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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3961 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hiring practices of Quintette Coal Ltd. Mr. Gabelmann –– 3961

Employment development. Mr. Lockstead –– 3962

Contracting-out of government work. Mr. Stupich –– 3962

Reclassification of rehabilitation officers. Ms. Brown –– 3963

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 3963

Mr. Howard

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates,

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 3976

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Kempf

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the

Legislature today that Alderman Fred Macklin of Kelowna, who was the

chairman of the board of directors of B.C. Transit since 1982, has

passed away following a serious illness these last few months. Alderman

Macklin was a council member of the city of Kelowna since 1976 and

served on the board of B.C. Transit and its predecessor, the Urban

Transit Authority, from its inception in 1978.

Mr. Macklin was a native of London and came to Canada in 1950. He

served as secretary-treasurer of School District 53 in Terrace, and

from 1956 to 1973 he was the chief executive officer of the Central

Okanagan School District. During his time as chairman of the board of

B.C. Transit, the rapid transit project moved into its peak

construction period and there were major improvements in conventional

transit and a handyDART system for disabled throughout the province.

His contribution to his community, province and country in public

service will be remembered by all whose lives he touched. I would ask

all members of our assembly to express their sympathy to his family at

this time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could respond to the

condolences on behalf of our party. I happened to be employed in the

Kelowna School District at the time that Mr. Macklin was appointed. I

knew him very well and found him to be a man of integrity. He was

distinguished in his field. On behalf of our party I would certainly

like to have his family know of our deep regrets over his passing.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of all hon. members the Chair will undertake an appropriate message.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the

gallery today, Mr. Will Preston and Mrs. Molly Murray. Mr. Preston is

the executive director of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism

Society, and Mrs. Murray is the second vice-president. They are here to

attend their annual convention, and I would like the members to make

them welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I too have a guest in the

members' gallery today from Powell River, Mr. Jack Metcalf. I ask the

House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I too have some guests in the

gallery this afternoon. I would like the House to join with me in

welcoming Russ Colombo, his wife Joy and their children Greg and Leanne

from Cranbrook. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a very beautiful and

charming lady from Cranbrook, Pamela Robertson. I would like the House

to join me in welcoming them all.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is spring break and I have two very special

guests in your gallery today. I would like the House to welcome my daughter

Jody and my son Dean.

MR. VEITCH: Joining us shortly in the gallery will be my wife Sheila and my son Greg. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

Oral Questions

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Labour and

concerns Quintette Coal. On Monday of this week the minister said that

"no recruitment has taken place in eastern Canada or any other part of

Canada at this time." Yesterday the minister admitted there had been

recruitment in eastern Canada. He shifted his ground, stating that they

have not hired anybody. Having had time now to reflect on these two

different answers, I wonder if the minister is sticking by his second

answer that no one has been hired.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No one has been hired in any current

recruitment campaign. I have said that there are a thousand people

working on that great northeastern coal project in that one mine; of

them, about 70 to 75 percent were recruited in British Columbia. Some

had to be recruited outside British Columbia. The company is exploring

options in other parts of Canada. They have filed a manpower plan with

the Ministry of Labour. That manpower plan is being adhered to. The

company assures me that their hiring policy will be British Columbia

first.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would agree to check

back with his sources. If he would do this, he would find that in fact

qualified British Columbians have been turned down. When I say

"qualified," I mean heavy-duty mechanics with many years' experience in

the industry in British Columbia have been turned down. In fact,

non-British Columbians have been hired as a result of Quintette

recruitment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this will be the third

occasion in this Legislature on which I've asked that member to provide

me with that kind of information. If he has it, I would be happy to go

back to the company. Up to this point, he has, for one reason or

another, declined to provide me with that information. I don't have it.

I'm not able to find any such evidence, but I'd be pleased to have it

from that member, who, I think, as a member of this Legislative

Assembly, has a duty, if he has that kind of information, to bring it

forward.

MR. GABELMANN: The first time the minister asked me to

provide information related to the question of recruitment outside

British Columbia, which he said was not occurring. I've done that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister will bear with me.... It is my

understanding that in question period it is not appropriate. The

minister will soon learn — and it won't be in the fullness of time,

either — exactly what the names of these people are.

[ Page 3962 ]

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Labour. The

Sunshine Coast region of my constituency has a 36 percent unemployment

rate; the number of people receiving income assistance in that area has

doubled in the past three years. Will the minister advise whether the

Cabinet Committee on Economic Development has developed any special

plans regarding the escalating employment crisis on the Sunshine Coast?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, our committee doesn't deal with

isolated local areas. We are concerned with developing employment

possibilities all over British Columbia, and that will be our priority.

[2:15]

CONTRACTING-OUT OF GOVERNMENT WORK

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. On

Monday, March 19, the minister filed a written answer to questions

stating that no separate record is kept of consulting contracts

approved by Treasury Board. The minister must share a concern that I

had for a short time in that post as to whether or not some ministries

might try to get around staff cuts by replacing them with consulting

contracts. Is the minister indeed telling me that Treasury Board

actually keeps no total of consulting contracts as such? It must be

running into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is correct, and interested members would

perhaps want to note the member's written question and my written

reply. In the final preparation and publication of Public Accounts

for each year that information is readily available. If the member has

moved from the essence of the written question in terms of whether

there is control with respect to consultancy contracts, the answer

would be yes.

MR. STUPICH: I believe the minister is referring to

individual contracts when he states that there is control. I note that

there has been some relaxation in that the figure which used to be

$25,000 is now increased to $50,000 –– I wonder at the rationale for

relaxing control in that area.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years I and my

colleagues on the treasury benches have exercised, through the Treasury

Board and through the Ministry of Finance, pretty stringent control.

But we are not prepared to put ministries and ministers through

incredible paper blizzards in order to undertake normal work associated

with a ministry, and on behalf of the people. Therefore the limitation

which, as the member has observed, was at one level

MR. LAUK: You're stretching for this one.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. Actually it's a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased that it was posed to me.

MR. LAUK: It's not such an interesting answer, though.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, what is the requirement in

question period? To be interesting or accurate? That member is

frequently interesting, but often — i.e. Bank of Commerce — inaccurate.

So I accept the charge of being dull. If that is what the interjection

means, then I am a dull person, but I do attempt to give accurate

answers.

To the member for Nanaimo, some time ago we increased the amount of

dollars for which a minister must come to Treasury Board in terms of a

consulting contract. I believe that my colleagues welcomed that. It

certainly appears to be working well; otherwise, as I said earlier, we

have a paper blizzard of documents flying back and forth. One of the

challenges that we've had in Treasury Board has been to reduce the

paper flow, to get the job done, instead of just documenting every

single activity.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may get away with reference to

the Bank of Commerce as well, I am sure the minister will agree that

the whole banking system was saved by the federal government — not just

the Bank of Commerce. It was a bail-out of the entire banking system.

The Minister is trying to persuade us that the system is working

well. For five years in a row, under his administration, we have had a

deficit. I know that for two years it's still predicted rather than

real. I wonder by what measure he believes it's working well.

I am still concerned, though, that the Treasury Board apparently

keeps no running record of the total dollar figure for consultancy

contracts, ministry by ministry, to compare them with previous years.

Is the minister saying that Treasury Board doesn't keep that kind of

record but relies on the ministers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that is not the case. The member, in the

written question, posed the request that I provide information with

respect to all consultancies. That information is made available in Public Accounts

each year. While I have not reached for it in these few moments, in the

answer that I provided earlier this week I quite clearly indicated that

Public Accounts for the fiscal year 1983-84 are being prepared,

and of course the fiscal year is not yet complete. Therefore, while a

very accurate final accounting is kept with respect to consultancy

costs, it is not possible to pull them together in response to the

written question the member had on the order paper — not until Public Accounts .

MR. STUPICH: From the point of view of an opposition member

trying to examine what is happening in public payments, I appreciate

that the individual payees are identified, but they are not identified

as to whether they are consultants or dishwashers, or whatever. There

is simply a list of names and the amount paid, and there is no way we

can pick the consultants out of that — at least, not that I'm aware of,

unless I missed something.

HON. MR. CURTIS: During the limited time I served on the

opposition benches, I considered it part of the responsibility of an

MLA and his or her research staff to determine, by sample or by

exhaustive research, whether a firm was engaged in dishwashing or in

consultancy work for the government. That surely is part of the

function of any research staff in any caucus.

[ Page

3963 ]

MR. STUPICH: I would ask the minister's assistance then. In those

enlightened days under the NDP administration, research staff could examine

such documents, but now they're denied to research staff.

RECLASSIFICATION OF

REHABILITATION OFFICERS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources

on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver Centre. On March 19 the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) raised the question of rehabilitation

officers. At that time the minister stated that two or three of these

officers were being deployed from their task of finding jobs for

income-assistance recipients. Is the minister now prepared to advise

the large number of rehabilitation officers in the various regions — I

gather it's something in the neighbourhood of 40 — who have received

notice that they're being reclassified to become financial aid workers,

that they should ignore those reclassification notices?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I took the question as notice, since

that date I've been waiting for that member who asked the question, the

Leader of the Opposition, to be in the House. However, since he has not

been in the House and since you're taking his question in his place,

I'd be very pleased to respond to the questions asked on that date.

First of all, the question was asked — and I took it as notice — how

many people were on income assistance. As of January 1984, there were

116,334 cases in the province; that means 217,922 recipients in total,

when all family members are counted. That information was promised the

House, and it is now a matter of record.

To respond to the member's question regarding a comment I made about

perhaps three of the 60 administrative people who were reduced from our

administrative staff last July, I said there may have been three who

had to do with rehabilitation. In checking, I find that I was

incorrect; there were not three. No one has received notice or lost

their position in the Ministry of Human Resources who comes under the

rehabilitation category. Rehabilitation officers all have a

responsibility for the job action program, for the Individual

Opportunity Plan and for all rehabilitative services to help people

become independent. Again I reiterate: there have been no layoffs in

our rehabilitation program.

MS. BROWN: The rehabilitation officers, the ones who have

first contact with the client, not the job-action program which is the

final contact.... Of that number in the region, something in the area

of about 40 have been reclassified — not laid off, reclassified — and

have now been told that they are going to be financial aid workers;

they are no longer going to be rehabilitation officers. I'm asking the

minister whether, in view of her statement that the rehabilitation

officers are going to continue doing rehabilitation work, those 40

workers should ignore the reclassification notices which they received.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't operate and

administer my ministry by telling my staff to ignore directives that

are given by administration, and I will not start today.

