[ Page 2881 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 20 –– 2881

Mr. Blencoe

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

On vote 64 –– 2884

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe

On vote 65 –– 2890

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

Mr. Blencoe

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1983

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 20: ministry operations, $18,922,938.

MR. BLENCOE: On adjournment last night, Mr. Chairman, I had put a series of questions to the minister, who was, I believe, prepared to try to give some indication as to what was going to transpire with the office of the rentalsman. I recognize that that particular aspect of government services is the subject of legislation before this House, but the minister himself did indeed mention some of the aspects of that office, such as rent review and control, and some of the things that are happening there. That office does appear in the estimates, so perhaps it would be useful for the House and for the people of British Columbia — there are nearly 400,000 tenants in British Columbia — if we could get some words of encouragement or wisdom from the minister in terms of what is happening with the office of the rentalsman.

As critic, my office has been getting conflicting reports. Some say the office will definitely be ending at the end of November. I heard this morning from fairly reliable sources, and maybe the minister can confirm this, that the rentalsman's office will be continuing indefinitely all services, rent review and dispute resolution; that the government has, in its wisdom, decided to withdraw Bill 5 and its intention to cancel the office of the rentalsman. Given the rumours that the Legislature may be closing down for a short period, it might be useful not to leave this issue in limbo. Perhaps you could tell the House, Mr. Minister, and the people of British Columbia, what is happening with the office, given the concerns that have arisen because this might happen. I could go into those concerns but I don't necessarily think I have to. Perhaps the minister could give us some thoughts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, with regard to rent controls, first of all, those were lifted by order-in-council under the present legislation on July 7. At that time I believe less than 40 percent of rental accommodations were under rent controls. I've talked about a window in time — the vacancy rate — and it was opportune to move to let the marketplace work. In regard to rent review and rent disputes, the present act is still in place, as you are aware, Mr. Member. We have extended to November 30 the operation of the rentalsman's office for rent review and rent dispute resolution, and until the jurisdiction is transferred that will continue to provide the service. In the past several weeks I have had consultation with various groups — representatives of both landlords and tenants — and will continue to do so. Bill 5 is on the order paper. Bill 5 is an indication of the change in legislation and will be debated in his House. Bill 5 can be amended at any time prior to its passing. However, it is on the order paper. and it will be proceeded with at the time that the government brings it forward. However, I just mention to the member that at present, with the exception of rent controls, which are gone, the current act applies, and we therefore have to carry out our duties under that legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that also establishes where we can go in this committee, and I'm sure all members are aware that during Committee of Supply the administrative action of the ministry is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be involved in supply on a substantive motion. I realize the problem that we can have here with an act currently in place, as mentioned in the estimates, and other business that could be coming before us. I think the minister has well defined how he sees the committee debate going, and if we can keep to those parameters, the committee will be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those words. Perhaps you could give me some guidance. The office of the rentalsman is under the estimates, and the difficulty, of course, is a subject of the legislation, as you so wisely told us. However, that does not allow me to ask the minister about some aspects of the office of the rentalsman, given that it is still in place and operating, and perhaps to ask him for some thoughts about some of the things it does and should be continuing to do. Would that be satisfactory?

[10:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. Maybe the best way to handle this is to presume that we know nothing of that legislation that's before us or that could be coming up. We're not aware of that. We're aware of what is going in place now.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the things, Mr. Minister, that I think you have to recognize — and I m sure you do — is that the rentalsman's office, although it has cost close to $4 million on an annual basis, has been a fairly useful tool in terms of resolving disputes in a fairly clear and concise way and in an effective and efficient way. Most people, both landlords and tenants, when they've had a particular problem or dispute have been able to get effective resolution to their concerns. Could the minister comment about that effectiveness and that dispute resolution concept, given that the government might indeed in its wisdom decide to remove that particular aspect later? Does he see any way other than the courts for resolving those particular problems that the office of the rentalsman has done very satisfactorily over the last few years?

The major bone of contention or concern — it's very difficult not to talk about Bill 5 — is that if legislation comes into effect, it basically removes the office of the rentalsman. There's no shortcut mechanism other than the courts. We could have some disturbing kinds of things happening in terms of landlord-tenant relationships and resolving those problems. A long, long mechanism could transpire. When Bill 5 comes up, I will go into those very aspects of what will happen, because I have many concerns. I think the minister knows what I'm trying to talk about. Does he see a way, other than the courts, to ensure the kind of effectiveness that the rentalsman has had over the last few years continuing? Is that something he would support — some mechanism that would resolve those kinds of disputes in a quick, effective and

[ Page 2882 ]

reasonable way in terms of finances, time for staff and things like that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we're straying into the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I know we are, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, please don't.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, you're quite correct. We are straying into the area of legislation. I can only advise the member that the present system applies until such time as any change is made. I appreciate his comments and his concerns. All those things would be taken into consideration by government and have been considered in the past with regard to proposed legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't pursue that line given the difficulty we're having with this because of the estimates before us and the legislation pending. I'm wondering if the minister could find a mechanism to let particularly tenants, Mr. Minister, who have indicated to me.... Many tenants' associations have probably indicated to you that many tenants in British Columbia are under the impression that the office of the rentalsman is gone or many of the aspects there are not in place any more. I am trying to be sincere about this, but what's happening is that many of the tenants are not bothering or taking an interest in what's happening because they think there is no mechanism now to ask anyone to look at a landlord's request for increase or an issue that creates a dispute. Many people, not only tenants but landlords, Mr. Minister, are under the impression that that office is virtually gone now. Given that you have extended it to the end of November — and there may indeed be the opportunity for it to be extended indefinitely; I may perhaps be interpreting some good signs from the government in terms of the office of the rentalsman — is there any way that you can let the people of British Columbia know that the office is open, it's active, all services are in place and that tenants as well as landlords, at the moment, can have the opportunity to have their problems resolved? Do you see any way to do that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the office continues to be open, as the member mentions, or would have been anyway up until the time the legislation that we're dealing with is passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.

But I think it's fair to say that there has been considerable news coverage with regard to the continuation in this interim period.

