[ Page 6563 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motions on Notice

Motion 41. Hon. Mr. Weisgerber –– 6563

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6563

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Rose

Mr. Bruce

Mr. Sihota

Ministerial Statement

Supreme Court decision on airline fuel taxing. Hon. S.D. Smith –– 6577

Mr. Rose

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, we are honoured indeed this morning to have seated on the floor of the House the Hon. Clive Griffiths, MLC. Mr. Griffiths is the President of the Legislative Council in the state senate of Western Australia. I would ask the House to give him a warm British Columbia welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Seated in the gallery today are 15 grade 7 students from Saseenos Elementary School. They are with their teacher, Mr. Mowner, and a number of adults. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. BARLEE: I would also like to extend greetings to our friend from Western Australia. Our family goes back a long way in that area — Barlee Lake, Barlee Springs and Barlee Range — so we have a special affinity for that particular part of Australia. Welcome to the House.

Orders of the Day

Motions on Notice

On Motion 41.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I move Motion 41 standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is Motion 41: "That pursuant to standing order 69 (2), Mr. Mercier be substituted for Mr. R. Fraser on the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations."

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 44: minister's office, $311,570.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Before we proceed to examine the estimates of my ministry in detail and give the members of the opposition ample opportunity to question the path we've chosen, I would like to take a few moments to show how my ministry's estimates reflect our recent accomplishments and how they will support the ministry in its endeavours this fiscal year.

To start, I would once again like to reaffirm that as far as this government is concerned, local government is without doubt the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Local governments shape the growth and development of our communities, where British Columbians live out their daily lives and pursue their aspirations. Within this setting, we as a province must care for our heritage, nurture a diverse and dynamic culture, look after the recreational interests of our citizens, and ensure their safety and security, all of which create the dynamic and progressive way of life we know as British Columbians.

These basic assumptions inform and direct the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, which is truly the ministry of community life. Therefore today's estimates must be seen as a program of investment in the communities of British Columbia in their democratic, economic, social and developmental well-being, an investment which deserves the wholehearted commitment of this House. This year's plan offers ways to improve the democratic flow within British Columbia's municipalities and regions, ways to make our heritage part of the living fabric of our daily lives, ways to enhance the development of the arts and to reinforce the physical and intellectual development of all British Columbians. In doing so, we have responded to the Premier's call for an emphasis on the economy, on the environment, on education and on affordable housing with innovative programming and a firm commitment of funds and resources.

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture presents a very exciting combination which will enable us to create a new type of ministry, the like of which has yet to be seen in Canada. We are no longer a small ministry. In fact, we have grown six fold in the last two years, and our role in government is now much broader. We have a very central purpose: to work in close harmony with some of the most important aspects of community life in our province. We have formed an organization which helps to bind the financial, physical and developmental aspects of our communities together through a fully integrated array of programs.

I'm very pleased to say that along with my regular responsibilities for Municipal Affairs, we now have a broader mandate to embrace the side of the community which sustains the mind, body and spirit of its citizens, which injects life into the community and raises it above the concerns of the workaday world. These are programs associated with our heritage, sport, recreation and cultural resources. Our new mandate reflects our concerns for the province's heritage as the foundation on which we build, for the physical and mental well-being of our citizens as they pursue their daily lives at work and play, and for the growth of British Columbia as a culture in all the arts.

Along with these concerns goes an awareness of the economic benefits of heritage, culture, recreation and sport. We now combine in an already vibrant mix work on our library system, a revamp of the heritage act, the Community Pride program and the action

[ Page 6564 ]

challenge strategy for recreation and sport. A new strategic plan for the ministry has been implemented which fully integrates these functions, with the central aim of providing a system which more closely reflects the way our cities, towns and villages develop, a system which relates their aspirations to the regions in which they operate.

[10:15]

With these new responsibilities, the ministry can serve the needs and interests of British Columbia's communities more completely than ever before, and with this expanded mandate we are also able to associate more closely with other ministries of government. Our respective programs are now more deeply interrelated. For instance, we now work effectively with the Ministry of Health in determining ways to improve the lot of our steadily growing population of seniors.

There are many reasons why we decide to enter politics today; however, there are central concerns that I'm sure are common to all of us. Clearly indicated in this year's budget speech were four closely related priorities for action at every level of government: economic development, environmental protection, enhanced education and housing. These will become the primary themes of this government in the months and years ahead. They are inseparably related. A strong, diversified and growing provincial economy is built on a dynamic and powerful education system. While we pursue the development of our resources and the expansion of industry, we must care for and protect the environment that supports our very lives and makes those lives worth living in this wonderful province through the provision of adequate housing.

Local governments in B.C. and our heritage and cultural organizations have important roles to play in this endeavour. As you well know, local governments have moved far beyond being the keepers of municipal road, sewer and water systems. Through wise development decisions and careful, effective management, they can influence the growth, renewal and quality of life not only of a community, but of the province as a whole. In this, of course, they have our full support.

I am very happy to confirm that our revenue-sharing program, the main conduit of provincial funding to our municipalities, has been substantially enriched to reflect this commitment. It has now grown to $286 million, the biggest single-year increase in revenue sharing history. Within this, the unconditional program of next fiscal year's revenue-sharing grants has been increased by $10 million. The basic grant, which is of particular significance to smaller communities, will increase in 1989-90 from a $40,000 to $80,000 spread to a range of $50,000 to $100,000. Furthermore, the basic and administration grants to regional districts are both rising from $30,000 to $40,000 to help with the implementation of comprehensive new regional district legislation that I expect to enact later this year. These are very substantial increases, and they are the latest in a chain of increases amounting to more than $20 million over the last four years in unconditional grants alone.

I want to emphasize that this is a clear reflection of my government's commitment to our municipalities. I ask you to keep this in mind as you examine these estimates. We are striving for stability and growth in British Columbia's municipalities. I intend to help maintain this stability and spur the growth strategically.

We have been careful again this year to ensure that smaller communities and those hardest hit economically receive needed assistance. In other words, we have given this year's grants a strategic focus in tune with the needs of our communities.

We are keeping a very close eye on community concerns, particularly in the area of infrastructure which, as you know, I have chosen as my key issue as minister. Last year, a multi-ministry study was carried out on the infrastructure situation in British Columbia's municipalities which confirmed the dire need for maintenance and improvement of road, sewer and water systems around the province. It indicated that $226 million is urgently needed for water and sewer projects alone, and that $86 million would be required from the province to deal with this situation.

I am very pleased to reaffirm my UBCM convention commitment that these projects will be adequately funded through the 1989 revenue-sharing program. This will mean, among other things, that an additional $20 million will be available for new sewer and water projects. This will bring the provincial contribution for water and sewer to $35 million, which will fund $70 million to $100 million in projects, taking into account the municipal contributions. This also means that over the next two-year period, funding will be provided for 50 percent to 60 percent of the projects identified by the task force, which, I submit, is an excellent start on the systematic refurbishing of our municipal infrastructure.

Our sewer and water systems are also the key contribution that our municipalities make in caring for our environment while looking after the community's needs. There is no better place to invest provincial revenues than in the public works that make our province tick.

I am very pleased to say that incremental revenue sharing grants for public health units and policing costs are about to be finalized. This will remove the sting of inequities which we do not hesitate to recognize in many communities around the province.

These funding initiatives are a solid indication that my government stands behind British Columbia's communities and is ready, willing and able to respond to their needs like never before. I can truly say that British Columbia's municipalities will be better able to deal with the challenges that await them and will not be alone in facing them. For instance, I and my ministry have been charged with the task of consulting with the UBCM to resolve the problem of solid waste buildup within our communities and to pursue concerted programs of recycling. We have also been given the task of providing incentives to

[ Page 6565 ]

municipalities to increase the availability of rental housing, which is also an essential aspect of a healthy economy, I intend to set an example to the rest of Canada on these issues.