Ministry of Human Resources rehabilitation officers have been responsible for

the most successful job-finding program for rehabilitation in the country. It's

called the job action program. The rehabilitative officers who have been involved

in job action programs will continue with those programs, and any difference

in those who have not been involved in job action will be allocated, as I understand

it, to individual opportunity planning, as they have been doing for some time.

It is also important to note that beside any assistance to the

rehabilitation program for our people who are on income assistance,

this year we also have an increased budget for planning outside of our

ministry staff for job action programs. So there will be independent

programs going on simultaneously with added money to the budget of the

Ministry of Human Resources for that particular area.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, before calling the vote, I

would just draw to the attention of hon. members that there are two

organizational committee meetings this afternoon: Labour and Justice at

3 o'clock in the Hemlock Room, and Standing Orders and Private Bills,

same room at 3:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD: I think it's important to reiterate the motion

that was just made. I do this for the benefit of the minister. The

motion before the committee now is that a sum not exceeding $174,580 be

provided for the minister's office. That's the standard motion that the

Committee of Supply passes with respect to an estimate: that a sum not

exceeding a certain amount of money be allocated for the minister's

office. That was precisely the motion, word for word, with the

exception of the amount of money involved, that was passed during the

last session. That motion during the last session in Committee of

Supply was that a sum not exceeding $161,468 be made available for the

minister's office.

Now he comes along, in the estimates book that he waved around

yesterday, and says: "Oh, no, it wasn't $161,000" — which is what the

committee [illegible] as a limited amount of money — "it was in fact

$183,000." I won't say the minister has done this, Mr. Chairman; the

minister is just an inadvertent kind of accident.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Personal references....

MR. HOWARD: The deliberativeness was done by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). These are the figures that the Minister of

Finance put forward on the introduction of the budget. It was the

Minister of Finance who presented this document called "Estimates:

Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1985," with that false figure of $183,523

for 1983-84 in it. And that is a false figure, because the amount this

committee passed last year was $161,468, not $183,523.

[2:30]

1 submit that presenting the committee with a false figure for last year permits the government and the minister — and

[ Page 3964 ]

the minister really wasn't paying attention to what

he was saying yesterday — to say there has been a decrease in the

amount of money available to the minister's office. He emphasized three

or four separate times yesterday that it has gone down. In fact it has

not gone down; it has increased.

In the book we have before us covering these estimates the figures

show a difference on the down side, but those figures are not accurate.

That figure of $183,523 for 1983-84, Mr. Chairman — to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is blabbing away something that I

can't hear at the moment — is a false figure. I submit that it's put in

there in an attempt to lead the general public to believe that in fact

the estimates of expenditure for the minister's office have gone down

when in fact they've gone up.

It's regrettable that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie), a decent individual.... He's the addition to the cabinet as a

result of the last election. Do you remember the Premier saying during

the election campaign that he was going to have new blood in the

cabinet? Well, this is the new blood. It's unfortunate that the figures

have been presented to him to indicate something which is not accurate.

I simply have to say that it is unfortunate. It permits the minister to

make a statement to this House which is not an accurate statement. The

statement he made to the House was that the expenditure for his

ministry has gone down from last year; in fact it's gone up.

Above all else, especially in dealing with the taxpayers' money, as

the Minister of Finance so clearly emphasized today in question period,

we need accuracy, not the inaccuracy that's in this blue book before us.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would like to thank the member for those

kind remarks, as he became slightly personal there. However, I repeat

that indeed there is a reduction in the estimates for the minister's

office in the year 1984-85 over 1983-84. However, the member fails to

read the notes at the bottom. Having read the figures, which you have

done and are usually very careful to do, by reading the notes you would

understand why the figures show as they do. I'll read them for you:

"For comparative purposes only, figures shown for 1983-84 voted

expenditure have been restated to be consistent with the presentation

of the 1984-85 estimates." What it really means is that the 1984-85

figures have included employee benefits and telecommunication expenses.

This is a change that was made since last year's estimates, so in order

to make the figures comparable — in order to be able to compare apples

with apples — the same employee benefit and telecommunication costs

were taken and added to the 1983-84 figures. That is what you're

reading, but for comparative purposes only. There is indeed a

reduction, which I believe is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6

percent.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to what the minister just said, I did

read the notes. I think it is significant that the minister emphasized

that for comparative purposes only the 1983-84 voted expenditures have

been restated — for comparative purposes only. The point that I was

making is that the actual amount of money voted last year was $161,000,

not the figure of $183,000 that was in the estimates this year.

If the minister wants to extend his knowledge gleaned from reading,

then I suggest he read the estimates book for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1984, under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where the item

$161,468 appears. He will find this footnote there, and I will read it

for him: "For comparative purposes only, figures shown for

1982-83...have been restated." So the same thing was done last year.

In other words, each year this government presents false figures to

this Legislature to indicate that the comparison is not what it is.

That's all that's happening. It permits the government and the minister

to say that the money has gone down,

whereas that is not correct. I was

going to say that it was not true, but I hesitated, and I don't say it.

But that is not correct. Look at the figures. This Legislature voted

$161,468 last year. It's in the Journals.

You can't fabricate anything about that; it's correct. This year he's

asking for $174,580 — that's an increase over what was voted last year.

No amount of restating the figures for comparative purposes, no amount

of readjustment of figures, charge-backs or anything else can cover up

the fact that there is an increase in money allocated to the minister's

office this year over last year.

The budget, insofar as that aspect is concerned, is a lie. The

minister knows it. It is unfortunate that he has been placed in the

position of having to say something to this House yesterday which he is

now backing away from.

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

would give serious consideration to the remarks he has just made

concerning a lie or my being prepared to back down from anything I said

yesterday. Let me put it another way; maybe he could understand if I

tried another approach.

For instance, had we taken the employee benefit and

telecommunication costs right off the 1984-85 estimates, then the same

result would occur — you would see a reduction. It's for comparative

purposes only — that's all. The figure is there. The figures for

1984-85 include the expenses that the figure in the blue book of last

year didn't, but in order to make it easy for you, and others who would

be interested in reading this, to compare, you have the comparative

figures. There is a reduction of approximately 6 percent.

MR. HOWARD: Well, there's an old saying, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member must be recognized.

MR. HOWARD: I'll consider the word "lie" that I used, and I'll declare it again. The budget is a lie.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point, although there is

really no offence to a member in particular, I think we are, in fact,

offending the rules of parliament in the language that can be used. I

am sure there are other ways of stating an opinion without using

language that the Chairman does find upsetting.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we tried to get some

answers from the minister on planning, and his position on planning.

Unfortunately we weren't able to get any clear indication of where he

is going on planning issues, particularly with the Islands Trust, which

is a bit unfortunate because there are indeed a lot of people wanting

to know what is going to happen in the planning field in the province

of British Columbia.

Today I just want to touch on a couple of issues which are not small but are certainly not quite as important as the whole

[ Page 3965 ]

question of planning in our province. One of the

issues is the question that in municipal elections Vancouver has twice

voted for a ward system. So far, the provincial government has not seen

fit to recognize the democratic decision of the Vancouver electorate

for a ward system in that city. Could the minister indicate to this

House his feeling about a ward system for the city of Vancouver, and

whether he indeed will make representation to cabinet that it be

introduced as soon as possible?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I recently granted a request

from the Nanaimo council for release from the ward system. In answering

that member, I would say that that decision quite clearly reflects my

views of the ward system. I understand that the Vancouver council has

indeed approached a private member in respect to this question. I don't

know what stage that is at, at this moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In case there is a concern, I will state that

the committee is unaware of any legislation at this point, so you can

continue to discuss that.

MR. BLENCOE: Sometimes it's very difficult to get what the

minister means, or whether he's saying yea or nay. It's very

frustrating to put questions to this minister about very important

municipal issues. From his statement, I gather that the minister is

saying he does not support the concept of a ward system in the city of

Vancouver. Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will repeat what I said. I recently

granted a request from the Nanaimo council for release from the ward

system. That decision reflects my feelings in regard to the ward system.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'll try to discern from that remark that

indeed it reflects his view that they've pulled out, which means.... I

suppose that we in this House and the people of British Columbia have

to deduce from that remark that you don't agree. He agrees with pulling

out, and therefore doesn't support the concept of a ward system.

Then I have another question for you, Mr. Minister. It reflects back

again to your statements yesterday that if the people wish it, or if it

fits the needs of people, you will grant it. The local electorate will

make decisions and you will honour those. Mr. Minister, how does that

fit into your philosophy that you believe in local autonomy, when the

electorate of Vancouver have twice now clearly said yes to a ward

system? How do you match that with your view of supporting local

autonomy and decision-making?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly I support local autonomy, and I

will do all in my power to see that that does in fact take place,

provided it does not infringe upon the provincial government in

carrying out its responsibilities to the people of British Columbia. I

would suggest that the member is getting into a debate on possible

legislation, which I don't believe is part of these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is interesting. Earlier I advised the member

that this committee is not aware of a bill, but I guess one would have

to consider that this committee is aware of another committee. I can

only ask the member to deal with matters that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is responsible for. I appreciate that it's a tricky line of

debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Any kind of topic is potential legislation, so

if we got into that kind of a discussion we might start ruling out

virtually everything in this House. The minister has a motion or a

recommendation to come to this House about the whole question of

elections at the local level. Clearly it's within his purview and his

responsibility in dealing with how people elect local government

officials.

[2:45]

I would like to continue on this theme, because it is a very

critical one. It again, I think, reflects the views of this government

about local autonomy. The people of Vancouver have twice made a

decision; they wish to elect people to that Vancouver city council on a

ward system.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It was a majority of the people of Vancouver, Mr. Member. It was over....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: You know, Mr. Chairman, we do have an incredible

group over there. When a vote doesn't suit this government, they can

find every excuse in the world. That member over there is becoming

quite famous for it. The people of Vancouver have clearly stated to

this government that they wish to make their electoral decisions based

on a ward system.

Mr. Minister, you've clearly said in this House that you believe

that local decision-making and local autonomy are critical. You have

eliminated all sorts of regulations to facilitate that kind of thing.

You brought in Bill 9 to stop regional districts making decisions for

regional districts because you believed in local councils making those

decisions. Now you are saying that Vancouver city council doesn't have

the right to have a ward system, when the people of Vancouver have

clearly — over 50 percent — demonstrated that's the system they wish.

Who is making the decisions for the people of Vancouver? Is it the

people themselves democratically voting for what they want? Or is it

this government, when it sees fit, making the decision that something

won't happen? That is not good government; that is the tyranny of

senior government. The people of Vancouver have said they wish a ward

system. They have voted on it. They are entitled to it. It's their

right. You have, as a government, no right to interfere in that

process. You should automatically ensure that the city of Vancouver be

rewarded, because they have democratically voted for a ward system.

You, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have a responsibility to

uphold the rights of local autonomy and the rights of local

decision-making. You have said over and over again that that's what you

believe in, that that's why you're introducing all these new

deregulation ideas. The voters of Vancouver have said twice now that

they wish to vote for their members according to a ward system.

Therefore I have to ask: what other decisions that the people vote for

at the local level are you prepared to overturn, even if that vote goes

through by 50 percent plus?

You have said that we have been unfair in our criticism that you're

centralizing local government decision-making. You say that's not true.

If it's not true, you will then grant the wish of the people of

Vancouver that they have a ward system.

[ Page 3966 ]

If it's not true, you will let the people make up

their own minds about that — and they have done that twice. I again ask

you, Mr. Minister: how do you equate your position on local autonomy

and local decision-making — the people deciding their own future — with

your view on this kind of issue that you won't go along with the

people's democratically made decisions? Your credibility — if I may,

Mr. Chairman — is suspect. I think you have to answer this House and

you have to answer the people of Vancouver, and your cabinet colleagues

as well on this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, I must

say that the Chair is wrestling with this problem of Vancouver, because

the city of Vancouver is governed by a charter, which is not really

within the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We can discuss

administrative actions, but we would be anticipating a debate that

could come to another forum if we continued this debate with respect to

the city of Vancouver specifically. I'm sure the hon. second member for

Victoria is aware of the guidelines we have in this Committee of Supply

during estimates.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, you took almost all of the

words I wanted to say out of my mouth. The member, I do believe,

understands that Vancouver has their own charter. The procedure

normally followed is for them to bring their proposed changes to a

private member, hoping that that member will be successful in

convincing the committee responsible that those amendments should go

forward. I would suggest that under those circumstances we should not

be anticipating what may happen there, but rather wait until it has

followed its proper procedure. I think that should end this portion of

the debate.

MR. BLENCOE: The charter is granted by the province.

Therefore the province has jurisdiction. The city of Vancouver has

before and will again come for a democratically made decision by the

people to change that charter. What is happening in the province of

British Columbia when this government can control the wishes of

Vancouver people on the way to elect their officials? It is becoming a

tyranny of senior government. It is a very serious matter. If the

minister has any credibility left in terms of municipal affairs in the

province of British Columbia — making up their own minds about their

own issues, and controlling their own plans and destiny — then he has

to say to this House that he believes a ward system, based on the

democratic decision of the electorate of Vancouver, should be

introduced. He said yesterday.... I know he's not prepared to go to bat

for municipalities — an incredible statement by a Minister of Municipal

Affairs. Obviously he is not prepared to go along with the electorate

of Vancouver who had over 50 percent support of a ward system.

The minister's credibility is on the line. Since taking this

portfolio he has said over and over that he believes in local autonomy:

let the people decide their own future, their own goals, their own

plans. Here we have another example — it's about the fourth one I have

given to you in the last day — where you are going to deny that. Your

credibility is on the line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I will advise the

committee that in the case of the Vancouver charter, neither this

committee nor the Minister of Municipal

Affairs has responsibility for that charter. The member's debate would

be in order in a different forum, a different committee, but

regrettably not this committee. I am sure the member understands the

distinction in this case.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those insights. I

intend to move off this topic. I fully understand what you're saying,

Mr. Minister, but you and this government won't listen to the

electorate of Vancouver, and if it doesn't suit your purposes you won't

go along with a democratic decision. We have seen that over and over

again in this Legislature in the past ten months: that you will violate

democratic principles over and over again. You don't believe in many of

those principles, and here we have another example where you're clearly

not going to support a democratic decision made by a large group of

people in the province of British Columbia. I think the people of

British Columbia and the people of Vancouver are beginning to recognize

what is happening.

I would like to touch on another subject if I may. The Vancouver

MLAs from the other side will all leave; we know that. Mr. Minister, we

are told by you and by others that your ministry is trying to save

money. I'd like to know if you can very simply outline for us what kind

of publications you put out which are not necessarily a normal type of

municipal business. This sort of thing — The Downtown Advocate,

your downtown revitalization newspaper: how much is this newspaper

costing the taxpayers of British Columbia? How do you defend this kind

of publication?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The cost of that is approximately $500. Of

course, it is an informative piece of literature that I think is an

important part of the whole downtown revitalization program. It keeps

people up to date with what's going on there. It gives them an

opportunity to see other ideas and there is information in there that

they can use in their own community should they decide to move in that

direction.

MR. BLENCOE: You are saying it costs $500 a year to publish this?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Each issue.

MR. BLENCOE: How many issues do you print?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Four a year.

MR. BLENCOE: What other information do you put out about downtown revitalization that makes this kind of publication necessary?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We don't have any other publications

covering downtown revitalization. We do have a staff member available

to go out and assist and advise, etc. No doubt there are small pieces

of literature available to those who are interested, but as far as a

publication is concerned, I am advised by my ministry staff that that

is it.

MR. BLENCOE: Then I assume that this guide to downtown

revitalization is no longer in use. This is the guide that is put out

as well. Do you no longer use this guide?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're speaking now about the guide towards coming in with the program. That's not a

[ Page 3967 ]

publication, as we described the other one. That is the guide towards a downtown revitalization program.

MR. BLENCOE: If someone asks for information on how it works, this is what they would receive.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Correct.

MR. BLENCOE: Then this is just a bit of superfluous kind of

publication which has the minister's picture on the front. We all know

what it is. It's a bit of political fluff, I suppose, for the minister.

MR. MOWAT: It's called communication.

MR. BLENCOE: We've got lots of communication $27 million worth from

this government each year under our friend Mr. Heal.

Is this really necessary, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The issue is well received and quite

informative. I would suggest to that member that it is my practice to

review such issues on a periodic basis. That one has not had any review

lately because we are still satisfied that it is accomplishing the job

it was established to do. Certainly it is our intention to continue to

advise the people out there, those hard-working, dedicated members who

work on our councils and volunteer so much of their time for so little,

and keep them up to date on all the things going on within that program

so that they can improve their knowledge and be able in turn to pass

that along for the benefit of their community. Yes, it is, in my

opinion at this moment, still worthwhile.

MR. BLENCOE: It's all very important — $2,000 here, $2,000

there. It saves a lot of money. If you look after the pennies, the

dollars will take care of themselves. This government talks about

believing in that sort of thing, yet he continues to publish this sort

of information.

Mr. Minister, who exactly is this going to? What is the mailing list of this particular publication?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It goes to all councils and business associations — those directly involved in that kind of program.

MR. BLENCOE: I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that I don't know

what else you put out in terms of this kind of newsprint. I think you

said this is the only thing you put out in this kind of style. Most of

it is in official ministry-type guidelines. It may be useful to reflect

that I think there are better ways to inform people. I would also point

out that $2,000 — which is, for instance, 40 CIP grants for handicapped

people — is something I wish you would look at. Quite frankly, I'm not

quite sure how useful this is.

[3:00]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest to that member that he go

to such communities as Terrace and Chemainus and various others that

have benefited through the efforts of the staff in this particular

program and tell them that money is being wasted. Tell them that you're

no longer interested in seeing them being assisted and helping their

communities and helping them revive their downtown cores. You go out

and tell them. Don't say it in the House here. Get out and tell them

yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: A very simple letter to all the various councils

announcing the program, with a copy of this, is quite adequate. Why you

would have to publish four times a year, with your picture all over the

front of it, at a cost of $2,000 to the taxpayer.... That's just an

ongoing propaganda from your ministry, and you know it — with your

picture on it. Be honest with this House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I feel compelled at this moment to suggest

to that member that he compare the cost of that document with the one

that he sent out during the municipal elections, at a cost, I believe,

of over $1.50 in postage alone, trying to convince the people out there

that they should vote for those radical types and those NDP people who

would run for council. Compare the cost of this document that is

helping the communities with your political junk, costing the taxpayers

money to build your own party affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: We always know cabinet ministers will refer to

the opposition's little bit of perk, but we still have to try and

inform the citizens of British Columbia what exactly is happening in

this Legislature. There is $27 million being spent by this government

on propaganda to convince the people that they're good government. We

have mail-out privileges that inform the people exactly what we're

doing here as official opposition. If you want to deny us that, Mr.

Minister, I would say my accusation of tyranny of government is indeed

quite accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it would seem we are straying a

little bit from the estimates that are before us: the administration of

Municipal Affairs. Perhaps we could be a little more direct.

MR. BLENCOE: I will.

I have another issue, and I think it's one the minister has to

respond to. Thus far he hasn't. I believe it tests the credibility of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I asked a question some time ago in

question period about this particular issue, and I want to know his

policy on this kind of issue. It's a known fact that people in high

office can use their position to try to influence or set a direction of

local councils and regional districts. It's also known that — I don't

want to get into personalities; that's not the issue — the first member

for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) did use her MLA office to try to influence a

decision in White Rock. She wrote at a very bad time in the public

hearing process. It had been adjourned, and they were waiting for the

decision. You know, Mr. Minister, that that is a very serious

situation, and that can lead — and case law indicates has led — to

challenges of the decision.

My concern is not particularly with what the first member for Surrey

did. I don't believe it was correct, but I want to leave that aside.

What I would like to know from the minister is: what is your policy in

terms of that kind of thing happening? I've had a number of letters

from other elected officials, not only in White Rock but from other

areas, saying they really feel that we have to be very careful about

that. If senior government or members try to influence votes on

land-use matters — this was the first member for Surrey's own land

[ Page 3968 ]

use matter — it certainly brings a degree of

influence on that council. You've got to remember that councils these

days are struggling for dollars and revenue-sharing, and they feel that

if they don't go along with a member or a cabinet minister or whoever

tries to do it, that might impact on them later on. Mr. Minister, I

think you have to comment on this particular issue. You haven't thus

far, but it's one that is very important in terms of independent local

decision-making. Again I refer back to that which you say you support.

Here we have a member of the government, at a very critical stage in a

landuse matter, trying to impact upon the decision. I don't want to get

into the first member for Surrey. I'd like to know what your policy is,

because I think the UBCM would like to know, and I certainly think

other councils would like to know.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Immediately it was brought to my attention

that government stationery and government postage was being used to

influence people at the municipal level, I did express some concern. I

had documents to assure me that indeed this had taken place. The second

member should be aware of this, because he is the one who was guilty of

using government postage to distribute NDP literature to influence

people at the municipal level during municipal elections. When evidence

of that was brought to my attention, I did become quite concerned. No

doubt that matter will be looked at in the future.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about what the official

opposition is permitted to send out of this House. It's our democratic

right to inform the citizens what we're doing in this House, and what

should happen. If you're saying that will stop, you're in for one heck

of a fight in this House, Mr. Minister, I can tell you that.

I want to know what your policy is about MLAs influencing local

government on local developments, particularly if they own them, and

writing to members between the public hearing and the decision being

made. It's a critical issue, it's one of influence, and it's one that I

think has to be dealt with quickly.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: My policy will be quite clear. If that

member did indeed spend many tax dollars on postage to distribute NDP

material to influence the voters in the municipal elections, then I can

assure you that policy will be necessary to make sure that that sort of

abuse of tax dollars does not take place again.

MR. BLENCOE: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about a

serious matter, about a member of the government trying to influence a

land use matter in White Rock and about how that impacts on other

municipalities. When we have government officials using their positions

during a public hearing or after a public hearing is adjourned, that

brings doubt on the whole independent system. I think you as minister

should not try to detract from that issue by saying that because I as

Municipal Affairs critic informed people of this province — who asked

me for information, by the way, and it's within my right as a member of

the opposition to do that.... He should not try to mix that up with the

issue of trying to influence a land use decision which involves

thousands and thousands of dollars. Land use and zoning is very

controversial and, of course, can be subject to all sorts of

influences. I believe it's incumbent upon the minister to answer this

influence decisions at the local level on land-use matters?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's quite obvious that this member,

through either his inexperience in this House or just his spoiled-brat

sort of approach, seems to insist on receiving the answers he wants. I

would suggest that what he should do is not waste his time — and ours —

here, and just go back to his office and ask and answer his own

questions, if that's all he's going to be satisfied with.

But I repeat, for the last time, that I take very seriously any

member in this House who would use tax dollars for the purpose of

distributing material that is intended to influence people at the

municipal level, as you, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, have been

accused of doing, much to the dismay and anger of those people out

there who do not support your political philosophy. According to the

information that has been received, you did indeed abuse and misuse tax

dollars in distributing NDP material to people you thought might

support you, encouraging them to get out and support the advocates of

the NDP philosophy. Certainly we must look into it, it will be looked

into, and there is a committee established that I'm sure will do that

in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister and hon. member, before we

continue, the Chair has been listening very carefully over the past ten

minutes to what has been going on. May I suggest to both hon. members

that it would seem to me that this particular subject has been very

well canvassed, and that perhaps some other approach to carrying on

with the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

might prove much more fruitful.

MR. BLENCOE: It may indeed be tedious and, I'm sure,

repetitive to many members. But this particular issue of influence at

the local level by senior government officials and MLAs is a very

fundamental issue to local government, and one that cannot be avoided.

Certainly the minister cannot skirt around it by saying that I as a

member of the opposition no longer have the right to send out official

opposition positions on issues. That's what you were saying, and you

were very careful about that: you were saying we can't send out

official positions on issues. Oh, you're going to limit it. Now we have

tyranny of this government again. They want to control everything. I

imagine this government will next be scanning our mail and having

pictures taken to see what we're sending out and who we're sending it

to. Is that the next step, Mr. Minister, of the tyranny of your

government? It probably is. I tell you here and now that as a member of

this opposition I will continue to inform the people of this province

of what's happening in this House, of opposition positions on issues

and of what we feel about local government. Your attitude to local

government runs totally counter to the traditions of local government,

Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if both members

were to address the Chair we could have a much calmer discussion. They

seem to be getting rather noisy and shouting at each other, and I think

we could calm things down if they would both address the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Continue, please, hon. member.

[ Page 3969 ]

[3:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When I say "continue," I don't mean continue with the shouting.

MR. BLENCOE: The right of the opposition, in terms of how we

inform the people of British Columbia, is a very important issue, Mr.

Chairman. Here we have an issue on which I am trying to get some

information and which has nothing to do with that.

This is a profound issue about senior officials being able to try

and influence votes on a major land-use decision in White Rock. It is

not the question of the member; it's the principle of the idea. You are

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and you have to maintain credibility

with the UBCM, local councils and regional districts. They have to know

that they will not be subjected to senior government pressure to make a

decision one way or another on something like a landuse zoning matter.

That is very serious business. It is something that cannot be avoided,

and the minister cannot walk away from it. He is the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and one of the biggest issues at the local level is

dealing with land use and zoning. It is a very delicate issue, and I

think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know what the

minister's policy is about the potential violation of the autonomy of

local government to make a decision alone, without being threatened or

jeopardized by senior influence, as happened in White Rock from an MLA

who actually owned the development — and right in the middle of the

decision-making.

What is your policy? Are you going to allow that to continue, Mr.

Minister? Will you allow that to continue, or do you believe it should

be stopped forthwith?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member seems to be

getting nowhere. I'd just like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs

a question which is quite important to parts of my riding.

The minister is well aware of communities such as Logan Lake which

are really resource communities and which have a difficult time because

of a very small industrial-commercial tax base within the municipal

boundaries, and yet they act as bedroom communities for a large number

of people who work in the mines some miles away. Recently I was very

much against including these industrial plants in the municipality just

for the sake of providing a tax base, and I still am. However, I think

there is general agreement among those people in the mining industry in

the small resource-oriented communities that there should be some

equitable way of providing funds from those large industrial plants to

the small communities, which, in the case of Logan Lake at least, are

having a very difficult time. Does the minister have any plans of

pursuing this type of a thought process?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a matter of

great concern to me, because these industries that establish in the

unorganized areas outside municipal boundaries do, in most cases,

impact on the cost of local services where their employees are being

housed, However, it is not my wish to allow boundary extensions in

order to overcome this problem, because that could create a hardship on

those industries at a time when they can least afford it.

However, a task force was put together that involved people from my

ministry and from the industry, and a thorough study of the problem was

conducted. There has been a report provided, and I do hope that I will

have success in shortly bringing about a solution to the problem that

will be equitable to both the municipalities and the industrial

taxpayer. In addition to that, it will remove from them the fear which

hangs over their heads all the time that someday they could wake up and

find themselves within a municipal boundary and facing a substantial

tax increase.

MR. BLENCOE: Nice try, Mr. Minister.

I want to finish off this influence issue, but I think it is very

serious business. The minister is not prepared to admit that he's

prepared to have a policy written or brought before this House. I can

assure you that there is great concern, not only in White Rock but in

other areas, that in the future they could be subjected to senior

government influence on such land use and zoning matters. You know, Mr.

Chairman, how important and how controversial that particular issue is

with local government. Land use and zoning is probably the biggest

thing they're involved in. They have to be independent, and they cannot

be subjected to any MLAs or cabinet ministers trying to influence

decisions, especially before the vote is taken. It is a serious matter,

and I believe once again the minister has indicated to the people of

British Columbia and to this House that he is not prepared to take

seriously the whole question of the credibility of his ministry and his

position, and to say to this House that he doesn't approve of that kind

of action and will bring forth a policy to ensure it doesn't happen

again. He has a duty to perform, and he is avoiding that particular

issue.

I want to move on to a couple more things, and then I will finish. I believe one of my colleagues has a few things to say.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Actually there is just one thing — an easy one, Mr. Minister.

The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) whether he was prepared to take a look at the concept of

working with you on pulling together the UBCM. municipalities and

regional districts to take a look at the concept of utilizing vacant

land in municipal areas for food purposes — an urban agriculture kind

of proposition. As you may not know, many municipalities do indeed have

land that they own or have leases on that sits vacant, collecting

weeds. The Minister of Agriculture and Food thought it was a good idea.

I'm wondering whether you would be prepared to work with the Minister

of Agriculture and Food and the UBCM to try to get local municipalities

to take a look at that issue, not just as an isolated kind of thing but

as a general idea across the province. I suppose much of the idea would

come now, during this awful depression that British Columbia is in, but

I think it's also a positive thing for the future and maybe something

that you and the Minister of Agriculture and Food can get involved in.

I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about that particular

issue, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the first thought that comes

to mind, of course, goes back to the last war, when there was indeed a

shortage of food. I was in my teens then, but the decision of many of

us on our own initiative was to dig

[ Page 3970 ]

up the nice lawn in the back yard and start growing

some food. But before I would answer the member I would like him to

tell me if he is talking about biological farming or root crops. It is

important to know that before I could, with some sense, respond.

MR. BLENCOE: Whatever you think is appropriate. If we can do

some of the other, fine, but all I'm basically talking about is

utilization of land in urban areas for the production of food. That's

very simple.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, I doubt very much if we could

convince the UBCM, the municipalities or many of those bodies in the

developed communities to go along with hog farming, chicken farming or

whatever. So we'd have to rule out biological farming. Then we could

get into root crop farming. We're then talking about, in most cases,

small parcels of land that would require some real hard, backbreaking

work, because farming today has become so technical with the need for

modern, automatic equipment to produce the product at a cost that

people could afford, in order to return a fair living to the person who

would do it. It wouldn't be feasible at all. As a matter of fact, I

doubt very much if it would get very far. I see no reason why a

municipality may not wish to offer the people of the community who do

have the time and the desire to produce some of their own food....

Making spare lots available — there's nothing wrong with that. As a

matter of fact, your government, when they were in for a very brief

time, introduced a program of lot-plot farming. It could be done, but I

will be pleased to discuss it with the Minister of Agriculture and

Food, and who knows?

MR. BLENCOE: I'll just finish on a positive note. That's the

first positive response I've had in this whole.... I don't know how

many hours we've been going. Let's end it on a positive note. I was

hoping to get some other issues responded to in a positive fashion.

Unfortunately we haven't been able to do that, but maybe we'll try

again next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Chairman, maybe there'll be

some changes in attitude by that minister. I understand my colleague

over here has a few things to say.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, a subject of concern, certainly, for

the municipalities, and a matter which has to be of concern to the

provincial government is that of taxi-licensing, in the lower mainland

particularly. The municipalities individually license taxi fleets

operating within their own areas of jurisdiction. The lower mainland

happens to have a number of municipalities. Unlike some city areas in

North America, there are numerous municipalities and therefore numerous

boundaries. Some municipalities are relatively small, geographically

speaking. As a result of each municipality licensing taxis, they often

run empty on a return trip. For example, if a taxi licensed by the city

of Vancouver picks up a fare in Vancouver city and delivers that fare

to Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey or Richmond, that taxi cannot

legally pick up a return fare anywhere en route home until it arrives

within the boundary of Vancouver. Similarly, taxis licensed on the

North Shore cannot pick up in the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby or

Richmond.

Several studies have been done on this sort of thing. One that I

think should be reported here in the Legislature is the study done by

the Economic Council of Canada. It concluded that the least efficient

taxi system in metropolitan Canada was in the greater Vancouver area,

mainly because taxis had to run empty, also because taxis were licensed

by the municipalities individually and separately, and because it was

illegal — perhaps it sometimes happens — for a taxi to pick up a return

fare outside of the jurisdiction within which the licence was

operative. The proposal which makes the most sense would be that the

licensing of taxis become a matter for, let's say, the GVRD, that

licensing be for the larger territory, all of the municipal areas

covered by the various municipalities, all of whom are within the GVRD;

in other words, make the licensing area the total area of the GVRD and

not a patchwork of smaller areas — namely, individual municipalities.

Then taxis could pick up fares on return trips, then they wouldn't run

empty as often, then they would be more energy-efficient. But most

important, I think they would better serve the public today. Because

they run partly empty they have to charge more. The Economic Council of

Canada concluded that taxi fares in the greater Vancouver area could be

reduced by at least a third if licensing was on the basis of the GVRD

area rather than the separate municipalities.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Recently there has been quite a bit of public discussion,

particularly on hot lines, about this subject. Members of the Vancouver

city council, I think, have changed their minds. Some months ago they

were very possessive about this longterm licensing authority they had

in Vancouver. Now I think they would like to turn it over to

anybody, including the GVRD.

There is the question of how many taxis. Do you set a limit on the

number of taxis? Do you therefore create a value in the licence? That

would have to be dealt with by the GVRD and not by individual

municipalities. I personally would favour a limit on numbers of taxis,

but I would eliminate any provision as to level of fares. I would focus

the regulations almost totally on the quality of the taxi service, on

the physical condition of the taxis, on their cleanliness and so on,

and make that the basis for regulation — in other words, the quality of

the service. Then we would have a situation, let's say, come Expo 86,

when taxis originating anywhere in the lower mainland could deliver

patrons to the Dome, downtown Vancouver. Conversely, taxis from all

over the lower mainland could line up there at the end of an event, be

it a sports program or Expo 86, rather than as it is under the present

arrangement whereby only Vancouver city taxis could pick up at Expo.

[3:30]

We have to generalize the taxi arrangement. While I know this is a

matter of direct concern to the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser), I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs

would also get behind this move. I think it's a desirable one.

Generally speaking, the outlying municipalities now agree that it's a

reasonable move. I think the majority of the Vancouver city council

believe it's perhaps the best thing to do — to get on with it and make

the GVRD area the area for licensing, and give the GVRD some

responsibility in that connection.

[ Page 3971 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The question of regionalizing taxis has

been given some thought. There are no conclusions at this moment, I

should point out one problem that has been highlighted: that is, when

you regionalize the taxis, there could be a tendency for the bulk, if

not all, of the taxis to congregate in the most densely populated

section of the region, thereby not giving the level of service that

those in the outer area would require. However, I take the member's

suggestion seriously. It is something of real interest to me. Hopefully

a satisfactory answer can come in time to accommodate the people during

Expo 86.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a very brief statement and question of

the minister at this time. The minister will recall that an

extraordinary resolution was passed at the UBCM convention last fall.

I'm not going to read all of it. As I recall, the resolution passed

unanimously was: "Resolved (1) that there be no further erosion of the

autonomy and powers of local government; and (2) that there be no added

cost burdens or reductions in revenue-sharing grants." Mr. Chairman,

the subject of my short statement and question here this afternoon is

revenue-sharing grants.

Municipal revenue-sharing is to be reduced from $210 million to $174

million, a cut of 16.9 percent. The minister knows this, I'm sure,

since it's his ministry. For the 1984-85 fiscal year $90 million will

be available as unconditional grants, a reduction of $10 million from

last year. The minister, Mr. Chairman will recall, did state at that

convention before the assembled delegates: "To the extent that economic

circumstances permit, I will do my utmost to maintain the 1984

revenue-sharing unconditional grants as close as possible to the 1983

level." The allocations for conditional grants have not been announced.

I might ask the minister at this time if he's prepared to tell us what

those unconditional grants are, and to explain, perhaps, to us the

severe cut in revenue sharing.

While I'm on my feet, I might ask the minister as well.... It is

anticipated that the municipal highways grant long held at $15 million

may be subject to cuts. Perhaps the minister would tell us now, under

debate of his spending estimates, if the ministry is going to cut that

$15 million highway allocation budget this year.

As well, there will be no housing grant or mobile-home grant. They

were eliminated, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, on July 31, 1983.

1 note that funding for all 1983 grant programs, except housing

starts, was maintained at the 1982 level. Three programs were funded in

whole or in part from the previous year's surplus. However, funding for

the new sewer and water grant programs was increased in 1983 by 7.85

percent. But not enough was estimated by the UBCM to be required to

fund the old program to establish a reasonable level of funding for the

new program. Does the minister understand that? I'm not sure I do. We

just haven't got enough money; that's what he was saying. That sounds

good.

Last but not least, the UBCM has proposed the establishment of a

revenue-sharing stabilization fund to protect against sudden changes in

unconditional grants and to maintain the taxing autonomy of local

governments. I wonder if the minister has considered establishing such

a fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I always appreciate that member; he's so

honest. I can appreciate that it's difficult to understand all the

ramifications of this particular program. First of all, let me say, as

I've said here many times, what we must first understand is that when

you talk about sharing revenue, that means sharing when it's up and

sharing when it's down. It so happens that at this moment revenue is

down, and therefore the share is down. It's beyond our control. We're

not going to go borrowing money just because we want to keep up to the

spending desires.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But Bill, you gave $470 million to B.C. Rail.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We're talking about revenue sharing.

You talk about autonomy at the local level. Yes, we've moved in that

direction in a very positive way. In the area of taxation we've given

them the freedom to set the variable tax rates. We have taken away the

control of land use planning from the regional boards and given that

local decision to the local council.

As far as revenue-sharing is concerned, the statement I made was

that I would do my very best to come as close to the unconditional

portion as possible, simply because the unconditional portion is the

portion that's most important to all municipalities. Not all

municipalities can take advantage of the rest of the program,

particularly the conditional portion, so we did all in our power to

protect that portion. When it was announced that that would be 90

percent of last year, which was a 10 percent reduction — certainly a

lot less of a reduction than would be indicated by the decrease in the

revenue — the response was that they were relieved because they

expected it to be considerably less. As far as the conditional portion

is concerned, that will be announced shortly. But we do feel quite

happy indeed that the amount of $174.59 million assigned to

revenue-sharing has been brought up by the addition of some funds

carried over from the previous year, bringing it to a total of, I

believe, $202 million. So there is a rather positive feeling out there

in respect to the revenue sharing program, and certainly satisfaction

with our ability as government to maintain it at the levels we have.

You mentioned setting up some sort of a reserve fund. Yes, there's

no question about it; I believe very strongly in that. As a matter of

fact, I have asked some of the councils why they haven't been doing it

themselves. It's always wise, in good times, to reserve a little bit

for tough times by putting a little bit in the bank. You know that

yourself. However, not all councils want to do that. So it's certainly

under serious consideration in this ministry to set up a reserve fund

in revenue-sharing, so that whenever we do have a downturn we will be

able to cushion it with that reserve and not have to argue or try to

explain why there isn't enough money.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the answer, particularly the fact

that the unconditional portion of the grant will be increased; you

found the money somewhere. I'm sure many municipalities are going to be

happy to hear that. However, the funding is down, and basically this

means one of two things: in order to meet their budgets, the

municipalities have to either lay off people, adding to our economic

difficulties in the province, or increase local taxes. I personally

don't know of any other options available to them. I think this is what

the minister is telling us is going to happen.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite incorrect. Whenever that first expression was made, I

[ Page 3972 ]

advised the councils without any hesitation that

first of all, I did not expect to see any increase at all in property

taxes. However, don't forget that taxation at that level is based

directly on their spending desires and ambitions. Therefore, if their

spending ambitions are greater than their income, then I would expect

them to get the difference out of the system itself — in other words,

look for more efficiencies within the system. This may mean some

layoffs, but I can assure you, Mr. Member, that municipalities are

coping extremely well. They're finding out that they can operate with

less, and are realizing that in many cases they don't have to increase

taxes in order to meet their spending habits.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't really planned on

getting up, but I couldn't resist. The second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) does something to me when I'm sitting here in this exciting

chamber listening to him talk about certain things. He talked about the

Islands Trust. I happen to have Islands trustees in my constituency and

I don't support any of the things that the second member for Victoria

said about the Islands Trust. In fact, if the minister was to have a

plebiscite, a lot of the people who live in those areas might decide

they don't need the Islands Trust anymore.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's have one.

MR. REYNOLDS: You know, I would go a little further and

suggest to the minister that his department should be looking into a

plebiscite right across this province. Have the people of this province

start to decide whether some of our municipalities shouldn't be merged,

some of our councils shouldn't be reduced in size, and some of the

bureaucracy within those councils shouldn't be reduced. That might

solve an awful lot of the problems that this NDP member talks about,

Mr. Chairman, because I think the people of this province would

overwhelmingly support a plebiscite that called for the reduction of

governments at all those various levels. If they had the choice of

reducing the size of the bureaucracy at those levels.... My God, if

they could vote twice, they certainly would. Anybody I talk to in this

province, whether it be in areas that elect NDP members or Social

Credit members to this Legislature, say that the bureaucracy is driving

them crazy.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Minister, because I know you're

looking at a lot of areas in your ministry where things can be cut

down, and I know it must be frustrating to sit here and listen to the

old arguments the NDP have been making. For 20 years they've been

saying the same things — nothing new, nothing exciting. They don't want

to attack the planning departments across this province that are

overloaded with bureaucracy and delay things.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about getting new

industries, changing things, the Spetifore development and — what did

he say? — the "free-dealing Spetifore property stuff." He always wants

to get into that issue. I feel sorry for George Spetifore. He only owns

the land; he's not the developer. He's been trying to sell it for, I

guess, about 12 or 14 years now. You can't farm on it. It's been

sitting there as an eyesore in some parts of Tsawwassen. The GVRD at

one time voted unanimously to take it out of that reserve, and only

when Rankin and a few other guys got heck from the NDP did they change

their minds. They don't want to talk about that in this House. They

don't want to talk about the facts.

I would really suggest to the minister that this is where his

department should be going in the area of municipal affairs. Reduce the

size. Amalgamate some of these areas. Let's get the taxpayer's dollar

working for the taxpayer, not for the bureaucracies that are within

those areas.

[3:45]

The second member for Victoria was talking about unemployment. I

know we can't talk about that in these estimates, but it does really

get involved in the municipal level, Mr. Minister, because planning

departments are holding back development.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He laughs. Well, in the same council that he

sat on, the mayor of the city of Victoria.... What did he call it on

February 14? The Valentine's Day Massacre. He talked about the number

of jobs lost in Victoria. I haven't seen the mayor or any of his

council or the first or second member for Victoria get up and

congratulate the new entrepreneurs who are starting a major business in

Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Dynatek?

MR. REYNOLDS: He mentioned Dynatek. I suggest to that second member for Victoria.... You see, it's always negative. What about this?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm asking.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's not my business; I'm representing

people. What I'm suggesting to you is that you'd better keep your eyes

and ears open because some exciting things are happening in this area

of British Columbia. In Victoria, with no help from the municipal

government or their employees in the planning department, entrepreneurs

who support this government and the policies we have....

To help speed up this process I would suggest to the minister that

we look at enacting laws in this province to allow a developer to buy a

piece of land in a municipality and develop something without council

delaying him. If you want to go to Arizona or California and buy your

piece of land and start, you go in and they've got X number of days to

give you an approval or you can automatically go ahead. Why can't we

have those same rules in British Columbia? Instead we've got these

situations here on Vancouver Island. We've got a golf course and a

major development that are being held up and held up until they may

fail. I think we need changes in our Municipal Act so that we can deal

with these things and make this bureaucracy know that they're not out

there to increase the size of their staff; they're out there to

facilitate those investors who want this province to grow.

MR. REID: The taxpayer.

MR. REYNOLDS: Of course, that's the bottom line.

But our municipalities, just like provincial and federal governments

over the last 15 years.... Our bureaucracies are growing, and they seem

to be doing everything to interfere with the investor, the

entrepreneur, the person who wants to go out and make a profit. Profit

is not a dirty word, Mr. Minister. Profit is what makes this free

enterprise system

[ Page 3973 ]

work. All we've done over the last 20 years is start to interfere and make it more difficult.

Sure, they want to knock the Spetifore land and knock the minister

for the steps he's taken. Look at the millions of dollars that are

invested in that land by the investors — hardworking people who are

trying to turn it into homes for people and to get exciting things

happening in that area. What are they upset about? Maybe George

Spetifore might make $10 million. What's wrong with George Spetifore

making $10 million if that's what his property is worth?

I would go right through to your Capital Regional District, if

necessary, and your regional boards. I would suggest that you seriously

think of having a plebiscite across this province. The NDP talk about

public participation. Let's let the public participate, and ask them

across this province if they would like to see the size of their

councils and regional boards reduced. Maybe the Islands Trust should be

eliminated if it's not doing its job.

The Islands Trust is now trying to form their own regional district.

I've seen some material sent to me from some of the Islands Trust

elected officials who are totally opposed to it. They want to start

their own regional group now so that they can have a bureaucracy for

that and create some more jobs for their friends. It won't do the

taxpayers one little bit of good.

I'd also like to talk about the ward system. The second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is asking you, Mr. Minister. I would like to

tell you that I don't support the ward system in Vancouver. I certainly

support your move to tell the council of Nanaimo that they could

eliminate the ward system, because they found out it didn't work. I

would suggest that now that they don't have the ward system and that

there are no more ward systems left at the municipal level in this

province, we leave it that way.

MR. BLENCOE: They had a plebiscite.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thirteen percent of the people voted in

Vancouver, and by 1 percent they said they wanted a ward system. I

would suggest to that member that we won six out of ten seats in the

city of Vancouver last time, when 70 percent of the people voted, and

our members are all saying: "No ward system." There are two plebiscites

there. I would suggest to him that people today, including members of

his own party, aren't too excited about the ward system in Vancouver.

They might like to talk about it, but.... I would like to suggest to

you that you take the charter away from the city of Vancouver. Why

should the city of Vancouver be any different than any other city in

British Columbia? Victoria doesn't have a charter. Kelowna doesn't have

a charter.

MR. BLENCOE: Don't let that one get out.

MR. REYNOLDS: "Don't let that one get out." I'm standing up

here saying it. I'm not afraid to speak my mind for the citizens of

British Columbia. The people that I know are saying to me: "Why is

Vancouver so special? Why do they have a charter of their own? Why

aren't they treated like everybody else?" Let them make their own

decisions. I think you should seriously look at that, Mr. Minister. Why

should they be so special in the city of Vancouver? Take their charter

away. Let them operate on their own. Let them start making these

decisions so that we don't get the communists and the socialists on

council trying to blame everything on this government over here. Let

them make decisions themselves. Then things will be a little better in

this province.

I would also like to support the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour's (Mr. Davis') comment on taxis. We've got the

greatest taxis in the world on the North Shore and lower mainland —

they're clean. I see no reason at all why, as a person who lives in

West Vancouver, when I go to the Hotel Vancouver to attend a function,

I have to get in one of those dirty cabs in the city of Vancouver.

Let's open it up. Let's let free enterprise take over, because free

enterprise will work — free enterprise during 1986 when Expo's here.

Let the North Shore cabs compete with those cabs in Vancouver. I'll

tell you what will happen. The cabs in Vancouver will start to clean

their cabs up, and I won't get my shoes or my suit dirty when I jump in

a cab. I might also find a driver who knows where he's going. I had

some friends come into Vancouver the other day. They arrived at

Vancouver International Airport, jumped in a cab and asked for the

Granville Island Hotel, which is a new hotel right down on Granville

Island. They found themselves at the foot of Granville Street with the

cab driver wondering where the hotel was. I find that shameful. I think

if we would just make sure that free enterprise takes that industry

over, instead of the licensing system we have now, we might get better

service. The competition would certainly put those who don't know where

major areas in our city are right out of business.

I know that you have to sit and listen to some of these...especially

the critic for the NDP on some of these municipal things. But he didn't

do anything for his city of Victoria when he was an alderman, as far as

bringing industry to it or creating businesses is concerned. It is

private enterprise that is bringing these new businesses to Victoria,

Mr. Minister. It is negative — thinking people who have scared the

people away from Victoria. But we're going to change that, because

there are those of us in this government who are going to work awfully

hard to convince people around the world that not only Victoria but

Vancouver Island as well is a great place to come to create high-tech

industries. They are coming to Victoria in spite of what you might hear

from the second member for Victoria. They are coming here because of

the Premier of this province and the tough stand he's taken, the

restraint program he's put in in this province and the things that are

to come. They like our form of government.

Mr. Minister, you keep on going in the direction you're going. Don't

be swayed by the comments from the second member for Victoria, because

his type of thinking is as old as some of the other members.... I

thought, when I first got here, that this member might be giving us

some good ideas, because he's young and aggressive. He's certainly a

good speaker; he speaks for the socialist cause extremely well. That's

good; you should speak it well. But unfortunately he's reading from the

same book as the guys who have been around for 40 years. I would have

hoped that he would have had some new, fresh ideas, and that he'd talk

about creating jobs. Last time I spoke I asked him why he hasn't got

the union to put some money into that fish plant down the street. I

notice they still haven't got it open yet. I know there's lots of money

in those union funds, and they should open that fish factory up. If he

thinks it's such a good idea, his union friends should back him up. Our

private enterprise friends are backing us up. They're opening up

businesses in Victoria. Where are the unions opening up businesses in

Victoria? Mr. Minister, you keep on doing your good job, and things

will improve

[ Page 3974 ]

in Victoria, as they will improve in the rest of British Columbia.

I ask you to consider those thoughts that I had on a plebiscite

around the province to let the people decide on the size of government

at the levels this member is talking about. I think we know what would

happen. People would support the downsizing of municipal governments

and school boards and the amalgamating of a lot of them. We could save

a lot of money for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just want the

member to know that we are pursuing the land use

section of the act so

that we can remove any unnecessary obstacles and clear the way for the

proper economic development that we can experience in this province.

There is also a vigorous review taking place now of all regional

districts to make sure that they are operating efficiently, and this

same service is being offered to municipalities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I had finished, but I have a

little bit of information that might be very useful to this House and

the people of British Columbia.

A little earlier I was talking about a policy on influence and about

MLAs trying to influence land use and zoning decisions. This afternoon

we've had the member for North Vancouver-Seymour complain about the Tod

Inlet development and its problems. He is very upset about that. I

think the House should know why that member is upset about that

particular issue. That member, as of April 26, 1983, became a director

of International Corona Resources Ltd. Tod Inlet Estates Ltd. is

indebted to International Corona Resources Ltd. for $1.2 million. Tod

Inlet Ltd. is trying to develop the golf complex at Tod Inlet, and that

is what that member is complaining about. He has a personal interest in

that development and is trying to influence this House and that

minister — $1.2 million worth of influence.

MR. DAVIS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I'm the

member for North Vancouver-Seymour, and I'm not quite sure where Tod

Inlet is, let alone the corporation he's talking about.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is totally mistaken.

MR. BLENCOE: Again?

MR. REYNOLDS: It wouldn't be the first time he's mistaken. If

I got him right, he said I became a member of the board of

International Corona on April 26, 1983. Mr. Chairman, I resigned from

the board of International Corona, which invested $2 million in the Tod

Inlet, and of which I was a member, after the election. I see no

problem at all in talking about the fact that that is a good

development for this area. The member is mistaken, and I think he

should withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the member denying that he...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 51, Mr. Member. That is the debate at the moment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think a number of things that were

brought to the minister's attention by the member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) should be looked at from a

different perspective. I am somewhat resentful that people of his ilk

decide that their ideas are without any doubt the best on earth, and

that anybody else, whether they have grey hair or otherwise, or whether

they've been around here for a while or otherwise, might have some

wrong ideas.

I listened very carefully to a number of the member's suggestions,

and I heard enough to put a balloon up which would go higher than a

weather balloon. The hot air that emits from this chamber from time to

time becomes super hot, and this afternoon was one of the

record-breaking heat races as far as some of the suggestions that he

made are concerned.

[4:00]

In the first place, what he wants us to do is enact a situation in

this province where councils are given a week, or some other suggested

very short time, in order to delay development. He takes us on a guided

tour down to the United States where that has been happening in some

areas. I can take you to some of those areas, and I know some of the

people in this House have been hooked in some of those areas, where the

most disgraceful kind of development goes on, uninhibited by any kind

of "bureaucracy" at all, because they don't have time to inhibit

dishonest development.

Nobody has any questions about honest development. There is nothing

wrong with honest development, but to make an irresponsible statement

in this House stating that a city council should not have....

The Premier laughs and croaks a little bit. The fact of the matter

is that if he doesn't understand this.... City council should have the

absolute right to look into every development that takes place in its

area. They should have that right, and it should be uninhibited by this

House. What have we got municipal governments for? It's absolute

rubbish that their obligation should be taken out from under them by

this House. Bureaucracy, certainly. The easiest thing to attack today

is bureaucracy. I suppose I've done it, and everybody else has.

Certainly there are bureaucrats who stand in the way. I made a speech

in the House the other day about a three year problem that I have.

That's one thing. But inhibiting people from protecting the

environment, from protecting those around them, would be absolutely

crazy. I hope the minister pays little or no attention to that

suggestion.

He talks about the poor investor. I really have a great deal of pain

in some part of my anatomy about some of those poor investors. There

are only two cities in this country that aren't absolutely ringed....

Most of the developable land around those cities is held by very large

trusts — you know, the Cadillac Fairview syndrome. Montreal has not

permitted it. What have you got in Montreal? You have a lot better

prices and a lot better planning. Little old Prince George in B.C., for

a long time — and, I think, still — was in a position to be able to

control the development. The problem is that when you're choked off,

with your developable land all in the hands of a very small consortium,

they dribble it out at the rate that keeps the prices right up there

where they want them. There's no such thing as free enterprise when

it's all controlled by a small group. That's sheer nonsense. We keep

hearing all these myths about free enterprise, private enterprise and

so on. You're willing to sell out to those kinds of consortiums. You're

willing to give away the people's rights to monopolies and cartels.

That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about some poor

little investor who's trying to develop a piece of land for the good of

the community, We're talking about the investor who chokes the

community.

[ Page 3975 ]

When the member for Victoria makes those

statements, don't take them out of context. When the member for West

Vancouver runs off.... He takes those remarks out of context and

implies that what we're saying is: no more developers, no more

development. That is sheer and utter nonsense. What we are saying is:

don't feed us to the lions; don't put us in the hands of cartels and

monopolies who choke development at their will, not at the will of the

people in those particular communities. I hope I've made some kind of

point there.

That is what we've been fighting for years. Who were the flippers in

gay '81 and early 82? A lot of little flippers got burned; very few big

flippers did. Skalbania was one of the exceptions. Of course, he

started pretty small as well. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact

of the matter is that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said:

"Let 'em win, let 'em lose." I say let 'em win, let 'em lose; that's

fine. But don't let them win and don't let them lose at the expense of

the general public, if in fact we can avoid it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member says: "What's wrong with George

Spetifore making ten million bucks?" I don't think there's anything

wrong with George Spetifore making $10 million or $100 million, if that

happens to be the worth of his deal. But if the deal is not in the best

interest of the community, then there's an argument to be made. There

are those over there who have a difference of opinion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member over there can get up at the mike and

do his best at arguing this point. The fact of the matter is, you're

going to drown New Westminster in the traffic that emits from those

kinds of developments that go on unhampered in that Delta region.

I remember when I was a kid and Spetifore's land was being farmed.

All that land was being farmed out there. It was the breadbasket. You

could get six crops a year off most of that Delta land. It was the

richest land in North America, and it was raped.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Did you build your house on it?

MR. COCKE: I built my first house on a hill in North

Vancouver, which I think is pretty good business. My second house is on

a hill in New Westminster, and it was built in 1902. Now how's that for

business?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How about your third house?

MR. COCKE: My third house is where I live now. It's in New Westminster, where I've always lived.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On nice agricultural land?

MR. COCKE: It's not agricultural land.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It was.

MR. COCKE: It was never agricultural land! It was developed before the turn of the century by the sappers. It was never agricultural land.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you still there?

MR. COCKE: Of course I'm still there.

The minister is proving to me that he hasn't got the ability to

handle his portfolio. Look at him sitting there, saucing back when

arguments are being made. If he's got arguments relevant to what I'm

saying, then he can get up in his turn and make those arguments.

Instead, he sits there and chatters like a monkey. Mr. Chairman, I

think it's poor behaviour for a minister of the Crown to take that kind

of an attitude.

Going on to the Islands Trust, what's wrong with the Islands Trust?

The Islands Trust was set up because that's precisely what was needed

in that area. You see, it's a unique geographical area. The problem

with the islands was that they were in three different regional

districts. Their decisions were being made by landlubbers, so to speak.

A decision was made for some of &se islands to go one way,

decisions made to go another way, and we said: "For heaven's sake,

let's put it all together."

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have to defend history; it's

so defensible. Certainly the Islands Trust is among the most defensible

of things that have been done.

I'm not going to say more on that. I think it's absolutely crystal

clear that the Islands Trust should be maintained. It's a different

kind of region we're dealing with. We're not dealing with.... For

instance, is it fair that the people sitting in my constituency in New

Westminster, because they have the greatest number of board members,

make decisions about what happens on Galiano Island? When those islands

are so distinct, different and beautiful, I say keep them in their own

particular...at least give them an opportunity to participate in the

decisions made around what happens there. So I disagree with that

member on the Islands Trust.

The ward system is just a delight. Do you know what that believer in

democracy said? "Hey, only 13 percent of the people came out and voted"

— the majority of whom voted for the ward system — "so ignore what they

say." He said: "After all, 70 percent of the people in Vancouver voted

for a provincial government." Mr. Chairman, that ignores democracy

totally, because you can always make that argument. In any election you

can say, if there's 70 percent: "After all, 30 percent did not come out

to vote." And I predict that the whole 30 percent would have voted New

Democrat. Now what's he got to say to that argument? It's nonsense! The

people who are interested in coming out to vote come out and vote, and

you can't say that because there was only 13 percent of them....

Incidentally, there were far more than that the last time that

referendum was held, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is,

it's an argument that's baseless, soundless and mindless. It's

absolutely ridiculous if in fact you believe in the democratic process.

Therefore that's down the tube.

"Let's take the charter away from Vancouver." What a marvellous

idea! I'll tell you something: if we took the charter away from Vancouver

they might be a little bit better off, because right now we're able to choke

them with their own charter. So what do we want? Have your cake and eat it too?

It's nonsense! The charter was there historically. If you're going

to take it away, you'd better have an awfully good reason. There are one-quarter

of a million people living there. They have a great interest in their community.

I might suggest to you that Vancouver is a relatively well-run city in

[ Page 3976 ]

this country. They've got some troubles in the West

End which I don't know how to deal with, and they don't seem to. In any

event, taking the charter away from Vancouver is another nonsensical

suggestion.

In closing, he said that private enterprise brings lots of work to

Victoria. Read the statistics. If in fact that's the case, then the

government must be firing at a rate even greater than I had thought,

because we have continually, in this area.... In the province we have

15.5 percent unemployed now, but in this particular region we're very

hard pressed to find jobs for people. They're talking pie in the sky

when they talk about high tech and all these other things they're going

to do. The fact is, what have you done for us lately? Zero! You get a

failure mark in terms of running this economy — a mess in every

department.

Mr. Chairman, having said that, I will return to my quiet meditations.

Vote 51 approved.

Vote 52: operations and administration, $9,186,203 — approved.

Vote 53: municipal revenue- sharing, $174,590,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 13: minister's office, $200,449.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks before I respond to any questions that the opposition and government members may have.

[4:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The key activities of my ministry over the past year have been to

review, to analyze, to consult and to consolidate, to ensure that our

administrative and regulatory responsibilities have been carried out in

the spirit of restraint and with minimal governmental interference in

the marketplace but still in the best interests of all the participants

in that marketplace. It's my firm belief that our policies of restraint

and deregulation, while they have wide public support, demand good

communications if they are to be successful. That's exactly what my

ministry and, I can say in general terms, this government has been

trying to do over the past many months. We've been trying to accomplish

good communications with all people involved.

I have met with groups representing almost every segment of the

consumer and business communities, who have provided to me valuable

information, advice and guidance on the many subjects we have dealt

with. The meetings have been constructive and extremely helpful in

determining new policies. Most notable, perhaps, are my discussions

with landlord and tenant groups with regard to the need for revisions

to Bill 5, which was on the order paper in the last session. We've been

able to incorporate many of the recommendations that were made from

both tenants and landlords. I will be introducing a bill into this

House dealing with residential tenancy matters in the near future. I

can assure the hon. members that that bill will satisfy most of the

concerns expressed over recent months, while at the same time fitting

in with the government's firm objective of restraint in the size of the

public sector and less government involvement in the marketplace.

In Consumer Affairs we have taken steps to remind the public that

despite the elimination of our consumer centres and the discontinuance

of the complaint mediation services, most of the program services and

all the statutes in the consumer field remain intact. For example,

Consumer Affairs still investigates and takes enforcement action

against violators of our legislation. It still licenses and regulates

motor dealers, cemeteries, travel agents, etc. We still provide

consumer credit counselling and debtor assistance. We still regulate

the credit industry, including collectors and bailiffs.

On the corporate side we have concentrated over the past year in two

main areas: legislative change and administrative improvements. As the

chief corporate regulatory arm of government, our corporate affairs

program strives for a delicate balance between the commercial, the

economic and the financial activities of business, with resulting

benefits to the economy on one hand and the interests of investors and

consumers on the other. Major corporate statutes have received close

scrutiny over the past year. Consideration has been given to amendments

to improve their administration. Administratively, our emphasis has

been on a close examination of our procedures and requirements to

ensure they are appropriate and necessary. We are identifying and

weeding out procedures that serve no useful purpose or are simply too

costly or time-consuming to justify the limited benefits they produce.

As an example of this streamlining process, we recently made a

decision to privatize certain licensing functions in the office of the

superintendent of brokers, real estate and insurance. This move will

greatly reduce the amount of paperwork in the superintendent's office,

without in any way reducing the powers of the superintendent. It would

still allow him, of course, to suspend or revoke licences or otherwise

exercise his statutory authority.

Also, we continue to integrate computers into our procedures, not

only to achieve maximum internal efficiency but to help us keep pace

with the technical developments in the business world of which we are

such an integral part.

Mr. Chairman, an important ongoing issue facing Corporate Affairs is the whole

question of interrelationship in B.C. and the rest of Canada of financial institutions.

This complex issue includes such questions as: Should banks be permitted to

sell securities? Are brokerage houses in effect carrying out banking functions?

What level of government could best regulate trust companies? We have already

completed considerable policy work on these and other issues and questions,

but much more is required in the months to come.

In our capacity as corporate watchdog, we are pleased to note

positive signs that business is gearing up for more prosperous times in

the upcoming year. Almost 14,000 new companies set up businesses in the

province last year — a 17 percent increase in incorporations over 1982.

These statistics on incorporations have been used for many years as a

reliable indicator of the health of the economy as it is perceived by

the business sector, and as such I anticipate new business growth,

increased confidence in the private sector and, most important to us

all, more jobs for our citizens in the coming year.

Turning to another part of my responsibilities, that of liquor

distribution and licensing, I would like to advise the members that

I've commenced a review of our present policies in that area. Officials

of my liquor distribution and

[ Page 3977 ]

liquor control and licensing branches will be

making recommendations based on an upcoming study designed to bring our

liquor laws up to date wherever necessary and wherever possible.

Already the relaxation of liquor laws that permit beer and wine ads on

the electronic media have been well accepted by the public. I must

commend the B.C. broadcasters on the manner in which they have risen to

the challenge of providing sales messages that incorporate educational

themes of moderation and responsibility. I sense an ever-increasing

movement toward the responsible use of alcohol in our society. Of

course there will still be the tragic exceptions, but I'm confident

that we are ready in British Columbia to take further steps toward more

civilized liquor laws that recognize the inherent dangers of alcohol

abuse while still taking appropriate action against offenders,

particularly drinking drivers.

This past year has been a challenging one for my ministry, but there

are indications in all areas that we are achieving our policy of less

government spending and less government involvement in the marketplace

and still providing essential services and a regulatory presence in

that marketplace.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to

any questions the opposition may wish to raise with regard to my

responsibilities as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, I'll

remind the minister and the committee that the necessity for

legislation or amendments to legislation is not within the scope of

committee debate.

MR. COCKE: This is a very strange afternoon as far as I'm

concerned. I'm not the critic. The critic was fogged in in Castlegar

and we informed the Whip that the critic was....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was he doing there?

MR. COCKE: Look at that! Here's a guy who's been away playing

hookey for the last three days, and he says: "What was he doing there?"

Come on there, Mr. Provincial Secretary, will you explain it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the committee....

MR. COCKE: Tell us where you've been and what you've been doing, and how much you lost.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Provincial Secretary will come to order. The member for New Westminster will address vote 13, please.

MR. COCKE: It was nice, you know, the last three days. We had

kind of an easy time. The minister was not here to do all his heckling.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, his heckling doesn't bother me the remotest bit.

I just wanted to draw your attention to the good, great, lovely

cooperation we get. We inform the government that the member for

Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) could not be here because of a plane being

fogged in. No, no, they're going to soldier on. We have a number of

other critics here, but no, we must soldier on with Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. So we're just going to have to soldier along with

ICBC for the rest of the afternoon, because the member will be here

tomorrow. His plane will be in at 6:05, I'm informed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. To the minister's vote, please — vote 13.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of things I would

like to discuss with the minister vis-à-vis ICBC. I think probably I'm

going to start out with one or two of the negative bits in terms of the

way I see it. I recognize that ICBC was not set up as a banking

institution in the first place. I recognize that the financing of

premiums has been a problem, but it has been relatively small when you

consider the cash flow of that very large organization. But I was

disappointed because of the fact that it was such short notice. I know

it was a few months, but that's relatively short notice for people to

come to grips with this whole question of financing their autoplan

premiums. The autoplan premiums are a fairly significant sum for some

people. Therefore they need time to make those payments. Many of them

went to the ICBC agent or whatever and found that there was no way they

could finance their premiums. Then they had to scurry about — and if

they were late, they may even have had a car that was parked without

decals — in order to get their financing arranged. I thought that was a

bit short-sighted. I think that if there's a loss in the financing, the

loss can be accounted for by raising the interest rates commensurately.

I do think that the one company that does all of the business in the

province — in terms of liability for automobiles, in any event — should

in fact permit financing. One of the things we have a tendency to do in

this situation is send people.... Particularly when they have to have

that money very quickly, we really consign some of them to the loan

sharks. All of us who have read any of our mail, I'm sure, over the

last few years know what happens to the odd person who does get into

the grips of these people. I can just see a person who gets down there

and finds that he suddenly has to raise $500 or $600; it's too late to

get to the bank — or, at least, the bank's going to need a few days to

ascertain whether or not they'll give him this money; so the next

recourse is loan sharks.

So I think ICBC made a mistake in going out of financing automobile

insurance premiums. I thought it was an excellent idea when they began

it. I remember that when we first started ICBC it was a real problem,

because we were in such a rush — we were forced to be in a rush by the

insurance industry, which just pulled out of the province en masse —

that we had to set up everything. It was just impossible to set up the

financing arrangements, except through the Royal Bank of Canada, which

we did. But as far as ICBC handling it themselves, we just didn't have

the time to set up that function as well. But eventually it came, and I

think it has been relatively successful. People have had to pay

quarterly, or whatever, and they've paid at an interest rate in keeping

with the times. As I pointed out in the first place, if in fact there

are losses there, then those losses can be endured by increasing the

interest rate commensurate with the losses being endured. And I don't

think that they are that great, even though these times are tough. My

heavenly days, what a club ICBC has in any event! Wouldn't other

insurance companies love to be able to go to the motor vehicle branch

and say: "Hey, don't issue this guy a plate or a driver's licence until

[ Page 3978 ]

pays every bill he has with ICBC." That's exactly the club they've got, and that's the club they use.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's precisely right. It's better than a cartel, wouldn't you say, fair-minded Provincial Secretary?

I think maybe we could explore that little factor first, and then we

can get on to some other areas. I would like to hear what the minister

has to say in defence of what I consider to be ICBC's rather poor

policy in automobile premium financing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is correct. We discontinued

premium financing. We gave several months' notice that it was going to

be discontinued, and we put advertisements in the media in order that

people be well informed well in advance so that they could make other

arrangements. What has changed since that member was involved with ICBC

is that we now have a staggered renewal of licences. Less than 40

percent of the people now get their licence renewed as of the end of

February each year; the other 60 percent are in various other months.

So there was ample time for them to know that the premium financing was

discontinued.

[4:30]

The banks, credit unions and other financial institutions stepped

in, and they have provided that funding, because they're in the

business of making loans and collections. One of the biggest problems

ICBC had was dealing with time payment plans, NSF cheques, and people

changing their address. If you change your address and move, your

banking institution is informed immediately by you. But when you just

renew your licence once a year, you neglect to tell your insurance

company that you've moved; you've moved your account from one branch of

a bank to another, and when we send the cheque through, it comes back

"account closed" and we have a difficult time. As the member knows, in

the end we tell all the insurance agents: "Here's your book of

outstanding accounts. Collect the money when next year's licence plate

and insurance are to be picked up." But that causes great difficulty

out in the field.

Our interest rate, I believe, was approximately 21 percent, which

was very close to the current rate for consumer finance. Even with

that, our losses relating to the operation of our "credit department"

and our actual losses totalled in excess of $4 million. The big issue,

Mr. Member — and I think it's important to note — is that the other

drivers in the province, you and I and everybody else who pays their

account on time, subsidize those drivers who don't pay their insurance

on time. The main reason for the change in policy is that we're in the

insurance business: we charge a premium; we're paid for the premium; we

cover those people for 12 months. We are not in the finance business.

At the board, looking at the administration costs and the loss in the

bad debt, we felt that it was better for the financial institutions to

provide that service, rather than the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just a few questions for the minister.

I'd like to ask him a little bit about the regulation of the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. There has now been some move to dismantle the

securities regulation and approval procedures of the provincial

government. I'd like the minister to tell us what he is proposing in

terms of withdrawing the provincial presence from such things as the

approval of prospectuses, the release of shares from escrow at the

appropriate time, and the consideration of the scams that do go on in

the stock market — that kind of thing. I listened to the minister's

opening statement. There was a general reference to the kind of

questions I'm asking. But specifically, in terms of securities and

stock exchange activity, what does the government propose?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is reminded that questions which

would involve the necessity of legislation or amendment would not be in

order in this committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member's question is very broad.

Perhaps, until he gets a little more specific, I'd say only that the

regulatory function and the monitoring of the marketplace and the

efforts by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ensure

that the public is protected will be maintained. We may improve the

processing of documents, speeding up the process. The member is

probably as well aware as I am that one of the major concerns expressed

by the investment community is that about time delay. We have met with

representatives of the investment community, the legal community and

the stock exchange to attempt to process documentation through the

Vancouver Stock Exchange in an efficient manner — one which allows the

investor ample protection, and also allows the person who's placing the

security on the market a fairly quick response to his request with

regard to a prospectus or statement of material fact. I want to assure

the member that the regulatory side and the protection of the public

will be maintained.

MR. MACDONALD: We'll watch with interest what's happening in

the field of securities. I hope the public presence doesn't get

withdrawn to the point where the control of the industry is in the

hands of those who are engaged in participating in that industry, which

is a very dangerous thing. The government protects all of the people,

not just those who are engaged in the industry.

I have another question to the minister, in regard to ICBC. I know

the minister's concerned about the kind of court cases for damages,

particularly personal injury, that consume a great deal of court time

and a big proportion of the budget of ICBC to defend them — and, from

the point of view of the victims of accidents, a great deal in the way

of fees to prosecute cases of that kind through the courts. The

minister might explain to the committee what the present standing is. I

know he's received a report on this subject in general terms. What does

the government think about that report? What proposals do they have in

mind?

I think part of what I'm asking relates to the Ministry of

Attorney-General. With some knowledge of the situation in the courts,

it appears to me that there should be a simpler way of adjudicating

these matters, while still having the resort of a final appeal to a

judge, in terms of quantum of damages and liability. Legal reform is

mixed up with the same subject. You might, for example, have assessment

procedures in ICBC where someone who wants to litigate a claim first

has to go through that assessment procedure — which would be a lay

body, no doubt, although with legal representation on it as well — and

get an assessment of his case, which under certain circumstances a

court could upset, but might not, and

[ Page 3979 ]

which would, perhaps very substantially, lessen the

number of these cases which have to go through the long court procedure

and involve a great deal of legal expense. I would ask the minister

where he stands in terms of that report at the present time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, there are two reports. One is

the report that I have here, the report of the Automobile Accident

Compensation Committee, which was a committee appointed by ICBC. There

is a second report, as the member is probably aware, from a committee

which I struck to review the operations of ICBC. We have not finalized

our position with regard to either report, but I can advise the member

that we are still in the process of review, and, as I have said before,

when a decision is made we will announce it.

To touch on the point the member raised regarding claims,

particularly in the bodily injury section. I'll give you my view

because I think we're somewhat in agreement, just with the system we

have at present. I don't want to talk about the no-fault system that

people are talking about from time to time. It seems to me that there

could be improvement where the determination of liability would be done

quickly. The only argument left is as to the quantum. How much? If the

system that we presently have continues, with regard to bodily injury,

that is an area we should be addressing. How can we speed up that

process to determine liability? What happens now is that we get these

cases stretched out for lengthy periods of time — one, two or three

years — and we're arguing over the liability issue and tying it into

the quantum,

whereas the liability could be resolved very quickly, and

then we could get down to dealing with the amount involved.

You talked about a lay body being involved with assessment

procedures in ICBC. That might be an approach to take. The concern I

have is that the party that is not satisfied will usually be advised by

their lawyer not to take that decision as being the right one and that