1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 8, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6631 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Harcourt –– 6631

Polar 8. Mr. Sihota 6632

Activation of Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands.

Mr. Kempf –– 6633

Municipal Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 19). Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6633

Presenting Reports –– 6633

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

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6633

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rogers

Mr. Perry

Ms. Marzari

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Barlee

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I am very pleased and privileged to have four cousins visiting from

Noordwijkerhout, Holland. They are all members of the Warmerdam family,

which is certainly a well-known family in Noordwijkerhout. There are a

good many of them, and they are all related. With us today are Wirn

Warmerdam, his wife Gerry Warmerdam, Miss Betts Warmerdam and her

brother Theo Warmerdam. I would ask the House to extend them all a big

welcome.

MR. RABBITT : On behalf of the Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), I would like the

House to welcome 35 grade 11 students from George P. Vanier Secondary

School and Highland Secondary School in the Comox Valley. They are

hosted by Fletcher Challenge and accompanied by Norma Rankin from the

Courtenay Fletcher Challenge office and two teachers, Ms. Baumgartner

and Mr. Delbert Doll. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. CHALMERS :

Visiting from the great riding of Okanagan South today we have Dr. Erv

Schill and his family. Dr. Schill is the chairman of the board of

trustees of School District 23. On behalf of the first member for

Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) and myself, I would ask the House to make

them welcome, please.

Oral Questions

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. A week ago today I

was alarmed to hear the minister announce that an energy project

certificate for the gas pipeline through the Coquitlam watershed would

soon be issued. Will the minister assure this House that the government

will take seriously the concerns of the 18 lower mainland mayors and

will not be issuing a project certificate until a new route has been

thoroughly investigated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The Leader of the Opposition's problems, I guess, emanate from believing everything he reads in the Province newspaper, which is a fatal flaw in politics.

To begin with, the story that he mentioned last week was a result of a statement

I made a week ago yesterday when I was asked about the timing of the energy

certificate. I said that the certificate is initiated by the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) and cosigned by the Minister

of Environment, and when it was issued the Ministry of Environment would look

at the details of the certificate and then approve it or not approve it. When

asked about timing, I said: "Well, it could happen this week." That

was what I think the Province got onto, and inadvertently advised their readers

that the whole process was imminent. I was speaking in the hypothetical sense

as opposed to giving any date.

With

respect to the events of last week, the member should be aware that the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources met with the 18

mayors of the GVRD last Tuesday morning and had a long and candid

discussion, and from that meeting decided that officials would review

the watershed route and other possible routes, and until such time as

that review had been done, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources would not contemplate issuing a certificate. That's the

status of the issue at this point.

That

was known to the member last Tuesday afternoon — at least it was

known to the rest of the public — but I thank him for his question

today. It's a little late, but thanks for asking.

MR. HARCOURT :

To the Minister of Environment. Pacific Coast Energy has offered to

reroute the pipeline up Indian Arm if the government agrees to pick up

most of the extra costs. What discussions has the government had with

Pacific Coast concerning the financing of a new route up Indian Arm?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I couldn't advise you of that, Mr. Member. You would have to ask the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He discusses

routing; my job is environment.

MR. HARCOURT : I'm

astounded by the minister's glib response. The route has everything to

do with environment, Mr. Minister. It's clear that this government's

stubbornness in ramming this pipeline through is going to jeopardize

the federal funding for this pipeline. I want to know if the government

is now prepared to avoid the Coquitlam watershed and move ahead with

technical work — environmental and otherwise — on the Indian Arm route. Yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We have a more complicated question here. There's lots to be answered

here. The Leader of the Opposition seems upset that I'm not totally up

to speed on the economies of different routes. I can assure him that

another ministry does that, in terms of looking at what a route may

cost. Of course, that information would have to be relayed back to the

B.C. Utilities Commission, because they have to assess what the end

cost is going to be to the person purchasing the gas.

[2:15]

With respect to the environment, I think the jury is out on that

one. First of all, let's have it for the record that this pristine

Coquitlam watershed that everybody is so concerned about is not all

that pristine. There is quite a bit of logging activity going on there,

and there has been for some time. There's a logging road in there

traversed by diesel logging trucks every day, and there's logging going

on. The pipeline is

[ Page 6632 ]

going

to be on the upside of the logging road from the lake itself, and every

environmental test that we've put to that construction shows us that

the route is environmentally sound.

AN HON MEMBER : How big is the line?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The line is about one foot, as I recall. The Indian Arm route may not

be so environmentally sound. It's going through stone. There is some

damage that would certainly take place to the appearance of Indian Arm

if that pipeline proceeded along that route. I'm not so sure that that

would be the best way to go, from the point of view of the Ministry of

Environment. If we were to balance the two, from a straight

environmental standpoint you'd find that the watershed routing is

environmentally safer and better.

POLAR 8

MR. SIHOTA : Despite

assurances from the Premier to the contrary and despite the dispatching

of Mr. Rhodes and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to

Ottawa, it now turns out that British Columbia is on the wrong end in

terms of the Polar 8 project being delayed for a year. Could the

Premier tell this House whether he has now done what we asked him to do

before: to pick up the phone and tell Brian Mulroney that B.C. wants

that Polar 8 contract now and that a full year's wait is not

appropriate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I

understand that this morning there was something on the news about a

Member of Parliament from the area I believe the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew represents as well, Mr. Dave Barrett, saying

that he would raise this in the House and make a bit of a ruckus and,

hopefully, accomplish something to be done immediately.

had the question period monitored, and apparently nothing was said.

However, we certainly do appreciate all of the help we can get, because

I can assure you that if there's one body of people that is concerned

about getting this job for the people in the shipbuilding industry in

British Columbia, it's the Social Credit members on this side. We have

fought for this particular project. We did gain the project for the

province. Now, we understand, there has been a delay caused, and we're

attempting to get further information from the minister. As a matter of

fact, we did send a fax this morning to Benoit Bouchard to get further

clarification, to determine why the delay and to get from him a

commitment that in fact the project will proceed.

I've also received from our office in Ottawa some information. I think

it's always good to get some background information before you do — as is

suggested by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — get on the phone and give

the Prime Minister a blast. In our business, Mr. Member, we have to deal with

these people on an ongoing basis. You don't spoil reasonably good relationships

with individuals in government by, as you suggest, getting on the phone and

giving them a blast. We're trying to work this out. We did get from our

Ottawa office a message with respect to what they think are the reasons for

the delay. And we're getting some further information on this as well.

Obviously

the financial situation in Ottawa is a concern. They do have financial

problems. If we had a socialist government in B.C., we'd have the same

problems. We realize that they have this financial problem, but we

would argue with Ottawa that delaying the project is not good economics

because it will cost more next year, obviously. Secondly, we understand

that a sale of the shipyard to Shieldings Inc. is potentially in the

works. They claim that this may be a factor in it all, and I'm hoping

to get clarification from the minister in Ottawa. Thirdly, there's some

design certification phase that's not yet complete, and we're looking

to hear further from them to get clarification on that particular point

as well.

I repeat: we as a government want that project in

the province. We are moving to create further jobs for people in the

shipbuilding industry with the building of new ferries, and there isn't

a government in this country that has done more for the shipbuilding

industry than the Social Credit government of British Columbia.

MR. SIHOTA :

At the federal level, the Premier is a 98-pound weakling, a little

pip-squeak. They're not listening to you, Mr. Premier. They're not

listening to your government when it comes to federal contracts.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier says we've done more than anybody else for the shipbuilding

industry. A question to the Premier: is the government prepared to

announce here today that it will accelerate its ferry construction

program in order to make sure that this industry remains viable on the

west coast?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We've already made

our announcements with respect to the ferries. There is a lot of work

ongoing right now which we know will lead to further jobs in the

shipbuilding industry. I would ask the member if he, as the member for

a constituency which obviously is directly affected, instead of

attempting to make politics and headlines out of this particular issue,

will work with us to get those jobs in Esquimalt.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to tell the Premier, I've done more than just fax one letter

over there. The members opposite are a little ashamed to know that on

this side of the House we did make sure it was raised in Ottawa this

morning. We were on the phone at 7:30 this morning talking to all the

bureaucrats involved. We were talking to them on Friday. We're doing

more than you've been doing.

[ Page

6633 ]

All we're asking is for the Premier to demonstrate his government's

commitment to the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia. If you're

not prepared to accelerate the ferry construction program, will you

then agree to proceed with the construction of another SeaBus to

provide some ongoing work to the shipbuilding industry here in B.C.?

Will you do what you can in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

We have already proceeded to put the expansion of the ferry fleet, the

ferry system, into effect. That's not to say that we can suddenly run

out, as the member is suggesting, and let a contract today. There's

work that needs to be done before we can get to that point.

ACTIVATION OF SELECT STANDING

COMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND LANDS

MR. KEMPF :

Question to the Premier. It being several weeks now since standing

committees of this House were selected, and given the chaotic state of

our forest industry in British Columbia, can the Premier tell the House

if he has decided to direct his Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

to move a motion activating the Select Standing Committee on Forests

and Lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As the former

Minister of Forests will remember, the Premier doesn't direct his

ministers to do a particular thing; we work together to accomplish

what's best for all citizens of the province. Having said that, I would

like to provide the member with this information: we are very

aggressively working with the industry, and with all people affected by

the future of forestry in the province, to come up with solutions. I

appreciate the fact that the committee will obviously lend a great deal

in that regard as well, and I would hope that it could meet as quickly

as possible.

MR. KEMPF : Things must have changed an awful lot in that cabinet in the last two years. Hopefully we've turned over a new leaf.

have another question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we can hear

some more gobbledegook about ministers directing their own ministries.

Has the Premier also decided to overrule his Minister of Forests,

directing him to include, under the purview of the committee, an

investigation of the practices of the Vancouver log market?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Isn't it wonderful how the member one day

stands up and criticizes me for the things he's now asking to be done? I

can tell the member again that the minister will, after due consideration of

all the information he's receiving from people in the industry — members

of the IWA, the truck loggers, the small loggers and the contract loggers —

make the appropriate decisions for the betterment of the industry.

Introduction of Bills

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 19 contains a comprehensive revision of

part 24 of the Municipal

Act, which concerns the role of the regional district as an instrument

of local democracy. The amendments will provide regional districts with

greater autonomy, flexibility, fiscal responsibility, representation

and accountability. The proposed legislation is the product of two

years plus of consultation and consensus building. It is wholly

endorsed by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

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

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I would like to present two reports. I have the audited financial

statements of the B.C. Steamship Company for the year ended December

31, 1988, in accordance with

section 65(7) of the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways Act. I also have the honour to present a

statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1989, in accordance with

section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

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

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE :

I want to bring up a very important issue this afternoon with the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. This is an area

in which I think the minister has the power to take some action

post-haste — immediately — as an emergency is happening in the lower mainland.