On the side of the ministry which encourages local economic development, our downtown revitalization program is progressing smartly. You will be pleased to know that the business improvement area initiative is making significant inroads, with communities around the province starting up their BIAs.

I'm very excited about the projects that are coming forward from the latest addition to my ministry — heritage, recreation and culture. They will have a profound impact from a variety of angles: educationally, economically, and that very important intangible, our quality of life.

Anyone with school-age children right now should be aware of the Jason Project, which is taking place at the Royal British Columbia Museum. This week, as I speak, thousands of youngsters are participating by satellite as the Jason Project searches the floor of the Mediterranean for relics of the past. This constitutes a dramatic educational and technological breakthrough, with a live video link to Dr. Bob Ballard, discoverer of the wreck of the Titanic. Our showpiece, the provincial museum, has received a $1 million budget increase for building and computerized collection management.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's exactly the right symbol.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm pleased we have support from the member for Vancouver East.

With regard to our support for the arts, we have to thank the minister of lotteries. The funds available to us have increased substantially over the past year This enables us to prepare, for the first time, a program for aid to individual artists. The arts board will be developing this program for us this spring. We are also reviewing the needs of the publishing industry in order to update our support programs. B.C. has the second-largest English-language publishing business in Canada, and we are determined to maintain and enhance its success.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the culture part?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This is the culture part of the ministry.

A British Columbia film, The Outside Chance of Maximilian Glick, won best picture awards at the Vancouver Film Festival and the Toronto Festival of Festivals this year. It also received five nominations for the Genies, the Canadian equivalent of the Academy Awards. The Film Development Society of B.C., which we established and in which we have invested lottery funds for film development, was a major investor in this important film.

We are delighted that more than $30 million in B.C. films were made last year, a tenfold increase in production since B.C. Film was created in 1987. British Columbia is a very lively place these days; I'm sure we'll all agree on that.

On the recreation and sports front, British Columbians constituted more than 20 percent of the Canadian Olympic team at Seoul and almost 17 percent of the team at Calgary. Our success in developing high-performance athletes is directly attributable to my ministry's Best Ever program, through which we have committed over $6 million to high-performance sport development over the last four years. We congratulate the organizations involved and send our special appreciation to the athletes themselves, their families and the coaches.

To help remove a cloud which has settled over their achievements for now, we have asked our ministry's Advisory Council for Sport and Recreation to look into the use of banned substances in sport. I expect to have their final report soon.

I am pleased to remind you all that the Canada Games are coming to British Columbia in 1993. Five communities have made excellent bids to host them: Nanaimo, Richmond, Kamloops, Abbotsford-Matsqui and Vernon. Each of these communities has committed an enormous amount of local energy to preparing its bid and each has offered to raise substantial funds, including capital funds for sports facilities, because they are so keen to win this prestigious national event. Once again B.C.'s communities are showing the stuff of which they are made.

My ministry has already congratulated greater Victoria for their success in winning the 1994 Commonwealth Games. Our government has committed a cash contribution of $36 million toward the capital and operating costs of the games. We will also be developing enhanced sports development programs to ensure that all British Columbia's young people have equal opportunity to be on the Canada team at Victoria in 1994.

It's exciting to think that these fine young athletes are in our school system right now. Rest assured that we are developing programs to identify and develop with them over the next five years.

This will require close collaboration with the education system's sports organization and with Sport Canada. It's a tremendous challenge for British Columbia, and I can tell you now that this ministry is committed to having a large percentage of British Columbians on the Canada team at Victoria in 1994. Of course, our own B.C. Summer and Winter Games programs present an ideal venue for our budding stars.

These are just a few of the ways in which we have put our heads together with local leaders and organizers to find workable solutions to community concerns and new ways to meet tomorrow's challenges. We now have a very effective configuration of ministry programs with which to meet these challenges.

You may have noticed a very strong pattern in our deliberations with our local clientele. It's called consultation. We consider it a serious and very creative approach to government. Consultation will continue to be the cornerstone of progress in Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and I am very proud of our record so far. We have kept the lines of communication open to the people working closest to the grass

[ Page 6566 ]

roots. It is only through consultation that we have achieved success in our record of legislative reform.

We have enacted strategic changes which have important meaning. They streamline legislation, making it less of a straitjacket and more facilitating. We are committed to an ongoing program of legislative reform and continuing high levels of financial and program support for local government, heritage, recreation and cultural organizations. Consultation and consensus-gathering are the primary means by which we have achieved this progress.

The most recent example of our provincial consultative approach has led to one of the main elements in this year's package of legislative adjustments. I'm talking, of course, about the regional district legislative review and the resulting round of legislation reform that will eventually come open to debate. You can be sure these proposals are grounded in frontline reality, as will be the upcoming review of our heritage legislation and the action challenge strategy for sport and recreation.

[10:30]

Through widespread consensus-gathering, we intend to make the Heritage Act an opportunity to capitalize on the economic and educational aspects of our heritage as we preserve and protect it and make sport and recreation an even more vital part of life in British Columbia. To complement this activity, our safety engineering services, building standards branch and the office of the fire commissioner will continue to provide programs of public safety which help to add that essential element of security to our lives.

The other key factor in the community, the province’s transit system, continues to be carefully planned and equitably financed. Our transit responsibility addresses one of the most pressing issues facing growing communities around the province. Local participation, once again, is the key ingredient of success in this area. System development must be responsive to urban growth and the expressed needs of the community

Transit estimates for 1989-90 total close to $384 million, an increase of 4.6 percent over last year. Every year, B.C. Transit moves over 120 million people in communities across British Columbia. In greater Vancouver, transit moves 375,000 passengers every working day, and the demand for more transit is growing. We are meeting that demand on as many fronts as possible.

Our program for 1989 is to enhance transit services and upgrade capital equipment and facilities in greater Vancouver, greater Victoria and various B.C. offices.

MR. WILLIAMS: Will you make it to Whalley?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No question about it. The first member for Vancouver East asks if we are going to make it to Whalley, and I suggest that there is no question about that — with great determination.

We will increase our transit service, reliability and comfort by purchasing 153 new diesel buses. Of these, 35 will arrive in June, another 15 in August and the balance later in the year.

We plan to purchase 31 handyDART vans for the disabled and to expand handyDART service in Vancouver, Victoria and various small communities. HandyDART services in greater Vancouver are also being expanded to help preschool children with special needs.

We are planning radio communication systems on board our buses in Vancouver and Victoria. This will increase service efficiency but also increase security for passengers and staff. B.C. Transit is in the process of awarding a contract, and installation is to begin as soon as possible.

I mentioned demands being made on transit systems in many communities around the province. Nowhere is it more apparent than in greater Vancouver, where transit ridership has increased by 4 percent in one year.

In addition to expanding the bus fleet, this year will see the completion of the $179 million SkyTrain extension to Surrey. The Scott Road station is scheduled to open in February 1990.

That completes my transit summary, Mr. Chairman.

In closing, I would like to say a few words of praise for the men and women who stand behind this plan of expenditure for 1989-90. It is my firm conviction that they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in the country. I would like this House at this time to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation.

I can also confirm that a significant attribute of quality in the ministry is its budgetary and organizational efficiency. I can say once again that over 93 percent of our budget goes into our major transfer programs: revenue sharing, transit, heritage, recreation and culture, which are the key links in the chain of relationships between the province and local communities. It is up to us to keep them strong.

I present you, then, with the budget requirements of a ministry which is committed to community life which encompasses the democratic ideal and a ministry which is putting this commitment into action through policies of consultation and consensus gathering at every turn. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my commentary.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for her words and praise her by saying it was a very good speech — one of the best I've heard.

MR. WILLIAMS: Much better than the one we heard yesterday.

MR. ROSE: It's the best one I've heard today. I would like to tell her also that I almost believe most of it, and I think the intentions are there.

I welcome her officials, especially those that had to commute from Edmonton to be with us here today. I regret that we inconvenienced some of you in this matter. I've already done the mea culpas on that so I don't intend to do them over again — unless urged.

[ Page 6567 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: How about for past sins?

MR. ROSE: No, those are forgiven. I welcome the officials here and look forward to the wisdom that they can present to this House.

I was really interested in the aspect which the minister turned to over and over again about the efforts and her concern for local government. A lot of us here have been members of local government — as a matter of fact, probably most of us — and so we share those concerns. I'm sure that the mayors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District are comforted by those words when they think about their opposition to the pipeline going through the Coquitlam River valley and that watershed. I hope the minister will support their efforts, as will the minister of whatever he is — everything in the lower mainland region — because of respect and concern for the integrity of local authority.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you want me to lend you some more of my weight?

MR. ROSE: No, I'm not asking you to throw your great weight around today.

Her concerns for the arts is interesting, too. This morning we had a CBC interview with the heads of two theatre companies: the Playhouse Theatre and the Arts Club Theatre. They find themselves in desperate situations because they are now 15 percent below their normal anticipated revenue. You may be getting a lifesaver call, not from the Titanic but from these two theatres.

Another thing I noticed is that while the minister is justly boastful about her concern for municipal government and talking about increased revenue and grants and that sort of thing, our figures indicate that far more than the fair proportion in transit, school costs and a number of other things are being dumped on the municipalities. The pressure on them for raising revenue and dumping more money onto local property holders is well documented, and I don't need to go on about that here.

I like the idea about rebuilding infrastructure. I'm reminded that when our present Leader of the Opposition was mayor, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities did a task force on infrastructure, and I'm glad the results of that effort has been taken up by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Probably the program could be dubbed "the Harcourt program," and it's always nice to be emulated, whether its in regional stuff, which we raised earlier, or the Harcourt program of infrastructure replacing civic infrastructure, or even perhaps sustainable development. The buzzwords have been adopted; I don't know where the action will be forthcoming, but certainly the buzzwords are being adopted.

I think the Sport B.C. program is an excellent one; it involves the cities. I think the Summer and Winter Games are something we can be very proud of, and I think that it is recognized as one of the finest programs in British Columbia, recognizing not only the contributions of volunteers and the communities but also as a training ground for sports and recreation for young athletes. I think it's worthwhile in many ways.

I hope the minister will be prepared to support Coquitlam's bid for the games. We are developing that infrastructure — fields and all the rest of it that are necessary for it — and I can't think of a better place to have the games. I've forgotten the precise date, but I know that the bid is somewhere in the early nineties.

Having said that now, I would like to advise the minister about what we intend to do and how we intend to go about this debate. As she knows, the critic for Municipal Affairs (Mr. Blencoe), my colleague from Victoria, is elsewhere.

MR. WILLIAMS: We know what he wanted to say.

MR. ROSE: No, we don't know quite what he wanted to say, and I don't think anybody could say it quite as well as he does. In his absence, we would like to deal with parts of the program other than strictly the municipal part of it right now. If it goes long enough, then we can perhaps welcome him back into the debate Monday, if it's called again.

That's not a threat. We're not promising to do that, but these things have a way of taking on a dynamic of their own sometimes, and how long these debates take depends on the responses of the minister. If the minister is forthright, candid and frank as she usually is, this could be relatively short and painless. If, on the other hand, we get non-answers or evasive answers such as those to which we were treated last week, then this could be a bit like an accordion. It could be very small, or it could expand to fill the time available.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: No, no squawking.

In order to help the minister and her officials, who obviously need a great deal of help sometimes, I want to tell you how we intend to proceed. We intend to proceed with the transit side first. I am sorry I haven't had a chance to have a briefing from B.C. Transit. I have asked for one, and it is going to happen. I wish it had happened before I had to make this speech, because I could have avoided a lot of errors and misconceptions if I could have been schmoozed by some of the senior members of B.C. Transit.

We are going to deal with transit: busing, SkyTrain, handyDART for the disabled, perhaps commuter rail — that wonderful promise to save Gerry St. Germain — and student and disabled fares. It's in that light and that schedule that we are going to be dealing, at least this morning.

I don't know whether it will trickle over into the great beyond this afternoon. I can't say; it really depends. I know I have a number of questions. As a matter of fact, I have had a number of questions on number 19 on the order paper since the day this House opened, and I hope we will get some answers to those questions.

[ Page 6568 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's nice of you, because I am really pleased to see them. It was hardly rapid transit though. You come across two months later; that's hardly performance.

I think we have to make a few assumptions. As you know, I come from a fast-growing area in the suburbs. Our transit and public transportation is very bad. I think it's probably the worst in the lower mainland — certainly worse than Delta, North Vancouver or even Richmond. I don't know why that is. I have some suspicions, because the voting habits of some my constituents might have some effect on that. But it doesn't work out the same way politically on the municipal level at all, at least in one of the largest portions. Certainly it does in a couple of other smaller ones.

Let's make some assumptions about transportation. Before I do, let me say that if you ever come out to Coquitlam around the Port Mann Bridge interchange in the rush hour, forget it. Drivers are doing anything they can to escape that gridlock. At 3 o'clock in the afternoon to that interchange, the cars are backed up right to Riverview Hospital. They are scooting through the Riverview Hospital grounds in order to get through that congestion and constriction There is no escape.

If you want to go over to Surrey or Langley — and why anybody would want to do that at 4 o'clock in the afternoon escapes me — during that time, it's virtually impossible. You avoid it like the plague. If I want to go from my home, which is conveniently located right above Riverview Hospital, and I want to go to New Westminster to get the Hyack Air — which the minister and I have shared on occasion in the past — I don't go along the Lougheed at all. I go up along Austin Avenue and down North Avenue, and I come back the same way. It's really bad, and I will talk about it in greater detail later.

[10:45]

Let's get into the assumptions. I think we have to assume that most people would prefer to drive their own cars; that's borne out. If you have an inadequate or undependable bus service, or if the bus doesn't run because the drivers are sick, and there is no spare board, all you do is add to that congestion. Efforts have to be made to increase that service and improve it.

The minister is going to say: "We're doing that." In the last ten years you've cut 400,000 hours out of the service, and in the last year about 60,000, according to my figures from the union. Now people are going to shake their heads and say no, that's not so. But you'll have a chance to tell us all about that. The information I have is that in the last ten years something like 400,000 hours have been cut. The drivers have been reduced in the last ten years by 220. So all this talk about enhancing service is just that — talk.

SkyTrain. Everybody wants it, but currently it's taking 40 percent of the transit budget and carrying 17 percent of the passengers. I think that's just an unfair balance. In addition, hundreds of routes have been distorted to serve SkyTrain. I said people prefer to get in their cars, but they also prefer not to transfer. Most of us humans would like to get on a bus or SkyTrain, or whatever we can, and go direct.

The big issue is route 333 in Surrey. I think the minister is well aware of it, and I know my colleague will want to elaborate on it, so I won't talk about it anymore. Direct routes 151 and 152 from Lougheed Mall were cut — direct routes to serve SkyTrain. Route 333 has been cut, and there are huge petitions about that.

I think there is a lot that has to be done in transit, and we're not even making a start yet, except revamping a few old buses, cannibalizing certain buses.

Point 2 in assumptions. Growth of 7 to 8 percent is anticipated in the northeast sector, including Coquitlam, and it's about the same throughout the lower mainland; maybe a little higher in Surrey. Our roads are going to become increasingly clogged unless we do something about it — alternate routes, all that sort of thing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where's the plan?

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm going to come to that. There is a plan, if I can find it in all this paper. Some thought has been given to it; I don't deny that. But you can't ride on thought. If you need the things immediately.... For instance, the announcement of the Cassiar connector didn't wait for a five-year study. It was obvious. Do you need a study to know that, say, the Barnet could be three-laned? You don't need a study for that. It would cost you less than a million bucks.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's not my ministry.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you want to three-lane it for buses, you could do that. If it were your ministry... The other day I heard the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) say how you now work together; something isn't just in one ministry and not the business of another. I'm sure you two could get together and solve this problem over lunch. As a matter of fact, I promise to buy the lunch if you solve that problem. You could do it in five minutes: just a decision to three-lane the Barnet.

Here are some other things that I think are reasonable assumptions. More and better and convenient public transportation is crucial to people-moving. Why? Because you'll never keep up to it with freeways.

When I first moved to Coquitlam it was 1962. I worked at UBC. It took me an hour to get from Coquitlam to UBC. In 1975, by virtue of the electorate, I went back to teach at UBC. In the meantime, a number of other routes had been established. There was the Lougheed improvement; there was the Hastings Street improvement; there was what we used to call the Grandview Highway, now Canada Way; and Marine Drive was improved. Do you know how long it takes to go from Coquitlam to UBC now? One hour.

[ Page 6569 ]

People just moved out and the suburbs became more populous, in spite of improved arterial work.

If you're going to move people, you're going to have to do a large part of it publicly, because the better the roads become.... I'm not opposed to improved roads; I'll talk about that when the minister of potholes is before us. But when that happens, people just move farther out in the suburbs. They have a choice of paying high real estate prices or paying high gas prices; and many of them opt for high gas prices so they can have a home of their own. I hope that doesn't sound radical coming from a member of my party; nonetheless, that's what I believe and that's what they believe.

Improved highways. There are some things that could be done. I know that's not your ministry, but it helps your work. You can't get those buses down the road, because they're so clogged with cars. So you have to address it along with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant). Sure, it may be primarily his responsibility. But if we three-laned the Barnet for starters.... I know four lanes are there, but five years from now there will probably be 7 percent plus 7 percent plus 7 percent added on to what we already have in population. It means a virtual constipation of traffic there, unless we do something about it. All right? Congestion is probably a more delicate word, so I'll use that. Sure, we want SkyTrain to go to Surrey. We want it to go to Coquitlam Centre too.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's in Surrey.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know it's across the bridge, but it hasn't got to Whalley.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's the problem.

MR. ROSE: Well, that is a problem. Anyway, the fastest and cheapest way of moving people is buses. You can buy them and get them on the road in a week almost. That may be denied; it might take two weeks. But to go and buy a bus is not a big deal. I know you have some coming, but....

This is what the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) has to say about transportation and transit: "Growing demand for peak-period commuter services.... Service strategies. Moreover, transit will continue to be used to maximize the people-moving capacity of the road system." In another place: "In addition, more express and semi-express routes will be added in the major transit corridors."

MR. MILLER: Who said that?

MR. ROSE: Oh, this is the Minister of Highways. He means in the lower mainland. He doesn't mean in Quesnel or any place like that. He means right down here in the lower mainland. Which ones are going to be added to? I would like to know that. I will ask him when it comes around. But it is recognized in the government. I don't know what the problem is.

"A transit exchange and park-and-ride will be developed in the Coquitlam town centre area, and a rail system, including both a SkyTrain extension to Lougheed Mall and a commuter rail service, may also be considered." You can't ride on consideration. "The lack of a coordinated transportation policy encompassing roads and transit in the region" — coupled with the division at decision-making — "have I am not quoting that; that last part was mine, in case Hansard wants to know. He says: "Annual costs for the Vancouver regional transit system are expected to increase by approximately 23 percent from the cur rent $289.1 million...." Well, it's got to. "An estimated 250 buses will be required to replace" — listen to this — "an aging diesel fleet, as well as additional SkyTrain vehicles and a new SeaBus and custom transit vehicles."

That's what we are facing. I'd like to know how we are doing on it. We have the oldest fleet of buses in Canada and probably the highest fares. Ask any student and you will find that out.

I'll sit down now. I have a number of questions under 19 on the order paper that I would like answers to, because the minister indicated that she was prepared to answer questions that I have on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat I believe asks leave to give an introduction.

MR. BRUCE: No, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a few comments in respect to the debate here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, please proceed.

MR. BRUCE: As extraordinary as that may be. There were just a few other things I would like to touch on in regard to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the estimates.

I suppose it will come as no surprise, from my standpoint anyway, and certainly from those of the government side, if I offer the comment that I think that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is doing simply an excellent job. I say that because of the number of initiatives that I've had the opportunity of working on with the minister's staff and because of some of those things which are coming together rather nicely in the area of my constituency. When you talk about the total scope of the ministry and the opportunity of public and community involvement through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, I think they do just an admirable job of bringing that local component to the fore.

In respect to the cultural side of the ministry, not only is it extremely important in the aspect of preserving our culture, but also in new initiatives. The ministry was a leading light in the development of a new initiative called an eco-museum. I have mentioned this before in the House, but today is one year after we have put this together through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs from the B.C. Heritage Trust and Heritage Canada. It was a $300,000 initiative, brand-new. It was put together by people in this ministry and in Heritage Canada. We forged it and shaped it so that it would be applicable to the people within

[ Page 6570 ]

Cowichan-Malahat. Virtually what we are doing is taking our heritage and culture and using it as a major economic initiative, building upon that which has been the foundation of our community to diversify our economy. Often we look at Municipal Affairs and we say it is there to assist in providing roads and sewers and the like; but this clearly has been a fine example of demonstrating new initiatives and new ways of assisting in diversification of local economies.

The eco-museum is in fact nothing more than taking one's heritage, developing it and marketing it in such a way that it becomes a tool to attract other people to your area and to explain your community to visitors and tourists not only on the Island, in our instance, and throughout British Columbia, but across Canada. I have to compliment the minister and the ministry for the job that they have been doing and are continuing to do in assisting us, in our community, in the development of this initiative. After one year there has been a tremendous amount of groundwork done, and over the next few months, I think we'll see some actual demonstration tours and the like so that people can finally understand what this term "eco-museum" is all about. There's only one in western Canada, and that's in the Cowichan Valley. It is being developed as a model and pilot, so others in this chamber may take advantage of it and utilize it in their communities as well. There are several in Quebec and a number in Europe. But without the assistance of the ministry and its staff, we would not have been able to put this together. I commend the minister for that, and highlight the fact that it is really the background of our culture and heritage that is going to assist in the diversification of our local economy.

Also in our area there has been for some time the British Columbia Forest Museum. We'd had great difficulty in bringing this into a final body so that there was a real home for the British Columbia Forest Museum — a ministry that was going to take charge. Again, I'm very pleased with the results we have seen in our community along the lines of leadership and active participation, both from the ministry officials and the community, in taking the British Columbia Forest Museum in hand. With a strong and revitalized board, I can see that as being a major plank in the redevelopment of our overall economy. What was attempted and done was no easy feat, but it's certainly going to have a positive long-term impact on our community.

When we talk about the more traditional aspects of what municipal affairs is all about — water, sewer and so on — the difficulty that some communities have found themselves in in the past with regard to joint sharing of waterworks or sewerage because of the formula that was in place.... I would hope that with the estimates that are coming there will be some discussion of the formulas.

I have an example of a little community — in fact, where I live. Not to be charged with conflict of interest, because I, too, would have to pay increased water rates and the like.... We have tried for some time to improve the Crofton water system, and much of the reason for the state it's in has been simply a decision by the taxpaying base, the utility group in the community. I'm hopeful that at this point in our history, the community will see fit to move ahead to a new and better system than the one currently in place, but the financial consideration of a new system would almost be prohibitive if we were to continue on a 75:25 type of formula.

[11:00]

I appreciate that the first decision must be made by the community on whether it indeed wishes to move ahead on a new and improved supply. But part of that decision-making process will depend on the cost. I'm sure that's not unique to smaller communities in my area but is probably applicable throughout the province.

I'd just like to touch very briefly on the downtown revitalization program, which I believe has been a cornerstone of success for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and continues to be so. I'm glad we'll see that particular program continuing.