I can tell the member — and I'm attempting to get some statistics — that the number of inquiries, visits and contacts with the office has declined not just since the bill was tabled or introduced in the House but even prior to that, mainly because of the vacancy rates that exist today. There have been a lot of vacancies, and it becomes more of a renter's market as opposed to a landlord's market, if you will, and as a result the number of problems, disputes and questions concerning rent increases has dropped considerably in that office just because of the environment we're in at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. members, one guideline: the administrative actions of the minister or the ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: A general point perhaps in a question to the minister, one that I think needs some expression from the government on this particular aspect. It revolves around philosophy, and therefore around the concept of consumer affairs and the office of the rentalsman. There is a general perception in British Columbia that there is a major philosophical change in this government in terms of consumer and corporate affairs and, particularly with the rentalsman's office, in terms of tenants. And there is a general philosophical belief that the government in its wisdom has decided to shift emphasis on tenants' rights and their opportunity to ensure that their rights are protected and that they have mechanisms at hand where they can ensure that their security of tenure is maintained — although if there is cause for eviction, of course they should be evicted.... There is a fairly widespread feeling, Mr. Minister, which maybe you can help to try to rectify, that the government in its wisdom is going back or shifting the fine balance between landlord and property holders — or the landed gentry, if you will — in terms of their rights, and the idea that was starting to be built up in the province of British Columbia that tenants also had rights and that the equation should be fairly equal. However, there's a feeling in British Columbia that there's a philosophical shift by this government that tenants should have a minor position in that equation.

Perhaps the minister could.... I know it's a philosophical discussion, but it's something that we should get into a little bit. Can the minister talk a little bit about where he sees that issue going in this province? Is it his or the government's intention to minimize tenants' rights by, perhaps, changing a few things not only in legislation but in terms of the role of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the role of the rentalsman, or whatever takes its place? It's a philosophical question, but one I think perhaps we should talk about a little more in this House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we got into a philosophical discussion; however, let me try to say this to the member. We always seem to try to solve the problems of a few by penalizing many. It's fair to say, as in any business, that property owners who are in the business of rental accommodation are there to receive a return on their investment. They've made a business decision by saying: "I'm going into the rental accommodation business." They proceed to do that. It seems folly to me that a landlord would evict a good tenant who pays his rent on time, doesn't cause disturbances, lives quietly and recognizes the rights of his fellow tenants and the landlord. It would seem folly to me that the landlord would evict that type of tenant. Perhaps 98 percent of the time the only reason for a landlord to evict would be for cause, which he can do under present legislation. If you identified your 400,000 tenants in this province, the number where there was abuse by the landlord would be very minor. Philosophically speaking, a landlord or property owner in the business of rental accommodation should have some rights to do with his property what he wishes to do.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely.

[ Page 2883 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think that's a right under the constitution, if I can go that far. It seems to me that not to allow a landlord that right is somewhat unfair and possibly overbiased in favour of the tenant. If we approach the problem we have today saying that, as I said before, 98 percent of the landlords are fair and just and want good tenants, the system works fairly well and the marketplace works very well. As Housing critic, you can come with examples that say there is abuse out there, but I suggest that there's abuse in every area, whether it be in the legal profession or the medical profession. You're bound to have that. But in the main, the people who are in the business of rental accommodation are fair to their tenants, and the tenants are fair to their landlords. Maybe I have answered your question.

MR. BLENCOE: I think we're going to find some common ground on this, hopefully, by the time the legislation comes by, because I think all of us in the House recognize that a high proportion of the population of British Columbia are tenants. It's a sign of the times and part of modern society, and I think we have recognized that obviously tenants have certain rights.

What you're saying I could argue with in some aspects, but I won't now, because when we get into the legislation I will go through some economic analysis and all sorts of things in terms of the background to what you're trying to do. Let me give you a scenario and see how you can deal with the problem that might arise.

You've got Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who have lived four or five years in a particular building. For some reason, the landlord decides to make a shift in their heating. Maybe they're using too much heat and he cuts it back dramatically. We know that kind of dispute does arise. Say they're an older couple and dependent on a fairly warm apartment; maybe they suffer from arthritis, or whatever. If the office of the rentalsman is in place and they can't get a resolution from the landlord, who is determined, they can say: "All right, I'm going to make a complaint to the office of the rentalsman." So they make their complaint to that office. Now, under the old legislation, eviction for cause was in place. I'm not going to mention the other stuff, but if you change that act and take out "for cause," Mr. Minister, what could happen is that because those tenants have got into a particular dispute, which may be a nasty one, the landlord, because the emphasis would now be on "without cause," may decide he doesn't want those older folk who are creating some problems, and feels he will be able to get rid of them fairly easily.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BLENCOE: I know, Mr. Chairman, but I think we should have this discussion before we get into the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that's precisely why we have the rules we do. We only discuss things in the form they're supposed to be discussed in.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister knows what I'm getting at. I know he says that most landlords are reasonable and understanding, but without certain protection which the rentalsman's office and the legislation currently gives, those normal people, who indeed might get into a dispute over something, and that does happen.... People who never think they will get into a dispute sometimes do, and down the road the landlord might have the mechanism to be able to say he'd rather have people who never dispute anything in his building.

Can the minister answer that particular concern? Maybe it's something he can try to recognize as a major problem that could arise in landlord-tenant relationships in British Columbia.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member raises the example of tenants who have a problem — let's say with the heating — and the question of where one goes to have that dispute resolved. Here's a problem where there's only 60-degree heat in the home, it's not sufficient and the tenants are elderly and need warmer accommodation. If there is intervention by a third party and a demand on the landlord to increase his heat, you may solve that problem but create another one: that is, animosity between the landlord and his tenant. That animosity can create a lot of hardship for both the tenant and the landlord. You don't speak in the hallway, and you don't do things that would create quiet enjoyment for both parties.

I would like to think that if there is a renter's market and a reasonable vacancy rate out there, new buildings coming on stream, etc., a tenant who is dissatisfied with the quality of accommodation that his landlord has provided — i.e. not sufficient heat — would say: "Fine, thank you very much, I'm leaving at the end of the month because you're not going to turn your heat up." As a result they would move to other accommodation of equal price, possibly of better quality, and they would get the quality of accommodation they wish. Then the landlord would be out. Intervention by a third party, the government, in resolving these disputes may resolve that specific one but create another and far greater problem for the tenant than just trying to get the heat turned up.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I won't go into any more detail at this time. Suffice to say that while the minister's argument sounds reasonable on the surface, I can't believe that he would put into place a mechanism which would force people to move every time something happens between a landlord and a tenant. You've got to remember that many people believe their apartment is their home. It's the only one they've got. I know people in my riding who have lived in their apartments for 15 or 20 years. This would put into effect a system that where you have a dispute, because you may at this time have a vacancy rate that's reasonable, you ask them to move on. I think you have to think about whether you are going to support that. I don't think that's fair to a lot of those tenants who think of their apartments as their homes, and don't want to move. Many of them in my riding, and in many others, are at the end of their lives, and they want to stay; and that's it. I urge you to think about that argument, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I won't go on at this time, except to say that I would like to hope that the government has shown some understanding in terms of trying to extend this office at this time –– I hope the government will substantiate the rumour from good sources that the government is considering continuing it indefinitely, because I think that's wise. I think it is a cheap and effective office in terms of what you might be doing to the system that you might have to put in place to resolve problems — the courts. We know there are real problems with

[ Page 2884 ]

doing that. I will leave it there and await whatever changes you are going to make.