Vancouver

is currently going through a terrible housing crisis. We have

demolitions and evictions every single day, and very little is being

done by the provincial government to give local government the power to

deal with this issue. There are very few ways within the Municipal Act

that a local council can deem there to be an emergency, a crisis, in

their community.

We believe, as council does in Vancouver,

that the demolitions, the evictions, the conversions to condominiums

and the thousands of units being lost....

[ Page 6634 ]

The

latest UBC report that came out on Friday basically states that the

numbers are there; there's accuracy in terms of the affordable housing

that is being demolished. The province cannot keep up. More

condominiums are being converted and demolished than are being built

annually provincewide.

I believe that the provincial

government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, should deem that

there is an emergency in the lower mainland and give councils the

direct power to pass a moratorium on demolitions of affordable rental

accommodation. It is time for action from this provincial government.

The minister should indicate today that we've seen it long enough. Is

the minister prepared to ensure that local councils can pass emergency

bylaws freezing demolitions — a moratorium on demolitions at least

till there is a vacancy rate, to ensure that we get enough affordable

housing built, particularly in the lower mainland?

MR. ROGERS :

I think it is absurd for the member for Victoria to suggest for a

minute that we freeze the destruction of buildings. The city of

Vancouver has already proposed an ample way of returning some of the

profits from some of these projects. To freeze things in time reminds

me of some actions taken by your side when you were government, which

caused great chaos in the market.

However, I would like to speak about the minister's estimates.

Interjection.

MR. ROGERS : You should have been here.

MR. MILLER : I was here.

MR. ROGERS : You weren't here.

Mr.

Chairman, the point I would like to make to the minister is the issue

of what is called the board-of-variance program. Throughout the

province, whether it be in the city of Vancouver or in other

municipalities, where a citizen has come to a stall, I would say, with

municipal planners, he has the option of appearing before a board of

variance to discuss his special case, which may not fall under the

rules of the local zoning.

The system works very well.

There are very few complaints about it. I would like to compliment the

minister and those who sit on the board of variance, because it's a

pretty dull and monotonous job, but it has to be done by somebody, and

they do it with great dedication.

There

is, however, one

part of the province that has no variance possibility: within the

Islands Trust. Anybody who has a property or a building within the

Islands Trust must comply strictly to their rules, and the Islands

Trust rules are not applicable or not practical in all cases. The

Islands Trust, for example, will now refuse to allow someone whose home

is in disrepair — it may have been a cottage at one time — to

demolish it and build a similar building of exactly the same square

footage. To me that seems quite unfair.

appreciate that the Islands Trust is an elected, independent body, but

they don't have.... So are city councils throughout the municipalities

of the province, and I think it would be incumbent upon this

minister.... If some independent appeal process existed for people who

own properties within the Islands Trust.... I'm not asking that the

Islands Trust be done away with; I'm not asking that the Islands Trust

be held accountable to anybody but its voters; but in the city of

Vancouver and in all other municipalities we have an independent board

that will issue a variance, and exactly the same privileges should

apply to people who live within the Islands Trust.

I could

give you specific examples of constituents who have approached me with

problems. In one case an elderly woman whose husband died some years

ago has a house in a bad state of disrepair. She was told by the

officials of the Islands Trust: "The only way we would give you a

permit to rebuild on exactly the same site with exactly the same size

of building is if your house caught fire and burned to the ground; and

we would judge whether or not it was arson." Quite frankly, that's

inexplicable and unacceptable.

People whose homes have been

built originally to an earlier standard, which the summer cottages tend

to be.... There are thousands of them around the province. When it

comes time to renew those cottages, they should be able to take the old

building down and build to exactly the same size on the same site.

Those restrictions don't exist anywhere else. They don't exist in the

city of Vancouver; they don't exist in Victoria. These aren't heritage

buildings; these are just old summer cottages whose time has come. The

moss, termites, wood-worms and everything else have got to them, and

the owners would like to take them down and build a new building.

want to be very careful about preserving the character of the islands,

but I don't think we want to be so dictatorial as not to allow people

the practical replacement of buildings that have been constructed.

MR. BLENCOE :

The member who just took his seat says that he believes freezing

demolitions for seniors and low-cost housing and families in the lower

mainland is absurd. He may wish to face his constituents with that

statement. If this House can freeze assessments and cap assessments so

those who have very expensive houses get a break on their taxes, at

least this government can allow local councils to put a moratorium on

demolition till we get some affordable housing built in the lower

mainland and Vancouver.

I want to put a question to the

minister: will she look at, review and investigate the ability of

council's permissive legislation to freeze demolitions, to have a

moratorium on a temporary basis, when there is an emergency such as we

have now in the city of Vancouver?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I understand that the city of Vancouver has an extensive program of research into the problems, as they see them, in the city

[ Page 6635 ]

the present time. I would suggest that it would probably be most

appropriate if we withheld any comments on the suggestions of the

second member for Victoria until we have received the results of the

investigation from the mayor and council of the city of Vancouver,

along with their suggestions for resolution. I truly do believe in

local autonomy, and we respond to requests from local government very

promptly.

MR. BLENCOE : If the Vancouver council or

any local council in the lower mainland, or a community affected by

heavy demolitions and evictions, particularly of seniors and families

who are on the street.... Would the minister then consider passing the

required legislation to allow local councils to put a moratorium on

such demolitions, to stop the incredible hardship that is happening to

thousands of tenants in the lower mainland? If council wished that,

would you do that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman,

could we have your direction, please? The second member for Victoria is

constantly referring to possible future legislation. It is my

understanding that that is an inappropriate discussion at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's correct. Would the second member for Victoria rephrase his question, please?

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister is aware of the plight of thousands of tenants and of the

evictions and demolitions in many areas of the lower mainland. If there

were consideration by local councils that they needed some controls on

demolition, would she entertain such requests from local councils, in

terms of working with them to ensure they have emergency powers?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

As I mentioned earlier, the city of Vancouver is presently going

through an exhaustive study and research program in order to come up

with some possible means of resolving the housing problem, as they

perceive it, in the city. I look forward to the results of their

deliberations. As usual, this government will respond.

MR. BLENCOE :

I want to share with the minister something that happened some years

ago in the city of Victoria in which I was heavily involved. We in the

city council deemed there to be an emergency in housing, and the

council used the Municipal Act, but with great trepidation and warnings

from solicitors.... The deputy minister smiles. I think he is probably

aware of the case. He knows what happens when local councils move in

areas that are really questionable.

We decided that there

was an emergency in the city of Victoria. There were massive

demolitions and evictions. There was no housing being constructed;

social housing units were not coming forward. There was no power for

the council to stop it. We passed an anti-demolition bylaw for a

certain period. It was very nervously done. The lawyers' advice was not

to do it, because the Municipal Act has some problems in a number of

areas. That is one of the areas, in terms of being explicit about local

council powers. The minister may or may not be aware of that

circumstance.

I want to know from the minister: is she

satisfied that the Municipal Act gives local councils these kinds of

powers when they are faced with a demolition and eviction emergency, so

that they can step in and deal with the crisis and not be threatened

with mass lawsuits? In Victoria's case, we were threatened by and

scared of mass lawsuits.

In Vancouver today — not so much in Victoria — we

have an enormous crisis. The member for Vancouver South, who said that

doing something for these people is absurd.... I hope he remembers that

when he faces his constituents. We believe something has to be done.

The provincial government does have the power. I think it is incumbent

on this minister, who has the power through the Municipal Act, to show

something to those thousands of tenants who are under the gun, facing

eviction, facing demolition, with nowhere to go.

Now we

have the UBC study, which shows that condominium conversion in the

lower mainland is running at about 1,900 units a year. That doesn't

even include demolitions. The statistics aren't in on that, but we know

it's horrendous. Social housing allocations are minimal in dealing with

this issue. We have an emergency; we have a crisis, We have power

through this act to do something, but it's vague. I want to know: does

this minister have the ability to show leadership and give those local

councils the ability to control such an awful emergency?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I really don't think any of us required a UBC-sponsored study to tell

us that we have a large number of conversions taking place in the lower

mainland, particularly in the city of Vancouver.

The

problem has been outlined in any number of ways, and I guess I can only

reiterate that we are prepared, as a ministry and as a government, to

sit down with UBCM or the city of Vancouver and discuss any concerns

and suggestions they have for resolving those concerns. It's not

something that we would force upon local government. We feel it's

important to continue the process that has been started, that of

consultation. We are always ready, willing and able to meet with any

local government body to discuss and attempt to address concerns that

they have.

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE :

I am not asking you to force anything. I am asking you, as you did with

the capping on assessments.... That was very controversial. I don't

think it was very wise, but we won't go into that. You did that in

terms of permissive legislation. It was very questionable, because we

know it transfers taxes from those with expensive houses to lower

income owners. What I am suggesting is that we do

[ Page 6636 ]

exactly the same in this area of demolitions and evictions.

the minister prepared to look at permissive legislation in the

Municipal Act, so that if a council deems there is an emergency in

evictions and demolitions, it can do something by bylaw and not be

threatened by lawsuits? That's what they are all scared about.

am not asking you to force it, Madam Minister; I am asking you to give

them the ability to go to the act and say: "Hey, we've got the power if

we want to use it." Nothing forced. This comes up over and over every

year when we have a housing crisis. I am asking this minister to not

always wait for somebody else to show you the way. There can be some

leadership by the provincial government, and there should be some

leadership by this minister in some areas at least.

MR. G. HANSON : Mr. Chairman, I will defer to my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey. He is on the same subject.

MR. PERRY : If I can just borrow from my colleague a couple of pieces of correspondence....

don't want to take very much time. The second member for Victoria has

been over the arguments pretty well. I want to basically bear witness

to them, as the recently elected representative of Vancouver-Point

Grey, where the single dominant issue in the election campaign was the

housing crisis.

As the minister recognizes, this affected

the candidates for the Social Credit and Liberal Parties as well as my

candidacy in that election. As I told the city council in Vancouver a

couple of weeks ago in one of their special hearings, everyone who

contested that election really felt the heat all day long and much of

the night — it was a pretty cold month of March — and we are continuing to feel the heat.

The

second member for Victoria was asking a very sound question, because he

has had experience, in his former life as a municipal councillor, with

a moratorium on the demolition of rental housing in Victoria, which was

effective. I agree with the minister that the primary responsibility

for dealing with housing problems in a city like Vancouver should rest

with the municipal council; but they seem to be waffling on the issue

and taking the position vis--vis the public that they may not have the

power to do what is needed.

The first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms Marzari) and I were confronted recently with

about 120 very angry citizens in Kerrisdale. Many more — about 1, 000 —

had confronted politicians of all stripes in late February, but those

who turned out to a hearing we scheduled six days ago continue to be

very angry about the situation they are facing in Kerrisdale.