We've had great success with the communities of Chemainus, Duncan and Lake Cowichan. With what we're intending to do in Lake Cowichan, with a whole new Cowichan Lake development plan that we are currently on — primarily as a result of getting a kick in the backside by what took place in the most recent situation in the forestry sector — I can clearly see that Cowichan Lake will be another example of what can happen when a community decides to pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Certainly one of the vehicles that can be used most successfully by communities is the downtown revitalization program. Lake Cowichan has taken some advantage of that already, but I see other ways in which we'll be able to play in this program, and I'm hopeful that when we get to that part of the discussion, there will be greater amplification on the extent of the downtown revitalization program.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Transit also causes me some concern and aggravation, as I drive on a daily basis from the central lower part of Vancouver Island to the capital city. There certainly is considerable congestion as one comes from Goldstream into downtown Victoria. It's not simply a question of constructing new highways and so on. I think the time has come for the lower part of Vancouver Island to be looking at some sort of rapid transit system. I don't think it's anything that requires the wisdom of Saul, but the E&N rail line is there today.

It has been spoken about before, and I realize that just recently there was a proposal bandied about by some of the greater Victoria local governments, societies or associations. But if there were some way we could take or involve the trackage and corridor that are already constructed and take the traffic from the western community and convince people that this system would work, we then would plug in with the transit system already established in the greater Victoria area and would greatly reduce the traffic on the highway. It's not that I don't enjoy sitting there in the

[ Page 6571 ]

traffic and talking to my neighbours across the way, with windows down, listening to music and the like, as traffic comes to a standstill.

Similar to the comments of my colleague the opposition House Leader, there's no doubt that as we construct more highways, all we do is fill them up with more cars. It does require a change in thinking by all of us as to the means of transportation we are going to use to get from A to B.

I think there will probably be great appeal because this system is already there. The trackage comes right into downtown Victoria. You can see it. I think there would probably be, without too much problem, a tremendous amount of interest and ridership on that particular trackage if there was a way of putting it together.

That, of course, is going to require leadership. If one talks to Via, they are not into the game of rapid transit. Certainly with what we have heard in the federal budget, I would think we are going to have a severe attack on Via on Vancouver Island. Then we have the trackage that's already there and the great story of the E&N land grant and all that has been rolled into that.

Not getting enmeshed in all of the past history of that, the simple fact of the matter is that there is trackage there; there is right-of-way there; there is already a railcar that runs back and forth; there are people who are clogging the highways — all of us trying to get from A to B in a little more efficient fashion than what's currently there.

I know that when we get to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, there will be discussion of highway improvements and the like from Goldstream. The fact of the matter is that if the leadership was there — and I believe it is — and if we were able to get the right parties together, this could almost take effect immediately, with a little bit of imagination.

It certainly wouldn't help in the direct sense for some of my constituents up in the Shawnigan Lake-Mill Bay area who have indicated to me that they would be prepared to spend $150-$200 a month in transportation costs to be able to use that system to get down here if the linkage from the rail system to the rubber system were all in place.

We are now at a point, in the development of the lower Vancouver Island region at least, of a rapid transit system. Certainly some of those corridors and facilities are already in place. I am sure the minister and ministry may have comments on this at a later point in estimates. Failing that, I would certainly encourage — and know that you are looking at — dealing with other local governments on trying to overcome that particular situation as it faces us right now.

I would just like to add — from my past experience of being in the municipal field — that the stability of the revenue-sharing program that's in place goes a long way to being able to assist local governments and councils in setting their budgets and planning for the future.

With that said, I'll sit down. I know we want to move on to other aspects of the estimates. I thought that I would just share those few thoughts with the minister and the members of this chamber. As I say, I think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and all that the handle involves in that respect, is doing just an excellent job.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to start out by apologizing to the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) for the length of time it has taken us to get a response to his question on the order paper. It is entirely my fault. I didn't notice the question on the order paper until just a couple of weeks ago. Immediately I noticed it, I asked for a response. I do have it in my briefing notes, which were delivered to me yesterday. I can either read it to you, or you can wait, but you will be getting a response to all of those questions.

You did make a statement, Mr. Member, with regard to hours of service. You suggested there was a reduction of 400,000 hours or something to that effect.

MR. ROSE: That's the figure I got.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: According to our members from 1983 to this point in time, we indicate an increase of 250,000 hours. The actual hours last year, compared to the budgeted hours this year, would suggest that we are looking forward to a further increase of 111,000 hours. I'm not sure where the reduction has taken place.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Pardon me?

MR. ROSE: I thought I could do it by way of a heckle.

I'm getting information about reductions; could you tell us where the additions are? There are supposed to be 16,000 hours worth of additions, according to the information that I've got. Where are they?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The increase in hours is spread out over the entire system. If you're looking for the period '83 to '89, a good number of them would be on SkyTrain.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about the bus system.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have them all together here. In hours of service specifically on the buses, it appears we're looking at an increase of some 50,000 hours from 1988-89 to 1989-90.

You also mentioned, Mr. Member, the 333 route. It is proposed that this route be discontinued in February to fit in with the opening of the Scott Road SkyTrain station. But I have received, as have other members in Surrey, letters expressing concern about the discontinuance of that service. We have asked the staff at Transit to look at the appropriateness of a complete discontinuance of that service, with a view to possibly providing a less frequent service but a

[ Page 6572 ]

service that would still allow people from Guildford to get into Hastings Street and the other areas.

There's no question that as the SkyTrain is extended into Scott Road, Whalley, Coquitlam, Richmond and all of these wonderful communities which I know want SkyTrain, the cost requires that more emphasis be placed on utilization. We are certainly placing more emphasis on the utilization of SkyTrain, and the bus service will be taking as many people to SkyTrain stations as possible. When we extend into your community of Coquitlam, the same will be the case. That kind of money can't be spent without placing emphasis on ensuring the service is utilized.

I can't disagree with you on the need to improve the Barnet Highway. I would honestly hate to have to travel in daily from Coquitlam or any points in the Fraser Valley during that morning and evening crunch period as far as the traffic is concerned. That's why I've been so insistent on the need — and I have attempted to emphasize the need — to see SkyTrain and rapid transit extended into those three communities, at the very least. It's very important, in my mind. If you look at the cars on those freeways and highways, so many of them have just the driver. It seems to me that if we provide a better transit system, we are going to encourage more of those people to get out of their cars. I have no disagreement with you on the gridlock and the problem of people going from your community, as I have going from mine. We are doing our level best to take whatever action is necessary to correct that.

I'm told that bus service hours for Vancouver for 1989-90 are 2.7 million, virtually identical to 1983-84. I don't know where the reduction numbers have come from. Maybe the union has used some other means to identify a 400,000-hour reduction. It doesn't seem appropriate.

[11:15]

Questions were put to us to do with possible improvements to the water system in Crofton. I would like to thank my colleague for these comments — particularly for the compliments — and indicate to all members of the House that the funding available for improvements to water and sewage systems, although it has been increasing, is still limited. We do have a formula: 25 provincial, 75 to the local community, with few exceptions. The main exception is in order to allow us to address some serious environmental concerns. If there are some serious environmental concerns, then we do consider a fifty-fifty sharing, but other than that we are pretty firm on the 25 provincial, 75 local community.

I'm going to be getting some information from staff who have just arrived to do with E&N track and the utilization of that right-of-way. Possibly later in the day I can get back to you on that.

There were also comments with regard to downtown revitalization. It's certainly one of the most exciting programs we have, and I believe all members of this House would agree with that statement.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to make a number of comments on transit. I will be making some comments later in the day with respect to municipal services in my riding, but I thought it would be opportune to speak at this time, in light of the comments made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). I want to support what he has to say with respect to transit services over the Malahat and in my riding, because our ridings are adjacent, and generally speaking with respect to greater Victoria.

I think the province would be ill-advised to ignore the wonderful opportunity that sits before it to take advantage of the existing infrastructure, particularly from the E&N, to establish a commuter system in the Victoria area.

