1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Meeting with B.C. school trustees. Mr. Lauk –– 4989

Natural gas pricing agreement. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4989

Delisle report on provincial court system, Mr. Leggatt –– 4990

Mr. Lauk –– 4990

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Lauk –– 4991

PCBs in B.C. hospitals. Ms. Sanford –– 4991

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills committee report.

Mr. Strachan –– 4991

Oral Questions

Abbotsford veterinary laboratory. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 4992

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4992

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 156 –– 5010

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 157: general administration –– 5012

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 157 –– 5012

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment

On vote 158: grants, contributions and subsidies –– 5012

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 159: Revenue Sharing Fund –– 5013

Mr. Barber

On vote 160: central ministry services –– 5013

Mr. Barber

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada

(Bill PR 401). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 5014

Appendix –– 5014

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like the

House to welcome a delegation from the B.C. School Trustees Association

who are in the gallery. Mr. Gary Begin and 15 trustees are here today

meeting with caucus.

MR. LAUK: The NDP caucus met

today with the executive of the British Columbia School Trustees

Association. I would ask the House to welcome the following persons

from that association, who represent the local governments for

education throughout the province: Mr. Gary Begin, president; Mrs.

Helen Casher, vice-president; Mrs. Joy Leach, director from Nanaimo;

Mrs. Moyreen McKechnie, director from Armstrong-Spallumcheen; Mrs.

Rubymay Parrott, immediate past-president and national president. Also

present from the East Kootenay branch are Mr. Ronald Dale; from the

northern interior, Mr. Edwin Olson; from the Okanagan, Mrs. Marjorie

Showler; from the south coast, Mrs. Betty A. Shore; from Vancouver

Island, Mrs. Joan Gillatt; and from West Kootenay, Mrs. Marian G. Dyer.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to introduce an old friend who is in the gallery, who is also

a teacher. Since we're introducing people who are in education, I want

to introduce Mr. Ed Harrington. He has made a tremendous contribution

to the culture of our local community in local production. Mr.

Harrington is in the audience.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in your gallery today is a constituent of Vancouver South, Mr.

Jan Mohammed. Mr. Mohammed has had a most interesting career, and for a

number of years he served as Deputy Minister of Tourism in Kenya.

MR. STUPICH:

Later today there will be a group of students from Nanaimo Senior

Secondary School. I would ask the House to welcome them in advance.

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery is the president of the Victoria Bar

Association, who is a constituent of mine: the distinguished barrister,

Mr. Donald Farquhar.

Oral Questions

MEETING WITH B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES

MR. LAUK:

I have a question for the Minister of Education. Did the minister agree

to arrange a meeting with the British Columbia School Trustees

Association and the Social Credit caucus at 1 p.m. today?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Those arrangements are the responsibility of the caucus. But

regretfully a meeting that was arranged didn't take place. There was a

breakdown of communication. It's my great regret that I wasn't able to

be here for a 1 p.m. meeting. I was at the University of British

Columbia faculty of education, at a prearranged meeting. I'm hopeful

that I will be able to meet with some of the members of this delegation

following question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Matters pertaining to caucus are not really subject to this House.

MR. LAUK:

Did the Minister of Education himself arrange to meet with the

executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association at caucus? Was that

meeting arranged as early as March, according to the minister's

calendar?

NATURAL GAS PRICING AGREEMENT

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources, in his responsibility for the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

Has the corporation made any pricing agreement with Ocelot Industries of Calgary,

with respect to the costs of natural gas feedstock for that company's proposed

methanol plant in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

MR. D'ARCY: In February of this year, Mr. Alan Brownlee, a vice-president

of Ocelot, testified before the Utilities Commission that there was, in his

words, a secret agreement with the B.C. Petroleum Corporation regarding pricing,

but he refused to provide details. How many other secret pricing natural gas

feedstock agreements exist with petrochemical firms in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There isn't even one.

MR. DARCY: If that is the case, will the minister state or table, as he wishes, the pricing agreement that exists with Ocelot Industries?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is not in order.

MR. D'ARCY: In order to satisfy the requirements of the House, I'll

be somewhat more wordy, but it will be essentially the same question. Has the

minister decided to table or maKe public the secret agreement referred to by

Mr. Brownlee of Ocelot Industries, thereby fulfilling the minister's own

commitment to public disclosure that he made when he put forth his energy policy

statement during the spring of last year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any secret agreements. I'm not aware of

anyone using those terms at any time. If there's something sensitive

about any agreement that Mr. Brownlee has, I'll talk to him. I don't

have any problems with that. You've never asked the question before;

nobody has ever asked that question of me before. It doesn't bother me.

If you want to do it in my estimates or if you want some kind of a

document tabled — which I don't believe there is at the present time —

I'll be happy to do that. I'll take it as notice and get back to you.

MR. D'ARCY: Has the minister decided to make public any special

price agreement that he or the Utilities Commission may have made with Ocelot

Industries of Calgary with respect to natural gas feedstock for a methanol plant

in British Columbia?

[ Page 4990 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

You've repeated that question. It would serve no point in answering it

again, but I will say to the member that following the publication of

the provincial energy policy some time ago it was decided that it was

necessary for us to establish a formula by which we could arrive at the

pricing of feedstock for natural gas. It's been the policy of this

government, Mr. Speaker, that we won't give our natural gas away for

industrial purposes or for any other purpose. It will only be

subsidized for the domestic consumers in this province. We arrived at a

formula by which we could ensure that would happen. We went through

negotiations with Ocelot under the terms of that formula. It's very

complicated, Mr. Speaker, but basically what it does is it takes the

export price on one hand and the domestic price on the other, then

looks at the job benefits, the downstream benefits, the construction

and capital cost benefits to the province for these kinds of

developments and arrives at a figure somewhere in between. That's what

was done with Ocelot. I'd be glad to make that public. Out of courtesy

I would like to contact Ocelot first. It's the first I have heard of

any problems, but I'll be happy to do that.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister positively confirm that his government

has offered natural gas to Ocelot and other consortiums within the industry

at a lower price than other B.C. industries must pay for natural gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

That's absolutely false, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it's the other way

around. I don't know why the member wasn't listening when I answered

the question, but I said that feedstock for primarily export purposes

would not be sold at the domestic price — which is the price which is

paid by other industries in this province — and that a formula has been

developed by which full value will be obtained by the government for

its natural gas.

DELISLE REPORT ON

PROVINCIAL COURT SYSTEM

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my

question is directed to the Attorney- General. It's now reported that

the Attorney-General has in his hands a study into the provincial court

system, which study includes considerable comment around the role of

provincial court judges. Could the Attorney-General advise the House

whether he has decided to make that report public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the member's understanding of the matter to which he

refers is inaccurate. I have no study in my hands; none was anticipated

to be in my hands; and the press reports of last weekend which touched

upon this matter, while substantially correct, did contain some

inaccuracies.

I think that because of the exposure this

matter has been given, members should be aware of precisely what took

place. Seven years ago on April 1 very significant changes took place

in the handling of criminal justice matters in this province. There was

the full development of the sheriff service, witness management, the

establishment of a Crown counsel system and a change completed from the

use of lay judges to judges who were legally trained.

Over

those seven years, certain elements of the criminal justice system have

assumed responsibilities, and questions were raised as to whether those

areas of responsibility were appropriate. As a consequence, the

executive committee of the ministry — at the assistant deputy

minister's level — decided that a study should be undertaken which

would involve all disciplines in the criminal justice system: police,

court services, Crown counsel, finance and administration, corrections

and, as advisers, the judiciary as well. That group identified three

areas they wished to have considered. One was documentation flow and

preparation in the system, the second was witness management, and the

third was trial coordination.

A team of persons from the

ministry was directed to do the field work to provide statistics upon

which some decisions could be made as to what should be done. It is

that report from the field-work group that has been referred to in the

press. It never reached the assistant deputy minister steering

committee level, but was produced and distributed to the members of

that group. As a consequence of what was said in that report, the

matters of witness management and documentation and documentation flow

have been resolved. The question of trial coordination still remains

outstanding and is being considered between the ministry and the

judiciary.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it's the

question of trial coordination that concerns us, particularly in view

of the criticisms of the minister's department inherent in Mr. Justice

Seaton's report. The concern is the independence of the judiciary. Can

the minister confirm that jurisdiction over setting trial dates will

remain absolutely and completely with provincial court judges, and that

no administrative official at a lower level is going to interfere with

the prerogatives of provincial court judges in terms of setting trial

dates in a manner that is fair to the participants in any particular

trial?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is my view and that of

the senior officials in the ministry that the matter of setting trial

dates must remain with the judiciary. However, in the matter of

coordination they may require some administrative assistance. We're

happy to provide that kind of assistance because the setting of trials

involves not only the judiciary initially, and not only the defence

bar, but the processes of Crown counsel, the way in which they are

structured, and the availability of police witnesses and other

witnesses as well. In the matter of trial coordination, we wish to be

certain that the judiciary, in setting trial dates, is aware of the

other components of the system. There's no question that the operation

of the courts must remain with them.

MR. LAUK:

Pursuant again to the Seaton report, court of appeal judge Mr. Justice

Seaton made several recommendations about separating the administration

of justice under the Attorney-General from the provincial court so that

no interference — or even apparent interference — could take place. In

a recent case Chief Judge Goulet has recently investigated an alleged

breach of the Provincial Court Act by Darrell Jones, a Vancouver

provincial court administrative judge. Were there any representations

by the Deputy Attorney-General to the chief court judge on this matter,

to the Attorney-General's knowledge?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. That is a matter which rests solely within the jurisdiction of the chief judge.

[ Page 4991 ]

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General assure the House that no such representations were made by the Deputy Attorney-General?

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. LAUK:

With respect to the dismissal of one Bruce Donald, did the

Attorney-General receive any representation from his Deputy

Attorney-General about what action should be taken?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Health. On March 25, the minister

gave an undertaking to conduct an inquiry into which hospitals use

electrical equipment containing PCBs, and he also undertook to bring

that information back to the House. The minister also indicated that he

believed that when a member brings a question to this House, it is a

matter of some urgency. It is now 11 days since that question was posed

and we have not yet had an answer from the minister, and I'm wondering

if the minister is in a position now to report to the House the results

of that inquiry that he agreed to conduct as a matter of urgency.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions are brought to the House at the discretion of a minister according to the rules.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I trust the member, in using the language "conduct an

inquiry," appreciates that what I said was that we would investigate

and inquire into where such materials may be. The original question by

the member was how many hospitals may have transformers, and we

responded to that. To the best of the information provided to us to

this date, the only transformers which have been located in hospital

settings are those referred to at VGH, Vancouver General Hospital.

The

federal Ministry of the Environment has advised representatives of the

provincial Ministry of Health that there are a number of hospitals

which have other equipment called capacitors which contain small

quantities of PCBs. It was suggested to us that we're looking at an

extremely different situation from transformers to capacitors, but

representatives within the ministry are following through on

information provided to them as to what hospitals may have capacitors

with some quantity of PCB. In addition they are requesting assistance

from the fire officials as to which, if any, of these capacitors might

pose a hazard in the event of a fire. The initial response was that

we're dealing with an entirely different situation as to hazard to

public health in the event of a fire involving a transformer with a

large quantity of PCB or a capacitor with a relatively small amount.

That investigation, and the inquiry collecting that information, is

still continuing. The report has not been presented to me yet. The

concern which we initially responded to is not as grave as if we had

been dealing with a large abundance of transformers containing a large

quantity of PCBs.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 42, I wish to correct a statement made by the minister who just answered a question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The only corrections that are anticipated under the standing order

which the member has cited are corrections which need to be made as a

result of a material part of a speech which the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) may have made and had misquoted. If that is

the case, then please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that is

the case. The question that was originally asked of the minister was to

do with electrical equipment, not transformers. The minister indicated

that we only asked him a question on transformers. "Electrical

equipment" includes capacitors as well as transformers, and I wouldn't

want the House to misunderstand that we....

MR. SPEAKER: Did that question originate with the first member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. LAUK: It could well have, Mr. Speaker. However, it originated with the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

MR. PASSARELL:

I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move

adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of public

importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please state the matter briefly.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have received a message from the Alaska State Legislature which

indicates a motion has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature.

The issue is the Stikine-Iskut dam project in my riding. The Alaska

Legislature has put a motion requesting direct personal involvement of

President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State Alexander Haig. They are

upset over the statements made and the lack of information given to

them by the Premier of this province in his attempt to sell this

project to our Alaskan neighbours. The Alaskans feel they are victims

of an attempted snow job by the Premier of this province. We want to

tell Governor Hammond that that massive hydro-dam complex on the

Stikine-Iskut.... Mr. Speaker, I have a motion regarding this.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member would also include the text of his statement with the motion, it would help a great deal.

MR. PASSARELL:

The motion that is in your hands now, Mr. Speaker, is that the House do

now adjourn to debate Alaska state joint resolution No. 19 and its

serious implications for British Columbia–Alaska relations.

MR. SPEAKER:

I will reserve decision, without prejudice to the hon. member regarding

his priority in addressing the question. Perhaps I'll even come back

with a decision later today.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented a committee report, which was read as follows and

received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The

standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for

leave to introduce a private bill intituled

An Act Respecting the

Montreal Trust

[ Page 4992 ]

Company and the Montreal Trust Company of Canada, except for late filing. With

respect thereto, the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing

order 98 (3). The committee recommends the petitioner be allowed to proceed

with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman."

ABBOTSFORD VETERINARY LABORATORY

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I ask leave to respond to a question asked me in question period last

week. I'd like to respond now, rather than take time in question period.

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked about selenium testing

and the problems with testing in our veterinary laboratory, and the

time delays. With respect to the selenium testing, we are unfortunately

a victim of our own efficiency, in that we are primarily responsible

for identifying the problem — i.e. selenium-deficient soils in many

areas of the province — as well as identifying several problems in

selenium-deficient livestock. We are now being literally swamped with

specimens to assist veterinarians and livestock owners in diagnosing

these resultant problems.

For the information of the member,

we have seen specimens increase from 37,700 in 1977 up to 75,300 in

1980, and other specimens in toxicology are running from 587 up to

1,309. We have appointed a technician under our temporary assistance

program, effective April 1, 1981. We are at this moment attempting to

hire three new staff members under temporary assistance to assist in

this problem.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

MR. LORIMER:

There are two or three matters that I would like to discuss further in

regard to the question of transit. The minister has stated many times

that the transit formula is better than anywhere else in the country.

Of course, that's like comparing apples and oranges, because it's

impossible to compare formulas in isolation. The question arises as to

service and to other transfers of funds from the provincial government

to municipalities as to the amount of benefits received by the

residents in any municipality. I'm not going to deal any further with

that point, except to say that in 1975-76 — certainly in the major

areas of the province — the government paid 100 percent of operating

and capital costs, or their Crown agencies paid it for them, so that

the provincial revenues basically paid for the total amount of transit.

Since this government came to power in 1975, the rates have been substantially

increased and the growth of transit has stopped. They created the Urban Transit

Authority, which in fact has very limited authority, and without the approval

of the minister or the cabinet can do very little on its own. But what is now

going on is the increase of sharing of 25 percent to the municipalities. That's

a direct gain of 25 percent of the cost of transit to the province; they've

gained 25 percent of funds, which were formerly paid by the government itself,

but now it's the local taxpayers that are picking up that 25 percent. They're

paying that extra money without getting the benefit of improved transit and

without getting the benefit of better service — and they're paying more

in the way of transportation costs through the fare box.

offered the regional district a 2 percent levy on the school tax base

for operating costs. The minister at that time was the chairman of the

transportation committee of the regional district, and they would have

no part of that. The cost to the regional district on that base was

substantially better than what a 75-25 percent split amounts to. I

might also state that during that period the question of new services

going in and the question of the municipalities being requested to pick

up the cost of shelters and bays for the buses to pull into, which was

generally agreed to by the regional district, and certainly by most of

the municipalities....

But I might point out that the municipality of Surrey, of which the

minister was the mayor at the time, did not pick up those costs, and as

a result the bays and shelters by and large were not built — not during

that period at least. So since 1975 the public — not so much in the

greater Victoria area, because there have been some increases, but

generally speaking in the greater Vancouver area — the local taxpayers

are paying 25 percent instead of zero, and they've got less and poorer

service as a result of the operations of the transit systems by the

provincial government.

One other point I would like to make is that I noticed the

minister has been a little careless in some of his statements. For

instance, he stated that in the construction of the ALRT everything

could be built within Canada, with the exception of about 3 percent of

the costs — I think that was his figure. I knew that this was

incorrect; I did some checking, and I'm advised that at least 50

percent of the building costs for these particular vehicles will be

outside Canada, because the technology for the computer, braking and

electrical systems is not local. I'm very doubtful whether that

technology will be transferred to Canada in order that they can compete

with those that do have that technology.

The other matter,

of course, is that unless there is a chance of building a number of

these vehicles, it will not be profitable or even reasonable to start

construction unless there is a possible sale of such vehicles not only

in British Columbia but in other parts of North America. It's true

enough that the cost of building the cement work and the work of

constructing the lines will be local costs. The machinery, by and

large, will not be of local content. One of the major arguments for the

use of ALRT is that it is a local operation and will be built in

Canada. If proceeded with, the regular conventional rail transit could

be well built within British Columbia.

The other matter that

I'd like to raise with the minister is the question of the custom

transit. I'm hoping the minister will discuss this. A lot of transit

has been transferred from the jurisdiction of Human Resources, and I

want to have the assurance from the minister that there will likewise

be a transfer of funds in order that the UTA can carry out a proper

service for this custom transit. I think it's a proper move that the

transit for all people should be brought under one umbrella. It's of

little benefit to transfer it out of Human Resources, who have looked

after it for many years, to another organization unless there is some

guarantee that the funds will follow the service. As the minister well

knows, the service has to be steamed up and beefed up considerably in

[ Page 4993 ]

order

to give a proper service for those people using this custom service.

Maybe when I get an answer from the minister on that point, we might

know what's going on with Human Resources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, firstly, it is always a little bit disturbing to hear

from the opposition the so-called slogan "Buy Canadian," except when

it's not their idea. Certainly it's our intent to purchase Canadian at

every opportunity. Our buying the ALRT is a good example of that. The 3

percent figure that I quoted in the House last week is the figure that

was given to me by UTDC and UTA. That figure was arrived at during

negotiations for the pending contract. In effect, contrary to the 50

percent import and 50 percent Canadian which was quoted by the hon.

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), it's only 3 percent that

cannot be manufactured in Canada. The balance is Canadian. Again, that

certainly is a tremendous argument in support of purchasing ALRT.

don't know why there are constantly various quarters, both the

opposition and others, although I'm suspecting that possibly the others

include some members of the opposition indirectly, always wanting to

come out against ALRT. They're holding forth conventional rapid transit

as a more Canadian system, when practically the whole of it is import.

Despite the fact that trips have been taken overseas and various

systems have been looked at by any number of bodies, in Canada we now

have a system which is superior to all other systems anywhere. The only

thing that is still lacking, perhaps, is an actual application other

than the trial which has been conducted in Ontario over the last five

years.

If we are not prepared to buy the system as Canadians

— given all of this experience and the fact that the Ontario government

is backing it with a money-back guarantee — how can we expect other

people in the world to buy Canadian? Let's buy Canadian. Let's show the

world that we're not afraid to purchase our own products. I can't get

that message across strongly enough to the opposition. Firstly, I can't

believe that the NDP won't support the purchase of Canadian materials.

Secondly, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon says: "The transit-sharing

formula that we had in place was much better than what you have today."

I would remind the hon. member that there was little formula in place,

except that in every small community they pay 50 percent of the total

deficit up to two mills. There is no small community that I'm aware of

that hasn't seen a reduction in costs since the introduction of our

formula for transit-deficit financing, which is the most generous

anywhere in North America, I would dare say. Hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon, I'm certain that must indicate that the government

at the time, the previous NDP administration, was not providing the

necessary amount or the same amount of financial assistance to those

communities as is being provided by this government.

Obviously

the member for Burnaby-Willingdon may refer to Vancouver-Victoria and

argue that the whole of it was operated by B.C. Hydro prior to the

regional districts becoming involved and having to pick up 25 percent

of their share of the deficit. Again, that came about at the request of

the regional districts. They wanted to be the decision-makers with

respect to planning for transit, in any case, because it affected the

development of their regions. They actually got what they asked for,

much in the way they asked for it. So once more, there is some

criticism from the opposition. Obviously they didn't have the facts

quite correct or they didn't wish to present them correctly here today

in the House. I hope that I have now at least corrected for the record

the wrong information given just a little while ago.

The

Ministry of Human Resources purchases the bus passes from the Greater

Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional District at a cost

of $60 per pass; in turn, they are provided to seniors and the

handicapped for $10 per pass. So there is a considerable subsidy. Of

course you are aware that the program has been expanded tremendously.

During the time of the NDP administration the pass program was limited

to only the people of greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. We, as

government, said we should treat all people in the province equally,

not discriminate between one area and the next. In other communities

throughout the province there are many very deserving seniors who ought

to have the same opportunity. It has been provided for them. I think

that should certainly be a credit to the government.

With

respect to custom transit service, the hon. member mentioned that

perhaps it could be more up to individual groups or areas to provide

the service, since we have changed the program from what it was during

the NDP years. The program has been improved upon enormously. Any

groups which have been involved in the provision of custom transit will

certainly qualify that particular statement and will stand behind what

I say now. Initially it was mostly a matter of some areas having it and

others not. It very often required that an organization seek funds from

a variety of sources. The application of the program, or the provision

of a service to a handicapped person, varied not only from region to

region but also from one place in the region to another place in the

region.

The custom transit-service formula provides equal

treatment to all areas. Only 10 percent is required from the fare box.

Previously it was a mish-mash. They were charged differently depending

on where they were in the region, or from region to region. Twenty-five

percent is a direct grant from the Ministry of Human Resources to the

deficit of the custom transit service. The remaining 65 percent is

shared 75-25, with the province picking up 75 percent of the cost. Once

more, I doubt if there is as good a program anywhere in the world, let

alone North America and Canada. This program for the handicapped has

been written up....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I heard the statement made, "the free world." It's not so much the free

world; it's the semi-free world. There are socialist countries in

western Europe where the program isn't nearly as good as what we have

here today.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I think the argument

could go on forever as to dollars and cents or what is best or not

best, so I don't intend to continue that.

However, when

you're talking about Canadian construction, what I'm saying is that

there should be far more Canadian construction on a proven system built

in British Columbia — almost total construction in British Columbia on

a conventional system. The fact that you have a system which was

invented in Canada, which may or may not work, and that you think you

might be able to get some funds from the federal government, which you

may or may not get, doesn't make this particular system one of Canadian

construction. It's not Canadian construction. That's what I'm

[ Page 4994 ]

trying

to get across. But I know the minister is intent on proceeding on that

line; so be it. I want to say that I've given him fair warning that

this could be a very expensive experiment in transit.

One

last thing I should say is that by setting up the Urban Transit

Authority, and the regional districts assuming they have some

jurisdiction which they don't have in transit and so on, what has

developed has been a great number of duplications of.work through the

ministry, the Urban Transit Authority and the regional districts

duplicating studies and plans. The number of people now employed in the

whole area of transit has multiplied tremendously. And what have we

done? We've gone backward in transit; we haven't gone forward. So we

have all those extra expenses and a minus production. I think the

minister must take a look at transit and decide that now is the time

transit should come off the ground. You should get moving on transit.

The whole area of Vancouver — mainly the lower mainland of Vancouver —

is where the transit problems are really very serious. I know there has

been some work done in the Victoria area, and undoubtedly more work is

needed. But certainly there's been nothing done in the Vancouver area,

and that's where the crunch is at the present time.

MRS. WALLACE:

I want to change the subject slightly, but the minister's remarks that

he had evened out the availability or approach towards transit and

passes and so on indicates to me that first you have to have a transit

system before that's going to apply. Unfortunately, so many of the

areas just don't have transit systems. I know the Urban Transit

Authority is supposed to be reviewing this, but certainly in the area I

represent, which is of a very rural sort of nature, it's very slow in

coming because of the costs involved, the extra taxes that have to be

affixed and the kind of costs that are involved. I would urge the

minister to have a look at perhaps making the system a little more

flexible so there is an opportunity for smaller areas to operate within

an overall district without making it the compulsory sort of things

that take place once you form an Urban Transit Authority. For example,

I'm thinking of the incidence where Lake Cowichan was getting a subsidy

from the provincial government, and, because at this point in time the

overall regional district cannot undertake a transit system, they're

reviewing this and looking at the possibilities. But that subsidy has

gone to Lake Cowichan and the bus service has deteriorated accordingly.

That's the kind of situation that could develop in the more populated

areas, if, in fact, it could be done on a smaller basis.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

However,

what I rose to speak about was something quite different. I wanted to

talk about the situation which has occurred with the Cowichan Valley

Regional District relative to the heritage designation act. There have

been some changes in legislation — I know I can't talk about

legislation — which have resulted in the fact that while that regional

district had letters patent allowing them to designate heritage sites,

with the changes in legislation they are no longer able to continue in

that manner. This has been going on since 1977. In fact, they got their

letters patent in 1976, and in 1977 there were some revisions to

legislation which have left them hanging in limbo, at least according

to the rather narrow

interpretation of the act that this minister is

putting in place, whereby, because they are a regional board and not a

municipality, village or city council, they are not able to hold this

power or to designate heritage sites. They have their advisory

committee in place, and everything was going very nicely. This has now

ground to a halt. I've had some correspondence with the minister, and

he has assured me that he would take some action. I'm wondering whether

or not he can assure the House that he is going to move on this, either

by order-in-Council or by just a little different

interpretation of the

act, a little broader

interpretation that will allow the Cowichan

Valley Regional District to continue with its heritage designation

program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In order to provide

the authority for heritage designation to a regional district, we would

need a change in legislation. That legislation comes under the

jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government

Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Perhaps you may want to raise that question

then.

With respect to communities not having a transit

system available to them, yes, there are many communities without

transit. I agree that there are areas that are so rural that they

obviously couldn't support any type of transit. This is a matter for

local application. If a community feels that it has reached a point

where it wishes to establish a transit system...none has yet been

denied once having made that decision. That is a local decision.

One

final question. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon might have had the

answer, although possibly one of the speakers from the opposition

immediately following could give the information. Otherwise, I'll have

to look it up. The budget now provides for approximately $92,675,000

toward public transit services in British Columbia. I'm just wondering,

if you have the figure, how does that compare to 1975?

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the minister and his staff

for their helpful cooperation over the past year in my riding. I'd like

to particularly thank them for the work they have done in the community

of Elkford. As a result of their efforts, Elkford will be one of the

best-planned instant towns in the province of British Columbia.

For

a few minutes today I'd like to touch on the problem of industrial

property tax-sharing in the Elk valley. As you're aware, Mr. Chairman,

there are currently five coal-mines operating in the Elk valley. There

is tremendous pressure on all the communities in the Elk valley to

provide services to the people who work in the resource industry.

Elkford has 45 percent of the total resource workforce, Sparwood has 33

percent and Fernie has 22 percent. All communities are within 20 miles

of each other, with Sparwood in the centre. While all communities must

and want to provide services to the people who work in the resource

industry, and to the residents of the community, only two communities

in the Elk valley have an industrial tax base. Sparwood has British

Columbia Coal; Elkford has Fording Coal.

Fernie has no

industrial tax base whatsoever, even though they have 22 percent of the

employees who work in the resource living in their community. Ferne has

many worn-out sewer and water facilities. There is growing pressure on

the community to provide recreational facilities. There is more need

for cooperation among all three municipalities in the Elk valley. We

must provide the opportunity for Fernie to have an industrial tax base.

This can be accomplished by

[ Page 4995 ]

expanding

the Fernie municipal boundaries to take in the Shell mine just north of

Sparwood. Elkford's boundary should be expanded to take in B.C. Coal's

Greenhills operation. Sparwood should be expanded to take in Byron

Creek Collieries.

I'm wondering whether the minister would

have any objection to those boundary expansions. Perhaps down through

the years there will be more room for cooperation among the three

municipalities and, if we can start on some sort of cooperative basis

among the three municipalities, there will be the desire on the part of

the three to form a district municipality in the Elk valley. I'd like

the minister to comment briefly on those items.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, we have been looking at the possibilities for providing a

more equitable approach to the sharing of revenues among all of the

municipalities in the Elk valley or affected by the Elk valley

development, especially since many of the people choose to work in one

area which could be within a particular municipal jurisdiction, but

they live in an entirely different area. We've had numerous discussions

on that particular point. There are a variety of approaches that could

be used in order to bring about a more equitable sharing of the

resource revenues. The last proposal, as I understand it, is one

whereby there could be some agreement reached within the whole of the

regional district or among the various partners affected by this. It

would not require legislation and would, in effect, see the boundaries

of one perhaps include a particular mine-site which would give them

sufficient revenues — perhaps not on a computer-calculated basis, but

sufficient revenues — to make it all a little more fair. Yes, we are

anxiously awaiting word from the Elk valley in that respect and we

would be prepared to proceed on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief questions of the minister.

First

of all, rural transportation. I was going to leave this for a moment

but people are talking about it at the moment. The minister doesn't

have to answer this — he's already answered this — but I do want to go

on the record as saving that in communities outside of the municipality

of Powell River.... There is a population north and south of

approximately 5,000 people on each side of town and no type of public

transportation system at all. I think the minister, in my view, should

seriously consider some kind of financial assistance to extend the

transportation system to those areas. There are a lot of good reasons.

The population is there to pretty well warrant a couple of buses a day

anyway. We're attempting to encourage people to not use their

automobiles and all of these things, so I think this could be seriously

looked at by the minister. I've heard the minister's answer to this

question here earlier in debate.

What I really wanted to ask him, and what I got on my feet for is.... Approximately

two years ago, the minister undertook a study of the regional district setup

in the province, and I wonder what the status of that study is. We haven't

heard anything about it in some time. I've seen no press release out of the

minister's office in regard to that study. I may have missed it, but I haven't

seen a thing — or any action — that the government may be contemplating on that

particular study.

The question which was posed to me some four weeks ago when I was visiting

the Central Coast Regional District which is in my riding — Bella Coola, Ocean

Falls and related smaller communities.... One of the questions posed to

me was: "Are the minister and the ministry going to wipe us out literally

in terms of the regional district?" One of the recommendations within that

study was that the Central Coast Regional District be abolished and that all

the functions relating to that regional district be transferred back to the

provincial government in Victoria. It's a concern to people living there.

I thought — just the fact that the study mightn't....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's your stand? What's your position?

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

The minister asks me just for the record what my position is. Leave

that regional district in place. That's what the people there want. Now

I know it's an unwieldy regional district, and it's extremely

expensive. They don't meet often. It's extremely expensive for people

within that regional district to even meet because of the horrendous

transportation problems, which were compounded by the policies of this

government — but that's another story; we'll get onto that when

discussing transportation — but the fact is that a charter flight from

Bella Bella to Bella Coola, where most meetings are held, is somewhere

in the neighbourhood of $250 to $275. They have a very low tax base.

Every year I have to go through this chicken-dance with the ministry or

the minister so that that regional district, which has a very low tax

base, can get the full grants that some other regional districts get. I

haven't done that this year — to be fair — so far. Perhaps that time of

the year hasn't rolled around yet. They may have received the full

grant. I'm not sure, but I'm sure I'll be hearing from the regional

district if they have not.

I don't want the minister to

forget my primary question. Is the minister still considering wiping

out a whole regional district within my riding? I know the minister

would like to wipe out my whole riding if he could, but I don't think

that's about to happen.

I have a relatively small item to

discuss, but I suppose it is important to the people living on Savary

Island, which happens to come under the purview of the Islands Trust.

There are severe problems there, which I'm sure the minister is aware

of. That particular island was subdivided some 80 years ago or less

into 50-foot lots. There's very little water on the island, and yet

there are people still developing lots. Now I think there are only at

this point in time some 23 full-time residents living on Savary, but I

met with the medical health officer, the regional board people and

certainly with some of the residents. What they're requesting is simply

that a freeze be put on any further construction or development on that

island for the time being, not only because of the lack of water but

because there is a severe problem there with waste and garbage disposal

and sewage. I don't know if that's possible. I've written to the

ministry. I haven't received a reply yet, but that's all right because

the problem only came to my attention about a month ago. The request

from the residents on the island is that until we have complete

planning in that area, a freeze be placed on further development on

that island.

When I talk about the 23 — I think it is —

full-time residents of the island, I should tell you that there are

approximately — I'm just guessing here — between 250 and 300 summer

homes on the island already. As I said, in the summer the sewage

disposal is a real problem. The medical

[ Page 4996 ]

health

officer for the district agrees with the recommendation that all

construction within that area be halted until a full assessment can be

done on that very severe problem. I know it's a smaller type of item,

but I did want to bring it to the minister's attention. There is

correspondence before the ministry somewhere. I'm sure I'll get a

reply, as will the regional district and Islands Trust in due course.

Last

but not least, some time ago the minister brought forward the proposed

planning act for British Columbia. There's no legislation before the

House dealing with the planning act, so I'm sure we must be able to

discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is no, hon. member. It would involve legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that there is no legislation before the

House now dealing with the proposed planning act of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Our standing orders state, hon. member, that the necessity for

legislation is out of order as well. Whether or not that legislation is

before the House is irrelevant in this case. If you are discussing the

necessity for legislation, it cannot be discussed in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the minister that regarding

this act, which I won't discuss.... I've discussed this act with many

people throughout my riding's municipalities and regional districts.

They're very disturbed over some aspects. I would suspect that the

minister is having a severe problem in cabinet over this particular

matter as he wants to usurp the authority of Highways and everybody

else in the cabinet. He wants to be the leader of the Social Credit

Party very soon. Getting back to this act that we can't discuss....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, if you could get back to the administrative affairs of the minister, the committee would appreciate it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, my colleague suggests I talk about the White Paper. Can I talk about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The operative restriction in Committee of Supply is that the necessity

for legislation or matters involving legislation cannot be discussed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

In terms of this legislation which I won't discuss, I just want the

minister to tell me if he's going to receive further input from the

various regional districts, municipalities or from people around this

province. I personally am very dissatisfied with some of the proposals

put forward in that particular act, which I won't discuss. Possibly the

minister, in not discussing the act, will answer my question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly we're always prepared to receive

suggestions, input and proposals from any source, and especially from a source

which is in disagreement with some of the proposals put forth. So, hon. member

for Mackenzie, I'm surprised we haven't heard from you. We would receive

your suggestions. Any one individual or group from Mackenzie is welcome to write

to this minister. If there's one thing about this minister and this ministry,

it's that we are really open, available and we want to help people and receive

their suggestions.

With

respect to Savary Island, again, if the regional district wishes to

deal with the matter by way of a building regulatory bylaw, they can do

so. Obviously there are many areas where you can only build on a lot

providing you can show that there's potable water supply, that you can

install a septic system and that there is sufficient percolation for

that. Once more, there is a solution, hon. member, and you may wish to

take it to your board.

That brings me to the question of

whether we ought to have a regional board in the area of Mackenzie. The

central coast certainly is, as you've said, a very difficult area for

the regional district to service. I met with them for a whole day and

we discussed it all. I agree that they have their problems. Contrary to

what you said, they do receive all their grants. Their grants in some

way, however, do not possibly go as far as they could in other areas,

because even for a committee meeting or any type of meeting there's a

considerable cost in that it requires a fair bit of travel.

We've

received a number of recommendations from the initial regional district

review. We subsequently did a further study for ourselves and met with

regional people to discuss that report and other alternatives. I think

that on the basis of the input that has been received, there may be

some boundary changes in some areas in order to make the whole thing a

little more workable. Certainly I don't believe there's any longer much

thought about eliminating whole regional districts. There will be

changes, however. These are certainly in response to and from

suggestions made by regional district directors — especially rural area

directors. There will be changes. Those changes will be dealt with in

our review of the Municipal Act. They'll be forthcoming in the future.

The

final question you asked was if there possibly couldn't be some

financial assistance to the areas outside of Powell River if they wish

to participate in transit. Yes, we would be very glad to have them

included as a part of one system, including Powell River. That seems to

make sense. We would share the deficit 75 percent.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I appreciate the answers from the minister, Mr. Chairman; I just want

to correct one statement. In terms of the grants — I'm just going from

memory; it was the planning grant, just for the record — that regional

district.... There is only one other in the whole province, as I

recall, that up until this year did not receive its full share of that

particular grant, some $50,000 a year. Perhaps of that $30,000-a-year

grant they were receiving 80 percent; they may have received the full

grant this year. Every year prior to that I would have to go cap in

hand on behalf of the regional district to the ministry, and after a

lot of fooling around, they finally got the full grant. So that was the

point, but perhaps the minister wasn't the minister at that time; it

may have been a different minister. But as the minister assured me that

they're going to receive the full grant, that's all I wanted to hear.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

In response to that, Mr. Chairman, I think that the reference here is

to the planning grant, which has a maximum amount, and we can share up

to that. But the regional district is required to put up a portion of

the moneys, so that they don't simply come in asking for

[ Page 4997 ]

grants

whether they need them or not. There is a requirement that they

contribute a portion. Now if the regional district didn't see fit or

didn't feel it necessary to contribute the share required for them to

go the maximum $15,000, then they wouldn't get that grant.

MR. HANSON:

I would like to begin my remarks with reference to a couple of comments

which that minister made in the House last week, and I think he should

be held to account for those remarks. Just to set it in context for

you, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the double-billing provisions,

and the bill opposing double billing. This minister made a passing

reference at that time to possibly a need to look at the question of

deterrent fees in the health-care field — in other words, abusers. This

particular minister has an obsession with abuse. When he was Minister

of Human Resources, he was obsessed with people abusing the system

there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member,

again we are on the administrative responsibilities of the minister. I

think all members will agree that last week we digressed on certain

occasions from the matters at hand, but I hope that this week — we're

starting a new week — we can determine afresh that we're going to

follow our standing orders. With that I would ask the member to

continue on the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. HANSON:

I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. It's just the first

opportunity that I have had to comment on those regressive comments

that he made in this chamber. I will leave it saying this: if he ever

wishes to proceed in cabinet recommending deterrent fees, if he thinks

he's seen a fight....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point

of order, there's a bill before this House, Mr. Chairman, dealing with

that matter. That member cannot relate the matter which he's discussing

in any way to the administrative responsibilities of the minister, and

I hope that you'll bring him very strongly to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again I must stress that we are on the administrative responsibilities

— and only the responsibilities — of the minister; nor may we discuss

matters involving legislation or the need for legislation. The member

continues.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will take

guidance from your remarks. I'm going to move on to the Urban Transit

Authority, which, as you know, is a brain-child of this particular

government, the purpose and the stated objectives of which — in their

words — were to streamline the transit system, put it down into local

control, and so on. But I don't think anyone was fooled at the time

and, as we see the effect that the UTA is having on transit — certainly

in my own constituency of Victoria — I think we have in microcosm the

philosophy of the Social Credit government, which is that.... When

individuals in our society pay taxes, they expect services for those

taxes, but this government sees those tax dollars as a fund to try to

guarantee their re-election through investing in monumental projects,

particularly in Vancouver at this time.

Let us just look for

a second at the operation, the way the UTA is structured in terms of

its finances. As most British Columbians know, when transit was handled

by B.C. Hydro, their more profitable operations of selling electricity

and power offset costs of moving people in the transit system. That's

really the way it should have been structured, but what we had here was

a brain-child to put onto the local taxpayer, the local citizenry, the

cost of a transit system. They did this in the following way. Rather

than have the cost of buses and other capital expenditures paid out of

general revenue, the costs are paid for by the actual user, with a

small subsidy from the province. In other words, when taxes are

collected, they go into general revenue to provide services for the

public, like bus services. Then what we have here is a double taxation,

because when the citizen gets on the bus, his tax dollars are only

paying a small portion of that service, and the rest of it has to be

paid for by that box or the regional district.

In the

Capital Regional District they've put the bus fares up. Who did they

put them up for? For children, for seniors and a small amount for the

regular fare — the average individual who doesn't fall into those

categories. Now the Socred formula is a serious departure from any sort

of social conscience, Mr. Chairman. To a senior citizen of my

constituency the bus or transit system isn't a frill. It is a lifeline.

It is the way to avoid being shut in; it is a way to visit friends in

hospital, to do shopping, to get out of a small apartment and to move

in the mainstream of our community. From your side of the House we hear

comments like: "Oh, it's only an additional 15 cents: it’s only 30

cents now." There is an absolute failure to recognize that a senior

citizen in many other jurisdictions rides for free. In San Francisco,

for example, senior citizens ride the bus for 5 cents, because there's

recognition that they are no longer in their peak earning years and

that pensions are being rapidly eroded by inflation.

Here we

are witness to increasing the user fee for senior citizens to ride on a

bus. Is there anything that is more symbolic of a heartless government

than that? Again, it's the abuser thing; it's the deterrent thing. I

don't think most of the public realize quite yet — they are coming to

realize it very quickly — how this government has abrogated its

responsibility in financing the transit system. As new buses are

purchased and the transit lines are extended, who pays? The people

getting on the bus: the children, the seniors and the captive people

that don't want to fight their way into Vancouver or downtown Victoria

in their own cars, but wish to ride a bus in an efficient system.

there you take out of general revenue an obligation which really should

be under provincial jurisdiction, providing a service. and you dump it

at the local level, making local government people the meat in the

sandwich. The Capital Regional District has to take the brunt for

raising fares.

The minister nods off; he is feigning sleep.

This is the concern of this government, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to

providing services to people.

Not only has the government

removed itself from the capital expenditure of providing a decent

transit system, but over the next five years their contribution will

get smaller every year. I believe it starts in the first year at

something like 48.5 percent, and it drops at the end of of five years

to 43 percent. With high inflation, with a system we want expanded and

with increased capital costs, the provincial government's portion gets

smaller and smaller until they want to get out entirely and put the

responsibility and the burden at the local level. What else do they do?

They do it with school

[ Page 4998 ]

costs

and in other ways, but here we have transit, which is this minister's

responsibility, and have we heard him say that he's willing to pay his

fair share? Not at all.

I have some specific comments

regarding the PCL bus system on Vancouver Island. Sometime at the end

of last year I met with a number of the drivers, who pointed out to me

some of the inequities within the PCL system the way it is presently

developed on Vancouver Island. For example, there is only one express

bus from Victoria to Campbell River each day,

whereas leaving Vancouver

and going to Chilliwack there are ten express buses every day. Granted

there's an increased population over there, but even if that's prorated

there's no comparison.

The Vancouver Island buses leaving

Victoria that are not express buses make all the stops all the way. I

think if you were to take a general view of those buses, they're older

vehicles, and my information is that most of them don't have washrooms.

In other words, there could be up to a three-hour run with no washroom

facilities at all. Maybe this has been corrected since my meeting with

these drivers in the late fall, but I doubt it. I'd like the minister,

if he will, to give me an outline of what representation he will be

making to them, as the minister responsible for PCL, in terms of

upgrading their system here on Vancouver Island.

I'd also like some comment regarding the fare structure. Broken

down into a number of parts, the Port Hardy–Campbell River

section is

$15, Campbell River to Nanaimo is $6.50 and Nanaimo to Victoria $5.30,

for a total of $27.10. Do you know you can take a bus from Vancouver to

Calgary for $36? In other words, there's no comparability in terms of

the distance covered. It costs $27.10 to go from Victoria to Port

Hardy, but $36 to go to Calgary. Again, my meeting was in the fall of

this year, so perhaps some of these costs have been changed again; but

I'd like the minister's comment on them, if I may. I'm going to take my

seat and ask the minister to respond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'm pleased that I now have the opportunity of giving the House the

figures with respect to transit — the moneys that are being provided by

this government as opposed to what was being provided in 1975. Possibly

all hon. members would like to make a note of this, although it will be

recorded in Hansard , so you can refer back to it later. But for

the information of the first and second members for Victoria (Mr.

Barber and Mr. Hanson), the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr.

Mitchell) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — the four members of

the opposition left in the House — the budget now provides

$92,675,000-plus for transit services in British Columbia.

There's

also $55 million in a fund specifically for the acquisition of capital

in the first moves with respect to ALRT for greater Vancouver. So it's

$92, 675,000. During the NDP year of 1975 it was $3,325,730 — and 11

cents, I believe. That's a difference — something like 3 percent of

what we have today. How can you compare the program which is provided

by this government with the program which was provided by the NDP?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would ask all members to bear in mind that only one

member of the House can be speaking at a time. All members will have

full and ample opportunity to take their place in debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The Urban Transit Authority is not the local authority for Victoria or

Vancouver; it deals with transit matters for the whole of the province.

I continually need to remind the members opposite, especially those

from Victoria, that there's more to British Columbia than Victoria and

Vancouver. There are many other communities which are receiving a

transit service now that they didn't get previously. To simply say the

old system was much better.... We had a transit system in Victoria and

a transit system in Vancouver, and everybody was charged in their

electricity bill for whatever deficit those transit systems incurred.

But that meant that people in Houston, Prince George, Fort St. John,

Nelson, Trail and everywhere were paying for the transit services in

Vancouver and Victoria. I remind the hon. second member for Victoria

that there's more to British Columbia than the two urban or

metropolitan areas. Why do you always forget that British Columbia goes

beyond Victoria and Vancouver?

The final comment is with

respect to the Capital Regional District's making decisions with

respect to fares. Do you think that possibly those decisions should be

made at the provincial level? Is that what you're suggesting? Are you

arguing that possibly it's not better for the local people to determine

routes and frequency of service and fares, as opposed to the province

doing that sort of thing? We've decentralized; we've given those

authorities to the local people. Now you're saying: "Ah, but the

Capital Regional District hasn't got a social conscience." I would

argue that with you. The chairman of the Urban Transit Authority is

Mayor Tindall of Victoria, and the Capital Regional District certainly

has some very difficult times in dealing with fares. It's no easy task,

and to suggest they don't have a social conscience and they shouldn't

be doing that is a gross injustice to those people. Many of them were

politically involved at the local level while you were still sweeping

the floor in a museum. So these people do have a long term of

experience in servicing the public of this region.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the minister, whose record for misrepresenting the facts....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Having reviewed again the situation that we

reviewed last week, I would ask all hon. members to remember what we

may and may not say in committee, and again I would ask the member to

withdraw the word "misrepresenting."

MR. BARBER: I

withdraw the word, and I restate the argument that this minister, who

knows better, who knows what the truth is, who knows perfectly well

what the record was of transit administration from 1972 to 1975, and

who knows perfectly well that it was financed by the transit division

of B.C. Hydro at a considerably greater cost than $3 million per year,

says a wrong thing when he tries to pretend — for whatever disgraceful

political reasons he wishes to — that the first New Democratic

administration of this province spent only $3 million on transit. That

is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Secondly, the minister further

offends the facts when he chooses to suggest that my colleague, who

holds a graduate degree in Anthropology and who conducted

archaeological studies for the Provincial Museum, should be dismissed —

he thinks — on what he presumes to be the lowly grounds that he was, as

the minister wrongly put it, sweeping the floors of

[ Page 4999 ]

the

museum. Not only has he insulted people who have an honourable

occupation in maintaining public buildings, but once again he

completely fails to tell the truth — in this case about my colleague,

the other member for Victoria. Why would the minister do that, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

Again, we cannot say one way what we cannot say another. I would have

to ask that the member withdraw that statement "failed to tell the

truth." Hon. members, there are many ways we can address situations and

refer to circumstances and comments, but there are many ways we cannot.

That is one. I would ask the member to withdraw and continue on with

his debate. Would the member withdraw?

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw it, and I tell the minister that we are

sick and tired of having to stand up and correct the record every time

he makes another erroneous statement about the record of public transit

in this province, be it from 1972 to 1975, or any other period he cares

to get wrong. I am personally offended that he uses such a — if I may

say so, Mr. Chairman — completely sleazy argument in regard to the

professional qualifications of a member of this Legislature, who would,

I'm sure, if he were so inclined, be able to take a job in any museum

sweeping floors, and that's a perfectly honourable occupation. It may

or may not be known to the minister as such, but for him to say that he

was busy doing his work while my colleague, he says, was sweeping

floors — which happens not only to be wrong but disgusting — is a

comment he shouldn't make; or at least if he does, let him restrict it

to Social Credit Party meetings, where apparently that sort of stuff is

commonplace.

Briefly in regard to the financing of transit,

to correct the record once more, during 1972 to 1975 there was no Urban

Transit Authority. Rather, transit was operated on two bases: the

transit division of B.C. Hydro and the transit bureau of the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs. I presume the $3 million figure the minister put

forward is the transit bureau budget for that year. I don't have the

estimates in front of me, but I presume that it was. If that's the

case, then I presume as well that those expenditures were on the first

ever aggressive, thoughtful and committed attempt to take transit

outside the lower Vancouver Island area and the greater Vancouver

metropolitan area into the rural communities of this province. Rural

transit as a policy of government was commenced by the Barrett

administration. It was pioneered by Mr. Lorimer, the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs. That's where it began. That's where it succeeded.

For the minister to pretend that the only public expenditure in transit

in 1972-75 — literally 1975, to use his phrase — was $3 million is

completely ridiculous.

What was the budget of B.C. Hydro's

transit division that year? Do you know, Mr. Minister? Are you telling

us it was $3 million for all of transit in Victoria and Vancouver that

year? Of course not. Even you wouldn't make such a preposterous claim.

Or would you, if you thought you could get away with it? Because, you

know, he tries to get away with a lot of things, Mr. Chairman, but

we're not going to let him.

Let the record be clear. There

were two sources of finance: one was Hydro and the other was Municipal

Affairs. Let the minister tell the truth about the whole public

expenditure for transit and not just that narrow part of it which he

uses to wrongfully portray the government of British Columbia in the

period 1972-75.

Let him also answer the charge of those who

wonder whether or not the Premier of British Columbia meant it when he

said that when transit was removed as an obligation from B.C. Hydro.

Hydro ratepayers could expect to pay a lot less. I've read it into the

record before and I'll do it again if it's necessary in order to

correct this minister — whom we always have to correct when he says

these utterly erroneous things, unsubstantiated in any way at all. The

Premier made a public commitment that those persons — in Atlin,

Omineca, North Peace, and all over the province — who had been

subsidizing the costs of transit in the greater metropolitan areas of

Vancouver and Victoria would therefore get a break, because it would be

taken off the back of Hydro and therefore its subscribers.

Did

the Premier keep his promise? No way. Hydro's budget, in the last year

for which it was responsible for transit, was approximately $72.5

million. I don't know what the precise expenditure came down to, but

that was the guess for that year. How many people in this province saw

a prorated reduction in their transit bills, via what they pay for

electricity or natural gas, of $72.5 million the year Hydro lost the

transit business and UTA took over? I would tell you this, Mr.

Chairman: no one did. The Premier never kept that commitment to the

people of British Columbia. Once again the notorious record of Social

Credit keeping its promises — in the field of transit or health care or

anywhere — was shown up for what it really is.

Let the

minister tell us what happened to the approximately $70 million, shall

we say, that Hydro saved when it lost the burden of transit and lost

the financial problems associated with it. Let the minister tell us why

the Premier's promise wasn't kept. Let the minister tell us why just

some days ago in this House we heard that Hydro re-invested — how much

was it? — $5 million as its trade-off for having lifted from its

financial burden $70 million for transit.

If Hydro spent $70 million for transit in the last year for which it

had responsibility, which is now two fiscal years ago, are we to

believe that two years earlier it only spent $3 million on transit? Of

course not. I charge the minister has deliberately failed to tell the

whole story. He knows that more than$3

million was spent on transit in 1975. It was spent in two ways: it was spent

by the then policy of cross-subsidization within B.C. Hydro, an arm of the provincial

government, and within the operations of the transit division in Victoria and

Vancouver; it was further spent by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who created within his ministry a bureau of transit to establish transit

in the rural communities of this province.

are sick and tired of this minister and the ridiculous claims he makes

of his own unproven success and the wrong things he says about the

documented record of the New Democrat administration before him. We're

also sick and tired of his personal slurs on the professional

qualifications of people on this side of the House. May I say again, my

colleague happens to hold a graduate degree in anthropology and was an

esteemed and respected member of the staff of the Provincial Museum of

Victoria. To sneeringly refer to him in that way — like that ex-welfare

minister used to sneer at any person he didn't think belonged in his

station in life — is simply disgraceful and even beyond what we would

expect from that minister.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman. I'm amazed at what I've just heard from the first member for Victoria. That he

[ Page 5000 ]

would

decry the slurs of the minister — and I've been listening to him here

and didn't hear any slurs.... I would remind him that the remarks he

just made were one long tirade of slurs. I'm amazed at this attitude

within this House and I decry it very much. The first words the member

for Victoria said referred to something about "that untruthful

minister" and were brought to order by the Chair. It surprises me when

I hear this, but what I've come to say to you is not that, but that you

must come to court with clean hands. Your hands are not very clean when

you stand by, the way you're doing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can address them on what they're doing in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps....

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Please do not try to hobble the members of the government. We must say

what has happened. I'm entitled to reflect on what they've done in this

House. I wish to do it.

I wish to say now that the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was totally wrong in his statement

that they were the instigators of the system of public transport

outside of the cities of Victoria and Vancouver. I will forgive him for

being wrong. I don't think he would be deliberately untruthful,

although I'm not saying whether he is or not. Perhaps he had not done

his research. That was first done by the Bennett administration, of

which I was a part at that time. The system was running in Maple Ridge

and was expanding throughout the province. What the NDP did was simply

to go on from there.

What they were good at was spending

money like they were shovelling it out of the back of a truck. I will

give you another example. They purchased 22 junked buses from

Saskatchewan which are still a heap of junk, somewhere in Burnaby.

Those are the irresponsible things that that government did. Certainly

they tried, but whenever they came to something constructive, it was

impossible. Transit was brought in by our present administration. I

very well remember opening the transit system in Maple Ridge — two

buses. Certainly it followed the NDP, but it was a continuation from

the W.A.C. Bennett government. During that three and a half years in

between, nothing was done except talk. Let's get that straight. Let me

tell the first and second members for Victoria. Let's put this debate

on a proper basis. Let us be honest with this House. Let us establish

the facts. It came in with our government and it continues with our

government. I'm not saying that you didn't do anything, but you're

great at spending money. There are 22 junk buses in Burnaby today. I

haven't researched it. I could, but it just came up now. I would have

never spoken, but I can't stand the deficits being thrown across this

House without regard for veracity and the facts that exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, before I recognize the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson), the records will show that during this debate we've spent an

awful lot of time discussing past history. We are on vote 156, which

has to do with the 1981-82 year.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, we weren't discussing history with the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. That was fiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise on a point of order, which is that it is necessary to go back into past history when past history is being attacked.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

My comment is that if all members in the committee could avoid it at

this point, we could proceed with the 1981-82 estimates before us and

the administrative actions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman,

when I was pointing out to the minister that the unloading of the costs

of transit onto local governments and citizenry was

an act that

abrogated a social conscience, he twisted that as if I was attacking

some local government, which is not correct. My comment is that the

Social Credit government has made local government the meat in the

sandwich. They are having to find funds from a ridership that

ordinarily should be carried out of general revenue as a service

expected by taxpayers. These people believe in double taxation. You pay

once in taxes and secondly you pay for the service later on, so that

extra money can be reserved almost like a pseudo-election fund of

monuments for their own re-election.

The minister made two

other incorrect statements. He said that the members for Victoria don't

care about the other parts of British Columbia, which is an absolute

falsehood. When the people of my constituency pay their income taxes,

their sales taxes and their liquor, cigarette and gasoline taxes, and

so on — I'm relating this directly to the minister's estimates — they

quite happily see money go towards highway construction, snow removal

and other kinds of services all over this province. We have never

objected to that. We have no snow here, but we're happy to pay for snow

removal in the rest of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: The member for Kemano II — I wish he'd get on his feet occasionally in this House.

I'm

trying to point out to the minister that his allegation that we don't

care about what happens in other parts of the province is incorrect. We

do care. But we want the services that are appropriate to our

community. Those are public transit. We don't want tunnels or massive

highway overpasses. We want a decent public transit system that the

senior citizens, the children and the regular citizenry of this

community can enjoy. We're happy to pay for snow removal. Give us a

public transit system and a decent ferry system. Those are the things

that we require for transit, not highways and snow removal. But as my

colleague has pointed out over and over again, we're faced with a

minister whose word in this House is always devious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to withdraw that one. That remark cannot be allowed.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw. His word is always challenged, because there's a lack of forthrightness. I'm not

[ Page 5001 ]

trying

to get into a semantic argument with the Chair. What I want is transit

for my own riding. I don't want to see the senior citizens and the

children of Victoria having to carry the burden. That's what we have

with the UTA formula. We have a provincial responsibility that reduces

overtime and the burden falls on the local residents. That is wrong,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. second member for Victoria for getting back to the 1981-82 estimates.

MR. MITCHELL:

I have to smile about that last episode. It's the way the minister

deals with facts. I remember when I was a policeman in court. If I had

used the same method to deal with facts before Judge Ostler, if I was

lucky I would be serving my time at William Head for perjury instead of

being here as a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you

will have to withdraw that remark. That is quite unparliamentary. The

hon. member will have to withdraw any imputations.

MR. MITCHELL:

I withdraw. Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with four different

items. I will deal with three first, then I'll ask the minister if he

would comment on them before I get on to the fourth.

I think

it's really important that if we're going to have any transit system in

the Victoria area we're going to have to take into serious

consideration and serious studies where we are going to go for rapid

transit. The most logical method in the Victoria area, especially in

the Western Community in my riding, is a serious study to be taken now

on how they are going to utilize the CNR right-of-way that has been

abandoned by the railway. At the present time this railway is lying

there not being used. I was assured last year by the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) that this government is in the

final stage of negotiations on that particular railway. At the present

time the railway is sitting there, the highway departments and private

developers are developing subdivisions, shopping centres and east-west

and north-south main highway grids in the area. There is proposed now

in one particular area at least three level crossings within a quarter

of a mile.

As the minister said earlier in his speech on the

development of rapid transit in Burnaby, I feel that if you're going to

have a rapid transit system, you cannot allow a continuation of level

crossings across this particular area. This is the time now that this

ministry, in conjunction with the Lands and Highways departments,

should give serious consideration to and make serious studies of what

type of rapid transit system we're going to have in the Western

Community. We can't wait, Mr. Chairman, until we have numerous level

crossings. We cannot wait to have an answer coming along that we're

going to hang a railway from a bridge through some of the communities,

as has been proposed in Burnaby. The Western Community is a new and

growing area where new homes and subdivisions are going in each month,

and I've been told by many homeowners out in that area that they want

rapid transit, they need rapid transit, but they don't want to have an

overhead line coming through that area three, four or ten years down

the line because there are so many level crossings across the only and

most logical route in that area, and that is the CNR right-of-way. I

feel that this ministry and this government — or, the government that

will be in after the next election — should make that a top priority in

the transit field in the Western Community.

In the other end

of that particular line in conjunction with the E&N Railway there

are plans being made that the bus terminal should be out north of

Hillside on the Market Street area. I feel that if you're going to

develop a proper transit depot, it should take in not only the buses

but also be tied into the railways and the local urban transit system.

I think the most logical spot, if you're going to go into Victoria,

will be at the end of the E&N Railway in that area located north of

Herald Street on Government Street, commonly known as "across from the

brewery." It is the only area that is not highly developed; it is still

open. There is still a collection of railway tracks where a bus line or

a bus depot in that particular area could tie into the up-island buses

and into the urban buses, and it could tie into the railway

rights-of-way.

A second item I would like to discuss is that

I was happy to read in the paper where the minister had announced to

the capital region that he is going to make some serious studies of the

flooding problem in the Bilston Creek area in Happy Valley. I'm not

lucky like certain members who get all these notifications that the

minister and such and such an MLA made an announcement: I find out what

this government is doing by reading the paper. I find it very

interesting in this particular program on Bilston Creek that they are

talking about the Jackson report, which was made by the previous Social

Credit government in 1961. That report has been on file or pigeon-holed

ever since. There has not been one major program since that report came

down in 1961, except in 1973-74, when the NDP MLA at that time, Jim

Gorst, fought and had two culverts taken out of that particular creek

and had bridges put in that did partially alleviate the flooding

problem.

Now we have in the Western Community, as I said

earlier on, a very fast-growing area. Bilston Creek is one of the flood

problems. and that flood problem has been aggravated each month, as

more subdivisions are developed up in the mountain areas, the trees are

cut down, the blacktop is put in and the water comes down a little

faster. Bilston Creek is one of the flood areas that must be faced by

some authority — the government, either through the ministry or in

conjunction with the capital region. But there is also the flood

problem that is developed from the Kershaw Canal, which is a drainage

area from Florence Lake in the Langford area through to Millstream.

This is another area that must have some planning and some positive

action.

There is a third flood area that is developing — and

I brought it up with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — that

was created by the inept planning of the previous Social Credit

government when they allowed certain areas to be subdivided that were

under water every two winters out of three. That is the Craigflower

Creek area, commonly called Marler Drive. These are three major areas

that have been flooded and are being flooded on a regular basis. There

must be some coordinated action from the provincial government, the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Environment

and the Capital Regional District to face the problem that is

developing in that area because of the increased housing, schools,

industry and development. When I sit down I would like the minister to

comment on the three issues — not just the one in Bilston Creek.

The third issue I would like some input on from the minister and his ministry is the actual results that come out of

[ Page 5002 ]

public

hearings. Whenever there is a subdivision that goes in — when there's

any planning to change the community settlement plan — there is a

procedure that they go through. They start off with the application

that comes from whoever is making the proposition for a new

subdivision, and then it goes to the advisory planning board, to the

technical planning board and then to the public hearing. Within the two

of them, both before the advisory planning board and before the public

hearing, there is a lot of public input. In the last two years that

I've been elected, I've attempted to attend many of these particular

public hearings. I've listened to the input from the people who are

most closely affected by any changes — those who live right in the

neighbourhood — and I have seen public hearing after public hearing

where there's a 100 percent rejection by all those who attended, except

maybe the original applicant, in not wanting a certain change, but

because of the regional board members' personal preferences, the

recommendation to change the community plan goes forward.

one particular case, the minister did squash it after it had wandered

its way through the capital regional bureaucracy and through various

other groups. It did get to the minister, who saw fit to accept the

local people's decision and stop it. There are so many of the same kind

of public hearings that are held that I'm beginning to really wonder if

there's any value in that particular method that we have in the

Municipal Act. Is there a better way that the ministry can actually

find out what the community wants? If there is a community plan, how

much public input should go into it? Once the particular plan is

brought in — and I know that none of them is carved in stone; in many

cases the ink is hardly dry — the local regional district brings out a

fancy community plan and a settlement plan, and all the other names it

goes by, and then right away there's an application to change sections

of it. I feel that if we're going to have a method of changing

community plans or if we're going to have a method of public input to

public hearings, there should be some credibility given to those public

hearings, because so many people do attend in many cases. They do their

research; they make their presentation. They take a stand and no one

listens to them. I feel that if they're not going to be listened to,

why go through the motions? And if they are going to be listened to,

there must be some way of judging what particular interest or power

those particular public hearings have.

On the three — the

public hearings, transit for the CNR and the flooding area — I would

ask for the minister's comments before I go on with my fourth one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

There's very little I can disagree with with respect to the comments

made by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, except possibly

with his introductory remarks. The reason I differ there is that I can

only say that one should never be afraid to hear the truth; don't get

upset.

But with regard to the matters before us now, I

concur that we have unique problems in the Western Community. I think

the member might agree that much of this stems from the fact that the

area is developing so rapidly that it really ought to take on municipal

status. Those people should be self-determining and shouldn't be

looking to someone in Sidney, North Saanich or Oak Bay to make local

decisions on their behalf when it comes to planning, zoning or

subdivision. There are much better local decisions when you have an

area which is developing as the Western Community is.

Similarly

the question of Bilston Creek. What they're seeking is really a local

government solution to a problem, and once more I certainly look

forward to meeting with the chairman of the regional district and the

other members involved, including the area directors. However, it comes

back to the point that it's a problem that can best be resolved at the

local level by local people making those decisions. The public hearing

process is exactly the same thing again. I guess it's difficult for

people to sit in on a public hearing when they're so far removed from

the matter before them. Once more that points to the need for local

government in the Western Community.

I appreciate the

comments by the hon. member with respect to transit and his desire to

see a system without a whole lot of level crossings. I particularly

appreciate it since it's the first bit of honest support that's really

come forth with respect to the ALRT proposal as an alternative to

conventional light rapid transit for greater Vancouver. The same

argument you make, hon. member, for the Western Community and Victoria

as a capital region apply in Vancouver, and I'm pleased to hear it from

you. Perhaps you can view it from another perspective, and that's

certainly welcomed by me. We have made initial overtures to secure the

rights-of-way held by CNR and others, and following your remarks I'll

see that we expedite the process just a little bit more, because I deem

it to be important too.

MR. MITCHELL: You made an

announcement through the capital region that you were going to put

forward some proposal on the flooding problem at Bilston Creek. I

mentioned the three areas that have flooding problems in the Western

Community. Does the ministry have any particular programs to work

towards solving this particular problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Meetings with all the affected people and those representing the

regional districts have been arranged for later this month. Following

those meetings we're hoping to come forth with a recommendation.

MR. MITCHELL:

The fourth issue I would like to bring up is not solely in my riding.

It is a problem that first came to the previous government's attention

back in 1974 when there were a lot of reports of the collapse of steel

Quonset buildings throughout the province. These buildings are used as

farm buildings, for storage, for machine shops and for airplane

hangers. They're used throughout the province as low-cost steel

buildings. Many of them were built by Aztec Steel Buildings in Ontario,

also known as Wonder Steel. There was also one particular building

built by Standard Steel Buildings in Western Canada.

Between

1974 and 1975 many reports were made to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs of these buildings collapsing. It was stated in their

guarantees that these buildings had been designed to certain

specifications and would stand certain snow loads. I believe the then

Acting Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs sent a letter to all

building inspectors, municipalities, villages and towns asking for some

kind of report on what was happening to these buildings and how many of

them had collapsed under snow. Over the last three or four years the

ministry has had reports of 24 buildings collapsing because of the snow

load — in Houston, Terrace, Delta, Prince George, Kitimat, Golden,

Salmon Arm, Fernie, Whistler, Burns Lake, Peace River, Clearwater....

[ Page 5003 ]

These

buildings are supposed to qualify under the National Building Code. It

clearly states that any building, to come under its guarantee, must

take the snow load of that particular district. You can't say that you

qualify under the National Building Code if your specifications don't

stand up to the code. These buildings were sold in British Columbia

with those specifications.

Professional engineers did a

study on these buildings. They checked the specifications and found

that specifications attributed to the particular building being sold

did not stand up to actual testing. The specifications, as recorded and

given out to consumers, were inaccurate — I'm afraid I can’t use the

word "false." The professional engineers hired Dr. R.F. Hooley, a

professional engineer, who did special tests. He found that these

particular buildings did not stand up to the specifications they were

claimed to. They approached the present Minister of Municipal Affairs

asking for some protection to the farm community of British Columbia

where these buildings were built — they're not cheap buildings; they

run anywhere from $8,000 to $80,000. They asked the minister for some

direction or assistance either to stop the sale of these buildings or

to insist that a building of that type, to be sold, stand up to the

standards of the National Building Code and their own standards of

withstanding snow.

I believe that when the minister rises he

will say that before the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or any other

regulatory body can give any assistance to the consumer there must be

an amendment to B.C. regulation 140-73. I know you're going to rule me

out of order because I'm referring to legislation that is needed, but

the legislation that is in place today — I'm not sure whether I can

talk about legislation that is in place — is not sufficient protection

for the consumer.

Twenty-four buildings have been reported

to have collapsed. According to the professional engineers, many other

buildings are collapsing — are not standing up. The farmers and

business people and the local municipalities and townships are having

great financial loss. This ministry has not given the leadership. I

believe that back in 1979 the present minister stated that he had

requested an amendment or rewording of this section. As far as I know,

no legislation has come forward to give protection to the owners out in

the community. If we're going to be protected from the sale of

buildings that do not stand up to claimed specifications and do not

perform the services for which people buy them.... We all know that

farm buildings have lower standards, but the 25 percent lower standard

that comes under the National Building Code should not allow buildings

of this type to collapse under snow.

I have asked the

minister whether, when he answers. he would indicate to the House if

there is any policy to bring in protection for the people, and to give

some leadership on recording how many other buildings have collapsed

and what action the government has taken or is prepared to take on this

issue.

MR. NICOLSON: If the minister would like to respond to the last question, I would be glad to yield the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The farm buildings have been sold in British Columbia since, I think it

was, the late 1960s clear through until about 1976 or 1977, when the

problem first appeared to be one that should be addressed. It was

addressed immediately by the ministry. There is still, I believe — or

there could be — a court case pending between the manufacturers of the

building and the engineers. It may also involve the builders of the

building, since there were charges that it was not the material so much

as the way the buildings were constructed. I don't know all of the

details, except to say that the building regulations now take care of

this situation. We don't see any more of these being constructed in

British Columbia.

We can't take responsibility for every

building that collapses. When I say "we," I mean the taxpayers of

British Columbia. Obviously, first the responsibility is on the

purchaser, because it doesn't only involve the seller of the material;

it involves the builder and the architect or the engineer. If any one

of those three parties does something wrong. I guess there's the

potential for disaster. Much, or really all, of the responsibility for

assuring a reasonably safe building must lie with the purchaser and the

engineers. This is where the difficulty came in. However, to the best

of my knowledge it has been addressed. We're not getting any further

complaints. That particular company is not marketing these buildings in

this area.

MR. MITCHELL: I have just one short question. In a letter you did state:

"It may be appropriate that my ministry become involved by way of clarification

and updating of applicable legislation. In that regard, we have initiated a

rewriting of B.C. regulation No. 140-73. We have referred a number of legal

questions to counsel." Is there any possibility that this new rewording

will be brought in? What is the result of the legal questions that you've

referred to counsel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That involves legislation. However, perhaps the minister can answer the question and not discuss legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, it involves a regulation. That regulation went forth, I

believe, a year and two months ago or something like that. I'm guessing

at the time, but about then.

MR. NICOLSON: Just for

something totally different, I'd like to thank the minister on behalf

of the people of the Fletcher Creek water improvement district for the

assistance that he granted in helping out with rectification of what

was a bit of a human problem and a bit of a physical problem and so on.

Now back to business.

While we're on the topic of rural

water improvement districts, I'd like to remind the minister once again

that water improvement districts, which were formerly under the old

water rights branch and which have been placed under the responsibility

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the past couple of years,

were, for one glorious year, granted some special financial assistance

through the Ministry of Finance appropriation of surplus revenue in a

special bill, which I think was in 1978. I think every member in this

House voted unanimously for that bill. I'm sure that almost every rural

member was scrambling for Mr. Speaker's attention in order to take some

credit for having pushed for this for several years, and so on.

would like the minister to once again look at the possibility of

bringing in some type of assistance. Frankly, the people out there

don't care whether it's through a special finance bill or through some

new program. I know there are ARDA funds and various other programs.

But I'm talking

[ Page 5004 ]

about

the areas which are largely being served by a lot of volunteer labour.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) knows about this. He has

several of these water improvement districts out in the Gulf Islands,

and they've corresponded with the minister. I would like to ask the

minister, now that things have sort of settled down in the department,

if he has had time to really assess the valuable role that is being

played by people who serve on the boards of water improvement

districts, who provide a service where they might be serving 20, 80 or

a few hundred people, and in some cases they are multimillion-dollar

operations as in the Okanagan, in some parts of the Creston Valley and

in other parts of rural areas all over the province. I would like to

hear the minister's thoughts on that.

Another thing I would

like the minister to comment on is his feeling concerning amalgamation.

As he knows, we have had an amalgamation near Creston of an area called

Alice Siding. There's been a great deal of controversy. I noticed in

last Friday's paper that there was an

article that said the minister

originally blamed a couple of local regional district directors for not

doing their job and that's why it happened; then he blamed a couple of

people in his ministry — nobody was named. What happened was this, Mr.

Chairman. A referendum was held. There were two separate ballot boxes.

At least it was possible to distinguish what the vote was from within

the area to be incorporated and from the existing boundaries of

Creston. The people in Alice Siding voted overwhelmingly against

amalgamation. But the bulk of the larger centre carried the day, and

the amalgamation was declared to go ahead.

I would like to

know what the minister feels about the role of the referendum in

amalgamations. If the ministry really feels that an amalgamation should

go ahead, maybe it should be done as my former colleague did when he

created greater Brocklehurst. He just did it. Everybody knew where the

blame, credit or whatever was to be placed. Greater Brocklehurst has

gone on to become one of the largest municipalities in the province —

sometimes referred to as Kamloops, Mr. Chairman.

This

particular instance has created a great deal of hard feeling. There are

arguments for and against the amalgamation, but I think the manner in

which it was done was very unfortunate. I really would like to know

what the minister's feelings are. I personally feel that when we were

government we probably had amalgamations every way; we tried several

different methods. It's my feeling that to have a referendum when you

have a very large area means that the small area is so outweighted that

it is a mockery. At the very least, you should have everything in one

ballot box. I'm really quite against this thing. I think it's only

paying lip-service to a democratic process. I would like the minister's

thoughts on that as well.

Thirdly, it's maybe a little more

appropriate under the Attorney-General's estimates, but police costs do

place an unusual burden on certain municipalities and cities. The city

of Nelson, having its own police force, is providing very good police

services, particularly since the inception of the police academy and

all of the integrated services in the province. But what is happening

with the task force recommendations? How are they being reflected in

terms of assistance to remove what is an unfair burden on certain

municipalities such as Saanich, Nelson, Matsqui and a few others in the

province that are on a different basis? I would like the minister's

comments on those three items.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Improvement districts are, I suppose, in some ways a form of

government. They are groups of people deciding to get together to

collectively provide a service which they couldn't provide otherwise

individually. It varies all the way from a hose in the ground serving

two or three or four homes to perhaps some fairly major services

provided in the larger improvement districts. We don't get too many

complaints from improvement districts, and possibly that's because they

function most like government was initially intended to function.

People agree among themselves through their elected members on the

board as to what level of service they want, or perhaps better still,

can afford.

becoming involved in the functions of an improvement district. If we

come in with the odd grant program, it could well be that suddenly the

improvement districts will immediately begin to develop some dependence

on that grant program and in the process lose their independence. What

happens then too is that they begin to plan for something which is

possibly even beyond their needs. They begin to argue as governments so

often do: why not do it today because it'll cost more tomorrow, or why

not construct an 8-inch main or a 12-inch main, even though a 4-inch

main will do, because one day we'll need 10 or 12 or 14 inches? So I

just see that if we get too involved in the affairs of improvement

districts, we will possibly destroy what may still be the best to form

of government, or the closest to what government was initially in

tended to be. I see it as a danger.

I recognize, however,

that obviously improvement districts do progress, and they possibly go

beyond what the normal or initial intention was, in that they then go

from providing water to the provision of sewers, fire protection or

sidewalks — you name it — in which case perhaps senior government

programs do come into play. Possibly that's the time for them to

initially take on the status of a specified area, and following from

that, the status of a municipality. I think that is the healthiest

progression. However, maybe I don't practise entirely what I preach in

this particular instance, because there is $1 million in the budget

again, which is the first time since 1976 and possibly only the second

time in a good many years. We've not devised any means of applying it

or determining how it is to be applied, but you now know my fears, and

I'd welcome any suggestions from anyone as to what the best approach

might be with respect to those moneys.

The second point was

Alice Siding in Creston. I agree that the Hon. member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who was then the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, was a very courageous fellow when he tackled those

particular problems. Actually I admire that sort of courage, and I

don't even think that in retrospect too many could disagree with some

of things that were done in that regard, because they were obviously

needed. Maybe people might argue at the way it was done, as you're now

arguing at the way it was done when it comes to Alice Siding, Creston —

and some people there certainly argue it. We did have a vote and the

vote was one involving the town of Creston as well as the area of Alice

Siding. It wasn't an amalgamation really; it was a restructuring,

because we took in an area which was unincorporated.

For all

intents and purposes the people in Alice Siding were really like a part

of Creston, and they were getting all of the benefits of Creston even

to the point where Creston was proposing to provide for the upgrading

of the airport. The

[ Page 5005 ]

people

of Alice Siding said: "We don't need an airport if you want to upgrade

the airport." At least I heard that argument. When I say people,

perhaps I'm saying it in too broad a sense. "We don't want the airport,

Creston. Why don't you get involved? Leave us out of it." The counter

argument is of course that if a child or anyone is hurt, and they need

an air ambulance, then you don't ask the question: "Are you from Alice

Siding or are you from Creston?"

Much of the area was

developing as a part of Creston, except that Creston had no control

over its development. The area was required for Creston to expand into,

because on the one side of Creston are mountains and on the other side

is an agricultural land reserve. This was the natural area for growth.

So I think that what was done with respect to Alice Siding was the

right thing to do. As I said, some people would argue that there might

be another approach to getting at it, but in their vote the people of

Creston did not object. The people of Alice Siding did object, because

they thought they could continue getting the benefits from Creston

possibly without having to pay for some of those benefits, and that's a

natural inclination.

The police task force is still at work

in my ministry, but actually it's more in the Ministry of the

Attorney-General. We're simply providing them with information.

MR. NICOLSON:

To follow up on the minister's invitation for suggestions, I will give

this some rather careful thought and convey my suggestions to the

minister in some detail. Just for starters, I would suggest that, in

many instances, it's necessary to take over a run-down utility. How

does a water utility become run down? It usually becomes run down by a

combination of things. Maybe the owner lets maintenance go down a

little bit, and some people take it into their heads not to pay because

they feel they're not getting the service; then the owner lets things

run down a little bit more, and then people don't pay because the

service isn't up to scratch; then anarchy almost develops. I'm not

saying where the fault lies or where it begins, but it is a

chicken-and-egg problem. Then finally maybe the regional district comes

in or a group of people band together in a water improvement district

and take over one of these run-down systems, and they're faced with

real remedial problems. I would suggest that that would be one area

that could be prioritized. I don't think it's a problem in terms of

water districts going too far ahead. I think most water districts are

having to catch up. For instance, I think there are more and more

pressures to put in chlorination — something I myself am not crazy

about in my water district; I don't want to see chlorination come in.

But if land use increases up above, and watersheds are interfered with,

and various sorts of things take place, we are going to have to do this.

In the Creston area, for instance, where they have many

long-standing water-improvement districts — and I'm sure this would be

the same in parts of the Okanagan — which are permeated for irrigation

purposes, the pressure to try to also provide water supply for domestic

use is putting a strain on the system, so it can supply really neither.

Yet there is a lot of water, if it can be harnessed properly. But to do

it in a coordinated way, as the Creston area seems interested in doing,

is going to mean the cooperation of long-standing separate water

improvement districts getting together. At least they have banded

together as the Greater Creston Water Improvement Districts

Association. The Lister water improvement district, the Canyon water

improvement district, the Erickson water improvement district, the East

Arrow Creek, the town of Creston, and so on and so forth are all

looking at rationalizing their systems, yet are not asking government

to do everything for them, or saying, "We want to turn this over to the

regional district," or "Do this or that." These people are still

involved and they still run their own affairs, but I do think they will

need assistance. I think that this is a story which is repeated all

over the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

think that the million dollars — and I'm glad to see that there's a

million dollars — will have to be spent very carefully. I think the

need is far, far greater than that. Without getting into systems where

they're building a 10- or 12-inch main, where a 4-inch will do.... Long

before we ever reach that stage, I think a lot more money could be

spent very wisely. It would make for better utilization of some of our

agricultural lands, it will make for better utilization of some of our

residential land and allow even people in rural areas to live closer

together in a bit more rationalized and planned sort of a way. I'm glad

to see that once again there's something there. It's not nearly enough,

Mr. Minister, but I will pass on my suggestions, and I'm sure other

rural members from both sides of the House will be doing the same.

MR. PASSARELL:

Right at the onset I'd like to thank the minister for forwarding

letters that he sends to Stewart regarding the capital gains to the

municipality and how much your ministry is sending into Stewart. I

appreciate receiving copies of that correspondence, and I certainly

hope he will continue to do that.

There are four short

questions I have to direct to the minister. The first one concerns the

Atlin Planning Commission that your ministry helped develop during the

last year. It's the only duly elected organization in the community of

Atlin, and one of the problems that is seeming to develop over this is

the decisions of the APC in regard to a local group which is

self-appointed the Atlin Board of Trade. Why is the Atlin Board of

Trade able to convince the government to continue wasting money on this

white elephant airport that people in the community of Atlin don't

want? The Atlin Planning Commission has contacted your ministry stating

their objections as the only duly elected group in the community. The

land in question could be used for housing, and the Atlin Planning

Commission is asking that the project be stopped and the airport moved

out of town.

The second question is in regard to defining

boundaries. The Atlin Planning Commission is asking that the boundaries

of the community be expanded to include the Placer Development area of

town. Why isn't the Atlin Planning Commission's objection to including

the Placer Development lease included in the municipal aspect of what

the Atlin Planning Commission is attempting to do in setting guidelines

for a boundary around the community? It appears that the ministry has

stated you can form your boundaries, but leave the aspect of Placer

Development off. I was just bringing that to the minister's attention,

and maybe he call give me an answer as to why.

When it was

set up, part of the Atlin Planning Commission's guidelines was to

develop community planning on a local level instead of having different

self-appointed clubs in the community give information to the ministry.

What developments do you foresee in beefing up the strength of the

[ Page 5006 ]

Atlin Planning Commission as the only duly elected committee in the community of Atlin?

The

fourth question is about the foreshore development in the municipality

of Stewart. Your ministry has done a vast amount of work on this aspect

of foreshore, and I was wondering what the minister can report to the

House regarding the foreshore development in Stewart.

The

last aspect from the budget itself was that municipal government

homeowners' grants have increased slightly from $21 million to $22

million. It's far too low. In unorganized territory the homeowners'

grants for areas like the Atlin constituency have increased from $3.2

million to $3.4 million which is much too low.

I would enjoy

hearing the comments of the minister regarding the Atlin Planning

Commission and its recommendations to the ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I guess it's about a year ago that I had the pleasure of visiting Atlin

with my deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. We spent the

best part of a day in Atlin, and we met with a group that deemed

themselves to be the duly elected group for Atlin: the board of

trustees for the fire district. As a matter of fact, they didn't all

that much welcome our coming, because they felt that our coming meant

that somehow there might be some other form of local government

established in the area, and they would just as soon plod on the way

they were without government per se at the local level, because, as you

are aware, they don't have a regional district. We had a fine visit,

but they were the board of trustees, and, as I said, they deemed

themselves to be the elected people for the area.

We've

since established an advisory planning commission, and the the advisory

planning commission really is just that — it's an advisory group. They

will be recommending to us on such matters as the airport — should it

be or shouldn't it be, and if so, what type of airport and whom should

it serve and what area. Similarly, they'll probably be making

recommendation with respect to boundaries for the whole of the planning

area, and possibly as well they'll make some recommendations with

respect to where industrial development should take place, or what

type. They are an advisory group and we've not heard from them as yet

when we do, certainly that advice will be considered, and I imagine it

will be made up of input from the local board of trade and from any

number of other community groups or associations.

With

respect to the homeowner-grant moneys in my budget, only 10 percent is

provided for in my budget; the balance of it is found in the budget for

the Ministry of