The city does not seem to have fully seized the extent of the crisis, but these

people, through an organization called Concerned Citizens for Affordable Housing,

have surveyed the buildings within an area of about one kilometre by one-half

kilometre in Kerrisdale in which 36 rental housing buildings in good shape face

either imminent or potential demolition in the next short while. I don't

think we know exactly what "short while" means, but it may be in terms

of one to two years or perhaps less.

those buildings reside about 1,000 people, mostly elderly. I have a

letter from one of them at 5815 Yew Street, which arrived today, dated

May 3, calling for a moratorium on the destruction of rental housing

units. This is a letter the minister may have also. I just got it

today, and it was addressed to the minister, with a copy sent to me and

several other politicians. This person, who is 76 years old, identifies

himself as a resident of the Kerrisdale-Dunbar area for 60 years, the

last 15 on a fixed-pension income, and says he knows of what he speaks.

He says we need action. He underlines, in capitals, "immediate action,

not talk, talk, talk and 'passing the buck, "' and says he's "looking

forward to your reply" — referring to the minister — "or of

reading in the media that you have spoken out and will initiate action."

own conclusion, in looking at the issue recently, is to endorse the

call of the local residents for a moratorium. Before posing the

question to the minister, I want to read a letter that the first member

for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and I sent to Mayor Gordon

Campbell and councillors of the city of Vancouver on May 3 regarding

the Vancouver housing crisis. This is to reassure the minister that

we're not trying to put all of the heat on her; we're trying to reflect

our constituents' views and put the heat on the municipal authority

where it belongs initially.

"At our May 2,

1989, housing forum in the Kerrisdale Seniors' Centre, we were again

reminded that up to 1,000 residents of a small area in the core of

Kerrisdale face eviction due to the proposed or planned demolition of

older rental apartment buildings. Most of these tenants are elderly,

long-time residents of the neighbourhood. Statistics compiled by Dr.

David Hulchanski of the UBC Centre for Human Settlements clearly

indicate there are insufficient vacant apartments to receive these

people if they are evicted.

"Because

the pace of change appears now to exceed the capacity of the municipal

and provincial governments to respond" — referring to the pace of

change —

"we urge you to declare a temporary moratorium on the demolition of

rental housing in Vancouver. Intensive scrutiny of options to preserve

neighbourhoods and protect long-term tenants should follow. We urge

council to consider innovative suggestions such as that of the

Concerned Citizens for Affordable Housing which can respect economic

realities while ensuring the preservation of affordable rental suites.

We would welcome close collaboration with council" — that's

Vancouver city council — "in bringing Vancouver's concerns to the

attention of the Legislature."

That letter was signed by myself and the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

reiterate the second member for Victoria's (Mr. Blencoe'

s) questions, I

would like to ask the minister whether she can assure us that she will

back up the city if the city decides to act in an innovative and a

really constructive manner, which I think at the mo-

[ Page 6637 ]

ment

requires the moratorium on demolitions. That's not a final answer; that

can't go on forever. That's simply a temporary measure in the face of a

crisis which I think the minister has really just acknowledged when she

says we don't require Dr. David Hulchanski to tell us this. She said

something very important that I don't think the civic authorities in

Vancouver have fully recognized. I think the minister has recognized it

more than the civic officials. Can she just assure us that she'll back

up the city if they decide to act?

I would also like to

have her opinions as to whether we have anything to learn from

Ontario's Rental Housing Protection Act, which I've spoken about a

couple of times in previous debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just prior to recognizing the minister, I would like to draw to the

House's attention that there are 16 grade 10 students in the gallery

from Nicola Valley High, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Pearson. I

would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

In response to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's statements,

I think it has been well acknowledged by all members of the House that

a great deal of activity is presently taking place in the lower

mainland, and particularly in the city of Vancouver, which is resulting

in displacement of some of our seniors particularly. This has to be of

concern to all of us.

It's important to note that a very

extensive housing program has been put forward by my colleague the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) in response

to the need that has been identified. It is hoped that several thousand

new rental units will be made available in the not-too-distant future

because of the incentives that are being provided by the provincial

government. We hope this will take some of the pressure off, but the

pressure will not be taken off next week or next month; it's going to

take a little longer than that to see these new rental housing units in

place.

I can only conclude my remarks by stating that we

are always very responsive to requests from local government, whether

through the UBCM or the city of Vancouver, for legislative amendments.

If we were to receive a request from the city of Vancouver for

consideration in any area that can assist them and address problems

that they know or believe they have within their boundaries, we would

respond in our usual prompt and, I would hope, proper way, because

that's the purpose of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and

Culture. If Vancouver came forward with the request for some type of

legislation, you've asked if we would back them up. I would respond to

that by saying we would immediately research and discuss their concerns

with them, and how they should be addressed. If legislation is needed,

we would discuss that with them as well.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Chairman, in the last few weeks I've felt more like a city council

member than an MLA. The impact of a thousand people being potentially

affected by eviction notices from apartment buildings in which they

have resided from anywhere up to 40 years is simply mammoth. The

residential area of Kitsilano, which has been zoned up to three storey

walk-ups and highrises, was basically created in the early fifties to

allow for senior citizens in the Kerrisdale community to stay in their

community when they grew older and to move into these medium- or

high-density housing developments.

What has happened is

that the housing stock has aged and the units, although many of them

are still in excellent repair, have been bought up. The market

pressures that have been brought to bear on these units have basically

meant that a thousand people are at risk — most of them elderly.

Some of them are financially capable of moving out; some of them are

not able to pay more than $400 a month for rent. Many of them — in fact, I would say all of these seniors —

are wedded to living in the community in which they've lived for many

years. For some of them, being forced to move has had disastrous

results.

Last Tuesday night, just before the forum that my

seatmate and I held in Kerrisdale, an old friend came up and said she'd

just spent the weekend moving her mother-in-law into a highrise that's

not presently threatened from one of the low rises which is about to

come down at the end of this month. She said the building is in

terrible repair, and the units have not been really fixed up for the

last three or four years. Her mother-in-law had been living without

basic amenities, in many respects, in terms of an apartment being

allowed to run into the ground.

She said: "But of course,

she's okay now. She's in the highrise; she's very happy. Mind you,

three of her friends in that building of 30 units have died within the

last three months. Rather than face the prospect of moving, whether or

not they could afford it financially.... Their lives were at stake, and

the transition was too much for them to bear. They actually chose, in a

manner of speaking, to die rather than to be moved."

[3:00]

The problems of housing in Vancouver are obvious. Vancouver is very

much a tenant community; I believe the member for Victoria has pointed

that out. Fifty-eight percent of Vancouver residents are in fact

tenants.

This morning the city council chose to have a

symposium on housing, which I attended for the first two hours before I

came to Victoria. A couple of options were presented to that symposium

for council to move around. The options were not terribly hopeful,

actually, aside from the mayors putting together a housing task force.

There was nothing suggested about demolition control. There was very

little suggested by way of federal intervention. In fact, the regional

director of CMHC said there won't be any more housing units coming out

of the federal government because of the restraint program federally.

There is very little hope con-ting from the provincial

[ Page 6638 ]

government. In fact, there wasn't a provincial representative at that meeting speaking to the council.

do know that the rental housing stock in the city that exists now is

running down. The housing stock in the West End is getting old. It was

built in the early fifties, and it is not going to last forever. The

secondary suites in Vancouver — the illegal suites which comprise

about 25 percent of the rental housing market —

are being clamped down on by the council, as you probably know. I hate

to say it here, but the illegal suites in Vancouver really do provide

the backbone of the ability of many families to pay for their houses.

They are very instrumental in establishing the market value of a house

in Vancouver. In the sacred, single-family neighbourhood, the illegal

suite is very much a part of the fabric, and it counts for what that

house is worth on the market, and for whether or not the owner can

afford a mortgage. Many young families, including myself, would not

have been able to buy a house in Vancouver 20 years ago were it not for

the in-law suite — as we used to call it — in the basement.

Those are also disappearing as council is cracking down on them —

sometimes for good reason. But I worry that in the long run we're going

to lose a lot of good housing.

The

social housing component in Vancouver represents the third-largest

rental component available in Vancouver: 17,000 units. Those are

relatively new, so they're going to be around for a long time. You can

see that Vancouver is faced with a long-term crisis here. The 1,000

senior citizens now represent a tip of the iceberg for what we're going

to be faced with down the road.

You suggested that you will

be polite and courteous in your response when the city comes to you,

and that's terrific. I'm glad of that, and I'm glad that the city can

count on a ministry that can whip into shape a tax-capping bill as

quickly as you did. Even though we had difficulties accepting it, it

was available for the city at a moment's notice.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Let

me suggest that there are a few things the province could do beyond

being the prompt responder. The province could act. If the province

chose to act on a coordinated effort between the city and the province,

we might be able to get this longterm problem solved. The short-term

problem calls for demolition and eviction controls until a long-term

solution is worked out.

If the province would step into the

breach that now exists and approach the city, if it would take the

initiative and suggest ways in which provincial government might

assist.... I can think of two ways off the top of my head right now.

Last Thursday I attended a committee meeting of council in which the

neighbourhoods to be selected for local area planning were voted on.

The mayor asked me if I would approach the minister to discuss whether

or not the province would be interested in getting involved financially

and to discuss with staff ways in which we can help plan Vancouver

neighbourhoods to take into consideration public land that might be

available to build new social housing down the road in the future so

that our allocations could be made now.

In the old days —

back 15 years ago — the province was involved with the neighbourhood

improvement programs. I gather they took a coordinating role in terms

of RAP and other programs that were delivered from the federal

government to municipalities. The province was very much a part of the

planning process and in some instances a part of the cost-sharing along

the way I'd suggest it would not take very much in terms of dollars

invested for the province to indicate an interest in coordinating

staff, services, research dollars and lobbying for programs with the

federal government that might relate to neighbourhood improvement or

renovation of existing housing stock.

Down the road we're

going to have to get involved with some of those public infrastructure

programs again, and we're going to have to regard housing as part of

that public infrastructure. That's where housing is headed in our

society. We simply cannot live with the up and down vicissitudes of the

market in our major urban areas that very much longer. The people of

Vancouver and other large urban areas, including Victoria, know that we

have to level that boom-bust cycle and we have to invest public dollars.

am asking you, Madam Minister, beyond the response role of yes, you

will respond when the municipalities come to you, would the ministry be

willing to take an initiator role, an acting role in talking about

planning, co-ordination and investment in some infrastructure housing

programs.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : This is obviously a

very major social policy issue; it's not just a municipal issue. There

is, of course, a risk in tampering with the market, and often you can

do more harm than good. The government is presently concentrating on

stronger incentives to encourage municipalities and private

entrepreneurs to ensure that the required rental housing is made

available.

