1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Purchase tax on sale of Expo lands. Mr. Sihota –– 4923

Mr. Williams

Farm-the-forest program. Mr. Harcourt –– 4924

Mayors' program on silviculture. Mr. Harcourt –– 4924

Motorola takeover bid on Mobile Data International. Mr. Clark –– 4924

Burrard hydro plant. Mr. Rose –– 4924

Tabling Documents –– 4925

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 51: minister's office –– 4925

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Jacobsen

Mr. R. Fraser

Mrs. Gran

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Jones

Mr. Williams

Hydro and Power Authority Privatization Act (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4948

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 46). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 4948

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROSE :

I am very pleased today to introduce some visitors from England. They

are the parents of one of our researchers. Mr. Fred Eve and his wife

borough of Gravesham, if I've pronounced it correctly. Obviously Fred

didn't counsel his son very well, because he is working for the NDP,

but would you welcome them anyway.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Visiting the buildings today and in the chamber this afternoon are

Andrea Spence and seven of her classmates from Herbert Spencer School

in New Westminster, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Yip and Mrs.

Price. I would like the members to note that these young people have

been here on an in-depth tour of our Legislature, including a visit to

the legislative dining-room this morning, where they met a goodly

number of people from both sides of the House. Would you join me in

welcoming them to the chamber this afternoon.

MR. BRUCE :

Some more of my constituents from Cowichan-Malahat are here in the

House today. I would like to thank the other members of the House who

introduced some other members of my constituency here yesterday while I

was not able to. I know you all want to get in on the act. Would you

please welcome three good friends of my family: Ivan and Joyce Shorter

and Mrs. Jean Farmer.

Oral Questions

PURCHASE TAX ON SALE OF EXPO LANDS

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that all homeowners are

required to pay property purchase tax, in keeping with the act, at the

time of registration. On May 2, 1988, in response to questions during

estimates, the Minister of Finance said: "The property purchase tax

will be paid in total at the time the registration takes place." Will

the minister advise this House whether or not that comment was accurate

and whether, indeed, the property purchase tax was paid in total at the

time of registration, as the minister said?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I take it the questioner is referring to the Expo lands. I didn't hear his introduction.

The

process, as I understand it, is that the taxpayer makes a payment on

submission of the statement of value, and that has been done.

MR. WILLIAMS : Is the minister saying that a statement of the actual or determined price has been made?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I understand the process, the purchasers, or in this case the

winning bidder, fill out a form — the exact title I'm not sure of —

and submit with it a cheque to cover their estimated property purchase

tax. That process has been followed as required by the act.

MR. WILLIAMS : On May 9 you said the public is entitled to know the amount,

and so they are. But now you're in effect saying: "The public be damned."

How do you justify one kind of law for the super rich like Mr. Li Ka-shing and

another kind of law for everyone else?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I am indebted to the member for that question. because he's pointed out

once more to me that I'm not perfect in all respects. While that gives

me some personal discomfort, I think it is important that the House be

fully informed at all times. Therefore I'm happy to oblige the member's

curiosity.

The fact of the matter is that the issue of the

property purchase tax to be paid on the Expo lands was very high

profile and had excited the interest of members of the opposition and

the media. In my haste to show full and open government, I suggested,

apparently incorrectly, that the property purchase tax paid by the

purchaser would be made public once the figure was agreed upon. I have

been advised by my staff that the issue of taxation is a private matter

between the taxpayer and his government. Therefore I am unable, by

virtue of law and legislation, to deal in a public way with the sums

involved.

When I indicated to the House — and I think I did; although I haven't read Hansard , I'm willing to take the hon. member's claim that I did —

it would certainly have been my impression that I would have wanted to

do so. When I made that statement to the House, I made it incorrectly.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House naked in this respect. If the

hon. members or the House would be more comfortable if I issued an

apology, I am pleased to do that now.

The issue is whether

a tax matter can be discussed publicly. I am advised by members of the

Attorney-General's ministry and my own taxation officials that it is a

private matter between the taxpayer and the government. If in the

fullness of time there is a difference of opinion between the taxpayer

and the government as to the value of the tax to be paid, and if, as a

consequence of that difference, the government through their

officials....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : No, just a minute. I am happy to sit, Mr. Speaker. I thought they wanted full information, but that's fine. You'll be sorry.

[2:15]

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a couple of points. First of all, the minister is quoted as

saying that items under negotiation.... The minister recognizes that

under the act perhaps the amount paid may be confidential, but the

value of the property is not. The question to the minister is this: is

the minister now prepared to tell this House exactly what we got on

that Expo deal? What is the value that's stated, Mr. Minister? Is it

$140 million? Is it on a present value basis or not? That's what we

would like to know. What is the value stated?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I was attempting to get into this discussion when certain members

objected to the length of my reply. But I am happy to rise again, and

we'll get into it a little bit more thoroughly.

Dealing with the question of the valuation, I am advised that the taxpayer — in this question, the purchaser of the properties — filed one form which dealt with the total payments to be received by government which, in my memory

[ Page 4924 ]

in excess of $300 million. Was it $325 million? I believe the original

debate focused on a figure of $325 million. My understanding is that

this is the figure submitted by the taxpayer.

I will just

remind the members of the opposition that they took exception to the

government's claim that there was $325 million in this deal, and they

wanted to talk in terms of net present value which, as I understand it,

brings it down to around $145 million.

The members of the opposition — in my judgment — must

not be allowed to have it both ways. If they wish the government to

claim that the price was $325 million and therefore the property

purchase tax should be based on that figure, I am quite happy to accept

the argument. The fact of the matter is that the opposition has said

the deal was not for $325 million, and I can pull quotes from a variety

of members who have made that claim. It really is for net present

value. On this issue, the answer quite simply is: the opposition cannot

have it both ways. The information submitted by the taxpayer was in

that global cash requirement over a 15- or 20-year period, and that

totals about $325 million.

May I just add one more illuminating feature?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : No.

FARM-THE-FOREST PROGRAM

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Premier, can you inform the House whether the government

has approved the proposed farm-the-forest program put forward by the civic officials

in Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile House.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll defer the question to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

HON. MR. PARKER : No, we haven't approved farm the-forest.

MAYORS' PROGRAM ON SILVICULTURE

MR. HARCOURT :

A supplementary. Can the Premier tell the House why the Vancouver

Island mayors' program, which was very successful last year, has not

been renewed for 1988?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'll defer to the Minister of Forests and Lands.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The Vancouver Island mayors' program and the farm-the-forest program

offered by the Cariboo municipalities tied into a job-training program

that was administered in part by the Ministry of Forests and Lands and

the Ministry for Advanced Education and Job Training, with funding

coming primarily from Social Services and Housing. It was to assist

those on social assistance to get some job experience and training in

the silviculture worker program. That program is not available to us

this year, and therefore the funding for that particular phase isn't in

place.

However, through our regular budgetary process in

the Forest Service, silviculture programs are taking place in those

communities. Our district managers are explaining those programs to the

municipal and regional district board members so that they understand

the impact on their communities — who's involved, who's employed,

what the job opportunities are, what moneys are being spent, what the

programs are, what the benefits will be, what services are being

supported in the community.

MOTOROLA TAKEOVER BID OF

MOBILE DATA INTERNATIONAL

MR. CLARK : A question to the Premier. MDI — Mobile Data International —

of Richmond, a B.C. high-tech success story, is now the subject of a

takeover bid by the American multinational Motorola. Motorola is a huge

company that is MDI's major competition. This takeover, Mr. Premier,

has grave consequences for the future of high tech industry in British

Columbia. Is the Premier concerned about this issue, and has he at

least sought guarantees from Motorola that they will maintain the 400

jobs in Richmond?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, this would be a matter for the Minister of Economic Development. I'll defer to the minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY :

I thank the member for the question. We have not made any overtures to

the corporation, it being a private sector transaction. As a matter of

interest, if a transaction takes place, we would certainly be

interested and would perhaps be in touch with the firm. But I don't

think it would be in the best interests of a private sector transaction

for us to interfere in advance. There may not be any transaction at

all, as I understand it from the press; we don't know. We would not

initiate that kind of interference at this time.

MR. CLARK :

Supplementary to the minister. I expected the minister to take a rigid

ideological position, but the province has a stake in the survival of

this company and also has some money indirectly in the company by way

of Discovery Parks — venture capital and all of that. So has the

minister decided now, at least upon reflection, to seek guarantees from

Motorola that they will maintain R and D investment in British Columbia

and the jobs in Richmond?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY : Mr.

Speaker, this has not been a matter that has come before the Ministry

of Economic Development. We have, as I say, a general interest in

making sure that jobs are preserved in the province. If there were a

transaction taking place in that respect, we would be consulted if

there were any outstanding loans to do with the ministry or Discovery

Parks.

I will take as notice the question regarding

Discovery Parks and the ongoing interest of the province. I believe

that interest has been discharged, but I can get further information on

that. I'm just going from memory. We would not interfere, as I say, in

a private sector transaction.

BURRARD HYDRO PLANT

MR. ROSE :

My question to the Minister of Environment is of importance not only to

my riding but to all of the lower mainland, including the Fraser

Valley. B.C. Hydro is now going to be allowed to export power from the

Burrard Thermal generating plant, despite a 1985 Hydro brief which said

that there was little prospect of this happening in the foreseeable

future. It was for peaking power only at that time. In the name of open

government, will the minister now insist on or authorize full public

hearings to be held in the area before this export is permitted?

[ Page

4925 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member is asking a question of future policy,

and I would question, as well, whether he's asking it of the appropriate

minister. Under the Utilities Commission Act, the Minister of Environment has

a responsibility for energy permits, but that's only in conjunction with

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. So I may be an adjunct

to that legislation and to that hearing process, but I'm certainly not the

main player.

MR. ROSE : I wouldn't want to put down the minister's influence, power and ability to be the main player.

The

minister issued the permit for these emissions to be discharged into

the air despite the fact that the area, Port Moody, is probably the

most polluted, ozone-laden area in the whole lower mainland. I'd like

to know what justification the minister has for issuing a permit,

without public hearings , that's going to threaten the health of the

people of my riding and the whole lower mainland.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll take that question as notice, but I'll advise the member that the

GVRD in this case monitors air emissions for us in that area, and if

they have any concerns, they'll be brought to my attention.

MR. ROSE :

I have a question relating to House business There are a couple of

resolutions standing in my name, Nos. 70 and 71, that have to do with

the reduced urban postal service and the closure of a number of rural

post offices. I wonder if the minister could advise the House when

these two resolutions will be brought forward for debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The House, of course, is aware that resolutions are brought forward

numerically, unless leave is given. It could be some time, really,

before we get to 70 and 71. We'd have to get to 56, Ducks Unlimited,

first. But in the fullness of time we'll be addressing that question.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of unclaimed money deposits for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 1988, pursuant to

section 3 of the

Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 51: minister's office, $280,605.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would like to clarify a discussion we held yesterday, on the

ownership of St. Ann's Academy. I did not have accurate information,

and I would like at this point to advise the House that the property

was purchased by the province from the sisters, transferred to BCBC and

subsequently to the Provincial Capital Commission. It was not a

donation.

