attempt to respond to the recommendations brought forward in the ombudsman's report.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This system that was imposed on these communities without any participation from the people who would be directly affected has been disrupting that community and causing significant hardship for some time. The minister said in February that you would be seeking the money. Can you indicate now how long you expect this process to take and when the people in the communities affected can expect the relief promised by this $1 million investment?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I can't give a specific dead line. Work is underway. I've spelt out what it is — the modifications of equipment that are presently taking place.

The funding sources are really to assist with some modifications to the residential buildings in the area. We're addressing the concerns laid down by the ombudsman, and it's my understanding that the noise levels are really down.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has received numerous requests to amend the B.C. Transit Act, and this is to deal with process and procedure, the need for public input. Has the minister considered that, and can we expect those changes?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I mentioned earlier to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, the mayor of West Vancouver, who is the chairman of the greater Vancouver transit system, has been in contact with all of the mayors and councils on the lower mainland in an attempt to put forward a report that would contain recommendations as to the future of the transit function, particularly in the lower mainland.

Once we have those recommendations, we will quite likely be dealing with an entire restructuring of the operation and the function.

MS. SMALLWOOD: While we strongly support local autonomy and decision-making, it seems very clear that this ministry and this minister has some responsibility for leadership. Clearly what the municipal councils and the government's opposition have been asking for for some time is legislation from this government that deals with access and the right of the public to have some adequate notice of changes that will affect their community.

All we're asking for is the B.C. Transit Act to be brought into line with other pieces of legislation that already require public notification. For the minister to respond and say that the transit commission itself is looking into the restructuring of its functions is not good enough. Will the minister take the responsibility to assure that the public has the right to notification?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm a wee bit confused with that question because we do go a long way to notify the public when there are going to be substantial changes made in the system. Public meetings are held, and other than that, when there are changes in the schedules, there are significant ads placed in the papers. The "Buzzer" that is available on the

[ Page 4945 ]

bus gives this type of information. Short of inviting the general public in to set the fares, routes and schedules, I don't know how much more you can ask of a Crown corporation that is trying to do a job and, in my opinion, is doing it very well.

We make all kinds of allowances for public input. Although we advise the public of potential or future changes, I suspect you're saying that the public may not like or agree with some of those changes and so in that instance we aren't consulting with them. That will always be the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the members that the debate has been starting to drift into the addressing of future legislation, and Committee of Supply is not the appropriate forum.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has indicated that they have an extensive public-meeting process advising the public of changes rather than soliciting some response from the public. Most of those meetings are laying it on, telling the public how they are going to be affected, rather than soliciting the public's view. The people who ride the buses, who pay for the buses and who pay the taxes and your salary have the right to have some say in how that service is delivered — not after the fact, but before the fact, when the decisions are being made.

The transit commission has been criticized for some time for its operations and the fact that it makes all of its decisions behind closed doors. I am unaware of any other body that would conduct such business — other than, of course, property — and staff-related business — behind closed doors. This is the public's business and should be conducted out in the open with the full participation and right of the public to provide information. It only makes practical sense that without that information, how can the transit commission and the transit authority make a well-balanced decision rather than react to the public.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to advise the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley that the commission meetings are open to the public. They are not closed meetings at all, and you would be very welcome to attend at any time, I'm sure.

It's important for us to understand and, for the record, ensure that the members of this House realize who makes up the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission — and I assume that's the body you are referring to more than any other. Those are members of council, in most cases mayors, with one exception, an alderman from the city of Vancouver, because Vancouver is entitled to two members. We have Mayor Lanskail of West Vancouver, Mayor Blair of Richmond, Mayor Gordon Campbell of the city of Vancouver, Mayor Gordon Hogg of White Rock, Mayor David Driscoll of Port Moody, Mayor Thomas Baker of New Westminster and Alderman Philip Owen from the city of Vancouver. These people, hopefully, having gone through the regular election process, as is the case with all locally elected representatives, should have a feel for what it is their constituents would like to have represented on the board of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission.

We should also point out that when there are some significant changes being made in a particular community, that community is made well aware through correspondence to the mayor and council, as well as through the ads that go in the local papers, so that the duly elected local government is well aware of proposals, and their input is requested. I don't know how much further you can go. It seems to me we're going right back to what we went through yesterday with the member for Victoria.