As has been previously announced by my colleague

the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), we are

putting forward a program and will be working very closely with local

governments. We have identified Crown land sites and attempted to

determine what would be suitable for rental housing. There will be

subsidies and there will be incentive grants for local governments, who

give quick approvals to these high-density rental accommodations. There

are going to be planning grants in addition to those that are already

available to local government, specifically to identify rental housing

policies.

All of these things are presently in the works.

You're asking if we will participate in some type of local planning

proposals to help the city of Vancouver particularly plan their

community. We already make planning grants available to local

government, including the city of Vancouver, to do just that. They can

be very imaginative in determining what it is they're going to use

those planning grants for. We

[ Page 6639 ]

really — and I'm going to sound like a broken record — believe in local

autonomy, as the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey knows; she

served as a local member of council. I'm sure you will agree with me

that while you were an alderman on Vancouver city council, your

knowledge of the problems in the Vancouver would far exceed the

knowledge that any one of us sitting here in Victoria could ever hope

to have, because of the day-to-day work you were doing in your

community.

In my mind, that has not changed. I don't

believe it's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to suggest to

Vancouver city council that this is the way we think you should be

going and we're going to give you grants so you can plan to go that

route. We make grants available to the city and all our local

government bodies on request, because we believe they are best equipped

to plan their communities and address whether they be urgent or

long-term needs that they believe are appropriate to their

constituencies. We will continue to do that. This year there is a

greater increase in our planning and infrastructure budgets than ever

before, because there is recognition of the fiscal needs of local

government and we are attempting to respond to those needs. Whenever

the city of Vancouver, UBCM or local government come to us with an

expression of concern, we attempt to sit down with the appropriate body

and do whatever we can to address those concerns.

MR. PERRY :

While we're discussing the urgency of the situation, I think that many

people would agree with one of the minister's answers: that much of the

long-term solution to the housing problem depends on increasing supply.

The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I are very worried — which

is why we keep bringing this question up — that one of the potential

opportunities for meeting the supply side may be pre-empted. That's the

opportunity in the Jericho lands. Rumours are reaching us that those

lands have been promised to private developers for single-family

housing, where it seems evident to us that in the face of the crisis in

affordable housing for poorer people and elderly people the likely

proper use of the land would be public housing, cooperative housing or

seniors' housing.

I'd just like to ask the minister whether

she can give us any insight on the issue — whether those lands have

been secretly committed to somebody else for personal profit or whether

they will be reserved so that we have the flexibility to respond. I

know this is not considered traditionally within her jurisdiction, but

obviously it's an important part of the answer to the housing problem

in Vancouver, which is why I'm asking.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I was just beginning to generate a bit of enthusiasm for the questions

put forward by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey until he

threw in his little zinger about "secretly committed for personal

profit." I would suggest that a question phrased in that way needs to

be ignored if nothing else. Having said that, may I suggest that the

question be rephrased and more appropriately put to the minister

responsible at a later date.

MR. G. HANSON : I'd like

to change the subject, Mr. Chairman. I know it's a subject that has had

some discussion earlier in the minister's estimates, but it's of such

seriousness here in Victoria that I want to raise it today.

couple of weeks ago I happened to be listening to the radio, and I

heard the minister responding to a problem in Vancouver with respect to

movement from primary to secondary — secondary treatment costs for

sewage in the Vancouver area — and the very large numbers involved in

the technology to bring secondary treatment up to its full scale for

Vancouver.

[3:15]

Everyone who lives in this region knows that Victoria's sewage is

discharged in a raw effluent form off Beacon Hill Park. Victoria has

only two miles of ocean front, everybody else has the rest, and this

very limited ocean front is going to be a septic tank field for the CRD

basically, because Saanich and Oak Bay are going to discharge out of

the Clover Point outfall as well. Currently the regional district is

reviewing, with an orientation to treatment. Everyone wants treatment;

this area cannot pay for it itself. I want to ask the minister to

consider signaling to the local CRD that she would take up the cause

both provincially and federally, as she indicated in the broadcast that

I heard. I share the feeling that the federal government should assist.

We are a capital. We are a harbour. We have a fishery. We have other

navigation aspects. I think that we should seek out assistance from the

federal government to top up.

I have looked at Washington

State. They are in shock at what Victoria is doing. The Environmental

Protection Agency in the United States sets basic standards and then

state-level authorities set more rigorous water quality standards, etc.

It is absolutely illegal in Washington State to discharge raw effluent

into the receiving waters of an ocean, a river and so on. That is by

law. So the discussion is not whether a pipe can be far enough or deep

enough or whatever; it is just against the law to discharge raw solid

effluent into the ocean.

I know that that ocean looks huge

as you stand on the cliffs of Beacon Hill Park, but it's not. It's very

small and it has tidal currents that take the flow into the Strait of

Georgia and to our friends in the San Juan Islands and through into the

Puget lowlands and through the Gulf Islands. The greater Victoria

region is a large enough region, a large enough service area, that it

can have treatment if it gets the support, the commitment, of the

provincial government to allow our provincial capital to hold its head

up and allow its sewage to be treated and dealt with in a modern way.

The inclusion of screens and so on was done in London, England, in

1860. That's step one, screens.

The minister knows that

this region will be a showcase in only five years. We have five years

to provide treatment so that that is not an issue and so that our

recreational and tourism potential can be re-

[ Page 6640 ]

alized.

Those cliffs along Beacon Hill Park show up in magazines around the

world for people interested in windsurfing and hang gliding and other

kinds of recreational activity, because that area has tremendous wind.

I don't know if you've ever noticed, but the winds there are more

regular and persistent; it's like the canyon of the Columbia River.

Windsurfing enthusiasts from all over the world go to the Dallas....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. I appreciate the remarks, most of which are actually

remarks for the Ministry of Environment, but it does relate to

Municipal Affairs. But windsurfing, I think, is well beyond the

jurisdiction of this minister. I would rather you keep the items to

matters over which this minister has authority.

MR. G. HANSON :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman Sometimes to make the point we have to look at

what the trade-offs involved are. I'm pointing out certain attributes

of recreation that would be really world-class if it wasn't a

septic-tank field.

What we need is the same kind of

enthusiasm which the minister picked up as a champion of the problem

for Vancouver to move to quality secondary treatment and beyond —

tertiary, etc. — for this region. Clearly this region can't pay for it

ourselves, but we could pay 25 percent. We could pay 25 percent and

have the senior levels of government pay the other 75.

Like

all good infrastructure projects, we don't have to pay for it out of

the till today. We can amortize it over time as something worth having

and doing. If the city of Vancouver was having to build sewage

treatment for Vancouver out of what was in the cash register today,

they couldn't do it. They would have to amortize it over time, as we

will have to do here. But it's not going to get any cheaper.

Our

friends in Washington State are really aghast at what we're doing,

because there's not one single community anywhere in the Juan de Fuca

Strait or in the Puget lowland area — village or township or island —

that is discharging raw effluent into the ocean. It is illegal. They

have small plants, and by 1995 every single community in Washington

State will have secondary. They all have primary now; they'll have

secondary by 1995. Yet we're going to discharge 100 million litres a

day every day. Then as we grow and as more density occurs in Saanich,

Oak Bay, Esquimalt and so on, the treatment options will become more

difficult, because land.... It's an island South of the Malahat is a

very densely populated area in relative terms.

I would like

to ask the minister if she would commit to offering the local officials

here a maximum of 25 percent of locally paid, and we would work with

her jointly to seek assistance and support at the federal level and get

some commitment from her provincial colleagues to give us treatment

here with the time-line of having it in place, say, by July 1, 1994.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The concern that you express is genuine; we don't argue with that. But

under the present formula, I am unable to make the commitment that you

have requested. I can commit, though, that when an application comes in

from the CRD or the city of Vancouver — I assume it will be the

regional district — we will certainly be taking it as seriously as we

have the request for assistance from the GVRD.

It may be

that with those two major projects that require attention, there may

have to be another funding source identified other than that presently

available to us under revenue-sharing. The concern expressed by those

on this side of the House is genuine. Our Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) is certainly looking at the requirements and the need to

upgrade the requirements.

We realize full well that right

across this province, some of the greatest polluters are our local

governments. It's a problem and a cause for concern. It all comes down

to dollars and cents. As I mentioned on Friday, I don't believe that

over the past number of years, local government has placed a high

enough priority on the provision of proper disposal systems.

It's

not been the glitzy thing to do; it's not fun to cut a ribbon at a

sewage treatment plant or turn a sod to start a sewer line, so the

priorities have been, by and large, for swimming pools, ice rinks and

parks that leave tangible evidence of where the money has gone, rather

than for projects under the ground. I think that local government is

going to have to change its priorities and do some rearranging, because

we now realize that this is a problem we face. I can assure the first

member for Victoria that when we receive a request from his local

community, we will take it very seriously and attempt to address it

through the funding available to us.

I would like to

respond to a question put forward by the second member for Vancouver

South (Mr. Rogers) — who is now sitting in the chair — with regard to

the Islands Trust, the board of variance and the appeal process

available. You are quite correct that decisions about the construction

or enlargement of buildings in the Islands Trust are made by the local

trust committee. There is a right of appeal, and it appears that as far

as the Islands Trust is concerned, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is

the board of variance. So they do have a right of appeal, which is

directly to the minister.

MR. ROSE : I appreciate my

colleagues' giving me some more time on transit, because I had

considerable time last Thursday, and I got some surprising answers.

Today I am going to read out some information and put it in the record.

I just can't understand how my information and that received by the

minister could be so utterly contradictory. Somebody is lying. I am not

saying the minister is; I would never think of that. But either the

minister has been getting wrong advice from the people giving her

information, or somebody is lying to me. The situation is so serious

that something has to be done about it. I think we have to have an

independent investigation. Either there is something rotten in the

information I am getting from the drivers themselves, or there is

[ Page 6641 ]

something really smelly around B.C. Transit and their head office.

don't think the minister or I can ever get to the root of this matter

independently. So I am going to put out a few things, and I hope I

won't take more than five or six minutes. Then I am going to ask the

minister if she will look into it with some sort of independent

investigation, because it's just not good enough, the kind of answers

that are contradicting one another.

The ridership in the

last ten years, according to my information, has been cut 250,000

hours. The total I gave the last time I was up was 400,000, and I was

told afterwards that actually it had been increased. Obviously somebody

is lying there; somebody has got the wrong information.

Last

year, I am told, $15 million of the budget was underspent, mainly

through larger loads, people being packed on on Sunday.... Anyway, this

is saved on service cancellations.

Over the last ten years

on buses alone, I have been told, there were 400,000 hours cut. Some

of it came back: 25,000 hours or 16,000 hours; nobody can understand.

Some has been restored, and that accounts for the difference between

the 250,000 that I mentioned earlier.

Over the last ten

years, there were staff cuts of 250 or more on buses alone. The union

figures for membership in 1979 were roughly 2,050 and in 1989 it was

1,800. During the estimates, we were advised that you have added

members. That can't possibly be with those figures.

