1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7893 ]

CONTENTS

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

On vote 59: minister's office –– 7893

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lockstead Mr. Gabelmann Mr. Reynolds

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will join me in

welcoming Michael Cassidy, Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre and

former leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, today we have two hon. members

celebrating birthdays in the chamber here. I would ask the House to

extend best wishes to the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who

is celebrating her 39th again this year, and to the member for Atlin

(Mr. Passarell), who is also celebrating his birthday.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery this morning are

45 students from Holy Cross Regional High School in Surrey. There are

45 others in the precincts – 90 in total. I would ask the House to

please welcome Mr. Kozak, Mr. Burns and the 90 grade 11 students from

Holy Cross Regional High School in Surrey.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY

OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. BLENCOE: I wish everybody a pleasant good morning on this

beautiful day in Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, this fine

community. I thought we could start off the discussion this morning by

reflecting on what a beautiful city I happen to live in, and a lot of

my colleagues on both sides of the House are lucky enough to reside in,

part time. I have to say that the people of Victoria always welcome all

members of this House when they are here when the session is on. Today,

indeed, is a very beautiful day. We obviously welcome not only

everybody else, but all the people who are visiting from other parts of

the country and other parts of the world.

Mr. Chairman, I was asking some questions yesterday of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs about urban infrastructure — talking about the

urban infrastructure studies that have been done by the FCM, and of

course are supported by the UBCM. this morning I want to go over and

refresh the minister's memory of the report that was done in the UBCM

News of April 1985, and, once again, see if we can get some answers

from the Minister of Municipal Affairs on whether the government of

British Columbia will finally support the B.C. Infrastructure program,

and consequently create a number of jobs in the province of British

Columbia.

I just want to quote, if I may, from the UBCM News of April 1985:

"Infrastructure is the key to economic recovery." It goes on to say:

"In his recent televised address to the province, the

Premier stated that 'We won't forget the basics, like keeping our

transportation systems, our highways, in shape to move existing

products and attract new industry and development.' The UBCM was

encouraged by this statement, because we also feel strongly that

maintaining our basic infrastructure is essential to economic recovery.

"In times of economic restraint it is tempting to live

off prior generations' expenditures, and to postpone or neglect

required maintenance and replacement programs. Neglecting proper

maintenance can lead to serious and costly problems in future years as

the results of premature physical failure of various infrastructure

components. In addition, the public must face increasing inconveniences

in the form of broken pavements or closed bridges, and in the case of

sewer and water systems, a lack of proper maintenance can pose serious

public health risks."

The UBCM has said in its brief to the committee on taxation and

economic development — and this is very important, Mr. Chairman — that:

"The role of local government is to provide the services that

facilitate economic development. Local government is part of the

economic development process, not an obstacle along the way, and local

government intends to be a positive force and partner in economic

recovery as well." The newspaper goes on to study in depth the

infrastructure program as it pertains to British Columbia. It talks

about the present conditions of roads and sidewalks and storm drain

systems, conditions of the bridges, roads as a first budget priority,

public works as a major portion of provincial budgets.

It's a major survey of what municipalities need in the province of

British Columbia and outlines the obvious economic results of such a

program. I have to say that UBCM has spent considerable time discussing

and looking at the FCM infrastructure program as it pertains to British

Columbia, and the UBCM is going on the right course, but unfortunately

this government is not going along with UBCM. This is one of the few

provinces now that continues to put thumbs down to a major

infrastructure rebuilding in the province of British Columbia.

I have some figures here this morning that indicate the potential

job creation with infrastructure and maintenance of municipalities. As

I said yesterday, in our estimation there is no better project than

rebuilding our communities in the province. As the UBCM says, if you

ignore those infrastructure problems, the downstream costs are

astronomical. We only have to look at the United States example, as

they have postponed year after year maintaining their basic

infrastructure, and now the taxpayers of the United States in key

jurisdictions are faced with astronomical costs.

[10:15]

The UBCM and this side of the House are sounding an early alarm to

this government that we must have leadership in this area. We must have

a concerted effort to tackle these problems. It's estimated that when

the federal government signs the agreement, and we believe they will in

time sign this agreement with nearly all the provinces except British

Columbia, because British Columbia is saying no.... In terms of dollars

to British Columbia, the project is estimated at approximately $1.6

billion; labour will be around $720 million. That will create a total

of 24,000 person-years of employment, and the program spread over five

years will result in 4,800 direct person-years of employment each year

in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7894 ]

It is our belief on this side of the House that economic recovery

can be led by a major reconstruction of municipalities, and it is part

of the New Democratic proposal for a job strategy program to rebuild

the province of British Columbia. It is our contention that this FCM

proposal and negotiations with the federal government are critical to

the health and welfare of this province. Indeed, the Leader of the

Opposition has tabled in this House a private member's bill which

specifically talks about direct job creation, and a major component of

that is upgrading municipal transportation and services and municipal

infrastructure. The New Democratic Party, when it takes office, will

work with the federal government to bring this infrastructure program

to the province of British Columbia and create a minimum of 4,800

direct person-years of employment for five years, for a total of 24,000

person-years of employment.

That is something we cannot, for reasons of petty politics or

small-mindedness, turn down. In my estimation and that of the New

Democratic Party, and in the estimation of the UBCM, petty politics has

no role to play in this particular infrastructure proposal. Our

municipalities deserve better treatment than they are currently being

given by this government. We feel that the government, and this

minister particularly, because of his attitude to those who are playing

a key role in the infrastructure proposal, and despite the job

opportunities offered in this proposal are saying no, are being

negative. Consequently our municipalities are going to suffer, and all

British Columbia residents are going to suffer because of the petty

small-mindedness of this government.

That's 4,800 direct person-years of employment for five years.

That's what this government is turning down. That's what this

government refuses to participate with all other provinces in, to

negotiate with the federal government. The UBCM, quite frankly, is

totally frustrated with the attitude of this minister and this

government. It wants some positive leadership, some positive reaction

to this major proposal for rebuilding Canadian municipalities and,

therefore, British Columbia municipalities.

So once again I think it's so important to local government that I

cannot leave this topic. Local government has indicated over and over

again that someday there has to be a concerted effort to rebuild local

government. What a fine way to create jobs and also build the

grassroots of this province. So I have to ask the minister again, and

I'm going to continue to ask him this morning: if the federal

government announces in the next few months that they are going to go

into partnership — and exciting partnership — with all provinces except

British Columbia, because British Columbia refuses to participate

because of petty politics, is the minister going to refuse to join this

national program to bring thousands of jobs to the province of British

Columbia? Is he going to continue to refuse to join this program?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member knows that British Columbia has

the best program of funding infrastructure anywhere in North America.

This year alone there is earmarked in excess of $100 million for

infrastructure. Over the past ten years there has been somewhere in the

neighbourhood of $1 billion in infrastructure. We have the most

up-to-date, the newest, the best-condition infrastructure — sewer and

water, that is — anywhere in Canada, with the highest level of

treatment, as we speak about sewage treatment. So, Mr. Chairman, there

is no intention of this minister recommending to our government the

cancellation of our program of revenue-sharing.

That member would like to see us cancel that program, turn it over

to a federal body that really are not in touch with the needs of

British Columbians, as we speak about all municipalities. Nor is this

minister interested in pursuing a route that was laid out by the

chairman of that committee, Mayor Harcourt, who would like to

nationalize the provision of infrastructure in all the provinces and

also to cancel out revenue-sharing, a program that allows all

municipalities in this province to receive a fair share of the

provincial revenue to pay for such services.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is very frustrating. I talked

to a number of municipal people today and told them what we're trying

to debate in this Legislature, saying that I was trying to ask the

minister: "If there is a federal program announced, will you at least

indicate you're prepared to sign it?" I had to tell them that the

minister is refusing to sign a program that would cost the province

only 25 cents out of a dollar. He's refusing to do that — 25 cents out

of a dollar. That's the formula, Mr. Minister.

This is additional funds to what you are saying we wish to cancel —

the revenue you currently share. Categorically stated, Mr. Chairman, we

have no intention of cancelling that program. That's not the point that

I'm making today or yesterday. Here we have a national program where

nearly every province is on board except this province, to get 50 cents

on the dollar from the federal government, 25 cents from the municipal,

and 25 cents from the provincial government to do a major rebuilding

program in British Columbia.

There's no question that this minister is trying to create smoke and

mirrors and muddy the waters by saying the FCM is going to control it.

The FCM, Mr. Chairman, has no control over any provincial jurisdiction.

The UBCM is the jurisdiction here in British Columbia. It's the UBCM

that would be heavily active in this kind of program, and it would be

the provincial government in true partnership with the federal

government and the local government of this province, to create a major

program that will put thousands of British Columbians back to work.

This minister is turning down that program again today, and I'm going

to report again to the UBCM executive, and I'm going to report whatever

way I can to all those local councils across the province, that this

minister is stating that he is turning down a 75-cents-on-the-dollar

contribution to our municipal infrastructure program.

He's playing petty politics. They've got their head in the sand, and

for whatever reason, they can't endorse a program that is far beyond

the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Chairman. The mayor of Vancouver happens to

be a part of this. Many mayors, of all political persuasions, I might

emphasize, provincial governments of all political persuasion, from

Liberals to Tories, are on board. They're working with the national

government, in true partnership, for the good of this country and,

therefore, for the good of their provinces. This government, for petty

small-mindedness, because it happens to have the mayor of Vancouver

involved in the program, can't get on board. It's so symbolic of this

government, not being able to cooperate with other levels of

government. It has become so confrontational in the last few years, Mr.

Chairman, that it cannot even join a national program to rebuild

municipalities in this province and across the country. Those

municipalities have been struggling for years with the

[ Page 7895 ]

very things I've been talking about many times in

this Legislature. Here we have the opportunity to get on board, to

establish one of the finest infrastructures for national programs

that's ever been seen in this country and, therefore, seen in this

province.

So I'm going to ask the minister again, on behalf of all those

elected officials who represent all British Columbians at the local

level, all those councils and regional districts and villages and towns

that are anxiously waiting for this government to take some leadership:

is the minister going to refuse to sign a national agreement with the

federal government that would only cost the provincial government 25

cents on the dollar? Is he going to continue to say he won't sign such

an agreement?

I'm not going to leave this issue, Mr. Chairman. This is fundamental

to local government. Local governments have struggled for years to keep

their systems in good shape. They have consistently shown restraint,

Mr. Chairman. They've consistently not run deficits, because they can't

run deficits. All they're asking is for some leadership from this

minister and this government and this Premier showing that we are going

to work on forestry agreements and health agreements and education

agreements, showing that we at long last are going to develop a

national program for rebuilding the communities across this country

and, therefore, in British Columbia. Is the minister not prepared to

sign an agreement?

Let me give you a scenario, Mr. Chairman. If, next month, the

national government announces that it will go into negotiations....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister categorically stating that he is

not prepared to sign an agreement with the federal government to bring

jobs to British Columbia, jobs to those regions that you have

neglected, particularly in the northern and central areas of this

province? Is he going to stick his head in the sand continually and

refuse to sign a national agreement?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this minister will not answer

iffy questions. We meet with the UBCM on a regular basis. We have a

complete understanding that certainly there is a need for improvement

of infrastructure all across Canada, but that need in British Columbia

is not as great as in other parts. We are doing a satisfactory job

here. If indeed that member can bring forward a letter from the federal

Minister of Finance indicating that indeed they are prepared to put up

75 cents of every dollar going into infrastructure, without taking it

out of health and education, there's a possibility that there could be

some consideration. But no answers to any iffy questions.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm not quite sure what kind of answer we got. Why

not join with the other provinces and your colleagues in other parts of the

province? Why not get British Columbia part of a very exciting program? Why

not indicate to the federal government, and all those other provinces, that

you're prepared to cooperate and work not for political ends or petty politics,

but are prepared to go into a real partnership with the federal government on

this issue? Why not negotiate in good faith with the national government, as

all other provinces, through the FCM and the UBCM, want us to do? Why sit back

and say: "Well, maybe"?

We want some commitment, some leadership from the provincial

government. It doesn't take much. Drop whatever silly reasons you have

for not participating in this program because Mayor Mike Harcourt

happens to be involved, because of your silly, petty politics. Let's

have some discussion by this provincial government, Mr. Chairman, on

this very important issue. The minister said he might sign it; he might

enter into negotiations. It wouldn't take very much to look at the

idea, and to work with the federal government and the UBCM in regard to

what they want to see happen. It's not going to take away from any

existing programs in the province of British Columbia.

Will the minister indicate today that he is prepared to be honest

and forthright with the UBCM and those municipalities, enter once and

for all into negotiations with the other provinces and with the federal

government, start to get some deliberations for our province and

therefore some jobs for our province in the near future, and stop

putting thumbs down on infrastructure? The message you're giving —

through you to the minister, Mr. Chairman — is that you are not

interested in working with the national government, that for whatever

silly political reasons you are not prepared to sit down and negotiate

as we have on other agreements. Why not tell the UBCM that you're

prepared to work with the national government, the FCM and the UBCM?

Let's have some decent leadership from this minister.

Mr. Chairman, we are obviously not going to get any answers. This

minister is going to continue to play petty party politics with this

issue. He refuses to get on board and join an exciting program which

other provinces endorse and which could bring thousands of jobs to this

province. He refuses to participate. Once again we have to report to

the UBCM that in these estimates the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

this government are not going to join the infrastructure program. It's

a sad day for those communities, particularly those northern and

central communities that are really in need and are asking for some

leadership. We're just going to have to hope that this government comes

to its senses, and that this minister drops his silliness and his

pettiness and joins in with the national government in some serious

deliberations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move on to talk about some other areas of

municipal affairs that I think are important. These issues are fairly

basic to local government, and have come up before me and, I am sure,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. One of the areas that is creating

concern is the result of Bill 62, the planning legislation that was

before this House last session. I know the minister is aware that there

are deep concerns with the implications and results of that piece of

legislation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would

just like to remind the member through you that we are debating my

estimates, not past legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, and the

committee is advised that the necessity for legislation or amendment to

legislation cannot be discussed in this Committee of Supply. We must be

strictly relevant to the vote before us, and we must discuss the

administrative responsibilities of the minister.

[ Page 7896 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I am talking about his administrative

responsibilities and his major role in planning in the province of

British Columbia. That is certainly within his purview and, I would

assume, under his jurisdiction. I want to ask him some questions about

some problems municipalities are having. I hope that is not out of

order. Otherwise I don't know where we would go this morning,

because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member understand the administrative responsibilities of the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: I am well aware of his administrative responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then proceed, please.

MR. BLENCOE: First, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister

can indicate to this House if he is aware of, has heard of or had any

discussions about some of the administrative problems that have come

from current planning legislation in the province of British Columbia.

Is he having any ongoing discussions with the UBCM and municipalities

to try to rectify some of these problems? There are some specifics that

I would like to go into later, but I would like to hear the minister

respond first.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am constantly in

communication with the UBCM and other groups within the municipal

system. I would again remind that member that this matter is for

discussion under legislation and not under the estimates of the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that we

have nothing on the order paper in terms of proposed changes to

legislation in this area. The UBCM would obviously like to see some,

because there are all sorts of drafting errors in and problems with

Bill 62.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the member is discussing amendments to legislation, which cannot take place in Committee of Supply.

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, I will ask some specific questions,

if I may. There have been some concerns about planning administration,

particularly in dealing with temporary commercial and industrial uses

under the current administration of this minister. The notes that I

have here.... I recognize that this is very complicated, but there are

certain sections of the act that are creating some concerns for local

government. I wish the minister could respond, particularly, as I say,

on temporary commercial and industrial uses under

section 945.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The anticipation of locations where these uses may be requested will

be impossible to predict, unless municipalities designate large areas

where future requests can be expected to occur. This could lead to some

abuses, and it is important to guard against any further erosion of

existing zoned commercial-industrial areas in order to protect our

existing tax base as well as minimize land use conflicts. I'm wondering

if the minister is aware of these commercial- and industrial-use

problems, and whether we can anticipate some changes or some

administrative corrections that allow municipalities to correct these

problems.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I again remind the member,

through you, that he is debating legislation. Again I repeat: I am in

constant communication with the UBCM and other groups within the

system. Legislation is always subject to improvement. We are always

open to listening, and therefore I think that he can feel satisfied

that indeed any such items brought to our attention are not ignored.

But again I remind him that we're not debating legislation here this

morning, but rather my estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the reason I bring it up,

obviously, is that this area — planning and development and zoning —

is a critical component of local government, and there is a great

unknown out there in terms of what's going to be happening. There have

been some indications to this minister that there are some problems

with the current ways of doing things, and I really think it's very

important that somewhere in my role as the critic of municipal affairs

I try to get some response from the government or the minister in terms

of trying to correct some of the planning problems in the province of

British Columbia. There are indeed some real headaches that are

currently being experienced, Mr. Chairman, and I really think that we

need some honest and forthright indications from the minister that

there are indeed going to be some changes to the current way of doing

things. Otherwise the municipalities are going to continue to have

problems with the time-consuming kinds of policies that are in place.

Those municipalities are continually going to run into trouble.

I'll outline — and I won't go into detail — where some of the

problems are. Maybe the minister will wish to respond, or he may not.

But the criteria for development of permit guidelines are proving to be

most time-consuming, and probably the most....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the

member is constantly discussing legislation. He hasn't yet since we

started to debate the estimates got onto my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, in his last comments the Chair

did not hear reference to legislation — maybe a reference to

administrative changes in procedure of some sort. If the minister is

doing it toward legislation, that's something neither the Chair nor the

member can presume.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, "prepared to bring in some legislative changes...." That's discussing legislation, not my estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's no wonder the municipalities

are so frustrated by this minister and fed up and want his resignation.

You know, they want him out.

Planning and zoning and regulations — where else do we bring those

problems forward in this Legislature and ask the minister to at least

answer some of the questions we put to him? It's right here.

Interjection.

[ Page 7897 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I've been to your office, and we got absolutely nowhere, and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's getting very frustrating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question of debate on legislation takes

place at the time the legislation is under debate. Legislation that is

at present in place has had debate in this Legislature and should not

be debated later under a minister's estimates. Today we are under the

administrative function of the minister under the present legislation,

and that is what debate should be taking place.

Does the second member for Victoria wish to continue?

MR. BLENCOE: I certainly do.

Well, I am debating the administrative responsibilities of the

minister, and one of the major administrative responsibilities is

planning in the province of British Columbia. If that's not within the

purview of my job here— to ask the minister some questions on

that....That's a major issue at the local government level. I mean, I

know why the minister doesn't want to answer, because he knows that

what he's done is created chaos in the province of British Columbia. I

have the evidence right here in documents and things that have come in

from local government. He didn't even put a grandfather clause into the

legislation, and no one knew where the heck they stood when that

legislation was passed.

He knows what he's done to local government. He knows what he's done

to create all sorts of time-consuming chores, where they have to meet

more than twice now on council — they have to meet three times to deal

with particular things. He knows that. All I want to know is whether he

is going to start to deal with the issues of planning for local

government and in a forthright manner solve some of the problems

they're having.

How about the notice of public hearings? He knows the problems

around that, but he has unfortunately so far refused to listen or take

up these particular concerns that local government have indicated to

him are problems. We certainly don't see anything before us in the

House that is going to resolve those problems.

[10:45]

I could go through them, but the minister knows exactly what I'm

getting at: the problem of the zoning changes that are under his

administration; problems of non-conforming uses; problems of

development of various permits — he's created all sorts of problems

there; permit procedures, all sorts of problems; development costs, all

sorts of problems; criteria for development permit guidelines. There

are horrendous problems in this area. When can we expect some changes?

When can we hope to see some administrative changes to the current

planning policies in this province that are not going to strap local

government?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Can you hear these silly, inane remarks, Mr.

Chairman? Our job here is to try to help local government in terms of

bringing issues to the minister, things that we think need to be done.

He obviously doesn't wish to respond. He uses all sorts of fictitious

points of order to cover up his inadequacies in this area.

Suffice it to say, the minister is aware of the UBCM concerns, the

deep concerns with the current administration around planning in

British Columbia. They want some admission by this minister that he's

going to tackle those things that he has created. For instance,

rezoning bylaws will now require three council meetings for approval

while they currently only take two. Are you aware of that kind of

problem? No, he's not aware of that kind of problem. He's never been at

the local level; he's never been elected to a local council, so he

doesn't know the kinds of things they have to go through. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're not going to get any answers on planning. We'll report to the

UBCM that we got no answers, as usual. There are no answers on

infrastructure rebuilding. We'll report that to the UBCM and all those

elected people. The minister is refusing to answer.

I'll move on to another topic and hopefully we'll get some answers

in this area. I have indicated by letter to the minister some problems

that some smaller communities, particularly communities like Tahsis and

Powell River, are having with their industrial assessments. Back in

February of this year, I wrote to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

particularly about the village of Tahsis, and I indicated to the

minister that I — and I know he also — had meetings with those

villages. Powell River is experiencing the same kind of problem with

the major industrial assessment rollbacks that have created some real

financial crises for small communities.

I asked the minister in my letter in February, which he has not

responded to, if he would be announcing a relief package that would

hopefully be put together, and if that relief package would include a

review of assessment procedures, the appeal system that is in place,

and particularly in terms of the financial hardship that is being

created for these small communities. I also asked him in particular for

an analysis of the situation in Tahsis, the debt and the development of

a refinancing proposal and the development of a long-term plan to

rescue the village, including a relief package.

I indicated that Tahsis needs at least $1 million to begin the

process of saving the town. The minister, I know, is well aware of what

has been happening in these industrial resource towns where the major

industrial assessments have been rolled back. Of course, those

communities need those dollars to continue to operate those small

towns. So far, we have had hardly any recognition by this government

that those small towns are in crisis, and we've heard nothing in terms

of a relief package to try to resolve their problems.

I am probably more aware of the Tahsis situation, and I know that

Tahsis particularly is facing crisis. I would hope that the government

very soon would have some announcement to relieve these communities of

the incredible financial responsibilities they face. Maybe the minister

will discuss that this morning.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, it should be recognized that

one municipality the member refers to, Powell River, has what we would

consider to be one of the most

[ Page 7898 ]

expensive, elaborate recreation centres in all of

North America. Therefore now that there is some possible adjustment in

their taxes, I can understand that indeed this is going to create some

hardship for them. For the knowledge of that member, my senior staff

has been meeting with the councils of both Tahsis and Powell River,

giving them all the assistance possible.

MR. BLENCOE: And what are your recommendations, Mr. Minister? What will you be announcing?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That we continue to help them.

MR. BLENCOE: How are you helping them now?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I indicated, we are meeting with them

and assisting them to develop some sort of program that will help them

overcome the hurdle caused by this adjustment in the assessment. If the

member is speaking of some special grants, then that is not part of the

consideration.

MR. BLENCOE: I have to indicate that these problems are not

new; they've been going on for some years. I don't think any more

discussions are necessary. I think we need action; otherwise these

villages and towns are going to — well, they are very close to.... And

the member here knows all about the Powell River situation. I don't

know how much more discussion we have to have, because we have people

and towns in crisis and in real emergency situations. I even met with

the minister on this well over a year ago and unfortunately got

nowhere. I'm told this morning that there are continuing discussions.

We need some concrete answers now, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I take it that that member

would like us to isolate the two municipalities, Powell River and

Tahsis, for special financial treatment as a result of their tax base.

There are municipalities throughout this entire province that are

seeing their assessment base adjusted downward as a result of real

estate values, etc. Under no circumstances would I attempt to do what

that member would like us to do, which is single out two municipalities

for special treatment as a result of their assessment. Would he like to

suggest what we do for all other municipalities whose assessments are

moving downward? How would he treat them? We have no intention of

singling them out for special treatment.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I do have a few other items as

well, but while we're on this item I just want to discuss this tax

rebate situation that affects all of the people in the Powell River

area.

The municipality of Powell River based the tax structure of that tax

we're now discussing on figures provided to the municipality by the

B.C. Assessment Authority. The B.C. Assessment Authority is a Crown

corporation and therefore — I've said this before and I'm telling the

government again — it is my view that the government of British

Columbia, as a result of the ruling of the courts of this province,

must be liable for the full $10.9 million that has to be repaid to the

MacMillan Bloedel Company. It is my view that the province is

responsible for the activities of the B.C. Assessment Authority. The

municipality of Powell River, in good faith and of good conscience,

based on the figures provided by that authority, levied the appropriate

taxes. And now here we are in a situation where if the government, and

that ministry particularly and the Ministry of Finance, does not come

up with the full $10.9 million.... I understand $4.5 million of that

has already been paid, leaving a balance of $6.4 million. That means

that the property owners in that municipality and/or regional district

are going to have to pick up the slack. That is coupled with the

possibility that school taxes may increase as well, because the

government's budget for that district- and most districts in the

province — will not allow school districts to maintain even last year's

level of education. So in order to do that it's likely that in many

areas school taxes are going to be raised on property as well. So what

we're talking about here is a double whammy for the community of Powell

River.

I would like a commitment from the minister today, in public, for

the record, that the government will face up to its responsibility and

repay that balance of the unpaid rebate to the municipality and to the

company.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the province has already

committed itself to repaying that amount that was collected by them.

The member is now referring to approximately $3 million collected by

the district of Powell River. What the member has clearly pointed out

here for us, and I think it's very important, is that municipal budgets

are — and if not, should be — based on their spending requirements, not

on what the value of a property is. Here we have a situation where the

member is publicly pointing out the fallacy that has taken place in

some areas, where they say: "Good, that is going to give us more money

to spend, because the assessment is way up." The message should be how

much do you require in order to adequately service the community, not

what assessed values are.

I repeat that there is really no intention at the moment to consider

coming up with a special grant for Powell River under these

circumstances. To do so would mean that we should also be considering

some special assistance to other municipalities who find their

assessment base dropping. So I cannot give him any assurance at all

that we would entertain such an idea.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Could the minister advise if people within the

ministry are continuing to meet with representatives of the

municipality of Powell River on this matter?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, they are, Mr. Chairman, and will

continue to meet as required to assist them through it. They've also

had meetings involving the company in question to attempt to bring them

together to come up with a solution that is going to be the easiest

solution for the entire community to digest.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You usually speak of roads and ferries, don't you?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, I think that's tomorrow.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It'll be the same speech.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh no. I've got three.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out one more matter to the minister. If the government does not come up with this

[ Page 7899 ]

money, that means the municipality only has two

choices. The municipality can further increase taxes to the property

owners within the municipality, or they can cut back on municipal

programs. Cutting back on municipal programs means laying off or

dismissing a lot of people who are employed in one way or another,

increasing the unemployment rate even higher for that economically

depressed area. The unemployment rate for that area at the moment is

about 24 percent — 24 percent under this government. That's the only

choice the municipality has. You've put the council up there in an

untenable position. I know the minister has said that the government

will assess but will not come up with the additional funds. I just

wanted to point out to the minister the predicament.

[11:00]

Last but not least, where does this kind of thing stop? Does it stop

in Powell River? Is Campbell River next? Port Alberni, Kamloops, Prince

George? Why can't every company in the province take the municipalities

to court and drag these things through the courts for a couple of

years? The courts rule against the figures of the Assessment Authority,

against the democratic wishes of a duly elected legal council in this

province, and where does it stop?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: To be somewhat brutal, I think possibly we

are now seeing the day of reckoning. I think one of things that's going

to have to be practised by Powell River is some greater restraint on

the spending of their tax dollars. I stand to be corrected, but I

believe that Powell River may have awarded one of the highest, if not

the highest, salaries to their senior administrative staff. It's all

very well to say that we should come along now and save them in this

situation at the expense of other taxpayers. Other taxpayers in this

province have not had the benefit of those luxurious recreation

facilities, nor have other municipalities throughout this province had

the pleasure or satisfaction or whatever — the luxury — of paying such

high wages. So what we will do in this particular case is continue to

give our advice to the municipality. We will continue, if necessary, if

requested, to speak with the major taxpayer, who by the way is paying a

very major portion of the total tax in that community. So yes, they

have a real dilemma, because if indeed the major taxpayer sticks to its

guns and says, "You will fork up all of this" and the council say,

"Well, we're going to have to just jack up taxes accordingly," then you

have the star in this whole thing, the company, having to pay a major

portion of it back again.

The route that we are taking is, I believe, wise, honest and fair to

everyone concerned. We are talking to them. We have suggested the

company modify the amount. We have suggested that they give some sort

of repayment terms, anything to make it easier on the taxpayer down

there. But with that must also come some real belt-tightening in

respect of spending.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to make a few comments about

problems of three or four municipalities in the North Island

constituency, starting with the problems that the member for Victoria

talked about in terms of Tahsis.

On the speaker in my office I heard the minister's reply that he

can't treat one municipality differently than another, and I don't

think anyone would argue with that in terms of government policy. You

can't have special treatment for favoured municipalities, as it were. I

don't think anyone would argue seriously with that point. But in fact,

historically some municipalities have been treated differently than

others. Let me just cite the example of two communities in my

constituency, both of which are one-industry towns: Gold River and

Tahsis.

In Gold River at the time of the establishment of the "instant

town," all of the services were provided. They even went so far as to

have the wiring underground, something we don't seem to be able to

afford these days. But the sidewalks were in, the roads were in, the

sewers were in, the water system was put in — everything complete.

Since then the municipality has not had to worry about attempting to

make a community.

In the case of Tahsis, we've gone from a situation where it was a

company town, the Gibson brothers' historically, and from then through

other changes through to the Tahsis Co.'s efforts over the last few

years and now CIP to change it to a town where people own their own

homes and no longer live in bunkhouses and no longer eat in the

cookhouse and no longer rent company-owned houses. So they are

attempting to create a village. In the process of trying to do that,

the village had to provide some services, and just trying to provide a

main street in that particular community has put them in debt up to the

limits of their debt availability. They have particular problems with

water supply, a water system. At least $1 million is needed to upgrade

that facility.

I guess what we're saying — I and I assume the member for Victoria

and the member for Powell River in terms of the Powell River situation

— is that there are particular problems in one-industry towns where

suddenly the tax base and really the only source of income for the

community is suddenly cut out from underneath them. That's what has

happened in that particular community. I don't have any magic solutions

other than suggesting to the minister that particular attention needs

to be paid to communities that are dependent upon one employer for

their income where that income can be dramatically reduced, as it was

in the case of Powell River and certainly in the case of Tahsis.

Secondly, in the case of Tahsis, where there was no instant town, there

was no establishment of a community in advance.... It has sort of grown

up, not like Tumbler Ridge, not like Gold River, but has just sort of

evolved over the years as the company has gone out of its role as

provider of the community. It is very difficult, and now Tahsis faces

additional problems: because of the needed modernization of one of the

sawmills, they're going to lose about one-third of the workforce in

that community, which is going to have an impact on the value of homes,

which is going to further reduce the tax base for the community and not

only reduce the number of taxpayers but reduce the tax base because of

a devaluation of the existing homes in that community.

While I wouldn't plead for special attention, I would plead for some

particular consideration for communities that have these pretty unique

problems. Traditional communities across this province don't face

anywhere near the problems that a community like Tahsis faces.

It's the same problem in Zeballos. You get the singleindustry town;

it's the same employer; tax base pitifully low. Without the government

grants there would be no reason for our village. I wonder sometimes

whether they might not be better off as an improvement district than as

a village. I might say that in Tahsis and in Zeballos people are

already talking about that. The tax base is pathetically low; it's

impossible to run a proper community under that. On top of that,

they've been encouraged by the company, in the case of Zeballos, and

[ Page 7900 ]

also the government to develop lots for housing;

and they're carrying a debt on that that they can't....With the

cutbacks that are now proposed in Zeballos, where the workforce is

going to go from about 90 loggers potentially to either 40 or 12,

depending on what decision is made by the CIP, but at least cut in

half, the tax base is.... I say diminished; it's cut in half and made

ridiculous. Plus, then, the subdivisions that are being.... The

Privateer estates that have been placed there in participation with the

Lands branch become a stone around their neck. It's just an impossible

situation.

There are other communities without proper tax bases. I will name

just two. Sayward has the same kind of singleindustry problem. Their

problems aren't as severe as what exists in Tahsis and Zeballos, and

hopefully won't be. They have a slightly broader base. In Alert Bay, of

course, we have the continuing problem of.... If they didn't have

a mayor who knew how to take advantage of every grant that was

available at every level of government, they'd be underwater as well.

What I'd like the minister to comment on is not a request for

special treatment that is unfair to all the other municipalities that

might not get that treatment, but a request for some particular

consideration to the unique kinds of problems that exist in some

places; Tahsis, I think, being the best example.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member is correct. This is a problem

that's not unique to Tahsis. This is a problem that we're going to see

develop throughout the province, in those areas that are relying on one

industry. It's going to be aggravated by technological change. We can't

avoid that, nor should we try to discourage it; we should encourage it.

It's much better that a company survive with half the employees than

die completely. We have accepted that challenge. Technological change

is essential in order to survive in the world market.

That put to rest, Tahsis and Lake Cowichan — and I could go on — are

having these difficulties. However, we have to treat them in a

different way than is being suggested by Powell River. Powell River's

situation is different, in that the one company has been paying

approximately 60 percent of the total, not the industrial, tax base. We

can't just treat that one as we would treat Tahsis and Lake Cowichan

and so forth.

We've had ongoing discussions with Tahsis. They've been down here.

I've had discussions with the mayor, and my staff are continuing that.

At the last meeting we asked them to provide us with the high-priority

essentials for that community. I'd like to assure the member that we

will look very favourably upon that, doing whatever is possible for

Tahsis in the provision of those essential services. I believe that

Tahsis has been careful in its spending. I don't believe the people of

Tahsis have any great frills as a result of obtaining a high level of

taxation from a major taxpayer, only because the Assessment Authority

placed a high level of value on their properties. Yes, we will be very

fair. I just want to assure that member that we will be doing all we

can. I believe that at this moment one of the items of high priority

with them is the water tank. We're certainly going to be looking at

that.

MR. BLENCOE: I thank the minister for the response. The

minister made the point — and I think it's a reasonable point — that

there are a number of municipalities and cities and towns that are

facing assessment problems. But I think these small one-industry towns

are particularly unique. We feel they need not necessarily a policy

that deals with each one specifically, but perhaps some sort of uniform

policy or approach that would be fair to these kinds of one-industry

towns. I know the minister is correct that all municipalities will face

assessment problems; but these smaller communities, particularly

one-industry towns, have felt the impact of the recession, particularly

in the forestry industry, and it could very well be that we could

develop an overall policy that would be fair and equitable to all those

kinds of communities. I wonder, before I leave this topic, if the

minister is thinking of developing a policy that would impact not only

on Tahsis and Powell River but also on some of the other communities in

this province – one-industry towns that have really been hurt,

recognizing that they don't necessarily want support that's going to

hurt somebody else, but that they do have specific unique similarities

that might require a uniform policy. Any chances of an overall policy

for such towns, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's always dangerous to come in with a

blanket policy in such circumstances. We have different circumstances

depending on the town, the economic base, etc. So I'm hesitant to come

in with any blanket policy, unless the member can show me where these

funds would all come from. Would he take them out of unconditional

grants, sewer grants, water grants, planning grants? Where would he

take them from? But we will continue to assist where necessary, and

advise where necessary and requested. We will do our utmost for all of

these communities that run into this difficulty, after they themselves

have tightened up and assured us that they do indeed have control over

their spending. This ministry and this government will do all in their

power, where at all possible, to make sure that the essential services

are being provided.

[11:15]

MR. BLENCOE: The minister again makes some points in terms of

where you find the dollars. I know that's always a problem. But I would

point out that this government finds dollars for its particular

projects — pet projects, I might add. It has no problem finding those

dollars. Maybe we need fewer information officers in the ministry of

information — the glow-worms, or whatever we want to call them. Perhaps

we don't need quite as many of those people. They've got a hefty,

multimillion-dollar budget. Perhaps municipalities should be as high a

priority as the glow-worm budget. Maybe that would be an area where we

could add some money — to support local government and for a relief

package for such communities. The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is

that when it's a high priority — and I and our side of this House

believe that local communities, local development and the things we've

been talking about are a high priority.... Maybe it's a matter of

reassessing the priorities of this government. There's one particular

component of their overall budget that is very hefty. I won't get into

that, because it's not exactly in the realm of the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs; but maybe there are some budgets elsewhere that

could be reassessed.

[ Page 7901 ]

I want to leave this topic of relief packages for such communities.

I am, I have to admit, pleased that the minister is continuing the

ongoing discussions with such communities. We feel that is very

important. I know such concerns don't always get the attention they

should. They don't always get the attention of those who are in a

position to make changes, because municipal affairs are sometimes

considered rather mundane and somewhat.... They're the nuts and bolts

of this province, the nitty-gritty, and that's not necessarily very

attractive in terms of attention or media stories. We feel it is

important, and that we do have to really start to help such grassroots

communities.

Before we break for lunch I want to move on to the whole question of

discussing the municipal insurance situation, and maybe get some

discussion with the minister and his thoughts on where that situation

stands today. The UBCM has made many overtures and requests of the

provincial government to this minister for some action. Resolutions

have been passed by the UBCM for some particular kind of protection

that local government feels they need in the insurance liability area

end of things. The minister so far has not seen fit to bring forth

anything into this chamber. I have to indicate to him that the figures

for municipal insurance today are astronomical, obviously not just for

municipal government; many public and private institutions are facing

this squeeze.

I could go into analysis of the industry itself. I have done that in

various areas and discussions that I've had in public forums on what

the industry is doing. But I think if we take a look at the premium

increases,300 to 500 percent are commonplace. For the record I just

want to go through what some of these municipalities are facing today

and find out exactly how the minister has responded and whether he

intends to bring anything for us to consider.

Take a look at some of the most overwhelming figures: for instance,

the community of Kamloops faced a 318 percent increase in its premiums,

up from $65,000 to $272,000; Richmond, $96,000, and to an estimated

figure in the last report I had, they were facing insurance costs of

$690,000, which would be an increase of 613 percent; the community of

Maple Ridge — and the MLA for that area is not here, but I know he is

concerned too — faces a rise from 1984-85 to 1985-86 from $17,000 to

$123,000, an increase of 593 percent; Kelowna, the Premier's riding —

and I don't believe the Premier has said much on this issue — now faces

a bill of $201,000, up from $35,000 in 1984-85, a 466 percent increase.

The figures just go on. I could go to the soaring deductibles and

how they have gone. I will just give you some examples. They are

numerous, and I will just give you some of the worst: Richmond had a

deductible of $5,000, and it has gone to $50,000; Surrey has gone from

$5,000 to $50,000 deductible; small little communities like Creston

have gone from a $500 deductible to a $5,000 deductible, a 900 percent

increase.

As the minister is aware, it has created some financial hardship for

local government. There have been some suggestions by the UBCM, and I

assume there have been a number of meetings with the minister, for some

action by the government in terms of limiting liability. I will just go

through again for the record what the UBCM has been asking for. We have

indicated to the minister some months ago that if legislation came

forward, we would very much give it speedy resolve if it was reasonable

and in an atmosphere of cooperation and support with local government.

We would see it pass if it was reasonable, but unfortunately we haven't

seen anything.

The things that they are asking for include protection for local

government offices and employees from liability when providing

information in good faith and without negligence. I've had a number of

reports now where municipal officials, particularly in the planning

side and the building inspectors side, are just scared stiff to given

an opinion or anything these days when they just don't know whether

they're going to get sued or their municipalities may not be able to

afford to have the right insurance policy.

We have an incredible nervousness now out there in terms of the

municipal officers. We need something to cover that aspect. We need

protection from liability regarding enforcement of bylaws or

regulations and the provision of inspections or the granting of

approvals — another major area. Protection of local government from

liability except for negligence, similar to what B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority has, is being requested by this government. The limits,

obviously, to liability is a simplified part of that request.

Reasonable limitation periods for claims against the local

government and its officials and servants is a request. There are a

number of others. Legislative control of contingency fees payable in

suits against a public body. What's happened, Mr. Chairman, is that

local governments and all government are seen as deep pockets and there

needs to be some discourse or some discussion about that particular

aspect.

The UBCM and all municipalities have been asking for some kind of

recognition by this government that they probably would consider

introducing some legislation. In the meantime this side of the House,

through my office, the office of the critic for Municipal Affairs, drew

up a proposal because.... Let me go back a little bit. We indicated to

the government that they were the government and we were expecting some

initiatives from them that they would be bringing something into this

House to deal with this situation. The months went by with virtually no

response from the minister. So in light of that and my discussions with

the UBCM people and the local governments, we drew up a proposal of

municipal self-pooling insurance. It's a fairly detailed proposal, Mr.

Chairman, that went to the UBCM executive and went to all

municipalities. It has been received extremely well.

Of course the frustration is that we unfortunately are not in a

position to ensure that kind of thing gets off the ground, with the

correct changes to the Municipal Act or whatever is done to ensure its

success. But there is no question that the UBCM is interested in that.

I suppose it's a bit sad that the opposition has had to step into the

vacuum in this area and be the proponent of ways to resolve this issue.

I would like, through you, Mr. Chairman, to hear from the Minister

of Municipal Affairs. He has said very little on this issue. He is the

minister responsible for local government. This has been a critical

issue for them, and yet we have seen virtually no response from this

government.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In our gallery this morning is the other half of a large contingent of students who are visiting us

[ Page 7902 ]

today from Holy Cross Regional High School in Surrey. I would ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, to the member, in respect to

liability insurance, the problem concerning liability insurance is not

restricted to municipalities or to governments. It is throughout the

private sector as well, and indeed I would suggest it is throughout

possibly the western world. But in any case, the member knows full well

that we have had ongoing discussions with UBCM. The member also knows

that there has been a commitment by me, my ministry, to work with them

to find a solution. Legislation is not always the answer to things at

all. There is risk management; there are a number of things that enter

into it.

However, we have had ongoing discussions. It has been of top

priority in my ministry, and of course one of the reasons why we

couldn't deal with it legislatively is that there hasn't been that

opportunity. But assurance has been given to UBCM that indeed we will

take whatever measures are necessary and do what we can do to help

alleviate the problem. But there is no legislation at all available

that is going to control the premiums, and that is one of the big

problems that they are having.

Yes, we are on top of it, working very closely with UBCM, and no

doubt in the very near future will find a solution, the very best that

we could expect to find, after which I think we are going to have to

either rely on the private sector to come in with premiums that are

acceptable or find another way to do it. But it is something that is

being attended to.

MR. BLENCOE: I have to answer the minister in terms of time.

We've had time to have something before us, and there are certain

things that could be done legislatively. But I do agree also that

legislation is not always the answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not in order either.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister referred to legislation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He was out of order too.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, thank you, I just wanted that on the record.

I want to continue just a little further, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're boring.

MR. BLENCOE: Unfortunately liability and insurance problems

and municipal problems sometimes are not the most exciting. We

recognize that, Mr. Member, but they are important issues to local

government and to those 1,400 to 1,600 elected people across the

province who have to deal with these problems daily, and run without

insurance and things like that, and be in fear that they are going to

get sued. They are important, so we will deal with it.

[1:30]

MRS. JOHNSTON: What should we do?

MR. BLENCOE: I won't answer that. The member for Surrey knows

the proposal that I have made, and knows that Surrey council indeed,

actually, in my understanding, have endorsed that proposal.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, perhaps.... Mr. Chairman, I won't respond.

I am wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, whether

the minister has undertaken in the interests of local government to

review what is actually happening with the insurance business. There is

quite overwhelming evidence that those insurance companies have been

pulling a bit of a fast one on local government and other institutions.

I was hoping, as others were hoping, that the minister and his staff

would have provided some analysis for local government, and some

arguments and some ammunition on how to deal with the insurance

business, because for a while everybody was accepting that these

premium increases were part of the business cycle and that they could

be justified. But there is every evidence that they cannot be

justified, that the losses that they report are not indeed losses, that

they have all sorts of fine ways and accounting ways to report their

profits.

Indeed, the business industry has been pulling the wool over

people's eyes, and indeed it is a bit of a scandal. I have not heard

anything from the Minister of Municipal Affairs in support of local

government vis-a-vis this kind of, I think, misleading information that

the insurance business has been providing us.

I am wondering why the Minister of Municipal Affairs has not seen

fit to send information to local government. Again, in a vacuum, the

opposition, through my office, Mr. Chairman, has provided all sorts of

information to local government on what's happening in the industry. I

have had overwhelming reports and letters back saying: "Thank goodness

somebody down there in Victoria is providing us some information on how

to deal with this issue, how to deal with those insurance people we're

having to deal with on a daily basis."

We have discovered, Mr. Chairman, that as we get into this issue and

the information is provided to local government, they are now starting

to battle back those insurance companies. But this government did

absolutely nothing to provide that kind of information to local

government. It certainly did not try to contradict, in the eyes of the

public, that the insurance industry was justified in these increases.

I believe the minister has been virtually incompetent in this area.

He has not protested or indicated in any way to those local governments

that this insurance crisis has been concocted by the industry itself.

Those municipalities that were caught in the squeeze, particularly

those smaller municipalities, Mr. Chairman, that don't have the staff

or the time or the resources to do an analysis of the insurance

business or the insurance industry, were put in a very difficult

position: pay this or else. They were given the information that the

industry was in trouble.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Through time and effort, certainly through staff time on our side of

the House, many hours have been spent in exposing the industry,

exposing the scam that the industry was trying to impose upon local

government. But not a word from the minister. Nothing to local

government. He let them hang out to dry, being attacked by the

industry. Not a word, Mr.

[ Page 7903 ]

Chairman, that the 600 and 500 percent and the 200

and 300 percent increases that are being faced by local government

could not be justified.

Question to the minister, Mr. Chairman: has the minister and his

staff done any analysis of the municipal liability insurance situation?

Has he reported to the UBCM; has he, through his analysis, indicated to

them that there are some justifiable arguments that the insurance

business does not need the increases that they are asking for? Has he

done any of that analysis? If he has, why hasn't he shared it with

municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest, from the remarks of the

member, that this minister and this ministry have a great deal more

confidence in the officers of UBCM than does that member. UBCM has done

an excellent job of communicating with us and working with us in

attempting to find the solution to this problem. We will continue to do

that.

No, we're not going to get messing around, as he would suggest.

That's not the way you solve these things. The way you solve them is to

work with those people who are responsible to the entire membership out

there — all 144 municipalities and 28 regional districts.

I guess the answer is that we are working on it. We're working on it

in conjunction with the UBCM, and we have full confidence in the people

that those municipalities elected to look after their affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: I guess we have a basic difference of opinion

about the role that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should play. It's

a particularly unique role. In many respects it's very different from

the other ministries. You are working with a very large level of local

government. There has to be — how do I put this? — a special

relationship, a special understanding and a special working

relationship where you share your problems and try.... I guess the

ministry should be putting forward ideas that really try to resolve the

problems of local government.

The minister's right: local government, the UBCM, do have staff and

resources. But the connection between Municipal Affairs and local

government is very much like a family one. This government has not

treated it that way, though. I guess what I'm saying is that I believe

that when local governments face emergencies, senior government should,

when it can, come to their aid. Here was an opportunity for your

ministry to provide the evidence to local government that this

insurance situation was a scandal and could not be justified.

Unfortunately many municipalities found that evidence too late. They

found out the information too late. We have provided through this side

of the House much information in how to handle that situation — what

the statistics really are, what the state of the industry really is,

and a proposal for how to resolve this situation. But I think it's very

sad that the ministry itself did not set up a cooperative kind of

framework on which to battle or take on the insurance industry. I can

table all sorts of reports and information that give the other side to

this situation, but unfortunately the minister hasn't done that.

That's why this ministry is a special, unique one. There is very

much a cooperative family kind of connection between local government

and senior government. I think that's why we have to develop ways, when

local government is in trouble, in crisis, that we can try to work

together to resolve these problems.

I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, has he considered...? I

sent him a copy of the New Democratic proposal on municipal pooling and

a self insurance scheme which the UBCM now is, I believe, looking at

very seriously but which I think is going to need senior government

support. Could the minister perhaps indicate to this House what he

thinks about that proposal? Has the minister read it, and has his staff

passed him any analysis on that proposal that we put forward?

You know, Mr. Chairman, the opposition put forward a proposal and

sent it to the minister and to the UBCM. Every municipality has had it,

we've had discussions right across the province, the UBCM is looking at

it and the minister has had the proposal for some months. I think,

again, when I'm talking about the relationship between local government

and senior government, that here is a time when the opposition and the

government can work together cooperatively in the interests of local

government. I am asking for a response.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is correct that it

is all one big family — and it is all one big happy family. The

cooperation between municipalities, regional districts, this ministry

and the government is excellent, which is, I think, borne out by the

fact that 131 of the 144 municipalities have committed themselves to

becoming partners with the provincial government in assisting them at

the local level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, it's all very well for you to laugh

at councils, chambers of commerce, union groups and other groups who

are banding together at the local level with the provincial government

to help create jobs. What you don't laugh at is that your proposal

imposes regulations, etc., on these people. You believe in total

central control, which, of course, we cannot go along with.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you be quiet for a moment and allow me to answer your question!

As far as his proposal is concerned, Mr. Chairman, we look at all proposals that come to our office.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess that shows to the

people and to those local governments where we are at in terms of this

minister and his refusal to enter into some serious discussion about

some ways to resolve an issue which is very important to local

government. It is petty, small-minded politics all the time. He cannot

even admit that somebody else might have a suggestion that could help

somebody.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: What's your response? Why aren't we government? You wait.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've been saying that for ten years.

MR. BLENCOE: I haven't been saying it; I just got here three

years ago. But you wait. Your time is coming. You look at the history

books. Any governments that persist in folly

[ Page 7904 ]

and error, and refuse to admit their errors, fall

in the end. This government has persisted in its errors and its

follies, and here we have again this morning a minister who refuses to

answer some very important questions about municipal issues, because of

petty partisan politics and small-mindedness. I even offered to the

minister to work with the government on this particular issue.

[11:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the biggest mistake you ever made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no. You see, there we are: "It's a mistake

to try to cooperate in the interests of local government." That's on

the record; Hansard will have

that, and we will share that with local government. It's a mistake, in

the interests of local government, for both sides to cooperate and

share ideas; that's what you said, Mr. Minister. That's the sadness.

That's what we have to report back. We have tried diligently to put

forward some suggestions, and they laugh and make fun and poke. But you

know, when you persist in error and folly, and won't admit your

mistakes, you fall. History shows that. This government has reached the

end of its time, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a history lesson.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I'll give you lots more history lessons if you want, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been around long enough.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, but I read. You should read your history

books, Mr. Minister. Read the falls of government, and what they get

into, and what happens to them when they don't listen any more, when

they become unethical, when they don't believe in integrity, when they

don't believe that there can be honesty and integrity in government and

won't admit their mistakes. You see what history does to those kinds of

governments, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: You've been very patient, Mr. Chairman. But if

those ministers want some readings about the fall of governments, we'll

be pleased to give them.

Mr. Chairman, I have to continue a little more on this liability

situation. It's probably been the number one issue facing local

government in the last year. We expected some action. To give you some

figures that the UBCM has put out in January of this year.... Again,

the UBCM has been asking for at least some initial response from this

government for some time. I've already indicated, Mr. Chairman, that

increases of 300 to 500 percent are commonplace. Actual dollar costs

for renewal by municipalities and regional districts have increased by

over $3.5 million, to roughly $5 million. It's estimated that it will

cost municipalities over $10 million for insurance. That's why I was

indicating, and hoping, that the government would do its own analysis,

and share with the public and those municipalities what the insurance

business has been up to and why it cannot be justified. This is a major

drain on the resources of local government. Local government needs to

rebuild the infrastructure, which I talked about earlier on and

yesterday. They don't need this kind of money being drained to

insurance.

That's why we need a cooperative kind of analysis by this minister

on what was happening in the insurance industry, why this minister

should have come to the aid of local government — at least the analysis

to be able to fight the insurance business — but not a peep. The per

capita cost of liability related insurance for those municipalities and

regional districts from which data was obtained has jumped an average

of $0.73 per capita to an average of $3.86 per capita. That may not

seem a lot, but with the multiplier effect, it's a major drain on the

resources of those municipalities and why something had to be done.

We have suggested some ways. The UBCM has suggested some ways in

many reports, and not a word from this government. The UBCM is

thoroughly frustrated with the lack of action from this government. So

using the average per capita cost of $3.86, the total costs for all

municipalities and regional districts will be in the area of $10.8

million for this year. Added to this will be increased self-retained

costs due to higher deductibles. The UBCM has asked for some major

changes and recognition by this government.

The minister has indicated that he is continuing the ongoing

discussions over liability with the UBCM. It is my understanding,

though, that the UBCM is totally frustrated with the government and the

minister. They've had enough of discussion, and they want some answers,

and they want some indication by the minister that they're prepared to

deal with this issue, either with supporting insurance, the pooling

insurance idea that I have put forward, or a proposal that the ICBC

take over this particular area, or legislation to limit liability

insurance.

I ask the minister if we can expect in the near future any kind of

official response from the minister that we in this House may be able

to see. Can we expect any kind of response?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, positive, very positive.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs — I will trust him that he is not going to close the debate here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will have an opportunity to speak on estimates before a vote is taken.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, if I could close debate I

probably would, but I just thought I'd give the members of the House a

little relaxation from listening to the second member for Victoria.

I congratulate this minister who, in the short time he's been on the

job, has done a tremendous job. It's so easy to sit back in opposition

and criticize all the things he doesn't think are happening, but if you

go through your constituency.... I'm just sitting here thinking of

mine, and the job the minister's done in my constituency. I look at the

municipal partnership program where this government is working with all

the municipalities and villages across the province. I look at

Pemberton, which has joined. We're going up there to have the official

signing shortly. Squamish and Whistler are members, and West Vancouver

has just joined the program

[ Page 7905 ]

and will be signing that shortly. Those communities

are doing it for good reasons. They're doing it because they know this

minister and this government are working with them to help all the

citizens of British Columbia.

I hear nothing but favourable comments from all the municipalities

that I represent in their dealings with this Minister of Municipal

Affairs. He's approachable. He gets things done for them. I think of

the work that we've been doing and the work that his department's been

doing in West Vancouver, and the revitalization of the downtown

Ambleside area, which we finished a few months ago. Members coming from

the Island and going into Expo through Horseshoe Bay will see a

tremendous improvement. Horseshoe Bay is probably one of the nicest

ones in the province. The work that they're doing with the roadways and

the sidewalks.... That's downtown revitalization of Horseshoe Bay, a

welcoming area to the lower mainland for those of you from the Island

who are going to visit us during Expo.

Those are the types of things that this minister has been bringing

to all these municipalities. Pemberton is quite anxious for him to come

up there so he can have a look at that community. They certainly can

use some downtown revitalization, and they'll be talking to him about

that.

The Squamish area is another area where I know they're anxious for

him to visit. The Whistler area, which comes under his jurisdiction —

who could talk about anything better? I'm sure that even members of the

opposition sneak in there with their skiis on and hope nobody sees

them, because they knocked it for so long. They sneak in there and go

up the hill and hope nobody recognizes them, put toques on and

sunglasses and everything else just so nobody will see them enjoying

the finest skiing facility in North America, if not the world, a

facility that was supported by this government and that ministry. The

NDPers said: "Shoot it down. Look at the waste of money you're putting

into Whistler." Well, Whistler has turned into, as I said, not only the

finest ski resort but a year-round resort.

Mr. Chairman, $50 million worth of construction is booked for this

year. As the members know, Intrawest — I don't know whether this has

been made public yet, but I know they've done it — has bought 50

percent of the interest in Aspen, taken out the Americans from

Blackcomb, a British Columbia company centred on the North Shore of the

lower mainland. They are going to spend close to $20 million in that

area putting a gondola from the base of Blackcomb up to the top.

They're going to put new chairs in with the plastic fronts on them so

they can triple the speed of the chairs going up to the top of Whistler.

Mr. Chairman, the jobs that are going to be created in Whistler from

that development.... I also understand there is a major resort company

that is going to move in there with a major hotel. It's going to be

announced in the next few months. Those are things, Mr. Chairman, that

are being done because of the encouragement of this Minister of

Municipal Affairs and because of the actions of this government in

getting these projects built for all of British Columbia.

We don't sit back and take the negative stones that they throw from

the NDP, because if we did, we wouldn't have the Whistler development,

we wouldn't have the finest ski resort in the world now. We'd just have

a little hill up there that a few people might enjoy skiing on. We

wouldn't have Expo, the Coquihalla or the Annacis Island crossing,

because the NDP didn't support any of those projects.

Mr. Chairman, most important of all for this member from Victoria,

he should know that he has been asking for a convention centre. If we

didn't have Expo and the Expo legacy fund, the convention centre

wouldn't be going ahead in Victoria right now.

MR. BLENCOE: You did it to save your members.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria

said we did it to save our members. Well, he should know the history of

that convention centre. The Premier turned sod for that convention

centre a number of years ago, but it was shot down by the council that

he was a member of.

Mr. Chairman, the NDP unfortunately can't support anything. Then when the things

they can't support finally take place and are successful, they go on the doom

and gloom campaign: "What's happening next? What's happening after Expo?"

If we keep things going the way they're going, just fantastic things are going

to happen after Expo. The hundreds of thousands of people that are going to

arrive here and visit us during Expo are going to invest money in British Columbia,

and we're going to have an economy because of the tough stands this government

took over the last three years, streamlining our economy in British Columbia

when other provinces were afraid to do it.... The benefits we're going to

gain are just fantastic.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada