1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 25, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 13

[ Page 1751 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. T. Perry: I'd like to presume upon members of the Legislature to acknowledge the tenth birthday of the B.C. Children's Hospital and the Grace Hospital. Many of us have enjoyed the services of those two hospitals -- sometimes "enjoyed" isn't exactly the right word, but we've certainly appreciated the service that they give to the entire province. I'd just like to invite members to acknowledge that. While I'm on my feet, I would note that this being the tenth anniversary of those two institutions, they have two years on my wife and I, who have eight years together today.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery today are the members of the advisory committee of the Queen Elizabeth II B.C. Centennial Scholarship: Dr. David Williams, a physics professor at the University of British Columbia; Mr. Vern Loewen, the director of financial aid and awards at Simon Fraser University; and Mrs. Mary Browning, the director of the student services branch of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. This prestigious scholarship committee is administered by my ministry for postgraduate study in the United Kingdom. Would the members please welcome them.

D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce my wife of 22 years, Linda, to the House -- it's the first opportunity I've had. She's in the gallery today with her parents, Willi and Audrey Cziborr from Sirdar, B.C., constituents of our eloquent friend across the way. I bid the House make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Kathleen Costello, who is the B.C. government's first businesswomen's advocate and who is sitting in the gallery. I'm introducing her today as she was recently named Victoria's businesswoman of the year by the Victoria Business and Professional Women's Club. In her year with our ministry, Kathleen has worked hard to encourage women entrepreneurs to overcome obstacles to success and play a larger role in the business community.

Kathleen's work has included organizing a series of regional conferences across B.C. aimed at improving women's business skills. She is also looking for ways to improve government and private sector programs so they will meet the particular needs of women in business.

Prior to joining the ministry, Kathleen worked as manager of community programs for the Ministry of Government Management Services. Before that, she coordinated regional projects for the ministry's women's programs. She worked for Petro-Canada in Calgary for eight years, including as director of employment and planning in the human resources division, and she worked with John Deere Ltd. as a territory manager.

Kathleen's volunteer jobs have included fund-raising for the 1988 Calgary Olympic Games. She was also a member of the organizing committee for Olympic volunteers.

I'd like to pass on to Kathleen the congratulations of the House, and I'm sure the opposition will join me in congratulating her as well.

D. Schreck: In the precincts today -- and I hope they've found their way to the gallery -- are Bill and Barbara Kessel from North Vancouver. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today are two members of my family: my wife, Victoria MacPherson Blencoe, and my aunt Jean Ensor visiting from the United Kingdom. Will the House please make them both welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STATUTE REVISION ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Revision Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce Bill 44, the Statute Revision Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide legislative authority to revise and publish the revised statutes of British Columbia. It replaces the Statute Revision Act which was enacted in 1966 and reflects the government's plain language policy. The new act transfers responsibility for statute revisions from a separate commissioner to the chief legislative counsel. It specifies what types of revisions may be made to the statutes and adds a power to make limited revisions so that frequently used acts may be revised and consolidated regularly.

I commend this bill for consideration of the House and urge its passage.

Bill 44 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.

STATUTE REVISION MISCELLANEOUS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 45, the Statute Revision Miscellaneous Amendment Act, 1992. The purpose of this bill is to update several statutes by making minor amendments to them. These amendments are part of the statute revision process. The changes are being made by amendment of the statutes, because they are beyond the powers provided to legislative counsel to revise the statutes.

Some of these amendments are required to introduce plain language reforms. Another group of

amend-

[ Page 1752 ]

ments will facilitate revisions of forms and rules. The bills amended include the Land Title Act, the Agrologists Act, the

Interpretation Act, the Land Survey Act, the Library Act and the Unclaimed Money Act.

Bill 45 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.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND SECURITY

AGENCIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 43, the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Amendment Act, 1992.

The province currently regulates the security industry through a licensing program established by the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act. Security industries include security patrols, alarm services, locksmiths, private investigators, security consultants and armored car services.

The dramatic growth in the security industry, particularly in the area of security patrols and alarm services, has caused renewed concerns from within the industry that the province is not effectively regulating the industry and that there are increasing occurrences of businesses and employees operating without a licence.

This bill will improve the province's ability to regulate the industry and will provide a licensing system that is more responsive to industry needs. The amendments include a temporary licence which will allow licensing for special functions and a quicker licensing process to respond to short-term, urgent security demands. Also included in the bill are provisions for inspection of businesses, expansion of the role of the advisory board to include advising on training standards, and several housekeeping measures to improve the regulations to the act.

Bill 43 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 day.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH

HOLDING SOCIETY

W. Hurd: My question is for the Attorney General, the minister responsible for gaming in British Columbia. It relates to the serious charges levelled at the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society over sloppy accounting and their failure to ensure that an appropriate amount of money raised from bingo activities in fact went to pay for charitable activities. In view of the fact that most of the money appears to have been used to pay off debts rather than for charitable purposes, would the Attorney General agree that this society should be the subject of an independent financial audit, to put the public concern at rest?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: British Columbia has in place a Gaming Commission which is independent of government and which has integrity -- and I believe that all members of this House would agree with that statement. As I say, the Gaming Commission is independent of my office and is charged with dealing with issues that may arise in this kind of situation.

W. Hurd: Is the Attorney General aware of a 1988 report by the Gaming Commission ordering the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society to forward more of its revenues to charity? As the minister in charge of gaming in this province, is he satisfied that the society has complied with that order?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It is my understanding that that order was complied with.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

W. Hurd: The response from the Attorney General was very disappointing. Is he sensitive to the fact that this society has strong links to the New Democratic Party and that it stands accused of creaming off money to charity? Again, for the sake of the reputation of his party and the charities involved, would the Attorney General commit to an independent financial audit of this particular society in Nanaimo?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Such a review would be within the purview of the Gaming Commission, and they are independent.

FAIR WAGE POLICY

L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Advanced Education. According to the Minister of Labour, the new fixed-wage policy is not intended to restrict public sector construction projects to unionized firms. Is this the minister's understanding of this new policy, and can he assure this House that all capital construction projects under his purview will be open to unionized and non-unionized contractors, provided they meet the necessary criteria?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes.

L. Fox: Supplementary. Can the minister then confirm that all capital construction undertaken at the University of Northern British Columbia will be open to union and non-union firms, provided that they meet the fixed-wage policy?

Hon. T. Perry: Provided that contractors meet the guidelines of the government's policy, any contractor may bid on a tender.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.

[ Page 1753 ]

L. Fox: Perhaps the minister can explain why the UNBC tender on a laboratory building exterior, dated May 15, 1992, specifically says: "All work covered by this contract which requires on-site installation will be carried out by B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council union labour."

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not familiar with the document in question. If the member would like to table it or forward it to me, I'd be happy to bring back an answer to the House.

I can take the opportunity to inform members that when I was privileged to attend the installation of the chancellor, Iona Campagnolo, at UNBC on Saturday, I was informed that so far all UNBC projects tendered are coming in under budget and that they're doing an excellent job.

QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier as leader of the government. We note with interest that last Friday the Attorney General tabled in this House a freedom-of-information act; yet we have a problem, because within this House we do not have freedom of information as members. I refer the Premier to the order paper of this House, the written questions on that order paper and the fact that the government hasn't answered them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Would the member state his question, please.

D. Mitchell: I refer, of course, to the questions dealing with the government's hiring of consultants and contractors which have been on the order paper since day one of the session. These questions have been on the order paper for 11 weeks now. Clearly it is hypocrisy for this government...

The Speaker: Your question, please, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: ...which claims to be an open government not to answer these questions. My question to the Premier is: will he instruct his colleagues in cabinet to finally come clean and answer these questions today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the opposition House Leader receives instructions, particularly in the last few weeks, from his leader about certain things. I don't have to deal with my colleagues that way. I know that they receive these questions in good faith and that they will answer in good time.

D. Mitchell: Supplementary. I thank the Premier for that very convincing impersonation of Elwood Veitch. All members of this House know what happened to that minister and that government that took that kind of attitude towards the procedure of this House. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Tourism would never have had their integrity questioned if the government had simply come clean and answered the questions on the order paper. My question today to the Premier, as government leader, is: why not come clean today and answer the questions on the order paper?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The House Leader of the opposition does know how to strike a low blow, I can tell you, with that remark comparing me to Elwood Veitch. I'm glad it was at least convincing for the hon. House Leader for the opposition.

As I said, our ministers have received the questions. They were complicated questions that asked for a lot of detailed information. I can say that the ministers will respond in due course.

I'm pleased that the House Leader for the official opposition has recognized the best freedom-of-information act in North America; we agree with that.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: I don't know what this government has to hide. The questions are very simple, and they have been on the order paper for 11 weeks now. The Premier, the leader of the government, must live up to the promise of open government -- the promise he made. They should stop with the excellent impersonation of the former government, which was disgraced by the people of this province. They should stop impersonating that government and answer the questions. I would ask the Premier one more time: will you commit today to answer the questions on the order paper?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. Hon. members, in order to have some decorum in this House during question period, we must be able to hear the questions and hear the answers. Would the member briefly state his final supplemental, please?

D. Mitchell: Would the Premier, as leader of the government, cease and desist with the excellent impersonation of the previous disgraced administration and instruct his cabinet colleagues today to answer the questions on the order paper before any of his other colleagues in cabinet have their integrity questioned.

SABATINO LETTER

A. Warnke: My question today is for the Minister of Tourism. I also want to extend to her greetings after her stay away for a little while.

On May 8, just before 12:30 p.m., the Minister of Tourism read in the Legislature a letter to the Leader of the Opposition marked "Personal and Confidential" that she had received at 12:19 from Mr. Paul Sabatino. However, the Leader of the Opposition had not received this letter when the minister read it into Hansard . Since the letter did not have a "cc" at the end, could the minister tell us how, as a minister of the Crown, she got possession of this letter to which she was not entitled,

[ Page 1754 ]

since it was to be sent only to the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you for greeting me from my trip to Ottawa, from where I hope I successfully brought home some federal dollars for tourism and culture.

Mr. Sabatino's letter, which was a letter expressing outrage at your caucus's inability to pull together a non-libellous letter, was not the property of the Leader of the Opposition. It was basically the property of the sender. I gather Mr. Sabatino couriered the letter to the Leader of the Opposition and then later in the morning faxed the letter to me, to be assured that it would be made public record. That is my understanding of the situation. There was no "cc," since there's no legal requirement to put a "cc" on a letter that is of your own possession. I regard the letter as the property of Mr.