MR. BLENCOE : I thank the minister for that information. However, it

does not take care of the problem we have with St. Ann's or the PCC.

Just

one question to the minister before I move on and finish with the

Islands Trust. I wonder if the minister read this morning that one more

council, North Saanich, has asked that the PCC be opened to the public.

Is the minister today prepared to open Provincial Capital Commission

meetings to the public?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : As of today, the answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE :

I have one more matter relating to the Islands Trust. It's not directly

in the minister's responsibility, but I'm sure the minister has been

made aware of the situation that is of concern to the Islands Trust

council and particularly the chairman, that being the latest logging

activities on Saltspring Island and the ability of the Islands Trust to

have any say or control over the logging, particularly over 4,800 acres

of managed forestland on Saltspring that have been purchased by a

number of private individuals from MacMillan Bloedel in the past four

months.

Much of this land is being heavily logged. It's of

extreme concern to the island and the Islands Trust. It has an

incredible environmental impact upon Saltspring Island. I wonder if the

minister has under advisement to give to the Islands Trust or to have

discussions with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) some policy

or something in legislation that will permit the Islands Trust to have

some say in that kind of activity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Apparently there are interministry staff discussions taking place, but

it's not quite as simple as it may appear. The regulations on logging

on private land are rather complicated, but I can assure the member

that discussions at a staff level are presently taking place.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't know if I have to ask leave to make an introduction, because

the individual I wish to introduce is sitting here on the floor of the

Legislature. If leave is required, I take it I've got it, and if not,

I'm going to make the introduction anyway.

I notice on the

floor, seated behind the minister, the former mayor of Esquimalt, Mr.

Ken Hill. I didn't notice Mr. Hill when he walked in, and I must say

it's a pleasure to see him. I would ask that all members of the House

join me in welcoming Mr. Hill, who served until last year as the mayor

of Esquimalt. On behalf of all of us on this side of the House, we

extend our welcome to former Mayor Hill.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE :

I will join, but I won't ask leave to join in greeting the chairman of

the Provincial Capital Commission, the deputy minister to the Minister

of Municipal Affairs for the Provincial Capital Commission. Mr. Hill

and I have some disagreements on a process, but I still think we can

talk to each other. I hope we can.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : I happen to represent the capital region and have some concerns, Mr. Member.

want to read part of Mr. Gilbert's letter to Mr. Mel Couvelier

concerning the logging on Saltspring Island. I think it really puts in

a nutshell the concern of the Islands Trust and why time is of the

essence in dealing with this issue.

[ Page 4926 ]

There

are 4,800 acres in this fairly substantial logging process that is

going on. It's incredibly dramatic for that island. Mr. Gilbert says:

"The Islands Trust has a mandate to preserve and protect the

environment, and is expected to regulate orderly development,

compatible with the rural nature of the islands. I am sure you will

appreciate that our job is impossible, given these circumstances.

Investor confidence in the island has been shaken by these events, as

development proceeds without apparent control and the local government

appears powerless."

Can the minister give us a time when we might expect some resolution to this very important issue for Saltspring Island?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, I'm afraid I'm not able to do that at this time.

MR. BLENCOE :

I have put it on notice to the minister, and I hope we will get some

report back on that as soon as possible, because it is of grave concern

on the island. I don't have the exact reference, but my understanding

is that it is a large portion of the forested area of Saltspring. A

substantial percentage of the island potentially could come down in the

very near future.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'm told that

the Islands Trust already has some limited power to control logging

where it might create an environmental hazard. May I suggest to the

second member from Victoria that if he has some specific suggestions as

to how this situation could best be handled as far as logging on

private property is concerned, we would be very pleased to hear from

him.

MR. BLENCOE : Without going into detail, I will

just recommend that somehow we take a look at the Islands Trust or the

council. The private operators have to come to the council to get some

permits....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, I wish that member would leave this House. He's a

continual nuisance in this House. Go back to Antigua, will you!

The

only suggestion I have is that we look at some way that the Islands

Trust or the council can be involved in permit issuance for such

activities.

I want to leave the Islands Trust because there

are a number of things I want to cover today, and hopefully we will get

finished today on Municipal Affairs and transit. My colleague from

Surrey, I believe, will be dealing with transit.

An issue

has come to my attention today that I want to take up with the minister

and deal with right away. It is to do with firefighters' rights and

access to private property. It has been reported to me that the acting

fire commissioner has stated that some fire departments in British

Columbia are operating illegally, due to absent or inadequate bylaws

allowing them access to public property. Without proper bylaws, fire

departments can be refused access to private property, and individual

firefighters may be subject to legal action if they do not enter a

property to fight fires. This problem is particularly acute in smaller

volunteer departments in the province.

I am wondering if

the minister is aware of this situation, and how many departments in

the province are presently operating under such restrictions or

insufficient or nonexistent bylaws. I'll have some more questions after

that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : To the second member from

Victoria, you will recall the introduction of Bill 30 that was dealt

with last year. This provided a level of protection, and we are now

working with local government and providing them with advice on

recommended model bylaws that they should be introducing in order to

ensure that the protection afforded under Bill 30 is available to

firefighters throughout the province. We don't have any idea of the

numbers.

MR. BLENCOE : A further question to the

minister: are you conducting an organized program of updating bylaws of

all fire departments? Is that an ongoing process? Are you reviewing all

of them?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, the ministry is not

reviewing them, but we are assisting with advice to local government in

order that they ensure their bylaws are in order.

MR. BLENCOE :

In my estimation, this is a very critical and dangerous situation. The

fact that many smaller communities don't have adequate bylaws is part

of small communities not having the resources or the experts to draw up

their bylaws. What they have relied on is a full-staffed Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, where we had adequate staff time to consult and help

local government draw up such bylaws. Because this ministry has been

downsized, its importance devalued and the number of staff in these

areas that could advise local government cut dramatically over the last

few years, we are now getting to a situation like we have with fire

departments, which have bylaws that clearly don't guarantee access to

private property to put out fires or protect firefighters who, if they

don't go in because they're not protected by bylaw, could be subject to

legal action.

Once again we have this government's

continuation of restraint and cutbacks in key public servants in key

ministries, which is resulting in such situations across the province.

One area that I found out today is that not the right bylaws in a

number of communities.... The minister cannot tell me how many

communities are involved, and I would suggest that this minister better

find out how many communities are involved. If you don't have the right

bylaws and these communities are not prepared, you're asking for all

sorts of legal problems. The minister may wish to respond.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The member for Victoria appears to be waving a memo in the air. If he

would like to provide me with some specific information that is a bit

more precise on which area has the concern or who is expressing the

concern, I would be pleased to address that particular situation. I can

assure you that I have nothing but the highest regard for local

government and the fact that they are, to the best of their ability,

ensuring that all of their bylaws are kept in a current and

satisfactory state. We have very capable and competent staff in the

ministry who are always ready, willing and able to provide assistance

to ensure that whenever local governments do not have resources

available to them, they can always call on the ministry.

MR. BLENCOE : I presume the minister knows who the acting fire commissioner is. It's the acting fire commissioner

[ Page 4927 ]

who

has made these statements. I would suggest that the minister really

should be on top of this. If she can give assurances to this House that

her staff will immediately start to work on this issue.... We don't

know how many communities across the province, because of the lack of

support from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in terms of adequate

staff to advise them on proper bylaws, on legal implications of

bylaws.... We now have a situation where there may be numerous

communities in this province that don't have the appropriate bylaws to

ensure adequate fire protection.

MR. JACOBSEN : I'd

just like to go back momentarily to the matter of logging on private

land. I just wanted to say to the minister that British Columbia

probably has the best foresters in the world, barring any nation. I

know the minister is very courteous, but I would caution her against

seeking from the second member for Victoria advice on how that problem

should be handled, because there are people who can provide that

information and, I think, provide it very well. I think the source she

is referred to might not really be a very good solution to the problem

at all.

MR. BLENCOE : I want to thank that member for his comments. I think that's his second speech since he arrived in this House.

All

I want to say is that we take environmental issues and those beautiful

islands seriously. The Islands Trust is not asking to curtail logging

operations; they're asking to be involved in the process. You've got

4,800 acres of land on Saltspring that supposedly could come down any

day, and I think there is some valid concern. That's all I am raising,

Mr. Chairman.

I suppose that member over there thinks that

if the marketplace determines everything, anything goes in British

Columbia. I would suggest that's the problem with this province today.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : The sheep are in the House today.

The

minister was going to respond to this issue of fire bylaws in terms of

maybe putting an emergency team on it to ensure that we deal with it

fast.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I wasn't going to respond

to putting on an emergency team. What I was going to say was that along

with a number of bylaws that local governments have a responsibility to

deal with, this forms part of their jurisdiction and responsibility. It

would seem to me that it would be entirely out of line for us to zero

in on one sector of their responsibility, go in and start looking over

their shoulder and asking them to prove to us that they have adequately

dealt with that type of situation. We provide assistance and advice

through the ministry. On a daily basis, staff in this ministry work

very closely with the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which is the

organization that truly represents all levels of local government in

the province. If there is a severe problem in one area or another, it

is addressed as quickly as possible.

At this time, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to present staff members who are on the floor

and acknowledge the very significant and valuable contribution they

have made towards the operation of the functions that fall within the

responsibility of this ministry. Representing B.C. Transit we have Mr.

Stuart Hodgson and Rick Krowchuk. From the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs we have the acting deputy, Ken MacLeod, and Larry Seminiuk, and

from the Provincial Capital Commission we have the chairman, Ken Hill,

and staff member Larry Beres. I would like the House to acknowledge the

dedication and hard work that all these people put into ensuring that

the tasks that have been given to them are handled in a responsible,

efficient and effective manner.

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm not going to leave this fire thing for a couple of minutes, because

I get the feeling the minister is just trying to haze over it and get

it out of the way.

Your acting fire commissioner has said

that fire departments in British Columbia are operating illegally due

to absent or inadequate bylaws allowing them access to public property.

It seems to me that's a very serious statement and a very serious

situation in the province. We have no idea how many communities in this

province are working under inadequate bylaws for the safety of citizens

and private property. I suggest that the minister should immediately

say to this House that she is going to get details of the situation and

ensure this House that these bylaws are going to be dealt with and that

the people of British Columbia are going to be adequately protected.

The acting fire commissioner has made these statements, and the

minister seems to think that's not a major issue.

