1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 5, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6611 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supreme Court decision on airline fuel taxing

Mr. Sihota replies to ministerial statement –– 6611

Private Members' Statements

The kaon project. Mr. Peterson –– 6612

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Jones

Surrey renters. Ms. Smallwood –– 6614

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Long –– 6616

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Davis

College faculty pensions. Mr. Jones –– 6618

Hon. S. Hagen

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

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6620

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rogers

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Smallwood

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the gallery this morning we have two gentlemen I would

ask you to welcome to the Legislature: Mr. Robert D. Martin, who is the

president of International Insurance Brokers Inc. from Metairie,

Louisiana, and Mr. Craig Valentine, who is with Touche Ross Management

Consultants in Vancouver. Would you welcome them, please.

HON. MR. HUBERTS :

As the Minister of State for North Coast, I am happy to say we have

some guests from the Queen Charlotte Islands: grade 5 and grade 6

students from Agnes L. Mathers School in Sandspit, accompanied by Ms.

Sonia Trescher. It is my understanding that Agnes L. Mathers was the

first teacher in the Queen Charlotte Islands, thus the naming of this

school, which teaches kindergarten to grade 10. Our Premier had the

pleasure of visiting the Sandspit school three years ago and attended a

garden ceremony. May I ask the House to help me welcome these students

and their chaperones today.

MR. B.R. SMITH : Mr.

Speaker, I want to introduce and acknowledge in the gallery and

precincts today a group of parents who are here supporting families of

children with disabilities; they are from all over the province. They

had a very good meeting with our caucus, as I believe they did with the

opposition caucus. This is a very supportive group of citizens who work

hard to keep families together, despite disabilities. I ask the House

to make them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would like to

join with the member in welcoming this group of parents and to

congratulate the parents and encourage them in their struggle.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, before we start with members' statements, yesterday the

Attorney-General made a statement in the House. It was agreed that his

critic would be allowed to reply to it. He wasn't here yesterday, and

notice wasn't given. I'll call on the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

SUPREME COURT DECISION

ON AIRLINE FUEL TAXING

MR. SIHOTA : Thank you for that understanding, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize;

I wasn't in the House when the Attorney-General made his comments yesterday

with respect to the landmark decision on taxing, so I appreciate the opportunity

to speak on this matter. That ruling is a significant and, in many ways, positive

decision which has tremendous implications from the point of view of revenue

and taxation powers for the province. We on this side of the House certainly

appreciate the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has made that decision.

What

I find disturbing with respect to what the Attorney-General said is

that he omitted to comment on two other decisions yesterday of the

Supreme Court that in my view are far more significant and certainly

far-reaching in their implication: namely, two decisions with respect

to sexual equality and the rights of women. In the first, the Supreme

Court ruled against an insurance company that limited benefits to women

because they were pregnant. In so doing, the court overturned a 1978

Supreme Court of Canada decision that allowed for discrimination

against women simply on the grounds that they were pregnant. That

decision had been utilized to uphold provisions of the Unemployment

Insurance Act as well.

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

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The hon. member will realize that when he is answering a

ministerial statement, he can only talk about the statement itself and

not other issues of the day.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought

the Attorney-General's comments yesterday were not simply a tax matter

but issues that affect people in British Columbia and the Charter. I'm

almost finished with my statement; I'm about three-quarters of the way

through.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am enthralled, as all members are,

with the comments of the hon. member. They are worthy, I'm sure; the

only point is, are they appropriate at this time? The minister gave a

ministerial statement dealing with a specific ruling of the courts

which was a tax matter. That was, as properly described, a landmark

case and does clear the air in terms of taxation policies in the

province and across the country. But that's the only issue, in my

opinion, that the hon. member can address with his reply.

MR. ROSE :

We on this side of the House certainly welcome and are grateful for the

courtesy extended by the Solicitor-General on this matter and for

allowing us to speak later. It's a courtesy, because a ministerial

statement doesn't require notice. So we do appreciate it, and in no way

want to abuse the House or the Speaker or the government on this issue.

But the Supreme Court — and it was alluded to in the ministerial

statement; and I don't believe the Minister of Finance was here at the

time — alluded to things other than simply that gas tax and liquor. It

alluded to a charter provision, and there was much made of this, of how

B.C. could benefit. This also is the line that our member is taking; he

will have concluded his remarks in less than a minute.

[ Page 6612 ]

HON. MR. REE :

It's the duty of all members to serve the House and be at the House at

the time set. I know what the House Leader has said; we gave an

extension of time for the member to reply because there was lack of

notice and it was at the late hour preceding noon when the ministerial

statement was made. But I believe the House set the hour for the reply

to be immediately after question period yesterday, and the member was

not here to serve the House at that time. There was no agreement to

have it brought forward at another time. Presumably he can proceed

today because it has been so set by the Speaker.

However,

Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that something was alluded to in the

ministerial statement doesn't give the member an opportunity to go all

over the block with a statement. It was a matter dealing with taxes. It

doesn't allow the member in his reply to get into all taxes of the

government. It should be restricted to the main subject matter of the

ministerial statement.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I've

no desire to prolong this agony. If we're going to be really tight on

this particular response, then I think we should be equally disciplined

on the ministerial statement. I didn't raise any Cain when the

ministerial statement went well beyond government policy or

administration. If you look on page 49 of the book of that celebrated

legislator and Clerk, George MacMinn, you will find definite ground

rules for ministerial statements. I think that what we should do right

now, rather than go on and on about a procedural wrangle here, is let

the member finish his statement. I'm sure he'll be finished in a second.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I might just read from Votes and Proceedings

yesterday. The Attorney-General "made a ministerial statement relating

to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada confirming the

constitutional right of the province of British Columbia to impose a

tax on fuel purchased by airlines within the province." That is in Votes and Proceedings ,

hon. member; that is the topic you can talk about in reply. If that is

what you want to finish with, I understand you have one minute to

finish. The House will listen to you on that topic.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll be really short, then. I apologize; I am not trying to take

advantage of the situation. I took it from his statement, as I read it,

that he went beyond that. We on this side of the House — and I won't

talk about the second decision — find it tragic that the

Attorney-General would celebrate a decision that deals with a fuel tax

and a tax on alcoholic beverages but would not even comment on a

decision that advances the cause of women in British Columbia. In

conclusion, let me say that one must indeed question a value system

that finds joy with respect to a decision on a financial windfall but

is silent with respect to a matter of sexual equality.

Private Members' Statements

THE KAON PROJECT

MR. PETERSON :

It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the Legislature today to draw

the attention of the hon. members to some very exciting developments

that took place this week. The government of British Columbia's TRIUMF

kaon project received a big boost with the release of the U.S. and West

German studies endorsing our kaon factory proposal.

report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National

Science Foundation explored American participation in TRIUMFs proposed

kaon factory and its possible impact on similar projects proposed by

U.S. laboratories. Prior to these two reports, the TRIUMF kaon project

faced substantial direct competition from proposals for similar

projects in Europe and the United States. Now that TRIUMF has received

these very strong international endorsements and the major competitors

have been set aside, the way is clear for the world to participate in

building the kaon factory in Vancouver.

I had the distinct

honour of guiding the American Ambassador, Thomas Niles, through the

TRIUMF facility last week. He was most impressed with the facility and

was well acquainted with the kaon factory proposal. I know the

opposition does not warm to the idea of dealing with Americans — or

with anyone for that matter. The NDP are isolationists. This is a prime

example of international cooperation at work.

Brainpower is

the renewable resource that will propel our economy into the next

century, just like electricity did in the last. That is why, now more

than ever, Canada and the world need the TRIUMF kaon project. The

government of B.C. is taking the lead with its $87 million commitment

to the TRIUMF kaon project. This is a truly national laboratory, and

now more thaGray, Betsyn ever, the name TRIUMF says it all.

the one hand we're talking about the building blocks of nature, and on

the other hand we're talking about the building blocks of a competitive

economy. To unlock the secrets of particle physics is to throw open the

doors to a whole new frontier of scientific discovery. As a recognized

leader in particle physics research, TRIUMF has captured world

attention and scientific praise for its achievements, such as its

lifesaving pion cancer therapy, which has saved over 100 lives to date.

want to build on this success. The cost of the construction is $571

million, up to one-third of which will come from international support

from the U.S.A., Japan, Italy and Germany. The province of B.C. has put

up $87 million towards construction costs. We're making strong

representation to Ottawa to help us put together the remaining $284

million necessary to make TRIUMF kaon a reality.

This

project is this government's number one economic development priority

and the top item in our federal-provincial agenda. Some 19,000 direct

and spinoff jobs will be created from coast to coast, especially here

in B.C., and particularly in my own constituency of Langley. These

won't be make-work jobs;

[ Page

6613 ]

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

Once

operational, the kaon factory will employ 3,000 people, including 1,000

of the world's top scientists, and that's what economic diversification

is all about. As you may know, we're currently undertaking with Ottawa

an $11 million impact study which we hope will give us the green light

for construction. I call on all members of this House to urge Ottawa to

come up with the money needed to make the kaon factory a reality. That

includes you, Mr. Member.

On any given day there are 400

scientists from 26 countries working at the TRIUMF. These talented men

and women have set the pace in numerous fields of research. They are

today's pioneers. They are at the leading edge of pure and applied

research in Canada. With the development of the CAT scanner they can

painlessly take pictures of the living brain. They are at the forefront

of research into brain disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

With

so much evidence in TRIUMF kaon's favour, the question isn't, "Can we

afford it?" but rather: "Can we afford not to do it?" TRIUMF kaon is a

Canadian idea whose time has definitely come. Though we don't brag

about it, Canadians have a proud history of scientific excellence. We

are the country of Banting, Best and Bell. We are the creators of the

Canadarm. Sadly, we are also the country whose federal government

turned its back on the Avro Arrow, and in doing so, turned its back on

a global reputation of excellence in aerospace research.

When

I think about the Arrow, I wonder why we can't keep bright, young minds

at home where they belong. That's what TRIUMF kaon is all about. Just

as TRIUMF has become an international success story, we believe the

TRIUMF kaon project will focus world attention on Canadian science and

technology. All Canadians can be proud of the TRIUMF With the kaon

factory we can be the envy of the world. As Canada's outlook turns more

and more towards Asian-Pacific markets, what better way could there be

to showcase Canada's know-how at work? We can expect a minimum of $243

million per year in sales to firms using the kaon factory technology.