I'm

also told that the buses increased their passenger load in the last ten

years by about 20 million — roughly two million a year. Your annual

report for 1988 said that passengers in Victoria and Vancouver had

dropped. It's right in the annual report. There's got to be some

explanation for that.

The diesel fleet is the oldest in

Canada, and the maintenance costs are excruciatingly high. But one of

your maintenance people is probably one of the two people who run that

whole system, if you leave out the CEO, Mr. Hodgson. The last major

purchases were in 1981, when the present Premier was minister, of 250

buses from Flyer Industries. Trolley buses have the highest breakdown

in North America. That's bound to affect service, disappoint people and

make them late.

[3:30]

We were also told: "We had to cancel routes because we didn't have

enough drivers." They were off sick or somewhere else. Well, you

haven't got any drivers because you cut out the spare board. So there's

another thing I can assert.

The Sunday service is the

same as it was before Sunday openings ten years ago. The

schedule

sheets prove all the things that we're saying. It's not just out of the

air. An independent person could check into this and see who's getting

some sort of song and dance.

I mentioned the union

membership: regular cuts of personnel and firings. Now during

negotiations, we're presenting good drivers with plaques and inviting

them out for dinners.

Mr. Chairman, this is not good

enough. This is really — and it's the kindest parliamentary thing I can

say about it — a questionable operation. I think one of the great

culprits is all the money for SkyTrain that's shovelled aside to go

down something like 40 percent of the budget for 12 percent to 17

percent of the passengers; but we've all been through that. I'm not

concerned about that; that's a policy decision. It's made; we've got

it, and we want it. We've got to pay for it, and we've got to live with

it.

We're not arguing the merits of that now. What we are

arguing about is just what in hell's going on in B.C. Transit. I don't

see why the two sides are that far apart in terms of the information

they've got. We want an independent inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

There were several words used in that last dissertation that are not

parliamentary. I would prefer it if you would choose more appropriate

words than the ones you used. Perhaps if you would like to review it or

consult with others on the subject, we may proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To begin with, Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the member for

Coquitlam-Moody suggested the hours of ridership, he was referring to

the hours of service. The hours of service are quite different from the

ridership. The information we have on hours of service is as was put

forward to the member for Coquitlam-Moody last week. We will be pleased

to follow up in writing the questions that you have put to us today, if

you are disputing the answers that I presented to you last week. Maybe

then we can come down to where the differences arise.

Our

numbers would suggest that the information you received does not

coincide with the information we have available to us. I would suggest

that the reduction in service that the member for Coquitlam-Moody has

referred to is a comparison of the 1986 traffic during Expo and the

1987 traffic. Well, there's no question about the reduction in hours of

service and ridership after having accommodated the millions of people

who were here for Expo.

Your closing comments that were put

forward with great indignation about presenting plaques and having

dinners.... That is done every year. Are we supposed to cancel them

when we're in the middle of negotiations? We do that every year. We

have regular bus driving contests and regular 25-year award dinners. We

have dinners for members of staff who come forward with ideas that save

the corporation money. I would hope that whenever we're in the midst of

negotiations, we wouldn't all of a sudden drop all of those niceties

and ways of recognizing the employees. In my mind, if they drive for 25

or 35 years without an accident, they certainly deserve recognition. I

have yet to hear any driver complain that we have these recognition

dinners and present them with plaques. While I am minister I really

wouldn't pay too much attention to whether or not we are having

[ Page 6642 ]

negotiations. I would hope that those would continue to be a regular annual event.

Having

said that, we will follow up your questions from Hansard . I can assure

you that within the week you will have a written response to your

questions.

MR. ROSE : Before I start, I should

probably pay courteous tribute to the insensibilities or sensibilities

of the Chairman. He suggested that lying and the use of the word "lie"

is unparliamentary. I have been looking through it, but since I have

been here I have found that anything that the Chairman decides is

unparliamentary ends up as unparliamentary.

I have decided

that one of us is being misled. To go back to the source to provide me

with those answers to me is not very satisfactory. I am sorry about

that. I have lost confidence; I have been shocked and dismayed. It

isn't just simulated indignation either; it is a genuine concern for

what's happening to an extremely important Crown corporation — or what

may be happening.

That's why I want you to agree to have an

independent look at it. The answers are too widely divergent. It isn't

just labour and management here. It's just too much to ask.

Finally,

I don't mind the recognition stuff. I think it's fine to recognize....

It's a great morale-booster But it might be better to change the

schedules and have a little shorter time and reduce the stress in terms

of the budgets and that kind of thing; put more men on the job.

AN HON. MEMBER : And women.

MR. ROSE :

And women. There aren't as many women driving buses as there used to

be, is that right? I don't know. I don't know the gender breakdown.

Just

as long as you are not using these plaques and things just to soften

them up. Morale can be improved effectively, I think, in other ways

besides the free lunch after 25 years.

What I want is for

the minister to indicate that she thinks there is enough divergence of

opinion here not merely to accept at face value the advice she is

getting — not directly from her friend the adviser sitting on her left,

because he probably hasn't got the original figures either. I would

like her to tell me that she is prepared to consider an independent

review of this corporation.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. G. HANSON : I want to canvass another subject: the Royal B.C. Museum, the provincial museum, and the proposal of lifting the fees.

think it has been demonstrated that the fees impede access by people

who can't afford to take their children there. I know the provincial

government has backed up from its previous position of fees for every

visit, or certain days where the fees would be lifted to encourage

greater participation. The

schedule is a complex one where some days

you have to pay, some days you don't, etc. I think the whole thing

should be scrapped, and entry to the provincial museum should be as it

was intended by people like W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett and Bill

Bennett's government: there would be no fees, and it would be an

institution that we could be proud of. We would allow our citizens and

visitors to come and review in a cameo way the dioramas that reflect

the pride we have in the human history of the province, both native and

nonnative, the natural resources, the physical beauty, the undersea

exhibits.

Everyone applauds that museum for the quality of

its work. They've operated under difficult circumstances. Certainly the

time has come, now that the tourist season is upon us — the Marguerite

and the other ships are bringing tourists — to lift those fees and let

the attendance build as its natural interest levels would allow, so

that people can come and visit from Fort St. John or the Kootenays,

North Island or wherever. They've paid their taxes; they've

contributed. They should be able to come every day for half an hour or

an hour if they wish, and get away from these passes and complex

schedules.

The amount of money that is raised.... You talk

about $1 million being plowed into exhibits, etc. Any modern society

allocates a certain amount of money for cultural activities and for the

exhibition of its soul. And why not? At the British Museum — the

minister has probably heard this — they have collection boxes

prominently displayed, asking people to make contributions if they've

enjoyed using the facilities. The British Museum doesn't have a fee; it

has a prominently displayed collection box. I think we should go back

to a collection system, and to volunteers who wish to make donations,

bequeath estates or make endowments. That's the way to go — not a tax

on people to go to their own museums, to see their own history and

their own exhibits.

Would the minister comment on that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It's a very valid concern that the first member for Victoria has

expressed. I feel certain that we would all share the view that it

would be desirable not to have a fee for entry to any provincial

government facility. But it was felt by my predecessor that it was

important to establish a fee structure, which has been revised this

year; I believe the member is aware of the revision. As the first

member for Victoria mentioned, there are several days of operation at

the museum that are free of charge, allowing local individuals to visit

the museum more regularly.

No consideration is being given at this time to dropping the fee. That's not to say that it might never happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Mackenzie requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LONG : Mr. Chairman, in the House today we have 35 grade 5 students and their teacher, Miss C.

[ Page 6643 ]

Brown, from Bella Bella, in the northern part of my riding. I'd like to have this House make them welcome.

MR. G. HANSON :

Some time ago I wrote a letter to the minister, asking her for the

attendance figures for the provincial museum for the last number of

years. I wonder if she, with her officials, could provide the House

with the attendance figures prior to the initiation of a fee and the

subsequent years. Could she read those attendance figures into the

record?

[3:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid we don't have those numbers available here, but I will undertake to provide them to the member.

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, we have some figures here. In 1980 the year-end is

1,390,000; in 1981, 1,397,000; 1982, 1 million; 1983, 1.1 million;

1984, 1,097,000; 1985, 1.2 million; 1986, 1.4 million; 1987, 1,017,000.

If the minister could ask her officials to corroborate these, it's

clear that some of the key months.... I'll just wait for her response

on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : As I mentioned earlier,

Mr. Chairman, we don't have the numbers with us, so we are unable to

corroborate the numbers today. I undertake to follow up on the

information that we have committed ourselves to making available to the

first member for Victoria. But it's interesting to note in those

numbers that there appeared to be a drop and then a gradual increase,

and then of course a drop again after 1986, which would be accounted

for by the increase in tourism that we saw during the Expo year.

We will confirm or correct those figures for you.

MR. G. HANSON :

If I may just ask the minister to pay particular attention to, for

example, the months of July and August 1986, before fees were

introduced. July attendance is 298,669 and August is 293,030. Fees

were introduced in 1987. Let's take a look at the same months: July,

186,000 — a reduction of some 110,000 and August, 130,894. When we

look at the previous August, we've basically got a reduction of about

150,000, which is massive; it's an unbelievable drop. In July 1988

there were 145,683, and in August, 163,280. In August 1988 there were

163,000, and in 1986, prior to fees coming in, there were 293,030

These are massive, shocking declines in attendance Does the minister

care to comment on them?

There are a few more aspects of

cultural activity I would like to raise with the minister. I'll defer

to the member for Nanaimo on the museum.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm a bit surprised to discover — perhaps I missed something — that the

minister didn't have a response to those last observations about the

museum. So before I say anything, perhaps I'll make sure I understand

correctly. Are you reserving comment, Madam Minister?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It's very difficult to respond to a large number of figures thrown out

that I'm able neither to confirm nor deny. I have undertaken to provide

the first member for Victoria with the figures available to us, but I

don't have them at this time. There is little doubt in my mind, even

without having the numbers before me, that the introduction of a fee

structure resulted in a reduction in attendance at the museum. I don't

hesitate to admit that that is truly the case, but I can't confirm or

deny the numbers you have read out. I will be pleased to respond to you

in a more complete way than I am able to do right now.

MR. LOVICK : I thank the minister for that comment. I'm sure she does indeed intend to share with us whatever information she has.

The

point I would simply make is that the evidence is already very clearly

in. We know, for example, simply by quoting documentation available to

all of us, that in the first eight months of 1988 the attendance was

688,114, which was the lowest for any time in the past eight years. As

the minister quite correctly points out, the evidence is in that the

fees have, to all appearances, had a negative effect on attendance. The

question, surely, is what the minister intends to do about that.

