1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 3, Number 7

[ Page 1581 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the gallery today there are 48 grade 11 students from Centennial School in Coquitlam, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Nancy Lutke. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

D. Streifel: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Richard Balfe. He's a member of the European Parliament, and he's here visiting with the NATO parliament of North America. Mr. Balfe is a member of the Labour Party. I bid the House make him welcome.

J. Tyabji: It is my pleasure to point out the members of CACE, including Monica Rainey, who have come from Kelowna to make a point with regard to child exploitation and the rights of children. I congratulate them on their demonstration today. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce to the House Nelly and Martin Bruin. They are visitors to our beautiful city from Oakville, Ontario. They are here enjoying our spring weather and our laid-back way of life. Would the House please welcome them.

C. Serwa: I have two introductions to make today. The first is to introduce to the Legislature -- sitting in your gallery, Hon. Speaker -- Mr. Jim Hubay, vice president of the Okanagan zone of the Kootenay-Okanagan Electrical Consumers' Association. He's here to witness the thrust and parry of question period. Would the House please make him welcome.

Just before making the second introduction, I would like to compliment all the hon. members of this House of all three parties who were out in front of the Legislature indicating their support for child protection legislation. I really commend all of those members who took part.

The introduction is of a group here from the Citizens Against Child Exploitation: as my colleague for Okanagan East indicated, Monica Rainey, the president and founder of CACE; Marion Bremner, a director of CACE and councillor of the city of Kelowna; Maureen Parker, Wendy Alcroft and Gail Sneddon, representatives from Nanaimo; Carolyn Ogilvie, director of CACE from Kelowna; and Helen Harlow, president of the Tennis Shoe Brigade in Washington State. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Oral Questions

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUMS

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Premier. On Friday the Mulroney government tabled their Bill C81, which is

An Act to Provide for Referendums on the Constitution of Canada. The Premier has committed that the province of British Columbia will vote on a made-in-B.C. provincial referendum. So would the Premier tell us today which of the two referendums he will be bound by: the made-in-B.C. referendum put to the people by the people of British Columbia or the referendum put to them by the Mulroney government?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have said for quite a few months now, and I'll repeat it for the Leader of the Opposition, that we are committed to a referendum in British Columbia that the people of British Columbia will have a chance to vote on. Hopefully, over the next few months we can bring before the people of British Columbia a package of constitutional reform that they can vote on, and vote on positively, to bring about unity and a positive change in Canada.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the Premier's response, but my question is with respect to the binding nature of that referendum. Given that we are likely to have two referendums -- one federal and one provincial -- and that the results may be different if the question is not the same, could the Premier tell us which of the two his government will be bound by?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand that the people of British Columbia are going to have their own referendum. That is the one that we are going to be bound by.

When the Prime Minister states, as he did a few weeks ago, that there will be a national referendum if the Premiers can't get their acts together, quite frankly, I find that offensive, because the first ministers have never met on the constitution. To prejudge the goodwill among Canadians across Canada, after very extensive dialogue to start to sort out what changes we want, whether it be through parliamentary committees, our own legislative committee or other means....

For the Prime Minister to say that we're going to have a referendum if the Premiers cannot reach a decision is premature, first of all, and secondly, it puts a taint of bad faith on the first ministers who happen to be Premiers.

We are going to have a referendum in British Columbia that will bind British Columbians. I've already said that a federal referendum here in British Columbia is unnecessary. It will just cost federal taxpayers extra money.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

G. Wilson: We have learned today that the government will be bound by a referendum. That's news, and we appreciate that.

A final supplementary with respect to this binding provincial referendum. Would the Premier tell us who is eligible to vote in such a referendum? By what criteria will the recommendation be made to this House with respect to eligibility to vote, given that there are two different ages of majority for normal elections: 18 on a federal question and 19 on a provincial question? Could the Premier comment on eligibility?

[2:15]

[ Page 1582 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Opposition had a number of members of his caucus who were part of the legislative committee that recently went around the province. Quite frankly, that would have been the proper place to bring that up, rather than bringing up a matter of future policy here. It is a matter that will....

D. Mitchell: What's your answer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: My answer is that this is something we should discuss as members of this Legislature, rather than do it in an adversarial manner.... I sense from the Leader of the Opposition and from the comments of the members of his caucus that there seems to be a distinct lack of goodwill in trying to bring this matter before British Columbians in as non-political a way as possible. I'm prepared to do it that way.

If the opposition wants to turn this into political cannon fodder, when it should be a matter of grave importance where we try to have this Legislature prepare such a question and prepare around those sorts of things.... I'm quite prepared to sit down with the members of this Legislature and develop just those questions.

HIRING OF CONSULTANT

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier as well. Can the Premier advise the House whether longtime resource management and environmental consultant Alistair Crerar has been hired by Bob Williams through the Crown corporations secretariat? If so, can he tell us for what purpose he was hired, and how much the taxpayers are paying for his services?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, that question can quite properly be answered by the Minister of Finance, who chairs the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations. I'll take it on notice.

The Speaker: Is there a new question, leader of the third party?

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

J. Weisgerber: Yes, hon. Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Women's Equality. Can the minister confirm that it is the government's policy to pay equal pay for equal work to women and men hired by OIC -- the same policy, as stated by the government, that applies to other employees of the provincial government?

Hon. P. Priddy: In part, I will take the specific question on notice. But I think the leader of the third party also knows that....

The Speaker: Minister, you're taking a portion on notice? You can't take a question on notice and answer it as well.

Hon. P. Priddy: Then I will take the whole thing on notice.

ICBC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, my question is much simpler, so hopefully we will get an answer to it. It's to the Premier regarding the Friday afternoon St. Bob Williams Day Massacre of the ICBC board. In view of the fact that Mr. Bob Williams was appointed by the Minister of Labour a month ago to review all aspects of ICBC, what role did Mr. Williams play in the sacking of the entire board?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member who asked that question is aware that the minister responsible for ICBC is the Minister of Labour, who is not here today. He is busy working on a constitutional package that can be put before the first ministers and before the people of British Columbia. I think it would be important for the minister to be able to answer. I will say that I am pleased....

The Speaker: Premier, I regret....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...but I'm taking the question on notice.

The Speaker: On behalf of the minister. Does the member have a new question?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I do, hon. Speaker. We might as well just give the written questions to the government. Maybe they'll get back to us, but we all know they won't.

Hon. Speaker, the question to the Premier again is: the opposition understands that the deputy minister of everything, Mr. Bob Williams, is supposed to be continuing with his independent review of ICBC. However, why would an independent investigator choose to fire the entire board of a Crown corporation before having the opportunity to work with them during that review? Was Mr. Williams's mandate to work with the ICBC board or to appoint a board he could work with?

The Speaker: I'll go on to the member for Richmond-Steveston.

MEDICARE

A. Warnke: I haven't had a chance to talk to the Premier since a couple of Thursdays ago. I hope his office is in order and that he can find his mail. I have a question for the Premier on the subject of medicare which emerged from last week's western Premiers' conference. In fact, the Premier is quoted: "There's a tremendous amount of willpower and agreement to move on with medicare II." I'd like to ask the Premier: what is medicare II, and would Tommy Douglas have approved of it?

[ Page 1583 ]

The Speaker: The Premier for as brief an answer as possible, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, hon. Speaker. I was just going to ask how many minutes we have left in question period.

If the member would like to know what that means, he could read the royal commission report by Mr. Justice Seaton, for example. He could read the communiqué that came out of the western Premiers' meeting, which was unanimous, that we are going to move in this new direction to provide better health and better-quality health care for our citizens.

A. Warnke: I find it interesting that the Premier said, "Read a report," when he was the one to suggest in the campaign that all we have to do is read the American Express card.

At any rate, I would also like to suggest that from what the Premier is saying.... Is the capping of physicians' fees really just the first salvo in this medicare II strategy?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a salvo at all; it's a question of making sure.... The taxpayers can only pay so much. We have to set a budget, and the taxpayers' representatives do that. We're aware that in the United States a revolution was fought on the issue of no taxation without representation. We're the taxpayers' representatives, and we're the ones who should set the budget for health care. Whether it be in health care, education or highways, it's important that this is where the budget is set.

If we're going to be able to afford to shift to community-based health to deal with some of the underlying causes of ill health, such as poverty, we're going to have to have the funds to do that. There is only so much tax money to go around. We want to see that shift of tax money to the community, to wellness.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

A. Warnke: I take it from that that the Premier wants to scrap the legally constituted plan. So that's the second salvo.

I would like to ask the Premier: why are the doctors bearing the brunt of this government's medicare II strategy?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't call an increase of over $400 million in the health care budget, an increase of over 7 percent, a salvo. I say that that is maintaining basic services while we're cleaning up the mess from the previous government and dealing with the off-loading from the federal government. If that's not enough spending for the opposition, it's enough for the people of British Columbia, I can tell you.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minster of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. The opposition notes the government has paid at least $36,000 to U.S. lobbyist Neil Goldschmidt and $4 million in total to a variety of U.S. lobbyists and lawyers in connection with the softwood lumber case. In light of Friday's decision by the U.S. commerce department, how much bang did we get for our buck?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm glad you asked the question. I would say that there is a substantial reduction from the 14 percent to the 6.5 percent, and that is worth millions of dollars. We're not happy with that, and we continue to work extremely hard on it. As you know, this has been a matter of considerable urgency between this government, several ministers, the Premier, the Forests minister, myself, the Trade minister and members of the federal Parliament. I would say that the money we've spent on Neil Goldschmidt has been well worth it. We have raised the issue of log exports, which is clearly on the agenda.

While they have penalized us for log export controls, I assure you this government will do everything in its power to ensure that we never export more logs than we already have.

Presenting Petitions

Hon. J. Smallwood: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I have over 20,000 signatures and over 2,000 letters petitioning this government to draft legislation to prohibit any person who has been convicted of a sexual offence with a minor from holding positions of trust or authority, or working with minors.

Ministerial Statement

KAMLOOPS BLAZERS

Hon. M. Harcourt: I rise to say that Sunday, May 17, was a great day for sports in British Columbia. On a nifty breakaway pass from Scott Niedermayer, with just 14 seconds left in a tied game, Zac Boyer scored a clutch goal to make the Kamloops Blazers the supreme junior hockey club in North America and, arguably, the world. This is the first time that the Memorial Cup has come to British Columbia since "Punch" McLean's New Westminster Bruins won it in 1978. In bringing this cup back to British Columbia, the Kamloops Blazers provided us with a lot of exciting moments, not just during the regular season with their

[ Page 1584 ]

inspirational play but, of course, during the tournament itself.

Kamloops fans and those of us who follow hockey in British Columbia will remember the players who rose to the challenge to bring this cup back home. Names that emerged this season were: Boyer, of course; Niedermayer, who was selected the Memorial Cup's most valuable player; Mike Mathers, who led the championship tournament in scoring; and, of course, the Blazers goalie Corey Hirsch, who was elected to the Memorial Cup all-star team. Those are the names that I am sure many of us who enjoy hockey will hear more of in the future, and hopefully they will be in Canuck uniforms so that we get our cup sometime in the near future.

Along with each player on the Blazers, special congratulations must also go to coach Tom Renney and his coaching staff. It is said that coaching is what makes a good team great, and certainly this year's Blazers team is a great one.

Of course, recognition must go to the great Blazers fans from Kamloops, as many as 2,000 of whom travelled to Seattle to be there for the cup and to provide the team with the support and the noise that put them over the top. I think the importance of a new facility being built right now in Kamloops will become apparent next year, when the Blazers will play in the new 5,000-seat Riverside stadium. I can think of no better way to go into this new facility than as champions.

[2:30]

On behalf of the government, the people and the hockey fans of B.C., I have this morning written a letter of warm congratulations to an exceptional hockey team, the Kamloops Blazers. On behalf of the Legislature to the Blazers players, the team organization, the fans and the city of Kamloops, the government of B.C. has this message: enjoy your championship; you've earned it.

G. Wilson: In response, this has indeed been a great year for hockey in the province of British Columbia not only for the Kamloops Blazers, who have done so well, but for the Vancouver Canucks, who won their division and gave a great deal of excitement through the playoffs -- although they didn't go as far as many of us would have liked to have seen them go.

I can tell you that as someone who has spent a fair bit of time in goal in playing hockey, it's a sport that I enjoy a great deal and one which I think many British Columbians get behind in terms of their support. It is always good to see a winner in the province of British Columbia, and a team such as the Kamloops Blazers has indeed brought great pride to its community. All of us in the Liberal opposition offer our congratulations not only to this fine team, but also to the fine people of Kamloops who have supported them.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly we'd like to join in extending our congratulations to the people of Kamloops and to the Kamloops Blazers. I suspect the good citizens of Kamloops were starting to feel a bit neglected by this government, but I'm sure that now they have the Premier behind their hockey team they'll feel that that has equalled everything out and they will be able to forget about the cancer clinic. There are issues of relative importance in this province. Certainly winning a hockey championship is an important achievement for any community, and we're delighted that the Kamloops Blazers were successful in Seattle.

F. Jackson: I beg leave to respond to the Premier and the members opposite.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Proceed, hon. member, with a brief statement.

F. Jackson: I will be brief, hon. Speaker.

I was at a charity slow-pitch tournament in Kamloops yesterday when these young men made their first public appearance with the Memorial Cup. It was really great to be there to share in the pride and the pleasure expressed not only by people from the city of Kamloops but by other slow-pitch teams visiting from Burnaby, from Jasper, from Clearwater. They all shared in our pride and our pleasure. I would like to add, for the consolation of the leader of the third party, that in no way has Kamloops been neglected by this government -- no way at all.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Miller: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND HOUSING

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

A. Cowie: I take it that the minister's staff, Ken MacLeod and others, will be here shortly, so I'll ask a general question to review where we were when we last met on Friday. On Friday we were discussing the need for regional planning, and various aspects of community plans. Rather than go into detail at this time, since we're waiting for the staff, I would like to ask how the minister feels about a provincial strategy plan for urban development. We have the Stephen Owen report, which is dealing with resources and the environment. What we badly need -- which I sense throughout the province -- is some direction as to where the province would like to see growth directed.

It's very important to have a good transportation network, a good highway network, both for the resource industry and for urban growth. In the more urban areas of Vancouver and Victoria, it's very important to have a good transit system. Basically, what we need is some form of provincial direction of where growth is going over the next ten, 20 or 50 years. Would the minister like to start by giving us a general background on that?

[ Page 1585 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member mentions a very good topic: the whole question of growth, particularly in the lower mainland and Victoria -- the Capital Regional District. I can assure the member that this ministry is very active in urban initiatives, urban policy and urban review. We have a

section in the ministry that does research pertaining to that area. Of course, there are a number of areas that we are looking at. We are taking a look at the Municipal Act and whether it really deals with the regions of the province and the urban problems of today and whether we have to change it to reflect what is happening in British Columbia in terms of where the growth is.

As the member is aware, we're dealing with the whole question of regional governments and regional planning. That has a remarkable impact on what happens in terms of growth strategies. We are continuing to highlight that as an issue with the UBCM, who continue to hold special meetings, seminars and conferences on the question, particularly in the lower mainland in terms of urban growth management.

I have to say that it is a priority of ours, but as the member is aware, it is an incredibly complex, difficult issue, one that hasn't been grappled with properly over the last few years. Because it is so overwhelming, there has been a tendency to try and avoid it if one can. This government is quite prepared to take on these issues, recognizing that there will be incremental improvements in terms of management of growth. There's no question that we have to have far better urban planning, urban growth strategies and management, particularly in the lower mainland and the Capital Regional District -- and in the Okanagan, of course, which is growing very fast.

One of the things that I know the member has talked to me about is the whole question of grants and incentives to do good planning and to coordinate provincial policy and infrastructure decisions that tie into where we put our dollars in terms of our granting procedures. These things are controversial to some degree. Local government feels that if you put too many stipulations on why they get grants, it reflects on their autonomy.

There's no question that the province is changing. It is far more sophisticated than it was even ten or 15 years ago. We have to be prepared to deal with the growth problems that are facing many of our regions.

A. Cowie: I'd like to pursue this just a bit longer to get a little more flavour. I agree with you that the last administration ignored this subject entirely for the last ten years. It's a subject that people want to hear about. They really need some sort of guidance and leadership. I also recognize that it's extremely complex, and that one will not please everybody by tackling it. It's very important, as the minister says, to work with the UBCM in solving this.

One of the things that I noted, going around the province recently and visiting UBCM sub-meetings, was that in the lower mainland people talk regional planning; in the Victoria area people talk regional planning; and in some outlying areas or even further up Vancouver Island people resist it. They feel there's a need to strengthen municipal planning because there are small municipalities surrounding.... Take Comox, for instance. There are a number of small municipalities. I think it's necessary to perhaps clean that up before one can really go into regional planning. It's the same in the Okanagan. It might be necessary to go one further step with stronger municipal planning.

I have a question regarding that. As we move toward more strength in regional planning.... The way we have it set up at the present time, we do not have direct representation on regional planning boards. As more and more power incrementally -- if that's the way we're going.... I believe we have to go faster than that. We have to have lots of seminars, educational programs, and move more directly on that. To that extent, I wonder if the minister has put any of his $48,000 of resources, the way I break it down, into some professional services to help with that. That's item 20 in the estimates.

I take it that that's where the funding would be for any assistance -- not very much. In fact, it costs between $100,000 and $200,000 to do a community plan for any sizeable municipality. I just wonder, as far as funds go, what allocation we are putting on this if we're really taking it seriously.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member will probably be very pleased that in the very near future I will be making some announcements on how we apply the planning grants and making some shifts that I think will recognize the issues that he's talking about today in terms of the rapid urbanization of key areas. We have to do some of the preliminary work in allowing those....

I might say that many of those regions are now starting to grapple, finally, with their own growth problems. I'm very pleased with what is happening in Vancouver, in terms of the livable region; they're doing a lot of good regional planning and making some incremental moves. The capital region is doing some work on transportation and liquid and solid waste management. I'm pleased to say that Kelowna has now started to do some preliminary work recognizing that integrated regional planning and consensus on those issues is very important.

We will be making some changes to reflect the needs that the member is bringing up. These are horrendous issues that know no municipal boundaries -- as members have heard me say many times. We have to have the ability to integrate our planning methodologies in those particular areas. I think you'll be pleased with some of the changes that are going to be made in the near future to reflect these urbanization issues that are before us.

[2:45]

A. Cowie: I'm certainly looking forward to that, and I'm glad that the minister is addressing it at the beginning of his term.

As we deal with things on a regional basis, I have some questions on some key issues. It takes an enormous amount of time and energy, and a number of people are involved -- many aldermen and mayors. In Winnipeg and Edmonton, just as examples, they went through this. I think they had 120 representatives in

[ Page 1586 ]

Edmonton, and they finally got that down to somewhere between 15 and 20. The council is now represented by people who are voted directly to the metro council. If we're going to move slowly on this, I guess we'll move to regional and then move to some form of metropolitan government in Victoria and in Vancouver, mainly to overcome the problem of just more and more government. People don't want more and more government; they want less government, more efficiency, and they want to go through this process openly. They want lots of public participation, but they want less government. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This afternoon we are talking about issues that we are probably not going to resolve in our time in this House. It's going to take quite some time in terms of the growth and the change and the sophistication, particularly in our urban areas in the lower mainland, capital region and, to some degree, the Okanagan.

People have the feeling that efficiencies can be brought about by the regionalization of certain services. It was talked about in your community in terms of essential services -- police and fire departments. It's been talked about in the capital region for many years. We have a number of police and fire and other kinds of departments. On the surface it looks like there are some efficiencies to be created by amalgamating, or putting some of those essential services together. It's like regional planning, though.

Everyone agrees that we need to do something, but when it comes to putting them all together, you get many communities that feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that they're going to get swallowed up by the big city. In Vancouver it's the smaller communities that feel that the city of Vancouver will dictate the entire agenda. Here in Victoria it's the same way.

We really have to find some ways of finding out what the people want to see. On the surface, when you ask them, they say: "Why don't you put them together?" But I'm not sure that they know all the implications. Big is not always necessarily best in terms of these kinds of services. That's been documented in other jurisdictions, particularly south of the line.

We as a government are prepared, in concert with local government, to take a look at some effective, efficient kinds of regional services. I sometimes think that the member leans more towards the provincial government saying it should happen rather than finding some way for the local authorities to achieve their own consensus on these kinds of issues. I agree that provincial leadership is required. We will be providing that in a number of things in the next year or two. I happen to be of the view that forced change can happen, but if it's going to be meaningful and constructive and lasting, the local level also has to believe in it, and it has to be required.

The short answer to you is that there are some things we can be doing. In the next year or two you'll see some of those studies come about and some of these commonsense approaches looked at very seriously.

A. Cowie: The reason that people look to the provincial government for leadership is that the provincial government can fund and take on certain studies. For instance, a number of years ago they did the infrastructure study. That helped a lot of municipalities -- at least the more urban ones -- deal with the question of duplication. For instance, I think there are 120 different types of fire hydrants available. It did get it down, but maybe we should get it down to six or something.

That study also indicated that you really weren't going to save a great deal of money on your infrastructure if you wanted your standards to be set high. The way to produce less costly housing or whatever is to look at density. That's what the study dealt with. I was part of that study, as your members were. I mentioned that.

I only know of one municipality that threw it in the garbage. That was a little one up-Island somewhere, and I won't mention the name of it. They essentially wanted some more sprawl and some more provincial money to go on the way they were going. Then we'll have to help them with provincial funding to upgrade their services, I guess, sometime in the future when it breaks down.

If the minister knows municipal government as I do, as far as employees go, it's one of the fastest-growing areas in the province. It's the best sector to get involved with. If you're a professional or a building inspector, get a job with the municipalities. While it might not be all that secure, it is relatively secure. It's a fast-growing sector of our society. If the minister were to look at each municipality and provide studies where he could coordinate certain activities, such as on the North Shore and in Vancouver....

I think each municipality has looked at tree retention on slopes rather than doing it together. Port Moody and West Vancouver have looked at it. Some of them may have gotten together. I think it is important to encourage them to look at some of these studies as one -- parking standards for instance, except in Oak Bay, where they need very large parking bays. Most municipalities can do with a standard.

Also, with the question of social housing, rather than each individual responding to the bill that's coming up, it would be good if the minister were to put some funding into that and give some guidance on how municipalities can provide social housing. I'm sure he's probably thinking about that now, and we will discuss that during the bill.

I'd like to move back to this provincial strategy plan as it affects tourism. As you go through the Okanagan, for example, and start to see north of Kelowna, it used to be a nice area that was all open and very attractive. Then you have a steady sprawl going up the Okanagan. I guess the solution is to put a new road on the other side of the lake and have some restrictions on it, so that it won't go the way the highway does at the present time. In the early seventies the Highways department used to sponsor a roadside development conference. It was very good, and we haven't had that in fifteen years or so.

I wonder how the minister sees transportation -- the design of roads and that whole transportation network -- fitting into land use planning. We talk about it being necessary to integrate both. But where is

[ Page 1587 ]

Highways in this? Where's the Minister of Highways when we talk about land use planning? Are we fully on the same course?

Hon. R. Blencoe: First, before I answer the transportation questions, we do indeed have joint planning with local government, provincial and municipal. If a proposal comes forward from local government, we do that, and we encourage it. I don't think there's any hindrance on the part of this ministry in terms of doing joint planning.

Let me go back again to the question that the member's talking about -- these regional services -- and give you an example of something that may perhaps happen in our time. In police and fire, as we all know, the level of equipment today and the approach to those very important issues in our society are highly sophisticated, complex and technical. Of course, when you have a multitude of departments and jurisdictions, they all tend to duplicate their equipment. Quite frankly, we have to deal with it. It's costing us too much money, and some efficiencies can be brought about.

This kind of thing is, and has been, contentious. In my community, police and fire departments have talked about putting their services together. We never seem to achieve that, because it's controversial. Now there is a window of opportunity. Because of the technology that's available today, it doesn't make sense. We should be starting to look at efficiencies in terms of sharing the technology that they all have to use. By that, we might incrementally move to a greater regionalization of police departments in terms of staff, or whatever.

That will come in time, certainly in my region, whereby they will be using incredibly sophisticated technological equipment and it really won't make any sense for all of them to be using it.

In terms of the organizational research that the member mentioned, I failed to mention that we are expanding our organization through the budget process. My colleagues on Treasury Board agree that this is a major issue. We had a substantial increase in organizational research to allow us to consult and work with the multitude of groups out there. We are developing what we might call a mutually acceptable agenda with local governments and regional districts to find out exactly where we're going to go in the next few years to develop this.

Of course, the whole question of regional governments, amalgamation and efficiencies comes down, again, to: which services at which level, who pays, to whom are you going to be accountable, and is it practical and efficient? As we get more and more into these kinds of issues, which, at the moment, we all agree we should be working towards, the bumps will become more evident, and -- I don't want to say controversy -- some disagreements in terms of approach will become far more evident. It won't be easy. But please be assured that this government is not afraid to tackle these important issues.

Back to your last question, hon. member. I want to answer your questions as directly as I can. On the question of transportation integration, again, the member is quite correct. We have tended to compartmentalize our various ministries and approaches. It seems to happen naturally. As a new minister, I often find that there's a natural inclination towards that happening. We all get so busy in our jobs.

When making a decision, to suddenly flag in your mind, "I wonder where my colleagues the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Forests are on this issue," in terms of hoping to deal with the issue of tree-cutting legislation, for instance, at the municipal level.... We tend to get compartmentalized.

There's no question that transportation planning, strategies and growth are all part of what we have to do. My colleague the Minister of Transportation is very aware of that. He and I have had a number of discussions, in a generic sense, about where we're going. Of course we consult. For instance, something comes to my mind right away. We are just about to announce highway grants and improvements, which are done through my ministry and his ministry. They're done on a consultative approach.

They're done in line with our ministry taking a look at where the growth is happening, which communities are going through sewer and infrastructure problems and where, as much as possible, we're trying to encourage growth. It's very much on our minds. But I have to say that it can get better -- no question, and I hope it will get better.

D. Symons: I do have a concern, and I'm glad you admitted at the end that it can get better, because that is indeed my concern: things have to get a lot better. We need a coordinated long-term planning situation with an integration of our highways, our ferries and our municipal affairs. All these departments have to get together much better than they have in the past. We need planning -- urban, interurban, regional and provincial -- and this has not always been the case in our province.

[3:00]

If we take our past history, it has not been good. We had cases in the past, going back quite far, where communities simply built along the Fraser River as a communication system and dumped their sewage in the river. The people farther down the river reaped the benefits of that in their drinking water. This has been the history of our province for a long time. It has been only recently that we have realized the interdependency of one community with the other and that one has to be considerate of what's happening farther down the river or the road or whatever the case may be. Those days are past now.

Our pioneer days are over, and we must have long-term planning. I hope your government will be dedicated to that purpose.

We've had a hodgepodge of development -- a residential development here, an industrial park over there -- and after these things are built, then we worry about the sewage and the transportation to connect them and relate them to each other. This has been addressed after the fact in the past -- not only the distant past, but all too often the recent past.

I would like to know what interministerial planning organization -- you mentioned some communication there -- your government has in place already to

[ Page 1588 ]

coordinate planning of highways, ferries and municipal affairs.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is good discussion. I am personally encouraged that the opposition is supporting and is a part of the growing awareness at many levels that we have to have greater integration and better lines of communication with local government and senior government and within provincial and federal government, which is one of the biggest challenges we face -- without getting into any heavy editorials on that.

There are a number of methods currently used for integration. I know, for instance -- I don't have all the details of this -- that the various key deputy ministers in some of these social, economic and planning areas meet on a regular basis to ensure they know where the various ministries are going in terms of these critical paths. That is being highlighted even more. This government is making a point of ensuring that ministries are connected and that deputy ministers share.

We also have a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, which will be linking up these kinds of issues more and more. Not a day goes by when we don't meet in cabinet, recognize and make a decision on transportation. That relates to housing and regional economic development. We are aware of it, but as I have said already, we can improve.

In terms of planning -- the member mentions what has happened in his community and wonders how it happened -- there is always this tentative relationship between local and provincial government. I must admit there are times, in travelling the province, when I say: "How did that ever happen? How did that community allow that to happen? Why is that growth happening there, which really doesn't make some sense?"

We've always had this belief -- to some degree, quite correctly -- that local government is the purveyor of land use, zoning regulations and public hearings, and they make the decisions. I also think, though, that good planning is our responsibility in terms of setting up expectations and methodologies and through various ways of encouraging that official community plans in certain parts of the province are not used like zoning maps that are suddenly changed overnight. Residents think that their community plan at least gives them some semblance of order.

I think we have to try and find some way to create stability and incentives -- financial or otherwise. I think we have to take a look at how we encourage local governments and regional districts to plan well, and see what the rewards are for that. That's back to your critic's position of grants and tying them in some fashion. These are all things that we've known about and talked about, but obviously when you move in new areas and when you've done something for a certain period of time, a lot of people don't want to change. Why change?

Consequently you risk alienation and you risk confrontation, but for the sake of the province in the long term we have to do some of these things. Some toes may get stepped on, but we have to move in these kinds of directions.

D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Streifel: Visiting me today in the galleries is part of the future of the province of British Columbia, a class of students with their teacher, Mr. Dan Hughes, from Duriel Elementary School in Hatzic Prairie -- just outside of my constituency. I beg the House make them welcome.

The Chair: The member for Richmond Centre continues on vote 53.

D. Symons: I'm glad to hear you mention community plans, having come from a community which, when I lived there, had three official community plans. And each time, almost as soon as the ink is dried, there seem to be some revisions or changes made to that plan. It becomes very disconcerting when people want to plan for something or feel that you have a plan for the community and something else comes up and they change the plan rather rapidly.

I'm concerned about this long-term planning and this integration, as you may gather from the thrust of my questions. As a matter of fact, one instance that happened rather recently under the mandate of this particular government is the Ferry Corporation indicating a change in the ferry schedules -- all-night sailings. This is the situation which is now occurring in Nanaimo. The city didn't seem to be too involved in the decision-making and the Highways ministry didn't seem to make any provisions for the change in traffic patterns that are going on there. This impinges upon that municipality.

It seems incredible that in this day when we should be having a lot more consultation, this does not seem to be talking place. In that community there also seems to be a duel going on between two possible ferry terminals, either of Duke Point or having it remain at Departure Bay. The community, the highways that are going to supply the transportation for that ferry terminal and the local transportation within the city of Nanaimo are all involved.

What sort of consultation is taking place so that these decisions will be done in a way that will suit the needs of that community and the needs of the travelling public? What I see doesn't seem to indicate that that communication is good enough.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not one for doing this often, but I think many of the questions that you're asking could be addressed to the Minister of Transportation, and I suspect they were.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: No, that's not to say I don't have some answers, or I don't have some comments to make. First I should point out to that member that Highways is a major sponsor of a study right now called Transport 2021, which is currently going on in the GVRD, and my colleague the Minister of Transportation and his ministry is a major sponsor of that initiative.

[ Page 1589 ]

The member is right again. I don't have the magical answers for him to make sure the various ministries connect and that we have proper transportation planning. My ministry is working towards what we hope will be the model for regional planning and governments. We are currently working on that. We think that will have a lot to do with the various issues you're talking about, because under regional planning, regional government's general parameters, the issues you're talking about will have to be done on a regional basis.

One of the reasons we've got ourselves in trouble is that in 1983 -- I don't have to give you the background -- that requirement was eliminated by the former government. Quite frankly, it's left a vacuum. It's left some of the issues you're talking about in limbo, which have to be dealt with properly in a regional context.

I've said many times that the issues facing particularly your community or the Greater Vancouver Regional District community, the issues that are faced by those citizens, don't know the boundaries that we have created by these smaller municipalities. They go way beyond. Transportation is one of them. Air quality management is another one that I and the Ministry of Environment are working on with a number of regional districts in the lower mainland, trying to have enhanced coordination of air quality management. Again, incremental.

Maybe not as fast as some would like, but in the early days of our administration we are trying to give the right signals that we are not going to avoid these issues. We want to coordinate, and we want to do more to bring these issues together.

My staff point out that you're talking about the externalities. These are all components of an overall problem in an urban area. Another very good reason why we are encouraging regional planning and improvement of regional governments, particularly in your community.

D. Symons: Just a brief final question to the minister. Following up on your answer, could you give me some assurance then that you, through your ministry, will encourage some sort of formal method of vetting at least any development you're planning within your ministry that would impinge upon the others? We will then hope that the other ministries will also join in on this; that you would vet it through them and have some formal organization where this would happen so that there will be this connection between them, and we won't have a Ferry Corporation changing something without the other ministries knowing about it, without them notifying the municipalities about it.

Hon. R. Blencoe: As much as we can, we will do that. We have learned that there are some things that can be done better, and you mention the ferry one as a good example. Again, you can have all the best consultation and communication between ministries and local government, whoever you want, but in the end sometimes a decision will have to be made that not everyone agrees to. That will happen at times.

A. Cowie: The debate we're getting into right now is simply this: what is planning? And I'd like the minister's brief comment on whether he agrees or not. Since we seem to be agreeing on an awful lot of things, we might as well keep on going this way.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: My colleague may be very good in his own right, but the previous administration just didn't understand this subject. So I'd like to get your opinion of it.

At UBC, Waterloo or the universities where there is planning now -- or at Harvard or whatever -- basically what planning is doing is looking at the overall. Land use, transportation, environment, social planning, economic planning are all coming together and have been for a number of years. So it would be nice to see the provincial government also taking that model of planning and plugging in transportation when it's needed, rather than having a road going off in some direction to service some area simply because it's necessary from a road point of view.

So I'm looking for the minister to tell me that he sees his function as a coordinating function, one that brings all of these disciplines together, and to give us a road map of where the province is going. I trust the minister probably agrees with this, but I'd like to hear him tell me.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That member is showing his professional background of planning, and he immediately wants...

An Hon. Member: It's a good background.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a good background. Would I say it was otherwise?

He really wants a map -- the plan, the components and the flow charts laid out -- all set for the next two years, five years, ten years and 20 years. I agree; that would be nice. But unfortunately, as you know, certain things get in the way: politics of the day, community interests of the day, and special needs of the day. I don't think I have to say any more. But the intent is there, hon. member. I think we will get better at integration.

I know that in the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development that I am part of, when we have key issues before us, many times we will have the key staff or the deputy minister from various ministries there, relating to this issue in a multidiscipline approach.

[3:15]

This member asked and a former member talked about grants we're giving for planning that are not always recognized but that fit within the parameters those members are talking about under transportation. Let me just give you details of some of the grants that we're giving out this year. Matsqui, for instance: official community plan update -- transportation study. Our ministry is working with Abbotsford. Also in Matsqui we're helping with a strategic plan implementation. Logan Lake: planning grants for a complete inventory of infrastructures and assets. So I don't think that our perceptions are sometimes just the traditional ones of what planning is all about.

[ Page 1590 ]

Nanaimo: there's one here for an extensive land use study that we are providing some funds for. Parksville: a major one for an official community plan for waterfront development -- obviously very sensitive in Parksville. The community there wants to ensure that they're doing good planning for waterfront and waterfront enhancement. There's one I'm sure the member would like here: the community of Oliver wants to do a computer mapping database for better coordination of their activities. We, as a ministry, are providing some funds for that project.

There's one here in Saanich: a grant for an environmental strategy project. That's perhaps not seen as a traditional kind of planning grant, but it's an area that we're trying to move into.

So in partnership with local government, we're starting to have more extensive planning and integration of our programs in partnership with local government.

A. Cowie: I could comment on grants, but I'll keep those opinions private.

Staying with Transportation and Highways for a while, I'd like to have the minister's opinion on why we still have technical people from Highways -- as fine as they are -- giving subdivision approvals in regional districts and in unorganized areas. Why do we still have Highways' technicians making decisions on subdivisions?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I must admit that this issue comes up a number of times. I've often thought that that process had outlived its time. It's a complex issue. It has been reviewed in the past and no changes have been made. The issue, of course, when it comes down to it, relates to who pays for the roads, and of course the whole question of the sewer, water and drainage factors come into it, and Highways often has a major say in that. I'm not necessarily giving you the answer that you'd like to hear. Suffice to say, I am certainly aware of the issue, but it's not as straightforward as the member might think. I know a number of my colleagues have certain views on that particular issue.

A. Cowie: The Minister of Forests is here and has indicated, I think, through his interjections that he would like to say something. One of my members would like to deal with a forestry topic on communities.

W. Hurd: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena has thrown a bit of a curve into my proposal here, because I didn't intend to ask a specific forestry question of the minister in estimates. I just have a couple of quick questions about the area I represent, the municipality of Surrey. The two opposition MLAs from Surrey-White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale joined the three other government members and private members in several liaison meetings with the municipality of Surrey.

One issue that they identified as being a critical problem for their municipality, which is one of the fastest-growing in Canada, is the gap between the time when they apply for development cost charges from the government and the time they are actually in receipt of the funds. Very often the projects for which they've applied have gone up in cost from the time that they actually apply for the funds to the time they receive them.

I'm just asking on behalf of Mayor Bose and the council in Surrey whether the minister has identified in any of his operations funds for a study which might highlight or illustrate this problem in the municipality of Surrey and other fast-growing districts with respect to development cost charges.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The provincial government does not pay development cost charges; it's established at the local level and the bylaw is established. I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure how you think I or the provincial government can improve that. I could say that the generic issue of development cost charges is one that's always coming to our attention. If I'm correct, we have been doing some work around that as an issue. In terms of the application and collection of the charges, it's a local issue. I stand to be corrected. Maybe you could clarify it for me, hon. member.

W. Hurd: I might not have it straight in my mind. I was led to understand that there were funds that the municipality received from the province for certain types of....

Hon. R. Blencoe: Grants.

W. Hurd: Maybe I'm confusing the terminology. The point that was made by the municipal government in Surrey was that there was a gap in the funds that they should have received from the province for certain development costs. Maybe that's not the term. They were eligible for certain grants for projects that they are undertaking.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I know what the member is getting at now. He's probably referring to the sewer and water grants that might be related to a new project. The municipalities make an application. Sometimes they're fairly extensive applications. Unless this is something new, I think we're fairly prompt when we get the application. There's a fairly sophisticated review of the applications. Once we've made it.... For instance, just this morning I've been signing stage one of extensive sewer and water grants to many municipalities, saying that they're being okayed for the project.

It may well be that there's a lag between completion and when we finally send the money out. According to staff, payment is generally made on completion of the project. There may be a lag or two. Let's put it this way: we are aware of the financial limitations of local government, and we try and get the dollars to them as quickly as possible.

If there are some specific problems in Surrey that you or the mayor can bring to my attention, we would be very glad to review them and see if we have been in error or slow. We obviously want to hear about that and make sure that it doesn't happen again.

W. Hurd: I believe the problem lies more with the pressures that the local government in Surrey is facing with the rapid growth. The minister may be correct that

[ Page 1591 ]

because of the pressure that their planning and engineering departments are under, there is a delay between the point where the municipality applies for these water and sewer grants and the point where the work is actually completed. I was questioning whether the ministry was aware of the difficulties being faced by fast-growing municipalities, whether the grant system that's in place is being studied for possible modifications and whether any other mayors or municipal councils -- besides the one in Surrey -- have brought this problem to the attention of the ministry.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We get a tonne of correspondence every day and every week. I don't recall.... In these first few months I've tried to see everything, as much as possible, so I can get a handle on what's happening. The complaint I get about grants, of course, is that there are not enough. They want more in each grant and more of them. Of course they do. They've all got all sorts of projects that they want to do in their communities. If there is a specific problem or hindrance in Surrey, we will certainly take a look at it.

One of the issues that I just mentioned to you, though, is that we do have growth-related grants. We try and look at a scale of priority in terms of where we're going to put our money. We're not hiding the fact that this year, as it has been in the past few years, a good portion of the conditional grants has gone to sewer and water, which means that the growth-related grants have perhaps come down on the priority list.

The bottom line is that there is only so much. You've got to assess the priorities, and there's never enough. I happen to be of the view.... This member is certainly indicating that growth-related grants are important. I think my critic is also saying that as well. But again, it's where you cut it, what your priorities are. You've only got so much money in the pot per year, and you have to divvy it up according to what appears to be the priorities from local government of the day.

W. Hurd: Just another quick question on an issue of importance to my own riding, but also a generic issue to municipal governments in the province, that being the difficulties they are facing with municipal infrastructure and the expected increase in fines and assessments for pollution offences in the province.

It does pertain to the city of White Rock, which is experiencing difficulty with sewage runoff into Georgia Strait. In light of the fact that roughly 25 percent of all pollution violations in British Columbia are the result of infrastructure problems with municipal governments, has his ministry identified funds for studies to identify which municipalities may be vulnerable to dramatic increases in pollution fines and/or assessments by another ministry of his government, namely Environment, Lands and Parks?

[3:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: We have funds that are available for dealing with infrastructure problems or the environmental problems that the member raises. I am aware of the White Rock situation. I know we have had some discussions on that, and that's not an easy issue. I should let you know, hon. member, that I have asked my staff to do some extensive crunching of the numbers in terms of what has happened in the last ten or 15 years in White Rock. If we can do some projections in terms of what could be expected in....

The concern in White Rock is the viability of that community as a community, so we have taken that under advisement, and we will take a look at it. There are no easy answers. Some suggestions that White Rock take over parts of Surrey, of course, would not be welcome by certain members of Surrey. However, we will continue to look at these and work with the members affected, like yourself.

W. Hurd: A more general question regarding the impact of increases in fines and assessments for pollution-related problems.... I would assume that these increased costs will be borne or faced by municipal government as well as corporations in this province. Are there any funds available in the ministry operations that would enable the ministry to identify some of these rather critical problems in the province so that at least the municipal governments aren't facing dramatic increases should citizens' groups choose to take them to court over problems that might result from failures of municipal infrastructures?

I know from experience that corporations in the province have already been advised that they will have to take steps to deal with these new regulations.

In light of the considerable problems in municipal infrastructures with respect to sewage, is the minister concerned about municipalities facing considerable problems not only from governments -- from a lack of grants -- but also from the possibility that citizens' groups may pursue redress through the courts for some of their infrastructure problems?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may be quite correct, but I'm not going to deal in possibilities. Obviously the infrastructure is a problem; it's a major issue. I'm the first to admit there aren't the dollars to go around, which are required particularly in the lower mainland. I know what the lower mainland -- the GVRD -- is facing in the next five to ten years. It's substantial. Some might say it's astronomical in terms of the sewer and water and treatment facilities that will be required.

Our ministry deals with infrastructure grants. The formula currently is 25 percent from the province, but if there are health or environmental issues at stake, it can go to 50 percent of the cost of the program. I am very aware that, although I got a substantial increase this year, we still have a long way to go. This government is aware of it, and we are going to tackle it in the years ahead.

There are the costs of growth, of people just living in the lower mainland and of the environmental considerations. Sustainability issues are there. That's one of the reasons why we are taking a look at the whole question of the Georgia Basin. When my critic talks about integration of planning and services, obviously we go beyond just the GVRD. There is this whole Georgia Basin or Fraser-Cheam or whatever we want to call it; some call it Fraser-Pacific.

[ Page 1592 ]

There are major issues we have to tackle, and this minister is well aware of them. Our commitment this year was to raising the infrastructure availability to the highest level in the history of the province. But I am the first to admit that we will need further dollars in the years ahead, and that will have to be tackled.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I will now get into the question that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena was interested in my asking in the first place -- namely the possibility of community forests controlled at least partially by municipalities in the province of British Columbia.

First, a question regarding the environmental endowment fund. Will the ministry have access to any funding from that $10 million for fostering the growth of community forests in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Blencoe: A number of the questions the member is asking touch upon forestry issues, and my good colleague was wondering why those issues didn't come up during the Forests estimates. I'm sure you will have every opportunity to discuss those further.

In terms of the endowment fund, I am not aware.... I said it nicer than I think you might have. I'm not aware that my ministry will be drawing on those funds. That's the message I'm getting at this time.

W. Hurd: Just one final question, and it pertains to affordable housing in British Columbia. I was wondering whether the ministry, in the current budget year, had identified funds to assess the impact of the corporation capital tax on any private companies that may be involved in providing affordable housing in the province. This is of particular concern to certain people in my own riding who are somewhat interested in this issue of providing affordable housing.

Hon. R. Blencoe: At this time that is not part of our research package, but it could very well be added to it. As you may or may not be aware, much work has been done on the housing front in the social housing and affordability area. I'll take that on notice or advisement in terms of adding that to the many issues that we are studying these days.

A. Cowie: According to my little road map here, we're 25 percent through by content, but that doesn't mean by time. Since we are going rather general, I want to get into some more specific things so we can roll along.

Regarding development permit legislation, how far does the minister think development permit controls should be handled by the municipalities? For example, a municipality that has an official community plan is allowed to have development permit areas. If you've got a development permit area, then you can require developers to have a development permit that spells out the design and general character of the buildings. Sometimes that system can be broken down.

Once they've got their building permit, the planning department has little to do with the actual administration and loses control over many of the design aspects. I've seen many people disappointed in the results. There are other means, such as covenants, that you can require. I want to find out how strongly the minister believes in design control where there's a willingness to agree on a particular approach, at least in the beginning, between the developer and the community.

Hon. R. Blencoe: An area of importance, one I certainly have some personal interest in.... I'm sure the member recalls when the province had land use contracts. There were some wrinkles that people didn't like, but generally, they allowed local government to sit down with a developer and work out -- some would say deal making. I didn't see it that way. I think it was getting the best for the community and the developer being allowed some flexibility to make his project more worthwhile or more financially viable.

Without getting into too many details, we are looking at the whole question of development permits, comprehensive development zones, better abilities for local government to enter into negotiation with developers. One of the difficulties, of course, of the Municipal Act and the zoning rules is that they tend to be universal and inflexible. They don't always fit, particularly communities in unique circumstances. I think there has to be a return to some flexibility.

So we have it under review. It may very well be the subject of legislation in the next session, but we will also be having consultation through the housing process that we'll be announcing very soon, plus consultation with UBCM, which, as I'm sure you know, hon. member, has done a lot of work in this area.

But the quick answer is....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Consulted. The land use contract concept, I think, was very worthwhile; and we want to take a look again.

A. Cowie: I certainly welcome that, and I take it that the minister will also contact UDI and the Canadian builders' association and that sort of thing. I think the reason the land use contracts failed is that some municipalities, in fact -- not always the development industry -- misused them. I can remember one case where a fence was negotiated through a land use contract in Nanaimo. Although Nanaimo does a few crazy things, I think that was going to the absolute sublime.

Getting down to downtown revitalization, because I think that throughout the province the previous administration.... I must give them credit: they at least did spend some money. Whether or not it was properly directed in some cases is debatable, but they did spend some money on revitalization of downtown streets. Where those plans fitted in with a proper economic plan, a proper community plan, those revitalization programs worked quite well. Many of them were simply planting trees, putting in new light standards, a little bit of paving and a bench or two; but essentially if it was the right thing to do to an area, and then that started a stimulus of improving buildings and everything else.

[ Page 1593 ]

I wouldn't criticize the program at all. I'd just like to be assured that we are going to continue with that. And I must compliment your staff member, who I think has the correct attitude regarding that. He's almost private enterprise in some of his approaches. I particularly liked one comment he made one time -- in public, so I can say it -- that first of all you decide your concepts, you get your designers in there, you leave the engineers and the Highways department out of the process until they've decided what the concept is, and then it works. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. R. Blencoe: On the previous question about the development process, I'll let the member know that there is what's called the development process advisory committee, which looks at these kinds of issues; one that our ministry is heavily involved in, I'm told. It includes the UDI and UBCM and those kinds of agencies that the member's referring to.

Downtown revitalization. Well, I tell you, it is a great program, it really is. And the staff member you're referring to is Mr. Martin Thomas, who in his own right is probably the greatest promoter of that program we could see. It has been a remarkable program. It's been going 12 years. Programs like this usually have a life of five or six years, and people lose interest. But this program seems to carry on. Right now, as a matter of fact, there's even greater interest in downtown revitalization. We are genuinely proud of the program. I think it does a good job; it builds spirit for not a lot of money.

I mean, it's a good investment. It often brings back the heart of the community, the fabric, the heritage, the business aspects. It provides capital work loans, planning money, strategy money, facade design. I know the business improvement areas are now using it and tapping into it.

The short answer is that this minister believes it's a good program, and as much as possible it will continue.

[3:45]

L. Fox: I'll take a slightly different tack than my colleague the Liberal critic. I'm not a planner, as he is, so perhaps I see things from a different perspective. It's not that I want to take a whole lot of issue with what he said, but I have to defend the integrity of free enterprise to some degree. I believe that the tool for planning should be economics. I also believe that a community plan is a philosophical statement by a community at that point in time and should be revisited on a regular schedule. Unlike my planning friend, I don't have a crystal ball, and most councils don't have a crystal ball, in order to identify how communities might change on an ongoing basis.

My Liberal counterpart consistently suggests that this government should mandate its programs down on the local communities. I believe that planning is best kept in the hands of the local communities. Certainly the act must suggest on what basis and how often planning should take place and what the principles of planning are, and so on. But the values of the community are stated within that plan, and they are best identified by the community itself.

I agree with the process that is presently in place. However, I would like to see the zoning opportunities expanded within both the regional districts and municipalities so that we could control the forestry codes, for instance, within municipal development areas. I'm not suggesting that private people should not have the opportunity to sell that resource, but that the loggers of that resource should have to follow the same logging practices presently enforced in municipalities and regional districts by the Ministry of Forests. I look forward to your response to that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's more of a philosophical statement than anything else. In his own way, the member really points out the differences in approaches to planning and the regional concept. My Liberal critic is more supportive of regional integration, to the point where -- and I'm hopefully not putting words in your mouth -- the province can show more leadership and direction;

whereas my colleague from Prince George-Omineca is sharing the more traditional view that if it's not wanted at the local level...and that the municipality's autonomy should protect it.... That shows that there is a dichotomy in this debate.

I've already said many times that everyone is in favour of regional planning, better regional governments and integration. But the difficulty, of course, will be: what's the formula and what's the model? How do we protect the interests that you're talking about as well as dealing with...? My Liberal critic, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, is just as correct: there has to be greater regional integration. How do you pull those competing interests together? We are building the blocks incrementally. Many regional districts are starting to do the work themselves on a voluntary basis.

We're trying to provide grants to them and to encourage them and nudge them forward. At the moment the process is incentives -- financial grants or otherwise.

I've already said that we want to recognize in our granting processes those regions or communities that are moving ahead in a progressive way on the issues that we talked about this afternoon. Planning is a shared concept. It's local, regional and provincial. Whether we have the right balance now or we need a new one is what this debate is all about -- here, out there and in all the members' communities.

I know the bottom line is that this province is growing and becoming far more sophisticated. We have a whole new global economy and new technologies that require different approaches to our communities and industrial bases and to managing the economy. This ministry is going to be a very major player in terms of how our communities will develop in the years ahead. It's better to plan and be prepared for them, rather than to deal with the problems after the fact, which to some degree we've tended to do. It costs a lot more money and a lot more hardship.

If we can build into our processes being prepared for those changes, I think we will be far better off. It's not always going to be easy; I think the member knows what I'm talking about.

L. Fox: I agree that I made a philosophical statement with respect to my position on planning, but I also

[ Page 1594 ]

asked a question. I will let you get to that later. That question was specifically whether or not the zoning mandate of municipalities and regional districts could be expanded to incorporate the control of logging practices on private land. Before I go on, perhaps you would answer that one.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm approaching these estimates as openly and candidly as possible, but the member is reflecting on what could be future policy. Let me put it this way: we're aware of it and are working on it, and hopefully we will have some signs that will help in this endeavour. Whether it will go far enough or go too far, I await your reaction to the legislation. Obviously there is a change coming.

As you know, a number of municipalities -- Vancouver and others -- have asked for some ability to deal with tree-cutting in their municipalities. We're endeavouring to help out in that, but I don't want to go any further than that. We will leave it there for now.

L. Fox: I want to talk basically about the need to integrate community planning among communities, regional districts, highways networks and everything covered earlier by members of the official opposition. I can only suggest to you that in my experience the development regions were a tool to do that. In fact, the process started, to a degree. However, this government looks on that process as being less than desirable. Most of those development regions were made up of municipal and regional district leaders. There were educational leaders as well as community health leaders.

All had an excellent understanding of their own development plans, transportation networks, and their educational, health and infrastructure needs. We saw the first real initiative come out of that. It involved the public as well as all of those community leaders. It was called, I recall, the Freedom to Move program. Although that specifically dealt with highways and Highways' responsibilities, it did understand the developments in different areas.

One of the major problems, particularly in the rural parts of this province, is that our resource-based communities are so sensitive to the price of those commodities on a day-to-day basis that it makes it extremely difficult to plan which community is going to grow and which community is going to end up like Cassiar over any period of time. Perhaps the minister might indicate to me if he sees these development regions as a planning tool and something that may help to achieve everything that has been identified thus far.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to go over the history of what was, for some period in this House, a fairly contentious issue. The ministers of state and the unfortunate terminology that we used was created by.... I forget. I think it was Mr. David Poole who called it the United States of British Columbia at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the perception left was that this was going to be another level of government, another level of bureaucracy. There was a thread of.... The concept wasn't necessarily bad; I think it was tied up in too many other images.

I don't think there's any question, though, that some of those regional development areas have done very well. One in particular, I believe, is Cariboo. I understand that it has worked quite well. Others have been a problem. Let's leave it at that.

The simple answer to you is that yes, there are regional disparities; yes, there are regional economies. The province is more than just downtown British Columbia or downtown Vancouver Island. There are unique regions, and we have to build on those regions. We have to develop proper strategies that emphasize their strengths and uniqueness. Some good things have been done in terms of the former administration's program that the member talked about. There are a lot of advantages in pulling the players together, as was attempted under their program.

I should say that in the months and years ahead -- months, I hope -- there will be announcements, not by this minister but by other ministers, on this issue of regional programs, integration and strategies. I think the member will be pleased that we take what he.... I know where that member comes from. He comes from smaller, more rural communities that feel isolated, left out of the decision-making. Rightly or wrongly, that's the perception. It's a reality we have to deal with.

There will be changes by this government in the months ahead that will address that -- not create an image of more bureaucracy or the millions of dollars that were used on the former program -- and build on that program, learning from its mistakes and utilizing the talents in the regions. The member mentioned those. Some of the elected officials and leading entrepreneurs have the ability to help this government develop those strategies for the regions.

L. Fox: I hate to go back to this, but I was never satisfied with your answer during question period so I have to go back to it. You will recall my question with respect to your fair wage policy and the impacts on municipalities. You suggested to me that there had been a number of studies done. It's funny, when I called the UBCM they weren't aware of any of them; in fact, it had only got one telephone call from the Minister of Labour after the first question was asked. Perhaps you could make me aware of the names of these studies.

I would like very much to have a personal look at them, so that I might examine exactly what the impacts are going to be, specific to projects which are going to include, as I understand the policy, more than $500,000 of provincial money or be of higher value than $1.5 million. Perhaps you could comment on that.

[4:00]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm glad to report -- and I'm sure my good colleague the Minister of Labour will report this -- that four out of the five projects have all come in under budget and have all done well. I think that the scare tactics that were being used by the opposition about fair wages haven't proven to be fact.

Interjection.

[ Page 1595 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: You were blowing in the wind as usual, as the opposition does. I hope the reality is setting in.

You're hoping, I know, for some problem. It hasn't happened. The first one was the Commonwealth Games. The aquatic centre is coming under projected budget, and it hasn't been the problem that you all talked about. Now that I've got you all riled up and excited.... You realize that you've got nothing to talk about when it comes to this because everything's working out very nicely.

When the member goes back and reads Hansard .... I was very careful in my words. I did not say this ministry had done the studies or gathered the information. I said: "A number of information and impact studies have been done." This government makes decisions based on rational, intelligent information. I think the member inferred from that that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs had done the studies. I can assure you that the work was done.

I think I said to him before that he should address that question in terms of fair wages impact assessments -- done by my good colleague the Minister of Labour, who unfortunately is not here today to give you the answers that you require. I can tell you -- and you know this -- that the policy thus far has had minimal or no impact on local government.

L. Fox: I'm really concerned that you weren't more objective in your consideration of what this would do to municipalities. You put your head in the sand. Your Finance minister himself has made the statement publicly: "Yes, this could cost us one building." That was a public statement printed in the press. So he obviously disagrees that there isn't going to be an impact. Combined with this fair wage policy is the fact that you now have cut in half, at least in half, the availability of lottery funds for municipalities to build their recreational facilities.

We'll get into the specifics of your vote, because I would like to know exactly what dollars you do have. You put those two things together, and I would suggest that the recreational part of this ministry suffered a huge blow in terms of what it can do to help deliver those very needed recreational facilities throughout the province.

With respect to the six projects that have been so-called underbudget, it's very easy to set a budget which is better than optimistic. You could quite easily set an unrealistic budget in order to bring your project in under budget. I suggest to you that if we had a really close look at all those initiatives, we might be able to identify that. Perhaps that's something I'll do in my spare time, because I firmly believe that is the case.

With respect to the lotteries that have been given to your ministry for you to allocate, could you give us a

summary of how many dollars you expect, how many applications you previously had and the total number of the applications in terms of dollars?

Hon. R. Blencoe: We've shifted gears here a bit, I think, so let me....

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: That's fine. I don't mind at all. In terms of the fair wage policy, infrastructure is exempted, public housing is exempted, and we have realistic limits of $500,000 to $1.5 million. Again, local government is minimally, if at all, affected by this legislation. Thus far, according to the world of the opposition, the world would collapse when we had fair wage legislation. The world hasn't collapsed. Indeed, the projects are doing well, and everything is just fine. I know what you're trying to do, the fear that you're trying to create, but it's just not happening.

In terms of recreation, the member makes good points. I think it's way, way back when this ministry and the recreation division had capital funds for sport and recreation. We do not have.... If the member is thinking that I allocate moneys to build recreation facilities, that's not accurate. We don't have that. We have funds for helping sports organizations, recreational facilities and games people -- support their operating -- but we don't have capital funds, if I'm correct, for sport and recreation. I'm not sure if that's what the member's exact question was.

L. Fox: Perhaps for clarification, when I read the press release as to how the lottery funds were going to be allocated, it stated that 50 percent went to Health, and the balance went into other ministries, one of which was yours. Am I to assume that you're not endorsing any projects?

Hon. R. Blencoe: A portion of our sport and recreation division is funded out of lottery funds. Between $27 million and $30 million is allocated for sport and recreation programs and organizations. I don't know whether we have the actual percentage breakdown in terms of whether all that money comes from lottery funds. I don't believe so. Some of it is direct-line vote, I believe.

My staff says it's all lottery funds.

L. Fox: Is there a line in the budget that identifies that sum? Further to that, do they now come to your ministry for capital projects that used to be funded up to one-third by lotteries? Where are you spending your lotteries money, if it's not going out there into the communities?

Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that we never had lottery funds specifically for capital projects. Those capital projects went directly to the old GO B.C. and those kinds of programs. Over the last five years, when I take a look at old sport and recreation applications for capital projects, I think about $41 million has been spent on capital projects. But we've never had lottery funds for capital; our share of lottery funds was just for operating capital.

L. Fox: Where does a municipality apply, then, if it's got a complex moving forward? We're told by Government Services that they no longer handle it and that it's disbursed in the respective ministries. So where does a municipality apply?

[ Page 1596 ]

Hon. R. Blencoe: The municipalities used to apply to GO B.C., but now, as you know, that's all under review. You may wish to ask your question of my colleague the Minister of Government Services, who is now working on that. I understand there will be community consultation on that particular aspect. I don't know the time-frame or when my colleague will be bringing down the new guidelines for those particular programs.

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, are we also dealing with votes 54 and 55 with this? Or are we only dealing at this point...?

The Chair: This is the minister's office only.

F. Gingell: We haven't amalgamated them all as we have done in previous cases.

The Chair: No, unless there was an agreement I'm not aware of. I have no knowledge of that, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Well, let me ask my questions, and if I'm out of order, we can deal with it.

During the course of various debates and questions relative to the use of lottery funds, we have been led to understand that 50 percent or $100 million of the $200-odd million net income of the Lottery Fund has been allocated for the year 1992-1993 into a new fund to do with health, and that the remainder of the lottery funds, instead of being disbursed by GO B.C. and other lottery grant forms, will now be going through the various ministries, and if you look at this year's estimates you will see that the whole of the $200 million from lottery funds was brought into the general consolidated revenue fund as revenues, and only the $100 million for the health fund was shown as a separate and distinct item.

We were therefore led to understand that sports organizations, cultural organizations and other such organizations would in this year, and in future, be applying to the various ministries that deal with the particular subject matter. So if you were a sports organization that had received either capital or operating grants from lottery funds, you would at this point be expecting to apply to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, because it says "Recreation." Could the minister show us in his budget where these specific types of grants will be paid from?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's great interest in the Lottery Fund and the lottery program and what's going to happen in the future. I do have to beg off, though, as most of the questions are not this minister's responsibility -- for developing the programs or the new initiatives or where it's going -- and your questions are much better directed to the Minister of Government Services. All I can tell you is that traditionally my ministry, in terms of the sport and recreation division, has been allocated a portion of lottery funds.

However, that is actually not technically the way it is done now because, as you know, all lottery funds are going into general revenue, and the idea is we will set up special programs for these grants and community grants. We now actually get a general revenue, line item allocation of money to run sport and recreation, which this year is close to $25 million, out of which libraries get $835,000. I think there's probably some more money in terms of other kinds of programs, like the Commonwealth Games or something like that. No, that's separate.

[4:15]

Interjection.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Where is that shown in the estimates book? It's under "Local Government and Community Services, Total Grants and Contributions." These numbers are fascinating. Vote 54, ministry operations, total grants and contributions, indicates $37,204,145, out of which comes part of the sport and recreation division, totalling $24.21 million -- if that helps.

The Chair: Hon. member for Delta South, before you continue I just want to reflect on your question with respect to the minister's office in the votes. By custom, it has been the practice to permit a wide range of debate on all of the votes under the minister's office without specifically having to refer to that vote, unless the minister objects. That's been the practice. Technically it's not in order, but it has been the custom to do that. So you would be free to raise those items under this vote if you wish.

F. Gingell: I would like, if I may, to move forward to the revenue-sharing fund just for clarification so I can understand this. I note from the description in this particular document, which is the estimates, where it describes the transfer from voted appropriation of $363.7 million under the revenue-sharing fund with municipalities, that this particular amount is made up of a series of appropriations from other forms of revenue that the provincial government receives. It indicates that it is one point of both the provincial personal taxes and the provincial corporate tax.

It's 6 percent of the provincial social services tax and 6 percent of the renewable and non-renewable resource revenues, plus or minus some adjustments. Do you happen to have those numbers handy? I tried to work them out, and I didn't get up to $363 million.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't have those figures available, but I'm told by staff that they are quite complex and adjustments are always being made. I will take that on notice from you and see what we can provide you to give you a greater insight into this fund.

F. Gingell: On the same subject, one looks at this fund and there's a balance of $213 million in it at the beginning of the year and it has these additional funds come in -- some interest, which I presume is on the $35 million grant stabilization account, and then expenditures, and it shows an amount at the end of $245 million. In looking at the balance of the committed but undisbursed grants at the start of the period, indicated at the bottom of the page as $168 million.... Were there actually agreements signed with various municipalities that covered that amount? Has the amount been allocated?

Are there projects in progress that will in fact cover all of that sum, and is each year's calculation

[ Page 1597 ]

carefully calculated so that each municipality gets its own share of that?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we can try and answer some of these questions for you, but it may be very useful for you as the Finance critic to have a full briefing by my staff. I will make that available to you. The revenue-sharing is quite complicated. It works well, but within this environment I think it's really hard to get into it. So I make that available to you. It might be very useful for you to see how it all works.

The direct answer to your question right now is that offers are made, or dollars are reserved for future commitments. This is obviously one of the difficulties with revenue-sharing. We put out what money is available in one year, but how quickly they take it up or how they move with their project is always up to the municipalities. We're always having to account for it. I don't know how far back we go. I suspect that we're still finalizing payments on projects that were approved in '86-87. In accounting, it's sometimes very difficult.

F. Gingell: I certainly will take you up on that offer. Before I leave this particular subject, do I take it that there is a formula that allocates the $363,700,000 -- or the $366 million if the interest is included -- to specific municipalities, and only they can apply projects against those funds?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This is where I think a briefing would be useful. The cash flow, the money actually coming into the fund, is $363,700,000; the member is right. The actual expenditure that we anticipate in terms of the money coming into the fund will be approximately $335 million this year. The rest is in abeyance.

Further down that page, you'll note an issue that has been remarked on before by the members of the opposition: the question of the stabilization account. Some $35 million dollars is noted in the blue book. It's currently in the stabilization account. Money for local government is kept there. If things get tougher, if grants start to drop dramatically or whatever, we can utilize those funds. That money is there. It's gaining interest.

A question was: is there a quota for each municipality? There is a formula for unconditional grants and for the basic per capita grant. There are a number of other components to the formula, which we can go over with you. Conditional grants are based on need. The conditional grants this year are focused primarily on sewer and water. If you are interested, our staff can go over the extensive ways we assess needs -- as fairly as possible. I have given instructions.... To their credit, I think former governments have tried to take the politics out of sewer and water and these kinds of grants. It has got to be based on need, not on what area or region or riding it is.

F. Gingell: If I may, Mr. Minister, I will just slip to two local issues. The first one is whether or not this minister would be prepared to clarify the legislation in the Municipal Act to allow local municipalities to develop irrigation programs for agriculture in just the same way that they can presently develop drainage programs. Coming from Delta, you can appreciate the question.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's not an issue that I am particularly aware of, but I suspect it may be one that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture has on his agenda. It may very well be that it should be addressed by that other ministry. Again it comes down to competing interests and calls for the money, and right now sewer, water treatment and those kinds of requests are predominant and are taking the lion's share of the funds that we have available.

Did I misunderstand your question?

F. Gingell: I understand that under the Municipal Act, the way it is presently written, a municipality can enter into arrangements to improve drainage facilities within its area, whether the drainage problems be caused by new subdivisions, new developments or whatever. The way I understand it is that although they can enter into arrangements that will allow improvements in the drainage systems, they cannot enter into arrangements that will allow improvement to the irrigation systems for agriculture, and it requires an amendment to the Municipal Act to allow them to do so.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Excellent question. We'll take a look at it and get back to you.

F. Gingell: Thank you.

There is one other issue I would like to deal with, if I may. As I drove home on Sunday night, the whole of the south side of the causeway extending from South Delta out to the ferry terminal was covered cheek by jowl with campers and holiday-makers. It was a lovely weekend. The cars were thick there. There were all kinds of families having a nice weekend out. It is a very important regional area that is just a mess. It is not within the municipality or the responsibility of the municipality of Delta. It is clearly a provincial issue.

What we're talking about here is the opportunity to put in a major recreational facility for the people of British Columbia. It seems to me that what it would take is a little cooperation from the minister responsible for recreation and our friends at B.C. Ferries, because the causeway is B.C. Ferries land. My question to the minister is: would he please look into this question -- look into what would be necessary to get proper development of that south side of the causeway? Can I ask him to do something about it on behalf of the people of the lower mainland?

[4:30]

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will certainly pass that on to the various ministers or Crown corporations responsible. The member probably has some good ideas, but I'm sure he's aware that when you develop what might be considered delicate foreshore, beach area or whatever, of course there is environmental impact and other considerations. Those issues would have to be taken into consideration. But I will pass on your comments, and perhaps the appropriate minister or Crown corporation will get back to you.

[ Page 1598 ]

A. Cowie: On that particular issue, I might help the minister. The minister might wish to go to the regional districts who have a plan: the Tsawwassen Business Association, who have a plan; and the municipality of Delta, which has approved a plan. Everybody wants to do it. All it needs is some leadership to guide some of these other ministries together, to knock their heads together and to go ahead and do it.

We went ahead a little bit with some of these recreation questions, which we hadn't planned, but I felt the particular members were here. We got a little off track with our third party moving into that area, unfortunately. But I want to go back to some general questions -- environmental planning -- on broader issues. So I'm going to ask our critic for Environment to come forward next.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to start from generalities and work to specifics and if possible to hear from the minister where he is collaborating with the Minister of Environment as to new initiatives in his portfolio with regard to waste management, management of growth, management of transportation and any other initiatives he may have introduced in conjunction with the Minister of Environment.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm tempted to say to the hon. member that I'll send you the Hansard that's already been.... We've already had some discussions this afternoon on some of the issues. But let me go over for you a couple of areas that we are emphasizing. The one area that is exciting and a major issue for our ministry and the Ministry of Environment is dealing with air-quality management in the lower mainland.

A number of regional districts have asked us, with themselves and the Ministry of Environment, to develop a formula, a strategy and a management concept that will allow us to manage the air-quality issue in the lower mainland. That is moving ahead. I know that our ministry is heavily involved in that research and that process.

Most of our work with the Environment ministry on environmental issues of sustainable development or transportation is related to revenue-sharing funds. I know there's sometimes a feeling that this ministry does a lot of stuff; it is certainly a multifaceted ministry. But in terms of the issues that the member is referring to, our contribution is in revenue sharing. This year we're contributing $128 million just for this year to sewer and clean water projects and to treatment processes. That's a significant contribution.

Obviously we work with the Ministry of Environment, because to get the maximum funds...have to have environmental significance. The Ministry of Environment is involved in that and assessing that with us to determine if they are eligible. I'm sorry, the Ministry of Health is also involved, of course. My colleague is no longer here.

Earlier we had a good discussion about transportation and integration. More and more ministries are integrating their efforts in terms of trying to manage these kinds of major issues before us. Of course, now at the regional level and certainly in your particular part of British Columbia, I think there's a growing awareness that there has to be greater regional integration, regional planning on regional government issues. I'm very pleased that in Kelowna they're moving ahead now. A very good conference was held -- I think a couple of months ago -- to start to deal with these issues.

I've already said that my ministry is open and available with resources to help the Okanagan to start dealing with these very important issues that don't know the traditional boundaries of local government. I will leave it there.

J. Tyabji: When I was referring to these issues, I was referring to sustainable cities. If I can ask some more specific questions now, the first question would be with regard to waste treatment. We have in the past traditionally relied on either septic fields or sewer lines. There is a lot of technology available that I would say is arguably better and much cheaper. In terms of having a closed system within a house, we have things like destroilets which have been piloted in the United States. This reduces or virtually eliminates the need for these expensive sewer trunk lines and underground systems.

I think it is not only much more environmentally sound but also a much more economically sound way of approaching things. I was wondering, first of all, if you're exploring alternatives to sewer, when you see at least a pilot project or perhaps an implementation of some viable alternative.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, good question. What it comes down to though is: should we be totally directing local government in terms of where they're going or do we provide the incentives? In our study grants, we reward those municipalities or regional districts that are seeking cost-effective innovations and the alternatives that you're talking about. There are incentives to do that. We get our advisers to help us in that endeavor. We may very well be doing more of that in the months and years ahead.

The overall issue is that when we're investing -- and we are investing major dollars in these programs, particularly in the big, big projects -- we tend to rely, I suppose, on proven methods. I'm not saying that we won't try anything new, but we tend to rely on things that have a track record.

When you're putting up literally millions and millions of dollars into projects, it's sometimes very difficult to start having test runs or trying new innovations. When municipalities are starting at the beginning of the process and want study grants to take a look at what's required, we suggest being creative and innovative and looking at alternatives. We may be able to improve that too.

J. Tyabji: If you are funding these kinds of waste-management systems, I would suggest that you should definitely encourage that either by putting the funding into areas that are alternatives to the very expensive and, I would say, regressive methods currently in place.... Put into place some of the effective systems that are being used in the United States. Getting to the point of sustainable cities, I would point out an

article by Mark Roseland, which was in a magazine called

Ecodecision . I don't know if the minister has seen it. It

[ Page 1599 ]

really focuses on sustainable cities and the expense that's related to sprawl and the fact that urban sprawl is one of the most expensive things and, of course, the least environmentally sound -- urban sprawl being something you end up paying for regressively.

What I'd like to have from the minister -- and this might require a fairly detailed reply -- is for him to walk me through his version of a sustainable city in terms of mapping it out, whether there be nodes that are connected by other lines. I know there are some with regard to several little villages on the outside of a main city with main transportation trunk lines in a small infrastructure within the villages.

In Europe, a lot of the things they're doing have the small village concept, where the majority of transportation within that village is pedestrian; there are no roads and you can actually walk to the market. This has been very effective in promoting a sense of community and in reducing some of the social costs that go along with people feeling that their neighbourhoods are dysfunctional. It reduces the amount of crime, and of course it's extremely good for the environment.

I guess what I'm looking for from the minister is his view of what a sustainable city is in terms of making provision for the environment, ensuring that waste is more or less self-contained so that any problems can be dealt with by that village or community. Does he have any idea of perhaps guiding the municipalities or the regional districts toward that view of a sustainable city in the future?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's reams and reams of literature and studies and models -- European, Swedish, Norwegian, U.S. -- in terms of what's sustainable, what's the ideal community. There's no question, in terms of where the North American city of the fifties, the sixties and, to some degree, the seventies, was going and how it developed, that we've learned some lessons, and they've all been bad. Coming out of the environmental movement and now sustainable development, sustainable communities, we realize that we have legalized sprawl. We've legalized bad planning and ribbon developments, and it's very costly energy-wise, transportation-wise, and socially.

It's hard for me to lay out our model of a sustainable community, and I won't do it. I think many communities are starting to do that for themselves. In my community in Victoria, our model is pedestrian and heritage and small-scale, not large, corporate business towers; it's small neighbourhoods, walking, neighbourhood plans developed. That's our sustainable area. But that model is not necessarily transferable. In Fort Nelson or Fort James they have a different view.

It's a whole different reality in those northern communities, where in the wintertime there's not the ambiance and the heritage and whatever you call nice for downtown British Columbia. Their model and their views on sustainability may be a little different.

Those of us down here in the lower mainland and downtown British Columbia have to be very careful, quite frankly, in approaching certain things with our values of what I think is very nice. I've learned that when you get up in other parts of British Columbia, there are different perspectives, although recognizing that the bottom line is that we have to do things a little differently. Our resources are not finite. We have environmental problems of enormous proportions, and we're all part of it. Local government is part of it.

I think many communities are starting to achieve their own sense of what they can do in terms of the issues that you're raising. We'll be encouraging that in the years ahead by how we allocate our resources, grants and programs.

J. Tyabji: I'm assuming that when the minister said our resources are not finite, he meant they're not infinite.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Infinite. Sorry.

J. Tyabji: Just to clarify that.

I will get to more of a prelude to the question. The bottom line is that you did indicate that perhaps in the future you will be putting forward programs to encourage municipalities to develop towards sustainability. What I really want from the minister is a sense of what the broad definition of sustainability is, because I recognize that around B.C. we have different parameters. Being from Kelowna, we have very different parameters than does Victoria. Having said that, there are certain bottom lines that we put toward anything we do. Given those bottom lines, I would say that the way....

For example, with Victoria's sewage treatment and the way in which they deal with their sewage, is that the minister's version of sustainable?

[4:45]

The minister said that we have legalized bad planning. Is the minister going to do something to reverse that? Is the minister going to develop guidelines for municipalities?

Ultimately the provincial government is responsible for paying for it, so it's not good enough, I think, to say to the municipalities: "Okay, go ahead and develop a plan." Then they come back and say: "Well, here's our plan; pay for half of it." If it's a bad plan, we should have the ability to say: "No, that's a bad plan." I'm getting a little bit partisan, but I keep thinking, jeez, in four years I'll be on that side of the House worrying about how to deal with traffic problems in Kelowna.

I am looking to the minister and saying that we have to look at planning problems as soon as possible and say: "Please put together a plan that really justifies 50 percent funding from the provincial government." If it's bad planning, I think there should be an option where you say: "That's bad planning; that's going to cost us a lot more money."

Finally, before giving it back to the minister, I know that in our own community there have been a lot of discussions about the ways in which we develop neighbourhood plans, and the fact that a lot of neighbourhood plans are just advertised in the newspaper where people might not see the advertisement. They don't participate in the process that sets up the neighbourhood plan, and then when they do go to put something in for the community, they're told that there's a neighbourhood plan in place that doesn't conform with it, so you're not allowed to put it in. I have seen that example come up numerous times myself. If

[ Page 1600 ]

the ministry is going to say that it's up to the municipalities and the neighbourhood plans to put something in place that we can all live with in terms of how you develop a neighbourhood plan, what are the limits to planning within the municipalities and, fundamentally, a definition of sustainable cities from the ministry so that we don't have problems that are ten times more expensive in a couple of years?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, I'm not going to satisfy the member in terms of citing what our model or our description of a sustainable city or village or town is. I think the member is aware that in terms of these issues, we are really still very much grappling with them. I think a lot of people are trying to come up with those terms and descriptions. We have an agenda for sustainability. I think all of us, at all levels of government, need to seek consensus on what the basic principles are. There isn't consensus there; it depends on the region you go to.

There's consensus that we should do the research on the range of possible changes, and we need to produce the right process for achieving change.

We don't reward bad planning. Sometimes, agreed, a project comes forward that hasn't been done very well and may fit that description of being badly planned, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the problem they have should be abandoned and not looked at or dealt with. In this ministry we still have to deal with the issues facing those communities, and we have to give them the opportunity or give them the hand to solve their problems. That is one of the reasons we have what's called a Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development.

It's out of this committee, and in consultation with others in this province and other parts of the world, that I think you'll see in time a greater consensus on the very issues that this member is asking about today.

We don't have it etched in stone, that's for sure. I think that compared to five years ago, we're much better off in the things we want to try to develop and in what we think our principles and priorities are.

J. Tyabji: I'm happy to hear the minister say that perhaps they have an agenda for sustainability, and perhaps later on we can get into what that agenda would contain with regard to sewer systems, composting and landfills.

The last of the general questions I'd like to ask the minister is with regard to limits to growth. Coming from an area like Kelowna, where obviously there are limits to growth such as water, land and a very expensive infrastructure, given the layout of the terrain.... If we continue to grow at the current rate, what does the minister see as the limits to growth, and what will he do with regard to water quantity and quality in terms of delivering it to the residents of Kelowna, if the area continues to grow at its current rate?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I think that Kelowna and the Okanagan are starting to recognize the issue that you raise -- that there has been in that area a feeling that growth could grow exponentially. Anything could happen -- you know, it's wonderful that people would come here; let's just build up the houses and the infrastructure. But we're realizing now, of course, that there are natural impediments to that kind of growth, and I'm very encouraged by what I think is a change of attitude and approach by the elected officials in that area.

You're the elected member for that area; hopefully you are encouraging them to continue the insights that you seem to have on these issues, hon. member. I think there is a recognition that growth cannot continue indefinitely -- that there are consequences to that. In your region, of course, the major one is water availability, and we are very conscious of the fact that the Okanagan and Kelowna area have some problems. We are prepared to give sound advice on how much growth they should handle and what they should do to minimize the impact.

Part of it, of course -- and again I go back to it -- is that we need to have greater regional integration of growth in that area. I think we need to have official community plans in that area that aren't changed sometimes overnight, with people not knowing what the long-term direction is. So we're available. We are moving ahead on our agenda and our provincial interests, at the same time working with those areas that you represent at the local level and encouraging them to participate with us.

J. Tyabji: One of the specifics of the riding that comes to mind is with regard to the Bennett home. It is a heritage home, and I'm sure the minister understands that all three parties have come out supporting this being preserved as a historic or heritage site, including the hon. Premier during the election campaign when he said that he felt this was of great value, that two Premiers had lived in this home. What is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs planning to do with regard to the Bennett home and similar heritage sites?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Nothing. It's not in this ministry.

J. Tyabji: The recent Mount Boucherie fire saw a very grave problem with regard to the interfacing of forested lands and homes -- urban development that was encroaching on the forests. Is the ministry considering making tougher regulations to prevent this kind of danger in the future -- for example, the use of fireproof roofing materials and regulations on the distance between forests and housing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: This ministry is not planning anything. It's the Ministry of Forests' issue.

J. Tyabji: I would say that with regard to the planning of where homes should be, I don't think that would be under the Ministry of Forests. If there are building codes that would say that.... In the event of a home being built adjacent to a forest, there should be some kind of fire retardant with regard to the roofing. Even if there is some overlap with the Ministry of Forests, I would urge this minister not to pass the buck and to recognize that there are homes being built interfacing the forest. Perhaps he should get together

[ Page 1601 ]

with the Minister of Forests and do something so that we don't have this kind of potential problem in the future.

Hon. R. Blencoe: If the member wishes to give me the details, her recommendations for change and what we can do in the ministry, I'll gladly take that under advisement and see what can be done. I'm not aware of the area that she's referring to. I suspect it's more of an unorganized rural area that.... No? Then tell me some more.

J. Tyabji: The area in question actually is within a couple of minutes of Kelowna. What we have a lot happening in Kelowna is....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: It's not in the city boundaries per se. It is, for all intents and purposes, a part of the city. Within the city boundary there is exactly the same setup. In fact, just a stone's throw from where I live we have the exact same setup, where within the city boundary you have a subdivision located right in the middle of a forest. That happens all over Kelowna. There has been a lot of talk over the years that there's.... People in the forest industry have mentioned this as a potential hazard, and the planning hasn't taken this into account.

The recommendation that I would make to the minister is that there should probably be some guidelines as to how far a forest boundary goes, or at least some emergency measures in place so that in the event of a subdivision being located that close to a forest, there would be some kind of boundary or there would be bulldozers available to push sand -- whatever the specifics are. I wouldn't figure out the specifics myself, but I think that should be taken care of.

With regard to the developing cost charges, obviously in Kelowna DCCs have been a very hot topic lately. I'm just wondering if the minister is reviewing it, or if he has any thoughts with regard to developer cost charges.

Hon. R. Blencoe: We had a discussion on this a little earlier in terms of the generic issue of development costs. We are doing extensive work on development costs and areas for improvement. But in terms of the spe