MR. R. FRASER :

Prompted by the remarks from the second member for Victoria yesterday,

I took it upon myself today to have a tour through the former St. Ann's

Academy, and I was impressed by how marvellous that institution must

have been at one time. Certainly the location, the grounds and the

plantings were wonderful. The building, however, is something

different. I was all over that building, from the basement to the

attic, looking at the stairways, the partitions inside, the ceiling

treatments, the floor coverings and the doorways, I would have to

differ from our friend in Ottawa who said that the interior of the

building was "true heritage." In fact, there have been so many

renovations inside the building that I doubt there's much heritage

value left.

What I was impressed with relates to the

subject just brought up by the second member for Victoria, which is

fire safety. I would be very surprised to find that the building met

fire codes, in spite of the fact that renovations to the interior

include several fire doors. I note that the stairways — which are quite

interestingly done with quite nice banister treatment — go right

from the basement to the upper floors. Should a fire start in that

building, there's no doubt that those stairways would act as chimneys

making the fire proceed much faster. No doubt when the windows on the

lower floors were broken, the rushing air would act like vents into the

basement and furnace, and with the exterior walls made of brick,

there's no doubt that building would be an inferno in no time.

What

little I could see of the structural part of the building suggested to

me that there was very little steel in the building, and that it was

undoubtedly mostly heavy timber-frame construction, which is an

interesting way to build and not unlikely in the time the building was

put up. But right now, it is my view that anybody who works above the

second floor is straight out of their minds. I was pleased to see that

the Handicapped Action Committee was on the main floor and

[ Page 4928 ]

had

two ways to get out of the building, both at ground level with no

stairs. Anybody who works on the upper floor of that building should,

in my view, be asking some questions. I would like to have the minister

assure us that the building is safe, at least from a fire point of

view. I think that building is a monumental task to rebuild, just from

a safety point of view — let alone architectural integrity.

With

respect to the suggestion from the member opposite that firemen can't

get into public properties, I suspect they can. Maybe they cannot get

into private properties. I suspect the minister will be prepared to

advise the House that she will be asking the various districts around

the province to ensure that their firemen have access to properties.

But first of all, St. Ann's Academy: that, I suggest, is a problem building.

MR. BLENCOE :

I believe the minister wishes to respond to the first member for

Vancouver South. I am really pleased that there are other members, like

the member for Vancouver, showing a great interest in St. Ann's. It's

nice to see that. It is a beautiful building; you're absolutely right.

But he may not have read the concept plan that was done in 1986 by a

number of well-known engineers. I'm sure you know some of those

engineers. They put a terrific proposal together, and they dealt with

some of your concerns. The result is that we can deal with them.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been the political will to deal with this

building, from the provincial level, in keeping with the historical

significance of that site. I am of the opinion that we could have the

Canada West national arts and cultural centre on the Pacific coast....

HON. MR. REID : Does Victoria want to put up the money?

MR. BLENCOE :

Look, you can find the money for the B.C. Lions. You can find the money

for half a billion dollars in Coquihalla overruns. You can't find the

money for this incredible institution in our midst? I can't believe

that. This community feels you can do it if you wish. I wish the

members from Saanich and from Oak Bay would come in and enter this

debate, because they are involved in this. We have this site.

I'm

pleased the member from Vancouver has taken the time to look at it, and

I recommend the concept plan to him. Maybe he could convince his

colleagues from Victoria....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, it can be done.

The minister wishes to respond.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Thank you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. BLENCOE :

I can only conclude that the minister is finally choking up over St.

Ann's and at long last would like to acquire some provincial funds, but

she seems to be stymied by the member from Saanich, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Obviously, it's not in his riding, so

he's not concerned about St. Ann's. It is not in the riding of the

member from Oak Bay, the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), so he's

not concerned. If they're listening on their boxes.... I'm sorry, the

second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) is here

listening intently. I'm glad he's here. If the Finance minister and

Attorney-General are listening in their offices, I would hope they

would come in and join the debate on St. Ann's. I hoped we would finish

the debate on St. Ann's, but it seems to be continuing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I apologize for the break.

am led to believe that the fire commissioner's office has restricted

the use of St. Ann's Academy to a maximum of 100 people, the lower

three floors only, and that it must be upgraded to safe fire standards

within four years.

I would be interested in knowing who the

memo was sent to that the member for Victoria has been waving around.

It is my understanding that Mr. Dumala has been advising local

government and suggesting that they check their bylaws to ensure that

they are legal and that they do fit in with the protection that was

brought in last year under Bill 30.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE :

On the fire issue, would the minister agree today to conduct an

investigation into the situation re bylaws dealing with fire access?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I don't know whether the word investigation is appropriate, but I can

assure you that my staff will be looking into the matter to ensure that

appropriate steps are being taken and that local government are well

aware of their responsibilities in this regard. Certainly we can make a

commitment to continue to provide the best advice possible to local

government, to ensure that their bylaws are properly in place.

MR. BLENCOE :

I think it goes back to the fact that we have a lack of staff in the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs these days to give advice to smaller

communities. I would remind the minister that there are some

communities that don't even have any bylaws in this area. I think we

need to find that out right away, because we could be asking for some

serious trouble. Perhaps this ministry had better start to take a look

at its staffing levels, because I don't think this is an isolated case

in terms of service to smaller communities in the province of British

Columbia. The minister has agreed she'll do some investigation.

I want to move on to another topic, and that is revenue sharing, unconditional grants —

all the things that usually are very boring and mundane to most people,

but that to local government are, of course, absolutely critical.

Revenue sharing was $204 million in '85-86, $223 million in '86-87,

$231 in '87-88 and $239 million in '88-89. However, I note that

municipal grants went down about 20 percent, and regional district

grants have gone up dramatically. Does the minister know why that is

happening? The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) would be

interested in that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Is the member referring to the unconditional grants or to the sewer and water portion of the grants?

MR. BLENCOE :

I've confused planning grants with revenue-sharing. I apologize. The

planning grants, which were predominantly municipal, now are going to

regional.

[ Page 4929 ]

I'm

looking at my supplementary memo here: municipal planning grants,

$500,000; regional districts, $450,000. In '85-86 the grants were

municipal, $627,000, regional districts, $220,000. Municipal grants

have gone down 20 percent between'85-86 and'87-88, while regional

districts have gone up 104 percent. Is there a reason for that?

I'll get back to the other

part in a minute. I apologize to the minister for confusing the two.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It's project specific, so there's no hidden agenda or program to start

moving more of the money over to regional districts versus incorporated

areas. It really is need and project specific.

MR. BLENCOE :

I want to cover the unconditional revenue-sharing. I've listened to the

minister's speech over and over again in various places, and she refers

to stabilizing unconditional grants at $100 million. I would remind the

minister that what she didn't tell all those municipalities and elected

officials is that since 1982 we have not had anything higher than $100

million in unconditional grants. Actually, in '85-86 it dropped to $90

million and $95 million. The impression given by the minister is that

she has done a marvellous thing in stabilizing it at $100 million. Can

local government expect to see an increase in that portion? It is, as

the minister knows, an extremely important component of the operations

of local government, and it's stuck at $100 million.

[3:00]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I guess it depends on how you set your priorities. I place a very high

priority on assisting local government in improving their

infrastructure needs. It's part of the revenue-sharing program, hon.

member. If we increase the unconditional grants, we're going to

decrease what we see to be available in the sewer, water and road

portion to assist in infrastructure. We are quite comfortable in being

able to maintain a $100 million lid on the unconditional portions of

the grants, and those moneys are distributed to the municipalities to

use as they see fit.

I can see that in the next ten years

we're going to have to place more emphasis specifically on funding

assistance to allow municipalities to correct some of the

infrastructure problems they are faced with. If we can keep the

unconditional portion at $100 million and see the rest of our revenue

sharing going towards the infrastructure assistance, I think that most

communities would be very happy with that. That's what I hope to be

able to do.

MR. BLENCOE : Let me switch to the

infrastructure issue. The Leader of the Opposition talked about it

yesterday. I just want to touch upon it briefly today, and then we can

move on to something else.

The minister announced sometime

in April, I believe, that immediate infrastructure repairs require

approximately $100 million in the province of British Columbia, and she

announced that she expected to make a presentation to cabinet about

major problems and where the money should be allocated. We know that

$100 million is only a start on what's required. As the minister is

aware, the FCM and the UBCM have done detailed analyses of the

requirements of local government infrastructure. Many of our

communities are old. Their underground services are at the end of their

time. We are facing a major rebuilding in the province of

British

Columbia. We all know that other jurisdictions, particularly in the

United States, have put off maintaining or rebuilding their

infrastructure and consequently today face astronomical bills — billions of dollars — because they refused to deal with it. We need to have a program laid out clearly as quickly as possible.

know, of course, that we've been asking the federal government to

participate; thus far they have not done so. We would hope that maybe

they'll drop their submarine program of $8 billion to $16 billion and

put some of it towards infrastructure in this great country.

I said, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that B.C.

needs $400 million for water and sewage improvement, and apparently the

federal government is willing to participate. However, I'd like to ask

the minister: has the minister presented her case to cabinet yet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The program is presently working its way through the system. I expect

that in the next few months we will have identified.... And that's the

problem. We have to identify a funding source. But, hon. member, we may

be able to have our cake and eat it too if the economy continues to

grow at the present rate, because, of course, our revenue-sharing is

based on an increase in revenues to the province. So with the

projections that we have been led to believe for economic growth, as

far as I'm concerned things are looking very good for the

revenue-sharing program. Where we had $25 million to put into the

infrastructure programs this year, I'm expecting to have considerably

more next year. I would expect that within a very short period of time

we will have identified a funding source that will allow us to increase

the amount of money that we're able to advance to the local communities

to assist them in upgrading their infrastructure needs.

MR. BLENCOE : The minister said it's making its way through the system. Does that mean you have presented it to cabinet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There are other stops.

MR. BLENCOE :

There are other stops. So you're not sure of what cabinet's response is

or what the feeling is in cabinet these days towards such a proposal.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Until a matter is dealt with by cabinet, it is difficult to predict the

response. But as the member knows, this program has received fairly

extensive publicity, and I have not received any negative comments from

the members in cabinet, so I would assume that if I'm able to put

forward a strong argument, as I know I am going to be able to do, we

should be able to come forward with something before too long.

MR. BLENCOE :

Is the minister aware that the Alberta government recently made $500

million available to municipalities in Alberta to do this very thing

that we need to do in British Columbia? You're not aware of that. Maybe

it might be very useful to take a look at the Alberta situation, and

look at their programs. They have done it, and I think they're to be

complimented. They have decided to....

Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment here, part of the problem with this kind of issue — sewers and water and underground services — is that it's not a very attractive area

[ Page 4930 ]

for

governments to get into. Without getting into the going over of

history, we've tended to look at projects that have a lot of glitter

and attention and that prior to elections may look good. But these

kinds of issues don't get much attention. Consequently, local

government has struggled.

I might also suggest that the

provincial government may wish to reconsider reversing the funding

formula for sewer and water grants. We used to have a formula in the

province that 75 cents out of every dollar for rebuilding our sewer and

water was paid for by the provincial government and 25 cents from

local. That formula — I forget the date — was reversed some

years ago. Is there any consideration of bringing back the old formula

so that local government can at least know that there is greater

financial support from the provincial government to rebuild this

infrastructure — at least that formula being returned?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The record of this government will show that assisting local government

with infrastructure funding has always been a very high priority. The

member from Victoria correctly referred to a program that was in effect

in the late seventies and early eighties whereby the province did pay

75 percent of the cost of infrastructure. That is why we do have a

system right across this province that is far better and in better

shape than is the case in any other province in Canada. But there comes

a time when we feel that we have addressed the majority of very serious

situations; now the communities are going to have to pay, the local

taxpayers.... As the communities grow, they are going to have to pay a

larger proportion of these costs.

It appears that in some

communities we have problems that those communities are not able to

address on their own. The answer is not simply to say the province is

going to pay a larger percentage so that more of the sewer, water and

road works can be done. It is important that we determine a funding

source that is going to allow us to put more money into this type of

program to allow us to assist communities, not only to upgrade their

failing infrastructure, but to assist them in opening up new areas for

development that is important to a lot of these communities throughout

the province.

There is no question at all about this

ministry's support for an infrastructure program. We realize that it

will provide almost immediately several thousands of jobs and be a real

shot in the arm to the economy right across the province, not to

mention the assistance it will give to all of our communities. It is a

very high priority as far as this ministry is concerned. It has been a

high priority; it continues to be a high priority. We will continue to

see that the local government receives as much assistance as we can

possibly give them in this area.

MR. BLENCOE : I

appreciate the minister's remarks. I believe she is sincere in what she

is saying, but I do have to say that local government has heard — not necessarily from this minister —

the same comments from this government and others over the years: "We

want to rebuild your infrastructure." But along comes another project

that can gain a lot more attention, and that is where the money is

dropped.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Absolute rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE :

That's not rubbish. It's time that the bluff was called and this

government showed that it is deeply and sincerely interested in local

government and that it's prepared to put the money up front in a

special five-year program for rebuilding infrastructure in the

province; not saying, "We're working on it," or "We're looking at it."

We are three, four, five or six years behind this one. Alberta has

moved ahead. The '84 figures of $400 million done by the FCM — that's four years ago. The costs have grown. We have no estimates now of how much is required.

Not

to downplay the minister's sincerity, I have to say that local

government continues to wait for a program. There are communities in

desperate trouble. In my own community we are considering dumping far

more raw sewage out here into the saltchuck because we can't get

support from the provincial government to allow us to do the proper

treatment.

A correction. I believe the minister is interested in treatment. We've just got to get the local players to be more interested.

Generally,

though, there hasn't been enough interest from the provincial

government in rebuilding infrastructure in the province. Other projects

have had a higher priority, and sometimes, in our estimation, those

have been questionable priorities. In our estimation, there is no

higher priority than ensuring local government is healthy in terms of

its infrastructure, its support system and its services.

all talk about economic development and opening up for growth. If those

communities are not in great shape, we won't get the economic

development. All you have to do is ask the captains of industry. When

they consider moving into a community, there are certain things they

look for. One is the services — what is in good shape, what's there.

happens to be a very important issue and it should be dealt with as

quickly as possible. I hope we can hear in the next few months the

announcement of a major infrastructure rebuilding program in British

Columbia.

[3:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I have a lot of patience, but the member opposite is going over the

same discussion time and time again. He attends most of the municipal

conferences that I do, and he has heard me on every single, solitary

occasion say that the infrastructure needs of the communities' are a

high priority in this ministry. I guess it doesn't really matter;

nothing is ever enough.

The comment that disturbs me most

of those I've just heard from the member is that in his own community

there are infrastructure problems that we have not addressed. I have

just checked the list that we have before us, and we don't have any

applications from the city of Victoria for sewer and water grants. The

member has not, in my year and a half in this ministry, come to discuss

any of his constituency-related concerns with me. I have to say that a

good many of his colleagues have done so, from both sides of the

House — so I have to assume that we don't have a problem in the city of Victoria.

the capital region we have several sewer, water and road grant programs

that have been approved this year, but not as a result of any great

effort made by the member opposite. We are dealing, Mr. Chairman, with

a revenue-sharing program made up of a portion of the revenues taken in

by the province. As long as the revenues continue to increase, our

revenue-sharing program will continue to grow, and we will thereby be

able to assist as many communities as we possibly can to upgrade their

infrastructure program.

If the member has a specific concern in the city of Victoria, he should maybe talk to the council and ensure that

[ Page 4931 ]

they put forward their application for funding assistance to the ministry.

MRS. GRAN :

I can no longer sit here without making a comment about the diatribe

from the other side of the House. I recognize that the system is such

that the members on the other side of the House commit themselves to

speak for a certain length of time regardless of whether there is

content or not.

Having been a municipal politician, I'd

like to say that this minister has the complete confidence of the total

of the UBCM, and I've heard that many times from many areas of this

province. This minister understands her ministry; she responds to

concerns. And I think it doesn't serve the member opposite well for me

to hear that he hasn't even taken his concerns for his constituency to

that minister.

In the future, when you're doing your

discussions on that side of the House, I think you may well do your

homework by at least going to the minister and taking the concerns of

the constituency that you represent. I've been in her office I couldn't

count the number of times with concerns from an area — the member might be interested to know —

that has probably ten times as many problems as Victoria does. Langley

is one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the entire province,

with a long list of needs. This year, considering the percentage of

grants given, we did very well. I can tell you, Mr. Member, why we did

well: it's because the MLAs representing that area did their homework.

MR. BLENCOE :

I thank the member for Langley for her first speech of the session and

remind her that I was not talking about making application to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs; I was talking about lack of sewage

treatment in this community as an example. I was talking about the fact

that the formula has been reversed for such support. I've already asked

the minister to reconsider reversing the formula back again, so the

member may wish to take back what she is saying.

Quite

frankly, I will continue to pursue these issues because they are

important to local government. This government says it believes in

local government and they're going to rebuild the infrastructure in

this province, but we haven't seen any action yet. That member gets up

and talks about how UBCM respects that minister. My job on this side is

to ensure that this minister does her job and gets things going for

local government, so I make no apologies. I'm glad that the fourth or

fifth person on the other side has gotten up to defend the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Great. She probably needs all the defence she can

get.

I will leave that infrastructure question by saying

we'll believe it when we see it. We hope that in the next year we'll

have a major announcement on an infrastructure program that will start

to address the needs of local government, not just, "We're working on

it, we sincerely believe in it," and no action — which we've had for the last few years.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would just like to clarify that point before we get into another

discussion. How can you say that more than $100 million spent every

year is no action? As I stated earlier, it doesn't matter what the

amount is; it's never quite enough.

We have a very

substantial increase in the conditional portion of our grant budget

this year. The member doesn't even pay attention when I'm trying to

respond, but for the record, the conditional and unconditional portion

of our budget is continuing to grow. It is a high priority. I don't

want any false impression to be left by the member from Victoria that

this government somehow doesn't care about the infrastructure needs of

local government. We certainly do, and we will continue to press for

additional funding in order to continue the program of support that

we've had for many years.

MR. BLENCOE : I was going to leave this issue, but after that comment, I can't. Local government has been asking for years — the record is there, the studies have been done —

and you haven't done anything. You spend half a billion dollars on the

Coquihalla, a waste of a heck of a lot of money, and local government

continues to struggle and can't maintain its services.

need an answer for local government. Local government wants to know

that this problem is going to be announced as soon as possible; no more

"We may be going to get to it," or that you sincerely believe in it.

Let's have the program announced. Let's see that cabinet has endorsed

it. Let's rebuild the infrastructure in the province.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We could go on here for three or four days talking about the specifics

of this program. It's very clear that the member opposite doesn't

understand the guaranteed funding source for this type of function.

This is not anything to do with the Coquihalla. This is nothing to do

with SkyTrain. This has nothing to do with the convention centre in

Victoria. It's nothing to do with any of the other projects.

MR. BLENCOE : Tell us about the $800 million overrun on the Coquihalla.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'd be pleased to tell you about that. It's just so obvious that once again the homework has not been done.

The

old programs, $100 million, the new program, $25 million, the

unconditional portion of the program, $100 million; and the member

continues to stand up and say the local governments have been waiting

for years. I don't know what he means they've been waiting for years.

He's got a nice grin on his face: he's obviously not serious when he

throws out that statement. We have been assisting the local government

in their infrastructure needs, and we will continue to do so.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm going to leave it there by saying the minister can have all the

ministers of defence she wants, but in my travels the frustration level

is there. They've heard minister after minister saying they're going to

do something about it, and nothing has been done. Many municipalities

are facing real problems with their infrastructure, and I hope that

when we're doing these estimates next year we can at least announce the

start of a major infrastructure rebuilding. The ministers of

defence — the member for Langley, the member for Vancouver and all

the others who've gotten up in the last few days to defend the Minister

of Municipal Affairs — hopefully will also be able to defend their

position next year in terms of the infrastructure program that we lack

in the province today.

I have here a brief from the Greater Vancouver Regional District finance department. It has just come to the attention

[ Page 4932 ]

our caucus. I haven't read it all yet, but it has some fairly

interesting statements. Apparently there have been some disparities in

the use of property tax assessments on a provincial base in determining

which way certain grants are calculated for the greater Vancouver area.

According to Gilbert Blair, the chairman of the board of directors,

that disparity is of the order of $180 million per year and it's going

to get worse in the years ahead as the reassessments of residential

property in greater Vancouver rise in relation to the rest of the

province.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether the

minister's staff have looked at the full implications of this. I have

to say that our staff have not done that yet, because we've only just

got it. But there would appear to be some really serious

recommendations and implications in here. I'm wondering where the

minister will be going with this and what discussions will be ensuing

in the next few months.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : For the

information of all members, I did have a meeting with some of the

executive, including Mayor Blair, in my office last week. I will be

meeting further with them — I believe it's this weekend — to

discuss their report. But they are, in our opinion, mixing apples and

oranges when they confuse the revenue-sharing grants and the education

financing. Really, the responsibility for our ministry, as I see it, is

to deal with the communities in the entire province, not one portion of

the population. I expressed that to the members who met with me last

week, and I have told them that I have already made a commitment to the

members of the UBCM to discuss on a provincewide basis the taxation

concerns, the revenue and expenditure concerns that they have. We will

be doing that on a provincial basis, not on an isolated regional basis.

