[ Page 6631 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Harcourt –– 6631

Polar 8. Mr. Sihota 6632

Activation of Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

Mr. Kempf –– 6633

Municipal Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 19). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6633

Presenting Reports –– 6633

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

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6633

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Perry

Ms. Marzari

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Barlee

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I am very pleased and privileged to have four cousins visiting from Noordwijkerhout, Holland. They are all members of the Warmerdam family, which is certainly a well-known family in Noordwijkerhout. There are a good many of them, and they are all related. With us today are Wirn Warmerdam, his wife Gerry Warmerdam, Miss Betts Warmerdam and her brother Theo Warmerdam. I would ask the House to extend them all a big welcome.

MR. RABBITT: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), I would like the House to welcome 35 grade 11 students from George P. Vanier Secondary School and Highland Secondary School in the Comox Valley. They are hosted by Fletcher Challenge and accompanied by Norma Rankin from the Courtenay Fletcher Challenge office and two teachers, Ms. Baumgartner and Mr. Delbert Doll. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Visiting from the great riding of Okanagan South today we have Dr. Erv Schill and his family. Dr. Schill is the chairman of the board of trustees of School District 23. On behalf of the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Environment. A week ago today I was alarmed to hear the minister announce that an energy project certificate for the gas pipeline through the Coquitlam watershed would soon be issued. Will the minister assure this House that the government will take seriously the concerns of the 18 lower mainland mayors and will not be issuing a project certificate until a new route has been thoroughly investigated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Leader of the Opposition's problems, I guess, emanate from believing everything he reads in the Province newspaper, which is a fatal flaw in politics.

To begin with, the story that he mentioned last week was a result of a statement I made a week ago yesterday when I was asked about the timing of the energy certificate. I said that the certificate is initiated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) and cosigned by the Minister of Environment, and when it was issued the Ministry of Environment would look at the details of the certificate and then approve it or not approve it. When asked about timing, I said: "Well, it could happen this week." That was what I think the Province got onto, and inadvertently advised their readers that the whole process was imminent. I was speaking in the hypothetical sense as opposed to giving any date.

With respect to the events of last week, the member should be aware that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources met with the 18 mayors of the GVRD last Tuesday morning and had a long and candid discussion, and from that meeting decided that officials would review the watershed route and other possible routes, and until such time as that review had been done, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would not contemplate issuing a certificate. That's the status of the issue at this point.

That was known to the member last Tuesday afternoon — at least it was known to the rest of the public — but I thank him for his question today. It's a little late, but thanks for asking.

MR. HARCOURT: To the Minister of Environment. Pacific Coast Energy has offered to reroute the pipeline up Indian Arm if the government agrees to pick up most of the extra costs. What discussions has the government had with Pacific Coast concerning the financing of a new route up Indian Arm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I couldn't advise you of that, Mr. Member. You would have to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He discusses routing; my job is environment.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm astounded by the minister's glib response. The route has everything to do with environment, Mr. Minister. It's clear that this government's stubbornness in ramming this pipeline through is going to jeopardize the federal funding for this pipeline. I want to know if the government is now prepared to avoid the Coquitlam watershed and move ahead with technical work — environmental and otherwise — on the Indian Arm route. Yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have a more complicated question here. There's lots to be answered here. The Leader of the Opposition seems upset that I'm not totally up to speed on the economies of different routes. I can assure him that another ministry does that, in terms of looking at what a route may cost. Of course, that information would have to be relayed back to the B.C. Utilities Commission, because they have to assess what the end cost is going to be to the person purchasing the gas.

[2:15]

With respect to the environment, I think the jury is out on that one. First of all, let's have it for the record that this pristine Coquitlam watershed that everybody is so concerned about is not all that pristine. There is quite a bit of logging activity going on there, and there has been for some time. There's a logging road in there traversed by diesel logging trucks every day, and there's logging going on. The pipeline is

[ Page 6632 ]

going to be on the upside of the logging road from the lake itself, and every environmental test that we've put to that construction shows us that the route is environmentally sound.

AN HON MEMBER: How big is the line?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The line is about one foot, as I recall. The Indian Arm route may not be so environmentally sound. It's going through stone. There is some damage that would certainly take place to the appearance of Indian Arm if that pipeline proceeded along that route. I'm not so sure that that would be the best way to go, from the point of view of the Ministry of Environment. If we were to balance the two, from a straight environmental standpoint you'd find that the watershed routing is environmentally safer and better.

POLAR 8

MR. SIHOTA: Despite assurances from the Premier to the contrary and despite the dispatching of Mr. Rhodes and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to Ottawa, it now turns out that British Columbia is on the wrong end in terms of the Polar 8 project being delayed for a year. Could the Premier tell this House whether he has now done what we asked him to do before: to pick up the phone and tell Brian Mulroney that B.C. wants that Polar 8 contract now and that a full year's wait is not appropriate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this morning there was something on the news about a Member of Parliament from the area I believe the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew represents as well, Mr. Dave Barrett, saying that he would raise this in the House and make a bit of a ruckus and, hopefully, accomplish something to be done immediately.

We had the question period monitored, and apparently nothing was said. However, we certainly do appreciate all of the help we can get, because I can assure you that if there's one body of people that is concerned about getting this job for the people in the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia, it's the Social Credit members on this side. We have fought for this particular project. We did gain the project for the province. Now, we understand, there has been a delay caused, and we're attempting to get further information from the minister. As a matter of fact, we did send a fax this morning to Benoit Bouchard to get further clarification, to determine why the delay and to get from him a commitment that in fact the project will proceed.

I've also received from our office in Ottawa some information. I think it's always good to get some background information before you do — as is suggested by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — get on the phone and give the Prime Minister a blast. In our business, Mr. Member, we have to deal with these people on an ongoing basis. You don't spoil reasonably good relationships with individuals in government by, as you suggest, getting on the phone and giving them a blast. We're trying to work this out. We did get from our Ottawa office a message with respect to what they think are the reasons for the delay. And we're getting some further information on this as well.

Obviously the financial situation in Ottawa is a concern. They do have financial problems. If we had a socialist government in B.C., we'd have the same problems. We realize that they have this financial problem, but we would argue with Ottawa that delaying the project is not good economics because it will cost more next year, obviously. Secondly, we understand that a sale of the shipyard to Shieldings Inc. is potentially in the works. They claim that this may be a factor in it all, and I'm hoping to get clarification from the minister in Ottawa. Thirdly, there's some design certification phase that's not yet complete, and we're looking to hear further from them to get clarification on that particular point as well.

I repeat: we as a government want that project in the province. We are moving to create further jobs for people in the shipbuilding industry with the building of new ferries, and there isn't a government in this country that has done more for the shipbuilding industry than the Social Credit government of British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA: At the federal level, the Premier is a 98-pound weakling, a little pip-squeak. They're not listening to you, Mr. Premier. They're not listening to your government when it comes to federal contracts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says we've done more than anybody else for the shipbuilding industry. A question to the Premier: is the government prepared to announce here today that it will accelerate its ferry construction program in order to make sure that this industry remains viable on the west coast?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We've already made our announcements with respect to the ferries. There is a lot of work ongoing right now which we know will lead to further jobs in the shipbuilding industry. I would ask the member if he, as the member for a constituency which obviously is directly affected, instead of attempting to make politics and headlines out of this particular issue, will work with us to get those jobs in Esquimalt.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to tell the Premier, I've done more than just fax one letter over there. The members opposite are a little ashamed to know that on this side of the House we did make sure it was raised in Ottawa this morning. We were on the phone at 7:30 this morning talking to all the bureaucrats involved. We were talking to them on Friday. We're doing more than you've been doing.

[ Page 6633 ]

All we're asking is for the Premier to demonstrate his government's commitment to the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia. If you're not prepared to accelerate the ferry construction program, will you then agree to proceed with the construction of another SeaBus to provide some ongoing work to the shipbuilding industry here in B.C.? Will you do what you can in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have already proceeded to put the expansion of the ferry fleet, the ferry system, into effect. That's not to say that we can suddenly run out, as the member is suggesting, and let a contract today. There's work that needs to be done before we can get to that point.

ACTIVATION OF SELECT STANDING
COMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND LANDS

MR. KEMPF: Question to the Premier. It being several weeks now since standing committees of this House were selected, and given the chaotic state of our forest industry in British Columbia, can the Premier tell the House if he has decided to direct his Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) to move a motion activating the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the former Minister of Forests will remember, the Premier doesn't direct his ministers to do a particular thing; we work together to accomplish what's best for all citizens of the province. Having said that, I would like to provide the member with this information: we are very aggressively working with the industry, and with all people affected by the future of forestry in the province, to come up with solutions. I appreciate the fact that the committee will obviously lend a great deal in that regard as well, and I would hope that it could meet as quickly as possible.

MR. KEMPF: Things must have changed an awful lot in that cabinet in the last two years. Hopefully we've turned over a new leaf.

I have another question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we can hear some more gobbledegook about ministers directing their own ministries. Has the Premier also decided to overrule his Minister of Forests, directing him to include, under the purview of the committee, an investigation of the practices of the Vancouver log market?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Isn't it wonderful how the member one day stands up and criticizes me for the things he's now asking to be done? I can tell the member again that the minister will, after due consideration of all the information he's receiving from people in the industry — members of the IWA, the truck loggers, the small loggers and the contract loggers — make the appropriate decisions for the betterment of the industry.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 19 contains a comprehensive revision of part 24 of the Municipal Act, which concerns the role of the regional district as an instrument of local democracy. The amendments will provide regional districts with greater autonomy, flexibility, fiscal responsibility, representation and accountability. The proposed legislation is the product of two years plus of consultation and consensus building. It is wholly endorsed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would like to present two reports. I have the audited financial statements of the B.C. Steamship Company for the year ended December 31, 1988, in accordance with section 65(7) of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act. I also have the honour to present a statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, in accordance with section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

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

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I want to bring up a very important issue this afternoon with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. This is an area in which I think the minister has the power to take some action post-haste — immediately — as an emergency is happening in the lower mainland.

Vancouver is currently going through a terrible housing crisis. We have demolitions and evictions every single day, and very little is being done by the provincial government to give local government the power to deal with this issue. There are very few ways within the Municipal Act that a local council can deem there to be an emergency, a crisis, in their community.

We believe, as council does in Vancouver, that the demolitions, the evictions, the conversions to condominiums and the thousands of units being lost....

[ Page 6634 ]

The latest UBC report that came out on Friday basically states that the numbers are there; there's accuracy in terms of the affordable housing that is being demolished. The province cannot keep up. More condominiums are being converted and demolished than are being built annually provincewide.

I believe that the provincial government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, should deem that there is an emergency in the lower mainland and give councils the direct power to pass a moratorium on demolitions of affordable rental accommodation. It is time for action from this provincial government. The minister should indicate today that we've seen it long enough. Is the minister prepared to ensure that local councils can pass emergency bylaws freezing demolitions — a moratorium on demolitions at least till there is a vacancy rate, to ensure that we get enough affordable housing built, particularly in the lower mainland?

MR. ROGERS: I think it is absurd for the member for Victoria to suggest for a minute that we freeze the destruction of buildings. The city of Vancouver has already proposed an ample way of returning some of the profits from some of these projects. To freeze things in time reminds me of some actions taken by your side when you were government, which caused great chaos in the market.

However, I would like to speak about the minister's estimates.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS: You should have been here.

MR. MILLER: I was here.

MR. ROGERS: You weren't here.

Mr. Chairman, the point I would like to make to the minister is the issue of what is called the board-of-variance program. Throughout the province, whether it be in the city of Vancouver or in other municipalities, where a citizen has come to a stall, I would say, with municipal planners, he has the option of appearing before a board of variance to discuss his special case, which may not fall under the rules of the local zoning.

The system works very well. There are very few complaints about it. I would like to compliment the minister and those who sit on the board of variance, because it's a pretty dull and monotonous job, but it has to be done by somebody, and they do it with great dedication.

There is, however, one part of the province that has no variance possibility: within the Islands Trust. Anybody who has a property or a building within the Islands Trust must comply strictly to their rules, and the Islands Trust rules are not applicable or not practical in all cases. The Islands Trust, for example, will now refuse to allow someone whose home is in disrepair — it may have been a cottage at one time — to demolish it and build a similar building of exactly the same square footage. To me that seems quite unfair.

I appreciate that the Islands Trust is an elected, independent body, but they don't have.... So are city councils throughout the municipalities of the province, and I think it would be incumbent upon this minister.... If some independent appeal process existed for people who own properties within the Islands Trust.... I'm not asking that the Islands Trust be done away with; I'm not asking that the Islands Trust be held accountable to anybody but its voters; but in the city of Vancouver and in all other municipalities we have an independent board that will issue a variance, and exactly the same privileges should apply to people who live within the Islands Trust.

I could give you specific examples of constituents who have approached me with problems. In one case an elderly woman whose husband died some years ago has a house in a bad state of disrepair. She was told by the officials of the Islands Trust: "The only way we would give you a permit to rebuild on exactly the same site with exactly the same size of building is if your house caught fire and burned to the ground; and we would judge whether or not it was arson." Quite frankly, that's inexplicable and unacceptable.

People whose homes have been built originally to an earlier standard, which the summer cottages tend to be.... There are thousands of them around the province. When it comes time to renew those cottages, they should be able to take the old building down and build to exactly the same size on the same site. Those restrictions don't exist anywhere else. They don't exist in the city of Vancouver; they don't exist in Victoria. These aren't heritage buildings; these are just old summer cottages whose time has come. The moss, termites, wood-worms and everything else have got to them, and the owners would like to take them down and build a new building.