Vote 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 26

NAYS — 11

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 64: minister's office, $161,468.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I can be very brief indeed. First of all, I would like to say that in a very short time, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have found that indeed there is great support for government's restraint program out there in the municipal councils. Not only are they showing support but they are showing their ability to give some leadership in this area. They have been very cooperative indeed, and we are seeing a great deal of responsible spending out there at the municipal level.

The ministry budget for the current year responds to our government's restraint initiatives. The ministry operations and administrative costs have been reduced by 13 percent over the last year, while our grants and subsidies have remained at virtually the same level, with an increase to municipalities for grants in lieu of taxes for Crown property. Even in a year of declining provincial revenues, the unconditional portion of revenue-sharing has remained constant with municipalities receiving a total of $100 million, the same as last year.

With the change that has taken place with respect to some of the bills that have just been passed here — I'm thinking of our tax reform bills, Bills 7 and 12 — again our councils have shown a great deal of cooperation and have accepted this wonderful move, this great move forward in the area of taxation. Again I'd like to thank the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who did all the groundwork in coming up with the variable tax rate which all municipalities, with the exception of one, have accepted and have moved into very, very gently....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, with the greatest respect, I think we are discussing legislation, and I think we are getting ourselves into a problem.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very good. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment that in any case things are moving along very smoothly in that particular area.

Our downtown revitalization program has also been a very successful program, one which has attracted the attention of many communities. Already 96 communities have taken advantage of the program, and we have 16 others on the list for 1984 that will require funding in excess of $200,000.

Finally, there is another program that the ministry has been sponsoring; that is, a training program for administrative staff at the municipal level. This has proven to be very successful, and my ministry will continue to support this because we believe that particularly in times such as we are now experiencing — and hopefully we are going to continue with this theme of restraint for years to come — that program is a very important one. It has been well received, and we will continue to endorse and support it.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to take my seat and respond to any questions that may arise.

[10:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'll take the opportunity to indicate to the House and to the government that there indeed.... The minister mentioned some of the things that he'd been doing, and we can't reflect on legislation, but we can reflect on the general theme and general direction of the government in the area of municipal affairs. There is a great concern in the municipal field and in many municipalities across this province about the current direction of the government. I think there is a real consensus among municipalities that the government has failed to recognize in these difficult times the real needs not only of people of British Columbia but also of the many municipalities.

Financial arrangements of municipalities are based on a very delicate framework. Unfortunately they depend highly on the inadequate and archaic system of the real property tax. However, in the last few years, various governments — started by our government — have gone into a system of revenue-sharing whereby they try to alleviate the real property tax burden on the local taxpayer.

My first point is that there is a fairly substantial shift by this government from its traditional responsibility as the senior government — and probably as the parent of municipal government, because municipalities are the children of the provincial government. It's a major shift in that financial arrangement. There is, I would have to say — and I know many people across this province in municipal government and spent a number of years in it myself — a deep-seated concern that the government, in its financial arrangements with municipalities, is going to dramatically affect the ability of local government to meet its financial needs. We're going to get to a vote a little later on in terms of revenue- sharing, and we're anticipating a 12 to 15 percent shift in revenue sharing grants to local government. Yet the decision of this government in the various real property tax legislation before us.... Now that they are law, of course, the impact, I think, can be discussed in some fashion. But the general theme has been one of centralization by cabinet in terms of that traditional autonomy that local government has enjoyed in terms of its own financial arrangements. I've expressed

[ Page 2885 ]

this for many hours in this House over the last few months and have really, in many ways, pleaded with the government, and particularly with this minister, who appears not to understand the dynamics, the interests and the traditions of local government, which is, as I said at UBCM, really the senior government in terms of age. They are the senior citizens of government.

With respect to the minister and to those cabinet members, I wish they would recognize their responsibility, their traditions, their autonomy and their ability to set their own financial arrangements, Mr. Chairman. Nearly all municipalities are excellent fiscal managers. Very few run deficits, and if they do go into debt servicing, it's because of major capital works to try to ensure the infrastructure of their municipality, town or village is maintained properly, and that future generations — my children, your children and their children — are not faced with the problems that this generation created in terms of not maintaining municipalities properly.

The point I'm trying to make on financial matters to this government — and I'm going to say it again, loud and clear — is that municipalities are quite capable of running their own affairs financially and any other way. There is a major shift by this government to erode the autonomy that's been preserved for a long, long time. I have to tell this government that many municipalities and aldermen — I met many of those 1,400 at the UBCM convention, some of them, indeed, still Social Credit supporters — are really wondering why the government has to take away or restrain local government's ability to maintain its own operations properly. They know what's best for their own municipalities. They know what's needed in that municipality. With respect, if that municipality, town or village believes that the taxes have to increase slightly, or maybe more than slightly, I would remind the minister, who forgets this, that those aldermen, mayors and regional directors are elected and they are accountable for their actions. They have to go to the polls on their fiscal management. You are tying their hands to be able to make sure that their municipalities are maintained properly.

What worries me and worries many of those local government officials is that the United States syndrome, whereby there have been major cutbacks in maintenance and massive tax reductions.... We all like tax reductions, but when you have a city, town or a village, that infrastructure of roads, sewers, storm drains, fire trucks and police cars has to be maintained. If you don't maintain them on an annual basis and ensure that you've got enough finances to do it, which means your taxes may have to go up slightly, then my children, your children and their children are going to pay the cost, as they are in the United States today. Municipal governments in the United States today, because of short-sighted policies in terms of massive tax reductions, control of local government and restricting their ability to maintain their operations, are now going to cost the taxpayer in the United States billions and billions and billions of dollars. I'm saying to this minister that the short-term gain in terms of your control and your political popularity, when you can say, "I reduced municipal by 5 percent," can't work in the long term. A city or a town is a living entity. It needs substance; it needs blood. It needs dollars to maintain it.

