1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7907 ]

CONTENTS

Letter of resignation. Auditor-General –– 7907

Oral Questions

Courtenay bypass. Ms. Sanford –– 7907

Mr. Gabelmann

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 7908

Granting of liquor licence. Mr. Macdonald –– 7908

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. MacWilliam

Quality of Reswest accommodation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7908

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 7909

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Williams Mr. Davis Mr. Howard Mr. Mitchell Mr. Barnes Mr. Rose Mr. Cocke Mr. Michael Ms. Sanford Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are three

people from the University of British Columbia, Margaret Nevin, Jim

Murray and Peter Larkin, all here telling us all the great things

coming out of research at UBC and post-secondary education in general.

Would you please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: In spite of what it cost me for lunch, I'd like the

House — you're not supposed to laugh yet — to welcome my daughter

Carmen and her friend, Doug Leaney, to the gallery today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: May I, on behalf of the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), welcome to the House and ask the

members to join me in welcoming Clifford and Connie Tearoe, who are

from near Sorrento on Shuswap Lake.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this morning I received a letter

which I have been asked to communicate to members of the assembly. It's

addressed to me.

"Sir:

"May I request that you present the enclosed letter

to the members of the Legislative Assembly on my behalf.

Respectfully yours,

Erma Morrison,

FCA,

Auditor-General"

To: The Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province

of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have today tendered to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

my resignation from the position of auditor-general, to be effective October

31, 1986. I deeply value the honour conferred upon me in my original appointment

in 1977, and the confidence implied in my reappointment to office in 1983. Most

of all, I appreciate the privilege I have been given of serving this House and

the public of this province.

Respectfully submitted,

Erma Morrison,

FCA,

Auditor-General

I table the above.

Oral Questions

COURTENAY BYPASS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Bud Smith, the former $77,000-a-year

secretary in the Premier's office, recently spoke to a Social Credit

Party meeting in the constituency of Comox. He said that the people in

Comox constituency had better elect a Social Credit member in the next

election if they wanted an inland bypass route. A few years ago the

Minister of Highways was responsible for the construction of the 17th

Street crossing in Courtenay, which was a much-needed facility at the

time. He did not play by the rules of Bud Smith, and I wonder, with

respect to the inland bypass route, whether the minister is going to

play by the rules he has used in the past or adopt the rules of Bud

Smith.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Comox, I am

not aware what Bud Smith said. But I am getting pros and cons about

building highways on Vancouver Island, I can assure you.

MS. SANFORD: I believe the minister is referring to a comment

made by Courtenay council, which I can inform the minister has since

been reversed. The Courtenay council in fact supports that corridor

route.

I would still like to know from the minister whether the statement

made by Bud Smith — elect a Social Credit member or you don't get a

bypass route — is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly the

statement of another person cannot be attributed to the minister whose

responsibilities are his own portfolio. The member continues.

MS. SANFORD: The statement made by the Social Credit

candidate for the constituency of Kamloops seems to be outlining

government policy. Is that government policy? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the question is out

of order on two points now. Government policy is not a matter for

question period, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not

responded with respect to the intentions of this government. Is the

government going to build the inland bypass route depending on who is

elected in the constituency of Comox?

MR. SPEAKER: Future policy, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister

of Transportation and Highways. Having managed last weekend to survive

once again having to drive up and down that road, I say seriously that

one's chances of surviving that drive weekend after weekend are quite

limited. Inasmuch as the ministry conducts traffic surveys during the

summer months.… Because of the overcrowded nature of that road at the

present time, will the minister agree to put traffic counts on that

road immediately so he, too, can determine the essential need to

construct that road right now?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for North Island,

we have traffic counts daily, yearly and by the century in our records

in the head office, and we have them right up to date for every road in

British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Then why haven't you started construction on the road?

[ Page 7908 ]

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Forests. Yesterday he indicated that the Hopwood report indicated

significant discrepancies between estimates that were allowed logging

companies and the amount that construction actually cost. We have a

system of stumpage credits in this province in terms of future credits

that many of these operators would have against future stumpage. Can

the minister advise whether he's reviewing those credits relative to

the study he's received, which indicates that the Crown has been

cheated by millions and millions of dollars?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday when the question was asked I

made it abundantly clear that I would not betray the confidence in

which that particular report was given to me. Whatever information is

within it, I have absorbed to some degree and I have no intention of

making any public comment on that. I raised with the member yesterday

that it is not up to the author of that report, but up to the group

that had the report commissioned. If they wish to make that document

public, it is entirely up to them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question is the data itself.

Much of the data is in the files of the ministry. This is public money

lost, public money that could be used for good purpose now, which we

should have gotten for our timber but did not. The question is, will

the minister make the basic data available to the Public Accounts

Committee and/or the auditor-general so that a proper accounting can be

done of these huge numbers of moneys?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the credits to which the

member may be referring, I'm not sure if he's talking about

section 88

credits, but I have reviewed those for both the coast and the southern

and northern interior. As far as the information available in the

ministry, to my knowledge the auditor-general has access to that

information at any time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that so?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The information, if I understand the

function of the auditor-general's office, is available to the

auditor-general. I thought the member asked whether or not it would be

made available to that office and I understand that it is, as a matter

of law.

With respect to the report itself, I will take some time reviewing

the contents of it. I can also advise the member and the House that I

have met with the Truck Loggers' executive, both on the coast and in

the interior. They have some concerns which have been with us for many,

many years, going back to the time when the member asking the question

held the portfolio.

GRANTING OF LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, who granted a liquor licence to H.S. Recreations Ltd. on a

Friday afternoon against the objections of his officials,

notwithstanding that the Whistler council was against it and the

organization that runs a waterslide had promised, to get their

development permit, that there would be absolutely no liquor. Why did

the minister do it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe the hon. member is referring to

the restaurant at the waterslides at Whistler that would serve beer and

wine along with food. What could you possibly find wrong with people

going out on a Friday or a Saturday or a Monday afternoon to sit there

watching people slide down the waterslide and having a drink of beer

along with a sandwich? I couldn't possibly understand what you could

find incorrect with that.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is attacking the Whistler

council. This waterslide is a children's play area, basically, and the

dining room is part of the same building. Are you going to allow liquor

where all of these waterslides happen to be throughout the province of

B.C.?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, as far as I know, they're not

splashing down into a tub of beer. That's the first thing that isn't

happening. Secondly, you can go into almost any restaurant in this

province where they have a licence, with your family, and have a glass

of wine or a bottle of beer. I find nothing offensive in that. Maybe

the prudent hon. member opposite does. I don't.

MR. REYNOLDS: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Would he

make available a pass for the second member for Vancouver East to visit

the Whistler area and find out what a great resort it is and also find

out that all the facts that he's had in his two previous questions are

not accurate?

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have another question for the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs in light of his answer to the previous

question. Would he explain why, then, the ministry refused to grant the

exact same licence, a class B licence, to a waterslide up in the

Okanagan area, which is essentially the same situation?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Hon. member, I have no application from a

waterslide or any other kind of slide in the Okanagan area that I am

aware of — not even a snowslide, nothing at all.

QUALITY OF RESWEST ACCOMMODATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question now to the Minister of Tourism. There have

been recent reports of travel agents inspecting the quality of accommodation

booked through the provincial government's ResWest booking service. What steps

has the minister taken to monitor the public claims being made by hotel owners

through the ResWest service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we have made it quite clear

to the operators of the ResWest system that any accommodation that they

book through that system must measure up to certain standards.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister. A travel

agent from Burbank, California, was quite shocked to learn that

so-called four-star accommodation offered through the ResWest system

actually turned out to be in, in her own words, a raunchy hotel on

Granville Street, renting for $95 a night. My question is: does the

minister consider that this incident reflects an acceptable standard of

performance regarding the long-term future of the travel industry in

our province? Because if the people come up here, and they get

[ Page 7909 ]

burned in the short run, l don't think they're going to come back. I'd like the minister's response to that question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't really know if there was a

question there, Mr. Speaker. The travel agent mentioned has not been in

touch with my office. Perhaps if the member would care to give me some

names, maybe I would look into it and get an answer to those people.

In answer to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), the answer to the question is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is now

attempting to answer a question which he didn't rise to answer at the

time the question was asked — not quickly enough he didn't. An

intervening member was recognized. I would submit that the minister can

either file a return or answer outside the question period.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I take the answer back, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question to the same minister: the

possibility exists that a few unscrupulous operators, who have evicted

long-term tenants for Expo, will in fact damage the reputation of this

province by overcharging for unacceptable accommodation, as has been

cited in the previous question. What is the minister going to do about

it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention,

upon examination, that most of the accommodation the member refers to

is being upgraded for the opening of Expo. To my knowledge, we have no

evidence of hotel operators overcharging.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, following discussion with the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and also the

member for Skeena, I would ask leave to move the following motion: "Be

it resolved that, pursuant to standing order 69(2), Mr. Graham R. Lea,

MLA, be added to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and

Economic Affairs." His name was inadvertently deleted.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out that here is another

example of whoever it was who was responsible for this oversight

indicating that he hasn't got the competence to run things properly. In

the selection committee itself the decision was made to have the member

for Prince Rupert as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The

government insisted that certain people be officers of that committee

and insisted on certain structures, obviously showing its incompetence

and that of the chairman of the committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was at the request of the hon. member, of

course, that he be appointed to that committee, and in view of what

happened in Prince Edward Island today, we think it a most appropriate

time to move that motion. Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 59: minister's office, $189,745.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before we broke for lunch I was

asking the minister about his reaction to the insurance problem that

municipalities face. I asked whether he would indeed be considering

some action on behalf of the government. It is the opinion of

municipalities that action is still required by the government in terms

of liability problems, and I'm wondering if the minister, before we

move on to another topic, has anything to tell us this afternoon. Very

soon he will be dealing with this issue on behalf of the

municipalities. I took the liberty of discussing this during the lunch

break, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. Members of the

committee, there is an awful lot of noise here. The second member for

Victoria has been recognized, and perhaps we could maintain some peace

and quiet and decorum so the committee could operate and the member can

speak without being interrupted.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister wants to respond.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member continues to be

tedious and repetitious. He has already had the answer to that on a

number of occasions. I cannot elaborate any further.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, we will leave that

topic unresolved. The municipalities continue to wait for this minister

to take some action on something in municipal affairs.

I'll move on, Mr. Chairman, to talk a little bit about the costs of

policing for municipalities. It's an issue that continues to be raised

by local government. I'm sure the minister is aware of a report that

was done by the UBCM in 1984 on the role of local government in

economic development. They went through the financing problems that

local government is having, particularly in meeting the ongoing rising

police costs in municipalities.

Police services obviously cannot be cut back, so consequently it's

an inflexible cost. Many municipalities are indeed requesting and

suggesting that that has to be addressed. There have been a number of

task force reports advocating that there be a greater sharing by the

provincial government on police costs. I know the minister is going to

respond with: "Well, they get revenue-sharing grants; that's the way

they do it." Unfortunately that is not dealing with the rising police

costs in the province. A number of municipalities I've heard from have

requested that there be some discussion of this issue by the minister

and by this government.

It has come up in Williams Lake, in my understanding — the rising

costs of police in that area. I think municipalities are asking for

some cost-sharing on policing in British Columbia. I wonder if the

minister wants to initially respond to that.

[ Page 7910 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do share in the cost

of policing directly in the cases of those municipalities with a

population below 5,000 and indirectly with all others through our

revenue-sharing program.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there are always ongoing discussions

with UBCM, municipalities and regional districts in respect to the cost

of all of their services, including policing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go through this a

little bit, because I think it's in the interest of all members in this

House, whatever political party they support or represent, because

municipal issues go across all political boundaries. Police costs, as

I've already indicated, have been a long-standing concern of some

municipalities and the UBCM, and there have been two reports that I'm

aware of on the subject by the UBCM. Unfortunately there has been

little action or response by the provincial government.

Under the Police Act, municipalities with 5,000 population must

provide or contract for police services; 12 municipalities in the

province of British Columbia provide their own service and pay all

costs; 43 municipalities contract with the RCMP and share the costs

with the federal government; and the remainder of municipalities in

British Columbia — about 80 municipalities — are policed by the RCMP

and are paid for by the province on the basis of property taxes.

The basic concerns, Mr. Chairman, are the following. Firstly,

inequities in the system. Small municipalities pay large per capita

costs for a service provided under provincial agreement by the RCMP.

It's particularly onerous on small municipalities. There is no control

over standards and concentration of the service. We need some general

standards laid out.

In some instances — and I've already mentioned Williams Lake — there

is a resentment that the town population is paying for police costs in

the rural areas, thereby creating an element of public perception that

the crime rate may be interfering with an accurate assessment of

relative equity and the need for increased police service. Again, a

look needs to be taken at these particular kinds of concerns.

There is also a general municipal concern about shifting the burden

of costs for enforcing federal and provincial legislation to the

municipality. This is the main thrust of a 1985 UBCM resolution,

particularly in the area — which we've brought before this House before

— of costs of sheriff services. According to the UBCM, the RCMP does

not want to expand the number of individual contracts to smaller

municipalities; it wants to get out of this kind of service when the

current agreement expires in 1991. There have been some ways suggested

for dealing with this, and I think the minister is obliged to discuss

this in this chamber. A suggested response is that the allocation of

police costs can be related to the general effects of cutbacks

resulting from the restraint program of the Bennett government.

I think there's no question that there's some correlation there in

terms of what has happened over the last few years; also the

recommendation of the B.C. Police Commission that municipalities could

be better allocated funds, or compensated for their ongoing police

costs. If the minister has not heeded the advice of the UBCM or the

reports that have been done on policing, I certainly would like to see

a thorough analysis of this particular issue. I think there is room for

the Committee on Municipal Affairs, for instance, which never does any

work because the minister clearly doesn't want it to do any work....

Here is an example of where a committee of this House could provide a

useful mechanism whereby we could come to terms with the ongoing police

costs faced by our municipalities. I hope the minister will pay

attention to ongoing police costs. It comes up over and over again in

resolutions and reports from the UBCM and in inquiries into our offices

here in the Legislature.

Perhaps the minister could indicate to us that he's going to take

this issue most seriously in the next six to nine months and maybe

we'll find some satisfactory resolutions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the member that

I will continue to take this item seriously and will deal with it in

the usual manner.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the usual manner, Mr. Chairman, is that

next year we'll be debating it and asking the same questions, because

this minister doesn't take this portfolio very seriously at all. We on

this side take municipal affairs very seriously. We think it is very

important to the province of B.C., and we'll continue to advocate

progressive and satisfactory answers to the problems of municipalities.

Another idea that we have not seen anything from this minister on is

that municipalities have been requesting legislation for the

establishment of area improvement districts within municipalities that

wish to pursue certain courses of action for downtown business

redevelopment or improvement. Many municipalities have asked this

minister to put the legislation together and bring something forward in

terms of business improvement areas. All parties, certainly on our side

of the House, support the concept. It would allow local business people

in a business area or a downtown business area to collectively get

together to look at their problems and find ways to collect resources

and finances, to have a close working relationship with local councils

where the area improvement districts would be established.

We feel that legislation is required in this area. There have been

successful business development areas in the United States and in other

provinces. I ask the minister initially if he is looking at this

concept, and could we be seeing something in the future on this topic.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I thank the member for drawing that to my

attention. It's certainly worthy of consideration. I believe it's

something that could and should — and no doubt would — complement the

downtown revitalization programs. It is on the agenda and again I want

to thank the member for drawing it to my attention here today.

MR. BLENCOE: It's been on the agenda for a number of years. I

have to say that the New Democratic Party would not waste time. We

would introduce it and bring in legislation because we believe the

small business community needs this kind of legislation; it needs

progressive changes. I'll just go through, for the minister's benefit,

what this sort of thing would do. This government is supposed to be the

supporter of business, but we all know that that is not exactly true in

this province today.

This business development area legislation would allow business people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if we're discussing legislation, as the Chair has discussed with the member

[ Page 7911 ]

before, it is not appropriate nor in order during Committee of Supply.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. Let's talk about what the concept might be

able to do, Mr. Chairman, and what has been advocated in reports by the

UBCM — which is obviously policy, not legislation. It's suggestions.

It would promote business in the area improvement district through

research, management, publicity and other means. It would allow those

business people to undertake improvements to private premises with the

consent of the owner. It would improve and beautify streets and

sidewalks and publicly owned lands and buildings within the area

improvement. It would initiate a cooperative and unified scheme for

design for public and private premises within the area improvement

district, and it could borrow money for the acquisition and the

improvement of property.

It's particularly important, Mr. Chairman, in urban areas where the

downtowns have been dramatically affected by suburban redevelopment. I

won't go into the pros and cons of that or what's happened with

shopping malls, etc. Suffice to say that the heart and soul and the

core of many communities are being affected by suburban redevelopment

and shopping centres, and many of those exciting downtown business

sections — and here in Victoria we're part of that — have been

dramatically affected in the last few years.

The business community, which I have met with and talked with about

this idea, and which is in full support of this concept, has advocated

to this government and to Municipal Affairs, with no action as usual,

that this novel and unique — not experiment, because it's been done

elsewhere — way to help downtown businesses thrive and expand, and to

save some of these businesses, could be introduced very quickly.

Mr. Chairman, we support it. We would like to see something done

about it and brought into this Legislature as soon as possible. It has

potential for downtown areas that are going through business slumps and

bankruptcies. And God knows how many bankruptcies there have been under

this government in the last few years. It has the potential to deal

with.... As you know, when downtowns deteriorate and the shops close

down, the crime rate tends to go up and people tend to stay away from

the downtown area. What we want is a dynamic, progressive program for

rebuilding downtown cores in this province. That's the plan.

As a matter of fact, when I was on Victoria city council, this came

up and we asked the government of the time to do something, and we're

still asking. The business community of this province is asking. If the

minister had taken some action, it is conceivable that some businesses

that have gone today could still have been with us. Your abandonment of

the small business sector of this province is noted. It's infamous

through your tax system and your lack of support to these kinds of

business-development areas.

Rather than laugh and giggle over there, let's pay attention to the

small entrepreneur in the province of British Columbia. These small

business people in the downtown areas are asking for this kind of

legislation and this kind of policy. Let's hope we're going to see

something very soon. Maybe the minister wants to respond, and maybe

he'll be a little more positive.

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal

of activity taking place out there over the past year or two in

stimulating the local economy, pulling together councils, chambers of

commerce, business groups and union groups in a number of our areas to

work together to stimulate the economy. That member can rest assured

and feel relaxed that things are happening for the small business man

in this province and will continue to.

MR. WILLIAMS: For those who check the bankruptcy rates, we

can reflect on the comments of the minister. With respect to the

heritage programs and the improvement and upgrading of some of the

small town downtown commercial areas, yes, I agree that some have been

most effective and beneficial. Towns like Nelson clearly are great

assets to the province. But I wonder if the minister has given some

thought to the possibility of extending this heritage idea into other

areas as well.

In the last little while they've suggested in Victoria, for example,

that trolley cars might be established linking the downtown area. I

think that has merit. I think it would benefit the downtown core. It

would allow parking areas out on the edge of the CRD, and then

integrate the downtown. Some additional aid in funding would be

beneficial there. But I suggest that that might be applied in the city

of Victoria, as citizens here have suggested. I think, too, it makes a

great deal of sense in the city of New Westminster. The city of New

Westminster now has the SkyTrain reaching the old core on Columbia

Avenue, but what's really needed is some kind of loop system linking

6th and the 12th Street and the Columbia corridor. You could have a

simple trolley loop serving New Westminster which, in my view, would be

the catalyst that would transform downtown New Westminster and link the

competing shopping centre with the old declining shopping centre of

Columbia Street. All of them would benefit as a result of that simple

looping operation.

I think there are other areas as well. North Vancouver city, for

example, has steep terrain like New Westminster. I think cablecars

could well have a useful role on Lonsdale in the city of North

Vancouver, as they could on 6th in New Westminster. That, in turn,

would reinforce the kind of historical heritage areas of these

communities. Maybe the minister could comment on that useful proposal

which would increase employment and improve the life of the small

business community, which needs a great deal of help in this tenth,

tough year of your administration.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm glad to, Mr. Chairman, but with all due

respect to the member, he is speaking to the wrong minister. This

minister is not responsible for heritage other than to approve the

declaration of a building or whatever through the municipality. That

comes under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), along with

transit. I would suggest that you bring back those excellent ideas

whenever the responsible minister's estimates come up in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I'll be glad to do

that. But I hope that you will reinforce these useful suggestions with

your colleagues, who take their jobs so seriously.

Yesterday and today the member for Victoria has been arguing for

special programs with respect to infrastructure, and increased

expenditures. It's something to do that across the board, but surely

the reasonable thing to do would be to

[ Page 7912 ]

consider special programs in areas of consistently

high unemployment. Right now we have consistently high unemployment in

the Kootenays, Kamloops and Prince George and the areas around them. It

would seem reasonable to accelerate public spending in those areas and

have infrastructure programs related to employment levels so that they

would be works programs that would be triggered so that the communities

could have a whole range of proposals ready to go. In turn, your

administration could work along the lines proposed by the mayor of

Vancouver and the mayors' federation, but more tied to the unemployment

level itself. Has the minister given that some thought?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Always are we giving thought to what could

be done to create more jobs in our province. It's really heartening,

indeed, to hear particularly from that member that he vows supports

infrastructure to create jobs. I would hope that you're not separating

public works infrastructure from infrastructure that is shared by the

private sector, because I can think of and recall in this House where

you and a number of your colleagues were extremely critical of jobs

being created as a result of the installation of infrastructure in the

northern part of our province.

However, I repeat for the benefit of this member that under no

circumstances am I prepared to back away from the excellent program

that we have now for the funding of infrastructure. We will not get

away from revenue-sharing to fund infrastructure. This year alone

somewhere in the neighbourhood of $115 million is going into

infrastructure at the municipal level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't need a speechwriter, because it's all with me; I'm living it all the time.

As I've said already, in the past ten years I believe in excess of a

billion dollars has gone into infrastructure in British Columbia. As

for the proposal that you refer to, I am opposed to the method. I am

not opposed to the need for improved infrastructure in many parts of

our country, because you know there are other provinces where the

infrastructure has deteriorated through age and they are far behind.

They are behind only because of their policy of funding it. British

Columbia is not behind. Our infrastructure, when you speak of sewer and

water in particular, is up to date. We will continue the way we are; we

will not delegate our responsibility to some federal body which has no

feeling for many of the small municipalities in this province, nor will

we support a proposal by the mayor of Vancouver, Mayor Harcourt, who

came along with a proposal that was ignoring small municipalities.

But then the other question arises: should we pressure the federal

government for more funds to go into infrastructure at the expense of

health and education? I say no. The majority of the councils say no.

The UBCM has said yes, we must treat it in a very cautious fashion

because that's not what we want either. The infrastructure of British

Columbia is in much better shape than anywhere else in Canada. We will

not cancel out revenue-sharing to fund infrastructure in favour of what

you're proposing.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can always count on the straw man, you

know. He'll knock it down every time. You can't go into any community

in this province and not see a need. In my own community, in Vancouver,

in my own neighbourhood, I can walk around and see all kinds of

infrastructure improvement needs. There are sidewalks that are in

disrepair or not there. How many municipalities in this province have a

complete sidewalk program? They don't. They simply don't. We get this

traditional Socred answer: "We're the best in the country. We're the

best in the country." It's meaningless when you say that. It's

absolutely meaningless.

MR. REID: Well, when you are, you are.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hah! You can walk in any community in this

province and see the need, in terms of upgrading roads, in terms of

parks and community rec centres and all the rest of it. There is the

need there. It's reasonable to think in these terms. At the same time,

we have some communities that have official levels of over 20 percent

unemployment. At what point do you think that it makes sense to put

those people back to work? Clearly you accept 20 percent. Well, I

don't. Pretty radical — us folks on this side are famous for that. I

suggest that 15 percent, at least, is the point where you should be

triggering public works; probably it should be more like 10 or 11 or

12. In Scandinavia it would happen at 3 or 4, in terms of triggering

public activity.

To suggest that it's always "either-or" is another straw man. I

don't believe for a minute that this nation and this province could not

afford to do all kinds of things. We can have education and social

programs and infrastructure too. We are not part of the Third World. If

we give you guys power for another decade, we may be very close to it.

But at this point in time, we're not part of the Third World. We can do

all of these things.

Just a few minutes ago we were covering tens and tens of millions

that the former Minister of Forests was willing to let slip through his

hands because he wasn't doing his job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: The revenues are there. Clearly the revenues are there. And the job can be done. It doesn't have to be either-or.

The minister says he can happily live with 20 percent unemployment

levels. Is that it? At what point do you think some public works

exercises in these communities should be triggered, since we already

have 20 percent in the Kootenays and in the Prince George and northern

regions right now?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One of the difficulties that you have, Mr. Member, is that you're blinded by the situation in your constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes, you are — no question about it;

absolutely no question about it. You're being guided and steered by

your conditions there, which simply says that we ignore the fact that

the provincial government is providing over $17 million this year in

revenue-sharing, unconditionally, to Vancouver. Over the past ten years

the city of Vancouver has received from the provincial government as

their share of revenue, with no strings attached, unconditionally,

somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million. Now you come here

crying the blues because you don't have

[ Page 7913 ]

some sidewalks in some areas. Well, I would suggest

to you, my friend, that you take a trip throughout this province, and

you'll find out that there are many municipalities out there that are

not as well done for.

In addition to that, the city of Vancouver is also talking about

extracting some money from the land endowment fund. What are they doing

with it? Are they giving it out in salary settlements? What are they

doing?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that indeed

that is what they are doing; they are employing more people, and not

giving more money to those already employed.

I can assure you that my concern in this province is to make sure

that we are fair to all municipalities. I can assure you that the

recommendations.... The idea that your side of the House is

recommending in respect to infrastructure is like handing away the

authority to provide the infrastructure throughout this province to

some federal body, and that's not what we want. We can do it ourselves.

Whenever the federal government is in a financial position to fairly

provide some funds for some additional function like this, then

certainly we'd be interested. But at this moment, the answer is no. We

are doing a fine job in this province. I would suggest that if you are

not prepared to delve into the activities of the city of Vancouver and

how it spends its money.... This year it's receiving about $17 million.

You ask them to put that where they think it's going to create more

jobs, building sidewalks and whatever else you suggest that they need.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the people in the city of Vancouver are

the ones who make those decisions. They elect a council regularly, and

they make.... But you have trouble with the decisions the citizens

make: that's your problem, Mr. Minister. You're unhappy. You don't like

the results. You don't like the idea that Mike Harcourt can get elected

and reelected in Vancouver, and is going to come over here and cause

you problems again and again and again, especially when you're sitting

over here next time.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: There'll be more than one bald fellow on the other side next time around, I'll tell you. That one won't even be around.

There is also an anti kind of thing in terms of federal money. You

don't want federal money inserted into job creation at the municipal

level. There is an inherent bias there, and it is not just you. It's

there in the Ministry of Mines; it's there in the other ministries as

well. You don't want federal money. We now have a forest industry that

is going downhill because we've never accepted federal money. You are

talking the same language as your colleagues over there, saying we

don't want any of that federal money at all.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The property endowment fund in the city of Vancouver seems to bother

you. How do you think they built it up, Mr. Minister? You really don't

know. In my view, they have in the city of Vancouver the most capable

bureaucracy in the province of British Columbia, unfortunately

exceeding our capacity here at the provincial level. It is truly a

tragedy that we have not built up throughout many ministries the

quality of staff that the city of Vancouver has built up. It shows in

the salary levels they're prepared to pay. They get the best talent

available.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I really resent the comparison that this member is making between the administration....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. That does not

appear to be a valid point of order. It seems to be a matter that can

be addressed when the minister has an opportunity to stand in reply.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I sympathize....I've got my staff here. I really don't appreciate that, sir.

MR. WILLIAMS: His staff is a notable exception, without

doubt. They are highly qualified and have served many administrations.

What's sad is that you don't equal the salary levels at the civic

level, as you might have for the quality staff that we do have.

At the same time, the city of Vancouver, with a top-notch staff, has

been able to be a significant player with respect to property that they

own and have subsequently bought and sold and bought again within the

city. What you're really talking about there is a kind of social

democracy, Mr. Minister, where lands increased their value

significantly, where the community improved the infrastructure and then

got the benefit of the value increment with respect to the lands.

That's what the property endowment fund is about in the city of

Vancouver. You talk about it as this kind of very special, sacred area.

That's very interesting. Imagine the guy from Central Fraser Valley

talking in these radical terms. I wonder if he really reflected on what

the property endowment fund represents. It represents public enterprise

by the city of Vancouver, by Mayor Mike Harcourt, by his staff and the

rest. Much of that land is leasehold land that will provide revenue in

perpetuity to the city of Vancouver. That's the property endowment fund.

It makes sense — I mean, it doesn't take a radical.... Lord Maynard

Keynes argued that in bad times one should spend money to lift up

employment. In the city of Vancouver that is precisely what they've

been doing. During the Socred bad times, the city council — which is

not a Socred council — has been carrying out public works and spending

to make sure that there are higher levels of employment in the city of

Vancouver. That's exactly what has happened. They have used that public

enterprise vehicle that they have, limited as it is, to create jobs and

be able to use that pool of capital in times of need. It has been a

very creative instrument.

I am so pleased that I will be able to get on the phone this

afternoon and phone up Mayor Mike and say: "Lord, you've got a convert

over there. The Minister of Municipal Affairs thinks that what you

people in the city of Vancouver have done is something very special

indeed." And it isn't just Mayor Mike. It has been around for a while.

A guy you like to sing the praises of was one of the people who

furthered it as much as anybody. His name is Art Phillips. He was

mayor, and now he's your commissioner of critical industries, doing a

good job there as well. Mayor Phillips, probably more than anybody in

the last decade or two, saw that that fund evolved, was developed in a

more creative way and in fact was a more

[ Page 7914 ]

creative public enterprise. Now swallow that one, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the member are

almost an insult to the property tax payers of Vancouver. Really! You

stand there and you say that the city bought all of this land — kept

banking this land and so forth. Where on earth do you think the city

gets the money from? Out of Mayor Harcourt's pocket or out of Harry

Rankin's pocket, or where? Where do they get it from? They get it from

the taxpayer. Shame on you. I would suggest to this member that he go

back to the city of Vancouver and suggest to them that they start to

return some of these funds to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver,

and remove the hardship that they've been placing on the businesses

there by loading more and more taxes on their backs, while they are

building a land bank. What do you think is going on out there? Where

does the money come from? The taxpayer has to pay the bill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I do know. And I can assure you that any

time governments use money it has to come from the tax.... Governments

don't have any money.

MR. WILLIAMS: When did you leave the Highlands?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Never mind when I left the Highlands. Don't

discriminate against someone from the Highlands. Ask Alex Macdonald; he

knows when I left the Highlands.

But I can tell you this: the message from you should not be to

continue to build a land bank, but rather to ease the pressure on the

working men and women of the city of Vancouver, and on the small

businesses of the city of Vancouver, and come in and state quite

clearly that this year there will be no property tax increases, that

there will be no increases in salaries, that indeed we are going to use

any funds made available to us, including close to $17.5 million from

the provincial government in unconditional grants-no strings attached —

to create new jobs to put people to work, not add more to those already

gainfully employed and not to increase taxes on the average man and

woman or on businesses in the city of Vancouver. So don't give me this

stuff about how great they have been in the city of Vancouver. Anyone

could go ahead and build a great big land bank if all they had to do

was increase taxes to do so. The big challenge here is not to build a

land bank, but rather to hold their taxes. That's what I would suggest

they try doing.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know when you got off the boat, man,

but whenever it was, you don't have much of a reading of the history of

the city where I was born, and I think what you don't realize is that

the origin of this land bank in the city of Vancouver is simply

tax-sale lands from the Great Depression. That's what it is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: What do you mean it doesn't matter? You're

saying that they took it out of the hide of the taxpayer. That's not so

at all. These were simply lands that reverted to the city from the

Great Depression and through the Second World War. That's where the

land bank came from in the city of Vancouver. They've since worked with

it, enhanced it, and rolled it over and continued from that significant

base. But this minister still can't sort things out very well.

He was complaining just a few minutes ago that money was going to be

taken out of this endowment fund, and he was knocking it. Shocking —

imagine, they're going to take money out of the endowment fund! Well,

you can't have it both ways. Now you've given me a few straw men to

kick around. You can't have it both ways, but that's what you're trying

to do. That endowment fund is there. It should be used. Extra funds

should be taken out in bad times. If we keep you guys in office, that

fund won't be there for long. We'll have to empty it in order to deal

with the problems you create for us in terms of your lack of strategies

for employment.

I suggest you go back to the history books, look at the actual

history of the city of Vancouver, and you'll find that the property

endowment fund was lands that simply reverted to the city of Vancouver,

and it wasn't new taxes levied on the citizens at all.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You cannot alter the fact, Mr. Member, that

whether they took it in lieu of taxes or purchased it, they did it at

the expense of the property tax payer. All I'm saying now is that they

should use the $17.4-odd million, plus what's available in the

endowment fund, to keep property taxes down for the hard-working men

and women in the city of Vancouver, and for those businesses that are

really suffering under their heavy taxation.

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

says that the land endowment fund which Vancouver city has really was

acquired by accident. I don't think it should be acquiring lands by

accident; it should be acquiring them by design.

First an item of personal history. My father, when he came to this

country many years ago, bought several lots in the area of Southwest

Marine Drive. Property values were rising in those days — 1910-11 or

thereabouts. He let his lots go in the Dirty Thirties for taxes, and I

assume that those lots on Southwest Marine first became the property of

the city and have subsequently been sold. I think that's the way things

are. Perhaps they needn't be as dramatic in the future.

But I think that each municipality, certainly including the city of

Vancouver, should have a land-bank policy. It should be both acquiring

lands for whatever reason and disposing of them. It has a substantial

advantage in that it knows what its plans are for the longer term, and

it should, because of its excellent staff, be in a position to acquire

lands with a considerable potential. It should hold these lands for a

time and then sell them off on another occasion when it could gain

considerably from a financial point of view. But municipalities should

be turning lands over.

In the four years I was chairman of the rapid transit committee

responsible for planning and construction of the rapid transit line, I

met often with Mike Harcourt and fairly frequently with his council.

There was no interest whatsoever on the part of the city in acquiring

lands along the route, which the city knew certainly in advance of

rapid transit, and more particularly in areas close to the stations.

Again, the location of the stations was known well in advance by the

city. The city had an opportunity to buy lands which have benefited or

certainly will benefit substantially as a result of public moneys being

spent on a system designed to move people rapidly and also pick them up

and deliver them at certain

[ Page 7915 ]

locations, namely the station locations. Experience

in Toronto and in other parts of the world is that within the first

1,000, 1,500 or even 2,000 feet of a station, property values increase

substantially – perhaps not immediately, but in most instances shortly

after the location of the station is known, let alone after it's built

and operating.

The city of Vancouver did not invest in any lands in close proximity

to the stations. Now the province was faced with the possibility, and

on the face of it it seemed attractive, that the province, through B.C.

Transit or otherwise, might buy lands adjacent to the stations, knowing

in advance that these lands would be increased in value as a result of

the construction of the line. Looking carefully at the opportunity, the

province decided not to. But the main reason it decided not to was that

it would have inserted itself into an area which is of substantially

local or municipal jurisdiction. It not only would have bought

properties and created its own land banks in the area, but it would

have had to establish certain rates — let's say property taxation rates

— to recover its investment or pay for its investment in the early

years, which certainly would have conflicted with the assessments and

the municipal rates charged in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster,

potentially Surrey, Coquitlam and so on. So the province backed away,

more for reasons of avoiding conflict with municipal jurisdiction than

from the economics of buying up land which could be sold later and

which could help pay for a system which certainly benefits those areas

and indeed benefits the municipalities through which the line goes.

[3:15]

In other words, I'm really saying that municipalities, and on

occasion other levels of government, should have a land bank policy and

should be able to take advantage of the enhanced value of lands

resulting from the investment of public funds, while I perhaps fault

the city of Vancouver for not grasping an opportunity. The opportunity

was there and I think it should have been grasped. In future when new

stations are located, I hope other municipalities take that approach

and perhaps sell off some lands they have which are marketable now, buy

these strategically located lands and turn a profit, to recapture some

of the value which is created by a substantial public investment like a

rapid transit system or a change in routing of buses or a change in bus

stop locations and so on.

In this respect I must say that we don't seem to have a mechanism at

the provincial level — at least not an obvious one — for coordinating

policy between Municipal Affairs and the minister responsible for

transit, and indeed for transportation. In most other provinces buses

and rapid transit systems come under the Minister of Transport. I think

there is need for a closer coordination in British Columbia of the

several ministries' policies. Transportation, perhaps more than

anything else, helps the development — indeed, shapes the development —

of municipalities, regional districts and so on. I hope that in future

there is a mechanism for coordinating these policy initiatives. But my

basic point was that Vancouver did not take advantage of land value

enhancement close to stations. It should have done so, and I hope other

municipalities do so in the future.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say that once again we've had a

thoughtful presentation from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

It's always a pleasure to hear intellect from the back benches of the

party in power, because it's so rare.

At any rate, I just wonder if the minister might respond to the

member for North Vancouver on that question with respect to, say,

Surrey and Coquitlam, which are the likely extensions of the light

rapid transit system. Clearly there would be great benefits for both

those municipalities if they became significant landowners in the

station areas. That would be beneficial for them in terms of being able

to lower taxes for other citizens and reap the returns from this huge

public investment. I think the member for North Vancouver is right in

criticizing Vancouver city council for not really fully realizing the

opportunity that was before them with respect to the right-of-way for

SkyTrain. But that opportunity is still there for the suburban

municipalities.

At the same time, one might think about the other end of that

project, the downtown peninsula, and what SkyTrain has done to increase

land values in the downtown peninsula — a tremendous impact. Surely it

is a legitimate area in terms of public taxation — not just the

business of acquiring sites but also looking seriously at recouping

some of the cost of SkyTrain from those increased land values in the

central business district. Instead of looking at this business of five

bucks a month on your light bill and increasing the transit fares

themselves, I suggest that we could actually have free transit in

downtown Vancouver, in terms of loop systems and all the rest of it,

paid for simply by the tax because of the increased land values.

It's a double problem for us in this region because we have let

downtown Vancouver, by and large, become owned by absentee landlords.

We have people from abroad and around the world as the main

beneficiaries of these huge expenditures on infrastructure, such as

SkyTrain. The foreign, offshore Pacific owners and others who have

bought up downtown Vancouver are the ones reaping huge profits in terms

of increased land values in the downtown peninsula. It's not sound

management. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that there's a need for some staff

in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to look at this whole business of

increments in land value relative to infrastructure and major public

expenditures, so that the communities can be advised of the potential

that's right there within their grasp — if there were some cooperation

from your department.

I wonder if you might respond to the member for North Vancouver in

terms of his suggestions with respect to SkyTrain and, at least, the

suburban municipalities.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly my colleague makes an excellent

suggestion. Remarks made earlier are not to say that we do not see a

need for the provision of land for various functions. One of the

permanent programs within this ministry has to do with the provision of

land for parks purposes. What I'm talking about is where a city council

is talking about eroding the land endowment fund in order to meet some

wage increases or something along those lines.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not at all. You are mixing apples with oranges.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think you missed the train.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's fine. Then we'll get the next one.

[ Page 7916 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Vancouver has said, when

he so ably handled the initial work with respect to that system, that

they looked carefully and thoughtfully and positively at the idea of

land acquisition around the stations. If you go to Toronto, for

example, and look at that system, you'll see the highrises at the nodes

of the stations along the subway system. You'll find that universally.

I'm advised by experts who have looked at this question of land

values relative to major new transit infrastructures that there are

waves. There are actually three waves of increased values. Because of

the depression you guys have created by your general economic

mismanagement, we haven't even had the first wave — other than in

Metrotown, which Burnaby council has almost generated itself.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, New Westminster is pretty flimsy, and I

think it needs some additional help. That's why I suggested to you that

a cable car loop system in New Westminster is, I think, the catalyst to

make it actually work and to lift that thing up. My personal view is

that New Westminster is a far more significant urban asset than

Metrotown is, can be or ever will be.

The real estate industry hasn't seen that so far. That's a hidden

advantage — not for long; but a significant advantage for the community

itself. The Royal City might well look at these questions with you. If

you had some supplementary staff in this area, you could really lift

these things off the ground. That's not expensive job creation activity

at all; just a couple of individuals with talent as a catalyst to work

with the community. That's in the tradition of the department and it's

worth thinking about extending it.

To get back to the member from North Vancouver, he's really saying

that there are these golden opportunities. You're turning moose pasture

into highrise land; tremendous increases in value once you put in a

facility like light rapid transit. The question is, should those

benefits be generally shared by the community? On this side — and I

think generally in this province — people think yes, it's reasonable

that those huge new benefits should be shared by the community. They're

the most legitimate areas to tax. It's new values, new dollars; not

coming out of anybody's pockets, simply created as a result of the

activity of building this transportation system.

Isn't it reasonable then to pursue this? I don't think you caught

the train last time. Look at staffing and at advising municipalities

like Coquitlam and Surrey — and maybe still New West — on the

opportunities that are there in terms of urban development and

redevelopment as a result of this important infrastructure.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the ministry of course has a

planning department that stands ready and willing at all times to

assist local municipalities with all of their future planning

functions. They work very closely with them. Certainly that is one of

their roles, and they take it seriously. I think it's very important.

MR. WILLIAMS: So you're saying you have no problem in terms

of recommending acquisition of the lands at the station sites, as the

member for North Vancouver is suggesting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I have no problem with a municipality doing

some sound long-term planning. If it means acquiring — or obtaining in

whatever form is permitted — land for park uses, to facilitate transit

or whatever... I do not think municipal government should be

getting into land that is going to be banked simply for some future

use, possibly to generate income for uses such as we heard just

recently in the city of Vancouver. When it comes to providing land for

parks or any other public function, yes, to meet the shortfall in their

operating budget.

MR. WILLIAMS: I need help in terms of that convolution. I need a road map to follow that one.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you just check with the city and

find out how they plan to meet the shortfall in our operating budget? I

believe $13 million was the figure mentioned. I would suggest to you,

Mr. Member, that you inquire as to why a shortfall, where it's going to

be, and how they intend to take care of it.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they have an endowment fund, just like the

member for North Vancouver was saying, and as I've been saying this

afternoon. Its value in the city of Vancouver has increased hundreds of

millions of dollars because of these various infrastructure

improvements. For example, the new Cambie bridge is a pleasure to see.

It's a great change. But they owned land at the bridgehead, so they're

going to end up with tremendous increases in value in terms of new

revenues from those lands.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, that's revenue right into their pocket, because they're the landowner at the bridgehead. Not the poor taxpayer at all.

If you're going to turn moose pasture into land that's worth — what?

Some of these prime sites — commercial space — are rented out right now

for 75 bucks a square foot. From moose pasture to $75 a square foot.

That's a tremendous increase in value. That could fund the municipal

engine to a very great extent. It would not harm anybody. The member

for North Vancouver is talking about that sort of thing. He's not

talking about — and Art Phillips wasn't talking about that sort of

thing either.... He really made that fund work, more than any mayor

in modern history, in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. He was a fine administrator and a

creative person in politics. But you're talking about parks. I'm not

talking about parks. The member for North Vancouver isn't talking about

parks. If you build a new station in Surrey, you don't want it to land

in Stanley Park; you want it to land in a commercial centre. That's

what you want it to do, because that's what it will be in the future

anyway. So the question is: isn't that a legitimate area in terms of

funding municipal government in the future? I say it

[ Page 7917 ]

is. The member for North Van says it is. Come on, move over, catch the train.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you'll get the next train. You just don't

want to face up to it. You've got an ideological problem. Isn't it an

ideological problem?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. This would decrease taxes. You are a

traditional Socred. It's "a ¢ b z." Come on. This is the way to lower

taxes. Can't we get it through? It is a way to lower taxes in a most

painless way. Where these huge increases in land values occur, the

community could reap those differences and fund its programs without

touching the average taxpayer at all. I'm suggesting it. The member for

North Van is suggesting it. The present mayor does it. The former

mayor, Mr. Phillips, did it. Don't you think you're in a bit of an old

ideological ultra-conservative corner that's helping to sink the ship

of state right now in this province?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I think that the ship that's about to sink

is on the other side. You sunk it in 1975 with that same theme, that

same philosophy, that same belief. The way to fund the operations of

this province is to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you sit down for a second? I've hit a little nerve here, have I?

Mr. Chairman, it's that the same political theory that sunk your

ship in 1975. You went out into this province to take control over the

forest industry. Your party went out into the province to take control

over the food industry through Panco Poultry and everything else. That

is a theory of your government, not of this government at all. No, I

don't contribute to what you're saying, that you should use taxpayers'

money to buy more control and generate more income and run the ship.

Don't be silly. That's why you're in opposition and we're in government.

MR. HOWARD: I think, listening to this debate, that we truly

have the measure of this minister in trying to have it both ways all

the time, especially when it comes to economic matters and economic

philosophies. The minister here talks, you know, that government has no

money; it's all the taxpayers' money. They should receive the credit,

and that's properly so. But when he came to Terrace a couple of years

ago to participate in the commemoration of a project funded by the

downtown revitalization fund, what we call the 4600 Block in Terrace,

he saw all this taxpayers' money being used to upgrade the environment

outside the store-fronts on that 4600 Block, and what was his phrase

then? His phrase was praising the free enterprise system that made this

possible. He was praising all the people on that 4600 Block for putting

in their money. But it was taxpayers' money.

Again, he tries to have it both ways, depending on who the audience

is. In that case it was some of the downtown merchants who were the

audience, so he catered to them and said: "Yes, you're the ones." He

went around the block, out of sight of them and then said, "Oh, I think

it's the taxpayers who put up the money."

So, Mr. Minister, when you get on to that kind of tacky operation of

being inconsistent in your declarations, in your phraseology and

rhetoric about what the valuable economic forces in the nation are, you

lose all the time, because you're caught out. The minister is caught

out in trying to play two different games and tell two different

stories. Be consistent and stick to a story and you'll get along a lot

better.

Well, we've built a location for ambulances right on one of the main

corners in Terrace a while ago. One of the signs up there that the

provincial government provided was "We're providing jobs." Balance that

against the rhetoric that just says the government can't provide jobs,

and you see what's happening. It's that kind of doubletalk, Mr.

Chairman, that makes people wonder whether they can believe you or not,

that makes people react in disbelief when they say: "Well, he says this

today and something different tomorrow." A lot of the general public

listens to both messages, and they say: "We can't believe these guys."

So stick to one line and you'll be a lot better off.

I want to ask the minister what steps he is taking or what approach

is being made to municipalities from the government to find the $5

million that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) referred to in

his budget speech — $5 million from municipalities that would go into a

forest stand management fund. What's taking place with respect to

mechanisms of acquiring that money from municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to

the Minister of Finance when his estimates arise. That announcement

didn't come out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of

Finance, I'm sure, will be adequately equipped to answer your question.

MR. HOWARD: We heard that same argument from the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) the other day. He said: "Nothing to do with

me about job creation. See somebody else." Shift the responsibility

off. But this is the minister, Mr. Chairman, in charge of the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs. This is the minister who by law is required to be

the conduit pipe of communication between municipalities and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's not the Minister of Finance; it's

this minister who is that communicating channel between municipalities

and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If he's saying he doesn't know,

that he's not doing anything about it, that he doesn't care whether or

not the $5 million is acquired for municipalities, fine. I'll accept

that as an answer. But he can't shunt it off to some other minister.

We ask the Minister of Finance questions during question period. He

says: "Well, it's nothing to do with me. It's got to do with money, but

it's nothing to do with me. Ask somebody else." It's the musical chairs

game here, that whatever the question it's not the particular

minister's responsibility; it's always off on somebody else's

shoulders. But I submit that the minister has a responsibility under

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, a specific responsibility,

inasmuch as he is the communicator between municipalities and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So is he saying he's not going to do

anything about trying to communicate between the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and municipalities as to how that $5

million is going to be raised from municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring first

of all to a proposal by the Vancouver Island municipalities in respect

to this program of reforestation. I

[ Page 7918 ]

think the suggestion was that it be done on a partnership basis, and

they also suggested that the municipalities come up with a given amount

of money for that program which they are advocating. It's not my

ministry, as far as the program is concerned, but I do think it's a

good initiative, and it's certainly one that they should be encouraged

in. However, to date there has not been any municipality that has

participated in that program, or contacted our ministry in respect to

how they wish to do that. We have, however, through you, Mr. Chairman,

to the member, allocated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million

to Vancouver Island municipalities this year without any strings

attached, so there is a good possibility that those municipalities that

are advocating this program are going to consider using a portion of

that for that very high-priority project, in their estimation, and I

think it is a very high priority project.

So the best answer I can give you at the moment is that there have

been no formal discussions with this ministry and municipalities in

respect to that program, as it relates to the funding of that forestry

project. But I would suggest to the member that having already

allocated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million that they may

spend as they see fit, they may wish to use some of that there.

MR. HOWARD: What the minister is saying is that out of his

ministry, as I gather it, an amount of $10 million has been allocated

and will go as an unconditional grant to municipalities on Vancouver

Island on what — a per capita basis, or part of the revenue-sharing

formula and so on?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Okay. So it will be spread out to all municipalities.

The minister then says that inasmuch as one pocket of government has

taken $10 million and is going to put it over here to a number of

municipalities on Vancouver Island, they will then have money that they

can turn around and give back to the Minister of Forests to put into a

forest stand management fund. What's the purpose of that? It's just

recirculating the money through different hands. Where do the

municipalities come into this? If it's just provincial government money

that's involved — if that's what's anticipated — then why not do it

directly? Why not put the money into the fund directly, instead of this

hoax of municipalities participating? If it's money from the Ministry

of Municipal Affairs that is a direct grant to municipalities for the

purposes of their activity in forest management, that's one thing. But

if it's simply to be channelled to them and come back into a fund

administered under the Ministry of Forests, why not do it directly? Why

not be out in the open about what you're doing? This is just confusing

the whole question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I believe the

member fully understands the revenue-sharing program and how the money

is arrived at. It's fairly straightforward. They share in the various

areas of revenue of the province. We don't determine how that portion

of the fund is spent by them. Where we do make that determination is

when it applies to sewer, water, roads, planning, etc. But the

unconditional portion is allocated to them on the basis that they use

it as they think it can be best used in their community.

In the case of the city of Vancouver, I would suggest that the best

use there is to apply it to their operating, so that they don't have to

increase taxes to the property owners or the small business people.

In the case of the Vancouver Island municipalities that are

promoting this program, it would appear that their best use would be to

put it, or part of it, to that program. We believe that these

municipalities have the ability to make their own decisions in that

regard, and I believe very strongly in them having that freedom.

Unconditional grants are there for them to spend as they see the funds

can be best spent in the community. If the municipalities of Vancouver

Island believe that that is one area that requires first attention,

then they have that choice.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: The question that was asked related to forest

management. It's just one of the ordinary amounts of money that come

out of the ministry under the Revenue Sharing Act on some prescribed

formula. I have no idea what it is. How much money, if any, has been

allocated, say, to the district municipality of Terrace for its desired

involvement in forest management? Anything? Or is it just for Vancouver

Island? Is Vancouver Island a special treatment area, or what?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. Obviously there are no areas receiving

special treatment, as can be indicated by the allocation of funds. All

municipalities in the province share in the revenue-sharing program,

including the unconditional portion.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned as I'm sure we're all

concerned about cooperation between different levels of government when

it comes to longer-term planning for big projects which have

longer-term effects.

The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) mentioned the new

Cambie Street bridge. I made inquiries at the time and endeavoured to

influence the design. My understanding is that the new Cambie Street

bridge cannot carry rapid transit, that there is no provision in its

design and construction to carry the light rail rapid transit system

that we have. I also understand that in the view of Vancouver city hall

the preferred southern route for rapid transit to Richmond is down

Cambie Street. Because the tie-in with the present system will be much

less expensive at the stadium station than at downtown Granville and

Burrard, it would be much less expensive for all concerned — the

province, the city of Vancouver, the neighbouring municipalities — if a

line to Richmond ran directly south down Cambie and, incidentally, ran

across the new Cambie Street bridge.

But it seems that with the priorities that Expo had, with the

relatively short view that the city planners took in Vancouver, the

need to get something built, they proceeded to build a magnificent

structure which with a little foresight could also have carried rapid

transit. That alternative, again as I understand it, is precluded

because this brand-new structure isn't strong enough or isn't designed,

doesn't have enough space, to carry light rapid transit.

I merely point to this case as one that really begs for the

existence of some institution, some organization, even a committee to

help to coordinate the longer-term planning of municipalities and the

province. The province has a stake in this matter. It puts substantial

sums of money into public transportation, buses, SeaBus, light rapid

transit. The municipalities certainly have a stake in better planning.

[ Page 7919 ]

We did have, fortunately — and this wasn't my doing — a joint

committee with the municipalities and the GVRD for the ultimate

selection of route and stations of SkyTrain. But we should have some

such setup available for longer-term planning. I am not talking so much

about planning as excessive planning or directed planning. I am talking

about getting together, talking out the alternatives, arriving at some

consensus with all levels of government participating as to what is the

best, most desirable system, not only of transportation but in respect

to land use generally.

So I hope that the minister, if he has an opportunity to plan or be

involved in another project that involves transportation, land use and

so on, would draw on the municipalities for input but ensure that in

the longer pull we do the best thing for all concerned and certainly

the best thing for several levels of government. In the end the

consumer means you and me, the population.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister's

comments earlier about forest management that no money is being

provided to municipalities through his ministry under the Revenue

Sharing Act or in any other way for the purposes of forest management.

Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the

member, we do not have within our ministry the authority to provide

money for forestry specifically. We have the authority to provide money

out of revenue-sharing that is unconditional. They may spend it as they

see fit.

I'll run down what moneys are provided for in revenue sharing. There

is a basic grant that goes to all municipalities, and that is

$6,100,000 this year. Sewer and water — this is paying off the old

debts — has come up from $98 million last year to $101 million this

year. Highways has risen from last year's $5,200,000 to $10 million

this year. Planning, $2 million again this year. Funds to regional

districts, $1.1 million. Undergrounding, a $300,000 allocation there.

Restructure grants have come from $2,600,000 to $4 million.

Unconditional grants, the portion that they may spend as they see fit,

have risen from $90 million last year to $95 million this year, and new

sewer and water programs have risen from $4.2 million last year to $6.5

million this year.

We have come from a total last year of $209,700,000 to a total this

year of $226 million. So you can see that there is a substantial

increase in funding to municipalities through revenue-sharing, a major

part of which is unconditionally in their hands.

MR. HOWARD: I take it from the minister's answer as well that

no mechanism exists to provide a method of communicating with

municipalities about the $5 million that the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) used in his budget address as being moneys expected to be

received from municipalities to go into a forest stand management fund;

and that no representations have been made from municipalities to the

minister with respect to that fund as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it would hardly be correct to

say that no mechanism is in place to communicate, because there is a

mechanism, and I am an easy fellow to get along with. They're

communicating with me daily, and I am sure that if they should decide

that they should communicate with me in this particular regard, they

will. They never hesitate. There is no problem there at all.

You are correct, there has been no communication with my ministry in respect to any special funding for this particular program.

MR. HOWARD: I also want to put to the minister that he can do

something in job creation with respect to sewage treatment facilities.

The resumption of the 75-25 formula — 75 for the province and 25 for

the municipalities — for a specific area in the Okanagan raised the

question in a number of municipalities as to why this same 75-25

formula can't apply to other municipalities. I've spoken with those of

my own constituency about it, and I'm sure other members have as well.

Why can't there be a return to what it was earlier?

The municipality of Terrace in particular feels itself in an awkward

position on this matter because, as I recall, it was threatened by the

Ministry of Environment that if it didn't do a certain thing with

respect to sewage treatment, it would be in some difficulty with the

ministry, and was then advised by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

that they couldn't even conduct a plebiscite dealing with the question

of raising money for sewage treatment. They were caught in a catch-22

situation as a result of two separate ministries of government making

opposing demands upon the municipality. Regardless of that, they are

vitally interested in a return to the 75-25 formula, as are other

municipalities who now dump raw or near-raw sewage into the

watercourses in that area. It won't be very long before that will have

a very injurious effect upon our watercourses. It's a question of

prevention as well, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

anytime. The minister well knows that.

I cite for him, as an example, the outflow of the sewage system in

Kitimat. A number of years ago it was directly into the Kitimat River

where it went into Minette Bay, and that sewage outflow virtually

destroyed a native Indian fishery of oolichan in that river. They just

will not fish there anymore, and the minister knew what occurred. He

wouldn't fish for oolichan, either, with the small-mesh nets.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The minister says he has done it. But he hasn't

done it in the Kitimat River. They were not only picking up oolichan in

the Kitimat River, but also a variety of other items, some of them

non-biodegradable items that people discard, some of them elastic,

rubbery items that people discard –—and everything else that goes out

through a sewer system went into their fishery area. They stopped. They

went through it for one short period of time and said, "No more of

that," and nobody would blame them. The minister, if he were there,

would do the same thing. He'd say: "I don't want any more of that."

So maybe he should live through some of those experiences and see

his way clear to reinstitute this 75-25 formula, so that municipalities

in the north who desperately need sewage treatment facilities can take

advantage of the same generosity that prevailed with respect to the

Okanagan area.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The situation in the Okanagan area is quite

different from the rest of the province, in that in that area the

sewage requires a much higher level of treatment than is necessary in

other areas.

As far as the change of formula is concerned, no, at this moment I

cannot see at all changing back to the old formula of 75 by the

province and 25 locally, because frankly, the money

[ Page 7920 ]

isn't there. You indicated that we look after the north. Well, that

is precisely why the change was made. The major municipalities down in

the lower mainland were very aggressive, and very successful over the

years that the 75 cents was available. They really pushed it to the

point where I could see that other municipalities were going to be

suffering, particularly on the unconditional portion. The figures I

just quoted indicate the already heavy commitment on old debts of over

$100 million per year. That was changing the situation, from the

unconditional portion, to paying off the old debts at the expense of

the municipalities you talked about. When we made that change, we

included additional funding for high-cost connections. Where a new

sewage system was being put in and where the cost of the connection

exceeded a given figure, we doubled the amount from 25 percent to 50

percent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to your attention the fact that

for two hours or more we have been debating vote 61, and I'm wondering

if we have automatically passed vote 60, because we're long past debate

on vote 60 and we're now two hours or more into vote 61.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Minister, the Chair normally allows

debate under the minister's office vote on the fairly wide range of

subjects under the minister's total estimates. What has been the

experience in the past of this Chairman is that once the minister's

vote is passed, all the other items, having already previously been

canvassed, pass usually quite quickly. However, we will continue on the

minister's vote, which is vote 59.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I was simply going to endorse fully what you

said, Mr. Chairman, and point out to the minister that Committee of

Supply has operated on that basis as outlined by the Chairman almost

from time immemorial, and the widest possible opportunity is under the

minister's salary vote. That is what we are dealing with. Once he gets

that out of the way, then the focus becomes very narrow and it comes to

the specific vote. The Committee of Supply shouldn't be hampered, Mr.

Minister, in that way, even by the suggestion of the minister that it

might be a more convenient way to function. We're so pleased that the

Chairman of Committee of Supply came to the rescue of a historic method

of dealing with things in this chamber.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, before I get involved in the debate, could I make a short introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: In the Sooke School District we have a program

called the work study-work experience educational program. When one

young lad was filling in the forms that all the students do about what

they would like to learn about, he said he would like to learn about

the Legislature. So Kathryn Clarke, who was coordinating that

particular program for the Sooke School District, contacted my office

to see what we could do. The young lad was allowed to work in our

office. We exploited him, we utilized his services and we gave him a

crash course of what a constituency office is between sessions. He

spent a week there. He was very well received by the constituents who

came in, and he did an excellent job. Part of that agreement that we

made with the Sooke School Board was to allow him to see the

Legislature in operation. I'm so glad that not only is he going to hear

a little bit from his MLA but he will also see his buddy MLA — my buddy

MLA — also in operation. So I'll ask the House to welcome Shane Eddy

from the Sooke School District. He attends the Edward Milne Secondary

School.

Often, Mr. Chairman, when I go around and talk to the students in

the schools, they ask me: "What does the Legislature do? We see very

little in the paper." So I have selective readings out of Hansard , and

I explain how the government continually attacks the opposition on

individual personalities and their political background and everything

else. I often think that some of these students really think that I'm

making it up. In fact, I'm reading it from Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could no doubt address that concern by speaking to the estimates.

MR. MITCHELL: That's what I am doing. We were talking about this particular minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Vote 59, the minister's estimates, Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MITCHELL: It was this minister.... For a long time I

used to be able to read how he talked about the Waffle Manifesto. Now I

have a whole new set of statements that we can discuss.

I know to a certain degree, Mr. Chairman, this is repetition, but I

feel it's important that each one of us in this Legislature bring the

concerns of our particular constituents that are affecting all

municipalities in British Columbia. I know that we have talked and our

debate leader the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has talked

about the concerns of job creation. Time after time he has brought to

this minister's attention the need for municipal infrastructure. He

speaks with the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the

FCM. He is talking about a concern that is affecting all of us.

There is historical background in why provincial and federal

governments share some of the tax revenues with the junior partner of

the elected constituencies, the municipalities. It is for two things.

It is because they have already set up a tax-collecting mechanism based

on incomes, not on a narrow tax base based on land. They are getting

some of the natural resource revenue back to a central collection agent

like in the province.

This is why I find it very strange that the minister, in the debates

that we have had just this last afternoon, keeps talking about these

grants that the provincial government gives to the municipalities. But

it's fascinating how he jumps from one side to another. I think my

student who is here is making notes, and he'll go back to his school

and point out both sides of these statements.

For the city of Vancouver, the minister says that they should take

these grants and lower taxes. They should lower taxes, and that would

take the tax burden off the small businesses and the landowners and

everything else. Now it is not for me to tell any municipality how they

should spend their money. These are unconditional grants. This is the

minister's recommendation. But when we come over to my turf, to the

municipalities on Vancouver Island....

[ Page 7921 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your turf'?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Vancouver Island is part of my turf. The

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) brought up a very valid point, referring

to the statement made in the provincial budget about this $5 million

that was coming from the municipalities to go into reforestation. The

minister says: "Well, if any municipalities on Vancouver Island want to

do reforestation, then they should maybe use that money to do

reforestation."

He jumps from one side to another. NDP have been fighting for

reforestation, complete reforestation to build up sustained yield in

our foThe money that comes to these

municipalities is coming indirectly from the resources of the province.

It is the province that gained the bulk of the revenue that came from

the denuding of the forests. Because it's popular, for the last 50

years the Social Democrats, the CCF and the rest bases. It is the province that has been getting the revenue

from those resources. Now we have a few municipalities who are getting

on the bandwagon and realizing what the NDP have been saying over these

many years, that we must do reforestation. It has become a popular

political high profile issue, so now the....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the

member is on the wrong estimates. He is debating the estimates of the

Ministry of Forests, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The member

can confine his remarks to revenue-sharing, which is in this vote. The

application for any municipality would be in order, but another

minister's estimates or a budget for forest renewal would not be

appropriate, except as revenue sharing would apply.

MR. MITCHELL: Again, Mr. Chairman, I bring it to your

attention.... I don't know if you were in the seat there when it

was this minister who said that if the municipalities who are receiving

funds under the revenue-sharing.... If they want to put their money

into reforestation, they can do it. He opened the debate, and you heard

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I said, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: But you whispered. Okay, so what I am trying to

point out is that if we are going to have any debate, let's be

consistent. Let's not say one thing in one town and another thing in

another town, because in the municipality where I live, we don't have

any forests. We don't, but we have a lot of people who work in forests,

and we feel that the revenue that should come from the province should

go back into reforestation to create jobs. That's all I wanted to do.

It is not that Cowichan-Malahat or Port Alberni or some of these other

areas should pick up that sole responsibility. It is a responsibility

of B.C.

When we look at what this government is doing.... I am sorry

that the member for Skeena is not here when he asks kind of intelligent

questions, because we have got to realize that provincial budgets are

political documents to say one thing but to do another. I think a lot

of these TV ads that we're seeing today, paid for by the taxpayers, are

in the same category. I feel that when we talk we should negotiate with

the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal

government to become involved in the building up of our municipal

infrastructure. We're doing it positively, because we feel we're

committed to it; we're committed to creating the jobs.

I'm quite convinced, Mr. Chairman, and I say this.... You can

mark it down in your little book, and keep it for a prediction. This

province will meet with the federal government. They will get some of

this money that the federal government has for job creation, and they

will put it into municipal infrastructure. I know that the minister

says that we cannot go back to the 25 to 75 grants that were given for

sewer and water construction; that we have to stay at the 75 to 25, as

he's brought in. Some of that federal money can come to the province,

and some of that federal money will go into grants such as the sewer

infrastructure. I know that maybe next year when the government is

again trying to bring their image up, we'll be partners with the

federal government, and the money will be going in for infrastructure.

At that time we will read back to the students what the minister has

said: that he wouldn't do it.

I know we are going to make progress. We have to have that

cooperation at all levels of government — federal, provincial and

municipal — with the business community, with the trade union

community, and with all those others who fall in between. That's what

the job of a Legislature is: to bring these ideas, to pave the way for

this minister...to know that he has the support of all thinking

people in the Legislature.

There's one other main program that I would like to hit on. It's

been hit on by our debate leader. It's been brought out in other

debates by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): that is, the

problem that is facing every municipality in British Columbia and the

municipalities in my particular constituency — the problem of

insurance. We all know that there have been all kinds of catastrophes:

planes falling out of the air, and problems in India. But we must build

in British Columbia a type of insurance that is going to protect the

municipalities in our province. We have to do it.

I know philosophically the minister and the now Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who was Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs, are against the public being involved in the general insurance

scheme that was under ICBC. I know that when that particular plan was

brought in it was to give protection to areas that could not get

affordable — and I say that again — affordable insurance. They have

made some agreement with the private insurance firms that they will not

get into the business under ICBC, so we've been informed. I quite

believe philosophically that they were outdealt by the private

insurance companies, and they're not getting the protection that maybe

they thought they were going to get.

I think that at this time, because of the danger that may arise, if

municipalities do not have affordable insurance, they will be taking

chances. There are some of those who are elected, or some of those who

were in the position of making a decision to not take insurance....

And if there's some serious accident or some serious legal cost,

individual municipalities will be caught holding the bag. I don't say

that I'm going to tell the cabinet and the people who set up different

types of insurance how to do it, but there is a method; there must be a

method. We must get some way of coordinating the schools and the

insurance people to get affordable insurance. I know the only people

who can give

[ Page 7922 ]

that leadership are the provincial government, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has that responsibility.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: May I, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, also express my welcome to Sean as a buddy MLA for that constituency.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that red light you've got behind me kind of scares me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Disregard that, hon. member. Just please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm kind of shocked that the minister has not

given any indication, besides that common little yes, there's something

coming. I have municipalities who are waiting for some assurance that

we are going to have some insurance program. Maybe indirectly I helped

cause some of the premiums that were paid out by the insurance

companies in the past, because I did instigate, through my community

office, Mr. Chairman, certain legal action that some of my constituents

had because of the poor — and I say it very bluntly — inspection

services by certain inspectors that caused bad installation. A number

of my constituents ended up with septic tanks that were not

functioning. We managed to get it into the courts, and we got

indirectly, through our office, some nice settlements to correct it. I

guess, indirectly, that put up the premiums.

But I think these are justifiable premiums. Those premiums would not

have made them go up 100 percent and 200 percent. This is why it's

important that we put on the record that we are opposed to what the

insurance companies are doing, and we're presently opposed to the

inaction of this government. I want to say to the minister: we're

waiting for something positive, constructive, that will give affordable

insurance to all the municipalities.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, had the member been in the

House since my estimates came up, or listening to his speaker in his

office, he would know that that question has been well debated and

adequately answered.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very brief inquiry to the minister.

Over the months of dealing with this minister, I must confess that I

have been frustrated on more than one occasion in attempting to bring

him some advice and enlightenment with respect to the democratic

process. However, the minister has never hesitated to express his

position, and for that I'm thankful. In fact, I would just like him to

clarify for the House his position vis-a-vis the recent appeal — I

think it was March 3 — to his office by city of Vancouver council. He

was at his office, and I believe had a delegation led by the mayor,

Mike Harcourt, and possibly some other interested citizens from the

Downtown Eastside Residents Association, asking for amendments to the

municipal enabling act, or whatever legislation would be appropriate,

in order to.... I see you shaking your head, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. I'll advise the committee

again that during estimates we are not afforded the opportunity to

discuss legislation, amendments to legislation or future legislation.

If the member wishes to discuss legislation, he will have to be ruled

out of order.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize now that you

are stating a fact that had slipped my mind for a moment. I don't

really need to refer to legislation. I'll just ask the minister if he

would respond on the basis of the government's position in light of the

evictions that have been taking place and the inability of people in

that downtown area of Vancouver generally to address this problem

effectively. In other words, there does not seem to be in place any

means by which the authorities can stop the tide of evictions and the

escalating rent increases which are just going out of sight.

I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to

intervene somehow and address this problem, because it is one that the

city of Vancouver's social planning department predicts will continue

throughout the course of the fair. These problems are anticipated to

continue right up until the end of October, notwithstanding certain

statements in some quarters of the community that there are adequate

vacancies to accommodate those in need. The fact is that affordable

accommodation has to be available for people on fixed incomes:

pensioners, war veterans, persons relying on the GAIN program who, if

they are employed, underemployed or working for minimum wages, are

earning incomes below the poverty line.

This is a serious crisis, and I'm sure that the government had no

intention of having this fair, which is being underwritten by all

taxpayers and which is supposed to be a friendly experience, a joyful

occasion, a display, through the government on behalf of the people, of

the hospitality of this province to the world.... The impact that

is happening to individuals, the devastating consequences that some

individuals and some communities are experiencing, I'm sure was not

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. If the members of the

committee will remember the Journals and the debate from yesterday, you

will note that this topic was given some latitude, although it is

totally out of order inasmuch as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is

not responsible for housing. That is a different portfolio. Nor is it

responsible for consumer rent protection legislation. That point was

made abundantly clear yesterday to another member of the committee

after some length, and after offering the courtesy of some latitude. I

think the matter is closed now in terms of this particular issue. I

must advise the first member for Vancouver Centre that he should relate

his remarks to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I detect in your

remarks a suggestion that you are now entering the debate and have

determined that all matters have been sufficiently debated and that

closure is now in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I am reminding the members of

the committee that the record will show that the issue was discussed at

some length in spite of the fact that it was out of order. I'll remind

hon. members of the committee that standing orders state that debate in

Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the vote before us,

and I'll also remind hon. members of the committee that a member who

persists in irrelevance or repetition may be asked to discontinue

speaking, and if the member still continues to

[ Page 7923 ]

speak, the Chairman shall follow the procedures in standing order

19, which I'm sure the hon. member is well aware of. To vote 59, please.

MR. BARNES: I'd better check standing order 19.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new book, Em.

MR. BARNES: Oh, is it a new book? Let's see. I haven't checked my book for some time. Standing order 19....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. BARNES: Oh, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grossly disorderly.

MR. BARNES: "Grossly disorderly"? Well, I certainly wouldn't

want to be associated with such behaviour. But I must say, Mr.

Chairman, I do appreciate your clarifying the rules, and I intend to

abide by them absolutely and succinctly. And I'm sure you will realize

that what I am trying to bring before the Legislature is a matter that

cannot be canvassed enough, and certainly there isn't going to be any

question about the validity of the subject, and certainly you must

realize as well that the degree of penetration we've been able to make

on this side of the House to that government has been minimal, and, if

we were to gauge the debate on the basis of success, we have just begun

to raise this issue.

I would ask the minister in as brief terms as I can possibly

express: what action are you taking as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and the only minister, as I understand it, with the ability to

address the concerns of the city council of Vancouver in order that

they may address this matter which is in the centre of the city and

which is happening to the people of the city of Vancouver...? Their

hands are tied. Officially they are not in a position to act, within

the limits of the Vancouver Charter. Are you going to free the city

council in order that it might restrict the evictions to those areas

where it will not create the kind of distress and deprivation that it

has so far caused in certain communities, certain parts of the city?

We're talking about disaster areas. We're talking about war zone areas

where people are hurting and where there is urgent need for action. And

there's the other more general problem of controlling rents. It is

absolutely incredible what is happening to the rent situation in this

city.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again, a reference to the

Vancouver Charter is a reference to amending legislation, which cannot

be discussed in Committee of Supply. Reference to Consumer and

Corporate Affairs, rent control legislation or rent control actions

would be best handled during the estimates of another ministry. A

reference to housing would be discussed appropriately, as the name

implies, during the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I would just like to allow the

minister to respond, because that was my one single concern. What

action will the minister take? He knows my situation. If he would

respond, I would be most appreciative, Mr. Chairman.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, again, when I was asked to

look into the matter, it was to attend a meeting on behalf of the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), after which I personally, in the company of

Mr. Pattison, had a very close look at the situation. I came to various

conclusions which are well known to this House. We also, with the

cooperation of Mayor Mike Harcourt and Mr. Jim Green of DERA, agreed to

put together a task force made up of the city of Vancouver, DERA,

Affordable Housing, B.C. Housing and representation from my ministry.

That task force was put up, with the assistance also, I might add, of

the hotel keepers, and they established an office with a phone number,

and to date — the last report I received was just Friday of last week —

they have been very successful. They have successfully relocated 61

residents. They have 25 applications on hand and they had 104 vacancies

available.

I have challenged the news media and I challenge you and all of your

members to bring forth to me the name of anyone on the street, because

I do not feel that that is necessary. I would like to just brutally

make one suggestion to you: if you would really not allow yourself to

be swayed by those who want to make political hay of this thing, think

in terms of those people. Think in terms of John and May, who are now

located in new premises, and others who have had an improvement in

their facilities at a lesser cost. Then I'm sure that you will realize

and agree that indeed we are looking after the situation, and there is

no one on the street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Boy, we've got a lot of latitude now. Some

latitude has been allowed, and I presume that we can quickly end this

issue, inasmuch as it is out of order.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you can be relieved somewhat,

because I am not interested in belabouring the situation. I appreciate

the minister's response, which I felt was more than usually relevant,

although not something that I would want to jump for joy over. It seems

as though he has used great skill in arguing his point about the

availability of accommodation. The problem with that is that

accommodation is in fact available. I have to acknowledge that the

problem is not that there is no accommodation; it's the quality and

affordability of the accommodation.

In fact, on Thursday or Friday I intend to investigate this

accommodation myself, because when I made some inquiries after the

Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) had suggested

that the B.C. Housing Management Commission was available to provide

accommodation where people were needing it and only had something like

13 applications.... I thought, for all these years I've been

calling the B.C. Housing Management Commission to try to assist people

in need of housing, and they've got a waiting list for three years and

even longer — several years. There were hundreds of names on the list,

and all of a sudden they now have housing available. This is good news,

and this should make the headlines. All those people who are looking

for social housing should get in touch with the B.C. Housing Management

Commission, because they now have housing, and this notwithstanding the

fact that the government hasn't built one single social housing unit

since it's been in power, other than what it had out of the NDP that

was already being constructed.

But it's amazing. I'm really going to be interested in seeing a breakdown of the amount of social housing that the

[ Page 7924 ]

government has produced that we did not realize was available.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you appreciate that that falls

within the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and not.... We're

on Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I did that just as a bit of

background on the problem of the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

The thing that I really want to ask the minister is: what are his views

on the fact that the housing that people are being relocated in is in

most cases hardly inhabitable as far as human consumption is concerned?

I understand that the facilities are beyond description, they are in

such deplorable condition.

This is something I want to investigate myself. Now when I was in the downtown east side....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: There is some good accommodation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are into the jurisdiction of

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Today we are dealing with the

administrative affairs of the minister of municipalities, who is not

responsible for social housing, and if you would confine your debate to

the present estimates....

MR. BARNES: You can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that these

matters are interrelated. One of the difficulties that we have in this

House is that we segment and we divide and compartmentalize everything.

That's a word I haven't used before, but you get the picture. It's so

difficult to be able to focus in on a particular issue without a kind

of interministerial view of it, and we don't get all of the ministers

here at one time. So you have to be tolerant of the problem that not

only I but the Minister of Municipal Affairs has as well. He has

addressed this concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair only enforces the rules

laid down by the members. Many things are interrelated, but the rules

established are that we deal with the matters of the minister at the

time under scrutiny, and that is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: The preceding Chairman just made it quite clear

to the House that the latitude had already been established, at least

for this sitting, and so I'm only following the precedent set by the

minister himself, Mr. Chairman. I hope that you will permit me to wind

up my remarks on the Municipal Affairs estimates, which deal with this

issue of the Vancouver Charter. You know that, and this is what this

whole thing is about: the inability of the city of Vancouver, under its

charter, which is governed by the Municipal Act, which is the

responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Chairman, this

issue is very relevant. I would appreciate it if the Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, matters of legislation are not

dealt with in estimates, and the municipal charter, in my

understanding, is legislation passed by this chamber at one time or

other in its history. Open debate took place at that time with respect

to the charter. We are not now dealing with the charter but with the

estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: You know, Mr. Chairman, I haven't had this much

difficulty before with you or any member in this House in dealing with

a matter that obviously is of grave concern to the government. The

minister himself has realized this and certainly has responded and is

not trying to evade the issue. I would hope that the Chair, in light of

the behaviour of the minister, would allow this debate to continue,

because it is a very serious, urgent matter, and it is not a frivolous

subject I am discussing, and I am certainly not trying to waste the

time of the House.

I want to get to a specific point, which I think is important and

believe is urgent. As you know, people have lost their lives down

there. We've been saying that this is an urgent matter that has to be

dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is not involved in a

debate on what can or cannot be debated in the House. The rules are

laid down by the members. If urgent debate is required, there are rules

for bringing the same to the floor of this chamber.

At the moment we are on the estimates of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, who is not responsible for social housing within the Vancouver

area. The Chair has no alternative unless the members change the rules.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, are you advising me that the rules

being applied to me are not applied to the minister? The minister was

not ruled out of order when he stood up and responded to my question

dealing with that meeting he held on March 3 with the mayor of the city

of Vancouver and with members from DERA and others. I am merely

responding. How is it that I am out of order and the minister was in

order?

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have been

listening to this debate between the hon. member and the Chair, and I

can't help but read standing order 43, which suggests that the Chairman

has to either call this member to order.... He has already been

told of standing order 19 by the previous Chairman, which is: "The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole shall order a member whose

conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House or

Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and the

Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the

Chair in pursuance of this order."

The member has been warned, Mr. Chairman. There is no question

whether this Legislature agrees or disagrees with your decision. You've

made the decision that this topic is not debatable before this

minister. And yet this member continues to persist. I would ask the

Chair to make a ruling that either this topic is going to be debated,

because I'll want to debate it myself.... But if the Chair has made

the ruling that it is not a debatable topic before this minister, the

Chair must take the position of telling the member either not to bring

that topic up again or to withdraw from this chamber.

MR. ROSE: Again, on a point of order, it is somewhat difficult when the Chair keeps changing like the lines on a hockey team.

[ Page 7925 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. ROSE: Excuse me?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are the same rules.

MR. ROSE: No, they aren't, because there are certain kinds of

background and things that were allowed by a previous Chairman and

comments made from someone else in debate that make it very difficult

for one to accept being ruled out of order on a particular topic in

response to the same subject raised by the minister.

Can I give the Chairman a little example of this? The minister in a

response to an earlier question said that he had named a task force.

Now we're discussing in a very general way the vote of the minister's

office. The minister said he appointed a task force. Presumably he has

the authority to appoint a task force. Isn't that so? So the task force

is going to make recommendations on a subject. I will not mention the

subject, because I might get ruled out of order. So I won't mention the

subject.

I would like to ask the minister what subject, as a result of Mayor

Harcourt, Jim Green and others, and the minister spending taxpayers'

money on his time as a voyeur down in skid row....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, a voyeur, someone who looks at things — not a

voyageur. He takes no action, just looks. I think that I am perfectly

in order to ask about the minister's task force. Number one, what is

the task force studying?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I am on a point of order, right? And that's the

point that I am attempting to make. Now if you rule me in order on

this, I would like to achieve the floor once again to ask the minister

some pertinent questions about the task force which he raises. I would

appreciate your giving me this freedom to do it.

In the meantime, I just find it a little difficult to find the

minister is in order on a particular topic, whether it is the Vancouver

Charter, the task force or whatever, and our member here is out of

order. He is very serious about this. Some people think he's tedious

and repetitious. He's repetitious perhaps, but never tedious. He might

even have been pressing and persistent, for all I know; anyway, that

isn't part of the law anymore, so we don't have to worry about that.

That's really my point of order, Mr. Chairman. For the assistance of

all of us, as well as the Chair, I think the Chairman should rule that

anything raised by the minister in his response is in order for debate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

believe the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) opened his

debate on this item, and I, out of courtesy to him, with great feeling

for him, responded. I thought that would be the end of it. I didn't

think you'd come back saying you should do this, that or the other

thing. The matter should be dealt with now and finished.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the comments from the

various members, but the mere fact that the minister responds to an

out-of-order question does not make the question in order. The minister

himself may be out of order. The minister's appointment of a task

force, or requesting another minister to appoint a task force, does not

necessarily bring it within the administrative functions of the

minister. The rules of the House are that in estimates you debate the

administrative function of the minister.

MR. COCKE: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. When a

minister accepts responsibility, the responsibility that he indicated

was vested in hi