Possibly I should mention the names of the Victoria Regional Transit Commission members at this time too, so that they don't feel slighted. We have Alderman Frank Carson from Victoria, Mayor Howard Sturrock, Mayor Norma Sealey, Mayor Susan Brice, Alderman Vicki Kuhl, Mayor Gretchen Brewin from the city of Victoria and Mr. Rick Kasper, who is the director for the Langford electoral area. These are the people that make up the Victoria Regional Transit Commission.

Surely, hon. member, you're not suggesting that the local , government representatives on these two commissions don't have some sort of feel for what it is their communities should be receiving in the way of transit service. In addition to them having direct input, we then have the public meetings. We could go on and on.

As the member for Victoria said yesterday, we should study nothing, then have plans later on to further study nothing. We could still be talking about a transit system if we followed the New Democratic way of doing things. We could still be riding bicycles. I'm very pleased with the system; I'm very pleased with the commissions; and I'm pleased with staff.

MS. SMALLWOOD: After listening to the estimates for the afternoon, it sounds to me like the minister and the govement want to be here all summer, because clearly the minister is not answering the questions, and we're prepared to stay here until the questions get answered.

The minister, when asked about the right of the public to participate in the decisions being made and a request to have the transit commission provided with some leadership from this minister and to have its meetings conducted in the open, responds by giving us a list of the people on the commission and gives this House the information that the meetings are open.

As the critic for B.C. Transit and an active person in the community who has concerns, I have some experience with the transit commission and those meetings. The open portion of the transit commission meetings happens after the decisions have been made. The decisions are not made in those meetings; the information is not provided to those meetings. The people who attend — the dedicated seniors, the student groups, the community activists concerned about good public transportation have to fight for every single report, every letter. When they raise concerns with the transit commission, they are told: "Well, there's always somebody who's unhappy." Rather than acknowledging that they have legitimate concerns, concerns that deserve some kind of attention, they are dismissed.

I am telling the minister now and have told her before that there are some serious problems here, and the minister should take some leadership in addressing those problems.

[5:30]

What we have seen in the last few months with some of the policy decisions — again made in the absence of any meaningful input — are cutbacks to service. I recall standing in the House last year talking about the ministry's policy of cutting back the service to the people of the lower mainland. I asked at that time what the minister thought public transit was

[ Page 4946 ]

all about — what the mandate is, what the system should be providing — and still we see a continuance in cutbacks of routes, of bus services. The recent cutback reflects something like an 85 percent cutback in service for Surrey and North Delta.

Quite frankly, I am fearful of what would happen if we did not have a representative from our own municipality. If it was a representative from, say, Vancouver, or from off the lower mainland, what would happen to us if we did not have your voice there protecting our service and the interests of a growing municipality like Surrey? Can the minister now tell the House what exactly public transit is all about under her responsibility, when all we see are cutbacks to services rather than the support of a growing need? Is your responsibility to cut this system back to bare bones so that people have to take their cars into Vancouver rather than ride the transit system?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I guess we will be here all summer, because the questions seem to be getting sillier and sillier. Anybody who is involved with a transit system can certainly understand and acknowledge that the goal would have to be to provide the best possible transit service to the greatest number of people for a sum of money that the people paying the bills can afford to expend.

I would like to clarify something further with regard to the public process. There seems to be confusion at this time on the NDP side of the House with regard to the lines of responsibility. Possibly I should send a memo out to them clarifying the responsibilities of the various commissions with regard to decision-making and the involvement of the provincial government through my ministry as minister responsible.

The decisions with regard to scheduling and fares and routing are decisions that are eventually made by the local commissions. The notes given to me are that the B.C. Transit staff meet on a regular basis to discuss service changes with the public and that the commission has a policy regarding public participation. This is demonstrated in the proposals for the revised fare structure. If you recall, they went to the public with those proposals. Public open house sessions are held in areas where proposed changes are intended for implementation, and these types of meetings were held prior to the changes in North Surrey and North Delta. As well, changes in White Rock, South Surrey and recent changes in Burnaby were revised due to the public participation process.

If I incorrectly phrased my statement, I apologize. They don't go there with a fait accompli process. They go there with their recommended changes. As is the case in Burnaby, if they have some very serious and substantial opposition and concern expressed, they amend as necessary. We do try to operate a system that is going to accommodate the greatest number of people that we possibly can in the regions that we are responsible for. Really, that covers the entire province, but more specifically, Vancouver Island and Vancouver where the larger population is.

What more can we say? If we didn't have a goal of providing the best transit system, 1 don't know what else we would have.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I want to address two points. First, the public process and the fact that the minister is indicating that the transit commission has some power to decide is something more than just a buffer for the ministry. I want to remind the minister here in this House that when we are talking about the extension of SkyTrain into the municipality of Surrey, when we're talking about bringing it across the river and the possible extension into Whalley, for the first time the minister has decided not to have a representative from the municipality of Surrey sit on that commission. That is absolutely shameful. What we have now is the mayor of White Rock, who I don't doubt for a moment is a very dedicated, committed politician.... But very clearly, he is representing his municipality. He was quoted earlier as saying that the extension into Whalley, which I understand is the minister's own commitment.... Her latest appointment had to clarify that when he expressed concern about it not going up to Whalley because of costs, he did not have the minister's interest in mind or, very clearly, the municipality of Surrey's, or the commitment, as we understood it, to SkyTrain.

The minister says that her policy, her commitment to SkyTrain, is one of assuring the best possible transit at the most affordable price. The latest cutbacks are something like 15,000 bus-hours annually. I want to go over this point again with the minister. With this reduction of 15,000 annual bus hours in greater Vancouver, the majority of the routes and bus-hours that will be cut back will be in the areas that need them most. It will be in the growing areas of Surrey and North Delta.... When I tell the minister that 85 percent of the total cutbacks will be felt in her own municipality.... It is appalling that the minister chooses not to have a representative from such a vast, growing municipality — the biggest municipality in B.C., the most road miles in B.C., the fastest-growing municipality.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Did the minister say "the least progressive municipality"?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The least progressive mayor.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Shame! The person who was elected by the very people that elected you — the people of Surrey. Madam Minister, you have time and time again insulted the people of Surrey, and again you insult not only the elected people who represent the municipality but the very people who elected them. If you can't represent the interests of the largest municipality in this province, then I question whether or not you can do your job.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The member from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley and I have gone through this subject of appointment to the commission time and time again. We should make it clear now for the record exactly what I meant by my comments when I said that we have the least progressive mayor in the province presently in office in Surrey. The record will show, if you go back a few years to when Mayor Bose was sitting on the Greater Vancouver Regional District as a transit representative, that he continually opposed SkyTrain. He was against SkyTrain from day one. He did absolutely nothing to assist in the establishment of this system that has proven so very important and worthwhile. The record is clear and history is very clear. Mayor Bob Bose, up until this year, has been opposed to SkyTrain. So it would seem to me that no explanation should be necessary, but it appears that it is. If the SkyTrain extension to Whalley was one of my top priorities, as minister and as a member

[ Page 4947 ]

from Surrey, why would I then appoint a person who had been a very vocal opponent to the entire system from day one?

Subsequent to that appointment, the mayor of Surrey has stated that he does not oppose the extension to Whalley. At one point in time the Leader of the Opposition, while visiting our community, stated also that he was opposed to the extension into Whalley, and I guess with a little scurrying....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. members please use a little self-restraint and let the minister continue.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: With a very recent visit to our area, the Leader of the Opposition had an interview with the local press and suggested that he would not support an extension to Whalley, as had been the case previously with Mayor Bose. Mayor Bose has since come on board and suggested that he does support the SkyTrain extension to Whalley and will be working with us to ensure that that happens. Mayor Harcourt has retracted his earlier quoted statements in our local press and that he also supports the extension to Whalley. So I'm pleased to see that we have you all on board now. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley knows full well that that is truly the reason that Mayor Bose was not appointed to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission — because the history of his statements indicated absolute opposition.

We should also point out that on the board of the B.C. Transit we have two of the former mayors who support the extension into Whalley. We have Bill Vogel and we have former mayor Don Ross, both of them from Surrey, sitting on the board of B.C. Transit. So when you look at the representation that we have on the Regional Transit Commission and on the board.... They were futuristic; they looked at the future of Surrey — these members that were previously serving on the council.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that we have excellent representation on the board of B.C. Transit from two former mayors. The member lives in Surrey. One way or another we're going to see the SkyTrain extension come up the hill into Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What the minister is saying is that the board is a hand-picked board; only people that agree with her get appointments; and when we have a mayor who is committed to asking questions, to getting information, it offends the minister. When the minister is unable to answer the question, she is offended and therefore does not appoint that person again. Well, I don't think the mayor makes any apologies for asking the ministry and the Transit Commission those hard questions, because he was doing his job, looking after the taxpayers' dollars and their interest.

[5:45]

I want on the record.... With the new agreement under negotiation with the Transit Commission, the minister has said — and she said earlier in the House — that she was committed to seeing the extension to Whalley. With the new agreement, there has to be a three-party commitment to any further extensions — the ministry, the Transit Commission and the transit authority, I think it is. At any rate, how can the minister now assure us that the commitment of a previous government will be met, because the basis for ridership, for the funding formula, was that the SkyTrain would be brought up to Whalley? How can you deliver on the promise, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The member whose riding is going to benefit the most from my commitment to work for an extension to Whalley is being the most critical over the efforts I'm making to see that that commitment is kept. What I am suggesting to you, hon. member, is that I have no problem justifying that extension. We've done our homework, and as far as I'm concerned, there will be no problem at all meeting with the other bodies involved in making that decision and convincing them that that is a very wise decision to make. On that basis, I feel quite confident that we are going to see SkyTrain going right up the hill into Whalley.

HON. MR. REID: And without your support. You should be....

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on! All this tacky stuff from the people of Surrey. Please, a little decorum, if you will.

I'd like to raise something that I think is also important around the area of transit. Madam Minister, and that's the question of the Hydro rail line. Your administration has so far talked about privatizing that system. You talked just a minute ago about the cost of working with the CPR in terms of using their rail system on the north side of the river and how that has ballooned from $2 million to $30 million to $60 million. That's an indication of the value of those rights-of-way. The Hydro rail right-of-way actually crosses Scott Road.

I just wonder whether your transit people — or you, as a member from that area — I've really given that any thought. The natural thing is not to use this capital- intensive SkyTrain system beyond where you're going, but to tie it in to the Hydro rail line. Once you've tied it into the Hydro rail line, you can service the south side of the valley. It's an incredibly valuable right-of-way for moving people, not just freight and to serve the industrial areas in the valley; it goes right out to Chilliwack. It's a significant opportunity for you and this administration.

To toss away that right-of-way and then have to deal with one of the national railways or somebody else down the road simply doesn't make any sense. At the very least, you should be retaining the right of the Crown to move transit on that system. Rather than letting the thing go — and probably for pretzels — you should be retaining the right to maintain transit on that system in the future, where the great growth of the lower mainland is going to be.

I'd like to get some comment from the minister in the hope that she'll review that seriously.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It sounds like an interesting suggestion, and in my recollection, the community of Abbotsford during the Expo year utilized that line, so it's certainly not impossible to do, but it's not something that I have personally looked into. I'll check with the transit people to see if they have explored it any further.

Vote 51 approved.

Vote 52: ministry operations, $26,473,397 — approved.

Vote 53: municipal revenue sharing, $239,300,000 — approved.

[ Page 4948 ]

Vote 54: transit services, $171,490,000 — approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Introduction of Bills

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
PRIVATIZATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now. This legislation permits the privatization of four divisions of B.C. Hydro, accounting for roughly 7 percent of the total capital investment of the B.C. Hydro Authority — namely, the mainland gas distribution system, Victoria gas, B.C. Hydro Rail and the research and development divisions of Hydro. Each sale under the legislation can be crafted to meet the specific requirements of each division and ensure the maximum return to the people of the province.

Rates are frozen — that is, gas rates are frozen — for three years up to July 1, 1999. The B.C. Utilities Commission, however, will advise the government in the interim and at the end of that period, recover its full watchdog role to ensure that consumers continue to be protected at low prices and with good service.

The Hydro employees involved in this privatization will be protected. They will have preferred treatment including preservation of seniority, fringe benefits and so on and will be able to go to the electric division for a period of up to one year at their option.

The bill provides ways for retaining B.C. and Canadian ownership — the "golden share" provision in British legislation. We've taken steps to ensure that non-residents collectively will not own more than 20 percent of the voting shares, and that individuals or corporations cannot purchase more than 4 percent of any public share offering in the future; 70 percent of the directors and the chairman and the chief executive officer must be Canadians and resident in B.C. There are no plans currently to privatize the electric division of hydro.

Bill 45 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

UTILITIES COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. This bill enhances the powers of the B.C. Utilities Commission, specifically as to gas purchase arrangements, indeed power purchase arrangements also entered into by regulated utilities. It also permits wheeling on both gas and pipeline systems at regulated rates, the rates and the conditions of wheeling to be governed by the Utilities Commission.

Bill 46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind members that His Honour will be arriving at approximately 6:15, and all members should be in the library rotunda for the reception for His Honour Mr. Rogers prior to that time.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.