This government, through various pieces of legislation which are now law, in its wisdom has said to those municipalities: "We're going to restrain you. We're going to hold you back." Many of them, Mr. Chairman, will put off and put off because they're not going to be allowed to ensure that there are enough funds to ensure that infrastructure is properly maintained. It's a serious crisis — not only a crisis in terms of the autonomy of local government but a crisis in terms of local government being able to ensure that its own infrastructure is maintained properly.

Local government is the backbone of this province and this country. It keeps our neighbourhoods, our families, our homes and our schools alive and well. When you dramatically impact upon that and you hurt that delicate system — and that's what this government in its wisdom, I have to say, is doing — then you risk some serious problems 5, 10 or 20 years from now. I know it's very hard to get anyone to understand that underneath a city like Victoria or Vancouver or whatever town the minister comes from there is a separate city — a very important city of services. If you don't allow those municipalities to ensure that the physical plant is maintained properly, your children and my children, as I've already said, are going to have to pay the bill. This government will be long gone. But I say to this minister and to this government that you have a responsibility to future generations not to affect their ability to maintain themselves and to run their own affairs. Local autonomy is the issue and has been supported for years. It's a byword in civic administration. This government in its wisdom has made fairly substantial moves to eradicate that autonomy. Our party and many UBCM members are diametrically opposed to that erosion.

I spoke to the UBCM about another theme which is one that I think is a shame that's transpired. I don't want to get into personalities, but the minister for some unknown reason seems to be on a course that's going to wreck this very important aspect of municipal-provincial relationships. No matter who has been in provincial office or been the government of the province of British Columbia, there has been a strong semblance of cooperation, understanding and working together, with mutual respect for each other. When there are problems, before you introduce legislation, before you bring down the hammer, before you radically alter municipal operations or their ability to pay for their services, you discuss with them and work with them. You say: "Look, this is the problem. We want to do this but maybe we don't quite understand what's going to happen if we do put this in place." I say to the minister that this is one of the biggest bones of contention with municipal government today.

You have put into effect things that radically question the tradition of cooperation and understanding and working together on common problems by the municipality and the province. You have jeopardized that, and I think it's been shelved. Certainly the message I got from UBCM was that the minister appears to make overtures but somehow, whoever is pushing the buttons in this current government, there is a mission to make some radical changes which are not in the interest of local government. Many municipal official feel today there is no point in talking with the minister or the government, because they are not prepared to change their course of action.

It's that cooperation that's been abandoned. I think the minister, if we do adjourn, should spend a month or two trying to mend some of those fences. I reiterate this theme: if you work with local government, encourage them and bring them on the team, it's at that level, Mr. Minister, working with them, that many of the things that you say you want to do in terms of economic recovery and bringing this province out of its recession.... They are the people to help you. They

[ Page 2886 ]

are the ones with the knowledge and expertise. Isolate them, lose your respect for them, say they don't know how to run their own financial arrangements, constrain them, eliminate their regional planning and therefore the ability to ensure economic growth is orderly and happens, eliminate those very fundamental things that are important to municipalities, and that economic recovery that we all want won't happen. As I said, municipal government is the closest to the people. It's the backbone of this province and of this country. Without their help, without their aid — and without the help and support of their taxpayers, I might add, because local taxpayers know the issues; they know what's going on in their city councils because they are open, there is accountability and there is accessibility — many of the things that you wish to do won't happen either.

Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize the shift in the financial arrangements in municipalities. Again it's a shift by this government — and I hope the minister will reconsider his position. I mentioned the underground services, the sewers and the water system, which is a very integral part of all municipal governments. This government in its wisdom has made a terrible move, one that's going to create all sorts of problems for municipalities; it has changed the formula — not changed it a little bit but radically shifted the formula in terms of the costing and the financing and who pays for those underground services. I used to look at all these figures when I was chairman of finance all the time. It used to be that the municipality generally paid 25 percent of the costs, while the province would pay 75 percent. While you probably still don't understand this has happened yet, there has been a reversal of that equation: the local taxpayer now pays 75 percent and the province will pay the 25 percent.

[11:00]

Mr. Minister, it's unfortunate that you haven't had municipal experience, but if you had, you would know that a lot of our time is taken up with that basic infrastructure, how we maintain it and how do we keep it up. There are huge public works budgets. Most of them can be rationalized and defended. At times there are capital works programs — for instance, in the city of Victoria $22 million worth which we are currently doing. I would say that many of those capital works programs, because of this shift in funding and formula, will not happen. They will be cancelled. Not only are you affecting the infrastructure of that city — the basis that city or that village is based upon.... I would say, Mr. Minister, and you may disagree with this, that one of the things you try to do in a depression is some of those infrastructure jobs that create a bit of employment. Mr. Minister, your shift in that formula — it could not be believed by local government that you would do it — not only is going to affect municipal government's ability to ensure that infrastructure is maintained properly, and that my children and your children don't have to pay for it, but is also going to curtail potential employment, and that's an important factor.

In the city of Victoria we did get through, and I managed to get through a major capital works program. The citizens of Victoria supported it 80 percent. What we have done is employed approximately 40 to 50 extra people over a set period of time like a year, and more people over a five-year period. I think that's fairly substantial, if we all do a little bit in these hard times to try to create some employment. The other thing, of course, is that during a recession services, costs and materials are a little cheaper. Everyone withdraws those kinds of services, and this government is doing the same sort of thing by this kind of move to cut back on its formula. But I would tell this government that there is no better time to ensure that local government does take up fixing up its plant and its operation. Mr. Minister, I urge you, if you've got the opportunity and have any kind of support in cabinet, to reconsider that shift in the formula, because it's not at all good for local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, I'd like to say thank God few people listen to you, and those who do pay little attention to you, because it is claptrap like what we've just heard that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Parliamentary language must be used.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I hear that his previous colleagues on the municipal council campaigned to get him elected as an MLA, and now it's clear why.

