1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5979 ]

CONTENTS

Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 5979

Oral Questions

School trustee firings. Mr. Rose –– 5979

Mr. Lauk

Newsprint mill. Mr. Williams –– 5980

Vehicle inspection stations. Mrs. Dailly –– 5981

Tabling Documents –– 5981

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Human Resources estimates. (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

On vote 42: minister's office –– 5981

Mr. Williams

Mr. Davis

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Ms. Brown

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 6004

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 1985

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would

join me in welcoming five young people from Richmond, the board of

directors of the Richmond Young Socreds: Mary Ferguson, Evan Stinson,

Dean Armstrong, Donna Ruth and Kent Armstrong.

HON. MR. PELTON: Visiting us in the House today are some

friends from Calgary, Alberta. I would ask the House to welcome Stan

and Muriel McCormack.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I wonder if the House would welcome four

constituents from Fort St. John who are present in the gallery today:

Mr. Ken Cheesman, Bob Lemieux, Jim Inglis and Henry Litzenberger.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In the precincts today are 17 students and

their five chaperones who traveled here by bus all the way from Bella

Coola. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. VEITCH: In the gallery this afternoon are two people from

Calgary: Miss Robin Butler and Mr. Rene Vandervelde of Korite minerals

company, and I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, please welcome Little Red today, and do everything in your power to make me look good, will you?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to make

welcome a group of students, accompanied by Jan Denny, who are visiting

the precincts today.

Introduction of Bills

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Travel Agents Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be

introduced and read a first time. In making the introduction, Mr.

Speaker, I wish to advise the House that this bill authorizes a loan

from consolidated revenue to cover outstanding claims by travelers who

are out of pocket as a result of the recent failures of two large

travel firms in the province. I want to stress that this is an

emergency measure only and that travel agents and wholesalers will be

expected to repay the loan from future regular contributions that they

make to the travel agents assurance fund at this time. The bill is

designed to ensure that consumers receive the financial protection to

which they are entitled under the Travel Agents Act.

Bill 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: I apologize for my lateness.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the hon. member for Cariboo

(Hon. A. Fraser), I would like to introduce, from both our ridings,

Henry and Mary Novak and Mr. Blair Mayes.

Oral Questions

SCHOOL TRUSTEE FIRINGS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to direct my

question to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who's not

present today. He may be out firing a few more school boards, for all I

know. But I'd like to direct it then to his parliamentary secretary.

A couple of months ago political guru Pat Kinsella told SFU students

that he had to create a tough-guy image for the Premier in order to win

the last election. I wanted to know from the Minister of Education: was

his recent action against Vancouver School Board part of a

Kinsella-type strategy to mislead the public once again that the

Socreds are tough and decisive?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, that

question would have some difficulty qualifying under any of the items

that the member was responsible for writing the rules on.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I know we can't argue about the

various points of procedure here and I'll take your guidance in the

spirit in which it was given.

I'd like to ask a supplementary. Under the various laws passed by

the Legislature, the minister had ample authority to fix the operating

budgets of any school district in the province, without going into this

business of terminating the trustees. Why didn't the minister use this

authority to strike a budget for the Vancouver School District rather

than engage in the moral squalor of firing all the elected trustees,

even those who agreed with him?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that it would be a

lot better if this member and other members spent their time trying to

resolve the problem, rather than throwing gasoline on the fire. I will

take that question as notice for the hon. minister and he will report

back.

MR. ROSE: I disagree with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, and I

know that the board from Burnaby, which he represents, has asked

repeatedly to meet with the minister and been refused.

The citizens of British Columbia and people all across the country

know that the minister fired the Vancouver School Board because they

didn't vote the right way. All Canada knows that the government cannot

live with local authorities who do not vote the party line. I'd like to

ask how the minister can justify defying the spirit of our new Charter

of Rights and Freedoms by ordering freely elected officials to vote

against their own consciences.

[ Page 5980 ]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney-General. Was the Attorney-General's office consulted by the

Minister of Education before order-in-council No. 850 was drafted, and

did the Minister of Education receive a legal opinion as to whether or

not within the four corners of the statute the power was available to

the government to pass order-in-council No. 850?

HON. MR. SMITH: I assume that order-in-council No. 850 is the

order-in-council that discharged the school board and put in a public

trustee. The answer to that question I would have to bring back,

because I haven't personal knowledge of any opinion being given. I have

no doubt, though, that officials of my ministry were consulted by the

Ministry of Education throughout this entire process — because there

has been a good deal of contact, so there probably was at the official

level — but I'm not personally aware of it.

MR. LAUK: I received a legal opinion which I was to put to

the minister. Would the minister take it into consideration that the

section under which 850 was purported to have been passed is an

order-in-counciI

section that must under the circumstances and in

accordance with statutory

interpretation be read to allow the cabinet

to pass orders-in-council vis-a-vis the powers of the statute? The only

powers allowing for a trustee appointment are

section 289, allowing for

the appointment of a trustee in the face of bankruptcy or failure to

pay a debenture, or sections 78 and 79, where new boundaries and

districts have been drafted and old boards of trustees can be set

aside. Those are the only two powers of the statute allowing for the

appointment of a trustee, yet the government purported to set aside the

school board under

section 15(1) of the School Act. Can the

Attorney-General advise whether or not it is the opinion of the

Attorney-General's department that order-in-council 850 is valid?

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, hon. member, whether you are seeking a

legal opinion or bringing a legal opinion and asking confirmation, the

results are the same.

MR. LAUK: Could I ask the Attorney-General to consider the

legal opinion which I have received in the face of any legal opinion in

the previous answer that he was going to bring back to the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: It is an interesting opinion, but I notice that

section 15 very clearly says:

"Without limiting the generality of

section 14, the

Lieutenant Governor in Council may...appoint an official trustee to

hold office in a school district during pleasure and to exercise in

that district the powers and duties otherwise vested in the board by or

under this Act, and may fix his remuneration."

I point out that

section to the member, but I'll consider his

comments. There may be many opinions, but in the face of the statute

there appears to be clear power to appoint an official trustee, and to

grant that trustee all the powers that a board would hold in relation

to school matters in the district.

[2:15]

MR. LAUK: I didn't want to bore the House with the other part

of the legal opinion I have received. I didn't ask the Attorney-General

to interpret

section 15; I asked him whether or not he had a legal

opinion available. The point is that the opinion I have received is

based on the maxim delegatus non potest delegare .

One cannot delegate from the statute any more power than the

Legislature has chosen to put within the statute, and

section 15, as I

understand it, is an order-in-counciI section. It doesn't matter

whether or not it says "not without limiting the generality of the

foregoing."

HON. MR. SMITH: I will certainly take into account the

opinion that he received from that Latin constituent, and I will

endeavour to bring an answer back to him.

NEWSPRINT MILL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the press on

the weekend that a major new newsprint mill will be built 100

kilometres south of the border, creating many jobs and 700 construction

jobs. My question to the Premier is: has any attempt been made to meet

with the principals involved and to these jobs in British Columbia,

which would be of some significance in these difficult economic times?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Taking the question as notice for the

minister, I can assure the member that discussions have taken place on

a continuing basis with a number of proponents in the forest industry,

in processing, in pulp and into further manufacturing. One recently

took place in my office, where we were trying to encourage investment

in the province of British Columbia. Whether the ministry has dealt

with that specific company dealing in the United States, I have to take

as notice, because I can't give you an answer on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The prime company

involved as owner is Canadian Pacific Railway — Canadian Pacific

Enterprises — and, of course, they are major owners and operators in

British Columbia. I wonder if the Premier might take into consideration

the fact that 58 percent of our newsprint machinery in British Columbia

is pre-1950 and is becoming most uncompetitive. Will the Premier

attempt to meet with Canadian Pacific with respect to these questions,

since they are major holders of forest lands in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the different parts of the

member's question: number one, I'm quite aware of the modernization

that needed to take place in the forest industry and that was not

taking place before we became government. We encouraged major

reinvestment. It took place in Powell River. A number of companies

announced major plans for retooling and putting in new machinery.

That's a matter of record. What has happened is that many of them did

not complete those plans, quite frankly — plans that extended into the

recessionary period, when international markets fell for forest

products in all forms.

Yes, it is important that our industry be encouraged to reinvest.

For that they need a stable political and economic climate, and one in

which they know the government will not be a government that seeks to

impose onerous taxation, thereby removing their ability to finance. I

would say the recent budget of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) has given them that type of assurance by removing front-end

costing over a three-year period. That has substantial economic benefit

and encouragement for not only the forest

[ Page

5981 ]

industry but also small business — and all business in the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplementary. Has the Premier read the

recent study by Prof. Nilsson of Stockholm, who says that at the very

minimum we must spend $35 billion over the next 15 years just to begin

to catch up with Scandinavia? That would be $2 billion a year. This

mill in Washington state would be a modest beginning in moving towards

the $2 billion a year that we need in British Columbia to do the job

that has long been undone — a decade under this administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In responding to that, I am as aware as

anyone that we do need continued investment in the province. One of the

deterrents is the threat of a government unfriendly to business, which

keeps much industry from making long-term investment. However, they

have great confidence in this government's policies, and in the

measures introduced by the Minister of Finance, which were probably the

most positive set of measures that could have been introduced, at a

time in which we're trying to lower the cost of government for business

and industry so that they can carry on with the job. It has been a

myth, fostered by many people, that somehow they were the enemies of

society and must pay higher and higher taxes. That myth is to the

detriment of investment and jobs in this province. Our government is

committed to affordable taxation. Our government is committed to

welcoming investment from Canada, British Columbia and abroad. Our

government is committed to providing a continuing stable economic and

political climate, and in order to do that we have to deal from time to

time with that opposition over there.

MR. WILLIAMS: I suppose the proof of the pudding is there.

The CPR has judged this government over ten years and made the

decision: they're going to Washington state;they're not going to

British Columbia. The unstable government we've got right now in

British Columbia is under this man.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is

to ask questions. There are other forums for debate and for making

statements. In response to the statement, the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I don't need any advice on

instability from the second member for Vancouver East — he invented it.

If you want to talk about stability, then I want to give you the most

graphic of examples of how people judge governments. In 1975, after

three years of New DemocraticParty government, for the first time in this province's history the in-migration

figures showed that more people moved out of British Columbia than came in.

I want to say that even during the tough international recession which we have

faced, during these last three years people have continued to move to British

Columbia, because they have confidence in the government and its ability to

solve our problem. But it is a matter of record. It is a matter of record that

after three years of the New Democratic Party government — with the former Minister

of Forests being the biggest ogre to business investment this province ever

saw — more people left this province than were coming. I want to contrast that

right now....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, I think the time is fast approaching when I must allow a further question from the opposition.

VEHICLE INSPECTION STATIONS

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Last year ICBC prepared a report which

projected an increase of four fatalities and 237 injuries per year as a

direct result of eliminating mandatory safety inspections. Has the

minister received or requested an update of this report showing the

actual consequences of his government's policy of eliminating the

inspection stations?