In the meantime, I will be meeting with the board of the GVRD to

outline our response to their report. We don't necessarily agree with

all of their assumptions, but we're meeting with them and we'll be

discussing whatever concerns they have. They agree to a provincewide

meeting taking place.

MR. BLENCOE : I'll leave that one and I'm sure we'll get further updates.

want to move to the issue of homeowner grants and people who leave the

Veterans' Affairs jurisdiction. I have a letter here from a person in

Vancouver which I think outlines the problem of this homeowner grant

situation and people who fall between the ages of 60 and 65. It says

here:

"In British Columbia, a grave injustice

is being done to veterans' spouses who are widows or widowers between

the ages of 60 and 65. This is done due to the fact that at age 60 they

transfer from the Veterans' Affairs department to the Department of

Health and Welfare. They then are denied the right by your department

of the $250 extra through the provincial homeowner's grant for reduced

taxes oil their homes."

This is a letter

sent some time ago to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I think I

brought this to the minister's attention before, and I'm wondering if

anything has been done about it, because I have a number of letters

from people who leave Veterans' Affairs and then lose this homeowner

grant. Has anything been done?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Can we pull the information on that together and respond a little later?

[3:30]

MR. BLENCOE : Okay. I'll put that over here then, somewhere.

Moving

right along, I have a couple of issues that came out of some of the

regional association meetings, and I wanted to ask the minister where

she is at in terms of the recommendations. This one comes from the

Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. It's regarding a

minimum property tax. The recommendation requests the provincial

government to enact the necessary legislation and regulatory controls

to effect a minimum property tax of $1 for those individuals earning

less than $10,000 per year and for those couples earning less than a

total combined income of $15,000 per year. I think this is a good idea

and something that should be studied. I'm wondering if the minister or

her staff have had a chance to look into this yet.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

As I understand it, there are similar systems in Ontario and Manitoba,

but it would certainly be a fundamental change. I don't really have a

response on that at this time.

MR. BLENCOE : You're

right, it would be a fundamental change. Given what's been happening

the last few years with the squeeze on property owners who have less

income and seniors, it may be something that needs to be reviewed. I

would certainly be hopeful that the minister— and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) in particular —

could have some discussions with looking at a minimum property tax

situation. I'll leave that one, unless the minister wishes to say

anything further on that.

Another issue that has been

brought to my attention in my travels is privatization of highways

maintenance. There has been resolution after resolution at all

municipal association meetings. I'm sure the minister has heard from

many municipalities asking the provincial government to reconsider the

privatization of highways maintenance. I think 80-plus municipalities

have now voiced their concern. I recognize this isn't directly in the

minister's responsibility, but the minister is responsible for local

government and, I hope, listens to local government. I'm wondering what

representation on behalf of those 80-plus municipalities who have

indicated their concern with highways maintenance she has made to the

ministers responsible in cabinet to see if she can have any influence

on the privatization of highways maintenance.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I really think that the voices from local government are very adequate.

I have made no representation with regard to this particular program,

because I happen to support the government position.

MR. BLENCOE : Here's a case, then, where this minister has said over and over — and probably says more than any other minister —

that she believes in local government and consults with local

government and believes in what they say, and yet we have an

overwhelming response from local government. I think virtually every

municipal association in this province has said: "Please do not

privatize highways maintenance." It's a dramatic statement right across

this province, and yet we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs not

prepared to even recognize that local government is saying something

quite dramatic.

[ Page 4933 ]

would appear that only when it's in the interest of the political

agenda of this government is this government prepared to stand up for

local government and back up what they want to see happen in this

province. Over and over again, that has become abundantly clear as we

go down the term of this government in office. I would hope that this

minister would try to use some of her influence to convince the

government that privatization of highways maintenance is a crazy idea.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I don't know how I could possibly make that type of statement when I don't believe it.

would like to respond to an earlier query with regard to the widows and

the home owner grant and taxation. Apparently there's a difficulty in

trying to determine the eligibility when there's a change in status. I

guess the most I can tell you is that the matter is presently under

review.

MR. BLENCOE : I appreciate that answer There

are a number of people who fall into that category. I've got a number

of letters over the last year, and hopefully we can start to resolve

that one. I will leave that one.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Another minister of defence is braying from the folds over there. The

next issue I want to move to is the Logan Lake situation and the

cabinet decision not to expand the boundaries of Logan Lake. My

understanding is that Chris Woodward, the then deputy, wrote a letter

last fall to the council in Logan Lake indicating that the only step

left in the plan to expand their boundaries was a resolution by the

council stating their desire. It seems that the ministry was very

supportive of the boundary expansion concept that Logan Lake required.

Because of time constraints.... I'm not going to go into the background

of why Logan Lake feels they need it. Suffice it to say their case has

been made, and I think they have a case.

My understanding

is that it looked like everybody was on board for extending the

boundaries, but suddenly this didn't happen. Maybe I don't have to go

through any more of this. It would appear that the ministry was on

board and everything was proceeding, and then, for whatever reasons,

cabinet decided not to go ahead with this extension but go the grant

route, which is really a short-term solution. I'm wondering if we can

see some permanent resolution to this issue in the very near future.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, I'm hoping we'll be able to see a long-time solution as well.

MR. BLENCOE : What would you consider to be a longtime solution — a permanent solution?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

That would reflect on future policy, so I can just give you the

assurance that as long as communities require assistance, we will be

there to assist them.

MR. BLENCOE : Does the minister

agree that the district of Logan Lake makes a good point? I have a

letter from the mayor here. Does the minister agree that the mayor

makes a good case, and is she supportive of that case?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We have addressed their financial concerns by way of a grant, and I don't think anything further is required.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister has to know that the longterm solution is extension of the

boundaries to take in the mines that created the community. Is the

minister saying that the permanent solution is this ad hoc band-aid

grant system?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There are several

ways that the financial problems of Logan Lake and of several other

communities can be addressed. We have chosen to assist them this year

by way of a grant, but the process of reviewing better ways or

alternatives of assisting are continually ongoing, and I really don't

think we have to say that one way is better than another. As long as

the communities are able to survive financially, we feel that we are

addressing our responsibility.

MR. BLENCOE : I'm

going to leave this topic very quickly, but just a philosophical or

global question.... Part of the problem of Logan Lake.... It's not a

unique situation. The province is growing; many areas are becoming far

more sophisticated. Villages are becoming towns, towns are becoming

larger towns, and we have these problems all over the province. I am

wondering what the minister's policy is on this kind of growth. We get

into conflicts over amalgamation issues like Logan Lake, where

territory should clearly be within the boundaries of the municipality.

Is it the minister's policy to keep hands off totally and not try to

encourage what is really part of a normal growth syndrome?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We don't have a hands-off policy. We attempt to address each

community's situation on an individual.... Are you interested in

hearing the answer, hon. member?

MR. BLENCOE : Yes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We address each community's financial problems on an individual basis.

It is not possible to have a policy that would address all the

financial concerns of the communities in the province. Each case is

different. We have restructure grants; we have planning grants. And in

this case we have a special grant to the community of Logan Lake to

ensure that it will survive.

There was a suggestion that

this is a problem in growing communities and in the province as it

continues to grow. The problem with Logan Lake is not because it's

growing; it's because it is shrinking, and their financial tax base is

shrinking. This is where Logan Lake has run into a bit of a problem.

But the concerns are well known to the ministry. We had the inspector

visit the community last year and do a thorough review of its financial

situation. We are well aware of the problems in that community, and we

are addressing them.

MR. BLENCOE : I don't consider these interim grants, these ad hoc band-aid solutions, as the real way to go. I just hope, and I know — having talked to the mayor of Logan Lake and others at length —

that they are really counting on this government to consider a solution

more in keeping with the case they have made and which has been

justified. I'll leave it there.

I want to talk briefly

about local elections and some of the issues that have arisen. We're

moving right along here, Mr. Chairman. It's too bad that the chairman

of the Provincial Capital Commission.... I hope he hasn't come for

naught today.

[ Page 4934 ]

Every

year I bring up the issue of local elections; there is always something

that comes to our attention. Last year, for example, I brought up the

whole question of some people in the province having more than one vote

because they own property. It has come to my attention on a number of

occasions.... People have actually admitted to me that they have voted

in the community they live in for the council and the school board,

then gone to downtown Victoria to use their property vote for the

council, and then voted a second time for school board — they cast ballots twice.

can look back; a number of issues have been raised about local

elections. I'm not going to go through the whole enumeration thing, or

which voters' list...or not to have a voters' list, because one day, I

hope, that will be dealt with. In my estimation, we really should have

some appropriate voters' list that can be used.... We went through this

in the last election, and luckily we got through it. The minister made

some changes, but without authorization of the Legislature.

[3:45]

I have also had a letter from a candidate who is complaining with, I

think, some valid comments about the returning officer casting the

deciding ballot in a tie. In the opinion of this candidate, the

returning officer was clearly not unbiased, and was well known....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Who was?

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, the point I make is that that kind of breaking of the tie in such

an archaic, old-fashioned way may not be appropriate today, and maybe

we need to take a look at that and other issues.

My basic question is: what is the minister doing to review local elections and procedures?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We have had discussions with the UBCM and the municipal officers'

legislative committee, and we're seeking technical advice and

suggestions as to how some of these little kinks can be ironed out. I

would suggest that when all is said and done, our election process is

working very nicely, and we have very few complaints or reasons for

complaint. It is a matter under advisement at this time; and as advice

and suggestions come in, we attempt to address those concerns.

MR. BLENCOE :

At the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities meeting, there

was a recommendation to delete the three-month residency requirement

for electoral registration in local government elections. Does the

minister agree that might be a good idea?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, I'm aware that it is a subject of discussion. I can assure the member that that matter is under consideration.

MR. BLENCOE : I'll leave that one. I'm sure we'll be coming back to that next year, and there's a lot more that can be covered under it.

want to move on to a topic that I think is of great interest to the

minister and one that I think she's been involved in, and that's the

Bible Fellowship Missionary Society — the complex on 66A Avenue in Surrey. First, could the minister explain to this House her involvement in that society?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I don't have any "involvement," Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE : Could the minister advise this House what she has done on behalf of this society in either a public or a private way?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It would have been nice if I'd had a bit of forewarning. I could have

pulled the file on this, because my recollection is not entirely clear.

What I do recall is that I brought forward a private member's bill that

would ensure the religious and educational operation on this property

would be eligible for the same type of tax exemption as other places.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hate to interrupt, but during estimates

we discuss the administrative responsibilities of the minister, not a

private member's bill when the minister was a back-bencher; nor items

that happened in the riding but are not related to the ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. The Chair recognizes the point and appreciates the learned advice.

MR. BLENCOE :

The reason I raise the issue is that it is a municipal issue. Municipal

taxes are being forgone or not paid on this particular property. It's a

well-known one in Surrey. It's a great controversy in Surrey because

all the residents of Surrey are having to pay the bill for no taxes

being paid on this facility — a massive complex. Now they want to

build townhouses on the site and be forgiven taxes for that. I wonder

if the minister can tell us: is it accurate that the print shop on this

Bible Society land...? By the way, the minister is quite correct: she

did bring a private member's bill through this House, and therefore is

personally involved. I recognize that.

The print

shop, which printed the federal voters' list during the '84 federal

election, and printed the campaign literature for you, Madam Minister,

and Socred-backed Surrey Non-Partisan Association municipal and school board slates, has no business licence and pays no taxes.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm not really sure whether that's accurate or not. I would suggest

that that's probably up to local government. It seems to me that they

have good taste.

MR. BLENCOE : Could I ask the minister responsible for Municipal Affairs —

and therefore, hopefully, interested that taxes that should be paid are

indeed paid.... I would suggest that the print shop that printed the

minister's literature, and printed for well-known Social Credit-backed

organizations, is a business and has done stuff for the minister on a

political level. She steered through this House important legislation,

and now we understand this business has no business licence and no

taxes are being paid by this business, supposedly under the guise that

this organization is nonprofit. I would suggest that this print shop is

profit and the minister is aware of that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm not sure whether this really relates to my estimates. Number one, I

would suggest that the business licence is certainly a responsibility

of the local government. Whether there are taxes paid or not paid, or

if there's an exemption on a print show that would be within the

authority of the Assessment Authority. I really would suggest that this

line of questioning is rather out of

[ Page 4935 ]

order.

If the member for Victoria feels that he wants to put me on a hot seat

or question me, it would be more appropriately done in question period.

MR. BLENCOE :

The reason I didn't do it in question period is because it allows for

greater discussion and response from the minister.... I asked the

minister a question. As Minister of Municipal Affairs, and obviously

concerned that appropriate tax exemptions are done correctly, will the

minister agree to take a look into this complex, into the print shop

and the catering business that this organization runs, and see whether

it has the right to not pay for a business licence or taxes. I think

that one might be of interest also to the member for Surrey.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It isn't too relative, but as a taxpayer in Surrey, I would like to

think that everybody who is supposed to be paying a business licence

would be paying a business licence and that Surrey council and their

administrative staff would be doing their job in ensuring that that was

the case.

MR. BLENCOE : I just want to point out that

I think it behooves the minister, given her connection, given the work

they've done for her, given that she's Minister of Municipal Affairs,

given that she has an inspector of municipalities and all those things

to oversee these sort of things, to ensure that this matter is cleared

up that there isn't a conflict of interest and that this organization

does rightfully have, in law, the right not to pay business taxes or

business licence or any real property taxes on some of these

operations. I would hope the minister is prepared to clear that up.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

With a wink and a nod, the member for Victoria sat down, but I'm not

sure what we have accomplished. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you

refer to the fact that we are supposed to be dealing with vote 51, the

minister's office. If you have some questions of me in another vein,

they should be better put to me at question period.

MR. BLENCOE :

I was prepared to let this go if you were prepared to investigate it,

but you're not. Would you state and let us know in this House if the

print shop in the Missionary Society complex print your literature in

the last campaign?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : On a point of

order, the member has for years indicated that what we need in the

province is local autonomy on behalf of elected officials, and that's

certainly what we have in this case. Now he argues that the minister

should intervene. Let me tell the member, and you, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, let me finish mine because I'm pointing out that the member is

being irrelevant.

Section 400 of the Municipal Act allows a council to

do various things, including giving tax exemptions to those bodies it

feels are appropriate to tax exemptions under

section 400 of the

Municipal Act. Therefore, if the member has any questions about tax

exemptions, they should be addressed to that municipality and not the

minister.

Secondly, with respect to finance and the Assessment Authority, that would

be better addressed to the Minister of Finance, and I'm sure the member

is also aware of that. So this line of discussion, Mr. Chairman, has been totally

out of order.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would like to join the second member for Victoria in furthering this

line of questioning, because I think it's extremely relevant. Not only

is it relevant because the minister brought in a private member's bill

prior to....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I'm awfully

sorry, but that is definitely out of order. It deals with legislation

that has been before this House, been debated and been passed. It

certainly is not germane to the discussion of these estimates.

MR. BLENCOE :

I think it is germane to these estimates. We're dealing with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the minister governing the

actions of local government. We're dealing with the minister who,

hopefully, is interested in the fact that local taxes should be

collected on appropriate property. This minister has been involved and

has passed legislation, and the people of British Columbia are entitled

to have some answers from the minister in this particular instance.

She's the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and no taxes are being paid on

this institution.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member,

everyone knows that we do not debate rulings of the Chair in this

House. That's probably enough said, and we'll proceed with the debate

on vote 51.

MS. SMALLWOOD : What we're debating here

is the minister's performance, the minister's office and the work that

the minister has come to build her reputation on. We're talking here

about a situation not only under her responsibility as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, but very clearly in her own community, and therefore

her responsibility as the elected member.

The situation for

the Pacific Bible College and the housing society exists because of the

actions of this minister. They exist because of the very actions of

this minister and her performance in the past year. We are talking

about this minister's responsibility to fulfil her mandate, so that the

people of this province can be assured that everyone is treated fairly

and is held responsible to the same laws and the same equity. In this

example, this particular facility has been given preferential

treatment. If this particular facility and the taxpayers of Surrey

cannot be assured that they're getting fair treatment, then how can any

action that this minister is involved with be...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On a point of order, I hate to be repetitious, and I've said so

hundreds of times. But let me put it to you this way.

Section 400 of

the Municipal Act allows the local authority to grant tax

exemptions — that's clear. If the members opposite are stating

that legislation should be changed, that's not for the estimates,

because estimates do not allow for discussion of changing legislation.

[4:00]

If the members opposite are debating a private member's bill that

passed some time in the past, that's out of order as well. What we're

here to discuss is the administrative responsibilities

[ Page 4936 ]

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to the operation of the ministry — not legislation or the necessity for legislation or past private members' bills.

MR. ROSE :

On the same point of order, I followed the government House Leader with

some interest and intensity. I'm not sure we're really discussing what

he's discussing though.

In my view, what we're discussing

is a piece of property within a municipality, and I was on the

committee. I won't mention the bill because that would be past bills,

and I wouldn't want the Chairman to become exercised about that. But my

recollection of it is that this piece of property is forgiven municipal

taxes and school taxes for the purpose of conducting a religious

organization — whether it's a school, college or whatever. It's

upon that basis that they were forgiven taxes. If they are, on the

contrary, engaged in a public business of printing for profit or for

gift, that's quite another matter. That's really what we're dealing

with. We're not dealing with the past act at all.

I think

perhaps the request of the second member for Victoria for the minister,

in her capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs, is to look into

whether or not this Bible college — or whatever its name is —

is in fact engaging in a business, contrary to their tax relief or to

the information given us or the assessment authority or the

municipality or the school board. That's all he asked for. Look into

it. Are they clean? Are they legit? Or are they operating some kind of

scam and getting a tax break to boot?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I thank the two hon. members for standing on their feet and advising

the Chair in such an appropriate manner. If the minister will sit down,

I would just like to say one other thing on this. My comment is now

directed to all members who might wish to speak in this debate.

repeat what I said once before: it is an offence against the rules of

this House to debate legislation which has been properly debated and

passed in the House previously. Whether we discuss this directly or in

an indirect way, and that is the way that the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) was approaching the subject

latterly.... Either way, we're still out of order. If you can direct

your questions in a different manner so that you will not be out of

order, the Chair would much prefer it that way.

MR. BLENCOE :

You're right, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult for us to canvass this

issue, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs has been instrumental

in aiding and supporting this organization. Right? Mr. Chairman, it

comes to our....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : And sponsored the bill — I can say that, I hope, in the House — that gave this complex major tax exemption.

Now

we've discovered that there's a print shop. The minister is the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, with all those staff, to conduct proper

investigations and see that things are done properly. We've now

discovered that the print shop, which is basically running a profit

organization, has been involved in working for the Minister of

Municipal Affairs in her capacity as a candidate in Surrey, printed her

literature, printed other well-known Socred literature, has no business

licence, and pays no taxes in Surrey. There are other components of

this conflict that are of concern to us, but right now this is the one

that we're highlighting, and it's the one that sticks out a mile.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in her capacity not as a friend or

worker or whatever for this society, but as the minister: is she

prepared to investigate the situation that I have brought to the

attention of the House today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, are you now going to allow discussion on the subject? I

don't feel that I should be muzzled when the members from the opposite

side of the House have been free to carry on. I have no problem

discussing all of the background, right back to day one, on this

subject. I thought it had been well canvassed. The local press had

pages on it. I don't see what there is left to do today, other than to

somehow suggest that this member, through my ministry or whatever, has

done something that is out of order.

The Assessment

Authority determines whether or not exemptions are legal. Only

educational and religious-purpose properties get exemptions. Right

across the province, similar educational institutions receive

exemptions. I'm not sure what it is being suggested was done that is so

far out of the norm.

Either we all get a crack at this, Mr. Chairman, or I think you should discontinue the discussion on the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The minister latterly was talking in general terms, which is quite

acceptable. I find nothing out of order about that. But the previous

discussion is definitely out of order. If hon. members persist in this

line of questioning, I will have no recourse but to ask them to take

their seats. So perhaps we can go ahead with some other line of

questioning that is relevant to the minister's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE :

I will try and heed your sound advice, Mr. Chairman. I hope you

recognize, though, that this is an important issue because we're

dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I brought up this whole

issue — the problem of conflict.... You have the minister of state

and the conflict over that; you're working for the Kootenays and all

that. I think these are critical issues.

Let me ask you

this, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's my understanding that

the 90 townhouses that are to be constructed may very well be exempt

from Surrey's development cost charge bylaw. That would mean that the

citizens of Surrey would pick up the nearly half a million dollars of

development cost charges for roads, sewers and water. I'm wondering if

the minister has any comments on that issue, given the background to

this particular complex.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : To the

best of my knowledge, there is no provincial legislation that gives

development cost charge exemption to any possible future development on

this property. The bill was very clear that only the part of the

property that was considered to be used for educational or religious

purposes was exempt. If the use of the property changes, the Assessment

Authority would fall into place, and they would then have to make a

determination as to whether whatever happened on the property was

liable for taxation.

MR. BLENCOE : I have a final question, Mr. Chairman. Could I get some agreement from the minister that she's

[ Page 4937 ]

prepared to look into this matter, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I don't see what there is to look into. I would suggest,

with the direct pipeline that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

and the member for Victoria have to the mayor's office in Surrey, that

if they have an area of concern, they should be expressing it in that

way.

MR. BLENCOE : I think the minister is trying to

escape this one, but she's definitely implicated. The fact that she

fails to conduct an investigation into the actions — and her own actions — I think is very telling in this particular case. The record speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman.

want to move on to another issue very quickly if I may: the issue of

assessment amendments that were introduced and have been postponed —

the new formula for charging industrial properties. As you know, we

have created a new resource industry property class of taxation. As the

minister is aware, many communities are waiting for the introduction of

that new classification; unfortunately, it has been deferred. My

colleague from the Kootenays is aware of this. Many communities are

waiting for this to be introduced.

I wonder if the minister

can shed any light on what's happening in that area. Will the

communities waiting for that new formula have good news very soon, Mr.

Chairman?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, this

item does not fall within my mandate, but my acting deputy tells me

that the matter is being worked on by the ministry responsible and

UBCM. Really, I don't have anything further to state on this, because

it's not something that I have been involved with.

MR. BLENCOE : We'll go back to the Bible society, if you want.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : What do you know about the ministry? Haven't you got any relevant stuff?

MR. BLENCOE : We have another minister of defence over there.

recognize, Mr. Chairman, that it's not directly within the mandate of

the minister, but as Minister of Municipal Affairs, when it comes to

taxation issues, and particularly small resource communities, I'm sure

she hears their concerns. Delegations or representations have been made

to her on this particular issue. I would like to know if she will at

least give an undertaking to the communities that are waiting for this

new formula to be introduced. Has she made or will she make

representation to the Minister of Finance to ensure that this new

formula — this new category — is introduced to stabilize assessments for these communities?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There can't be a member of the House who wouldn't support the type of

situation where we would have a stabilization factor. It is being

looked at. There's no question that I will indicate support when the

matter comes forward, and the support would be for a formula that would

best serve the local governments.

MR. BLENCOE : Some

of my colleagues want to talk about transit in a minute. I just have

one request to make. I wonder if the minister can give us an interim

report on the Save-On-Foods investigation, and what's happening in that

situation. I have a couple of questions to follow up on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We haven't received a interim report. I'm sure that you're as informed

as I am, by way of the openness of the meetings and the publicity that

the meetings have generated. That's called open government and open

hearings.

MR. BLENCOE : I'm glad we have open

government in Vancouver We don't have open government in Victoria or in

the Provincial Capital Commission — 22 years of closed meetings.

The deputy minister is here, and he knows how closed those meetings

are, and the millions of dollars that have been spent. But I'm glad

we're open in Vancouver. It is a shame.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : The leader is absolutely correct: the PCC is a shame to this community, and hopefully the minister one day will open it.

want to ask the minister one question relating to the issue of

Save-On-Foods and the unfortunate collapse. The issue has been

discussed that local government sometimes doesn't have all the powers

it needs to conduct this kind of investigation itself. Some people I've

talked to say they did, some say they didn't. I have mixed reviews on

that issue. In the interests of local autonomy and of local government

being able to do some of these things like investigation themselves, is

the minister reviewing these issues which would in future allow local

government to investigate on its own without the provincial government

being involved — if the local government decides that's in their interests, of course?

[4:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I was just going to ask if the member would suggest that it would be

appropriate for local government to investigate itself. I think the

matter of whether or not they would really like to have that authority

is something that is yet to be decided. I would hope that after the

commissioner has completed his inquiry, we will have some

recommendations from him. If they are in line with the fact that

possibly local government should have more authority to carry out this

type of investigation, we would certainly be looking at it. But I would

not like to presuppose what is coming in by way of recommendations from

the commissioner, so before his report is tabled I think it would be

inappropriate for us to start guessing what we should or should not

have done.

MR. BLENCOE : I have one other matter.

It's the minister of state system, which is under a separate vote. I

will deal with that under a separate vote and allow my colleagues who

wish to have some discussion on transit to do so.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm sure that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has no surprise at all

in store. As she sees me stand here, she knows precisely what I'm about

to raise: the matter of HandyDART and, more specifically, a vehicle for

my constituency. It's a subject that the minister and I have had

considerable discussion on, and I appreciate the fact that she has been

forthright with me in the past year or so. We have

[ Page 4938 ]

had considerable correspondence; I have a large file building. Moreover, we have had numerous conversations on the subject.

For

the record, and simply to refresh the minister's memory, I will remind

her of the most recent correspondence I had with her office, namely a

memorandum sending along to her copies of some 50 letters from

individuals in my community saying that yes, indeed, our time has come.

We deserve HandyDART. We've been given assurances for some time. When

will that day arrive? As I say, the minister is certainly familiar with

that.

Moreover, based on conversations I have had with the

minister, I have now drafted what I call a pro forma letter. My letter

gives the same message to one and all: that I am in conversation with

the minister and the assurances I have. The assurances are specifically

that our request is now being treated as "a first priority," and

moreover that the vice-president of the greater Victoria operations for

B.C. Transit has informed us that the Nanaimo system will be included

in the budget development activities to commence in fiscal '87 and to

apply to fiscal '88-89.

My question is a very direct and

very specific one. I'm wondering if the minister can advise me now

whether I can inform my constituents that at long last our day has

arrived. Our ship may not have come in, but perhaps a handyDART vehicle

we'll have. Would the minister care to respond to that direct question?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I thank the member for his interest in that particular service. There's

no question about it; it is really one of the most popular services

provided through B.C. Transit in the entire province. Unfortunately,

there never seems to be quite enough money to go around to fulfill the

demand for that type of service. As you are aware, the Nanaimo service

is the number one priority, and it is our hope that, working within the

budget available to us, along with some cost savings that we hope to

generate in other areas, we will be able to accommodate that service

this fiscal year.

MR. LOVICK : Just to clarify, if I

might. I certainly don't mean for a moment to be critical, because I

know the minister is doing what she can with limited resources. I

accept that, and we appreciate whatever assistance we might get. I have

no allusions about an abundance or a superabundance of money. I'm

wondering, however, whether the minister might be able to give me a

more specific answer on the time-line. Let me just give you a brief

illustration of why I do that, Madam Minister.

I'm sorry to

say that this has become a problem within my community. A number of

people, especially those who are active in the disabled community, are

saying: "We aren't going to be fooled by the responses that you're

getting, Mr. Lovick. We have been given those assurances before, and we

no longer have much faith in them." Sadly, that is a perception that's

out there. I don't fault anybody for it; I merely say that it's a

perception that's out there. I'm wondering if the minister might be

able to give me a somewhat more specific idea of the time.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : All going well, we should be able to have the program firmed up by the fall. Can we say by the fall?

MR. LOVICK : I thank the minister for that, and I appreciate the effort.

MR. HARCOURT : I'd like to make a few comments about the transportation situation in British Columbia.

have B.C. Transit and the commission which review the provincial budget

for transportation and deal with some of the specialized transportation

problems in the province, one of which we've just talked about —

the handyDART system, where we've made some substantial progress over

the last ten years and have taken over a bunch of charitably run

transit systems and amalgamated them into ones that now provide a

reasonable level of service. Although if you talk to the disabled

community, they still think substantial improvements can be made,

particularly with regard to the request to study the retrofitting of

buses in Vancouver and Victoria.

I see that Stu Hodgson is

here, and I know that an experiment was done along one of the routes in

Victoria to change the buses so that they kneel, so that the bus stairs

go down to make them accessible to the disabled community. I'm aware

that Rick Hansen, the coalition for the disabled and many others would

like to see that implemented far more widely than the handyDART system.

They want to see the disabled have access to the existing bus service

and not have to phone and make reservations.

I would like

to ask the minister if there is going to be quick action on this

request from a broad variety of leaders of the disabled community —

from Rick Hansen to a number of others involved in the coalition for

the disabled and other disabled groups. If the minister could enlighten

us on what point that project is at, I'm sure the disabled community in

British Columbia would like to know.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I feel truly honoured that for the second day in a row we have the

leader of the official opposition in while we're discussing this

important budget. Your presence here is really appreciated.

The

matter of retrofitting the existing transit fleet is presently under

discussion; there's no question about that. At its meeting on March 28

the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission instructed B.C. Transit staff

to investigate and report on a recommendation on this topic from the

Vancouver Region Custom Transit Advisory Committee.

assumption has been made that new vehicles to replace 1,094 buses in

the B.C. Transit fleet would cost an additional $14.2 million if fitted

with lifts at the factory and that retrofitting would be more costly.

So it's not a subject that can be dealt with quickly or lightly, but it

is being looked at by the staff, and it is expected that a report will

be back to the commission by September.

MR. HARCOURT :

Thank you for that response, Madam Minister. I look forward to that

report, and if the B.C. Transit research people who prepare that report

could send a copy to me, I would like to have it.

You've

also heard the concerns of some smaller communities which, of course,

are the direct responsibility of B.C. Transit, so I won't comment on

them further. You've heard from the second member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Lovick), and our member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) has some

concerns about the smaller communities, which he'll make you aware of.

would like to concentrate now on some of the major transit crises that

we face in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which serves half

the people in British Columbia. It's a very difficult transit area, as

you know, Madam Minister. It takes in a land area that's twice the size

of metro Toronto, with half the population.

[ Page 4939 ]

I understand

the problems of dealing with that diverse population in that huge land

area. But having said that, in the last five years we have gone through

a massive cut of budget and service and an increase in fares that is

unconscionable. I think it's particularly unconscionable for people in

parts of Vancouver — for example, the West End — where they

ride 12 blocks and pay $1.25; yet people can come in.... I know there

are zone fares now that make up that inequity a bit, but it's still a

very unfair situation, in terms of the 35 percent cut that we faced in

real dollars from 1983 to 1986.

When I was a member of the

Vancouver Regional Transit Commission we had, as the flak-catchers for

the provincial government, the unenviable task of raising taxes

dramatically, of cutting services, and then, on top of that, of trying

to incorporate those cut services into the new rapid transit system.

Those cuts have not been restored. There has been a deterioration of

the service to people throughout the region and a continuing decrease

in service. I was just reading reports from members of the Vancouver

Regional Transit Commission that sounded like 1983 or 1984 — different people, but basically saying the same things.

think it is unfortunate. I hope the minister will be reviewing it,

because it's harming the local economy. It's making it very difficult

for the key users of transit, who are mostly low and modest income

people. It is something that....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT :

Throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Yes, there are a

lot of low-income citizens in the West End. If you would like to talk

further about that, Mr. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

I'd be glad to show you the poverty in the West End and the people who

are suffering there from rent increases, lack of housing, cutbacks in

services and lack of an increase in social assistance. Yes, there is a

great deal of poverty and suffering in the West End, but I'm talking

today about transit. I will enlighten you about the problems that our

citizens are facing.

[4:30]

The real problem — and this is the issue that I want to talk about —

is the financing of the rapid transit system. I've been talking mostly

about the deterioration of the bus service, but the major area I would

like to talk about today is.... I'm not going to dwell too long on

where I think the mistakes were made in 1979 to 1981. The first mistake

was a very clear one of choosing the ALRT system instead of the

conventional rapid transit system, which would have been half to no

more than two-thirds the cost of the ALRT system. The second mistake

was to build the Alex Fraser Bridge instead of a bridge right next to

the Pattullo Bridge that could handle the ALRT across to Surrey, which

I've always supported — supported right from the beginning —

and have three lanes of traffic on that bridge; then to have taken the

Pattullo Bridge, which is one of the more dangerous bridges in British

Columbia, with four lanes on it when it shouldn't have four lanes....

MR. R. FRASER : Tell me how you figured that out.

MR. HARCOURT : I figured it out — through you, Mr. Chairman, to an engineer who should know better —

through listening to engineering experts, listening to engineers from

the regional district and from the engineering profession who aren't

dropping cars through the roofs of shopping malls. These are engineers

who advised us that the most appropriate way to have provided transit

in greater Vancouver would have been to go with the conventional rapid

transit system at half the cost of the ALRT and to have built another

crossing along with the Pattullo Bridge. With the savings we would have

realized, we would then have been able to deal with the extreme problem

that we have right now of getting any extension of the ALRT because of

the cost.

With the saving of almost two-thirds of a billion

dollars that could have been realized just by not going ahead with

those two projects and by going through with the other ones that were

supported by a large number of the political and municipal leaders of

the regional district, we would have been able to build the extension,

not just to where it's going now. which is just across the Fraser River

into Surrey, but right up into Whalley and possibly beyond, and we

could have got on with the other very serious problem in greater

Vancouver. These two high-growth population centres, akin to

Mississauga and Scarborough in Metro Toronto, are Surrey, particularly

North Surrey, and the Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Maple

Ridge and Mission areas. There is a transportation crisis building,

particularly in those areas not served by rapid transit, and that is

out to Coquitlam and Port Moody and along the north side of the Fraser

River.

It was tragic that we made those decisions back in 1979-1981 to have a glitzy new toy for Expo —

a glitzy new bridge. Instead of building for the experts and the

visitors to Expo, we should have been taking care of the business of

the people living here before, during and after Expo. We should have

been proceeding with those two projects: conventional light rapid

transit and double-bridging the Pattullo — changing the Pattullo

Bridge to one-way traffic on three lanes. However, we didn't do that,

so we are dealing with the present reality

The present

reality is that the financing formula for rapid transit doesn't work,

because it is based on a compromise by the now Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), a compromise from the previous Social

Credit cabinet, to finance the construction of the capital works

part — the right-of-way for the rapid transit system — like a

secondary provincial highway, which is fifty-fifty cost-sharing. It's

the submission of most municipal leaders in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District that that rapid transit system is the same as the 401

freeway. It is an urban highway on steel, and the capital costs of that

right-of-way should be treated like an alternative to a freeway. It

should be 100 percent financed by the provincial government, because it

is an alternative to a six- to eight-lane freeway. It is an alternative

to 100 buses an hour along Hastings Street. That LRT is another form of

freeway, and it should be financed that way.

The reason we

are at a standstill on the extensions of rapid transit is that the

local mayors, rightly so, cannot put that cost onto their property tax.

That's already suffering and is already going to have to deal with the

crisis forming in the basic infrastructure of municipal services — which you didn't want to comment on yesterday —

where we should be going in a bipartisan way to the federal government

and pushing them to do the right thing. They cannot afford to extend

the rapid transit further into Surrey and, most importantly, to extend

it to where we have a real problem along the Barnet Highway, through

the Burnabys and the Coquitlams to Port Moody. We should certainly be

extending the rapid transit to the Brunette exchange by the 401

freeway, to the

[ Page 4940 ]

Lougheed Mall and down to the Coquitlam town centre. And we won't, because the financing formula means we can't afford to do it.

Madam

Minister, I would like to urge you to sit down, not just to do a

further study, but to come up with the kind of financing formula to

build rapid transit, to meet with the members of the Vancouver Regional

Transit Commission, so that we can get on with providing people in

greater Vancouver with the rapid transit system they need and deserve,

and so we can then get on with the balancing of roads and rapid

transit, which is the backbone of the regional district's plan for the

region. I would like to know what plans you have to sit down and

renegotiate the financing formula for rapid transit in the Greater

Vancouver Regional District.

MR. R. FRASER : I would

like to start by commenting briefly on the remark of the Leader of the

Opposition that he talked to engineers who told him that the Pattullo

Bridge was unsafe — not the kind of engineers who drop cars on

groceries. I would just like to make it quite clear to him that if in

fact some engineer was responsible for the collapse of that building in

Burnaby, then he should be properly chastised by the association — or whatever action takes place. There's no question about that in my mind — never has been. However, we are not sure, so for him to cast that doubt is not proper, in my view.

Secondly, when I asked him where he got his information on the bridge, it was a legitimate question — I was interested. If you say the bridge is unsafe — some engineer says it's unsafe — then something should indeed be done. Maybe the bridge should be closed if it is not safe enough to travel on — there should be no question about that.

When

we get into matters of judgment, when it comes to traditional or

conventional versus rapid transit, there is no doubt in my mind that we

shouldn't be building, nor should we have built — and I'm glad we did not build —

what is considered to be a conventional rapid transit system, which is

at ground level with ground-level crossings. That's out of date; that's

old-fashioned. That's exactly the kind of design that gets people into

level-crossing fatal accidents, which we want to avoid. That's exactly

the kind of system that doesn't permit the transportation system to get

from A to B in a decent amount of time, and that's why they should be

avoided. That's exactly the kind of system that's difficult to increase

the capacity of, and that's why we want to avoid it.

want to have a system of transportation in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District other than highways that will give us the potential

to increase the load. With the transit system the way it is, we could

put on more trains and increase the capacity without doing anything

really serious in the way of construction. I happen to think that the

layout of the transit system was reasonable going across the river to

Surrey and attaching itself to a huge population that will want to get

downtown. There is no question about that.

I would not be

surprised to find that a great deal of thought went into the placing of

the Alex Fraser Bridge so it could serve the whole of Surrey-Delta down

there that heretofore had trouble getting into the centre of town. It's

important to remind ourselves, I guess, if we have to, that it's so

typical of the opposition party wanting to do everything that's

old-fashioned and out of date. They like to do it because it's easier

to sell things that people recognize, and more difficult to sell things

that are untried, or presumably untried, but are reasonable and have

been successful and visible in other communities.

I guess

we could remind ourselves that there are elevated transit systems that

have been around for many decades, Chicago being one that I can recall

from my travels as a youth. It's important, for example, to have a

transit system that prevents us from having to build another highway

through the lower mainland and across the bog, which is very important.

When we find out the impact of the transit system, of course, it's

quite remarkable. If you want to look at the effect of what the Bay

Area Rapid Transit had on the San Francisco area, I think you would be

impressed with what a system can really do.

I just want to

make those points about keeping up to date and going ahead, and I for

one am very proud of the fact that the technology on that ALRT was

Canadian. It somehow seems to be one of those odd circumstances about

Canadians that we fail to want to recognize or accept Canadian

engineering talent, when we should be exploiting it and making it more

available around the world. Little do we know about what kind of

contributions Canadians make to engineering, but I presume you all saw

an

article recently that pointed out that a man named Turnbull, who was

a Canadian engineer, actually thought of, conceived, designed and built

the variable-pitch propeller which made flying the viable alternative

that it is now.

It is of course with great pride that I

point out it's Canadian technology that we have on the rapid transit,

and it's Canadian technology that we should be exploiting, because

that's how we make this great country grow.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To the Leader of the Opposition, I was a little surprised that you

asked if I would agree to meet with the mayors who serve on the

Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. I couldn't count in the last

year and a half the number of meetings that I have had with that

commission. We were almost homesteading at the transit office in an

attempt to come up with a funding formula that would be good not for

one year, two years or five years, but for ten years.

March 28, Mayor Lanskail, who is the chairman of the commission, and

the mayor of West Vancouver and I issued a joint press release

makes provision for up to three extensions over the next ten years.

That funding formula is presently in place. Further to the numerous....

I was going to say hundreds of meetings, because it certainly seems

like it. There were certainly hundreds of hours spent arriving at that

funding formula, ensuring not only that it would be fair to local

government but that the province would know well in advance what the

responsibilities were.

Further to that, the commission has

asked for more say in how the operation of transit is conducted. On May

24, Mayor Lanskail sent a letter out to all of the participating mayors

and councils in the lower mainland inviting submissions. His exact

words were: "to invite submissions from municipal councils within the

region in respect of the form, structure, organization and operational

policy of the transit system." That is the next phase in the,

hopefully, restructuring and body that will be responsible for not only

the current transit operation but future extensions in the lower

mainland.

For you to suggest that I haven't been meeting

and that we don't have a formula in place, hon. member.... I am at a

loss to understand why you would make that type of statement.

[4:45]

[ Page 4941 ]

Without

going into the entire funding formula with you, I would suggest that

under the old formula when you sat on the commission, the capital costs

and new extensions required approximately a 35 percent contribution

from the province. The new formula sees the province paying in the

neighbourhood of 74 percent of capital costs on new extensions. I think

that the recognition of its responsibility by the province has been

tangibly expressed.

I want to speak further on the type of

system that was selected: this Canadian system that certainly has been

acclaimed not just in the country but right across the world. I

mentioned in my opening remarks that we even had the British....

MR. BLENCOE : You sold the right one for a dollar.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, your system that was really so worthwhile — to the member for Victoria. That was really a wonderful investment that the NDP government made.

MR. BLENCOE : It's a good system. It's all over the world now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Yes, that system is certainly all over the world. But the SkyTrain

system that was selected for the lower mainland has been recognized as

a superior system.

We have had, as I mentioned in my opening comments, some 2,800 transit specialists — these are mayors, councillors, planners, engineers and specialist reporters from all over the world —

visiting the lower mainland to tour the system. We have had British

television visiting the lower mainland so that they could film the

tunnel safety aspects of our system, following the disastrous fire in

the London Underground. It is well recognized, and we have pages of

people that have visited. We've had them from China. I can't even read

some of the.... We've had them from China, from Thailand, from the

Philippines, from Beijing — a community that you and I visited a few years ago, hon. member —

and from Spain. We've had elected representatives from across the

United States as well. We've had them visiting us from Honolulu,

Hawaii. They are considering the installation of a similar system, it

is so highly regarded.

For you to say we should have chosen

a less desirable system because it may have cost less.... I think it

would be interesting for you to view — and I have