You'll

recall, Madam Minister, that we were given three justifications — and I

think a number of us were in the House at that time. Your predecessor,

who had responsibility for the museum, gave us three particular

justifications for this policy. One was that what would happen with

this new policy of user fees was that we would draw more people to the

museum. Indeed, I quote that gentleman. In July 1987 the statement made

by the minister was: "The admission fee structure will draw more people

to the facilities because of the aggressive marketing program we're

putting in place in order to make them" — I assume he means the

facilities — "attractive." It seems pretty clear that if there have

been aggressive marketing initiatives, they haven't worked terribly

well. Perhaps the minister could answer my straightforward question:

what marketing initiatives, what aggressive things, have been done that

have demonstrably failed to achieve the results we anticipated?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm delighted and pleased that members opposite share our pride in the

Royal B.C. Museum and encourage as many people as possible to visit.

understand we have a marketing program that sees expenditures in the

area of $200,000 a year. I would suggest that you're not going to be

able, after a one-year or two-year trial period, honestly and fairly to

gauge the full impact of the introduction of the fees. Come the first

part of 1990 following the experience with attendance this year, it

would be appropriate for the minister responsible for the Royal B.C.

Museum to review the results of the introduction and to decide at that

time whether it is necessary to make some adjustments or not.

[ Page 6644 ]

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

In the gallery we have 30 Navy League Cadets from the Corps Namu. These

cadets are from the Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Coquitlam and Maple

Ridge areas of the lower mainland, and they came over here on the

destroyer HMCS Kootenay . They are accompanied by Lt. Gord Mercer,

Sub-Lt. Parke Esposito, Sub-Lt. Pat Norman, Midshipman Lynn Matthews

and Cl. Rod Bricker. I would ask the House to welcome these cadets.

MR. LOVICK :

I noted that in her response the minister suggested that a full review

of the impact of those museum — what shall we call them? — user fees

would be undertaken. Could the minister give us (

a) some assurance that

this will indeed happen, and (

b) some idea of when that might happen?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It would be most appropriate that this be done towards the end of this

year or very early in the new year prior to preparation of the

estimates for 1990.

MR. LOVICK : Just a couple of

very minor points that will perhaps guide that review process, if I

might. One of the arguments adduced in favour of that user fee

proposition was that those fees would also generate dollars to be used

specifically to upgrade the facilities. You made reference earlier,

Madam Minister, to a figure of some $200,000. In relation to the total

budget and the operating budget for the museum, and in relation to the

normal kinds of expenses required to upgrade a facility of that size

and calibre, I don't know whether $200,000 would make a great deal of

difference. I would like to suggest that we look very closely at

whether any moneys that are ostensibly to be gathered as a result of

user fees will in fact be used for those purposes, or whether those

moneys — again, if such moneys exist — are simply going into general

revenue rather than back to the museum.

Everybody has been

saying for some time — certainly for as long as I've been in the House — that the museum is in need of constant improvement. It's a wonderful

facility. We all know that, we all take pride in that fact, but there

is obviously need for improvement. Could the minister give us some

assurances that the reconsideration of what that imposition of fees has

meant will also take into account ways to improve that wonderful

facility?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The first member for Nanaimo will recall that $1

million has been allotted for building and computer improvements at the museum.

This certainly will go a long way toward seeing some needed improvements there,

and hopefully it is the start of a regular major expenditure approval for improvements

to the museum. This sum exceeds considerably the revenues that are taken in,

so I believe we do recognize the need for improvements at the museum, and we

also recognize that the fee structure cannot in its entirety cover the expenditures.

[4:00]

MR. BARLEE :

Madam Minister, we have a letter here from the B.C. Farm Machinery

Museum, which is located in Fort Langley, and it has been designated by

the British Columbia government as the agricultural museum of the

province. Their collection, which is valued at $1.5 million — probably

conservatively — has essentially been donated by many farmers from the

upper Fraser Valley and other parts of British Columbia.

1986 this museum, which really concentrates on our agricultural

heritage, was given a grant of $3,000, which I think is minimal. Since

that time, they have not been given any grants at all. They have spoken

to Hon. Bill Reid and Hon. John Savage. This letter was received in

late January 1989. I would think perhaps the minister would find it fit

in her estimates to devote at least a reasonable grant to this museum.

I consider it important not just from the agricultural point of view

but from the cultural point of view.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Apparently the farm museum in Fort Langley is a small, non-profit one

operated by a society, and their needs are dealt with by a group that

deals with funding assistance to the museums and are determined on the

basis of what we are required to pay out across the province. You are

suggesting that there has been only one year of funding assistance. Is

that correct?

I really don't have all of that information here, and we will get that for you.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think having culture as a component of Municipal Affairs and having

the capital side over with the Ministry of Tourism and Provincial

Secretary is a serious problem. When people write to your ministry

asking for assistance for recreation and culture facilities, your

department then writes a letter back saying: "Responsibility for

capital assistance falls under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Bill Reid,

Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary, for lottery money."

think one of the problems that the museums and cultural bodies within

the province face when they are seeking support and assistance from the

provincial government is a multi-stop problem. I don't think the people

are well served by that. When you look at the numbers for the province

compared with other jurisdictions, you will see that British Columbia

does not allocate a great amount of money to cultural activities.

Let

me take another subject area — arts, for example. The Vancouver Opera

Association received almost the lowest provincial subsidy per attender

of any opera company across Canada, with grants broken down to dollars

per attender. The highest would be Quebec at $4.22; the second lowest

is British Columbia at $2.12. I don't think that we have a very

[ Page 6645 ]

integrated or coordinated program for cultural activities.

I'd

like to ask the minister about the Challenge '89 program and the

funding for museums. Can she give us some idea about that program?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I was just trying to get some information on Challenge '89, because it

wasn't ringing any bells. I am told by my staff that Challenge '89 is a

federal program. If that is correct, that's probably why it's not

ringing any bells, so I am unable to answer that question.

The

cultural activities. Since 1986-87, the government's increase to

cultural funding has been 44 percent. So I would suggest that is a

pretty good record.

MR. G. HANSON : As we look at the

numbers across the country, provincial expenditure on arts' heritage

and culture, relative numbers.... If the minister would ask her staff

to compare B.C.'s position with provinces like Manitoba, we are

apparently lower than Manitoba and substantially lower than Alberta. In

provincial per capita expenditure on the arts, B.C. appears to be very

much out of the ball game, compared with other provinces. Arts and

culture expenditure as a percentage of total provincial budget: B.C.

again is right out of the picture. Even Newfoundland is higher than

B.C. Changes in the per capita expenditures: B.C. has been decreasing.

The

minister knows that employment in the arts is something that

governments are starting to recognize. You pay lip-service to small

business being a key generator of employment, but the arts and culture

are labour-intensive; they are people-intensive, and there's good value

for the dollar in terms of activity. We seem to be missing the boat in

this province in this whole area. We don't seem to be asserting our

pride in our artists, painters, poets and sculptors. I can remember

when there were acquisition programs to purchase art objects.

Consideration was given to allocating a certain percentage of a vote

toward cultural objects, to embellish public buildings, to enrich our

cultural heritage. We've moved so far away that there's just no

recognition given to this area.

I don't think it should be

driven entirely by lottery money. Lottery money is a good discretionary

source of revenue for cultural projects, recreational projects and so

on, but there has to be a commitment from the government to allocate

good, hard funding. So often the performing arts and culture and

heritage items are soft money. They are things that are promised, but

disappear from votes. They get shuffled around into general revenue and

just never occur.

I would like to hear from the minister

how she feels we stack up against other provinces. The numbers don't

appear to indicate that we do at all.

There are world-class

artists in British Columbia. We should have structures in place that

stimulate opportunities rather than the situation we find ourselves in.

I wonder if the minister would give us her views on funding arts and

culture in this province, and why we seem to be failing so far behind.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There's no question at all that we have some very highly regarded

artists in the province of British Columbia. I don't think any of us

are questioning that. I have absolutely no problem at all with the

funding source; in this case the funding source is lotteries. I believe

we are acting in a very responsible way to meet the needs of our

cultural community. If you look at the estimates for 1988-89 and

1989-90, you will see that there's an increase of some $3.5 million. We

have seen constant increases over the years, and I believe we are

acting in a very responsible way to meet the needs of the cultural

community.

I wonder, first member for Victoria: is there

not even one

section of my estimates that you could say we have

adequately funded? Are there no areas here that you find satisfaction

with? It seems to me that as we've been going through the various

estimates, we have heard from members opposite that there's not enough

in this area, there's not enough in that area, there's not enough in

any area. Yet we continue to increase each of our individual budgets. I

am personally very pleased with the increases that we have seen in the

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture budget this year for pretty

well every area. There are very few areas that I have not been able to

adequately fund, as far as my own mind is concerned. I would certainly

hope that members opposite would find agreement with the funding that

has been provided in several of these areas.

At this time I

would like to offer a correction of a previous statement about museum

information. I am told that the fee revenues are approximately $1.8

million this year. The funding for the museum is increasing by more

than $2 million, which includes $1 million of capital. That should be

placed on the record for the information of all members present.

have no problem when I attend the various provincial ministers'

conferences, whether I'm dealing with culture, library heritage, sports

and recreation activities, municipal affairs or transit. I have

absolutely no problem at all in holding my head high at the

contribution being made by the provincial government of British

Columbia to these various aspects of community life.

[4:15]

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should look carefully at what

happens in other provinces and even smaller provinces like Alberta.

Alberta awarded $359,000 in grants to the literary arts community in

that province. Alberta is a much smaller province than British

Columbia, and 158 projects were funded. A foundation has been

established in Alberta, through the Minister of Culture and

Multiculturalism, which granted $1,325,000 from lotteries into an

arts fund that was then disbursed. In terms of scale they're far beyond

British Columbia in their support for arts and culture. That's Alberta.

don't think the minister can feel that things are being done here;

they're simply not. You just have to look at other places to see to

what extent they're not being done. The message is that capital cost

expendi-

[ Page 6646 ]

tures

for culture should reside with that minister. She's got the

responsibility for culture. Assessing the merits of proposals to

support and expand museums and to build heritage facilities around the

province should reside with that minister.

Lottery money is

gravy; lottery money is extra. It shouldn't be the only money. It

should be supplementary money and should spark-plug all sorts of

innovative things. But capital funding for culture should be a mainline

vote in that minister's vote. I know when lottery funds were

established, culture was one of the dimensions for support. It was one

of the reasons for the establishment of the Lottery Fund; disbursements

were for arts, culture and recreation. I really think it's time for

some hard-line funding.

I would like to raise a few

questions regarding recreation and sport within the minister's purview.