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not sure about the dialogue [illegible]

up to the question, but I would like to inform the House that I am very

happy to report to you that fatal accidents are down in 1984 compared

to 1983. I'm very gratified bout that.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell has terminated question period.

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member who is currently

standing, the Chair must once again observe that pen-ended questions

tend to lead to open-ended responses. he intent of question period is

somewhat lost if members themselves do not follow the guidelines that

are specifically aid out in the blue book, which will be found in each

ember's desk and which I recommend again that you take n opportunity to

read.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to a question on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. REE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of students from

Handsworth Secondary School in North Vancouver in he gallery today, and

I'd ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the sixteenth annual report of the business

done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for he year ending

August 31, 1984.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the hair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 42: minister's office, $214,384.

[ Page 5982 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister responsible for Human Resources

and for welfare is also responsible for transit, Mr. Chairman, and I'd

like to talk a little bit about transit, which is an important new

responsibility that the minister has.

The minister announced a funding formula for the city of Vancouver,

and indicated that she was writing off half of the capital cost,

insofar as the region was concerned, by the province picking up the tab

in terms of the linear system itself.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

So that's some $275 million being picked up by all the taxpayers of

British Columbia for the ALRT line that only goes through three

municipalities. It only goes through Vancouver — a small part of the

southeast part of the city from downtown — and south Burnaby to New

Westminster. So not even the west side of the city of Vancouver is

served by this system that they have decided upon, but north Burnaby is

not served, nor any of the other tens of municipalities in the lower

mainland region.

We have a bus system in Vancouver, and in that region, that has

provided significant service over considerable linear distances with

the bus lines. Can the minister advise us what the annual costs of the

ALRT system are going to be for the region, compared to the existing

costs of the entire bus system in the region currently?

[2:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The cost to the public will be consistent

with the charges that are now shared by the three areas of

responsibility: first the fare box, the consumer; secondly, the ability

that we have given to the civic governments involved to raise the

funds; thirdly, the largest portion, picked up by the provincial

government. It would be consistent with the price that is now being

charged. You must look at ALRT as part of a whole integrated service:

the conventional bus service, the handyDART service, the whole B.C.

transit service, including SeaBus. It will be somewhat the same as is

being charged at the present time, when it comes into service in

January 1986. That price will be determined by the Vancouver

commission, who set the price and the routes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, can the minister advise us what

the annual cost of the system currently is — just with the buses — with

respect to the lower mainland, and then advise us what the total number

will be once ALRT is in place, after the initial three-month operating

period which is being thrown into the capital cost? It seems to me

important that we think about the amount of service we've got

currently: the mileage of the existing system in terms of the bus

system in Vancouver, which serves all of the municipalities of the

Greater Vancouver Regional District, versus the ALRT line, which is

serving only parts of three municipalities. I think it would tell us

something fundamental about the kind of decision that was made in terms

of going with the ALRT system. It seems to me the kind of matter that's

disturbing.

This morning we were covering Human Resources welfare questions,

wanting simple data, and it was a very difficult job to get that data.

What I'm asking for now, Mr. Chairman, is very simple data with respect

to the ALRT and bus line system in greater Vancouver. It's information

that I would have thought was readily available in terms of

understanding the annual costs of the system now, versus what the

annual costs will be once ALRT is operational and available to the

public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'll defer to my colleague. I just thought

there was going to be a lacuna here, a vacuum, and nobody was going to

take it. If my colleague is not prepared to speak on it then I will

speak; otherwise he can proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The chair can only recognize those that are standing. If nobody is standing, nobody can be recognized.

MR. WILLIAMS: I can assume then that the minister really doesn't know in a general.... I'm not asking for the points.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: If the member doesn't want it exactly, in

round figures the operation of the bus service, the conventional

service as it is now, is $150 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's $150 million for the existing system. But once we have ALRT, that starts changing significantly.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, that will begin changing at the beginning of the next fiscal year, March 1986.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that the numbers are $152

million currently, and that took awhile. The numbers that will follow

once ALRT is in place will be $288 million; that's what the system will

cost us annually in greater Vancouver once ALRT is operational. This is

a line that is simply serving a part of three municipalities. So our

costs virtually double in the lower mainland region once ALRT is in

place. The real numbers are there. The minister is unwilling to give us

the data on the existing system and what the changes mean, but that's

what it is.

So $288 million becomes the new number for bus service with ALRT in

Vancouver, compared to the $152 million currently. Isn't that a shocker

when you stop for a minute and think about it? Think about where all

the existing bus line systems serve: from the north side of the Fraser

Valley to the south side of the Fraser Valley, out into Langley, White

Rock, Surrey, Delta, Richmond. None of these municipalities is going to

get the benefit of ALRT. All of them are going to have to chip in, in

terms of paying for that system that's only going to serve a small part

of the region. The cost of extending it just over into Whalley is

almost another $300 million.

So the question is, can we afford this system? A billion dollars is

already invested in this system, and if we push it over the river into

Whalley it's $1.3 billion. The numbers are incredible. It's a $275

million lump that we're swallowing now as a result of the ministerial

and cabinet decision for the province to meet some of these costs.

Talk to some of the experts who have been brought over here.

Ironically, Expo invited a range of experts here to look at the system,

just in the last few months, and again the comments were almost

universally that they really didn't think the system was going to work

very well. There isn't

[ Page 5983 ]

going to be park and ride, there isn't going to be

the kind of integration.... I talked to one of the American experts in

the last week about it and asked him: "What would you do?" He said:

"I'd cut my losses right now." I said: "Would you extend the system?"

He said: "Extending the system is the last thing I would do."

Now that's Prof. Horwood, professor of transportation at the

University of Washington in Seattle. He's actually decided he should

write a book on the ALRT system, because he's never seen quite such a

white elephant in some ways. He's a former Canadian and a frequent

visitor to the Vancouver area. He said the ALRT line fits into one of

his laws of urban transportation: "Projects expand to use up all the

taxes available to them."

With respect to this system, not only are we going to have the fare

box paying a small part of the bill; we're going to have the region

putting an extra two-cent levy on gasoline within greater Vancouver to

pay for this lumbering piece of machinery, and we're going to have to

pick up the $275 million as a new provincial debt for all of the people

of British Columbia. So it's abundantly clear that we've got a very

costly system that we're only beginning to feel the cost of.

Maybe the minister could even give us some advice on the clever

mortgaging arrangements that have been developed with respect to this

system, because the way I read the new mortgaging arrangements for the

rapid transit system in Vancouver is fairly straightforward. You've

decided not to pay for it in a direct way — the way a normal house

buyer does in our society. The normal home buyer will try to pay off

his house as quickly as possible and avoid the huge interest rates that

flow from extending the mortgage. Most homeowners would prefer to have

a 15- to 20-year mortgage. Most homeowners would prefer a 20- to

25-year mortgage, because the difference in the amount you pay is very

modest. It's something like $90 that you might be paying on a $10,000

loan, say on a monthly basis; if you change the amortization period,

you're talking about $5 or $6 for five years — a very modest difference.

HON. A. FRASER: You're just giving us socialist arithmetic.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ah, the member for Cariboo knows arithmetic,

and he knows that he wouldn't buy a house on a 30-year mortgage —

certainly not at his age. But maybe he should at his age.

The point is that we've now got a 30-year mortgage on this system,

and lucky for you, because you're not going to be stuck with that debt

personally. But the question is, would you consider getting a second

mortgage to pay off the first mortgage? How many house buyers would

think about getting a second mortgage to pay off the first mortgage?

But that's what we're doing in British Columbia with the ALRT system:

we're essentially talking about a second mortgage to pay off the first

mortgage. You can't do that. That's Social Credit arithmetic, and it

doesn't work. It doesn't work at all, because you end up in the minus

category all the time, with Social Credit arithmetic. A second mortgage

to help pay off the first mortgage: that's a balloon debt. The minister

has determined that we're going to live with a balloon debt — a debt

bomb — with respect to the ALRT system. She's made the decision that

for the first 12 years we will not even pay the full interest on the

loans. For the first dozen years we will continue to fall behind. There

will be a dead-weight debt dragging behind this system constantly. It

won't be until the twelfth or thirteenth year that we start beginning

to pay the principal with respect to the ALRT line.

That means we're talking about a massive transfer of wealth to a

handful of people in the lower mainland region because of incompetence

and wrong decisions that have consistently been made.

I know I asked Mr. Vander Zalm at a public meeting in Vancouver a

few months ago: "How come you built this kind of system, Bill? There

are those who are looking at it and saying that the cost is immense.

The annual costs are horrendous. It's the cost of all the bus system

that we've built up through a lifetime. The annual cost of this ALRT

line is equal to the rest of the system in the lower mainland. How

could you possibly have made that kind of decision, as a responsible

politician?" He said: "Well, it just ended up costing four times what I

thought it was going to cost." That's Mr. Vander Zalm speaking. What

kind of management is that? It's a little different than running on

moonbeam, which is more or less what this outfit is, and where some of

the comments are from as well.

There it is. Can the minister pull back, and can she try and

distance herself from this whole thing, and ask herself the simple

question: does it make sense to have this limited line running along

the old Central Park interurban line in this part of Vancouver, Burnaby

and New West? Does it make sense to spend as much money annually on the

ALRT as we're spending on every bus line in the lower mainland,

providing service to Ladner, Tsawwassen, north Delta, Surrey, Langley,

the Coquitlams, Port Moody, North Burnaby, the North Shore — all of

these countless areas that are not being served? Does that make any

economic sense at all? I'm sure the Chairman appreciates the fact that

the ALRT line is not providing any service in North Vancouver or any of

the North Shore municipalities.

[2:45]

Maybe the minister can confirm that the system's going to cost twice

as much once the new ALRT line is in place. It's going to cost twice as

much, and we're getting that limited facility for 50 percent of our

dollars in greater Vancouver transit, compared to all the bus lines

already there. Our existing bus system serves about 100 million

passengers a year, and this thing is going to cost us the equivalent.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this is really an

interesting comment from the second member for Vancouver East. It's

fascinating, in fact, because he was part of a city council in

Vancouver many years ago that made the decision over and over again to

have some kind of alleviation of the traffic woes of the Vancouver

region. This is a member, sitting in this House, who was part of a

local government which paid for studies. They didn't do anything about

them, mind you; they had them stacked up in neat little rows on

shelves. GVRD alone has eight studies just leading up to the decision

that was made.

This member says that the cost is more. I'm sorry that he puts words

in the mouth of a former colleague, because the same former colleague,

a colleague in this House, who initiated the ALRT in his

responsibilities as Minister of Municipal Affairs.... It is quite

clear, in looking back in all the minutes of GVRD and the decisions

made and the decision made by the Municipal Affairs minister at that

time, that the project delivered today, in these dollars today, is

essentially the same as the project that was planned by GVRD but

[ Page 5984 ]

never acted upon by the government represented by the member who has just taken his place.

