[ Page 6579 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 6580

An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills (Bill M211). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6580

Oral Questions

Forest resource development agreement. Mr. Miller –– 6580

Mr. Kempf

Condoms for prisoners. Mr. Guno –– 6581

Pesticide labelling. Mrs. Boone –– 6581

Motor vehicle testing and exhaust emissions. Mr. Cashore –– 6582

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Long –– 6582

Privatization of campgrounds. Ms. Pullinger –– 6582

Casino licensing. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6582

Victoria CBC station. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6583

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

On vote.44: minister's office –– 6583

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Harcourt

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON: This afternoon, hon. members, we have with us some very special guests from that great and wonderful area, the Northwest Territories. We have the Hon. Red Pedersen, who is the MLA for Kitikmeot West and the Speaker of that assembly; Sam Gargan, who is the MLA for Deh Cho; Henry Zoe, the MLA for Rae-Lac La Martre; and David Hamilton, the Clerk of the House.

I might also mention to hon. members that our honoured guest who was with us and sat on the floor this morning, the Hon. Clive Griffiths from West Australia, enjoyed himself so much that he's back this afternoon to listen to question period.

I have just one other group to be introduced, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Ronald W. Downey is the former president and a current director of our Speaker's riding association. Along with Mr. Downey, we have Mr. John D. Eastwood, who is also from Vancouver. Would the House welcome all these gentlemen, please.

MR. ROSE: I was just going to remark as an aside that if Mr. Griffiths enjoyed his visit to the House so much this morning that he came back this afternoon, he must be a masochist. He has taken more interest in the House than a lot of MLAs.

I'm not standing up at this time for this purpose alone; I want to welcome a very important school from Port Coquitlam, Terry Fox Senior Secondary School, There are 200 students coming in — I was going to say in gobs — in groups of 50. We welcome them and their teachers: Mr. Kiloh, Mr. Van Os and Mr. Leroux. Would the House help me welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN: We have in the House with us today a number of real estate people who are down here lobbying the government and the members. I'm pleased to have from my riding Joan Leach, who is the president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board. Would you please help me bid her welcome.

MR. JONES: Joining us today is a well-known, highly respected and widely traveled British Columbian who takes time out of his busy schedule to drop by the House from time to time. Would both sides of the House join me in welcoming the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen).

HON. MR- SAVAGE: It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise again today to welcome some members of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board: Mr. Dale Featherstone, Mr. John Eastwood, Miss Christine Skaley and Mr. Al Terry. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

MR. JACOBSEN: In the gallery today is Mr. Don Shannon, president of the B.C. Real Estate Association, and the presidents, executive officers and political action representatives from British Columbia's 13 real estate boards, in total about 40 people. These representatives are in Victoria for two days of training and legislative member consultation.

The real estate industry in British Columbia represents over 12,000 licensed realtors and in 1988 generated approximately $12 billion in sales. I ask the House to give all of these visitors a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would certainly like to welcome a member of the B.C. Real Estate Association board who is visiting us today, Doris Ranger from my constituency. In addition to Doris, I would ask you to join me in welcoming Min Shi Chih, Tan Hwang, Hank Cheng, Michael Chih, Lawrence Chen, Johanna Sholes and Savitri Ahlwat, all business people from Surrey.

MR. HARCOURT: I too would like to add greetings and a welcome to the members of the real estate boards who are here from throughout British Columbia. In particular, I would like to welcome the president of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, Mr. Brian Calder, who is of course an old friend of mine. We went to high school in Marpole together. Because of the secrets we know about each other, we have a veil of secrecy and silence around our past which keeps us good friends. Would you welcome Brian Calder.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, would the House please welcome Philip and Annette Young, visiting here from New York and in the House today.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to introduce my cousin, who is visiting with the members of the real estate board, Gordon Ellis. He's a member of the political action committee from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. It's interesting that he's on the political action committee, because we've spent a lifetime trying to influence each other politically — without success. He's visiting with his wife Sheila. Would you please join me in welcoming Gordon and Sheila Ellis.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce today a good friend of mine, the past chairman of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, British Columbia division, and longtime British Columbia Telephone employee, Mr. Bob Moog. Would the House please make him welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: This morning the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Elsie McMurphy, and the president-elect, Ken Novakowski, briefed our caucus on issues of concern to the 28,000 members of that federation. They're in the House with us this afternoon, and I would like all of us to join in welcoming them today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on the off chance that there is someone in the gallery — or may be in the gallery at a future date — who hasn't been introduced, I would like to bid them welcome.

[ Page 6580 ]

MR. JONES: I just noticed somebody in the gallery that isn't a member of the real estate association. Joining us today is an individual who makes an important contribution to community life in Burnaby by producing the cable television program," Burnaby in Review." Would members on both sides of the House please welcome Harley Steubing.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have two items. First of all, I would like to apprise the members of the House that this is Motorcycle Awareness Week. As an avid biker I would like the House to be aware of that matter.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Apparently there are others.

I would also like to welcome a member from the real estate board from the fine city of Ucluelet, the whale-watching capital of Canada, Ron Burley.

[2:15]

MR. BRUCE: As one would know, there has to be somebody in the gallery today from Cowichan-Malahat, one of the greatest places in British Columbia that you could live, and certainly a great place to sell real estate. We have the vice-president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, a constituent of mine and a good friend, Mrs. Margaret Leck.

MR. PERRY: I'd like to introduce a constituent from the finest riding in the province, who should be well known to many of the more senior members around here. Mrs. Dorothy Macdonald, wife of the former Attorney-General, is here in the gallery somewhere.

While I'm up, although I can't see the group from Coquitlam and therefore can't see if their teacher is the one who taught me English.... If he is, I'd like to apologize to him for my massacring of the language in this House, but would like to welcome him here.

MR. SIHOTA: Everybody knows that the finest riding in British Columbia is Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Residing in Victoria and the president of the Victoria Real Estate Board is Rob Fraser. I know Rob is here as well, so would all members please join me in giving him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I rarely get an opportunity to introduce a constituent, so I couldn't pass up the chance today to introduce a realtor from Dawson Creek and a good friend, Mr. Lloyd Smith.

Hon. Mr. Savage presented the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1988.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE
MONITORING OF POLLUTION
AND TOXIC SPILLS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills.

MR. CASHORE: The Waste Management Act in its current form is riddled with loopholes. This act renames the Waste Management Act, calling it the Clean Environment Enforcement Act, and provides for effective monitoring of pollution and toxic spills. It plugs the loopholes in the Waste Management Act by more clearly defining spills from industrial operations and transportation accidents, and setting forth specific requirements concerning the reporting of such spills.

In addition, the ministry is required to keep an up-to-date record of reported spills, which is available without charge to the public. Further, a duty is placed on polluters to immediately do everything practicable to prevent the spill from causing additional environmental damage, broadly defining what is considered to be environmental damage, calling harmful wastes "hazardous wastes" instead of "special wastes"; imposing a duty on officials to ensure that the monitoring of permits is reasonably related to permit compliance; treatment of discharges and the determination of environmental effects; no longer allowing officials to grant approvals of variance to polluters; subjecting all air effluent and refuse permits to a public review process every three years or before a permit is renewed; and permit-holders being required to pay the true cost of administration and enforcement of their permits, on the principle that the polluter pays.

Bill M211 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.

Oral Questions

FOREST RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. As the minister is aware, a second FRDA agreement is required in British Columbia, to the tune of some $700 million. It's vital for completing the backlog NSR and incremental silviculture and research and development. Would the minister advise the House if he has been informed that there will be no program of the magnitude that we require, and that future funding will have to come from the western diversification fund, controlled by the Grains minister, Charlie Mayer?

HON. MR. PARKER: The forest resource development agreement was put together in '84. It expires next March in British Columbia. The communication

[ Page 6581 ]

I've had with the Minister of State for Forestry, Hon. Frank Oberle, indicates that a second FRDA, or forest resource development agreement, is unlikely; that the carrying on of the sort of activities that we've been able to do under the forest resource development agreement, which include backlog reforestation and substantial research, are going to be carried through negotiation with the western diversification office. The indication I have had from the Forestry minister is that we will be into a provincial-federal cost-sharing agreement through that office, to deliver essentially exactly the same things that we've been doing under FRDA I. with a little more emphasis on stand-tending.

MR. MILLER: A supplemental on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mayer has indicated a one-third cut in regional development funds. Harvie Andre, the Industry minister, has said there is a re-examination of structure, funding and subject matter. By all indications, Mr. Oberle can't get the same budget; western diversification has had a reduction in budget. I think your government is largely responsible for the silvicultural slums in this province. Will you make a commitment to this House that the full range of reforestation programs envisaged under FRDA II will be carried out in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: The western diversification office is certainly not under the aegis of Mr. Oberle, but the indication I have from Mr. Oberle is that there will be federal-provincial sharing on a number of economic initiatives, including this one of forest renewal and stand-tending. The amount of funding, we have to negotiate. Whatever is available, we'll be seeking a maximum share for British Columbia in competition with the other nine provinces.

The commitment that we have given is that we wanted to see a $700 million FRDA II, and we will continue to work toward that objective with the federal government: a $700-million shared agreement. We're not going to stand off in a corner — as the member opposite would probably wish — and suck our thumb. We're going to get the best dollar we can for British Columbia and make sure that it goes into the fibre farm in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. If we don't see the full $150 million in FRDA II returned to this province from the federal government, are you prepared to go back to the multinational corporations and demand that they pick up the tab for those insufficiently restocked lands that you wiped the slate clean of in October 1977?

HON. MR. PARKER: There's a lot of hypothesis from the member for Omineca. Our announcement, first off, wasn't in '77; it was in '87. And the backlog.... If that gentleman could remember from when he was minister, the Forest Act isn't that different, and it was in black and white and plain English that the obligation for forest renewal under the legislation and regulations of the day lay with the Crown.

MR. MILLER: And he didn't do it.

HON. MR. PARKER: Neither did the members opposite when they were in the driver's seat.

MR. KEMPF: Take the money and run, and the taxpayers are going to pay.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the obligation prior to October 1987 was fully with the Crown. We'll see in our estimates here a little later on how this government is meeting its obligations in seeing that the backlog is looked after, properly protected and tended.

CONDOMS FOR PRISONERS

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The B.C. corrections branch is recommending that inmates in our provincial prisons be given condoms to give added protection to the prison population against the dreaded disease AIDS. Will the minister reconsider his earlier decision to dismiss his own staffs recommendation and provide prisoners with this much needed protection?

HON. MR. REE: That is a very interesting question and very timely, and the answer is no.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Michael Rekart, a B.C. Health ministry AIDS expert, has said that providing condoms to prisoners in British Columbia not only meets a major health problem in the prisons, but would also mark a major breakthrough in prisons across Canada.

My question to the minister is: has he consulted with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) on this matter, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. REE: I have not consulted with my colleague; I will consult with my colleague. I note what you are saying, that we follow the same as other prisons in Canada, which you say would be a major breakthrough. We have come to the same conclusion as other institutions in this country.

PESTICIDE LABELLING

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. There is growing evidence and concern that the use of pesticides and other chemicals on agricultural products from other countries is a serious health risk to consumers, especially children. Has the minister decided to respond to concerns of consumers by at least requiring labels on agricultural products to indicate their country of origin?

HON. L. HANSON: That is a federal jurisdiction. There is a new program — and I'm sure the member opposite is aware of it — called the workplace hazardous material information system that not only requires the labelling of those pesticides or chemicals

[ Page 6582 ]

that are classified in the system, but provides instructions as to their safe handling in the workplace.

The responsibility for labelling goods for consumer purposes is within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING
AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS

MR. CASHORE: My question is to the Premier. Despite the fact that the government's own task force on emission controls has questioned the effectiveness of spot checks as a method of controlling automobile emissions, your Solicitor-General said yesterday that he was unwilling to abandon this policy in favour of comprehensive motor vehicle testing. Your Minister of Environment was no more forthcoming.

Is the Premier now prepared to give some direction to his ministers to establish an effective motor vehicle testing program as promised in last year's throne speech?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I recall, what the Solicitor-General said yesterday was that no decision had been made, and that's quite different from what I'm hearing. He said no in response to the question," Has a decision been made," and there is a difference.

However, having explained that, let me assure the member that I support any and all things that will give us a clean environment and greater safety.

MR. CASHORE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that answer, which is a commitment to support, will the Premier go a step further and advise the House now that he has decided to bring in legislation to institute compulsory automobile testing that will include the testing for emission controls?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of future policy.

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Environment. A recent story in the Vancouver Sun graphically described how a major oil spill would impact upon the Strait of Georgia, and the picture is frightening. A new public opinion poll revealed that 75 percent of British Columbians fear that an oil spill in the magnitude of Valdez would probably occur along the B.C. coastline within five years We have all heard a great deal about the people's very real concerns for protecting the Coquitlam watershed.

[2:30]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member please put his question.

MR. LONG: You want the question? During the construction phase of the gas pipeline....

Interjections.

MR. LONG: Can the minister tell us precisely how the pipeline will help to safeguard our shorelines from potential oil spills?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think there was a question there. There are hundreds of barge movements per year currently into the Vancouver Island area with bunker C, which we all know is very dangerous if spilled. Of course, it is a concern of mine that we have this pipeline in place to eliminate those barge movements. There is also the question of the Vancouver Island air shed, which is becoming a bit acidic from the burning of that same bunker. Anything we can do to move that natural gas pipeline along the Sunshine Coast in the member's riding — and also into Vancouver Island, of course — would be of great benefit to the environment for many reasons.

PRIVATIZATION OF CAMPGROUNDS

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Parks. Last year the then Minister of Environment and Parks stated that the government would save 15 percent of its costs by privatizing some of its park campground operations. This week the government announced that the fees for camping in some parks would increase by as much as 33 percent. Do the fee increases announced by the government this week indicate that the government's campground privatization scheme has failed?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: No.

MS. PULLINGER: Last year the Minister of Parks boasted of a $2 million increase in the Parks budget for upgrading of facilities. Yesterday's announced increase in fees was due to costs of improvement to facilities, according to the government. Is the minister now saying that the full cost of this facilities upgrading is going to be borne by the users of B.C.'s park system?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: No.

CASINO LICENSING

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. I would like to know if it's government policy to preclude the sale of casino businesses to out-of-province purchasers, considering that they are businesses that are only there by virtue of government licensing. To put it another way, if a casino is sold to anyone, is the licence transferable to the purchaser?

HON. MR. REE: I'll have to take that question as notice.

[ Page 6583 ]

VICTORIA CBC STATION

MR. G. HANSON: A question to the Minister of State for Vancouver Island. What specific representation has the minister made to the federal government to ensure that Victoria gets its own CBC station, despite recently announced budget cuts to CBC?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We made a presentation in Vancouver regarding the CBC station for Victoria and indicated that it had been promised to us ten years ago. We made a presentation to the effect that we thought there was room for improvement there.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Five regional bureaus were established in B.C. for radio production facilities; three of these have gone ahead, but the facilities for Victoria are on hold. Can the minister advise the House what steps he has taken to ensure that Victoria will get a regional production facility?

HON. MR. HUBERTS: We indicated that we were certainly interested in improving our facilities. We'll just follow up on that.

Orders of the Day

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

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 (continued).

MR. ROSE: I intend to go on with the cross-examination of the minister on transit estimates for a while, and there will be other people involved in it as well. I'm just waiting now while some of her officials arrive on the scene to support her.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, hon. member. Hon. members, if you wish to have conversations or hold little meetings, it would be best if they were held out in the hallway. The House is in committee.

Please continue, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I tried to make the point that we're inadequately served in transit in the lower mainland. I can't say how strongly I believe that.

I would like to offer a statistic that came to me over lunch hour. Ten years ago, 50 percent of the rush hour traffic into the city came by transit. After all the programs, 30 percent to 40 percent of the same people come by transit.

I know that ridership is up marginally over last year, but it certainly doesn't indicate to me — or to anybody else, especially the riders — that we're doing a good job here. The fact is we're not doing a good job here, and I can't emphasize that too strongly.

I think there are a number of reasons for that. For instance, I don't think that there's a proper regard for public input. I've got a letter here from a former president of the union, for one, who says: "The bus drivers' union has met quarterly with BCT management to submit numerous suggestions for remedying scheduling problems. These suggestions have met with a 97 percent rejection rate." This letter, which appeared in the Sun, was written by Colin Kelly.

I've heard from other people that the bus drivers' suggestions have been largely ignored. The scheduling is handled centrally, and that's not where it should be. It should be with the regional manager.

HON. MR. REID: They're always on holidays.

MR. ROSE: I don't know if they are. I don't have any trouble getting hold of them.

The same thing happened in North Vancouver, I'm informed. The regional transit commission decided to transfer 77 North Vancouver buses to Burnaby, then deadhead them back across the Second Narrows Bridge to make their runs. At the same time, 18 Burnaby buses would be transferred to Port Coquitlam. This is in direct contradiction to a proposal from those communities.

I think that transit loses out by rejecting the people who are on the job — the front line people.

What is the status of B.C. Transit plans to move 77 North Vancouver buses to a dispatch garage in Burnaby? I'd like to know about that. That's number one.

Number two. Has it been determined whether this move will — as the transit union suggests — cost the taxpayers of this province $400,000 to $500,000 a year: that is, the move, the facilities and the deadheading one way back to North Vancouver?

Has the minister decided to bring a transit act into line with many other statutes in this province which call for public meetings when public money is being spent?

Again, I can't emphasize too strongly the concern about this on the part of many people. We want the transit system to work well, and there are too many complaints to suggest it is working well. Part of the reason is an absolute inability — an impervious attitude on the part of transit, according to some; I can't say it firsthand — to make suggestions and accept suggestions that might improve the service.

Here's another thing. We're told here that the new White Pine Beach branch, number 147 extension, is in there for a one-year trial period. That's in my riding, so I'm happy about a bus extension in there. But I think we have to make sure that the added service isn't placed squarely on the back of the operator.

There has been concern. When that White Pine Beach opened, I couldn't get near the place. The road access to Belcarra is abysmal. I got as far as Ioco and had to turn around and come back. That's how congested that road is, and there's increased traffic in

[ Page 6584 ]

there because there's increased building all over that slope.

Sure, we want the service; it's a wonderful idea. But how does that work with the connections? That's what the concern is. What are we going to do when the buses are stuck, and they're going to miss connections to Vancouver and New Westminster? Again, if the drivers — the operators — had an opportunity to participate more fully, I think the system would work better, morale would be better and stress would be lower.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: B.C. Transit does have service review committees, and the operators have an opportunity for input. I can assure the member for Coquitlam-Moody that quite likely the information he has received — he stated it came from the union.... It's quite likely that those same members have met with me on more than one occasion in my office in Surrey. I have regular visits from the union executive, when they generally express their concerns to me. I feel they have always received a fair hearing.

Many of their concerns have been addressed very promptly and, I would expect, to their satisfaction. It's not unusual for several of the operators to come into my office with concerns, which I pass along to Transit. I don't really believe it is necessary for them to arrange to have meetings with the minister, but whenever those meetings are requested, I never refuse them. I meet with them, and the concerns are then expressed to the transit commission with a view to some type of resolution.

I would suggest that your comment that we don't listen to the drivers may be more appropriately stated as: we don't always agree 100 percent with the suggestions brought forward. But I can assure you, we do listen to the operators. They are the grass roots They're out on the firing line all the time. Certainly we accept that they know far more about the system than those sitting in the office.

We were talking about the North Vancouver operation being transferred to Burnaby. It is a matter that has been up for discussion for quite some time. The union members who brought this to your attention are well aware of the fact that the matter has been up for discussion for a considerable period of time. They have also lobbied me at my office in this regard. I have had discussions with representatives of local government in North Van who are concerned about this possibility, and I am informed that there will be a public meeting held in North Vancouver by the commission on May 9. Following that meeting, I feel certain that some type of resolution will be accomplished.

I should tell you that the numbers, according to B.C. Transit, suggest that with that type of move there would be a saving of approximately $350,000 a year. As a result of the comments made at that public meeting, I feel certain that the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission will deal with them in a very responsible way

You suggest that there is no public input to the commission. The commission meetings are open to the public. It is uncommon to not have some members of the public.... There are some people who attend every commission meeting. They are open to the public for people who may want to be there to hear the discussions firsthand.

[2:45]

When all is said and done, the great majority of decisions are made by representatives of local government, both in Victoria — and as far as the small communities are concerned, members from across the province — and on the lower mainland by members of local councils. I feel that we have attempted in that way to have proper representation and local input.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure that the minister listens with both ears open. I can't say this on my own behalf, but I can certainly say it on behalf of the information I received, that 95 percent of the suggestions are ignored. Sure, there are open public meetings. Some people — hearing addicts, you might as well call them, because they're at so many hearings — find this a consuming interest.

I know the minister is available for listening to people in her constituency and to the union. I have no quarrel with that. It's what happens after that. That's the point. Does anything happen after that? At the root of it is the central planning of people who are not really at the front lines and do not have the concerns.

I'd like to take the minister for a little ride in the morning at 7 o'clock around my riding and just show her what it's like. I offered to take her to lunch, too.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I didn't ask to take her at 9 o'clock at night. That's the problem; it's peak rush hour.

HON. MR. REID: There are no drivers available; they're all on holidays.

MR. ROSE: That's not true. I know you have a pipeline into the commission. I know that you were once responsible, if not the chairman of that commission. I also know that you were involved in a very difficult labour negotiation, which probably coloured your views and embittered you somewhat.

HON. MR. REID: Never.

MR. ROSE: I can understand why. I would like to point out that you no longer occupy that lofty position, maybe with good reason. The last person in the world who should be heckling me, a relatively new member of this House, is the Minister of — what is it? — Tourism and Provincial Secretary.

I want to talk about a couple of other things. Is it true that the new radio-equipped buses are all going to Surrey, or are they going to be in downtown Vancouver, where they are really needed for the protection of the drivers? That's something else you could look into.

[ Page 6585 ]

I'm changing the subject. The new subject will be the phantom commuter rail, the great night train. This train has been pussyfooting around the Fraser Valley for at least 20 years that I know about. Finally, just before the election, we got a promise that there was actually going to be a trial period for two years, a commuter rail system that would run from Port Coquitlam twice daily into Vancouver. Presumably it would return, or it would have difficulty in going twice daily.

MR. CLARK: What happened to that guy?

MR. ROSE: Do you mean the Member of Parliament that this was to save?

HON. MR. REID: He made a promise he couldn't keep.

MR. ROSE: Unfortunately he was a victim of the last federal election. I know how it feels to be a victim of elections, because it has happened to better people than the member: namely, me.

First of all, I think it was a dumb idea to start at Port Coquitlam, when it should have started at Mission. It doesn't really matter, if we don't have it, where it starts or ends. I think it was largely an election ploy. I think some people felt that it was about to materialize after a long time. I never believed it, and I still have difficulty. We'd like it though.

MR. CLARK: What happened?

MR. ROSE: We just don't know what happened. I asked the minister the other day: "Is the commuter rail on schedule?" We need it to serve Dewdney. The Chairman will recognize that from Maple Ridge and from Mission right down.... There is no trouble using the rail lines near Toronto and Montreal, having them leased by the government. The GO system has been on the go there for 20 years; it works well. In Toronto, for instance, I think 75 to 80 percent of the people who arrive at work every morning come into the city on public transit. What have we got here? We're down around 35 or 40 percent. That is an abysmal record.

Could I ask the minister the following questions? Is the commuter rail from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver off the track, or is it on schedule? Has it been derailed? I had some earlier questions that you could deal with; then I will sit down. Have there been any plans drawn or contracts let to build the commuter rail stations in Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and Vancouver? I know they want it to run around the PNE.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's too long a list for the minister.

MR. ROSE: No, she has lots of professional help over there. Each of the assistants can write. They are literate, conscientious public servants.

Have the studies been conceptualized for the quotas established? Has money been allocated for such studies? Will the ministry appoint area representatives to participate in these studies?

The mayor of Coquitlam said that unless we get some help on transit, he is going to stop the development, notably of the Westwood Plateau. He might find somebody leaning on him if he tries to do that; nevertheless, that's the problem. How can you have continuous growth, year after year, and not improve your transit system? Unfortunately industry is not moving away from the central core rapidly enough to compensate for the number of people who are moving in.

I think I could probably leave that now, because other people want to deal with other matters for a while.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We will be having, over a period of time, radios in every bus, not just in Surrey.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, the priority would certainly be Vancouver. We already have a substantial number of buses equipped, but not with the new equipment that is going in that we have just called tenders on. I can assure you that Vancouver will be treated similarly to Surrey.

Commuter rail: I'm not sure whether it's derailed or not, because we have not yet received a response to the letter I sent to the federal minister asking for confirmation...

MR. CLARK: When did you send it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Probably a month or three weeks now.

...of the commitment, suggesting to him that the CPR have come in with figures that are higher than we believe they should be, and asking for two things: the commitment of their 50 percent participation — reaffirmation — and for them to put some pressure on the CPR to reduce their gold-plated requirements.

Of course, having said that, it goes hand in hand with the suggestion that, no, we have not let any contracts for the stations. You suggest that the mayor of Coquitlam has made the statement, as he has on many occasions, that he is going to more or less stop growth and not allow any further development until SkyTrain or an improvement in transit is seen in his Coquitlam area. I would suggest to you, hon. member, that if this minister had her way we'd be going to Whalley, Coquitlam and Richmond. That is my goal, and I continue to work for those three extensions to SkyTrain. Without any question, I'm carrying on in that vein, and there's no doubt in my mind that I'm going to be successful. I'm going to persevere until I am.

MR. LOENEN: I was pleased to hear the minister just now say that among other communities Richmond will be looked upon favourably when it comes

[ Page 6586 ]

to extending SkyTrain. That is the subject I'd like to touch on very briefly.

Our community, as the minister well knows, is a very rapidly growing community, and because of our location transportation is perhaps the number one issue. I can think of few issues that are of greater importance to the residents of my community than the whole issue of transportation.

Transportation has to be addressed on many fronts, and I'm pleased that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) is addressing it together with the GVRD. Certainly public transit is one area that we have to explore even more than we have in the past. I'm convinced that when we look at the developments in the lower mainland and at a community such as Richmond, we have to be visionary and daring and to particularly look to public transit of one form or another. Increasingly we realize that building more bridges and laying more concrete and asphalt is not the answer. It's a temporary answer, but those roads, bridges and corridors fill up as fast as we can build them and even faster.

I'm told that the city of Seattle has room perhaps for one more interchange or overpass somewhere, but physically it is impossible to add to it. They simply cannot build more freeways. We have to learn from those examples. We have seen that time and again the city of Vancouver has chosen not to build a freeway system, but that brings a special responsibility onto all of us to look at alternate ways; that is, alternate to private vehicles.

In addition, I think the public generally is increasingly becoming aware of how fragile our environment is. With summer coming on, we know that again this summer there will be days when a pall of smog will hang over Vancouver. We certainly are aware that the private automobile is perhaps the greatest culprit, the greatest source of pollution. In view of that, it is all the more urgent that we look very seriously at improving public transit systems. We must develop ways of attracting people to make use of them. It's very difficult, because I know that when you look at a community like my own, every new home that goes up has a double garage attached to it, and people treasure their private automobiles. But that's all the more reason for us to look at ways in which we can induce people to make use of public transit.

I think that has to be tackled on many fronts. It means that we increase the services, that we listen to the concerns as expressed by the residents there when they talk about the need to improve the bus service to UBC, for instance, to improve the service between the airport and our town centre, to improve the bus services across the municipality east and west. We have fairly good routes running north and south; we have very little running east and west. There's virtually no bus service between our town centre and New Westminster, for instance, Mr. Chairman. That too is something that is badly needed. So yes, we have to look at more and better bus services, and I'd like to encourage the minister, through B.C. Transit, to look at that.

In addition to that, we have to do some serious planning to look at either bringing the SkyTrain to Richmond or some other form of commuter rail service, particularly through the Arbutus cut. The potential of developing the Vancouver International Airport is immense, but that will only happen when we have the proper infrastructure in place to make it happen.

[3:00]

It is interesting to note — and I think few people realize this — that there are more commuters coming from Richmond directly into the Vancouver downtown area each day than from any other suburb, even with a relatively poor bus service and even though many residents use private cars. I think the minister will agree with me that this fact alone ought to weigh very heavy when we talk about extending SkyTrain, whether it be to Whalley, Coquitlam or Richmond. Combine that with the potential at the Vancouver International Airport, and I think we all agree that we have to look at it very hard and very seriously.

It's not just a question of who can shout the loudest. Some prominent mayors around the lower mainland are very good at creating a high profile and saying: "We want SkyTrain, and we need it now." I hope this question will be looked at in terms of where the greatest need is, as determined by the number of people who will make use of the extensions, as well as the potential for growth such as I just mentioned — for instance, at the airport. I know it is expensive, but my plea today is that we cannot afford to not increase the use of public transit. We cannot afford it simply because we're running out of space to build more freeways and highways. It's also counterproductive in terms of how fragile our environment is and the need to protect that environment, to build on the quality of life that we enjoy and to protect that quality of life and do even better than we've done in the past. In view of that, we simply cannot afford to not look at extending the SkyTrain system or other forms of public transit.