Sabatino, and I regard the anger that Mr. Sabatino expressed as the property that belongs to the Liberal opposition.

A. Warnke: Could the same Minister of Tourism also tell us how, as a minister of the Crown, she saw fit to release a letter marked "Personal and Confidential," when the minister knew the Leader of the Opposition had not received this letter?

Hon. D. Marzari: I must say that when I received the letter, which was sent in to me by my staff, I assumed that it must have been received by your side, since it was sent to you. But I discovered afterwards that it was couriered. I have no idea of the time that it arrived by courier to the leader of the official opposition, but let me assure you that I read it into the House record within minutes of the moment your leader's letter arrived. The opinions that it expressed and the anger that it expressed....

It was appropriate to read it into the record of this House to let the province, Hansard and the opposition know that basically you were playing with items that outside this House would have been libellous.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: Usually I just ask two questions, but I do want to ask a final supplemental in this particular case. This is to the Premier: how does the Premier find it acceptable that a minister of the Crown can intercept and then use for partisan purposes in this chamber mail to another member marked "Personal and Confidential"

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I thought that the minister's explanation was quite self-explanatory. The only puzzle here is how the opposition, after a weekend to come up with some questions, can only deal with which electronic impulse is slower, a fax machine or a courier.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

The Attorney General is answering a question taken on notice.

[2:30]

NATIVE POLICE

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On the 20th and 21st of this month the hon. leader of the third party asked me a series of questions regarding the native peacekeeping program in Lillooet. The questions specifically related to the jurisdiction of tribal peacekeepers, their training, commitment of funds by my ministry and public education about the program.

The jurisdiction of the native peacekeepers is set out in a protocol with the RCMP. It includes limited policing responsibilities on reserves within the Stl'atl'imx nation reserves in the area extending from Pemberton to Lillooet. For travelling between reserves, the protocol requires that the peacekeepers respond to any evident lawbreaking, or to an individual in trouble, as we would expect of any citizen. The basic police recruit training they receive is the same as that received by municipal police officers.

As well, they receive additional training in aboriginal culture and in dealing with abuse issues that they may face. The training is administered by the B.C. Justice Institute police academy.

In fiscal year 1991-92 my ministry provided $60,000 to fund in part the development of a community policing infrastructure. In terms of additional funds, the government has been working closely with the Stl'atl'imx nation, the federal Solicitor-General, the Department of Indian Affairs and the RCMP, with a view to establishing a tribal police service in Lillooet with the same powers and immunities as other police officers in the province.

My colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I are currently examining a policy proposal for aboriginal policing on a basis of both senior levels of government sharing costs. Details concerning these proposals will be brought to the attention of the House in the very near future.

With respect to public education, a public meeting was held May 11 to respond to public concerns. Mayor Joyce Harder was one of about 300 people in attendance. Information was provided by representatives of my ministry, the RCMP, the federal Solicitor-General, the Department of Indian Affairs, the Justice Institute and the B.C. Police Commission.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the program is sound, that it is generally understood in the community, and is accepted by the mainstream in the community.

L. Fox: I request leave to table a document.

The Speaker: Can you briefly describe the document?

L. Fox: The document contains the quote within the question that I asked earlier in question period.

[ Page 1755 ]

Leave granted.

A. Cowie: I request leave to table a study on affordable housing. The minister has a copy and it was mentioned during the estimates last week.

Leave granted.

Presenting Petitions

N. Lortie: I rise to present a petition to the House, a petition of 2,355 names collected by the Canadian Search Centre for Missing Children. I would like to read the last, short paragraph of the petition: "The petition of the undersigned supports the

'Garden of Hope' and all parents of missing children. We are requesting May 25 be proclaimed International Missing Children's Day."

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In

Section A will be heard the Ministry of Energy estimates and in

Section B the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING

On vote 53: minister's office, $360,891 (continued).

A. Cowie: I notice the minister has his staff here. I would like to finish this today, if at all possible. I expect that if I keep my questions short, the minister will keep his answers short. If we're lucky, the third party won't return, and we'll get through today -- although they've indicated that they are going to cooperate.

I'm going to leave the homeowner's grant, so we won't have to deal with that. It would be quite lengthy.

Regarding safety standards, I have one question about electrical-inspector services. I wonder why the minister would not encourage municipalities to take on this function, since I believe it pays for itself. In other words, the recovery covers the cost.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That is actually a detailed question that requires some explanation. While staff think about that, I'll give you some initial reactions.

One of the concerns of local government that is raised in a number of these kinds of areas -- and this Legislature has tried to address them -- is the whole question of liability. If you set up local government to inspect everything -- every house, all wiring, everything, which is an impossible situation -- and you lay that out in legislative authority, you will raise incredible liability concerns for local government. We have tried over the years to address that, to minimize liability exposure for local government. At the same time there is the issue of public safety, which I'm sure your question very much revolves around. The initial reaction is the issue of liability concerns.

A. Cowie: The problem I have with that is that the municipality is already inspecting almost everything else. It would seem to me that rather than having provincial employees, these employees -- since they are talented and qualified -- should simply be taken over by the various municipalities.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Staff tell me that we've never actually aggressively pursued the concept of municipal involvement. These days, if you suggest municipal involvement in anything, local government gets concerned in terms of the financial implications.

The other issue -- which is a very good one, as staff relate to me -- is the issue of competence in terms of electrical inspection. Simply, many smaller municipalities -- villages and towns -- simply don't have or cannot afford the expertise required to do the things that you're suggesting.

But we will take that question to some degree on notice. We'll go back to staff and look at it to see if there are some things we're missing that we could address.

A. Cowie: I've got some technical questions, but I want to go back now to a couple of general questions since there is a member in the House who has a question on a specific to do with the Islands Trust.

First of all, I want to ask the minister's philosophy on the Islands Trust. We all fly over the Gulf Islands regularly. Over the weekend in Vancouver, at a workshop put on by the GVRD, the Premier referred to a possibility of doubling the population in the Vancouver-Nanaimo-Victoria-Washington area to some ten million people in the next 30 to 50 years. I don't want to alarm anybody, but that is only double the present population. It looks like that's the way we are going to go.

These Gulf Islands are unique. Many people want to see them preserved as much as possible. We have an Islands Trust. Since that budget is going to be increased slightly, does the minister still intend to see the Islands Trust as an autonomous group, or is the ministry going to take more of a leadership role in it when one considers this future that the Premier referred to?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just to go back to your original question on the electrical inspection, one other thing noted by staff would be that in 1987 there was a fairly extensive conference on decentralization and devolution and what local government could be doing and not doing. At that time there was no interest by local government to take over this function, even though I suspect they knew there may be some revenue generation that could be a component of it. We haven't had that interest expressed.

As to the Islands Trust, I think a general statement is that this government supports the intent: the concept of preserving and protecting this particularly unique part of British Columbia. In many ways it's a micro-ecosystem that is looked at by other jurisdictions in terms of how we manage it, how we preserve it and how we enhance it for the future. There are at times conflicts not only on the islands but also conflicts from those who don't live on the islands. There are feelings of

over-

[ Page 1756 ]

protection; feelings that the islands could encompass or take more development. That issue raises itself on numerous occasions.

We believe there is a balance to be achieved. I think the Islands Trust are not opposed to growth or development, but it has to be controlled and carefully done and has to be within the objectives of the Trust in terms of their community plans and the islands' plans and the general belief by the Islands Trust that they have a particularly unique area.

My understanding is that the Trust, which was established in the mid-seventies, is currently looking at itself and its future and having a useful discussion with itself and others about where it's going in the next ten to 15 years. As you know, the current legislation, which was amended some years ago, permits the islands to move to a different level of government and to look at the regional district concept if they so desire. This minister has already met a number of times with the Islands Trust. They are looking at their future. We look forward to working with them, as we move ahead to preserve what is considered by all British Columbians to be a particularly unique area of the province.

[2:45]

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I have three specific questions on the Islands Trust. First of all, let me tell you that being a representative of the Gulf Islands for the last six months has been an interesting experience. My constituency consists of most of the peninsula and five major Gulf Islands, and I get far more work from the Gulf Islands than they do, I suspect, from all the other constituencies in the lower end of the Island -- the large island.

Could the minister explain to the House the thinking of his ministry prior to the signing of the Galiano bylaws, 1981-85, controlling forest lands in private hands?

Hon. R. Blencoe: That was a difficult issue that I spent a number of weeks thinking about, consulting with the interested parties and looking at alternatives and options. As you know, there is a court case pending, so I don't wish to go too far on the issue.

In my estimation, the conclusion was -- I was looking for compelling reasons not to sign the bylaws and didn't find any other than the concerns on the other side -- that this was something that the islanders, the Islands Trust and the local committee had made a decision that they wanted to do. They had gone through the procedures and the process. This minister was being asked to endorse something that hadn't been fully scrutinized at the local level. Consequently, as you know, I signed the bylaws.

C. Tanner: The minister really didn't tell me anything I didn't know; I could have gotten that from virtually anywhere else. I would like to know how the minister arrived at a decision of such magnitude to the people living on Galiano Island. In particular, did he have legal advice?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know what more I can say, and I really don't want to say much because there is a court case pending, as you know, hon. member. If I appear to you to be obtuse and general, there is a very good reason for that.

But let me say that I took a long time to sign those bylaws. I consulted widely with many parties in government and out of government. I did not rush the decision. I recognized that it was a controversial decision, and I weighed all sides. In the end, having listened to everybody, I made a judgment call. In these kinds of issues, the government is called on in the end for the final say. I made a judgment call that the bylaws had gone through the process. The islands have the mandate, and assigned the bylaws. I really don't want to say much more, hon. member, because, as you know, there are some outstanding issues on this question.

C. Tanner: I realize it must be a delicate matter for the minister, but perhaps he could tell us whether the decision was entirely within his own discretion; did he take it to cabinet, or did he take it to a cabinet committee?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I did not take it to cabinet, but I can assure you that I consulted with many of my colleagues, who may be affected, or who may be perceived to be affected by this decision. It was a decision by this minister to make a decision on land use zoning. The decision was made by this minister.

Let me say that there was a dilemma, obviously, which in this ministry I deal with on a daily basis. You have on the one hand the pursuit of purely local objectives versus the limitations of existing law. There's no question that the issue of private logging is a controversial one. It's on the agenda. It's one the former government had prepared -- in my understanding, there was some legislation to deal with it -- but they backed off.