We want to be very careful about preserving the character of the islands, but I don't think we want to be so dictatorial as not to allow people the practical replacement of buildings that have been constructed.

MR. BLENCOE: The member who just took his seat says that he believes freezing demolitions for seniors and low-cost housing and families in the lower mainland is absurd. He may wish to face his constituents with that statement. If this House can freeze assessments and cap assessments so those who have very expensive houses get a break on their taxes, at least this government can allow local councils to put a moratorium on demolition till we get some affordable housing built in the lower mainland and Vancouver.

I want to put a question to the minister: will she look at, review and investigate the ability of council's permissive legislation to freeze demolitions, to have a moratorium on a temporary basis, when there is an emergency such as we have now in the city of Vancouver?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I understand that the city of Vancouver has an extensive program of research into the problems, as they see them, in the city

[ Page 6635 ]

at the present time. I would suggest that it would probably be most appropriate if we withheld any comments on the suggestions of the second member for Victoria until we have received the results of the investigation from the mayor and council of the city of Vancouver, along with their suggestions for resolution. I truly do believe in local autonomy, and we respond to requests from local government very promptly.

MR. BLENCOE: If the Vancouver council or any local council in the lower mainland, or a community affected by heavy demolitions and evictions, particularly of seniors and families who are on the street.... Would the minister then consider passing the required legislation to allow local councils to put a moratorium on such demolitions, to stop the incredible hardship that is happening to thousands of tenants in the lower mainland? If council wished that, would you do that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, could we have your direction, please? The second member for Victoria is constantly referring to possible future legislation. It is my understanding that that is an inappropriate discussion at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. Would the second member for Victoria rephrase his question, please?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is aware of the plight of thousands of tenants and of the evictions and demolitions in many areas of the lower mainland. If there were consideration by local councils that they needed some controls on demolition, would she entertain such requests from local councils, in terms of working with them to ensure they have emergency powers?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I mentioned earlier, the city of Vancouver is presently going through an exhaustive study and research program in order to come up with some possible means of resolving the housing problem, as they perceive it, in the city. I look forward to the results of their deliberations. As usual, this government will respond.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to share with the minister something that happened some years ago in the city of Victoria in which I was heavily involved. We in the city council deemed there to be an emergency in housing, and the council used the Municipal Act, but with great trepidation and warnings from solicitors.... The deputy minister smiles. I think he is probably aware of the case. He knows what happens when local councils move in areas that are really questionable.

We decided that there was an emergency in the city of Victoria. There were massive demolitions and evictions. There was no housing being constructed; social housing units were not coming forward. There was no power for the council to stop it. We passed an anti-demolition bylaw for a certain period. It was very nervously done. The lawyers' advice was not to do it, because the Municipal Act has some problems in a number of areas. That is one of the areas, in terms of being explicit about local council powers. The minister may or may not be aware of that circumstance.

I want to know from the minister: is she satisfied that the Municipal Act gives local councils these kinds of powers when they are faced with a demolition and eviction emergency, so that they can step in and deal with the crisis and not be threatened with mass lawsuits? In Victoria's case, we were threatened by and scared of mass lawsuits.

In Vancouver today — not so much in Victoria — we have an enormous crisis. The member for Vancouver South, who said that doing something for these people is absurd.... I hope he remembers that when he faces his constituents. We believe something has to be done. The provincial government does have the power. I think it is incumbent on this minister, who has the power through the Municipal Act, to show something to those thousands of tenants who are under the gun, facing eviction, facing demolition, with nowhere to go.

Now we have the UBC study, which shows that condominium conversion in the lower mainland is running at about 1,900 units a year. That doesn't even include demolitions. The statistics aren't in on that, but we know it's horrendous. Social housing allocations are minimal in dealing with this issue. We have an emergency; we have a crisis, We have power through this act to do something, but it's vague. I want to know: does this minister have the ability to show leadership and give those local councils the ability to control such an awful emergency?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I really don't think any of us required a UBC-sponsored study to tell us that we have a large number of conversions taking place in the lower mainland, particularly in the city of Vancouver.

The problem has been outlined in any number of ways, and I guess I can only reiterate that we are prepared, as a ministry and as a government, to sit down with UBCM or the city of Vancouver and discuss any concerns and suggestions they have for resolving those concerns. It's not something that we would force upon local government. We feel it's important to continue the process that has been started, that of consultation. We are always ready, willing and able to meet with any local government body to discuss and attempt to address concerns that they have.

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I am not asking you to force anything. I am asking you, as you did with the capping on assessments.... That was very controversial. I don't think it was very wise, but we won't go into that. You did that in terms of permissive legislation. It was very questionable, because we know it transfers taxes from those with expensive houses to lower income owners. What I am suggesting is that we do

[ Page 6636 ]

exactly the same in this area of demolitions and evictions.

Is the minister prepared to look at permissive legislation in the Municipal Act, so that if a council deems there is an emergency in evictions and demolitions, it can do something by bylaw and not be threatened by lawsuits? That's what they are all scared about.

I am not asking you to force it, Madam Minister; I am asking you to give them the ability to go to the act and say: "Hey, we've got the power if we want to use it." Nothing forced. This comes up over and over every year when we have a housing crisis. I am asking this minister to not always wait for somebody else to show you the way. There can be some leadership by the provincial government, and there should be some leadership by this minister in some areas at least.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey. He is on the same subject.

MR. PERRY: If I can just borrow from my colleague a couple of pieces of correspondence....

I don't want to take very much time. The second member for Victoria has been over the arguments pretty well. I want to basically bear witness to them, as the recently elected representative of Vancouver-Point Grey, where the single dominant issue in the election campaign was the housing crisis.

As the minister recognizes, this affected the candidates for the Social Credit and Liberal Parties as well as my candidacy in that election. As I told the city council in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago in one of their special hearings, everyone who contested that election really felt the heat all day long and much of the night — it was a pretty cold month of March — and we are continuing to feel the heat.

The second member for Victoria was asking a very sound question, because he has had experience, in his former life as a municipal councillor, with a moratorium on the demolition of rental housing in Victoria, which was effective. I agree with the minister that the primary responsibility for dealing with housing problems in a city like Vancouver should rest with the municipal council; but they seem to be waffling on the issue and taking the position vis-à-vis the public that they may not have the power to do what is needed.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms Marzari) and I were confronted recently with about 120 very angry citizens in Kerrisdale. Many more — about 1, 000 — had confronted politicians of all stripes in late February, but those who turned out to a hearing we scheduled six days ago continue to be very angry about the situation they are facing in Kerrisdale.

The city does not seem to have fully seized the extent of the crisis, but these people, through an organization called Concerned Citizens for Affordable Housing, have surveyed the buildings within an area of about one kilometre by one-half kilometre in Kerrisdale in which 36 rental housing buildings in good shape face either imminent or potential demolition in the next short while. I don't think we know exactly what "short while" means, but it may be in terms of one to two years or perhaps less.

In those buildings reside about 1,000 people, mostly elderly. I have a letter from one of them at 5815 Yew Street, which arrived today, dated May 3, calling for a moratorium on the destruction of rental housing units. This is a letter the minister may have also. I just got it today, and it was addressed to the minister, with a copy sent to me and several other politicians. This person, who is 76 years old, identifies himself as a resident of the Kerrisdale-Dunbar area for 60 years, the last 15 on a fixed-pension income, and says he knows of what he speaks. He says we need action. He underlines, in capitals, "immediate action, not talk, talk, talk and 'passing the buck, "' and says he's "looking forward to your reply" — referring to the minister — "or of reading in the media that you have spoken out and will initiate action."

My own conclusion, in looking at the issue recently, is to endorse the call of the local residents for a moratorium. Before posing the question to the minister, I want to read a letter that the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and I sent to Mayor Gordon Campbell and councillors of the city of Vancouver on May 3 regarding the Vancouver housing crisis. This is to reassure the minister that we're not trying to put all of the heat on her; we're trying to reflect our constituents' views and put the heat on the municipal authority where it belongs initially.

"At our May 2, 1989, housing forum in the Kerrisdale Seniors' Centre, we were again reminded that up to 1,000 residents of a small area in the core of Kerrisdale face eviction due to the proposed or planned demolition of older rental apartment buildings. Most of these tenants are elderly, long-time residents of the neighbourhood. Statistics compiled by Dr. David Hulchanski of the UBC Centre for Human Settlements clearly indicate there are insufficient vacant apartments to receive these people if they are evicted.

"Because the pace of change appears now to exceed the capacity of the municipal and provincial governments to respond" — referring to the pace of change — "we urge you to declare a temporary moratorium on the demolition of rental housing in Vancouver. Intensive scrutiny of options to preserve neighbourhoods and protect long-term tenants should follow. We urge council to consider innovative suggestions such as that of the Concerned Citizens for Affordable Housing which can respect economic realities while ensuring the preservation of affordable rental suites. We would welcome close collaboration with council" — that's Vancouver city council — "in bringing Vancouver's concerns to the attention of the Legislature."

That letter was signed by myself and the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

To reiterate the second member for Victoria's (Mr. Blencoe's) questions, I would like to ask the minister whether she can assure us that she will back up the city if the city decides to act in an innovative and a really constructive manner, which I think at the mo-

[ Page 6637 ]

ment requires the moratorium on demolitions. That's not a final answer; that can't go on forever. That's simply a temporary measure in the face of a crisis which I think the minister has really just acknowledged when she says we don't require Dr. David Hulchanski to tell us this. She said something very important that I don't think the civic authorities in Vancouver have fully recognized. I think the minister has recognized it more than the civic officials. Can she just assure us that she'll back up the city if they decide to act?

I would also like to have her opinions as to whether we have anything to learn from Ontario's Rental Housing Protection Act, which I've spoken about a couple of times in previous debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to recognizing the minister, I would like to draw to the House's attention that there are 16 grade 10 students in the gallery from Nicola Valley High, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Pearson. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In response to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's statements, I think it has been well acknowledged by all members of the House that a great deal of activity is presently taking place in the lower mainland, and particularly in the city of Vancouver, which is resulting in displacement of some of our seniors particularly. This has to be of concern to all of us.

It's important to note that a very extensive housing program has been put forward by my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in response to the need that has been identified. It is hoped that several thousand new rental units will be made available in the not-too-distant future because of the incentives that are being provided by the provincial government. We hope this will take some of the pressure off, but the pressure will not be taken off next week or next month; it's going to take a little longer than that to see these new rental housing units in place.

I can only conclude my remarks by stating that we are always very responsive to requests from local government, whether through the UBCM or the city of Vancouver, for legislative amendments. If we were to receive a request from the city of Vancouver for consideration in any area that can assist them and address problems that they know or believe they have within their boundaries, we would respond in our usual prompt and, I would hope, proper way, because that's the purpose of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. If Vancouver came forward with the request for some type of legislation, you've asked if we would back them up. I would respond to that by saying we would immediately research and discuss their concerns with them, and how they should be addressed. If legislation is needed, we would discuss that with them as well.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, in the last few weeks I've felt more like a city council member than an MLA. The impact of a thousand people being potentially affected by eviction notices from apartment buildings in which they have resided from anywhere up to 40 years is simply mammoth. The residential area of Kitsilano, which has been zoned up to three storey walk-ups and highrises, was basically created in the early fifties to allow for senior citizens in the Kerrisdale community to stay in their community when they grew older and to move into these medium- or high-density housing developments.

What has happened is that the housing stock has aged and the units, although many of them are still in excellent repair, have been bought up. The market pressures that have been brought to bear on these units have basically meant that a thousand people are at risk — most of them elderly. Some of them are financially capable of moving out; some of them are not able to pay more than $400 a month for rent. Many of them — in fact, I would say all of these seniors — are wedded to living in the community in which they've lived for many years. For some of them, being forced to move has had disastrous results.

Last Tuesday night, just before the forum that my seatmate and I held in Kerrisdale, an old friend came up and said she'd just spent the weekend moving her mother-in-law into a highrise that's not presently threatened from one of the low rises which is about to come down at the end of this month. She said the building is in terrible repair, and the units have not been really fixed up for the last three or four years. Her mother-in-law had been living without basic amenities, in many respects, in terms of an apartment being allowed to run into the ground.

She said: "But of course, she's okay now. She's in the highrise; she's very happy. Mind you, three of her friends in that building of 30 units have died within the last three months. Rather than face the prospect of moving, whether or not they could afford it financially.... Their lives were at stake, and the transition was too much for them to bear. They actually chose, in a manner of speaking, to die rather than to be moved."

[3:00]

The problems of housing in Vancouver are obvious. Vancouver is very much a tenant community; I believe the member for Victoria has pointed that out. Fifty-eight percent of Vancouver residents are in fact tenants.

This morning the city council chose to have a symposium on housing, which I attended for the first two hours before I came to Victoria. A couple of options were presented to that symposium for council to move around. The options were not terribly hopeful, actually, aside from the mayors putting together a housing task force. There was nothing suggested about demolition control. There was very little suggested by way of federal intervention. In fact, the regional director of CMHC said there won't be any more housing units coming out of the federal government because of the restraint program federally. There is very little hope con-ting from the provincial

[ Page 6638 ]

government. In fact, there wasn't a provincial representative at that meeting speaking to the council.