Before I close, I would just like to mention that when I was a youngster, Richmond enjoyed a form of public transit — light rail transit. The interurban ran all the way from Steveston through the town centre right into Marpole, and from there through the Arbutus cut into downtown Vancouver. That was a marvellous system. Somehow we were told that we had to do away with that, and it's a shame. I'd like to remind the minister that the right-of-way and most of the rail is still there. It runs from downtown Vancouver through Richmond town centre to Steveston. The potential is there, and I just hope we'll have enough sense to prevent that right-of-way from being uprooted or used for other purposes.

I want to put in a plug for that, because it would be a tremendous detriment to our community if we gave up that right-of-way. In fact, we ought to look at the potential of developing that right-of-way for some form of light rapid transit, some commuter rail service even, within the very near future.

I would like to end these remarks on a positive note and congratulate the minister and B.C. Transit

[ Page 6587 ]

for increasing the handyDART service in our community this past year. I know that many of the residents appreciate that very much; it provides a much needed service. I would just like to pass that on, Madam Minister, on behalf of the residents of my community, because that kind of service relieves a lot of tension, a lot of need. I do want to encourage you in your work. In terms of developing rapid transit for Richmond, I hope we will be able to meet the needs of our community soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I just have a couple of very quick questions to the minister. First of all, the minister has indicated that she supports the extension to Whalley. I would like to know what she's doing about that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't know whether we have long enough to hear about all of the time I spend attempting to resolve the mild difference that I have with the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission.

MR. WILLIAMS: The mile or the mild?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Our mild difference of opinion with regard to the extension. It is my hope — and has been for some time now — that we would be able to, following the completion to Scott Road in February, immediately be somehow in a position to go up the hill, while at the same time we would be looking at the Coquitlam and Richmond extensions. I've been saying that for two years now. It's really interesting. When I was elected to the Legislature in 1983, and we talked about the extension to Whalley, I can remember thinking: if only I was the minister we'd get it up there so quickly. And then when I became minister it became more difficult, because I realized that it wasn't something I could do on my own. Let me assure the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley that there is nothing that has a higher priority with this minister than the SkyTrain extension to Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sure I don't have to remind the minister of the history of SkyTrain. SkyTrain was imposed on the city of Vancouver by the provincial government. That decision was made in isolation from the communities it was going to serve. We now are in a situation where the transit commission has the authority to make those decisions, and that is the way it should have been in the beginning. That decision, that transfer of responsibility, was brought about by this minister. For the minister to say at this point that she is still committed....

She is also responsible for the reality that we face today. That frustration was brought about by this government not only imposing a very expensive system but also transferring the ultimate responsibility for filling the government's commitment to the transit commission, arm's length from the provincial government.

I appreciate the fact that the minister is still committed, however. Working with the tools at your disposal and the influence that you have in cabinet, I would suggest — and it has been the position of my party for a long time — that the funding for SkyTrain should be picked up out of general revenue, like any other highway. Has the minister pursued that....

HON. MR. REID: You wanted to scrap it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I can make a suggestion, through the Chair, the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale can have his opportunity to speak. The way you do that is, you raise your mike and you get to your feet.

Have you pursued with your cabinet colleagues the possibility of having that expensive system picked up out of general revenue?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I have pursued every option known to man — and woman.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is admitting, right here and now in the House — take note — that she's unable to convince her cabinet colleagues about extending SkyTrain to Surrey and having them pay the bill. I sure hope that the Surrey Leader has that down. We're going to get on the telephones right now. The member for Surrey-Newton doesn't have the clout. She can't deliver to Whalley. She has tried everything known to man, and she can't move that machine known as the cabinet. Now we know. Maybe the minister wants to elaborate a little bit more about her lack of capability inside the cabinet.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the first member for Vancouver East, that's really an interesting analysis of my previous statement, and possibly I should elaborate. But I wanted the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to be very certain in her understanding of my commitment to that extension. I can tell you that that extension.... I will be there some time or another to turn that shovel or cut that ribbon, or do whatever has to be done, because we are going to get it. We have explored both with the cabinet and with the Vancouver Regional Transit commission all financing options that are available to us. We have yet to arrive at an agreement as to how that is going to be brought about. Please, be certain it's going to happen.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question specifically was to do with the funding out of general revenue, for it to be treated as a highway, to have the provincial government pick up the responsibility that at this point is frustrating the whole public transit system in the lower mainland. Are you going to do that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, a correction to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. That is not frustrating the whole transit system on the lower mainland; it's not frustrating it at all. But yes, it is one of the options available to us.

[ Page 6588 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: All you're telling us, Madam Minister, is that this is streetcar named desire. It's another lick, hope and a promise. And you're going to be there to cut the ribbon, you're telling us. You look awfully healthy to me, and it could be a long time before you're cutting the ribbon.

I think there's a case for the province to put more money into the pot. It's taking too much out of the whole system. You guys made the decision for SkyTrain....

HON. MR. REID: It's a good one - the best one in the world.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a good one? It's overly expensive. You're talking about SkyTrain to Richmond when you've got a surface railway to Richmond that you could turn overnight into a transit train. That doesn't make any sense.

For the benefit of the second member for Richmond, there's actually a railway that goes through Kitsilano, Kerrisdale and over to Richmond. It used to go all the way to Steveston. You can use those railway lines and just....

MR. LOENEN: I just finished saying that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, but your minister said SkyTrain. So we should all work at correcting her. In the meantime, we want to know about extra money for the route to Whalley. We want to see that outside the regular transit agreement. We don't want to see any more money come out of the people in the greater Vancouver region for your expensive SkyTrain system.

HON. MR. REID: They use it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who? Vancouver East?

HON. MR. REID: The people in the GVRD use it. They had $10 million left over last year. I'd like you to come to White Rock.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member from the outer reaches of the region — from White Rock — is saying that he wants everybody in the GVRD to pay more. Oh, you want everybody to pay more; they are not paying enough now. Is that what you are saying? Oh, that's the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale saying he wants more money out of the taxpayers in Vancouver.

HON. MR. REID: I said out of the riders; the riders should pay.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you want them to pay more in the fare box. With help like that.... You could get in deep trouble fast. Do you have any more advice, Mr. Member from White Rock?

HON. MR. REID: I've got lots for you, but this is not my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If he does, he'll have to go through the Chair, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister agrees with that? Does the member for Surrey-Newton agree with the member from White Rock? They want more money out of the fare box.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I thought I made it clear this morning — I'm not sure whether you were in the House — that the amount derived from the fare box is a decision to be made by the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. Those are representatives of local government.

[3:15]

I know that your comments are in jest, and you have some difficulty in putting forward serious questions on this. I believe that the member for Vancouver East knows full well that this is a top-notch system. It generated $5 billion worth of economic development from Vancouver to New Westminster in that first phase. You know that. That really translates into something like $15 billion worth of spinoff benefits that are strictly a result of that SkyTrain extension.

SkyTrain is not just to move people; it is also an economic generator. If you want to look back at "The Livable Region" plan that was prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional District some years ago, you will recall that they identified a number of town centres: Whalley being one of them, New Westminster being another, Burnaby and Coquitlam. The extensions that we are talking about here today are all part of a plan that was prepared a good many years ago by local government.

We will have a formula that I know will be acceptable to the members on the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. We will be able to look forward to improved transit, whether it be by light rail, rapid rail, buses or trolleys. We realize that, with the growth in the lower mainland, we have to spend more money on transit. We want to get the cars off the road, so we have to spend more money on transit. We are going to be doing that. We are prepared to do that, and we are in this year's budget. Nowhere in this year's budget do we have a sum of money that takes SkyTrain to Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has just made my argument. The province benefits; the province should pay. Why should the people who have to use and depend on public transit pay for those economic spinoffs that she is talking about? If the member from Surrey-White Rock insists that the rest of the province should not pay, then the rest of the province should not benefit. I think the rest of the province very clearly benefits by the economic spinoffs that are brought about by SkyTrain. The system that the province has set out, that this minister is responsible for, divides communities; it

[ Page 6589 ]

divides municipalities against municipalities. It puts such an economic burden on the lower mainland for this very expensive system that you yourself are in a situation with the transit commission of cutting back services, of centralizing services, of making the system virtually ineffective.

I'll talk a little bit further about some of the cutbacks to those bus services and how they are actually causing hardship for some of our seniors. The member responsible has already talked about some of the hardships that are brought to bear for students that are trying to get to their schools.

What this system does is make it virtually impossible for the comprehensive integrated system that we need in the lower mainland. The only way out of this is for the province to pick up its responsibility, to recognize that this is a highway, and to take that huge capital cost off the back of the transit commission.

The minister likes the comfort of having that transit commission at arm's length when the transit commission has to make those hard decisions. The Transit Commission doesn't have the flexibility of raising money like the province has. The transit commission has the option of carrying out a system that has already been put in place for them. They can raise the fares; they can increase the gas tax; they can increase the Hydro levy. These are all non-options. Very clearly the transit commission can do very little but cut services, centralize services to SkyTrain.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister responsible could have a little talk with the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, because not only is that member not doing anything supportive for the minister, quite frankly he's not doing anything for our municipality by talking like this.

HON. MR. REID: I'll help her get it to Whalley. You watch. You won't get it there, that's for sure, because we'll throw you out first.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Actually, the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is a great ally of mine. I hope that he keeps on talking; then not only will I win my seat, but we're going to win some more seats in Surrey for our side as well. If that member keeps on talking, he's going to be a real asset to us for the whole of the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland.

If the minister would respond.... Rather than gain a lot more in the way of verbal support, I'd like to hear some practical solutions. What can the minister do, given the tools she's got now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There was mention made of the spinoffs when I mentioned the $5 billion and the $15 billion, and the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley suggests that that's why the province should be paying more toward the system. I would like to suggest that those spinoffs are benefits to the local government, through the increased assessment and the taxation, not to the provincial government per se.

I've told you what I'm doing in an attempt to bring SkyTrain to Whalley. I will continue to work towards that end. I don't really know what more I can say.

MR. CLARK: I was provoked by the minister and the previous member over here.

It really was a dumb decision to build that thing in the first place. It's a toy train. But now that you've built it, it's important to take it to Whalley, to at least salvage the best out of a bad deal. But it's madness to build it to Richmond. This is a crazy, expensive, outrageous system; it doesn't carry any people, hardly.

I wonder if the minister could answer some questions about what has happened in terms of ridership. As I understand it, the government spent a billion dollars on rapid transit and no more people are taking public transit today than they were before they built it, or very few.

HON. MR. REID: You're wrong.

MR. CLARK: I don't think so, Mr. Minister.

What's happened is that they've moved off buses and onto SkyTrain. I want to know what's happening with the — as they say in the jargon — modal split in terms of the number of people taking cars as opposed to public transit. A billion dollars of investment to not have lots more people using the public transit system is really poor planning. It's classic Social Credit planning. After all, very few governments could spend $1 billion and not induce anybody to get out of their car and take public transit. The minister says: "We have to spend more on public transit. That's an important goal of government." We on this side agree, but let's make sure it's public transit that actually makes people get out of their car and go into public transit. That's not what's happening. Maybe we could have some answers to those basic questions.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In 1983 we had a ridership of 93 million; in 1989-90 we're looking at 107 million.

MR. CLARK: That's 107 million today, you say, or last year?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This year.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: I'm trying to add the numbers up. We spent $1 billion for 14 million new passengers. That's interesting. How about the split between cars and transit. What was the modal split in '83, and what is it today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Our statistics suggest that even with the increased population, we are still carrying 50 percent of the people traveling into downtown Vancouver.

[ Page 6590 ]

MR. CLARK: So we spent $1 billion, and there are no more people. The same percentage of people are using transit today that were using it ten years ago. You spent $1 billion on SkyTrain, and we haven't influenced the modal split. It's exactly the same as it was before.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: But SkyTrain has gone a long way to making it unnecessary to build freeways into downtown Vancouver, which Vancouver was not prepared to go for. Thank goodness it wasn't!

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a petition here that I believe the minister has already received; this is a copy. All of the signatures are from Surrey. Most of them are from my riding, although I do see some signatures here from the minister's riding as well.

This has to do with the elimination of route 333 I'd like the minister to explain the thinking around that, because for the third session, all I see in Surrey is continued cutbacks to service and very little in the way of enhancement or encouragement of the development of bus service in our municipality. That distresses me somewhat, because I think we're all aware of the fact that Surrey is taking the brunt of the growth for the lower mainland. I would expect that to be one of the priority areas, not only because the minister represents one of the Surrey ridings but also just in pragmatic terms of getting some of those new people around.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I wish I could say it was a priority because it's an area the minister represents, but that isn't the way priorities are set. I can tell you that it is a priority area because that is where the growth is taking place: Surrey, Delta and Langley. Following the growth in our area on the south side of the river, Coquitlam is the second-fastest-growing, and then Richmond.

The question with regard to route 333 was brought up earlier by your colleague from Coquitlam-Moody. I did give him an explanation that the proposed cancellation of that route was going to take place in February, and it was going to coincide with the opening of the Scott Road station of SkyTrain, so the buses would be traveling down to SkyTrain. I have asked the staff at B.C. Transit to look at that, because it seems illogical to me that the service presently being provided on that route should be cancelled completely. I can understand the requirement to place more emphasis on using the SkyTrain once it opens in Whalley, but we are going to look at that again to just see whether there can be some type of reduced service, so that people who are just going to Hastings Street will still be able to get there from Guildford rather than having to go over to SkyTrain and cut over. We are looking at that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would thank the minister for that. I also want to bring to her attention another letter I received from a senior citizen. This letter was with regard to the cancellation of route 321 from New Westminster into Surrey. The concern expressed in this letter has to do with the need for that bus to connect and come closer to Surrey Memorial Hospital. Is the minister aware of that situation, is she you looking into it?

[3:30]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I am not familiar with that. If you would like to just give me some more details on the concern, we'd be pleased to follow it up for you.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I can just read into the record.... I will provide this letter to the minister. Along with it will come some recommendations which are being delivered to my office shortly. The letter is written to me. It says:

"On March 10, 1989, I sent you recommendations on behalf of approximately 1,000 senior citizens asking that bus 321 from New Westminster stop as close as possible to the entrance of Surrey Memorial." That's the point in the letter. "Many of these senior citizens have difficulty getting around, and this is their only means of transportation for visiting their friends and loved ones in the hospital."

