1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JULY 19, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11187 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Range Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 74). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11187

Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11187

Tabling Documents –– 11187

Oral Questions

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Sihota –– 11187

Spraying of lignosulphonates. Mr. Cashore –– 11188

Flooding in interior. Mr. Chalmers –– 11188

Spraying of lignosulphonates. Mr. Cashore –– 11189

Americans fishing in Canadian waters. Mr. Bruce — 11189

Deputy minister's trip to crisis management seminar. Mr. Williams –– 11189

Rental and social housing supply. Mr. Barlee –– 11189

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

On vote 47: minister's office –– 11190

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mr. Perry

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Williams

Ms. Cull

Mr. Blencoe

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Crown Lands estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Parker)

On vote 15: minister's office –– 11206

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Williams

Mr. Zirnhelt

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11216

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Mr. Jones

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Science and Technology Fund Act (Bill 18). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11231

Mr. Jones

Mr. Perry

Mr. Clark

Mr. Williams

Third reading

Engineers Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 27). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 11236

Mr. Jones

Third reading

Guide Animal Act (Bill 47). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11236

Third reading

Labour and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 51).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11237

Mr. Cashore

Ms. Cull

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Senatorial Selection Act (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Dirks

Introduction and first reading –– 11243

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Yasuhide Hayashi, the newly

appointed consul-general of Japan in Vancouver. Would the House please

welcome him to British Columbia and to this House.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you to

welcome four very special guests to the Legislature today: Lorna

Waight, who is from Harrogate, Yorkshire, England; Frank Richards from

Ganges on Saltspring Island; and Alfred and Evelyn Messer from Atlanta,

Georgia, U.S.A. Would you please welcome them here.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

We're pleased this afternoon to recognize in our presence the parents

of one of our Pages, Matthew Smiley. I'd ask the House to join me in

giving a warm welcome to Brian and Roxy Smiley, their other son David

and daughter Rebecca.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : On behalf

of my colleagues from Richmond, Langley, Delta and Surrey, I would ask

the House to please welcome Andrew Milne, the chairman of the board of

governors of Kwantlen College; Doug Brawn, vice-chairman of the board

of governors; Derek Francis, vice-president, educational and

organizational support; and Gerry Kilcup, vice-president, applied arts

and career preparation.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : In the

members' gallery today are the senior officers of the Kaiwo Maru, the

newest Japanese sail training ship, which is visiting British Columbia

until July 23. Representing the Kaiwo Maru are Capt. Y. Tanabe,

commanding officer; Capt. Y. Nagumo, engineering officer; Capt. K.

Ohtani, senior professor, navigation; and Capt. T. Yagi, senior

professor, engineering. They are accompanied by Mr. Jay Rangel,

chairman of the city of Victoria sister city advisory and liaison

committee. The Kaiwo Maru is the sister ship of the Nippon Maru, which

visited Vancouver during Expo 86 and was an outstanding feature at the

fair. Mr. Speaker, would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Bill 74 clarifies the rights of holders of grazing

and hay-cutting tenures issued under the Range Act. Imprecise wording in the

current act has led to a confusion of intent which could result in legal actions.

Bill 74 will prevent this unnecessary cost.

Specifically,

the bill clarifies that Range Act tenures convey rights to forage only

and confirms the public's ownership and control of Crown land. It

specifies how to determine compensation for loss of grazing or

hay-cutting rights, and it validates some tenures that were renewed

with the consent of both the holder and the Ministry of Forests, but

not in accordance with renewal deadlines specified in the act.

Bill

74 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.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I am introducing Bill 77 as an exposure bill so that the

range clients and the general public can review the proposals and

provide comments before the amendments are considered by the

Legislature.

This bill amends the processes for award,

administration and enforcement of tenures issued under the Range Act.

These amendments benefit both the tenure-holder and government by

correcting longstanding deficiencies in the current act which were

enumerated during the range program review.

Specifically,

Bill 77 defines the types of planning and advertising that must precede

the award of a tenure. It requires tenure-holders to comply with any

approved integrated resource management plans as well as to prepare and

abide by operational management plans for the tenure. It enables

issuance of temporary grazing permits to utilize surplus forage; it

provides legal ratification for the group tenures now issued to

community pasture associations; it enables a tenure to remain with a

base ranch property in the event of foreclosure or other transfer of

control of a ranch; and it clarifies rights and obligations during the

seizure and sale of livestock.

Bill 77 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. Jacobsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing for the year ended March 31, 1989.

Oral Questions

TAPED CONVERSATIONS

OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SIHOTA :

To date the Premier has refused to say whether what his former

Attorney-General did was right or wrong. Is he prepared to tell the

House today what he thinks? Was the former Attorney-General right or

wrong?

[ Page 11188 ]

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. member, the matter is sub judice. It is a matter that the Chair is

considering and that the judicial system is considering. So the Chair

would rule the question out of order.

MR. ROSE : Mr.

Speaker, we're not dealing with the matter of contempt or privilege at

this moment. Perhaps I might able to assist the Chair by suggesting

that the question is whether or not the Premier finds the behaviour of

the Attorney-General satisfactory, or right or wrong, because he is

commenting on it outside the House constantly.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Chair is not going to be in the business of dispensing legal

opinions. The matter is sub judice and not for discussion, at least in

this chamber.

MR. SIHOTA : As a matter of principle

HON. MR. BRUMMET : How would you know?

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, I have made very clear what my views are on all of the issues.

question to the Premier is this: as a matter of principle, does he

consider it acceptable for any Attorney-General to discuss strategies

with defence counsel with respect to a matter before the courts?

MR. SPEAKER : Again, I must rule the question out of order.

SPRAYING OF LIGNOSULPHONATES

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Environment. On June 19, the

Ministries of Environment and Highways jointly announced provincial

approval for the spraying of lignosulphonates on B.C. roads. The

minister said the material is non-toxic and cited Quebec's use of

lignosulphonates as support for their approval in B.C., but Quebec

officials have confirmed to me that this substance is effectively

banned in Quebec by stringent application requirements. Why did the

Minister of Environment not inform the public that lignosulphonates

have been effectively banned for use in Quebec?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : It's interesting that the critic for the opposition on this matter now thinks that I'm a spokesman for the province of Quebec.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary to the same minister. Does British Columbia, like Quebec,

require 100 percent certainty that there be no rain for 48 hours

following application?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether the member wants to tell me whether it's

going to rain this weekend or not, but I'm not in the forecasting

business. I'm also not in the business of asking Quebec what we should

be doing here in British Columbia.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary, the minister based his

news release on the advice of Quebec. He cited that up front. The

minister accepted Quebec's advice then. Why won't he accept it now?

Quebec has very stringent requirements. Does B.C., like Quebec, require

that every batch intended for use on the highways be randomly sampled

and tested prior to application?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

My staff, who are equal to any staff of any environment ministry in

Canada, advised me that lignosulphonates are non-toxic to fish and

aquatic organisms and are free from dioxins and furans. The product was

developed here in British Columbia and is accepted by people all over

the world. I don't know why the member would be staking his reputation

on this one issue on what they do in Quebec.

MR. CASHORE : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'll stake my reputation on protecting the health and safety of British Columbians any day.

[2:15]

The

question is: does B.C., like Quebec, require that a sample be conducted

at the location in the field as the material is being sprayed?

MR. SPEAKER : The question might be better placed on the order paper. The Minister of Environment.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

If that member over there wants to place his party's reputation, a

party which will send out pamphlets saying fishing is banned in Howe

Sound.... I don't think they have any reputation at all.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary. How can the minister justify the spreading of this

pulp mill pollution on B.C. roads, where it leaches into streams,

rivers and groundwater, when even the material safety data sheets

provided by the manufacturer state that it is to be "kept out of

sewers, storm drains, surface waters and soils"?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

As usual, the member's facts are not correct. I suggest he ask his

research department to go back and research his information.

FLOODING IN INTERIOR

MR. CHALMERS :

My question is also for the Minister of Environment. The flooding

problems we had in the Okanagan this spring were well known and

publicized from coast to coast. Mission Creek is one of the major

contributors to the waterflow — about one-third — of Okanagan

Lake. Much of the flooding that happened in the Okanagan was along

Mission Creek. The people living in that area are most concerned about

the work that needs to be done in dyking and river maintenance. Can the

minister enlighten us today as to whether funding will be made

available for such work, and when?

[ Page

11189 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : My regional staff will be preparing a

report, which will be delivered to me tomorrow. I fully expect they

will be able to start on the work immediately. And yes, there will be

money available to solve that very serious problem.

SPRAYING OF LIGNOSULPHONATES

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister

knows that I have called on her to announce a ban on the use of this

substance pending further investigation.

have some

questions. A Bella Coola resident suffered what his doctor called a

severe reaction to a toxic chemical after trying to remove such road

spray from his truck. Eleven days before the minister's announcement

giving lignosulphonates the green light in B.C., the Bella Coola man

received a letter from your ministry — and I'm prepared to table a

letter from the person who was raising this issue — expressing

concern about this incident. How could the minister have given the

green light to lignosulphonates after her department received such

complaints, which indicated that this is dangerous to the health and

safety of British Columbians?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Speaker, as has been the case all afternoon, the member opposite is

less than specific. If he would like to provide me with the specific

information on the complaint, I'd be pleased to follow it up.

MR. CASHORE :

I have a supplementary to the same minister. Will the minister

undertake to table in this House the list of all B.C. highways that

have been sprayed with lignosulphonates?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'll take that question on notice.

AMERICANS FISHING IN

CANADIAN WATERS

MR. BRUCE :

To the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. Yesterday he rose in the

House concerned about the situation in the northern part of our waters.

Can you tell me today if you have had any assurance from the Canadian

government that they will protect the waters — the fisheries, in particular — south of the A-B line?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, I have been in discussions this morning

with my staff, who have also been in contact with the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans. We have been discussing the A-B line and the concerns we have from

the point of view of fishermen from both countries, and we are politely asking....

Without, hopefully, having to use force, even though in the incidents that are

happening, there may be fudging in both cases.... We are saying that we would

like both countries to respect a line that was agreed to in 1903, even though

it isn't written — the A-B line as we know it.

We're

very concerned about infractions if they occur, but we will

jurisdictionally protect our sovereignty. It's important that British

Columbia, from the point of view of our resource, protect what is

rightfully ours under our sovereign control. We are asking all

fishermen, both from the U.S. and British Columbia, to respect those

boundaries.

DEPUTY MINISTER'S TRIP TO

CRISIS MANAGEMENT SEMINAR

MR. WILLIAMS : To the hon. Premier. I see from voucher batch No. 8565428 that employee No. 17993 — Eli Sopow — attended

a seminar on corporate crisis management given by the Canadian

Institute in Toronto on February 23 and 24, 1989. It was approved by

the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid), who at that

time was acting Minister of Finance. Could you advise the House whether

Mr. Sopow passed the course, or whether you've requested your money

back?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to take the question on notice.

RENTAL AND SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY

MR. BARLEE :

To the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Yesterday the minister

told this House: "The only way to deal with the problem of rental

supply is to get more accommodation on the market. That's what we're

doing, and we're doing a very good job of it — a job we're all

proud of." That will come as great news to the 11 families in Penticton

who have had to separate their families and put their children into

foster homes.

MR. SPEAKER : May we have a question, please?

MR. BARLEE :

There is simply no housing there. What plans has the minister put in

place to deal with this distressing situation, which has been forcing

these families apart?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I am very

pleased to answer the question. We have recognized that there is some

discrimination against families in British Columbia. We have prepared

legislation to deal with it. As a matter of fact, this evening we will

be going into committee stage to deal with that particular legislation.

I should point out to you that your members have objected to the

legislation and have asked that we put it out as an exposure bill for a

year. We said it should be dealt with now because there was an urgency

to deal with the families facing discrimination. We want to deal with

it now to provide families the same opportunity the rest of the people

in society have. Your members have resisted; they say it's not an

urgent matter. We will continue with it, and we will prepare the

legislation to make it possible for these people to have accommodation

the same as you and me.

[ Page 11190 ]

MR. BARLEE :

Supplementary to the same minister. Evidently I did not make it clear.

There are 11 families in Penticton whose children are in foster homes

because there is not adequate housing. You stated last year the housing

would be there. You "are working on it." They cannot afford another

year of waiting. The minister knew this was a problem last year.

Evidently it is not working. Your department was aware of the problems

in this area last year, and you mentioned it last year. Why did the

minister not put measures in place so that it would not occur again?

And it is occurring.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Mr. Speaker,

the government is working very hard to provide additional accommodation

in the Penticton area, and we recognize that there is a shortage. But

the problems that families face is what I just talked about a moment

ago: families do not have equal opportunity to access the accommodation

that is there, and as a result of that they are having a difficult time

finding a place to house their children. That's why we have a bill this

evening that will provide them with the same opportunity that the rest

of society has, and that's the bill your members are opposing.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 47: minister's office, $330,518 (continued)

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a question that I started on before

lunch. I note that the minister had a delegation from the Williams Lake

area in the Cariboo Regional District some time in May. Can you give us

a date as to when you will be responding to those requests? You said

you were working on it. I gathered that, but I'm sure the people are

anxious to decide to go to referendum or to do something like that.

When can we expect a reply from your ministry?

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I imagine the member is referring to South Lakeside in

Williams Lake. Is that correct? The member should be aware that there

isn't a complete agreement or understanding as to what the regional

district or the municipality wishes to do at this moment. There are

still some questions they are debating themselves — particularly

the municipality. Part of the debate is waiting for a monetary response

from us as to what assistance we may be able to provide. We're in the

process of preparing that for them. They'll have our position very

shortly, and then they will have to make a decision as to whether or

not they want to go ahead.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I realize

that "very shortly" is vague. Do you anticipate it in the month of

August, or in a month, two months or a week? I wonder if you could be a

little more precise on that.

HON. L. HANSON : I could say that part of it depends on how long these estimates take — no, that's not true, Mr. Speaker.

I would imagine that we will give our position to Williams Lake within the next two to three weeks.

MR. PERRY :

I am sure the minister is aware that Vancouver city council recently

appointed a special task force which prepared a report entitled "Clouds

of Change" on the implications of global atmospheric change for the

city of Vancouver and, by implication, for similar large urban areas.

I'd like to ask the minister whether he has received a copy of that

report and has had a chance to look at it.

HON. L. HANSON : I know of the report. I haven't seen a copy as yet.

MR. PERRY :

I guess I can understand that. Having been one of those who presented a

submission to the commission, I haven't directly received one either. I

will notify the city that neither the minister nor I have received our

copies; hopefully it will also be sent to other members of the

Legislature.

The report reviews some of the scientific

background on what is known about global climatic change and the

sources of pollutants which contribute to the destruction of the

stratospheric ozone layer and to the apparent greenhouse effect. It

undertakes a review of municipal, provincial and federal

jurisdiction — or potential jurisdiction — to deal with that

problem, and then it proposes a large number of potential solutions, or

steps towards solutions, to this problem which may be undertaken by

municipalities; in this case specifically, the city of Vancouver.

[2:30]

wonder whether the minister can tell us whether officials in his

department have reviewed any of this information or have begun to

examine changes which may be necessary to the Municipal Act and/or the

Vancouver Charter to empower municipalities to undertake, if they so

choose, the recommendations made in that report. If it's helpful to the

minister, some of the suggestions concern novel parking regulations,

regulations concerning car-pooling, and regulations concerning the

efficiency of vehicles and energy efficiency in buildings in a

municipality. Perhaps that helps to clarify what I'm getting at.

HON. L. HANSON :

I guess the member can appreciate that it's very difficult to respond

as to what our future opinion or action might be on a study that we

haven't seen yet; nor have we had an opportunity to see the

recommendations. I can tell the member that we are looking forward to

receiving our copy of that report. Also, from the remarks the member

made, there is the likelihood that there will be other ministries

involved — most particularly, En-

[ Page

11191 ]

vironment, off the top of my head. We look forward

to receiving that study and to the recommendations in it. But it's very

difficult to take a position, positive or negative, until you know what

they are.

MR. PERRY : I was hoping at least that the

minister had received the preliminary discussion paper entitled "Clouds

of Change" which was published by that task force in March, and might

have begun to examine these issues. Perhaps I can simply serve notice

to the ministry that one of the interesting issues that arose for me on

a cursory inspection of the final report, which was provided to me sort

of indirectly through the office of the Leader of the Opposition, is

that there may be changes required to the Municipal Act or the

Vancouver Charter or both if cities are to respond in a constructive

way, and within the interests of their constituencies, to some of the

issues raised.

As an example, the actions of the city of

Berkeley, California, were obviously quite influential in this report.

The Vancouver task force called as one of its key witnesses Councillor

Nancy Skinner, whom we had the privilege of hosting in the Legislature

back in late April, at the time of her testimony to the Vancouver city

task force. I was looking yesterday at a report of Councillor Skinner

to the Berkeley, California, municipal council, which outlined a set of

proposed municipal actions for approval during the week of Earth Day

this spring. Some of those actions — for example, the closing of

certain lanes of major thoroughfares to vehicular traffic and opening

them exclusively to bicycle traffic— may require powers beyond those

possessed by municipalities. I don't pretend to be an expert in this

field. I'm simply raising the question to draw it to the ministry's

attention.

Perhaps I could leave with the minister the

suggestion that his ministry undertake to review this report. I will

make it my business to notify the city that they should provide the

ministry with, preferably, more than one copy and request that this be

looked at in the next year.

I have one further question,

which is somewhat related. Most of us are aware that the issue of

preservation of urban natural landscape, including trees on private

land, has been a very contentious issue in Vancouver. It has led to

some incidents in which ethnic and racial groups have been pitted

against each other and to an exacerbation of some rather ugly feelings

in the community, to put it bluntly.

The city council in Vancouver has been very concerned about this. The first

member for Vancouver-Port Grey (Ms. Marzari) and I, who represent the west side

of Vancouver, have been exposed to a lot of public concern over this issue.

There was tremendous concern last year when the amendments to the Vancouver

Charter proposed by the city did not reach second reading in the Legislature.

Over the past year, I assume, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has worked closely

with the city of Vancouver in preparing an approach to deal with that problem.

I was therefore puzzled when the approach taken by the government ended up experiencing the same fate as Caesar — of

being stabbed in the back. I wonder whether the minister would be

prepared to explain why there is a discrepancy between the government's

current approach to allowing the city of Vancouver to deal with that

problem and the approach that was apparently pursued between the city

of Vancouver and the ministry over the course of the last year,

HON. L. HANSON :

What the member is getting at is the private member's bill changing

some of the conditions of the Vancouver Charter. I would say to the

member that we did not collaborate, as the member is suggesting, in the

drafting of these. The proposals that Vancouver council brought forward

were given to us for opinion and assessment.

The process is

the Standing Orders Committee, and it has traditionally been that for

changes of this nature to the Vancouver Charter. It emphasizes that

Vancouver does not operate under the Municipal Act, but under its own

charter, and therefore is unique in British Columbia. Changes to the

charter are handled in a unique way through the Standing Orders

Committee. Again, I would advise the member that we didn't take

part in

the process of generating Vancouver Charter changes. We gave them our

opinion of the changes they were requesting— as was fair and reasonable —

but they were generated by them. This is now in the Standing Orders

Committee process, and I believe it will be before the House shortly.

I'm not sure if the member is on the Standing Orders Committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Thank you, minister. I was just going to intercede and remind hon.

members there is legislation before this House dealing with the

Vancouver Charter. In view of this, we are not permitted to discuss

these matters in committee. Could we continue without discussing the

matter of the legislation relating to the Vancouver Charter.

MR. PERRY :

You'll note that my question was very carefully phrased. I did not

mention legislation in my question. Since the minister has brought that

up, I wonder if I could ask him — because I can't see that there

will be an opportunity subsequently in this chamber, if I understand

our procedure correctly — whether he would be willing to tell us

the ministry's opinion as provided to the city of Vancouver regarding

their initiative.

HON. L. HANSON : I am getting some comments from my deputy.

think the bill in itself will be discussed when we go through the

proper process. It certainly is a controversial problem. I am not sure

whether the member is referring to anything specific, but he did

mention control of trees and landscaping in his conversation.

Our position is that we observed that it is not in the Municipal Act. We are not studying it for inclu-

[ Page 11192 ]

sion

in the Municipal Act at this point. It is a very controversial problem.

The rights of society as opposed to the rights of individuals on their

own property is the question. There must be a balance to that— I firmly

believe there should be a balance to that, in any case — and that

is the question.

don't take a position as Minister of Municipal Affairs in this House on

a bill that is coming forward. When the bill comes forward, I suppose

it might be appropriate for me to speak on it as a member. But other

than that, I am not prepared to.

MR. PERRY : With the

Chair's indulgence, I think the minister has confirmed just now that in

later procedure it won't be possible for me to ask questions of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs. What I am trying to get at is that since

this is an issue of great general public concern that goes beyond

merely the city of Vancouver, I would like to utilize the opportunity

the Legislature affords to find out where those experts in our civil

service who are charged with attempting at the provincial level to

address these issues stand and what advice they have to offer the

people of B.C. That's why I am posing these questions now.

one would disagree with the minister, and I am relieved to hear him say

that the question of tree conservation calls for balance between rights

of private property and the needs of the community. That is exactly the

argument the city of Vancouver has made, and individual

homeowners — whether they are neighbours of an endangered tree or

owners of the land on which an endangered tree stands —

will agree. There must be some balance. Few of us pretend to have the

wisdom of Solomon to know exactly where it is. Certainly my impression

is that the city of Vancouver does not purport to know exactly. The

answer will emerge eventually in time, if the city ultimately achieves

the authority to attempt to deal with that problem.

There

were other issues raised in the initiative of the city of Vancouver

that have yet to be dealt with, such as the desirability of sharing or

mitigating the effects of rapid change in neighbourhoods due to urban

redevelopment by the use of a development levy, which could be applied

to the construction of day cares necessitated by that rapid change. Or

it could be applied to the funding of social or community housing to

maintain a mix of social classes and socio-economic status in Vancouver

neighbourhoods These principles, in my view and clearly in the view of

some other members of this House, clearly apply to all British

Columbians in urban areas and not just to the city of Vancouver.

would like to know if the ministry sympathizes with the problems of the

city of Vancouver and feels they are on the right track. Or, in the

advice given to the city when it brought forward its proposals, did the

ministry say: "No, you're on the wrong track"? And if so, why?

HON. L. HANSON : I believe we covered the issue — if not specifically —

in a philosophical manner this morning in the discussions your

colleagues raised. But I will tell the member that we as the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs sympathize with any difficulty a municipality has.

We don't always agree with the solution they propose, but the solution

that is proposed in the particular issue and municipality he is talking

about is a very contentious one.

[2:45]

While

I know there is a very dedicated approach to it by the one community,

that isn't necessarily held by all communities. Suffice it to say that

it is not the intention of Municipal Affairs at this point in time to

introduce changes to the Municipal Act in a like manner. That is not to

say we might not in the future, but we don't intend to now. The

discussion on the charter changes will come up in the private member's

bill.

MS. PULLINGER : Mr. Chairman, I am happy to

rise and participate in the debate, and I would like to welcome the

deputy minister and others from the ministry to the House. I have a

number of issues I would like to briefly touch on; none of them are too

extensive.

The first one regards a letter I wrote to the

minister and his response. The issue was the homeowner grant program

for disabled persons. We've had an enormous number of people in our

constituency who are not on GAIN but who because of their disabilities

have severe financial problems. As you know, the unemployment rate for

disabled persons is something like 70 percent. Clearly there's a large

and growing body of people who are in economic trouble. However,

because they're not on GAIN and because some of these disabilities are

not mobility disabilities, these people fall through the cracks of the

program. I outlined this in my letter, and the response I received was

that you would forward this for the next review of the homeowner grant.

I wonder if the minister can tell me just when that review might take

place and how soon we might be able to deal with this problem that is a

very serious one for a number of people.

HON. L. HANSON :

Well, as I understand it — and I've had some correspondence

myself, not only from the hon. member but from other people — the

concern is the criteria that qualify people for the extended or

additional homeowner grant. We have some studies going on about it....

My deputy is just passing me a note saying that to get a disabled

homeowner grant, you have to be unable to function in the home,

regardless of whether you get GAIN or not, and the criteria that have

been attached to the qualification at this point have not been that you

get GAIN or you don't get GAIN.

However, some of the

letters I have had and seen have made a case that, I have to say,

warrants us looking at it. We're in that process, but there's nothing

pending immediately.

MS. PULLINGER : I'd like to thank the minister for that response. I hope that that issue will be dealt with

[ Page

11193 ]

soon. As I say, it's a serious issue for a number of people.

I'd

like to turn now to the question of culture and, more specifically,

archaeological resources. This has been brought to my attention in a

number of ways, partly in my role as Tourism critic — there is obviously

a role there — and partly because of an archaeological site recently

identified in my riding, which I've spoken to the ministry about. We're

in the process of arranging a talk about it. I understand, however, as

is the case with the dig in my riding, that the vast majority of

archaeological resources in the province are located on Crown lands

and, more specifically, Crown lands designated for logging and forest

resources. It crosses over a number of ministries; I understand that.

I'd just like to clarify what the role of this minister and ministry is

in archaeological sites.

I understand that once an area is

identified as a valid, valuable archaeological site, it is

automatically designated by the ministry and placed on a map of some

sort, and I also understand that the ministry stated last May to the

Forest Resources Commission that it ensures that archaeological items

are not damaged by requiring that proper management procedures are

implemented during the planning and carrying out of forest activities —

that's the major conflict, obviously. I wonder if the minister can tell

me if his ministry can make a decision about whether or not an area can

be logged, or does that decision still rest with the Ministry of

Forests?

HON. L. HANSON : The member is correct that

as archaeologically important sites are recognized, they're not

designated as such. But there is a system of notice. In the case of a

subdivision, for example, if there is a site that has been recognized

as archaeologically important, and a subdivision wishes to occur, we

ask for an assessment or some other remedies that may be available to

us to be registered against the title. If it is a separate title to a

separate piece, you can register against the title that it is an

archaeologically sensitive or important site, and there may have to be

a study. If that study brings forward information that the site truly

has some very important material, there may be a requirement for

excavation and digging.

As far as forestry is concerned, when there is a site that is about to be logged

or is in the process of having a permit for logging, and it is recognized as

having archaeological importance, the final decision doesn't rest with our

ministry; there is consultation that goes on between the two ministries. The

process for the logging — or whatever the activity may be — is ensured in the

agreement with the operator who is doing it, and it is monitored by the Forest

Service. So there's good cooperation there. I see, from my experience, that

it has been working quite well. At this point in time I don't see any need....

I haven't seen any huge problems with that process. We continue to monitor

it, and the ministries cooperate very well. The final say is with the Ministry

of Forests, though.

MS. PULLINGER :

I want to pursue the same subject for a moment. I would like to know

also if forest harvesting plans in this kind of situation are always

referred to your branch of cultural affairs if archaeological sites are

listed on the plans. Is it a standard practice that they're referred to

you for input if the sites are listed? I wonder how often this happens.

How many of these are referred to you? Could you just give me a sense

of that? Then I wonder if you can tell me the number of people involved

in dealing with those plans and the referrals, and where those people

are. That's four questions.

HON. L. HANSON : The

magnitude of the issue makes your question rather difficult to answer.

We get about 1,700 reports a year of sites that may have some

archaeological significance. We have a register that keeps track of

these. When there is an issue to do with mining or forestry on any of

those sites, it becomes an immediate imperative to look at the

importance of the site. I believe there are 11 or 12 on staff who deal

with this pretty well exclusively. We also have a number of consultants

who deal with it. Of course, you can appreciate that of all the

reportings we get of significance, not all are truly of a significant

nature. You can see the magnitude of the job of making that assessment.

We do it in the style of a registry, and if there is some imperative

happening on one of the sites that has been recognized as having some

importance, then we go further.

I mentioned earlier that

the Ministry of Forests has the final say. I should qualify that by

saying that if the site is of an archaeological significance of

importance to our branch, to the level that we may designate it, then

the control of the site reverts to the archaeological branch. That

doesn't happen too often; the cooperation is absolutely excellent

between the ministries.

MS. PULLINGER : I have one

last question on this issue. I'd be interested to know whether or not

the ministry checks for compliance. My last question involved whether

there were people out in the field, or if they are all in Victoria. I'm

interested to know whether or not your branch checks for compliance

either before or after timber harvesting has taken place, and whether

there's any systematic way in which you are informed about those kinds

of activities. Are there people out there monitoring that and keeping

your branch informed of that kind of activity?

HON. L. HANSON :

As I said to the member, we get about 1,700 annually, and if you

compound that over a few years, there are a lot of those sites.

don't physically have people who act as policemen going around to all

of the various sites. On most of the sites, Forests reports if there is

a difficulty or if there is not. We've had very little difficulty with

that, quite frankly. Some complaints, as a result of things that may

have happened, have gone to court, but that has happened very seldom.

[ Page 11194 ]

No,

we don't have a bunch of policemen looking into those things. We do

have the cooperation of Forests to assess the operation as per the

permit they issue, and it works very well.

MS. PULLINGER : Thank you for that response.

would like to turn now to the question of the Islands Trust. As I'm

sure you're aware, there have been some major conflicts over resource

use and development in the Islands Trust. As we know, the mandate of

the Trust is to preserve and protect the Trust area and its unique

amenities and environment for the benefit of the residents of the area

and of the province generally. That's a very valid and valuable

mandate, given that the islands in trust are unique.

I've

had an increasing number of calls from people on South Pender Island

and Bowen Island who are concerned about increasing development — not

just small development, but development that contravenes the official

community plan and is also out of compliance with the mandate of the

Trust, essentially. We've got Cowan Point on Bowen Island and Bedwell

on South Pender, and I understand there was one in question for Galiano

Island — all of them Whistler-type resorts.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

These,

as I see it, contravene quite clearly the intent of the Islands Trust

legislation, and they also contravene in every case the official

community plan. There is enormous outcry, and the overwhelming majority

of the residents are opposed to these developments — not to

development, per se, but to these enormous developments that will, for

instance, in the case of Bedwell Harbour, quadruple the population of

South Pender and destroy the rural character which is part of the

uniqueness that's in trust.

[3:00]

wonder if the minister could enlighten us a little bit about this kind

of development and why it's being allowed in the Gulf Islands, when it

so clearly contradicts both the mandate of the Trust and the local

community plans. Could you tell us a little bit about that and the

ministry's involvement in it? What position do you take?

HON. L. HANSON :

I'm sure the member is well aware that the Islands Trust was just

recently given a certain amount of autonomy, in that they now have the

ability and have been taxing the local residents for their services.

They now have the employees of the Trust under their jurisdiction; they

are employees of the Islands Trust. They are empowered, and their

mandate is to control or be in charge of land use on the islands.

To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any developments going on that

are beyond the zoning that is in place. If there are situations — and I guess

this is what the member is suggesting, or at least that's what I was getting

from the conversation — where a development is going ahead that is contrary to

the zoning bylaw that is in place, the Islands Trust has enforcement powers.

They have a considerable legal services budget if there is contravention going

on.

MS. PULLINGER :

The minister is quite right. Technically these developments are all

right — within the zoning, if you like. However, as you know — particularly with the question of South Pender — it's a loophole in the

zoning regulation that has been used to facilitate this development.

There has been no reaction that I can see, or any attempt from the

ministry to enforce the intent of the Islands Trust, which, as I say,

is a very unique and special resource that we have.

Both

developments I'm speaking about and the third one that was in question — I'm not sure if it's still in the works on Galiano — are self-described

as Whistler-type resorts. I'm sure you understand that will

significantly increase population and change forever the character of

the islands. I don't think there's any question about that, and it

seems to me that the ministry has a role to facilitate and work with

the Islands Trust wherever possible to ensure that that kind of

development doesn't begin to take over our islands and destroy their

character.

I understand as well that the minister has on

his desk — or has had on his desk — a number of amendments to the

official plan and zoning bylaws for South Pender. Obviously quick

ministerial approval would indicate support for the Islands Trust and

would indicate the fact that you understand the mandate of the Islands

Trust and are willing to put the weight of your ministry behind that. I

wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not those orders have

been signed yet.

HON. L. HANSON : I know of no bylaws

that are being held up. I guess I should go back a little bit. We look

at bylaws that require ministerial approval from the

provincial-interest point of view, and when a bylaw comes in we

circulate it to Health, Highways, Social Services and the various

ministries to see if they have a provincial concern. There being none

and the bylaw being within the scope of the responsibility or the

authority of the entity that generates it, we process it. I don't know

of any that are being held up.

The Islands Trust has that

authority. I hope the member is not suggesting that when we delegate

authority to a locally elected body that we would start to provide

legislation — which really is our only option — that would override the

bylaws those people have decided to put in place. I think it would be a

regressive policy to give local authorities — as was suggested by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — more autonomy and more

ability to make their own decisions, and then have government come

along and pass a bylaw to say we don't like their decision and are

going to override it.

I don't know of any bylaws that are

being held up, beyond what is our normal procedure. I don't know that

there is any development that is going ahead that is contrary to the

zoning that is in place. There are some conditions that apply to all

municipalities and

[ Page

11195 ]

to all local governments. If the land use designation is appropriate

for a project, and there is an application to take out a building

permit, there is a time factor whereby a municipal government cannot

come along and change that zoning to stop the development — as they

shouldn't. Somewhere we have to have some understanding of what we can

and can't do on various pieces of land. That's the purpose of zoning

and the purpose of community plans.

The Islands Trust has

the enforcement authority. They have a budget that should allow them to

enforce it. If they are having difficulties, they should be pursuing it.

MS. PULLINGER :

I see the operative words in that are "appropriate development." I

would suggest the vast majority of people on those islands think the

developments that are happening are highly inappropriate. As I say,

they fly in the face of the intent of the Islands Trust.

the case of South Pender Island, there is an official community plan

which this development will contravene. As well, the Islands Trust has

asked for support from the ministry in passing bylaws to close the

loophole that has been used for the Bedwell Harbour development to go

ahead. They would like to close that loophole. While they are forced to

pass this development because it does comply — they don't have any

option; they would like to not pass it in its present state — they

would like to close that loophole. They are asking the minister for

support in doing that to make this particular resort legal

nonconforming. Should it burn down or be damaged, it can't be rebuilt

and no others can be built, thereby protecting the nature of that

island as per the Islands Trust.

That's what's in question.

I think the minister would agree that when there's that kind of

opposition, when there's a very clear mandate of the Trust, when

Islands Trust people have asked for this support, then the onus is on

the ministry to provide it. Their bylaw changes were sent to you some

time ago. I'm interested to know whether they've been signed, and if

they haven't, when they will be. What's the time-frame for this process?

HON. L. HANSON :

I don't know of the loophole the member is talking about. I have heard

some conversation or some suggestion that the zoning that was on some

of the properties — I don't know if it's a specific one she's talking

about — allowed more than the Islands Trust thought should be allowed.

If they wish to put a bylaw in place that changes and reduces that

density, I don't see that there's any reason why the ministry would

hold that up, other than the people who intend to go ahead with the

development perhaps not doing their proper thing. They should not be

stopped, because that was the allowance that was there. I don't see

that as being a loophole. If you wish to classify it as an error, that

is up to you, but I don't see it as being a loophole.

I suppose that the elected local representatives at some time felt that the

land use applied to the particular area you are talking about was appropriate.

I don't know that, but I imagine that's why it was, or it wouldn't

have been there in the first place. There may be an election, and different

people will come along, and there will be another opinion of what it should

be. That's the process of land use and why we give the authority to local

people, who should best know what that land use should be.

assure the member that if there is a bylaw that is unduly being held

up, we will look into it and see why it is being held up. I have no

knowledge of one being held up.

MS. PULLINGER : This

is a really interesting question. As I say, the overwhelming cry from

the Islands Trust and the people there is that, because of

understaffing, insufficient funds and the history of the Trust, it's

simply been overlooked. They're asking for a change. I will formally

ask the minister to look into that bylaw and the changes presented by

the Islands Trust several weeks ago, to ensure that they are passed as

quickly as possible. Obviously it's very important in this case and for

others that might come along. The minister says that if he's asked, he

will look into it, so I put forward that formal request for you to do

that. I would very much appreciate a response to that at some point in

terms of precisely where that bylaw is and when we might expect it to

be signed and made law for the Trust. I think that's a critical issue.

The

Islands Trust officers are indeed elected, but I think it's worth

noting that since 1982, when the government introduced Bill 72 to

repeal, in essence, the Islands Trust Act in

section 190.... It was not

successful, and since then there have been a number of things.

1983, for instance, the Municipal Act was amended to erase regional

plans, including those developed by the Islands Trust. It also eroded

the Trust's power to designate protective zoning for special areas.

Since

1983 a number of changes to the Municipal Act have removed the

restrictions on the approval of subdivisions and condominiums, and have

had the effect of opening up the islands to more development. I think

what we're seeing now is a backlash to those changes, and I think that

people are, quite rightly, fearful that our very unique and special

islands will be changed. As you and I know, that's not reversible. Once

you have a Whistler-style resort on one of those islands, it's

irrevocably changed.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please,

hon. member. Past legislation which has been deliberated on in this

chamber is not a matter for debate in the estimates. I am sure the

member is aware of that.

MS. PULLINGER : I am simply

suggesting that those changes have created the problem that we have

today; therefore it's part of the discussion that we need to look at

those changes and perhaps reverse some of them. That's simply my intent.

[ Page 11196 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : The need for legislation is also not a matter for debate in Committee of Supply.

MS. PULLINGER :

Again under the Islands Trust, on the question of Bowen Island we have

had the restructuring committee. I guess it was struck about a year

ago. I wonder if the minister could inform me why that committee was

struck, how the members on it were chosen and what the criteria were.

Were they elected by the community at large, as I would assume would be

the most democratic way to have public input? What kind of funding was

that group given? I wonder if you could answer those questions, please.

[3:15]

HON. L. HANSON :

Going back to the Islands Trust, I hope the member would not suggest

that we would approve a bylaw that would retroactively change something

in progress. We approve bylaws for local governments that wish to

change something that will happen in the future, but not retroactively.

I know of no bylaw before us that is particularly delayed.

the issue of Bowen Island — I guess it's their restructuring study that

you asked the question on — we are getting fairly close to deciding

whether or not there should be a referendum. I haven't seen the final

copy of that study — nor would I, necessarily. A recommendation would

come forward from the committee as to whether they would see a

referendum being appropriate at this time.

I see now that I

have a note in front of me that the study has been completed, but it

wouldn't necessarily come to the ministry in any case.

The

whole purpose of the study in the first place was to see if Bowen

Island should incorporate and become its own municipality, its own

entity, have an elected council and do those sorts of things. The study

will look at all of the ramifications of that: the cost of servicing,

the cost of providing local government, and all of the other things. As

a result of that there is usually a request of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs to gather the various assistance grants that come

about as a result of a restructuring process so that they might

incorporate those into a referendum.

The study has been

completed. We are in the process of putting together what the

restructuring grants might be. They will discuss those with the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, and it will, I suppose, ultimately end up

in a referendum. That could take another three months, six months, nine

months — it depends on how long all of these bodies wish to discuss it

before they arrive at a conclusion.

We have a fairly

standard formula that provides highway assistance, population

assistance in restructuring, servicing assistance and that sort of

thing.

MS. PULLINGER : I would like to thank the member for that information.

However, my questions were more specifically about the restructuring committee.

I am interested in knowing why that committee was struck and how it has been

funded, apart from the study. I know the study was paid for 100 percent by Municipal

Affairs. But I am interested in knowing how that committee came about — I guess

that's a better way to phrase it — and how the members of the committee

were selected. Was it a public election, as one would think it would be? How

is it representative of all the interests in the community?

HON. L. HANSON :

Unfortunately, I wasn't in this chair at that time, but I have been

here for some others' and the normal procedure is that, first of all,

the community expresses an interest in looking at whether it would be

beneficial to study the form of government that they are under. Then,

through either their elected member or directly to the governing body,

which in this case is the regional district, they usually request to

look at that. We try and encourage the local community, along with the

regional district, in this case, and the local representative, to

structure a committee that is broadly based and well-representative of

the community. I think that that has been accomplished in the Bowen

Island case.

It is an informal committee, but it is linked

to the regional district. We provide study funds to local entities. We

don't usually provide them to local government, such as the regional

district or a municipality, if it was to be a boundary expansion or

other areas to be taken in. There may be some variations in various

parts of the province, but that's generally the way it's done. It works

very well.

MS. PULLINGER : I am still not quite clear

about this committee. When you say that the community requests a study,

would the regional board hold a plebiscite? Where does this come from?

Is it just a decision that some members of the community make? Or in

this case, is it just a person from the regional board? Must it be a

decision of the board in its entirety? How does that come about?

Secondly,

I asked about how these people are appointed. Who decides who is on

this committee? I would be most interested to know the process of

decision-making — whether the people on the island have some input into

who sits on that committee or whether it is appointed by the ministry.

Who appoints the committee? I'm sorry; I'm not clear on that.

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, the member should understand that this is an informal

community committee. There are no rules, regulations or format that

must be followed. They don't have to hold public hearings. It is truly

an informal committee.

It usually starts by some interest

in the community in either joining another municipality, forming their

own or just looking at that. It's a study group. It's not going to make

any conclusions that this or that should be done. It's a study group.

Usually we ask the local government to give us some assurance that the

committee being structured is representative of the community.

[ Page

11197 ]

Maybe the member has had someone say: "I should be on that

committee, and I'm not." I'm not aware of that. I don't know how that

particular committee was formed. I have never had a concern expressed

to me about a committee member who shouldn't be on the committee in

this particular instance.

It is an informal committee. It

is usually structured by the regional district or the local

representative. If a community has a committee that it doesn't respect

or that isn't representative of the community, you will hear about that

very quickly. It's an informal fact-gathering committee that will

provide some information to a study process which may eventually lead

to a very democratic process of saying to the people who live there:

"Here are the implications of doing this. Do you want to do it, or do

you not?"

MS. PULLINGER : I take from the minister's

comments that this committee is simply a group of citizens who have

come forward and requested funding, and have got it but are not bound

by any rules or regulations. I find that surprising, quite frankly,

because the impact that these people are going to have on the community

has the potential to be very profound.

I have one last

issue that I would like to raise, and it has to do with a letter dated

June 11 sent by the minister to Mr. Ian Terry, chair of the Regional

District of Nanaimo. This has come from the ministry, so it involves

ministry funding and ministry staff and therefore comes under this

ministry's estimates in terms of its mandate and what it's doing. The

letter is about a $10,000 study grant for Lantzville sewerage: north

shore interceptor. I'm sure the minister is familiar with the letter.

Lantzville is well within the present Nanaimo constituency, which is

represented by me and the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). We are

very active members and work very hard for our constituency — like most

members of the House.

What's fascinating here is that the

minister refers to the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen) as the local

MLA when dealing with this Lantzville sewerage. I wonder if the

minister could tell me why that is.

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, I want to correct the hon. member. She suggested that

this committee, which is a very informal committee, has a huge

influence on what happens in the community and are spending the study

money. The study money is given to the regional district, and the

regional district must be happy with the terms of the study and with

the people taking

part in the steering committee. In most of the cases

the study is actually done by a consultant who is not in any way

associated with the community interest. So to suggest that this local

committee is influencing what happens and to suggest that they are

spending money is not correct. It is under the authority, the auspices,

the control and the regulation of the regional district. I'm sure that

the member would not argue with that.

Secondly, the answer to her last question is that Mr. Hagen is the nearest cabinet minister to that riding.

MS. PULLINGER :

I would like to just respond again to the Bowen Island study

restructure group. I didn't imply that they were improperly spending

money; I know that the money they have received is being spent on the

study. I have no question about that. I am not implying anything

incorrect there. However, I stand behind my comment that those people

will have an enormous effect on the outcome of that community and in

fact have had a profound effect on the dynamics and politics within

that community already.

I find the minister's response to

my query about why he's using a neighbouring MLA, referring to him in

this letter.... He says that he's just the nearest cabinet minister. I

don't understand why the minister would call the neighbouring cabinet

minister the local MLA for Nanaimo. I find that very difficult to

explain, and clearly the minister does too.

Tell me this

then: if it's because he's a cabinet minister — and that's why you've

named him in this letter, you tell me — why then have you also named the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) as the local MLA in the Nanaimo

riding? Could the minister tell me that?

This House should

have an explanation from the minister. This is clearly, as I see it, a

use of a ministry of the Crown, in a letter to our local people in

Nanaimo, to promote two people who are known to be running in the new

ridings in Nanaimo, one in the north and one in the south. I would

suggest that it is highly improper and highly unethical for any

minister to use his position, his staff and his resources to promote

Social Credit candidates. I would suggest that's highly inappropriate,

and the minister owes my colleague from Nanaimo and me an apology. He

owes this House an explanation for the misuse of his position of

minister for those purposes. I hope the minister will stand up and give

us some sort of a satisfactory explanation, because if he does not, I

would suggest his silence would say quite clearly that he is guilty of

the charge of operating outside how he should operate in his ministry.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox is also the minister in charge of

the regional development program and responsible for that area, which

is another good reason.

If we sent that letter as a c.c. to

the member for Cowichan-Malahat, maybe we goofed; I don't know. I

didn't even know that we had.

[3:30]

MS. PULLINGER :

I see the minister has changed his story. First it was because he was a

cabinet minister, and now it's because of the position he holds. I

stand by my comment that it is more than a goof. This has happened in

the newspaper; the other ministers have advertised for Ladysmith, your

local MLA being the member for Cowichan-Malahat. It's

[ Page 11198 ]

clearly a partisan political game that's being played here.

the first day that this Legislature sat, the first committee that we on

this side moved should be added to this House was a committee on

ethics. When we see this kind of misuse of ministers' positions and

ministry funds — the crass, blatant use of your position to promote

Social Credit candidates — I would like to reiterate that it's time we

had a committee on ethics for a government that clearly has no

understanding of ethical behaviour.

MR. D'ARCY : On

to something completely different, further pursuing in general terms

what my friend the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) was

discussing. He was discussing with you the question of assistance for

water and sewage treatment on a specific basis within his riding. I'd

like to talk to the minister and find out his feelings on the question

of general assistance from his ministry for freshwater systems and for

improving water quality throughout the province, rather than dealing

with sewage or water problems on a brushfire basis, which is what the

overlapping and combined jurisdictions of his ministry, Environment and

Health prefer to do.

There is out there in the province of

B.C. — as I'm sure the minister knows, from the area he represents — a

major problem in this regard. It's not trendy and sexy in the lower

mainland and greater Victoria news media, simply because both of these

areas have and have had since the early years of this century large

watershed areas set aside by legislation, which they and they alone

administer. For most of the rest of the province there is a major

problem with water quality, with maintaining that water quality and

with sewage disposal.

I'm giving specific reference to what

we used to call unorganized areas of the province, the truly rural

areas. I don't mean small towns. A lot of people in B.C. refer to

anything beyond the Pitt River as rural I'm not referring to the

Kelownas or even the Vernons, although they may have that problem. I'm

referring to the large number of irrigation districts, improvement

districts, water companies and those many areas of which every riding

in the interior has dozens and dozens licensed under the community

water supply or the Health Act, from just a few connections to a few

hundred or a few thousand, almost all of which have to one degree or

another at one time or another throughout the year a quality problem

relative to fecal coliforms and sometimes other impurities.

I'm not even mentioning the question of the distribution system itself,

this brushfire approach. The Health ministry issues a boil warning, and it hits

the local medical health officer, who issues a warning, and the health inspectors

run around, and the local regional union board of health; it becomes an issue

in the papers, and your ministry and the Ministry of Health get together and

say: "Boy, we're going to deal with that one." The fact is that

they all have the problem.

The

present policy, even though your ministry has gotten more generous this

year.... We tend to see this in B.C. every third or fourth year; the

Municipal Affairs ministry and others get more generous with money at

the local level, and I welcome that. The fact is that you have not

improved the situation for these so-called rural areas. There's not

only a major water-quality problem; there's also a sewage problem in a

great many of these areas as well, both with collector systems and the

question of disposal.

I need not belabour the point, but

it's also true that there is inexorably a development in the catchment

area or the watershed area supplying these various community water

systems throughout the province. I'm not opposed to that, but it is

simply an inevitable growth of the province of B.C. that activities

such as residential development, logging, right-of-way development and

even recreational development — provincial and regional park use — will

add to water-quality deterioration and situation in a great many

community water systems throughout the province.

I'm

advocating that the government and the ministry go back to the formula

we had in the 1970s and early eighties of 75 percent capital funding,

on approval by the Treasury Board and your ministry, where needed and

where there is a manifest need for water-system improvements. While we

hear a great deal about sewage and sewage treatment, if we don't have

fresh, quality water.... That comes first before sewage treatment. In

fact, it's even part of it that you have to have good-quality fresh

water and lots of it.

In a province as rich as this one,

with the incredible freshwater resources we have, the fact that most of

the smaller communities in B.C. have water supply problems in quantity

and quality, for the most part, is really something we shouldn't be

countenancing in the 1990s.

I don't want this to sound as

if I have a criticism of the trustees and owners of these systems. They

are extremely responsible, hard-working people who get none of the

glamour and the scrutiny that their municipal brothers and sisters get;

yet they are responsible for a very important natural resource that

goes for irrigation and soil conservation. The quality of the resource

they handle, manage and distribute also has a great deal to do with the

general health of the community.

I don't expect the

minister to come down with a major pronouncement on this, but I want to

indicate to him that in my riding-indeed, throughout the interior and

anywhere beyond the GVRD and the Capital Regional District — water

quality and quantity and the question of sewage collection, catchment

and disposal are major problems. The province should be dealing with it

in a much more general way instead of this specific brushfire way,

where a specific problem of health emerges and the government rushes in

and says," Here's what we're going to do for you," because virtually

all of the communities — large and small — to a greater or lesser

degree have the problems.

[ Page

11199 ]

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, a lot of these water districts

have grown up over a number of years and were usually started as an

amenity for the agricultural community. I believe many of them did, on

their instigation, get provincial and federal assistance under ARDSA

originally. There are all sorts of water-quality problems in various

communities; I'm aware of those. There is a very simple solution. They

can become a service area under the regional district and then qualify

for the same grants that municipal water systems do. A number of them

have taken advantage of that situation.

It is true that we

deal with those systems with a serious health challenge with more

priority than others, but I'm not sure the member would say it was a

bad policy. Quite frankly, though, assistance is available to an area

if it simply becomes a service area of a regional district; they

qualify for the same assistance as any municipal water system in place.

MR. D'ARCY :

Mr. Chairman, first of all, the fact that improvement districts can get

around the limitations on rural system funding simply by becoming a

specified area of a regional district is a technicality that was never

really needed or valid. It came about historically only because in the

years before you were a member of this House, the question of

assistance to rural areas came up, and at that time the licensing of

municipal systems was entirely under what is now Environment. It was

then the Water Resources ministry, which was not really interested in

assisting these areas. But Municipal Affairs was, so the way around the

limitation of jurisdiction was for Municipal Affairs to come up with

this notion of," We'll draw a line around it and call it a specified

area, and it will qualify for assistance under the Municipalities

Enabling and Validating Act."

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Since

that time the question of community water system licensing has gone

from Water Resources cum Environment to your ministry. So there's

absolutely no reason in the world for keeping this hoary old minor

qualification of being a specified area as a limitation for essentially

a second-class citizen imposition on most rural water areas.

The

fact is that taxpayers in B.C. are licensed under the same act. They

have to meet the same water quality standards — whether they are a water

company, an improvement district or an irrigation district — as the city

of Vancouver or the city of Victoria faces. The same Health Act governs

them, and of course people in British Columbia face the same taxation

laws all the way through.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm asking the minister to do is not simply hide behind

the specified area thing. There are a great many improvement districts in the

province of B.C. that don't want to become specified areas. I dare say that

most regional districts throughout the province really don't want to suddenly

take jurisdiction over literally dozens and dozens of small water distribution

systems within their area.

Quite

frankly, the ministry should seriously consider treating a water system

as a water system as a water system. That's what I would very much like

to see. I have long objected to the attitude that this government and

governments past — including in the early 1970s — had that municipal

water and sewer systems were somehow more equal than non-municipal

systems, and that taxpayers living in British Columbia, if there was a

city hall downtown, somehow got better and more serious treatment on a

per capita basis than if they lived in a rural area. The taxation rates

are the same, the need for the resource is the same, and it's high time

that government policy grew up on this issue and treated all of the

water users the same in British Columbia.

I would point out

that the need for adequate sewerage system assistance is not just in

greater Victoria, where it has a high profile right now, but is the

same throughout the province. And it should be the same throughout the

province on approval of an approval authority, which I submit might as

well be the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARLEE :

This is on a different tack. I received a letter from the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) in which he alludes to your involvement. The

letter is dated June 15, 1990. Both these subjects I'll be mentioning

are really quite important, because time is extremely important in them.

The

first one I mentioned in the letter was the importance of saving a

mining camp in the Similkameen district. There are mining camps all

over British Columbia. The minister and I both realize that not all of

them are worth saving, regardless of their age. Most of them do not

exist anymore. But this is a particular case. This is a unique case.

This particular mining camp is still there after over half a century.

And it's probably unique to the Pacific slope.

[3:45]

It's

an old mine called the Hedley Mascot. It was staked in the 1890s by a

guy called Leo Cahill, who was very strange, and he staked it for a

stranger guy, a guy called Duncan Woods. They were both Scots and they

were really quite original, even in the annals of mining. This

particular camp was located on the western slopes of Nickel Plate

Mountain. I think most people who are aware of mining history in

British Columbia will be aware that the Nickel Plate Mountain spawned a

galaxy of mines and became, at least for a brief period, the largest

producer of gold in the Dominion of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER : I've climbed right to the top.

MR. BARLEE :

I bet you have; and the original two individuals who discovered that,

Rundell and Walston, also climbed to the top and made a king's ransom.

However, I digress.

What I'm saying is this. This

particular fraction — and a fraction is part of a claim, which is

approximately 40-odd acres; this fraction was seven or eight

acres — became the richest fraction in Canadian history. Because it was

so rich, they built the mine

[ Page 11200 ]

buildings

right at the mine site itself, probably to prevent high-grading. Those

mine buildings are kind of an eagle's nest of mine buildings. You look

from those buildings right down into the valley floor below; they're

about 4,000 to 5,000 feet above the valley floor. If you pass by on

Highway 3.... I'm sure both ministers have; I see the Minister of

Tourism is remarking to the minister. If you pass by on Highway 3,

those buildings are still visible. I think they're the last surviving

monument to the lode miners of the province of British Columbia.

know we've done a certain job in Britannia. Certainly something has

been done in the city of Rossland with the LeRoi and the War Eagle and

the Centre Star and all those famous mines on Red Mountain. But this is

a unique case. This will not occur again. Once these buildings have

vanished, that monument to another generation of lode miners will

disappear entirely.

It would not cost a great deal to

preserve that particular area. There are advantages in it, and one of

the advantages is that you can hardly get down to it, so the threat of

vandalism and the threat of fire are virtually dispelled. I would

suggest that the ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Tourism,

take a hard look at this particular area. First of all, it has some

economic value, because there's nowhere else on the Pacific slope,

including the United States — with one or two exceptions in Colorado — where this particular collection of buildings occurs. I am saying it's

worth looking at. It's long term. If we don't save it now, we will

regret it for decades.

I really think the minister should

seriously consider that. I know that both ministers have looked at the

letter. I would like to hear his reply.

HON. L. HANSON :

The issue as yet has not crossed my desk, but I'm not suggesting it

isn't in my office. Certainly I have no difficulty with that. I do

remember discussing the issue. We'll ask both the heritage

conservation branch and the Heritage Trust to look at this as a

possible site.

MR. BARLEE : Well, unfortunately, if

you examine some of the material put out by the Ministry of Culture,

their policy up to last year, which has now changed dramatically, was

to allow old buildings like this to disintegrate in a natural way. I

think we're far behind our European cousins, and we have the literature

which suggests that.

This letter, by the way, evidently

crossed your desk a month ago. I don't expect you to remember every

letter, Mr. Minister, but I do think it's very important that when you

have a very unique area.... I would suggest strongly to the minister

that he take a look at British Columbia as a whole and put aside

various things as a continent-sized tourist draw and a local tourist

draw. That would also apply to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Michael). This certainly falls into the category of a continent-sized

tourist draw, and that particular area, with an unemployment rate of

around 25 percent, can well do with some help.

MR. SERWA :

I've worked for the past three or three and a half years on the matter

that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy) brought up. I would

like to point out that the inequity is not simply in the rural areas of

the province. The minister is well aware that in the interior of the

province approximately 50 percent of the domestic water consumed comes

from upper elevations, through irrigation districts and water

improvement districts. The fact is that you cannot differentiate

visually between urban areas which are served by the Glenmore

Irrigation District of the Black Mountain Irrigation District and the

South East Kelowna Irrigation District, and those systems that have the

revenue-sharing funds which allow municipalities to minimize the cost

to the taxpayers.

While the ARDA program certainly

contributed to these systems to a degree, the fact remains that most of

the systems are dual systems, providing both irrigation water and

domestic water. It would seem appropriate if the minister would

seriously consider endeavouring to come up with some sort of formula so

that we could treat all residential taxpayers in British Columbia in a

more equitable manner. We've had a variety of meetings with the

irrigation districts and the former minister. I hope that there would

be serious consideration of that.

In a lighter vein, I see

that our historical member for Boundary-Similkameen alluded to the

Hedley Mascot. In the mid-1950s I had the pleasure of working up at

Nickel Plate for two years. The interesting story of finding the Hedley

Mascot was that a greenhorn had come and spoken to the miners panning

in the creeks at the bottom — that is the story I was told. In order to

get rid of this gentleman, they said that the mother lode was up there.

And, by golly, he climbed up to the top of the mountain and found it.

It's very interesting.

It's certainly very beautiful. I've

come to the Hedley Mascot through the tunnel system, entering the

Nickel Plate area, walking for several hours and coming out above

Hedley. It's a most beautiful place and really awe-inspiring.

MR. BARLEE :

I thank the member for Okanagan South. Actually, that was not the

discovery of the Hedley Mascot made by Rundell and Walston; it was the

discovery of the Nickel Plate, with other claims such as the Rollo, the

Copperfield, the Nickel Plate itself, and four or five other key mines.

However, I do appreciate your interest in history.

The

second one is rather interesting-and the same applies. This is one of

the CPR lines. The CPR, of course, is an unusual corporate entity — and

I will not elaborate on that. However, most of the CPR lines in the

southern part of British Columbia have been abandoned, including most

of the Kettle Valley line. The order for abandonment was given, I

believe, for the last

section of the Kettle Valley line late last month.

realize that possibly all of that line cannot be saved, but I also

realize that in other parts of the world they are far ahead of us — for

instance, in

[ Page

11201 ]

Colorado, in a place called Silverton. There's a little line running

from Silverton to a place called Durango, an old mining community. It's

a 20- or 30-mile line. A few years ago somebody got the bright idea to

run a tourist train in that area, so they did. In the first year it was

not very successful; it carried about 20,000 or 30,000 passengers.

But as the years went by, the number of passengers grew from 50,000 to

60,000 to 100,000 to 150,000. Now they have to shoehorn 200,000

people onto that line in the summer months. They make a fortune, and

all the towns along the way benefit.

We have the equivalent — and, by the way, there are other equivalents. There are other areas

one of them is called the Lower Severn Valley. Its great attractions to

the tourists are one 60-foot gully and one 50-foot cliff. The Lower

Severn Valley has done a remarkable job. They put half a million people

per summer onto that line. They realize the attractiveness of the old

railway lines of the past; I don't think we realize that in British

Columbia.

What I'm getting down to is one specific part of

the old Kettle Valley line. The old Kettle Valley line was designed by

a real genius, a guy called Andrew McCulloch. He loved Shakespeare and

he loved railroads. All the various places along the line, like Myra or

Othello, were named after Shakespearean characters or his daughters.

This guy built one of the most magnificent lines in Canadian history.

The grade was absolutely incredible. We allowed that line — I must say

that your government allowed it; you did not, Mr. Minister — which has

no equivalent in Canada.... They pulled the rails about ten years ago;

they pulled the ties. But some of that line is still there; the

right-of-way is still there.

That line is really quite

unique. There is part of it which can still be rescued. That part which

should really be rescued lies between Penticton and Okanagan Falls;

it's nine miles. I asked the Minister of Tourism; he knows this line.

The right-of-way is still there. The rails are still there. The bridges

are still there. Everything is still there. Not only that, this is a

line with almost no grade; it would not have terrific upkeep. It's a

cliffside run. It runs from Okanagan Falls to Penticton through that

agricultural area. You end up in Penticton at a Samuel Maclure — one of

the greatest architects in British Columbia, in case you didn't know —

station. It is really quite unique.

The CPR has to pay

taxes on this until they pull the rails. Of course, being the corporate

entity it is, the CPR is going to pull the rails. I am saying to both

ministers who are in the House that you should do your level best to

make some deal with the CPR to prevent it, or to hold these taxes in

abeyance until you can do a real study of this line.

This line has the ability and the attractions. It could quite easily carry

several hundred thousand people per summer. It's not a long run; it's

a flat grade. It's in a very attractive scenic area; it's a lakeside

run. I would like to hear the minister's answer to that. What are they doing?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly interested in the member's comments

regarding the rail line. He is a little bit late, though. I have

already been briefed by the first member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon.

Mr. Messmer). As a matter of fact, the first member for

Boundary-Similkameen has, through me, arranged meetings with the

entrepreneur who is interested in that line. We have had one-on-one

telephone conversations with the CPR, and we have also arranged a

meeting for the entrepreneur and the CPR to sit down, which they have

done already. A member of my staff was present at that meeting, so it

is really quite old news that the member is bringing up here today.

must say for the record that I am extremely interested in the member's

interest in heritage sites. Perhaps he could be kind enough to have a

short discussion with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) and pass on some of his concerns on the value of heritage

sites. I can recollect waging a very strong fight — a lobby — on behalf

of myself back in 1987 to salvage the Royal Colwood golf course

building, which was one of the most beautiful old heritage buildings in

the southern part of Vancouver Island. I got no cooperation whatsoever

from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, nor — I might add for the

record — from the senior columnist of the Times-Colonist , both of whom

came out very strongly against preserving that building, despite the

fact that there were more than 100 people prepared to put up $1,000

cash each in the way of donations.

[4:00]

well, a substantial commitment had been made from the Lottery Fund to

preserve that very beautiful heritage building. But there was no

support at all from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Perhaps the

member could give a short lecture on the value of heritage sites to his

caucus. He could maybe get on the agenda for 15 or 20 minutes and talk

about something other than bugging telephones.

MR. BARLEE : I won't make a gratuitous remark like "bugging telephones," because it wasn't done, as the minister well knows.

Concerning

the Minister of Tourism's remarks, I have been prodding on this

particular subject for several years. The first member for

Boundary-Similkameen became interested last week. I do not notice his

name on the list of members of the Kettle Valley historical society. He

is not noted as being very interested in history. With an election

looming, perhaps the government is getting the message. Indeed, that

member needed a considerable amount of prodding. If you look at the

last newspaper accounts, he stated that $10,000 a mile for upkeep was

a lot of money. This $10,000 a mile for nine miles of track in place

is really very cheap. We could not replace it at ten times the amount.

think your look at that area deserves a revisit. I would like to hear

from the other minister who is concerned with this: the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 11202 ]

HON. L. HANSON :

I am certainly aware of the issue also. We have done a fair amount of

research into it. I would submit that the costs of retaining it and the

continual operation are beyond what we consider to be reasonable. I

would suggest that the member, if he sees it as being an enterprise

which would give a reasonable return-even a break-even point — give me

his business plan. I would certainly be prepared to look at it. Our

assessment of the situation is that it would be a very expensive

process to get into, and that it didn’t merit being on the priority

list of things that those kinds of public funds should be invested in.

MR. BARLEE : I find that remark rather interesting and rather puzzling too. First of all, I should perhaps allude to it.

If,

as the Minister of Tourism stated, you have an entrepreneur on the line

who is very interested, you certainly wouldn't mislead this

entrepreneur. You are saying that your studies indicate.... I would

hope he would have access to your studies which indicate it's a losing

proposition. But I don't think there's that innovative approach. The

minister mentioned that I should give him a corporate plan; well, I

just spent about a quarter of a million dollars on a museum in

Penticton — and that was my own money, not government money. I am

willing to gamble on the tourism business. In fact, if any member on

the opposite side wishes to gamble with me in an equivalent, I would be

quite pleased to give them my corporate plans as well.

you have figures to indicate that this would not pay, I would like to

hear those figures. Or was that just drawn up out of the moment?

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd just, like to talk a little bit about the adequacy of this ministry

and the regions in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area to do

the job that's really necessary to be done. There's no evidence for me

that you have the capacity to do the work that is necessary in the

lower mainland and the Victoria region, and that is part of your

mandate.

British Columbia has two realities: small-town

British Columbia in the interior, the north and upper Island; and the

lower mainland and the Victoria region. These are large, significant

urban areas that require sophisticated management. There is no evidence

whatsoever of sophisticated management being applied to these regions.

Jane

Jacobs, the great urbanist and historian, said that cities basically

lift themselves out of and create their own economics. As I see it,

that's basically what has happened with Vancouver and the Vancouver

region. More and more, we see it lifting itself out of the provincial

economy and developing an urban economy with links across the Pacific

and a unique quality to the urban region itself historically, earlier

Social Credit administrations have worked at destroying planning

capabilities in those urban regions. I happened, as a young graduate,

to work for the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, a planning

board that worked for the whole region, from Hope to the sea and from

the border to the mountains. It did extremely good work.

You

people, and earlier administrations, have seen to it that the planning

function does not exist. It's been an ideological position which is an

anachronism in this day and age in terms of urban regions and urban

policy. It's a shocker that there isn't the capability in the regions

that is absolutely needed to manage those regions now.

The

same thing happened in the capital region. After the establishment of

the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, a capital region was

established for this area we are in right now.

There is a

chronic need for coordination of the activities of government in those

regions, and you people are the most myopic people we've had in

government in decades, and you reap the heritage of your narrow-minded

colleagues that went before you, who said: "No planning in these

regions."

You're directly responsible for highways in these

regions; you're directly responsible for housing in those regions;

you're directly responsible for transit, for SkyTrain, for B.C.

Ferries, for provincial parks. But where is the coordination? There

simply isn't any.

You know, the city of Vancouver has a

calibre of staff and, I would suggest, a political capability that

exceeds this outfit by a country mile. That happens to be partly the

choice of the electorate in Vancouver, and partly the choice of the

electorate of British Columbia. Hopefully that's going to change. The

reality is that the city has continued to build up a superb civil

service that deals with coordination within the city, and does so

extremely well. I think that's part of the reason for the city's

success, and the urban region's success.

We now have this

whole linkage to the Pacific Rim, the Pacific region. Again, where are

the linkages in terms of that agency - your so-called new Crown

corporation for trade and investment? Where are the linkages there in

terms of the urban region? I don't think there are any.

a person that has watched this region grow all my life, and as a person

interested in urban planning, the gaps get bigger and bigger between of

what could be achieved versus what is being achieved. It's an absolute

necessity. We have the most constricted city site in North America in

the Vancouver region. We've got the 49th parallel on the south, the sea

on the west, the mountains on the north and the mountains on the east.

It's an extremely narrow ribbon for the province's greatest city, one

of the most important cities in the future of the west coast. It

creates internal land market problems that are unique and serious and

that require management. That's what's needed in these urban regions;

and management is what we don't got from you people. The whole question

of expensive land is tied to this constricted-site problem. It requires

innovative work on the part of government. We don't have that.

We've

got the little municipality of Maple Ridge with a whole band of Crown

land on its northern slopes. A new freeway is going to go through there.

[ Page

11203 ]

What's provincial government policy in just that one small fringe of

the urban region? "Flog the land" — before the freeway goes in, of

course. We certainly wouldn't want to make any money on Crown land,

would we? No, somebody else will do that. We wouldn't want to use it to

deal with the housing problem. Oh, no. We'll let the market solve that.

But it isn't a simple market. It's a market in a constricted region,

and that requires management. You people don't seem to understand that.

The mayor of Maple Ridge understands it. He's frustrated. There's no

plan, even at the limited municipal level. There's a void.

Clearly

what we need, Mr. Minister, is a replacement — in the grand sense, of

course. We need two ministries in this province: a Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and a ministry for the urban regions of the lower

mainland and greater Victoria. They're simply different. They should be

managed differently. They require intensive management.

Just

think of it. Just think of B.C. Ferries. Do your people in Municipal

Affairs ever think about that as an urban development question in the

Georgia basin? Well, they should; and you should. It just isn't part of

the package. It isn't part of the mandate. It isn't even allowed as a

part of the mandate of the existing regions.

Remember the

history of the destruction of the old Lower Mainland Regional Planning

Board because an earlier Socred administration didn't like its work.

They busted it up into four regions and subsequently removed their

planning functions. That's the real history. That was in reaction to

Roberts Bank and the railway to Roberts Bank.

There's a

desperate need for coordination of all provincial activities in these

regions, with top-notch management know-how in coordination with the

existing municipalities. We don't have it. There's a need for

entrepreneurial drive in this as well. God knows we don't have that

from this so-called free enterprise administration.

There

are opportunities in terms of new colleges in the suburbs, but what did

you do? You flogged hundreds of acres in South Surrey, for pretzels,

that could have been new college sites in areas that needed it. There's

absolutely no vision over there.

There are great

opportunities right now — even now — in the city of Vancouver. All of False

Creek Flats, the industrial flats on the east side of Main.... There

are 350 acres there that can be changed from a low-density industrial

area into a major new housing opportunity within the city itself. But

where's your capacity for dealing with that? It's nil.

Fortunately,

there's a new chairman of the CNR who had the smarts to abandon you

guys a couple of years ago. He might do some worthwhile work in that

regard. But it ain't going to come from you, Mr Minister.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Let's reflect on what your policies have been in the urban region. Here's

a little list of land sales — creative policy — by your thoughtful, visionary

Social Credit government. You sold the Expo lands. The auditor-general has told

us about that one, and how dumb it was, and how costly it was. You sold the

Westwood lands, and you didn't even keep school sites. The local community

and school boards are going to have to spend $10 million there.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. Hon. member, it's not normally appropriate to discuss

the actions of other ministers in Committee of Supply, when we're on

vote 47, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture,

just for your information.

MR. WILLIAMS : Thank you. I thought you had noticed the light, and I'm waiting for those guys to see the light.

You've

sold all those lands, and the list is a litany from Riverview to Maple

Ridge to Westminster Quay to South Surrey — which we haven't discussed — to Tilbury. Others are still threatened in Maple Ridge and Colony

Farm — still threatened by the internal gamesmanship over there.

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Your debate is relevant to others. Please direct your comments through the Chair and not to the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS : I was. I know of your special interest in that area, Mr. Chair.

It's

to everyone's loss, Mr. Chair. There has been no coordination. What

that really means is that the urban future of these two regions is

frustrated in terms of their full potential because of the lack of

capacity at the political level and, I'm sorry to say, at the

administrative level, where they don't have the mandate to do the job.

There's a desperate need for a new ministry to coordinate provincial

and municipal activities and do the job that can and should be done to

see that these two urban regions achieve the greatness that really is

possible for them.

MS. CULL : I want to take a very

local example of what my colleague has just been talking about and draw

the minister's attention to an

article that appeared in today's

Times-Colonist , which is headlined "View Royal Firmly Against

Participating in Colwood-Langford Sewer Project." I'm sure the minister

is fully aware that the Victoria region has been looking at the need

for sewage treatment, and certainly any sewage treatment here is going

to have to happen on a regional basis. The regional district isn't

talking about sewage treatment for one or two of the 11 municipalities,

but for the region. We have here today one of the 11 municipalities

saying that they don't want to participate. This particular news story

illustrates the very problem we have in our metropolitan areas with the

policies of your government.

The other day we were talking

about the Transportation and Highways estimates, and the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston),

[ Page 11204 ]

the

former Minister of Municipal Affairs, made the comment that we have a

voluntary system here and that if municipalities want to get together

and coordinate their activities — whether it's on housing, transit or

land use — there's nothing stopping them. That's true. There is nothing

stopping them, but there's no leadership there. Could the Minister of

Transportation and Highways build the Pat Bay Highway from the ferry

terminal to Victoria if she had to negotiate with every municipality

along the way? No, of course not; it couldn't happen. You don't rely on

a system like that to deal with these large-scale issues that require

either a provincial or regional perspective. But this government

persists in dealing with land use and urban growth in a

compartmentalized, fragmented way in all of these different

municipalities.

My colleague has said quite clearly that

the metropolitan areas of this province are unique. They are unique;

they're very different from the other villages and towns throughout

British Columbia, and they deserve special treatment. I guess the way

that British Columbia's metropolitan areas are most unique is that

they're probably the only metro areas in all of North America that

don't have some regional decision-making body that allows them to get

together to solve problems as a region. What we get is the fragmented

approach.

I noted this morning that greater Victoria has 11

municipalities in an area the size of Surrey, and I have lost count of

the number of municipalities in the greater Vancouver area. But we just

can't go on trying to resolve these issues on a municipal-by-municipal

basis. The View Royal attitude towards sewers is just one example of

many that we could cite to show why this isn't working.

all comes back to this whole issue we were talking about this morning:

quality of life in our urban areas. In greater Victoria and greater

Vancouver, we need some way of addressing these issues that cross

municipal boundaries. You can't deal with air pollution on a municipal

basis. There's no way to keep the air pollution inside the boundaries

of Saanich or Surrey. You can't deal with water pollution or even with

the preservation of farmland. The Saanich Peninsula is more than just a

rural community that is enjoyed by the people who live there; it is an

urban amenity for all of us who live in greater Victoria. But we don't

have any way, except through this voluntary system that supposedly

exists, to come to grips with these kinds of problems.

could look at what's happening elsewhere in North America. It's not

like we're trying to re-create a wheel here. There are lots of other

experiences to learn from. Other major metropolitan areas have faced

these problems before Vancouver and Victoria and have had to come to

grips with them. We can look again to our neighbour to the south,

Seattle. Last year there was a major study done on the growth problems

in the Puget Sound. It's called the Pierce commission and was done by

the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by a man called Neil Pierce, in

consultation with many community groups, elected people and other

experts in the urban field. Whatever way he looked at it — whether he

was talking about environmental issues, transit issues, growth or

density — it all came down to the fact that these are regional problems

and have got to be solved on a regional basis.

In 1983,

past administrations here threw it away. We had the ability to do some

of these things, and we threw it away in a snit over the Spetifore

lands because things weren't going quite the way the cabinet at the

time wanted them to.

I will be the first person to admit

that the planning system that was operating prior to 1983 with the

regional districts was not perfect. But why did we just toss it out?

Why didn't we look at fixing it? Why didn't we look at some way of

addressing the problems that were identified at the time, but

recognizing that there is still a need to have this kind of regional

forum? But oh no, the whole thing got tossed out, and now greater

Vancouver and greater Victoria are stuck with a voluntary system. If

they want to get their act together, they can, but the province is not

going to direct them in any way.

Mr. Chairman, this

government is confusing the giving of autonomy to local governments

with the provision of leadership, and they shouldn't be confused.

That's not what's happening. It's an abdication of your

responsibilities and of leadership.

Vancouver, for its own

reasons, has managed to keep some semblance of regional planning alive,

and that's because the people there, as my colleague has just said,

recognize the problems they're facing. They have good elected people.

They have strong communities, and they know they can't solve these

problems in isolation from one another. They have the pressure of urban

growth right now. It's breathing down their necks in the confined urban

area that was just described to you. They haven't got time to wait for

something else to come along. But in my community the pressure hasn't

quite built up yet. Regional planning and decision-making has been lost

in greater Victoria to a great extent, and now local politicians are

scrambling to put it together. They're scrambling behind many of the

other groups in the community.

The Urban Development

Institute has said that we have to get back to regional planning and

decision making of some sort. The B.C. Real Estate Association has said

that. Even the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C. has

recognized the need for some regional strategies on growth and

development. Community groups have recognized it. It was the major

thing that came out of the Visions Victoria conference 18 months ago

here in Victoria. People out there in the community recognize the need

for this. They are way ahead of this government, and they are

considerably ahead of their local politicians.

conclusion, Mr. Chair, it's time that your government said: "We made a

mistake in 1983 when we tossed it all away, and now it is time for us

to come back and recognize that these urban areas require coordination,

leadership and a regional approach to decision-making."

[ Page

11205 ]

I can see nothing in your ministry, Mr. Minister, that deals with

metropolitan areas. There is no vision for the metropolitan areas. It

doesn't come out in your opening remarks, and it hasn't come out in any

of the comments you've made today in response to questions from this

side of the House. It's as if the metro areas just don't exist as far

as the ministry is concerned, and it is time the minister recognized

the need of the metro areas and made a priority in his ministry to look

at how we're going to deal with these growth management issues, because

they're coming, and the municipalities need our help in dealing with

them. It's your responsibility to provide that system and to sit down

and start working with the communities again, so that we can deal with

urban growth issues in a fashion that makes some sense instead of the

piecemeal fashion we have right now.

HON. L. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I've listened to two members from the opposition giving

us their views of what the world should become and how it should

become. I will surprise them by saying that I have some sympathy that

there is some recognized need for regional planning. I'm not sure what

the form is yet. But the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull)

mentioned the issue of sewage and one municipality refraining from

taking

part in that. There is a mechanism for the Capital Regional

District to deal with that in a very democratic manner.

Unlike

the philosophy of the opposition, I don't think we will ever come to

the point of ordering 11 municipalities to become one in order to solve

the difficulties you're talking about, as your government did in the

past. But if it is an area-wide service, the regional district can ask

through a process for an area-wide referendum. Providing it is truly an

area wide service, that referendum will bring everyone into the fold,

regardless of what the individuals may.... We're going to see that very

shortly with the issues of sewage and of water.

I have

listened to the comments of the members, and I understand some of the

things they're saying. I don't agree with some of the things, but

that's natural. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr Williams) gave

a wide-ranging — sometimes questionably connected — discourse on how he

sees it, but I accept that, seeing where it came from. We will all have

an opportunity to read Hansard and meditate over what it says.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, there are other issues to cover, but at this time I want

to conclude the discussions we've had today on Municipal Affairs.

In case the minister doesn't recognize it, this side has put forward three

themes that need addressing by the government of the day. Much of it is to do

with what I said this morning and what my colleagues have said this afternoon.

Meaning no disrespect to the staff working in the ministry, the ministry is

really not prepared for the future. This is the way it was done before — checks

and balances, those who check and move paper around and help municipalities.

Those were the days of some time ago. But as I have said for a long time, this

ministry has to be on the cutting edge of developing and helping to develop

this province, and dealing with the urban problems that we face in British Columbia.

suggested this morning when I started my discussion that we needed a

new approach to local government. We need to empower local government.

We need to find ways for local government to feel that what they do is

important, that it counts. We need a Municipal Act that doesn't

restrain local government from developing for the future.

This

afternoon my colleague for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) talked about

regional planning. We've talked about that many times in this

Legislature, and once again the member from Surrey, now the Minister of

Transportation (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), symbolized the philosophical

problems that this government has in refusing to deal with the

coordination of planning, particularly in urban areas. It won't do

anymore. The old rhetoric of preserving local autonomy won't fit

anymore.

[4:30]

You've got two

well-known Social Credit mayors up in the peninsula here who won't even

work together with the regional earthquake planning, because they say:

"We'll take care of ourselves." This is just ridiculous; carrying this

past position that planning is a bad word to the nth degree. My

colleague the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked

about something that we talked about in many of our discussions today:

the need to see another ministry or another approach to separating our

policies for rural versus urban — a Municipal Affairs ministry to deal

with some of the things that have to be done on a daily basis, but an

urban ministry or department that starts to tackle the serious problems

of growth and transportation and environmental issues facing the lower

mainland and metro Victoria.

There were three themes that,

quite frankly, I don't think this government is prepared to tackle. I

don't think they've got the ability to do it. But we've got to do it,

and we've got to stop the attitude that planning for the future is

wrong or bad. We need coordination; we need analysis. We need to know

where we're going to grow. And our citizens deserve that approach.

During

the period of only a few hours, we have given our suggestions for how

this ministry must work for the future. It can be an exciting ministry.

But it has got to start to tackle the issues of the day in an

innovative way, and currently it is not doing that, in our estimation.

Vote 47 approved.

Vote 48: ministry operations, $73,387,482 — approved.

Vote 49: municipal revenue-sharing, $351,900,000 — approved.

[ Page 11206 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CROWN LANDS

On vote 15: minister's office, $310,312.

HON. MR. PARKER :

I am pleased to present to this House the budget estimates for the

Ministry of Crown Lands for the 1990-91 fiscal year. This is a

responsible budget that will allow the Ministry of Crown Lands to

continue effectively fulfilling its mandate, which is to provide

stewardship and management of this essential public resource on behalf

of the people of British Columbia; to encourage appropriate and orderly

regional development that will contribute to our province's goals for

economic expansion and diversification by making Crown lands available

for a variety of purposes; to ensure a fair economic return to the

province; and to support the activities of government and industry by

providing state-of-the-art comprehensive base-mapping and land

information services.

In support of our mandate this year,

we are requesting a total voted expenditure of $37,960,000 in

addition to special account funds of $2,280,000, for a total general

fund expenditure request of $40,240,000. This request represents a

modest and responsible increase over last year's budget. These funding

expenditures are distributed as follows: $310,000 for the operation of

the minister's office, $37,650,000 for ministry operations and $2,280,000 for the Crown lands special account.

We anticipate

a year of increased activity. Real estate markets continue to show

reasonable growth and, both from the demand for Crown land and to

support economic activities, our revenue expectations are rising.

Revenue targets for 1990-91 are estimated at $61,450,000, an increase

of over 71 percent from the '89-90 estimates of $35.9 million.

Driving

this growth are both an active real estate market and a larger

inventory of marketable properties. This ministry was given

responsibility for the disposal of the significant number of major

properties from the dissolution of BCEC.

As well, my

ministry has initiated a program to substantially increase its

marketing of surplus properties from other government ministries. These

properties, primarily from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways,

are now being identified for marketing.

Also, ministries

are now required to list their real estate holdings and surplus

properties in a Crown land registry. The surplus lands will become part

of the Crown land inventory of marketable properties, which are

expected to increase by approximately 40 percent over the next several

years.

The ministry's program to sell recreational

waterfront leases to leaseholders will continue at a brisk pace this

year. It's expected to taper off over the next several years.

This

year my ministry undertook a series of opportunity studies to identify

potential areas for land-based economic development initiatives. These

included agriculture, commercial winter recreation, retirement

opportunities and back-country recreation studies. The studies support

my ministry's efforts to identify future potential and demand for

commercial activities in a variety of sectors. As well, they will form

a basis for identifying and resolving potential in existing land use

conflicts.

Over the past year, my ministry conducted a

public inquiry and comprehensive review of our agricultural lease

purchase program. The purpose of this review was to assess the

effectiveness of the program in supporting agricultural development,

primarily in the north of the province. When the study results are

implemented, the program will be more effective in ensuring supportable

land use decisions and allocating Crown land to agriculture.

This

year the ministry will continue to review programs to ensure that they

are consistent with the principles of sustainable economic development.

The budget allows for the maintenance of necessary levels of service

for continuation of the ministry's programs.

A major

ongoing project is the terrain resource information management — or

TRIM — program. This digital, topographic base map of the province is

vital to managing our land and resource base. The application of

powerful new geographic information systems will rely on this land

information base.

The ministry is striving to achieve more

efficient allocation of staff resources. Completing the automation of

the Crown land registry database over the next three years will improve

delivery of service by making this information available to all

regional offices. It is also essential to ensure that the remaining 25

percent of the data which currently exists in the form of original

documents, some dating back to the 1800s, is not lost.

The

ministry, through its surveys and resource mapping and surveyor-general

branches, has a direct responsibility for consolidating government

mapping and land information programs. This responsibility was given to

the ministry in the government reorganization of July 1988.

Earlier

this year, cabinet approved the corporate land information strategic

plan, CLISP, as a comprehensive framework for managing all government

land information. This ministry is committed to implementing this

essential mechanism for managing government land-base data. Benefits of

this initiative will include more efficient and cost-effective systems

development, expanded private sector involvement, fostering of British

Columbia-based high-tech industry and maximized opportunities for

public and private sector users to access and share land information.

our province is to take advantage of the tremendous data resource we

have compiled over the years and apply this information to assist in

the management of our resources, we must undertake an aggressive

program to lay the groundwork for future applications.

conclusion, I'd like to stress that this budget is sensitive to the

needs for responsible fiscal management and supports the ministry's

objectives to encourage sustainable development. The ministry has

[ Page

11207 ]

demonstrated restraint and responsible management, while also

aggressively pursuing new opportunities for future development and

growth. This budget supports our endeavours to maintain a high level of

client relations throughout the province while at the same time

providing support for sustainable economic development activity on

Crown land and rational and responsible land use decisions.

MR. WILLIAMS : Ah, that ringing applause. It must muster something for the ego, eh?

AN HON. MEMBER : Would you like some?

MR. WILLIAMS : No, thanks.

Mr.

Minister, I congratulate the staff on a nicely crafted statement for

the beginning of estimates. Congratulations, staff, on that nicely

crafted statement.

Mr. Minister, you were here a few

minutes ago when we were discussing the Municipal Affairs estimates.

The point was made that there is no coordination between you folks over

there — none whatsoever. Yourselves and Municipal Affairs. There is a

lower mainland region over there. It desperately needs coordination.

No, I want to see the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would appreciate it if you would speak where the mike could pick you up.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm sorry. There was that thin fellow in front of him, and I have trouble seeing the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just so the minister could have the benefit of yo