Before I go into some details about the area, I just want to focus on the component that rests in my riding. I understand that the minister has all sorts of demands on her, and I know that there's considerable lobbying going on in terms of Coquitlam, Surrey and Whalley. Sometimes on the Island we feel somewhat neglected and overlooked.

The minister should be mindful of the fact that there is an absolutely wonderful opportunity here that the ministry should be seizing. There is already an infrastructure, in terms of transit resources, that the ministry can build upon to begin to provide a transit link in the Western Communities and in greater Victoria: build on the E&N system, and avoid some of the astronomical costs you're seeing in the lower mainland by acting now. There's also a tremendous need for this service.

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways has already made commitments with respect to improvements of roads in my riding and in the riding of Cowichan-Malahat through four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway and improvements to the Thetis Lake and Helmcken Road exchanges. All of those things will help deal with vehicle traffic, and that in itself, I would submit to the minister, is a very short-term, temporary solution.

It wasn't so long ago that many of us in this portion of the province felt that four-laning the TransCanada Highway to the extent that it already is four-laned — in my riding over to the Thetis Lake exchange — would solve for a generation the transportation needs in the Western Communities. One only has to take a look at the vehicle lineups every morning to know how short-term that was. That's not to say that the ministry should not proceed with its highway plans. I think it should, and it should do that expansion. But I've yet to see an urban transportation design where additional lanes on roads solve the long-run transportation problems. They simply won't. Every urban designer will tell you that you need to build an appropriate transit structure. That means bus lanes in the Western Communities.

I must say that on the whole the transit service in the Western Communities has improved somewhat over the last two and a half years, and I thank the minister for it, but given the nature of the growth in the suburbs of Victoria, particularly in the Western Communities which I represent, and down into Mill Bay and Shawnigan Lake, which is a growing area. I grew up in that area. It's amazing to look at the de-

[ Page 6573 ]

velopment that is going on now. It's absolutely vital that the government proceed now to take advantage of the E&N infrastructure.

That means a line that exists right now from Esquimalt through View Royal, taking advantage of the E&N system, and from View Royal into Langford and Colwood, with a spur line to Metchosin and Sooke, and a line up into Mill Bay and Shawnigan Lake.

I notice that some people in the greater Victoria area have already proposed that, and I applaud them for putting forward that proposal. I would like to see the government get on with some studies in terms of actual costs of acquiring the base of land required to make this thing go. You've already got the E&N right-of-way.

What I am about to say now is politically unpopular, but I think that the provincial government made a major mistake several years ago when it gave up part of those lands to the Capital Regional District in the form of the Galloping Goose linear park, because it took away some of those lands that were open for transportation development.

I don't know if there is — and I would be interested in finding out from the minister — a caveat with respect to that transfer, which would allow it to revert back to the provincial Crown in the event that the Crown wanted to proceed with transportation through a light rapid transit system. If there is, I think that was good foresight on the part of the ministry. If that foresight was in that document, the government clearly should take advantage of that and start the cost studies that should be done.

I would like to see a commitment from the minister to begin that type of cost assessment so we can get on with providing that service. That service is not exclusive to the Western Communities and to the riding of Cowichan-Malahat. The ministry should look at an integrated system in the riding of Saanich as well, and the provision of those services using existing lines right out to Sidney. There is a corridor there that is available to the ministry.

A generation from now, it is going to be very expensive to do. I think the minister understands that, because we always see that it costs more the longer you wait. Given the current climate around here, I think it would be prudent and opportune for the government to move on it now. I will await what the minister has to say this afternoon, but I certainly want to emphasize the need to get on with planning and procurement of land and resolving some of the issues with the E&N with respect to developing that infrastructure, it would be a pity if the government were to allow the opportunities which present themselves now to just pass without acting upon them. I can only add my voice to those who have already started to say that the government must take advantage of what exists now and begin to do the appropriate planning.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm pleased that the members for Cowichan-Malahat and for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew have brought this matter to my attention. It's not a subject that I have been involved with any discussions on, and I would have to do my homework and ensure that I get a little bit more background from Vancouver Island staff. I undertake to do that.

There was the suggestion with regard to highways improvement and the need for priority to be given to bus lanes. That really goes without saying. It applies not only to the area on the Island that is starting to grow but to the lower mainland as well. I would be surprised if this wasn't a recommendation that does come out of the study being done by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), because it is very important. I know that we do have to a very minor degree some priority lanes on the lower mainland. They are invaluable. I hope that's one way of encouraging people to get out of their cars and into the buses, because the buses are going by while the cars are all sitting there parked in the bumper-to-bumper traffic.

I'll get you some further information. I'm not sure that I will have it this afternoon, though, to the degree that you have suggested. We will look into what can be done on the E&N right-of-way, if anything, and whether or not some type of improvement to the area or accommodation for the provision of some type of transit in the area is justified, after we have determined the costs and the population we will be serving.

MR. ROSE: It's a little difficult to keep your thread on a particular topic when we have a number of topics being raised, so I'll try to pick up from where I left off. I don't imagine we'll get — unless some other member brings it up — much beyond transit. We've spent an hour and a half now, and it seems that I'm just finishing my introduction. However, that's not a threat necessarily. This only happens once a year. It's like Christmas. So there are a lot of questions that accumulate over that time. It's a new portfolio for me, so I might not be as efficient in terms of questioning as I might be. I apologize in advance.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The minister said in a recent response that the reason a lot of these routes are shaped or altered — "distorted" is a better word — to serve SkyTrain is that SkyTrain is a very expensive operation and has to have ridership. I haven't got the figures on SkyTrain ridership, except that the total is about 17 percent of all hauling, according to the information that I have, and it takes 40 percent of the money. But a lot of people are getting out of buses and back into their cars because they don't like the inconvenience of the spoke-and-wheel arrangement. They don't want to transfer and run from one thing to another in the rain. They like direct services. I know that's not available for everybody, and it probably is impossible to achieve; but there certainly needs to be a mix of things so that people do have a little bit of choice. The choice now is either to drive their cars or to go through maybe one or two transfers to get to where they want to go, and that is time-consuming.

[ Page 6574 ]

As a matter of fact, in answer to your question, it has been asserted that buses 154 and 155 from the Lougheed Mall actually are faster than the SkyTrain to Vancouver, even though the Lougheed is a very busy artery. But I won't go into that anymore.

[11:30]

Actually, people are being forced into SkyTrain, and that's why the outcry and the petition regarding 333 and the second look. I think there will be other outcries as well. Buses are cancelled, leaving people stranded, because you effectively don't have a spare board or you haven't hired any drivers for five years. All of that has added to the problems, regardless of the number of hours. Also, it has come to my attention — and I assume it's valid to some extent — that there's a lot of stress associated with cuts in services and schedules, where people don't even have time for a restroom break in certain parts of their shifts.

So there's a question about whether the minister believes that high driver absenteeism is related to stress, the lack of a spare-board and the accompanying low morale; I'm assured that it does. What is the minister's response to this? I'm told that in Victoria 26 percent of the drivers want to take advantage of the employee assistance plan, which is a counselling plan. That's a pretty high number. In Victoria too, I'm told, 80 percent of the drivers have undergone family breakups and the divorce rate is running well over 70 percent, perhaps as high as 80 percent. These are working-conditions questions, and I'd like the minister's response to them, please.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'll start out with a couple of the earlier questions. There was a suggestion that we hadn't hired any drivers. One of your questions was: "How many new buses were purchased from 1982 to 1988 and how many new drivers were hired over the same period?" The information I have received is that 323 buses were purchased for Vancouver between 1982 and 1988: 245 trolley and 78 diesel. This represents about a third of the current fleet During the same period, 378 drivers were hired.

The other question on your list which you mentioned again this morning is: "Is the bus via runs 151 and 152 faster than SkyTrain to Vancouver?" The information I have is that the 151-152 travel time from the Lougheed Mall to downtown Vancouver is about the same as the 147-148-156 travel time from the Lougheed Mall to Vancouver via SkyTrain. Current schedules indicate that in peak times the 151-152 requires 52 minutes to complete the trip from the mall to Burrard station. The 147-148-156-SkyTrain connection requires 48 minutes in the same periods. So it appears that those are comparable.

Your suggestion with regard to the operators in the Victoria system requiring counselling, and that there is a heavy predominance of family breakups.... I don't honestly have any way of measuring whether that is an occupational hazard or not. It would seem to me that we have a similar occupational hazard within the political ranks in this building or within the staff working for the provincial government. I would suggest that wherever you have a large number of people, in whatever industry or occupation it may be, you are probably going to take more notice of those kinds of problems. I think we should give credit to B.C. Transit for having a program available to assist their operators and staff members who require assistance. As long as we're in a position to address some of those problems, I believe it's important that we do so.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't making any suggestion that B.C. Transit shouldn't be doing these things. I think it's very enlightened. I think that the figures I used, if they were accurate, are alarming. They are probably far higher than in the political realm. I think that in Canada about one out of every four marriages ends in divorce now. I think 80 percent is certainly higher than 25 percent.

I don't see how I can receive information from the source that I got it — which I will frankly admit was the union — saying that there were no purchases, and the minister can come along and say that there were purchases amounting to 350 buses or something like that in a period, and so many people hired. Runs have been cancelled out of Port Coquitlam because there was no spare-board and no replacement driver. I know that recently 80 buses were purchased with great fanfare, and we needed them. I know some diesel trolleys have been interchanged and cannibalized to produce other vehicles. I think that's fine; it's a good idea. Somebody's kidding somebody on these figures. I don't see why anybody — the union, staff or anybody — would distort these figures so that they're blatantly contradictory.

I'll go on to another question. Was $13 million saved in transit for the fiscal period ending March 31, 1989? How was it achieved, if in fact it was achieved?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The $13 million — I believe it was $12.7 million — was not a saving in the system. The provincial portion of the transit budget was spent as expected, but the $12.7 million accumulated as a result of the local governments' portion of revenue that exceeded the amount they had budgeted. There was higher ridership and revenue by way of the gasoline tax and the Hydro levy. It was not directly attributed to a saving per se, because the budget — when it is prepared and estimated and the requests have come to the provincial government — that was anticipated was fully committed, but the revenues were higher than expected. That falls into the purview of the local governments' share.

MR. ROSE: I am a little confused about that and why that should occur. I don't have the figures to the end of '89, but I have the annual report for 1987-88. On page 34, under "Finance," it says that fares revenue for the year was down. It was $105.6 million compared to $121.3 million for the previous year. I don't know whether it bounced up again. It was high during Expo, it went down after Expo and, according to the minister, it's up again. I'd like that confirmed.

While that is being looked up, I'd like to know what this $13 million is for? Did it go into buses or

[ Page 6575 ]

wages or whatever? We have the oldest bus fleet in North America, and trolley bus breakdown is probably the highest in North America. My information — and it's public — is that you're buying 80 new diesel buses. It's going to take eight to 12 years to renew this fleet at the present rate. Of course, it depends on how many vehicles are scrapped and cannibalized. If you have the answer to some of those comments, I would be grateful to hear them.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: A portion of the money you are referring to, hon. member, is a result of fare increases that took place during the past year, and that money is not for provincial access. It is a stabilization fund that the local Vancouver Regional Transit Commission has in place to enable them to hold the line on fare increases or other revenue source increases. It is directly credited to the local government share; it is not directed to the provincial government. It is for local government to deal with as their portion of the contribution towards transit on the lower mainland.

MR. ROSE: Speaking of fares.... Concerning the idea of using the transit revenue surplus in the greater Vancouver area to either lower fares or improve services, the commission said that they had to recognize constraints imposed on them by the provincial government. I would like to ask exactly what constraints are imposed upon the commission and whether the minister has given any thought to allowing local commissions a little more leeway than they presently have in this area, so that they're not required to put the surplus into a stabilization fund at the end of the year.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like the member for Coquitlam-Moody to be more specific. There are no constraints. The formula agreed to shows a percentage of the capital and operating costs as being the responsibility of the provincial government, with a portion of it being the responsibility of local government. The fare structure, frequency of travel and routes are all the responsibility of the local transit commissions. I'm not sure what constraints they would be referring to, because they know when they present their budget what type of service they want to present to their traveling public. A percentage of that money has to be contributed by the provincial government and a percentage has to be put forward by local government. They then determine how they are going to raise the money. They have access to the gasoline tax and the Hydro levy. They receive all the money that goes into the fare box. They have access to non-residential as well as residential property tax. To this point in time they have not accessed the residential property tax, but they do access non-residential property tax. Those are the funding sources that are available to local government to make up their share of the costs of providing transit. I don't know what constraints you are referring to.

MR. ROSE: I could elaborate on it, but I don't think it is worthwhile at this point. I have information that the mayor of Vancouver suggested that the fares be maintained or even reduced to give people a break, and it was turned down by the commissioners. The excuse was provincial government constraints. If the minister doesn't know of any and can't elaborate, then I can't help her. I can give her any notes that I have on the matter, and she can look it up if she would like to.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's not an accurate statement.

MR. ROSE: It may or may not be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have to ask the minister to respect the rules of committee. You will have ample opportunity to answer all these questions. The committee seems to be moving very slowly, so you will have a lot of opportunities to respond at length, but not across the floor. Through the Chair, please.

MR. ROSE: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman.

A little while ago the minister mentioned accepting more of the share of the transit system on the backs of the local taxpayer. The local community's contribution to transit costs has been increasing steadily by about 1 percent per year. Does the minister agree? Contribution in '86-87, 61 percent; '87-88, 61.9 percent; '88-89, 62.8 percent. It is roughly 1 percent per year. In the past few years, there has been a constant shift. The local ratepayers are paying more and more of the share. What is the final objective — 100 percent?

[11:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Under the new ten-year funding formula, the provincial government has agreed to take on some $300 million more in the way of costs and contributions towards the operation of the transit system. I want to make it very clear that fares are the sole responsibility of the local transit commission. If you look at the funding sources that have been made available to local government, they are traditionally — with one exception — provincial funding sources. The gasoline levy is traditionally a provincial government funding source. Access to a tax on your hydro bill would not normally be a local government funding source. The fare box in its entirety goes to help pay local government's share of funding transit.

As to which traditional local government funding sources are being accessed to help pay the local share of transit, we come down to only one area: the nonresidential property tax. They have access to residential property tax, which has not yet been utilized, but that is the only traditional local government funding source presently being used. If you look at the entire formula, one can say truly that only 6 percent of the overall transit budget is accessed through a tradi-

[ Page 6576 ]

tional local government funding source. The other funding sources are traditional provincial government funding sources that we have given over to local government.

By and large, I believe we are treating our local transit commissions very fairly. We are looking at a ten-year funding formula that calls for in excess of $300 million more by way of contribution from the provincial government.

MR. ROSE: Although I'm a tyro in this business, I know where the funds come from. I've read the annual report. Out of $352 million in the budget, fares account for about a third — $105 million; government, roughly $120 million; debt services, $42 million; debt forgiveness, $49 million; municipalities $18 million; and gas tax, $38 million. I got those out of the 1987-88 report, so I'm aware of that.

In these estimates the minister has been promising a funding formula that would firm up funding conditions for a ten-year period. I wonder if she could update us on the progress of that ten-year funding formula, which has been promised for the last two years at least.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The funding formula was agreed to a good year ago, and it was well publicized and advertised. We have had a funding formula in place for a year now. I can get you a copy of that, if you like.

MR. ROSE: I'll turn my attention to the fare box, if I may. It relates to a question that I raised with the minister having to do with college and university student fares. The minister knows there are concession fares for poor people, children and seniors — who are mainly poor; many of them are, anyway. I have a fare comparison. I haven't got all the details. We don't need to put them in here, but I would like to mention some of them.

In Vancouver, if you do three zones, it's a $90 monthly pass; for two zones, $67; and for one zone, $50. Schools run for six or seven months a year, so multiply those figures six or seven times and you get around a $500 cost to a student just to ride the bus Recently Victoria put their college student fare up from 75 cents to $1. These kids are from all over the country; many of them don't have cars; they've got to shop; they've got to do other things. They need a break.

We have a Ministry of Advanced Education putting out papers called "Access." One of the ways to increase access is to make it possible for students to afford to go to university. That's one of the first things. According to the information I have, fees for university here have gone up between 100 and 200 percent — I can give you the precise figures — since 1981. Here is what they are forced to pay: Vancouver, let's say $500 for a three-zone pass — somebody coming from my riding of Coquitlam-Moody going to UBC; Edmonton, $36; Calgary, $38; Winnipeg, $34 Hamilton, $41; Toronto, an expensive place, $46 — half the price, and they've got a GO transportation system there, too; Ottawa, $38; Kitchener-Waterloo, $42; and Montreal, $29.

Of course, there are concession fares. If we had the concession fares available to high school students and seniors, it would cost these kids $29, or reduce it roughly by two-thirds. We're getting surpluses out of these things — $13 million last year. The minister will say: "I can't do that; it's really up to the localities to do that." The minister can do that; so can the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. S. Hagen). He could use some of the student aid surplus to lower those fares.

I think it's possible, if people of good will want to do something on this, to really... What's the point of giving kids extra money through grants and loans to go to school and then just poking it down the great maw of Hydro? Why not use the resources of government? If it is an objective of government to develop a well-educated society, why ding them for 100 percent of tuition fees and at the same time extort from them, because they have no alternatives, $90 a month in Hydro fares?

MR. WILLIAMS: The great maw of transit.

MR. ROSE: We know why it's the great maw of transit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that the great maw of transit over there?

MR. ROSE: That's the grandma of transit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We were doing so nicely. Come on, let's get back to the business of the House. If the member for Vancouver East can just restrain himself till question period, I am sure he will have a great forum then.

MR. ROSE: A lot of this is caused, really, by the expense of SkyTrain. We've distorted all the bus routes in Coquitlam, Moody, Surrey and every place around the lower mainland merely to serve that very expensive form of transportation. Do we want it? Sure we want it. We've got it; we'll have to have it. But if it means distorting everything else, I think we've got to look at it very carefully.

It would cost $3 million if you lowered those student fares, according to the Canadian Federation of Students, which is, compared to the money handled by this government, a relatively small.... I think we spent something like $50 million on student aid in 1982. We could do it another way. I don't think it's quite that high, but I haven't looked recently. I haven't been involved in it.

Could I have her attitude on that, please? I know the councils are all for it. They say, like most people: "Where is the money going to come from? Where is the replacement money?"

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: While the transit commission has looked at full concessions for students,

[ Page 6577 ]

they have determined that the cost would be in the area of $6 million. They have assumed the position that it should not be the responsibility of the transit commission to subsidize students' fares.

As I said earlier, and as you are aware, the fares are set by the local transit commissions. The Minister of Municipal Affairs responsible for transit does not get involved in setting those fares. If you feel, hon. member, that there should be some further government subsidy by way of student assistance, that may be more appropriately put to one of my colleagues who would be responsible for that area.

I want to stress again that we do not become involved in setting the fares in this ministry. It is solely the responsibility of the local transit commissions. You suggest that things are somehow skewed in our formula and in our budget, as a result of the high cost of SkyTrain, and that possibly we should be looking at it. We are looking at SkyTrain and at extensions into your own community. I would hope that you wouldn't be....

MR. WILLIAMS: Which would be first?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The member for Vancouver East, who already has SkyTrain, knows what a wonderful system it is, and he would like to see it going all over the lower mainland, as would I.

I hope that the member for Coquitlam-Moody isn't suggesting that we should not be considering the extension into his riding because of the costs. The demands are there; your mayor is very interested in seeing it extended into Coquitlam, as is the minister responsible. I hope that has answered your question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would be pleased to entertain the motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. ROSE: I'd be delighted to do that, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify one thing: I didn't say that we didn't want SkyTrain. I'm saying that the routes were skewed, and certainly the money is spent excessively in terms of the percentage compared to its ridership. It is a very expensive system, and if we're going to have it, we want it. In the meantime, while we're getting ready for this great event — SkyTrain finally comes to Coquitlam — perhaps we could buy a few buses, because it would be a lot cheaper. We could carry a lot more passengers right now.

Saying that, Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to rise, report progress and request that the committee sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Ministerial Statement

SUPREME COURT DECISION ON
AIRLINE FUEL TAXING

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. I must advise the House and particularly the opposition House Leader that the reasons I have been unable to give notice is that this relates to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which was rendered this morning, a lengthy and complicated decision, and I have just now myself finished it. But I think the House should be aware of it.

This decision relates to litigation which has been ongoing since 1982, conducted by Mr. Joseph Arvay on behalf of the province. I am pleased to report to this House that the Supreme Court of Canada has today handed down its decision with respect to a number of cases involving the province and Air Canada and what were Canadian Pacific Airlines and Pacific Western Airlines.

Specifically, the court held that the province has the constitutional right to impose a tax on the fuel purchased by airlines in the province, notwithstanding that most of the fuel would be consumed outside the province. In reaching this decision, the court affirmed the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal and dismissed the airlines' claim of approximately $30 million.

Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the cross-appeal by the province, thus reversing the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The cross-appeal arose by virtue of the fact that the Gasoline Tax Act as it existed between 1974 and 1976 imposed an indirect tax and was therefore unconstitutional.

[12:00]

The province had taken the position that it was entitled to retain taxes collected under this legislation because of retroactive amendments to the legislation in 1981 and on the basis of common law and equitable doctrines. The court agreed with the province's position in this regard and ordered the three airlines to repay the Crown a total of $13,388,551, an amount which the province had earlier repaid to the airlines.

Finally, the court held that the Social Service Tax Act could not be applied as a matter of statutory interpretation by the province to impose a tax on aircraft used in flights that originate from, terminate in or connect to points in the province. This is not a constitutional decision, and the court emphasized that point in the following passage: "It may well be that the Legislature could, by properly framed legislation, impose a proportional tax of the kind the taxing authority sought to levy here, if it did not impose an undue burden on interprovincial undertakings, but I do not think I should speculate further about the matter."

In allowing Air Canada's appeal, the court awarded Air Canada the sum of $903,424.57. Although the court also held that the province could not tax the sales by airlines of alcoholic beverages to passengers while they were in the airspace over Brit-

[ Page 6578 ]

ish Columbia, the court refused to order the Crown to repay Air Canada the amount of tax collected in that regard — namely, $90,279.52. The court reasoned that the tax was imposed on the passengers and not on Air Canada, and any repayment to Air Canada would simply amount to a windfall to the airline.

I conclude these remarks of my statement by simply saying that this matter not only has been one of considerable length and effort on the part of the province but is important to the taxing authority of the province and is a significant victory in that regard.

MR. ROSE: I don't know what was so urgent about this before noon. I can't see anything in it that would demand such urgency, unless the minister's own travel plans were involved. I don't think he's up to his usual courteous self in advising the House that this was coming, so that we could have his counterpart here from our side — his critic.

I'm going to ask unanimous consent of the House to permit the opposition to make its comments on the ministerial statement following question period and before orders of the day.

HON. MR. REE: I know the opposition House Leader wanted to make a comment like that, as if there were something untoward being presented by the Attorney-General in the statement, when he knew that this side of the House had already consented that the reply from the opposition could be made after the lunch break.

MR. SPEAKER: It's ordered that the response will be after question period.

Hon. Mr. Ree moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.