[ Page 6611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supreme Court decision on airline fuel taxing

Mr. Sihota replies to ministerial statement –– 6611

Private Members' Statements

The kaon project. Mr. Peterson –– 6612

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Jones

Surrey renters. Ms. Smallwood –– 6614

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Long –– 6616

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Davis

College faculty pensions. Mr. Jones –– 6618

Hon. S. Hagen

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

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6620

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rogers

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery this morning we have two gentlemen I would ask you to welcome to the Legislature: Mr. Robert D. Martin, who is the president of International Insurance Brokers Inc. from Metairie, Louisiana, and Mr. Craig Valentine, who is with Touche Ross Management Consultants in Vancouver. Would you welcome them, please.

HON. MR. HUBERTS: As the Minister of State for North Coast, I am happy to say we have some guests from the Queen Charlotte Islands: grade 5 and grade 6 students from Agnes L. Mathers School in Sandspit, accompanied by Ms. Sonia Trescher. It is my understanding that Agnes L. Mathers was the first teacher in the Queen Charlotte Islands, thus the naming of this school, which teaches kindergarten to grade 10. Our Premier had the pleasure of visiting the Sandspit school three years ago and attended a garden ceremony. May I ask the House to help me welcome these students and their chaperones today.

MR. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce and acknowledge in the gallery and precincts today a group of parents who are here supporting families of children with disabilities; they are from all over the province. They had a very good meeting with our caucus, as I believe they did with the opposition caucus. This is a very supportive group of citizens who work hard to keep families together, despite disabilities. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to join with the member in welcoming this group of parents and to congratulate the parents and encourage them in their struggle.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we start with members' statements, yesterday the Attorney-General made a statement in the House. It was agreed that his critic would be allowed to reply to it. He wasn't here yesterday, and notice wasn't given. I'll call on the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

SUPREME COURT DECISION
ON AIRLINE FUEL TAXING

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you for that understanding, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize; I wasn't in the House when the Attorney-General made his comments yesterday with respect to the landmark decision on taxing, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. That ruling is a significant and, in many ways, positive decision which has tremendous implications from the point of view of revenue and taxation powers for the province. We on this side of the House certainly appreciate the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has made that decision.

What I find disturbing with respect to what the Attorney-General said is that he omitted to comment on two other decisions yesterday of the Supreme Court that in my view are far more significant and certainly far-reaching in their implication: namely, two decisions with respect to sexual equality and the rights of women. In the first, the Supreme Court ruled against an insurance company that limited benefits to women because they were pregnant. In so doing, the court overturned a 1978 Supreme Court of Canada decision that allowed for discrimination against women simply on the grounds that they were pregnant. That decision had been utilized to uphold provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act as well.

In a second decision, the Supreme Court also overturned a human rights decision that said that no damages could be awarded....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that when he is answering a ministerial statement, he can only talk about the statement itself and not other issues of the day.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought the Attorney-General's comments yesterday were not simply a tax matter but issues that affect people in British Columbia and the Charter. I'm almost finished with my statement; I'm about three-quarters of the way through.

In the second decision, they overturned a human rights decision that said that no damages

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am enthralled, as all members are, with the comments of the hon. member. They are worthy, I'm sure; the only point is, are they appropriate at this time? The minister gave a ministerial statement dealing with a specific ruling of the courts which was a tax matter. That was, as properly described, a landmark case and does clear the air in terms of taxation policies in the province and across the country. But that's the only issue, in my opinion, that the hon. member can address with his reply.

MR. ROSE: We on this side of the House certainly welcome and are grateful for the courtesy extended by the Solicitor-General on this matter and for allowing us to speak later. It's a courtesy, because a ministerial statement doesn't require notice. So we do appreciate it, and in no way want to abuse the House or the Speaker or the government on this issue. But the Supreme Court — and it was alluded to in the ministerial statement; and I don't believe the Minister of Finance was here at the time — alluded to things other than simply that gas tax and liquor. It alluded to a charter provision, and there was much made of this, of how B.C. could benefit. This also is the line that our member is taking; he will have concluded his remarks in less than a minute.

[ Page 6612 ]

HON. MR. REE: It's the duty of all members to serve the House and be at the House at the time set. I know what the House Leader has said; we gave an extension of time for the member to reply because there was lack of notice and it was at the late hour preceding noon when the ministerial statement was made. But I believe the House set the hour for the reply to be immediately after question period yesterday, and the member was not here to serve the House at that time. There was no agreement to have it brought forward at another time. Presumably he can proceed today because it has been so set by the Speaker.

However, Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that something was alluded to in the ministerial statement doesn't give the member an opportunity to go all over the block with a statement. It was a matter dealing with taxes. It doesn't allow the member in his reply to get into all taxes of the government. It should be restricted to the main subject matter of the ministerial statement.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I've no desire to prolong this agony. If we're going to be really tight on this particular response, then I think we should be equally disciplined on the ministerial statement. I didn't raise any Cain when the ministerial statement went well beyond government policy or administration. If you look on page 49 of the book of that celebrated legislator and Clerk, George MacMinn, you will find definite ground rules for ministerial statements. I think that what we should do right now, rather than go on and on about a procedural wrangle here, is let the member finish his statement. I'm sure he'll be finished in a second.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I might just read from Votes and Proceedings yesterday. The Attorney-General "made a ministerial statement relating to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada confirming the constitutional right of the province of British Columbia to impose a tax on fuel purchased by airlines within the province." That is in Votes and Proceedings, hon. member; that is the topic you can talk about in reply. If that is what you want to finish with, I understand you have one minute to finish. The House will listen to you on that topic.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll be really short, then. I apologize; I am not trying to take advantage of the situation. I took it from his statement, as I read it, that he went beyond that. We on this side of the House — and I won't talk about the second decision — find it tragic that the Attorney-General would celebrate a decision that deals with a fuel tax and a tax on alcoholic beverages but would not even comment on a decision that advances the cause of women in British Columbia. In conclusion, let me say that one must indeed question a value system that finds joy with respect to a decision on a financial windfall but is silent with respect to a matter of sexual equality.

Private Members' Statements

THE KAON PROJECT

MR. PETERSON: It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the Legislature today to draw the attention of the hon. members to some very exciting developments that took place this week. The government of British Columbia's TRIUMF kaon project received a big boost with the release of the U.S. and West German studies endorsing our kaon factory proposal.

A report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation explored American participation in TRIUMFs proposed kaon factory and its possible impact on similar projects proposed by U.S. laboratories. Prior to these two reports, the TRIUMF kaon project faced substantial direct competition from proposals for similar projects in Europe and the United States. Now that TRIUMF has received these very strong international endorsements and the major competitors have been set aside, the way is clear for the world to participate in building the kaon factory in Vancouver.

I had the distinct honour of guiding the American Ambassador, Thomas Niles, through the TRIUMF facility last week. He was most impressed with the facility and was well acquainted with the kaon factory proposal. I know the opposition does not warm to the idea of dealing with Americans — or with anyone for that matter. The NDP are isolationists. This is a prime example of international cooperation at work.

Brainpower is the renewable resource that will propel our economy into the next century, just like electricity did in the last. That is why, now more than ever, Canada and the world need the TRIUMF kaon project. The government of B.C. is taking the lead with its $87 million commitment to the TRIUMF kaon project. This is a truly national laboratory, and now more thaGray, Betsyn ever, the name TRIUMF says it all.

On the one hand we're talking about the building blocks of nature, and on the other hand we're talking about the building blocks of a competitive economy. To unlock the secrets of particle physics is to throw open the doors to a whole new frontier of scientific discovery. As a recognized leader in particle physics research, TRIUMF has captured world attention and scientific praise for its achievements, such as its lifesaving pion cancer therapy, which has saved over 100 lives to date.

We want to build on this success. The cost of the construction is $571 million, up to one-third of which will come from international support from the U.S.A., Japan, Italy and Germany. The province of B.C. has put up $87 million towards construction costs. We're making strong representation to Ottawa to help us put together the remaining $284 million necessary to make TRIUMF kaon a reality.

This project is this government's number one economic development priority and the top item in our federal-provincial agenda. Some 19,000 direct and spinoff jobs will be created from coast to coast, especially here in B.C., and particularly in my own constituency of Langley. These won't be make-work jobs;

[ Page 6613 ]

they'll be quality jobs with a future in high-tech, research, construction and so on.

Once operational, the kaon factory will employ 3,000 people, including 1,000 of the world's top scientists, and that's what economic diversification is all about. As you may know, we're currently undertaking with Ottawa an $11 million impact study which we hope will give us the green light for construction. I call on all members of this House to urge Ottawa to come up with the money needed to make the kaon factory a reality. That includes you, Mr. Member.

On any given day there are 400 scientists from 26 countries working at the TRIUMF. These talented men and women have set the pace in numerous fields of research. They are today's pioneers. They are at the leading edge of pure and applied research in Canada. With the development of the CAT scanner they can painlessly take pictures of the living brain. They are at the forefront of research into brain disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

With so much evidence in TRIUMF kaon's favour, the question isn't, "Can we afford it?" but rather: "Can we afford not to do it?" TRIUMF kaon is a Canadian idea whose time has definitely come. Though we don't brag about it, Canadians have a proud history of scientific excellence. We are the country of Banting, Best and Bell. We are the creators of the Canadarm. Sadly, we are also the country whose federal government turned its back on the Avro Arrow, and in doing so, turned its back on a global reputation of excellence in aerospace research.