I believe that this letter is reporting on a meeting the senior citizens had, and while the recommendations weren't included in this letter, I will get them to you as soon as possible and would appreciate your looking into the matter.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: If you want to provide me with a copy of that, I would be pleased to follow it up.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to follow up the noise question with regard to SkyTrain, since Vancouver East has been blessed with such a big length of it and carries the brunt of much of the noise.

As we are all aware, the ombudsman had urged upon the government the expenditures to deal with some of the noise problems, and had suggested, as I understand it, that $1 million be requested from treasury. I wonder if the minister might inform us how much clout she had in that area and what success she has had in the last year in terms of proceeding.

There is a need for mitigation, and some people along the right-of-way, particularly in my own riding, are impacted pretty heavily. It's possible that some changes will occur with redevelopment in some sites, and we can overcome that. But there are many other sites where mitigation efforts could improve things immensely for the people. I would go so far as to say that you might very well install stronger windows in a lot of the houses, for example, which would limit noise penetration and that sort of thing. It wouldn't be a tremendous cost but would improve the living situation for the people along the right-of-way.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's a very valid concern, and I can assure you that I was successful. The million dollars was approved. I imagine that the best way for me to tell you what we have done to date is

[ Page 6591 ]

to go from these notes. To date, there has been extensive planting of trees and shrubs along the upgrade section of the line, the installation of sound-dampening, resilient wheels, and the introduction of rail lubrication and improved wheel and rail maintenance procedures.

The result to date is that the system is now performing in accordance with the system design specifications for noise emission. In addition, an extensive research and development project has produced the design for a sound-absorbing barrier that can be installed at critical locations along the line to bring the impact of SkyTrain-emitted sound on adjacent residential properties into conformity with municipal noise bylaws.

This should be completed by the end of August and, if necessary, improvements on private property, such as triple glazing and increased insulation, can be considered after the barriers have been installed. So we are following along with the ombudsman's recommendations.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the minister's response. I presume, then, that there would be measurements in various locations, and additional measures then might occur where it is clear that there is still a problem beyond the standards. That's encouraging, and I thank the minister for that on behalf of the people impacted.

With SkyTrain, too, there have been some safety questions, and there have unfortunately been several deaths. Some changes have been made, and I believe that the coroner's jury recommended that new track intrusion detection systems be examined, public signs explaining in more detail be provided and a safety awareness program occur. Could you advise the House how many measures have been taken in this area — the new track-intrusion detection system in particular, which I would think is critical.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have instituted a safety awareness program. If you ride SkyTrain at all, you will see that we do have brochures explaining the steps that have been taken. There are very visible and easily accessible signs and safety precautions at each of the stations, so that people now know what to do in the case of an emergency. It has been suggested that most of these accidents would have been very difficult to prevent. We are taking whatever steps we can to make the public aware of what is available. Other than that, whenever we have a coroner's recommendation, we follow it as best we can.

MR. WILLIAMS: On the question of radio-equipping buses and that sort of thing.... I don't know if that was canvassed earlier or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was.

MR. WILLIAMS: But we still don't have them universally in the system, do we? I'm happy to say that in Canada we don't have the kinds of problems they have in the United States; nevertheless, there have been serious problems. Having all the buses fully equipped so these people aren't on their own and in danger, or at least are able to alert people, is critical for the safety of the driver and others. Maybe you could bring us up to date.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What we do have and have had for some time are approximately 150 buses equipped with rather outdated equipment. At one point it was suggested that maybe we should just have cellular phones or something on them, but that didn't really seem appropriate. It wasn't going to do all the things we thought it should do for the operators. In its May meeting the board of B.C. Transit will be awarding a contract for a very sophisticated system with the base.... The money is in the budget to start with. I'm not sure how many buses will be equipped immediately, but within the year we will have a goodly number of buses well equipped with the new sophisticated service. All of the new buses ordered are wired so that the radios can go in very easily as the money is made available. I would think that in the next couple of months you'll see some great activity and work being done, and within a year there will be a very noticeable improvement.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's encouraging that it's happening, but "a goodly number" is pretty vague. I'm more encouraged by the promises of this minister than those of the previous one who had the transit end of things, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. We had promises in the past and absolutely nothing was done. It would be nice to be more aware of the actual schedule and program, so that we know the numbers, the percentages, how many of the buses are indeed equipped and how long it's going to take for all of them to be equipped. It's encouraging to hear that the new buses on order are wired; it's an important program for the operators and everybody else concerned. I don't know if the minister has more information.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We're looking at a $7 million program, and we will try to have that completed as quickly as possible. The main infrastructure is going to be going ahead after this month's board meeting, and I would expect that within the next couple of years we will have all of our equipment in. That's a rough guesstimate.

MR. HARCOURT: I had to leave the Legislature to attend some meetings, but I had the speaker on and was listening to this debate about transit. I was thinking back to the days when I served on the Urban Transit Authority with the member opposite from the sunny South Surrey area, and the discussions I've had with the minister about the need for bringing about rapid transit in the lower mainland in particular.

The words of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), who isn't here right now, struck a chord with me. He talked about remembering being able to travel from Steveston to downtown Vancouver

[ Page 6592 ]

via a rapid transit system, when we had a rapid transit system. I was thinking back to the days when my father lived with his family on Gilley Avenue in Burnaby, and you could take the LRT system from New Westminster, as a matter of fact, and Chilliwack right downtown. You could also go through Central Park, Deer Lake, along the Fraser River, and I was thinking: "Boy, for the good old days when we really did have rapid transit."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could relate this debate to the current estimates of the minister.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm being whimsical, Mr. Chairman, about the LRT that used to go just a few doors from your family house. I'm sure you recall the LRT that used to go along Arbutus.

I recall the recent strategy to change commuter travel during rush hour from 60 percent cars and 40 percent transit to the other way around: 60 percent using transit, 40 percent using cars. I was thinking sadly about some of the past decisions that have been made, which, as I said last year, were the wrong decisions. We chose the ALRT over a conventional rapid transit system, costing us $1 billion instead of $600 million. There was the decision to build the Alex Fraser bridge for $400 million, plus the bridge over to Surrey for the ALRT — a total of about $600 million for those two alone — when the game plan was to build a twin for the Pattullo Bridge to take ALRT across to Surrey, with three lanes of traffic on that bridge, and then to turn that very dangerous old Pattullo Bridge into three one-way lanes instead of the dangerous four lanes that we have now.

If we had gone that route we probably would have been able to build the extension out to Whalley that the minister wants, and probably the extension to the Barnet exchange and Lougheed, possibly even down into the Coquitlam town centre. We could even have dealt with the yearning of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) — and of his mayor in Richmond, Mayor Blair — for LRT to go to Richmond town centre and the airport, which is the second-fastest-growing airport in the country after Pearson Airport in Toronto.

But that's water under the Pattullo Bridge, so to speak. As the Chair pointed out, when we did have a rapid transit system and when we could have made certain decisions that were wrong.... I just say it was a wrong judgment call; there's nothing else there. But so be it. What I want to come to, Mr. Chairman, is the present crunch, which I know you were looking up in the rule books.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was actually looking up relevancy in supply, and I will perhaps send you a copy of it to look at in due course. In the meantime, I'm finding your debate most interesting, and I would ask you to proceed.

MR. HARCOURT: In terms of relevance, I think the relevance of rapid transit is absolutely essential to the newly found interest in the environment by this Social Credit government, which hasn't expressed much interest in almost 40 years. It's relevant to the traffic gridlock that we're suffering in the lower mainland. It's relevant to the strangling of growth in the high-growth areas of Surrey and in the northeast area, where 60 percent of the presently zoned residential land for housing growth is.

It's relevant because it bolls down now, I think, to the issue that I'm sure the minister and I can agree is financing. The financing formula is really the key to unlocking her yearning for the LRT out to Whalley, and the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley's (Ms. Smallwood's) to have the same; the yearning of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) to have the LRT go through Port Moody and up to Mission; and the yearning of the member for Richmond and possibly even Delta when we deal with the traffic logjams there. Who knows — in the next century, over to the second crossing.

[3:45]

I think the question of money and who pays for the LRT now is really the key. I would like, Madam Minister, to put forward a modest proposal: reconsider the patchwork financing formula that the previous minister, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), developed of fifty-fifty sharing of the capital cost of LRT. See the unfairness of that, compared to the 100 percent financing that's available for freeways. The second member for Richmond said there are no more corridors for freeways in that very congested area.

On top of that, your experts there — and I know they're expert; I've dealt with them in the past and they're good people — and your Highways minister would tell you that it's now twice as expensive to build a highway as to build an LRT: for land acquisition, for construction, for everything else. It's more economical to build rapid transit. Really, the holdup for all the mayors in the lower mainland is the funding formula. If a freeway is built at twice the cost, 100 percent of the capital cost of the roadbed and the paving is picked up by the province. But when we build an urban highway on rails, the cost-sharing is that of a secondary highway. That's the patchwork political compromise that was reached in the cabinet, and it's grossly unfair.

I think the minister would agree that if we're going to have the LRT extensions we need, the capital cost of the LRT has got to be treated in the same equitable way that a freeway is, and 100 percent capital financing for the LRT roadbed has to come from the province. It is a freeway on rails, a far more efficient and effective freeway, with less intrusion — except for the noise and the decibel levels of this present train, which I won't dwell on. It's been dealt with by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), whose residents have trouble sleeping with the noise and the intrusion of the elevated LRT. I think we're going to have this tension, disagreement, discord, and problems of where the LRT is to be extended to next because of the financing formula.

I think we're all going to have to — hopefully in a bipartisan way — reach the conclusion that the fund-

[ Page 6593 ]

ing formula has to be changed so that there is 100 percent capital financing from the province for the roadbed of the LRT.

I wanted to come here to say that was the unanimous opinion of the mayors for the lower mainland; that that's what they would prefer to see. I know they've taken — like drowning people grab for straws — whatever was the next best that they could, but I think we're going to have to go back and rethink that.

Then I think that Madam Minister could be happy with the LRT extension to Whalley. I think we could then get out to the northeast area; we could get out to the airport; and we could really start to deal with the growth issues, the environmental issues, the transit and traffic problems of the lower mainland — which has as fast a growth rate as metropolitan Toronto — far more effectively.

I would pass on those comments to the minister. If she would like to offer a bold new policy announcement here in the House today, we could applaud that in a bipartisan way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the minister that the rules require you to discuss those matters of your administrative responsibility and not future policy, but please proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you so much for your very valued advice, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to clear up the matter of the formula for the Leader of the Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre. We do not have a fifty-fifty formula on capital extensions. The formula under the agreement that was arrived at last year was 25 percent provincial grant on total SkyTrain extension costs; then on the remainder it's 65 percent province, 35 percent local. Overall, it works out to the province paying 74 percent and the locals being asked for 26 percent of SkyTrain extensions. So it is not a fifty-fifty formula. This is the formula that was agreed to a year ago.

I want to say I do appreciate the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the SkyTrain extension to Whalley. It was my understanding that although the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley supported it, the Leader of the Opposition had a higher priority of going into Coquitlam. I'm pleased to hear that that is not the case.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to follow up outside this area, if the minister advises us that it's 26 percent local.

It does seem to me that if there's to be any local contribution — and there is an argument for the greater provincial contribution that the Leader of the Opposition is arguing for — there clearly are areas that benefit tremendously as a result of these capital investments. The station areas clearly are benefiting areas. There has been — as the minister has said — dramatic spending in those areas in terms of new development.

It does seem to me that it would be reasonable to give the municipality the option — and the minister is inclined to give municipalities options, in terms of choices regarding their own decision-making internally — to extend that, with respect to some of these benefiting areas. It does seem to me that at the local level it would be reasonable that there be a defined area that benefits as a result of the investment where there in effect could be a heavier land levy — not a building levy, but just the land alone.

The land has ballooned in value in these immediate benefiting areas. By giving the municipalities the authority to levy an additional land tax in the benefiting area, it would pick up some of those increased values and would be a means of giving them a choice.

Downtown Vancouver has benefited immensely, in my view, from the building of SkyTrain, in terms of land values. I don't think there is any doubt about that. And it would be reasonable to define a good chunk of the downtown of Vancouver as a benefiting area that the municipality could levy an additional tax on. I think that would have benefits for everybody. The increases in those land values are so substantial that the land tax would only get some of the increased value.

We have a problem overall in the region of escalating land value. We basically have a property tax that is divided between a tax on capital — which is the buildings — and a tax on land. Most economists and administrators don't recognize the difference. It's a dual tax, all put together in the same thing. But it's a tax in two different areas: land and buildings.

The more we could tax land rather than buildings, the better off we'd be as a community, and I think in most every way. It would help to dampen fast escalating land values, which really aren't benefiting the community at large. If that steep rise in land values weren't as steep, we'd all be better off; there would be more access to housing and so on.

By having the additional levy in the station areas, you would get redevelopment more quickly — which is desirable. The minister talks positively about the development, and that's fair. By having this land levy in the station areas and in the downtown area, you would actually accelerate development. It would be a push to redevelop, and that would be desirable. It would be a revenue to the community, and that would be desirable. In effect, it would, one way or another, help pay part of the bill. That would be far better than money out of our pockets obtained through labour or enterprise of other kinds. This is a natural increase in values that might be partly harvested by the community and benefit everybody.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I wouldn't mind hearing more from the member as to the specifics of how something like that might work. It wouldn't bother me to see some type of realization on that increase in property values which are directly attributed to the SkyTrain station; there is no question about that.

I have a feeling that local government may be reluctant to institute such a fee. Possibly it could be something that would be looked at while we are looking at the cost of the extensions and incorporated there.

[ Page 6594 ]

If you have some other ideas, I would be pleased to hear about them.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the minister's response. It would be interesting.... The mayor of Vancouver, for example, has an informal caucus meeting with Members of Parliament, MLAs and aldermen, where ideas like this can be discussed.

What I am really arguing for is having the option; not saying that a municipality has to do it, but simply saying that the municipality would have the authority — almost like a local improvement tax. When you designate an area for sewers or some special purpose, then there is a local improvement tax. You designate the impacted area, then people pay on either a front foot basis or simply on the basis of their property values.

What I'm arguing for is a designated area, like a local improvement area, but limited to land alone and not having that tax applied on buildings. Then it would be more of a push in terms of making that land available for redevelopment more quickly. It would benefit the community in terms of income, and it really wouldn't be out of anybody's current pocketbook. It's out of the values that are generated as a result of SkyTrain or the public investment.

I think that would be a push in the right direction and would accelerate enterprise, which is what all of us are looking for, in a sense. If we are going to make these public sector improvements, then we would really like the private sector to be in tandem and more quickly.