We do know that the rental housing stock in the city that exists now is running down. The housing stock in the West End is getting old. It was built in the early fifties, and it is not going to last forever. The secondary suites in Vancouver — the illegal suites which comprise about 25 percent of the rental housing market — are being clamped down on by the council, as you probably know. I hate to say it here, but the illegal suites in Vancouver really do provide the backbone of the ability of many families to pay for their houses. They are very instrumental in establishing the market value of a house in Vancouver. In the sacred, single-family neighbourhood, the illegal suite is very much a part of the fabric, and it counts for what that house is worth on the market, and for whether or not the owner can afford a mortgage. Many young families, including myself, would not have been able to buy a house in Vancouver 20 years ago were it not for the in-law suite — as we used to call it — in the basement. Those are also disappearing as council is cracking down on them — sometimes for good reason. But I worry that in the long run we're going to lose a lot of good housing.

The social housing component in Vancouver represents the third-largest rental component available in Vancouver: 17,000 units. Those are relatively new, so they're going to be around for a long time. You can see that Vancouver is faced with a long-term crisis here. The 1,000 senior citizens now represent a tip of the iceberg for what we're going to be faced with down the road.

You suggested that you will be polite and courteous in your response when the city comes to you, and that's terrific. I'm glad of that, and I'm glad that the city can count on a ministry that can whip into shape a tax-capping bill as quickly as you did. Even though we had difficulties accepting it, it was available for the city at a moment's notice.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Let me suggest that there are a few things the province could do beyond being the prompt responder. The province could act. If the province chose to act on a coordinated effort between the city and the province, we might be able to get this longterm problem solved. The short-term problem calls for demolition and eviction controls until a long-term solution is worked out.

If the province would step into the breach that now exists and approach the city, if it would take the initiative and suggest ways in which provincial government might assist.... I can think of two ways off the top of my head right now. Last Thursday I attended a committee meeting of council in which the neighbourhoods to be selected for local area planning were voted on. The mayor asked me if I would approach the minister to discuss whether or not the province would be interested in getting involved financially and to discuss with staff ways in which we can help plan Vancouver neighbourhoods to take into consideration public land that might be available to build new social housing down the road in the future so that our allocations could be made now.

In the old days — back 15 years ago — the province was involved with the neighbourhood improvement programs. I gather they took a coordinating role in terms of RAP and other programs that were delivered from the federal government to municipalities. The province was very much a part of the planning process and in some instances a part of the cost-sharing along the way I'd suggest it would not take very much in terms of dollars invested for the province to indicate an interest in coordinating staff, services, research dollars and lobbying for programs with the federal government that might relate to neighbourhood improvement or renovation of existing housing stock.

Down the road we're going to have to get involved with some of those public infrastructure programs again, and we're going to have to regard housing as part of that public infrastructure. That's where housing is headed in our society. We simply cannot live with the up and down vicissitudes of the market in our major urban areas that very much longer. The people of Vancouver and other large urban areas, including Victoria, know that we have to level that boom-bust cycle and we have to invest public dollars.

I am asking you, Madam Minister, beyond the response role of yes, you will respond when the municipalities come to you, would the ministry be willing to take an initiator role, an acting role in talking about planning, co-ordination and investment in some infrastructure housing programs.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This is obviously a very major social policy issue; it's not just a municipal issue. There is, of course, a risk in tampering with the market, and often you can do more harm than good. The government is presently concentrating on stronger incentives to encourage municipalities and private entrepreneurs to ensure that the required rental housing is made available.

As has been previously announced by my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), we are putting forward a program and will be working very closely with local governments. We have identified Crown land sites and attempted to determine what would be suitable for rental housing. There will be subsidies and there will be incentive grants for local governments, who give quick approvals to these high-density rental accommodations. There are going to be planning grants in addition to those that are already available to local government, specifically to identify rental housing policies.

All of these things are presently in the works. You're asking if we will participate in some type of local planning proposals to help the city of Vancouver particularly plan their community. We already make planning grants available to local government, including the city of Vancouver, to do just that. They can be very imaginative in determining what it is they're going to use those planning grants for. We

[ Page 6639 ]

really — and I'm going to sound like a broken record — believe in local autonomy, as the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey knows; she served as a local member of council. I'm sure you will agree with me that while you were an alderman on Vancouver city council, your knowledge of the problems in the Vancouver would far exceed the knowledge that any one of us sitting here in Victoria could ever hope to have, because of the day-to-day work you were doing in your community.

In my mind, that has not changed. I don't believe it's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to suggest to Vancouver city council that this is the way we think you should be going and we're going to give you grants so you can plan to go that route. We make grants available to the city and all our local government bodies on request, because we believe they are best equipped to plan their communities and address whether they be urgent or long-term needs that they believe are appropriate to their constituencies. We will continue to do that. This year there is a greater increase in our planning and infrastructure budgets than ever before, because there is recognition of the fiscal needs of local government and we are attempting to respond to those needs. Whenever the city of Vancouver, UBCM or local government come to us with an expression of concern, we attempt to sit down with the appropriate body and do whatever we can to address those concerns.

MR. PERRY: While we're discussing the urgency of the situation, I think that many people would agree with one of the minister's answers: that much of the long-term solution to the housing problem depends on increasing supply. The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I are very worried — which is why we keep bringing this question up — that one of the potential opportunities for meeting the supply side may be pre-empted. That's the opportunity in the Jericho lands. Rumours are reaching us that those lands have been promised to private developers for single-family housing, where it seems evident to us that in the face of the crisis in affordable housing for poorer people and elderly people the likely proper use of the land would be public housing, cooperative housing or seniors' housing.

I'd just like to ask the minister whether she can give us any insight on the issue — whether those lands have been secretly committed to somebody else for personal profit or whether they will be reserved so that we have the flexibility to respond. I know this is not considered traditionally within her jurisdiction, but obviously it's an important part of the answer to the housing problem in Vancouver, which is why I'm asking.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was just beginning to generate a bit of enthusiasm for the questions put forward by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey until he threw in his little zinger about "secretly committed for personal profit." I would suggest that a question phrased in that way needs to be ignored if nothing else. Having said that, may I suggest that the question be rephrased and more appropriately put to the minister responsible at a later date.

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like to change the subject, Mr. Chairman. I know it's a subject that has had some discussion earlier in the minister's estimates, but it's of such seriousness here in Victoria that I want to raise it today.

A couple of weeks ago I happened to be listening to the radio, and I heard the minister responding to a problem in Vancouver with respect to movement from primary to secondary — secondary treatment costs for sewage in the Vancouver area — and the very large numbers involved in the technology to bring secondary treatment up to its full scale for Vancouver.

[3:15]

Everyone who lives in this region knows that Victoria's sewage is discharged in a raw effluent form off Beacon Hill Park. Victoria has only two miles of ocean front, everybody else has the rest, and this very limited ocean front is going to be a septic tank field for the CRD basically, because Saanich and Oak Bay are going to discharge out of the Clover Point outfall as well. Currently the regional district is reviewing, with an orientation to treatment. Everyone wants treatment; this area cannot pay for it itself. I want to ask the minister to consider signaling to the local CRD that she would take up the cause both provincially and federally, as she indicated in the broadcast that I heard. I share the feeling that the federal government should assist. We are a capital. We are a harbour. We have a fishery. We have other navigation aspects. I think that we should seek out assistance from the federal government to top up.

I have looked at Washington State. They are in shock at what Victoria is doing. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States sets basic standards and then state-level authorities set more rigorous water quality standards, etc. It is absolutely illegal in Washington State to discharge raw effluent into the receiving waters of an ocean, a river and so on. That is by law. So the discussion is not whether a pipe can be far enough or deep enough or whatever; it is just against the law to discharge raw solid effluent into the ocean.

I know that that ocean looks huge as you stand on the cliffs of Beacon Hill Park, but it's not. It's very small and it has tidal currents that take the flow into the Strait of Georgia and to our friends in the San Juan Islands and through into the Puget lowlands and through the Gulf Islands. The greater Victoria region is a large enough region, a large enough service area, that it can have treatment if it gets the support, the commitment, of the provincial government to allow our provincial capital to hold its head up and allow its sewage to be treated and dealt with in a modern way. The inclusion of screens and so on was done in London, England, in 1860. That's step one, screens.

The minister knows that this region will be a showcase in only five years. We have five years to provide treatment so that that is not an issue and so that our recreational and tourism potential can be re-

[ Page 6640 ]

alized. Those cliffs along Beacon Hill Park show up in magazines around the world for people interested in windsurfing and hang gliding and other kinds of recreational activity, because that area has tremendous wind. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but the winds there are more regular and persistent; it's like the canyon of the Columbia River. Windsurfing enthusiasts from all over the world go to the Dallas....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the remarks, most of which are actually remarks for the Ministry of Environment, but it does relate to Municipal Affairs. But windsurfing, I think, is well beyond the jurisdiction of this minister. I would rather you keep the items to matters over which this minister has authority.

MR. G. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman Sometimes to make the point we have to look at what the trade-offs involved are. I'm pointing out certain attributes of recreation that would be really world-class if it wasn't a septic-tank field.

What we need is the same kind of enthusiasm which the minister picked up as a champion of the problem for Vancouver to move to quality secondary treatment and beyond — tertiary, etc. — for this region. Clearly this region can't pay for it ourselves, but we could pay 25 percent. We could pay 25 percent and have the senior levels of government pay the other 75.

Like all good infrastructure projects, we don't have to pay for it out of the till today. We can amortize it over time as something worth having and doing. If the city of Vancouver was having to build sewage treatment for Vancouver out of what was in the cash register today, they couldn't do it. They would have to amortize it over time, as we will have to do here. But it's not going to get any cheaper.

Our friends in Washington State are really aghast at what we're doing, because there's not one single community anywhere in the Juan de Fuca Strait or in the Puget lowland area — village or township or island — that is discharging raw effluent into the ocean. It is illegal. They have small plants, and by 1995 every single community in Washington State will have secondary. They all have primary now; they'll have secondary by 1995. Yet we're going to discharge 100 million litres a day every day. Then as we grow and as more density occurs in Saanich, Oak Bay, Esquimalt and so on, the treatment options will become more difficult, because land.... It's an island South of the Malahat is a very densely populated area in relative terms.

I would like to ask the minister if she would commit to offering the local officials here a maximum of 25 percent of locally paid, and we would work with her jointly to seek assistance and support at the federal level and get some commitment from her provincial colleagues to give us treatment here with the time-line of having it in place, say, by July 1, 1994.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The concern that you express is genuine; we don't argue with that. But under the present formula, I am unable to make the commitment that you have requested. I can commit, though, that when an application comes in from the CRD or the city of Vancouver — I assume it will be the regional district — we will certainly be taking it as seriously as we have the request for assistance from the GVRD.

It may be that with those two major projects that require attention, there may have to be another funding source identified other than that presently available to us under revenue-sharing. The concern expressed by those on this side of the House is genuine. Our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is certainly looking at the requirements and the need to upgrade the requirements.

We realize full well that right across this province, some of the greatest polluters are our local governments. It's a problem and a cause for concern. It all comes down to dollars and cents. As I mentioned on Friday, I don't believe that over the past number of years, local government has placed a high enough priority on the provision of proper disposal systems.

It's not been the glitzy thing to do; it's not fun to cut a ribbon at a sewage treatment plant or turn a sod to start a sewer line, so the priorities have been, by and large, for swimming pools, ice rinks and parks that leave tangible evidence of where the money has gone, rather than for projects under the ground. I think that local government is going to have to change its priorities and do some rearranging, because we now realize that this is a problem we face. I can assure the first member for Victoria that when we receive a request from his local community, we will take it very seriously and attempt to address it through the funding available to us.

I would like to respond to a question put forward by the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) — who is now sitting in the chair — with regard to the Islands Trust, the board of variance and the appeal process available. You are quite correct that decisions about the construction or enlargement of buildings in the Islands Trust are made by the local trust committee. There is a right of appeal, and it appears that as far as the Islands Trust is concerned, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the board of variance. So they do have a right of appeal, which is directly to the minister.

MR. ROSE: I appreciate my colleagues' giving me some more time on transit, because I had considerable time last Thursday, and I got some surprising answers. Today I am going to read out some information and put it in the record. I just can't understand how my information and that received by the minister could be so utterly contradictory. Somebody is lying. I am not saying the minister is; I would never think of that. But either the minister has been getting wrong advice from the people giving her information, or somebody is lying to me. The situation is so serious that something has to be done about it. I think we have to have an independent investigation. Either there is something rotten in the information I am getting from the drivers themselves, or there is

[ Page 6641 ]

something really smelly around B.C. Transit and their head office.

I don't think the minister or I can ever get to the root of this matter independently. So I am going to put out a few things, and I hope I won't take more than five or six minutes. Then I am going to ask the minister if she will look into it with some sort of independent investigation, because it's just not good enough, the kind of answers that are contradicting one another.

The ridership in the last ten years, according to my information, has been cut 250,000 hours. The total I gave the last time I was up was 400,000, and I was told afterwards that actually it had been increased. Obviously somebody is lying there; somebody has got the wrong information.

Last year, I am told, $15 million of the budget was underspent, mainly through larger loads, people being packed on on Sunday.... Anyway, this is saved on service cancellations.

Over the last ten years on buses alone, I have been told, there were 400,000 hours cut. Some of it came back: 25,000 hours or 16,000 hours; nobody can understand. Some has been restored, and that accounts for the difference between the 250,000 that I mentioned earlier.

Over the last ten years, there were staff cuts of 250 or more on buses alone. The union figures for membership in 1979 were roughly 2,050 and in 1989 it was 1,800. During the estimates, we were advised that you have added members. That can't possibly be with those figures.

I'm also told that the buses increased their passenger load in the last ten years by about 20 million — roughly two million a year. Your annual report for 1988 said that passengers in Victoria and Vancouver had dropped. It's right in the annual report. There's got to be some explanation for that.

The diesel fleet is the oldest in Canada, and the maintenance costs are excruciatingly high. But one of your maintenance people is probably one of the two people who run that whole system, if you leave out the CEO, Mr. Hodgson. The last major purchases were in 1981, when the present Premier was minister, of 250 buses from Flyer Industries. Trolley buses have the highest breakdown in North America. That's bound to affect service, disappoint people and make them late.

[3:30]

We were also told: "We had to cancel routes because we didn't have enough drivers." They were off sick or somewhere else. Well, you haven't got any drivers because you cut out the spare board. So there's another thing I can assert.

The Sunday service is the same as it was before Sunday openings ten years ago. The schedule sheets prove all the things that we're saying. It's not just out of the air. An independent person could check into this and see who's getting some sort of song and dance.

I mentioned the union membership: regular cuts of personnel and firings. Now during negotiations, we're presenting good drivers with plaques and inviting them out for dinners.

Mr. Chairman, this is not good enough. This is really — and it's the kindest parliamentary thing I can say about it — a questionable operation. I think one of the great culprits is all the money for SkyTrain that's shovelled aside to go down something like 40 percent of the budget for 12 percent to 17 percent of the passengers; but we've all been through that. I'm not concerned about that; that's a policy decision. It's made; we've got it, and we want it. We've got to pay for it, and we've got to live with it.

We're not arguing the merits of that now. What we are arguing about is just what in hell's going on in B.C. Transit. I don't see why the two sides are that far apart in terms of the information they've got. We want an independent inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were several words used in that last dissertation that are not parliamentary. I would prefer it if you would choose more appropriate words than the ones you used. Perhaps if you would like to review it or consult with others on the subject, we may proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: To begin with, Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the member for Coquitlam-Moody suggested the hours of ridership, he was referring to the hours of service. The hours of service are quite different from the ridership. The information we have on hours of service is as was put forward to the member for Coquitlam-Moody last week. We will be pleased to follow up in writing the questions that you have put to us today, if you are disputing the answers that I presented to you last week. Maybe then we can come down to where the differences arise.

Our numbers would suggest that the information you received does not coincide with the information we have available to us. I would suggest that the reduction in service that the member for Coquitlam-Moody has referred to is a comparison of the 1986 traffic during Expo and the 1987 traffic. Well, there's no question about the reduction in hours of service and ridership after having accommodated the millions of people who were here for Expo.

Your closing comments that were put forward with great indignation about presenting plaques and having dinners.... That is done every year. Are we supposed to cancel them when we're in the middle of negotiations? We do that every year. We have regular bus driving contests and regular 25-year award dinners. We have dinners for members of staff who come forward with ideas that save the corporation money. I would hope that whenever we're in the midst of negotiations, we wouldn't all of a sudden drop all of those niceties and ways of recognizing the employees. In my mind, if they drive for 25 or 35 years without an accident, they certainly deserve recognition. I have yet to hear any driver complain that we have these recognition dinners and present them with plaques. While I am minister I really wouldn't pay too much attention to whether or not we are having

[ Page 6642 ]

negotiations. I would hope that those would continue to be a regular annual event.

Having said that, we will follow up your questions from Hansard. I can assure you that within the week you will have a written response to your questions.

MR. ROSE: Before I start, I should probably pay courteous tribute to the insensibilities or sensibilities of the Chairman. He suggested that lying and the use of the word "lie" is unparliamentary. I have been looking through it, but since I have been here I have found that anything that the Chairman decides is unparliamentary ends up as unparliamentary.

I have decided that one of us is being misled. To go back to the source to provide me with those answers to me is not very satisfactory. I am sorry about that. I have lost confidence; I have been shocked and dismayed. It isn't just simulated indignation either; it is a genuine concern for what's happening to an extremely important Crown corporation — or what may be happening.

That's why I want you to agree to have an independent look at it. The answers are too widely divergent. It isn't just labour and management here. It's just too much to ask.

Finally, I don't mind the recognition stuff. I think it's fine to recognize.... It's a great morale-booster But it might be better to change the schedules and have a little shorter time and reduce the stress in terms of the budgets and that kind of thing; put more men on the job.

AN HON. MEMBER: And women.

MR. ROSE: And women. There aren't as many women driving buses as there used to be, is that right? I don't know. I don't know the gender breakdown.

Just as long as you are not using these plaques and things just to soften them up. Morale can be improved effectively, I think, in other ways besides the free lunch after 25 years.

What I want is for the minister to indicate that she thinks there is enough divergence of opinion here not merely to accept at face value the advice she is getting — not directly from her friend the adviser sitting on her left, because he probably hasn't got the original figures either. I would like her to tell me that she is prepared to consider an independent review of this corporation.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. G. HANSON: I want to canvass another subject: the Royal B.C. Museum, the provincial museum, and the proposal of lifting the fees.

I think it has been demonstrated that the fees impede access by people who can't afford to take their children there. I know the provincial government has backed up from its previous position of fees for every visit, or certain days where the fees would be lifted to encourage greater participation. The schedule is a complex one where some days you have to pay, some days you don't, etc. I think the whole thing should be scrapped, and entry to the provincial museum should be as it was intended by people like W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett's government: there would be no fees, and it would be an institution that we could be proud of. We would allow our citizens and visitors to come and review in a cameo way the dioramas that reflect the pride we have in the human history of the province, both native and nonnative, the natural resources, the physical beauty, the undersea exhibits.

Everyone applauds that museum for the quality of its work. They've operated under difficult circumstances. Certainly the time has come, now that the tourist season is upon us — the Marguerite and the other ships are bringing tourists — to lift those fees and let the attendance build as its natural interest levels would allow, so that people can come and visit from Fort St. John or the Kootenays, North Island or wherever. They've paid their taxes; they've contributed. They should be able to come every day for half an hour or an hour if they wish, and get away from these passes and complex schedules.

The amount of money that is raised.... You talk about $1 million being plowed into exhibits, etc. Any modern society allocates a certain amount of money for cultural activities and for the exhibition of its soul. And why not? At the British Museum — the minister has probably heard this — they have collection boxes prominently displayed, asking people to make contributions if they've enjoyed using the facilities. The British Museum doesn't have a fee; it has a prominently displayed collection box. I think we should go back to a collection system, and to volunteers who wish to make donations, bequeath estates or make endowments. That's the way to go — not a tax on people to go to their own museums, to see their own history and their own exhibits.

Would the minister comment on that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's a very valid concern that the first member for Victoria has expressed. I feel certain that we would all share the view that it would be desirable not to have a fee for entry to any provincial government facility. But it was felt by my predecessor that it was important to establish a fee structure, which has been revised this year; I believe the member is aware of the revision. As the first member for Victoria mentioned, there are several days of operation at the museum that are free of charge, allowing local individuals to visit the museum more regularly.

No consideration is being given at this time to dropping the fee. That's not to say that it might never happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Mackenzie requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, in the House today we have 35 grade 5 students and their teacher, Miss C.

[ Page 6643 ]

Brown, from Bella Bella, in the northern part of my riding. I'd like to have this House make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: Some time ago I wrote a letter to the minister, asking her for the attendance figures for the provincial museum for the last number of years. I wonder if she, with her officials, could provide the House with the attendance figures prior to the initiation of a fee and the subsequent years. Could she read those attendance figures into the record?

[3:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid we don't have those numbers available here, but I will undertake to provide them to the member.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we have some figures here. In 1980 the year-end is 1,390,000; in 1981, 1,397,000; 1982, 1 million; 1983, 1.1 million; 1984, 1,097,000; 1985, 1.2 million; 1986, 1.4 million; 1987, 1,017,000. If the minister could ask her officials to corroborate these, it's clear that some of the key months.... I'll just wait for her response on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, we don't have the numbers with us, so we are unable to corroborate the numbers today. I undertake to follow up on the information that we have committed ourselves to making available to the first member for Victoria. But it's interesting to note in those numbers that there appeared to be a drop and then a gradual increase, and then of course a drop again after 1986, which would be accounted for by the increase in tourism that we saw during the Expo year.

We will confirm or correct those figures for you.

MR. G. HANSON: If I may just ask the minister to pay particular attention to, for example, the months of July and August 1986, before fees were introduced. July attendance is 298,669 and August is 293,030. Fees were introduced in 1987. Let's take a look at the same months: July, 186,000 — a reduction of some 110,000 and August, 130,894. When we look at the previous August, we've basically got a reduction of about 150,000, which is massive; it's an unbelievable drop. In July 1988 there were 145,683, and in August, 163,280. In August 1988 there were 163,000, and in 1986, prior to fees coming in, there were 293,030 These are massive, shocking declines in attendance Does the minister care to comment on them?

There are a few more aspects of cultural activity I would like to raise with the minister. I'll defer to the member for Nanaimo on the museum.

MR. LOVICK: I'm a bit surprised to discover — perhaps I missed something — that the minister didn't have a response to those last observations about the museum. So before I say anything, perhaps I'll make sure I understand correctly. Are you reserving comment, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's very difficult to respond to a large number of figures thrown out that I'm able neither to confirm nor deny. I have undertaken to provide the first member for Victoria with the figures available to us, but I don't have them at this time. There is little doubt in my mind, even without having the numbers before me, that the introduction of a fee structure resulted in a reduction in attendance at the museum. I don't hesitate to admit that that is truly the case, but I can't confirm or deny the numbers you have read out. I will be pleased to respond to you in a more complete way than I am able to do right now.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that comment. I'm sure she does indeed intend to share with us whatever information she has.

The point I would simply make is that the evidence is already very clearly in. We know, for example, simply by quoting documentation available to all of us, that in the first eight months of 1988 the attendance was 688,114, which was the lowest for any time in the past eight years. As the minister quite correctly points out, the evidence is in that the fees have, to all appearances, had a negative effect on attendance. The question, surely, is what the minister intends to do about that.

You'll recall, Madam Minister, that we were given three justifications — and I think a number of us were in the House at that time. Your predecessor, who had responsibility for the museum, gave us three particular justifications for this policy. One was that what would happen with this new policy of user fees was that we would draw more people to the museum. Indeed, I quote that gentleman. In July 1987 the statement made by the minister was: "The admission fee structure will draw more people to the facilities because of the aggressive marketing program we're putting in place in order to make them" — I assume he means the facilities — "attractive." It seems pretty clear that if there have been aggressive marketing initiatives, they haven't worked terribly well. Perhaps the minister could answer my straightforward question: what marketing initiatives, what aggressive things, have been done that have demonstrably failed to achieve the results we anticipated?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm delighted and pleased that members opposite share our pride in the Royal B.C. Museum and encourage as many people as possible to visit.

I understand we have a marketing program that sees expenditures in the area of $200,000 a year. I would suggest that you're not going to be able, after a one-year or two-year trial period, honestly and fairly to gauge the full impact of the introduction of the fees. Come the first part of 1990 following the experience with attendance this year, it would be appropriate for the minister responsible for the Royal B.C. Museum to review the results of the introduction and to decide at that time whether it is necessary to make some adjustments or not.

[ Page 6644 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: In the gallery we have 30 Navy League Cadets from the Corps Namu. These cadets are from the Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Maple Ridge areas of the lower mainland, and they came over here on the destroyer HMCS Kootenay. They are accompanied by Lt. Gord Mercer, Sub-Lt. Parke Esposito, Sub-Lt. Pat Norman, Midshipman Lynn Matthews and Cl. Rod Bricker. I would ask the House to welcome these cadets.

MR. LOVICK: I noted that in her response the minister suggested that a full review of the impact of those museum — what shall we call them? — user fees would be undertaken. Could the minister give us (a) some assurance that this will indeed happen, and (b) some idea of when that might happen?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It would be most appropriate that this be done towards the end of this year or very early in the new year prior to preparation of the estimates for 1990.

MR. LOVICK: Just a couple of very minor points that will perhaps guide that review process, if I might. One of the arguments adduced in favour of that user fee proposition was that those fees would also generate dollars to be used specifically to upgrade the facilities. You made reference earlier, Madam Minister, to a figure of some $200,000. In relation to the total budget and the operating budget for the museum, and in relation to the normal kinds of expenses required to upgrade a facility of that size and calibre, I don't know whether $200,000 would make a great deal of difference. I would like to suggest that we look very closely at whether any moneys that are ostensibly to be gathered as a result of user fees will in fact be used for those purposes, or whether those moneys — again, if such moneys exist — are simply going into general revenue rather than back to the museum.

Everybody has been saying for some time — certainly for as long as I've been in the House — that the museum is in need of constant improvement. It's a wonderful facility. We all know that, we all take pride in that fact, but there is obviously need for improvement. Could the minister give us some assurances that the reconsideration of what that imposition of fees has meant will also take into account ways to improve that wonderful facility?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The first member for Nanaimo will recall that $1 million has been allotted for building and computer improvements at the museum. This certainly will go a long way toward seeing some needed improvements there, and hopefully it is the start of a regular major expenditure approval for improvements to the museum. This sum exceeds considerably the revenues that are taken in, so I believe we do recognize the need for improvements at the museum, and we also recognize that the fee structure cannot in its entirety cover the expenditures.