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

HON. S. HAGEN :

It was indeed very enjoyable for me to hear the hon. member for Langley

give an excellent presentation of where we are in the TRIUMF kaon

project. I notice with some dismay that the members opposite — the

socialists — were not paying attention. I guess they just can't stand

the idea that we might have some excellence of world-class calibre in

this province.

I would encourage them to visit the TRIUMF facility — if they haven't visited

it — to take advantage of that. I would be pleased to arrange tours for them

as a group or as individuals. We are very proud of the TRIUMF kaon facility.

We believe that it's just another part of the excellence that we have at

our universities. It's an opportunity for our young people, instructors and

professors at the universities to mix with the best from around the world. We

have 400 scientists from 26 different countries in any day carrying out their

experiments there.

Last

year the professor from Japan won the Imperial medal for the project

that he carried out at TRIUMF. It's only the fourth time in history

that that medal has been awarded to a physicist.

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

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

have heard a lot of talk in the last two and a half years about the

kaon factory. In fact, Kim Campbell was the last person who did a

Friday member's statement on it a year and a half ago. She, like the

second member for Langley, urged all members of this House to lobby the

federal government on this issue. Guess where that member is now. That

I haven't heard a lot from that member lately. I can only conclude that

she was all talk then, and this government is all talk now on the kaon

factory.

Some of that talk is very misleading talk. The

second member for Langley and the Minister of Advanced Education and

Job Training talked about, "today the announcement of an arrival of two

new reports."

I don't know what the minister's definition

of "new" or "arrival" is, but this report arrived on my desk some six

months ago. It's not a new report. The date on this report is May 1988,

and the quote that the minister makes in terms of the support for the

kaon factory by the West German government — the ad hoc committee for

the federal Minister of Research and Technology in West Germany — is a

year old.

I think it's shocking that either this government

or this minister is so inept to quote a report that is a year old, and

everybody in the scientific world knows of this report. Either it's

ineptitude or it's an attempt to mislead the press and the public on

this matter. It's ironic that the minister who wishes to support the

kaon project would use a misleading press release like this to

undermine his own credibility on this issue and undermine the support

for kaon.

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

That member has a variety of ways of calling members on this side

liars. That's not acceptable. Twice now he has worked in "misleading"

the public and a "misleading" report by the minister, and I think that

should be withdrawn.

MR. JONES : There's no question

that the kaon factory could be an important development tool for the

province; that it could be an outstanding international facility we

could all be proud of; and that it could be uniquely useful in tackling

some of the basic

[ Page 6614 ]

questions

in particle physics that we face. There's no question that UBC is an

ideal site for this facility. However, there is one major reservation

that anybody with any intelligence who has looked at this project has

about it, and that is that the money for the project must be new money.

It must not reduce ongoing scientific research in particle physics or

in any other area in this province.

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

[10:30]

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

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Speaker, where do they stand? What position are they taking? He

talks for one minute on the negative side, and he talks for another

minute on the positive side. It's a typical fence sitting, no-vision

socialist attitude to any good ideas that are ever brought up by this

government. I'm a very calm man, but when I listen to gobbledegook like

that, I think to myself: "Thank God those people are not in

government!" The member leaves the House. He can't even....

talks about it being all talk. Is an $87 million commitment from the

provincial government all talk? I think that's putting your money right

up front They're not even in tune with their own federal counterparts.

I would like to go back to May 2, 1988, in the House of Commons. One of

their good colleagues, Mr. Nelson Riis....

AN. HON. MEMBER : Who?

MR. PETERSON :

The MP for Kamloops. He stood up — he's a socialist, but he's at least

a socialist with some vision, not like this sorry lot here — in the

House of Commons and said to the Deputy Prime Minister: "The Deputy

Prime Minister will also know" — he's talking about the kaon project —

"that this project is absolutely critical in terms of upgrading the

existing TRIUMF project to make it a world-class facility." He has some

vision. This group — I don't know. You need a lot of help. Where do you

people stand? We'll never know.

Interjections.

MR. PETERSON : Right on the fence.

Let's

talk some more about the benefits. Let's talk about some positive

stuff, because this isn't my style When indirect benefits in the TRIUMF

project are included, the total increase in industrial production due

to spinoffs alone will be $436 million a year pumped into our economy.

It's easy to see that we have a good story to tell, and it's worth

sharing with the world. We've got a big job ahead of us, and we could

use the help of the NDP. It would be nice if we could get the support

of the opposition for TRIUMF kaon, but their position is too mired in

confusion. If their leader got off the fence and got behind this excellent project — or anything, for that matter — it would be a miracle.

SURREY RENTERS

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring forward some

of the problems the people in Surrey are facing due to the housing

crisis, and I look forward to the government response as to how indeed

it intends to alleviate some of the problems.

When we hear

of the housing crisis, we often hear of situations in Vancouver and

Victoria; I very seldom hear what the impact of this housing pressure

is doing to the suburbs. Let me outline some of the problems for the

House. First of all, Surrey is a very young community, and as I've said

time and again, it is a community that has very young families. It also

is a community that has a disproportionate number of families on GAIN,

and I quoted some of the statistics when we were talking about hungry

school kids.

In addition to that, because of the pressures

of housing loss in Vancouver, we have a number of families moving out

to Surrey. That is reflected by the growth statistics I quoted earlier.

What that means to us is that our housing, our rental situation in

particular, is under increasing pressure. As of several months ago, we

have a 0.06 vacancy rate. I would suggest that our vacancy rate has

dropped even lower than that now.

I have a couple of things

I'd like to bring to the House's attention. Last week I attended a

meeting of the Surrey Village housing tower. At that meeting there were

approximately 60 to 80 seniors, all on fixed incomes because they were

senior citizens or because they were on handicapped pension. These

people told me that the rent increase for that tower had gone up $80

and in some cases $90. Many of them were having to move out, because on

a fixed income they could no longer afford that accommodation. Given

the vacancy rate, the question was: "Where would they move to?"

addition to that — I believe I've brought it to the House's attention

in the past and I want to reinforce it — I have a situation where the Surrey Delta Now

newspaper reported that low-income tenants were being evicted. We have

large apartment complexes around Guildford in my riding, and one of

them was reported on in this article. It's called Guildford Gardens,

and there are 101 units in the complex. The landlord had made a

decision to evict the tenants for renovations. There's another complex

called Village Green undergoing the same situation. There are over 300

units in that 432-unit apartment complex that will be renovated, and

those tenants will be evicted.

That means that much of the

housing available for low-income people in particular, people on GAIN,

is slowly being renovated, and the rents for those units are being

increased to the point where welfare recipients are no longer able to

find accommodation at their present address. There are approximately 300

[ Page 6615 ]

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

Another

bit of information I want to provide to the House is part of a report

done by SPARC, which didn't make it into the actual report because of

the detail. This table is the percentage of clients with reported

shelter costs exceeding shelter allowance, by region. I want to bring

the House's attention to the Fraser North region, which includes

Surrey. These statistics are provided by the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing, February 1989.

The table shows that

52 to 53 percent of single women and couples on welfare are spending in

excess of their shelter allowance. That means that they're taking money

out of their food allowance or are in some other way trying to make up

that shelter allowance. It goes all the way up to two-parent families

with four children. Of those families, 68.3 percent are spending over

their shelter allowance. It continues with 71.7 percent of one-parent

families with four children spending more than their shelter allowance

for rental accommodation.

That means that while people are

moving out of Vancouver and other municipalities in the lower mainland

to Surrey for our more affordable housing, the reality, because of the

age of the housing stock, is that we do not have the options for those

people, and increasing numbers of renters are having to spend

increasing amounts of their welfare for that housing.

have a crisis in Surrey, and at this point I don't see any programs to

alleviate the problem our renters are facing. I look forward to hearing

whoever is responding indicate what kinds of programs the government

has in mind to alleviate the pressure on these renters and begin to

bring some solutions to the crisis that Surrey families are facing.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, I would just like to point out to the member, the House

and the people of British Columbia that all is not negative, that all

is not doom and gloom, that the reason we are into a housing crunch in

the lower mainland and the Saanich peninsula in particular is that we

have a healthy, thriving economy in this province. About 4,000 people a

month move to British Columbia to seek employment. Thousands of new

jobs are being created every month, so people are coming to avail

themselves of these opportunities. The result, of course, is that the

first thing to disappear is rental accommodation. We're very much aware

of that,

If the member will read the statements in the

budget, I'm sure she will see that we are addressing the housing

problem. It's a problem that has to be shared by all three levels of

government: federal, municipal and provincial. We realize that. On the

rental side of affordability, we have made several changes in this

year's budget, including increasing SAFER and extending it to those 60

years of age and older; a renter's tax credit for those at the low end

of the income scale; an increase in the homeowner grant and increases

to GAIN, both immediately and later in the year.

1 wanted

to dwell for a moment on the responsibility of municipal governments.

In the housing program that we share with the federal government

through CMHC we run into problems of zoning, where we actually have to

turn down projects because we can't get the municipalities to zone.

It's sad to say, but the municipality that turns down more projects

than any other is Surrey. I'm not laying all the blame on them, but

some of the responsibility has to lie with local governments and the

zoning, or lack thereof. A recent example is Sunnyside Villa; the

problem is strictly a municipal one. I suggest that these

municipalities avail themselves of the program in the budget where they

can receive up to $2,500 per unit as a bonus if they fast-track some of

the zoning to get these housing units on stream.

Next, the

initiatives we have taken with the private sector will put up to 4,000

units of affordable rental housing on the market within two years. Our

target is 4,000; we will come very close to that. The initiatives are

there for the private sector to build this affordable rental housing.

The government will facilitate the building of it through interest

write-downs, through entrepreneurial immigration targeted towards

rental accommodation and through initiatives targeted to municipalities

so that they can participate if they increase densities or speed up

zoning.

[10:45]

1 want to emphasize that these housing units, whether we build

3,000, 3,500 or 4,000, will be built by the private sector. I have had

several meetings with the private sector. They are excited about the

programs we have put into place, and they fully intend to take

advantage of them to build affordable rental housing. I would think

that over the next few months, as we develop our Crown corporation and

get the mechanics in place to implement the statements made in the

budget, we will start to see many units of affordable rental housing

built all over this province, but especially in the lower mainland and

the Saanich Peninsula.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm very

disappointed in the minister's response. The member for Surrey-Newton

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and I explored what the opportunities are for

municipalities like ours, and very clearly the government's program

does not address our needs. I'm sorry that message didn't get through

to cabinet. Fast-tracking development does not help us in any way. This

government needs to recognize reality, to come out of its ivory tower

and address the real needs.

Let me, for the minister's

sake, explain what the problems are in Surrey. First, the minister

talks about the renter's tax credit. How on earth does a person on

income assistance — and the minister who represents that ministry

should understand this better than anyone — benefit from a renter's tax

credit?

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

[ Page 6616 ]

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

What

is needed here are some controls on rent increases. We need a rent

mediator of some sort, some kind of rent review. I would refer the

minister to the member for Victoria's private member's bill as the

solution.

I would also like to talk about the need for

social housing, if the minister will again deal with the realities.

Municipalities like Surrey are the only municipalities left in the

lower mainland with land that can provide the housing necessary to

alleviate the problem. We have the majority of the land base, and the

GVRD recognizes that. What Surrey needs is support for the

infrastructure. We have a hospital that cannot deal with the growth. We

have schools that cannot deal with the growth. We have roads that are

backed up to the point where nobody can get out of the municipality.

Sure, we need to fast-track development, but the only way we can

fast-track that development for social housing is if the ministry

targets social housing and recognizes the need for infrastructure.

have children in our municipality who have nothing to do, because there

are no recreation facilities available for them. We have no

playing-fields, Mr. Minister. This government has got to recognize the

reality, recognize what they have to deal with and target their

programs appropriately.

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

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. LONG :

Again this week, I have to rise to speak on an issue I spoke on last

week: the natural gas pipeline through Sechelt, Gibsons, Pender

Harbour, Powell River and on to Vancouver Island. The Vancouver Island

pipeline is necessary. It takes in Squamish as well. So many things

have been said about it that are not true, and I must say that the

lies, deception and deceit given out to the public of Vancouver with

regard to this pipeline are staggering.

The things that

happen in that watershed that should not happen there, according to

what the GVRD has said.... It's a fact that in that same watershed they

deny a small pipe, which is 12 inches.... One place of deceit here,

where they make statements.... I can quote some of them: "Pressures

from the gas flowing through the 25-centimetre pipe could cause

vibrations and mudslides in the watershed."

We don't have

mudslides in watersheds all the way from the Peace River to Vancouver,

and they have high-pressure lines running there. They are deceitful;

they don't tell the truth.

One of the things evident now, that I found out when I was checking into it,

is that the same GVRD that is denying this access also runs their own gravel

pit in the watershed within that lake district. They have allowed another road

to run up the west side of the same watershed. They have one on the east, they

are already constructing one on the west, and they are saying a pipeline is

going to be detrimental to their watershed.

take offence at some of the GVRD staff, and if this is where they are

getting their information, I think they better check it out closely.

It's from a city engineer, who makes the statement: "Transmission of

disease from pipeline maintenance workers could occur in the

watershed." My good lord, what have pipeline workers got that their own

GVRD people haven't got? What have the loggers not got that these poor

guys have? We better find out what the source of this disease is. This

is an engineer; it sounds like he got his degree in a Cracker Jack box.

The

same engineer: "There could be a threat to water quality if a forest

fire broke out near the high-pressure gas line." This is absurd. This

is from a man who is supposed to have a degree. I guess we could have a

problem if Lou Sekora had his way, because if they did have a forest

fire in that watershed.... To quote Mr. Sekora: "I would not say that

this is an agreeable way." He is talking about a pipeline above ground.

"Why would it not be good going above ground? What's wrong with putting

it above ground...rather than digging a trench four feet deep?" His own

engineer just said if they had a forest fire, they are going to have a

problem. But he doesn't want to bury the pipe so it would be out of

harm's way. These people can't make up their minds.

One

thing that has come to light that I have checked on is the fact that

the GVRD is the greatest polluter in the province of British Columbia.

They are putting far more sewage into the waters of British Columbia

than any other municipality, industry or pulp mill in all of British

Columbia, and they have the audacity — just because of the

inconvenience of a gas line going through — to turn around and say:

"You can't inconvenience us, but we can pollute anything we want." I

find that very unacceptable.

That garbage I spoke about

last time; it's going to Cache Creek. There it is, going to Cache

Creek. They can't look after that as well. The GVRD makes statements

that they represent 1.8 million people in the province of British

Columbia. I've got to bring to their attention that this House and this

government represent 100 percent of the people of British Columbia, and

they deserve the gas as much as anyone else in the lower mainland.

Now

I'd like to turn my sights on the socialists. Where do the socialist

hordes stand on this one? Where are they? Where is the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen), the

two members for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson and Mr. Blencoe), the two

members for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick and Ms. Pullinger) and the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)? Where are they for their

constituents? When are they going to stand up and say they deserve

something? They deserve some cheap fuel. They deserve something in

return. They deserve a clean environment like the lower mainland has.

When are they going to stand up and say that? Not one of them. In fact,

I see very few in the House. I don't see any of them. Where are they?

It staggers me that they don't back

[ Page 6617 ]

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

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

MR. BLENCOE : You're history.

MR. LONG :

They say I'm history. I back my constituents, I back my riding and I

back something that is right, that is environmentally safe, and you say

I'm history.

I want to know where the opposition leader

stands on this. He is the one who called it a sham and a fraud, and

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, he is going to be the first one, front and

centre, to collect all the credit when this goes through and is a

raving success. He has already done it on the backs of this government

with Expo, SkyTrain and the Alex Fraser Bridge. Now he is going to try

it again. He's going to ride in, trying to be a hero on the backs of

people who fought for a pipeline. He lays in the bush and does nothing.

No support, nothing. I am ashamed of the NDP. I am ashamed of the

socialists. But it's their true colours.

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

MR. CASHORE :

To quote the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), some

of us are starting to wonder if we're the only free-enterprisers in the

House.

The member says that he stands up for working

people. I don't think that working people would feel very good about

his referring to people who aren't here to defend themselves as liars

and deceitful — language for which, as we've seen in the House, members

would stand up and call a member to order. I think it's a very

unfortunate thing. Within that are the seeds of the problem of why this

government can't work with the GVRD and the GV Water District, if they

go into it with that type of an attitude — calling people liars and

deceitful. That is simply inappropriate.

I find it also

quite interesting to hear about the various projects going on in the

province. The member referred to the Cache Creek landfill. I notice

that the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) isn't here to defend

himself on that one. Apparently he's quite happy about having lower

mainland garbage coming up into his riding.

The fact is

that the way in which this project is developed is the problem. It's

not the project, it's the way it is done that is the problem. Why can't

we get that through your heads on that side of the House? You people

operate on the philosophy that the road to hell is paved with good

intentions. If the impacts on the watershed are minimal, why have you

failed to convince the public? Why have you failed to convince the 18

mayors? Why do you not pay attention to the fact that we have tabled

10,000 signatures in this House? And that number is rising; those were

collected over a period of one week.

If it's a benign

project, why don't you come clean with the information to prove it?

Where is the information that proves that you've got your facts right

with regard to the Indian Arm costs? You don't have that. You have not

put the kind of attention into it that you've put into the Coquitlam

watershed. Where is the information on that? Why do you keep tossing

these figures out and creating confusion?

Why are you

threatening the taxpayers? You talk about this being a good project for

free enterprise, but what about the fact that there is a $150 million

subsidy from the provincial taxpayers and $150 million from the federal

taxpayers? You are talking about this as being such a wonderful

project. You haven't done the economics.

What you are doing

is fast-tracking. You are doing the same thing that you did with the

Coquihalla and the same thing you did with northeast coal, and the

taxpayers end up with the costs. Even after these subsidies, you

haven't given a guarantee that there won't be further costs when it

comes to having to use subsidies to entice various industries and other

people to use the system. You haven't done your economic work. Why

don't you come clean? Why don't you admit it?

I have one

last thing to say. There is a much better source of gas that doesn't

have to go through the watershed. It doesn't have to go across the

ocean. It's right here, in the offices of the Minister of Energy (Hon.

Mr. Davis), the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also

the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). That's where the gas can come from.

[11:00]

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

for process, the GVRD staff met with the pipeline company and our

ministry people four times before the hearings began. There were 30

days of hearings. There were substantial submissions relative to all

aspects of the pipeline, including the watershed. A very detailed

report was submitted. The GVRD staff didn't pick up on the fact that

there were advertisements out there, telling the world that they could

appear and intervene, until the very last minute. In any case, all the

facts are there. I met with the mayors last week. Most of them were

really unaware that there had been a hearing. One of them, at the end,

asked the chief engineer of the GVRD: "Do you mean to say that the

Coquitlam reservoir has been shut down for periods up to six months?

Construction will only take four weeks." And he said: "Well, maybe not

six months, but four or five months." The mayors really weren't aware

of the facts. The facts were there for all to see. In any case, we

obviously have a job to do in convincing those in authority in the

lower mainland that there isn't any risk whatsoever.

MR. LONG :

Mr. Speaker, I'm a little shocked at the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), because he is the environment

critic in his own caucus. He's so busy posturing politically in his own

recording

[ Page 6618 ]

ding....

He knows there's nothing wrong with this project. He knows full well

that this is going to clean up the air, the environment and the oil

spills. He knows this, and yet he's posturing politically and doing

away with the very thing that he should be doing: looking after the

environment of British Columbia. When has this person ever criticized

the GVRD on their sewer system, on what's pouring into the gulf? When

is he going to stand up and condemn them? That's GVRD responsibility:

primary treatment only, not secondary.

In our area we have

secondary in most of the towns. When are you going to stand up for the

environment? He talks about working people. They deserve a cheaper

fuel. They have it in your riding, and they damn well should have it in

our riding and on Vancouver Island too.

He speaks about

Indian Arm. It is a horrendous area of complication as far as taking a

pipeline through. It's a huge area, which has more environmental impact

than this other way would ever have. I'm ashamed of this member. I'm

ashamed of him for not standing up for our environment. We as the

Social Credit government, and I as a member of that government, will

stand up.

I hope the people in Vancouver, the lower

mainland, and down in the GVRD reassess this position, take a hard look

at it, face the facts. And when they face the facts, they will see

there's nothing wrong with the routing. It may be a little

inconvenient, but that's it. Take a look at what they're doing in there

Take a look at their own activities. From that you can draw your own

conclusion that this simple process will not interfere with their water

quality, but will just help to enhance the environment throughout the

province and make it easier and better for the people on Vancouver

Island and the Sunshine Coast.

Mr. Speaker, you heard them.

They don't stand up for the environment. They preach it, but they don't

stand up for it. This government stands up for clean air and clean

water, and will stand up for it forever.

COLLEGE FACULTY PENSIONS

MR. JONES :

I rise to raise a concern about treatment of the faculty at our

colleges and institutes in this province. I'm sure that we would all

wish for a fair and equal treatment of our faculty. In specific terms,

I think we should have the vast majority as full-time faculty and have

relatively equal numbers of men and women on those faculties.

Roughly

ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, the proportion of full-time to part-time

faculty was two-thirds full-time and one-third part-time. By 1986 the

vast majority of faculty at our colleges and institutes turned out to

be part-time; in fact, 56 percent were part-time. I'm sure you can

appreciate the implications for the quality of education when we have a

majority of faculty and staff being part-time. Between 1979 and 1986

the number of full-time positions decreased by 174, and the part-time

positions increased by 2,141.

It's very interesting to note

who get the full-time positions. I think what we see on a 2-to-1 ratio,

in terms of full-time employment, is that twice as many men are

employed full-time in our college system as women. Clearly, that

represents a double standard; it represents discrimination against

women; in some instances, it represents a job ghetto for our women

faculty.

I don't mean to pick on the minister, but I pick

on his riding because it's probably the most extreme example, although

there are probably some extenuating circumstances because of the unique

characteristics of North Island College. In 1985-86, the latest figures

that I was able to obtain — and I'd be very pleased to hear from the

minister that there has been a vast improvement since then — at North

Island College there were 36 full-time males employed but only 9

full-time females: a 4-to-1 ratio.

In the part-time faculty

that year at the same college, there were 96 part-time women employed:

a 10-to-1 ratio, compared to full-time. Clearly we have a case of

discrimination in full-time and part-time, the vast majority of

part-time at that college being women.

Although it is an

extreme example, it is not atypical. At Capilano College we see a

similar situation. In that year there were 72 full-time males and half

as many full-time females — a 2-to-1 ratio —

whereas the number of

part-time females was 117, the vast majority.

There is a

two-tiered system, where the majority of instructors at our colleges

and institutes are second-class citizens in that they are part-time.

Although both men and women are discriminated against, when we see a

2-to-1 ratio mentioned, there is clear discrimination in terms of

full-time employment favouring men and discriminating against women.

This

situation exists in the same ministry that holds responsibility for

women's programs. It exists in the same government that wishes us to

believe that they have a newfound interest in equality for women.

Rather than showing leadership on this issue, this government has

mirrored the very worst practices of the private sector.

How

did this practice come about? It came about because of a Social Credit

policy to adopt a save-on approach to post-secondary education. It has

been cheaper to hire part-time faculty and deny them the fringe

benefits that they are due. These part-time faculty — these

second-class citizens — are denied fulltime employment, job security

and career opportunities. They are also denied proper working

conditions. They have become an administrative convenience, and their

courses and course loads are juggled on short notice. They are asked to

teach at odd times and even on different campuses.

Most

importantly, though, these second-class citizens are denied the fringe

benefits that they are due. However, a few days ago, the B.C. Supreme

Court, in a very important decision, in my opinion, ruled against the

systematic denial of fundamental rights and justice to this group of

employees. It said that the

[ Page 6619 ]

government

is wrong in denying part-time employees pension coverage. That's some

4,000 part-time instructors at our colleges and institutes.

Because

of that decision, a major economic incentive for maintaining this

number of part-time employees has been removed. I am hopeful that as a

result of that decision, there will be a massive conversion of

part-time employees to full-time, and part-time situations will be used

only where legitimate circumstances exist. I think the decision of the

Supreme Court has the potential to improve the quality of education, to

restore justice to our college instructors and to end sexist

discrimination for part of our post-secondary education system.

invite the Minister of Advanced Education to show support for

affirmative action in improving the situation of full-time employment

in our college system. I ask the minister now if he accepts the

fundamental principle that part-time employees in our college system

have the right to opt for fringe benefits, such as pension coverage, as

determined by the Supreme Court.

HON. S. HAGEN : It's

with great delight that I take this opportunity to reply to the

rambling and disjointed presentation made by the hon. member for

Burnaby North, where he talked about this government's save-on approach

to post-secondary education and his unfortunate opinion that the

instructors in our colleges and universities are second-class citizens.

would like to state this government's opinion on that. We think that

the individuals who teach and do research in our post-secondary

facilities are, in fact, first-class citizens — first-class people in

the system. We are very proud of them. We are proud of them because

they have helped build the best post-secondary education of any

province in this country and of most countries in the world. That is

not always because of the things the government has done, but we

certainly can't do those things without the cooperation of the faculty

and the professors in the universities.

The hon. member for

Burnaby North raised the issue of taking the save-on approach to

post-secondary education. I would like to remind the hon. member — and

I'm sure I will be doing so in my estimates later on — that in the two

and a half years we have been government, we have pledged and spent

more money on the post-secondary education system.... That part of the

budget has had the largest increase of any part of our budget.

Again

he comes without doing his homework, without studying the facts and

without looking at the budget. The "Access for All" announcement, which

is a commitment of this government to increase the number of university

spaces by 15,000, not only in the lower mainland, where the hon. member

lives — and it sounds like it's the only part of the province he cares

about — but in third- and fourth-year degree programs at Kelowna,

Kamloops and Nanaimo.... I think that shows that this government has

education as a number one priority.

I might also remind the

hon. member of what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

announced earlier this year with regard to the implementation of the

Royal Commission on Education. I guess the truth is that they're having

difficulty finding things to criticize, so they're making some sort of

general statements.

I would like to discuss specifically

the situation with regard to pensions for full-time and part-time

employees. Historically, as you know, only full-time professional

instructors or senior administrative staff have been subject to

compulsory enrolment. Amendments to the Pension (College) Act resulted

in the superannuation commissioner making a ruling last December which

stated that any new professional part-time employees hired after

September 1, 1989, may enroll, subject to employer approval, in the

college pension plan.

[11:15]

This ruling was challenged by the College-Institute Educators'

Association, resulting in the Supreme Court striking down the

superannuation commissioner's ruling and directing that a different

subsection of the act must be enforced. This subsection uses the

College and Institute Act definition of a professional employee and

defines an employee as being anyone who provides educational services,

including a librarian or an administrator.

The net impact

is that all professional employees must be given the opportunity to

enroll in the college pension plan. Enrolment is not compulsory, but it

is available at the option of the employee, not the employer, as was

previously the case. It should also be noted that full-time employees

may revert to optional enrolment. We in the ministry are uncertain at

this point what the magnitude of the impact on the colleges of this

ruling is, since participation in the pension plan is not mandatory.

However, my staff are working with their colleagues in the colleges and

in the Superannuation Commission to ensure that the ruling is properly

interpreted.

I would remind my hon. friend from Burnaby

that this is an issue that comes under the Superannuation Commission.

Should he have any follow-up questions, he should probably address them

to the minister in charge of that.

MR. JONES : I have

to be concerned about the minister's response, because he did not in

any way address my concerns about discrimination against women in the

post-secondary education system. He clearly did not respond to my

request that he recognize the fundamental right for these part-time

employees to opt for pension coverage. I am concerned, then, that the

minister may choose to appeal this ruling or may even go so far as to

bring in new discriminatory legislation to deny again those members of

our college system their fundamental rights to opt for fringe benefits.

recognize that there is a cost associated with the decision; as is

always the case when we have the potential to improve the quality of

education, there are going to be costs associated. It's my hope that the

[ Page 6620 ]

Minister

of Advanced Education will recognize those additional costs and provide

them — whatever they might be — to the college system, so that they

don't have to cut back as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

seems to me that the courts have acted where the government has failed

to act. I believe that this decision, of which the minister is not sure

of the implications, could be a landmark decision. I am hopeful that it

will end a decade of discrimination and injustice to our part-time

employees at the colleges and institutes of this province. I am hopeful

that it's the beginning of the kind of equality, fairness and dignity

that should be accorded to those professional employees, particularly

to the women who work part-time in our post-secondary education system.

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

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I want to start this morning by talking about some of the concerns of

local government today, getting into some general discussion with the

minister about direction and the real problems facing local government.

Like the minister, I've spent considerable time travelling the province

talking to mayors, aldermen and regional directors, and always, of

course, there are problems associated with local government and the

problems they face for the future.

One of the major things

that we continue not to deal with is the state of local government

infrastructure: the problems that many communities face maintaining or

rebuilding their water systems; the lack of treatment plants; crumbling

highways, sewers and storm drains. Just the day before yesterday I was

talking to representatives of villages in the Okanagan, and they were

expressing the in many ways desperate situation of much of their

infrastructure. For instance, their water systems are in real trouble.

The

minister has mentioned that she is trying to resolve some of these

issues, but it seems to me — and it certainly seems to local government

— that we are doing it using an ad hoc, band-aid sort of approach. We

have not laid out for local government an overall strategy to rebuild

infrastructure, those critical ingredients for ensuring that a

community remains healthy and economically viable. When leaders are

assessing where they are going to allocate their industries or new

ventures, they look for these essential ingredients, often not very

attractive ingredients in terms of political issues, but very important

ones in ensuring that these communities are ready for the future.

The

minister knows the problem. I have consistently, as has the Leader of

the Opposition and many of my colleagues on this side of the House,

asked for an overall strategy — two-year, five-year, ten-year

strategies — to rebuild municipal government infrastructure in the

province. Every year the minister announces a little more money here

and there. She tinkers with the formula and says some communities may

be eligible for fifty-fifty funding. Some have to resort to 75 percent

from their local taxpayers and 25 percent from the province. I think we

have to come to terms with this issue. I see it as the number one

problem in B.C., particularly for those small communities, the villages

and towns, that don't have a large tax base. It came home again to me

the other day that some of those communities are at times literally

putting baling wire on their systems.

We are in real

trouble if we don't start to lay out a strategy. I'm not saying the

local taxpayers are going to find the money overnight, but we've got

to. This is one of the things I've been saying about this ministry: be

in the forefront of developing a strategy to rebuild the infrastructure

for local government. No more finding a few dollars here and there

every year, depending on which municipality gets to the minister's door

first, and whether they're going to get 50 percent dollars or 25

percent dollars. We need to clearly enunciate a policy of two-year,

five-year and ten-year strategies for rebuilding our towns, villages,

regional districts and municipalities.

One of the first

things that could be done is for this minister to put to her cabinet

colleagues that this is a top priority for all British Columbians. This

is a government that likes to talk about megaprojects, likes to pick a

specific issue for political gain. If we ever needed a big project,

it's the rebuilding of local government infrastructure. Every year I

mention that we've only got to look south of the border to the United

States, where local government put it off and delayed and delayed. Now

they're having to spend billions of dollars to rebuild highways,

sewers, storm drains, water systems, treatment plants — the basic

ingredients for healthy, viable, economically stable communities. These

are the things local governments want to see this government take on in

a clear strategy.

I want to open this morning by seeing

where the minister is taking local government. Where is this government

going? Rather than saying every year that they've found a few more

dollars in revenue sharing or unconditional grants, where is the

commitment to saying that this government believes in local government

and their problems, and that it's going to tackle those problems in a

forthright and dedicated way? I want to open up today on that theme,

because if we don't tackle it in a concerted overall strategy now,

we're going to cost the taxpayers of this province millions of dollars

down the road. Would the minister perhaps respond to some of those

concerns?

[ Page 6621 ]

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

MR. ROGERS :

Mr. Chairman, to the member for Victoria: perhaps your agriculture

critic will speak to you some day and inform you that baling wire isn't

actually used in the agricultural community anymore, so it's not

available for municipal infrastructure. It helps display the fact that

you haven't done a very good job of broadening your agricultural

education. I only know because I had to borrow some one day.

would like to ask the minister to place on the record of this House,

for the edification of people in my constituency, the issue of the head

office of B.C. Transit. I would like the minister to explain why the

head office of B.C. Transit is being moved from my constituency, where

it has been since its inception, to — coincidentally — her constituency.

I'd

like her to tell me how that decision was made and whether that

decision was made by the board of directors, by the executive council —

which I seem to recall it wasn't — or by you as the minister

responsible. I'd like to know what studies have been done to prove that

this will be an efficient and cost-saving measure for B.C. Transit,

because they are very happily located in my constituency, where they

have been for some time.

I know the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser), who is unfortunately involved in some

sort of a matrimonial procedure and is not able to be here today,

wanted to bring this matter up. So I bring it up on the understanding

that your estimates will probably be through by 1 p.m. today. Perhaps

you could enlighten the committee as to how the decision was made, why

none of the MLAs knew about it — at least none of the MLAs in the

affected community knew about it — and what the real savings are for

the transit system of moving from a rather inexpensive office where

they're currently located, to, I gather, much grander premises in your

constituency.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, I'll

start with the last question first. To the best of my knowledge, there

has been no decision made to move the head office of B.C. Transit.

There have been discussions with regard to possible relocation because,

as you know, we have talked for some time about decentralization and

moving some of the major government-related operations out of Vancouver

into the suburbs, the valley and the interior of the province whenever

possible to — among other reasons — lessen the impact on traffic of

vehicles going from my constituency or Coquitlam into the city.

the best of my knowledge — and I feel sure I would have heard, had a

final decision been made — there has been no final decision made on the

move The lease on the building has only a short time to go, and we are

looking at the possibility of relocating the operation somewhere else

along the SkyTrain line But that decision has certainly not been

finalized.

I would like to suggest that a good number of

employees who presently travel into the Vancouver office are from the

suburbs of Surrey and Langley and out further. As for a convenience to

the employees of B.C. Transit, that would certainly not prove to be any

more of an inconvenience to some of the employees than we presently

have. But having said that, there has been no final decision made to

move.

[11:30]

I would now like to respond to the second member for Victoria's (Mr.

Blencoe'

s) comments and to suggest that he.... To the second member for

Victoria: do you really want to know the answers to your questions?

is wrong to claim that there is no infrastructure planning in place in

this province, because there is. It's not carved in stone, but we do

have infrastructure planning. The municipalities adopt five-year

capital plans, which this ministry monitors. We also, as a ministry,

provide sewer and water study grants to local government; and the

studies that are done by local government are to identify their needs

over the next five and ten years.

We don't do those studies

in-house. Each of the local governments, each community, does those

studies itself. I think one of the problems we've seen over the years,

and the reason we have problems in some of our communities with

infrastructure.... You know, to open a new sewer line is really not a

glitzy event, is it? Nobody gets excited about turning the sod or

cutting a ribbon for a new sewer line or waterline. It just doesn't

have the sizzle that a new ice rink or swimming-pool has, so it really

hasn't been given priority.

I look at some of the very

substantial, expensive recreation facilities we have in my own

community: a wonderful wave-action pool that cost $6 million or $7

million. That was really glitzy, lots of sizzle. We cut the ribbon,

turned the sod and everybody thought it was great. But really, was it

important to spend that amount of money on that facility, or should it

have been put under the ground where nobody would have been able to see

it? Nobody would have been excited about going to a grand opening of a

sewage treatment plant.

Those are the areas to which local

government has to start giving priority. I think many of them are,

because many of them are having problems. When you say that we tinker

with the formula, and there is no security, nothing reliable.... What

can be more reliable than the revenue-sharing legislation this

government has had in place for a good number of years, for goodness'

sake? We're not left at the whim of a government, a cabinet, a Finance

minister or a Treasury Board; we have a legitimate piece of legislation

on the books that ensures regular, stable revenue every year to local

government, dependent on the revenues of the province. That doesn't

waver. The legislation is there, and we review it each year.

This

year there was a substantial increase. You know, hon. second member for

Victoria, that there has been a substantial increase this year in our

revenue-sharing grants, not only in the unconditional,

[ Page 6622 ]

which

went up 10 percent, but in the conditional. An additional $20 million

will be going into our infrastructure programs, and $35 million has

been allocated this year. That will see $70 million to $100 million

worth of infrastructure work being done this year in local communities.

don't go out, hon. member, and tell the communities what they should be

doing; the applications come in to us. We believe in local autonomy.

Local government tells us where they require help; we then. see what we

can do to provide the help they require. Please, let's make the record

very clear: we do have a plan, a program and stability. We're there to

support the governments, but it's up to them to do their longterm

planning, monitored by our ministry. Then we come forward with the

financial assistance required in carrying out those long-term plans.

MR. BLENCOE :

I am not saying that this minister hasn't tried to find some extra

dollars for infrastructure; I am not saying that at all. What I am

saying is that the impression that's given — I think it's a real one —

is that it really is only scratching the surface in terms of the

astronomical problems local governments face.

I know what

the minister is saying: local government is autonomous, and they come

forward with their priorities. The provincial government is the parent,

if you will, of local government, and I think there is a major role to

be played by Municipal Affairs, in conjunction with the UBCM and local

government, in determining where the priorities are — which communities

are really in critical need — rather than, as they do now, having them

lining up and hoping to God they get support. They all fight like crazy

and come down here and lobby like crazy, and hope they can knock on the

minister's door first. That's like a lottery for rebuilding their

municipalities.

What I am suggesting is that there is a

critical role for Municipal Affairs to do a concrete study — the FCM

has done some; I am sure the minister has done some — and really

determine where the priorities are for local government. Which

communities are in jeopardy this year? Which cannot wait? Work out a

longterm strategy, so that every year...."We may get a little extra

money this year; we may get some next year." Revenue-sharing can

sometimes be a little up and down. I think it has to be money that we

know is definitely going to come. This government can find millions and

millions of dollars for its pet megaprojects - sometimes very

questionable projects economically. These needs are not questionable;

they are there.

I want to ask the minister: what studies has she done on behalf of the ministry?

What priorities has she determined in terms of which communities are in real

need, and how does she allocate those dollars? How does she determine who gets

what? Is it the first one that gets in there, or is the ministry making a concerted

effort to lay out a strategy in conjunction with UBCM? "There is the five-year

plan. Here are the priorities. And we are going to commit the resources to do

it. Within five to ten years, the infrastructure in British Columbia will be

rebuilt, and those communities suffering economic downturn can really start

to look for reinvestment from the captains of industry who are looking to healthy

communities."

want to see that the Municipal Affairs ministry is on the cutting edge

of dealing with this issue, not just in a hodge-podge way waiting for

those various municipalities, towns and villages to fight each other

over who gets there first and gets a little slice of the pie. Let's

have a megaproject, if you will, for local government. Let's have a

commitment of $50 million, $100 million, $200 million over the next ten

years for local government. We know it's money well spent, and that's

what local government is looking for. This ministry should be on the

cutting edge, working with UBCM, determining the priorities and laying

out the strategy, so that everybody knows that in time they are going

to get their sewers worked and their water systems rebuilt — based on

ascertaining where the real priorities are in terms of time.

Some

communities today cannot wait. We've got to have a plan. You can't work

in the dark. You can't work on a grab-bag of priorities with: "Well,

this year we'll pick this one" or "Well, we'll pick this one over

here." Where's the plan to rebuild British Columbia? This minister has

a responsibility. She says it hasn't any sizzle. But I think if it were

done right, it would have a lot of sizzle, because people would see a

commitment to local government to rebuild the communities. The

industries that are looking to go elsewhere and looking to reinvest are

going to say, "Hey, come to British Columbia," because there's a

commitment to rebuild the communities that hasn't been made in other

parts of North America. That's what we're looking for: some leadership

from this government and this minister.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria suggests that the minister

has a responsibility. There's no question about that. I take my

responsibility very seriously, and my first responsibility is to this

House, which is more than I can say for the second member for Victoria,

who knew the estimates were up yesterday and he wasn't here. He was up

in the Okanagan, knowing full well that the estimates were going to be

dealt with. We have already canvassed this item, hon. second member for

Victoria. We have gone over the infrastructure. We have gone over how

programs and applications are prioritized. If you read the Blues, you

will determine that there is an answer.

We have an

interministry review committee to review the applications that come in.

We have a 10-point scale to determine the priority on health and

environmental impact. The awards are based on priorities, not random or

first come, first served or whether it's a Socred or an NDP riding.

would be far more appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if the second member for

Victoria would get his priorities straight, rather than coming into the

House late during the estimates and criticizing the minister for not

being in the Okanagan where he was. The minis-

[ Page 6623 ]

ter

was here doing the job that the two parties agreed was going to be

done: discuss the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. But

not the critic. He's up in the Okanagan meeting with the mayors. If he

was here doing his job, he would have had the answers to those

questions.

MR. BLENCOE : Well, Mr. Chairman, the

minister is a little testy. She knows that this is a big issue. She may

have committed the minister's views on what resources she's giving to

local government, but I along with the minister have taken some time

over the last year or two to discuss at length with many

representatives of local government, and I can tell you that they're

waiting for some leadership from this government. They're waiting for

an infrastructure rebuilding program, with the government of British

Columbia at the cutting edge. They're waiting for some leadership. I

know that this minister over here wishes to consult with local

government — and takes her direction from UBCM in so many ways — but

sometimes when you're a minister, you've got to show some leadership.

I'm waiting, Mr. Chairman....

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, I'm not going to waste time, because this is a critical issue for

you. I can tell you, I was in the Okanagan. I take my meetings at the

local level seriously. I once again had the opportunity to talk to

those representatives, consult and bring back their view to this

Legislature. I represent that approach, and I am here to talk about

those issues. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, local government wants

this minister and this government to show some leadership. They want a

plan. They want the ministry staff to really get their act together on

this issue.

Can the minister tell me if she or her staff

are currently working on an infrastructure rebuilding program — a

strategy or a plan — that will lead us into the next century? We need a

program clearly laid out, properly studied and analyzed with all the

input from local government, so that we can show the UBCM, local

government and those communities that they can expect in two or three

years to get their water system revamped, or their sewer or storm drain

system taken care of. Do we have that commitment from this government?

I can assure you that's what we are waiting for, and that's what we

need Can we expect a plan like that done in consultation with local

government?

[11:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

As the second member for Victoria knows, we did take an interministry

inventory last year of the serious infrastructure problems that we had

in the province. We identified the need to spend $226 million. We have

gone a long way in the increase this year — the $20 million increase —

to $35 million for the provincial contribution towards those

improvements.

We have a program that will see, over less

than five years, all of the very serious infrastructure problems in the

province corrected, plus funding assistance to local government to

allow them to open up new areas that they wish to see opened up within

their own boundaries.

We have a very good program. We work

with the Minister of Health and with the Ministry of Environment. I can

assure you that my dealings with local government are far more

extensive than those of the second member for Victoria. I am assured

that with very few exceptions, they are very pleased, satisfied and

delighted with the leadership being shown by this government and this

ministry.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I am just

wondering if the minister is aware that many villages in this province

feel they are not getting the attention. Indeed, they have determined

that at UBCM this year they are going to have a special

section on the

infrastructure needs of villages. They feel they are not getting the

attention from this government. They are going to have to focus and

call upon the government to recognize that they just can't carry on the

same way they have for the last few years.

Is the minister

prepared for this year's UBCM to lay out for local government a

definite strategy for rebuilding infrastructure in the province? Has

the minister got a rough estimate before her of what it is going to

require to rebuild the infrastructure in the province? Has she got that

broken down into towns, villages and municipalities? That's the sort of

analysis we need to do. Can we assume or hope that by this September,

those municipalities that are in crying need will have some answers

from this government in terms of when their turn will come for

rebuilding their infrastructure?

This is called planning;

this is called long-range planning. A lot of it has to do with regional

planning. In the last few years, this government has shown that it

doesn't particularly like the concept of planning. We are just saying:

"Let's plan a little; let's get the strategy laid out and let these

villages know that they are going to be on the list very soon." Are

they just going to have to wait, hope and pray that some action will

take place? I may be carrying on a little with this, but this issue

keeps coming back to our side of the House.

Can we expect

some real strategy and determined plans? Those communities have

indicated to the minister — and to me — that they are in dire need;

they need to be given some time horizons and some indications that we

will get to their problems in the next few years, or at least that they

will be on the list.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I am going to leave this for now and indicate that we are still waiting

for and hope — perhaps the minister could take it on advisement — to

have the kind of strategy that I have laid out.

[ Page 6624 ]

want to talk now about regional planning, which is also very much tied

in to the problem of infrastructure. We all know — I don't have to go

over it in detail — that this government, in its wisdom back in 1983,

abandoned the concept of regional planning. Since then, we have been

feeling the results. I think we all know that particularly in large

municipalities that are contiguous to each other, there is a need for

an overall comprehensive approach to planning those regions. I know

that in my own community there's been some excellent analysis done, and

we really need to get back and reintroduce the concept of regional

planning. Yesterday my colleague from Vancouver East asked the minister

if anything was in the works to bring back the important concept of

regional planning, and the minister said there's nothing as yet.

All

the evidence is in. Municipalities and regional districts are calling

for the ability to have a process whereby municipalities in a region

talk to each other, plan on a regional basis and lay out a regional

strategy. For instance, in the Capital Regional District we have ten

mayors, ten municipalities, ten administrators, 27 fire departments and

2,420 square kilometres with no overall planning vision. It was

disbanded, killed, by Mr. Ritchie, the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Thank goodness he has departed this House.

The

capital region is a classic example of no cohesive mechanism to plan

for growth. We have a balkanization of ten municipalities who are doing

their own thing with little reference to each other in terms of an

overall plan and strategy, a vision, for the region.

This

region is becoming more and more complex. The population is growing

dramatically. We have significant transportation problems, like any

other large region. We have environmental and sewage problems and

pressures on agricultural land that are going to require a regional

approach. If we're going to deal with growth, we have to have that

regional approach to the issue. We have to have population projections.

We have to have analysis of where we're going in terms of where the

industries will be located. What are the key environmental issues that

have to be tackled on a regional basis?

Quite frankly, I

found the minister's answer yesterday somewhat lacking. She's heard

from regional and local governments that they really do want this kind

of comprehensive, cohesive planning process permitted again in the

province of British Columbia. I want to ask the minister today: what

work is she doing to ensure that we get this approach back? Without it,

we're going to have municipalities dealing with growth without relating

to each other, instead of working out their problems on a regional

basis, ascertaining who's going to do what in economic issues and

environmental issues. It's a real gap in terms of what's happening in

planning in the province of British Columbia. I know the word planning

is not a pleasant word to this government.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's not glitzy.

MR. BLENCOE :

It's not glitzy. It doesn't have any sizzle, I suppose. But it is very

important in terms of rationally planning for growth, economic

initiatives and, of course, the issues of today, like environmental

issues, which have to be developed on a regional basis.

Yesterday

the minister said that she had nothing in the works. I wonder if she

would reconsider that position, given the needs out there?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I don't believe that the needs are out there for regional districts to

have legislation that permits them to regulate. They already have

authority to collect data and bring forward these strategies and

perform studies and coordinate planning on behalf of their consenting

members. What they can't do, though, is to regulate. Why should they

have to regulate? They can, in a cooperative way, coordinate planning

that their consenting members wish to undertake.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Again, I will send those remarks to the regional areas, because they

will once again see that this minister is not prepared — with a

philosophical, dogmatic approach — to deal with the issue of regional

planning. For instance, we've got evidence here in this region where

it's reported that entrepreneurs and developers are coming from other

parts of the country requiring zoning information or regional planning

information, which we don't have, and they are referred to ten

different municipalities for information. There's no legislative

requirement for cooperation.

The minister can say: "Well,

if they want to do it, they can do it." But this is the area of

leadership. The lack of leadership in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

is overwhelming. I suggest to the minister that this is why we have a

Ministry of Municipal Affairs: you have to have an overall view of the

needs of local government.

The government disbanded

regional planning for some very vague.... Well, I don't want to go into

the reasons why, but at the time it was to do with Spetifore lands, etc.

There's

great frustration in many of these regions, particularly for

entrepreneurs who want to have a regional plan, who want to know that

there is a regional strategy and that they don't have to deal with ten

municipal governments, rather than have a regional approach to these

kinds of issues. The minister said in the last estimates, I thought,

that she was working on this issue. Obviously not, and we're going to

continue to have the balkanization of local government without any

cohesive regional plan to develop for growth.

If there was

ever a need for a proper response to the growth problems, it's right

there in Vancouver. I think that the minister, rather than hope that

local government and those umpteen municipalities that

[ Page 6625 ]

are

contiguous to each other might get together to talk over their

issues.... I think we need a little leadership in this area and a

return to the regional planning concept. Make sure it happens in the

province of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It

clearly identifies the philosophical difference that we have. What the

second member for Victoria is suggesting is that we somehow legislate

and insist and force regional districts into planning as a group, as a

large body. I said earlier and I'll say again that we believe in local

autonomy. If local government members of a regional district wish to

work together in a voluntary way to prepare plans that can be made

available to the public, they are at liberty to do so. The regional

district does not have the legislative authority to regulate. What the

second member for Victoria is suggesting is that we bring in

legislation that would force regional districts to collectively plan

the areas within their region. We are not prepared to do that. That

change was made some years ago, and I believe that the options for

voluntary cooperative planning are in place and that they are very

adequate.

[12:00]

MR. BLENCOE :

Is the minister aware that when regional planning was cancelled,

regional districts requested unanimously that that not happen? Is the

minister aware that the level of support from regional government for

the regional planning concept was overwhelming? Is she aware of that?

Maybe the minister has forgotten, Mr. Chairman, but I recall vividly

that UBCM and all those regional governments put to the minister at the

time unanimous support for regional planning. Now she's trying to turn

it around, saying this is a philosophical difference. We say it's not a

philosophical difference. It makes sense to have that overall vision

for a region. If we aren't going to rationally plan for growth and plan

it out in a cohesive way with those municipalities that make up that

region, that's why we get into all the problems we have, especially in

our urban areas. The minister just doesn't remember the level of

support there was for regional planning in British Columbia. Is she

prepared to enter into discussions with the UBCM and those who

represent regional government to investigate if there is some way that

she could accept the regional planning concept return in the province?

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I'll leave that, because we aren't going to get any further. I want to

move on. I assume that the new regional district legislation is coming

forward in this session. I just wanted to canvass something that I

think is important in terms of regional districts and the concept that

has been put to me at a number of locations I have traveled to. That

is, many of our regions have distinct differences and problems that

they face. Our regional legislation tends to be a universal approach to

regional districts

I am wondering if there has been any

discussion or thought about having regional district policies

specifically that deal with urban issues and legislation that deals

with those urban regional districts, and having a different approach

for rural or more up-country regional districts, and having some

regional district policies that reflect the kind of differences that

are present between the various provincial districts we have in the

province.

What I have suggested — and I don't believe any

work has gone into this — is that we may need to regionalize our policy

on regional district legislation rather than having an overall

universal legislation that the minister, I think, is bringing forward.

What work has gone into looking at...?

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

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

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm absolutely delighted that the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) has finally recognized the value of the regionalization

program that was instituted by this government.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I recognize that we are expecting legislation, but I just wanted to get

it on record. There are times when it comes to me that there is a

feeling in some of these more remote, rural, central northern districts

that so much legislation is put forward that really has the lower

mainland and the capital region as its base. The member for the

Okanagan Similkameen area knows what I'm referring to. Down the road, I

think we're going to have to take a look in our legislation at

recognizing those particular unique differences and developing

legislation that reflects their concerns and the things they have to

deal with.

Much of our municipal legislation in the past

has really reflected urban or semi-urban situations. I have to admit

that I come from an urban area, the capital region, and I am not as

versed as some of my colleagues on both sides of the House on these

issues. We have a lot to learn from each other. Even Mr. Chairman, I'm

sure, has some views on this particular issue. I guess the theme should

be that it's time for downtown British Columbia to meet the rest of the

province not just in a rhetorical sense but actually in a legislative

sense, and that's the issue I'm trying to get at.

I want to

move on to reflect a little bit on the minister’s views on this. The

minister is no longer a minister of state, but she knows the minister

of state concept well and has had some dealings with it. She knows that

local government has to deal with it daily, but I'm not going to get

into the past concerns that have been expressed about it. There remain

some apprehensions and frustration. I know local government

[ Page 6626 ]

— again,

I pick this up — wonder how many more committees they're going to have

to attend and hope that they can get back to taking care of their

communities.

I've made a suggestion, and I'm wondering if

the minister would comment upon this. We have five municipal

associations — one I just attended very recently in the Kootenays. I've

always felt — and I've discussed this with those associations and their

presidents — that they really are an untapped source of information and

a useful tool for helping us develop our regions.

I take a

look at the minister-of-state system, the bureaucracy that has been

created around that and the cost of millions of dollars for that

bureaucracy. And I see in each region these municipal associations that

are representative of all the municipalities and regional districts

within their region. I just wonder why we can't formalize some

relationship with those regional associations. Do we really need the

expensive, cumbersome bureaucratic ministers of state?

This

is a proposal I have suggested for discussion. Maybe we should take a

look at those regional associations rather than set up another

bureaucracy of the ministers of state and have our various key

ministries or staff allocated to work with those regional associations,

to say to them: "Look, here's six months or three months or whatever.

Take a look, with your regional association because they're elected, at

the needs of your region and directly input into the appropriate

ministry for action." It just strikes me that we're missing the boat.

We've got an opportunity, I think, to abandon the minister-of-state

system, which — let's face it — has been a bit of a failure. I agree

there have been some successes, but it's not working the way I suppose

the government intended. Local government officials are greatly

frustrated that they have to continue going to these committees, but

that when it comes down to it, the decision is really still made by the

line minister.

Again, maybe Municipal Affairs could show

some leadership in this area. Has the minister and her staff given some

thought to those regional associations being the organizations that

work with the provincial government? You may want to second some of

your staff from Municipal Affairs or other ministries to work with

those associations to develop a plan and a strategy for their needs

based on the meetings that the regional associations have, and then to

directly input those ideas into the appropriate government ministries.

Then you don't need the ministers of state and a bureaucracy. I know

the minister is well versed on those municipal associations, and I

think she has an opportunity to show some leadership in this area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I believe the government did show leadership when

it introduced the regionalization process and the minister-of-state program.

The suggestion just brought forward by the second member for Victoria is that

the minister-of-state program deals solely with local government issues. The

minister-of-state proposal does not deal solely with local or regional government

issues; it deals with issues that are far broader. If the member would look

at the makeup of most of the committees, he could assure himself that there

is representation on the various regional minister-of-state committees from

each of the regional associations.

The

local government representatives that have taken the time to discuss

the minister-of-state program with me feel very comfortable with it.

They didn't at first, and nobody can argue that; but the longer they

are in the program, and the more involved they become in it, the more

comfortable and satisfied they are. The indications I have are that

they're very pleased with the additional input they have as far as

their concerns being taken directly to the cabinet table. There has

been some fine-tuning, but the program is working very well, thank you;

and the governing body, the minister of state for each of the areas, is

doing a fine job in involving everyone who really should be involved —

and that goes beyond just locally elected officials.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Just to pursue that, I think it's instructive for the committee to know

that the reason the member has to ask that question is because the NDP

MLAs were invited to attend ministry-of-state committees but declined

to do so. Had they become involved, as mayors and aldermen throughout

the province have done, they would know the answer to that question.

However, their decision was to decline, and if they want to absent

themselves from the real role they could be playing in their community,

that is entirely up to them.

Let me just add to what my

colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has said with respect to

the involvement of local government and local government associations

with ministers of state. The minister and I, when the Minister of

Municipal Affairs was a minister of state, had the good fortune to

attend a northern development meeting in Kitimat last spring, where we

pointed out that ministers of state were a creation of cabinet. It was

a way of organizing our provincial government administration. If local

municipal bodies such as the NDC, regional districts, councils, any

sort of municipal association, wished to liaise with us in any sort of

body or form of government, they certainly could. That comment was well

met and well accepted. In the case of the NDC, we had some meetings

recently under the chairmanship of His Worship Len Fox, the mayor of

Vanderhoof, and those have worked out very well. I think it's

instructive that the committee know that.

I'll close by

repeating that had the NDP become involved in this system they would

already know the answer. It's regrettable that they've neglected to

show any interest in municipal government.

[12:15]

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister knows the history behind the establishment of the

ministers of state. I really don't want to take a lot of time to go

over that, but suffice it to say that the system was foisted on local

government. They were not consulted. They have to participate because

it's the name of the game

[ Page 6627 ]

right

now. Obviously, local government has to participate in something a

senior government introduces; they have no choice. If they had been

consulted about an approach to deal with downtown British Columbia

meeting the rest of the province, I don't think they would have

recommended a multimillion dollar bureaucracy and more committees. I

suggest they would have said: "Why don't you use the existing" — as

I've suggested — "regional organizations that we've established which

work well, which know their regions well, without putting millions of

dollars into another bureaucracy?" I don't have the figures in front of

me, but you know how much it was: the initial $13 million to start, was

it? and then added on after that. How much money do you need to contact

local regional people? How much does a phone call cost? How much is a

stamp now — 39 cents, or whatever it is?

When the minister

talks about respecting local autonomy, we would have been much happier

if the local government had been asked first what kind of structure

would be useful.

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I don't want to get into a debate with my friend from Prince George,

but I recall vividly that when the Premier announced the minister

of-state system at UBCM, both the Leader of the Opposition and I asked

the then president, Mr. Dan Cumming: "Do you know anything about this?"

"No. Never consulted. We don't know anything about this at all."

Local

government would probably have had some other ideas for developing a

liaison system with the regions, one which would have been a little

less cumbersome, a little less "committeeized" — a horrible use of

language. In many of these so-called states there are umpteen

committees, and I still sense a high degree of frustration. I have

suggested a system to streamline it which costs far less, and that

would be to set up a formal relationship with the regional associations.

Rather

than running around reinventing the wheel, as the member for

Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks) said at last year's municipal

association in the Kootenays.... "We're really reinventing the wheel

here," he said. Of course, all the local government people just

laughed. They said: "Hey, we know what's going on. just talk to us.

Don't out of the blue put another level of bureaucracy on top of us and

tell us we're going to create a myriad of other committees, when we've

already got a regional association with various committees." Do you

know what, Mr. Chairman? It would have cost a handful of dollars to do

that, instead of the millions currently being spent on the

minister-of-state system.

This side of the House wants to

be efficient and lean in terms of the public dollars and also wants to

introduce a system developed in consultation with local government. The

minister over there is....

Interjection.

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

I'm

trying to canvass a very sensible idea. You have the regional

associations. If you bothered to think about it before you set up those

ministers of state, and wanted to create jobs, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs could have had staff within her ministry work

directly with each of those regional associations and take the time and

effort to ask them to develop the strategies for their regions and then

straight into the line ministries. Right now you have an incredible

bureaucracy, and we all know that any decision that's going to be made

in a critical area still has to go the line ministry for a decision.

The minister may make some mumblings about.... I won't say what she

said. I think we're talking about a very appropriate, reasonable

approach to dealing with regional issues rather than a bureaucracy,

which we continue to have in the province of British Columbia.

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

Mr.

Chairman, I will just say that we will be sharing that concept with

local government. I've bounced it by a number of people already. We are

prepared in the next few months to develop those liaisons with regional

associations, looking to the future and getting their ideas of what is

necessary to ensure that downtown British Columbia finally meets the

rest of the province.

I want to move on to the Islands

Trust, very quickly. I touched on the Islands Trust yesterday, Mr.

Chairman, vis--vis the private logging issue. But there remain a

number of concerns on the islands in terms of development and growth.

In particular, one issue that's come to my attention is the current

state of affairs on Galiano, where we know that MacMillan Bloedel has

considerable holdings. They have established on that island a forest

and land use council to try to determine the future and work out some

long-range plans,

MacMillan Bloedel wishes, I believe, to

develop a resort on Galiano at Coon Bay, which has created a number of

concerns on the island. It's not just the development, of course; it's

also the issue of clearcut logging and that sort of thing. There is a

feeling that the forest and land use council that was established

really isn't getting the support from the provincial government it

should have in trying to work out these kinds of issues.

wonder if the minister is on top of this issue. Is she or her staff

watching the Galiano situation with interest? Can we — the public, the

community, the citizens on Galiano — be assured that the objectives of

the forest and land use council will be upheld, and that suddenly we

won't get some major development announced by the government or by

MacMillan Bloedel that really would be counterproductive in terms of

the objectives of the residents of Galiano?

[ Page 6628 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, we have ministry staff seconded to the Islands Trust, and

they are working with the Islands Trust people on this issue, along

with others.

MR. BLENCOE : That really doesn't give

much assurance to those on Galiano. There is a distinct feeling that

the forest and land use council is being brushed aside and is not going

to have much impact on future development on the island. I want the

minister to assure us this morning that it is not the case, and that

the forest and land use council will be treated with respect, allowed

to come forward with its suggestions — I understand MacMillan Bloedel

own in fee simple about 56 percent of Galiano Island — and allowed to

do its work properly, and won't be ignored when it gets its

recommendations together.

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

I've

lost track of the time; there was a review of the Islands Trust. It had

extensive public input. The report that came out of the standing

committee chaired by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier)

basically recommended a regional district. This side of the House, and

I as municipal affairs critic, responded to that in fair detail. To

simplify the issue, we said we felt the report by that member and the

regional district concept would have undermined the Trust and in time

would have seen it disbanded.

I'm wondering if the minister

can assure us or give us any indication today where she's going with

the Islands Trust. Can we look forward to some strengthening of their

decision-making abilities? Do they have a very bright future in terms

of governing the islands?

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

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

MR. BLENCOE :

I can take hope from that, then, that we have shelved the report that

came out of the standing committee and are now looking at strengthening

the Islands Trust in terms of its governing ability. That would

certainly be welcomed by those who are, I think, sincere and honest,

and who work very hard for the islands and those representatives of the

Islands Trust. We will wait for the legislation on that.

want to move on to an issue that has come to my attention and the

minister's, a project of the British Columbia Coalition of the

Disabled: their plan for access. The minister is aware of it, because

they have written to her and prepared a brief to municipalities; I'm

sure the minister or her staff has it. The issue at stake for them is

that they would like to see the establishment of a provincial access

consultant position in the building standards branch. I'm sure the

minister has met with them, and I have met with them. Obviously they

also want to see systematic enforcement of the Building Code for the

disabled and are hoping that the minister would support them in their

endeavours to at least expand the consultation process on the Building

Code. They would also like to see increased enforcement of code

violations.

I'm wondering whether the minister has any

response, whether she is considering the establishment of an access

consultant in her ministry and what generally the ministry is doing to

ensure those who are disabled that Code violations are taken care of

and there's increased enforcement. It's a growing area of concern, and

one that I'm sure the minister is very much interested in.

[12:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would suspect that if the member for Victoria has followed my

political career at all, he would realize that nothing has a higher

priority in my mind than access and accommodating the disabled. We do

not as a ministry, though, enforce the code; that is left up to the

local inspection services.

I have to admit that I have no

clear recollection of the correspondence you referred to. I'm not

saying the correspondence isn't there, but I would just have to check

with staff and refresh my mind on that one. I don't recollect the items

you have mentioned. It may be helpful if you would provide me with a

copy. The comments and suggestions you have made don't trouble me. I

see no reason why — through staff — we couldn't work with them to come

to some accommodation.

MR. BLENCOE : It does say "my

correspondence." I will provide you with the background. It does say:

"Plan A for Access has asked the provincial government to establish a

provincial access consultant position in the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs." I'll leave it at that. I thought they had met with senior

staff.

I have met with them and gone over their ideas. I

know that already within the ministry there is — I forget the

gentleman's name — someone who works extremely hard in this area of

advising municipalities on codes. I've known him for a long time. Isn't

that terrible? His name has escaped me.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Robertson?

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

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

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

MR. BLENCOE :

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I believe my colleague from Surrey did have

something she wished to address today. Do you want to do that now?

[ Page 6629 ]

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

have a couple of things that I want to ask the minister about. First of

all.... The minister and I have talked about this, along with the local

council: the impact of growth on our municipality and the need for some

recognition and support from the provincial government to deal with

that growth — not only in specific services like education, recreation,

hospitals and so on, but also on the basic funding. There's a need to

recognize that growth costs additional money and that some of the costs

of that growth fall on the residents or the taxpayers of the

municipality. I would argue that the taxpayers should not bear the

brunt of growth that benefits the whole of the province and the lower

mainland.

I would like the minister to comment, first of

all, on whether or not you have been able to look at that and in some

way recognize the need for additional funds or additional attention for

the municipality, and then I will continue with some of my other issues.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, we do recognize growth in

our formula. The funding assistance from the provincial government is

not intended to pay all of the costs and all of the bills related to

growth. Surrey this year received $8.2 million by way of unconditional

grants. That is almost a million dollars more than they received last

year, and it represents our recognition of the growth that is taking

place in that community.

You also know that there have been

— and I don't have all of the numbers; you could get them from some of

the other ministers — millions of dollars spent on the expansion of our

hospital, and there will be more for the next phase. Just recently

there was another announcement from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) to do with, I believe, something like $28 million worth of

additional capital funding for schools in our community.

There

is a recognition that growth costs money. It costs the province in

responsibilities for hospitals, schools and provincial highways. The

unconditional grants that are taken from the revenue-sharing fund went

up this year. Surrey's increase was more than 10 percent. As I say,

they received $8.2 million this year to do with as they see fit, no

strings attached.

There are then other areas of assistance.

You were present when there was a cheque for in excess of half a

million given to Surrey to help them with the improvements to the track

at Bear Creek Park. The Surrey Summer Games will be costing the

province something like $800,000. Those Games alone will see more than

$1 million of provincial money placed into that municipality. There are

a lot of other areas; I don't have all the grants off the top of my

mind, but the growth of that community is recognized. It is truly

recognized in the only way that we have available to us: through

unconditional grants and grants for recreational services that funding

is applied for.

MS. SMALLWOOD : First of all, I'd

like to say that I don't believe any of us understands the full impact

of the growth that we have been experiencing on the infrastructure, and

the stresses that are brought about to the municipality through the

costs of planning these facilities and all the rest of it.

While

the minister points out that the government is recognizing the need to

support our municipality, I suggest that some of that support has been

brought about only by the hard work of — for instance — parents

lobbying for schools. We'll talk more about the school budget and the

need for recognition of the growth factor within the Ministry of

Education. I don't intend to do that at this point.

thoroughly canvassed the issue of Surrey Memorial Hospital during the

Health estimates. I am sure that if the minister looks at the facts,

she will see that the recognition is coming after the fact, rather than

dealing with the reality that people face now. As we learn more about

the impact of the growth at the municipal level, we too will find that

there is need for additional attention there. I'm hoping that

recognition will come as we continue to pay attention to the needs.

The

minister talks about the recreation aspect of her responsibility and

the B.C. Summer Games that are being brought to the municipality. It's

my hope that those games will be successful, and that the support given

to the municipality to make those games successful will be lasting

support. However, having met with some of the community groups trying

to deal with some of those mundane aspects of daily life in parenting,

like where the kids are going to play ball, where the soccer fields are

going to be and whether the kids are going to be sloshing around in

water or not, I would hope the minister would, with her responsibility,

have an eye to that reality too. What is happening in our municipality

is that kids don't have a place to play. As the municipality explodes

and bursts at the seams and more and more children are brought to our

community~ we're going to have a serious problem.

I met

with the Guildford Park softball and soccer athletic association, and I

was able to organize a meeting with the municipal council. I was really

struck by the very simple requests they had, low-dollar requests, but

still requests that parks and rec, and the council were unable to deal

with because they are so far behind the eight ball because of the huge

growth and because they have not had the tools available to them to be

able to plan in advance some of the recreational fields needed.

I'm

hoping the minister will acknowledge the complexity of growth: not only

the need for funding and how some of those funding pressures are not

always identified but end up in the dollars and cents at the end of the

day, but the need to provide for the necessary empowerment of local

governments to deal with school and park sites and to be able to in

some way act proactively.

We know that Surrey and

municipalities like ours are the only areas that can provide for some

of the growth in the years to come. We know that there will

[ Page 6630 ]

a need for school sites. We know that there will be a need for park

sites. We have to deal with those now rather than after all the

subdivisions are in place. I would ask the minister to comment on

whether or not she is looking for ways to deal with those needs

proactively, some way of empowering municipalities to do so before the

fact rather than after the fact, hopefully, besides the existing

cost-sharing; exploring with municipalities where the costs are and if

some support can come from the province.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There is substantial assistance already provided from the provincial

government, but as I said earlier, the responsibility really lies

squarely on the shoulders of local government. Growth is financed in

three ways: by the present residents in the community, through their

taxes; by future residents, by way of the development cost charges that

the developer has to pay; and by the province through grants. This

ministry does not have funding for capital projects. So if we're

looking at requirements for any recreational facilities, that is what

the new Go B.C. program is intended to address. We understand that,

particularly in the growth communities, there is a problem, and there

are problems in some of the smaller communities as well. That was the

intention of the Go B.C. program. It's not something we have provision

for in our ministry, as far as capital assistance for recreational

programs goes.

Surrey will be faced with the costs of

growth for a good many years. I feel certain that the province will

continue to help in as many ways as it possibly can, but when all is

said and done, it's going to come down to user-pay, and the local

taxpayer is going to have to accept the decisions made by the local

mayor and council. It's up them to prioritize their needs. I think you

would probably agree with me that the items given the highest priority

over the years by Surrey council have not always, in my mind, been the

ones that should have had highest priority.

[12:45]

1 would move, Mr. Chairman, that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant weekend and remind

members that we'll sit at the normal time on Monday. With that, I move

the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada