1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4897 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Stumpage policies. Mr. Miller –– 4897

Mr. Kempf

Lunch programs in schools. Mr. Harcourt –– 4898

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

On vote 51: minister's office –– 4899

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Jansen

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Brummet

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery today we have some very distinguished visitors.

First, we have Mr. Narinder Dhir — who is the past president of the

Hindu community in British Columbia and a director of the

Burnaby–Willingdon Social Credit constituency association. We also have

Mr. Jagmohan Kumar, who is president of the Rotary Club, Phagwara

Southeast, in India; and Mr. Sat Pal Sethi. I would ask the House to

bid them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN : Visiting in the

precincts today are Deryk Thomson, president; Michael Clague, executive

director; and Michael Goldberg, senior researcher of SPARC. Would the

House please join me in welcoming them to the buildings today.

MR. MOWAT :

In the House today we have a number of friends from the Vancouver

Chinatown Merchants' Association. Mr. King Wong, president, is also the

president and general manager of Dollar Food Manufacturing Inc. We have

also Mr. Edmond Lee, a director of the Chinatown Merchants' Association

and director of Cathay International TV Inc., Mr. Hau-Cheong Chau, a

director of the Chinatown Merchants' Association and president of Polex

Manufacturing Ltd., and Al De Genova, project coordinator of the

Chinatown Merchants' Association and a sales representative for Smith

Paper. They are here to meet the Ministries of Tourism and Municipal

Affairs regarding an exciting revitalization program for Vancouver's

Chinatown. I would ask the House to make them extremely welcome.

MR. CLARK :

I too rise to welcome the members from the Chinatown Merchants'

Association on behalf of the members on this side of the House. They've

done some excellent work over the years and have some very exciting

proposals for Chinatown. We wish them well and encourage the government

to support their endeavours.

MR. PELTON : Hon.

members, in the gallery today we have visitors from our great neighbour

to the south. Rick Rafael, his wife Teresa and their daughter Maria are

here from Seattle, Washington. Mr. Rafael's parents, Peter and Joanie

Perazzi, are here from Uhrichsville, Ohio. Let's give them all a very

warm B.C. welcome.

MR. BLENCOE : In the gallery today

is a very special member of my family, my father, who has come down

from Maple Bay to watch the happenings of the House. Would the House

please welcome him here today.

HON. L. HANSON : Held here in Victoria this past week was Theatre B.C.'s

annual drama festival, Mainstage '88. I'm pleased to announce to the

House that the winner was Powerhouse Theatre from Vernon in my home constituency.

They are now the B.C. representatives and will be proceeding to Halifax to take

part in the Great Canadian Theatre Festival on July 4-10. It's

interesting to note that the winning play, called Play Memory , was written by

a Canadian playwright, Joanna Glass. Powerhouse Theatre is celebrating its 25th

anniversary this year, and I'm certain that members of the House will join

me in congratulating them on their accomplishment.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the gallery today is a resident of Metchosin, a constituent of the

riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew and the youngest member on my

executive — save, of course, myself.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

You guys don't believe that, eh? David Howe is 19 years of age and he's

here today to watch us in question period. I'm hoping that all of us

will behave accordingly. Would the House please join me in welcoming

David Howe.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In the precincts

today are about 40 grade 7 students from Raft River Elementary School

in Clearwater, accompanied by their teacher, Donna Smith, and some of

their parents. On behalf of the second member and myself, I would ask

the House to make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. REID :

I rise today to make a special tribute to all those people being

introduced today, because they all reflect on my ministry and the

success of the government: the Chinese community, representing the

culture of that community; the tourism component from Iowa, Idaho and

Seattle; and, exporting on behalf of the province of British Columbia

to Halifax, Nova Scotia, the cultural component of British Columbia.

What a success story this province is!

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

I would also like to extend welcome and greetings to the Chinatown

Merchants' Association for the continuing beautification of Chinatown.

I may say that the senior member for Vancouver Centre and I think that

what is happening in Chinatown is of benefit to all of British

Columbia. I'm just sorry that under the decentralization scheme we have

now the MLAs are not told about these new initiatives. We would

appreciate being told about that in the future.

Oral Questions

STUMPAGE POLICIES

MR. MILLER :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Forests with regard to the

recently announced forest licence in the Takla–Sustut region. Is it the

minister's intention to allow the $43 million cost of upgrading the

B.C. Rail line to be deducted from the stumpage payable on the timber?

HON. MR. PARKER : No.

MR. MILLER :

A supplementary, then, with regard to the lumber producers in the

Smithers–Hazelton area, who also bid on the Takla–Sustut timber. What

steps is the minister taking to ensure that these companies and

producers will have a continuous supply of fibre for their mills?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, all of those operators have forest licences.

MR. KEMPF :

I too have a question for the Minister of Forests and Lands. Given the

fact that small business people in the forest industry are on the verge

of bankruptcy due to the upset stumpage rates on small business sales,

has the minister

[ Page 4898 ]

decided

to abandon his convoluted stumpage appraisal system and bring in one

that makes sense in order that this segment of the industry may survive?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The comparative value pricing system for stumpage appraisal in British

Columbia will continue to be the system used for determining the upset

values for competitive sales and will continue to be used in the

non-competitive sales.

MR. KEMPF : A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REE : If he was here during estimates. . . .

MR. KEMPF : I was here during estimates, Mr. Member, and then I was out supporting my constituents.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. KEMPF :

Small business operators . . . . That's why I wasn't in the House

during all of the minister's estimates. Small business operators in

this province are having to resort to picketing Forest Service offices

and picketing small business sales, because they can't afford to pick

them up, to ensure that they weren't bought up through surrogate

bidding by the forest giants in this province.

Has the minister no concern that these people in the small business program are losing their very livelihoods in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER :

The small business timber sales are offered on a competitive basis. If

a person feels he can't be competitive at the price that's being

offered, then I guess his option is not to bid. It isn't a matter of

after the fact; it's before the fact. They have to make that judgment

call.

MR. KEMPF : Is the minister telling this House

that regardless of what the upset prices are . . . ? They are out of

reach; in fact, barely less than the price that the small operator can

get for his end product. Is the minister saying he's not going to take

a look at bringing in a means by which those small people in this

industry can survive? Is this your policy, or is it the Premier's

policy?

HON. MR. PARKER : The record shows that the

prices bid are frequently far in excess of the upset prices currently

realized on a comparative value pricing system for the small business

program. That's homework done by our ministry. It's done by the same

people who put the stumpage policy together, which is done by the

Ministry of Forests and Lands. The allegation that it's the Premier

making an attack on small businesses in this province is unfounded. The

small business program in this province will be double what it was

under the previous minister.

LUNCH PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS

MR. HARCOURT :

The Premier's response to children going hungry in the Vancouver school

system is to counsel them. Mr. Premier, would you put food in their

stomachs instead of stuffing counselling down their throats?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, let me say that I am very proud of the people who are

involved in the Ministry of Social Services. They are people who work

under very difficult circumstances and certainly deal with very

difficult situations. I think if we as a people are able to provide

further assists to people who are in need of help within their family

unit or for individuals by providing counsellors not just in a part of

the province but throughout the province, that is a tremendous benefit

and one which will pay enormous dividends. I am proud of the program

that has been introduced. I commend the minister and the ministry for

that initiative.

I think we're equally concerned with the

fact that there are people who unfortunately are not able to provide

the breakfast or the lunch for their children attending school. I am

concerned for those people; I am concerned for those children. I am

concerned for those children but not because they somehow provide us a

political opportunity to make statements about introducing some program

universally that will see the taxpayers provide a breakfast and a

lunch, and not because we want to grandstand and play up that bit and

say it's needed in Vancouver without mentioning what it is that might

be required elsewhere in the province.

I am concerned

because if these children are failing to get a breakfast and a lunch

during the time they attend school, chances are they are not having a

breakfast and a lunch when they're not in school. If we're concerned

about children because they're not getting adequate nourishment, it

shouldn't be because we can make political points talking about those

five days that they're at school. We should be concerned about the

weekends, about the Easter break, about the summer holidays, about the

Christmas break — all of these are periods when these children ought to

be provided with the care they deserve.

We shouldn't be

concerned only about Johnny or Mary, ten years of age, at school, but

also that they may have young brothers and sisters at home who are

similarly going without breakfast or lunch. We can't just ignore that.

We know that if there are those at school suffering from this, there's

a likelihood that there's an equal or even larger number at home who

are similarly suffering. For us to shut them out and say we don't see

them — out of sight, out of mind; no political points to be made, so we

won't speak out on their behalf . . . . I've not heard that from any

member of the opposition.

If we do that, we're failing

those families, those children and our responsibilities as leaders in

this province. I say that we must — caringly, together with teachers,

with people in the school system, with school board members, with

principals, with our counsellors — work at providing the assist that is

most appropriate to those families and make sure that these children

are provided for adequately, as well as their younger brothers and

sisters, not only while they are attending school but otherwise.

do differently is to attempt to make political points at the expense of

doing the right thing simply because you can't see it or it's not as

visible as it is at school.

MR. SPEAKER : Order,

please. Before the Leader of the Opposition asks his question, I might

just state that the past question and answer are a good example of an

abuse of the rules of this House. The Leader of the Opposition's

question was argumentative and more of a statement than a question and

led right into a very long answer by the Premier. I would hope that the

House could get back to shorter questions and shorter answers so that

all members of the House have a chance to exercise their right.

[ Page

4899 ]

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, we're here trying to feed hungry schoolchildren.

We have a Premier who cut $50 from new mothers to feed their infant children.

How dare he say what he just said. He's created a $2 million slush fund

in his office, not the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond). I'm

asking the Premier if he'll take $200,000 of that money to feed those hungry

schoolchildren in Vancouver and throughout this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, the Leader of the Opposition mentions $200,000. Mr. Denike,

chairman of the school board in Vancouver, has talked about acquiring

fridges and trucks and other equipment and hiring people. Two hundred

thousand dollars would barely pay for the coordinator of this activity

who would obviously be hired to provide a coordinating means throughout

the whole of the province. As the opposition leader suggests, $200,000

would be a pittance to what might be required if we were to follow the

approach mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition.

Again,

he sees the responsibility of government providing breakfast and

lunches to children at school. He said: "Aren't we here to provide for

hungry schoolchildren?" I see our responsibility is to work with

families through the system to provide assurance to families that help

is available. It may be that it will require money. It may be that it

requires another type of help not only for the children that are

identifiable at school but for the children in the province who deserve

help if somehow the family can't provide that.

Let's not

take away from the family, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Let's not say

that because we are government or because you are opposition or because

we're people chosen to sit here that we can somehow play God and take

the place of the family and take the place of the community. That is

not the role. I beg to differ with you. I think our role is to do the

responsible thing and not to come up quickly with some socialistic

approach which has failed in the past and would fail again.

MR. HARCOURT :

The Premier has said that he will not deal with feeding the hungry

schoolchildren. No, he will not make any of that $2 million available

to feed them. SPARC and other experts have said the problem of the

parents is a shortage of income, not of loving their children. The

welfare rates haven't been raised since 1981. Mr. Premier, are you

prepared to raise the welfare rates so there's money to put food on the

tables of those families?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Again, there are several issues. One, I think

when we talk about a program such as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition,

when he's wishing to introduce a program of some sort within greater Vancouver,

and he wishes to see $200,000 made available for that purpose, I think he has

to recognize — and I repeat this; I've said it so often — that there is

more to this province than downtown Vancouver. We have to consider the whole

of the province and how we deal with people in similar circumstances elsewhere

in the province. We must think beyond Vancouver — and I am pleased to say that

our government certainly does. But I am saying this to the opposition: there's

more to this province than just Vancouver. You are talking about a much greater

program, but for the information of the Leader of the Opposition, he is absolutely

wrong in his assertion that no increases have been provided to welfare recipients

since 1981. That's hogwash. He is wrong. He should do his research more

adequately before he asks such questions.

[2:30]

MR. SERWA :

On behalf of the member from Shuswap–Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), I would

like to introduce a group of students from Hillcrest Elementary School.

They are grade 7 students from Salmon Arm. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 51: minister's office, $280,605.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Before we proceed to examine the estimates of my ministry in detail, I

would like to add my welcome to the businessmen attending today from

Chinatown and to extend my apologies for not being able to fulfill my

commitment to meet with them. A member of my staff will be meeting with

them to continue discussing the good work they are doing with the

revitalization of the Chinatown community.

I would like to

express without any hesitation that we will be giving the members of

the opposition ample opportunity to question the path we have chosen.

would like to take a few moments to show how my ministry's estimates

reflect our recent accomplishments and how they will support the

ministry in its endeavours this fiscal year. I would like at this time

to recognize staff that are present, particularly our acting deputy

minister Ken MacLeod, and to publicly thank our former deputy Chris

Woodward, who served very capably in the government service for 37

years.

To start, I would like to reaffirm that as far as

this government is concerned, local government is without doubt the

cornerstone of Canadian democracy. It is this basic assumption which

shapes and directs the ministry. Therefore today's estimates must be

seen as a program of investment in democracy, an investment which

deserves the wholehearted commitment of this House. This year's program

for Municipal Affairs offers ways to improve the democratic flow in

British Columbia, including a process of self-assessment and strategic

planning by the ministry. We have responded in a cogent, energetic

fashion to the Premier's call for long-term planning. I'm glad to say

it was something for which my ministry was already well prepared.

The

approach we are taking will view the ministry from the outside in, as

our clients in local government and the public see us. We are now in

the process of assessing current strengths and weaknesses, developing a

sharper understanding of our role in provincial affairs and formulating

a strategic plan for a ten-year span, a five-year span and immediate

implementation. We will be very happy to share the results with this

House. It should go a long way toward improving our understanding of

the ministry and its potential to improve

[ Page 4900 ]

the

functioning of local democracy in British Columbia. Improved local

autonomy is an essential aspect of our plan, and this implies increased

decentralization. The work of the provincial-municipal committee on

decentralization is progressing very well, moving the day-to-day

government of our province closer to the people.

We are

committed to an ongoing program of legislative reform and continuing

high levels of financial and program support for local government.

Consultation and consensus gathering are the primary means by which we

have achieved this progress in municipal affairs. The most recent

example of our provincial consultative approach has led to one of the

main elements in an upcoming package of legislative adjustments. I'm

talking, of course, about the regional district legislative review and

the resounding round of legislation reform that will eventually come

open to debate. You can be sure that these proposals are grounded in

front-line reality. We have conducted an open review with regional

district representatives right up to the final drafting. This will

ensure clearly defined roles and powers and a streamlined regulatory

approval process. The proposed legislative changes will establish

regional districts as a permanent feature of local government in

British Columbia. These improvements will be a sign that regional

districts, after 20 years, have come of age, and the legislation is

maturing with them.

On the side of the ministry which

encourages local economic development, our downtown revitalization

program has been stabilized through a $10 million revolving lottery

fund. It is now set for many years of service. You will be pleased to

know that the business improvement area initiative is moving forward

smartly, with communities around the province starting their BlAs. This

innovative approach to downtown revitalization allows businesses and

specified commercial areas to voluntarily tax themselves in a

structured manner in order to create a pool of funds with which to

coordinate area management and promotion. It will be of great

assistance in helping our downtown cores to become competitive with

shopping centres and will be a positive unifying force within our

business communities.

The provincial-municipal partnership

program is also progressing, providing municipalities with the means to

strategically apply tax relief, funding economic development strategies

in communities around the province and assisting in their pursuit of

investment. All of this adds substantially to an existing body of

support for local government, proven programs which reflect this

government's commitment to democracy and progress at the local level. A

look at the estimates will reveal an enrichment of the revenue-sharing

program to maintain and improve our municipal infrastructure and

provide our municipalities with the unconditional finances they require.

Revenue-sharing

grants for sewer, waterworks and roads have been pegged at more than

$24 million this year, an increase of 38 percent. But since

applications once again exceed the funding by two to one, we could not

come close to servicing all municipal requests. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, I am a fine advocate of the need to refurbish our municipal

infrastructure, so please rest assured that I am doing what I can to

look after the infrastructure needs of the province's communities.

Planning grant support will also be sustained, including 12

comprehensive development planning projects. This approach reviews

community plans, regulatory bylaws and financial programs, with an eye

to more effective management of community growth in tune with the

economic development strategies formulated under the partnership

program.

We are recognizing that as our communities grow

and develop, there is a need to restructure local government; we are

thus providing restructure grants to facilitate the transition. Our

organizational policy branch ensures that each municipality in the

province has the type of local government best suited to its needs and

its future. On this note, I would like to welcome new members to our

local government family: the village of Anmore, the Fort Nelson–Liard

and Peace River Regional Districts, and three new improvement

districts. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the House offers its best

wishes as new representatives take up their posts.

I want

to confirm that the ministry will continue to play its traditional role

in offering financial, administrative and development planning guidance

to our municipalities. As you know, we have additional

responsibilities. Safety engineering services, the office of the fire

commissioner and the University Endowment Lands are now well and truly

part of the ministry. And the province's transit system continues to be

carefully planned and equitably financed, as does the work of the

Provincial Capital Commission.

I am pleased to say that the

new divisions are comfortable in their new home and are realizing

benefits of their closer association with the municipalities with whom

they regularly do business.

With building standards, safety

engineering and the fire commissioner now under one roof, we have

achieved a streamlined administration, with unified policies and

leadership. These dedicated professionals play an integral

part in the

development process and exert a steady influence on the quality of

local economic process — and they certainly deserve our support.

Our

transit responsibility addresses one of the most pressing issues facing

growing communities around the province. Local participation, once

again, is the key ingredient of success in this area. System

development must be responsive to urban growth and to the express needs

of the community. Every year B.C. Transit moves over 115 million

riders, and the demand is growing. Local residents, government and

business people all want more transit. It is an invaluable service,

touching all members of the community. It plays a vital role in moving

people, while reducing noise, air pollution and traffic congestion.

the lower mainland the integrated transit system carries 400,000 riders

on a normal weekday, or about 196 million boardings a year. Compared to

transit systems in other North American cities and regions of similar

size, the Vancouver regional transit system has doubled and in some

cases trebled the number of passengers boarding.

SkyTrain

is currently carrying 60,000 riders a day and has the capacity to carry

100,000. SkyTrain, which one critic recently compared to a white

elephant, has helped attract major developments, with a direct

investment value totalling well over $5 billion. For every dollar in

direct investment, there's another $3 in spinoff spending. That's worth

$15 billion to the economy, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest that

that's some white elephant.

SkyTrain is performing well as

the longest completely automated rapid transit system in North America.

Since SkyTrain went into service over two years ago, some 2,800 transit

specialists, commissioners, mayors, councillors, planners, engineers

and specialist reporters from all over the world have toured the system.

[ Page 4901 ]

Following

the disastrous fire in the London Underground, British television chose

SkyTrain to show British viewers how tunnel safety systems work. Why?

Because it is one of the safest automated rapid transit systems in the

world — that's an acknowledged fact.

Last week was Access

Awareness Week. You may have heard about our ministry's award for

continue to grow. In greater Vancouver handyDART carries over half a

million people a year. In the Victoria region ridership jumped 30

percent in one year, to 82,500 people. In ten other cities and regions

handyDART is currently transporting over 183,000 disabled passengers a

year. A unique computer system developed by transit specialists, with

assistance from the federal government, has increased productivity in

this area, without — I am pleased to say — a corresponding increase in

funding. That summarizes my transit responsibilities.

Meanwhile,

here in Victoria another of our charges, the Provincial Capital

Commission, has marked its progress over the years with many notable

accomplishments: the upgrading of the Gorge waterway and the Dallas

Road waterfront, and the Crystal Garden rehabilitation, to name but a

few in its 22-year history; not to mention its excellent reputation as

a manager and employer. They will continue in this tradition as they

determine the alternatives for the rehabilitation of St. Ann's Academy

this year. This assembly can rest assured that the citizens of the

capital region will take great delight in the outcome of this process.

[2:45]

closing, I would like to say a few words of praise for the men and

women who stand behind this plan of expenditure for 1988-89. It is my

firm conviction, after only a year in the portfolio, that they conduct

the finest program of local government and community support in the

country. I would like this House to offer them a vote of thanks and

appreciation.

I can also confirm that a significant

attribute of quality in the ministry is its budgetary and

organizational efficiency. I can say once again that over 93 percent of

our budget goes into our two major transfer programs: revenue-sharing

and transit, which are the key links in the chain of relationships

between the province and local governments. We realize it is up to us

to keep them strong.

I present you, then, Mr. Chairman,

with the budget requirements of a ministry that is committed to

furthering the democratic ideal, a ministry that is putting this

commitment into action through policies, consultation and consensus

gathering at every turn. That concludes my commentary.

MR. BLENCOE :

I thank the minister for her opening remarks and will start her

estimates. I think it will take a few hours to canvass some of the

issues. I first would also like, as the minister has done, to welcome

those new communities who have joined the fraternity of being

organized, of being part of the great structure of the Union of British

Columbia Municipalities. We always welcome it when citizens make a

decision on their own to become organized — when they make that

decision for themselves. We think that's a great part of the tradition

of local government and local autonomy.

My opening remarks are in a serious vein, because my impression is that local

government in the province is in serious trouble, not in terms of its ability

to govern and make decisions for itself but in terms of the actions of this

government over the last year and a half, and particularly over the last nine

months, vis--vis the so-called decentralization that the Premier announced

without consultation with the UBCM.

Indeed,

after that announcement I can vividly recall the president of the day

of the UBCM, Mr. Dan Cumming, saying when I asked him: "Have you heard

about this great system . . . ?" He said: "It's the first I've heard

about it." This afternoon the minister talked about consultation and

local democracy. Quite frankly I think those words are hollow in terms

of what's happening in the province today.

She talked about

local government being the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. Indeed, I

and this side of the House believe that, but the system that has been

imposed on local government in terms of decentralization and the

minister of state system, which has no mandate and no legitimacy in

law, is a real threat to local democracy. We have spoken out about that

process, and we have spoken up on behalf of local government having the

ability to make decisions for itself without another costly level of

bureaucracy imposed upon it.

We can only conclude, after

nine months of operation of that minister of state system, seeing no

result in terms of benefits to the community or to the residents of the

province the system is supposed to serve, that there is another agenda,

as the mayor of Kamloops suggested only a few weeks ago. He believes

there is another agenda with decentralization.

We happen to

believe that local government has the ability to run itself, to do its

own job without Victoria imposing this level of bureaucracy that has

been put upon it. That's why we have not endorsed it, we will not

support it and we will not participate, because since Confederation

local government has had the ability to do the very things this Premier

supposedly says he wants to do through this minister of state system,

these united states of the province of British Columbia — which is

alien to our way of governing and has been alien for a long time.

Yes,

we are committed to democracy at the local level. We are committed to

those ideas and the structures coming from the grass roots, not being

imposed from Victoria. I think it's telling that this minister, right

in her opening remarks, talked about the cornerstone of local

government and Canadian democracy, because I think this government is

aware that British Columbians are very worried about what this

government has been doing particularly over the last nine months.

I'll

have more to say about this decentralization system, particularly as it

pertains to this minister, because in my estimation, this minister is

in conflict. She is a Minister of Municipal Affairs and is supposed to

serve all the communities, all the municipalities and all the regional

districts fairly and without bias. Unfortunately the Premier has given

her another job: minister of state for Kootenay. I ask the question to

the minister, and she may wish to respond later on: how can you serve

all local government, all municipalities and all regional districts,

being fair, unbiased and objective in serving and allocating resources,

and at the same time have one of your jobs being to serve the Kootenays

directly? It's a conflict of interest, and I think the minister should

have seen that conflict right away and removed herself from that

position. Unfortunately she has not done so.

There are

questions in local government about the objectives of this minister,

playing two games, holding two hats. Supposedly she's the Minister of

Municipal Affairs — which I think should be a far more dynamic ministry

— and at the same time she's been given the job of playing favourites

for a

[ Page 4902 ]

select region of the province. It's a direct conflict with that minister's job, and she should have seen that.

know that others have mentioned it to her, but thus far she has

refused, or hasn't seen, or is trying to not deal with that as an

issue. It is an issue, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs should

not be playing favourites. She should be objective and fair, and we

don't have that in British Columbia right now.

How can that

minister deal with allocating resources or finances or grants and yet

have a special job to do for the Kootenays? In my estimation — I've

already said it to the Premier — and as the mayor of Kelowna has stated

quite clearly, the confrontation and tension is mounting in British

Columbia with this new bureaucracy. This minister is probably in the

worst situation in creating confrontation and tension between all local

governments, because she has put herself right in the middle of

creating further tension and confrontation. The mayor of Kelowna was

correct. This system is creating tension, and it's not in the long-term

interest of or of benefit to British Columbia to maintain it.

would hope that the minister will see that someday and recognize that

she should clearly look at her role. Can she serve one particular

region and at the same time retain objectivity in serving all the

regions and communities of the province? I don't believe she can.

want to comment also that I believe the minister of state system is a

real threat to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and, as I've said, to

local government, because there's no question that the minister of

state system is a classic power grab on the part of this government and

particularly on the part of the Premier.

We all recall

vividly when the Premier left government some years ago. It was because

of the Land Act, and he called his colleagues gutless, because the Land

Act . . . . That was history. He's here now. He called his colleagues

gutless. Now that same Premier has come back to reintroduce that

system, because there were 50 ways in that Land Act that could overturn

the decisions of local government.

Let's once and for all

end the hypocrisy of this Premier and this government and see what this

decentralization really is. It's nothing but a power grab on the part

of the Premier and this government to control the agenda of local

government. Remember what that Land Act would do under the current

Premier today when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs. There were 50

ways that the minister of the day could overturn local government

decisions.

What we have in the minister of state system and

decentralization is another way for this Premier and this government to

come back and say that not only are they going to centralize the

operations of the provincial government into the Premier's office; the

Premier wishes to ensure that he controls the agenda of local

government by these inner sanctum ministers of state, these eight

governors of the regions — control as much as possible the local

government decision-making process. It has nothing to do with

decentralization, nothing to do with devolution of power, nothing to do

with protecting the autonomy of local government and nothing to do with

what the minister tries to say today, that local government is the

cornerstone of Canadian democracy.

It has been a political

con job right from the start, and the people of the province of British

Columbia have seen through it. Now, slowly but surely, mayors are

beginning to speak up. We've had the mayor of Kelowna and the mayor of

Kamloops. Even Jim Matkin has said he doesn't understand what this

supposedly new system is supposed to do for the people of the province.

believe the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been downgraded. I think

this ministry, which is supposed to serve, could be very innovative and

challenging. Looking at long-range policies as our province urbanizes

more and changes, growth and economic development happen, this ministry

should be in the vanguard of preparing for that change. But it's not.

We have a caretaker mentality currently incumbent in that ministry. We

have no innovation in terms of putting forward ideas and suggestions

for how local government can be in the vanguard of change. Its

importance in the political scheme of things should be far higher, in

my estimation, and unfortunately it now seems to be a minor play in the

scheme of things with this government.

But it's not, Mr.

Chairman. In my travels in this province I have heard many ideas that

have come from local government but have been thwarted by this

government. For instance, prior to this minister of state system being

imposed on local government, many local councils and regional districts

had prepared economic development strategies and were patiently waiting

for legislation or policy initiatives that would allow them to move

ahead into those areas: real devolution of power allowing local

government to show the initiative in economic development, not a system

imposed by the Premier and this government which is basically going to

dictate to those regions what they're going to be doing. Suddenly,

overnight, those ideas they had for economic development were scrapped

and put aside — years of work. Suddenly there was a whole new ball game

in town.

In my travels I find there's absolute frustration

in local government, because under this system we have a bureaucracy

that is mounting, multitudes of committees, council members and mayors

being asked to go to various committee meetings of these new systems,

and yet they don't know what the purpose is and what the end result

will be.

Where else could this government, without another

bureaucracy, achieve and hear ideas for economic development — free? We

don't need another $16 million that you've currently got for the

bureaucracy of the ministers of state. It's $16 million so far, another

$16 million, supposedly, in small grants of $2 million for each

minister of state. Why do we need all those millions of dollars to do

what local government has been able to do for a long, long time?

[3:00]

I go

back again to the mayor of Kamloops, who says he believes there's a

hidden agenda. I think he's right. We don't need those multitudes of

committees. We don't need the member for Surrey running around the MLAs

and the local councils in the Kootenays and creating more work through

17 task forces and committees when local government has been able to do

its job for a long, long time. Those ideas can be tapped with a phone

call or a 37 cent stamp to the head of the regional districts of those

areas, saying: "Please send us down your development ideas for your

region." Why do you have to create another level of bureaucracy and

spend $16 million to date to do the very thing that can be done very

simply?

Eleven hundred politically astute, locally elected

officials are the sense of what is really required in every region of

this province. We need to go back to honouring those 1,100 people, go

back to a system . . . . Go back to normalcy that puts some meaning in

the minister's statement that local government is the cornerstone of

Canadian democracy. That

[ Page 4903 ]

talent

and those ideas for economic development have to be accessed in an

honest and forthright manner, not in the political agenda that we have

now from the Premier and this government in terms of the minister of

state. Then we'd start to get things done in British Columbia. It's the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs that should be leading real

decentralization and devolution of power, looking at ways that local

governments can have a greater say in the issues that face them in

their regions.

Those are the challenges for this ministry,

and what we've got is a minister who has been swamped and overtaken by

the Premier in his gamble and his experiment in confrontation — this

minister of state. This minister has, I think, rolled over and accepted

the demise, in many respects, of the autonomy of local government.

That's why in her opening remarks she tries to say that local

government is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. There is no

meaning today behind those remarks in terms of how this government

governs the province. This ministry is weaker than ever. You've only

got to take a look at how many planners and people have retired, and

I'll go through those in a minute.

I want to ask the

minister some specific questions about the ministry staff. You can see

that it's been downgraded, when it should be out there in the regions

through an honest way, not through a new bureaucracy or minister of

state. It should be out there accessing the ideas for regional

development and bringing them back to the legitimate committees of this

House, to the Legislature and the cabinet system. That's how we do it

in a parliamentary democracy. That's how it has been done since

Confederation in this country, not through some trumped-up system that

came out of the Premier's mind — out of the Poole room. That's how we

do it in the parliamentary system. This ministry, if this minister had

been out to do it, should have been speaking up right from the start

against this current system that we have in place in B.C. In my

estimation, this minister of state system is a challenge or a threat to

the very existence of the ministry in terms of how it has traditionally

served the regions.

I want very quickly to talk about how a

New Democrat government would approach real decentralization. A New

Democrat government would be extremely different to the way this

government has done it. First, we would consult before any major

change. This minister talked about consultation. There was absolutely

no consultation by the Premier when they introduced the presidential

Republican-style system that's alien to our Canadian way of life. A New

Democrat government would emphasize the value of what you have to say,

not who you know. We believe it is fundamentally wrong when someone is

given an unfair edge over the competition because they are a member of

the Premier's inner circle. That's what is happening in B.C. today with

this inner sanctum of eight ministers and the people who can access

that through these unelected committees in the regions — not through

local government, but through these unelected task forces or whatever.

There is a real threat to the system that we have accepted in this

country and this province for a very long time.

I recognize

that when you talk about parliamentary systems and democracy, people on

the street think only parliamentarians are interested in those issues.

I disagree. I think very much of the treasured sacred system that we

have inherited from our fathers and grandfathers in terms of how we

govern ourselves in this province and this country. The Premier

admitted in 1986 that the parliamentary system is somewhat antiquated,

and now we know what he means. That's why we continue to speak. That's

why I and the Leader of the Opposition continue to travel in the

province: to speak up for local government and local democracy and

allow them to have the systems that allow the policies and legislation

that allow them to make the decisions in their region, not some system

that the Premier has in his mind in terms of control from Victoria.

Real

decentralization has nothing to do with the complex, costly elaborate

structure that we have offered today, a structure that we all know the

Premier can override at his whim. Real decentralization will provide

our communities with statutory authority and access to the resources

that let them get on with the job — laid out in law, in statute,

clearly defined what the rights, privileges and responsibilities of

local government are under real decentralization, and therefore the

areas provided for under provincial jurisdiction. At the moment we

don't have anything like that at all. It's our contention that under

real decentralization — that's devolution of power and decision-making

to the local level — economic growth can only happen when people have a

real say in economic decisions affecting their local area.

What

we're talking about across this province, in the communities, the towns

and villages, is real economic control for local communities and

government, not what this government is now well known for: providing

for their friends — the powerful, the rich and the multinational

corporations in this province. This government is not perceived as

representing the ordinary British Columbian, the average British

Columbian, what we call the ordinary Joe in the street. It has nothing

to do with that at all. They are seen as taking care of their friends.

We've had that for the last few months; we've all seen the shenanigans

and what's gone on with the Premier and his friends. That's what this

government represents today, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : On a point of order, I would like to have the hon. member explain what shenanigans.

MR. BLENCOE : I don't know if he really wants me to get into . . . .

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

I am referring, obviously, to the Premier's good friend Mr. Toigo and

all the problems that have arisen over that, and the deals . . . .

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : That's the question, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier seems very defensive about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Perhaps both hon. members would take their seats. I find it very

difficult to associate the tone of the member's debate at this point

with the estimates of the minister. I would certainly appreciate it if

we could make these comments relevant. We're dealing with vote 51 in

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE : I am

talking about real economic development and decentralization only

coming when you have a government that believes in decision-making at

the

[ Page 4904 ]

local

level. I am saying that this government does not believe in real

decentralization at all. What we have now, through the minister of

state system set up by this Premier, is unelected bureaucracy and

unelected committees supposedly going to start to make decisions in

those regions, and it has nothing at all to do with local democracy. We

can only conclude that the objective and the agenda is to start to make

decisions on economic development that are not made at the local level

by elected people, but by unelected officials on these committees.

I was saying, there is a perception in British Columbia today that this

government is not working in the interests of all British Columbians or

ordinary British Columbians, the average working person in British

Columbia. They're working for friends, for special interests, for the

powerful.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : How do you know? You've never worked.

MR. BLENCOE :

The Premier can start calling names, he can get nasty and he can get

personal, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British

Columbia have seen through this government in terms of the structures

it's imposing on local government. We will stand up against it. We

believe that we should give our communities the resources to put in

place programs that will support economic development plans coming from

the local area, resources that will, for example, put their education

and health programs and their municipal infrastructure in solid shape.

What

we've got so far in nine months is a multitude of committees and a

bureaucracy that is doing something out there in all these regions, yet

we have no report back to this Legislature. We have local councils

wondering now what's going to happen when these committees and this

minister of state system start to make decisions. Whose decision-making

is going to be paramount? There is a crisis emerging in the province of

British Columbia in terms of whose ability to make decisions for the

regions is going to be supreme. Is it going to be the elected people,

elected by their local people in their regions or in their councils, or

is it going to be these new Ministers of state, this unelected

bureaucracy? Are those committees going to start to make decisions? I

will ask the Premier, and the minister can put this down as a question:

whose decision-making authority is going to be number one? Is it going

to be the ministers of state and the committees and the decisions they

make, or is it going to be the elected councils and regional district

officials?

We're starting to see that happen already.

Questions begin to arise over that very issue. Real decentralization

would not even have to have that question put, because we automatically

believe that the people elected in their regions, in their councils, in

their communities and in their towns are the ultimate decision-makers.

Yet we have that kind of question being asked. Which bureaucracy level

— the unelected bureaucracy or the democratically elected one — is

going to be paramount in those regions?

We would establish

economic development areas throughout the province where, for example,

major land use decisions could be made through the right process; that

is, local councils and regional districts. Many of those regions now

have economic development commissions that have been working for a long

time, and we believe they should carry on with their job.

Unfortunately, all that has been suspended with this new system that's

been introduced.

Effective decentralization will build a

stable political environment, which we regard as one of our most

valuable assets. Unfortunately we don't have a particularly stable

political environment in British Columbia at this time. Under this

Premier, this government seems determined to reduce and undermine that

basic asset. Even though we disagree quite strongly with this

government's policies, we want the government to be stable. Yet there

is great instability in the province today because no one out in those

regions really knows who is supposed to be making the decisions.

[3:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : They know. If you attend a meeting, you'll find out what happens there. You've been invited.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister says I've been invited to various meetings. Maybe the

minister would like to respond to some of the general comments, and

then I can carry on.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It appears

that most of the discussion to this point centres around the

decentralization regionalization process. It is really unfortunate that

the member opposite has not taken advantage of the opportunity to

participate in the process. He might then have a little bit of

knowledge of exactly what is going on and how it is being received by

the communities. I can assure the member that it is being very well

received by the communities in the Kootenay region.

Decentralization

does not interfere with local government; it truly complements it.

Decentralization is only intended to provide readier access to

provincial programs, with a view to customizing provincial programs to

the needs of the regions.

The question was put: whose

decision will be number one? This question is certainly based on some

false logic. It presupposes that there will be conflict between local

government and the development regions, and we have not found this to

be the case.

The focus of the regionalization initiative is

broader-based than that of local or regional governments in attempting

to identify the issues. This is a forum that was not previously

available. You suggest that possibly there has been a "playing

favourites" situation, to use your phrase. I will admit that prior to

my appointment I spent very little time in the Kootenay region. I will

also admit that each time I visit the region, I grow to enjoy and love

it more and more.

I want to tell you, hon. member, that it

is very important for members of this government to know and to deal

with people from right across the province — not just from the lower

mainland or Vancouver Island but from throughout the province. I'm

finding this a very worthwhile and meaningful exchange of ideas as I

travel across the Kootenay region.

When you suggest that

there's a possible conflict of interest, I think you should maybe have

a look at the revenue-sharing grants that have been issued this year.

Very obviously, there is no bias being shown in programs in my

ministry. We deal with them on a needs basis and on a very fair basis

across the province, with no bias or any favouritism to any region,

including the constituency that I represent. The experience is valuable

not only to the ministers for the knowledge that I can take to cabinet,

but to the people of the region as well.

For you to suggest that $16 million is somehow being wasted or thrown around to promote this program is just

[ Page 4905 ]

further

reinforcing the fact that you have so little regard for small business.

That $16 million program is to allow the ministers of state the

initiative to secure financial assistance to people out in those

regions who otherwise have no access to funding, no access to financial

assistance, yet have a great idea that could be very beneficial to some

small corner of this province. The $16 million, hon. member, that

you've been speaking of with such disdain is to help small businesses.

Members on this side of the House support small business and will do

whatever they can to ensure that they not only become established but

flourish and grow.

I think I've pretty well covered the

points you mentioned. I look forward to some more serious questions

coming from your side of the House.

MR. BLENCOE : I'm

pleased that the minister is happy that she can visit the Kootenays and

get to know it better; that's very nice. But you know, Mr. Chairman,

we're not here to please the minister. We're here to serve all the

people of British Columbia equally, fairly and justly. This minister

has been given a duty that is in conflict with her position as Minister

of Municipal Affairs. She's been asked to play governor of a region.

She's been asked to play the czar of the Kootenays and at the same time

deal with all the other towns and villages fairly, justly and equally.

She is in direct conflict with that job, Mr. Chairman.

happen to think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and that minister

have an extremely important role in government. It's somewhat different

from the other portfolios because you have to deal with all those

councils, regional districts, towns and villages, and be fair — and

appear to be fair.

What we have is a minister who says

she's happy to travel around the Kootenays. I'm pleased she likes it

over there; that's fine. But I hope she puts in just as much time in

other regions of this province. I hope she's putting in just as much

time in trying to deal with the Prince George area or the Vancouver

Island area.

Mr. Chairman, that minister knows very well that she's in conflict and that she should not be a minister of state.

The

minister brought up the question of the $16 million I mentioned for

seed capital funds — supposed to start May 1. She said I'm against

small business. On the contrary, the reason I'm complaining about this

new program, as the spokespersons for small business have already said,

is that they are totally confused and frustrated by more bureaucracy in

terms of accessing government loans or support.

MR. HARCOURT : More red tape.

MR. BLENCOE : More red tape. One gigantic hunk of red tape to frustrate local government and small business.

Let's

make it clear first that that program was supposed to have started on

May 1 and still hasn't started. Let's put the record straight. The

procedures in place for accessing economic development funds — the

procedures that the Ministry of Economic Development has — are still in

place, plus we now have four other processes from the minister of state

imposed on the procedure. We're bringing the province to an economic

standstill.

We all know the first loan that was supposed to

be given out by the governor of the mainland, the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Veitch) . . . . The red tape was so overwhelming that the

company went broke before the minister of state could get the money to

it. How much bureaucracy can small business stand in the province of

British Columbia? How much interference can local government stand?

Mr. Chairman, when you do the research and you take a look at the procedure

that this minister supposedly believes in for small business, in terms of the

minister of state, guess what. When she or her colleagues as ministers of state

go through this incredible task force and committees and everything else to

get small business support, guess who has to authorize it after the whole process

is finished: the Minister of Economic Development.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The line ministry.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister has said that's the line ministry. You bet; that's the

line ministry. That's the normal way of doing things in a parliamentary

democracy.

We have another level of bureaucracy frustrating

small business and local government. Yet every minister of state I've

asked questions of in the last three or four months has not been able

to defend this system one iota. They know, in the words of the mayor of

Castlegar, Audrey Moore, who ran for Social Credit, who said to me and

others: "If we wanted to introduce a system that would bring British

Columbia to a standstill economically, we would introduce the minister

of state system."

You take a look at the bureaucracy and

the steps now that small business has to go through, the hurdles they

have to jump over to access dollars for loans. No wonder the small

business community is frustrated and fed up. As the mayor of Kelowna

has said, tension and confrontation are building in British Columbia.

This

government doesn't like to hear these things, but we will speak up for

local government. We will speak up for efficiencies in government. We

will speak up for small business being able to access support quickly

and efficiently without another level of bureaucracy to go through.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Then you should support the program.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister says I should support the program. How can we support the

program when every small business . . . ? Even Jim Matkin says he can't

understand it. "What's it supposed to do?" he says. Why can't we work

through line ministries? Why can't we work through cabinet committees?

Why can't we work through local government? Why can't you send a

37-cent letter to the heads of the Kootenay regional districts and the

local councils asking for their ideas on economic development, to meet

you in Victoria within two months to go over that, instead of spending

close to $2 million now?

MR. HARCOURT : What about the mayor of Kelowna? He doesn't understand it.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, the mayor of Kelowna certainly doesn't understand it. The mayor of

Kamloops has already said there's a hidden agenda. The conclusion that

I started out with and that we still have — and we'll get into more of

this when we question the minister directly about what she's doing in

her region — is that it is a system to usurp the traditional role of

local government and its autonomy by the Premier and this government.

That's the only conclusion we

[ Page 4906 ]

can

come to. It's a classic power grab on the part of this government to

take over local government. We believe as New Democrats that we speak

up for local government and its ability to make decisions without the

minister of state system being imposed.

I'll come back to

the minister of state system later on, but I want to turn now to issues

of personnel in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : Do you want to say something?

have some stats here from which I can only conclude that in 1986-87

there were 91 FTEs in the ministry; then it went up in 1987-88 to 448.

1 can only conclude that that's because there were extra departments

brought in — fire and all those things. In 1988-89, it dropped from 448

to 418 FTEs — a drop of 7 percent between '87-88 and '88-89. I'm

wondering if the minister can explain where those cuts came and what's

been happening in the ministry with staff generally.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we continue, hon. members, the member for Chilliwack has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JANSEN :

In the precincts this afternoon are some visitors from the great

neighbour to the south of us: Ms. Mary Faulk, director of the

Department of General Administration from the state of Washington; Mr.

John Nicholson, deputy director of state services, Department of

General Administration; and one of their colleagues, Ms. Meredith

Jennings. They are currently visiting Victoria, and I'd ask the members

to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr.

Chairman, under the old ministry we see a reduction of nine; under

safety and standards we see a reduction of 15; and under the University

Endowment Lands we see a reduction of six staff members — totalling 30.

MR. BLENCOE : Can the minister explain why there has been such a reduction?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It corresponds to general cuts across government and general efficiencies in the overall ministry.

MR. BLENCOE :

I understand that 47 people have taken advantage of the early

retirement program; that is, about 10 percent of the ministry staff

took advantage of the program — which is quite high, with the average

around 5 percent. Can the minister indicate why so many people have

been taking early retirement in her ministry?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It appears to be a reflection of the age in the ministry. Many of the

inspectors were in the 55-to-60 age bracket. So it's a reflection of

the age of some of the employees.

MR. BLENCOE : It

has nothing to do, of course, with the fact that working for the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs these days is extremely frustrating.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, it has nothing to do with that.

MR. BLENCOE : Nothing to do with that at all.

Could

the minister tell me how many of the people who have taken advantage of

the retirement program were supervisors, directors or managers?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It will take us a few minutes to get you that information, but we will

get it for you. They have to be totalled. We have a list.

MR. BLENCOE :

A supplementary question to that: how many of the positions vacated

through early retirement will be refilled and how many will be made

redundant?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : We'll get those figures for you as well.

MR. BLENCOE :

I want to move on to the planning component of Municipal Affairs, and

then we'll get back to some of these other things. I believe the

planning branch of the ministry includes two sections. At the Islands

Trust — and I am going to talk a little more about that specifically;

according to the Islands Trust, they have a shortfall in staff there —

the planners support the trustees and the manager. There's a manager,

three planners and an administrative officer with clerical support.

There

are also, in the program section, a manager and four planners to offer

advice and assistance to local government. Each of the four planners in

the program

section has his own territory. My staff has been told that

the emphasis in the last few years has been more on getting out in the

field. However, prior to 1981 we had about five to seven planners, each

with his own territory; there were regional offices and a headquarters

in Victoria with its own staff. In 1983 regional staff were fired and

the technical planning committee was lost. Staff have been lost through

attrition, and there are no longer headquarters-based planners. The

lack of staff has led to the headquarters staff dealing mostly with

operational policy rather than the broader policy questions of the

ministry, which are now dealt with in a separate branch. This is

the very issue I was dealing with earlier on: this ministry has got to

be looking at broader policy issues, not only for the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs but also in terms of urbanization, growth and

economic development in British Columbia.

I wonder if the

minister can give us some reasons why we have had the downsizing of the

planning component. Regional staff were fired, and the lack of staff

has led to headquarters staff dealing with mainly operational policy.

Maybe the minister can make some comments in that area.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm a wee bit confused on the specific area you are questioning — other

than planning in general. We have certainly reduced our staff in those

areas. As a result of Bill 62, as one example, there is less

interference by the ministry in the day-to-day operations of local

government. I'm led to believe that cuts are no more severe in this

particular ministry than elsewhere in government. If you have a

specific you would like to zero in on, I would be pleased to respond.

MR. BLENCOE :

In my estimation, the planning component of the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs is overworked, understaffed and cannot really do in-depth work

at all.

[ Page 4907 ]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

That's my opinion and that's the job of the opposition. That member may

want to get to his feet rather than comment ignorantly from his seat.

want to know if the minister has given any consideration to looking at

regional planning components, regional staff, and maybe increasing the

planning component so we can do more than just operational policy and

also look at broader policy questions of the ministry. I think it's a

very important area, and this again fits into the statements I've been

making that this ministry should be doing a lot more in terms of being

in the vanguard of some exciting innovation for our future. I know for

Socreds the word "planner" sometimes is not a good word, but we believe

that you have to plan if you're going to have a successful future.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

If I'm understanding the comments of the hon. member correctly, they're

almost inconsistent with the arguments that he put forward concerning

the decentralization and regionalization process. Is there a specific

planning area that you are suggesting the ministry should be involved

with? We do not do field planning per se, but the staff does examine

plans to determine whether or not they're consistent with provincial

interests.

We're certainly not there looking over the

shoulders of local government planners or the people who are preparing

these official community plans and the regional plans. If you feel that

the ministry should be more involved with that, we're going to have to

disagree.

MR. BLENCOE : Who currently handles the long-term policy process in the planning field?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Are you referring to long-term policy planning?

MR. BLENCOE : That's right.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : That's a unit within our development planning area.

MR. BLENCOE :

Can the minister tell me what they're working on these days? What's

their objective and some of the things they're doing these days?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

They are at this time working on model bylaws so that they can assist

local government. They advise local government and developers on the

development process. They assist local governments in preparing

comprehensive development plans.

MR. BLENCOE : Can

the minister tell me what relationship there is between the planning

process encouraged through the minister's planning grants and the

planning process being encouraged and funded by the ministers of state?

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID :

On behalf of Rita Johnston and other people around the province, we

have in the constituency today visiting from Duncan very strong

supporters of Graham Bruce and others around the province, Dick Drew

and his wife from Duncan radio station.

MR. BLENCOE :

I will put the question to the minister again, Mr. Chairman. What

relationship is there between the planning process encouraged through

your ministry's planning grants and the planning process being

encouraged and funded by the ministers of state? Is there any

relationship?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The ministry

planning grants are for land use, community plans and regulatory

bylaws. Do you have a specific planning situation with regard to a

minister of state that you're referring to, or just the process in

general that they're looking at as far as the task forces are

concerned? They are looking at not only short-term but also long-term

planning, and prioritizing the requirements as the people in the area

see them for their region.

MR. BLENCOE : How much of

the time of the planning component of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

is being spent on planning for minister of state requests?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Aside from occasional requests on specific items, almost none.

Could

I answer an earlier question, Mr. Chairman? We have 13 early

retirements that will not be refilled. Under managerial, including the

University Endowment Lands fire department, we have eight.

MR. BLENCOE : Thirteen of the 30 are not being replaced?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : And eight in managerial.

MR. BLENCOE :

Could the minister tell me what processes she’s gone through to decide

on not replacing these kinds of people? I wonder how your ministry is

making these decisions in terms of service to these areas. What are

some of the criteria you are looking at?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

As you mentioned earlier, hon. member, the ministry is smaller, and the

restructuring has resulted in fewer positions being required. I guess

it comes right down to the rationalization of the positions that are

being filled or refilled.

[3:45]

MR. BLENCOE :

This minister earlier talked about local government as the cornerstone

of Canadian democracy and about decentralization and all those things.

This is the point I've been making: that this ministry itself should be

the model for decentralization. This is a ministry that should be

decentralizing itself into the regions. It should have planners

specifically looking at issues in those regions, and there should be

adequate staffing to do those very things. Over the past few years,

they've been cut back dramatically to the point where they just push

pencils. They're good people, but they're overworked and they can't do

the job to serve those municipalities and get out in the regions.

I believe that this ministry itself should be decentralizing. If there is one ministry that should have a presence in the

[ Page 4908 ]

regions, it's this ministry. I'm wondering if the minister could talk about her ministry in that capacity.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I guess it would just be great if we were able to go ahead and hire

people that we could just place right across the province, and that

applies to all of the ministries.

MR. HARCOURT : The $16 million.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The $16 million, to the Leader of the Opposition, once again is a very

significant statement coming from that side of the House. It's obvious

that they don't share the concern that members on this side have for

assistance to small business. The $16 million that has been allocated

is specifically to assist small business in all of the regions of the

province.

The regionalization process is an excellent

example of working with local government, working with local

organizations, going out into the field and saying to the people who

live in those areas: "What do you want to see happening in your

community? Let's take stock of the assets that are presently in place,

the services that are presently in place. How would you like to see

your community developed? What can the provincial government do to help

you accomplish the goals that you set out for yourself?" For goodness'

sake, what is wrong with that process? It is truly democratic

consultation in action. What more could you be asking of any of the

ministers or any government than to go out and work with the people in

every comer of the province and not just confine all of the activities,

economic generators and business activities to the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island, particularly government services in Victoria?

MR. BLENCOE :

I'll correct the minister: the $16 million is for a regional seed

capital program. That's separate from the in excess of $14 million that

these governors — the minister is one — now have in administrative

budgets. The first $8 million, as we all know, was done illegally by

special warrant, in violation of the Financial Administration Act. Then

in this budget they've had additional millions added. It totals $14

million in administration.

The point I'm making is that you

don't need that $14 million. If we had a Ministry of Municipal Affairs

that was decentralized and a decent number of staff, and we had those

regional offices in the regions that we had them in before, and we had

local government being able to put forward their economic strategies in

a democratic fashion, not through some unelected bureaucracy, some

trumped-up system by the Premier, we'd start to get real

decentralization through the appropriate ministries. That's what we're

talking about: respect for local government, for democracy, for real

decentralization and for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If it had

its regional offices decentralized and a decent staffing component, we

could do these things far cheaper. Fourteen million dollars — for what?

MR. WEISGERBER : So you are in favour of decentralization?

MR. BLENCOE :

We're in favour of devolution of power. Go check it in the dictionary;

I know it may not compute with you. We're in favour of giving local

government the ability to make greater decisions in the regions without

the interference of this government or its bureaucracy. That's what

we're for; that's the issue.

This minister can say she's in

favour of decentralization, but in her own ministry, which used to be

decentralized to some degree, we've had a closing down of those

regional offices and staff cutbacks in planning and helping those

communities. That's the ministry that should be in the vanguard of real

decentralization. We don't have that today at all. We've got the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and this minister prepared to see local

government's agenda taken over by this alien minister of state system.

Quite frankly, I hope the minister goes back and takes a look at her

staffing complement and at what the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

should be doing in serving this province and these communities.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a few comments.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would suggest that the statements made by the member opposite very

clearly define the difference between the two political parties. The

model of decentralization of the NDP is to put more bureaucrats into

the field. The model for Social Credit, the government in power, is to

build a grassroots system based largely on local people. Where can you

truly get a feel for what the people of the region would like to see

happening in their community? Are you going to get that by putting more

bureaucrats in the field, or are you going to get it by going out and

talking to the people, the movers and shakers of the regions? That's

the way you're going to accomplish what the people at the grass roots

want to see happening, not by opening up more offices and placing more

bureaucrats out in the regions.

MR. HARCOURT : I want

to talk about two or three things involving the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, but I just want to say first of all that we do have a serious

and genuine difference of philosophy about what should be happening in

terms of letting the grass roots have a far greater say. We don't seem

to be able to speak with each other about this.

We think

the best way to do that is to go to the people directly; to go directly

to the local councils and regional districts and have those people

already there, with their contacts with the chambers of commerce, the

labour councils, the native leaders and the local MLAs, without having

these super ministers interfering in that whole process . . . . It's

another level of bureaucracy interfering with what we've evolved over

the last century. It's a foreign, alien approach, this United States of

British Columbia, for the British parliamentary system and for the

Canadian federation.

We have an honest difference of

opinion about how you bring about grassroots participation, how you

involve local communities. We're not going to get very far in this

Legislature talking to each other about it, because we have a totally

different view of what grassroots democracy is all about.

What

I want to deal with is not decentralization. The member for Victoria,

our Municipal Affairs critic, has very ably brought forward the flaws

of this severely flawed concept that will have the same lasting power

as the Partners in Enterprise program, before it evaporated into thin

air. What I want to do is to speak about a couple of areas that I think

can have bipartisan support. One of them is the whole question of

municipal infrastructure. The basic services of municipal government in

this province and throughout the country are falling apart: the sewer,

water and roads — the basics of any community, large or small.

[ Page 4909 ]

The

second area where I think we can have bipartisan support is in the

skills that British Columbians have in the municipal area in putting

together fine communities. That can be utilized in the international

urban aid and trade program, which is starting to become a very large

and successful undertaking in the developing countries, with their

burgeoning populations.

The third area I'd like to talk

about is the whole question of transit, and in particular, the regional

transit authority in greater Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, the

whole question of municipal infrastructure has been canvassed very

thoroughly by municipalities throughout this country, by the

organizations that represent municipal government, whether it be the

Union of B.C. Municipalities or the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities, and by all the other municipal organizations across

Canada. I had the honour to co-chair a task force, with the ex-mayor of

Matsqui, to take a look at the state of municipal services in Canada.

We came to the conclusion that about $12 billion was needed to be

invested back into our municipal governments to deal with the sewage

lines that were starting to fall apart, the water systems that were

starting to leak, and the roads that were becoming pot-holed and very

dangerous, in many instances, for continuing commercial and

recreational travel. It's now up to $15 billion. The Federation of

Canadian Municipalities met recently in Halifax, I understand, and the

cost has gone from $12 billion to $15 billion, and it's going to keep

going up exponentially. The more we wait, the worse it's going to get.

The

minister and I have talked about this, and both sides of this

Legislature agree enthusiastically that the work needs to be done. I'm

very pleased that the minister recognizes that, because that program

would create 60,000 new jobs in Canada; 5,000 in British Columbia alone

— the private sector, small private contractors and small business

people throughout this province. If we want to talk about the impact

and our support for small business, the impact of this program on small

business would be dramatic. We have developed detailed information

provincially and nationally of how this program would pay for itself.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities hired a major consulting

outfit, Informetrica, to show that for every dollar invested by the

federal government they'd get a dollar back; and it would create 60,000

new jobs per year for the five-year period of this program —

cost-shared one-third, one-third and one third. The benefits in British

Columbia, as I said, would be about 5,000 jobs. Madam Minister, you

know there's about a billion dollars' worth of documented work that

needs to be done; 60 percent of that involves roads, secondary roads in

particular, which are 50 percent a provincial responsibility. So it

would be of benefit to get this program going in British Columbia.

The

problem isn't here in this Legislature, because we have bipartisan

support for this program — and the minister agrees with me. The problem

isn't in other provincial governments, because there's unanimous

agreement at the provincial level. There's unanimous agreement at the

municipal level. Federally, Mr. Chairman, is where the problem is. The

problem is in the federal parliament, which for decades encouraged

urban growth, encouraged CMHC to make winter works available, to make

servicing of subdivisions available, to increase the population in

Canada; and after having done that, abandoned the field. Those

subdivisions that were created in the forties, fifties and sixties are

now facing some serious problems with their infrastructure.

The

problem in the federal parliament is more precise, Mr. Chairman. It's

not with the New Democrats and Liberals, whose leaders have come to the

Federation of Canadian Municipalities conventions and shown their

approval for the one-third participation of the federal government — $5

billion, a billion dollars a year for the next five years, which they

would get back into the federal treasury through the construction work

that would take place. It's not with a good portion of the Tory caucus

or cabinet. The problem, to be very precise, is with the Minister of

Finance, from Bay Street, who doesn't understand small-town Canada,

doesn't understand municipal government, and doesn't understand how

important sewer and water and road systems are to the financial affairs

of this country. And it rests with the Prime Minister, who has written

and said: "We will not finance this." Brian Mulroney should understand

this better than anybody, supposedly. His campaign was to go through

the small towns of this country — and he didn't learn very much. It's

the small towns that can't afford to fix up their basic infrastructure.

Those are the two people we have got to convince. We have a federal

election coming up. Can you think of a better time to get that point

across?

[4:00]

I would urge

us all to push the three federal parties to support this program and

make a commitment that after the federal election it will take place,

or we're all going to be in serious trouble. If we wait another five

years, it's going to cost us all a heck of a lot more than the $15

billion we're talking about right now. I would like to have this

Legislature work in a bipartisan way to make sure that this issue is

put forward in the next federal election so that we can get on with the

job of repairing the basic services of the towns, cities, villages and

municipalities throughout this province of ours.

The second

area where I think we can cooperate is that of the international

municipal aid and trade program. There is a particular opportunity for

British Columbia to play a role here with our focus onto the

Asia-Pacific community. I want to let members of the Legislature know

that this very exciting new initiative through the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities and through CIDA is an area that I was involved

in when I was mayor of Vancouver, and a number of my colleagues across

the country participated. We were able to get across the alarming

message that the developing countries are facing an almost cataclysmic

challenge that they cannot meet by themselves, which is going to

redound on all of us. That message. Madam Minister — and you and I have

talked about this program — is that by the year 2000 over half the

world's population is going to live in cities, and those cities can't

cope with that growth. For example, there are 17 million people living

in Mexico City right now. In another 12 years there will be 30 million

people living there, on a lake bed that's subject to volcanic

eruptions, that has an inversion problem of massive proportions

already, an air pollution problem that is suffocating millions of

citizens.

The opportunity for Canada and British Columbia

to participate is a very exciting one, because it's not just an

international aid program. It can lead to the selling of Canadian

expertise in sewer and water systems, in planning, in transportation,

in municipal financial procedures and technology, both hardware and

software . . . . There are all sorts of business opportunities in what

looks like an international aid program but could lead to a tremendous

amount of trade with the developing countries.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, there are two pilot projects underway, and I'm sure you're very interested in this with

[ Page 4910 ]

your

involvement in municipal government. Those two projects are taking

place in Africa and China. They are sponsored by the Federation of

Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian International Development

Agency. They involve $10 million that, hopefully, will be shortly

approved by the minister to aid a number of African cities with all

these problems I've just talked about: the bursting-at-the-seams

problem of these urban populations. They aren't people moving from the

countryside to the cities, which is a common myth. These are young

people, 80 percent of whom already live in those existing cities and

are having children in increasing numbers. That is where the challenge

is, not the people shifting from the countryside, as we previously

thought. There are a number of cities in Africa that are going to

receive this aid involving Canadian expertise, municipal planners,

municipal finance and engineering staff, people in the private sector

who have skills that we in Canada are unique in possessing. We are

close to the best in the world in this area of cities.

The

second pilot project that is underway involves 14 coastal cities in

China, where we have a number of tremendous opportunities. I would like

to talk about those shortly.

MR. JANSEN : In listening to the debate in regard to some of the views expressed regarding decentralization, I get a little confused.

hear the member from Victoria indicate that he's very much against

decentralization but he's in favour of devolution. I hear him talk

against decentralization and constantly hear him talk against

regionalization. But when he's talking about planning, he mentions that

we should decentralize the planning process and bring it into the

regions so that we, as Big Brother in Victoria, can tell the people of

the areas how they should plan and what they should do, and that we in

Victoria have a better idea.

The Leader of the Opposition

has said he's not against the philosophy of going to the people and

asking them their opinions. That's precisely what this government is

doing. We are going to the regions and talking to the councils, the

chambers of commerce and the school boards. We are getting their ideas,

getting their opinions, getting their input in regard to the economic

development in this province.

It concerns us that there is

so much criticism about the decentralization process, and yet there's

no interest from the other side. There's no attendance at the meetings.

There's criticism, criticism, criticism. Why is that? The concern is

that people from the other side aren't interested in helping the people

of the communities. They're not interested in helping the people of the

province. They're not interested in being part of a good-news story.

Indeed, the decentralization process is a good-news story. We are

getting tremendous results. We're finding that people do have good

ideas; we in Victoria don't have a monopoly on ideas. The people out

there have good ideas that we should work on, and we should work

together with them and develop the communities that they represent.

are concerned about employment opportunities. We're not sitting back

here saying: "Sorry, folks. All we can do is criticize." We're saying:

"Tell us how we can help you better." We hear criticism about the seed

capital program. We keep hearing this figure of $16 million that's

being spent unwisely. Isn't it strange that we on this side of the

House believe in small business? Isn't it strange that we too extend a

helping hand to enable small business in B.C. to become viable, to

become employment opportunities for our young people in the smaller

communities so that they don't have to go to downtown Victoria or

downtown Vancouver in order to find work but can find it in the

communities they live in? Isn't that strange?

That $16

million is an allocation of funding to enable the financial

institutions to assist them in obtaining loan opportunities. Those are

the things we're talking about.

I find it passing strange

that we talk about $14 million in this little pot of funds. Where do

they get their figures from? It reminds me of the budget debate that we

had some time ago, so filled with inconsistencies and errors that to

use the benefit of irrational criticism and . . . .

As I

indicated before, I find some of the comments totally irrelevant and

not consistent with the facts. I hope the members opposite will someday

get on the bandwagon and recognize that they too have an opportunity to

help the people of the province provide employment opportunities. I'm

sorry to hear some of the concerns and criticisms. I think the member

for Victoria should reach out and understand what the real world is all

about by someday going to the rest of the province and talking to the

communities.

MR. HARCOURT : Before I return to the

municipal aid and trade opportunity that I think is one that could

involve billions of dollars of projects evolving into trade

opportunities and the developing countries, I'd like to respond just

briefly to those desperate remarks, which I find hard to gel with the

reality of the Social Credit budget. We hear the words "free

enterprise" and "small business" all the time, and then this Social

Credit government increases the tax for small business and decreases it

for big business.

This is the government that has already

set up a bureaucracy to deal with economic development; then they

establish more ministries because they think the Economic Development

ministry isn't doing a good job. Instead of using the Municipal Affairs

ministry — which I would hope they would have some confidence in,

because there are some good people there — they invent these new

superministries, a sort of county idea left over from the Premier's

agenda when he left the province in a snit. They take this foreign idea

from the United States which has been a flop in Alberta and Ontario.

Even in the States they're looking at this mish-mash of bureaucracy

that the county system is creating.

I know that the member

for Chilliwack has a desperate and awful task to be the minister of

defence of something that's indefensible — the decentralization

bureaucracy. I think it was a good pitch for the cabinet shuffle coming

up in July, but no cigars to the member for that desperate defence of

an indefensible concept that will go the way of the Partners in

Enterprise program.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I

would like to continue with one of the two pilot projects that I was

talking about earlier. It is taking place in China, an exciting country

of 1.1 billion people. A number of Canadian cities are twinned with

cities in China, and a number of Canadian provinces — not British

Columbia yet — are twinned with provinces in China. When we're talking

provinces in China, I'll give you the one where Vancouver has a sister

city, Guangzhou. It's a province of 70 million people called Guangdong

province, where 90 percent of the fine Chinese–Canadian citizens that

we have in British Columbia come from; their families come from there.

What we have done, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities

and CIDA, is to engage in a fine exchange of

[ Page 4911 ]

expertise,

of technology, of specific hardware that we have in our municipal

areas, that have opened up a whole range of larger trade missions of

municipal governments into China, whether it be Vancouver into

Guangzhou, whether it be Edmonton into Harbin or whether it be Toronto

into one of the largest cities — 11 million — in central China. There

are opportunities there.

This pilot project, with the 14

coastal cities, of $7 million to have Canadian engineers and financial

planners at the municipal level — Canadians who are expert in municipal

government — assist our friends in the People's Republic of China and

their cities with their modernization program is a marvellous

opportunity that we should be enthusiastically getting involved in,

particularly here in British Columbia, the front door onto the

Asia–Pacific area. So I would urge the minister to have the officials

in her ministry make contact with the Federation of Canadian

Municipalities and see how British Columbia and British Columbia

municipalities can participate in this pilot project which could lead

to new programs in other developing countries around the Asia–Pacific.

I have some remarks on transit, but I think I will deal with that when we deal with transit tomorrow sometime.

[4:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

To the Leader of the Opposition. You suggest, hon. member, that if

decentralization is to work it's important that we go out and meet with

councils, and you ask why we need all these other committees. I would

like to state that as Minister of State for the Kootenays I have met

with every one of the councils in the Kootenays. I will shortly be

having separate meetings with the representatives from the three

regional districts. We have met with some of the native groups, the

chambers of commerce, the Rotary groups, the school board groups and

the hospital boards, and we are making a very concerted effort to

ensure that all of the voices of the representative groups in the

Kootenay region will be heard and will have input in the

regionalization initiative.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

It seems to me that the protests from members opposite are getting

louder and louder and really more incoherent than ever. I've arrived at

the conclusion that they're very concerned about the success of this

program and have already taken the position that they are going to

steer clear of it. Very few of their members have agreed to

participate, so they're going to completely ignore the fact that there

is this program in place. But they are now seeing some of the

successes, and I think that is what the problem is here. The members

opposite are very concerned that we do have a successful program. We

have a program that has been accepted, hon. Leader of the Opposition,

by the local governments, with very few exceptions. It has been well

received, well accepted.

MR. JONES : They don't understand it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Are you suggesting, hon. member opposite, that the members of councils

don't understand the program? Of course they understand it.

MR. JONES : Did they get a White Paper on it?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I don't know what you're talking about by a "White Paper."

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd ask the hon. members to let the minister reply, and then they can take their turn in the debate.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The program is certainly working. I will just reiterate that the

successes now beginning to come forward are obviously of concern to

members opposite. They had hoped that the program would be a flop. It

has been a great success. It has been widely received and accepted. The

participation in the Kootenay region alone involves members from every

council, every local government, the regional districts. We have

approximately 70 people from that area — truly representative of the

communities right across the Kootenay region — who are participating

with great enthusiasm. They have volunteered to serve on a number of

the task forces that have been set up. There's great enthusiasm and

acceptance.

I don't understand why members opposite suggest

that people don't understand the program. They do; they understand it

very well. They're very pleased with what they are seeing. They are

participating.

I have one regret, and that is that the

members of the New Democratic Party, who have all been extended an

invitation to participate in the program and to really find out what's

going on in their community, have refused to participate. They don't

want to contribute.

As a local elected official, I find it

very difficult to understand how you can stand on a platform at

election time and say: "Elect me. I'm going to represent you. I'm going

to work for what is good for this area." Then you refuse to serve on

one of the most important committees that has been set up in the

various regions in many a year. It seems to me that you're abrogating

your responsibilities, and the fact that the members have received it

in all regions is upsetting to you. I would suggest that it's not too

late. We welcome those of you from the Kootenays to serve on our

committees. Get on board, because this is where it's at. The grassroots

are involved, and they want to be a part of what's happening.

MR. BLENCOE : I would like to ask the minister in which area she was elected.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

If, after five years, I have to tell the member which constituency I

represent, then we're in worse shape on that side of the House than I

thought we were. I'm very proud to say that I'm the member for

Surrey–Newton.

MR. BLENCOE : I think the minister —

in one answer — gave the answer I would have given. You don't need $2

million and a member from Surrey to go into the Kootenays and usurp the

work of the local MLA and the local councils. It's absolutely not

necessary.

The minister has said we won't jump on the

bandwagon. Of course we won't jump on the bandwagon. We're not going to

jump on a system the Premier didn't even consult UBCM over.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Are you sulking?

MR. BLENCOE : No. The UBCM was never consulted about this proposal, Mr. Chairman. We're not going to join

[ Page 4912 ]

them.

We believe in local government. We believe in local democracy, and

we're not going to support a system that's trumped up by the minister

and the Premier to run local government on their agenda. We can't

support that. We can't support more red tape and more inefficiencies.

We can't support nine months of task forces, committees, coffee

meetings and doughnut-eating by various committees that are running

around the various regions with nothing happening, but they're using

taxpayers' money to do nothing. Of course we can't support that,

because you've got local councils elected to do the job — regional

districts. Write them a letter and ask them to meet with the various

line ministers about economic development. Save yourself a lot of

trouble and support democracy in the province of British Columbia.

That's why we won't support this system. We want nothing to do with it.

will come back specifically to the governor of the Kootenays later on

and ask about her task forces. I believe she has 17 with lots of coffee

and lots of meetings, but no decisions. I'll come back to that.

want to ask the minister some questions relating to local democracy in

the Victoria area, and that's the Provincial Capital Commission. The

minister has supported the appointees and is supporting the concept

that open meetings are bad for business according to her employee, Ken

Hill, chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission. Mr. Hill has said

that open meetings are bad for business, and I quote: "To hell with

open meetings, because it would be bad for certain businesses in

Victoria." He says that we can't have democracy in the Provincial

Capital Commission, and we can't have openness.

This

minister said some months ago that she was going to review the

Provincial Capital Commission mandate and their secrecy. But I see she

has continued to support the eight provincial government appointees,

and the meetings of the Provincial Capital Commission are still not

open to the people of this community. I'm wondering if the minister can

answer this question. How do secret meetings of the Provincial Capital

Commission fit with the Premier's promise for open government in the

province of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I

find that question truly interesting, because in talking to some of the

longtime members and some other very long-serving community workers, I

find that during the period of 1972-75 when the late Ernest Hall was

responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission, the same concern was

expressed: secret meetings, and everything discussed behind closed

doors. The comments were made so often that the minister responsible,

Mr. Hall, took it upon himself to attend several of those meetings —

five or six, I'm led to believe. At the conclusion of his visits he was

left with the clear impression that there wasn't a problem, and no

changes were made at that time. This information was given to me by a

member sitting on the commission at the time, so I would have to assume

that it is reasonably accurate.

I believe it is important

for us to look back over the years. I don't think the members present

would like me to read all of the wonderful projects and initiatives

that have been undertaken by the Provincial Capital Commission, but

it's very important that we acknowledge the fact that the members

serving on the commission are serving in a volunteer capacity.

I'm

not familiar with the statements attributed by the member opposite to

the chairman of the commission, but the member has been grinding away

at this and attempting to stir up the community to such an extent that

I'm sure there are people out there who feel that there is something

almost illegal taking place at some of these meetings, although that

has never been stated.

I would like to commend the members

who have served over the years on that commission for the great job

that they have done. The beautification in this area is truly a tribute

to the work that has been done. The way that it has been done is by

allowing the commission to function as they see fit. At this point in

time, I have no intention of interfering with that process.

MR. BLENCOE : Could the minister give her version of what she believes open government is? What is open government?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I guess it's something that we all take for granted. Here we are in

open session; my office is always open for discussion. I could tell you

what I think open government is not, and that is when members of the

opposition have a concern and I have to read about it in the local

press or get a call from the local radio station to ask for my

comments. I do not consider that a form of open government. I feel it

is an open door and good communication. I would hope that if we

accomplish nothing else during my term in office, it will always be

said that we do have an open-door policy in our ministry, and that

anybody who wants to come in and discuss any area of concern that falls

within our line of jurisdiction feels free to do so.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE : The Provincial Capital Commission doesn't have an open door, but the minister just said she believes in an open-door policy.

MR. REE : You never even knock on it.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE : I don't want to identify that member, because I don't want to embarrass him before his constituents.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : They don't know who he is.

the last 22 years the Provincial Capital Commission has spent a fair

amount of money. It's taxpayers' money. The minister is talking about

how she believes in openness and an open door. How can you justify

decisions on behalf of the taxpayers, paid for by the taxpayers,

decisions that are clearly, for instance, for beautification of this

region .... If there's any decision that should be open to the people,

it's beautification, because it's supposed to directly benefit them.

How

can you agree to closed meetings of public business? It's unbelievable

that a minister of the Crown and the minister responsible for the

Provincial Capital Commission is going to continue the secrecy and the

closed-door meetings and the decisions for the people of this region,

and she's going to support that. It obviously has nothing at all to do

with openness with this provincial government.

If this minister could only see the concern that has been mounted in this community over this issue. The whole issue

[ Page 4913 ]

really a major controversy in this community, and people are demanding

that there be accountability for the Provincial Capital Commission

decisions, that the decision-making process be open, that their

priorities be open, and that the debates determining priorities be open.

had, for instance, the CPR terminal — the decision to extend that

lease. This community found out about that through the back door. The

decision to do that was not debated in open session.

Quite

frankly, this minister is kowtowing to the Socred appointments, because

supposedly it will be bad for their business if they have to do public

business in the open. In my estimation, those members know that public

business should be done in the open, and if they cannot handle dealing

with taxpayers' business and the decisions around that in the open,

then they should consider their position. Our view on this side of the

House is that if you are dealing with taxpayers' money, you should be

accountable to those who are paying the bill.

MR. JONES : Let the sun shine in.

MR. BLENCOE : That's right: let the sun shine in. Let's have the PCC open to the people of this region.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The matter of open meetings and open government is one we could debate

for most of the day, and I'm certainly not in a rush to conclude our

discussions.

The one example that the second member from

Victoria used was on a piece of property . . . . The discussion with

regard to extension of the lease was on the table. As a former member

of the Victoria council . . . . I would suggest that, had a similar

matter come before Victoria council for discussion and debate, it would

probably have been dealt with in closed council, because it is a matter

dealing with property. Property and personnel matters and anything to

do with litigation are generally dealt with in closed sessions.

I understand it, there are generally also items of a very broad,

general nature on the agenda which are discussed in closed session at

the Capital Commission meetings, and I don't really agree with that

particular situation. I know that the members of the Capital Commission

reviewed the way that they were conducting their business, and they

looked at their agendas. Their final determination by a majority vote

was that they would continue along the same vein that they had been

previously.

I don't necessarily agree with that decision,

but I respect their right to make it. It may become necessary for me to

sit down and talk to them again about items on their agenda that could

better be handled in open session if it really is a concern to the

general public. But I would like to stress that situations with regard

to property leases, personnel and litigation will undoubtedly continue

to be dealt with in closed session, with the recommendations coming to

the minister's office. I think that is the way it should be done.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister has really glossed over the Dr. Arne Lane wax museum

issue. We know why the decision to grant that extension for ten years

on that key building did not come to the attention . . . . Dr. Arne

Lane was around this building lobbying like crazy with his Social

Credit friends. He's been a Social Credit bagman in this area for a

long time. Without any debate in public of that beautiful historic

building, it has been extended to him for ten years, without any public

debate of the options.

We know why the minister doesn't

want this PCC open. Again we are finding that this government more and

more is using the offices of government to benefit friends. It's

obvious that it is happening more and more. Here we have a ten-year

extension on that historic building without any debate in the public

arena of whether that should happen.

I don't disagree with

the minister that the negotiations for the lease payment should be in

camera. I don't have any problems with that. But the actual concept of

extending that lease, or for this community to be able to see that they

are even considering extending the lease on that wax museum for ten

years . . . . What a way to find out that this community has to have

that tourist attraction in that beautiful building for another ten

years. No discussion at all. Don't you think the people of this city

have a right to know that the PCC extended a lease on that building?

MR. WILLIAMS : Do we at least get a percentage?

MR. BLENCOE : I don't know. You try and get information out of the PCC in terms of the negotiations. It’s virtually impossible.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't have any problems with the lease discussions being in

camera, but the idea that this community had to find out through the

back door that the wax museum was extended for ten years in a critical

area of our harbour . . . . It was fait accompli: no discussion, no

scrutiny and no coverage by the media that they were considering that.

This PCC is making those kinds of decisions daily on behalf,

supposedly, of the community that it is supposed to serve: in this

case, Dr. Arne Lane, a well-known friend of the government, the finance

chairman of this region for a long time for local Social Credit

candidates. How I knew something was going on was that I saw him in

this building talking to key people, and then suddenly we find out . .

. . I'd do a little digging, a few little brown envelopes, because it's

the only way you can get information about the PCC these days. Yes

indeed, Dr. Arne Lane got another ten years at a special meeting called

by friends of his on the PCC. He got a ten-year extension on that

beautiful building.

That's the sort of thing this community

wants to end. I don't know how you can defend that process at all,

especially if you believe in open government and in people being able

to find out exactly what's going on.

The minister mentioned

earlier that she believes in consultation and in listening to local

government. The minister is aware that three out of the four core

municipalities in this area have requested that the PCC be open, that

its meetings be scrutinized. Yet she is ignoring those requests. One

can only conclude that when it benefits this minister and this

government to consult with and listen to local government, they will do

so. But when they're protecting their friends and their self-interest,

as we got with the Provincial Capital Commission, they don't believe in

open government at all. They don't, and they won't do it. This minister

is taking the word and the desire of those eight appointees, who are

saying that it will be bad for their business to do business in public.

Shame on that minister for not dealing with this in an honest and

forthright manner for once and for all.

Local government

wants it open, the people of this region want it open, and the minister

has said that if there was a public outcry she could put an end to the

PCC secrecy. There

[ Page 4914 ]

has

been a public outcry, but what's happened is that the pressure from

those appointees and friends of the government has stopped her from

dealing with this in an honest and forthright manner. So the PCC

continues to meet in secret, and of course the St. Ann's site, that

beautiful academy, which I'll get onto later . . . . We're further down

the road in a very unfortunate process over that particular

development, which I will talk about in a minute.

The

community wants open meetings for the Provincial Capital Commission;

local council wants it to be open. This community has spoken. We can

only conclude that this minister has been influenced by I'm not sure

who to continue closed-door meetings. 1 would ask the minister to. . . .

MR. WILLIAMS : Open the doors.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes. Respect local government requests for an open Provincial Capital Commission.

don't want to talk about history or Ernie Hall. Mr. Hall is no longer

with us; obviously I can't ask him. I want to deal with today. I want

to deal with a policy that's not fitting in the eighties, a Provincial

Capital Commission that is spending millions of dollars in this region

and is managing key buildings that nobody knows anything about. We've

had no information.

This minister now has her deputy

minister as the chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission. The only

conclusion I can come to is that open government, Socred style, really

is closed government unless it fits the government's agenda.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I really didn't get a question out of that dissertation, but it seems

to me that the protests we have had with regard to the meetings of the

Provincial Capital Commission have by and large come from the member

opposite and some of his friends in the community. Several of the local

councils have appointees on the commission. These people were appointed

by the local councils in order that there be some local input from

people who had been elected at large and were truly representative of

the various councils. If we look at the operation of the National

Capital Commission in Ottawa, we will find that there are no elected

officials on that commission. They seem to function very well, thank

you.

I don't look upon the Provincial Capital Commission as

a body that should only be responsible to local councils. It seems to

me that the buildings and the properties they manage are truly

provincial assets in nature, and I believe that the time may have come

for us to look at a different way of appointing members to serve on the

commission, to ensure that we have truly representative members. If and

when we review the makeup of the commission, I would certainly be

looking to the members from the capital area to give us some input into

how the commission should be made up and possibly how they could

properly structure the board to be truly reflective of the provincial

nature of the holdings that they are managing.

[4:45]

In the meantime, I think it's important for everyone in the House to

understand that we do have representation from most of the local

councils who are interested and involved in the beautification programs

that have been undertaken by the Capital Commission. It just seems to

me that they were part of the vote that was taken to continue with the

closed meetings.

MR. BLENCOE : A few weeks ago, I

thought there was a chance that this minister would finally do

something and open the Provincial Capital Commission, but obviously . .

. .

MR. R. FRASER : Is that all you've got to bleed about?

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, it's an important issue in this community and it's a very

symbolic issue. Obviously it's those business people and friends of the

government that are on this board that have determined that this

important public body will not be open to the people of this community.

I think that's very symbolic of where this government is. We will only

have openness in government when it suits the political agenda of the

government. We won't have it as a matter of principle so that the

people of this region will know what the PCC is doing. No, that's not

important. This minister is prepared to support those eight appointed

people who are guardians of key buildings and spending lots of

taxpayers' money, but principle is not important to this government.

have a draft comprehensive plan by the Provincial Capital Commission,

if the minister has read it. This also is very symbolic of the problems

of the Provincial Capital Commission. I think we've all got copies.

It's a plan for the beautification of this region drawn up by the PCC.

I don't know how much it cost the taxpayer. A plan to beautify the

region for the citizens of greater Victoria. Do you know what was

admitted in that planning process? The citizens weren't asked about

what they want in the plan. Not one public meeting, not one

consultation session with the citizens of this community by the PCC on

this plan.

I recognize that sometimes governments will make

plans without consultation, but when you're developing plans to

beautify a region for the citizens, it seems to me that's probably the

number one area in terms of planning where you'd want to consult the

community. Not one public meeting was held. The community didn't even

know it was coming out. It suddenly appeared on my desk: a "draft

comprehensive plan" of February 25, 1988, for the greater Victoria

area." Here it is. It's a nice, blue document.

It's

meaningless in terms of asking the people of this community what they

want to see in a plan. That's where this government is at. That's their

consultation. Draw it up, give it to them and say in a dog-and-pony

show in a little questionnaire: "Well, what do you think of the plan

we've got?" Why don't you talk to the citizens? Why doesn't the PCC

consult this community?

MR. WILLIAMS : Did you fill in the form?

MR. BLENCOE :

That's real democracy, eh, filling in a little form. That's