1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3935 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill M202). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 3935

Oral Questions

Pornography. Ms. Brown –– 3935

Report on Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Cocke –– 3936

Hiring practices of Quintette Coal Ltd. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3936

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 3937

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if members would join

with me in extending sincerest congratulations to the Steveston Packers

of Richmond, who on the weekend won the B.C. boys' double-A

championship in basketball. I hesitated in offering congratulations to

Steveston preceding the championship game, because their opponent was

also a team from Richmond, the Richmond Colts of Richmond High School.

I'd like to acknowledge that the Richmond Colts marked their third

consecutive year of being in the provincial final. I'd like to

congratulate both teams, but particularly the champion Steveston

Packers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to introduce to the

House two fine citizens from Saanich, Miss Nora Thomson and Miss Helen

Thomson, who are in your gallery. They have been residents of Vancouver

Island for over 70 years as pioneers in Saanich. Their grandfather came

to the Island in 1851 and established the famous Thomson farm. Part of

that original land is now incorporated in the wilderness park known as

John Dean Park, and yet another

section forms part of the Woodward

estate. I'd ask the House to welcome my guests this afternoon.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the galleries today are the members of

the Kamloops Peewee Rep hockey team, along with their coach Mr. Geoff

Eggleton; they're on their way to Duncan to compete in the provincial

finals. I'd like the House to make them welcome and wish them well.

MR. SEGARTY: In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is

the beautiful Alana Lang from Cranbrook, and with her is Pili Bravo

from Mexico. I'd like the House to welcome them both,

Also, on behalf of our Whip I'd like to welcome Krissy Adrian,

daughter of the Whip's right-hand person in his office, and her

sister-in-law Sally Adrian. I'd like the House to welcome them both.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are two visitors from

Burnaby-Edmonds in your gallery today. They are Mary Procaccini and

Ellen Johnston. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today is my number two son, Robert Hewitt, and I'd like the House to bid him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M202, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PORNOGRAPHY

MS. BROWN: My question is addressed to the Attorney-General,

if he is relaxed now that he's taken his seat. It has to do with the

question of pornography and the fact that British Columbia has earned

for itself the unenviable reputation of being the number one supplier

of pirated video pornography in Canada. I'm wondering what steps the

Attorney-General has taken to crack down on the production and export

of pirated video pornography to other provinces.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm glad that the member raised the question,

Mr. Speaker, and has done her homework by reading articles in the

weekend press. If there is a complaint about production of these

materials in British Columbia, there would indeed be a complaint, I

would think, across the entire country about the production of these

materials. We for our part have cracked down on these materials and did

launch a number of major raids on distributors. Following those raids,

charges were laid in cases, and those cases were taken through the

courts. Indeed, some of them are still proceeding before the courts. We

did not shirk our responsibility.

If the complaint from another province is that they have a large

number of customers of materials that emanate from here, that, of

course, is regrettable. But it may say something about their consumer

market and not about ours.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Attorney-General is

not complimenting himself on the fact that you can go to just about any

comer grocery store in this province and buy pornographic material

quite easily.

However, Cpl. Kirkpatrick of the Ontario Provincial Police

anti-pornographic squad has suggested that if the authorities in

British Columbia are not going to be able to stop the pirating and

exportation of video pornographic stuff to other provinces, they may

have to come to British Columbia to do it themselves. Has the

Attorney-General been in touch with the Attorney-General in Ontario to

see whether he has any suggestions about how to deal with a very

serious problem in British Columbia? I have raised it a number of

times, incidentally, on the floor of this House.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, we have. We do cooperate closely in

these matters, and I do not believe that the Attorney-General of

Ontario would endorse the material that the member has accepted as

gospel.

One thing that the member might do, if she is so earnest and

interested in this field, is to make the kind of representations that

we have made to the federal Minister of Justice to deal in some

meaningful way with the Criminal Code and the subjects of obscenity and

pornography. The amendments that have been produced by Parliament in

the 270-page compendium of criminal law reform do not go far enough to

meet this problem. They do not allow provinces to prosecute in this

field with any kind of certainty. So I would hope that she would be

constructive in her approach and would join us in the representations

that we've made to the federal parliament, whose response apparently is

only to launch more

[ Page 3936 ]

travelling road shows and commissions to study the matter for the next 18 months.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to the

Attorney-General about the area that the province is responsible for.

We all know what the federal government is responsible for. It may be a

travelling road show, but at least they're listening. It certainly is

my intention to make a presentation to that travelling road show, as

you call it.

However, the previous Attorney-General indicated that a

classification system was going to be developed in this province to

cover the whole area of video pornography. I raised this issue during

the estimates because of my visit with the classification person in the

province, and I was told that that was still under study in the

Attorney-General's ministry. Is the Attorney-General willing to say

whether any action has been taken to assure that that classification

system is put into place as quickly as possible, and that it will be

properly staffed to do the job when that happens?

HON. MR. SMITH: The classification system is one approach,

and one approach that we've been looking at. But classification systems

still do not strike at the root of the problem, which is the massive

distribution of film materials and the surreptitious circulation of

those film materials across the country. A classification system may be

of some use; I certainly don't rule it out. I don't believe that

massive injections of classification bureaucracy are going to deal with

the problem that has to be dealt with in the criminal law and by good

enforcement. We have tried to deal with it by enforcing the law as it

is now written. In major cases where we've had clear violations, as I

said, we've prosecuted those cases with vigour and at considerable

expense; we will follow that approach. It would be very nice, hon.

member, to have a better working definition in the Criminal Code than

the one we now operate under.

MS. BROWN: This is my final question. The classification is one small step. Are we going to have the classification?

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I've answered the member many times

on this, Mr. Speaker. The classification system is being looked at. We

may institute a form of classification for video pornography, but I do

not see that meeting the problem in its entirety or in a major way. I

am most certainly exploring the classification system. I think the

classification system is only one step.

REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the

homework minister. Has that minister, the Attorney-General, done his

homework vis-à-vis the auditor-general's second report of July 1983?

That's a few months ago. We've been asking the Attorney-General to

advise the House concerning possible criminal conduct in the Ministry

of Tourism. Is the Attorney-General now prepared to report to the House?

HON. MR. SMITH: Imminently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Imminently could be a long, long time with this minister. Can he tell us how imminently?

HON. MR. SMITH: Not in the fullness of time, but soon.

[2:15]

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: I apologize to the Minister of Labour, to whom

this question is directed, for my unavoidable absence yesterday, when

the minister stated that he has done exhaustive testing — I'm not sure

about the use of that word; nevertheless, that's his word — with

Quintette and had determined that "no recruitment has taken place in

eastern Canada." Will the minister advise why his exhaustive testing

failed to uncover that representatives of Quintette Coal conducted

interviews with prospective employees in St. John's, Newfoundland, on

March 5 and 6, 1984?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that Quintette hadn't

travelled to other parts of Canada. They have not hired anyone from

other parts of Canada as a result of those travels, and I repeat that

I'm assured that the manpower plan that they filed with the ministry is

being followed in its entirety and that they have promised that hiring

will be done in British Columbia first.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to quibble with the minister

about present or past tense in terms of hiring, but it is clear that

Quintette is advertising and recruiting in Newfoundland. There is a

newspaper advertisement here from the St. John's Evening Telegram .

The minister's exhaustive testing, as quoted yesterday, produced no

evidence in his mind of recruitment of workers in eastern Canada for

jobs in British Columbia for which thousands of British Columbians on

unemployment insurance in this province are qualified. Why is it that

his exhaustive testing did not uncover evidence of the fact that

Quintette is recruiting not only through the newspapers in St. John's

but also through Canada Employment centres both in St. John's and

Sudbury?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If they are recruiting, I'd like that

member to tell me how many people they've hired. They haven't hired

anybody, Mr. Speaker; that's the point. I can't stop Quintette or

anyone else from looking at the rest of Canada to find out what the

employment situations are. I have been promised — and to this date the

company has delivered on their promise — that they will hire British

Columbians first and that no qualified British Columbian will be turned

down for work. They are hiring 600 more people this year to work in

British Columbia, and they will hire British Columbians first.

MR. GABELMANN: Has the minister inquired of Quintette Coal

whether prospective employees are required to purchase housing from the

company as a condition of employment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. That is not a

condition of employment for the company; however, as I mentioned

yesterday, if the member would read Hansard ,

the company does offer very attractive incentives for employees to

purchase housing. I think that's an excellent procedure, because what

the company wants — as do we in

[ Page

3937 ]

British Columbia — is that people give a commitment to the town of Tumbler

Ridge as well. We want to see happy families permanently located in Tumbler

Ridge who will stay working in that area. If I remember correctly from my notes

yesterday, the company offers homes for sale in the range of somewhere from

$45,000 up to $90,000, with only 3 percent down, Mr. Speaker; a first mortgage

at regular rates, but a second mortgage at 7 percent forgivable over five years.

I think that's very commendable of that company.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any

intentions of amending the employment plan that exists between the

company and the Ministry of Labour in the event that British Columbia

workers are not hired, as has been the case so far? In fact, workers

from eastern Canada are hired simply because Quintette wants to be able

to sell its housing, and it knows it has to hire people from eastern

Canada in order to do that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member has deliberately not listened to anything that I've said; obviously he hasn't read in Hansard

what I said yesterday. Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of amending

the manpower agreement, because it's a good one. The company is

following it to all its intents and purposes, and the company has not,

to my knowledge, refused to hire qualified British Columbians, as that

member says. They have hired every qualified British Columbian who has

applied for work and qualified for the jobs which are necessary. There

may be people who are not qualified who haven't got jobs, but 75

percent of the 1,000 people working in northeastern British Columbia on

that project are from British Columbia, and only 25 percent are from

other parts of Canada. We are still Canadians — at least this part of

the House are still Canadians — and we don't have any fences up on the

boundaries of this province. But the company has promised that it will

hire British Columbians first, and I accept that promise.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

didn't want to interrupt question period to bring this point forward,

but during question period the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown)

stated that in just about any corner store in British Columbia one can

buy pornographic video tapes. Mr. Speaker, in my neighbourhood there

are four corner stores, the proprietors of which I consider to be my

friends, and I would suggest that that member owes an apology to all

these small business people who, I'm sure, do not traffic in illicit

pornographic tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members just so that the

record may stand, that is not exactly what the Chair understood during

the comments. Nonetheless, hon. members, those are not points for

debate at this time; they may be debated at another. Certainly we are

not going to allow the House to enter into debate on points of order

which in fact are not points of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that you can help me

make clear that I was referring to material and not to tapes, because I

know that tapes are not sold in comer stores?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You've accused those small business people in British Columbia of trafficking in illicit tapes. What an arrogant attitude.

MS. BROWN: Oh, shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. All hon. members have an opportunity to review Hansard , which I'm sure will indicate what actually took place.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I was wondering, Mr. Speaker,

if you would tell the House whether, when you interject, it's at that

point that Hansard ceases to

take down an hon. member's remarks. Or can an hon. member abuse the

Chair by carrying on with fortuitous kinds of remarks, the person whom

he maligns having no chance to reply?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the same point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, I am not hearing further debate

on the matter. The matter is closed. I will advise the member privately

on that.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 51: minister's office, $174, 580.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Unfortunately my deputy minister could not

be with us today. However, I'm pleased to introduce to the House Mr.

Ken MacLeod, executive director of policy and research for the

ministry, and also Bill Bedford, who is the executive director of

central services. Mr. Chairman, it's a good opportunity for me to

express my appreciation to both these gentlemen, to my deputy and to

all of the staff in Municipal Affairs for the tremendous cooperation on

the job that they have given throughout these trying times. I know that

whenever it's necessary to downsize, to cut spending and to make some

very difficult decisions, it takes people with the courage of their

convictions and the desire to do a better job in order to succeed. We

are succeeding because we have those kinds of people in this ministry,

and I wish to thank them for it.

The estimates of the ministry clearly reflect the government's

policy to downsize and reduce spending by government. It is also very

encouraging to note that the estimates of the Ministry are also a very

good reflection of the attitude of most municipal councils and regional

boards. As partners in restraint, they have been extremely cooperative

and most desirous of doing the things that must be done in these

difficult times, and have cooperated in every way.

The major reduction indicated in the estimates of this year, of

course, is in the area of revenue- sharing. Because most people out

there understand the meaning of revenue-sharing and because revenue to

the province is indeed down quite substantially, this has been

accepted, and they are cutting their cloth to suit the moneys available.

The most affected portions of revenue-sharing are the sewer and water projects. I think that what this means is that

[ Page 3938 ]

we must now control some of our ambitions in

bringing on stream some of these very costly projects, some of which

could, I think, be considered a little bit on the Cadillac side.

However, for the benefit of the House, what is happening now is that

councils are taking second and third looks at what the needs are. First

of all, they look at the need. If the need is really there, then they

take a second look, a third took, and when they're satisfied with that,

then they check the cost. We're finding that councils are really and

truly going through all of these projects and costings and so forth in

order to come up with the least cost to the people who ultimately have

to pay the bill — the taxpayers. Of course, if indeed the need passes

the test, then we know that every effort must go into controlling the

cost because of the change in policy from one in which they receive 75

percent over a 2 1/2 mill rate to one in which they now get 25 percent

of the cost upfront. While this was a very difficult change for them to

accept initially, they are accepting it now. They are realizing that

money does not grow on trees, and they have to get the best value for

the dollars available.

I'm very pleased indeed that we were able to come up with 90 percent

of the unconditional portion of revenue-sharing for the municipalities,

the portion of revenue-sharing that is most important to all

municipalities. The conditional portion that applies to sewer and water

was accelerating at a very rapid rate and was jeopardizing that

unconditional portion, which is the most important portion to large and

small municipalities. Therefore we are indeed very pleased that we were

able to retain that at 90 percent of last year, rather than have it

reduced to what could be truly reflected in the reduction of income of

the province. Much to my satisfaction and pride, almost all

municipalities have expressed their appreciation for this.

Our downtown revitalization program is continuing to function well,

and is still achieving the desired results. I believe very strongly in

this program. It is one which I believe is helping to retain life in

the downtown cores. A very good example of this is in the town of

Terrace. At one time BCTV ran a program telling the public that Terrace

was dead. What BCTV did not realize was that there are people out there

with a great deal of courage and desire, a great deal of that

pioneering spirit, which caused them to tell those who would support

the position taken by the BCTV that they were wrong. Through the

revenue-sharing program they have done a marvellous job in that

community, one they can be very proud of indeed. Certainly it is

bringing life back into that town.

[2:30]

A most recent development under revenue-sharing can also be seen in

the town of Chemainus. This is the little town that lost its major

employer, but was not prepared to lie down and die. We hope that in the

very near future there will be some films available which will indeed

show that this is a very worthwhile program. It's stimulating interest

out there where necessary, and it's money well spent.

Shortly after becoming Minister of Municipal Affairs, I made the

decision that we had to put to rest criticism being levelled at

regional districts, mainly by those who did not have a true

understanding of the functions of regional districts. Since that time

we have completed the Capital Regional District. As a result of that,

of course, substantial recommendations were made to the board for

improvement of their method of screening projects requested through

their staff, etc. I am very pleased to report back to the House today

that under the chairmanship of Mrs. Shirley Wilde, the Capital Regional

District is now advancing in these recommendations. I predict that

within this year we're going to see the Capital Regional District

functioning as it was originally intended to function: as a servant to

the member municipalities and to the unorganized areas.

Mount Waddington is also complete. There are a few recommendations

made there that will also improve the operation of the Mount Waddington

Regional District.

I was pleased yesterday morning to have the opportunity to sit in on

a meeting with the Greater Vancouver Regional District board in

Vancouver, and to present their report and speak on it. That particular

report pointed out that the Greater Vancouver Regional District, from

an administrative point of view, has been doing an excellent job. That

is not to say that there aren't some weaknesses in there, because there

are. There's a weakness in their housing program and policy, their

labour negotiations approach, and in the remuneration and expenses of

directors. However, the report clearly pointed out that because of the

petty politics that are sometimes played out there in the public with

small issues, it distorts the entire picture and leaves the perception

with the public that that organization is just another level of

government that is wasting money and growing out of control. That is

not so. I'm certainly very hopeful that as a result of this report

we're going to see a lot more positive discussion take place publicly

in respect to what is happening at the GVRD. We are having one

difficulty in this entire program, and that is one of time. The program

has become so popular with the regional districts that we have a lineup

of districts who want to be next on the agenda. But we can only do so

much at a time.

Interestingly enough, we're learning from this type of review that

there are certain legislative changes that will be necessary, no doubt,

as time goes on, in order to streamline and modernize some of the

methods being used there. Also, there will be an opportunity to take an

overall look at the various regions within a given area — for instance,

the lower mainland — so that we can then study and determine whether

the functions that are granted these lower mainland regional districts

could be expanded or whatever in order to bring about greater dollar

value to the public they are serving, which may or may not involve some

boundary changes. But it's all a very interesting exercise, one that

I'm sure is going to pay dividends not only in saving dollars and cents

for the taxpayer out there but in stimulating interest in the

management of the boards. We are indeed all going to benefit from that.

The property tax reform program that was put in place last year is

working very smoothly. I would say that we can all be very proud of the

way in which municipalities have handled this. It has been a very

smooth transition indeed.

Finally, we have an ongoing review of the land use

section of the

Municipal Act. We believe that there is a need to update that portion

of the act in order to streamline and eliminate, where necessary,

regulations that get in the way of economic development throughout our

province. There is an ongoing review there. A committee has been

appointed, and they will of course be proposing some changes that will

indeed assist in the development that takes place in requiring land use

throughout the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I will now take my seat. I welcome any questions that

my critic or any other member of the opposition may have in respect to

the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 3939 ]

MR. BLENCOE: First I would like to welcome the staff that

have come with the minister today: Mr. MacLeod and Mr. Bedford. I

welcome you to this House. I hope you were given some notice.

Unfortunately, your deputy minister could not be here, Mr. Minister.

Before I get into some of the details of this ministry, I would like

to take the opportunity to congratulate all those elected officials who

sought office last November. Across our province many people seek

municipal, civic or regional office. It's not a position that

necessarily bring lots of attention or financial reward. Indeed, it's a

very difficult and onerous job but an essential one. I'm sure the House

will join me in congratulating all those who did get elected, and also

congratulate those who sought office but didn't make it. We encourage

them for participating in the democratic process at the local level. I

have to report that the process is alive and well at the municipal

level, in terms of the democratic process. There are improvements that

can be made, however; we may want to discuss those. Indeed, I will

discuss those a little further down in my discussion this afternoon.

First, I would like to talk a little bit in general to the minister

about the state of municipal affairs in the province of British

Columbia. I happen to believe, having worked at that level for a number

of years and built up a lot of contacts.... I've got a certain amount

of feedback from a number of people involved at the local level. There

is a degree of apprehension about the direction and attitude of the

current government towards local government in general. I won't go into

detail, because I did express some of those feelings in the last

session, in terms of the erosion of local autonomy, the move to take

over some of the key elements of local government, particularly in

planning and financial arrangements. I know the concept of the variable

mill rate is a good one in general. But that legislation also moved the

province more and more into the realm of what traditionally have been

the responsibilities of local government. As an introductory comment I

would just like to urge the minister to reconsider his feeling that the

government must have a greater control over local government, local

autonomy and decision-making. I would add that local government has

been around for a long time, and those people who do seek office and

get elected know their constituency well and I think are generally

highly regarded by their electorate. They are elected to make decisions

for the people they represent.

So I really would like at the start to put in a plug for

decentralization rather than centralization in decision-making and in

terms of local authority, local planning and local issues. They have

the capabilities, and I think there are a number of areas we could

consider in this House where local government should be taking on more

of the responsibilities that have come into the hands of central

government. I happen to believe that they are the most efficient level

of government not only in this province but in this country. I think we

can take a leaf out of their books in terms of how they manage their

affairs and their budgets. I've said over and over in this House that

restraint is nothing new to local government. They have always

practised fiscal responsibility.

MR. R. FRASER: Not always.

MR. BLENCOE: I know that you've disagreed with me in the past on that, Mr. Member.

They have already been responsible, basically because their process

of budget deliberations is open and every code can be analyzed by the

public. That kind of information is always available to people so they

can know exactly what's going on. That process at the local level,

particularly on financial matters, which are critical in this time, is

very much open to public scrutiny, which I think senior government

could take a look at. I think there's always concern about how senior

government — particularly, I think, the provincial government — tends

to wish to avoid the scrutiny of the people over their dollars. I've

always found that scrutiny over public dollars at the local level has

been a very open one, and I would not like to see that process

hindered. I would like to see this government recognize and respect —

and I've used that term before — local government.

That's a theme I would just like to start on today, and the minister

may wish to respond. I think he knows that there is some apprehension,

and he did get some words of wisdom from some of those local people.

Some of those mayors and aldermen and alderwomen have been around in

those local governments for many years, and they represent a

cross-section of political viewpoints. One thing about local government

is that they may have differing political viewpoints but they have the

ability to resolve their problems in the long term. It sometimes takes

a little while, but they resolve them collectively, and they make

decisions in the interests of their electorate. Over and over what

happens at local government — which is why it concerns me that

provincial government is getting their hands more and more into local

government.... In backing a particular issue at the local level,

tradition has been to look to not necessarily who is right but in what

is right for that municipality or regional district. I think that this

is probably something we should think about a little more in this House.

[2:45]

An issue that revolves around this financial issue that I am

discussing — and I wish the minister and the government were not so

overly concerned about centralizing decision-making — is the area of

revenue sharing, which obviously has to be of major concern to local

government. We have seen a fairly substantial reduction in the last few

years in revenue sharing. In 1979-80, the revenue-sharing fund was $141

million. Then skip a few years and in 1980-81 it was $176 million. In

1981-82 it was $252 million, and then in 1982-83 it was $235 million.

This year it's gone from $210 million down to $174 million. That's a

considerable reduction; it's close to a 17 percent reduction — $35

million reduction. The minister was saying that at the outset it would

be about a 10 percent reduction; it is a lot higher than those

municipalities had anticipated. Quite frankly, I believe it is going to

have a direct impact on the local taxpayer; those local municipalities

always have to maintain their plants in good running shape, and they

will have to make up the shortfall. I think it is counterproductive to

continue to erode the revenue-sharing portion to local government,

particularly when.... The minister, interestingly enough, talked about

some of these projects which he considered to be a little grandiose,

perhaps was his word.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: "Cadillac" was his word. Thank you, Mr. Member.

The minister has brought up an interesting viewpoint. We continue to

hear from this government that they are interested in seeing the

private sector help to get the economy rolling. Now he is saying, I

guess to rationalize

[ Page 3940 ]

some of his major cutbacks to local government,

which of course will affect servicing and therefore curtail economic

grown and development.... I can assure you that some of those projects

aren't particularly grandiose, but they surely would provide a number

of jobs during this depression in the province of British Columbia.

It is really counterproductive, in terms of the so-called policies

that are going to bring about economic recovery in this province, to

say that the private sector will do the whole thing, while at the same

time your policies are geared to stop some of those projects. You know,

I wonder if that minister.... Is it cabinet policy now to want to stop

economic growth and development projects? It seems to me that I clearly

heard him say that we are going to curtail — he used the word "curtail"

— some of these projects. It doesn't make economic sense to cut back on

some of those very things that local government, particularly in sewer

and storm-drain kind of funding ... to cut back in those areas, because

they are the fundamental components of ensuring that development does

go ahead, that economic growth does happen in the province of British

Columbia.

I can assure you that a $60 million reduction over the last few

years in this particular component is having a major impact on the

private sector. In this government one hand doesn't know what the other

is doing. We have the theme, which is failing, that the private sector

will be the panacea, the prophet that will lead this province out of

the depression; yet here we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs

saying: "Well, we're going to curtail development because they're a

little grandiose." Mr. Minister, maybe you should have a word with your

cabinet colleagues because there is a little bit of a discrepancy here.

It doesn't really make much sense to cut back in the very area that is

fundamental to economic growth and development. Seeing this province

pull out of recession, in terms of the private sector, is this

particular revenue-sharing. It goes toward servicing and making sure

that developers and contractors get their particular areas serviced

properly. It's false economy.

Of course, we all know — we've said it over and over, and we'll

continue to say it — that your policies vis-à-vis economic development

in this province are not working, and we continue to see the horrendous

unemployment problems and bankruptcies. We have the Minister of

Municipal Affairs compounding this mixed-up government, because the

minister is now saying: "Well, we'll curtail some of these projects."

We know why: because they are taking away the fundamental components of

grants and revenue-sharing that are essential to economic growth at the

municipal level. A 17 percent reduction in one year is dramatic not

only in impacting on economic growth and new plants, or new jobs or new

industry, but in impacting on the local taxpayer. In many respects

those local governments will have to make up that shortfall. It will

have to come directly out of real property taxes.

Mr. Minister, last session I asked you to consider — and I put

forward a proposal — joining or linking with UBCM and local government

in a development economic recovery program. I asked you to consider

developing a recovery strategy program with local government, your

ministry and the UBCM — the very thing I have been talking about in

terms of the funding for these essential programs so that growth can

continue and the economy can start to pick up those grants and support

worth millions of dollars. It is part of that economic development

strategy that you should be trying to help. The private sector that you

keep talking about wanting to help, you're cutting back on

dramatically. Part of that strategy should have been to see what

industrial development strategy you could have developed with the

Minister of Industry and Small Business. The point I try to make is

that local government knows their situation the best; they know what

opportunities exist for industry; they know where the land is

available. They know the developers and the contractors in the private

and the public sector, and they are available, Mr. Minister, to work

with you, to join with you and your cabinet colleagues in developing a

provincial-municipal economic development strategy program in the

province of British Columbia. It would be an exciting project, and

they're just waiting. But I can tell you, if you continue to erode the

very grants, the revenue-sharing which goes to ensuring that growth

continues in those municipalities and you reduce it by millions of

dollars each year, you're not going to see that economic recovery that

you keep saying is happening or is around the comer. Yet unemployment

continues to spiral in the province of British Columbia, and this

Legislature unfortunately refuses to debate it as an emergency issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not the Legislature that refused; the Speaker wouldn't give you permission.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a good point. The Speaker was the one who ruled that we wouldn't have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because you were out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I wasn't out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: He told you not to do it again or he'd kick you out.

MR. BLENCOE: Here they come to start the heckling. While

we're trying to get into some interesting and positive debate, we have

the negative elements from the Socreds on one side or the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To vote 51, Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: Now I'd like to talk a little about whether the

minister has some concerns about another particular topic vis-à-vis

financial arrangements or possible further erosion of the resource

revenue-sharing grants that have traditionally been given, and which I

was glad we started as a government — I would like to add that. The

minister is quite aware that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

announced that there would be virtually a $471 million loan to the BCR

to pay back some of their horrendous debt. We all know why, but the

interesting point, Mr. Chairman, is that that money is coming from

resource revenue. I just leave the question with the minister as to

whether he is concerned that some of the money that has come has gone

toward revenue-sharing for municipal purposes and whether this trend

will start to see an erosion of that particular component — that is,

the resource revenue sharing for local government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, debate during Committee of Supply

does not afford us the opportunity to discuss legislation. We are here

to discuss the administrative actions of the minister's office. Please

proceed.

[ Page 3941 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Good point, Mr. Chairman. The minister may not

wish to respond, but it is an issue, that's for sure, because there is

concern in local government that there may be additional calls on

resource revenue, taking up that money for other purposes than local

government. I just leave that with you, Mr. Minister, and you can write

it down and answer it along the way.

So to finish off on revenue-sharing, I just would like to say, Mr.

Chairman, that there is a high degree of apprehension in local

government that the trend toward reduction in revenue sharing grants,

which will have a major impact on economic growth, is not just an

isolated situation, but will be a permanent feature of this government.

I can assure you that if that continues to happen, the financial

stability and the financial future of local government is at stake.

They have to have that provincial kind of support. I believe it's

incumbent upon this government to say that they believe totally in and

will want to improve those revenue-sharing procedures. If there is, for

instance, $470 million for BCR out of resource revenue during these

difficult times and during this depression when local government is

struggling, maybe there should have been money found to give the

municipalities an increase in their grants because we all know that

they continue to be strapped to make sure their operations continue in

a safe way, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm sure the minister will respond to

this particular concern that I have and many municipalities have. I've

certainly had many letters from mayors and aldermen on this topic.

I'll touch upon another issue, then I'll let the minister respond to

some of these particular things I have raised. Again, it's an issue

that brings up dollars and finances at the local level. It was

announced in the budget that there will be cutbacks in provincial

sheriffs' services. The budget speech promised that functions performed

by sheriffs will be carefully reviewed to identify those that can be

performed at the least cost by others. The UBCM is very concerned, and

they know what these kinds of words mean. They mean, in part,

transferring the responsibility for service of court documents, both

civil and criminal, to municipalities. There is some concern that local

governments or police officers are going to have to do the work of some

of those sheriffs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The function of what you are referring to would fall under the estimates of another ministry. We are in Municipal Affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, may I try to make a case for this?

If the transfer of the sheriffs' costs is to the municipal police

forces, that becomes a municipal cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would still be the function of another minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I am bringing it up under Municipal

Affairs because there has been some concern from various municipalities

that this will indeed be transferred to local government, and therefore

local police officers. It really would be a ridiculous kind of

situation if municipal police officers had to deliver court documents —

taking them off the street, in terms of some of the other things that

are happening on the street.

[3:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if that is your concern, there

will be an appropriate forum for expressing that concern. This is not

the forum. The Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith'

s) estimates would be

more appropriate.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I bring it up under Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman, because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that is not appropriate.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the transfer of costs to local government

is appropriate, I'm sure. We're talking about municipal affairs. We're

talking about their financial arrangements, we're talking about the

continual erosion of their financial base, and here we have a distinct

possibility that local governments and their police forces are going to

have to pay for the costs of sheriffs' services. That has to be a local

concern. The minister had better be prepared for it, because I can

assure him that local governments are very concerned that they are

going to be facing that extra cost. If they do get that extra cost, I

would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would ensure that

there is some reasonable compensation for that kind of transfer of

responsibility. However, I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman, recognizing

that it does also come under another ministry.

Perhaps the minister would respond to some of my earlier statements, and then I'll get on to some other things.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to respond to some of the

comments. First of all, let me tell the member and the House that I had

the pleasure of meeting with all of the newly elected councillors,

mayors and regional directors as I attended and spoke at their seminars

in both Richmond and Kamloops. I was impressed with the calibre of

people who were selected to serve on those various councils and

regional boards.

I have a great deal of difficulty responding to that member, because

he has two problems. One is that he obviously doesn't understand the

program of revenue-sharing, in spite of the fact that he did serve on a

council. What he was doing on that council is hard to understand,

because revenue-sharing is a very important part of a council's income.

Yet he continually demonstrates his total lack of knowledge of

revenue-sharing. The other problem I have in responding is his failure,

as usual, to do his homework and be able to ask some questions that

could be answered in any way other than politically.

interfering and taking control.... Indeed, the opposite is taking

place, as has been stated many times. This government and certainly

this ministry are looking to every way and means of transferring

autonomy to the local level, because we believe that they are best able

to respond to the needs of the people they serve — they're closer to

them.

He talked about them losing their autonomy in the case of planning.

Well, I would like to assure that member that they do indeed have

autonomy in planning. Funding is still available. However, it's not

simply a matter of freely handing out hard-earned tax dollars for

planning just at a whim. Nor is it the intention of this government to

stand back and allow an elected regional board or appointed board to

sit down in some area within a region and decide what is going to

happen in

[ Page 3942 ]

that community. The veto power of the regional

districts over land use planning within communities had to be removed,

because the people of those communities had to be heard. Their wishes

had to be respected, and that has been done. While there was opposition

to that in the past, that's been well received.

He speaks about taking away the power over taxation. The opposite

has taken place: the municipalities now have power that they never had

before. They have the ability to vary the tax rate among the various

classifications, which can be extremely beneficial to them. Should they

be desirous of stimulating their industrial base in a community, then

they have an opportunity to do that through the variable tax rate

approach.

Mr. Member, it's really called revenue-sharing, not deficit-sharing.

The local governments don't want to leave a legacy of debt to their

children and grandchildren any more than does this provincial

government. Keep in mind, too, that the municipalities were relieved of

that restraint act last year. It lasted two years. Now they're on their

own. They have responded to the needs of the taxpayer, and in most

cases will be coming in with zero tax increases.

I really think we're not debating the revenue-sharing program at

all. I think we're debating political philosophy. No doubt your

political philosophy dictates that irrespective of where this money is

going to come from, it should be made available so they can spend it.

That's not going to be so. Revenue-sharing is based on the revenue of

the province. The formula has not changed from the day that the plan

was introduced.

For the benefit of the member — hopefully it will help him as he

thinks about revenue-sharing — revenue-sharing is made up of 1 point of

personal income tax, so if personal income tax is down, then that

amount will come down; 1 point of corporate tax; 0.6 of sales tax and

resource revenue. The formula stays in place. The change in the amount

of dollars available is because there has been a change in the amount

of dollars going into the pockets of the people of the province who are

in turn paying taxes to the government. We can't get away from it

unless we want to throw out the principle of revenue-sharing. The

problem has been that in many cases municipalities have been spending

the amount of revenue granted them as it comes in. That's fine as long

as it's coming in. But there does come a time when that revenue is down

and the money is not there. That's what we're living with now. I would

hope that you noticed in the budget speech that some reference was made

to setting up a reserve. I'm looking forward to that. I believed that

was necessary right along, so we can ease the minds of people like

yourself who think that revenue should never change, that it should

always increase. At least by doing so we will be able to remove the

impact of little downturns as they come along.

You said that the revenue was down 10 percent right across, again

exposing your ignorance to what is really happening in there. The 10

percent reduction applied to the unconditional portion of the grant.

You mentioned that the Municipal Affairs ministry and regional

districts, etc. were being robbed of funds because of a grant made to

some department. Let me assure you that this can't happen under the

formula. The formula is set. We receive the amount of money that's

reflected by the income of the province.

I'll leave it to the Attorney-General to answer your final comment in respect to the provincial sheriff services.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I got no specific answers, except personal

attacks. Mr. Minister, is the provincial revenue-sharing reduced from

$210 million to $174,590,000? Thank you. It is reduced by 16.9 percent.

That's on the record.

The minister has tried to defend his position that there are

insufficient funds to make sure that municipal operations get

sufficient funds available to carry out their operations. However, I

wonder how hard the minister fought to see some of that sudden, instant

resource revenue money that was found to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal,

because of your ineptitude as a government — $471 million for that....

You short-changed local government because of your inadequacies in

financial arrangements in the carrying out of your B.C. Coal–BCR deal.

How hard did you fight to see some of that money go toward local

government? Yet $470 million to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal was found

quickly enough. Why couldn't you find some additional money to ensure

that municipalities continued to maintain their plants adequately and

safely, I might add, Mr. Minister? Perhaps you could answer that

question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again I repeat — hopefully I won't have to

keep repeating — that the ministry received the funding agreed to under

the formula. The formula has not changed. Only the income changes, and

that is what affects the total dollars going into revenue-sharing. I do

not go to battle in order to attempt to get more money into an area

where I don't feel it is justified, simply because we have an agreement

on the formula. If we're going to change the number of dollars going

into revenue- sharing, we have to talk about the formula, not about

what spending is taking place in any other area.

MR. BLENCOE: We have the admission of the session from the

Minister of Municipal Affairs: he doesn't go into battle for local

government to ensure they have sufficient funds to maintain their

operations and ensure that taxpayers don't pay increased real property

taxes. He is saying that he doesn't go into battle. He is prepared to

see resource revenue transferred to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal at the

expense of local government. That's what he is saying to this House

today. I say that you had better start battling a little more for local

government, because they are the backbone of this province. What they

do in terms of economic development, growth and keeping things going in

this province is essential. You're not prepared to go to battle for

local government. That's an amazing admission by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I am sure the UBCM will be very interested in that

admission by this minister.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that perhaps you should try to see if

you can improve the grants, the revenue-sharing portion and funding for

local government. I can assure you that many of them, because of the

switch in policies....

For instance, the change in formula for the sewer grant, which used

to be 75 percent provincial and 25 percent municipal, is indeed having

a major impact on the infrastructure, particularly of older

municipalities which are trying to ensure that their infrastructures

remain safe and are maintained properly. At the same time, that kind of

removal of funds for local government impacts on local jobs. Local

government is a major creator of jobs and employment. I can assure you

that

[ Page 3943 ]

not only are we losing jobs, but we're also

starting to jeopardize the very infrastructure of local government and

their services.

If the minister is not prepared to go to battle for local

government, then I am prepared to say in this House that we on this

side are prepared to go to battle for local government. They are the

backbone of this province. Without their security, without them being

financially stable and their municipalities in good shape, this

province starts to fall apart. That is the concern of the UBCM and

local municipalities. They feel that senior government is abandoning

them when they see this $471 million bailout of BCR and B.C. Coal —

resource revenue that could be going to local government to ensure that

their fire departments, police departments, roads and sewers are

maintained properly. In one year you bail out nearly half a billion

dollars for one of the greatest financial faux pas in the province of

British Columbia. You say you are not going to go to battle for local

government. Well, that's most unfortunate, Mr. Minister; perhaps you

may want to correct that statement.

I want to move on to a couple of little issues that the minister may

wish to respond to. It's a local concern — not Victoria, but it's sort

of in this region. It involves the Islands Trust, Mr. Minister.

[3:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, what's that?

MR. BLENCOE: Just hold your horses, and we'll get to it.

The Islands Trust, which is responsible for planning and trying to

maintain the unique Gulf Islands area, has a particular concern at this

time. I'm hoping that the minister can answer me directly.

The minister may be aware of the Musgrave Landing decision. The

Ministry of Highways has granted a subdivision of 30 strata lots

against the wishes of the local Islands Trust. I might add that

Highways initially rejected the application, but an end run was done by

the developer on the Ministry of Highways through the back door, and

the strata subdivision is to go ahead against the unanimous wishes of

the Islands Trust. Not only does it bring up this particular question

of Musgrave Landing, but, of course, it brings up the whole question of

the Islands Trust. It's time that the minister gave the Islands Trust a

mandate for the approval and final say in the land-use planning

decisions of their islands.

The Musgrave Landing issue will, I believe, be broached in various

areas, but it has again brought home the fact that the Islands Trust,

which tries to maintain that particular unique environment.... In

various ways their decisions and wishes can be totally avoided, Mr.

Minister. Highways initially rejected this, and then the developer....

An appeal was made through the back door. The Islands Trust didn't know

anything about it and are now being told that they have to have this.

This development totally violates the official community plan for the

area, and I think it brings into focus the fact that the government is

still not recognizing the unique islands in terms of the planning of

the Islands Trust. They should have the mandate to make the decisions

on planning issues. I'm hoping that the minister will look at that

particular issue. Give them the powers that they do have as a regional

district; don't have the Highways department, by appeals through the

back door, making end runs around the Islands Trust. They have the

interests of those islands at heart, and it is in their interest to

ensure that they have full mandate and the same powers as regional

districts.

Perhaps the minister would respond to this particular issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest that possibly the member

may wish to take up what he is claiming took place with the Minister of

Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I cannot confirm such action.

Let me assure that member that while we have full respect for the

Islands Trust and their responsibility — as we do for all councils and

regional boards — there are times when we must also take into

consideration the needs of the people we're serving. We're not serving

Islands Trust or any particular body; we're serving the people of

British Columbia. If indeed there is a decision made by the Islands

Trust or any other body that could be looked at a second time, and

there could possibly be some change made in respect to the decision

made, then I can assure that member that I will not hesitate to do so.

Again I assure the member that I have full respect for the Islands

Trust and appreciation for the responsibilities they have, just as I do

for any other regional district.

MR. BLENCOE: He may have respect, but I'm not hearing him

standing up for the Trust or commenting about whether he believes they

should have the mandate to make these decisions for themselves and not

have another department making an end run around them. I didn't hear

him defend the Islands Trust, and I didn't hear him say he's prepared

to investigate this particular issue. It does have some impact. We have

a community plan that's being violated, we have a unanimous decision of

the Trust being violated, and we have a proposed subdivision that's

going to go ahead totally against the wishes of the Islands Trust. I'd

like to hear you stand up for the Islands Trust and say that you are

going to give them full mandate to make these kinds of decisions for

themselves.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, the Islands Trust are no more perfect

than the critic or myself or any other regional board. Like I said,

there are times — whenever it's necessary — to take a second look at a

decision. If a change in a settlement plan or a community plan is made,

this isn't a violation of that plan; it's simply a change that has been

found necessary. What you must remember, Mr. Member, is that these

plans are not cast in stone, nor would I ever stand by and allow them

to be. These plans are simply guides that are used in the development

of our province and must never be cast in stone. I can assure you that

while every respect is given to the plan, times do change. and change

according to the times is inevitable. Therefore if indeed you consider

this to be a violation of that plan, then there are violations taking

place all over this province as a result of the initiative of councils

and of regional boards. Plans do change. If we're not going to allow

that change, then we are heading for serious trouble. We'd be heading

for a real dictatorship.

MR. BLENCOE: On the same topic, maybe the minister could tell

me who is responsible, in his estimation, at the local government or

the regional level for making planning decisions. Who should be

responsible?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, a decision must be made as to whether a plan should be carried out or not. In my

[ Page 3944 ]

humble opinion, that decision should be with the

people who are going to be affected by the plan. After that decision is

made, and if the decision is in the affirmative, then the question must

then come before the board as to the funding of it. Of course, I as

minister have the responsibility of the final approval of funding for a

plan. But under no circumstances can any one of us in that system

believe that that plan, when done, is cast in stone. It is subject to

change, and there is a procedure necessary in order to make that

change. It's a democratic procedure. So the responsibility lies there.

Then, of course, to carry out the plan becomes the responsibility of

the local people.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister didn't answer my question. I'll try

and simplify it for him. Who should do the planning for a local area?

Should it be the locally elected group — council or regional district?

Or should it be an agency or arm of the provincial government? I say

that in light of the fact that the minister, a few minutes ago, was

saying he believes in local autonomy and that one of the reasons why he

took away regional planning was so local government could do that

planning. Careful, Mr. Minister. Maybe you could answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The people who should do the planning are those who are best qualified and will do it at the least cost to the taxpayer.

MR. BLENCOE: Not good enough. Who should do the planning at a

local level? Should it be those elected at the local level, either the

municipality or regionally? Or should it be the provincial government?

Who should do the planning? Who should make the decisions?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would the member please clarify whether he's talking about a settlement plan or a community plan.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a very simple question. All right, I'll

simplify it even more. Who should set land use and zoning policies in a

municipality or a regional district?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No doubt the procedure is that those who

are expert in the field of planning will give their advice to the

council or regional board, and the final decision as to what route to

follow will be theirs. Hopefully that will be in line with the wishes

of the people in the community whom the plan will affect.

MR. BLENCOE: Still no answer. I'll try the question again:

should the duly elected people at the local level — council or regional

district — be responsible for setting the land use and zoning policies

of that area? Or should it be the provincial government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe that

member would be much happier if he answered his own question, because

apparently he's not happy with the answers I give. There's an answer

that he wants, and it may be much easier for the member to answer his

own question. I'll repeat: as far as planning is concerned, that will

be recommended to council or the board by those who are expert in their

field. Then it will be dealt with. As far as the cost is concerned, I

would have to approve that. That would be done on the basis of how

efficiently they intend to go about it. Is it going to be done

in-house, or is it going to be done by the private sector? That

decision will be based on the efficiency of the plan to be carried out

and its cost to the taxpayer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: It's quite clear why the minister can't answer

this question, because he knows he's being caught up in his own petard.

He's caught, because on one issue he says he believes in local autonomy

and local planning and local decision-making, but here on the Islands

Trust he's saying that that shouldn't happen; they're duly elected and

they shouldn't have that kind of decision-making. Now, Mr. Minister,

it's one or the other. Obviously you don't want to answer the question

because you know that you've quite clearly got a double standard here.

Perhaps you may be able to clarify it in your own mind, as you get into

your portfolio a little more and learn a little more about local

government and how it works. You might be able to clarify and get a

conformity in terms of local planning, local decisions and local zoning

what happens in regional districts and municipalities, and what really

should be happening on the Islands Trust. You know and I know that your

argument doesn't stand. Your argument that the local areas should do

the decision-making and planning falls flat, because you will not give

a mandate to the islands Trust to be able to carry out that land use

and zoning themselves. You've got an end-run here in Musgrave Landing.

It's a total violation of the folk on Saltspring Island, and the

Islands Trust — an end-run by the developer, I might add, in

conjunction with the Highways department.

Really, you know, those people over there feel that this government

doesn't really care too much at all about the islands. All you've got

to do is make a special appeal to somebody, and you don't even get

notified of that appeal and that decision, and you've suddenly got a

major development in your back yard that violates the community plan,

violates the Islands Trust's wishes and violates the principle of local

planning and decision-making, which you support, Mr. Minister. I would

suggest that in the next few months you give them that mandate and back

up your own kind of philosophy; otherwise, there may be some serious

questions asked about your philosophy.

[3:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to that

member that in making reference to the proposed zoning by the Islands

Trust in the Saltspring Island area, he inquire as to whether those who

would be affected by that zoning were asked if they favoured zoning or

not.

I have to emphasize again that we are here to serve the people, not

our own philosophical ideas or dictatorial ideas in respect to what we

think people should be doing with the land they own. That is a

philosophy of your government. That is the reason why you have people

on your side who don't believe people should own land at all. You have

people over on your side — and no doubt you're one of them — who don't

believe people should have any control over the air. I assure that

member that I will always take full responsibility for a decision that

is going to demand that the people affected, the people who own the

land, have something to say as to what's going to happen to that land.

If the Islands Trust or any other regional district wishes to do a

zoning that will have some dramatic effect on that land, whether it's

on the value of the

[ Page 3945 ]

land or on free landowners' ability to use the land

as they should, then they must go to those people and ask, not sit in a

little office and decide what they think should happen. If you would

keep that in mind, I think you'd find out that that is the approach of

this government and certainly of this ministry, and it's an approach

that will continue.

MR. BLENCOE: We're really not getting very far, because the

minister is just refusing to try to.... Just admit, Mr. Minister, that

you've really got a problem here. You talk about local planning, but

you're not allowing the Islands Trust to do it. What you're now saying

is that....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's why it's one of the most beautiful areas

in this country. That's why we attract thousands of people to Victoria.

Millions of people come to this town because it's beautiful. If we

allowed people like you to get hold of it, we know what would happen to

it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: Before we had that sudden outburst from that emotional member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), I was about to ask the....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, truth to Socreds is a very....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, I'm not saying it to any member. But the word "truth" and Socreds are not necessarily equal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've got a little problem here. Does the minister wish a withdrawal?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I take offence at the last remark. I would ask that member to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was unparliamentary. The second member for Victoria will withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you will tell me why it was unparliamentary. I made no reference to any particular member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a reference to another hon. member's

motives. I think it clearly does offend the House. A simple withdrawal

will be sufficient.

MR. BLENCOE: There was no reference, Mr. Chairman, to any particular person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair found it offensive, hon. member. A simple withdrawal will suffice.

MR. BLENCOE: If it's a matter of getting kicked out of here or staying here, I will withdraw the remark — fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do us all a favour and get kicked out.

MR. BLENCOE: You'd love it.

There was a statement made by the minister which I find most

interesting. He made the statement about land use and zoning that the

owners should be able to do exactly what they liked with their

particular pieces of property. What the minister is really saying is

that individuals who own property should do 100 percent anything they

want to their land, despite what the community might think or their

neighbours might think or the impact on that community in terms of the

general welfare or the common good. Let's put it in those terms. I

think that's an interesting statement by the minister. Is he saying

that he now believes that anybody who owns private land should do

absolutely what they want? For instance, can they build a highrise

right next to the most beautiful residential area and not have anything

to do with the local area planning at all? That's the implication of

the minister's statements. I keep asking him if he believes in local

area planning, and he won't answer the question. Does he believe in

land use and zoning matters being finalized and policy set by the local

council or local regional district? Yet he won't answer my question on

the Islands Trust. Now he's making a statement saying that the owners

of private property should do exactly what they want with that

property. Now I agree, to some limit the owners of private property

should be able to do certain things — there is no question — and I

should also add, Mr. Minister, that as one member I indeed believe in

the private ownership of land; I happen to believe in that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your party is split.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no. However, in that ownership, Mr.

Minister, there are certain responsibilities as a part of a community.

What you're saying now is virtually that an owner of property should be

able to do exactly what he wants. I suspect, of course, that's what

Bill 9 was all about, the Spetifore amendment. I suspect that's what's

going to happen to a lot more planning. We're going to see the big

wheeling dealing kind of mentality coming here. We've got wide-open

deregulation, and municipalities are going to see all sorts of things

happen and they're going to lose all sorts of control over what's going

to happen in their communities. I would remind that minister that those

people are elected to make those decisions. You know, this minister is

just one bag of conflicts, Mr. Chairman. He talks about local planning

and the believing; he says he believes in the Islands Trust, and he

believes that they should be respected, yet he won't give them the

mandate to make those kinds of decisions. He then says that owners

should be allowed to do exactly what they want with their own property.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for hundreds and

hundreds of regional districts and local councils and policy that comes

out of provincial government. We have a real baggage here of all sorts

of conflicts and mixed messages. I think the minister has a

responsibility to clear up this matter of the Islands Trust, regional

planning and local planning. Who sets land use and zoning policy? Is

the Islands Trust to be totally alone? And if they don't have that, the

Ministry of Highways is going to be free to do end-runs, because the

developer may or may not have some special kind of string they can

pull, and Highways will allow that development to go ahead totally

against the wishes of that Islands

[ Page 3946 ]

Trust community and that trust board. We need some clarification; we need some conflict resolution, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will try to be kind. Mr. Chairman, again

I say that we cannot afford to leave entirely in the hands of one small

group the decision as to what any one landowner may or may not do with

his property. Could I remind that member, who is young in years and

young in this House, about the devastating effect that their land

policy had on many senior citizens of this province when they came in

with their bill and said: "No, you cannot do anything at all with this

land except farm it." And that involved land that was unsuitable for

farming; it included small parcels of land that were purchased by wise

couples during their working years so that when they reached retirement

they would be able to sell all or part of this land for some purpose

and to give them the security that they required in their senior years.

Mr. Chairman, that was taken away with the stroke of a pen by that

socialist government, which does not believe that people should own

land or that those who own land should have any right as to what to do

with it.

I know that the member is referring now to some land on the island,

much of which has been owned for many years by families who have held

it and are expecting to benefit from this land in years to come. Mr.

Chairman, it would be very much against the policy of this government

or any like government to take away that liberty and opportunity to

benefit. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't times when it's

necessary to bring about some regulation that would prevent the

pollution of wells or make it almost impossible to provide proper

sanitation disposal, etc.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

said: "or subdivide farmland." I'll respond to that, Madam Member, in

just a couple of minutes.

There are times when some regulation is necessary in order to

preserve the environment — whether it's the water or whether it's got

to do with the terrain or what have you. But, Mr. Chairman, under no

circumstances could I put myself in a position of doing the things that

the socialist government did when they were very briefly in power: take

away the rights of the people in respect to land ownership. I believe

in land ownership, and I believe people should be allowed to enjoy

having ownership of that land. I will always hold that position as long

as I am in the position of being able to take a look at some of the

zoning requests, so that we are not taking away the rights of the

people who have invested so heavily in it.

Responding to the question of subdividing farmland, I am reminded of

a couple of cases of farmland subdivision when the socialist party was

in power during 1972-75. The one parcel I can think of was hundreds of

acres of the finest farmland in British Columbia and possibly in

Canada, highly productive land. It had everything going for it — soil

qualities and proper moisture — for it to be highly productive in this

valley. Tilbury: hundreds of acres taken out by the NDP government when

they were in office, with absolutely no regard for the land as far as

its agricultural capabilities were concerned. What did they do with it?

They simply covered it with I don't know how many feet of sand in order

to make an industrial site out of it. An absolute disgrace,

hypocritical. How can you make such comments across this floor when you

know of the terrible, devastating, hypocritical decisions that you and

your government made when you were very briefly in office?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The word "hypocritical"

when applied to a member is unparliamentary. Furthermore, we are in the

current estimates, Mr. Minister, and perhaps we can relate our remarks

to that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While fitting, I will withdraw it.

The question of agricultural land could also be applied to the

Stirling property. The finest, most productive dairy farm in the lower

mainland, and the oldest one in Matsqui, was split up during their term

of office.

MS. SANFORD: Colony Farm?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not Colony Farm, but Stirling farms. In

order to get around their own regulation, they refused to remove the

land from the agricultural land reserve, but allowed the owner of that

land to go ahead and build homes on a portion of it, literally cutting

up the farm and making it useless as a farm, which it had been

operating as for years — another way for them to get around their own

policies. So please be cautious when you come out with any accusation

that we have no regard for agricultural land. Your sins are quite well

recorded in the books and certainly show in the landscape how you live

up to your philosophy with respect to the preservation of agricultural

land. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it was an opportunity for them to expound

and further promote their own philosophy of control. They didn't mind

what happened to agricultural land as long as they were the ones to

make the decision on it.

[3:45]

MR. KEMPF: I'll attempt to be very brief this afternoon. I

have only a couple of subjects I want to touch on in this minister's

estimates, but as we are into a bit of a history lesson in regard to

the preservation of agricultural land in this province, for some of the

newer members here I want once again, as I have over the years in this

chamber, to remind the people of British Columbia that the agricultural

land reserve was brought in by the socialists opposite not to preserve

farmland — it was never brought in to preserve farmland — but rather as

a tool to control all land in the province of British Columbia. Never

let anyone forget that!

AN HON. MEMBER: We remember.

MR. KEMPF: You bet we do, and it's one of the reasons I came to this chamber in the first place, Mr. Chairman.

In rising on this minister's estimates, I would be remiss if I did

not compliment the seven municipalities and one regional district

within my riding for the frugality they have shown over the last couple

of years during this time of restraint, these most difficult economic

times. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the local governments which I have

the pleasure to represent in this chamber have risen to the occasion

and have, in my estimation, been very frugal. I realize that they have

found it much easier than many of their colleagues in the urban areas

of this province to reach acceptable levels of expenditure. They've

found it easier because unlike some of their colleagues in the south,

they have always been

[ Page 3947 ]

frugal. They have always practised restraint. I

just want to compliment them for the job they have done since the

restraint program was brought in.

I want to approach a couple of subjects, one of which I have spoken

at length to the minister about, and which is a very real problem for

one of my municipalities, the district municipality of Houston: it is

the question of boundary extension. I know it's a very serious problem,

and one which is giving the minister some concern, because to expand

boundaries of municipalities to take in industrial sites is not really

the way to go. But there must be some policy — some overall provincial

policy — which will save municipalities such at the district

municipality of Houston from the very real problem that they now find

themselves in. This district municipality recently accepted into their

midst some 350 employees of Equity Silver Mines. Equity Silver Mines

opened a mine a short 25 miles from that municipality. In accepting

those new people within their boundaries, they had to expend many

dollars for the building of new roads and the extending of services —

sewer, water, etc. — and now find themselves in a very serious economic

situation because of that, and because of the fact that they are not

receiving any tax dollars whatsoever from that new mining operation,

which I'm proud to say is one of the most successful in this province.

But that still leaves that district municipality in a very serious

economic position.

Unless something is done very soon, with the finalization of the

1984 budget at their doorstep, some very serious moves will have to be

made which will probably, unfortunately, raise the taxes to the people

and the other businesses and industrial plants within the boundaries of

that municipality. I think that's sad. I think it's unfortunate. I

don't think it's fair. The two sawmills which are now operating within

the boundaries pay their share. They pay their share to the coffers of

that municipality in a very real way. It is through no fault of theirs

that an additional 350 families have been introduced into the

community. It is through no fault of theirs that services had to be

extended and roads built, and the like. But I want to attempt to find

out from the minister this afternoon how soon.... It's a very serious

matter that has to be approached almost immediately, because of the

fact that their 1984 budget has to be finalized.

In order to emphasize that fact, I wish to read into the record a

letter from the mayor of the district municipality of Houston, which

was written very recently to the minister and to all of the members of

the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. It reads:

"Dear Sir:

"As you are very aware, the annexation of the Equity Silver

Mines site into the district of Houston tax base has been an ongoing issue since

1978. The district of Houston has been experiencing ongoing problems with the

upgrading of the infrastructure in order to provide the services demanded and

required by the influx of Equity employees. Although negotiations have been

in process since 1979, no decision has been reached.

"The majority of mine employees — in excess of 350 — live

within the municipal boundaries of Houston. It is only reasonable that Equity

should contribute their share to the operating costs of the community. The municipality

of Houston can no longer provide the increased services which are drastically

needed. As well, we are not in a financial position to provide a proper access

to the mine on a cost-sharing basis, which would eliminate dangerous toxic substances

and heavy traffic through our residential areas.

"We are in the process of finalizing our budget for

1984 and anticipate receiving taxation from Equity Silver Mines Ltd.

Therefore we strongly urge the Cabinet Committee on Economic

Development to institute immediate proceedings for the inclusion of the

mine site into the tax base of Houston, which would enable us to budget

and plan with realistic figures."

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would implore the minister to exert

whatever force must be exerted in order to assist this municipality in

its time of need.

There's only one other subject that I want to touch on very briefly

in this minister's estimates, and that's the subject on which I have

spoken to the minister on many occasions. The subject of settlement

plans was raised earlier. Really, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I don't think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

has any idea what a settlement plan is. My problem is that settlement

plans have been adopted within my riding by the regional district of

Bulkley-Nechako. In no way do they adhere to the way of life which the

rural people that I serve wish to see in that area. They were adopted

with a preponderance of municipal members on the board of the regional

district of Bulkley-Nechako. I think that ways must be found and

avenues must be presented which will allow those people within that

regional district to seek some relief from those settlement plans. As

I've said before in this House, we're planning ourselves to death in

the rural areas of this province. Settlement plans which have been

brought in by the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako are, in fact, at

least 50 years ahead of their time in the area that I represent in this

House.

Some means must be presented and some relief must be given to back

up on some of that planning process that has been put into place. I

would ask the minister today whether there is any possibility of that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Before I respond to the member for Omineca,

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to finish my comments in respect to the

previous speaker's questions in relation to the use of land. In doing

so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read some quotes into the record.

First of all is a quote by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who

recently made some remark about our respect for agricultural land:

I believe people should be considering at this point ... to have

land available on a lease basis. I personally feel that land and land

use are far too important to be left to the whims of the marketplace.

That was on February 1, 1973.

Another quote is from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

who is not in the House today. As a matter of fact it is very

discouraging that such an important ministry, with such a large budget,

should have to discuss the estimates with only two members of the

opposition in their place. In any case, it's a reflection of their

interest in municipal affairs and municipal government.

On February 21, 1973, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds said:

Land belongs to all of us and is here to benefit all of us. The

government has to take responsibility for administering this resource. The private

sector has proven itself to be too irresponsible for this priceless resource

to be left in its hands.

[ Page 3948 ]

Here's another quote, this one by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann):

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes.

Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever

suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or whoever

we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my

philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately

owned.

[4:00]

How much more clearly can you put it? It's in the records. It's

clear where they're coming from. I hope that the new member, my critic,

will take this very seriously and hopefully change his whole approach.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That statement was made September 24, 1973.

It's sad. You hobble around, you jump around and you don't know

where you're at. But I'm going to tell you, we know where you're at.

The NDP Waffle Manifesto tells us where you're at. Where you're at is

that you don't believe in the private ownership of land. But we will

defend it.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) praised the municipal councils in

his area. I would like to join him in that. All people in the position

of spending tax dollars these days are having their ability to manage

challenged. They are also having their courage to make some very tough

decisions tested. I'd like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the House,

that municipal councils and regional districts are meeting this

challenge and are doing an excellent job in most cases.

Two questions came up from the member for Omineca, one on boundary

extensions. I realize that this is a problem, not only in that area but

also in other areas. We have industry developing in an unorganized

area, and of course, the number of employees has some impact on the

servicing of the communities in which they live. I'd like to advise the

member that first of all I cannot agree that we should allow for

boundary extension — which, of course, would require legislative

amendments.... But I don't wish to pursue the idea of extending

boundaries simply for the sake of increasing a tax base. However, I am

concerned about the cost of the impact, and a task force was put

together some months ago to study the whole matter. I have their

report. I am hopeful that a solution can be found whereby, through the

provincial government, there could be some easing of those costs by

assigning some portion of a tax to those industries, which can then be

transferred over to the municipalities affected.

He mentioned settlement plans. I agree with the member with respect

to settlement plans. As a matter of fact, I would go on record as

saying that we've had too much planning, particularly in the

unorganized areas and as we go further north in our province. That's

not to say that there shouldn't be any planning. There must be some

planning. But we have people who go north because they are pioneers.

That is the life they want. They don't want to be restricted by the

socialist attempt to control every little move they want to make on

their piece of property up there. It is my intention, as time

progresses, to make sure that we do not have one person — say a

regional director along with the support of a board — decide that a

plan will be imposed on a community. Rather, that community itself will

be asked if they feel that a plan would be in their interest. We will

follow that procedure so that we are not imposing hardship on people

who really don't require it and don't wish it. Settlement planning will

continue but there will be a more democratic process in arriving at a

decision as to whether it's going to be done or not.

MR. KEMPF: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to hear the

minister's remarks in regard to settlement plans. I hope it's sooner

rather than later that regulations are brought in to not only curb what

settlement plans are doing but also back up some of the settlement

plans in place.

As for the boundary extensions, I care not about a boundary

extension per se. Nor, I think, does Mayor Mickaelsson of Houston. We

only want to see some fair method adopted whereby the second industry

in that community — in this case, Equity Silver Mines Ltd. — pays its

fair share of taxes to the municipality, so that they will not have the

trouble they are experiencing in providing the services for the people

working at that plant.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to pursue the theme of planning. It's a

good discussion, given that the minister has indicated a number of

times — and he's indicated again today — that there's too much planning

but he believes in some sort of planning. I'm trying to get some

answers from him about the Islands Trust situation. He indicated that

he does believe in local autonomy in making those kinds of decision,

yet he would not answer that particular question.

I would like to reiterate quite clearly that we are disturbed by

this minister's and this government's attitude towards the concept of

planning. It would appear that planners are an endangered species in

the province of British Columbia. Anyone who works in that profession

is somebody who has to be shoved aside as fast as possible. There is

always doubt being thrown upon that profession. I would like to say

that we do indeed need planning in a civilized society, particularly in

urban areas. It's absolutely essential that we have that. Without that

planning we risk chaos.

I know why this minister and this government are down on planning.

It's because they know those professionals are trained in trying to

give ideas on policy that benefit the entire community, not necessarily

vested, small interest groups that want to benefit and gain financially

at the expense of the majority in a community. I know that this

minister....

We've seen it in the past with the Bill 9 stuff, which was a real

disaster. It was a sad day when that passed in this House through

closure — the elimination of regional planning. The minister may have

taken it back, but there's still some doubt; he's talked about farming

out planning into the consulting field as an idea. We won't have

objective local planners separate from the private sector to make and

recommend planning decisions to their elected boards or councils.

There's no question about this government's attitude towards

planning and bringing down sensible ideas on land use and zoning. If

they frustrate the development industry....

If they don't want to take any notice of local input or concerns,

then they do an end-run and eliminate that democratic process, that

public-hearing process that has developed over years and years at the

local level. The minister is well known for his position about

planners. He prefers to call them urban development officers or some

such thing these days. Don't even mention the word "planning" around

Municipal Affairs these days, because it's a bad word. We don't want to

talk about it. We don't want to plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all socialists too.

[ Page 3949 ]

MR. BLENCOE: All planners are socialists too. Yes, you're quite right. That's the threat.

There should be a recognition by this minister that we do need to

plan. We do need to look to the future. We do need to know where growth

is going to happen. We do need to know where the economic development

is going to happen. We have to have long-range plans and directions

that lay out an orderly development pattern. We know what this

government's all about: they want to open the doors wide to various

special-interest groups so they don't have to obey the local rules and

have the local public-hearing process for the people who support that

community, pay the taxes in that community, defend that community and

preserve that community and those environments where they live. Now we

know that the concept of planning in the province of British Columbia

is a bad concept and that the planner is an endangered species. I would

urge this minister to really think seriously about that approach. We've

already seen it in regional planning. We know that without regional

planning and a total approach to planning on a regional basis, which

involves economic planning, you don't get decisions on where

development should go or local municipalities agreeing on a regional

direction for growth and economic development. I think this minister

and this government should really seriously consider their position on

the whole concept of planning.

I want to touch upon a particular area that has become quite well

known for excellent planning. I'm going to ask the minister the status

of this plan. I refer to the Slocan Valley plan. I don't know whether

you are aware of what's happening in the Slocan Valley. It's been an

extremely good process, where we've had an integrated resource planning

concept at work. The regional districts of Central Kootenay, the

resource management committee, the provincial government and the local

interest groups have got together to develop a plan for the Slocan

Valley based upon consensus, public participation and local

decision-making about what should happen in the Slocan Valley. I think

it's a particularly positive way to plan. I happen to believe, however,

that the minister's attitude about planning and local input and

consensus deliberations is going to go against this kind of process

that's been happening in the Slocan Valley. I know that this current

Slocan Valley plan dealing with land use and development is now

currently before the Environment and Land Use Committee for their

perusal. But I'd like to know the minister's response to the Slocan

Valley concept, which I think has been recognized by both the private

and the public sectors as a good model to continue local planning, and

to continue to use the word "plan" — integrated resource planning.

However, if the minister has his way, and the way things are going

around the planning concept, this kind of unique process will be

history in the province of British Columbia. What does he think about

this particular process? Perhaps he could tell us what the status of

this plan is.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Planning is necessary. I do love planners.

In fact, many of my good friends are planners. We'll continue to call

them planners — no problem.

Let me again assure you that planning will be done for the benefit

of the people of British Columbia, and not just to satisfy an

overabundance of a particular group of planners. As far as planning is

concerned, planning will be done and funding will be made available for

planning, but it will be done in the most efficient and least costly

way that we can find.

The plan that you refer to, I believe, is in the second stage and is

ready for public review. That plan will be received in my office in the

not-too-distant future, at which time I will look at it, as I do all

plans, and will be discussing it with my ministry staff. If indeed the

plan is in keeping with the needs of the community and the people, as

we see it, then no doubt that plan shouldn't have any problems

progressing. But I'm unable to tell you exactly what I think about that

plan until it has been completed.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to continue to talk a little bit

about the Slocan Valley plan. The minister has said it's in the process

at the moment, but I would like the minister to comment about the

particular process that's been in place for this plan. I think the

process has been a very rewarding one. It's been one that has involved

the various agencies and resource management committees.... It's

involved a lot of public participation through various interest groups,

and I believe they have made some important decisions about what they

think should happen in their own particular area. That's democracy in

action. Yet unfortunately, it would appear that this kind of process is

not looked upon favourably in the province of British Columbia these

days, because we continue to see this kind of process removed. Mr.

Minister, do you believe in the kind of process where the people in an

area get together and through some consensus deliberations try to

achieve their own objectives, goals and aspirations for their

particular area? This kind of language that you people speak in these

days, with phrases that mean absolutely nothing and really should be....

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, let's have some description. You say: "As

long as the plan is in keeping with the needs of the people." Well, Mr.

Minister, maybe you'll explain to me and to this House that if the

people have determined that this plan is in keeping with the needs of

the people, it is supported by that community, they have full public

participation and have, through consensus, determined the needs for the

Slocan Valley — or wherever else, in terms of this process being

applied elsewhere — then what's this thing you keep saying? "Well, if

it's in keeping with the needs of the people.... Are you going to

determine what the needs of the people are when the people of an area,

through a very deliberate, careful process have determined the goals

and aspirations? Who are you to judge what people should do in their

area and what should happen in their area? I'd like you to describe it.

This language that the Social Credit members continue to use is

misleading and means nothing: "...in keeping with the needs of the

people." I'd say this Slocan Valley process, and other regional

planning processes that we've had in the province of British Columbia,

but which you have thrown away, were determining the needs of the

people in those regional areas through very unique processes of public

participation, discussions with various groups who are involved in the

decision-making of those areas. I think you should be enhancing that

process, not taking away from it. This language: "Well, as long as it's

in keeping with the needs of the people...." In other words, if it

reflects what this government wants as opposed to what local government

wants, local people or local communities want. We've seen that process,

[ Page 3950 ]

that if it offends what you want — your

aspirations, your hidden agendas — you are prepared to take away that

local planning process. Let's have some answers, Mr. Minister, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am very pleased to answer, but, Mr.

Chairman, it's very difficult to answer something where there is

nothing to grip onto it. It's like boxing with your shadow. Certainly

what you've just said is the proper process, and it confirms what I

said. We must respond to the needs of the people of the community — the

people who will be affected by a plan. But would the member kindly tell

the House and tell me what plan he is talking about that has been

rejected on my judgment? You've gone through a great deal of chit-chat

here, and you've been dreaming up some great things that seem to cause

you to have nightmares. What plan are you talking about that has gone

through this process that I agree with, that I've turned down? Name the

plan and then we'll deal with it. Otherwise I think you should get one

with something more constructive, if you're ready.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has asked me what kind of planning

process he has curtailed. Well, we had Bill 9, which opposed the

regional planning and the regional district of the GVRD that wanted

Spetifore to remain and not be taken out. That was a total violation of

the local decision and the local regional board. That's not the kind of

planning we want — local decision-making. Through your Bill 9 you have

violated the very principle of regional districts making up their own

minds about their own plans and what should happen. That's what I'm

talking about, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if that's what the

member is talking about, he is contradicting himself. The decision on

the particular property he is referring to was placed in the hands of

the council who represent the people in that community who elected

them, rather than have a board that was made up of people who

represented 14 other municipalities in three electoral areas. You're

contradicting yourself here when you say that we're not responding and

respecting the needs of the local people. It was the people of Delta

who spoke there. What is the matter with you? Have you not got anything

else prepared to discuss in these estimates, or do you want to keep

going back to last year all the time? You've hashed that over and over.

The people of the community have accepted it. I met with the GVRD board

yesterday, and we had a very friendly meeting and friendly exchange

between a number of us, including our good friend Alderman Harry

Rankin, who, I think, in spite of what you're attempting to keep alive,

has accepted the decision to respect the people of Delta.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it not true that the Greater Vancouver

Regional District voted against Spetifore, and you had to bring in Bill

9 to get around it? You violated regional planning and planning

processes, and you know you did. You brought that in for private gain,

not in the public interest. You know exactly why you did that, Mr.

Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we know that we are not to reflect

on legislation that's already passed through this House, which is what

it appears you're doing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister can reflect on what

we did in government in past legislation, but we can't do it? Oh, come

on, Mr. Chairman!

Well, I'll be pleased to see what happens and how the minister

reacts to the Slocan Valley planning concept. I'll be pleased to see

the response and whether he indeed believes it's the kind of process

that should be returned to the province of British Columbia. We will

wait and see. I suspect we are going to be unpleasantly surprised that

planning will continue to be eroded and we will continue to see that

gates will be opened for unfettered kind of private interests being

able to avoid the normal panning and public-hearing procedures and the

normal local council control and autonomy over these kinds of issues.

I want to return very quickly to something that I missed when I was

talking about the Islands Trust. It's a positive thing, and maybe the

minister can give us some clarification. There has been talk for some

time — and I know the minister is aware of this — of setting up the

Islands Trust Fund under the Islands Trust Act. The proposal for the

establishment of a trust fund has been around for some time. It would

allow for donations of grants and gifts to be administered by the trust

or a committee. The purpose of the fund would be to further the

objectives of the trust, to preserve and protect the heritage of the

islands. Through this fund they could hold lands and receive money to

acquire land. It would be, I think, a particularly novel way of

accepting, for instance, bequests from people who love those islands

and who would like to leave something. However, we have heard nothing

more about the establishment of this fund which, I understand, has been

the subject of ongoing negotiations between the trust and the

government. Perhaps the minister would update us on where we are with

this Islands Trust Fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman. I have had

meetings with the members of the Islands Trust and advised them of my

decision not to support such legislation, simply because I don't

believe that the Islands Trust should get any different treatment than

any other regional district. Their responsibilities are no different,

in my eyes. Certainly they're looking after islands rather than a solid

mass of land. But I believe that if anyone out there wished to donate

property or dollars for the benefit of the province, whether it be

specific to an island or whatever, I don't think our Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would turn it down. I will not support this

request and I have made that official with the members of the Islands

Trust.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm really sorry to hear that. I don't know if the minister has visited the islands....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Some of them.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay, good. This is probably one of the more

beautiful and unique parts of British Columbia. The people who live

there really care a great deal about those particular islands. They are

heavily involved in and very sincere about wanting to control, as much

as possible, the direction and the decision-making and the policy for

their own environment — their own community. I don't think there's

anything wrong with that.

They failed to get an answer from the minister about being able to get a mandate to plan and set up their own

[ Page 3951 ]

decision-making process so that they could avoid

the Highways kind of fiasco that they've currently got. Now the

minister is telling me that he is going to turn down a proposal that

would allow the trust to start building a fund that they could start to

take over and thereby help government to save some money — a fund that

would allow them to accept bequests and start to do some rather unique

things in those particular island communities.

It really doesn't make much sense. Clearly he doesn't want them to

have a mandate to be able to make their own decisions about their

community, which makes me think that he doesn't really believe in the

concept of the Islands Trust. Maybe we'll have Bill 9A to remove the

Islands Trust very soon. Maybe that's what we're going to get. He is

being, I think, rather ridiculous in saying that he's going to turn

down a proposal in which an organization is saying: "We're going to

collect money to try to do things in our own community by donations and

this sort of thing." It really doesn't make much sense. I can't see

where the minister's coming from. What's wrong with the trust having

this kind of fund and controlling it? Do you think they might become

too powerful and might actually start to make decisions for themselves

and set their own direction? Is that what you're afraid of? Is that the

concern — that these people on these islands might actually get control

of those islands in terms of their objectives and their goals? That

seems to me what you're saying to us today. I can tell you, the

Minister of Finance, who comes from Saanich and the Islands, is perhaps

going to have a few words with you out the back door. I can tell you

that that's a pretty sensitive area.

MR. ROSE: Out in the woodshed.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, he's going to have a word with you out in the woodshed.

You're saying not only that you are not going to allow them to plan,

but also that you are now really starting to affect their ability to

finance some of their own particular projects and unique ideas. I

happen to think, Mr. Minister, that you don't really believe in the

Islands Trust. I think that's what the problem is, and I suspect that

little by little you're going to erode that very unique board and that

unique planning process out there. In time we will see these islands

... whatever ends you have. Maybe it's greater development so they can

be exploited, and that natural island environment can be ravaged and

taken away forever. Maybe that's what the game plan is. At the moment

you're giving them virtually no power to ensure that that doesn't

happen.

There's another thing coming up, Mr. Minister, that I want to ask

you about a little later on. We understand the bare-land strata

regulations are going to be amended. That will even more take away

local control over these particular issues. There's no question about

what's happening in the province of British Columbia. This government

is going to take away the control that people have in their local area

to ensure that their communities are planned properly in the interest

of the local person. The regulations are going to be taken away for the

vested interests and the friends of whomever can get through the back

door and get things done. Today we have the minister finally saying

that he won't allow the Islands Trust to collect money from people who

want to leave money to that beautiful island community so it can

develop and grow and develop programs. Well, Mr. Minister, it's a sad

day for the islands. It's certainly a sad day for this thing you keep

saying you believe in: local autonomy and planning. I think you've

blown it all away today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member used a phrase

there that I guess frightens all of us. Since he's referring to the

islands, he frightens them much more. He said "these people get control

of the islands" — he's referring to the Islands Trust. He seems to

think that someone has devised a way of obtaining capital in order to

get control of the islands. I would like to assure that member that

those islands belong to the people over there. There is nobody that we

will allow to get the sort of control over the islands that you would

desire and that your colleagues have already been quoted as suggesting

in years gone by about all land in the province. I would suggest to you

that there are more important things to get on with in these estimates

than to carry on with something on which a decision has already been

made. If there is anyone out there, I repeat, who wishes to donate land

or whatever to the benefit of the people of British Columbia,

particularly to those people on the islands, then there is a method of

doing that. I would suggest you follow that route. But the decision is

made and further discussion here is fruitless.

I don't think you're talking to the right minister when you bring up

the question of the bare land strata regulations. I would suggest you

check that. I think that what you're referring to belongs to another

ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: We know why the minister wants to get off the

question of planning and local autonomy and decision-making and the

Islands Trust. It all revolves around this general theme of

deregulation, taking away the control of local citizens about what's

going to happen in their community or the land-use and zoning and

environmental decisions, setting the directions, goals and aspirations

for their own community, and removing the checks and balances. That's

why the minister wants to get off this topic, but I'm not going to get

off this topic, because it's very critical. There are thousands of

British Columbians who believe in the system that has been in place for

a long time and believe that there should be checks and balances and

that planners, for instance, are necessary. There are processes that

have evolved over time. I might add that the minister may want to go

back and do a little bit of reading about how planning evolved and why

we got into it. I won't go into it for him. It would really bore him if

I got into the whole concept and philosophy of planning in North

America or in the western world. There are some very good reasons why

we have these particular processes in place and why they were

established, particularly for urban areas. I think the minister should

do a little reading to see why we have them.

I'd say it's very important that this government stop and once again

recognize the aspirations of local citizens and local areas. It's very

important that they not continue to erode the local planning process. I

could have used other areas, but I decided to use the Islands Trust.

Here we have a very dedicated group, a very sincere and honest

community. All they want is the ability or the mandate to have

decision-making power and to watch it happen on their own islands.

That's a theme that I think is worth discussing, Mr. Minister, but I

know that you want to get off it.

The Islands Trust is just an example. I think it's time there was an admission by this government that what they're really

[ Page 3952 ]

after is taking away the checks and balances that have evolved over a long time at the local government level.

Sure, make faces. That's fine, but you're not answering many

questions for the people of British Columbia today, Mr. Minister.

Certainly your answers have created all sorts of conflicts for the

planning process.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would you like me to...?

MR. BLENCOE: A little more. Just hang on.

You mentioned that the bare-land strata regulations are not

necessarily in your particular area, but I would have to say that the

concept of eliminating

section 2 is going to have a dramatic impact on

the planning process in the province of British Columbia. You should be

concerned about it. If you don't know about it, you had better find out

about it, because what is going to happen.... Currently, under

section

2, strata plans have to comply with official community or settlement

plans. We believe there is going to be an amendment to, again,

eliminate that local decision-making process whereby strata plans have

to fit into the wishes of those citizens who have developed the

planning components of those areas. They have to fit those wishes.

We're going to have another change, another erosion of the local

decision-making process and an avoidance of the official community plan

that has been developed and devised by certain processes. That's why I

used the Slocan valley as an example. That was an interesting process,

which so far has survived this government's attack on civilized

planning practices. Mr. Minister, I would say that you had better get a

handle on these bare-land strata regulations, because this is another

attack on the ability of local councils and local regional districts to

control decisions about their official community plans. It's going to

be taken away.

Deregulation. Once again the local citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. There's a theme here, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member that the Chairman is still here.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's a theme here, and I think it is a very serious one. If you

ever do studies or talk to local people about what the most important

thing is for local government.... One of the most important things they

talk about is the whole process of planning and land use and zoning —

what is going to happen in their neighbourhood, village or town, and

the ability to be able to control the direction of the planning of that

village, town or city. Slowly but surely in the province of British

Columbia those checks and balances are being removed, for various

reasons — vested interests and private gain, and I refer again to Bill

9 and other, private-gain bills. That's what is happening. Slocan

valley processes will end. The Islands Trust concept will die. We'll

see the end of official community plans in terms of strata development

proposals having to comply and fit in with the wishes of those local

citizens and their plans. What we'll start to see is the law of the

jungle and the law of the private sector in terms of the development

industry. They will do what they want, when they want and wherever they

want. Mr. Chairman, that is not part of a well-organized,

well-disciplined, well-prepared community or province, particularly in

urban areas. Again, I refer you to some basic planning philosophy and

journals, which might tell you why we have to have planning, checks and

balances.

Perhaps there'll be some answers from the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Municipal Affairs critic

reminds me of the young fellow who lost three days of his life. He

didn't want to do anything outside, because the weatherman had forecast

rain. It's sad, you know, that you should be feeling so sad and

negative because of what you think may happen.

As far as the bare-land strata question is concerned, it's obvious

that you are on a fishing trip. You're speculating about what may or

may not be future policy. It's premature. I would suggest that you put

it to rest. I don't intend to respond to it again.

As far as anything else is concerned, yes, I do believe that

planning is necessary — planning in the interests of the people of the

province and not in the interests of a small group who would have the

same desire that you have to get that rigid control.

You mentioned that planning is necessary in the western world, and I

agree with you, but let me remind you that I want to be very careful,

as long as I am in a position to do so, to make sure that planning

doesn't become as rigid as it is in the eastern world, because we want

people to be able to own and enjoy their land with the least amount of

regulation.

Finally, as a commitment to our support and dedication to a certain

level of planning, my ministry has allocated $2.1 million in this

estimate toward the cost of planning throughout the province of British

Columbia. Planning, of course, will be done within the municipalities,

and those plans known as community plans will receive funding provided

that it is considered that what they are wishing to do is justified and

done in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Settlement

planning in the unorganized areas will continue, but in that particular

area, we will be paying more attention to the....

Mr. Chairman, it really depresses me to think that the member is so

upset and concerned about a group of planners out there, and when I get

up to respond to his question he's off in another meeting. This is sad,

and I'm wondering if maybe the member has run out of things to say and

is not interested in continuing to be the critic of Municipal Affairs.

Are you ready?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It is all very well for the