There have been a number of sport-related press releases recently. I

think the province needs.... I know there's a review being undertaken,

and some time this fall apparently a report is going to be provided to

the minister on recreation and sport. Am I correct in that? I have a

press release in my files that indicates the province was preparing a

strategic plan for sport and recreation under the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Recreation and Culture. Could the minister advise the House

how that's proceeding, what the terms of reference are and what it's

all about?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : As a matter of fact,

I had an opportunity this morning to meet with Mr. Peter Webster and

Mrs. May Brown, who are working on the report, and I believe it will be

available some time later this year. They are meeting with all the

sport and recreation associations across the province to determine

their needs, aspirations, requirements, suggestions and comments. I

look forward to a very comprehensive and valuable report that will be

made available for the minister's consideration later on this fall.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think the confusion about that challenge.... It's called "Action

Challenge" in the press release that came from your ministry prior to

Christmas. It's regarding a strategic plan for sport and recreation.

That's a different one than the.... Or is that the same?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : That's the same; that's correct.

MR. G. HANSON :

Well, if I were to make some suggestions generally, what we need in

this province is an integrated, coordinated sports program that fosters

the development of clubs in various sports. I think the basic

underlying theme should be to allow for mass participation in sport and

recreation.

What happens in the school system now is that

children who maybe don't have a natural affinity for a particular sport — whether it be baseball, soccer or whatever — are discouraged and

dissuaded from participating and learning the rules of the games.

People, no matter what their ability levels are, should be given the

right to learn how to play games and to learn the rules, and not be

discouraged because they may not be good at them right off the bat. In

other words, recreational activity should be stimulated throughout the

school system, and the whole ethos should be for good health and

activity, not to make people feel self-conscious if they're not stars

in these kinds of pursuits.

The people examining a sports

policy for B.C. should have the underpinning of mass participation, but

they really should allow for involvement at any level, for people to

realize whatever potential they want; in other words, you're not

streamed in a militaristic sense. If people want to be involved in

international competition, and want to try to be as good at something

as they can possibly be — as Rick Hansen and others would say, "to

realize their potential" — and want to test themselves against the best

internationally or in their region or in the province, then I think we

have to look at the sport development program in British Columbia,

which really doesn't make all the necessary connections between schools

and clubs, in streaming their way through at all levels.

think the advisory committee that Mr. Shields is on at the University

of Victoria and elsewhere.... The report that was done with various

people in British Columbia should be looked at very carefully. It's not

an elitist document; it's something that calls for utilizing our school

system and higher education programs, and sports bodies outside, to

allow British Columbians a chance to participate in sports.

think, Madam Minister, that anyone who travels outside the lower

mainland or southern Vancouver Island realizes very quickly that in the

smaller communities the access to facilities, trained recreational

directors, sports programs, etc., fades away very quickly. Many

individuals are not aware that Sport B.C. exists; they are not aware

that there are coordinating bodies at all.

I recently

attended a meeting where exploration was done to set up a native

recreational sports council. At that meeting an in-house report was

done that canvassed the kind of recreational facilities available to

the native community in British Columbia, looking at all 194 bands. Do

they have a facility where some kind of activity can take place? Does

it have a trained recreational director? If not, how much experience do

they have? It was an absolute horror show. They simply don't have the

facilities; they don't have trained leadership.

I have a

release that the minister has issued proclaiming 1989 as the Year of

the Coach. The Year of the Coach doesn't apply at all in the native

community; I think it probably doesn't apply in rural British Columbia.

It states in the release that B.C. has 20,000 nationally certified

coaches, and the province contributes $600,000 annually to the

development of coaches. Coaches can be a very powerful leadership force

in a community. The allocation is $30 a coach. Boy, the province gets

pretty good value for $30 a coach.

I just want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that there is a sore need in rural British Columbia

[ Page 6647 ]

and in the native community for facilities for coaching, recreational training and leadership.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The first member for Victoria would suggest that the Year of the Coach

doesn't apply in native or rural communities. Well, I would like to

assure you that on Saturday evening I attended a banquet of B.C. school

sports with representatives of schools from right across the province:

the coaches from the schools and the administrators. In many cases,

when you have schools, you're going to have some type of coach. They

came from Vancouver, Surrey, right up into the Kootenays and the Peace.

The Year of the Coach is very important to those members. If you will

recall, hon. member, in my opening comments preceding discussion on my

estimates, I did mention that we had set a goal to have a large

percentage of B.C. students, or students presently in the school

system, from British Columbia participating in the Commonwealth Games

and the B.C. Games that we will be hosting in the province in the next

few years. We will be working very closely with B.C. school sports to

ensure that the goal is achieved.

The first member for

Victoria also mentioned Mr. Shields and a report he had done regarding

his participation on the minister's Advisory Council for Sports and

Recreation. This committee has recently received an excellent report on

facilities. The suggestion from the member about what we should be

looking at would probably be better put to the members of our Action

Challenge committee, because it would be inappropriate, in my mind, for

me to start prejudging what recommendations should come out of this

task force which is presently meeting with and visiting groups right

across the province.

The member quite likely has some valid

suggestions and concerns. I would suggest that he put these in writing

and forward them to May Brown or Peter Webster, who are serving on the

Action Challenge task force, so that they can be incorporated into the

recommendations that will be coming forward to the ministry and will be

dealt with at a future date.

MR. G. HANSON : I would

be happy to make my views known to anybody. We have a very fragmented

system; it has developed over time. It has got to be coordinated in a

more integrated way for the benefit of people of all ages. Given the

fact that we have that catalyst in 1994, I think that if we can

stimulate a lot of activity about facilities construction and program

development, and can get all the different players coordinating, it

could be a good subsidiary goal for the games for 1994.

[4:30]

I want to ask the minister her views on another aspect. There is a

growing potential economically and recreationally around cycling and

adventure travel. They call it cyclo-tourism: people touring on

bicycles and so on. I haven't seen anything come out of the ministry

regarding this; it may be backed with lotteries. I think there is

tremendous potential in this province for stimulating economic activity

in cycling within regions, within certain routes and so on. It is good,

healthy tourism. It brings people who have a respect for the

environment and who want to see the beauty of this province, The

cycling organizations internationally would look very favourably on

activities that would indicate that cycling had some priority.

really need bikeways in this province. I see people riding up the

freeway towards the ferry, and at various stages that shoulder is

pretty narrow. I don't know if you've been on a bicycle when a

tractor-trailer goes by you; the draft from it is very dangerous. I

think the province should start allocating a certain fixed percentage —

whether a decimal percentage, a full percentage or whatever — of the

Transportation and Highways budget to the construction of bikeways in

this province.

It's a good, clean, healthful activity. I

think a lot of these people who want to have a good-quality

recreational experience have a good touring bicycle; they've got a

helmet on; they've got all that gear. They're breathing carbon

monoxide; the draft pulls them very strongly as a tractor-trailer or

bus goes by — and I think it's dangerous. We should be looking at

allocating bikeways as a program within regions of this province and

putting some money into it. It would pay off. It would support motels,

parks and various other kinds of infrastructure in a very serious way.

It's long overdue. It has been talked about in this House since Hector

was a pup. It's really about time that something was done about it.

You've got a few more months to do something before we do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall the vote pass?

MR. G. HANSON : No. Mr. Chairman, I think the minister wants to respond about the bikeways.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The first member for Victoria thought the minister wanted to respond. I

don't really have a response, because it's not something that we have

been actively pursuing. If there are communities that feel so inclined,

they could certainly make application through Go B.C. That's a very

substantial program; $162 million to be spent over the three and a half

years is very substantial if you add to it the local participation and

contribution. It's a valued part of our provincial government program,

and I'm very pleased when I receive requests for information with

regard to available capital funding, because we do have capital funding

that is available.

I have not been a participant to any

discussions with regard to bicycling pathways, so I really can't

respond as far as my ministry is concerned. Possibly it's something you

should suggest to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) on his

improvements: that he make provision for an adequate additional width

to allow for this.

MR. G. HANSON : I think the

minister is coming to realize, though, the confusion that the

recreation and sports community is facing, because the minister's

portfolio is responsible for recreation and sport

[ Page 6648 ]

and

yet there's no umbrella minister who can spearhead that program. Yes,

Go B.C. is an important pool of money for all sorts of projects, but

there should be the authority within that minister's office to

spearhead and take leadership roles as an advocate for those sports

bodies and organizations.

Cycling is a sport; it comes

under the minister's ministry. There could be activities and directions

given that would make cycling a more desirable kind of activity, given

what else is happening in the province.

I think it creates

a lot of confusion to have the funding source all somewhere else, so

that the minister simply is rerouting correspondence to Go B.C. or to

the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary. A lot of the sports

bodies are finding the same kind of frustration, and it could be

overcome by consolidating it in one ministry and having a certain

budget to do the job.

MR. BLENCOE : I want to get

back to municipal affairs, but before I do that I just want to do a

quick clarification. My colleague from Victoria and my colleague from

Nanaimo were talking about the provincial museum. I don't want to go

over the same ground in terms of the impression in this community with

the move to fees, the perception that this government is treating the

museum in a cavalier fashion, the feeling in this community that we

cheapened it down and it isn't as important as it used to be.

I'm

wondering if the minister can allay the fears that.... There have been

some rumours or suggestions that the province might remove itself

dramatically from funding the provincial museum and that they may

decide to give the operation of the museum to a non-profit society or

create another body that might run it separately from the provincial

government. There is some concern out there that the province wishes to

remove itself from the daily operation and the financial commitment to

the museum.

I know that the Friends of the Provincial

Museum have been very concerned about this. There have been suggestions

that we might create a separate organization to run the museum,

allowing the province to remove itself over a period of years from

financial commitment. Could the minister please confirm, not just to

this community but to the province, that they are very much involved

and will remain involved financially, and allay those fears that there

may not be the support in future for the museum as we have seen it over

the last few years?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We've seen a

substantial increase in the funding that has been made available to the

museum this year. It's very difficult to say how future governments or

ministers may deal with the subject, but as long as this ministry is in

place as it presently stands, we have no intention of privatizing the

museum.

MR. BLENCOE : As the minister is aware, the

Friends of the Provincial Museum, before fees were introduced, used to

attain considerable dollars through donations. They used to do

remarkable projects with those dollars. Since fees were introduced,

those funds have dried up. Has the minister had meetings with the

Friends of the Provincial Museum to see if those kinds of concerns can

be alleviated and if maybe the involvement of the Friends of the

Provincial Museum can be reactivated as an important focal point for

activities in the museum?

There's a feeling that the

revenues being generated from fees may not necessarily go to museum

activities but will go to general revenue, and that slowly but surely

the museum would be starved for funds. I don't have the figures — my

colleague from Victoria may have them — but the Friends of the

Provincial Museum, in its last year before fees, generated considerable

dollars which they put towards special projects. To give you one

example, there used to be a loan program for local schoolteachers.

Through funds from the Friends, teachers could borrow various exhibits

or unique things and take them to the classroom, a very exciting

program for children who can't always get away from school. There was

great surprise this past September in the Victoria school district area

when that program was suspended.