In this case on Galiano, I think it's quite clear that the islanders felt that they had to have some mechanism to have a degree of control over what they perceived to be a major problem in terms of a large company selling off large tracts of land; therefore wanting the ability to have some say in terms of land use and zoning.... And the member knows the other things that are involved. I signed them also, hon. member, because to reject them would have required proof that the bylaws contravened the provincial interest. Again, that was done, and I consulted widely with many of my colleagues on that very issue.

But there is a broader issue at stake here; there's no question. That is the who, what, when and where by which we should have some control or say over private lands and private logging. As you know, we have little or no control over such issues. The difficulty, of course, is that you run into the whole question of public interest versus private interest. That raises its head in this Legislature many, many times. On this issue we're going to have to take it on; we're going to have to challenge it. We're going to have to find some balance, because there's no question that while there are lands like Galiano that are indeed private, there are public

[ Page 1757 ]

interests, or common interests. Common sense would require that there should be some say by those who protect the public interest -- or whether government should have some say in terms of how logging is conducted on private lands.

This government is currently tackling that issue. When we will deal with it in a legislative form I cannot say at this time.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, you didn't specifically answer my question whether you signed it within your discretion, and if you did, did you seek and take advice? And specifically, did you seek advice from your colleagues the Attorney General and the Minister of Forests?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The answer to the question is yes. I consulted widely with many of my colleagues, particularly the Minister of Forests and the Attorney General. This bylaw was on the agenda. I think it had been on the former minister's desk since early summer of, I believe, '91. My understanding is that the solicitors and legal advisers for my ministry had consulted widely with the Attorney General's department and solicitors. That was extensive.

C. Tanner: One last question to the minister. His department, I'm sure, understands the very serious ramifications of any decision made on Galiano, vis-�-vis the court case, with the rest of the southern end of Vancouver Island. Could he comment on that to some extent?

Hon. R. Blencoe: As the member knows, there are many problems in the province. This government is trying to tackle many of them as quickly as possible, but currently the law is the law. We will move as quickly as we can to try and bring some balance to this issue that I know the member is quite rightly sincerely concerned about.

Until then we will try to work within the current mandates, policy and legislation -- and so will local government -- to try and protect as best possible. Obviously there will have to be changes if we are to deal with the issues in the long term that the member refers to. At the moment the law, as it is written, makes it difficult in some cases.

C. Tanner: I have two other smaller questions. One is the request that I have had from a group of single-home and own-home builders on Galiano, by coincidence. I get a lot of questions from Galiano, I should tell you. It's not an unreasonable one. At first blush, while it might sound unreasonable, when you think about it, it probably isn't. What these single-home builders are requesting is exemption from the National Building Code for two reasons: one is that they don't necessarily want to conform; and two is that they can use on-island and reusable materials.

If it was acceptable to the ministry or to the Capital Regional District inspectors, it would save your department some time and money, and the builders would expect that there would be a caveat on their registration notifying any subsequent purchaser of the home that they didn't comply with the National Building Code. Could the minister comment on that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, staff cannot provide the subjective comments required for this kind of question. The building code is always controversial. I constantly get letters and phone calls from builders, contractors and others who feel that it's too onerous and has no flexibility. People want changes. Some of your constituents obviously want to be exempt or have some greater flexibility. Sometimes there is some validity, in terms of the rigidity of the code.

In the last few years there have been some moves to look at alternatives. For instance, in building construction, rather than insisting that you have the best material for a fire situation, you might allow some flexibility by saying: "We'll allow you to sprinkler instead." You might give options under the code. Am I correct? The staff are nodding, yes. There's some room there.

[3:00]

The difficulty, of course, comes with where you allow reasonableness and where you move against public safety. I guess that's where we come in, in terms of the government. The question I have to ask you and those members is: in the long run, are their requests in the interests of consumers and in the interest of public safety? Trade-offs are just fine as long as safety is not compromised. Trying to achieve that, particularly with a building code, can be extremely....

In my short experience with it at the provincial level, being the minister responsible, I constantly come up against that from people, in terms of what I read. Trade-offs are fine, but you've got to be careful that you don't compromise public safety.

There are, of course, practitioners and contractors in the industry who feel that it's often too tight. I think we're always open. We do have processes whereby those in the professional field can let us know. We have review committees and panels that look at these issues.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just discovered another note. Perhaps he'd like to give us the benefit of that intelligence at the same time as I ask him the next question.

The minister is aware, of course, that Hornby Island and Denman Island do not conform to the building code. Those two islands, for some reason best known to themselves, were exempt from the building code, and they don't conform. By the sheerest of coincidences, the gentleman who owned the house that I've recently purchased moved to Hornby, built a house there and won an award, which was nationally recognized.

These small builders are not saying that they want to be exempt from the health code or from any building standards that are necessary in a house; they're just talking about some of the more onerous stipulations under the building code. From what these builders told me, I was convinced that they have a good case.

The minister wasn't listening to me when I mentioned that Hornby and Denman are presently exempt

[ Page 1758 ]

from the building code. Why should we choose those two islands and not a beautiful island like

Galiano?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm going to do something that often happens in public life. It is quite permissible in this case. Although we are involved in the building code in the way of amendments, changes, looking at it, making recommendations and participating in a national process, the issues that the member is referring to are really local decisions. My understanding is that the CRD has jurisdiction over bylaws. I suspect that the reason that Hornby and Denman are outside the building code is because the regional district in that area gave them the ability to do so. If the capital region wishes to do that for Galiano, I assume that they could do so.

Not wanting to avoid your question, hon. member, you may wish, as a local MLA, to take up the issue with the regional district.

C. Tanner: You did rather nicely lead into my next question. Thank you.

I have on file a pile of probably 100 letters and phone messages telling me that the people who live on the islands, particularly Saltspring, Galiano and Pender, are getting the runaround between the Islands Trust, the Ministry of Highways, the CRD, the Ministry of Environment and your department. In many cases it's one department passing the buck to another. In one case, which I had in my office this morning, the gentleman had been trying for ten years to get a decision as to whether or not he could subdivide what was already in the community plan as a subdivided piece of land.

Mr. Minister, I think there is an obligation on the part of your department, being Municipal Affairs, which has responsibility for the Trust islands, to sort this out. There is no doubt at all in my mind that in the six months that I've been the member representing the Gulf Islands, people living on the Gulf Islands are subjected to very many more restrictions than the rest of us who are living on the mainland or over on this Island. While I know that we want to protect what we have there, it sometimes gets to the point of absurdity when somebody is trying to get a decision from one of these various bodies that they live under. Could the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My experience with the islands, and I think it's also probably the member's experience, is that because of the intense feelings on both sides of issues, sometimes there's a perception that any particular issue is more intense or there is special treatment or the problem is exaggerated on the islands. I don't think that's necessarily true. I don't think the rules or the regulations or the building code are any stronger for the islands than they are for Victoria or for any other community. There are those on the island, though, who are fairly articulate and sophisticated at expressing themselves and getting their point across, and they make their points extremely well.

We could go on all afternoon about the issues you raise. The member raises some good issues. If he, along with his constituents, wishes to raise those with my staff and with my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Harkness, who is responsible for the building code, I suggest and offer to you that you put that before us. We can take a look at the issues you raise.

A. Cowie: We know that over the next ten to 20 years we are going to have considerable growth, and that growth is probably going to be directed mainly toward the existing municipalities and their fringe areas. We also know that there's a great deal of concern in these municipalities, often expressed by a term called NIMBY. Over the weekend I heard of a new term called BAANNA -- build anything anywhere but not near anything.

An Hon. Member: Not in my term of office.

A. Cowie: Right. That's NIMTO. With the new ombudsman legislation coming in, I believe the intention is that there would be some form of appeal. Has the minister considered an appeal process? Because in some municipalities there is obviously a great deal of conflict. It doesn't seem to get resolved in a meaningful way in many municipalities, except perhaps at election time. Is the minister considering any form of arbitration or means of appeal? Perhaps not like they have in Ontario within a proper provincial appeal board, but a way that the minister can either go in and send someone to arbitrate or have an independent body do some arbitration that isn't so costly as the present system.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I know what the member talks about. This issue comes up intermittently at the local level. There should be some appeal procedure set up outside local government so that when they -- particularly developers and contractors and the private sector -- feel aggrieved by a decision by a local government, particularly in land use and zoning, they have some way that they could have it appealed.

In Ontario I believe it's the Ontario Municipal Board. We have never had that experience in British Columbia. We've never gone that route. I have to say, and I'll put it fairly straight: I certainly as one member of this Legislature and as the minister in this period of time would have to be convinced that we need that kind of appeal procedure. However, that doesn't mean that the provincial government should remove itself and in the future should not be helping more with dispute resolution.

If I may say so, one of the frustrations that I sometimes run into is that in our office we average three to four hundred letters per week, and many of the letters are from people who are having some kind of dispute at the local level or with the council or regional district -- numerous issues. Often because of the letter of the law, lack of legislation, different approaches, different

interpretations or nuances of the issue, some of these disputes -- not just between individuals and local government but between institutions and local government -- can simmer and fester for years. One of my frustrations when I write back is that I often have to say that I don't have any jurisdiction in that area, blah,

[ Page 1759 ]

blah; I hope local government can resolve it. In a way, I walk away from trying to help with the issue.

It seems to me that there's a role to play in terms of a far greater dispute resolution system. One of the things that I'm particularly interested in is that if there's a problem, we tend, with local and provincial government, to look to legislation first; let's legislate it out, let's legislate the problem away. Of course, that's time consuming, and when you bring in legislation, there are invariably ways to get around legislation. Everyone starts looking for ways around it. I don't have to tell you, hon. member.

One thing I am particularly interested in -- and I think that many are -- is looking at alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for government. There's an opening here, particularly with my ministry, to take a look at that. You have to tread very carefully and lightly. It has to be particularly thought out, because local government might ask why you are moving into this area. It comes from a feeling that too often issues are just left hanging, and there needs to be a friendly arbitrator or mediator who can try and bring the parties back together.

A. Cowie: The ministry has an investigations section. I realize that's probably limited to particular situations. I wonder if the minister wants to let us know basically what he sees the investigation department doing.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You're referring to a gentleman who is the deputy inspector of municipalities. I'm actually sitting next to the inspector of municipalities right here. But the gentleman in question deals with hundreds of complaints, usually from citizens who, in some way, feel aggrieved by their local council or feel that something is not being done. My colleague from Prince George-Omineca, who has had extensive experience at the local level, knows what I'm talking about.