First of all, I'd like to remind that member, who continually tries to demonstrate his great skills and knowledge in municipal government, that he is wrong when he states that this government has asked councils to reduce their taxes. That has never been the case. We have encouraged councils and all those government bodies to reduce their spending, and the reason is that our concern is more for the taxpayers, the people who are paying the bills. We will continue to encourage municipalities and regional districts to control their spending. As you know, taxation is in direct relation to spending, and therefore if spending can be kept under control so can taxes.

Another point he made — again, to demonstrate his lack of knowledge — is that not all regional directors are elected to a regional board. You should listen to this, Mr. Member, because you embarrass yourself as you make such silly statements. Those directors representing municipalities are not elected to a regional board; they are appointed.

You talk about autonomy at the municipal level. It has already been stated that through the variable tax rate, municipalities have been given the autonomy there to set these rates as they think they can be best set for their communities.

As far as cooperation is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the cooperation is excellent. I am continually communicating with the people at the municipal and regional level. Where this member travels I don't know, but cooperation is excellent and will continue under my ministry and administration.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

He then talks about the revenue-sharing program. That program is what it is described to be; it is the sharing of revenue. When revenue is down, the share comes down. The change that was made in there was necessary if we were going to protect the income of the majority of municipalities. That is that unconditional portion. As the records will show, the conditional portion of the grant for sewer and water, about which the great hullabaloo was made by that member, was very rapidly increasing at the expense of the unconditional portion, and therefore hurting all municipalities. That change was made in the interest of the majority of municipalities.

It's interesting to note — and I certainly hope that the member will take this down — that we have one municipality which had its application in for the sewer and water grants

[ Page 2887 ]

under the old program, and they have advised us that they are withdrawing that application because they prefer to go under the new system. Obviously you are having trouble with your mathematics, but if you stop to think about it, here they have a 25 percent upfront grant, and with some innovative financing they are going to be able to do better under the new program than they were under the old. The municipality that has advised us of that is Port Moody, and you may wish to contact them and have them explain it to you.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like it to go on record here that when one does a little mathematics and really looks closely into the new program, he finds that what the member of the opposition is saying is entirely wrong. Like Port Moody, they could through some innovative financing come out better under the new program.

MR. BLENCOE: It's unfortunate that the minister decided to get into personalities and make all sorts of strange statements. I'm trying to stay away from personalities; I'm trying to talk about issues, policy and what's better for municipalities. Unfortunately, you're not prepared to talk about some of these things. You can talk about Port Moody, but the fact of the matter is that the formula has been switched from 25 percent from the municipalities and 75 percent from the province, and it's now the other way around. Whatever innovative financing you may want to dream up, that's got to be a major shift in financial arrangements for the municipalities. I know it is and you know it is, because you've met many of those representatives. So far as the other stuff you said goes, most of it was personalities and, really, for a minister of the Crown.... I'm a little disappointed that you can't get into a better description of what you're doing with your policies and come up with a better defence. To call me whatever you called me is really not appropriate, but perhaps the next time around, Mr. Minister, we can get into some policies and talk about them. That's what I would like to hear about.

I want to go on and give some positive ideas for municipalities. I've talked about the theme and will continue to talk about it in this chamber: the theme of partnership and recovery; bringing those municipalities and those 1,400 people, whom I believe are being slowly but surely alienated from this government, onto the team — whatever government is in place. I'd like to spend a little time, if I may, talking about how municipalities could be — and I'd like to hear the minister talk a little bit about this, instead of attacking me personally — part of an economic development strategy for the province of British Columbia. Let's face it: we have an incredible dynamo out there in terms of municipal government. There are 1,400 people who know their cities, their industrial base, their entrepreneurs, and they know the economic growth factor and what can happen. This minister, if he were smart, would be bringing them on board and turning them into the dynamo that could bring this province out of the recession. I want to hear his ideas about that, because I'm about to give you 15 or 20 minutes' worth of a municipal economic development strategy, some positive ideas from the opposition about why and how municipalities can be partners in economic recovery. You know what? The rest of the cabinet leaves when they hear about positive ideas. That's too bad.

It's our contention that the major thrust of any government, whether provincial or municipal, should be to try to achieve the goal of full employment. I think no one would attack that principle and goal. It's also our contention — and I think many people support it — that the current economic strategy and philosophy of this government is to rely totally on the private sector to lead the recovery. That seems to be the general thrust of this government. The public sector, whether provincial or municipal, is not going to be seen as a catalyst or a partner in terms of economic recovery. I am obviously talking about municipal government. It's certainly my contention that if you alienate and don't use that public sector — and I'm talking about the municipalities — in a creative and innovative way, and if you just rely on the private sector and don't use that partnership, it is highly unlikely that you're going to restore economic prosperity in the province.

To rely exclusively on the private sector ignores all the historical lessons. The government, in its wisdom, has virtually abandoned any responsibility of the public sector to be part of the economic recovery and is relying totally on the private sector. I'm afraid history tells us that it doesn't work. History tells us that when you come out of a recession and build up the economy, the infrastructure and the mechanisms required to make the growth of your country and province happen, the public sector is intricately involved in those mechanisms. I say to this minister that he has 1,400 elected officials at the local government level in umpteen municipalities — cities and towns — where those people know what is happening. They know the problems, they know what they can do, and they know they can share with you a strategy for economic recovery in the province based on municipal experience. Don't ignore that public sector. Don't rely totally on the private sector to resolve the problems of the recession in British Columbia.

The question is no longer whether public initiative for economic ends should occur. The question in our minds is: to what end should public initiatives be directed? That's the question: not abandonment of public initiatives, but an analysis — and we're talking about the municipal stuff here — of what initiatives at the municipal level can be set to create progress. We're talking about economic growth and getting out of the recession.

[11:15]

It's my contention — and I think the contention of our party and many other people in this province — that a municipal economic strategy should be based on the principle of democratic economic planning. Unfortunately we have lost a major component in the province of British Columbia for any kind of regional planning. I will tell this minister that one major thing regional planning did was an economic analysis of the particular regions of this province for future investors. Of course, combined with the economic development commissions.... You may laugh, Mr. Minister, at some of these things that you should be listening to. Economic development commissions, hand in hand with regional planning....

Unfortunately your government has cancelled grants to economic development commissions — a stupid, crazy, ludicrous move when we have virtually the highest unemployment in Canada. It's not fiscally responsible at all, but again an indication that this government is removing itself from the historical fact that the government or the public sector has always been involved in economic strategy. You can't avoid it. I'm afraid this government seems to think you can. You've got blinkers on and you don't know economic history. Any jurisdiction, any country that has successfully achieved economic growth and a reasonable GNP has used the public

[ Page 2888 ]

sector to help achieve that. I'm saying to this minister, along with his cabinet colleagues, that there is one incredible group in this province — that is, the municipal governments — that could be a part of that economic strategy. Unfortunately you are alienating them; you're isolating them in many aspects, such as I described 10 or 15 minutes ago.

A municipal economic strategy would require that municipal governments become advocates of new social and economic policies at the provincial and the federal levels. In other words, I am suggesting to the minister that there be a flow mechanism, an openness for economic ideas and economic policies to his office and to cabinet on how municipal governments — its planners, its expertise and its knowledge — can help the provincial government resolve the recession. Unfortunately at the moment that flow is virtually non-existent because of all the other things that have been happening to provincial municipal relationships. You not only have to undergo a major patchup in terms of establishing normal relationships between the province and the municipalities, but have to consider, not laugh at, the fact that the municipalities could be a major component in an economic strategy for this province. I suggest that in the next month you have a fairly major meeting with the UBCM executive and major mayors to lay out a strategy based on this kind of concept. I think they would welcome it and they would come with ideas that you could share with your cabinet colleagues.

This strategy should include the development of an industrial strategy based on public interest and on the need, as I have said, for full employment. That's the basic concept we are all after: maintenance of a decent, or what is considered a social, wage. The government and the Municipal Affairs minister, because he is, through his government, closest to the level of government that is closest to the people, could advise the governments through this economic strategy group on the problems of major plant closures and the layoff kinds of things that are happening. Of course, we've had layoff legislation before us.

A second component of a municipal economic development strategy is based on a greater public initiative. I've already said that but I want to re-emphasize it. To rely totally on the private sector and not utilize that municipal strength will not work. I again refer the minister and the cabinet to economic history. Attempts to improve the business climate by reducing social spending and public sector initiatives — which this minister and other ministers are doing — will not produce the conditions for sustained recovery and full employment. There has to be public initiative, public involvement, if you like, behind the scenes; perhaps being the.... I've used the word "catalyst." What's another word? The facilitator perhaps. I know the minister laughs, but that's fine. That's where he's at these days. Sustained recovery and full employment: if the minister can think to utilize that municipal strength and develop a municipal strategy for economic recovery, it could be a powerful factor in this province. I'm not getting into personalities, Mr. Minister, but your policies have thrown chaos into the process of rational planning — social, economic and physical. I have to say that, Mr. Minister. You don't agree with me, but unfortunately that message came through loud and clear with the UBCM. When the resolution came up, I think there were about five hands that voted against the resolution to ensure that regional planning, in some way, was maintained, because it can be a major factor in rational economic planning. What's going to happen is that no municipality is going to know the rules on a regional basis. HUDAC, the UDI and the other urban development groups may not like all the rules, but they want to have rules to follow on a regional basis. If they don't know what each municipality is going to agree to, where the factories or this and that are going to go, they're all going to fight and say: "Hey, we don't want this here; you go over there." You have to have a total approach — regionally, socially and economically — to ensure that economic growth and development occurs. It's a fact of life.

If you and your cabinet colleagues did some reading, Mr. Minister, you would know that all civilized and progressive societies have recognized the fact that when you have people in municipalities and areas contiguous to each other, in which many may have certain differences, you have to have a general thought and approach to economic, regional and social planning; otherwise you introduce chaos. You have balkanization, no one agrees with anybody and the developers and entrepreneurs say: "We're going to leave British Columbia, because we don't know what the rules are." You say it's for restraint and orderly development, Mr. Minister, but without that regional approach and economic planning, you're not going to have the economic growth that you all desire so much, and that's a fact. Take a look at other jurisdictions.

It's coming from us, the NDP. How can the socialists talk about sense and economic growth? I know! You don't want to listen. Well, go listen to some people you might have some respect for, instead of just hacking on a personal basis, like some of those entrepreneurs, some of the Daons. They know what rules are about, and they know they have to have them on a regional basis if they're going to be able to do their business.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I won't use Daon. It's a bad example, Madam Member.

Local government can be a part of sustained recovery and full employment. However, you've got to have a mechanism for rational economic planning on a physical, social and economic basis. I am perhaps suggesting some major shifts in policy, because the traditional role for local government in economic development has been very limited. Municipalities have usually been concerned with industrial development. They've attempted to streamline their bureaucratic procedures on permits, have removed overly restrictive regulations in many areas and have tried to expedite private development — all, of course, necessary things. However, this has largely been a passive, not an active, role.

I believe, particularly in this recession or depression, that we need a climate whereby local government — and your office can do it, Mr. Minister — can take a much more active role in generating economic development. It's an idea whose time has come. Perhaps we should give a few minutes' thought to what role local government could play in rational economic planning. The UBCM is already there. It's been there a long time.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You know about that, Mr. Minister. The UBCM, in conjunction with the province, could be given the power and ability to play a brokerage role, coordinating the position of employers and employees, bringing

[ Page 2889 ]

together trade associations, training institutions and other senior levels of government in the development of particular industries. What I'm saying is that you see UBCM as a group that just comes together to talk about a few zoning things — maybe it's a concern about sewer grants, which are important. But there's been no recognition by this government that UBCM is a dynamo. Tap it, utilize it, structure it and put it together in an economic strategy, and you have a major factor that can get this province back on the road again. There is no doubt about it. They're waiting for those overtures, and I urge you to make them, Mr. Minister.

In our party's estimation, the current proposed economic strategy of this government is unacceptable and will not work in the long term. It has deferred to the private sector to make the major economic decisions that are critical to the well-being and vitality of the people of British Columbia. In doing so, he has ignored the critical role that government has played in generating economic prosperity. This government and this minister are ignoring economic history, which shows that the general economic climate, and in particular the business climate, is improved when the public sector has an active role in the economy. If you can't accept, Mr. Minister — or cabinet, or government — that major overt public initiative, maybe you can accept the theory or the concept of a partnership of public and private enterprise. Maybe that's more acceptable. But I would urge you to find some common ground. I would urge you not to go black and white; it's either this or that. Isolate that group and don't utilize that public sector and that municipal government in that economic strategy. Why cut yourself off from that particular dynamo?

Joint partnership and not alienation from each other is a theme that we've all talked about in this House in the last two, three or four months. We've had much before us that has created all sorts of concerns and alienation in this province. The time has come to mend a few things. The time has come for that minister over there to recognize that municipalities have a major role to play in economic development and economic recovery in this province. Take that opportunity and I think we could see some fascinating results.

The fundamental clause in any municipal development strategy that I'm trying to give out today is pragmatic in nature. We need policy that seeks to monitor and direct the flow of private investment in order to stabilize economic growth while using the public sector — of course, in my area the municipal sector — investment and initiative to achieve social and economic goals. Many of those social and economic goals are not pursued by the private sector. I remind this government to take a look.... We're going to have a little adjournment to get out some of the economic histories. The private goals, both socially and economically, are often quite different from what is the public goal, in the public interest and in the interest of all citizens. That's a fact of life and a fact of economic history. In my estimation, that's where this government is going wrong. You're forgetting that in economic history and theory, public interest, public good and public economic growth are something totally different from what the private interests are. You have gone black or white, either-or. Somehow we've got to get back onto the main road in the middle of moderation and compromise. It's a facilitation of all sectors.

[11:30]

Mr. Minister, I am urging you as Minister of Municipal Affairs.... You've got a hell of a lot of people out there who represent local government who can get with you to participate in the economic recovery in this province. I'm talking about.... Heaven forbid that we would talk about social contracts in this Legislature, but I'm talking about some sort of new social contract. I reiterate again that municipal government and what it represents to all the people could be a major part in that new social contract in the province of British Columbia. Don't think the policy should be divide and conquer; put down and club down. Everybody, every group, every institution, every person in every walk of life has something to offer. Instead of trying to find what is wrong with everything and everybody and everything else, let's try to find some ways that maybe there's something right in nearly every sector of this province. There's something right in municipalities in terms of trying to participate in economic recovery. Utilize that dynamo, Mr. Minister.

Innovative and socially useful municipal strategy for creating economic recovery in this province.... There are a wide range of possibilities in terms of specifics that municipal government could be encouraged to participate in in terms of economic recovery in this province. I'll give you some of those possibilities. There are many more, but I don't want to take much more time on this particular theme, I'll just highlight a few that I think would provide, if the minister could work with municipal government, new productive services and a stimulus to local merchants and to local economy, would improve the environment as well, and would provide jobs.

It's in the area, I suppose, of energy conservation and conserver-society kinds of principles. For instance, there's a whole industry, a whole new venture that the minister should look at in the treatment, disposal and recycling of all forms of waste. There's a whole new industry that the public sector could be involved with — not necessarily in putting up all the money but certainly as a facilitator in bringing together all the people who could be a factor in creating a whole new industry based upon the utilization of waste and turning it into an economic factor in our province. Municipal government, I can tell you, has to deal with waste all the time. Let's turn it into something that's productive. Mr. Minister, I give you that as a challenge. Our party's prepared to participate with you on that particular challenge.

How about electrical generation? I know, Mr. Minister, it's not all your responsibility — with all this talk about energy, you've got some cabinet ministers over there you could talk to — but regarding electrical generation, how about small municipal hydro projects? They'd be job-creating and would help with the energy problem.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Instead of building big dams. You'd know about that, Mr. Member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), because you've fought them and gained a very good reputation on that particular aspect.

In the city of Victoria we have been considering a co-generation plant. Unfortunately we may have to shelve it because local taxpayers cannot be asked to foot the total bill of the co-generation plant. There has to be senior government involvement in that; unfortunately there isn't. But I tell this Minister of Municipal Affairs that he should take a look at that particular concept. Not only would it eliminate problems of sewage dumping and solid waste management and the leaching and pollution involved — if you've been in your ministry very long you've heard all sorts of problems from

[ Page 2890 ]

everywhere about the removal of waste materials — but here's a way that would remove it efficiently and effectively, financially responsibly, and also produce something on the side: electricity and job creation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Municipal tree farms. There are all sorts of things that could be looked at if we're serious about using local government as a factor in economic recovery. Central heat production; well, I talked about co-generation and the city of Victoria. We've got the opportunity. A co-generation plant in the city of Victoria.... I looked at the huge document because I was part of the initial study. As I recall, we could heat nearly every public institution in Victoria — every hospital — with one co-generation plant. We could heat this building at virtually no cost. And, of course, it adds a stimulus to the local economy, creating jobs and a whole new industry based on something we think we can't do anything about.

I've already mentioned energy conservation enterprises. Of course, new technology would probably be involved in these kinds of municipal endeavours and initiatives. Of course, the technology requirement would be a stimulus to research and development. We have a fine institution in the University of Victoria, which is always working on new ideas. There's also UBC and Simon Fraser and others. Again, another component, Mr. Minister, that could be a major factor.

I will leave this particular vote on that aspect. What I'm really saying, in a nutshell, is that instead of isolating and not utilizing knowledge at the local level and thinking that local governments only take care of painting yellow lines and ensuring that the red lights on the police cars are working.... There is a lot more happening there. There's an opportunity to utilize that in an economic development strategy. Local government, I think, is one of the major ways we can resolve the recession in this province. They've got the land, the zoning, the staff, the knowledge and the taxpayers who hopefully support their local councils and initiatives. What a partnership. That traditional partnership is being dropped by this government.

I'll leave it on that note in this particular vote, but hopefully the minister will consider those kinds of concepts.

[11:45]

Vote 64 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 10

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, might I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with great pleasure that I'd like to introduce to members of the assembly a good and long-standing friend of mine and, I know, of other members of the House as well: Mr. Stan Winfield, who is sitting in our galleries.

On vote 65: operations and administration, $9,349,891.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to advance, very briefly, a suggestion to the minister, which I hope he will consider. This relates particularly to Vancouver Island. Recently, when we had the E&N hearings on Vancouver Island, the municipalities participated to a large extent in those hearings, opposing the application of the CPR to abandon that service. Those municipalities appeared before the CTC hearings and indicated they would be very willing to cooperate in terms of drawing up some sort of transportation policy for Vancouver Island. I recognize that a study was done by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) on this; unfortunately no action has been taken with respect to the advancing of that particular policy.

Through the assistance of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, it seems to me we have here an opportunity to come up with some kind of a coordinated effort using the municipalities, which on Vancouver Island are very concerned — and I think they probably are in other parts of the province too — about transportation policies. On the one hand we have one minister talking about selling off the bus service; on the other hand we have the Minister of Transportation and Highways talking about a coordinated policy for the island. A report was done but nothing has happened over the last two or three years. We also have municipalities that are very keen to ensure provision of the best kind of service to the people on the Island. You are the senior government. You are the one, as minister responsible for municipal affairs, who should be initiating this kind of work with the municipalities as part of a coordinated effort, perhaps through the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities here on the Island. With assistance through the various grants under this particular vote, it seems to me the minister can take the initiative, can involve the municipalities, and can come up with an improved transportation service on Vancouver Island. I'm not even talking about the bad state of the highways, which everybody knows about.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I appreciate the comments of the member for Comox, but I would really be stepping out of my area of jurisdiction if I encouraged municipalities to get

[ Page 2891 ]

involved in planning transportation corridors. They are responsible for their own intermunicipal road networks. Certainly we give all the encouragement and assistance we can for that, but I would suggest that that recommendation should be made to the Minister of Transportation and Highways when his estimates come up.

MS. SANFORD: Well, work with him.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'll be glad to.

MR. HOWARD: If the minister finds occasion to travel, or has found occasion to travel so far in this fiscal year, who does he send the bill to? What is the minister's own travelling charged against?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Any expenses I have goes to the comptroller in our own finance department, and they're dealt with there.

MR. HOWARD: No, not the mechanical aspect of submitting the voucher. What is it charged against? Where would one find the funds for the minister's travelling expenses? Where would he find them in the estimates — what vote or what subvote?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: All those travel expenses, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Skeena, go through the Provincial Secretary's office.

MR. HOWARD: So if the minister travels the bill gets charged against the vote of the Provincial Secretary. Last year there was a $16,000 item in the minister's vote for his own personal travel. Is he saying that what looks to be like a reduction in expenditures is really not a reduction to that extent, because the money is not now included here but included in some other place?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't give the exact figures on that, but I was just checking vote 65 and I think you are on the wrong vote, Mr. Member. We've just passed vote 64, which deals with the minister's expenses.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly aware of that. It would have been most improper to have asked the question under the minister's vote, because if you look at the book that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) presented to this House, there is no code reference under vote 64 for travel expenses. It has been excluded, so how can I ask about something that isn't there? I can ask it under here, because there is a code identification 10, which is travelling expenses, and there is $220,000 in travelling expenses in vote 65. That's where we are.

I'm just trying to find out from the minister that if he travels, where does it go? He tells me that it doesn't go in here at all in any case. It goes under the Provincial Secretary. If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying is that I can't ask him, and nobody in this House can ask him, about his own personal travelling, because it is not covered in any vote in Municipal Affairs. It is some other place, he tells us. I know full well what will happen. When we get to the Provincial Secretary's vote, he will be able to say: "Oh, that's nothing to do with me. I don't know what the Minister of Municipal Affairs contemplates in terms of travelling expenses." I'm just trying to find that out. For proper responsibility in the expending of public funds, the accountability to the people of this province through the Legislature has to be with the minister, but he is not prepared to give that accountability now. He said some other ministry is handling it, and that's all I'm trying to find out. We want to know what amount of money he contemplates spending. How much did the minister spend up until now in this fiscal year on travelling expenses?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I don't have that figure at hand since those charges do go through the Provincial Secretary's office. Again, I repeat, that question could have been asked under vote 64. It wasn't, but I would assume that the figure will be somewhat close to that shown for the year before, but that's only a guess simply because it's not in here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I realize the difficulty here, but the description of vote 64, which is a vote that's been passed, does say it includes the minister's salary and expenses, and perhaps the minister's vote might have been the proper vote to discuss this subject under.

MR. HOWARD: These books are cooked up to present a picture which is not accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Listen, just hold on a minute. The minister is saying that he is going to spend public funds travelling. He is saying that he has already spent public funds travelling in this fiscal year, and he plans to do some more of it, but he doesn't know how much money is available for that purpose. Now what kind of accountability is that? Is there just some fictitious amount of money there? Is it a blank-cheque government?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's why I'm saying the accounts are cooked. They do not present an accurate picture, and the minister who's responsible for the administration of the ministry — not only his own vote but this one that we're talking about now — can’t tell the committee what amount of money is allocated and available for his own personal travelling.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If it helps the member, Mr. Chairman, $16,000 was budgeted for travel in this year, but repeat that I don't have the exact figures on those expenses at hand. They're in the Provincial Secretary's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further to the minister's comment, in perusing the estimates I note that vote 68 of the Provincial Secretary, item (b)(i), includes the expenses of cabinet members for travel. That might be the proper place to discuss the line of questioning that the member is now embarking on.

MR. HOWARD: We now have the answer. The minister just said that $16,000 is budgeted during this fiscal year, within the estimates someplace, for him to use for travel. This is exactly the same as it was last year. So when it comes to the so-called curtailment of spending public funds, the

[ Page 2892 ]

minister contemplates spending just as much as he did last year on his own personal, individual travelling. He shakes his head. Last year there was $16,000, and $16,000 is there this year. That's the same amount of money. It's interesting to know that the information had to be dragged out of the minister. He didn't volunteer it. And when he was asked, he didn't know about it.

MR. BLENCOE: Just a couple of queries to the minister about certain sections of this vote. Section 65.1.4, "policy and research" branch, shows a dramatic cut of 50 percent. I am wondering what that's all about. Why such a major shift in policy and research on municipal affairs, cutting it in half? Perhaps the minister can explain that and the predicted impact that it will have on his ministry. That's a $145,000 cut, Mr. Minister.

[12:00]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: This would represent a major reduction in consulting service charges in policy and research.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you could give the chamber an idea of some of the consulting things that you anticipate removing or cutting, some of the things you did last year that you are not going to be doing this year. It might be useful to get some background on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, Mr. Chairman, the consulting that was anticipated was in the area of financial reviews, and of course there would be other areas that I cannot identify right at this moment. I'm advised that the estimated figure shown here wasn't all spent. The estimated amount of $434,000 for consulting was not all spent in that year.

MR. BLENCOE: Another subsection further down, under municipal financial services, shows a major reduction of 24.5 percent. You are saying that policy and research financial reviews is part of that, which is a 50 percent reduction. What kind of financial reviews are your referring to, Mr. Minister, and why is there such a massive reduction in that area? Particularly if the government in its wisdom is concerned about the financial arrangements of municipalities. Perhaps you could give us some further clarification.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: While the minister has the opportunity of getting some, of that detail, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:04 p.m.