When I think about the Arrow, I wonder why we can't keep bright, young minds at home where they belong. That's what TRIUMF kaon is all about. Just as TRIUMF has become an international success story, we believe the TRIUMF kaon project will focus world attention on Canadian science and technology. All Canadians can be proud of the TRIUMF With the kaon factory we can be the envy of the world. As Canada's outlook turns more and more towards Asian-Pacific markets, what better way could there be to showcase Canada's know-how at work? We can expect a minimum of $243 million per year in sales to firms using the kaon factory technology.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

HON. S. HAGEN: It was indeed very enjoyable for me to hear the hon. member for Langley give an excellent presentation of where we are in the TRIUMF kaon project. I notice with some dismay that the members opposite — the socialists — were not paying attention. I guess they just can't stand the idea that we might have some excellence of world-class calibre in this province.

I would encourage them to visit the TRIUMF facility — if they haven't visited it — to take advantage of that. I would be pleased to arrange tours for them as a group or as individuals. We are very proud of the TRIUMF kaon facility. We believe that it's just another part of the excellence that we have at our universities. It's an opportunity for our young people, instructors and professors at the universities to mix with the best from around the world. We have 400 scientists from 26 different countries in any day carrying out their experiments there.

Last year the professor from Japan won the Imperial medal for the project that he carried out at TRIUMF. It's only the fourth time in history that that medal has been awarded to a physicist.

I want to again congratulate the member for Langley, Mr. Speaker, and thank him for an excellent presentation on where we are.

MR. JONES: I thank the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training and the second member for Langley for their talk.

I have heard a lot of talk in the last two and a half years about the kaon factory. In fact, Kim Campbell was the last person who did a Friday member's statement on it a year and a half ago. She, like the second member for Langley, urged all members of this House to lobby the federal government on this issue. Guess where that member is now. That member is part of the government of Canada; in fact she is in cabinet. I haven't heard a lot from that member lately. I can only conclude that she was all talk then, and this government is all talk now on the kaon factory.

Some of that talk is very misleading talk. The second member for Langley and the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training talked about, "today the announcement of an arrival of two new reports."

I don't know what the minister's definition of "new" or "arrival" is, but this report arrived on my desk some six months ago. It's not a new report. The date on this report is May 1988, and the quote that the minister makes in terms of the support for the kaon factory by the West German government — the ad hoc committee for the federal Minister of Research and Technology in West Germany — is a year old.

I think it's shocking that either this government or this minister is so inept to quote a report that is a year old, and everybody in the scientific world knows of this report. Either it's ineptitude or it's an attempt to mislead the press and the public on this matter. It's ironic that the minister who wishes to support the kaon project would use a misleading press release like this to undermine his own credibility on this issue and undermine the support for kaon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Education rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That member has a variety of ways of calling members on this side liars. That's not acceptable. Twice now he has worked in "misleading" the public and a "misleading" report by the minister, and I think that should be withdrawn.

MR. JONES: There's no question that the kaon factory could be an important development tool for the province; that it could be an outstanding international facility we could all be proud of; and that it could be uniquely useful in tackling some of the basic

[ Page 6614 ]

questions in particle physics that we face. There's no question that UBC is an ideal site for this facility. However, there is one major reservation that anybody with any intelligence who has looked at this project has about it, and that is that the money for the project must be new money. It must not reduce ongoing scientific research in particle physics or in any other area in this province.

The record of the federal government and the provincial government in support of research and development is absolutely abysmal.

[10:30]

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time under the standing orders is up.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, where do they stand? What position are they taking? He talks for one minute on the negative side, and he talks for another minute on the positive side. It's a typical fence sitting, no-vision socialist attitude to any good ideas that are ever brought up by this government. I'm a very calm man, but when I listen to gobbledegook like that, I think to myself: "Thank God those people are not in government!" The member leaves the House. He can't even....

He talks about it being all talk. Is an $87 million commitment from the provincial government all talk? I think that's putting your money right up front They're not even in tune with their own federal counterparts. I would like to go back to May 2, 1988, in the House of Commons. One of their good colleagues, Mr. Nelson Riis....

AN. HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PETERSON: The MP for Kamloops. He stood up — he's a socialist, but he's at least a socialist with some vision, not like this sorry lot here — in the House of Commons and said to the Deputy Prime Minister: "The Deputy Prime Minister will also know" — he's talking about the kaon project — "that this project is absolutely critical in terms of upgrading the existing TRIUMF project to make it a world-class facility." He has some vision. This group — I don't know. You need a lot of help. Where do you people stand? We'll never know.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON: Right on the fence.

Let's talk some more about the benefits. Let's talk about some positive stuff, because this isn't my style When indirect benefits in the TRIUMF project are included, the total increase in industrial production due to spinoffs alone will be $436 million a year pumped into our economy. It's easy to see that we have a good story to tell, and it's worth sharing with the world. We've got a big job ahead of us, and we could use the help of the NDP. It would be nice if we could get the support of the opposition for TRIUMF kaon, but their position is too mired in confusion. If their leader got off the fence and got behind this excellent project — or anything, for that matter — it would be a miracle.

SURREY RENTERS

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring forward some of the problems the people in Surrey are facing due to the housing crisis, and I look forward to the government response as to how indeed it intends to alleviate some of the problems.

When we hear of the housing crisis, we often hear of situations in Vancouver and Victoria; I very seldom hear what the impact of this housing pressure is doing to the suburbs. Let me outline some of the problems for the House. First of all, Surrey is a very young community, and as I've said time and again, it is a community that has very young families. It also is a community that has a disproportionate number of families on GAIN, and I quoted some of the statistics when we were talking about hungry school kids.

In addition to that, because of the pressures of housing loss in Vancouver, we have a number of families moving out to Surrey. That is reflected by the growth statistics I quoted earlier. What that means to us is that our housing, our rental situation in particular, is under increasing pressure. As of several months ago, we have a 0.06 vacancy rate. I would suggest that our vacancy rate has dropped even lower than that now.

I have a couple of things I'd like to bring to the House's attention. Last week I attended a meeting of the Surrey Village housing tower. At that meeting there were approximately 60 to 80 seniors, all on fixed incomes because they were senior citizens or because they were on handicapped pension. These people told me that the rent increase for that tower had gone up $80 and in some cases $90. Many of them were having to move out, because on a fixed income they could no longer afford that accommodation. Given the vacancy rate, the question was: "Where would they move to?"

In addition to that — I believe I've brought it to the House's attention in the past and I want to reinforce it — I have a situation where the Surrey Delta Now newspaper reported that low-income tenants were being evicted. We have large apartment complexes around Guildford in my riding, and one of them was reported on in this article. It's called Guildford Gardens, and there are 101 units in the complex. The landlord had made a decision to evict the tenants for renovations. There's another complex called Village Green undergoing the same situation. There are over 300 units in that 432-unit apartment complex that will be renovated, and those tenants will be evicted.

That means that much of the housing available for low-income people in particular, people on GAIN, is slowly being renovated, and the rents for those units are being increased to the point where welfare recipients are no longer able to find accommodation at their present address. There are approximately 300

[ Page 6615 ]

people from one complex alone who will not be able to house their families.

Another bit of information I want to provide to the House is part of a report done by SPARC, which didn't make it into the actual report because of the detail. This table is the percentage of clients with reported shelter costs exceeding shelter allowance, by region. I want to bring the House's attention to the Fraser North region, which includes Surrey. These statistics are provided by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, February 1989.

The table shows that 52 to 53 percent of single women and couples on welfare are spending in excess of their shelter allowance. That means that they're taking money out of their food allowance or are in some other way trying to make up that shelter allowance. It goes all the way up to two-parent families with four children. Of those families, 68.3 percent are spending over their shelter allowance. It continues with 71.7 percent of one-parent families with four children spending more than their shelter allowance for rental accommodation.

That means that while people are moving out of Vancouver and other municipalities in the lower mainland to Surrey for our more affordable housing, the reality, because of the age of the housing stock, is that we do not have the options for those people, and increasing numbers of renters are having to spend increasing amounts of their welfare for that housing.

We have a crisis in Surrey, and at this point I don't see any programs to alleviate the problem our renters are facing. I look forward to hearing whoever is responding indicate what kinds of programs the government has in mind to alleviate the pressure on these renters and begin to bring some solutions to the crisis that Surrey families are facing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I would just like to point out to the member, the House and the people of British Columbia that all is not negative, that all is not doom and gloom, that the reason we are into a housing crunch in the lower mainland and the Saanich peninsula in particular is that we have a healthy, thriving economy in this province. About 4,000 people a month move to British Columbia to seek employment. Thousands of new jobs are being created every month, so people are coming to avail themselves of these opportunities. The result, of course, is that the first thing to disappear is rental accommodation. We're very much aware of that,

If the member will read the statements in the budget, I'm sure she will see that we are addressing the housing problem. It's a problem that has to be shared by all three levels of government: federal, municipal and provincial. We realize that. On the rental side of affordability, we have made several changes in this year's budget, including increasing SAFER and extending it to those 60 years of age and older; a renter's tax credit for those at the low end of the income scale; an increase in the homeowner grant and increases to GAIN, both immediately and later in the year.

1 wanted to dwell for a moment on the responsibility of municipal governments. In the housing program that we share with the federal government through CMHC we run into problems of zoning, where we actually have to turn down projects because we can't get the municipalities to zone. It's sad to say, but the municipality that turns down more projects than any other is Surrey. I'm not laying all the blame on them, but some of the responsibility has to lie with local governments and the zoning, or lack thereof. A recent example is Sunnyside Villa; the problem is strictly a municipal one. I suggest that these municipalities avail themselves of the program in the budget where they can receive up to $2,500 per unit as a bonus if they fast-track some of the zoning to get these housing units on stream.

Next, the initiatives we have taken with the private sector will put up to 4,000 units of affordable rental housing on the market within two years. Our target is 4,000; we will come very close to that. The initiatives are there for the private sector to build this affordable rental housing. The government will facilitate the building of it through interest write-downs, through entrepreneurial immigration targeted towards rental accommodation and through initiatives targeted to municipalities so that they can participate if they increase densities or speed up zoning.

[10:45]

1 want to emphasize that these housing units, whether we build 3,000, 3,500 or 4,000, will be built by the private sector. I have had several meetings with the private sector. They are excited about the programs we have put into place, and they fully intend to take advantage of them to build affordable rental housing. I would think that over the next few months, as we develop our Crown corporation and get the mechanics in place to implement the statements made in the budget, we will start to see many units of affordable rental housing built all over this province, but especially in the lower mainland and the Saanich Peninsula.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm very disappointed in the minister's response. The member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I explored what the opportunities are for municipalities like ours, and very clearly the government's program does not address our needs. I'm sorry that message didn't get through to cabinet. Fast-tracking development does not help us in any way. This government needs to recognize reality, to come out of its ivory tower and address the real needs.

Let me, for the minister's sake, explain what the problems are in Surrey. First, the minister talks about the renter's tax credit. How on earth does a person on income assistance — and the minister who represents that ministry should understand this better than anyone — benefit from a renter's tax credit?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's for low-income earners, not for people on income assistance.

[ Page 6616 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: Income assistance people don't benefit then, and the minister recognizes that.

What is needed here are some controls on rent increases. We need a rent mediator of some sort, some kind of rent review. I would refer the minister to the member for Victoria's private member's bill as the solution.

I would also like to talk about the need for social housing, if the minister will again deal with the realities. Municipalities like Surrey are the only municipalities left in the lower mainland with land that can provide the housing necessary to alleviate the problem. We have the majority of the land base, and the GVRD recognizes that. What Surrey needs is support for the infrastructure. We have a hospital that cannot deal with the growth. We have schools that cannot deal with the growth. We have roads that are backed up to the point where nobody can get out of the municipality. Sure, we need to fast-track development, but the only way we can fast-track that development for social housing is if the ministry targets social housing and recognizes the need for infrastructure.

We have children in our municipality who have nothing to do, because there are no recreation facilities available for them. We have no playing-fields, Mr. Minister. This government has got to recognize the reality, recognize what they have to deal with and target their programs appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member her time is up under the standing orders.

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. LONG: Again this week, I have to rise to speak on an issue I spoke on last week: the natural gas pipeline through Sechelt, Gibsons, Pender Harbour, Powell River and on to Vancouver Island. The Vancouver Island pipeline is necessary. It takes in Squamish as well. So many things have been said about it that are not true, and I must say that the lies, deception and deceit given out to the public of Vancouver with regard to this pipeline are staggering.

The things that happen in that watershed that should not happen there, according to what the GVRD has said.... It's a fact that in that same watershed they deny a small pipe, which is 12 inches.... One place of deceit here, where they make statements.... I can quote some of them: "Pressures from the gas flowing through the 25-centimetre pipe could cause vibrations and mudslides in the watershed."

We don't have mudslides in watersheds all the way from the Peace River to Vancouver, and they have high-pressure lines running there. They are deceitful; they don't tell the truth.

One of the things evident now, that I found out when I was checking into it, is that the same GVRD that is denying this access also runs their own gravel pit in the watershed within that lake district. They have allowed another road to run up the west side of the same watershed. They have one on the east, they are already constructing one on the west, and they are saying a pipeline is going to be detrimental to their watershed.

I take offence at some of the GVRD staff, and if this is where they are getting their information, I think they better check it out closely. It's from a city engineer, who makes the statement: "Transmission of disease from pipeline maintenance workers could occur in the watershed." My good lord, what have pipeline workers got that their own GVRD people haven't got? What have the loggers not got that these poor guys have? We better find out what the source of this disease is. This is an engineer; it sounds like he got his degree in a Cracker Jack box.

The same engineer: "There could be a threat to water quality if a forest fire broke out near the high-pressure gas line." This is absurd. This is from a man who is supposed to have a degree. I guess we could have a problem if Lou Sekora had his way, because if they did have a forest fire in that watershed.... To quote Mr. Sekora: "I would not say that this is an agreeable way." He is talking about a pipeline above ground. "Why would it not be good going above ground? What's wrong with putting it above ground...rather than digging a trench four feet deep?" His own engineer just said if they had a forest fire, they are going to have a problem. But he doesn't want to bury the pipe so it would be out of harm's way. These people can't make up their minds.

One thing that has come to light that I have checked on is the fact that the GVRD is the greatest polluter in the province of British Columbia. They are putting far more sewage into the waters of British Columbia than any other municipality, industry or pulp mill in all of British Columbia, and they have the audacity — just because of the inconvenience of a gas line going through — to turn around and say: "You can't inconvenience us, but we can pollute anything we want." I find that very unacceptable.

That garbage I spoke about last time; it's going to Cache Creek. There it is, going to Cache Creek. They can't look after that as well. The GVRD makes statements that they represent 1.8 million people in the province of British Columbia. I've got to bring to their attention that this House and this government represent 100 percent of the people of British Columbia, and they deserve the gas as much as anyone else in the lower mainland.

Now I'd like to turn my sights on the socialists. Where do the socialist hordes stand on this one? Where are they? Where is the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), the two members for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson and Mr. Blencoe), the two members for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick and Ms. Pullinger) and the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)? Where are they for their constituents? When are they going to stand up and say they deserve something? They deserve some cheap fuel. They deserve something in return. They deserve a clean environment like the lower mainland has. When are they going to stand up and say that? Not one of them. In fact, I see very few in the House. I don't see any of them. Where are they? It staggers me that they don't back

[ Page 6617 ]

this project for the right reasons. I imagine their constituents want this, and they are not doing what their constituents want.

I just stand behind the working people for the cheaper fuels.

MR. BLENCOE: You're history.

MR. LONG: They say I'm history. I back my constituents, I back my riding and I back something that is right, that is environmentally safe, and you say I'm history.

I want to know where the opposition leader stands on this. He is the one who called it a sham and a fraud, and I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, he is going to be the first one, front and centre, to collect all the credit when this goes through and is a raving success. He has already done it on the backs of this government with Expo, SkyTrain and the Alex Fraser Bridge. Now he is going to try it again. He's going to ride in, trying to be a hero on the backs of people who fought for a pipeline. He lays in the bush and does nothing. No support, nothing. I am ashamed of the NDP. I am ashamed of the socialists. But it's their true colours.

I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this pipeline is important to my riding.

MR. CASHORE: To quote the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), some of us are starting to wonder if we're the only free-enterprisers in the House.

The member says that he stands up for working people. I don't think that working people would feel very good about his referring to people who aren't here to defend themselves as liars and deceitful — language for which, as we've seen in the House, members would stand up and call a member to order. I think it's a very unfortunate thing. Within that are the seeds of the problem of why this government can't work with the GVRD and the GV Water District, if they go into it with that type of an attitude — calling people liars and deceitful. That is simply inappropriate.

I find it also quite interesting to hear about the various projects going on in the province. The member referred to the Cache Creek landfill. I notice that the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) isn't here to defend himself on that one. Apparently he's quite happy about having lower mainland garbage coming up into his riding.

The fact is that the way in which this project is developed is the problem. It's not the project, it's the way it is done that is the problem. Why can't we get that through your heads on that side of the House? You people operate on the philosophy that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the impacts on the watershed are minimal, why have you failed to convince the public? Why have you failed to convince the 18 mayors? Why do you not pay attention to the fact that we have tabled 10,000 signatures in this House? And that number is rising; those were collected over a period of one week.

If it's a benign project, why don't you come clean with the information to prove it? Where is the information that proves that you've got your facts right with regard to the Indian Arm costs? You don't have that. You have not put the kind of attention into it that you've put into the Coquitlam watershed. Where is the information on that? Why do you keep tossing these figures out and creating confusion?

Why are you threatening the taxpayers? You talk about this being a good project for free enterprise, but what about the fact that there is a $150 million subsidy from the provincial taxpayers and $150 million from the federal taxpayers? You are talking about this as being such a wonderful project. You haven't done the economics.

What you are doing is fast-tracking. You are doing the same thing that you did with the Coquihalla and the same thing you did with northeast coal, and the taxpayers end up with the costs. Even after these subsidies, you haven't given a guarantee that there won't be further costs when it comes to having to use subsidies to entice various industries and other people to use the system. You haven't done your economic work. Why don't you come clean? Why don't you admit it?

I have one last thing to say. There is a much better source of gas that doesn't have to go through the watershed. It doesn't have to go across the ocean. It's right here, in the offices of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). That's where the gas can come from.

[11:00]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Once again the NDP have made it clear that they are totally against the pipeline.

As for process, the GVRD staff met with the pipeline company and our ministry people four times before the hearings began. There were 30 days of hearings. There were substantial submissions relative to all aspects of the pipeline, including the watershed. A very detailed report was submitted. The GVRD staff didn't pick up on the fact that there were advertisements out there, telling the world that they could appear and intervene, until the very last minute. In any case, all the facts are there. I met with the mayors last week. Most of them were really unaware that there had been a hearing. One of them, at the end, asked the chief engineer of the GVRD: "Do you mean to say that the Coquitlam reservoir has been shut down for periods up to six months? Construction will only take four weeks." And he said: "Well, maybe not six months, but four or five months." The mayors really weren't aware of the facts. The facts were there for all to see. In any case, we obviously have a job to do in convincing those in authority in the lower mainland that there isn't any risk whatsoever.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little shocked at the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), because he is the environment critic in his own caucus. He's so busy posturing politically in his own recording

[ Page 6618 ]

ding.... He knows there's nothing wrong with this project. He knows full well that this is going to clean up the air, the environment and the oil spills. He knows this, and yet he's posturing politically and doing away with the very thing that he should be doing: looking after the environment of British Columbia. When has this person ever criticized the GVRD on their sewer system, on what's pouring into the gulf? When is he going to stand up and condemn them? That's GVRD responsibility: primary treatment only, not secondary.

In our area we have secondary in most of the towns. When are you going to stand up for the environment? He talks about working people. They deserve a cheaper fuel. They have it in your riding, and they damn well should have it in our riding and on Vancouver Island too.

He speaks about Indian Arm. It is a horrendous area of complication as far as taking a pipeline through. It's a huge area, which has more environmental impact than this other way would ever have. I'm ashamed of this member. I'm ashamed of him for not standing up for our environment. We as the Social Credit government, and I as a member of that government, will stand up.

I hope the people in Vancouver, the lower mainland, and down in the GVRD reassess this position, take a hard look at it, face the facts. And when they face the facts, they will see there's nothing wrong with the routing. It may be a little inconvenient, but that's it. Take a look at what they're doing in there Take a look at their own activities. From that you can draw your own conclusion that this simple process will not interfere with their water quality, but will just help to enhance the environment throughout the province and make it easier and better for the people on Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Mr. Speaker, you heard them. They don't stand up for the environment. They preach it, but they don't stand up for it. This government stands up for clean air and clean water, and will stand up for it forever.

COLLEGE FACULTY PENSIONS

MR. JONES: I rise to raise a concern about treatment of the faculty at our colleges and institutes in this province. I'm sure that we would all wish for a fair and equal treatment of our faculty. In specific terms, I think we should have the vast majority as full-time faculty and have relatively equal numbers of men and women on those faculties.

Roughly ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the proportion of full-time to part-time faculty was two-thirds full-time and one-third part-time. By 1986 the vast majority of faculty at our colleges and institutes turned out to be part-time; in fact, 56 percent were part-time. I'm sure you can appreciate the implications for the quality of education when we have a majority of faculty and staff being part-time. Between 1979 and 1986 the number of full-time positions decreased by 174, and the part-time positions increased by 2,141.

It's very interesting to note who get the full-time positions. I think what we see on a 2-to-1 ratio, in terms of full-time employment, is that twice as many men are employed full-time in our college system as women. Clearly, that represents a double standard; it represents discrimination against women; in some instances, it represents a job ghetto for our women faculty.

I don't mean to pick on the minister, but I pick on his riding because it's probably the most extreme example, although there are probably some extenuating circumstances because of the unique characteristics of North Island College. In 1985-86, the latest figures that I was able to obtain — and I'd be very pleased to hear from the minister that there has been a vast improvement since then — at North Island College there were 36 full-time males employed but only 9 full-time females: a 4-to-1 ratio.

In the part-time faculty that year at the same college, there were 96 part-time women employed: a 10-to-1 ratio, compared to full-time. Clearly we have a case of discrimination in full-time and part-time, the vast majority of part-time at that college being women.

Although it is an extreme example, it is not atypical. At Capilano College we see a similar situation. In that year there were 72 full-time males and half as many full-time females — a 2-to-1 ratio — whereas the number of part-time females was 117, the vast majority.

There is a two-tiered system, where the majority of instructors at our colleges and institutes are second-class citizens in that they are part-time. Although both men and women are discriminated against, when we see a 2-to-1 ratio mentioned, there is clear discrimination in terms of full-time employment favouring men and discriminating against women.

This situation exists in the same ministry that holds responsibility for women's programs. It exists in the same government that wishes us to believe that they have a newfound interest in equality for women. Rather than showing leadership on this issue, this government has mirrored the very worst practices of the private sector.

How did this practice come about? It came about because of a Social Credit policy to adopt a save-on approach to post-secondary education. It has been cheaper to hire part-time faculty and deny them the fringe benefits that they are due. These part-time faculty — these second-class citizens — are denied fulltime employment, job security and career opportunities. They are also denied proper working conditions. They have become an administrative convenience, and their courses and course loads are juggled on short notice. They are asked to teach at odd times and even on different campuses.

Most importantly, though, these second-class citizens are denied the fringe benefits that they are due. However, a few days ago, the B.C. Supreme Court, in a very important decision, in my opinion, ruled against the systematic denial of fundamental rights and justice to this group of employees. It said that the

[ Page 6619 ]

government is wrong in denying part-time employees pension coverage. That's some 4,000 part-time instructors at our colleges and institutes.

Because of that decision, a major economic incentive for maintaining this number of part-time employees has been removed. I am hopeful that as a result of that decision, there will be a massive conversion of part-time employees to full-time, and part-time situations will be used only where legitimate circumstances exist. I think the decision of the Supreme Court has the potential to improve the quality of education, to restore justice to our college instructors and to end sexist discrimination for part of our post-secondary education system.

I invite the Minister of Advanced Education to show support for affirmative action in improving the situation of full-time employment in our college system. I ask the minister now if he accepts the fundamental principle that part-time employees in our college system have the right to opt for fringe benefits, such as pension coverage, as determined by the Supreme Court.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's with great delight that I take this opportunity to reply to the rambling and disjointed presentation made by the hon. member for Burnaby North, where he talked about this government's save-on approach to post-secondary education and his unfortunate opinion that the instructors in our colleges and universities are second-class citizens.

I would like to state this government's opinion on that. We think that the individuals who teach and do research in our post-secondary facilities are, in fact, first-class citizens — first-class people in the system. We are very proud of them. We are proud of them because they have helped build the best post-secondary education of any province in this country and of most countries in the world. That is not always because of the things the government has done, but we certainly can't do those things without the cooperation of the faculty and the professors in the universities.

The hon. member for Burnaby North raised the issue of taking the save-on approach to post-secondary education. I would like to remind the hon. member — and I'm sure I will be doing so in my estimates later on — that in the two and a half years we have been government, we have pledged and spent more money on the post-secondary education system.... That part of the budget has had the largest increase of any part of our budget.

Again he comes without doing his homework, without studying the facts and without looking at the budget. The "Access for All" announcement, which is a commitment of this government to increase the number of university spaces by 15,000, not only in the lower mainland, where the hon. member lives — and it sounds like it's the only part of the province he cares about — but in third- and fourth-year degree programs at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo.... I think that shows that this government has education as a number one priority.

I might also remind the hon. member of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) announced earlier this year with regard to the implementation of the Royal Commission on Education. I guess the truth is that they're having difficulty finding things to criticize, so they're making some sort of general statements.

I would like to discuss specifically the situation with regard to pensions for full-time and part-time employees. Historically, as you know, only full-time professional instructors or senior administrative staff have been subject to compulsory enrolment. Amendments to the Pension (College) Act resulted in the superannuation commissioner making a ruling last December which stated that any new professional part-time employees hired after September 1, 1989, may enroll, subject to employer approval, in the college pension plan.

[11:15]

This ruling was challenged by the College-Institute Educators' Association, resulting in the Supreme Court striking down the superannuation commissioner's ruling and directing that a different subsection of the act must be enforced. This subsection uses the College and Institute Act definition of a professional employee and defines an employee as being anyone who provides educational services, including a librarian or an administrator.

The net impact is that all professional employees must be given the opportunity to enroll in the college pension plan. Enrolment is not compulsory, but it is available at the option of the employee, not the employer, as was previously the case. It should also be noted that full-time employees may revert to optional enrolment. We in the ministry are uncertain at this point what the magnitude of the impact on the colleges of this ruling is, since participation in the pension plan is not mandatory. However, my staff are working with their colleagues in the colleges and in the Superannuation Commission to ensure that the ruling is properly interpreted.

I would remind my hon. friend from Burnaby that this is an issue that comes under the Superannuation Commission. Should he have any follow-up questions, he should probably address them to the minister in charge of that.

MR. JONES: I have to be concerned about the minister's response, because he did not in any way address my concerns about discrimination against women in the post-secondary education system. He clearly did not respond to my request that he recognize the fundamental right for these part-time employees to opt for pension coverage. I am concerned, then, that the minister may choose to appeal this ruling or may even go so far as to bring in new discriminatory legislation to deny again those members of our college system their fundamental rights to opt for fringe benefits.

I recognize that there is a cost associated with the decision; as is always the case when we have the potential to improve the quality of education, there are going to be costs associated. It's my hope that the

[ Page 6620 ]

Minister of Advanced Education will recognize those additional costs and provide them — whatever they might be — to the college system, so that they don't have to cut back as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

It seems to me that the courts have acted where the government has failed to act. I believe that this decision, of which the minister is not sure of the implications, could be a landmark decision. I am hopeful that it will end a decade of discrimination and injustice to our part-time employees at the colleges and institutes of this province. I am hopeful that it's the beginning of the kind of equality, fairness and dignity that should be accorded to those professional employees, particularly to the women who work part-time in our post-secondary education system.

It seems to me that the ball is now in the government's court, and I ask the government not to fumble that ball.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: 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. BLENCOE: I want to start this morning by talking about some of the concerns of local government today, getting into some general discussion with the minister about direction and the real problems facing local government. Like the minister, I've spent considerable time travelling the province talking to mayors, aldermen and regional directors, and always, of course, there are problems associated with local government and the problems they face for the future.

One of the major things that we continue not to deal with is the state of local government infrastructure: the problems that many communities face maintaining or rebuilding their water systems; the lack of treatment plants; crumbling highways, sewers and storm drains. Just the day before yesterday I was talking to representatives of villages in the Okanagan, and they were expressing the in many ways desperate situation of much of their infrastructure. For instance, their water systems are in real trouble.

The minister has mentioned that she is trying to resolve some of these issues, but it seems to me — and it certainly seems to local government — that we are doing it using an ad hoc, band-aid sort of approach. We have not laid out for local government an overall strategy to rebuild infrastructure, those critical ingredients for ensuring that a community remains healthy and economically viable. When leaders are assessing where they are going to allocate their industries or new ventures, they look for these essential ingredients, often not very attractive ingredients in terms of political issues, but very important ones in ensuring that these communities are ready for the future.

The minister knows the problem. I have consistently, as has the Leader of the Opposition and many of my colleagues on this side of the House, asked for an overall strategy — two-year, five-year, ten-year strategies — to rebuild municipal government infrastructure in the province. Every year the minister announces a little more money here and there. She tinkers with the formula and says some communities may be eligible for fifty-fifty funding. Some have to resort to 75 percent from their local taxpayers and 25 percent from the province. I think we have to come to terms with this issue. I see it as the number one problem in B.C., particularly for those small communities, the villages and towns, that don't have a large tax base. It came home again to me the other day that some of those communities are at times literally putting baling wire on their systems.

We are in real trouble if we don't start to lay out a strategy. I'm not saying the local taxpayers are going to find the money overnight, but we've got to. This is one of the things I've been saying about this ministry: be in the forefront of developing a strategy to rebuild the infrastructure for local government. No more finding a few dollars here and there every year, depending on which municipality gets to the minister's door first, and whether they're going to get 50 percent dollars or 25 percent dollars. We need to clearly enunciate a policy of two-year, five-year and ten-year strategies for rebuilding our towns, villages, regional districts and municipalities.

One of the first things that could be done is for this minister to put to her cabinet colleagues that this is a top priority for all British Columbians. This is a government that likes to talk about megaprojects, likes to pick a specific issue for political gain. If we ever needed a big project, it's the rebuilding of local government infrastructure. Every year I mention that we've only got to look south of the border to the United States, where local government put it off and delayed and delayed. Now they're having to spend billions of dollars to rebuild highways, sewers, storm drains, water systems, treatment plants — the basic ingredients for healthy, viable, economically stable communities. These are the things local governments want to see this government take on in a clear strategy.

I want to open this morning by seeing where the minister is taking local government. Where is this government going? Rather than saying every year that they've found a few more dollars in revenue sharing or unconditional grants, where is the commitment to saying that this government believes in local government and their problems, and that it's going to tackle those problems in a forthright and dedicated way? I want to open up today on that theme, because if we don't tackle it in a concerted overall strategy now, we're going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars down the road. Would the minister perhaps respond to some of those concerns?

[ Page 6621 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. minister, the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) was on his feet.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Victoria: perhaps your agriculture critic will speak to you some day and inform you that baling wire isn't actually used in the agricultural community anymore, so it's not available for municipal infrastructure. It helps display the fact that you haven't done a very good job of broadening your agricultural education. I only know because I had to borrow some one day.

I would like to ask the minister to place on the record of this House, for the edification of people in my constituency, the issue of the head office of B.C. Transit. I would like the minister to explain why the head office of B.C. Transit is being moved from my constituency, where it has been since its inception, to — coincidentally — her constituency.

I'd like her to tell me how that decision was made and whether that decision was made by the board of directors, by the executive council — which I seem to recall it wasn't — or by you as the minister responsible. I'd like to know what studies have been done to prove that this will be an efficient and cost-saving measure for B.C. Transit, because they are very happily located in my constituency, where they have been for some time.

I know the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who is unfortunately involved in some sort of a matrimonial procedure and is not able to be here today, wanted to bring this matter up. So I bring it up on the understanding that your estimates will probably be through by 1 p.m. today. Perhaps you could enlighten the committee as to how the decision was made, why none of the MLAs knew about it — at least none of the MLAs in the affected community knew about it — and what the real savings are for the transit system of moving from a rather inexpensive office where they're currently located, to, I gather, much grander premises in your constituency.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'll start with the last question first. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no decision made to move the head office of B.C. Transit. There have been discussions with regard to possible relocation because, as you know, we have talked for some time about decentralization and moving some of the major government-related operations out of Vancouver into the suburbs, the valley and the interior of the province whenever possible to — among other reasons — lessen the impact on traffic of vehicles going from my constituency or Coquitlam into the city.

To the best of my knowledge — and I feel sure I would have heard, had a final decision been made — there has been no final decision made on the move The lease on the building has only a short time to go, and we are looking at the possibility of relocating the operation somewhere else along the SkyTrain line But that decision has certainly not been finalized.

I would like to suggest that a good number of employees who presently travel into the Vancouver office are from the suburbs of Surrey and Langley and out further. As for a convenience to the employees of B.C. Transit, that would certainly not prove to be any more of an inconvenience to some of the employees than we presently have. But having said that, there has been no final decision made to move.

[11:30]

I would now like to respond to the second member for Victoria's (Mr. Blencoe's) comments and to suggest that he.... To the second member for Victoria: do you really want to know the answers to your questions?

It is wrong to claim that there is no infrastructure planning in place in this province, because there is. It's not carved in stone, but we do have infrastructure planning. The municipalities adopt five-year capital plans, which this ministry monitors. We also, as a ministry, provide sewer and water study grants to local government; and the studies that are done by local government are to identify their needs over the next five and ten years.

We don't do those studies in-house. Each of the local governments, each community, does those studies itself. I think one of the problems we've seen over the years, and the reason we have problems in some of our communities with infrastructure.... You know, to open a new sewer line is really not a glitzy event, is it? Nobody gets excited about turning the sod or cutting a ribbon for a new sewer line or waterline. It just doesn't have the sizzle that a new ice rink or swimming-pool has, so it really hasn't been given priority.

I look at some of the very substantial, expensive recreation facilities we have in my own community: a wonderful wave-action pool that cost $6 million or $7 million. That was really glitzy, lots of sizzle. We cut the ribbon, turned the sod and everybody thought it was great. But really, was it important to spend that amount of money on that facility, or should it have been put under the ground where nobody would have been able to see it? Nobody would have been excited about going to a grand opening of a sewage treatment plant.

Those are the areas to which local government has to start giving priority. I think many of them are, because many of them are having problems. When you say that we tinker with the formula, and there is no security, nothing reliable.... What can be more reliable than the revenue-sharing legislation this government has had in place for a good number of years, for goodness' sake? We're not left at the whim of a government, a cabinet, a Finance minister or a Treasury Board; we have a legitimate piece of legislation on the books that ensures regular, stable revenue every year to local government, dependent on the revenues of the province. That doesn't waver. The legislation is there, and we review it each year.

This year there was a substantial increase. You know, hon. second member for Victoria, that there has been a substantial increase this year in our revenue-sharing grants, not only in the unconditional,

[ Page 6622 ]

which went up 10 percent, but in the conditional. An additional $20 million will be going into our infrastructure programs, and $35 million has been allocated this year. That will see $70 million to $100 million worth of infrastructure work being done this year in local communities.

We don't go out, hon. member, and tell the communities what they should be doing; the applications come in to us. We believe in local autonomy. Local government tells us where they require help; we then. see what we can do to provide the help they require. Please, let's make the record very clear: we do have a plan, a program and stability. We're there to support the governments, but it's up to them to do their longterm planning, monitored by our ministry. Then we come forward with the financial assistance required in carrying out those long-term plans.

MR. BLENCOE: I am not saying that this minister hasn't tried to find some extra dollars for infrastructure; I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the impression that's given — I think it's a real one — is that it really is only scratching the surface in terms of the astronomical problems local governments face.

I know what the minister is saying: local government is autonomous, and they come forward with their priorities. The provincial government is the parent, if you will, of local government, and I think there is a major role to be played by Municipal Affairs, in conjunction with the UBCM and local government, in determining where the priorities are — which communities are really in critical need — rather than, as they do now, having them lining up and hoping to God they get support. They all fight like crazy and come down here and lobby like crazy, and hope they can knock on the minister's door first. That's like a lottery for rebuilding their municipalities.

What I am suggesting is that there is a critical role for Municipal Affairs to do a concrete study — the FCM has done some; I am sure the minister has done some — and really determine where the priorities are for local government. Which communities are in jeopardy this year? Which cannot wait? Work out a longterm strategy, so that every year...."We may get a little extra money this year; we may get some next year." Revenue-sharing can sometimes be a little up and down. I think it has to be money that we know is definitely going to come. This government can find millions and millions of dollars for its pet megaprojects - sometimes very questionable projects economically. These needs are not questionable; they are there.

I want to ask the minister: what studies has she done on behalf of the ministry? What priorities has she determined in terms of which communities are in real need, and how does she allocate those dollars? How does she determine who gets what? Is it the first one that gets in there, or is the ministry making a concerted effort to lay out a strategy in conjunction with UBCM? "There is the five-year plan. Here are the priorities. And we are going to commit the resources to do it. Within five to ten years, the infrastructure in British Columbia will be rebuilt, and those communities suffering economic downturn can really start to look for reinvestment from the captains of industry who are looking to healthy communities."

I want to see that the Municipal Affairs ministry is on the cutting edge of dealing with this issue, not just in a hodge-podge way waiting for those various municipalities, towns and villages to fight each other over who gets there first and gets a little slice of the pie. Let's have a megaproject, if you will, for local government. Let's have a commitment of $50 million, $100 million, $200 million over the next ten years for local government. We know it's money well spent, and that's what local government is looking for. This ministry should be on the cutting edge, working with UBCM, determining the priorities and laying out the strategy, so that everybody knows that in time they are going to get their sewers worked and their water systems rebuilt — based on ascertaining where the real priorities are in terms of time.

Some communities today cannot wait. We've got to have a plan. You can't work in the dark. You can't work on a grab-bag of priorities with: "Well, this year we'll pick this one" or "Well, we'll pick this one over here." Where's the plan to rebuild British Columbia? This minister has a responsibility. She says it hasn't any sizzle. But I think if it were done right, it would have a lot of sizzle, because people would see a commitment to local government to rebuild the communities. The industries that are looking to go elsewhere and looking to reinvest are going to say, "Hey, come to British Columbia," because there's a commitment to rebuild the communities that hasn't been made in other parts of North America. That's what we're looking for: some leadership from this government and this minister.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria suggests that the minister has a responsibility. There's no question about that. I take my responsibility very seriously, and my first responsibility is to this House, which is more than I can say for the second member for Victoria, who knew the estimates were up yesterday and he wasn't here. He was up in the Okanagan, knowing full well that the estimates were going to be dealt with. We have already canvassed this item, hon. second member for Victoria. We have gone over the infrastructure. We have gone over how programs and applications are prioritized. If you read the Blues, you will determine that there is an answer.