If you look at my own riding of Vancouver East and see the pattern of redevelopment, it hasn't really been very quick. You have the obvious significant changes in New Westminster and in Metrotown, but beyond that the pattern is not so clear.

For example, a designated area around the Broadway station, which is an incredibly important major transfer point that the city is now recognizing in terms of the development they just approved there in the last week or two.... These are unharnessed values out there that could benefit the community significantly. I am really just arguing for the option. Then I'll twist the mayor's arm in Vancouver to make use of it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm not suggesting for one minute to the member for Vancouver East that we have all the answers. If there are some other ways of accomplishing the goals that we have set out for ourselves, great. There is no reason why somebody, just because they happen to own a piece of property there, and because of something the taxpayers have put in, should have so great a windfall. There is nothing wrong with sharing it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased to hear the position of the minister. I would like to pursue it actively in the future.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue some issues as well around SkyTrain and the transit system. I have been in my riding on more than one occasion when the minister has spoken glowingly about what is going to be happening with the extension across the river. I think we all see the videos in her mind of that extension going on and on — maybe even to Newton, might we say? However, I have also, at those meetings, heard some very vigorous importunings of the minister to provide some indication of when, and also how, an extension might go along the north shore of the Fraser River. At this point, in the same way that we are exploring some of the needs of transit, as the minister looks at how she uses her resources and how she plans, that particular decision is an extremely important one to a number of communities.

[4:00]

The "where" of a possible extension is the issue I want to raise, not the "when." I don't think it's appropriate for that to be discussed at this time. The minister well knows that there have been a number of suggestions around what those corridors should be, and that decisions in my community, Burnaby and Coquitlam are really hanging on that. The kinds of decisions that need to be taken will have far-reaching effects on how communities will develop and plan appropriate housing decisions and the use of land resources.

I would like to see that extension go along the eastern corridor of Columbia Street. It's a major corridor where there is excellent access for an extension. I know that other municipalities have other ideas, but whatever the decision is, I don't think it can wait until the "when" is decided. It is a decision that needs to be made, and in the fairly near future. It's a decision, too, that will have a very significant impact on land and land values.

I think the other question I'd like to raise with the minister is how B.C. Transit sees itself working with municipalities on the most effective use of land and on the reserving of land that may be in the public domain at this stage of the game for social housing. Those kinds of decisions interrelate with the transit corridors that are going to be available.

Again looking at New Westminster, Woodlands is on a phase-out program. I don't know how long it will actually be before that property, which is a government property, is no longer used as a public facility, but I think it would be fair to say that within five years we may have no further institutional use for it. It is an extremely important piece of land, not only for New Westminster but in terms of its potential to balance housing needs in that community and in neighbouring communities. Where SkyTrain and transit may eventually go is a vital decision in respect to how that land would be developed. That's just one example of the kinds of decisions that need to be taken. There are any number of others I could refer to just in relation to my own community, and I know that can be repeated for Burnaby and Coquitlam.

That decision, that planning for what may happen in the future, is very important for this ministry and B.C. Transit to make by due process, and obviously that is going to mean community input and discus-

[ Page 6595 ]

sion. I would welcome some comment from the minister around her own thinking on this very important decision, and I will not argue with her about where SkyTrain goes in respect to Whalley or, dare I say, Newton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This subject was actually extensively covered this morning, but the minister, I am sure, will want to go through it again. Perhaps the various critics on this could hear it just one time.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It may be of interest to the member for New Westminster to know how the process worked with regard to the extension into Surrey. There was extensive work done by a consultant hired by B.C. Transit, and there were four possible routes identified for the extension into Whalley. B.C. Transit worked very closely with the municipality in an attempt to determine what their preference was.

Putting all that aside, there were a number of public information meetings held in Surrey — the area to be serviced — and there were packed houses at each of those public information meetings, and the four options were shown to the general public. Transcripts were kept of the comments made at those public hearings. As a result of those public hearings, I believe they came down to two routes, one of them being more favoured than the other; and those were referred to Surrey council, to ensure that whichever route was taken would fit in with what their future plans might be. At the same time, an information office was set up in the area — and it is still open in Whalley — for anyone from the general neighbourhood who had questions to go in and discuss with staff what could be happening with their properties. And the same type of thing would happen wherever SkyTrain extensions were to be going, whether they be Coquitlam or Richmond. The process, I think, worked very well. It's just that it has taken us longer to finalize that extension commitment than it should have.

There's no question in my mind about the need for an extension to Coquitlam — I don't argue that one little bit. There was a preliminary study done, I think, in 1986. It identified two possible routes: one through New Westminster and the other over from the Edmonds station. I have had considerable correspondence from people concerned about the one going over from Edmonds, because apparently it goes through several residential communities, and I think that route may be controversial. I would hope that we would update that report when a decision was made that we were going to be in a position to go ahead and that the updated information would then be taken to public information meetings. At the same time, B.C. Transit would always be working with the local governments — and in that case there's more than one — to determine their future plans.

You were talking about social housing. Well, it would be important that we look at that to ensure that we were able to service those properties if at all possible. A consultant doing the planning and bringing about optional choices for the routes should be made aware of those plans that the local government may have so that we can ensure that those properties are serviced. But there will be a great deal of public input. It won't be a decision made by the government alone; it will be a decision made after a great deal of public input and local government input.

MS. A. HAGEN: I certainly respect the process and would anticipate that it would be repeated. My concern is that the process may not take place until an extension is planned. I believe that there is a need now to determine what the route might be, no matter when the extension might be planned.

Let's just take a hypothetical set of circumstances out of the air, simply to illustrate the point. Supposing there were to be no extension planned for, let's say — there's no prediction in this — five years, and that the process, then, did not begin until three years from now. In my view, that's too late for some of the planning that needs to be done in communities now around what major corridors are going to be used for that extension. So that was the reason I was asking about a process. I appreciate the comment about what the process would be. What I'm really looking for is some indication that that decision, with the due process that the minister has outlined, might take place at the earliest possible time.

I recognize that the minister is faced with some problems with that, because once one goes through that process, then there's an expectation that there's going to be an outcome from that process, and that the outcome will occur in a shorter rather than a longer period of time. The minister understands the concern that I have is that the decision be taken with appropriate process. It would be a little bit more difficult, possibly, because we will have three municipalities involved rather than one. In fact, if we were looking at Coquitlam centre, there could be other municipalities involved, indeed.

I want to know if there is any consideration on the part of the minister and, through her, on the part of B.C. Transit about accelerating and getting on with that decision. I know that in my community there is an urgent need expressed to me every time I meet with people in that community, be they members of my council or members of the community, who are looking to the developments that will be taking place. There is an urgent need to know where SkyTrain may go along the northern route, from either the Columbia station or whatever other station.

I'm not here now to advocate for what that decision might be — I'll do that in the appropriate time and place — but that a process be expeditiously entered into to get that decision taken care of in the public domain. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't disagree with the need to get moving, but I'm not in a position to make a commitment to you at this time.

[ Page 6596 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: In a sense, Mr. Chairman, it begs the whole question of planning and I think the member for New Westminster is really making that argument. As a former town planner, I couldn't argue it more. Not that I'm in the business anymore, but when I reflect on the lower mainland and the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of an earlier decade, there's a desperate need for a similar agency now. We don't have a genuine lower mainland regional planning agency.

The other member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) talked about two British Columbias in his response to the budget, and in a sense there are. It's almost like Canada: we've got this overheated Ontario economy compared to the rest of the country. Internally within British Columbia we have a fairly hot lower mainland economy relative to a quieter economy or a very poor economy in some of the regions of the province. So it requires two different approaches, and I think it requires two different approaches out of Municipal Affairs just as it requires two different approaches out of many agencies of government right now.

We need one approach in the hinterland, where you could be pushing and accelerating development of a kind at the municipal level — and your infrastructure program will help, but it's pretty basic. You could be doing more in the small towns than you are, in terms of accelerating things. But at the same time in the lower mainland you've got this other problem of planning. We've got whatever we've got from the member from Burnaby who's the minister of state, but it doesn't amount to a lot. There's a desperate need to reinstitute the equivalent of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board so that we get some thoughtful processes coming in.

Where does the GVRD end now? Is it Langley? It doesn't include the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows area, so that's where the line is, roughly. The reality is that people of average incomes are reaching.... When I talk to working-class people from my area who are talking about moving out into the valley on the north side, they're all talking about moving to Maple Ridge, and that's happening. Maple Ridge is clearly part of the greater Vancouver region, no matter how you slice it. If you look at the development around Clearbrook and Abbotsford, it's clearly almost an extension of the greater Vancouver region.

[4:15]

There's a desperate need for the kind of planning beyond just transit planning that the member for New Westminster is arguing for. We'll pay heavy costs for this lag. One can't help but reflect on the loss of the regional planning agency and the fine people who worked there. Jim Wilson, who taught until recently at Simon Fraser University, was for a long time the leading planner in the region and did some fine initial work 25 years ago or more.

There's similarly a desperate need now. When you talk to the people in the GVRD, they start talking in the same terms. They're beginning to talk in terms of all these priorities, problems and questions, but there just isn't the kind of overview underway that is desperately needed in that region. I try to catch up, for a range of reasons, with what's happening in Surrey. The growth in Surrey is quite phenomenal, but I really wonder how comprehensive the planning process is, relative to all those things. I don't know if the minister might have some comments on that afterwards.

On transit, specifically, I'd be interested in getting some kind of overview on how right-of-way acquisition has been handled in the last few years. What is the process? Who are the people? How are the decisions made? How many of them are private sector; how many of them are public sector? That sort of thing. In terms of the disposition of lands that transit has, do public sector people or private sector people handle the disposition questions? That's something that I think might be canvassed.

I know that the minister wasn't responsible for SkyTrain and these decisions over recent years. The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) was responsible for much of it. But, for example, in the city of Vancouver there are sites like the old transit barns at 16th and Cambie which were sold and then went through some rezoning process. And I'll guess we'll see redevelopment there one of these days. I would be interested in understanding how that disposition program was handled: whether it was a bid basis or not, whether the zoning opportunities were canvassed before the time of sale or not, and that sort of thing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: When it's a major property such as that mentioned by the member for Vancouver East, the process is normally that the board makes the decision on whether the property is disposed of, and then it is advertised.

MR. WILLIAMS: There are a range of other questions as well, in terms of how acquisition of a right-of-way is managed, how excess lands are disposed of, and how many and who are the private sector players and public sector players in that exercise.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Acquisition, like disposition, is approved by the board. We have a member on staff by the name of Macdonald, who handles the transactions for the board. There are no private players.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Macdonald is a civil servant?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: He's an employee of B.C. Transit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Has he always been an employee of B.C. Transit?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Prior to becoming an employee, he was on contract to B.C. Transit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe we could understand the time-frame for when that changed — when he became a public servant and when he was on contract.

[ Page 6597 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We'll get that information for you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are there any rules in terms of the private sector activities of employees such as this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, to the member for Vancouver East. We have a conflict-of-interest policy.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would it be possible to have a copy of the conflict-of-interest policy?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, we'll get that for you.

MR. WILLIAMS: I do appreciate that. Nevertheless, participation in corporations is possible for Crown servants? I guess that until we see the policy, it's difficult to say. For the time-frame, you'll provide us with that information.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd just like to follow up on one comment that the minister made in terms of the people who may be responsible for acquisitions along the right-of-way of SkyTrain. Did I understand the minister to say that this was handled by employees of the corporation and that there were no private people involved? I wonder if she could clarify that comment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Macdonald could probably have been considered a private person, but he was under contract to B.C. Transit to do that kind of work. He is now an employee of B.C. Transit.

MS. A. HAGEN: In the contractual arrangement that Mr. Macdonald had with B.C. Transit, would he then contract out to private sector people — to appraisers, estimators, whatever people would assist in that process? Can the minister define how that process would work under the direction of Mr. Macdonald?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, we use private appraisal firms. Mr. Macdonald would call on them when the need arose. But it should be made very clear that he does not have the authority to go out on his own and do any acquisitions or disposals; that's at the direction of the board or the chairman.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the minister has agreed to make available to us also apply to people providing contracted services to Mr. Macdonald?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, we'd better get clarification on that. When you see the conflict-of -interest guidelines, they may answer some of your questions.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: The point is that there might well be conflict-of-interest guidelines for Crown employees or civil servants. The question is whether there would be conflict-of-interest guidelines for private sector corporations or advisers with respect to this kind of work. There are two questions. I think you'd have pretty standard regulations for civil servants and it would be more complex with respect to private business advisers who are in the business advising others as well. That's the scenario where we would like some clarification.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm presuming, but I think until we have the conflict-of-interest guidelines before us it's very hard for me say. I would doubt very much if the conflict-of-interest policy would apply to a private individual under contract to the board.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I may have some further questions on this matter, but I appreciate that the minister wants to be able to answer them after having an opportunity to check out the procedures, so I'll wait for that response.

Last year I raised with the minister in correspondence and, I think, during estimates some discussion about the households along the right-of-way of the present SkyTrain which were adversely affected and the recommendations of the ombudsman for some improvements in conditions for those people. I'd like the minister to bring us up to date. The last time I heard, a commitment was still before Treasury Board of some dollars to provide for some immediate amelioration, and there was an outstanding question about the actual purchase at pre-SkyTrain rates — not affected by SkyTrain — of properties that simply couldn't be made into reasonable habitation. I'd like a full update on what's happened and the minister's ongoing activities in this respect.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have already been canvassed on this, hon. member, but I don't mind going over it again. I'll give you the information I gave your colleague.

Generally speaking, the recommendations of the ombudsman have been followed and are being followed. The $1 million was allocated. Extensive work has been done to buffer the noise, but there has been no property acquisition. We're waiting to see how the actions taken to date are going to correct the noise situation before we go any further.

MS. A. HAGEN: I will pursue that question with the minister by letter, specifically in respect to some of my constituents.

I'm really pleased with the additions to the handyDART fleet in some areas of the lower mainland. I want to pay credit to the handyDART organization in my own community, which has had a significant number of vehicles added to its fleet. Interestingly enough, they carry as many people as Vancouver and do it with half the vehicles Vancouver has. They have an enviable record.

[ Page 6598 ]

But expansion into other regions of the province is going slowly. I know the minister has an interest in this whole area, but I'm not satisfied that a lot of communities in the province are getting the service they need. I want to ask the minister what the status is of the expansion of handyDART services and what's in the immediate plans for additions.

I also want to ask her if any work is being done by this ministry on a more innovative approach toward transportation services in small communities where it may be some time before the handyDART service as we know it is available. Has there been any consideration at all, for example, of arranging for contracts with taxi companies to provide a kind of handyDART service in those communities? It was a part of the original handyDART program, interestingly enough, in the New Westminster-Burnaby-Coquitlam area, on a contracted basis. What's the status, and is the minister being innovative, and if she is, could she tell us how?

[4:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is a task force that the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission has in place with a view to coming up with recommendations that could address some of the needs of the disabled, and we're waiting for the results of that task force report.

I can tell you that there is a new service. It went into place April 24 in Nanaimo; Chilliwack, June 26; Kelowna, March; Vernon, March and June; and Alberni, March and June. We have been bringing on line a number of additional handyDART services. There are never going to be enough. I just can't see it ever possibly being everything that everybody would want it to be, but I'm very pleased and proud of the record we have in bringing forward additional service. It's something that we have to be constantly on top of, because the population growth in the disabled community, particularly in this province compared to the rest of Canada, is phenomenal. We haven't been equipped to handle it. We have a 24 percent increase in service in Vancouver; of course, that's where we have a large population of disabled people.

We are moving and attempting to address the requests from any number of communities, but we're certainly not ahead of them by any stretch of the imagination.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's a bit of two British Columbias again. The minister didn't answer the latter part of my question; at least I don't think she did. Let me perhaps just ask her again: is there any consideration of what I would call innovative approaches, which would not necessarily be full handyDART services or wheelchair-equipped vehicles, but would involve working relationships with government funds in small communities that have taxi services or perhaps care facilities that have a van that could be leased in part by the ministry — the kind of thing that gets at the problem without having to work through the full bureaucracy and timetable?

I know there are a number of communities that have certainly looked at ways in which, with some support from this ministry, they could greatly enhance transportation services for special needs people in their population. I want to know if the minister is looking at any of these ideas or is prepared to look at any of them, to spread the service to the second British Columbia more quickly than I know she's been able to do to date.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It isn't the minister who actually makes the final decision; they are prioritized by the two commissions. As I mentioned earlier, there is a task force looking at custom transit and the needs right across the province.

I'm told that at the last meeting of the board of B.C. Transit, a decision was made that if either of the commissions receives requests from communities, or if there's a community that would like to have something in the way of special customized service, they should put their request forward to the appropriate commission and it will be dealt with. It doesn't mean they're all going to be accommodated immediately upon receiving the request, but they're going to attempt to deal with them, prioritize them and fit them into their overall annual budgets.

MS. EDWARDS: It's my pleasure, first of all, to refer to the handyDART and to tell the minister that late last year I had the opportunity of trying the handyDART service in my community when I was not driving a car myself. I must say that it was a marvellous thing to know that there is a bus when you can't get around and you need something as simple as to get to a hospital for physio treatment or groceries or something like that, and you can do it. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that to the minister. Overall, again, it's a good service; the intent is magnificent.

I want, however, to get to the high ground and talk about garbage. I know the minister knows that some of the communities in my constituency are having very serious problems in relation to solid waste disposal. They have a particularly difficult garbage problem in the Elk Valley, Madam Minister, because as you have been told, they have problems with landfills. The land sometimes freezes; as a matter of fact, it freezes for months at a time. They are having some problems with keeping enough dirt available to cover what's in the pit and actually being able to move it with a caterpillar.

They have other problems related to the time of year and whether or not it's a warm year and the bears come out early. They have some problems with human animals as well, where in fact human animals sometimes set fires when they're not expected to or asked to.

The problem in the Elk Valley, as the minister knows, is that the communities have been ordered by the waste management branch to combine the solid waste disposal function and to form a sub regional system.

[ Page 6599 ]

With this system, as the minister also knows, there will be a need to buy the land, the trucks, the weigh scales, the platforms and the transfer stations that are needed. Capital costs could range anywhere from half a million dollars to one and a quarter million dollars, by the estimates that I hear. The operating costs of that are something different, and I'll talk about them in a minute.

For communities of less than 20,000 people, Madam Minister, this is a very great burden. It's extremely difficult to face the possibility of having to put together for a single function — that of waste disposal — somewhere around three-quarters of a million to a million dollars, if you go to the middle range of that.

Is the minister considering changing legislation or changing her approach, so that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture will participate in the funding of waste disposal?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You're referring to future action, but I would suggest that the appropriate answer at this time would be that we will deal with the matter after the solid waste management report has been dealt with.

MS. EDWARDS: The suggestion that I had put to me very strongly.... If It is a future action, I would be delighted. I hope that it is action in the positive sense. The ministry does pay 25 percent of capital costs for sewer installations, and it has been accepted over a long period of time that the ministry will pay that part. I would like to suggest very strongly to the minister that the collection of solid wastes is the same sort of thing; it requires a huge capital investment. It is a matter of public health for the citizens of the area.

The minister has probably been told that in Alberta, which borders my area, the ministry pays 100 percent of the capital costs of installation of waste disposal facilities. That makes it even more difficult for the people working in the same places of employment as the Albertans and hearing that there is currently no support for capital costs for solid waste disposal facilities. I am told that members of the community, municipal councils and the regional district have frequently been told that they may apply to Go B.C. for funding, and that they'd better do it in a hurry. If they want to do something in a hurry, they can go there.

If that is the case, does the minister see funding happening mainly for the establishment of solid waste disposal facilities, which may or may not include recycling? You might like to comment on that is that going to be done through lotteries funding? And if so, is there a limited time-frame on that? I'll leave it at that for now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I really don't like the answer I'm going to give, but it does refer to future policy, and I'm not in a position to make any statements at this time.

MS. EDWARDS: If the minister can't answer, I can certainly put the case as it has been put to me many times. I assume that is within the rules.

The case has been made very strongly to me that the problem of solid waste disposal for sparsely populated communities is an extreme burden on those people. It is an even more extreme burden when they are ordered by a provincial ministry to take a certain type of action.

If the communities in the Elk Valley have to go ahead and participate in a sub regional disposal system, it wouldn't make any sense that they do it without involving some kind of recycling facility to go with it. All of this would make no sense at all.

The people that I talk to in the municipal business say we're ten to 15 years behind in the recycling business. We decided ten years ago — some people decided 15 years ago — that we were going to have to do this, and that it had to happen with the communities. It absolutely should have been done at that time; the costs would have been considerably less. In fact, there has been some minor degree of lip service, some indication that yes, it would be nice; but no action.

I certainly will recognize, as the minister would probably want me to do, that we are waiting for a report on recycling and solid waste disposal, but it hasn't come out yet. There is in fact some suspicion that when it comes out — on recycled paper would be nice — it will require or will urge the government to actually hire some staff to enable some of the smaller communities in this province to go ahead and put recycling with their solid waste disposal systems.

The sharing of the costs across the province, Madam Minister, is justified on the basis that this is a generally accepted necessity: that communities should have some kind of solid waste disposal system that is adequate for today's requirements, for today's recognized needs. Any move toward recycling would require some public education, and there would have to be some work across the province to allow every community to take advantage of economies of scale. Those things can't happen from a small community or a small group of communities. I know that this position has been put to you by the communities in the Elk Valley, and I put it to you again. I want to make it very clear that the communities in the Elk Valley feel strongly about it, and they feel strongly that the funding they are going to need should not come through a lotteries grant, a Go B.C. grant. They shouldn't have to get their funding that way. There is no reason in the world that the same kind of funding shouldn't be offered as is offered for sewers.

[4:45]

Maybe the minister would like to respond to that. If she is simply going to say "future policy," I will go on to something else. I did want to ask whether she has given any consideration to a suggestion put forward by the benchers of the Law Society which one of the communities in my area objects to strongly. The suggestion is that section 755 of the Municipal Act be amended to take away the notice period for anyone who is going to sue any municipality. Cur-

[ Page 6600 ]

rently, any claim for damages against the municipality has to have two months' notice, and the suggestion from the benchers is that this be taken away. The objection is from the community of Sparwood, as you well know. I would ask the minister if she has responded to that and whether or not she is in favour of taking away the time limitation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The matter of the two month limitation was brought to our attention, of course, and my staff has discussed it with UBCM executive. The matter is certainly under review, because they, like your local community, are concerned.

You were talking about the three communities in the Elk Valley. For your information, this year Fernie received $282,127, Elkford received $221,557, and Sparwood received $260,887 by way of unconditional grants. That may be of interest to you in an attempt to suggest that some of these solid waste disposal problems can be handled by local government until, if or when we have a funding program in place. It seemed to me you were suggesting that we should reduce the funding available for infrastructure — and revenue sharing is the only source we have — and transfer some of it over to solid waste disposal assistance for communities. That has not happened.

MS. EDWARDS: I certainly wouldn't even think of suggesting that you take away any money from the infrastructure funding. As you also know, Fernie is having quite enough trouble trying to finance a sewer extension, which has a major pollution problem attached to it; it's trying to work with 25 percent funding. So that was not the suggestion in any sense.

MR. MILLER: I was quite interested in the previous discussion. As a former municipal politician — or should I say that there were no politics in city hall in Prince Rupert; at least that's what they kept saying — I think, in terms of sewage, that there's a bit of a game, a sham, taking place in B.C. today, because it's clear that many municipalities are in fact violating environmental standards in this province. Nobody really wants to get into the game where they force people to take action. Clearly some of the smaller municipalities couldn't afford the infrastructured costs to develop sewage treatment, and because of that, there's this tacit game taking place. I'm reasonably certain of that.

Secondly, with respect to recycling, I think it's probably only feasible in terms of a mandatory basis that some legislative stipulation require everybody to do some basic level of separation and that it be conducted on a provincewide basis. I think the economics of it would only work that way. I didn't stand up to talk about this, but I am quite interested in it. I think it's something that eventually we have to come to grips with.

I know that many years ago, when I lived in Victoria here, we had a voluntary recycling program. It didn't last all that long, but there were quite a few people who took advantage of it. I was really quite surprised in my own household at the way the volume of household garbage was reduced by some very fundamental separation: bottles in one bag, tin cans — take the ends off; squash them flat — in another bag, and if you had a little garden, you could throw most of your organic material out. It cut the volume of household garbage very drastically.

I really wanted to stand up to talk about an issue — maybe the minister might want to advise if it's outside her purview — that deals with the question of taxation policies on private-timber land. I only raise it because the minister had indicated previously, with respect to Denman and Saltspring, that she was going to undertake some action. I'll simply outline it. If the minister says that she's not doing anything — that it's over in some other ministry — that's fine. I just wanted to outline the problem, because I had been informed that you had made statements that your ministry would do some investigation of the issue.

Basically, the issue is that we have the ability to assess the value of timber on private lands; that appears to me to be unequally applied. It is being applied in some areas of the province and not in others. Where it is applied, it does, in effect, create an incentive to log, which is not always something that is desirable. I can see situations where people would not want to log but were really feeling compelled in terms of the size of that tax bill.

There are some options, and again, there's a bit of an inequality in applying those options. Obviously farmers wouldn't be able to take advantage of the opportunity to put private holdings into a managed forest assessment class. Those who are able to do that receive an enormous tax break — I think it's something like eight times the value — and yet, if that person subsequently sells or subdivides the land, there's no requirement or method where the Crown or municipality could go back and recoup that lost taxation.

I think my colleague from Esquimalt wants to raise it, and I obviously will be raising it in the context of the Ministry of Forests. We have some serious problems with respect to municipalities being able to implement bylaws regulating logging on private lands. I will quote an article of last June in the Sun where the minister is quoted as saying: "I guess we're going to have to ask ourselves the question: how much jurisdiction should we have on private property?" Indeed, that's a very valid question.

I'd suggest it goes farther than that. It deals in some respects with size. I think size is an important criterion when we're dealing with private property. Obviously we don't want to intrude on city lots. It may be treed, but at the same time, there are some relatively large areas and the impact of that kind of activity in a municipality or region is quite significant.

As I understand it, currently the municipalities or regional districts can only introduce bylaws where there is a hazard. They cannot really deal with questions of aesthetics or of reforestation. So there is very much an overlapping jurisdiction between the For-

[ Page 6601 ]

ests, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I think there are some solutions. I don't propose this in a definitive way, but it may be preferable that the tax be collected at the time the timber is logged, as opposed to the method of continuing to assess a value per year. It would certainly allow people who didn't want to log, or who felt compelled to because of the assessment, not to do so. It might be viewed as a royalty applied to private timber. There may be some method of working that out.

I don't want to take a lot of time. I am going to canvass this during the estimates of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Forests as well. Perhaps the minister could advise what she has done since she advised the public through the press last June that she was looking at the problem.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We have had an internal staff task force looking at it — not specifically the taxation, because that is really out of our realm, but the logging on private property that was brought to our attention and seemed to generate such a great deal of concern.

You get to the point where you think you have a good solution, and then looking further down the road it's a problem on another piece of property. You did mention, hon. member, the difference between a large parcel and just a lot in Vancouver. We have local governments that would like to be able to control the cutting of trees; we have other local governments that would like to insist on the cutting of trees, because they want to protect views. There are far-reaching effects.

As I said, we had a task force. They have not come to any conclusion. If you have some suggestions as to how it could possibly be handled and dealt with to ensure that we weren't taking away the property owner's entire right, I would certainly be open to hear those suggestions. Having said that, I would suggest that your other concerns would be better dealt with by some of my colleagues.

MR. MILLER: Without taking a lot of time, it seems to me it really does come down to a question of intrusion at some level. That's something we do with municipal bylaws: we regulate all kinds of activities on private land, whether it be the height of building, the setback — you name it. We do regulate quite extensively at the municipal and regional level I view it much the same. The municipality or regional district, it seems to me, should have the same opportunity to regulate forest activity on private land as they do with building activities. That suggestion underlies anything else I would say in terms of dealing with the problem. It seems to me you could offer municipalities the opportunity to deal with it at times when it simply didn't present a hazard — the full range of activities of municipalities are now involved in terms of aesthetics and the rest.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to take up this matter a little further with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Logging on private lands is a particularly acute concern in my riding. It is a riding where much of the timber on public land has been gobbled up without being replenished, and as a consequence we are beginning to see intrusion of logging activity in two areas: one, on environmentally sensitive areas — such as the Carmanah Valley, which is adjacent to my riding; many people from my riding work there — and two, in residentially sensitive areas. There are four examples in my riding where that has occurred.

[5:00]

Part of the large picture here is that there hasn't been adequate replenishing of our forest resources. That's not a concern of this minister in terms of her direct responsibilities; it falls within the purview of another minister. On the other hand, with respect to logging on residentially sensitive areas — if I could put it that way — there are significant problems.

I want to tell the minister that in my riding there have been four examples. There is currently quite a dispute going on in Metchosin with respect to significant logging activity on private lands. People have bought residential property, not expecting that the lands adjacent to them would be clearcut. Now they see a total stripping away of logs on those properties, even in violation of the limited abilities that municipalities have right now in terms of bylaw enforcement. In Metchosin about 400 hectares of trees have been cut.

In Sooke and surrounding areas — again in my riding — we've seen that problem being particularly acute in Sheringham Estates, in the area along Goudie Road and Tugwell Road and in the Kemp Lake area. With respect particularly to the region around Sheringham Estates, the impact of that logging is enormous to adjacent property owners, because their water supply is affected by the clear cutting that takes place on those private lands.

There were concerns in that area that their water supply would diminish and dry up during the summer, because of the type of logging activity taking place. Fortunately, in that situation there was a local logger, and we were able to come up with some accommodation with the people who live at Sheringham Estates. I give a lot of credit to the community organization there that did that.

But such has not been the level of cooperation with large companies such as Canadian Pacific Ltd. where they've done their logging in areas such as Metchosin, and it's an acute problem.

It seems to me that there are two solutions in a general sense with respect to remedying that problem. One is the introduction of provincial legislation to provide for the same protection on private lands as exists on public lands. That, in my view, is not a salient option, simply because I think that a broad provincial policy is not sensitive enough to the local situations around the province. I'm not convinced that a provincewide scheme would result in the type of enforcement that people require.

Having said that, then that leaves you with a second option, which is municipal regulation. Right now under the provisions of the Municipal Act, the ability

[ Page 6602 ]

of local areas to deal with these problems is limited. Regional districts have no ability at all, so I'm told. The regional director in Sooke — which covers the Sheringham Estates problem, the Tugwell Road and Goudie Road problems, the Kemp Lake problem and also emerging problems out in East Sooke in my riding — says that he has little or no authority to deal with these matters.

In Metchosin, which is an incorporated municipality, the municipality only has jurisdiction to deal with slope problems. So they can only enforce bylaws if you cut away an area that goes beyond a 30 degree slope — that's it. Other than that, they have very little ability to first of all regulate logging practices on those lands; second, to ensure protection of views; third, to make sure that water quality and water access to downstream users is not affected; fourth, to deal with wind which picks up after these areas have been clearcut and has an effect on properties; fifth, to deal with property values — and I appreciate that's a separate issue — sixth, to deal with reforestation and restocking; seventh, to control the amount of logs removed from the area. Those are just seven examples that I bring forward to the minister of areas where municipal regulations are lacking.

I appreciate that this is a bit of a political football, and I appreciate that the province may not want to get into it. The province traditionally has said that if people who buy private lands want to log it, so be it. But when it begins to intrude upon residentially sensitive areas, as we have seen in my riding, then at that point I think there has to be some authority to step in to protect those six or seven interests to which I refer.

In that regard, I think the Municipal Act has to be amended to provide municipalities with the ability to deal with the problem. The minister says that it causes all sorts of problems, because there are large parcels and small parcels. Well, I think municipal councils — whom I, like the minister, have a lot of faith in — are quite capable of making distinctions between pieces of property that are 33-foot lots on one hand and 400 hectares on the other. I think they're quite capable of defining the parameters of logging, much as they are — as my friend from Prince Rupert said a few minutes ago — capable of defining the parameters for building heights, building restrictions, variances, setbacks and all that stuff. So I think they're quite capable of putting on those controls.

The solution which the minister asks for lies in an amendment to the Municipal Act to allow for each portion of the province, as a municipality or regional district.... I think that's where the pressure is being felt, that's where the people are closest to the effect on local communities and that's how, in my submission, you must change the provisions of the act to allow people to have some control over the way in which property adjacent to them is utilized. That's the whole purpose of zoning and municipal regulations. The minister understands that, and that power should be extended. It's not an unwarranted intrusion on one's ability to deal with their property. All of us have limitations on the ability to deal with our property. On my property in Esquimalt, I am restricted in many ways in what I can do. To take the extreme, I can't put in a mine or a 50-storey building on that property, because there are limitations. That's what municipal government is all about.

My suggestion to the minister is to say: look, let's come forward with amendments to the Municipal Act and give the municipalities the power to regulate in this regard. I'm somewhat dismayed when the minister says that their internal committee has not been able to come up with a conclusion. It seems to me that if the government has difficulty with the issue, then it ought to provide the authority for the municipality at the local level to begin to deal with the issue and pass it on to them. I want to know from the minister what objection she has to that type of provision.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Under section 978 of the Municipal Act, a local government may, by bylaw, designate areas of land that it considers subject to flooding, erosion, land-slip or avalanche as tree-cutting-permit areas. We're taking care of the hazard areas already. There is a provision for local government, whether that is a mayor and council or the regional district; they can deal with those situations.

When you refer to residentially sensitive, I would think that those are the areas there that would fall under residentially sensitive. Or are you suggesting to us that a homeowner who likes to look at a piece of property next door covered with trees would be upset if the owner of the property with the trees started cutting them down? You're also suggesting that provisions should be made in the Municipal Act to allow for this kind of control. I have some very mixed feelings there, because I'm wondering where the input comes in of the owner of the private land that the trees are on. Where does he have some say in this? Does he have any opportunity to speak up? And the pressure could be very great on local government.

But I guess when it comes down to it, we're looking at, you say," sensitive" residential areas. I've never heard that description before as applied to trees being next door to a house. I think we're looking at the economics of the privately owned property, and we have to look at that. But our first concern is for the environment, for the flooding areas, for slippage, to ensure that there is no hazard. Local government has that type of control. It just doesn't have the control, at this time, of going into a piece of property that is not hazardous or not environmentally sensitive and saying: "We're not going to allow you to cut your trees."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to remind both sides of the House that in Committee of Supply, when we're talking about potential provisions to the Municipal Act, we are talking about the necessity of legislation, and that does not fall within the orders of the House. Please proceed.

[ Page 6603 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I'll get to the budget in a second, in terms of how the minister can deal with this through her budget as well. Let me respond to what the minister says. She says: where do private property owners have their say on limitations being placed on their ability to cut trees? The short answer to that, of course, is that they have their say, as for all other municipal enactments, at the time those enactments are being introduced and debated upon within a community. They have their input later on when those enactments and the details are being debated at a municipal council, and they have their further input when bylaw enforcement officers tell them that it applies in a particular way. I guess, if they want to go further, they have their fourth option: the court. I'm not suggesting that the last option is realistic for most people; in fact, it's expensive. I'm saying that where they have their input is where all other citizens have their input and where all these land use issues can be resolved — namely, at the front end when the bylaw is introduced.

I believe that municipal councils are quite capable of dealing with the economic teeter-totter and deciding which way it should come down. The provision that the minister talks about in section 978 deals with matters of flooding, erosion and land-slip. Obviously municipalities have felt that those provisions do not allow them to legislate into areas where it is necessary to regulate tree-cutting and areas where they can deal not just with erosion, flooding or land-slip but with the effect of water, its quality and its availability. Certainly that section doesn't go that far — and it seems to me a legitimate concern. It goes that far in terms of flooding but not in terms of the opposite problem, which we saw at Sheringham Estate, where people are having their water supply denied to them because of the drying that will happen later on because of clear cutting activities on the land. Nor does that section allow them to put back into the bylaw some of the caveats with respect to utilization or replenishing of the land afterwards.

There are all sorts of gaps that fit in with section 978. Section 978 is not the answer. Had it been the answer, then of course those municipalities and regional districts affected would have taken action under those provisions. They all complain — and I think appropriately, if you read 978 — that they just don't have the authority.

I have sympathy for someone who has a large tract of land and wants to cut it, and I have sympathy for the person who lives next door. There's obviously going to be tension. The question is: how is that tension resolved? Now it's totally in the ballpark of the private owner of land who wants to cut his trees. The adjacent property owners have no say, because there's no legislative ability to give them a say.

The scale is tipped totally over in one direction. I would suggest to the minister that this is caused by the absence of legislative enactment. The way to remedy it is to have a legislative enactment that would level the playing-field and then allow municipalities to make calculated decisions to fine-tune these matters to take in the concerns of adjacent property owners as well as the other ones. The situation you've got right now is totally slanted in one fashion and excludes all the adjacent property owners from any input.

I'm sure the minister in her argument on the private landowner would agree with me that the absence of legislation creates an uneven playing-field, and we're just asking that municipalities be given that playing-field. I think that's the answer to what the minister says.

[5:15]

I don't really understand the minister's reluctance to move in this regard. The minister says that one must be mindful of economic considerations. Yet I've just explained how the legislation deals with one element of the economic equation without considering others, and how it is totally tilted in one direction. So let's give municipal councils the ability to deal with that economic equation.

Secondly, the minister says that the environment is a concern. Well, the provisions of the Municipal Act don't even go towards dealing with the environment, except for those three stipulated situations — erosion, flooding and avalanche — which really have handicapped the municipalities' ability to deal with it in a full way.

I don't know to what extent this is a problem provincewide, but I can tell you that it's one heck of a problem in my riding and is, I would suspect, in other semi-rural areas where there has been a depletion of public lands for timber. It's a problem that I'm sure you saw before, because my colleague from Prince Rupert referred to a June Vancouver Sun article. It's a problem you'll continue to see and one that requires your attention.

I don't find much comfort in the fact that your own committee has come to no conclusion. I would urge you to introduce the appropriate mechanism to give municipalities the power that they deserve. I guess that's my submission on that point. If the minister has something else to say, I guess she can make some comments.

I want to turn to a couple of....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll just defer to my colleague, the second member for Victoria. I'm sure all members have been waiting for his return from the Okanagan, so he can shed some light — maybe even a little bit of heat — on this House.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to participate in this section of the debate on logging on private lands.

Before I do that, I want to relate to the minister that this morning when it was announced at the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association that she wouldn't be able to be there and make a speech and do the meetings, there was some disappointment. However, I understand the pressures on the minister these days. Luckily, I was able to meet with many mayors — all of them last night — and talk to many representatives of that region.

[ Page 6604 ]

I can assure you, these are interesting times in the Okanagan. Federally, the New Democratic Party represents a large portion of the Okanagan these days. From my discussions last night and over the last few weeks there, I think there are great times ahead provincially for New Democrats in the Okanagan.

Unfortunately, the minister wasn't able to go. Quite frankly, I don't know why the minister felt she had to cancel meeting all those mayors and alderman, and her speech tomorrow. We certainly treat the regions with respect. I certainly enjoyed talking to those regional representatives last night.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I've only been away one day — and I really missed this place.

MR. CLARK: You were away. That's why they called Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: I guess that's right.

MR. BRUCE: Are you closing debate now, Robin?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh no. I understand that this morning, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to please proceed on a relevant matter on vote 44.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the constituents of the member for Cowichan-Malahat will read Hansard and recognize that this is the first major speech he's given this session — and that's something; he isn't actually standing on his feet.

MR. BRUCE: If you had been here earlier, instead of gallivanting around the countryside, you would have heard some good words.

MR. BLENCOE: I wasn't gallivanting around the countryside. I was consulting with local government and regional directors, while this minister obviously hasn't got the clout in cabinet to enable her to go and speak to those regional directors and do her speeches. Obviously that's the problem.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to quit heckling the member who is speaking so that he can get on with a relevant matter in discussing the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: The matter of private logging on private lands: I just want to canvass that a little bit, because it did come up last year specifically pertaining to the Gulf Islands. It is a major problem on the islands. Those islands are environmentally and eco-
logically extremely sensitive. The member for Saanich and the Islands....

AN HON. MEMBER: And Parks, too.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, in cabinet, I believe, as well. The Minister for Vancouver Island and Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts) is, I'm sure, concerned about this issue. There are on the islands large tracts of private lands that could at any time be removed without any reference at all to the Islands Trust.

Could the minister confirm — maybe the minister has already talked about this earlier — that her ministry is looking at the comprehensive forest practices act that's currently in Ontario, which I understand would give local jurisdictions the ability to have some say on what happens....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't wish to inhibit the member's speech, but I would like to point out to the member, as I did to a previous member, that the provisions surrounding future legislation.... Any legislation is not to be discussed in this particular forum. Would the member please proceed, keeping in mind that the discussion of legislation is out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, discussion of legislation that this House may introduce is out of order, but I am referring to the work currently being done in Ontario. I am wondering if the minister is aware of the work being done in Ontario vis-à-vis logging on private land. Are the minister and her staff currently looking into this area? Can we expect some action very shortly by this government to deal with it, particularly in the Gulf Islands, where for years the Islands Trust has wanted some say and some public input into this issue?

We are very concerned about the islands. We've been concerned not only about logging issues but about this government's attitude towards the Islands Trust in the past. I am going to canvass that later when we get into deeper municipal issues. Would the minister just give us some idea of what kinds of things she has been looking at?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew requests leave for an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to introduce a person who has gone unnoticed by my colleague the second member for Victoria. I know members of this House are deeply impressed by the speeches the second member for Victoria makes and by some of the incredible comments he comes up with which are insightful and just stun the minister. In fact, he just did so a minute ago, because the minister hasn't replied. I want members to give a warm welcome to Bruce Kilpatrick, who is the second member for Victoria's speechwriter.

[ Page 6605 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister tell us what discussions she has had with Islands Trust representatives about the issue of logging on private land on the islands?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: A member of the staff of the Islands Trust participated in the municipal task force.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to leave this. I think my colleague may want to go back to it.

Can the minister confirm that we can expect a report on the issue this month?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have no idea when we will be ready with a report.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to reinforce.... I may go back to this issue later; my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew wants to continue. I really indicate that the issue on the Gulf Islands particularly is very sensitive. There are large tracts of land that are subject to this kind of private logging. The Islands Trust wishes to grapple with it and wishes to level the playing field in terms of the public interest, or the public having some say in this issue.

I hope that in the next few days the minister will take some greater interest in this issue and perhaps find out when we can expect the report. Maybe the standing committee on municipal affairs could be asked to take a look at some of these issues. It would be nice to see that committee in action. We did do some review of the Islands Trust.

Maybe the minister can find out for us when we can expect the report. Will we be seeing it in this House in the very near future?

Back to my colleague.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says no conclusion was reached by the committee that was looking at this issue. I am just wondering if the minister could tell us whether that work is going on or whether it has been terminated.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Possibly I should rephrase my response to the earlier question. We have not yet arrived at a conclusion. The work is going on.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that is with a committee within the ministry. Can the minister advise whether she would expect some action to be taken by government within the current session? Is she expecting a report soon, or is it a study that has just begun and it would be a while before we can hear something?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There are several ministries involved, so I'm just not able to tell you when we will be in a position to finalize a report.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess, on the one hand, it's fine and pleasing to know that the government is looking at the issue. On the other side of the coin, this is a fairly critical problem. I'd be happy to take the minister through my riding and show her the extent of the problem. It's just absolutely enormous. It has really heightened tensions in communities. I can't help but emphasize to the minister the need for the ministry to deal with this issue with dispatch.

MR. CLARK: I just want to canvass a Vancouver issue, although it may extend broader than that. It really has to do with the relationship between the city and the port and whether the provincial government has any views on this. The port authority in Vancouver is a federal responsibility. They run it in a colonial fashion with no input from local communities and a constantly strained relationship with the, city. I know the minister is a strong proponent of regional or local autonomy — in fact, I might suggest, to the point of a fault in some respects.

Here's an area where senior government is controlling the waterfront and, of course, controlling airports as well. I know the government has taken some initiatives in that respect. I give you a case in point. On the east side of the city — actually at the foot of Nanaimo Street — there is some industrial land. Farther along, going a little bit east, there is New Brighton Park.

[5:30]

I think if you look at the great cities of the world — cities in a position like Vancouver — they're really reclaiming the waterfront for the people of the city rather than relegating large land-intensive industries to expensive areas like downtown Vancouver waterfront. That is being reclaimed for all kinds of amenities like parkland and residential land.

We have a funny situation where we have grain elevators and land-intensive bulk-loading facilities in prime waterfront areas. Having said that, there are some areas that haven't yet been built up to that extent, and there aren't big grain elevators. There is currently a proposal by Elders Grain, the owners of Foster's Lager, to put a huge grain elevator right near the foot of Nanaimo, where there used to be a garbage incinerator. We finally got rid of the garbage incinerator and now they want to put in this massive grain elevator.

You may know that the residential area of the city butts right up against that part of the waterfront. It's a perfect place for a park. There's a need for more park space on the east side of the city. It could be a spectacular location for a park. But trying to deal with the port is just appalling. You can't even get an appointment with them; they won't even return your calls, your letters, or anything. The city has slightly better access to the port than, say, local MLAs, and of course more than local citizens; but it seems to me the province could play a facilitating role — I know it's not quite your area; it might be better canvassed under Regional Development or something — in encouraging cities to have more impact on adjacent federally regulated properties. I would argue for provincial control; but beyond that, at the very least, starting to move in that direction.

As I said with respect to the airport in Richmond, one could argue that Richmond municipality could

[ Page 6606 ]

have more influence; I think that would be desirable. But with respect to this monolithic port structure, it's very frustrating for citizens and residents of Vancouver — particularly east Vancouver — and frustrating as a provincial politician, to have this paternalistic and colonial attitude with no public participation on major development issues on the waterfront in Vancouver.

I wonder if the ministry is prepared to look at trying to help facilitate that, or whether they would simply see that as not their role. I think quite properly you could have a role in it, given your mandate. I wonder if the minister has any comments.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I haven't personally been involved in any discussions about this type of issue, but I understand we have in the past had position papers that attempted to outline where the federal jurisdiction should end and where the local government jurisdiction should come in. There's no question about our support for local government in that area.

I would suggest it is probably a subject that could be more properly addressed by the minister of state for the area, who would be able to deal with that type of an issue, rather than Municipal Affairs.

MR. CLARK: I will continue very briefly while my colleagues attend....

A different matter, but still a local one in a way, is the question of regional planning. The minister made reference to the livable region in her earlier remarks about SkyTrain. I think many people would argue that it was somewhat successful in identifying trends and desirable growth patterns in the lower mainland.

I know the minister is aware that a previous Social Credit administration eliminated the role of regional districts in planning. I appreciate that many regional districts, as a matter of fact, did not have a planning function, but in the lower mainland the regional district did. I would argue quite strongly, as someone who has professional background as a planner — so I have a vested interest here, I suppose — that regional planning is absolutely essential if we want to deal with the growth pressure on the lower mainland and if we want to try to have a positive influence on channelling growth.

What is happening, quite clearly, is that there's too much growth in certain sectors of the lower mainland, and even in the lower mainland generally, and not enough in the rest of the province. I've made that speech many times, but I think that looking at regional structures for regional planning is absolutely vital if we want to retain livability in Vancouver particularly, and also in the lower mainland.

I wonder if the ministry is now reconsidering the policy of a few years back that eliminated planning functions from regional districts, and is moving towards trying to reinstitute some regional control — not just municipal control — of planning. I really think — and I fear, quite frankly — that we are losing the ability to control the pace of development in the lower mainland to market forces or otherwise. Individual municipalities simply do not have a mechanism for looking at these problems regionally. I wonder if the ministry is reviewing that policy with a view to trying to look at either the existing regional districts having the planning function restored or new structures which might empower municipalities to work together in trying to plan rationally for future development.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Local government has some power now. They have power to study a number of issues, collect data or provide coordination to consenting communities, but they do not have the power to regulate. I suppose you are suggesting that they should have the power to regulate. It's not a matter under discussion at this time.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to raise with the minister a couple of other issues that relate to my riding — apart from the transit issue. I want to see what the minister has to say about light rapid transit. By the way, I have the study that was done and I will send it over to you. My office is just making copies of it, so you can take a look at it.

I was listening with some interest over the squawk-box. I didn't hear all the points the minister was making in her introductory comments. You sounded very much like you were beginning to support the Leader of the Opposition in terms of his calls for support for municipal infrastructure programs. We are glad to see the minister is seeing the light in that regard. I take it there has been an increase in your budget this year for it.

I just want to talk about the difficulties that exist in the municipalities in my riding, particularly in Colwood and Langford, where there is a tremendous amount of growth, residential and commercial, and no sewers at all, let alone any sewage treatment facilities. The whole system is based on septic tanks. The local municipality of Colwood and the portion of View Royal that isn't covered are currently doing studies through the CRD with respect to costs. The costs range anywhere from $12 million to $40 million, depending on the levels of treatment that are afforded.

There are an enormous number of problems because it is really the appropriate area for development to take place in the greater Victoria area, simply because the land is predominantly rock and you are not dealing with agriculture land — whereas in Saanich you are. It's really the way in which development should go. There are tremendous pressures to develop and that development is happening.

Municipalities and regional districts are scrambling to deal with the sewerage and infrastructure needs. It is such a huge area. It's almost difficult to believe that there are no sewer facilities in that portion of the province. There are other areas in the riding that have difficulties: Sooke with its water system; Esquimalt, which is looking for something between half a million and a million dollars for replacement of storm sewers and sanitary sewers. All of these things require action.

[ Page 6607 ]

With respect to the government's additional allocations, I have some questions I want to ask the minister. The minister said this morning — if I heard her correctly — that the government deviates from the 75-25 formula when there are environmental concerns. Could the minister elaborate on that and tell me what the guidelines are to moving to fifty-fifty — what types of environmental concerns? And what did you mean when you said this morning that environmental concerns are the basis for deviating from the 75-25 formula?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The normal formula is 25 percent provincial government, 75 percent local government, with very few exceptions — and I do mean very few exceptions.

We have an interministry committee that deals with applications, and they measure these applications on a ten-point scale. Health and environment is a very high priority as far as going for the 50 percent. We look at the economics of the community as well. There are some communities with very serious water quality or pollution problems as a result of malfunctioning septic tanks, which we give priority to. But it is an interministry committee, and we look at health and the environment. Those are more or less the reasons that we might go into a fifty-fifty arrangement.

You should understand that the problems we're faced with now are a result of rapid growth in the present and poor planning in the past in a number of communities. We do not place any priority at all on infrastructure to areas to allow opening up a new development. Our priority, because of our budget limitations, has to be given to the areas that have the water quality and pollution problems; we have to address the environment first and foremost. Those are the areas that we look at first, and once we get that under control.... We should be able to do between $70 million and $100 million worth of work this year; we're just finalizing the applications from local government at this time. I think it will be five years before we're looking at any substantial funding assistance to allow communities to open up new areas, unless the revenues of the province are even greater than we expect them to be.

Are you aware of whether or not your community submitted a request for funding this year? We do have an increase of $20 million this year, and if they have a pollution problem then that funding request has a better chance of being approved this year than it would have last year because of the additional funding that's available to us.

MR. SIHOTA: No, they haven't approached you yet, and I was hoping they would approach you before the estimates came up, quite frankly. That was the advice that I had given to them. The reason for it is that they didn't want to come to the minister with an ill-prepared submission. My advice against them was to make sure they had done all, of their homework before they came and saw you. I think you are going to be hearing from Colwood, Langford and View Royal in the near future.

It sounds like what you're saying is that if you are a community that is developing, growing and adding on subdivisions, you are basically out of luck for up to five years. I see the minister nodding.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Not entirely.

[5:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Not entirely? Certainly, if you are a self-contained municipality and not growing, then you're higher up on the totem pole. I don't know if the minister wants to clarify my understanding of that, first, before I go on.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For clarification, I outlined the priorities and how we deal with the applications. You're not entirely out of luck for newly developing areas, but you're out of luck for 50 percent money for newly developed areas; that wouldn't be a consideration.

MR. SIHOTA: That raises two concerns, one within my riding and one without. First, from within my riding: is the 50-50 funding available for...? Let me put it this way. Every MLA is going to come to you and say they have health and environment problems; I understand that. Let me say to you that there's a portion within Colwood — I think we call it the Corners area — which has, in my view, significant health and environment problems as a consequence of exactly what you talked about: tremendous growth and poor planning. Within the context of an overall plan for infrastructure development, sewers, would 50-50 funding be available for a portion of that work and 75-25 for the balance of the work? Is that allowable and done under your guidelines?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, there would be no problem with that. It has to be justified. I did mention that we have an interministry committee. We work with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment, because in many cases we're addressing problems through our grants program that have been identified by one of those two ministries.

MR. SIHOTA: The second problem.... I really will leave this to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) to canvass in some depth. Are you saying that for the city of Victoria, where we have the dumping of raw sewage and no growth really, because Victoria itself is small with not a lot of room for development...? The development takes place in Saanich and the Western Communities. Are you then saying that Victoria, because of the significant health and environmental problems caused by the outfall of raw sewage, would be eligible for fifty-fifty funding as opposed to 75-25 funding?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I think we're getting into hypothetical situations. We deal — through the staff, not the politicians — with the applications that come

[ Page 6608 ]

before us. If they fall into a health or environment category, they're dealt with in a higher priority way than we would deal with a regular application; they don't come into my office, and I start trying to determine the validity of the application. They are done in a very professional way among the three ministries.

If you have a specific application or a request for funding assistance that you feel we're not dealing with in a fair or proper way, I would be pleased if you brought that to my attention. I don't think it's appropriate for me to go into hypothetical possibilities about somebody making an application, and if and how we would deal with it. We deal with them all. They're all individual and unique in their own way, and we try to deal with them in the fairest way we possibly can with the money we have available.

MR. SIHOTA: I understand that, I'm just trying to get some reading of how you apply the guidelines, so I can better advise my municipality when they approach you in terms of how to deal with it. That's fair enough, and the Victoria matter really is for the members for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson, Mr. Blencoe) to canvass with you.

But there is one final matter. You dealt with heritage funding earlier in your comments. It caught my eye, because Lampson Street Elementary School in my riding has been shut down for the last six or seven years, but it is certainly a heritage building. It was one of the first schools built in British Columbia. With St. Ann's closing, there's a lot of discussion now about dealing with the activities that used to occur at a place like Lampson Street School. What are the guidelines for that type of funding for heritage buildings?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe I didn't put it simply enough. What are your guidelines for the provision of funds for upgrading heritage buildings?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have to assume that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is referring to buildings that are not under our portfolio, that are not owned by the provincial government.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: If you would like to check with the ministry, we can get you the terms of reference of the Heritage Trust.

MR. BLENCOE: I will just let the minister know that tomorrow it is my intention to move into municipal affairs in detail. I came late today, and I understand we've been covering transit mainly, and other issues. For the few minutes remaining, I have clear question in the transit area. There may be other transit questions later on, after Municipal Affairs is completed.

An issue came to my attention, and to the attention of a number of my colleagues. You may have covered this today, so bear with me; if you have, you can say so, Madam Minister. The transportation of scooters on handyDART — was that covered today? My understanding is that it was not.

The minister is aware of the issue. I've had delegations, and I've had the minister's staff give me Transit's reasoning for curtailing the carrying of scooters on HandyDARTs — and the minister knows the scooters to which I am referring. The ministry staff came to see me, and we went over in detail the rationale for why they were stopping their being transported; that is, moving them in and tying them down, actually still seated on the scooters. A report was written for me which I have shared with the various disabled organizations. To say the least, there is great consternation in the disabled community, because these Amigos and other manufactured scooters have given many disabled people great mobility.

As I said, I talked to the B.C. Transit people; I got their reports; I understood some of the rationale. There may be some legal questions. But there still remain a lot of questions on how it was done. I understand B.C. Transit is the first major public transit authority in North America to basically ban these people from being transported.

Are any changes planned? Are we trying to find ways to accommodate these vehicles for disabled people? Can we expect some innovations to ensure they can be transported in the future? The minister is fully aware of the issue, I know. I just wish to canvass it so we can try and share.... This House is concerned about this issue.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The problem isn't the scooter per se, It's the fact that the users of the scooters are unable to transfer to seats when they utilize the transit facilities.

I will spell out for you some of the attempts Transit is making to moderate the impact of the policy. Narrower rear bench seats are specified in all 1989 handyDART vans to allow easier on-board transfers. Rear jump seats are being installed in some vehicles to permit a direct sideways transfer from a scooter to a seat. Scooter manufacturers are being encouraged to develop safe, transportable scooters, and some progress is being made. The manufacturers are being asked to design retrofit kits which will allow scooters and riders to be transported safely.

For the information of the entire assembly, the problem that B.C. Transit has found itself faced with is that the scooter manufacturers have stated and agreed that it is unsafe to remain seated on a scooter in transit, and they fully endorse the policy brought forward by B.C. Transit. The scooters are manufactured in such a way that they come apart very easily for transport and storage in the trunk of a car. Unfortunately, the concern is that if there is an accident they can come apart very easily, and if they have someone sitting in them it can be very dangerous.

[ Page 6609 ]

So the action was taken not out of spite or to cause a problem, but keeping safety in mind. The policy is that if the user of the scooter can't be transferred into the seat, he can't be accommodated. This is, I know, causing some problems. We are attempting to work with the manufacturers, and we are making minor modifications to the handyDART vans to lessen the impact, but we don't have all the answers.

I would move at this time, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.