Mr. Thompson, who is the deputy inspector of municipalities, gets many cases where citizens ask for a review. But so many times it comes down to us getting back to them and saying: "It is a dispute between you and your local government." Of course, the traditional language is: "The local government is elected, they are accountable and they make that decision. I sympathize, but get back to local government." That's where I refer again to.... Sometimes these issues simmer for years, because there's a difference of opinion at the local level.

That's where, in terms of the provincial government, I think there can be some carefully thought-out ways and not always saying: "Leave it alone, and hopefully it will all go away."

The ombudsman, of course, coming into this area, will.... That's something that we are actually still looking at the implications of, and we'll be working out. That's going to be a whole new era for us all, of course, because that

section of the act, in terms of reviewing municipal actions, hasn't been done; that's new. It will probably mean some changes in terms of our operation.

In terms of how we deal with complaints -- this is a very general statement -- we usually deal with procedures rather than policy. Clearly, local government is elected to set policy, obviously within the confines of the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter or whatever. It's not our job, or my job, to question local policy unless it has an impact on the provincial perspective, provincial interests. That does happen, of course, and then a dialogue goes back and forth.

But generally we deal with procedures: whether the thing was carried out properly; whether they followed the laws, the legislation, the acts or whatever; whether they conducted a public hearing properly -- all those various things. Then a decision is made by the deputy inspector of municipalities.

[3:15]

A. Cowie: I have an example of one such case that one might want to look at, if the owner of the land were to ask you: Hy-Line Kennels in the Aldergrove area. The owner referred me to

section 962 of the Municipal Act. In 1987 the Municipal Act was changed to allow an addition to a non-conforming use. It seems to me that in that particular case, it was quite unjustified to allow a large addition to a small facility. I inquired and found that the board of variance indeed allowed it, and that the board of variance is allowed to make what amounts to, in my opinion, rezoning decisions, because when you've got a small kennel, and you're allowed to build a big one.... That was not allowed prior to 1987. I wonder if the minister has any point of view on this, since it seems to be a loophole where boards of variance can deal with zoning.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I hope it's not a telltale sign that we're looking at kennels and dogs or anything at this point. Board of variance: yes, an area that I get lots of questions about. Yes, because people think they go beyond their terms of reference. Invariably, it's again because someone is aggrieved by the board of variance. They are quasi-independent, for very good reasons, because they're kind of an appeal procedure, which you were sort of referring to, at the local level. Sometimes, genuinely, there's a feeling that they take on certain roles they shouldn't. That's when we will take a look at it.

Again, the inspector of municipalities has the power to, and does, take a look at it, and we can make some recommendations. But most times it's because the board has made a decision that someone doesn't particularly like.

A. Cowie: I won't ask any more questions along that line, but I will make the remark that I talked with a number of planners in different municipalities, and they think that the legislation goes beyond what it should, and that it actually conflicts with good zoning practices. I'll just point that out, and I'm sure the minister agrees, so we won't continue with that.

I'd like to move into housing for just a little while. We all know, from the various conferences we've been attending -- and there's one coming up now on infill housing -- that we have to be much more innovative. I don't imagine we're going to change the National Building Code of Canada. That's not the problem. We have to change the minds of some municipalities and the minds of people who live in the municipalities, so

[ Page 1760 ]

that they will be more flexible and allow different forms of housing that are as good as what we live in now, if not better.

Before I move on to some of the technical aspects of housing, though, I would like to mention that the minister, I believe in the next two weeks or so, is probably going to bring in some legislation to help people purchase homes in the area of the middle income: the $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 range would be my guess. There have been no leaks; I'm just guessing. I may be embarrassed in two or three weeks if you don't, but my guess is that's what we're going to be dealing with, because that's the easiest way of dealing with some of the housing problems.

I would suggest that should be done by private enterprise, and you need very little government interference other than to persuade municipalities to change their zoning, sway some of the ways in which things are done, and encourage more security on behalf of banks and that sort of thing.

I'd like to hear about that, but I guess I may be hearing about it in the next two or three weeks. The minister may want to talk about what he is doing in that area, and then give me a little idea about the area that he should be concentrating his efforts in, and that's social housing for the poor, without giving us the reason that the federal government are downloading. I really believe the provincial government has to take some leadership here. We know the federal government is downloading. What is this ministry going to do about it?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to discourage or throw cold water on my critic's speculation on legislation or great innovations this government will bring in this or next year. Suffice it to say that housing is an important issue, and we will be bringing forward changes and, hopefully, innovations as we proceed in our mandate.

Let me say that I don't disagree with the member's comments about the private sector. Quite frankly, the member may be seeing and hearing something in the next two weeks on something he hasn't referred to yet -- an announcement of a process that will allow the private sector to have greater participation with their provincial government, because it belongs to everybody, of course. I think there will be, as we move ahead, lots of room for creative and innovative partnerships between the provincial government and the private sector. We haven't hidden the fact that we will require those partnerships....

There obviously has to be a benefit to both sides. One of the difficulties in the past -- and I'm not going to go into details or name programs -- was that when the private and public sectors got together on partnership, there was a perception sometimes that the public sector didn't get as much benefit as it should. That is always controversial and a judgment call. Without going too much into that, my ministry has been instructed to work with the private sector: the Canadian Homebuilders' Association, the UDI and the contractors.

We will be doing some innovative things with the Canadian Homebuilders' Association in the months and years ahead. We will be participating -- and I think the members also would be -- in the conferences coming up, such as the conference in Victoria in terms of creative ideas in urban areas for infill housing. I suspect, though, that that conference is on more than just infill housing; it's looking at growth-management strategies -- how to manage urbanized areas.

In terms of social housing, I won't give the member the federal government speech or the concerns we have, although they are genuine and are being voiced by all my housing colleagues across the country. Suffice it to say that we won't let people down. We are committed to the money we put into the budget for social housing this year. The federal government, of course, has withdrawn its components; therefore we have provincial moneys allocated that currently we don't have a partner for. We are looking at how we can utilize those dollars in a creative way.

The bottom line is, politics aside, that we will have to make some decisions whereby those who are in need of housing are not caught up in the federal-provincial politics of the day in terms of who's right or who's wrong. The issue is that people need housing. This doesn't mean to say we will not continue to advocate with the federal government that they are removing themselves significantly from a national, traditional responsibility of the last 50 or 60 years -- a break with their partners that we've never seen before.

We will continue to advocate with the federal government that housing is a national responsibility, that the federal government is part of the solution and that the government of British Columbia is leaving its money on the table for the federal government to come back in good faith to bring back their money, so that we can construct for this year probably 500 more units than we currently are going to be able to construct because of the cutbacks.

We are looking at alternatives. I'm going to show you, hon. member, that as you're probably aware, in my budget this year there has been generous support for the creation of a housing unit within my ministry. The member may not be aware that there's never really been any policy capacity within government to do housing policy, which is unbelievable. That's history. We're looking to the future.

We're going to be building the ability of the public sector in a very efficient but highly innovative and intelligent way to develop public policy for housing, a multifaceted housing program and housing policy that will be clear and will be done in consultation with the stakeholders. Till that consultation is complete we won't be making major precipitate moves in the housing field. There will be some things we can do, some programs we can announce, but we want to get a sense -- because we've never really ever done this in this province -- of what a housing policy should look like in British Columbia.

I invite all members of the Legislature, including my colleague the hon. opposition member. Your party has done a piece of work; I haven't read it yet. I invite everyone to participate in the process we will announce very soon.

The bottom line is that this government is very interested in housing. We are raising it on the agenda. We have some difficulty, of course, again because of the federal removal.... But we will have to get extremely creative with those who know the industry well -- the

[ Page 1761 ]

private sector. In the months ahead I'm hoping that there will be some good announcements in terms of partnerships in housing programs for British Columbians.

A. Cowie: Approximately a year ago Mr. Thomas resigned from the B.C. Housing Commission, and before that there hadn't been a meeting for about a year. Since B.C. Housing was set up to be an independent board to advise the minister.... I don't know why Mr. Thomas resigned. The minister may have some clue. It was before his time, but he might be able to give me some reasons or at least some vision as to what he sees the B.C. Housing Commission....

I believe they look after 60,000 units in the province. Obviously they've got some built projects that are underutilized. I can mention a few where they could very easily double, triple or quadruple the density and be within the vision of the municipality that those projects are in. That would mean that in those areas this land would cost nothing. In fact, it would just be the cost of the building. The minister could go in and look at some of those situations.

Maybe he can give me a few short words as to what B.C. Housing is up to.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, it's no secret that this government and this minister have not moved ahead in a precipitate or fast fashion to reappoint an advisory board to B.C. Housing Management Commission.

Mr. Thomas's -- how should I put it -- abdication from the chair was complete prior to the new government taking over. I don't know the reasons for that. I suspect he got very busy in the private sector. I recall some debates in this Legislature where the opposition of the day and this member were looking for Mr. Thomas, wondering where he was, actually, as chairperson of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. The nature of his business has changed, from my understanding, and he's doing a lot more south of the line, and his time was not available, as it was, to the public sector.

I have left the concept of a new advisory body to the B.C. Housing Management Commission in limbo, I suppose. We haven't made any changes, basically because it may very well be that there will be some changes in terms of how B.C. Housing relates to the provincial government. I have to share with you that for various reasons the B.C. Housing Management Commission has virtually become the de facto Housing ministry. Much of this happened because the former government really didn't have much interest in a lot of these areas, so they let B.C. Housing do it, but no one was guiding the ship. In time, you will see B.C.

Housing being advised a lot more by government; it is government, but many people see it as a organization distinct from government. I think we have to bring the two closer together.

During this consultation process -- which the member will be hearing about shortly-there will be every opportunity for people to come forward in terms of how they think B.C. Housing could work better. What should its relationship to government be? What should the operation look like? How should it report to government? I'm of the view that the minister and B.C. Housing should have a community-based advisory concept built into it. But at this point, I'm not of the view that there should be Ministry of Housing staff here, and then a whole independent organization based in Vancouver that doesn't connect well to the ministry. We have to bring those two together. That is all being looked at.

It would have been very easy for me to make some major changes without finding out what people thought first -- and we will be doing that. It's my understanding that the operation is running well. It's ticking over. It's doing the allocations -- short as they may be, because of the federal cutbacks. As you know, we don't have as many allocations, but it's carrying out its delivery capacity. We on this side, of course -- the ministry -- continue to build up our portfolio and our ministry and our staff and our policy unit. In time, of course, there will be some changes that will be to the benefit of all concerned about housing.

[3:30]

A. Cowie: Well, Mr. Minister, I wonder if there's a message there or not. There's no board. They haven't met for three years. They have a very good staff, and they seem to be operating quite well without too much interference. So maybe there's a message. But I take it that you're looking at it, and through the ministry itself.... Maybe we won't need any appointments. If those appointments are made, they'll be made on the basis of quality and ability, and that sort of thing.

I want to turn now, for a minute.... And shortly, to give myself a tea break, I'm going to move it over to the third party. I could go on here for two or three days. I have to say that that was a tea break.

I want to deal with technology a little bit. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on a number of innovations that have been tried out recently and how important they are. I'd like to get his views on how important they are. There is the Quality Plus project that B.C. Hydro and the government were sponsoring last year through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, so that one can get a higher-quality home -- better insulation; it's using the R2000 technology, plus using HRV system, etc. to recirculate the air.

Essentially, you're living in a plastic bag now, if you build a house to those standards, and you have to have all of the technology to make sure there's enough air. But I can assure you that in some of the houses I've visited, even multiple houses in Vancouver, it substantially lowers the cost of heating, and therefore it's a good conservation method. The Canadian Home Builders certainly support it. I wonder if the minister is aware of that project and supports it in a financial way.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We do indeed support the innovations and the concepts that are coming out of that project. In the weeks ahead -- not necessarily with B.C. Hydro -- we'll be announcing some closer relationships to certain private sector institutions in terms of encouraging some of the things that you're talking about.

[ Page 1762 ]

One of the concerns, of course, is that perhaps we're going a little bit too far, overengineering our houses. That's an area that I don't profess to have particular expertise in, but I do note that. Our ministry and our staff work regularly with all the various components in the energy conservation field; we have regular contact, and will do so more as we develop the housing capacity within the ministry in the policy unit. This is just another important area for our housing sector to come up to speed on, to work with and to develop relationships with the private sector, so that we in the public sector can share the latest opportunities.

I don't know the details, but I'm told that we do have concerns about the totally engineered home that is about these days. I'm not aware of all the concerns, but staff have told me that there are some professional concerns about those things. There is staff contact between this ministry and the Ministry of Energy, in my understanding. The bottom line is that there is trade-off between energy conservation and other Building Code objectives. I got into that discussion earlier in terms of the Building Code -- always trying to achieve a balance, hon. member.

A. Cowie: In any innovation you're going to have differences of opinion. Close architect friends of mine have told me they don't believe in this concept of airtightness, and in some municipalities you have to have it. My answer to that is: build it airtight, try and save the money, see if you like it. It seems to help out with allergies. If in five years' time, for some reason or another, we find that it's the wrong thing to do, just bang a few holes in the side of the building and you've got the good old air from the outside coming in, and that can be controlled. So I'd be inclined to go with the innovation.

Hon. R. Blencoe: What often happens is that we get concerned about issues and we all work dutifully on it and we react and we bring in changes, and the pendulum, which used to be over here, suddenly goes all the way over here. We go too far, and it has to come back. I'm told that, for instance, it was the Victoria Home Builders who raised the issue of engineered heating and ventilation systems and some of the concerns that you're expressing today. The provincial government amended the Code to accommodate their concerns. It was the industry itself who brought that to our attention.

Back to whoever was asking the question earlier about building codes and flexibility, I think this is the point where we are open. If it seems reasonable and doesn't compromise safety, we are open to suggestions and amendments.

A. Cowie: Just like airtight stoves and that sort of thing, with airtight buildings you have to make sure that you've got enough oxygen to live, or you could not wake up in the morning. All these innovations have to be balanced. I think that's getting a little too technical and a little beyond the ministry as it's set up at the present time, but it is going in the direction of taking over a lot more housing. Undoubtedly that side of the ministry will be built up over the years. I'll ask questions next year or the year after that.

What I'd like to do now is ask a question that generally relates to taxation. It relates to a specific, but I'd still like to ask it, since it's dealing with Vancouver and my riding. Specifically, does the minister consider the powers under

section 290 of the Municipal Act to be sufficient to cap tax increases, as Vancouver city has done? Could that be applicable generally?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to get into whether it's adequate or whether we should have more apples or more oranges. If the member is referring to the third year of a three-year capping program, Vancouver and, in particular, Mayor Campbell requested that the government and my ministry introduce capping for the third and final year. We took a look at it closely, as Vancouver did, in terms of whether we really wanted to do that. As you know, there is genuine and incredible opposition to capping. When you tinker dramatically with markets and assessments....

When you hold it down here, you create a problem over there. However, there was no overwhelming or compelling reason that we shouldn't endorse it for this year.

I did make it quite clear that it was interim, and that this government would be introducing probably the most creative piece of legislation that's been seen in this country for a long time in terms of dealing with rapidly increasing assessments, which create problems for people's homes. We said in the throne speech that we will be introducing changes that will give local governments great flexibility with these issues when they're faced with them. Time will show the hon. member the legislation. Hopefully it will be on the floor of this House in the very near future.

A. Cowie: I take it, then, that at the present time there really isn't proper legislation in the Municipal Act to deal with capping, so some new legislation will be coming in shortly that may help this subject.

We also learned over the weekend, just on that subject, that there was a mention at the conference -- at least as far as my riding and Point Grey area go -- that real estate values have pretty well taken off. We should probably just split the west side of Vancouver off from all reality. There has to be some way of controlling not only the prices of land but also the taxes. It's just getting totally unrealistic. It doesn't make any sense when you compare it to other parts of the province. The minister may want to comment on that before I take him off into another area.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Very quickly, taxation, in whatever form, is never popular. I happen to be of the view, though, that municipal taxes are probably the best value -- dollar for dollar. I think that in studies that have been done in terms of levels of government and where people think they get the most value, often it's in municipal government. I guess that's partly because you can see what local government pays for -- most obviously police and fire departments, roads and lights and swimming pools.

[ Page 1763 ]

We are not pretending that in this legislation we will control land prices. We won't be controlling land prices. There are no magical answers to that question. If the member has some, please send them over. We will only stabilize the tax burden and try and minimize what sometimes happens in those very hot markets where people who have no intention of selling and who just want to live a quiet life are affected by those hot markets. Come tax time, because their assessments have jumped a couple of hundred thousand dollars or whatever can happen -- nothing to do with them....

We'll give the local government the opportunity to try and moderate that. But let me make it quite clear: no pretence to control land prices. That's a far more sophisticated issue, one that is fraught with minefields.

[3:45]

I know what the member refers to, and that's why rather than trying to tinker directly with the price of land, I think we have to try -- as I think you've come to the conclusion -- to make sure there's a greater supply of land at the local level for affordable housing, whether it be Crown land or private land. How can one encourage local government to zone more quickly and move applications through the process, thereby trying to take out this incredible cost of land?

I make no pretence: there are no easy answers, and we have no magical answers on this side.

A. Cowie: It's certainly good to hear this because the NDP government has changed since they were in last time in the seventies, when they actually did try to control the price of land, and built more projects on their own. They now realize that the free enterprise way is the best way, at least the more liberal way.

Where it's appropriate and where there's a proper plan, the answer is to release more land and increase the density. I think the real answer for the next short while is more infill and more innovation. I'm really, really happy to have this free enterprise flow that's going on right now.

To get into one other area, I believe that the ministry should in some way help technology. I think that technology is very important because there are other benefits. We want to have manufacturing in B.C., and through such things as manufactured homes.... I do not consider trailers to be manufactured homes. They aren't really solutions. However, with such things as last year's and this year's PNE prize home, it would be interesting -- and I'm not too sure if the ministry takes

part in that program -- to see the ministry either sponsor programs or get into this area, because these homes in fact don't look like trailers. They are manufactured, and, at least with component houses rather than manufacturing whole sections and transporting them, I think it's an area that we could actually export technology. In fact, Panabode and a number of other manufacturing companies do export to Japan now, and there's great potential elsewhere in the world if we develop the right technology.

We're looking for jobs, we're looking for industry, and I think government programs that show leadership in this way would be very beneficial not only to our own residents but also to those people who want to find new jobs.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member has been reading my speeches and my news releases.

A. Cowie: You must have a leak.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Did we have a leak, or the fax machine worked, or did we release it before we were supposed to release it, or did we send it to you? Given question period today, I am not quite sure how we should be doing that with your caucus. A little fun.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Just that? Just faxes.

I don't know if the member is aware that we do have a fairly sophisticated manufacturers study going on right now.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: You weren't aware of that? I will endeavour to let you have all the details on what we're doing. One of the first things I wanted to do on behalf of the government was to make moves in the manufactured-home industry and the concept of manufactured homes as greater and improved use of them. Standards and architectural design could really do a lot for affordability, and I have been spending a lot of time with the manufactured-home owners and associations and the manufacturers, and in this study, taking a look at what we have to do to expand the industry.

There are some incredibly good examples in other jurisdictions in other parts of the world where you can't tell the difference, quite frankly, between a manufactured home and a traditionally-built home. We in British Columbia, though, have had a perception problem, quite frankly. Most people, when you talk about a manufactured home, think of mobile homes or trailers. However, the industry has moved far beyond that. We have to deal with that perception.

We have to educate particularly local government because sometimes local government are really averse to this concept of living, and reports back to those consultants who are handling the study for us have been quite surprised by local government saying: "Well, yes, we haven't looked at this for 20 or 30 years. We're still thinking trailers." But now they see the sophisticated product that's on the market -- which anybody, I think quite frankly, would be pleased to see in their municipality -- and the costs, of course, are substantially reduced.

They are beginning to realize that they also have to serve their constituents at the local level and not just shut down by saying: "Well, it's a trailer or it's a mobile home; we don't want anything to do it. They're just nothing but problems." We are trying to change that, and I think we're going to be successful.

Most of the studies on manufactured homes in the past have been dealing with the problems of ownership: pad rental, dealing with the tenure questions. Those are all important things and things that come up in this House. This study is taking a look at how manufactured homes can help us with affordability, home ownership,

[ Page 1764 ]

starter homes, and will be an important part of our housing strategy in the years ahead.

I would be pleased to put you in touch, hon. member, with the consultant and the various people working on the program -- UBCM is part of it, the private sector and our ministry. We're looking forward to a good response and a good study.

A. Cowie: One more question, and I'll hand it over for a while to the hon. member of the third party for some questions.

I would like to know who the consultant is, and I hope that I'll get that information soon. I would also hope that the ministry has consulted with well-known people in this area. For instance, I attended an architectural conference in Whistler last year, and they had an architect by the name of Donald MacDonald there who had shown how he had blazed the way in some cities in the United States with some very inexpensive but imaginative housing. So I would hope that the ministry is looking at solutions such as the one he put forward. They were a little mind-boggling in the context of B.C., but well worth looking at.

Another architect by the name of Barry Berkus is well known for innovative smaller and manufactured housing in the United States. There are also architects, of course, here in Canada and in B.C. who have dealt with this subject. I'm looking forward to getting more information along those lines, but first, maybe the minister will just give me the name of the consultant.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The name of the consultant is Kennedy community planning consultants. I have met with the principal; I believe her name is Sharon Kennedy. My staff can put you in touch with her, and I'm sure she would be very pleased to meet with you and update you on how it's all going.

If that is satisfactory on that, hon. member, can I just update you? B.C. Housing staff have sent in a note on the issue of energy conservation. B.C. Housing has had an ongoing cooperative program with B.C. Hydro in energy conservation for the past five years. Hydro expenses in social housing buildings have been drastically reduced because of the consultation and the work we do with B.C. Hydro.

C. Evans: Could I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

C. Evans: In the absence of the member for Cowichan, I'd like to introduce 44 students in grade 9 from the Queen of Angels School. They are in the company of their teacher Ms. Murphy. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Fox: It seems like so long ago that we adjourned these particular estimates, it's hard to get my mind in focus back to where we left off. I appreciate the difficulty that the minister has doing the same.

As I'm sure the minister appreciates, when there are two sets of estimates going on, one finds oneself, in our particular situation, running in and out of both sessions; and there are other factors.

There is one thing that I was concerned about; I've heard you make reference to the fact that you are addressing the concern to some degree. It is the lack of consultation with the UBCM and the municipalities that has been evident earlier in the ministry. You appear now to have.... You suggested a few moments ago that you are involving the UBCM in the study of manufactured homes. What are the terms of reference for that study? Was the UBCM involved in the setting of the terms of reference?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Before I give a definitive answer on the manufactured homes study, I want to make it quite clear that I've always believed in consultation with local government and the UBCM. Nothing has changed. There are many things on which we're working with them and consulting them. Some things, though, we won't be able to consult on. There will be budget items, decisions by government that are financial. We have our turf and they have their turf, and there are going to be differences of opinion. That has never been hidden from them. We will continue to consult with local government and the UBCM.

Right now, as I talk, there are a number of things being looked at by UBCM that pertain to this ministry.

In terms of the manufactured-home study, the UBCM sits on the steering committee. I understand they did have some involvement with the terms of reference, but I don't think they were heavily involved. I do know the staff members who were involved in those initial days, and they were working with staff. I remember them telling me that they had some meetings with UBCM to continue going over the terms of reference, so I think that happened. I haven't heard, to the contrary, that UBCM is not happy; indeed they are participating as a full partner.

L. Fox: With respect to that, you made reference earlier that you're bringing forth -- I don't want to discuss the actual legislation -- legislation that may help to deal with issues like the capping issue. I was very fortunate to have been on the executive of the UBCM back when we had the financing of local governments committee. That was a very worthwhile structure chaired by a very capable person, who was then the UBCM president, and it came back with a consensus on how we might address some of the issues. One of those, by the way, was the supplementary homeowner's grant, which you have suggested, and which your government has done away with.

In terms of this legislation change, should you not be having some dialogue, even in confidence, with the table officers of the UBCM so that you have the benefit of their support rather than, once again, a confrontational approach when it moves forward?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member is reaching. I will not presume who, within the UBCM organization, should take a look at or be consulted on legislation. We provide information, and I assume the organization is sophisticated enough to decide among themselves who

[ Page 1765 ]

should be consulted. In this consultation business, in terms of legislation, one has to be extremely careful. There are obviously confidentialities and risks to some degree. I can assure you, on this critical legislation and others, that key UBCM people are being consulted.

[4:00]

L. Fox: Thank you; I'll accept that.

Earlier today you were discussing this new role the ombudsman -- or the ombuddy or whatever we're going to end up calling him -- would play. What do you perceive his role to be? Given that, what is going to be the new role for the inspector of municipalities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I said earlier to your colleague in the official opposition that we are working this through with the ombuds office, because it's a whole new area and era for us as well. Discussions are ongoing to work out the relationship between the ministry and the ombuds office. I don't want to mislead, but I assume we will continue to do investigations or reviews of issues that come to our attention through citizens.

I would assume that if a person feels aggrieved and goes to the ombuds office before they come to our ministry, it might very well be that the ombuds office will ask our opinion first or ask us to conduct an initial review. Again, those issues are being talked about. Suffice it to say, though, in terms of reviews and the inspector and the deputy inspector of municipalities, we will have no shortage of work. We will have a new partner, I think, in improving service to the people of the province.

L. Fox: The minister, obviously, once again got on his soapbox. I'm a bit concerned about what this new role of the ombuds is. I have seen some of the investigative processes by the inspector of municipalities over the years. They are charged with making sure that municipalities follow the act, that they meet and comply with the deadlines and so on as required by the act, and that each individual municipal taxpayer is given total rights under the act. What more can the ombudsman do than that particular role, unless he gets into the policy area?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm somewhat puzzled by the critic's position. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I hope -- I assume -- that the member is not being critical of the ombuds office having a role in reviewing municipal matters or issues. It's not for me to ask the questions, I realize that, but if that's his position, it's certainly not my position. I don't see it as a threat. I think the ombuds office and those who have served it -- particularly the former person in charge, Mr. Stephen Owen -- have gained incredible respect in this province and in this country. People come here to study it, to take a look at it, how it's done.

I don't think there's any question that there are issues outstanding that we don't resolve in our ministry, issues that I referred to in terms of.... Because of the constraints, we work under the law. We let fester sometimes.... I think it will be useful to have a third party -- if that's what the member's worried about -- review some of these issues, because there are many disputes between local government and citizens that aren't resolved quickly but may require someone to take another look.

In terms of your concern about going into policy, I suppose when you take on an issue or take a look at an ombuds office or any of us, the inspector of municipalities office.... When you take a look at an issue, it invariably may have some bearing on policy, particularly if you're making recommendations for change. I think we're really talking about nuances here and sort of nebulous distinctions. The bottom line is that we want to ensure that when British Columbians are having disputes with local government, if the ombuds office is a part of resolving it and if that can be done, then that's the area we want to move into. I think people want disputes resolved.

L. Fox: Contrary to the minister's statement, I do have the utmost respect for the role of an ombudsperson. But why I mentioned it and why I'm concerned is that I see here an opportunity for the process to happen twice. The inspector of municipalities gets involved, does his investigation -- goes through a lot of taxpayer expense and time in order to go through the process of investigation -- and then it's turned over. The individual is not happy with that, requests the ombudsman to get involved, and we go back through the whole process again.

Perhaps you could satisfy me if you were suggesting that the role of the municipal inspector is in fact going to be reduced and that we're going to have one particular investigation done through the ombudsman's title.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will get to those direct questions, but first, my understanding -- and I stand to be corrected -- is that the UBCM has asked for the declaration of the

section of the Ombudsman Act that would cover municipalities. Secondly, I don't want to misinterpret the member, but I want to let him know that the nature of the ombuds office role has not changed and won't change. It's merely extended to cover municipal issues -- as they cover a myriad of other issues -- giving the citizen, I suppose in some respects, a court of last resort in terms of resolving concerns.

In terms of your very last questions -- I think they are all good questions, hon. member -- obviously we have to work out a division of labour; we all have to know who's going to do what. We must for sure avoid duplication of service. We are concerned about that, and my deputy tells me that that's very much front and centre. We will work fastidiously to avoid duplication. We will work out the division of labour, and that's in hand.

L. Fox: I don't remember now at what point we talked about unconditional grants and the stabilization fund -- whether it was at the bill stage or estimates stage. It was perhaps during my opening statements with respect to these estimates, if I remember correctly. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Minister, that the municipal

[ Page 1766 ]

politicians in fact are among the most credible politicians with respect to the image they have with their electorate. Given that particular kind of responsibility and that attitude towards responsibility, they decided back in 1985, in conjunction with the UBCM, to say: "We're going to face some lean years. Rather than assuming all that's due to us through the revenue-sharing, let's in fact set aside a pot of money that would allow us, in years when the economy is not as good as it is today, to cap and shore up the shortages in revenue so that we can be consistent with the programs that we put forward to our taxpayers and keep the peaks and valleys out of the revenue-sharing grants."

In 1985 the government of the day agreed with that, and they collectively put $25 million into this fund. In 1986 they put $3.9 million into the fund. You suggest that these are taxpayers' dollars, and I totally concur. They are indeed taxpayers' dollars, but had they not had the agreement with the provincial government, the municipalities would have been able to take those particular dollars into their incomes and plan for a rainy day themselves. Instead they chose to put it into one pot, where it could bear good interest and somewhere down the road benefit the municipalities.

In 1987, a bit of a leaner year, $250,000 was all that went into the pot. In 1988 there wasn't any. In 1989, $2.1 million went in. In 1990, $3.75 million went in -- again, money that the municipalities could have utilized and put in their reserves to look after years like this particular year. There was none in 1991.

All in all, $35 million has been attributed to that account over those seven years. Would the minister please tell me whether or not there is any future in this account with respect to municipal interest, and whether or not this government has decided that it's their money and they're no longer going to share it with the municipalities? What is going to happen with respect to this fund?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I've made it quite clear. I'll do it again for the member. Yes, there is a book entry of $35 million. Yes, it is gathering interest on a daily basis.

An. Hon. Member: What rate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Quarterly adjustment to the provincial rate. How about that? Yes, it is there for local government and has not been confiscated, despite certain statements that can be attributed to certain mayors. But government of the day -- again a judgment call if you will -- has to take a look at the economy and the circumstances before us. You know how revenue-sharing works, hon. member. I guess the question is, I suppose, could we have this year brought back the $15 million for unconditional and kept it at last year's level.

As I've said to you before, we had clear indications from treasury staff, treasury analysts and financial people who advised that there was real concern about that level of spending out of the unconditional, given what was happening to the economy of British Columbia. The question is: when is the right time to utilize that fund?

[4:15]

I think we did send a message this year, one I don't relish, I can tell you, because I know what unconditional grants mean to local government. An 11 percent reduction in the total amount; it could very well be that next year will be worse. All indications are that the economy in British Columbia is, in terms of the lag time for revenue-sharing, not recovering as quickly as we'd like. Timing, judgment, prudence and maintaining the integrity of that fund is the question. This year we applied a minor reduction. We have protected that revenue-stabilization fund.

It could very well be that we'll have to use it in the years ahead in terms of protecting local government from what could get worse in terms of the economies and the revenues that come into the provincial coffers.

L. Fox: Perhaps, the minister has listened to the many times the argument has been put forward by the third party with respect to how it might have invested its dollars in order to bring a long-term return back to this province. He's making the argument for exactly that right now.

When I look at some of the impacts on the industry-based communities, I submit to you that this year they're going to have a double whammy. Let's take Kimberley, a community hit extremely hard by the downturn in the minerals prices and the whole economy of mining. That particular community will be impacted by the supplementary homeowner grant reduction; it was done away with by $100,415. You take the same community with respect to the unconditional grant decrease; it was $42,411.

Here you have a community that is full of unemployment -- it does not have a good picture -- and you impact them negatively with this budget by $142,000. I submit to you that perhaps this was the year that we should have shared in those resources so that they would not feel to this magnitude the double whammy this ministry has given them.

Take my own little community of Vanderhoof, which has also felt the loss of jobs in the forest sector. It's certainly not enjoying a growth scenario, as many small communities are not. The double whammy and the negative impact to that community is $89,000. I could go on and on. I've got virtually every community in the province, some of which have been hit by up to 27 percent, others around 14 percent, just in the unconditional grants area. I will give you this: there are a few small communities who benefited this year from the formula. But by and large, most larger communities of over 3,000 to 4,000 population were impacted negatively.

This particular signal does not, and will not, do a lot to provide public confidence in any level of government come this June, when individuals get their tax notices. I am extremely concerned about the message that this government is sending out through your ministry, Mr. Minister, with respect to having increasing taxation costs on local taxpayers. Irrespective of whether or not it's going into income tax, capital tax or increased school tax, the fact of the matter is that the total taxes requested are climbing substantially. This budget, in

[ Page 1767 ]

fact, impacts the local taxpayer extremely hard. I am extremely concerned.

Perhaps I'll give you, at this point in time, the opportunity to stand up and tell us why you accepted such a big mess. You have to look after it, and everybody has to come to the party. The big factor in this, though, is that for the first time in several years you're asking municipal taxpayers to pick up an additional burden with respect to school taxes, when you did away with the supplementary homeowner's grant. It was agreed back in '89 that when the block-funding formula was provided, the province, because they were providing that particular formula, should look after the bulk of it.

The supplementary homeowner's grant was, in fact, put forward to be sure to soften the blow on middle-and lower-income people with respect to school taxes. This put the impact right back on those middle-and lower-income people, including seniors.

I'll let you comment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is the second time that we're going over this question with the hon. member. I make no bones about it. Our government makes no bones about it. We had to make some tough decisions. The supplementary homeowner grant was one of the programs -- it had only been in existence for two years -- where we made a judgment call, a decision, that in many ways it was unequal. The member knows that the more your house was worth, the more supplementary homeowner grant you got. It's a $90 million saving for the people of the province. We had to try to eliminate and reduce.

I'll refrain from going over your party's role in what we've inherited. I'll refrain from that, hon. member. That won't serve any of us. But we have an issue before us called a sizeable deficit. We tried to approach it in a reasonable, balanced way. We tried to find the sectors that could most afford to help us deal with the deficit. We make no bones about it; we are sharing the load. Absolutely. If you take a look at some of the numbers....

I see that the Vancouver Sun has been doing some excellent research, basically saying that there's another story behind those that have been screaming about the provincial government, and that the homeowner grant is only part of the problem as certain taxes climb. All levels of government have to be responsible and recognize that the taxpayer has limited resources and abilities. We are trying to share the burdens and deal with them as effectively as we can.

Hon. member, I have to say that you talked about wanting more money for this and more unconditional money here. All of your suggestions really would add to the deficit. This government has determined that you are right; there are those who are feeling it. But I can assure you, hon. member, that if we don't tackle the deficit, get a handle on it, they'll feel it even more. That's the longer-term problem that we face. This government is determined. In fairness, and in trying to stick to and maintain the issues that we believe are important, we're also trying to balance the books of this province over the long term.

It's not easy. There have been some cuts. We think we've done it as fairly as possible. Obviously there are those who would second-guess what we have done.

I'd like to just add that we continue to finance local government substantially. Despite what the member says and the reports that you get from certain selected members of local government, we have increased revenue-sharing for local government. I've said this before, and I don't have to repeat it, but we are putting considerable funds into servicing local government and will continue to do so. Some $335 million this year went to local government -- up 10 percent in expenditures.

Your job is to find what you can, to make suggestions or to take the constructive opposition role. I recognize that. When you look at the shifts, and when you look closely at what's happening, I think you'll find that there are other stories happening at the local level.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Quite frankly, I think local government came to rely very quickly on the supplementary homeowner grant, in terms of the money being delivered at the local level. Yes, it's a hardship to some degree, but all British Columbians are being asked to share in the responsibility as we tackle a very serious problem that we all face.

L. Fox: First of all, let me suggest, for the record, that if this minister can find anywhere in Hansard where I have asked -- in estimates or in any area -- that we increase spending, I would be prepared to eat that page.

The only thing I have ever suggested is that the reserved funds set up by the UBCM and this government or the previous government should be allowed to be tapped. We have stated repeatedly that this government made some choices with this budget, and one was primarily to increase the size of this government. Had they been serious about the deficit and the impact on the municipal taxpayers, they would not have hired the 1,549 extra full-time equivalents. You, Mr. Minister, would not have added the 12 individuals to your ministry, and others would have looked at ways and means to cut the size of this government, rather than increase the size of this government.

The minister is giggling to himself over there, because I mentioned the increase of 12 full-time employees in his ministry. I'm sure he will have a comeback for that.

I am concerned -- and my party is concerned -- about the deficit. We are joined by the official opposition in suggesting that this Legislature should have been called earlier to deal with the deficit that was climbing in last year's budget. This government was in office for five months and chose not to take action to limit that particular deficit, and that is a concern. I don't think it's right, Mr. Minister, for you to put this back on the municipal taxpayers: your government's decision not to take action earlier and more appropriately.

Let me just say -- then I will conclude and let you have your shot at me -- that with respect to housing, there are many issues out there that deserve a whole lot of input from across this province. I would respectfully ask the minister to turn this issue over to the standing

[ Page 1768 ]

committee with respect to that and allow all parties to be involved in dealing with this very severe issue in the province.

When we travel to rural parts of the province, I think we will see that while perhaps it hasn't achieved the kind of attention it has achieved in the major centres of this province, we do indeed have a crisis with respect to the disabled and to those on social assistance.

Prince George, for instance, has identified 40 individuals who are in need of housing, which they cannot find at this time. So I ask the minister once again to refer this issue -- I know he's working on some aspects of it -- and some recommendations from his ministry to the select standing committee. Let them go out there and gain public input throughout the province and come back with a consensus as to how we might involve the private sector, how we can lobby the federal government, perhaps from a new perspective rather than screaming that we want our fair share, and how we may address the quality and type of housing that we should be helping these individuals to acquire.

[4:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think I need to spend much longer. We've got a difference of opinion. The member is saying what he believes in, and we're saying what we believe in. The bottom line is that a deficit is a deficit is a deficit. You can call it what you want. If we do what you had wanted us to do in terms of the stabilization account, we would have added to the deficit of the province. If you want us to continue to add to the deficit of the province -- and you are on record as saying that -- we have decided we cannot. We have to deal with the deficit in a real way. A deficit is a deficit, and we must tackle it.

As a matter of fact, I have to say that in a public discussion I had with the mayor of Vancouver, this issue came up. "How would you have tackled this very difficult financial situation? What options would you have looked at?" He said he thinks we should take a look at income tax, and doing things with income tax. Canadians, and British Columbians, are tired of people talking about their income and income tax. They want us to look at other ways to deal with the problems of finance; so we are doing that. We are trying to do that as best we can.

I'm not sure there's much more I can add to your discussions.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The select standing committee, thank you.

I have been considering this and have made some suggestions to what the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, Municipal Affairs and Housing could look at. However, I should say -- as I was saying to your hon. colleague and mine, the opposition critic for the Liberal Party -- that we will be embarking on a very extensive consultation process on the issue of housing. We're all stakeholders. We'll all be involved and be asked to participate: UBCM, everybody, homebuilders, private and public sector. There will be announcements on that.

It could very well be, after consultation is concluded and recommendations are made to government, that government may wish to use the standing committee to consider this consultation report that will come. One of the things that we haven't done in this province for a long time is to develop a housing policy so British Columbians know where we're going. I think it might very well be useful for the standing committee to take those recommendations in a bipartisan or all-party committee, and make recommendations to government as to where we should be going. That certainly will be open, as far as I'm concerned.

J. Tyabji: I would assume that the minister is familiar with the walled communities that we have growing up around the province. We have quite a proliferation of them in Kelowna. It's my understanding that you must have some familiarity with them. First of all, I'd like to find out what the minister's opinion is of the walled communities and whether or not he thinks they're a functional part of the community.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I must admit I have sympathy if the member is suggesting that she has concerns. I certainly do too, as an individual, when I see them. There are a number on the Island that I've looked at. They leave a lot to be desired in terms of aesthetics and appearance. All that's missing are the guard dogs and the towers. I'm going to get myself in trouble, I suspect, from some of those communities. However, municipal councils have land use and zoning regulations. They can set them up. I presume they are responding to requests for this kind of walled community.

I think it's very sad, quite frankly, that people feel they have to live inside a walled community. The council decides the degree of social and economic integration. What my views are, as a provincial politician or the minister, has little bearing, although I would like to ask local government to consider and reflect on what they're doing in terms of that approach to land use and zoning.

J. Tyabji: With regard to one specific walled community in Kelowna, I'm sure the minister has received correspondence from Sandstone strata committee. What they're writing about is with regard to the level of services that are provided internally, and the fact that they are being subjected to duplicate taxation, wherein they are their own strata committee within the structures of Sandstone. They are taking care of the costs of the infrastructure; yet they are also paying taxes to the municipality to pay for services that are provided internally. Basically it's a form of duplicate taxation.

One of the few things they do expect and need from the municipality is fire protection, but they don't need a lot of the things that they are currently paying taxes for.

What I'd like to know from the minister is: has he received the correspondence and has he given consideration to a separate assessment for these kinds of communities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is an issue that comes up all the time, and not just in the area that the member is

[ Page 1769 ]

most familiar with. You get the case for those who say they no longer have children at school, or they don't have a family that has children, or they're at an age where school is no longer important to them or what happens to children. I guess when you start applying or withdrawing taxation based on time of life or position of life, we support basically that we all participate, we all contribute. For instance, schooling is the responsibility of all of us, despite our age. Quite frankly, I think most people are pleased to contribute. They may not like the level sometimes, but they're pleased to contribute to education.

The simple answer is that you really cannot opt out of municipal taxation when you feel like. If you started that procedure and that process, where would you end with it? What would be left? You can't opt out of the tax system even if you don't consume all the services. It could very well be that those of us in this chamber contribute heavily to the tax system, which goes towards health care. We, at this point of our lives, may not be utilizing health care as much as others. Consequently, the point can be made: should we not contribute universally and all be part of the solution?

It's an ongoing debate, and you could do it not just over the issue of the bare land strata case that you're referring to; you could do it all through society.

A good analogy has been provided to me here: even if you never borrow a book, you still pay for the librarian.

J. Tyabji: The question actually is not with regard to opting out. We recognize that we certainly cannot allow people to opt out of taxation. That would result in all kinds of chaos, because there would be a lot of people saying: "I don't need this service, therefore I won't pay for it." The ultimate question is in terms of fairness. We already recognize that there are different levels of taxation depending on your property value. In these instances, a lot of seniors don't have a choice about where they purchase their retirement community.

Retirement communities are often built in the middle of a city or somewhere where the property values are relatively high. What I'm saying is that because we already recognize that property values are based to some extent in terms of fairness....

Let me read something to you. It's a letter from a man named Ross Hamilton. He's with the Sandstone strata committee, the group that I was talking to you about. They have spent quite a bit a time on this, because they do feel it's an issue of fairness. It's one that is quite critical, in their minds, in terms of reassessment of the role of taxation for these small internal communities. He says here:

"The municipal tax people are...not...interested in our cause, inasmuch as they appear to be terrified that we are attempting to avoid paying taxes. This is, of course, total nonsense. Our position is that we...pay for all services under the strata law, even to the water usage throughout, which is fully metered for this purpose within the community, and therefore make no demands upon the city of Kelowna for any service except for fire protection."

It goes on to talk about his work with the B.C. Assessment Authority and how they are advised that there's no process in place for an appeal outside of writing a letter, which they have done repeatedly. They have met with all the local representatives on this issue. He goes on to say:

"Unfortunately, these people have little interest in the human aspect. They are unable to compute the fact that most residents here are retired seniors on fixed incomes, and while the assessed value of the home may reflect market value, none of these people plan to realize that value by selling their homes. At this point in life, just having a home to live out one's days in is about all that matters. Unfortunately, there are some, such as widows on fixed incomes from inadequate and long-ago pensions, who just cannot cope with annual increases in taxation...."

He goes on from there, and he's not particular generous as to the spending of the money.

If there is any way in which the minister can communicate to these people, through this debate, some method with which they can appeal an unfair -- in their minds -- tax assessment, would he please share it with us?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We could spend the next day and a half or two days talking about the implications of and alternatives to property tax and income tax and what would happen if you started shifting around. But I don't think we want to do that.

Any person who owns a home and has an assessment -- the assessment is applied by the B.C. Assessment Authority -- has every right to appeal that assessment. By the way, the Assessment Authority comes under my ministry, so it's a responsibility that I have. In the last few years they have improved their communication and public relations, in terms of actually helping people with what they have to do. It's very complicated, very difficult, very threatening and very scary to many people; they don't understand this stuff. I'm the first to admit that. We will make further improvements in terms of demystifying the process.

The short answer is: you can appeal your assessment, and you may be successful. But the only way you can appeal the taxes you pay is on the third Saturday in November 1993 -- when the next municipal election is due -- and if you feel that the local government has gone a little further than the assessment should be and has put the taxes up, then you can deal with it accordingly.

Hon. T. Perry: Let democracy reign.

Hon. R. Blencoe: "Let democracy reign," says my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education.

There's no easy answer to this question. As I answered earlier, though, in all the studies, reports and analyses that I have looked at over the years in terms of dollars raised for local government, citizens overwhelming report -- and for a number of reasons -- that they get the most value for their municipal taxes. Although no one likes to see an increase in municipal taxes, or any kind of tax, I suspect that when you take a close look at how much people are paying in taxes and at the array of services provided for those taxes, they are good value.

[ Page 1770 ]

People are always surprised, particularly when they get those huge take-offs in assessments. The last one was in '88-89 -- particularly in Vancouver and Victoria; I'm not aware of your community -- where homes in Vancouver went from $150,000 to $400,000 overnight. Their assessments reflected that, and consequently their taxes reflected that. If the member is not aware, I will be bringing in legislation that deals with that issue and gives local councils the ability to deal with those sudden spirals in assessments. Hopefully that will be before this House very soon.

The bottom line, though, is that unless we change the whole system, the appeal mechanism for the taxes you pay at the local level is on the third Saturday in November 1993.

[4:45]

W. Hurd: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister pertaining to an issue that I know we've discussed before: municipal boundaries. Particularly for communities in British Columbia that are essentially single-industry towns or communities, has the minister identified any funds or strategy in his budget to assess the impact of multiple municipal jurisdictions in certain areas of the province and what impact they might have on the industrial competitiveness of the large company?

I'm thinking specifically of the area around Trail, where the Cominco smelter pays something like 62 percent, I believe, of the municipal budget in Trail. In that particular region, I believe that there are something in the vicinity of six municipal governments for about 23,000 people. My understanding is that it's having a negative impact on a particularly large company, which is essentially carrying the costs of some municipalities in this area.

Has the minister identified any funds to work with the Ministry of Economic Development to assess the impact of municipal taxation in these small municipalities and the ability of these companies to compete?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The straightforward and straight answer is that we have restructure money available in my ministry. Obviously we don't walk into an area where there isn't consensus. I can assure you that these restructures, annexations and amalgamations -- whatever you want to call them -- can be very hot issues. My advice to any of you who have not been involved in those is that if you think you can walk in to be the saviour of the day, be careful where you tread, because there's a lot of emotion and feelings. People generally get very concerned that they may be taken over by another community or be added to.

I think the member mentioned the Trail area -- a number of municipalities serving 26,000 people. I think that was the figure, or it was somewhere around there. The member's comments are intelligent and rational, and on the surface it makes sense for that area to achieve consensus. I have said to the area, in correspondence and in discussions with the local active people, that I'm sympathetic: you achieve consensus and come back with a lasting framework or formula that your communities can accept, because if you're looking for me to force it, that's not the answer. Achieve consensus, find what you can do, and we'll be very pleased to sit down and find the funding to move ahead.

I'm sympathetic to areas rationalizing their service areas, to integrating or eliminating duplications. Quite frankly, I think our citizens are calling for it. We cannot afford to duplicate services. Like everything, when you've done something a certain way for a certain period of time, change is not always easy. People don't always understand. So rather than doing it overnight or over two nights, we accept certain building blocks, certain incremental movements, the advice of the local MLAs if that's required -- who have great wisdom in many of these areas -- and we move as quickly as we can. This ministry has money available, and we're there to help when consensus is achieved.

[ Page 1771 ]

W. Hurd: Again on this subject of municipal governments and single-industry towns, my question relates to the possible strategy of the companies involved that feel their competitive position is being affected by the amount of municipal taxation they pay. It's quite understandable, because they occupy such a prominent role in the community, that they feel it somewhat difficult to be seen recommending the rationalization of municipal services in their communities.

As I can assure the minister, it's already dangerous enough to be a company representative in some town in the province without, from a position of high-handedness, suggesting to the local residents that they're overgoverned and that their municipal structure is not altogether efficient.

My question to the minister is: what advice would he give companies which feel that there are opportunities to rationalize municipal services but are somewhat reluctant to tackle the hornet's nest that he's identified in his previous remarks?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Often what happens in these kinds of disputes is that in the end the local people are looking, out of frustration, for someone to resolve it for them. Invariably I hear suggestions from some of those disputed areas, such as: "Why doesn't the provincial government just come in and order certain things, make certain things happen or force amalgamation, and do what in some circumstances is probably the correct thing, in terms of rationalizing some of these areas?"

Certainly, in my role, I don't see this as being the level of government that uses the hammer or uses threats to make communities do things that they, quite frankly, sometimes aren't ready to do. If they haven't got their acts together and haven't achieved some consensus on the issues confronting them.... I have said many a time that if it comes to the point that communities are at war with each other in some of these contentious areas -- and that sometimes happens; citizens really get quite agitated and things come to a grinding halt -- then I think there may very well be room for the provincial government, in the role of trying to end gridlock, to help find the consensus that's required.

W. Hurd: Again on this matter of municipal boundaries, would the minister consider it to be of value if the funds available for looking at municipal efficiencies were available to fund studies on efficiencies rather than rationalizing municipal boundaries or taking that type of unilateral action?

The concern I have, not just in Trail but in other areas of the province, is that there could be a lot of light shed on this particular problem if there was an opportunity for municipal governments -- or companies, for that matter -- to make direct representation to the minister, asking him to at least provide funds for a study to identify that there would be some major cost savings in municipal taxes to the large corporations or businesses operating in the communities.

Would he agree that that type of action by the minister, to at least provide funds for studies on efficiencies, wouldn't necessarily be seen as trampling on the toes of the municipalities, yet might speed up the process of encouraging municipal governments to identify that there could be a substantial amount of money saved -- they hadn't identified that opportunity before and might, therefore, consider approaching the ministry to undertake a referendum or some other means of achieving that objective?

I'm concerned. We have a problem here whereby if it has to be driven by these small communities, they can make very compelling arguments about the efficiencies they're achieving, forgetting the broader picture, when it involves corporate taxation and municipal taxation. They're not really concerned about the competitive efficiencies of the company that might be servicing a large percentage of their tax base. Therefore, they would not really want to come to the ministry and upset the applecart, because they do such a great job of selling their citizens on how efficient they are. That's a natural predilection of most governments.

Has there been any tho