We have an interministry review committee to review the applications that come in. We have a 10-point scale to determine the priority on health and environmental impact. The awards are based on priorities, not random or first come, first served or whether it's a Socred or an NDP riding.

It would be far more appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if the second member for Victoria would get his priorities straight, rather than coming into the House late during the estimates and criticizing the minister for not being in the Okanagan where he was. The minis-

[ Page 6623 ]

ter was here doing the job that the two parties agreed was going to be done: discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But not the critic. He's up in the Okanagan meeting with the mayors. If he was here doing his job, he would have had the answers to those questions.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister is a little testy. She knows that this is a big issue. She may have committed the minister's views on what resources she's giving to local government, but I along with the minister have taken some time over the last year or two to discuss at length with many representatives of local government, and I can tell you that they're waiting for some leadership from this government. They're waiting for an infrastructure rebuilding program, with the government of British Columbia at the cutting edge. They're waiting for some leadership. I know that this minister over here wishes to consult with local government — and takes her direction from UBCM in so many ways — but sometimes when you're a minister, you've got to show some leadership. I'm waiting, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Ask another question; you're wasting time.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I'm not going to waste time, because this is a critical issue for you. I can tell you, I was in the Okanagan. I take my meetings at the local level seriously. I once again had the opportunity to talk to those representatives, consult and bring back their view to this Legislature. I represent that approach, and I am here to talk about those issues. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, local government wants this minister and this government to show some leadership. They want a plan. They want the ministry staff to really get their act together on this issue.

Can the minister tell me if she or her staff are currently working on an infrastructure rebuilding program — a strategy or a plan — that will lead us into the next century? We need a program clearly laid out, properly studied and analyzed with all the input from local government, so that we can show the UBCM, local government and those communities that they can expect in two or three years to get their water system revamped, or their sewer or storm drain system taken care of. Do we have that commitment from this government? I can assure you that's what we are waiting for, and that's what we need Can we expect a plan like that done in consultation with local government?

[11:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As the second member for Victoria knows, we did take an interministry inventory last year of the serious infrastructure problems that we had in the province. We identified the need to spend $226 million. We have gone a long way in the increase this year — the $20 million increase — to $35 million for the provincial contribution towards those improvements.

We have a program that will see, over less than five years, all of the very serious infrastructure problems in the province corrected, plus funding assistance to local government to allow them to open up new areas that they wish to see opened up within their own boundaries.

We have a very good program. We work with the Minister of Health and with the Ministry of Environment. I can assure you that my dealings with local government are far more extensive than those of the second member for Victoria. I am assured that with very few exceptions, they are very pleased, satisfied and delighted with the leadership being shown by this government and this ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering if the minister is aware that many villages in this province feel they are not getting the attention. Indeed, they have determined that at UBCM this year they are going to have a special section on the infrastructure needs of villages. They feel they are not getting the attention from this government. They are going to have to focus and call upon the government to recognize that they just can't carry on the same way they have for the last few years.

Is the minister prepared for this year's UBCM to lay out for local government a definite strategy for rebuilding infrastructure in the province? Has the minister got a rough estimate before her of what it is going to require to rebuild the infrastructure in the province? Has she got that broken down into towns, villages and municipalities? That's the sort of analysis we need to do. Can we assume or hope that by this September, those municipalities that are in crying need will have some answers from this government in terms of when their turn will come for rebuilding their infrastructure?

This is called planning; this is called long-range planning. A lot of it has to do with regional planning. In the last few years, this government has shown that it doesn't particularly like the concept of planning. We are just saying: "Let's plan a little; let's get the strategy laid out and let these villages know that they are going to be on the list very soon." Are they just going to have to wait, hope and pray that some action will take place? I may be carrying on a little with this, but this issue keeps coming back to our side of the House.

Can we expect some real strategy and determined plans? Those communities have indicated to the minister — and to me — that they are in dire need; they need to be given some time horizons and some indications that we will get to their problems in the next few years, or at least that they will be on the list.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The communities that are in dire need will know the allotments before the end of this month — not September.

MR. BLENCOE: I am going to leave this for now and indicate that we are still waiting for and hope — perhaps the minister could take it on advisement — to have the kind of strategy that I have laid out.

[ Page 6624 ]

I want to talk now about regional planning, which is also very much tied in to the problem of infrastructure. We all know — I don't have to go over it in detail — that this government, in its wisdom back in 1983, abandoned the concept of regional planning. Since then, we have been feeling the results. I think we all know that particularly in large municipalities that are contiguous to each other, there is a need for an overall comprehensive approach to planning those regions. I know that in my own community there's been some excellent analysis done, and we really need to get back and reintroduce the concept of regional planning. Yesterday my colleague from Vancouver East asked the minister if anything was in the works to bring back the important concept of regional planning, and the minister said there's nothing as yet.

All the evidence is in. Municipalities and regional districts are calling for the ability to have a process whereby municipalities in a region talk to each other, plan on a regional basis and lay out a regional strategy. For instance, in the Capital Regional District we have ten mayors, ten municipalities, ten administrators, 27 fire departments and 2,420 square kilometres with no overall planning vision. It was disbanded, killed, by Mr. Ritchie, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs. Thank goodness he has departed this House.

The capital region is a classic example of no cohesive mechanism to plan for growth. We have a balkanization of ten municipalities who are doing their own thing with little reference to each other in terms of an overall plan and strategy, a vision, for the region.

This region is becoming more and more complex. The population is growing dramatically. We have significant transportation problems, like any other large region. We have environmental and sewage problems and pressures on agricultural land that are going to require a regional approach. If we're going to deal with growth, we have to have that regional approach to the issue. We have to have population projections. We have to have analysis of where we're going in terms of where the industries will be located. What are the key environmental issues that have to be tackled on a regional basis?

Quite frankly, I found the minister's answer yesterday somewhat lacking. She's heard from regional and local governments that they really do want this kind of comprehensive, cohesive planning process permitted again in the province of British Columbia. I want to ask the minister today: what work is she doing to ensure that we get this approach back? Without it, we're going to have municipalities dealing with growth without relating to each other, instead of working out their problems on a regional basis, ascertaining who's going to do what in economic issues and environmental issues. It's a real gap in terms of what's happening in planning in the province of British Columbia. I know the word planning is not a pleasant word to this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not glitzy.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not glitzy. It doesn't have any sizzle, I suppose. But it is very important in terms of rationally planning for growth, economic initiatives and, of course, the issues of today, like environmental issues, which have to be developed on a regional basis.

Yesterday the minister said that she had nothing in the works. I wonder if she would reconsider that position, given the needs out there?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't believe that the needs are out there for regional districts to have legislation that permits them to regulate. They already have authority to collect data and bring forward these strategies and perform studies and coordinate planning on behalf of their consenting members. What they can't do, though, is to regulate. Why should they have to regulate? They can, in a cooperative way, coordinate planning that their consenting members wish to undertake.

I would suggest that the second member for Victoria really doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, I will send those remarks to the regional areas, because they will once again see that this minister is not prepared — with a philosophical, dogmatic approach — to deal with the issue of regional planning. For instance, we've got evidence here in this region where it's reported that entrepreneurs and developers are coming from other parts of the country requiring zoning information or regional planning information, which we don't have, and they are referred to ten different municipalities for information. There's no legislative requirement for cooperation.

The minister can say: "Well, if they want to do it, they can do it." But this is the area of leadership. The lack of leadership in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is overwhelming. I suggest to the minister that this is why we have a Ministry of Municipal Affairs: you have to have an overall view of the needs of local government.

The government disbanded regional planning for some very vague.... Well, I don't want to go into the reasons why, but at the time it was to do with Spetifore lands, etc.

There's great frustration in many of these regions, particularly for entrepreneurs who want to have a regional plan, who want to know that there is a regional strategy and that they don't have to deal with ten municipal governments, rather than have a regional approach to these kinds of issues. The minister said in the last estimates, I thought, that she was working on this issue. Obviously not, and we're going to continue to have the balkanization of local government without any cohesive regional plan to develop for growth.

If there was ever a need for a proper response to the growth problems, it's right there in Vancouver. I think that the minister, rather than hope that local government and those umpteen municipalities that

[ Page 6625 ]

are contiguous to each other might get together to talk over their issues.... I think we need a little leadership in this area and a return to the regional planning concept. Make sure it happens in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It clearly identifies the philosophical difference that we have. What the second member for Victoria is suggesting is that we somehow legislate and insist and force regional districts into planning as a group, as a large body. I said earlier and I'll say again that we believe in local autonomy. If local government members of a regional district wish to work together in a voluntary way to prepare plans that can be made available to the public, they are at liberty to do so. The regional district does not have the legislative authority to regulate. What the second member for Victoria is suggesting is that we bring in legislation that would force regional districts to collectively plan the areas within their region. We are not prepared to do that. That change was made some years ago, and I believe that the options for voluntary cooperative planning are in place and that they are very adequate.

[12:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware that when regional planning was cancelled, regional districts requested unanimously that that not happen? Is the minister aware that the level of support from regional government for the regional planning concept was overwhelming? Is she aware of that? Maybe the minister has forgotten, Mr. Chairman, but I recall vividly that UBCM and all those regional governments put to the minister at the time unanimous support for regional planning. Now she's trying to turn it around, saying this is a philosophical difference. We say it's not a philosophical difference. It makes sense to have that overall vision for a region. If we aren't going to rationally plan for growth and plan it out in a cohesive way with those municipalities that make up that region, that's why we get into all the problems we have, especially in our urban areas. The minister just doesn't remember the level of support there was for regional planning in British Columbia. Is she prepared to enter into discussions with the UBCM and those who represent regional government to investigate if there is some way that she could accept the regional planning concept return in the province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We are always open to discussions with the UBCM on any matter.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave that, because we aren't going to get any further. I want to move on. I assume that the new regional district legislation is coming forward in this session. I just wanted to canvass something that I think is important in terms of regional districts and the concept that has been put to me at a number of locations I have traveled to. That is, many of our regions have distinct differences and problems that they face. Our regional legislation tends to be a universal approach to regional districts

I am wondering if there has been any discussion or thought about having regional district policies specifically that deal with urban issues and legislation that deals with those urban regional districts, and having a different approach for rural or more up-country regional districts, and having some regional district policies that reflect the kind of differences that are present between the various provincial districts we have in the province.

What I have suggested — and I don't believe any work has gone into this — is that we may need to regionalize our policy on regional district legislation rather than having an overall universal legislation that the minister, I think, is bringing forward. What work has gone into looking at...?

MR. MESSMER: You got the word out — regionalize.

MR. BLENCOE: Regionalize. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. This is the sizzle word, is it? I think the minister knows exactly what I'm getting at.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm absolutely delighted that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has finally recognized the value of the regionalization program that was instituted by this government.

I would suggest that the question would refer to future legislation that should not be a matter for discussion here today.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize that we are expecting legislation, but I just wanted to get it on record. There are times when it comes to me that there is a feeling in some of these more remote, rural, central northern districts that so much legislation is put forward that really has the lower mainland and the capital region as its base. The member for the Okanagan Similkameen area knows what I'm referring to. Down the road, I think we're going to have to take a look in our legislation at recognizing those particular unique differences and developing legislation that reflects their concerns and the things they have to deal with.

Much of our municipal legislation in the past has really reflected urban or semi-urban situations. I have to admit that I come from an urban area, the capital region, and I am not as versed as some of my colleagues on both sides of the House on these issues. We have a lot to learn from each other. Even Mr. Chairman, I'm sure, has some views on this particular issue. I guess the theme should be that it's time for downtown British Columbia to meet the rest of the province not just in a rhetorical sense but actually in a legislative sense, and that's the issue I'm trying to get at.

I want to move on to reflect a little bit on the minister’s views on this. The minister is no longer a minister of state, but she knows the minister of state concept well and has had some dealings with it. She knows that local government has to deal with it daily, but I'm not going to get into the past concerns that have been expressed about it. There remain some apprehensions and frustration. I know local government

[ Page 6626 ]

— again, I pick this up — wonder how many more committees they're going to have to attend and hope that they can get back to taking care of their communities.

I've made a suggestion, and I'm wondering if the minister would comment upon this. We have five municipal associations — one I just attended very recently in the Kootenays. I've always felt — and I've discussed this with those associations and their presidents — that they really are an untapped source of information and a useful tool for helping us develop our regions.

I take a look at the minister-of-state system, the bureaucracy that has been created around that and the cost of millions of dollars for that bureaucracy. And I see in each region these municipal associations that are representative of all the municipalities and regional districts within their region. I just wonder why we can't formalize some relationship with those regional associations. Do we really need the expensive, cumbersome bureaucratic ministers of state?

This is a proposal I have suggested for discussion. Maybe we should take a look at those regional associations rather than set up another bureaucracy of the ministers of state and have our various key ministries or staff allocated to work with those regional associations, to say to them: "Look, here's six months or three months or whatever. Take a look, with your regional association because they're elected, at the needs of your region and directly input into the appropriate ministry for action." It just strikes me that we're missing the boat. We've got an opportunity, I think, to abandon the minister-of-state system, which — let's face it — has been a bit of a failure. I agree there have been some successes, but it's not working the way I suppose the government intended. Local government officials are greatly frustrated that they have to continue going to these committees, but that when it comes down to it, the decision is really still made by the line minister.

Again, maybe Municipal Affairs could show some leadership in this area. Has the minister and her staff given some thought to those regional associations being the organizations that work with the provincial government? You may want to second some of your staff from Municipal Affairs or other ministries to work with those associations to develop a plan and a strategy for their needs based on the meetings that the regional associations have, and then to directly input those ideas into the appropriate government ministries. Then you don't need the ministers of state and a bureaucracy. I know the minister is well versed on those municipal associations, and I think she has an opportunity to show some leadership in this area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe the government did show leadership when it introduced the regionalization process and the minister-of-state program. The suggestion just brought forward by the second member for Victoria is that the minister-of-state program deals solely with local government issues. The minister-of-state proposal does not deal solely with local or regional government issues; it deals with issues that are far broader. If the member would look at the makeup of most of the committees, he could assure himself that there is representation on the various regional minister-of-state committees from each of the regional associations.

The local government representatives that have taken the time to discuss the minister-of-state program with me feel very comfortable with it. They didn't at first, and nobody can argue that; but the longer they are in the program, and the more involved they become in it, the more comfortable and satisfied they are. The indications I have are that they're very pleased with the additional input they have as far as their concerns being taken directly to the cabinet table. There has been some fine-tuning, but the program is working very well, thank you; and the governing body, the minister of state for each of the areas, is doing a fine job in involving everyone who really should be involved — and that goes beyond just locally elected officials.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to pursue that, I think it's instructive for the committee to know that the reason the member has to ask that question is because the NDP MLAs were invited to attend ministry-of-state committees but declined to do so. Had they become involved, as mayors and aldermen throughout the province have done, they would know the answer to that question. However, their decision was to decline, and if they want to absent themselves from the real role they could be playing in their community, that is entirely up to them.

Let me just add to what my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has said with respect to the involvement of local government and local government associations with ministers of state. The minister and I, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a minister of state, had the good fortune to attend a northern development meeting in Kitimat last spring, where we pointed out that ministers of state were a creation of cabinet. It was a way of organizing our provincial government administration. If local municipal bodies such as the NDC, regional districts, councils, any sort of municipal association, wished to liaise with us in any sort of body or form of government, they certainly could. That comment was well met and well accepted. In the case of the NDC, we had some meetings recently under the chairmanship of His Worship Len Fox, the mayor of Vanderhoof, and those have worked out very well. I think it's instructive that the committee know that.

I'll close by repeating that had the NDP become involved in this system they would already know the answer. It's regrettable that they've neglected to show any interest in municipal government.

[12:15]

MR. BLENCOE: The minister knows the history behind the establishment of the ministers of state. I really don't want to take a lot of time to go over that, but suffice it to say that the system was foisted on local government. They were not consulted. They have to participate because it's the name of the game

[ Page 6627 ]

right now. Obviously, local government has to participate in something a senior government introduces; they have no choice. If they had been consulted about an approach to deal with downtown British Columbia meeting the rest of the province, I don't think they would have recommended a multimillion dollar bureaucracy and more committees. I suggest they would have said: "Why don't you use the existing" — as I've suggested — "regional organizations that we've established which work well, which know their regions well, without putting millions of dollars into another bureaucracy?" I don't have the figures in front of me, but you know how much it was: the initial $13 million to start, was it? and then added on after that. How much money do you need to contact local regional people? How much does a phone call cost? How much is a stamp now — 39 cents, or whatever it is?

When the minister talks about respecting local autonomy, we would have been much happier if the local government had been asked first what kind of structure would be useful.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We told them they could have anything they wanted.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to get into a debate with my friend from Prince George, but I recall vividly that when the Premier announced the minister of-state system at UBCM, both the Leader of the Opposition and I asked the then president, Mr. Dan Cumming: "Do you know anything about this?" "No. Never consulted. We don't know anything about this at all."

Local government would probably have had some other ideas for developing a liaison system with the regions, one which would have been a little less cumbersome, a little less "committeeized" — a horrible use of language. In many of these so-called states there are umpteen committees, and I still sense a high degree of frustration. I have suggested a system to streamline it which costs far less, and that would be to set up a formal relationship with the regional associations.

Rather than running around reinventing the wheel, as the member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) said at last year's municipal association in the Kootenays.... "We're really reinventing the wheel here," he said. Of course, all the local government people just laughed. They said: "Hey, we know what's going on. just talk to us. Don't out of the blue put another level of bureaucracy on top of us and tell us we're going to create a myriad of other committees, when we've already got a regional association with various committees." Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? It would have cost a handful of dollars to do that, instead of the millions currently being spent on the minister-of-state system.

This side of the House wants to be efficient and lean in terms of the public dollars and also wants to introduce a system developed in consultation with local government. The minister over there is....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to get into the real reasons why we have this bureaucracy. We've covered that extensively in this House before.

I'm trying to canvass a very sensible idea. You have the regional associations. If you bothered to think about it before you set up those ministers of state, and wanted to create jobs, the Minister of Municipal Affairs could have had staff within her ministry work directly with each of those regional associations and take the time and effort to ask them to develop the strategies for their regions and then straight into the line ministries. Right now you have an incredible bureaucracy, and we all know that any decision that's going to be made in a critical area still has to go the line ministry for a decision. The minister may make some mumblings about.... I won't say what she said. I think we're talking about a very appropriate, reasonable approach to dealing with regional issues rather than a bureaucracy, which we continue to have in the province of British Columbia.

I don't know if the minister wishes to respond. Shall I move on to another topic?

Mr. Chairman, I will just say that we will be sharing that concept with local government. I've bounced it by a number of people already. We are prepared in the next few months to develop those liaisons with regional associations, looking to the future and getting their ideas of what is necessary to ensure that downtown British Columbia finally meets the rest of the province.

I want to move on to the Islands Trust, very quickly. I touched on the Islands Trust yesterday, Mr. Chairman, vis-à-vis the private logging issue. But there remain a number of concerns on the islands in terms of development and growth. In particular, one issue that's come to my attention is the current state of affairs on Galiano, where we know that MacMillan Bloedel has considerable holdings. They have established on that island a forest and land use council to try to determine the future and work out some long-range plans,

MacMillan Bloedel wishes, I believe, to develop a resort on Galiano at Coon Bay, which has created a number of concerns on the island. It's not just the development, of course; it's also the issue of clearcut logging and that sort of thing. There is a feeling that the forest and land use council that was established really isn't getting the support from the provincial government it should have in trying to work out these kinds of issues.

I wonder if the minister is on top of this issue. Is she or her staff watching the Galiano situation with interest? Can we — the public, the community, the citizens on Galiano — be assured that the objectives of the forest and land use council will be upheld, and that suddenly we won't get some major development announced by the government or by MacMillan Bloedel that really would be counterproductive in terms of the objectives of the residents of Galiano?

[ Page 6628 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, we have ministry staff seconded to the Islands Trust, and they are working with the Islands Trust people on this issue, along with others.

MR. BLENCOE: That really doesn't give much assurance to those on Galiano. There is a distinct feeling that the forest and land use council is being brushed aside and is not going to have much impact on future development on the island. I want the minister to assure us this morning that it is not the case, and that the forest and land use council will be treated with respect, allowed to come forward with its suggestions — I understand MacMillan Bloedel own in fee simple about 56 percent of Galiano Island — and allowed to do its work properly, and won't be ignored when it gets its recommendations together.

Obviously, I'm not going to get any further on that issue. I want to stick to the Islands Trust.

I've lost track of the time; there was a review of the Islands Trust. It had extensive public input. The report that came out of the standing committee chaired by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) basically recommended a regional district. This side of the House, and I as municipal affairs critic, responded to that in fair detail. To simplify the issue, we said we felt the report by that member and the regional district concept would have undermined the Trust and in time would have seen it disbanded.

I'm wondering if the minister can assure us or give us any indication today where she's going with the Islands Trust. Can we look forward to some strengthening of their decision-making abilities? Do they have a very bright future in terms of governing the islands?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Considering the rules on the provisions of legislation, Madam Minister, please proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: About the only part of the question I'm free to answer is to tell you that they do have a bright future.

MR. BLENCOE: I can take hope from that, then, that we have shelved the report that came out of the standing committee and are now looking at strengthening the Islands Trust in terms of its governing ability. That would certainly be welcomed by those who are, I think, sincere and honest, and who work very hard for the islands and those representatives of the Islands Trust. We will wait for the legislation on that.

I want to move on to an issue that has come to my attention and the minister's, a project of the British Columbia Coalition of the Disabled: their plan for access. The minister is aware of it, because they have written to her and prepared a brief to municipalities; I'm sure the minister or her staff has it. The issue at stake for them is that they would like to see the establishment of a provincial access consultant position in the building standards branch. I'm sure the minister has met with them, and I have met with them. Obviously they also want to see systematic enforcement of the Building Code for the disabled and are hoping that the minister would support them in their endeavours to at least expand the consultation process on the Building Code. They would also like to see increased enforcement of code violations.

I'm wondering whether the minister has any response, whether she is considering the establishment of an access consultant in her ministry and what generally the ministry is doing to ensure those who are disabled that Code violations are taken care of and there's increased enforcement. It's a growing area of concern, and one that I'm sure the minister is very much interested in.

[12:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suspect that if the member for Victoria has followed my political career at all, he would realize that nothing has a higher priority in my mind than access and accommodating the disabled. We do not as a ministry, though, enforce the code; that is left up to the local inspection services.

I have to admit that I have no clear recollection of the correspondence you referred to. I'm not saying the correspondence isn't there, but I would just have to check with staff and refresh my mind on that one. I don't recollect the items you have mentioned. It may be helpful if you would provide me with a copy. The comments and suggestions you have made don't trouble me. I see no reason why — through staff — we couldn't work with them to come to some accommodation.

MR. BLENCOE: It does say "my correspondence." I will provide you with the background. It does say: "Plan A for Access has asked the provincial government to establish a provincial access consultant position in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs." I'll leave it at that. I thought they had met with senior staff.

I have met with them and gone over their ideas. I know that already within the ministry there is — I forget the gentleman's name — someone who works extremely hard in this area of advising municipalities on codes. I've known him for a long time. Isn't that terrible? His name has escaped me.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Robertson?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, that's the name. I will send that to you.

I want to move on to a couple of other issues that have come to my attention about local government.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You've cleared all your own members out of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I believe my colleague from Surrey did have something she wished to address today. Do you want to do that now?

[ Page 6629 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to thank the Minister of Social Services for bringing that to the member's attention.

I have a couple of things that I want to ask the minister about. First of all.... The minister and I have talked about this, along with the local council: the impact of growth on our municipality and the need for some recognition and support from the provincial government to deal with that growth — not only in specific services like education, recreation, hospitals and so on, but also on the basic funding. There's a need to recognize that growth costs additional money and that some of the costs of that growth fall on the residents or the taxpayers of the municipality. I would argue that the taxpayers should not bear the brunt of growth that benefits the whole of the province and the lower mainland.

I would like the minister to comment, first of all, on whether or not you have been able to look at that and in some way recognize the need for additional funds or additional attention for the municipality, and then I will continue with some of my other issues.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, we do recognize growth in our formula. The funding assistance from the provincial government is not intended to pay all of the costs and all of the bills related to growth. Surrey this year received $8.2 million by way of unconditional grants. That is almost a million dollars more than they received last year, and it represents our recognition of the growth that is taking place in that community.

You also know that there have been — and I don't have all of the numbers; you could get them from some of the other ministers — millions of dollars spent on the expansion of our hospital, and there will be more for the next phase. Just recently there was another announcement from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) to do with, I believe, something like $28 million worth of additional capital funding for schools in our community.

There is a recognition that growth costs money. It costs the province in responsibilities for hospitals, schools and provincial highways. The unconditional grants that are taken from the revenue-sharing fund went up this year. Surrey's increase was more than 10 percent. As I say, they received $8.2 million this year to do with as they see fit, no strings attached.

There are then other areas of assistance. You were present when there was a cheque for in excess of half a million given to Surrey to help them with the improvements to the track at Bear Creek Park. The Surrey Summer Games will be costing the province something like $800,000. Those Games alone will see more than $1 million of provincial money placed into that municipality. There are a lot of other areas; I don't have all the grants off the top of my mind, but the growth of that community is recognized. It is truly recognized in the only way that we have available to us: through unconditional grants and grants for recreational services that funding is applied for.

MS. SMALLWOOD: First of all, I'd like to say that I don't believe any of us understands the full impact of the growth that we have been experiencing on the infrastructure, and the stresses that are brought about to the municipality through the costs of planning these facilities and all the rest of it.

While the minister points out that the government is recognizing the need to support our municipality, I suggest that some of that support has been brought about only by the hard work of — for instance — parents lobbying for schools. We'll talk more about the school budget and the need for recognition of the growth factor within the Ministry of Education. I don't intend to do that at this point.

I thoroughly canvassed the issue of Surrey Memorial Hospital during the Health estimates. I am sure that if the minister looks at the facts, she will see that the recognition is coming after the fact, rather than dealing with the reality that people face now. As we learn more about the impact of the growth at the municipal level, we too will find that there is need for additional attention there. I'm hoping that recognition will come as we continue to pay attention to the needs.

The minister talks about the recreation aspect of her responsibility and the B.C. Summer Games that are being brought to the municipality. It's my hope that those games will be successful, and that the support given to the municipality to make those games successful will be lasting support. However, having met with some of the community groups trying to deal with some of those mundane aspects of daily life in parenting, like where the kids are going to play ball, where the soccer fields are going to be and whether the kids are going to be sloshing around in water or not, I would hope the minister would, with her responsibility, have an eye to that reality too. What is happening in our municipality is that kids don't have a place to play. As the municipality explodes and bursts at the seams and more and more children are brought to our community~ we're going to have a serious problem.

I met with the Guildford Park softball and soccer athletic association, and I was able to organize a meeting with the municipal council. I was really struck by the very simple requests they had, low-dollar requests, but still requests that parks and rec, and the council were unable to deal with because they are so far behind the eight ball because of the huge growth and because they have not had the tools available to them to be able to plan in advance some of the recreational fields needed.

I'm hoping the minister will acknowledge the complexity of growth: not only the need for funding and how some of those funding pressures are not always identified but end up in the dollars and cents at the end of the day, but the need to provide for the necessary empowerment of local governments to deal with school and park sites and to be able to in some way act proactively.

We know that Surrey and municipalities like ours are the only areas that can provide for some of the growth in the years to come. We know that there will

[ Page 6630 ]

be a need for school sites. We know that there will be a need for park sites. We have to deal with those now rather than after all the subdivisions are in place. I would ask the minister to comment on whether or not she is looking for ways to deal with those needs proactively, some way of empowering municipalities to do so before the fact rather than after the fact, hopefully, besides the existing cost-sharing; exploring with municipalities where the costs are and if some support can come from the province.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is substantial assistance already provided from the provincial government, but as I said earlier, the responsibility really lies squarely on the shoulders of local government. Growth is financed in three ways: by the present residents in the community, through their taxes; by future residents, by way of the development cost charges that the developer has to pay; and by the province through grants. This ministry does not have funding for capital projects. So if we're looking at requirements for any recreational facilities, that is what the new Go B.C. program is intended to address. We understand that, particularly in the growth communities, there is a problem, and there are problems in some of the smaller communities as well. That was the intention of the Go B.C. program. It's not something we have provision for in our ministry, as far as capital assistance for recreational programs goes.

Surrey will be faced with the costs of growth for a good many years. I feel certain that the province will continue to help in as many ways as it possibly can, but when all is said and done, it's going to come down to user-pay, and the local taxpayer is going to have to accept the decisions made by the local mayor and council. It's up them to prioritize their needs. I think you would probably agree with me that the items given the highest priority over the years by Surrey council have not always, in my mind, been the ones that should have had highest priority.

[12:45]

1 would move, Mr. Chairman, that we 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: I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant weekend and remind members that we'll sit at the normal time on Monday. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.