He also has left an erroneous impression in this House that the

ALRT, because of its financing formula, is going to place an unfair

burden on future generations. Well, that's not so. What it is going to

place in the deferred mortgage program, which we presented and which

was accepted by the commission, represented, by the way, by elected

officials in all of those municipalities and others from all over the

province.... The B.C. Transit board and the commission itself,

elected officials from all over the province, and particularly those

who are representing Burnaby, Vancouver, New Westminster, Surrey — all

were present, and they were unanimous in their endorsement of a program

which allowed a deferred mortgage payment.

The member well knows that it is recognized that in large programs,

with the expenditure of this kind of money, it is quite usual to

amortize that mortgage over a longer period than you would, perhaps, on

your personal home. Making that kind of analogy is just a bunch of

nonsense. He knows that.

The people who are going to be using the system as the years go on

are going to be paying some of that mortgage by their user fees. That's

the way it should be. We don't want to burden the first users of the

program unnecessarily. That was quite well understood, strangely

enough, by all the members of the board of B.C. Transit and also the

Vancouver commission.

The member says that it's an expensive program. It's interesting

that he quotes someone from Seattle. You know, I think that that same

person the member quoted said that the ride on the ALRT was going to

cost the rider somewhere around $7 or $9. That's really some kind of an

example to use. We've even heard some people who live in British

Columbia say that it's going to be $5. Some have even said it's going

to be $30. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to relieve the member of any

apprehension he may have. It's not going to be that.

I said, on the first question you asked as we came back into the

House this afternoon, that it is going to be consistent with the

overall program of the transportation service. This service is equal to

some 28 lines of traffic. We are alleviating for all time any need to

tear up houses, apartments and commercial avenues, to uproot businesses

and people's homes, to build further and further transportation links

in the greater Vancouver area. We're extremely lucky that we had the

right-of-way left by the old B.C. Electric, the B.C. Hydro

right-of-way. If we had had to start with acquisition of land, it is

quite possible.... In fact I would almost say that we wouldn't even

be discussing that tremendous program.

I am really surprised to hear any member from Vancouver.... I

can quite understand members from other parts of the province, who

haven't seen the system and what it touches, haven't been on the

traffic routes in the city of Vancouver at rush hour — or any other

time — or have not had the opportunity to see the economic impetus that

the 15 stations have already had on the lower mainland.... The

member stands in his place and derides a program which is going to

bring an economic initiative which is beyond, I'm sure, even his

capability of seeing.

It is providing that in the Burnaby area, where half a billion

dollars has already been spent at Metro station, with another half a

billion dollars on the drawing board. All those buildings being built

means construction jobs. It also means jobs afterwards to service the

apartments, to service the commercial areas. There's a great deal of

interest and speculation going on in an area which has probably had

more kinds of publicity in this House and outside on the line....

That's the Commercial Drive and Broadway area. I'd like that member to

go back and ask the Commercial Drive and Broadway area if they'd like

to get rid of the overhead ALRT today. I can tell you that the answer

to that would be absolutely no. It's doing a very good job. It's going

up the back lane of Commercial Drive. All of those businesses are going

to benefit. It's costing less because we're on an elevated guideway.

All of the nonsense which he was part of in the days when all of that

protest was going on is well behind us. Those people are extremely

pleased that, along the whole line of 15 stations, that Commercial

Drive and Broadway station will probably benefit the most in terms of

rehabilitation and jobs being created.

This member who has just been on his feet.... I may be wrong; it

may be the member for Vancouver Centre. But either of those members

over there represent that area. They should be on their feet applauding

the government for the initiative that we have shown in building ALRT.

It's an exceptional technology. It's quiet, modern and clean. It's

going to provide economic initiatives yet to be seen by this province,

because I don't think anybody, including the member who has just

spoken, really realizes the incredible economic impetus that it will

provide.

I'm glad, I have to say, in a political way — and I don't mind one

bit being political — to see that members of the New Democratic Party

have consistently been against ALRT. I'm going to be quite pleased to

be able to convey that message. I recall that in the last election it

was one of the election planks in the platform of the NDP that they

wanted to go back to streetcars. They wanted the old horse-and-buggy

days. We've decided that we're not going to go back to the

horse-and-buggy days. We're going to have the most modern equipment. We

have been extremely tenacious in carrying out a program that ministers

in the NDP government refused to act on, that those people on the

opposite side of the House refused to support during all these years.

But that's fine. I'm rather pleased that they take that stand, because

it can do them absolutely no good politically.

But I have to tell you that we're here for other things than

politics. We're here to serve the people. That line is going to serve

the people and bring fantastic economic initiatives to that area of

Burnaby, New Westminster and Vancouver. We'll tell the people just how

you feel about that.

If there are any other questions on ALRT, I can tell you one of the

questions you should be asking is: why did the GVRD decide to go for

that system? I understand that you were against that system. You still

are against that system today. But if you want to know the reason,

there are all sorts of reasons. First of all, it's Canadian technology,

and that's worth something to those of us on this side of the House.

Secondly, it's technology that is more reasonable than any other we

could have purchased. And thirdly, it's a system which we are going to

be able to point to with pride during this upcoming Expo 86

celebration, because we are going to be able to point to Canadian

technology and sell it to other parts of the country and other parts of

the world. This member can laugh, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to tell

you: the numbers of people who have visited Vancouver already from

other jurisdictions, including one over this past weekend, who have

shown tremendous interest in the technology and in

[ Page 5985 ]

the line that is being built.... It's totally

consistent with everything that was planned by GVRD many long years

ago. The only difference is that you have a government, the Social

Credit government, that initiated the program, and it has carried it

out. By January of next year it will be in full service. Then let the

member for Vancouver East ride on it and say what he said today. I'm

sure that he'll find that he's a lone voice in the wilderness.

MR. WILLIAMS: Like most of the people in the region, it won't

serve me; it's simply serving a small portion of the region. If it were

serving my neighbourhood, I might, but where I live....

If we look at the linear system that exists now.... That's what

I'd like the minister to attempt to do: to think about the people who

ride the buses and to think about the existing system and how many

neighbourhoods and communities it serves, what the linear distance of

that system is and what it costs us versus the system that is now being

put in place. The street kilometres that we have with the existing bus

system, I understand, are 1,135. What's the length of the ALRT line,

Madam Minister? What is it — 21 kilometres?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Twenty-one kilometres.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's going to cost us the same amount of money

every year. Even though we're not paying the mortgage properly, it's

going to cost us the same amount of money virtually every year for that

21 kilometre system, compared to the 1,135 kilometre system. I ask

you: does that make any sense? What kind of wastrel would make that

kind of decision? If we can serve 100 million people annually on a

system with 1,135 kilometres, and then decide to spend almost the same

amount of money on a system 21 kilometres long, does that make any

sense? Is the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) going to go

sell that one in his riding — a 21 kilometre system, with a capital

cost of around a billion dollars, and it will cost what the rest of the

bus system in Vancouver cost?

We now have communities in the suburbs that are saying, "We should

have some kind of rapid transit system, " and indeed they should. But

the province of British Columbia will not be able to afford to serve

the rest of the municipalities within the region with this kind of

technology. It's simply too costly. You're picking up a $275 million

bill this year alone for the province. You give the speeches, and you

say, "Oh, it's a nice technology," and "Yes, there's not great

separation," and then you say it will get rid of the congestion in

downtown Vancouver. I'd like to ask the minister if she knows what the

projections are in terms of how many people riding to work will ride on

this system. What are the projections with respect to the people going

to work? That's our main congestion time. How many will be using this

system, in terms of the total transit ridership?

[3:00]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple

of questions that were in the long statement. First, ALRT will carry

about a third of the total ridership in the lower mainland — one-third.

Right at the beginning it will service one-third, and it will tie

into.... As you know. the whole conventional system will be changed

in order to tie into the new ALRT system.

You can't take the ALRT in isolation — the 21 kilometres. If you

were to do that with the SeaBus, which has an annual cost of $2 million

annually, and you did that just in isolation for the number of

passengers on it, you would say that it doesn't pay. If you take just

the handyDART system, with which we serve the handicapped in the

province and the lower mainland, almost 400,000 rides for the

handicapped were undertaken last year alone. If you took that in

isolation, you would say that if you put per ride to that, you couldn't

do it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Transportation has to be a whole range of services tying in one with

the other. A person goes from the north shore on SeaBus to the city of

Vancouver, works in downtown Vancouver, and perhaps may take the bus in

the course of their work to another part of the city. Then they may

return home by bus, and then by SeaBus. You may even have somebody who

works and lives in New Westminster and maybe takes a bus to ALRT, takes

ALRT in, transfers at the waterfront station, takes the SeaBus over to

the north shore and goes to an office in the north shore. But it's all

an integrated system, and you can't take it in isolation. Any attempt

to do so is just another way of the socialists trying to isolate the

figures to support a false premise that they would like the public to

believe in.

But let me just say that the projections are for the whole system,

and at the present time the system carries about 60 percent of the

people who are downtown out of the downtown area each and every night

and into it each and every morning, via public transportation. We

expect that will increase with the advent of ALRT, at least because of

the novelty of ALRT and because of its convenience and because of the

connecting routes to all of the major transportation routes that we

already have established.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. second member for Vancouver

East is understandably interested in costs. The new ALRT project, by

the time it reaches Surrey, will have cost in capital terms in the

order of of $1 billion, and that's a lot of money. I think properly it

should be costed, and the manner in which the cost recovery occurs

should be explained.

He's also a planner, and I'm surprised that he doesn't see the

transportation network of the lower mainland in the longer-term

prospect.

We're talking about several modes of transportation in the lower

mainland. Buses are the most conventional nowadays. They are highly

mobile. Their capital cost is relatively low and their operating costs

relatively high. They're ideal for serving areas which are not as dense

as others. Bus routes can handily be changed. They have a flexibility

as well as a relatively low capital cost per mile — however he wants to

calculate it.

SeaBus, which I think was a worthy invention of the NDP — although there had

been others talking about it before it was contracted in the early 1970s — has

turned out to be a reasonable mode of crossing Burrard Inlet. But in its first

several years the cost per ride, if one wanted to include all the capital involved,

was $4 or $5. As the ridership grew — as residents began to build homes, live

in highrises on the north shore close to the north shore terminal and so on

— the average cost has come down. It's now more reasonable, and it's

going down as that service is used increasingly. It's more

[ Page 5986 ]

capital-intensive than buses. It's taken a while for it to make sense on its own in a total system.

Rail transportation is intensely capital-expensive. It's

capital-intensive. Rail systems only make sense between major centres

of population. The rail system which the NDP was contemplating would

have run along much the same route as ALRT is running, and would have

connected downtown Vancouver with Metrotown and Burnaby, with downtown

New Westminster, and ultimately with Surrey Place and Coquitlam Centre.