I think there is a feeling — particularly in this community because the museum is here — that the

last few years have been a failure in terms of the provincial

government's policy towards the museum. The minister obviously doesn't

want to reflect too much on the former minister of culture, but perhaps

it's time to come clean and admit that errors were made. Let's go back

to normalcy and put the museum back in the forefront of the cultural

endeavours of this community and in this province. Let's correct those

mistakes and put the museum back where it should be: in the forefront

of our historical and cultural activities. Let's try to remove what the

former minister did to that museum and correct some bad mistakes.

I've

shown one example where the schoolteachers were using the program.

That's disappeared. It may come back; I don't know. The money may not

be available. Is this minister determined to once again put the museum

at the forefront of educational, cultural and historical activities not

only in this community but in the province?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

You referred to a program that involved participation by some of the

local schools. That program was not something that would have been

dealt with, or cut by, the provincial government. More money was put

into the museum budget this year. It was a management decision. They

have attempted to address involvement by local schoolchildren in other

ways - not only local, but children across the province. So be it; that

was the decision they made.

I believe very sincerely that

the museum has always been, and will continue to be, in the forefront

in the display of our history and artifacts in the province. The fact

that some adjustments were made in the budget doesn't take away from

the suggestion that it is a very important part of our Provincial Ar-

[ Page 6649 ]

chives

and the collection that is on display for everyone, not just for the

people of Vancouver Island, particularly Victoria. I think the second

member for Victoria forgets that the museum is a treasure for all of

the people of the province, not just for the people of Vancouver

Island. We are very proud of the operation that is in place there.

MR. BLENCOE : I have a couple of issues that I wish to canvass, and then I believe my colleague from Surrey has one or two items.

was announced in the housing portion of the budget that there would be

municipal incentive grants to create housing. I presume your ministry

is active in that area. There is some uncertainty; no one is quite sure

how that program is going to work. Maybe the minister or the staff have

it all worked out. I would certainly like to hear how that program is

going to work; how the municipalities will access those funds; what the

time-frames are — I presume there will be time-frames — for getting

projects through council. The idea is to speed things along. We are

still waiting, as we are waiting for most of the housing programs

announced in the budget. Maybe the minister can now tell us, some

months later, how that will work and what's happening.

[4:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We are just finalizing, within my industry, the details of the

incentive program. In other words, we are crossing the t's and dotting

the i's. You can expect a very full information package and

announcement in the not too distant future.

MR. BLENCOE :

We will certainly await that. The housing crisis has been with us for

some time. There weren't many new programs. We're still waiting for

most of them. We understand that the major one isn't even through

Treasury Board yet. We hope it will get to us very quickly, because the

crisis I was talking about that started this debate earlier this

afternoon is building. We are in desperate need of housing in the

province.

I asked the minister about the Provincial Capital

Commission. The minister is well versed in this issue and the

controversy that has been created. Overwhelmingly, people in this

community want to see the Provincial Capital Commission open to the

public. They have been offended by the actions of the Provincial

Capital Commission and, quite frankly, surprised at the response of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs for refusing sunshine legislation or

requirements under the statute establishing a Provincial Capital

Commission to ensure that it is open to the public.

I have said many things, and the St. Ann's issue highlighted the lack of

information shared with this community. Many times the current chairman was

less than forthright in sharing with this community. It doesn't make sense

when we have a Capital Commission with a major mandate to beautify and add to

the capital region on behalf of its citizens, yet that commission doesn't

open its doors to the community in general or to the media to say: "Look,

this commission exists for you and exists to beautify the region. We don't

really seek the views and ideas of this community or make it a very exciting

part of decision-making in the great capital of the province of British Columbia."

suppose that things are back to normal in some regards. The commission

continues to meet in secret; God knows what it is doing. Every time it

meets, no one knows. The only way we find out is through the back door,

or somebody happens to discover something after a decision is made, as

we did with the wax museum getting another ten years' lease without any

public input or discussion.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes, ten years' extension, Madam Minister. This community was not consulted; the council wasn't consulted — or anybody.

Has

the minister finally decided, in the interests of democracy and

accountability, to open up the Capital Commission to the scrutiny of

the public, the media and the community, and allow sunshine to shine in

on the Provincial Capital Commission. Or are we going to continue the

same way?

Listen to it in a positive light. I am convinced

that if we could change the way that the commission operates and have

it become an exciting part or a focus for discussions in the community

about the harbour, where we are going to beautify and where we are

going to put the projects, it would be a marvellous addition to local

decision-making and community involvement and actually having a role to

play in the areas that are to be beautified in this great community.

have had many discussions with the members on the Capital Commission.

They said: "Oh, we like to meet in camera because we can let our hair

down, and no one sees what we do." They are dealing with public

business and public dollars and, quite frankly, if they don't want to

stay there and be accountable, they should get off. I am being quite

frank about that.

I want to know if the minister has had a

change of heart. She is always talking about openness. This government

came into office in 1983 about openness in government. We have a very

important commission in the heart of the capital of the province of

British Columbia that is secret. No one knows what it does. I see the

chairman of the Capital Commission is here. He has always steadfastly

stood by his right to do things in camera, and I suppose he will be

here again to defend it.

Can the minister share with us

that in the future we are going to see the commission open to the

public and that, instead of finding out what goes on at the last minute

through brown envelopes or the back door, we are going to get an

honest, open, accountable and democratic process vis--vis the

Provincial Capital Commission?

[ Page 6650 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I would like to recognize Mr. Ken Hill, who is the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission and has joined my staff here.

With

few exceptions, discussions that take place at the Capital Commission

meetings revolve around property and personnel. The Capital Commission

is basically a property management arm and, as such, I have to tell the

second member for Victoria that I am quite satisfied and pleased with

their mode of operation. At this time I have no intention of

interfering in the process that they have adopted.

MR. BLENCOE : That's sad, and I think the minister knows that we could do things a lot better.

the minister aware that the Provincial Capital Commission makes

decisions on where projects are to happen in the capital region? Does

the minister not think this community should have a say or be able to

take a look at the commission's decisions on where those projects will

happen? I think you're just asking for trouble. There was an excellent

article done by the Times-Colonist a year ago where it showed where a

preponderance of the money was going, and that many areas felt they

were being left out.

I think the community has a right to

see where this commission is putting Its priorities, and then the

community can respond. Again, Madam Minister, you're right. Sure, it

deals with private and personnel matters, but it deals with a lot of

other things that can be open to the public and the media. We're

talking about the right of this community to see the commission making

decisions for the community: beautifying or whatever. St. Ann's was a

classic example of a terrible process, a controlled process, being put

in place with a marvellous institution that now is going to be

privatized — a fantasy academy, Mr. Chairman. Yet this community was

not allowed any discussion in the early stages. There were a few hours

of viewing of what you really always knew the commission was going to

accept.

It's time this commission became open and

accountable to the community it's supposed to make decisions for. Is

there anything more basic than a commission that is mandated "to

beautify for the citizens"? If the citizens aren't part of the

beautification, then the thing becomes a joke. It becomes an old school

club, where they get together and say: "Where are we going to put the

money this year, Mr. Chairman?" It's time to open it up; it's time to

have this community be a part of it. We're tired of the secrecy, and

we're tired of all those members who've been there for 15 or 20 years

saying: "I don't want to be accountable."

This minister and this Premier talk about openness, frankness and showing the

people what the government's going to do. This commission deals with a lot

of money and makes important decisions for the capital. I think the people are

smart enough to be able to participate. They're smart enough to see what

this chairman and this commission are doing, and maybe to suggest some alternatives.

For instance, if we'd known that Dr. Arne Lane was going to get another

ten years on his wax museum in that beautiful CPR customs house — a heritage

building on the waterfront — this community might have had a different opinion.

It might have said: "Hey, hold it. Maybe we should put that out to tender.

Maybe we should consult the community. Maybe there are some other uses for that

than as a wax museum."

The

minister knows that how this commission does business is totally

intolerable and has to change. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I

intend to introduce a private member's bill that will recommend change

and that it be open to the public, so the people in this region can see

what they're doing. I don't disagree when it comes to personnel or

dealing with leases. That's fine; those are in camera. I've been on

city councils; I know what that's like. But I think the minister is on

very shaky ground. Her own Premier came to office in 1983 saying that

it was time to clean up the backroom deals, to open up government

decisions.

MR. LOVICK : Let there be light.

MR. BLENCOE :

Absolutely. We have a minister who has consistently gone through a

year's controversy with St. Ann's and the customs house. Yet she stands

up and says: "No, we're going to be in camera. The people of this

region won't be allowed to participate, to see what these commissioners

are doing." Once again we have to report that the commission is going

to be closed to the people.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Once

again the second member for Victoria is wrong in several different

comments he's made. There has not been a ten-year extension on the wax

museum. There has been an agreement by the Capital Commission to enter

into negotiations on a new lease, and the conditions that have been

laid down by our Capital Commission are meeting with some resistance.

There has been no tenure extension on the wax museum. I would hope that

the second member for Victoria would be man enough to stand up and

admit his error, because he's just....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Sexist? If the second member for Victoria's colleagues don't want to admit he's a man, then I won't either.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, Oh!

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We're getting way off the subject, and that isn't what I meant to do.

would like to briefly go over the comments with regard to St. Ann's

Academy and the reference to the way the proposal call was handled. The

second member for Victoria suggests that there was little, if any,

public information, public access to the proposals or opportunity for

public input. I would like to suggest that when the decision was made

to call for proposals, the proposals were then advertised nationally.

There was public viewing of the proposals at the

[ Page 6651 ]

Crystal Garden for three days, and at St. Ann's for a week. Public hearings were then held by the city of Victoria.

[5:00]

If one were to accept all of the negative comments made by the

second member for Victoria with regard to the final proposal that was

accepted by the Capital Commission and approved of by the city council

in Victoria, one would assume that there wasn't anyone in the city who

approved of the proposals. I would like to read for the record a

portion of an

article — and I will file the documents for the House —

taken from the Island Catholic News , May 1989. The first comment was

from Monsignor Hanley, who is pastor of St. Patrick's, Oak Bay, and

served as rector of St. Andrew's Cathedral from 1976 to 1986. Among

other comments, he states:

"In my opinion,

to expect any level of government to take on the task of restoration of

the gardens, the convent and the chapel and to maintain them in

perpetuity is unrealistic. To my knowledge, the examples of good

restoration in Victoria have one thing in common: they have a

commercial component to guarantee the maintenance of the buildings for

the future.

"I believe the scheme proposed by

Peter Daniel guarantees the restoration of the convent, the grounds and

the chapel. The commercial component guarantees the maintenance and the

integrity of the site. I want to see the convent and grounds alive with

people, hearing and seeing the story of the Sisters of St. Ann. I want

to see crowds of people visiting the chapel and seeing and hearing the

story of the Catholic contribution to the history of our city. I feel

confident that is going to happen."

We have another

article from the....

MR. WILLIAMS : What did Remi de Roo say?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I have never heard Remi de Roo say anything positive, so I couldn't

possibly refer to a