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)

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6579 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports –– 6580

An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills (Bill M211). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 6580

Oral Questions

Forest resource development agreement. Mr. Miller –– 6580

Mr. Kempf

Condoms for prisoners. Mr. Guno –– 6581

Pesticide labelling. Mrs. Boone –– 6581

Motor vehicle testing and exhaust emissions. Mr. Cashore –– 6582

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Mr. Long –– 6582

Privatization of campgrounds. Ms. Pullinger –– 6582

Casino licensing. Mrs. McCarthy –– 6582

Victoria CBC station. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6583

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

On vote.44: minister's office –– 6583

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Harcourt

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Miller

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON :

This afternoon, hon. members, we have with us some very special guests

from that great and wonderful area, the Northwest Territories. We have

the Hon. Red Pedersen, who is the MLA for Kitikmeot West and the

Speaker of that assembly; Sam Gargan, who is the MLA for Deh Cho; Henry

Zoe, the MLA for Rae-Lac La Martre; and David Hamilton, the Clerk of

the House.

I might also mention to hon. members that our

honoured guest who was with us and sat on the floor this morning, the

Hon. Clive Griffiths from West Australia, enjoyed himself so much that

he's back this afternoon to listen to question period.

have just one other group to be introduced, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Ronald W.

Downey is the former president and a current director of our Speaker's

riding association. Along with Mr. Downey, we have Mr. John D.

Eastwood, who is also from Vancouver. Would the House welcome all these

gentlemen, please.

MR. ROSE : I was just going to

remark as an aside that if Mr. Griffiths enjoyed his visit to the House

so much this morning that he came back this afternoon, he must be a

masochist. He has taken more interest in the House than a lot of MLAs.

I'm

not standing up at this time for this purpose alone; I want to welcome

a very important school from Port Coquitlam, Terry Fox Senior Secondary

School, There are 200 students coming in — I was going to say in

gobs — in groups of 50. We welcome them and their teachers: Mr.

Kiloh, Mr. Van Os and Mr. Leroux. Would the House help me welcome them.

HON. S. HAGEN :

We have in the House with us today a number of real estate people who

are down here lobbying the government and the members. I'm pleased to

have from my riding Joan Leach, who is the president of the Vancouver

Island Real Estate Board. Would you please help me bid her welcome.

MR. JONES :

Joining us today is a well-known, highly respected and widely traveled

British Columbian who takes time out of his busy

schedule to drop by

the House from time to time. Would both sides of the House join me in

welcoming the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S.

Hagen).

HON. MR- SAVAGE : It's indeed a pleasure for

me to rise again today to welcome some members of the Fraser Valley

Real Estate Board: Mr. Dale Featherstone, Mr. John Eastwood, Miss

Christine Skaley and Mr. Al Terry. Would this assembly please make them

welcome.

MR. JACOBSEN : In the gallery today is Mr. Don Shannon, president of

the B.C. Real Estate Association, and the presidents, executive officers and

political action representatives from British Columbia's 13 real estate

boards, in total about 40 people. These representatives are in Victoria for

two days of training and legislative member consultation.

The

real estate industry in British Columbia represents over 12,000

licensed realtors and in 1988 generated approximately $12 billion in

sales. I ask the House to give all of these visitors a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would certainly like to welcome a member of the B.C. Real Estate

Association board who is visiting us today, Doris Ranger from my

constituency. In addition to Doris, I would ask you to join me in

welcoming Min Shi Chih, Tan Hwang, Hank Cheng, Michael Chih, Lawrence

Chen, Johanna Sholes and Savitri Ahlwat, all business people from

Surrey.

MR. HARCOURT : I too would like to add

greetings and a welcome to the members of the real estate boards who

are here from throughout British Columbia. In particular, I would like

to welcome the president of the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board,

Mr. Brian Calder, who is of course an old friend of mine. We went to

high school in Marpole together. Because of the secrets we know about

each other, we have a veil of secrecy and silence around our past which

keeps us good friends. Would you welcome Brian Calder.

MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, would the House please welcome Philip and Annette Young, visiting here from New York and in the House today.

MR. CASHORE :

I would like to introduce my cousin, who is visiting with the members

of the real estate board, Gordon Ellis. He's a member of the political

action committee from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. It's

interesting that he's on the political action committee, because we've

spent a lifetime trying to influence each other politically —

without success. He's visiting with his wife Sheila. Would you please

join me in welcoming Gordon and Sheila Ellis.

MR. MOWAT :

It's my pleasure to introduce today a good friend of mine, the past

chairman of the Canadian Paraplegic Association, British Columbia

division, and longtime British Columbia Telephone employee, Mr. Bob

Moog. Would the House please make him welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN :

This morning the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, Elsie

McMurphy, and the president-elect, Ken Novakowski, briefed our caucus

on issues of concern to the 28,000 members of that federation. They're

in the House with us this afternoon, and I would like all of us to join

in welcoming them today.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, on the off chance that there is someone in the

gallery — or may be in the gallery at a future date — who

hasn't been introduced, I would like to bid them welcome.

[ Page 6580 ]

MR. JONES :

I just noticed somebody in the gallery that isn't a member of the real

estate association. Joining us today is an individual who makes an

important contribution to community life in Burnaby by producing the

cable television program," Burnaby in Review." Would members on both

sides of the House please welcome Harley Steubing.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I have two items. First of all, I would like to apprise

the members of the House that this is Motorcycle Awareness Week. As an

avid biker I would like the House to be aware of that matter.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Apparently there are others.

would also like to welcome a member from the real estate board from the

fine city of Ucluelet, the whale-watching capital of Canada, Ron Burley.

[2:15]

MR. BRUCE :

As one would know, there has to be somebody in the gallery today from

Cowichan-Malahat, one of the greatest places in British Columbia that

you could live, and certainly a great place to sell real estate. We

have the vice-president of the Vancouver Island Real Estate Board, a

constituent of mine and a good friend, Mrs. Margaret Leck.

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to introduce a constituent from the finest riding in the

province, who should be well known to many of the more senior members

around here. Mrs. Dorothy Macdonald, wife of the former

Attorney-General, is here in the gallery somewhere.

While

I'm up, although I can't see the group from Coquitlam and therefore

is, I'd like to apologize to him for my massacring of the language in

this House, but would like to welcome him here.

MR. SIHOTA :

Everybody knows that the finest riding in British Columbia is

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Residing in Victoria and the president of the

Victoria Real Estate Board is Rob Fraser. I know Rob is here as well,

so would all members please join me in giving him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I rarely get an opportunity to introduce a constituent, so I couldn't

pass up the chance today to introduce a realtor from Dawson Creek and a

good friend, Mr. Lloyd Smith.

Hon. Mr. Savage presented the annual report of the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission for the year ending March 31, 1988.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE

MONITORING OF POLLUTION

AND TOXIC SPILLS

Mr. Cashore presented a bill intituled

An Act Providing for Effective Monitoring of Pollution and Toxic Spills.

MR. CASHORE :

The Waste Management Act in its current form is riddled with loopholes.

This act renames the Waste Management Act, calling it the Clean

Environment Enforcement Act, and provides for effective monitoring of

pollution and toxic spills. It plugs the loopholes in the Waste

Management Act by more clearly defining spills from industrial

operations and transportation accidents, and setting forth specific

requirements concerning the reporting of such spills.

addition, the ministry is required to keep an up-to-date record of

reported spills, which is available without charge to the public.

Further, a duty is placed on polluters to immediately do everything

practicable to prevent the spill from causing additional environmental

damage, broadly defining what is considered to be environmental damage,

calling harmful wastes "hazardous wastes" instead of "special wastes";

imposing a duty on officials to ensure that the monitoring of permits

is reasonably related to permit compliance; treatment of discharges and

the determination of environmental effects; no longer allowing

officials to grant approvals of variance to polluters; subjecting all

air effluent and refuse permits to a public review process every three

years or before a permit is renewed; and permit-holders being required

to pay the true cost of administration and enforcement of their

permits, on the principle that the polluter pays.

Bill M211

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.

Oral Questions

FOREST RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Forests. As the minister is aware, a

second FRDA agreement is required in British Columbia, to the tune of

some $700 million. It's vital for completing the backlog NSR and

incremental silviculture and research and development. Would the

minister advise the House if he has been informed that there will be no

program of the magnitude that we require, and that future funding will

have to come from the western diversification fund, controlled by the

Grains minister, Charlie Mayer?

HON. MR. PARKER : The

forest resource development agreement was put together in '84. It

expires next March in British Columbia. The communication

[ Page

6581 ]

I've had with the Minister of State for Forestry,

Hon. Frank Oberle, indicates that a second FRDA, or forest resource

development agreement, is unlikely; that the carrying on of the sort of

activities that we've been able to do under the forest resource

development agreement, which include backlog reforestation and

substantial research, are going to be carried through negotiation with

the western diversification office. The indication I have had from the

Forestry minister is that we will be into a provincial-federal

cost-sharing agreement through that office, to deliver essentially

exactly the same things that we've been doing under FRDA I. with a

little more emphasis on stand-tending.

MR. MILLER : A

supplemental on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Mayer has indicated

a one-third cut in regional development funds. Harvie Andre, the

Industry minister, has said there is a re-examination of structure,

funding and subject matter. By all indications, Mr. Oberle can't get

the same budget; western diversification has had a reduction in budget.

I think your government is largely responsible for the silvicultural

slums in this province. Will you make a commitment to this House that

the full range of reforestation programs envisaged under FRDA II will

be carried out in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The western diversification office is certainly not under the aegis of

Mr. Oberle, but the indication I have from Mr. Oberle is that there

will be federal-provincial sharing on a number of economic initiatives,

including this one of forest renewal and stand-tending. The amount of

funding, we have to negotiate. Whatever is available, we'll be seeking

a maximum share for British Columbia in competition with the other nine

provinces.

The commitment that we have given is that we

wanted to see a $700 million FRDA II, and we will continue to work

toward that objective with the federal government: a $700-million

shared agreement. We're not going to stand off in a corner — as the member opposite would probably wish —

and suck our thumb. We're going to get the best dollar we can for

British Columbia and make sure that it goes into the fibre farm in

British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF : To the same minister,

Mr. Speaker. If we don't see the full $150 million in FRDA II returned

to this province from the federal government, are you prepared to go

back to the multinational corporations and demand that they pick up the

tab for those insufficiently restocked lands that you wiped the slate

clean of in October 1977?

HON. MR. PARKER : There's a lot of hypothesis from the member for

Omineca. Our announcement, first off, wasn't in '77; it was in '87.

And the backlog.... If that gentleman could remember from when he was minister,

the Forest Act isn't that different, and it was in black and white and plain

of the day lay with the Crown.

MR. MILLER : And he didn't do it.

HON. MR. PARKER : Neither did the members opposite when they were in

the driver's seat.

MR. KEMPF : Take the money and run, and the taxpayers are going to pay.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, the obligation prior to October 1987 was

fully with the Crown. We'll see in our estimates here a little later on

how this government is meeting its obligations in seeing that the backlog is

looked after, properly protected and tended.

CONDOMS FOR PRISONERS

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The B.C.

corrections branch is recommending that inmates in our provincial

prisons be given condoms to give added protection to the prison

population against the dreaded disease AIDS. Will the minister

reconsider his earlier decision to dismiss his own staffs

recommendation and provide prisoners with this much needed protection?

HON. MR. REE : That is a very interesting question and very timely, and the answer is no.

MR. GUNO :

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Michael Rekart, a B.C. Health

ministry AIDS expert, has said that providing condoms to prisoners in

British Columbia not only meets a major health problem in the prisons,

but would also mark a major breakthrough in prisons across Canada.

question to the minister is: has he consulted with the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) on this matter, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. REE :

I have not consulted with my colleague; I will consult with my

colleague. I note what you are saying, that we follow the same as other

prisons in Canada, which you say would be a major breakthrough. We have

come to the same conclusion as other institutions in this country.

PESTICIDE LABELLING

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. There is

growing evidence and concern that the use of pesticides and other

chemicals on agricultural products from other countries is a serious

health risk to consumers, especially children. Has the minister decided

to respond to concerns of consumers by at least requiring labels on

agricultural products to indicate their country of origin?

HON. L. HANSON : That is a federal jurisdiction. There is a new program — and I'm sure the member opposite is aware of it —

called the workplace hazardous material information system that not

only requires the labelling of those pesticides or chemicals

[ Page 6582 ]

that are classified in the system, but provides instructions as to their safe handling in the workplace.

The responsibility for labelling goods for consumer purposes is within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

MOTOR VEHICLE TESTING

AND EXHAUST EMISSIONS

MR. CASHORE :

My question is to the Premier. Despite the fact that the government's

own task force on emission controls has questioned the effectiveness of

spot checks as a method of controlling automobile emissions, your

Solicitor-General said yesterday that he was unwilling to abandon this

policy in favour of comprehensive motor vehicle testing. Your Minister

of Environment was no more forthcoming.

Is the Premier now

prepared to give some direction to his ministers to establish an

effective motor vehicle testing program as promised in last year's

throne speech?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : As I recall,

what the Solicitor-General said yesterday was that no decision had been

made, and that's quite different from what I'm hearing. He said no in

response to the question," Has a decision been made," and there is a

difference.

However, having explained that, let me assure

the member that I support any and all things that will give us a clean

environment and greater safety.

MR. CASHORE : A

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given that answer, which is a commitment to

support, will the Premier go a step further and advise the House now

that he has decided to bring in legislation to institute compulsory

automobile testing that will include the testing for emission controls?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of future policy.

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

MR. LONG : Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Environment. A recent story in the Vancouver Sun

graphically described how a major oil spill would impact upon the

Strait of Georgia, and the picture is frightening. A new public opinion

poll revealed that 75 percent of British Columbians fear that an oil

spill in the magnitude of Valdez would probably occur along the B.C.

coastline within five years We have all heard a great deal about the

people's very real concerns for protecting the Coquitlam watershed.

[2:30]

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Question!

MR. SPEAKER : Would the member please put his question.

MR. LONG : You want the question? During the construction phase of the gas pipeline....

Interjections.

MR. LONG : Can the minister tell us precisely how the pipeline will help to safeguard our shorelines from potential oil spills?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I think there was a question there. There are hundreds of barge

movements per year currently into the Vancouver Island area with bunker

C, which we all know is very dangerous if spilled. Of course, it is a

concern of mine that we have this pipeline in place to eliminate those

barge movements. There is also the question of the Vancouver Island air

shed, which is becoming a bit acidic from the burning of that same

bunker. Anything we can do to move that natural gas pipeline along the

Sunshine Coast in the member's riding — and also into Vancouver

Island, of course — would be of great benefit to the environment

for many reasons.

PRIVATIZATION OF CAMPGROUNDS

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister Responsible for Parks. Last

year the then Minister of Environment and Parks stated that the

government would save 15 percent of its costs by privatizing some of

its park campground operations. This week the government announced that

the fees for camping in some parks would increase by as much as 33

percent. Do the fee increases announced by the government this week

indicate that the government's campground privatization scheme has

failed?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : No.

MS. PULLINGER :

Last year the Minister of Parks boasted of a $2 million increase in the

Parks budget for upgrading of facilities. Yesterday's announced

increase in fees was due to costs of improvement to facilities,

according to the government. Is the minister now saying that the full

cost of this facilities upgrading is going to be borne by the users of

B.C.'s park system?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : No.

CASINO LICENSING

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. I would like to

know if it's government policy to preclude the sale of casino

businesses to out-of-province purchasers, considering that they are

businesses that are only there by virtue of government licensing. To

put it another way, if a casino is sold to anyone, is the licence

transferable to the purchaser?

HON. MR. REE : I'll have to take that question as notice.

[ Page 6583 ]

VICTORIA CBC STATION

MR. G. HANSON :

A question to the Minister of State for Vancouver Island. What specific

representation has the minister made to the federal government to

ensure that Victoria gets its own CBC station, despite recently

announced budget cuts to CBC?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We

made a presentation in Vancouver regarding the CBC station for Victoria

and indicated that it had been promised to us ten years ago. We made a

presentation to the effect that we thought there was room for

improvement there.

MR. G. HANSON : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Five regional bureaus were

established in B.C. for radio production facilities; three of these have gone

ahead, but the facilities for Victoria are on hold. Can the minister advise

the House what steps he has taken to ensure that Victoria will get a regional

production facility?

HON. MR. HUBERTS : We indicated that we were certainly interested in improving our facilities. We'll just follow up on that.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

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

MR. ROSE :

I intend to go on with the cross-examination of the minister on transit

estimates for a while, and there will be other people involved in it as

well. I'm just waiting now while some of her officials arrive on the

scene to support her.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Pardon me, hon.

member. Hon. members, if you wish to have conversations or hold little

meetings, it would be best if they were held out in the hallway. The

House is in committee.

Please continue, hon. member.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Chairman, I tried to make the point that we're inadequately served

in transit in the lower mainland. I can't say how strongly I believe

that.

I would like to offer a statistic that came to me

over lunch hour. Ten years ago, 50 percent of the rush hour traffic

into the city came by transit. After all the programs, 30 percent to 40

percent of the same people come by transit.

know that ridership is up marginally over last year, but it certainly

doesn't indicate to me — or to anybody else, especially the

riders — that we're doing a good job here. The fact is we're not

doing a good job here, and I can't emphasize that too strongly.

think there are a number of reasons for that. For instance, I don't

think that there's a proper regard for public input. I've got a letter

here from a former president of the union, for one, who says: "The bus

drivers' union has met quarterly with BCT management to submit numerous

suggestions for remedying scheduling problems. These suggestions have

met with a 97 percent rejection rate." This letter, which appeared in

the Sun , was written by Colin Kelly.

I've

heard from other people that the bus drivers' suggestions have been

largely ignored. The scheduling is handled centrally, and that's not

where it should be. It should be with the regional manager.

HON. MR. REID : They're always on holidays.

MR. ROSE : I don't know if they are. I don't have any trouble getting hold of them.

The

same thing happened in North Vancouver, I'm informed. The regional

transit commission decided to transfer 77 North Vancouver buses to

Burnaby, then deadhead them back across the Second Narrows Bridge to

make their runs. At the same time, 18 Burnaby buses would be

transferred to Port Coquitlam. This is in direct contradiction to a

proposal from those communities.

I think that transit loses out by rejecting the people who are on the job — the front line people.

What

is the status of B.C. Transit plans to move 77 North Vancouver buses to

a dispatch garage in Burnaby? I'd like to know about that. That's

number one.

Number two. Has it been determined whether this move will — as the transit union suggests —

cost the taxpayers of this province $400,000 to $500,000 a year: that

is, the move, the facilities and the deadheading one way back to North

Vancouver?

Has the minister decided to bring a transit act

into line with many other statutes in this province which call for

public meetings when public money is being spent?

Again,

can't emphasize too strongly the concern about this on the part of many

people. We want the transit system to work well, and there are too many

complaints to suggest it is working well. Part of the reason is an

absolute inability — an impervious attitude on the part of

transit, according to some; I can't say it firsthand — to make

suggestions and accept suggestions that might improve the service.

Here's

another thing. We're told here that the new White Pine Beach branch,

number 147 extension, is in there for a one-year trial period. That's

in my riding, so I'm happy about a bus extension in there. But I think

we have to make sure that the added service isn't placed squarely on

the back of the operator.

There has been concern. When that

White Pine Beach opened, I couldn't get near the place. The road access

to Belcarra is abysmal. I got as far as Ioco and had to turn around and

come back. That's how congested that road is, and there's increased

traffic in

[ Page 6584 ]

there because there's increased building all over that slope.

Sure,

we want the service; it's a wonderful idea. But how does that work with

the connections? That's what the concern is. What are we going to do

when the buses are stuck, and they're going to miss connections to

Vancouver and New Westminster? Again, if the drivers — the operators —

had an opportunity to participate more fully, I think the system would

work better, morale would be better and stress would be lower.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

B.C. Transit does have service review committees, and the operators

have an opportunity for input. I can assure the member for

Coquitlam-Moody that quite likely the information he has received —

he stated it came from the union.... It's quite likely that those same

members have met with me on more than one occasion in my office in

Surrey. I have regular visits from the union executive, when they

generally express their concerns to me. I feel they have always

received a fair hearing.

Many of their concerns have been

addressed very promptly and, I would expect, to their satisfaction.

It's not unusual for several of the operators to come into my office

with concerns, which I pass along to Transit. I don't really believe it

is necessary for them to arrange to have meetings with the minister,

but whenever those meetings are requested, I never refuse them. I meet

with them, and the concerns are then expressed to the transit

commission with a view to some type of resolution.

I would

suggest that your comment that we don't listen to the drivers may be

more appropriately stated as: we don't always agree 100 percent with

the suggestions brought forward. But I can assure you, we do listen to

the operators. They are the grass roots They're out on the firing line

all the time. Certainly we accept that they know far more about the

system than those sitting in the office.

We were talking

about the North Vancouver operation being transferred to Burnaby. It is

a matter that has been up for discussion for quite some time. The union

members who brought this to your attention are well aware of the fact

that the matter has been up for discussion for a considerable period of

time. They have also lobbied me at my office in this regard. I have had

discussions with representatives of local government in North Van who

are concerned about this possibility, and I am informed that there will

be a public meeting held in North Vancouver by the commission on May 9.

Following that meeting, I feel certain that some type of resolution

will be accomplished.

I should tell you that the numbers,

according to B.C. Transit, suggest that with that type of move there

would be a saving of approximately $350,000 a year. As a result of the

comments made at that public meeting, I feel certain that the Vancouver

Regional Transit Commission will deal with them in a very responsible

way

You suggest that there is no public input to the

commission. The commission meetings are open to the public. It is

uncommon to not have some members of the public.... There are some

people who attend every commission meeting. They are open to the public

for people who may want to be there to hear the discussions firsthand.

[2:45]

When all is said and done, the great majority of decisions are made

by representatives of local government, both in Victoria — and as

far as the small communities are concerned, members from across the

province —

and on the lower mainland by members of local councils. I feel that we

have attempted in that way to have proper representation and local

input.

MR. ROSE : I'm quite sure that the minister

listens with both ears open. I can't say this on my own behalf, but I

can certainly say it on behalf of the information I received, that 95

percent of the suggestions are ignored. Sure, there are open public

meetings. Some people — hearing addicts, you might as well call

them, because they're at so many hearings — find this a consuming

interest.

know the minister is available for listening to people in her

constituency and to the union. I have no quarrel with that. It's what

happens after that. That's the point. Does anything happen after that?

At the root of it is the central planning of people who are not really

at the front lines and do not have the concerns.

I'd like

to take the minister for a little ride in the morning at 7 o'clock

around my riding and just show her what it's like. I offered to take

her to lunch, too.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : No, I didn't ask to take her at 9 o'clock at night. That's the problem; it's peak rush hour.

HON. MR. REID : There are no drivers available; they're all on holidays.

MR. ROSE :

That's not true. I know you have a pipeline into the commission. I know

that you were once responsible, if not the chairman of that commission.

I also know that you were involved in a very difficult labour

negotiation, which probably coloured your views and embittered you

somewhat.

HON. MR. REID : Never.

MR. ROSE :

I can understand why. I would like to point out that you no longer

occupy that lofty position, maybe with good reason. The last person in

the world who should be heckling me, a relatively new member of this

House, is the Minister of — what is it? — Tourism and Provincial Secretary.

want to talk about a couple of other things. Is it true that the new

radio-equipped buses are all going to Surrey, or are they going to be

in downtown Vancouver, where they are really needed for the protection

of the drivers? That's something else you could look into.

[ Page 6585 ]

I'm

changing the subject. The new subject will be the phantom commuter

rail, the great night train. This train has been pussyfooting around

the Fraser Valley for at least 20 years that I know about. Finally,

just before the election, we got a promise that there was actually

going to be a trial period for two years, a commuter rail system that

would run from Port Coquitlam twice daily into Vancouver. Presumably it

would return, or it would have difficulty in going twice daily.

MR. CLARK : What happened to that guy?

MR. ROSE : Do you mean the Member of Parliament that this was to save?

HON. MR. REID : He made a promise he couldn't keep.

MR. ROSE :

Unfortunately he was a victim of the last federal election. I know how

it feels to be a victim of elections, because it has happened to better

people than the member: namely, me.

First of all, I think

it was a dumb idea to start at Port Coquitlam, when it should have

started at Mission. It doesn't really matter, if we don't have it,

where it starts or ends. I think it was largely an election ploy. I

think some people felt that it was about to materialize after a long

time. I never believed it, and I still have difficulty. We'd like it

though.

MR. CLARK : What happened?

MR. ROSE :

We just don't know what happened. I asked the minister the other day:

"Is the commuter rail on schedule?" We need it to serve Dewdney. The

Chairman will recognize that from Maple Ridge and from Mission right

down.... There is no trouble using the rail lines near Toronto and

Montreal, having them leased by the government. The GO system has been

on the go there for 20 years; it works well. In Toronto, for instance,

I think 75 to 80 percent of the people who arrive at work every morning

come into the city on public transit. What have we got here? We're down

around 35 or 40 percent. That is an abysmal record.

Could I

ask the minister the following questions? Is the commuter rail from

Port Coquitlam to Vancouver off the track, or is it on schedule? Has it

been derailed? I had some earlier questions that you could deal with;

then I will sit down. Have there been any plans drawn or contracts let

to build the commuter rail stations in Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and

Vancouver? I know they want it to run around the PNE.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's too long a list for the minister.

MR. ROSE :

No, she has lots of professional help over there. Each of the

assistants can write. They are literate, conscientious public servants.

Have

the studies been conceptualized for the quotas established? Has money

been allocated for such studies? Will the ministry appoint area

representatives to participate in these studies?

The mayor

of Coquitlam said that unless we get some help on transit, he is going

to stop the development, notably of the Westwood Plateau. He might find

somebody leaning on him if he tries to do that; nevertheless, that's

the problem. How can you have continuous growth, year after year, and

not improve your transit system? Unfortunately industry is not moving

away from the central core rapidly enough to compensate for the number

of people who are moving in.

I think I could probably leave that now, because other people want to deal with other matters for a while.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We will be having, over a period of time, radios in every bus, not just in Surrey.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

No, the priority would certainly be Vancouver. We already have a

substantial number of buses equipped, but not with the new equipment

that is going in that we have just called tenders on. I can assure you

that Vancouver will be treated similarly to Surrey.

Commuter

rail: I'm not sure whether it's derailed or not, because we have not

yet received a response to the letter I sent to the federal minister

asking for confirmation...

MR. CLARK : When did you send it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Probably a month or three weeks now.

...of

the commitment, suggesting to him that the CPR have come in with

figures that are higher than we believe they should be, and asking for

two things: the commitment of their 50 percent participation —

reaffirmation — and for them to put some pressure on the CPR to

reduce their gold-plated requirements.

course, having said that, it goes hand in hand with the suggestion

that, no, we have not let any contracts for the stations. You suggest

that the mayor of Coquitlam has made the statement, as he has on many

occasions, that he is going to more or less stop growth and not allow

any further development until SkyTrain or an improvement in transit is

seen in his Coquitlam area. I would suggest to you, hon. member, that

if this minister had her way we'd be going to Whalley, Coquitlam and

Richmond. That is my goal, and I continue to work for those three

extensions to SkyTrain. Without any question, I'm carrying on in that

vein, and there's no doubt in my mind that I'm going to be successful.

I'm going to persevere until I am.

MR. LOENEN : I was

pleased to hear the minister just now say that among other communities

Richmond will be looked upon favourably when it comes

[ Page 6586 ]

to extending SkyTrain. That is the subject I'd like to touch on very briefly.

Our

community, as the minister well knows, is a very rapidly growing

community, and because of our location transportation is perhaps the

number one issue. I can think of few issues that are of greater

importance to the residents of my community than the whole issue of

transportation.

Transportation has to be addressed on many

fronts, and I'm pleased that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant)

is addressing it together with the GVRD. Certainly public transit is

one area that we have to explore even more than we have in the past.

I'm convinced that when we look at the developments in the lower

mainland and at a community such as Richmond, we have to be visionary

and daring and to particularly look to public transit of one form or

another. Increasingly we realize that building more bridges and laying

more concrete and asphalt is not the answer. It's a temporary answer,

but those roads, bridges and corridors fill up as fast as we can build

them and even faster.

I'm told that the city of Seattle has

room perhaps for one more interchange or overpass somewhere, but

physically it is impossible to add to it. They simply cannot build more

freeways. We have to learn from those examples. We have seen that time

and again the city of Vancouver has chosen not to build a freeway

system, but that brings a special responsibility onto all of us to look

at alternate ways; that is, alternate to private vehicles.

addition, I think the public generally is increasingly becoming aware

of how fragile our environment is. With summer coming on, we know that

again this summer there will be days when a pall of smog will hang over

Vancouver. We certainly are aware that the private automobile is

perhaps the greatest culprit, the greatest source of pollution. In view

of that, it is all the more urgent that we look very seriously at

improving public transit systems. We must develop ways of attracting

people to make use of them. It's very difficult, because I know that

when you look at a community like my own, every new home that goes up

has a double garage attached to it, and people treasure their private

automobiles. But that's all the more reason for us to look at ways in

which we can induce people to make use of public transit.

think that has to be tackled on many fronts. It means that we increase

the services, that we listen to the concerns as expressed by the

residents there when they talk about the need to improve the bus

service to UBC, for instance, to improve the service between the

airport and our town centre, to improve the bus services across the

municipality east and west. We have fairly good routes running north

and south; we have very little running east and west. There's virtually

no bus service between our town centre and New Westminster, for

instance, Mr. Chairman. That too is something that is badly needed. So

yes, we have to look at more and better bus services, and I'd like to

encourage the minister, through B.C. Transit, to look at that.

addition to that, we have to do some serious planning to look at either

bringing the SkyTrain to Richmond or some other form of commuter rail

service, particularly through the Arbutus cut. The potential of

developing the Vancouver International Airport is immense, but that

will only happen when we have the proper infrastructure in place to

make it happen.

[3:00]

It is interesting to note — and I think few people realize this —

that there are more commuters coming from Richmond directly into the

Vancouver downtown area each day than from any other suburb, even with

a relatively poor bus service and even though many residents use

private cars. I think the minister will agree with me that this fact

alone ought to weigh very heavy when we talk about extending SkyTrain,

whether it be to Whalley, Coquitlam or Richmond. Combine that with the

potential at the Vancouver International Airport, and I think we all

agree that we have to look at it very hard and very seriously.

It's

not just a question of who can shout the loudest. Some prominent mayors

around the lower mainland are very good at creating a high profile and

saying: "We want SkyTrain, and we need it now." I hope this question

will be looked at in terms of where the greatest need is, as determined

by the number of people who will make use of the extensions, as well as

the potential for growth such as I just mentioned — for instance,

at the airport. I know it is expensive, but my plea today is that we

cannot afford to not increase the use of public transit. We cannot

afford it simply because we're running out of space to build more

freeways and highways. It's also counterproductive in terms of how

fragile our environment is and the need to protect that environment, to

build on the quality of life that we enjoy and to protect that quality

of life and do even better than we've done in the past. In view of

that, we simply cannot afford to not look at extending the SkyTrain

system or other forms of public transit.

Before I close, I would just like to mention that when I was a youngster, Richmond enjoyed a form of public transit —

light rail transit. The interurban ran all the way from Steveston

through the town centre right into Marpole, and from there through the

Arbutus cut into downtown Vancouver. That was a marvellous system.

Somehow we were told that we had to do away with that, and it's a

shame. I'd like to remind the minister that the right-of-way and most

of the rail is still there. It runs from downtown Vancouver through

Richmond town centre to Steveston. The potential is there, and I just

hope we'll have enough sense to prevent that right-of-way from being

uprooted or used for other purposes.

I want to put in a

plug for that, because it would be a tremendous detriment to our

community if we gave up that right-of-way. In fact, we ought to look at

the potential of developing that right-of-way for some form of light

rapid transit, some commuter rail service even, within the very near

future.

I would like to end these remarks on a positive note and congratulate the minister and B.C. Transit

[ Page 6587 ]

for

increasing the handyDART service in our community this past year. I

know that many of the residents appreciate that very much; it provides

a much needed service. I would just like to pass that on, Madam

Minister, on behalf of the residents of my community, because that kind

of service relieves a lot of tension, a lot of need. I do want to

encourage you in your work. In terms of developing rapid transit for

Richmond, I hope we will be able to meet the needs of our community

soon.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I just have a couple of very

quick questions to the minister. First of all, the minister has

indicated that she supports the extension to Whalley. I would like to

know what she's doing about that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I don't know whether we have long enough to hear about all of the time

I spend attempting to resolve the mild difference that I have with the

Vancouver Regional Transit Commission.

MR. WILLIAMS : The mile or the mild?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Our mild difference of opinion with regard to the extension. It is my hope — and has been for some time now —

that we would be able to, following the completion to Scott Road in

February, immediately be somehow in a position to go up the hill, while

at the same time we would be looking at the Coquitlam and Richmond

extensions. I've been saying that for two years now. It's really

interesting. When I was elected to the Legislature in 1983, and we

talked about the extension to Whalley, I can remember thinking: if only

I was the minister we'd get it up there so quickly. And then when I

became minister it became more difficult, because I realized that it

wasn't something I could do on my own. Let me assure the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley that there is nothing that has a higher

priority with this minister than the SkyTrain extension to Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm sure I don't have to remind the minister of the history of

SkyTrain. SkyTrain was imposed on the city of Vancouver by the

provincial government. That decision was made in isolation from the

communities it was going to serve. We now are in a situation where the

transit commission has the authority to make those decisions, and that

is the way it should have been in the beginning. That decision, that

transfer of responsibility, was brought about by this minister. For the

minister to say at this point that she is still committed....

She

is also responsible for the reality that we face today. That

frustration was brought about by this government not only imposing a

very expensive system but also transferring the ultimate responsibility

for filling the government's commitment to the transit commission,

arm's length from the provincial government.

I appreciate

the fact that the minister is still committed, however. Working with

the tools at your disposal and the influence that you have in cabinet,

I would suggest — and it has been the position of my party for a long time —

that the funding for SkyTrain should be picked up out of general

revenue, like any other highway. Has the minister pursued that....

HON. MR. REID : You wanted to scrap it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If I can make a suggestion, through the Chair, the member for

Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale can have his opportunity to speak. The way

you do that is, you raise your mike and you get to your feet.

Have you pursued with your cabinet colleagues the possibility of having that expensive system picked up out of general revenue?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, I have pursued every option known to man — and woman.

MR. WILLIAMS : The minister is admitting, right here and now in the House — take note —

that she's unable to convince her cabinet colleagues about extending

SkyTrain to Surrey and having them pay the bill. I sure hope that the

Surrey Leader has that down. We're going to get on the telephones right

now. The member for Surrey-Newton doesn't have the clout. She can't

deliver to Whalley. She has tried everything known to man, and she

can't move that machine known as the cabinet. Now we know. Maybe the

minister wants to elaborate a little bit more about her lack of

capability inside the cabinet.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To the first member for Vancouver East, that's really an interesting

analysis of my previous statement, and possibly I should elaborate. But

I wanted the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley to be very certain in

her understanding of my commitment to that extension. I can tell you

that that extension.... I will be there some time or another to turn

that shovel or cut that ribbon, or do whatever has to be done, because

we are going to get it. We have explored both with the cabinet and with

the Vancouver Regional Transit commission all financing options that

are available to us. We have yet to arrive at an agreement as to how

that is going to be brought about. Please, be certain it's going to

happen.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The question specifically was

to do with the funding out of general revenue, for it to be treated as

a highway, to have the provincial government pick up the responsibility

that at this point is frustrating the whole public transit system in

the lower mainland. Are you going to do that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, a correction to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

That is not frustrating the whole transit system on the lower mainland;

it's not frustrating it at all. But yes, it is one of the options

available to us.

[ Page 6588 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

All you're telling us, Madam Minister, is that this is streetcar named

desire. It's another lick, hope and a promise. And you're going to be

there to cut the ribbon, you're telling us. You look awfully healthy to

me, and it could be a long time before you're cutting the ribbon.

think there's a case for the province to put more money into the pot.

It's taking too much out of the whole system. You guys made the

decision for SkyTrain....

HON. MR. REID : It's a good one - the best one in the world.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's a good one? It's overly expensive. You're talking about SkyTrain

to Richmond when you've got a surface railway to Richmond that you

could turn overnight into a transit train. That doesn't make any sense.

For

the benefit of the second member for Richmond, there's actually a

railway that goes through Kitsilano, Kerrisdale and over to Richmond.

It used to go all the way to Steveston. You can use those railway lines

and just....

MR. LOENEN : I just finished saying that.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes, but your minister said SkyTrain. So we should all work at

correcting her. In the meantime, we want to know about extra money for

the route to Whalley. We want to see that outside the regular transit

agreement. We don't want to see any more money come out of the people

in the greater Vancouver region for your expensive SkyTrain system.

HON. MR. REID : They use it.

MR. WILLIAMS : Who? Vancouver East?

HON. MR. REID : The people in the GVRD use it. They had $10 million left over last year. I'd like you to come to White Rock.

MR. WILLIAMS : The member from the outer reaches of the region — from White Rock —

is saying that he wants everybody in the GVRD to pay more. Oh, you want

everybody to pay more; they are not paying enough now. Is that what you

are saying? Oh, that's the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale

saying he wants more money out of the taxpayers in Vancouver.

HON. MR. REID : I said out of the riders; the riders should pay.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, you want them to pay more in the fare box. With help like that....

You could get in deep trouble fast. Do you have any more advice, Mr.

Member from White Rock?

HON. MR. REID : I've got lots for you, but this is not my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : If he does, he'll have to go through the Chair, hon. member.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister agrees with that? Does the member for Surrey-Newton agree

with the member from White Rock? They want more money out of the fare

box.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I thought I made it clear this morning — I'm not sure whether you were in the House —

that the amount derived from the fare box is a decision to be made by

the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. Those are representatives of

local government.

[3:15]

I know that your comments are in jest, and you have some difficulty

in putting forward serious questions on this. I believe that the member

for Vancouver East knows full well that this is a top-notch system. It

generated $5 billion worth of economic development from Vancouver to

New Westminster in that first phase. You know that. That really

translates into something like $15 billion worth of spinoff benefits

that are strictly a result of that SkyTrain extension.

SkyTrain

is not just to move people; it is also an economic generator. If you

want to look back at "The Livable Region" plan that was prepared by the

Greater Vancouver Regional District some years ago, you will recall

that they identified a number of town centres: Whalley being one of

them, New Westminster being another, Burnaby and Coquitlam. The

extensions that we are talking about here today are all part of a plan

that was prepared a good many years ago by local government.

will have a formula that I know will be acceptable to the members on

the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission. We will be able to look

forward to improved transit, whether it be by light rail, rapid rail,

buses or trolleys. We realize that, with the growth in the lower

mainland, we have to spend more money on transit. We want to get the

cars off the road, so we have to spend more money on transit. We are

going to be doing that. We are prepared to do that, and we are in this

year's budget. Nowhere in this year's budget do we have a sum of money

that takes SkyTrain to Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr.

Chairman, I think the minister has just made my argument. The province

benefits; the province should pay. Why should the people who have to

use and depend on public transit pay for those economic spinoffs that

she is talking about? If the member from Surrey-White Rock insists that

the rest of the province should not pay, then the rest of the province

should not benefit. I think the rest of the province very clearly

benefits by the economic spinoffs that are brought about by SkyTrain.

The system that the province has set out, that this minister is

responsible for, divides communities; it

[ Page 6589 ]

divides

municipalities against municipalities. It puts such an economic burden

on the lower mainland for this very expensive system that you yourself

are in a situation with the transit commission of cutting back

services, of centralizing services, of making the system virtually

ineffective.

I'll talk a little bit further about some of

the cutbacks to those bus services and how they are actually causing

hardship for some of our seniors. The member responsible has already

talked about some of the hardships that are brought to bear for

students that are trying to get to their schools.

What this

system does is make it virtually impossible for the comprehensive

integrated system that we need in the lower mainland. The only way out

of this is for the province to pick up its responsibility, to recognize

that this is a highway, and to take that huge capital cost off the back

of the transit commission.

The minister likes the comfort

of having that transit commission at arm's length when the transit

commission has to make those hard decisions. The Transit Commission

doesn't have the flexibility of raising money like the province has.

The transit commission has the option of carrying out a system that has

already been put in place for them. They can raise the fares; they can

increase the gas tax; they can increase the Hydro levy. These are all

non-options. Very clearly the transit commission can do very little but

cut services, centralize services to SkyTrain.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Perhaps the minister responsible could have a little talk with the

member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale, because not only is that

member not doing anything supportive for the minister, quite frankly

he's not doing anything for our municipality by talking like this.

HON. MR. REID : I'll help her get it to Whalley. You watch. You won't get it there, that's for sure, because we'll throw you out first.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Actually, the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale is a great ally

of mine. I hope that he keeps on talking; then not only will I win my

seat, but we're going to win some more seats in Surrey for our side as

well. If that member keeps on talking, he's going to be a real asset to

us for the whole of the Fraser Valley and the lower mainland.

the minister would respond.... Rather than gain a lot more in the way

of verbal support, I'd like to hear some practical solutions. What can

the minister do, given the tools she's got now?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There was mention made of the spinoffs when I mentioned

the $5 billion and the $15 billion, and the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley

suggests that that's why the province should be paying more toward the system.

I would like to suggest that those spinoffs are benefits to the local government,

through the increased assessment and the taxation, not to the provincial government

per se.

I've

told you what I'm doing in an attempt to bring SkyTrain to Whalley. I

will continue to work towards that end. I don't really know what more I

can say.

MR. CLARK : I was provoked by the minister and the previous member over here.

really was a dumb decision to build that thing in the first place. It's

a toy train. But now that you've built it, it's important to take it to

Whalley, to at least salvage the best out of a bad deal. But it's

madness to build it to Richmond. This is a crazy, expensive, outrageous

system; it doesn't carry any people, hardly.

I wonder if

the minister could answer some questions about what has happened in

terms of ridership. As I understand it, the government spent a billion

dollars on rapid transit and no more people are taking public transit

today than they were before they built it, or very few.

HON. MR. REID : You're wrong.

MR. CLARK : I don't think so, Mr. Minister.

What's

happened is that they've moved off buses and onto SkyTrain. I want to

know what's happening with the — as they say in the jargon —

modal split in terms of the number of people taking cars as opposed to

public transit. A billion dollars of investment to not have lots more

people using the public transit system is really poor planning. It's

classic Social Credit planning. After all, very few governments could

spend $1 billion and not induce anybody to get out of their car and

take public transit. The minister says: "We have to spend more on

public transit. That's an important goal of government." We on this

side agree, but let's make sure it's public transit that actually makes

people get out of their car and go into public transit. That's not

what's happening. Maybe we could have some answers to those basic

questions.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : In 1983 we had a ridership of 93 million; in 1989-90 we're looking at 107 million.

MR. CLARK : That's 107 million today, you say, or last year?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : This year.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK :

I'm trying to add the numbers up. We spent $1 billion for 14 million

new passengers. That's interesting. How about the split between cars

and transit. What was the modal split in '83, and what is it today?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Our statistics suggest that even with the increased population, we are

still carrying 50 percent of the people traveling into downtown

Vancouver.

[ Page 6590 ]

MR. CLARK :

So we spent $1 billion, and there are no more people. The same

percentage of people are using transit today that were using it ten

years ago. You spent $1 billion on SkyTrain, and we haven't influenced

the modal split. It's exactly the same as it was before.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

But SkyTrain has gone a long way to making it unnecessary to build

freeways into downtown Vancouver, which Vancouver was not prepared to

go for. Thank goodness it wasn't!

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

have a petition here that I believe the minister has already received;

this is a copy. All of the signatures are from Surrey. Most of them are

from my riding, although I do see some signatures here from the

minister's riding as well.

This has to do with the

elimination of route 333 I'd like the minister to explain the thinking

around that, because for the third session, all I see in Surrey is

continued cutbacks to service and very little in the way of enhancement

or encouragement of the development of bus service in our municipality.

That distresses me somewhat, because I think we're all aware of the

fact that Surrey is taking the brunt of the growth for the lower

mainland. I would expect that to be one of the priority areas, not only

because the minister represents one of the Surrey ridings but also just

in pragmatic terms of getting some of those new people around.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I wish I could say it was a priority because it's an area the minister

represents, but that isn't the way priorities are set. I can tell you

that it is a priority area because that is where the growth is taking

place: Surrey, Delta and Langley. Following the growth in our area on

the south side of the river, Coquitlam is the second-fastest-growing,

and then Richmond.

The question with regard to route 333

was brought up earlier by your colleague from Coquitlam-Moody. I did

give him an explanation that the proposed cancellation of that route

was going to take place in February, and it was going to coincide with

the opening of the Scott Road station of SkyTrain, so the buses would

be traveling down to SkyTrain. I have asked the staff at B.C. Transit

to look at that, because it seems illogical to me that the service

presently being provided on that route should be cancelled completely.

I can understand the requirement to place more emphasis on using the

SkyTrain once it opens in Whalley, but we are going to look at that

again to just see whether there can be some type of reduced service, so

that people who are just going to Hastings Street will still be able to

get there from Guildford rather than having to go over to SkyTrain and

cut over. We are looking at that.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

would thank the minister for that. I also want to bring to her

attention another letter I received from a senior citizen. This letter

was with regard to the cancellation of route 321 from New Westminster

into Surrey. The concern expressed in this letter has to do with the

need for that bus to connect and come closer to Surrey Memorial

Hospital. Is the minister aware of that situation, is she you looking

into it?

[3:30]

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

No, I am not familiar with that. If you would like to just give me some

more details on the concern, we'd be pleased to follow it up for you.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

If I can just read into the record.... I will provide this letter to

the minister. Along with it will come some recommendations which are

being delivered to my office shortly. The letter is written to me. It

says:

"On March 10, 1989, I sent you

recommendations on behalf of approximately 1,000 senior citizens

asking that bus 321 from New Westminster stop as close as possible to

the entrance of Surrey Memorial." That's the point in the letter. "Many

of these senior citizens have difficulty getting around, and this is

their only means of transportation for visiting their friends and loved

ones in the hospital."

I believe that this letter is

reporting on a meeting the senior citizens had, and while the

recommendations weren't included in this letter, I will get them to you

as soon as possible and would appreciate your looking into the matter.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : If you want to provide me with a copy of that, I would be pleased to follow it up.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd just like to follow up the noise question with regard to SkyTrain,

since Vancouver East has been blessed with such a big length of it and

carries the brunt of much of the noise.

As we are all

aware, the ombudsman had urged upon the government the expenditures to

deal with some of the noise problems, and had suggested, as I

understand it, that $1 million be requested from treasury. I wonder if

the minister might inform us how much clout she had in that area and

what success she has had in the last year in terms of proceeding.

There

is a need for mitigation, and some people along the right-of-way,

particularly in my own riding, are impacted pretty heavily. It's

possible that some changes will occur with redevelopment in some sites,

and we can overcome that. But there are many other sites where

mitigation efforts could improve things immensely for the people. I

would go so far as to say that you might very well install stronger

windows in a lot of the houses, for example, which would limit noise

penetration and that sort of thing. It wouldn't be a tremendous cost

but would improve the living situation for the people along the

right-of-way.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : That's a very

valid concern, and I can assure you that I was successful. The million

dollars was approved. I imagine that the best way for me to tell you

what we have done to date is

[ Page 6591 ]

go from these notes. To date, there has been extensive planting of

trees and shrubs along the upgrade

section of the line, the

installation of sound-dampening, resilient wheels, and the introduction

of rail lubrication and improved wheel and rail maintenance procedures.

The

result to date is that the system is now performing in accordance with

the system design specifications for noise emission. In addition, an

extensive research and development project has produced the design for

a sound-absorbing barrier that can be installed at critical locations

along the line to bring the impact of SkyTrain-emitted sound on

adjacent residential properties into conformity with municipal noise

bylaws.

This should be completed by the end of August and,

if necessary, improvements on private property, such as triple glazing

and increased insulation, can be considered after the barriers have

been installed. So we are following along with the ombudsman's

recommendations.

MR. WILLIAMS : I appreciate the

minister's response. I presume, then, that there would be measurements

in various locations, and additional measures then might occur where it

is clear that there is still a problem beyond the standards. That's

encouraging, and I thank the minister for that on behalf of the people

impacted.

With SkyTrain, too, there have been some safety

questions, and there have unfortunately been several deaths. Some

changes have been made, and I believe that the coroner's jury

recommended that new track intrusion detection systems be examined,

public signs explaining in more detail be provided and a safety

awareness program occur. Could you advise the House how many measures

have been taken in this area — the new track-intrusion detection system

in particular, which I would think is critical.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

We have instituted a safety awareness program. If you ride SkyTrain at

all, you will see that we do have brochures explaining the steps that

have been taken. There are very visible and easily accessible signs and

safety precautions at each of the stations, so that people now know

what to do in the case of an emergency. It has been suggested that most

of these accidents would have been very difficult to prevent. We are

taking whatever steps we can to make the public aware of what is

available. Other than that, whenever we have a coroner's recommendation,

we follow it as best we can.

MR. WILLIAMS : On the question of radio-equipping buses and that sort of thing.... I don't know if that was canvassed earlier or not.

AN HON. MEMBER : It was.

MR. WILLIAMS :

But we still don't have them universally in the system, do we? I'm

happy to say that in Canada we don't have the kinds of problems they

have in the United States; nevertheless, there have been serious

problems. Having all the buses fully equipped so these people aren't on

their own and in danger, or at least are able to alert people, is

critical for the safety of the driver and others. Maybe you could bring

us up to date.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : What we do have

and have had for some time are approximately 150 buses equipped with

rather outdated equipment. At one point it was suggested that maybe we

should just have cellular phones or something on them, but that didn't

really seem appropriate. It wasn't going to do all the things we

thought it should do for the operators. In its May meeting the board of

B.C. Transit will be awarding a contract for a very sophisticated

system with the base.... The money is in the budget to start with. I'm

not sure how many buses will be equipped immediately, but within the

year we will have a goodly number of buses well equipped with the new

sophisticated service. All of the new buses ordered are wired so that

the radios can go in very easily as the money is made available. I

would think that in the next couple of months you'll see some great

activity and work being done, and within a year there will be a very

noticeable improvement.

MR. WILLIAMS : It's

encouraging that it's happening, but "a goodly number" is pretty vague.

I'm more encouraged by the promises of this minister than those of the

previous one who had the transit end of things, the member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain. We had promises in the past and absolutely

nothing was done. It would be nice to be more aware of the actual

schedule and program, so that we know the numbers, the percentages, how

many of the buses are indeed equipped and how long it's going to take

for all of them to be equipped. It's encouraging to hear that the new

buses on order are wired; it's an important program for the operators

and everybody else concerned. I don't know if the minister has more

information.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We're looking at a

$7 million program, and we will try to have that completed as quickly

as possible. The main infrastructure is going to be going ahead after

this month's board meeting, and I would expect that within the next

couple of years we will have all of our equipment in. That's a rough

guesstimate.

MR. HARCOURT : I had to leave the

Legislature to attend some meetings, but I had the speaker on and was

listening to this debate about transit. I was thinking back to the days

when I served on the Urban Transit Authority with the member opposite

from the sunny South Surrey area, and the discussions I've had with the

minister about the need for bringing about rapid transit in the lower

mainland in particular.

The words of the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen), who isn't here right now, struck a chord with

me. He talked about remembering being able to travel from Steveston to

downtown Vancouver

[ Page 6592 ]

via

a rapid transit system, when we had a rapid transit system. I was

thinking back to the days when my father lived with his family on

Gilley Avenue in Burnaby, and you could take the LRT system from New

Westminster, as a matter of fact, and Chilliwack right downtown. You

could also go through Central Park, Deer Lake, along the Fraser River,

and I was thinking: "Boy, for the good old days when we really did have

rapid transit."

MR. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps we could relate this debate to the current estimates

of the minister.

MR. HARCOURT :

I'm being whimsical, Mr. Chairman, about the LRT that used to go just a

few doors from your family house. I'm sure you recall the LRT that used

to go along Arbutus.

I recall the recent strategy to change

commuter travel during rush hour from 60 percent cars and 40 percent

transit to the other way around: 60 percent using transit, 40 percent

using cars. I was thinking sadly about some of the past decisions that

have been made, which, as I said last year, were the wrong decisions.

We chose the ALRT over a conventional rapid transit system, costing us

$1 billion instead of $600 million. There was the decision to build the

Alex Fraser bridge for $400 million, plus the bridge over to Surrey for

the ALRT — a total of about $600 million for those two alone — when the

game plan was to build a twin for the Pattullo Bridge to take ALRT

across to Surrey, with three lanes of traffic on that bridge, and then

to turn that very dangerous old Pattullo Bridge into three one-way

lanes instead of the dangerous four lanes that we have now.

we had gone that route we probably would have been able to build the

extension out to Whalley that the minister wants, and probably the

extension to the Barnet exchange and Lougheed, possibly even down into

the Coquitlam town centre. We could even have dealt with the yearning

of the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) — and of his mayor in

Richmond, Mayor Blair — for LRT to go to Richmond town centre and the

airport, which is the second-fastest-growing airport in the country

after Pearson Airport in Toronto.

But that's water under

the Pattullo Bridge, so to speak. As the Chair pointed out, when we did

have a rapid transit system and when we could have made certain

decisions that were wrong.... I just say it was a wrong judgment call;

there's nothing else there. But so be it. What I want to come to, Mr.

Chairman, is the present crunch, which I know you were looking up in

the rule books.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I was actually looking

up relevancy in supply, and I will perhaps send you a copy of it to

look at in due course. In the meantime, I'm finding your debate most

interesting, and I would ask you to proceed.

MR. HARCOURT : In terms of relevance, I think the relevance of rapid

transit is absolutely essential to the newly found interest in the environment

by this Social Credit government, which hasn't expressed much interest in

almost 40 years. It's relevant to the traffic gridlock that we're suffering

in the lower mainland. It's relevant to the strangling of growth in the

high-growth areas of Surrey and in the northeast area, where 60 percent of the

presently zoned residential land for housing growth is.

It's

relevant because it bolls down now, I think, to the issue that I'm sure

the minister and I can agree is financing. The financing formula is

really the key to unlocking her yearning for the LRT out to Whalley,

and the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley's (Ms. Smallwood'

s) to have

the same; the yearning of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore) to have the LRT go through Port Moody and up to Mission; and

the yearning of the member for Richmond and possibly even Delta when we

deal with the traffic logjams there. Who knows — in the next century,

over to the second crossing.

[3:45]

I think the question of money and who pays for the LRT now is really

the key. I would like, Madam Minister, to put forward a modest

proposal: reconsider the patchwork financing formula that the previous

minister, the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs.

McCarthy), developed of fifty-fifty sharing of the capital cost of LRT.

See the unfairness of that, compared to the 100 percent financing

that's available for freeways. The second member for Richmond said

there are no more corridors for freeways in that very congested area.

top of that, your experts there — and I know they're expert; I've dealt

with them in the past and they're good people — and your Highways

minister would tell you that it's now twice as expensive to build a

highway as to build an LRT: for land acquisition, for construction,

for everything else. It's more economical to build rapid transit.

Really, the holdup for all the mayors in the lower mainland is the

funding formula. If a freeway is built at twice the cost, 100 percent

of the capital cost of the roadbed and the paving is picked up by the

province. But when we build an urban highway on rails, the cost-sharing

is that of a secondary highway. That's the patchwork political

compromise that was reached in the cabinet, and it's grossly unfair.

think the minister would agree that if we're going to have the LRT

extensions we need, the capital cost of the LRT has got to be treated

in the same equitable way that a freeway is, and 100 percent capital

financing for the LRT roadbed has to come from the province. It is a

freeway on rails, a far more efficient and effective freeway, with less intrusion — except for the noise and the decibel levels of this present

train, which I won't dwell on. It's been dealt with by the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), whose residents have trouble

sleeping with the noise and the intrusion of the elevated LRT. I think

we're going to have this tension, disagreement, discord, and problems

of where the LRT is to be extended to next because of the financing

formula.

I think we're all going to have to — hopefully in a bipartisan way — reach the conclusion that the fund-

[ Page 6593 ]

ing formula has to be changed so that there is 100 percent capital financing from the province for the roadbed of the LRT.

wanted to come here to say that was the unanimous opinion of the mayors

for the lower mainland; that that's what they would prefer to see. I

know they've taken — like drowning people grab for straws — whatever

was the next best that they could, but I think we're going to have to

go back and rethink that.

Then I think that Madam Minister

could be happy with the LRT extension to Whalley. I think we could then

get out to the northeast area; we could get out to the airport; and we

could really start to deal with the growth issues, the environmental

issues, the transit and traffic problems of the lower mainland — which

has as fast a growth rate as metropolitan Toronto — far more effectively.

would pass on those comments to the minister. If she would like to

offer a bold new policy announcement here in the House today, we could

applaud that in a bipartisan way.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I

would like to remind the minister that the rules require you to discuss

those matters of your administrative responsibility and not future

policy, but please proceed.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Thank you so much for your very valued advice, Mr. Chairman.

would like to clear up the matter of the formula for the Leader of the

Opposition, the first member for Vancouver Centre. We do not have a

fifty-fifty formula on capital extensions. The formula under the

agreement that was arrived at last year was 25 percent provincial grant

on total SkyTrain extension costs; then on the remainder it's 65

percent province, 35 percent local. Overall, it works out to the

province paying 74 percent and the locals being asked for 26 percent of

SkyTrain extensions. So it is not a fifty-fifty formula. This is the

formula that was agreed to a year ago.

I want to say I do

appreciate the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition with regard

to the SkyTrain extension to Whalley. It was my understanding that

although the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley supported it, the

Leader of the Opposition had a higher priority of going into Coquitlam.

I'm pleased to hear that that is not the case.

MR. WILLIAMS : I would just like to follow up outside this area, if the minister advises us that it's 26 percent local.

does seem to me that if there's to be any local contribution — and

there is an argument for the greater provincial contribution that the

Leader of the Opposition is arguing for — there clearly are areas that

benefit tremendously as a result of these capital investments. The

station areas clearly are benefiting areas. There has been — as the

minister has said — dramatic spending in those areas in terms of new

development.

It does seem to me that it would be reasonable

to give the municipality the option — and the minister is inclined to

give municipalities options, in terms of choices regarding their own

decision-making internally — to extend that, with respect to some of

these benefiting areas. It does seem to me that at the local level it

would be reasonable that there be a defined area that benefits as a

result of the investment where there in effect could be a heavier land

levy — not a building levy, but just the land alone.

The

land has ballooned in value in these immediate benefiting areas. By

giving the municipalities the authority to levy an additional land tax

in the benefiting area, it would pick up some of those increased values

and would be a means of giving them a choice.

Downtown

Vancouver has benefited immensely, in my view, from the building of

SkyTrain, in terms of land values. I don't think there is any doubt

about that. And it would be reasonable to define a good chunk of the

downtown of Vancouver as a benefiting area that the municipality could

levy an additional tax on. I think that would have benefits for

everybody. The increases in those land values are so substantial that

the land tax would only get some of the increased value.

have a problem overall in the region of escalating land value. We

basically have a property tax that is divided between a tax on capital — which is the buildings — and a tax on land. Most economists and

administrators don't recognize the difference. It's a dual tax, all put

together in the same thing. But it's a tax in two different areas: land

and buildings.

The more we could tax land rather than

buildings, the better off we'd be as a community, and I think in most

every way. It would help to dampen fast escalating land values, which

really aren't benefiting the community at large. If that steep rise in

land values weren't as steep, we'd all be better off; there would be

more access to housing and so on.

By having the additional

levy in the station areas, you would get redevelopment more quickly —

which is desirable. The minister talks positively about the

development, and that's fair. By having this land levy in the station

areas and in the downtown area, you would actually accelerate

development. It would be a push to redevelop, and that would be

desirable. It would be a revenue to the community, and that would be

desirable. In effect, it would, one way or another, help pay part of

the bill. That would be far better than money out of our pockets

obtained through labour or enterprise of other kinds. This is a natural

increase in values that might be partly harvested by the community and

benefit everybody.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I wouldn't

mind hearing more from the member as to the specifics of how something

like that might work. It wouldn't bother me to see some type of

realization on that increase in property values which are directly

attributed to the SkyTrain station; there is no question about that.

have a feeling that local government may be reluctant to institute such

a fee. Possibly it could be something that would be looked at while we

are looking at the cost of the extensions and incorporated there.

[ Page 6594 ]

If you have some other ideas, I would be pleased to hear about them.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I appreciate the minister's response. It would be interesting.... The

mayor of Vancouver, for example, has an informal caucus meeting with

Members of Parliament, MLAs and aldermen, where ideas like this can be

discussed.

What I am really arguing for is having the

option; not saying that a municipality has to do it, but simply saying

that the municipality would have the authority — almost like a local

improvement tax. When you designate an area for sewers or some special

purpose, then there is a local improvement tax. You designate the

impacted area, then people pay on either a front foot basis or simply

on the basis of their property values.

What I'm arguing for

is a designated area, like a local improvement area, but limited to

land alone and not having that tax applied on buildings. Then it would

be more of a push in terms of making that land available for

redevelopment more quickly. It would benefit the community in terms of

income, and it really wouldn't be out of anybody's current pocketbook.

It's out of the values that are generated as a result of SkyTrain or

the public investment.

I think that would be a push in the

right direction and would accelerate enterprise, which is what all of

us are looking for, in a sense. If we are going to make these public

sector improvements, then we would really like the private sector to be

in tandem and more quickly.

If you look at my own riding of

Vancouver East and see the pattern of redevelopment, it hasn't really

been very quick. You have the obvious significant changes in New

Westminster and in Metrotown, but beyond that the pattern is not so

clear.

For example, a designated area around the Broadway

station, which is an incredibly important major transfer point that the

city is now recognizing in terms of the development they just approved

there in the last week or two.... These are unharnessed values out

there that could benefit the community significantly. I am really just

arguing for the option. Then I'll twist the mayor's arm in Vancouver to

make use of it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'm not

suggesting for one minute to the member for Vancouver East that we have

all the answers. If there are some other ways of accomplishing the

goals that we have set out for ourselves, great. There is no reason why

somebody, just because they happen to own a piece of property there,

and because of something the taxpayers have put in, should have so

great a windfall. There is nothing wrong with sharing it.

MR. WILLIAMS : I am pleased to hear the position of the minister. I would like to pursue it actively in the future.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue some issues as well around SkyTrain and

the transit system. I have been in my riding on more than one occasion

when the minister has spoken glowingly about what is going to be

happening with the extension across the river. I think we all see the

videos in her mind of that extension going on and on — maybe even to

Newton, might we say? However, I have also, at those meetings, heard

some very vigorous importunings of the minister to provide some

indication of when, and also how, an extension might go along the north

shore of the Fraser River. At this point, in the same way that we are

exploring some of the needs of transit, as the minister looks at how

she uses her resources and how she plans, that particular decision is

an extremely important one to a number of communities.

[4:00]

The "where" of a possible extension is the issue I want to raise,

not the "when." I don't think it's appropriate for that to be discussed

at this time. The minister well knows that there have been a number of

suggestions around what those corridors should be, and that decisions

in my community, Burnaby and Coquitlam are really hanging on that. The

kinds of decisions that need to be taken will have far-reaching effects

on how communities will develop and plan appropriate housing decisions

and the use of land resources.

I would like to see that

extension go along the eastern corridor of Columbia Street. It's a

major corridor where there is excellent access for an extension. I know

that other municipalities have other ideas, but whatever the decision

is, I don't think it can wait until the "when" is decided. It is a

decision that needs to be made, and in the fairly near future. It's a

decision, too, that will have a very significant impact on land and

land values.

I think the other question I'd like to raise

with the minister is how B.C. Transit sees itself working with

municipalities on the most effective use of land and on the reserving

of land that may be in the public domain at this stage of the game for

social housing. Those kinds of decisions interrelate with the transit

corridors that are going to be available.

Again looking at

New Westminster, Woodlands is on a phase-out program. I don't know how

long it will actually be before that property, which is a government

property, is no longer used as a public facility, but I think it would

be fair to say that within five years we may have no further

institutional use for it. It is an extremely important piece of land,

not only for New Westminster but in terms of its potential to balance

housing needs in that community and in neighbouring communities. Where

SkyTrain and transit may eventually go is a vital decision in respect

to how that land would be developed. That's just one example of the

kinds of decisions that need to be taken. There are any number of

others I could refer to just in relation to my own community, and I

know that can be repeated for Burnaby and Coquitlam.

That

decision, that planning for what may happen in the future, is very

important for this ministry and B.C. Transit to make by due process,

and obviously that is going to mean community input and discus-

[ Page 6595 ]

sion.

I would welcome some comment from the minister around her own thinking

on this very important decision, and I will not argue with her about

where SkyTrain goes in respect to Whalley or, dare I say, Newton.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

This subject was actually extensively covered this morning, but the

minister, I am sure, will want to go through it again. Perhaps the

various critics on this could hear it just one time.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It may be of interest to the member for New Westminster to know how the

process worked with regard to the extension into Surrey. There was

extensive work done by a consultant hired by B.C. Transit, and there

were four possible routes identified for the extension into Whalley.

B.C. Transit worked very closely with the municipality in an attempt to

determine what their preference was.

Putting all that

aside, there were a number of public information meetings held in

Surrey — the area to be serviced — and there were packed houses at each

of those public information meetings, and the four options were shown

to the general public. Transcripts were kept of the comments made at

those public hearings. As a result of those public hearings, I believe

they came down to two routes, one of them being more favoured than the

other; and those were referred to Surrey council, to ensure that

whichever route was taken would fit in with what their future plans

might be. At the same time, an information office was set up in the

area — and it is still open in Whalley — for anyone from the general

neighbourhood who had questions to go in and discuss with staff what

could be happening with their properties. And the same type of thing

would happen wherever SkyTrain extensions were to be going, whether

they be Coquitlam or Richmond. The process, I think, worked very well.

It's just that it has taken us longer to finalize that extension

commitment than it should have.

There's no question in my

mind about the need for an extension to Coquitlam — I don't argue that

one little bit. There was a preliminary study done, I think, in 1986.

It identified two possible routes: one through New Westminster and the

other over from the Edmonds station. I have had considerable

correspondence from people concerned about the one going over from

Edmonds, because apparently it goes through several residential

communities, and I think that route may be controversial. I would hope

that we would update that report when a decision was made that we were

going to be in a position to go ahead and that the updated information

would then be taken to public information meetings. At the same time,

B.C. Transit would always be working with the local governments — and

in that case there's more than one — to determine their future plans.

You were talking about social housing. Well, it would be important that we

look at that to ensure that we were able to service those properties if at all

possible. A consultant doing the planning and bringing about optional choices

for the routes should be made aware of those plans that the local government

may have so that we can ensure that those properties are serviced. But there

will be a great deal of public input. It won't be a decision made by the

government alone; it will be a decision made after a great deal of public input

and local government input.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I certainly respect the process and would anticipate that it would be

repeated. My concern is that the process may not take place until an

extension is planned. I believe that there is a need now to determine

what the route might be, no matter when the extension might be planned.

Let's

just take a hypothetical set of circumstances out of the air, simply to

illustrate the point. Supposing there were to be no extension planned

for, let's say — there's no prediction in this — five years, and that

the process, then, did not begin until three years from now. In my

view, that's too late for some of the planning that needs to be done in

communities now around what major corridors are going to be used for

that extension. So that was the reason I was asking about a process. I

appreciate the comment about what the process would be. What I'm really

looking for is some indication that that decision, with the due process

that the minister has outlined, might take place at the earliest

possible time.

I recognize that the minister is faced with

some problems with that, because once one goes through that process,

then there's an expectation that there's going to be an outcome from

that process, and that the outcome will occur in a shorter rather than

a longer period of time. The minister understands the concern that I

have is that the decision be taken with appropriate process. It would

be a little bit more difficult, possibly, because we will have three

municipalities involved rather than one. In fact, if we were looking at

Coquitlam centre, there could be other municipalities involved, indeed.

want to know if there is any consideration on the part of the minister

and, through her, on the part of B.C. Transit about accelerating and

getting on with that decision. I know that in my community there is an

urgent need expressed to me every time I meet with people in that

community, be they members of my council or members of the community,

who are looking to the developments that will be taking place. There is

an urgent need to know where SkyTrain may go along the northern route,

from either the Columbia station or whatever other station.

I'm

not here now to advocate for what that decision might be — I'll do that

in the appropriate time and place — but that a process be expeditiously

entered into to get that decision taken care of in the public domain.

I'd like the minister to comment on that.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I don't disagree with the need to get moving, but I'm not in a position to make a commitment to you at this time.

[ Page 6596 ]

MR. WILLIAMS :

In a sense, Mr. Chairman, it begs the whole question of planning and I

think the member for New Westminster is really making that argument. As

a former town planner, I couldn't argue it more. Not that I'm in the

business anymore, but when I reflect on the lower mainland and the

Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board of an earlier decade, there's a

desperate need for a similar agency now. We don't have a genuine lower

mainland regional planning agency.

The other member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) talked about two British Columbias in his

response to the budget, and in a sense there are. It's almost like

Canada: we've got this overheated Ontario economy compared to the rest

of the country. Internally within British Columbia we have a fairly hot

lower mainland economy relative to a quieter economy or a very poor

economy in some of the regions of the province. So it requires two

different approaches, and I think it requires two different approaches

out of Municipal Affairs just as it requires two different approaches

out of many agencies of government right now.

We need one

approach in the hinterland, where you could be pushing and accelerating

development of a kind at the municipal level — and your infrastructure

program will help, but it's pretty basic. You could be doing more in

the small towns than you are, in terms of accelerating things. But at

the same time in the lower mainland you've got this other problem of

planning. We've got whatever we've got from the member from Burnaby

who's the minister of state, but it doesn't amount to a lot. There's a

desperate need to reinstitute the equivalent of the Lower Mainland

Regional Planning Board so that we get some thoughtful processes coming

in.

Where does the GVRD end now? Is it Langley? It doesn't

include the Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows area, so that's where the line is,

roughly. The reality is that people of average incomes are reaching....

When I talk to working-class people from my area who are talking about

moving out into the valley on the north side, they're all talking about

moving to Maple Ridge, and that's happening. Maple Ridge is clearly

part of the greater Vancouver region, no matter how you slice it. If

you look at the development around Clearbrook and Abbotsford, it's

clearly almost an extension of the greater Vancouver region.

[4:15]

There's a desperate need for the kind of planning beyond just

transit planning that the member for New Westminster is arguing for.

We'll pay heavy costs for this lag. One can't help but reflect on the

loss of the regional planning agency and the fine people who worked

there. Jim Wilson, who taught until recently at Simon Fraser

University, was for a long time the leading planner in the region and

did some fine initial work 25 years ago or more.

There's

similarly a desperate need now. When you talk to the people in the

GVRD, they start talking in the same terms. They're beginning to talk

in terms of all these priorities, problems and questions, but there

just isn't the kind of overview underway that is desperately needed in

that region. I try to catch up, for a range of reasons, with what's

happening in Surrey. The growth in Surrey is quite phenomenal, but I

really wonder how comprehensive the planning process is, relative to

all those things. I don't know if the minister might have some comments

on that afterwards.

On transit, specifically, I'd be interested in getting some kind of overview on how right-of-way

acquisition has been handled in the last few years. What is the

process? Who are the people? How are the decisions made? How many of

them are private sector; how many of them are public sector? That sort

of thing. In terms of the disposition of lands that transit has, do

public sector people or private sector people handle the disposition

questions? That's something that I think might be canvassed.

know that the minister wasn't responsible for SkyTrain and these

decisions over recent years. The first member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy) was responsible for much of it. But, for

example, in the city of Vancouver there are sites like the old transit

barns at 16th and Cambie which were sold and then went through some

rezoning process. And I'll guess we'll see redevelopment there one of

these days. I would be interested in understanding how that disposition

program was handled: whether it was a bid basis or not, whether the

zoning opportunities were canvassed before the time of sale or not, and

that sort of thing.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : When it's a

major property such as that mentioned by the member for Vancouver East,

the process is normally that the board makes the decision on whether

the property is disposed of, and then it is advertised.

MR. WILLIAMS :

There are a range of other questions as well, in terms of how

acquisition of a right-of-way is managed, how excess lands are disposed

of, and how many and who are the private sector players and public

sector players in that exercise.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Acquisition, like disposition, is approved by the board. We have a

member on staff by the name of Macdonald, who handles the transactions

for the board. There are no private players.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Macdonald is a civil servant?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : He's an employee of B.C. Transit.

MR. WILLIAMS : Has he always been an employee of B.C. Transit?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Prior to becoming an employee, he was on contract to B.C. Transit.

MR. WILLIAMS : Maybe we could understand the time-frame for when that changed — when he became a public servant and when he was on contract.

[ Page 6597 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We'll get that information for you.

MR. WILLIAMS : Are there any rules in terms of the private sector activities of employees such as this?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, to the member for Vancouver East. We have a conflict-of-interest policy.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would it be possible to have a copy of the conflict-of-interest policy?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, we'll get that for you.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I do appreciate that. Nevertheless, participation in corporations is

possible for Crown servants? I guess that until we see the policy, it's

difficult to say. For the time-frame, you'll provide us with that

information.

MS. A. HAGEN : I'd just like to follow

up on one comment that the minister made in terms of the people who may

be responsible for acquisitions along the right-of-way of SkyTrain. Did

I understand the minister to say that this was handled by employees of

the corporation and that there were no private people involved? I

wonder if she could clarify that comment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Macdonald could probably have been considered a private person, but

he was under contract to B.C. Transit to do that kind of work. He is

now an employee of B.C. Transit.

MS. A. HAGEN : In

the contractual arrangement that Mr. Macdonald had with B.C. Transit,

would he then contract out to private sector people — to appraisers,

estimators, whatever people would assist in that process? Can the

minister define how that process would work under the direction of Mr.

Macdonald?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Chairman, we use

private appraisal firms. Mr. Macdonald would call on them when the need

arose. But it should be made very clear that he does not have the

authority to go out on his own and do any acquisitions or disposals;

that's at the direction of the board or the chairman.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Would the conflict-of-interest guidelines that the minister has agreed

to make available to us also apply to people providing contracted

services to Mr. Macdonald?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr.

Chairman, we'd better get clarification on that. When you see the

conflict-of -interest guidelines, they may answer some of your

questions.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS :

The point is that there might well be conflict-of-interest guidelines

for Crown employees or civil servants. The question is whether there

would be conflict-of-interest guidelines for private sector

corporations or advisers with respect to this kind of work. There are

two questions. I think you'd have pretty standard regulations for civil

servants and it would be more complex with respect to private business

advisers who are in the business advising others as well. That's the

scenario where we would like some clarification.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm presuming, but I think until we have the conflict-of-interest

guidelines before us it's very hard for me say. I would doubt very much

if the conflict-of-interest policy would apply to a private individual

under contract to the board.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr.

Chairman, I may have some further questions on this matter, but I

appreciate that the minister wants to be able to answer them after

having an opportunity to check out the procedures, so I'll wait for

that response.

Last year I raised with the minister in

correspondence and, I think, during estimates some discussion about the

households along the right-of-way of the present SkyTrain which were

adversely affected and the recommendations of the ombudsman for some

improvements in conditions for those people. I'd like the minister to

bring us up to date. The last time I heard, a commitment was still

before Treasury Board of some dollars to provide for some immediate

amelioration, and there was an outstanding question about the actual

purchase at pre-SkyTrain rates — not affected by SkyTrain — of

properties that simply couldn't be made into reasonable habitation. I'd

like a full update on what's happened and the minister's ongoing

activities in this respect.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I

have already been canvassed on this, hon. member, but I don't mind

going over it again. I'll give you the information I gave your

colleague.

Generally speaking, the recommendations of the ombudsman have been followed

and are being followed. The $1 million was allocated. Extensive work has been

done to buffer the noise, but there has been no property acquisition. We're

waiting to see how the actions taken to date are going to correct the noise

situation before we go any further.

MS. A. HAGEN : I will pursue that question with the minister by letter, specifically in respect to some of my constituents.

I'm

really pleased with the additions to the handyDART fleet in some areas

of the lower mainland. I want to pay credit to the handyDART

organization in my own community, which has had a significant number of

vehicles added to its fleet. Interestingly enough, they carry as many

people as Vancouver and do it with half the vehicles Vancouver has.

They have an enviable record.

[ Page 6598 ]

But

expansion into other regions of the province is going slowly. I know

the minister has an interest in this whole area, but I'm not satisfied

that a lot of communities in the province are getting the service they

need. I want to ask the minister what the status is of the expansion of

handyDART services and what's in the immediate plans for additions.

also want to ask her if any work is being done by this ministry on a

more innovative approach toward transportation services in small

communities where it may be some time before the handyDART service as

we know it is available. Has there been any consideration at all, for

example, of arranging for contracts with taxi companies to provide a

kind of handyDART service in those communities? It was a part of the

original handyDART program, interestingly enough, in the New

Westminster-Burnaby-Coquitlam area, on a contracted basis. What's the

status, and is the minister being innovative, and if she is, could she

tell us how?

[4:30]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

There is a task force that the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission

has in place with a view to coming up with recommendations that could

address some of the needs of the disabled, and we're waiting for the

results of that task force report.

I can tell you that

there is a new service. It went into place April 24 in Nanaimo;

Chilliwack, June 26; Kelowna, March; Vernon, March and June; and

Alberni, March and June. We have been bringing on line a number of

additional handyDART services. There are never going to be enough. I

just can't see it ever possibly being everything that everybody would

want it to be, but I'm very pleased and proud of the record we have in

bringing forward additional service. It's something that we have to be

constantly on top of, because the population growth in the disabled

community, particularly in this province compared to the rest of

Canada, is phenomenal. We haven't been equipped to handle it. We have a

24 percent increase in service in Vancouver; of course, that's where we

have a large population of disabled people.

We are moving

and attempting to address the requests from any number of communities,

but we're certainly not ahead of them by any stretch of the imagination.

MS. A. HAGEN :

It's a bit of two British Columbias again. The minister didn't answer

the latter part of my question; at least I don't think she did. Let me

perhaps just ask her again: is there any consideration of what I would

call innovative approaches, which would not necessarily be full

handyDART services or wheelchair-equipped vehicles, but would involve

working relationships with government funds in small communities that

have taxi services or perhaps care facilities that have a van that

could be leased in part by the ministry — the kind of thing that gets

at the problem without having to work through the full bureaucracy and

timetable?

I know there are a number of communities that

have certainly looked at ways in which, with some support from this

ministry, they could greatly enhance transportation services for

special needs people in their population. I want to know if the

minister is looking at any of these ideas or is prepared to look at any

of them, to spread the service to the second British Columbia more

quickly than I know she's been able to do to date.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It isn't the minister who actually makes the final decision; they are

prioritized by the two commissions. As I mentioned earlier, there is a

task force looking at custom transit and the needs right across the

province.

I'm told that at the last meeting of the board of

B.C. Transit, a decision was made that if either of the commissions

receives requests from communities, or if there's a community that

would like to have something in the way of special customized service,

they should put their request forward to the appropriate commission and

it will be dealt with. It doesn't mean they're all going to be

accommodated immediately upon receiving the request, but they're going

to attempt to deal with them, prioritize them and fit them into their

overall annual budgets.

MS. EDWARDS : It's my

pleasure, first of all, to refer to the handyDART and to tell the

minister that late last year I had the opportunity of trying the

handyDART service in my community when I was not driving a car myself.

I must say that it was a marvellous thing to know that there is a bus

when you can't get around and you need something as simple as to get to

a hospital for physio treatment or groceries or something like that,

and you can do it. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that to the

minister. Overall, again, it's a good service; the intent is

magnificent.

I want, however, to get to the high ground and

talk about garbage. I know the minister knows that some of the

communities in my constituency are having very serious problems in

relation to solid waste disposal. They have a particularly difficult

garbage problem in the Elk Valley, Madam Minister, because as you have

been told, they have problems with landfills. The land sometimes

freezes; as a matter of fact, it freezes for months at a time. They are

having some problems with keeping enough dirt available to cover what's

in the pit and actually being able to move it with a caterpillar.

They

have other problems related to the time of year and whether or not it's

a warm year and the bears come out early. They have some problems with

human animals as well, where in fact human animals sometimes set fires

when they're not expected to or asked to.

The problem in

the Elk Valley, as the minister knows, is that the communities have

been ordered by the waste management branch to combine the solid waste

disposal function and to form a sub regional system.

[ Page 6599 ]

With

this system, as the minister also knows, there will be a need to buy

the land, the trucks, the weigh scales, the platforms and the transfer

stations that are needed. Capital costs could range anywhere from half

a million dollars to one and a quarter million dollars, by the

estimates that I hear. The operating costs of that are something

different, and I'll talk about them in a minute.

For

communities of less than 20,000 people, Madam Minister, this is a very

great burden. It's extremely difficult to face the possibility of

having to put together for a single function — that of waste disposal —

somewhere around three-quarters of a million to a million dollars, if

you go to the middle range of that.

Is the minister

considering changing legislation or changing her approach, so that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture will participate

in the funding of waste disposal?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

You're referring to future action, but I would suggest that the

appropriate answer at this time would be that we will deal with the

matter after the solid waste management report has been dealt with.

MS. EDWARDS :

The suggestion that I had put to me very strongly.... If It is a future

action, I would be delighted. I hope that it is action in the positive

sense. The ministry does pay 25 percent of capital costs for sewer

installations, and it has been accepted over a long period of time that

the ministry will pay that part. I would like to suggest very strongly

to the minister that the collection of solid wastes is the same sort of

thing; it requires a huge capital investment. It is a matter of public

health for the citizens of the area.

The minister has

probably been told that in Alberta, which borders my area, the ministry

pays 100 percent of the capital costs of installation of waste disposal

facilities. That makes it even more difficult for the people working in

the same places of employment as the Albertans and hearing that there

is currently no support for capital costs for solid waste disposal

facilities. I am told that members of the community, municipal councils

and the regional district have frequently been told that they may apply

to Go B.C. for funding, and that they'd better do it in a hurry. If

they want to do something in a hurry, they can go there.

that is the case, does the minister see funding happening mainly for

the establishment of solid waste disposal facilities, which may or may

not include recycling? You might like to comment on that is that going

to be done through lotteries funding? And if so, is there a limited

time-frame on that? I'll leave it at that for now.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I really don't like the answer I'm going to give, but it does refer to

future policy, and I'm not in a position to make any statements at this

time.

MS. EDWARDS : If the minister can't answer, I

can certainly put the case as it has been put to me many times. I

assume that is within the rules.

The case has been made

very strongly to me that the problem of solid waste disposal for

sparsely populated communities is an extreme burden on those people. It

is an even more extreme burden when they are ordered by a provincial

ministry to take a certain type of action.

If the

communities in the Elk Valley have to go ahead and participate in a sub

regional disposal system, it wouldn't make any sense that they do it

without involving some kind of recycling facility to go with it. All of

this would make no sense at all.

The people that I talk to

in the municipal business say we're ten to 15 years behind in the

recycling business. We decided ten years ago — some people decided 15

years ago — that we were going to have to do this, and that it had to

happen with the communities. It absolutely should have been done at

that time; the costs would have been considerably less. In fact, there

has been some minor degree of lip service, some indication that yes, it

would be nice; but no action.

I certainly will recognize,

as the minister would probably want me to do, that we are waiting for a

report on recycling and solid waste disposal, but it hasn't come out

yet. There is in fact some suspicion that when it comes out — on

recycled paper would be nice — it will require or will urge the

government to actually hire some staff to enable some of the smaller

communities in this province to go ahead and put recycling with their

solid waste disposal systems.

The sharing of the costs

across the province, Madam Minister, is justified on the basis that

this is a generally accepted necessity: that communities should have

some kind of solid waste disposal system that is adequate for today's

requirements, for today's recognized needs. Any move toward recycling

would require some public education, and there would have to be some

work across the province to allow every community to take advantage of

economies of scale. Those things can't happen from a small community or

a small group of communities. I know that this position has been put to

you by the communities in the Elk Valley, and I put it to you again. I

want to make it very clear that the communities in the Elk Valley feel

strongly about it, and they feel strongly that the funding they are

going to need should not come through a lotteries grant, a Go B.C.

grant. They shouldn't have to get their funding that way. There is no

reason in the world that the same kind of funding shouldn't be offered

as is offered for sewers.

[4:45]

Maybe the minister would like to respond to that. If she is simply

going to say "future policy," I will go on to something else. I did

want to ask whether she has given any consideration to a suggestion put

forward by the benchers of the Law Society which one of the communities

in my area objects to strongly. The suggestion is that

section 755 of

the Municipal Act be amended to take away the notice period for anyone

who is going to sue any municipality. Cur-

[ Page 6600 ]

rently,

any claim for damages against the municipality has to have two months'

notice, and the suggestion from the benchers is that this be taken

away. The objection is from the community of Sparwood, as you well

know. I would ask the minister if she has responded to that and whether

or not she is in favour of taking away the time limitation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The matter of the two month limitation was brought to our attention, of

course, and my staff has discussed it with UBCM executive. The matter

is certainly under review, because they, like your local community, are

concerned.

You

were talking about the three communities in

the Elk Valley. For your information, this year Fernie received

$282,127, Elkford received $221,557, and Sparwood received $260,887 by

way

of unconditional grants. That may be of interest to you in an attempt

to suggest that some of these solid waste disposal problems can be

handled by local government until, if or when we have a funding program

in place. It seemed to me you were suggesting that we should reduce the

funding available for infrastructure — and revenue sharing is the only

source we have — and transfer some of it over to solid waste disposal

assistance for communities. That has not happened.

MS. EDWARDS :

I certainly wouldn't even think of suggesting that you take away any

money from the infrastructure funding. As you also know, Fernie is

having quite enough trouble trying to finance a sewer extension, which

has a major pollution problem attached to it; it's trying to work with

25 percent funding. So that was not the suggestion in any sense.

MR. MILLER :

I was quite interested in the previous discussion. As a former

municipal politician — or should I say that there were no politics in

city hall in Prince Rupert; at least that's what they kept saying — I

think, in terms of sewage, that there's a bit of a game, a sham, taking

place in B.C. today, because it's clear that many municipalities are in

fact violating environmental standards in this province. Nobody really

wants to get into the game where they force people to take action.

Clearly some of the smaller municipalities couldn't afford the

infrastructured costs to develop sewage treatment, and because of that,

there's this tacit gam