It wouldn't have cost as much. It wouldn't have been as

capital-intensive, but by comparison with the system which is nearing

completion now it was a Toonerville Trolley. It was similar to the

Tijuana system, the system now operating out of San Diego, running

along a single track at ground level, not very often, having to slow

down at intersections, having to slow down or stop to wait for an

oncoming train, using older, heavyweight equipment, always manned. It

wouldn't have cost as much, admittedly, but the elapsed time would have

been two or three times as great. It wouldn't have attracted the same

ridership as light rail rapid transit in the form that we've purchased

it.

Yes, the capital cost per mile is very high, but it's the nature of

the system. It will be the backbone of a fully integrated public

transportation system on the lower mainland, and, as has happened in

many other metropolitan areas — Toronto is a good example — there will

be a lot of new construction around stations. As the years go by, as

the population of the lower mainland multiplies, as new construction

continues, many more people will be living in close proximity to the

rail stations and using the very fast, highly automated system to get

to and from work. They won't need a second car and so on. Indeed, by

reorganizing bus routes and so on, people tributary to the system can

come a distance by bus and then go through the more congested areas at

rush hour much more conveniently and much more rapidly.

Yes, this is an investment for the long term. I've seen studies that

indicate that the average cost per ride on the system itself won't come

down to the average cost of buses before the mid-1990s — perhaps even

the year 2000. But the system will be around for another 50 years or

more. Certainly the right-of-way and much of the support apparatus will

be in place 50 years from now. So we're making a long-term investment.

The hon. member for Vancouver East decries the process of

capitalizing interest as one of the ways of keeping fares reasonable

over the short term. Well, the NDP certainly did it with B.C. Rail

through their years in power. They didn't hesitate to continue to

capitalize interest on B.C. Rail. So it isn't a practice that's

peculiar to one side of the House or another. I'm glad that the

province has come up with a formula which is reasonably consistent from

one municipality to another — namely sharing the capital cost. I think

because the province chose the system initially there was some reason

why it should put up a lump sum. Incidentally, the Canadian government

also put up a lump sum which, capitalized, is perhaps worth $100

million now. They put it up because this was new Canadian technology.

The main reason why the per-ride costs will tend to be stable while

those of buses and other modes rise is that the operating costs are so

low on this highly capital-intensive system. The operating costs are of

the order of $20 million a year; on the present bus system they are six

or seven times that number. The operating costs will rise, but because

the base is small, the operating element of cost will not be as much of

a problem as it would have been had we opted for buses only.

I know the hon. member isn't serious when he talks about or at least

implies buses only for all time, because congestion first in downtown

Vancouver and later in other areas would have become incredible. Some

decision had to be made about another and physically more efficient

system of transport. That's why the NDP were talking about a light rail

system, but as I said before, it was a cheapie, cheap in the sense that

it was going to have to run across streets at grade level, cheap

because it was one line rather than two rail lines in parallel, cheap

because they were not going to run anything like as many cars or

trains. But it wouldn't have attracted the traffic. It wouldn't have

got people out of cars. This system isn't going to do that very

rapidly, but it's going to do it over the long run much more

effectively than a low-cost, cheap system which really was not much of

an improvement on the old interurban.

The old interurban was built before the automobile. It was built in

part before the turn of the century. It functioned for nearly 50 years,

but people ceased to ride it because it was comparatively slow, because

it was hazardous, because at least in the fifties and sixties people

could get to and from work fairly easily by automobile. But why go back

to the old-style system in order to save some capital costs when that

capital expenditure will put more people to work in a period of

unemployment and will give us a system that will serve us for 50 years

and more?

I agree that there's a challenge in financing a billion dollar

system. But what better time to build it? And if the system of

financing can be developed in such a way that fares can be kept

reasonable and people can be attracted to the total system of bus,

SeaBus and ALRT, why not go with the financing formula we have now? A

billion-dollar system — and I'm including the extension to Surrey —

would cost over $100 million in capital charges and another $20 million

or so in operating charges. It would not double the cost of the system,

but would go some distance towards doubling it. It's less if some of

those charges are capitalized, but again that was a judgment matter. I

don't think, on principle, that capitalization of the interest can

offend the NDP, because they embraced it when they were in power.

Anyway, I think the new system will in the long run prove to be a

blessing, will turn out to be technically very acceptable. It's the new

system for Toronto, developed by the government of Ontario. It has sold

in Detroit; it will, I'm convinced, sell elsewhere. It's not selling in

the United States — other than in Detroit — because no one is building

new systems in the United States right now. I think Canada has done

well to build the Toronto system, the Montreal system, the less

efficient Calgary and Edmonton systems, and now Vancouver. I think

we're ahead of the Americans in this regard, and with the new

technology I think we are showing the world how.

[3:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair would like to make one

comment. The debate so far from the minister, the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour has been most productive to the estimates before us

right now.

There is one caution. We have Bill 17 before us, which deals with the

transit amendment and does speak of borrowing. I realize that much of

the productive debate we've heard in Committee of

[ Page 5987 ]

Supply does indicate with respect to operating

costs and their payback, and that is relevant. However, I would caution

members with the fact of offending the rule of anticipation that we do

not discuss the one section, the principle of Bill 17. That's just a

caution and is in no way meant to frustrate the debate.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I really would like to thank the member

for North Vancouver–Seymour for his remarks. Also, if I may, I want to

take this opportunity to welcome some students on behalf of Mr.

Speaker, from Burnsview Junior Secondary School in Delta. Their guests

are from Souris Regional High School in Prince Edward Island. I'd like

the House to join me in welcoming those students who are still in the

gallery. Also, Mr. Chairman, may I at this time introduce to the House

the general manager of B.C. Transit, Mr. Larry Miller, who is assisting

me in today's estimates as they relate to B.C. Transit.

I would also like to bring the point home, because the Toronto

system was mentioned, that one of the things people forget about our

system of transportation in the lower mainland is that we cover three

times the territory that Toronto does. We have by far the larger

territory to cover, and we do cover it and give that service, but we

don't have the advantage of that concentrated population. So

considering that, our conventional bus system has done a very good job

in that regard.

I would also like to point out that in 1975 there were some 14

operating systems in this province providing a conventional bus

service; today, in 1985, there are 54. That's a tremendous jump in just

a short time. In 1975 the provincial contribution to those systems was

$3 million. Today it's $74.3 million, a significant increase in

contribution by the provincial government. The number of vehicles has

increased as well. I think the story of public transportation as it has

been undertaken has been a very good story in this province,

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like to make a point. The minister

has said that Vancouver is much more spread out than the Toronto

system. Precisely. That's the whole point in terms of the message I've

been trying to relate for the last half hour: that is that an extensive

bus system is serving this broad dispersed community. That's the

problem in terms of 1,100 miles of bus service. What we're talking

about here is a 21 kilometre system, so that's why it's rather strange.

Put the two together, Madam minister. You're willing to spend $150

million a year on a new system that's only 21 kilometres long, and

that's what we presently spend on a pretty good bus system for the

whole darned region.

Now the response will be: "Well, there's this tremendous growth in

Metrotown, there's going to be all this other growth at the stations,"

and more like that. Well, the metro town stuff has been happening

anyway, but that's clearly the one major growth area. If you look at

the Vancouver stations, there are currently no significant changes with

respect to those stations.

One has to think about where the attractive places are in terms of

the new living environment in greater Vancouver. Is Kingsway the great

amenity street of Vancouver? That's essentially the route of this

system. So the big new residential growth is along Kingsway. Now

Kingsway is hardly King Edward Boulevard or Shaughnessy Heights. It's a

neat question in terms of where we want the residential growth of the

region. A certain amount will certainly build along this right-of-way,

but the question of the amenity we're providing those people is a

pretty neat question indeed, in terms of the full range of urban

amenities. They may well be elsewhere.

But I understand that the numbers, in terms of the journey to work,

are that you're projecting something like 9 percent of the total

journey to work being handled on this system. The numbers that others

see are even less than that. So in terms of congestion and the

journey-to-work problem, this isn't coming anywhere near to dealing

with the basic heavy traffic problem that we have in the region.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Just in response to that one point,

because I think it's an important one, I think the member needs some

clarification. I know that he probably won't take it, but I'm pleased

to give it. I know the background of this member is in planning. It's

interesting that he would take the ALRT corridor and the ALRT service

in isolation from the total transportation system in the lower

mainland. It is a dispersed community — we've made that point.

I think it's a great credit to the public transportation system, to

the staff and to the deliverers of that system, that we cover such a

large area. But it has its concentrated transportation corridors. That

was recognized by the GVRD many years ago — many meetings and many

studies ago. It wasn't a question of whether we should have rapid

transit, or some other kind of transportation to alleviate the

bottlenecks in transportation for the next 50 years in the lower

mainland; it was a question of when it would come. The first phase

simply builds upon the historical development patterns of the region.

It meets that very well. It not only meets it for today, and for the

next two decades, but it's also going to meet it for a long time to

come, because one of the good things that has been built into this

system is that as the need arises we simply add cars. We don't have to

add structure and guideways; we just add cars.

So we're obviously not going to agree. I think that as time goes on

you're going to find that's a service that's really going to be well

taken by the lower mainland.

MR. ROSE: I have a couple of items that I wish to discuss. I

don't intend to get into the economics of ALRT. I'm not familiar with

them. I don't feel that I'm competent to argue about whether or not

it's valid economically, or whether or not alternatives should have

been considered. But one of the things that bothers the communities I

represent — Port Coquitlam and Port Moody — is the fact that they don't

get any and aren't likely to, but they're going to be asked to pay for

it anyway. They express great concern about that.

The minister may know that at a recent meeting of a number of the

adjacent municipalities, including people from New Westminster,

Burnaby, Port Moody and Maple Ridge, they all made representations to

have the ALRT line extend at least as far as the Lougheed...to

Coquitlam town centre. As far as they're concerned, that line would

serve far more people at less cost than the line into Surrey. It

therefore has a greater opportunity to be practical. I could give the

minister quotations in terms of numbers and population. I don't think

that's necessary, because I think the minister has the brief that was

sent out by Coquitlam under the signature of Mayor Sekora. He points

out that by 1991 they expect 71,000 people in that general area. Should

that line go out to Coquitlam

[ Page 5988 ]

Centre, there is government property right across from Coquitlam Centre which could serve as the location for a station.

I understand too that the B.C. transit board has recommended the

extension regardless of the criticism levied by the professor from

Seattle — whatever his name is; he was mentioned here a little while

ago — that it would be madness to consider extensions. I think, whether

it's madness or not, that it's not up to me to make that decision or to

come to that conclusion.

My job here — at least part of it, as I see it — is to present to

this House the representations on behalf of those people I represent,

because, if I may repeat, they are going to be asked, through gas taxes

and in one way and another.... They're going to be assessed for the

cost of this line. I think the point of the member for Vancouver East

is well taken: that everybody bears the cost. But relatively few people

can avail themselves of the service.

They point out, for instance, that there are going to be more

people, and it's going to be actually cheaper to go into Coquitlam than

it will be to go into Scott. They can get a rider at least to Brunette

Street, which is really Maillardville; it isn't in my riding. That may

have some allure. In fact, it would serve the interests of the member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). I'm sure that he attended the

meeting of which I speak — all those local mayors and civic officials —

and I know that he would support that kind of extension.

The point that we would like to make on behalf of the residents of

Port Coquitlam and Port Moody is that there are going to be a

tremendous number of people interested in using that line, and probably

for less money than it would take for the line and the bridge into

Surrey — some $196 million, according to this brief. The capital

expenses investment to Brunette would cost about $46,000 or $47,000 per

rider, where it's roughly $50,000 or $51,000 for those riders who would

originate at Scott Road. I don't know whether that takes into account

the bridge or not.

I would be interested to know what the capital cost per passenger is

for the existing system. I think that is part of the question that the

member for Vancouver East was interested in too, so if a note could be

made of that, that really is my first question. My first question is:

what is the capital cost of the existing system — the capital

investment necessary per rider for the existing system?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister.

MR. ROSE: I've got a couple more, so I might as well kill three birds with one stone, with your permission.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: For the ALRT, yes.

The other thing is: what is the minister's viewpoint on and the

timetable for extending the line as far as Brunette, as far as

Lougheed, as far as Coquitlam Centre, in view of B.C. Transit's

recommendation? It said that it should be extended to the Lougheed Mall

by 1990. Are there any plans to do that?

Further, I could go into the billion dollars worth of Crown lands in

Coquitlam, which are cited in the brief as justification for peak-rider

and off-peak and on-peak rush-hour trips. The point they make is that

they feel they're as entitled to consideration for their communities as

any other community.

I'll stop here, but I'd like to reserve the right to ask some other

questions on another matter following these questions.

[3:30]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, the direct answer

regarding the capital cost is $854 million for the 21 kilometres in the

first phase. I have to say that you wouldn't be able to put that down

to a cost per person, because firstly you don't know what the ridership

will be. Secondly, you don't know....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, if you wanted to take the highest,

we're saying 30,000 people per hour. It has the ability to take 30

million riders. If you wanted to divide that into the $854

million.... But those 30 million riders are not....

MR. ROSE: Per year?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, per year — for the first year. Now

this will increase as our projections increase. However, that too is a

bit misleading for this reason: those people, as I said earlier in

response to the mortgage question, will not be carrying the burden

solely in that first year. So again that's a bit misleading. If you're

trying to get a capital cost per rider in the first year, you're

burdening them with more than you should, is what I'm saying.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) has given a

tremendous amount of his time in order to make sure that we respond to

both your question and his question in a positive manner. May I just

say that the B.C. Transit board gave an overall recommendation to do

both Surrey and Coquitlam; it wasn't in isolation. They were backing

both routes, saying that both routes were needed in the next short

while.

May I say that it's interesting to see a split in the NDP caucus. On

the one hand we have the member for Vancouver East saying that the line

should never be built, and you, sir, imploring us to go farther with

the ALRT line with your last question. So that's refreshing, and I'm

pleased to see that.

May I just say to you that Coquitlam is a very high priority. There

have been no statements or announcements made about going to Coquitlam.

I guess the member himself will realize that besides that brief from

the mayor of Coquitlam, which emanated from a meeting that our member

for Maillardville-Coquitlam and other mayors attended, there were also

since that time, almost attendant with that day, a lot of submissions

regarding the commuter rail into Vancouver through the Port Moody area.

We really have to define what the community itself is asking for,

because they're really asking for two things here. One is really in

conflict with the other, because if you build one, I'm afraid the other

one would not get the ridership.

However, I'm pleased to tell you that in the next two months we

are doing a summation of the whole lower mainland and Fraser Valley

routes, so we will have a very good idea. We'll be able to share it

with the communities in the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley. It

will relate to transportation to the year 2000 and beyond. So all of

that will be rationalized.

MR. ROSE: For the benefit of the minister — and I thank her

for her reply — I don't detect any conflict with the position that I've

taken. I thought I put it very clearly vis-a-

[ Page 5989 ]

vis my concerns and the concerns mentioned by the

member for Vancouver East. That was that if the people of my area were

going to have to pay for this line, through gas taxes or whatever kinds

of other levies needed for the line, they should have an equal

opportunity to have access to it; that is the point. I don't think it's

in conflict at all.

I am not judging the merits or demerits of the economics of the

line. But I would like to quote from Mayor Sekora's letter, which says:

"District of Coquitlam supported that decision based on population and

potential ridership" — he's speaking of the Bennett decision to extend

the line to Surrey; but here's the operative phrase — "but we do not

feel Surrey should receive full ALRT service at the expense of other

areas." This is what Mr. Sekora says. In fact, I think he's a staunch

supporter of the present government. He says: "In fact, it would cost

less to extend the ALRT service to Coquitlam than to go all the way

into Surrey."

On the other matter, I would like to ask the minister to bear with

me while I read a little portion of a letter from Alderman Francis of

Port Moody. I think the minister underlined this fact. They're talking

about the ALRT and commuter rail, and whether or not one should be

considered a competitor of the other, or one should be considered

complementary to the other. I'll quote from Alderman Francis's letter.

He says: "There is a danger that ALRT and commuter rail may be seen

provincially as rivals, rather than as complementary systems."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I would point out to the minister that they're concerned down in

Port Moody, and they've been working on this for a long time. As a

matter of fact, about 15 years ago or more I investigated that line

into Vancouver by the CPR, and I thought it was all set up, through

computer switching and everything else, in preparation for commuter

lines. There has been no significant push, through a couple of party

governments, since that time.

Anyway, Alderman Francis says: "Unless we get a commitment before the

summer of 1985, the service will not commence in time for Expo." He feels

that while ALRT is going to be extremely expensive for the provincial share,

the commuter rail would be available at one-thirtieth to one fiftieth of the

cost. I'm not quoting him here. Actually, I'm quoting a phone call from

Mayor Driscoll; and I think I've got to be fair to him and say that I'm

suggesting that this is what he has said. He'll let me know if I've

misquoted him.

The problem is that they're not going to hold their breath for ALRT,

in spite of my representations. They don't think that I'll be very

convincing, I guess. They don't really want to hold their breath,

because in view of the other priorities of the government, the fact is

that an ALRT branch isn't going to bounce into Port Moody in the near

future. I think that we can be reasonably certain that it probably

won't get to Port Moody; it might get to Brunette. It depends on when

the election is. The announcement might get to Brunette Street, anyway.

However, I'm quite certain that it's likely, given the political

complexion of Coquitlam-Moody, that it would be a little bit more

lethargic in its progress towards my community of Port Moody.

I'd like to quote the mayor here. He says:

"I should also like to reiterate the contention made by

the city's delegation on the occasion of December '84 in a visit with

you" — that is, the Hon. Alec Fraser — "namely that we strongly believe

that a commuter rail along Burrard Inlet will both provide immediate relief

of traffic congestion from Mission to Vancouver and result in a deferral of

major highway expenditures. Therefore we ask you to consider this point carefully

and support it when the matter arises, presumably in caucus, as it usually does."

The minister recently wrote the chamber of commerce in Coquitlam.

The letter was dated February 1, it was posted on March 25, and lo and

behold, it arrived at the Coquitlam Chamber of Commerce on April 24.

Now it spent almost as long in the post office as it did on the

minister's desk, which is approximately six weeks — no, six or seven

weeks to four. But anyway, regardless of that, it indicated that the

minister didn't feel at this time that there was much hope of

proceeding with commuter rail. Now I've been in contact with both the

mayor of Port Moody and the Member of Parliament for Mission–Port

Moody, my successor, who is very interested in serving his riding and

in commuter rail and in getting along with this government and any

future government of British Columbia. I asked him about this: did he

support it? He said yes, he supported it. He felt that the member for

Dewdney and a number of other members would support it. He said that

it's the view of some people that Mission to Port Moody is a natural

for commuter rail; that it would probably cost in the neighbourhood of

$32 million. It's under national jurisdiction because, as you know, it

is an interprovincial rail line.

Apparently it has overwhelming superiority over the ALRT, at least

in the short run, to serve the needs of those residents, and it's more

likely to happen now, cheaper — probably at a cost of about $10 million

to the province. They have a site already, as I mentioned, at the town

centre. Apparently there's also rolling stock for this commuter rail

operation for CPR. It's not special automated cars or anything else.

The rolling stock is mothballed — someone suggested with square wheels,

but I wouldn't believe that — somewhere in Ontario. I'd like to ask

whether or not that's a fact.

He also indicated that should there be an

initiation by the minister.... Since it is provincial jurisdiction

and it's on an interprovincial rail line, the initiation would have to

come from the minister herself. Second question: has the minister

indicated to the Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski in Ottawa...?

Has he any inkling or has he had any requests to do what he has to do

on behalf of commuter rail on CPR lines, if not from Mission to

Vancouver at least from Moody to Vancouver or Coquitlam to Vancouver?

And the next question is: is the minister aware that Mr. Fraser seems

to be quite supportive, Mr. St. Germain seems to be quite supportive

and also that 50-50 federal-provincial sharing will apply? Finally, is

she aware that Mr. Mazankowski, if he runs into any barriers or

impediments in price or otherwise — imposed through legal measures by

the CPR — is prepared to amend the Railway Act so that that commuter

rail system can proceed? I've asked about four questions.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. Without

being too specific about whether or not commuter rail is a good idea, I

really want the member to know that we are certainly pleased to receive

any kind of submission at all that the federal government wants to

give. First of all, we have had communication with Mr. Mazankowski's

office.

Secondly, I want you to know that there is no formula for 50-50 federal funding. Even though the member may think

[ Page 5990 ]

there is, there is not. It would be nice if there

were. We would be the first to applaud that move from the federal

administration.

The cost for this commuter rail is significant, inasmuch as that

particular route will carry about 2,000 passengers per day at a cost,

as you said in your address, of approximately $35 million. ALRT is

capable of carrying 30,000 people per hour, but in the first year will

carry about 10,000 people per hour. So you can see that there's more to

this than meets the eye.

At first blush we would say that we just want to sit down with them.

They seem to be anxious to do so. We have not closed that door. We

would like to do so, but I think the initiative would come from the

federal administration, as the Railway Act comes under their

jurisdiction. We await that. I have been trying to arrange a first

meeting with Mr. Mazankowski, and that is in the hands of his office.

I can say to you that the proposal which may come from the federal

administration — I understand that interest is very keen and very high

— will, of course, have a bearing on what else we do. I don't see it as

saying that it has to be one or the other. But we'd certainly have to

take a good look at any decisions that are made affecting the other

decision on ALRT. Of course we'd have to look at both. We couldn't say,

and I certainly can't say to you on the floor of this House, that both

would be acceptable, because we have no idea what the federal

government's changes would be. I understand there is legislation

pending which will give the minister a little more say in what

decisions he will make; but that, as I understand, isn't even in the

federal House as yet. So it would be meaningless for me to try to make

a statement here that would assist you in that. In response to your

question about commuter rail, we certainly have an open mind about

sitting down with federal officials and discussing it.

[3:45]

MR. ROSE: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a couple of

other questions. I didn't get an answer about the mothballed rolling

stock already purchased and sitting somewhere in Ontario. I guess

that's not too important. I could go into what it would cost per

passenger per day, or whatever, in terms of investment, but I'm sure

the investment would be far less. The density and the volume may not be

as high, but the initial investment would be far less.

Could I ask the minister, since she has told us that she is trying

to arrange a meeting: have you written the minister to arrange a

meeting, Madam Minister? If you do, would you request 50-50 funding, so

that that $30 million price tag could be met? Finally, would you

request the participation of the federal government in any commuter

rail, at least for the startup costs and whatever amendments to the

Railway Act might be needed?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member wants to know if I have

written. The answer to that is yes, but I do not have an answer as yet.

It's in Ottawa now, I do know, because the general manager has been in

touch with the Ottawa office just this afternoon.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister be prepared to negotiate backup,

rather than simply for a meeting? The other question is about whether

she is going to approach him for assistance on commuter rail from Port

Moody.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I have not specified, other

than to ask for a meeting in British Columbia, to sit down with the new

minister with his new responsibilities for transportation. I would

think that we would certainly not enter any meeting in that regard and

have our minds set on any negotiation. First of all, we're going to

identify the need. Secondly, I would not go into any meeting

considering a 50-50 proposition. I think that we would be finding out

what the federal government wishes to produce on their rail line and

what they are offering to the province of British Columbia. Thirdly, I

would like to be discussing with Mr. Mazankowski future investment in

all forms of transportation and what this new federal government wishes

to do in that regard, because as you know we were quite disappointed in

the past that the federal government in no way came up to the

expectations that we had for assisting us in terms of our new

initiative in light rapid transit.

MR. ROSE: Could you tell us when you wrote?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, may I just repeat the

member's question so it's on the record; he asks, when did I write? I

wrote following my recent trip to Ottawa, because prior to my trip to

Ottawa I had hoped to have a meeting in Ottawa with Mr. Mazankowski.

They were unable to make that arrangement for me at that time, and I

was personally quite tied up with the social services side of my

ministry while I was there. I thought I might be able to work in an

appointment at that time; however, it wasn't possible to coordinate

that with our two offices. Following my return in about the last two

weeks, I wrote the following day, and he has that request in his office

— as far as I know, of course.

MR. PARKS: I was interested in the minister's comment with

respect to expecting a 10,000 ridership the first year with respect to

the ALRT route Vancouver through Westminster. I was extremely pleased

to have the opportunity to travel a good length of that route last week

— in fact from the downtown station right through to the Patterson

station in Burnaby. I was amazed at the smoothness and the speed with

which that new system works right through the heart of Vancouver and

Burnaby.

Speaking as a member representing the lower mainland, and in

particular my constituency on the north side of the Fraser, it seems to

me that there will be a great opportunity to increase that ridership

manyfold by the extension into the areas that the hon. member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) has just been referring to, and in

particular what we call the northeast sector. I appreciate that there

is undoubtedly a significant amount of capital cost involved in such a

system, and obviously we have to face such development. But with the

first phase almost completed and almost in service, I would expect with

citizens of the lower mainland becoming experienced with that

particular system and the speed — not only the speed, but the safety

and convenience — with which it's going to be able to commute people

from Westminster and Burnaby into Vancouver, we're going to see a

tremendously increased awareness and hence a tremendously increased

desire to have that extension into not only the Surreys, which I

commend, but also of course into my constituency and all others up the

north side of the river.

I also heard the minister say that there was a long-term transit

study being undertaken at this time. It wasn't clear if the minister

was referring just to ALRT on the north side of

[ Page 5991 ]

the river, or if she was also referring to an

evaluation of the commuter rail — the subject that was just discussed

between she and the member for Coquitlam-Moody — and whether or not it

was even going to consider utilizing the potential water route from

Vancouver harbour into, say, Port Moody's harbour.

Clearly, with the Mary Hill bypass just about to come in service —

hopefully within this year — there is going to be a fairly direct link

from, if you will, the Pitt Meadows–Maple Ridge–Mission area right into

my constituency, the Maillardville area. While I would certainly be

advocating a very early extension of the ALRT to the Brunette area, if

you will, I wonder if the minister is prepared to confirm just what the

various components included in that long-term transit study are, and

whether or not we can expect anything more definitive than what the

hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody suggested with respect to an early

announcement for Coquitlam.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the question, and could I

just say that one of the things we know we don't need a great deal of

is further study of transportation. There has been so much done. What

we do need is to take all of the information that we have and place it

in the context of the new revised routes — the whole reorganization of

routes in the greater Vancouver area and the Fraser Valley area — in

order to make sure that the advent of rapid transit is best handled in

conjunction with some of the concerns raised by members who want ALRT,

or want something else in their area. We will be looking at the

existing bus routes. Of course, there's been a lot of reorganization

already on the drawing board in terms of ALRT. We'll be looking at

commuter rail; at the use of existing highways and right-of-ways; at

water transport; at our whole handyDART system and ALRT system, and how

they tie in with the new ALRT. All of those things will be taken into

consideration. I really want you to know that our staff is working with

the existing information. We are not going out and getting a whole new

study. We know this is something that has been studied very much; we

have the information but we want to coordinate it with the new service

that will be going in place.

In response to the member's desire to have the Coquitlam extension

of ALRT phased in in the next little while, again I may say — as I did to

the member who has just taken his place — that that is a decision which

has not yet been made, but I appreciate the concern you have expressed,

and that the mayor of Coquitlam and other people have expressed. No

doubt when this study is done we will be a little closer to decision

making in that regard.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's just pause and look at those numbers in

terms of service to Scott Road or to Brunette, the capital cost numbers

per rider that were presented just a few minutes ago. Did the minister

hear them? Did the minister put it together? Capital cost per rider in

the rush-hour period: $46,800 at the Brunette station; $50,800 at the

Scott Road station.

Let's just stop and think about that — $50,000 per rider. My God,

this morning we were arguing about $3.33 as the amount this woman

provides in terms of food for those on welfare, and this afternoon

she's riding the rails and is the biggest spender in town. Fifty

thousand dollars a rider! Let's stop and reflect on that. We could put

them in houses for free; they wouldn't have to ride anywhere. We'd

build those houses on False Creek once Expo disappears, as it will in a

handful of months, and we could house the people for that money.

What kind of economic madness does this woman preside over? Absolute

economic madness. Fifty thousand dollars per rider, capital cost. Then

you put it on the never-never system of payment and you're talking

about $100,000. Good Lord, doesn't anybody ever stop and pull back and

try, as the economists say, to look at this macro-economically? Who's

running the show over there? Who is actually thinking on the broad

scale about where this economy is going? Who is making some judgments

about expenditures at the broad level? The answer is: absolutely nobody.

Nobody ever puts it together over there. On the one hand you'll be the

penurious people who won't provide any more than $3.33 for food for a person

on welfare, when we have the highest food costs in the land; then you're

the big spenders — $50,000 a rider for your new ALRT system.

MR. PARKS: And how many jobs? You don't care about jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: We want jobs that are permanent. You guys chase

fool's gold every damned time it's put in front of you. You really do.

You have no more sense about solid economics than fly. It's supposed to

be a businessperson's government, and you always make the wrong

business choice.

[4:00]

What more numbers do you need? Fifty thousand dollars a rider, out

of the Brunette station, out of the Scott Road station. That is

absolutely incredible. No wonder Professor Horwood, the professor of

transportation at UW, says.... "Would you extend the system?" He

says: "That's the last thing I would do." I couldn't really believe it

when he said: "You could house these people. You could put them in

housing for what you're spending on the ALRT line." I found that bard

to believe, but it's really true. You could house them for what you're

spending, you know.

This is the most mixed-up case of priorities I've ever seen. There

is nobody in the driver's seat. The whole economy of British Columbia

is like your ALRT system: there's nobody in the driver's seat. It's the

man-less system; it really is. It's Tron, it's a video arcade, it's

incredible. You're running this economy like a video arcade. It just

doesn't make any sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: To you.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, and you ask any citizen: would you be

willing to put up $50,000 of your money as the entry fee for ALRT?

They'd say: "You've got to be crazy." My God, most of them didn't spend

that on their house — or it was something like that on their house.

This doesn't make any sense — a $50,000 capital cost per rider. Good

Lord, you have to reflect about the kind of confusion there is over

there.

There isn't any real economic planning going on in British Columbia.

The results are there to see. The lineup is at the minister's door:

237,000 individuals on support in terms of welfare; 220,000 on

unemployment insurance. That is the end result of ten years of Social

Credit economic planning: ten years of your planning and we've got

almost half a million people on the dole. No wonder! And you talk about

jobs. The jobs are elsewhere. The models are out there for us to check.

[ Page 5992 ]

They're in Scandinavia, in terms of how they deal with unemployment

and how they create jobs. The lineup at your door, the half a million

people one way or another at your door, is the measure of failure in

terms of economic planning on the part of you and your colleagues.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It's interesting that the member for

Vancouver East continues to be so negative. You know, it's fascinating,

because if he had taken the same analogy with the SeaBus, which cost

$35 million in 1976 to build, at that time for the capital cost each

and every rider on that SeaBus cost $10,000 in 1976 dollars. If you

would project that to today's dollars, well, it would be the same

analogy that he is trying to make. It's the kind of socialist

arithmetic, the mathematics by the socialists.... They love to do

that.

So I suppose what the member is really saying indirectly, which he

doesn't want to say directly, is that he doesn't believe in public

transportation. That's what he's saying. He doesn't believe in the

public having public transportation. Because, you see, the only way

that you can provide public transportation is by having a capital

expense of buying the buses. It doesn't matter if it's the conventional

system or the ALRT system. It doesn't matter if it's a SeaBus or a

handyDART. It doesn't matter if it's one of the very many conventional

systems, the small community systems, that we have in the province.

What this member is saying.... And we know now where the NDP

critic on B.C. Transit is coming from. He doesn't want public

transportation. It's as simple as that. So what does he want? He's

against that. He wants private enterprise to take over all of the

transportation. We have made a commitment to public transportation in

the province. We have the best ferry service. We have the best

conventional bus service. We're very proud of what we have. We're very

proud of what we have in services to the handicapped. The small

communities were totally ignored in this province before this

government took bus transportation systems to the small communities.

That member is standing on his feet and saying: "Oh, but each one of

those cost X number of dollars per ride for capital investment." Well,

you know, looking at it that way, you wouldn't purchase a bus. You

would never build a highway. You would never build a hospital, Mr.

Chairman. You would never build a school because, you see, if you take

the first year's ridership, or if you take the first year's enrolment

in a school, and you divide it into the capital budget, which is the

socialist mathematics, it's just an impossibility to even credit

financing in that way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Therefore I suppose most members in this House can make the analogy.

Would the member who has just taken his seat pay $18,000 for a seat in

this House? Would he do that? Did he do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I just say to you that it's

an analogy. It's socialist mathematics that this member wants to put

before the people of this province — through this House and to the

people in the gallery — to try to somehow come out of this thing. He

knows that the ALRT is a good investment. He knows that, but he wants

to muddy the waters and make it sound as though it isn't. That's the

way this argument is going today. But it's a foolish argument, and it

is one that doesn't stand the test of time in any other area of

government. So if you're not for public transportation, get up and say

so. Don't say it that way.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the simple never-never world of the other

side, they say you're either for a public transportation system or

against it. We're for a system that isn't going to cost us the world.

You know the Expo slogan — the world. We have a system here that's

costing us the world, and extending it will cost us that much again.

San Diego has built a system that cost $3.3 million a kilometre. We

have a system that's costing $33 million plus per kilometre — ten times

the cost. You know, it isn't that kind of world. There are rational

decision-makers across this continent that have opted for different

systems, opted for systems that will cost less and do the job. The

people in San Diego made that decision — $3 million — 10 percent per

kilometre. You opted for a system that would cost ten times what they

paid for a system in San Diego. The one in Edmonton is something like

nine, etc. You've made that kind of decision.

What we're saying is that if you're going to serve all of the people

of British Columbia well, then you have to pick a system that's less

costly; otherwise the service won't be available. I think that's the

simple reality. The member for Port Moody talks about using the

existing rail lines on the north side of the valley. He says the cost

is one-thirtieth or one-fiftieth of this system. Isn't that worth some

serious thought?

MR. PARKS: What about the operational costs?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, the operational costs. Labour. How much of

an in-depth marketing analysis have you made? Those apartment buildings

in New Westminster, primarily with elderly people in them and many of

them single widows, in terms of my familiarity with that

community.... You ask them if they're willing to ride on this

unmanned system. The ones I've talked to are not very positive about it.

Elderly women from New Westminster are concerned about an unmanned

system. The other line is in Scarborough. They made the decision that

it had to be a manned system. Despite the technology, they made that

decision. So one wonders if in the end you aren't going to have to

review this decision anyway in terms of manning the system. The

ridership may well require and demand that it be a manned system. That

takes care of your operating costs pretty quickly.

You know, $50,000 a rider for this system, and the minister of

welfare is the one that's guiding it through. Isn't it an incredible

juxtaposition, that this penurious government, when it comes to looking

after people in need, can handle $50,000 a rider with respect to the

ALRT system.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that the

member who has just taken his place makes a comment about the San Diego

plan and other plans, and the ones that he mentioned. The San Diego

program carries at maximum 4,000 people per hour. That's the maximum at

their very height. When they get to that 4,000 point, that's it; they

have to put a new service in. The capacity of the systems that you have

mentioned in the United States, and the ones

[ Page 5993 ]

that are currently on the drawing boards....

We've looked at them all, and we've looked at the cost projections. We

looked at the capital costs, and also the ridership, and all of those

would not have met the demand that we have and will have in the city of

Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area.

Then there was his comment: shouldn't we be giving serious thought

to commuter rail? What made this member think in any way that I'm not

giving serious thought to it? I thought that I had assured the member

for Coquitlam-Moody that, indeed, not only have we been considering

sitting down with the federal administration, but we are also doing an

overall study of that area, along with others, that will be ready in

the next few weeks — and we will have full discussion with the federal

administration on that subject. I've given that commitment. I not only

gave it on the floor of this House, but I've given it to the federal

administration as well.

MR. GABELMANN: Since the minister and members on that side of

the House want us all to be positive, may I ask the minister if I can

phone the people in Campbell River this afternoon and say that she has

given the okay for the installation of the handyDART system in Campbell

River?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm quite aware of the submission that

has been made. There are several municipalities who have made the same

submission. They go, as you know, to the B.C. Transit board. Those

decisions will be made by that board. They are not within this budget,

but they will perhaps be in the budget to follow; that will be up to

the board. They have the submission from that area well in hand.

MR. GABELMANN: Can the minister tell me if no further

extensions are being planned for handyDART services at the present

time, and if that's so, when that "freeze" will be lifted?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm sorry, I misled you just a little.

Those small communities' budgets are being reviewed at the present time

by B.C. Transit. We may be in a position in the fall of this year to

make announcements regarding some of those small communities, including

that one.

MS. BROWN: This morning we were dealing with the 237,000 —

give or take a couple of hundred — people in receipt of income

assistance. At that time the minister explained that there were

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 who were in the Individual

Opportunity Plan and the job action program, which is a part of that,

and who would be holding down successful jobs. My colleague from North

Island asked for a specific figure. The minister has had an hour for

lunch and an hour to rest, and a couple of hours to think about transit

while her department was compiling those figures. I wonder if we could

go back now and start getting some information — hard data, numbers —

from the minister about the job that she's doing in terms of helping

people get off income assistance and back into the workforce.

[4:15]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't have anything more than what I

gave you this morning. If you're expecting anything further than that,

I think that specifics would have to be put on the order paper, and I

would be glad to put the answers on the order paper.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I explained this morning, and my

colleagues did too, that the reason we were asking these questions is

that we've not had the privilege of seeing an annual report since

1982-83, and this is now 1985. If we are to scrutinize the minister's

job, to find out whether in fact she is working on behalf of that area

of the constituency — namely, poor people, the disabled, the old,

children and other people in need — she is supposed to be, we have no

alternative but to question her during her estimates, which is what we

are doing now. We want to know what's happening in terms of the 70

percent she tells us are coming off income assistance as a result of

the Individual Opportunity Plan. We want some figures.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, the member always wants to

confuse the job action program and the Individual Opportunity Plan.

Please know that they are two different programs. The Individual

Opportunity Plan is, if you like, a smorgasbord of services; they are

choices that you can take, one of which is the job action program. The

job action program is the one in which somewhere close to seven out of

ten who take it — and this is a short course; the course is about three

weeks — find a job in less than a month. That is the success rate of

that program.

As for the success rate of the Individual Opportunity Plan, that is

a little more difficult to define. It is difficult to define because

people go in and out of social assistance as they need it. So persons

who take an individual opportunity plan today, which is truly an

agreement between our office and them, will be in an educational

service. They will stay in that seat and get the education which will

give them the tools to get them to work, or they will use the equipment

we buy them in order to give them some training at home, and they will

use it and learn it and then go out into the job market, or they will

use the extra boots, hard hats, tools, and all of the things required

to get them a job that they already have out of town, but that's what's

stopping them from connecting with the job. That may be just a very

small investment, but it's an investment which allows them the

transportation and the equipment, the clothes and things to go to that

job. There may be any number of things. Some job opportunity plans will

take two years, others will take three weeks. Some would maybe just be

the decision to provide the clothing or the transportation to a job

that the client has already found but is prohibited from taking because

it is somewhere in another part of the province. We think that's a good

investment, and we do it.

Now when you say you would like the figures for those, the best

figures we can give you are those that go off income assistance,

because that is success. If they go off income assistance and get into

independent living, then it means that they are no longer needing us.

If by chance they come back on again, that's what gets confusing. In

nine months they may be out of that job because it's a seasonal job,

and they may well come back to us. First they probably would go to

unemployment insurance, but somewhere down the line we might see them

again. That's what makes it confusing to give you those hard figures.

I can assure you that the Individual Opportunity Plan is working. We

could spend our time getting the figures you want, but it would still

end up that when people go off income assistance, whether they took the

Individual Opportunity Plan or the job action program, or simply were

successful finding a job on their own, that's a success. That's what we

[ Page 5994 ]

count a success, because we want them to have the opportunity to work like everybody else that we'd like to have working.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to move to some local concerns in

the Okanagan and bring out a few salient points about the problems

there, as well as some specific requests of the minister.

The statistics on income assistance caseload by region from MHR show

an increase in income assistance between 1983 and 1985 of 14 percent in

the Okanagan and 12 percent in the Kootenays. Both increased

significantly in the last couple of years. In addition, I might bring

to the minister's attention that both in Kelowna and in the Vernon area

the demand on the local organizations such as the food banks have

increased quite significantly. I might point out that in the Kelowna

area in the first few months of this year the demand for hampers from

the food bank has almost tripled over that time period in 1984; so much

so that they have had to put a limit or a cap on the number of

recipients per month. They've capped that at 1,000. The demand is far

exceeding those limitations. We've got some significant problems up

there. I might point out to the minister that in the Okanagan Valley we

presently have an unemployment rate of approximately 20 percent. Things

are certainly in a tight position up there, and a lot of people are

hurting and have been hurting for some time.

I might also point out — this is a table taken from the National

Council of Welfare estimates, the low income lines for 1985 — that in a

town the size of Vernon, less than 30,000, the misery line, I guess you

could call it, for a single person is about $8,400, for two people it

is about $11,000, for three people it is about $14,800, and for a

family of four about $17,000. When you look at the income assistance

rates for those same categories, they are dramatically less, almost

one-half of those poverty lines. I think it points out that the amount

of money received by income assistance clientele throughout the

province is far below their realistic needs. I would like to read into

the record a letter from the Okanagan South Women's Association, in the

Penticton area.

"Many women in this area are taking drastic measures in

their own way to deal with their poverty. Some women have attempted suicide,

some women have given up all hope and have resorted to another reality, that

of the psychiatric ward. Others brave the unknown and deal as best they can

with their terrible situations, resorting to food banks, soup-kitchens and clothing

handouts. Many have lost their homes, and more will do so unless these rates

are increased."

In a final appeal to the minister over the signature of Hilma LaBelle, it says:

"We urge the minister to raise the welfare rates to the established poverty line."

I have another letter that I'd like to point out from the central Okanagan Elizabeth Fry Society. It states:

"Most British Columbians dependent on welfare must

exist on an income of only half the poverty level. In addition, many

services — family support workers, women's centres, advocacy groups,

renter's grant, EDP and CIP programs, rent control have been abolished.

Yet the cost of living has increased by 11.4 percent since 1982, when

last the welfare rates were increased. Our agency's workers report a

marked increase in poverty-related crimes: theft, fraud, etc."

Under the signature of Margaret Sanders, it appeals to the minister to consider an increase in the present welfare rates.

I have been in attendance at previous sessions, but with the lack of

response to questions, I'm not really sure if this issue was addressed

or not. I would like to ask the minister to clarify for this side of

the House what her intentions are and what the plans of the ministry

are in terms of bringing the income assistance at least to a tolerable

level in this province.

I'll sit down now and let the minister answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Thank you for the question. To the member

for Okanagan North, that question is before us at all times. As you

know, the amount of income assistance that is being paid out now in the

province is very close to $1 billion. We are serving more people, and

that is why there haven't been any increases. There is a

possibility.... We always hope that there will be more money

forthcoming and that there will be fewer people drawing on the fund in

the next budgetary year. But at this point in time, in response to the

question regarding this year, there will be no increases this year in

this budget. I know the member knows that, because we just passed the

budget in this House, or at least we're dealing with the present

budget. But we always hope that in the years to come there will be more

dollars provided as we can afford to. All members in this House wish

that. We hope that because there will probably be fewer people on

welfare, that possibility will prevail.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I think the fact of a quarter of a million

people on welfare, as well as about the equivalent number of people on

unemployment insurance, certainly has caused severe strain on the

delivery of income assistance. I have no qualms with that argument

whatsoever.

I think it's incumbent upon this government to realize that it's a

social responsibility. Its priority responsibility in its mandate with

the people of this province is to provide a basic level of assistance

for those less fortunate in this province, who are really under the gun

at this point and have been for some time, with very bleak futures.

It's something that I think has been remiss. It has needed to be

addressed before this. I'm disappointed that there are no programs in

effect in terms of boosting that assistance.

I want to turn at this point to another situation — a very local

situation. I'll just brief the minister on it — she may be aware of it

or may not. A particular individual in the eastern part of the riding

of North Okanagan — over in the Edgewood area, which is in the Arrow

Lakes area — is on disability pension and has had to seek physiotherapy

in the Vernon hospital for the back disability that he's currently

suffering. The therapy at this point is very critical in order for him

to alleviate the problem. The problem he faces is that being on the

pension, he cannot afford the cost of travel, which is about 80 miles

back and forth over the Monashee highway. He cannot afford the cost of

that regular visitation. Apparently the local MHR has refused to pay or

even consider the payment or partial payment of any of the

transportation costs. This particular individual is in a catch-22

situation. He can't afford to make the visitations and if he doesn't

make the visitations, he can't secure the treatment that he necessarily

needs, and I wonder if the minister can suggest any way around this

present impasse.

[4:30]

[ Page

5995 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, we do have a program which can cover

some forms of medical transportation. If the member would give me that

specific case, I can have it looked into individually. I'd be pleased

to do that.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite happy to supply

the information to the minister and will do so at the conclusion of the

other points that I would like to make. The situation in regard to the

closure of Tranquille. A number of individual cases have been brought

to my attention, some of them from the Kootenays and some from the

Okanagan area, in terms of the displacement of individuals from the

Tranquille institution down to the Glendale institution. I would like

to read into the record a letter from the Kootenay Society for the

Handicapped, which I think outlines the salient argument that is the

critical issue here. I'll just begin here:

"On behalf of the six people from the Kootenays who

currently reside at Tranquille and have been labelled extended-care

eligible, we wish to express our deep disappointment and united

opposition to your decision to transfer all people with this label to

Glendale. Mrs. McCarthy, we feel you have betrayed these people and

their families. Your decision is in direct contradiction to all the

commitments made in your open letter dated December 9."

It states a number of interesting points. It says:

"You have promised the closure will be achieved

through consultation. The fact: families have been totally left out of

this critical decision. You have promised each resident will be placed

as near to their own family's community as possible. The fact: Glendale

is 700 kilometres away from the families in our area. You have

promised: 'Our first concern has always been the best interests of the

resident.' The fact: this decision and its impact is not in the best

interests of these individual people."

The criticism goes on. The particular case that I would like to

bring to the minister's attention is the case of a Mr. Michael

Chernakoff. This lad has been in Tranquille for 15 years; he entered

when he was 14. The family were unable to cope; they didn't have much

disposable income. He is one of those individuals who have been moved

to Glendale. Interestingly enough, when the parents were first

notified, they were told that their concerns about the move of the

member of their family.... They needn't be concerned about it; he

would be taken into the community. A letter from one of the local

social workers reads: "This memo is to inform you that the community

placement planning for Michael Chernakoff will now take place in

region 3." In other words, there was every intention that he would be

placed in the community where the family resides. Now what has happened

is that a decision has come about where instead of being placed in the

community in the Okanagan area, Michael has been moved to Glendale. The

family is extremely upset about it. They have made a number of appeals

to the minister on their concerns and as yet have not had any

successful conclusion of what they consider to be a very critical

situation.

I would ask if the minister is aware of the case, whether there can be a reconsideration

of the placement of this individual in Glendale, and whether we can reconsider

putting him into the appropriate facilities: that is, closer to the family in

the Okanagan area.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, this whole question of the

institutionalization of Tranquille is one which I said yesterday, and I

say again today, this government is very proud of. We're very pleased

with what we did. I'm very proud of the staff that carried it out

because, contrary to what the member for Okanagan North said just a few

minutes ago, there has been much consultation. There has been

consultation with parents and consultation between professionals,

parents and even in some cases the residents themselves.

For the very few that could not make the move.... Perhaps the

member for Okanagan North did not visit Tranquille when it was a going

concern. Perhaps he would not know that there were some patients or

clients in the Tranquille facility who had 24-hour medical care. To say

that each of them could be in a small community resource.... That

was an impossibility to achieve. Considering that we had a staff of 650

and a population of 325 in Tranquille, and all of it was wound down

within 18 months, and most of those clients were put in community-based

resources, that is a fantastic accomplishment by my staff — an

absolutely fantastic accomplishment.

You may be bringing forward.... I know the case to which you

refer; I know all of those cases quite well. I want to tell you that

the decision was not mine to make — whether or not those few that were

not medically able to transfer to a community-based resource....

That was not mine to make, nor would I want to take on that

responsibility; with the greatest of respect, Mr. Chairman, nor should

the member wish to take on that responsibility, because frankly that's

beyond our capability.

[Mr. Ree in the chair]

The decision as to whether Glendale becomes the home or whether a

community-based resource becomes the home has to do with medical

advice. Each one of the individuals in Tranquille was medically

assessed, and they were assessed in many other ways as well. But it was

found that those with multiple problems, in cases such as the one that

you named and others that are in Glendale today, could not be moved

into a community-based resource. It was impossible to do so, because

the attention, the care and the 24-hour assistance that they need for

their specific demands was such that they had to be moved to Glendale.

Let me just say a word about Glendale. We're very proud of Glendale.

I too have visited Glendale on more than one occasion. I have talked to

the staff, and I have seen the program which they put forward for their

residents. They do have a very good program, and one which I think that

if the parents of that young person, that adult, would view, they would

be very pleased about.

Now to address your concerns as to whether or not the family should

be physically near, in most cases that's exactly what we've done with

the depopulation of Tranquille. We have placed the resident, the

mentally handicapped family member, close to their home.

In this case, if I recall it.... Correct me if I'm wrong. It

really doesn't matter: if you need medical attention, and you have to

be in the lower mainland and your home happens to be in Prince George,

you get your medical attention in the lower mainland where the doctor

orders it to be. But in this case, I believe, the father lives in

Surrey. I believe the father is closer to this person you named than he

was when Michael was in Kamloops. However, that really isn't the point.

The point is

[ Page 5996 ]

that if the service which will assist the life of

that mentally handicapped person to be better is better in Glendale,

then you should be the first to jump to your feet to commend the

government for doing so.

May I give you the opposite scenario. If anything happened to any of

those whom we transferred to a community-based resource because they

were unfit to be in one, and we flew in the face of the medical advice

and the Health ministry's, which I have no right to do, nor will I — I

have a moral obligation not to — I can imagine the hue and cry. If in

spite of the medical advice we moved them to a community-based

resource, a private home in a community, and then something happened to

that person because they did not have the medical attention that was

needed, I would just imagine what this debate would be.

So I say to you: you have to, in this position, rely on professional

advice. Sometimes that professional advice is not what some parents

wish to hear. But those same parents would be very critical if we put

their child at risk, and in this case they were adults, as you know. If

we put them at risk, because they are our responsibility, those parents

have.... Because they are over 19, they are the responsibility of

the province, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We could

not move them to the place that they desired, because we would be

putting that person at risk. I hope you understand that.

Now may I say this too. The door is not closed at Glendale for any

of the residents of Glendale. Glendale gives a very good service. The

staff there have patience and a commitment to their work that is second

to none. But if there is any patient in that Glendale hospital, and

there have been many, that has made the transition to the

community-based resource.... If there is any possibility of doing

that, that patient will be transferred. So it's not a closed door at

Glendale.

The hope is still there that we may be able to bring that particular

person you asked after, and some of the others that are there.... I

think now there are somewhere around 46 or 47 patients out of 325 in an

institution with patients and staff numbering 1,000. Out of that, 46

patients — somewhere around that; it may be less than that now if some

have already been moved to Glendale — are at Glendale. So I think

that's an extremely good accomplishment, one that I think would be

lauded by the members of the opposition, and by the members on this

side of the House.

You see, Mr. Chairman, mentally handicapped is not something that

should be in any way a political discussion. We should never take the

handicapped and make them pawns in a political game. If there was any

intimation by that member that there's some reason.... For example,

why would we take 46 people and leave them in Glendale? Why would we

want to do that? We moved 275-plus out of Tranquille, so what good

reason would there be to just isolate that 46 and put them into

Glendale? You must know there's some good reason, so to even ask the

question sort of says that you don't understand that. But I want you to

understand that their life is enriched, because they have a good

program at Glendale. They have the opportunity of moving out, and

they're in a much more modern facility, a better facility than the one

they left — not in terms of equal commitment of staff, but certainly in

the physical plant.

In that vein, I'd like to say that I have a sheaf of letters from

people who are very happy that their patients are being looked after

well. This letter is to do with Glendale. I'm sorry, I can't give you

the place; the name is taken out on purpose. But it is a letter

addressed to myself, which says:

"I thought it would be appropriate to write and tell

you, as a parent of a severely handicapped adult who was recently

transferred from Tranquille to Glendale Lodge, that here is one mother

who is happy with the decision. Even before the decision was made to

move him, I was in contact with my social worker and he knew that I was

not in agreement at all with this patient being placed in a group home.

"While my husband was living we visited our son

regularly and knew he was receiving excellent care from the staff at

Tranquille, and certainly did not hesitate to tell them so. I was up to

Tranquille twice this year before his move, and when I looked at the

various patients, all cerebral palsy people, I just couldn't see where

they could be adequately cared for in a group home. Last week was my

first opportunity to go over to Vancouver Island and I spent two days

in Victoria in order to go out to Glendale Lodge and see for myself the

facilities they have there. I came home with a happy heart and knew the

right decision had been made. The facilities are excellent, the

residences bright and cheerful. Above all, the staff are very kind and

considerate. It sure made me feel good knowing he was getting the same

care he received in Tranquille."

She goes on to say much about the physical plant at Glendale and how nice it is. She says:

"Just to hear two members of the staff, when I was

introduced as Kenneth's mother, and the spontaneous reaction of how

they enjoyed looking after Kenneth, made me feet very grateful."

This letter is from an appreciative parent. There are many

appreciative parents who have their children or their young adults at

Glendale, so I'd like the member to know, on behalf of his constituent

— the member's comment on his constituent — that it is a good place for

that constituent to be.

[4:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: My goodness, I think I hit a nerve there

somewhere. The depth of the respons