[4:00]

MR. BARLEE: Madam Minister, we have a letter here from the B.C. Farm Machinery Museum, which is located in Fort Langley, and it has been designated by the British Columbia government as the agricultural museum of the province. Their collection, which is valued at $1.5 million — probably conservatively — has essentially been donated by many farmers from the upper Fraser Valley and other parts of British Columbia.

In 1986 this museum, which really concentrates on our agricultural heritage, was given a grant of $3,000, which I think is minimal. Since that time, they have not been given any grants at all. They have spoken to Hon. Bill Reid and Hon. John Savage. This letter was received in late January 1989. I would think perhaps the minister would find it fit in her estimates to devote at least a reasonable grant to this museum. I consider it important not just from the agricultural point of view but from the cultural point of view.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Apparently the farm museum in Fort Langley is a small, non-profit one operated by a society, and their needs are dealt with by a group that deals with funding assistance to the museums and are determined on the basis of what we are required to pay out across the province. You are suggesting that there has been only one year of funding assistance. Is that correct?

I really don't have all of that information here, and we will get that for you.

MR. G. HANSON: I think having culture as a component of Municipal Affairs and having the capital side over with the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial Secretary is a serious problem. When people write to your ministry asking for assistance for recreation and culture facilities, your department then writes a letter back saying: "Responsibility for capital assistance falls under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Bill Reid, Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary, for lottery money."

I think one of the problems that the museums and cultural bodies within the province face when they are seeking support and assistance from the provincial government is a multi-stop problem. I don't think the people are well served by that. When you look at the numbers for the province compared with other jurisdictions, you will see that British Columbia does not allocate a great amount of money to cultural activities.

Let me take another subject area — arts, for example. The Vancouver Opera Association received almost the lowest provincial subsidy per attender of any opera company across Canada, with grants broken down to dollars per attender. The highest would be Quebec at $4.22; the second lowest is British Columbia at $2.12. I don't think that we have a very

[ Page 6645 ]

integrated or coordinated program for cultural activities.

I'd like to ask the minister about the Challenge '89 program and the funding for museums. Can she give us some idea about that program?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was just trying to get some information on Challenge '89, because it wasn't ringing any bells. I am told by my staff that Challenge '89 is a federal program. If that is correct, that's probably why it's not ringing any bells, so I am unable to answer that question.

The cultural activities. Since 1986-87, the government's increase to cultural funding has been 44 percent. So I would suggest that is a pretty good record.

MR. G. HANSON: As we look at the numbers across the country, provincial expenditure on arts' heritage and culture, relative numbers.... If the minister would ask her staff to compare B.C.'s position with provinces like Manitoba, we are apparently lower than Manitoba and substantially lower than Alberta. In provincial per capita expenditure on the arts, B.C. appears to be very much out of the ball game, compared with other provinces. Arts and culture expenditure as a percentage of total provincial budget: B.C. again is right out of the picture. Even Newfoundland is higher than B.C. Changes in the per capita expenditures: B.C. has been decreasing.

The minister knows that employment in the arts is something that governments are starting to recognize. You pay lip-service to small business being a key generator of employment, but the arts and culture are labour-intensive; they are people-intensive, and there's good value for the dollar in terms of activity. We seem to be missing the boat in this province in this whole area. We don't seem to be asserting our pride in our artists, painters, poets and sculptors. I can remember when there were acquisition programs to purchase art objects. Consideration was given to allocating a certain percentage of a vote toward cultural objects, to embellish public buildings, to enrich our cultural heritage. We've moved so far away that there's just no recognition given to this area.

I don't think it should be driven entirely by lottery money. Lottery money is a good discretionary source of revenue for cultural projects, recreational projects and so on, but there has to be a commitment from the government to allocate good, hard funding. So often the performing arts and culture and heritage items are soft money. They are things that are promised, but disappear from votes. They get shuffled around into general revenue and just never occur.

I would like to hear from the minister how she feels we stack up against other provinces. The numbers don't appear to indicate that we do at all.

There are world-class artists in British Columbia. We should have structures in place that stimulate opportunities rather than the situation we find ourselves in. I wonder if the minister would give us her views on funding arts and culture in this province, and why we seem to be failing so far behind.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There's no question at all that we have some very highly regarded artists in the province of British Columbia. I don't think any of us are questioning that. I have absolutely no problem at all with the funding source; in this case the funding source is lotteries. I believe we are acting in a very responsible way to meet the needs of our cultural community. If you look at the estimates for 1988-89 and 1989-90, you will see that there's an increase of some $3.5 million. We have seen constant increases over the years, and I believe we are acting in a very responsible way to meet the needs of the cultural community.

I wonder, first member for Victoria: is there not even one section of my estimates that you could say we have adequately funded? Are there no areas here that you find satisfaction with? It seems to me that as we've been going through the various estimates, we have heard from members opposite that there's not enough in this area, there's not enough in that area, there's not enough in any area. Yet we continue to increase each of our individual budgets. I am personally very pleased with the increases that we have seen in the Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture budget this year for pretty well every area. There are very few areas that I have not been able to adequately fund, as far as my own mind is concerned. I would certainly hope that members opposite would find agreement with the funding that has been provided in several of these areas.

At this time I would like to offer a correction of a previous statement about museum information. I am told that the fee revenues are approximately $1.8 million this year. The funding for the museum is increasing by more than $2 million, which includes $1 million of capital. That should be placed on the record for the information of all members present.

I have no problem when I attend the various provincial ministers' conferences, whether I'm dealing with culture, library heritage, sports and recreation activities, municipal affairs or transit. I have absolutely no problem at all in holding my head high at the contribution being made by the provincial government of British Columbia to these various aspects of community life.

[4:15]

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should look carefully at what happens in other provinces and even smaller provinces like Alberta. Alberta awarded $359,000 in grants to the literary arts community in that province. Alberta is a much smaller province than British Columbia, and 158 projects were funded. A foundation has been established in Alberta, through the Minister of Culture and Multiculturalism, which granted $1,325,000 from lotteries into an arts fund that was then disbursed. In terms of scale they're far beyond British Columbia in their support for arts and culture. That's Alberta.

I don't think the minister can feel that things are being done here; they're simply not. You just have to look at other places to see to what extent they're not being done. The message is that capital cost expendi-

[ Page 6646 ]

tures for culture should reside with that minister. She's got the responsibility for culture. Assessing the merits of proposals to support and expand museums and to build heritage facilities around the province should reside with that minister.

Lottery money is gravy; lottery money is extra. It shouldn't be the only money. It should be supplementary money and should spark-plug all sorts of innovative things. But capital funding for culture should be a mainline vote in that minister's vote. I know when lottery funds were established, culture was one of the dimensions for support. It was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Lottery Fund; disbursements were for arts, culture and recreation. I really think it's time for some hard-line funding.

I would like to raise a few questions regarding recreation and sport within the minister's purview. There have been a number of sport-related press releases recently. I think the province needs.... I know there's a review being undertaken, and some time this fall apparently a report is going to be provided to the minister on recreation and sport. Am I correct in that? I have a press release in my files that indicates the province was preparing a strategic plan for sport and recreation under the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. Could the minister advise the House how that's proceeding, what the terms of reference are and what it's all about?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As a matter of fact, I had an opportunity this morning to meet with Mr. Peter Webster and Mrs. May Brown, who are working on the report, and I believe it will be available some time later this year. They are meeting with all the sport and recreation associations across the province to determine their needs, aspirations, requirements, suggestions and comments. I look forward to a very comprehensive and valuable report that will be made available for the minister's consideration later on this fall.

MR. G. HANSON: I think the confusion about that challenge.... It's called "Action Challenge" in the press release that came from your ministry prior to Christmas. It's regarding a strategic plan for sport and recreation. That's a different one than the.... Or is that the same?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the same; that's correct.

MR. G. HANSON: Well, if I were to make some suggestions generally, what we need in this province is an integrated, coordinated sports program that fosters the development of clubs in various sports. I think the basic underlying theme should be to allow for mass participation in sport and recreation.

What happens in the school system now is that children who maybe don't have a natural affinity for a particular sport — whether it be baseball, soccer or whatever — are discouraged and dissuaded from participating and learning the rules of the games. People, no matter what their ability levels are, should be given the right to learn how to play games and to learn the rules, and not be discouraged because they may not be good at them right off the bat. In other words, recreational activity should be stimulated throughout the school system, and the whole ethos should be for good health and activity, not to make people feel self-conscious if they're not stars in these kinds of pursuits.

The people examining a sports policy for B.C. should have the underpinning of mass participation, but they really should allow for involvement at any level, for people to realize whatever potential they want; in other words, you're not streamed in a militaristic sense. If people want to be involved in international competition, and want to try to be as good at something as they can possibly be — as Rick Hansen and others would say, "to realize their potential" — and want to test themselves against the best internationally or in their region or in the province, then I think we have to look at the sport development program in British Columbia, which really doesn't make all the necessary connections between schools and clubs, in streaming their way through at all levels.

I think the advisory committee that Mr. Shields is on at the University of Victoria and elsewhere.... The report that was done with various people in British Columbia should be looked at very carefully. It's not an elitist document; it's something that calls for utilizing our school system and higher education programs, and sports bodies outside, to allow British Columbians a chance to participate in sports.

I think, Madam Minister, that anyone who travels outside the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island realizes very quickly that in the smaller communities the access to facilities, trained recreational directors, sports programs, etc., fades away very quickly. Many individuals are not aware that Sport B.C. exists; they are not aware that there are coordinating bodies at all.

I recently attended a meeting where exploration was done to set up a native recreational sports council. At that meeting an in-house report was done that canvassed the kind of recreational facilities available to the native community in British Columbia, looking at all 194 bands. Do they have a facility where some kind of activity can take place? Does it have a trained recreational director? If not, how much experience do they have? It was an absolute horror show. They simply don't have the facilities; they don't have trained leadership.

I have a release that the minister has issued proclaiming 1989 as the Year of the Coach. The Year of the Coach doesn't apply at all in the native community; I think it probably doesn't apply in rural British Columbia. It states in the release that B.C. has 20,000 nationally certified coaches, and the province contributes $600,000 annually to the development of coaches. Coaches can be a very powerful leadership force in a community. The allocation is $30 a coach. Boy, the province gets pretty good value for $30 a coach.

I just want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there is a sore need in rural British Columbia

[ Page 6647 ]

and in the native community for facilities for coaching, recreational training and leadership.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The first member for Victoria would suggest that the Year of the Coach doesn't apply in native or rural communities. Well, I would like to assure you that on Saturday evening I attended a banquet of B.C. school sports with representatives of schools from right across the province: the coaches from the schools and the administrators. In many cases, when you have schools, you're going to have some type of coach. They came from Vancouver, Surrey, right up into the Kootenays and the Peace. The Year of the Coach is very important to those members. If you will recall, hon. member, in my opening comments preceding discussion on my estimates, I did mention that we had set a goal to have a large percentage of B.C. students, or students presently in the school system, from British Columbia participating in the Commonwealth Games and the B.C. Games that we will be hosting in the province in the next few years. We will be working very closely with B.C. school sports to ensure that the goal is achieved.

The first member for Victoria also mentioned Mr. Shields and a report he had done regarding his participation on the minister's Advisory Council for Sports and Recreation. This committee has recently received an excellent report on facilities. The suggestion from the member about what we should be looking at would probably be better put to the members of our Action Challenge committee, because it would be inappropriate, in my mind, for me to start prejudging what recommendations should come out of this task force which is presently meeting with and visiting groups right across the province.

The member quite likely has some valid suggestions and concerns. I would suggest that he put these in writing and forward them to May Brown or Peter Webster, who are serving on the Action Challenge task force, so that they can be incorporated into the recommendations that will be coming forward to the ministry and will be dealt with at a future date.

MR. G. HANSON: I would be happy to make my views known to anybody. We have a very fragmented system; it has developed over time. It has got to be coordinated in a more integrated way for the benefit of people of all ages. Given the fact that we have that catalyst in 1994, I think that if we can stimulate a lot of activity about facilities construction and program development, and can get all the different players coordinating, it could be a good subsidiary goal for the games for 1994.

[4:30]

I want to ask the minister her views on another aspect. There is a growing potential economically and recreationally around cycling and adventure travel. They call it cyclo-tourism: people touring on bicycles and so on. I haven't seen anything come out of the ministry regarding this; it may be backed with lotteries. I think there is tremendous potential in this province for stimulating economic activity in cycling within regions, within certain routes and so on. It is good, healthy tourism. It brings people who have a respect for the environment and who want to see the beauty of this province, The cycling organizations internationally would look very favourably on activities that would indicate that cycling had some priority.

We really need bikeways in this province. I see people riding up the freeway towards the ferry, and at various stages that shoulder is pretty narrow. I don't know if you've been on a bicycle when a tractor-trailer goes by you; the draft from it is very dangerous. I think the province should start allocating a certain fixed percentage — whether a decimal percentage, a full percentage or whatever — of the Transportation and Highways budget to the construction of bikeways in this province.

It's a good, clean, healthful activity. I think a lot of these people who want to have a good-quality recreational experience have a good touring bicycle; they've got a helmet on; they've got all that gear. They're breathing carbon monoxide; the draft pulls them very strongly as a tractor-trailer or bus goes by — and I think it's dangerous. We should be looking at allocating bikeways as a program within regions of this province and putting some money into it. It would pay off. It would support motels, parks and various other kinds of infrastructure in a very serious way. It's long overdue. It has been talked about in this House since Hector was a pup. It's really about time that something was done about it. You've got a few more months to do something before we do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the vote pass?

MR. G. HANSON: No. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister wants to respond about the bikeways.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The first member for Victoria thought the minister wanted to respond. I don't really have a response, because it's not something that we have been actively pursuing. If there are communities that feel so inclined, they could certainly make application through Go B.C. That's a very substantial program; $162 million to be spent over the three and a half years is very substantial if you add to it the local participation and contribution. It's a valued part of our provincial government program, and I'm very pleased when I receive requests for information with regard to available capital funding, because we do have capital funding that is available.

I have not been a participant to any discussions with regard to bicycling pathways, so I really can't respond as far as my ministry is concerned. Possibly it's something you should suggest to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) on his improvements: that he make provision for an adequate additional width to allow for this.

MR. G. HANSON: I think the minister is coming to realize, though, the confusion that the recreation and sports community is facing, because the minister's portfolio is responsible for recreation and sport

[ Page 6648 ]

and yet there's no umbrella minister who can spearhead that program. Yes, Go B.C. is an important pool of money for all sorts of projects, but there should be the authority within that minister's office to spearhead and take leadership roles as an advocate for those sports bodies and organizations.

Cycling is a sport; it comes under the minister's ministry. There could be activities and directions given that would make cycling a more desirable kind of activity, given what else is happening in the province.

I think it creates a lot of confusion to have the funding source all somewhere else, so that the minister simply is rerouting correspondence to Go B.C. or to the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary. A lot of the sports bodies are finding the same kind of frustration, and it could be overcome by consolidating it in one ministry and having a certain budget to do the job.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to get back to municipal affairs, but before I do that I just want to do a quick clarification. My colleague from Victoria and my colleague from Nanaimo were talking about the provincial museum. I don't want to go over the same ground in terms of the impression in this community with the move to fees, the perception that this government is treating the museum in a cavalier fashion, the feeling in this community that we cheapened it down and it isn't as important as it used to be.

I'm wondering if the minister can allay the fears that.... There have been some rumours or suggestions that the province might remove itself dramatically from funding the provincial museum and that they may decide to give the operation of the museum to a non-profit society or create another body that might run it separately from the provincial government. There is some concern out there that the province wishes to remove itself from the daily operation and the financial commitment to the museum.

I know that the Friends of the Provincial Museum have been very concerned about this. There have been suggestions that we might create a separate organization to run the museum, allowing the province to remove itself over a period of years from financial commitment. Could the minister please confirm, not just to this community but to the province, that they are very much involved and will remain involved financially, and allay those fears that there may not be the support in future for the museum as we have seen it over the last few years?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We've seen a substantial increase in the funding that has been made available to the museum this year. It's very difficult to say how future governments or ministers may deal with the subject, but as long as this ministry is in place as it presently stands, we have no intention of privatizing the museum.

MR. BLENCOE: As the minister is aware, the Friends of the Provincial Museum, before fees were introduced, used to attain considerable dollars through donations. They used to do remarkable projects with those dollars. Since fees were introduced, those funds have dried up. Has the minister had meetings with the Friends of the Provincial Museum to see if those kinds of concerns can be alleviated and if maybe the involvement of the Friends of the Provincial Museum can be reactivated as an important focal point for activities in the museum?

There's a feeling that the revenues being generated from fees may not necessarily go to museum activities but will go to general revenue, and that slowly but surely the museum would be starved for funds. I don't have the figures — my colleague from Victoria may have them — but the Friends of the Provincial Museum, in its last year before fees, generated considerable dollars which they put towards special projects. To give you one example, there used to be a loan program for local schoolteachers. Through funds from the Friends, teachers could borrow various exhibits or unique things and take them to the classroom, a very exciting program for children who can't always get away from school. There was great surprise this past September in the Victoria school district area when that program was suspended.

I think there is a feeling — particularly in this community because the museum is here — that the last few years have been a failure in terms of the provincial government's policy towards the museum. The minister obviously doesn't want to reflect too much on the former minister of culture, but perhaps it's time to come clean and admit that errors were made. Let's go back to normalcy and put the museum back in the forefront of the cultural endeavours of this community and in this province. Let's correct those mistakes and put the museum back where it should be: in the forefront of our historical and cultural activities. Let's try to remove what the former minister did to that museum and correct some bad mistakes.

I've shown one example where the schoolteachers were using the program. That's disappeared. It may come back; I don't know. The money may not be available. Is this minister determined to once again put the museum at the forefront of educational, cultural and historical activities not only in this community but in the province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: You referred to a program that involved participation by some of the local schools. That program was not something that would have been dealt with, or cut by, the provincial government. More money was put into the museum budget this year. It was a management decision. They have attempted to address involvement by local schoolchildren in other ways - not only local, but children across the province. So be it; that was the decision they made.

I believe very sincerely that the museum has always been, and will continue to be, in the forefront in the display of our history and artifacts in the province. The fact that some adjustments were made in the budget doesn't take away from the suggestion that it is a very important part of our Provincial Ar-

[ Page 6649 ]

chives and the collection that is on display for everyone, not just for the people of Vancouver Island, particularly Victoria. I think the second member for Victoria forgets that the museum is a treasure for all of the people of the province, not just for the people of Vancouver Island. We are very proud of the operation that is in place there.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a couple of issues that I wish to canvass, and then I believe my colleague from Surrey has one or two items.

It was announced in the housing portion of the budget that there would be municipal incentive grants to create housing. I presume your ministry is active in that area. There is some uncertainty; no one is quite sure how that program is going to work. Maybe the minister or the staff have it all worked out. I would certainly like to hear how that program is going to work; how the municipalities will access those funds; what the time-frames are — I presume there will be time-frames — for getting projects through council. The idea is to speed things along. We are still waiting, as we are waiting for most of the housing programs announced in the budget. Maybe the minister can now tell us, some months later, how that will work and what's happening.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We are just finalizing, within my industry, the details of the incentive program. In other words, we are crossing the t's and dotting the i's. You can expect a very full information package and announcement in the not too distant future.

MR. BLENCOE: We will certainly await that. The housing crisis has been with us for some time. There weren't many new programs. We're still waiting for most of them. We understand that the major one isn't even through Treasury Board yet. We hope it will get to us very quickly, because the crisis I was talking about that started this debate earlier this afternoon is building. We are in desperate need of housing in the province.

I asked the minister about the Provincial Capital Commission. The minister is well versed in this issue and the controversy that has been created. Overwhelmingly, people in this community want to see the Provincial Capital Commission open to the public. They have been offended by the actions of the Provincial Capital Commission and, quite frankly, surprised at the response of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for refusing sunshine legislation or requirements under the statute establishing a Provincial Capital Commission to ensure that it is open to the public.

I have said many things, and the St. Ann's issue highlighted the lack of information shared with this community. Many times the current chairman was less than forthright in sharing with this community. It doesn't make sense when we have a Capital Commission with a major mandate to beautify and add to the capital region on behalf of its citizens, yet that commission doesn't open its doors to the community in general or to the media to say: "Look, this commission exists for you and exists to beautify the region. We don't really seek the views and ideas of this community or make it a very exciting part of decision-making in the great capital of the province of British Columbia."

I suppose that things are back to normal in some regards. The commission continues to meet in secret; God knows what it is doing. Every time it meets, no one knows. The only way we find out is through the back door, or somebody happens to discover something after a decision is made, as we did with the wax museum getting another ten years' lease without any public input or discussion.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, ten years' extension, Madam Minister. This community was not consulted; the council wasn't consulted — or anybody.

Has the minister finally decided, in the interests of democracy and accountability, to open up the Capital Commission to the scrutiny of the public, the media and the community, and allow sunshine to shine in on the Provincial Capital Commission. Or are we going to continue the same way?

Listen to it in a positive light. I am convinced that if we could change the way that the commission operates and have it become an exciting part or a focus for discussions in the community about the harbour, where we are going to beautify and where we are going to put the projects, it would be a marvellous addition to local decision-making and community involvement and actually having a role to play in the areas that are to be beautified in this great community.

I have had many discussions with the members on the Capital Commission. They said: "Oh, we like to meet in camera because we can let our hair down, and no one sees what we do." They are dealing with public business and public dollars and, quite frankly, if they don't want to stay there and be accountable, they should get off. I am being quite frank about that.

I want to know if the minister has had a change of heart. She is always talking about openness. This government came into office in 1983 about openness in government. We have a very important commission in the heart of the capital of the province of British Columbia that is secret. No one knows what it does. I see the chairman of the Capital Commission is here. He has always steadfastly stood by his right to do things in camera, and I suppose he will be here again to defend it.

Can the minister share with us that in the future we are going to see the commission open to the public and that, instead of finding out what goes on at the last minute through brown envelopes or the back door, we are going to get an honest, open, accountable and democratic process vis-à-vis the Provincial Capital Commission?

[ Page 6650 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like to recognize Mr. Ken Hill, who is the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission and has joined my staff here.

With few exceptions, discussions that take place at the Capital Commission meetings revolve around property and personnel. The Capital Commission is basically a property management arm and, as such, I have to tell the second member for Victoria that I am quite satisfied and pleased with their mode of operation. At this time I have no intention of interfering in the process that they have adopted.

MR. BLENCOE: That's sad, and I think the minister knows that we could do things a lot better.

Is the minister aware that the Provincial Capital Commission makes decisions on where projects are to happen in the capital region? Does the minister not think this community should have a say or be able to take a look at the commission's decisions on where those projects will happen? I think you're just asking for trouble. There was an excellent article done by the Times-Colonist a year ago where it showed where a preponderance of the money was going, and that many areas felt they were being left out.

I think the community has a right to see where this commission is putting Its priorities, and then the community can respond. Again, Madam Minister, you're right. Sure, it deals with private and personnel matters, but it deals with a lot of other things that can be open to the public and the media. We're talking about the right of this community to see the commission making decisions for the community: beautifying or whatever. St. Ann's was a classic example of a terrible process, a controlled process, being put in place with a marvellous institution that now is going to be privatized — a fantasy academy, Mr. Chairman. Yet this community was not allowed any discussion in the early stages. There were a few hours of viewing of what you really always knew the commission was going to accept.

It's time this commission became open and accountable to the community it's supposed to make decisions for. Is there anything more basic than a commission that is mandated "to beautify for the citizens"? If the citizens aren't part of the beautification, then the thing becomes a joke. It becomes an old school club, where they get together and say: "Where are we going to put the money this year, Mr. Chairman?" It's time to open it up; it's time to have this community be a part of it. We're tired of the secrecy, and we're tired of all those members who've been there for 15 or 20 years saying: "I don't want to be accountable."

This minister and this Premier talk about openness, frankness and showing the people what the government's going to do. This commission deals with a lot of money and makes important decisions for the capital. I think the people are smart enough to be able to participate. They're smart enough to see what this chairman and this commission are doing, and maybe to suggest some alternatives. For instance, if we'd known that Dr. Arne Lane was going to get another ten years on his wax museum in that beautiful CPR customs house — a heritage building on the waterfront — this community might have had a different opinion. It might have said: "Hey, hold it. Maybe we should put that out to tender. Maybe we should consult the community. Maybe there are some other uses for that than as a wax museum."

The minister knows that how this commission does business is totally intolerable and has to change. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I intend to introduce a private member's bill that will recommend change and that it be open to the public, so the people in this region can see what they're doing. I don't disagree when it comes to personnel or dealing with leases. That's fine; those are in camera. I've been on city councils; I know what that's like. But I think the minister is on very shaky ground. Her own Premier came to office in 1983 saying that it was time to clean up the backroom deals, to open up government decisions.

MR. LOVICK: Let there be light.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely. We have a minister who has consistently gone through a year's controversy with St. Ann's and the customs house. Yet she stands up and says: "No, we're going to be in camera. The people of this region won't be allowed to participate, to see what these commissioners are doing." Once again we have to report that the commission is going to be closed to the people.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Once again the second member for Victoria is wrong in several different comments he's made. There has not been a ten-year extension on the wax museum. There has been an agreement by the Capital Commission to enter into negotiations on a new lease, and the conditions that have been laid down by our Capital Commission are meeting with some resistance. There has been no tenure extension on the wax museum. I would hope that the second member for Victoria would be man enough to stand up and admit his error, because he's just....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Sexist? If the second member for Victoria's colleagues don't want to admit he's a man, then I won't either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We're getting way off the subject, and that isn't what I meant to do.

I would like to briefly go over the comments with regard to St. Ann's Academy and the reference to the way the proposal call was handled. The second member for Victoria suggests that there was little, if any, public information, public access to the proposals or opportunity for public input. I would like to suggest that when the decision was made to call for proposals, the proposals were then advertised nationally. There was public viewing of the proposals at the

[ Page 6651 ]

Crystal Garden for three days, and at St. Ann's for a week. Public hearings were then held by the city of Victoria.

[5:00]

If one were to accept all of the negative comments made by the second member for Victoria with regard to the final proposal that was accepted by the Capital Commission and approved of by the city council in Victoria, one would assume that there wasn't anyone in the city who approved of the proposals. I would like to read for the record a portion of an article — and I will file the documents for the House — taken from the Island Catholic News, May 1989. The first comment was from Monsignor Hanley, who is pastor of St. Patrick's, Oak Bay, and served as rector of St. Andrew's Cathedral from 1976 to 1986. Among other comments, he states:

"In my opinion, to expect any level of government to take on the task of restoration of the gardens, the convent and the chapel and to maintain them in perpetuity is unrealistic. To my knowledge, the examples of good restoration in Victoria have one thing in common: they have a commercial component to guarantee the maintenance of the buildings for the future.

"I believe the scheme proposed by Peter Daniel guarantees the restoration of the convent, the grounds and the chapel. The commercial component guarantees the maintenance and the integrity of the site. I want to see the convent and grounds alive with people, hearing and seeing the story of the Sisters of St. Ann. I want to see crowds of people visiting the chapel and seeing and hearing the story of the Catholic contribution to the history of our city. I feel confident that is going to happen."

We have another article from the....

MR. WILLIAMS: What did Remi de Roo say?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I have never heard Remi de Roo say anything positive, so I couldn't possibly refer to anything he's said here. But then, of course, the only comments I've heard from him are those that have been....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister, just one moment. There's an hour to go in the day and I would suggest that we all take a deep breath, sit back and listen to these words of wisdom from the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, because the only comments I have really seen I've read in the local newspaper; I'm not familiar....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The second member for Victoria has asked if I've talked to Remi de Roo about St. Ann's. No, I have not.

The next article I want to refer to — which I will table — is from the Island Catholic News. Jim Beaubien is a director of L'Arche Victoria. L'Arche is a non-profit community group, housing and caring for mentally handicapped adults. It is run by the Catholic churches and has branches around the world. Some of the comments made by Jim Beaubien would be:

"My family's association with the Sisters of St. Ann goes back about 75 years. The sisters taught my mother and my sisters, and my own children started their education with the Sisters of St. Ann. What appealed most to me about the plan" — he is referring, of course, to the Daniel plan — "was that, as well as the buildings being restored and a beautiful garden area being developed, the chapel would be restored and be available for public worship. An area of the building would also be developed which would enshrine the history of the Sisters of St. Ann and be made available to the public. Not only would the building be there to command attention, but within its walls there would be a history kept alive and visible; yes, a witness to all that had been so generously given over the years by the Sisters.

"The project strikes me as viable and sensible. People who know me as having socialistic leanings may think my support of a private enterpriser is turncoat; but not so. Have they been listening to Mike Harcourt telling everyone that socialists like business people who do things responsibly?"

It goes on to make very positive comment with regard to the developer, Mr. Peter Daniel.

I will table these reports, which are from the Island Catholic News, May 1989.

MR. BLENCOE: Who's quoting this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm quoting Jim Beaubien, a director of L'Arche in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Peter Daniel is chairman of the board.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's very interesting, but I....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to refrain. If they wish to take their place in the debate, they will be able to rise and the Chair will recognize them. Until that point, let the minister proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I believe I have responded to the comments and concerns expressed by the second member for Victoria, and I would now like to table these two articles for the information of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister, we cannot table that in committee; you'll have to table it when the House resumes.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to prolong the debate on the Provincial Capital Commission. The chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission and the minister know that this is a rearguard action. You know this community has been offended. You know this community wants change. Change could be done with a stroke of a pen. We could end the perception

[ Page 6652 ]

that many times things are being done without the community knowing.

We all know that if there's suspicion, you can't do a proper job. I would suggest that the Provincial Capital Commission can't do a good job now. It's a lame duck in many ways. Its usefulness is a small fraction of what it could be, because of the last year or two. To keep going through the motions, to keep the secrecy up, despite overwhelming support from this community.... Take the St. Ann's thing — it can defend its position on St. Ann's all it wants, but this community was offended. It is offended by the end result, that the fine, historical teaching institution is going to end up the way it is. You just talk to people on the street who have been in this community a long time. You talk to people who went to school there. Many of them have resigned themselves to the fact: "Well, what can we do? They're going to do it."

This government won't find one dollar for a hundred years of service from those Sisters, yet it can give, what — how many millions? — to the B.C. Lions to bail them out. The projects you can find money for, and not one cent.... All the work those Sisters did for this community and this province, and it couldn't return something to them and to that history. It could have made it a national treasure. Now we're going to have it turned into another tourist site of questionable use.

Quite frankly, the role of the Provincial Capital Commission in this has been very offensive. This community is deeply offended. It continues to be offended by this minister's defence of the secrecy and the lack of public input into important decisions affecting this region. Unless the minister has something to say, I'm going to leave it there because, quite frankly, this community is tired of this attitude.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps it's fitting that the topic I wanted to bring to the minister's attention at this time is a heritage forest. I feel a little like a heritage forest myself after waiting all afternoon to try to bring this to the minister's attention.

If the minister hasn't already received several items of correspondence - and I suspect she has — from the Green Timbers forest heritage society, I'd like to bring the society to her attention.

First of all, this organization has been working on behalf of Green Timbers for some time. It's quite an energetic committee. I think it needs the minister's support — possibly because of its request to make the existing provincial forest and nursery into a heritage site. For the last few years, the society has held a cleanup week around Green Timbers. It has had a dinner and a walk through Green Timbers as well.

I went to the dinner last year that the society put on, mainly, I have to admit, out of support for the project. I found that I had a heck of a lot to learn there. I would encourage the minister, if she has some time, to attend the dinner. Last year they had several people who lived near Green Timbers and two older gentlemen who were actually workers in the plantation many years ago. The stories they had to tell about that particular forest were quite incredible, given how our municipality has changed over the years. It gave me a whole new perspective on Surrey, from some of the stories about the little cafe and doughnut shop, and some of the stories that went around the particular community centre.

The Green Timbers forest heritage society has a couple of goals that I think are really valuable. First, educational — letting people know about the history of that site. Second, bringing the value of the site to everyone's attention. Two years ago, when the Minister of Forests and Lands announced the privatization of that nursery and forest, I went to the forest and had a tour of the facility. It struck me at that time that it was an absolutely invaluable asset to our community, not only because of the forest value and the parkland there but also because of the actual nursery and the training school at the site.

By the nursery they have an arboretum, which is a beautiful walk with a collection of different species of trees of North America. That is a beautiful asset and should be preserved. But the nursery itself would be a tremendous park site for its value to the community, given the fact that many of the working people in Surrey are connected in some way to the forest industry. It's a nice connection, because it's the very first nursery in British Columbia and the very first silviculture site in British Columbia as well. In that way, it has a very unique heritage.

I know that the minister has some information about the site. I'm hoping that with her responsibility for heritage and culture she also can find some support for the preservation of Green Timbers. As you know, the municipality voted very strongly for the preservation of the municipal part of that forest. So I'm hoping that the minister will see the wisdom of preserving not only the forest but indeed the site, the nursery, as a heritage site and perhaps even an educational centre for the forest industry for the lower mainland.

That would take working with Forests and Lands, and perhaps with the Education minister as well, to develop a B.C. silviculture centre at that site and preserve the forest and the values. I'd like to hear whether or not the minister has considered that, and if indeed she will support the preservation of Green Timbers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I feel the question would be more appropriately put to my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). I think it's probably not terribly appropriate for me to speak, as a local MLA from Surrey, on this particular subject. But I would suggest that the member canvass the Minister of Forests on the subject.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I fully intend to canvass the Ministers of Forests and Lands on this subject. But I was hoping the minister would see the value under her responsibility. I'm not asking her as a member for Surrey-Newton; I'm asking her as the Minister of Recreation and Culture. I understand that you also have a responsibility to heritage sites as well, and it is

[ Page 6653 ]

under that responsibility that I'm asking you to become involved and lend some support.

[5:15]

The minister is shaking her head. I'd like to have her commit herself for the record.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I see a strong indication of a possible discussion between the appropriate minister, the Minister of Forests, and myself on the subject. But I believe the matter should be fully discussed with the Minister of Forests.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have to admit I am a little disappointed. I had hoped for a little stronger commitment. I think it's a worthwhile project and needs the minister's active involvement and support.

Let me ask one further question before I pass the mike over to another member. At the end of Friday's debate on the minister's responsibility, I asked the minister whether or not she would consider looking at the provisions for the acquisition of land to be used by schools and parks in municipalities to give municipalities the power to deal with land for parks and schools proactively rather than having to deal with the acquisition after a development is already in place and once the land values have already gone up.

We're in a situation in Surrey where we are well aware that we will be taking the brunt of the growth of the lower mainland for some time to come. We are already in a catch-up situation as far as schools and parks are concerned. We are in a position, I believe, through the municipality and the school board, to plan ahead and acquire land that will save the municipality and the taxpayers a great deal of money, rather than waiting until the land values escalate, as they very clearly will do.

My question, again, to the minister is: have you given consideration to empowering municipalities to acquire land for parks and schools proactively?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes. To the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, the municipalities already have provision in the Municipal Act to purchase properties for municipal purposes. I don't believe the problem is the authority. I believe the problem is the money. I would suggest that the early acquisition of school sites could more appropriately be put to my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). But you were suggesting that somehow authority should be given to local government to purchase park and school sites. Well, local government does have the authority to purchase property for municipal purposes. I can recall when I sat as a member of Surrey council that when there was funding available, we would purchase in advance school sites that we knew would be possibly required at a later date, and then the properties would be later sold to the school boards. Provision is there but it's a matter of money.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to change the subject, if I might, with the minister, and turn the discussion once again to the matter of access to transit for the handicapped. It was canvassed, albeit briefly, a couple of days ago.

I wasn't here on Thursday, May 4, at the end of the debate, but I notice that my colleague raised the matter of scooters on the handyDART vehicles and the minister answered that to some degree. I would like to pursue that ever so slightly, through you, Mr. Chairman, with the minister, because I've had some correspondence and some discussion with users of the scooter. I've also had discussions with people within B.C. Transit. Let me just say for the record that the people in B.C. Transit have been most cooperative and most helpful, and certainly have tried to answer all of my questions. I commend your staff for doing that.

The predicament, however, that I find myself in — and I certainly don't claim any expertise in this area, Madam Minister — is that I'm told something by the apparent experts within the B.C. Transit operation and then I get quite different testimony from the actual users of the scooters, i.e. the physically handicapped clientele.

What I would like to do then, Madam Minister, is simply offer you some of those observations that I am hearing from the handicapped community and ask you to at the very least take them under advisement if you can't indeed answer them right now. If I might just take a moment and do that, I will.

I guess the first concern that comes to mind is that the apparent justification for prohibiting the use of scooters on the handyDART vehicles is obviously a safety concern. The statement, however, that my informant, the individual who has spoken with me — who is a handicapped person who uses either a wheelchair or a scooter on a regular basis — is just that, as he says, no evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that scooters are indeed in any way a dangerous vehicle when transported on handyDART. He argues the case that that appears rather to be just a matter of opinion, a perception by people who are perhaps taking the somewhat paternalistic attitude on behalf of those handicapped users. I'm wondering then if the minister could give me any information regarding what sort of information is available to lead her department, her colleagues in B.C. Transit, to the conclusion that safety is the paramount concern. Can she give me something on that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Apparently there is presently some testing being done in the States, and we haven't received the results of the testing. The scooter manufacturers agree that it is unsafe to remain seated on a scooter in transit. They fully endorse the policy. The staff at B.C. Transit has received written correspondence from the manufacturers stating that people should not remain on the scooters when in transit, because it is not safe. They do not guarantee them for that purpose.

I don't know what more you can do, when you have received that type of notification in writing from the manufacturer of the unit. It's something that we are attempting to come to grips with — if modifications are required. They are working with the man-

[ Page 6654 ]

ufacturers to see if there is some way of accommodating the transport of these people. If we're told that it is unsafe, then I believe we would be irresponsible to ignore that warning.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer and I know the minister certainly has the best interests of those people, on whose behalf she is working, at heart. The problem, however, is: did we ask the wheelchair manufacturers whether their particular conveyances were safe, or did we single out the scooter users? Obviously, if we pose a question to them, suggesting legal liability, they are pretty clearly going to — dare I say — run for cover. Were the wheelchair manufacturers also asked for their opinion regarding whether it was safe to have a wheelchair transported in a handyDART vehicle?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: There is no indication that there has been a request made to the wheelchair manufacturers. The wheelchairs have been transported for a good number of years. The staff at B.C. Transit feel comfortable that they are able to safely strap down the wheelchairs. They do not have that same level of comfort when they are dealing with the scooters.

MR. LOVICK: Let me quote a very short paragraph from a letter from a scooter user and a wheelchair person that I can't answer, Madam Minister. You heard me allude a moment ago to the attitude of B.C. Transit that I suggested might perhaps be overly paternalistic. I made that comment primarily in response to this paragraph. Let me quote it; it's very short. The individual says:

"Whilst B.C. Transit allows a passenger on a regular bus or SkyTrain to travel without a seatbelt, standing if necessary, and allows him to carry 'projectiles' such as groceries, umbrellas and briefcases, they are allowing that passenger to travel at risk. Should the disabled passenger on handyDART not also be allowed the equal right to travel at risk?"

That is my question to you.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if a letter from a manufacturer of a piece of equipment clearly spells out the hazards of utilizing that piece of equipment in a way that they consider to be unsafe.... The recommendation going to the user of the scooter in whatever they receive — the guarantee or the working manuals given out with the scooters by the manufacturers — states that it is unsafe to remain seated on the scooter while it is in transit. When there are so many statements by the people who manufacture that piece of equipment, I repeat: I believe that we would be irresponsible if we threw all of that in the garbage can, ignored it or turned a deaf ear to it after being told a number of times. All we would need would be one accident in one of those handyDARTs, the scooter collapsing and the party seated in the scooter to be injured, for us to have to assume full liability. I really don't think that we can ask our staff to do that.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, and I appreciate the sincerity of the answer. Again, all I can do is point out to you that there is other testimony from those clients, those persons directly affected, who say quite clearly that the wheelchair is no more durable than the scooter. In fact, I am more than happy, Madam Minister, to share with you some correspondence to that effect. I won't pursue the matter further here, because I don't, as I say, have any expertise that enables me to debate the proposition, but I do want you to know that there is that other set of items in evidence to suggest a different point of view.

Perhaps I could turn very briefly to a couple of other matters, again dealing with handicapped and transit issues. Over the past year the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled, as a number of people have mentioned, has held a series of meetings on transportation needs. Indeed, I participated in at least a couple of those hearings and took part in the culmination of the whole thing, in which they tried to come up with recommendations for future policy.

[5:30]

As a result of those meetings a series of recommendations was developed, and I am wondering if I might just ask the minister for a brief comment on a couple of those recommendations. Both B.C. Transit and the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, as the minister knows, have unanimously voted to implement a plan which would see all transit buses equipped with lifts. After those votes, and as part of the work of the task force that was established, B.C. Transit produced two documents which I have with me: an implementation plan and a custom transit review. The latter document talked about lift-equipped buses as an option. There were about four or five options in the document, if memory serves. The fact that the report referred to it as an "option" has, needless to say and predictably, caused some fear, trembling and consternation on the part of the disabled community.

I am wondering whether the minister could answer some very specific questions arising from just that point. First, is it still the longer-term policy of B.C. Transit to equip all buses with wheelchair lifts?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes. There is flexibility to allow the regional transit commissions to proceed on that basis if they so wish.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry; I was taken aback by that "to proceed on that basis if they so wish." In other words, is it not the case that there is a direct mandate coming from the ministry saying that we are committed to an accessible fleet, and therefore any new additions to the fleet, and eventually the whole fleet, will become handicapped-accessible? Or is it left to somebody's discretion? Perhaps I missed your answer.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That is not a ministry directive. That is a decision that can be made at the local community level. They would deal with the individual regional transit commissions if they would

[ Page 6655 ]

like to see that type of addition made to the service available in their communities.

MR. LOVICK: I take it, then, that the disabled community throughout the province would be well advised to lobby each of the regional transit commissions, rather than assume that this will simply happen of its own volition. I'm trying, obviously, to get a clear answer to provide those folks with some direction.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, it is a local community and local commission decision, with the availability for that flexibility being provided by the board of B.C. Transit.

MR. LOVICK: A couple of other questions, if I may. Last year there was an announcement that 18 new handyDART vans were being purchased in the Vancouver area, and it was later confirmed that some 70 percent of those vans were in fact replacements for older vehicles. Some five were new vans. Can you tell me, Madam Minister, how many new handyDART vehicles will be purchased this year by B.C. Transit?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The indication is that the provision of handyDART vehicles will increase from 258 to 287.

MR. LOVICK: I see the minister is asking me to do my own mathematics, but that's all right.

The minister was probably taken aback to find that I was pursuing this line of questioning, because certainly for the past two and a half years all my questions have been: when will Nanaimo get its handyDART? I'm happy, of course, to make it known that yes, indeed, we now have 2.5 HandyDARTs in my community. We're all very pleased about that. Certainly I am thankful that B.C. Transit was able to accommodate that need, and I appreciate the minister's own work in making that happen, too.

I wonder if I might ask a very direct question concerning the operation of not just the handyDART vehicles in my community but others: what kind of training are we talking about or planning for transit employees when, in a community such as mine, the service is taken over by the transit commission? What kind of training are we providing for those employees, so that they will be able to deal with the handicapped clientele they otherwise haven't had any experience in dealing with?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The employees who provide that service are contract employees; they are not directly employed by B.C. Transit. This service is contracted, and they would have training by the contractor. They are not direct B.C. Transit employees.

MR. LOVICK: Is the minister describing in that statement the situation in Nanaimo? My understanding was that they were not going to contract that; rather, the Regional District of Nanaimo would take responsibility for operating that system. I wasn't aware that they were perhaps going to contract that to some other agency. Is that the case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The regional district is the contractor. They are not direct employees of B.C. Transit per se.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that. I now understand the point made.

A couple of other minor questions. I'm just wondering, Madam Minister, whether you can give me any information at all — I'll end with this question, essentially — on how soon we are going to get a report on the recommendations, that are accepted, arising from those two documents of the task force that was established.

When I attended that symposium or colloquium, or whatever, of the B.C. Coalition of the Disabled, I think it was John Mills and Bruce Chown who were over there on behalf of B.C. Transit and talked about the process that had gone on in determining longer-term needs for the physically handicapped populace. They suggested that the report would be released, I believe, some time in May, and that recommendations might be made as early as June. I'm wondering if the minister could give me any further information as to whether we can expect something to be happening fairly soon.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The Vancouver Regional Transit Commission has acted on the recommendation, and they have forwarded their recommendation to the board of B.C. Transit: that is, that all new buses be equipped with lifts. The matter will be dealt with by the board of B.C. Transit at the next meeting, which will be later on this month.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that. If I may, one last question about that matter. Is that recommendation the one that embraces the time-line enunciated in the task force report? I believe that that was some 17 years we were talking about. I believe I said that by the year 2006 the entire fleet would be made handicapped-accessible. Is that time-line still in effect?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, that time-frame is in line. The new diesels will be equipped. But it's considerably down the road before we'll be looking at new trolleys.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not going to go back on transit. I want to stick with municipal affairs if I can.

There's an issue that 1 wrote to the minister about on March 15. As the minister is aware, there will be changes on native Indian reserves. Municipalities have always been able to tax non-native occupiers of land. As you know, there are changes whereby the native community will be able to allocate their own taxes on reserves. For 22 municipalities, of course, this creates potential revenue shortfalls.

I wrote to the minister with a proposal that to alleviate in part that revenue shortfall — some munici-

[ Page 6656 ]

palities are affected more than others — those reserves and the populations thereon should be included in the revenue-sharing grant formula. I know the minister partially answered that the UBCM is studying it, but I would like once again to see what the minister thinks in terms of some leadership on this issue. Twenty-two municipalities are worried. I've had a number of letters. I've sent my proposal to you to those municipalities, and the response has been good; at least someone is suggesting ways that we may help them out financially. I'm wondering if the minister has any response, and what she thinks about the idea. From the research we've done, it would be a less than 1 percent increase in the revenue-sharing funds.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The second member for Victoria is aware that the UBCM is making recommendations to the federal Indian taxation task force, and the UBCM has held meetings with the native community, specifically with Manny Jules, who is really pressing this.

I'm sorry, but I missed.... You mentioned something about revenue-sharing.

MR. BLENCOE: I made the proposal to the minister — I assume she saw my letter — that to ease the transition for the approximately 22 municipalities which face this taxation problem, she extend the formula for calculating revenue-sharing grants to include people resident on Indian reserves. It would allow some revenue to come back in terms of the loss when those reserves do decide to apply their own taxes.

I know the minister says the UBCM is studying it, but I think those 22 municipalities would like some indication from the minister that she appreciates their financial conundrum, and perhaps some indication of support for this suggestion or for something else that might.... For instance, the Park Royal development in West Vancouver is on reserve land, and the municipality collects over 6 percent of its tax revenue from that one source. Lose that source, and you can imagine the financial implications for West Vancouver.

I don't want the minister to feel that she has to take on the work of the UBCM or anybody else. I think some indication from her to those 22 municipalities that face financial constraints.... My proposal or something else might work to alleviate some of their concerns.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Non-Indian residents on reserves are already included in the calculation of unconditional grants; that part is already in place. I would suggest that the discussion I participated in between members of the UBCM and Mr. Manny Jules was along the lines.... He wasn't being unreasonable, in that it had to happen overnight. The municipality, I am sure, through the UBCM, could discuss some type of phasing-in.

[5:45]

1 would prefer to have the UBCM and the native community attempt to resolve the difficulties they are faced with. We know there are difficulties. They are very serious. I would suggest we allow them to try and work things out. When assistance from the ministry is required, we will be there.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's remarks. She says that people are studying this. Sometimes I wish that the minister would give some indication that she personally wishes to grapple with some of these issues. I'll leave that as it is, Mr. Chairman, and move on from there.

I have a couple of detailed questions to ask about the ministry itself, if I may, before we adjourn for the evening. The minister, I am sure, is well aware — as is everybody else — that there have been some dramatic changes in your ministry, such as bringing in more staff. I and some of our staff on this side have been trying to grapple with some of those changes in staffing, where the money is coming from and what changes have actually been made in terms of dollars.

The one thing that does strike me.... Maybe the minister has a good answer for it. The engineering inspection branch from the Ministry of Transportation has been put into your budget or your ministry with about 26 staff, as I recall. I am just wondering if the minister, through her staff, can give me the rationale on why this section is more suited to Municipal Affairs than to Highways. Maybe the minister could explain.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It isn't necessarily more suited to Municipal Affairs; it is more suited to inspections. We undertake responsibility for a wide array of inspection services, and it seemed appropriate that this be included under that section.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. I guess with a lot of this, we will just go along and see whether it works out. I presume that's part of the process.

I am looking at personnel for Municipal Affairs and the numbers. The year 1989-90 shows 418 fulltime equivalents. The staff level given for the entire ministry is 729, but 311 of those are transfers from Recreation and Culture programs, as well as 30 people from engineering.

I am wondering if the minister can tell me.... It's a detailed question; I am sure she has the answer there. How many of these FTEs are full-time permanent employees, and how many of them are contract or temporary employees? We like to know these things these days, because there is concern that more and more the government is going away from fulltime work to contract and temporary and the implications of that. My colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) brought up some of those issues....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We will have to get those numbers for you. We don't have the information here to give us a breakdown of GEU, auxiliary and contract. But if the second member for Victoria would like that information, we would be pleased to provide it.

[ Page 6657 ]

MR. BLENCOE: One last question on this specifically. I understand that my colleague from Vancouver East has some questions.

Last year almost 10 percent of your ministry took early retirement — 47 people, I believe. How many of those positions have remained active? How many of the positions were not refilled after the retirement of those people?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We'll provide you with that information as well. We don't have it here this evening.

MR. WILLIAMS: On Thursday last I asked the minister some questions with respect to transit and land acquisition officers and the rules and regulations with respect to that. I wonder if she has that information by now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I do have that information. You asked when Mr. Macdonald became an employee of B.C. Transit: March 1, 1989.

You wanted a copy of our conflict-of -interest policy. That information is being delivered to me this afternoon. I haven't yet had a chance to look over it myself, but I'll provide the hon. member with a copy.

A third question was put forward by the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) asking whether the conflict-of-interest policy applies to consultants as well as employees. The answer to that is yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you; that's helpful.

Last week I was also interested in the 16th and Cambie site, which is the old repair barns, and the minister indicated there was some tender call for that. Is the information available on who the parties were that tendered and what the sale price was?

There's another site that interests me. It was part of the old Expo site, at the southeast corner of False Creek, in the Columbia-Quebec connector, just south of Terminal Avenue. It was put up for sale in the last four or five months, and presumably that has been disposed of. Again, I'd be interested in knowing the details of what there is in terms of pre-zoning analysis. For example, that area is presently zoned industrial but will likely be converted to apartments and highrises.

Bosa Bros. Just to the northeast, the old Ocean Cement site is going to be a major highrise development — at the east end of False Creek, between Main and Columbia, north of Terminal. I just wondered what kind of analysis would have gone into this site, because it's obviously going to change from being an industrial site to some kind of high-density residential site. Is that background information available?

There's another site that intrigues me as well, and that's at Dunsmuir and Richards. It was acquired for a venting of the Dunsmuir Tunnel. It was acquired by Transit and subsequently sold for a small building development there. Again, I would be interested in being advised whether that was a tendering process or whether it was simply a set price. I think those were the primary questions I had right now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Both properties, the 16th and Cambie and the Dunsmuir, have been sold. And we'll get you the information on how those sales were handled.

The False Creek site was tendered but it was not sold. The board has asked B.C. Transit staff to do a little bit more in the way of studying the alternatives and any options for possible future use. But that will end up being up to the city, anyhow. So that property is still owned by B.C. Transit. But we'll get you the information as to how we disposed of the other two sites.

MR. BLENCOE: This has reminded me of one. Maybe the minister can provide information on a piece of land formerly owned by Transit in Victoria. It is of great interest to this community. It is currently occupied by Glenoak Ford and was Transit property. I believe it was sold or leased — I don't know the details of the tender or whether it went to tender. It's virtually across from where Transit is located now — their headquarters, where the buses are stored. It's very prime real estate land on Douglas Street. Glenoak Ford has it now, and I believe it was Transit property. I wonder if the minister could get that information for us: the details and how it was done or tendered, or what the deal was.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, the property was sold and the proceeds were used to put up what is now a beautiful new administration centre. But we'll get the information on how that property was disposed of, what was realized from the sale and how it was handled.

MR. BLENCOE: Unless there is anything further, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 44 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: No. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.