[ Page 3935 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 3935

Oral Questions

Pornography. Ms. Brown –– 3935

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

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

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 3937

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Rose

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if members would join with me in extending sincerest congratulations to the Steveston Packers of Richmond, who on the weekend won the B.C. boys' double-A championship in basketball. I hesitated in offering congratulations to Steveston preceding the championship game, because their opponent was also a team from Richmond, the Richmond Colts of Richmond High School. I'd like to acknowledge that the Richmond Colts marked their third consecutive year of being in the provincial final. I'd like to congratulate both teams, but particularly the champion Steveston Packers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to introduce to the House two fine citizens from Saanich, Miss Nora Thomson and Miss Helen Thomson, who are in your gallery. They have been residents of Vancouver Island for over 70 years as pioneers in Saanich. Their grandfather came to the Island in 1851 and established the famous Thomson farm. Part of that original land is now incorporated in the wilderness park known as John Dean Park, and yet another section forms part of the Woodward estate. I'd ask the House to welcome my guests this afternoon.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the galleries today are the members of the Kamloops Peewee Rep hockey team, along with their coach Mr. Geoff Eggleton; they're on their way to Duncan to compete in the provincial finals. I'd like the House to make them welcome and wish them well.

MR. SEGARTY: In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is the beautiful Alana Lang from Cranbrook, and with her is Pili Bravo from Mexico. I'd like the House to welcome them both,

Also, on behalf of our Whip I'd like to welcome Krissy Adrian, daughter of the Whip's right-hand person in his office, and her sister-in-law Sally Adrian. I'd like the House to welcome them both.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are two visitors from Burnaby-Edmonds in your gallery today. They are Mary Procaccini and Ellen Johnston. I'd like the House to welcome them.

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

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill M202, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1984, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PORNOGRAPHY

MS. BROWN: My question is addressed to the Attorney-General, if he is relaxed now that he's taken his seat. It has to do with the question of pornography and the fact that British Columbia has earned for itself the unenviable reputation of being the number one supplier of pirated video pornography in Canada. I'm wondering what steps the Attorney-General has taken to crack down on the production and export of pirated video pornography to other provinces.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm glad that the member raised the question, Mr. Speaker, and has done her homework by reading articles in the weekend press. If there is a complaint about production of these materials in British Columbia, there would indeed be a complaint, I would think, across the entire country about the production of these materials. We for our part have cracked down on these materials and did launch a number of major raids on distributors. Following those raids, charges were laid in cases, and those cases were taken through the courts. Indeed, some of them are still proceeding before the courts. We did not shirk our responsibility.

If the complaint from another province is that they have a large number of customers of materials that emanate from here, that, of course, is regrettable. But it may say something about their consumer market and not about ours.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Attorney-General is not complimenting himself on the fact that you can go to just about any comer grocery store in this province and buy pornographic material quite easily.

However, Cpl. Kirkpatrick of the Ontario Provincial Police anti-pornographic squad has suggested that if the authorities in British Columbia are not going to be able to stop the pirating and exportation of video pornographic stuff to other provinces, they may have to come to British Columbia to do it themselves. Has the Attorney-General been in touch with the Attorney-General in Ontario to see whether he has any suggestions about how to deal with a very serious problem in British Columbia? I have raised it a number of times, incidentally, on the floor of this House.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, we have. We do cooperate closely in these matters, and I do not believe that the Attorney-General of Ontario would endorse the material that the member has accepted as gospel.

One thing that the member might do, if she is so earnest and interested in this field, is to make the kind of representations that we have made to the federal Minister of Justice to deal in some meaningful way with the Criminal Code and the subjects of obscenity and pornography. The amendments that have been produced by Parliament in the 270-page compendium of criminal law reform do not go far enough to meet this problem. They do not allow provinces to prosecute in this field with any kind of certainty. So I would hope that she would be constructive in her approach and would join us in the representations that we've made to the federal parliament, whose response apparently is only to launch more

[ Page 3936 ]

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

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to the Attorney-General about the area that the province is responsible for. We all know what the federal government is responsible for. It may be a travelling road show, but at least they're listening. It certainly is my intention to make a presentation to that travelling road show, as you call it.

However, the previous Attorney-General indicated that a classification system was going to be developed in this province to cover the whole area of video pornography. I raised this issue during the estimates because of my visit with the classification person in the province, and I was told that that was still under study in the Attorney-General's ministry. Is the Attorney-General willing to say whether any action has been taken to assure that that classification system is put into place as quickly as possible, and that it will be properly staffed to do the job when that happens?

HON. MR. SMITH: The classification system is one approach, and one approach that we've been looking at. But classification systems still do not strike at the root of the problem, which is the massive distribution of film materials and the surreptitious circulation of those film materials across the country. A classification system may be of some use; I certainly don't rule it out. I don't believe that massive injections of classification bureaucracy are going to deal with the problem that has to be dealt with in the criminal law and by good enforcement. We have tried to deal with it by enforcing the law as it is now written. In major cases where we've had clear violations, as I said, we've prosecuted those cases with vigour and at considerable expense; we will follow that approach. It would be very nice, hon. member, to have a better working definition in the Criminal Code than the one we now operate under.

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I think I've answered the member many times on this, Mr. Speaker. The classification system is being looked at. We may institute a form of classification for video pornography, but I do not see that meeting the problem in its entirety or in a major way. I am most certainly exploring the classification system. I think the classification system is only one step.

REPORT ON MINISTRY OF TOURISM

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the homework minister. Has that minister, the Attorney-General, done his homework vis-à-vis the auditor-general's second report of July 1983? That's a few months ago. We've been asking the Attorney-General to advise the House concerning possible criminal conduct in the Ministry of Tourism. Is the Attorney-General now prepared to report to the House?

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

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

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

[2:15]

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: I apologize to the Minister of Labour, to whom this question is directed, for my unavoidable absence yesterday, when the minister stated that he has done exhaustive testing — I'm not sure about the use of that word; nevertheless, that's his word — with Quintette and had determined that "no recruitment has taken place in eastern Canada." Will the minister advise why his exhaustive testing failed to uncover that representatives of Quintette Coal conducted interviews with prospective employees in St. John's, Newfoundland, on March 5 and 6, 1984?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I didn't say that Quintette hadn't travelled to other parts of Canada. They have not hired anyone from other parts of Canada as a result of those travels, and I repeat that I'm assured that the manpower plan that they filed with the ministry is being followed in its entirety and that they have promised that hiring will be done in British Columbia first.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't want to quibble with the minister about present or past tense in terms of hiring, but it is clear that Quintette is advertising and recruiting in Newfoundland. There is a newspaper advertisement here from the St. John's Evening Telegram. The minister's exhaustive testing, as quoted yesterday, produced no evidence in his mind of recruitment of workers in eastern Canada for jobs in British Columbia for which thousands of British Columbians on unemployment insurance in this province are qualified. Why is it that his exhaustive testing did not uncover evidence of the fact that Quintette is recruiting not only through the newspapers in St. John's but also through Canada Employment centres both in St. John's and Sudbury?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If they are recruiting, I'd like that member to tell me how many people they've hired. They haven't hired anybody, Mr. Speaker; that's the point. I can't stop Quintette or anyone else from looking at the rest of Canada to find out what the employment situations are. I have been promised — and to this date the company has delivered on their promise — that they will hire British Columbians first and that no qualified British Columbian will be turned down for work. They are hiring 600 more people this year to work in British Columbia, and they will hire British Columbians first.

MR. GABELMANN: Has the minister inquired of Quintette Coal whether prospective employees are required to purchase housing from the company as a condition of employment?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. That is not a condition of employment for the company; however, as I mentioned yesterday, if the member would read Hansard, the company does offer very attractive incentives for employees to purchase housing. I think that's an excellent procedure, because what the company wants — as do we in

[ Page 3937 ]

British Columbia — is that people give a commitment to the town of Tumbler Ridge as well. We want to see happy families permanently located in Tumbler Ridge who will stay working in that area. If I remember correctly from my notes yesterday, the company offers homes for sale in the range of somewhere from $45,000 up to $90,000, with only 3 percent down, Mr. Speaker; a first mortgage at regular rates, but a second mortgage at 7 percent forgivable over five years. I think that's very commendable of that company.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, does the minister have any intentions of amending the employment plan that exists between the company and the Ministry of Labour in the event that British Columbia workers are not hired, as has been the case so far? In fact, workers from eastern Canada are hired simply because Quintette wants to be able to sell its housing, and it knows it has to hire people from eastern Canada in order to do that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member has deliberately not listened to anything that I've said; obviously he hasn't read in Hansard what I said yesterday. Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of amending the manpower agreement, because it's a good one. The company is following it to all its intents and purposes, and the company has not, to my knowledge, refused to hire qualified British Columbians, as that member says. They have hired every qualified British Columbian who has applied for work and qualified for the jobs which are necessary. There may be people who are not qualified who haven't got jobs, but 75 percent of the 1,000 people working in northeastern British Columbia on that project are from British Columbia, and only 25 percent are from other parts of Canada. We are still Canadians — at least this part of the House are still Canadians — and we don't have any fences up on the boundaries of this province. But the company has promised that it will hire British Columbians first, and I accept that promise.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want to interrupt question period to bring this point forward, but during question period the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) stated that in just about any corner store in British Columbia one can buy pornographic video tapes. Mr. Speaker, in my neighbourhood there are four corner stores, the proprietors of which I consider to be my friends, and I would suggest that that member owes an apology to all these small business people who, I'm sure, do not traffic in illicit pornographic tapes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members just so that the record may stand, that is not exactly what the Chair understood during the comments. Nonetheless, hon. members, those are not points for debate at this time; they may be debated at another. Certainly we are not going to allow the House to enter into debate on points of order which in fact are not points of order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, is there any way that you can help me make clear that I was referring to material and not to tapes, because I know that tapes are not sold in comer stores?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MS. BROWN: Oh, shut up.

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

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you would tell the House whether, when you interject, it's at that point that Hansard ceases to take down an hon. member's remarks. Or can an hon. member abuse the Chair by carrying on with fortuitous kinds of remarks, the person whom he maligns having no chance to reply?

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

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member, I am not hearing further debate on the matter. The matter is closed. I will advise the member privately on that.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Unfortunately my deputy minister could not be with us today. However, I'm pleased to introduce to the House Mr. Ken MacLeod, executive director of policy and research for the ministry, and also Bill Bedford, who is the executive director of central services. Mr. Chairman, it's a good opportunity for me to express my appreciation to both these gentlemen, to my deputy and to all of the staff in Municipal Affairs for the tremendous cooperation on the job that they have given throughout these trying times. I know that whenever it's necessary to downsize, to cut spending and to make some very difficult decisions, it takes people with the courage of their convictions and the desire to do a better job in order to succeed. We are succeeding because we have those kinds of people in this ministry, and I wish to thank them for it.

The estimates of the ministry clearly reflect the government's policy to downsize and reduce spending by government. It is also very encouraging to note that the estimates of the Ministry are also a very good reflection of the attitude of most municipal councils and regional boards. As partners in restraint, they have been extremely cooperative and most desirous of doing the things that must be done in these difficult times, and have cooperated in every way.

The major reduction indicated in the estimates of this year, of course, is in the area of revenue- sharing. Because most people out there understand the meaning of revenue-sharing and because revenue to the province is indeed down quite substantially, this has been accepted, and they are cutting their cloth to suit the moneys available.

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

[ Page 3938 ]

we must now control some of our ambitions in bringing on stream some of these very costly projects, some of which could, I think, be considered a little bit on the Cadillac side. However, for the benefit of the House, what is happening now is that councils are taking second and third looks at what the needs are. First of all, they look at the need. If the need is really there, then they take a second look, a third took, and when they're satisfied with that, then they check the cost. We're finding that councils are really and truly going through all of these projects and costings and so forth in order to come up with the least cost to the people who ultimately have to pay the bill — the taxpayers. Of course, if indeed the need passes the test, then we know that every effort must go into controlling the cost because of the change in policy from one in which they receive 75 percent over a 2 1/2 mill rate to one in which they now get 25 percent of the cost upfront. While this was a very difficult change for them to accept initially, they are accepting it now. They are realizing that money does not grow on trees, and they have to get the best value for the dollars available.

I'm very pleased indeed that we were able to come up with 90 percent of the unconditional portion of revenue-sharing for the municipalities, the portion of revenue-sharing that is most important to all municipalities. The conditional portion that applies to sewer and water was accelerating at a very rapid rate and was jeopardizing that unconditional portion, which is the most important portion to large and small municipalities. Therefore we are indeed very pleased that we were able to retain that at 90 percent of last year, rather than have it reduced to what could be truly reflected in the reduction of income of the province. Much to my satisfaction and pride, almost all municipalities have expressed their appreciation for this.

Our downtown revitalization program is continuing to function well, and is still achieving the desired results. I believe very strongly in this program. It is one which I believe is helping to retain life in the downtown cores. A very good example of this is in the town of Terrace. At one time BCTV ran a program telling the public that Terrace was dead. What BCTV did not realize was that there are people out there with a great deal of courage and desire, a great deal of that pioneering spirit, which caused them to tell those who would support the position taken by the BCTV that they were wrong. Through the revenue-sharing program they have done a marvellous job in that community, one they can be very proud of indeed. Certainly it is bringing life back into that town.

[2:30]

A most recent development under revenue-sharing can also be seen in the town of Chemainus. This is the little town that lost its major employer, but was not prepared to lie down and die. We hope that in the very near future there will be some films available which will indeed show that this is a very worthwhile program. It's stimulating interest out there where necessary, and it's money well spent.

Shortly after becoming Minister of Municipal Affairs, I made the decision that we had to put to rest criticism being levelled at regional districts, mainly by those who did not have a true understanding of the functions of regional districts. Since that time we have completed the Capital Regional District. As a result of that, of course, substantial recommendations were made to the board for improvement of their method of screening projects requested through their staff, etc. I am very pleased to report back to the House today that under the chairmanship of Mrs. Shirley Wilde, the Capital Regional District is now advancing in these recommendations. I predict that within this year we're going to see the Capital Regional District functioning as it was originally intended to function: as a servant to the member municipalities and to the unorganized areas.

Mount Waddington is also complete. There are a few recommendations made there that will also improve the operation of the Mount Waddington Regional District.

I was pleased yesterday morning to have the opportunity to sit in on a meeting with the Greater Vancouver Regional District board in Vancouver, and to present their report and speak on it. That particular report pointed out that the Greater Vancouver Regional District, from an administrative point of view, has been doing an excellent job. That is not to say that there aren't some weaknesses in there, because there are. There's a weakness in their housing program and policy, their labour negotiations approach, and in the remuneration and expenses of directors. However, the report clearly pointed out that because of the petty politics that are sometimes played out there in the public with small issues, it distorts the entire picture and leaves the perception with the public that that organization is just another level of government that is wasting money and growing out of control. That is not so. I'm certainly very hopeful that as a result of this report we're going to see a lot more positive discussion take place publicly in respect to what is happening at the GVRD. We are having one difficulty in this entire program, and that is one of time. The program has become so popular with the regional districts that we have a lineup of districts who want to be next on the agenda. But we can only do so much at a time.

Interestingly enough, we're learning from this type of review that there are certain legislative changes that will be necessary, no doubt, as time goes on, in order to streamline and modernize some of the methods being used there. Also, there will be an opportunity to take an overall look at the various regions within a given area — for instance, the lower mainland — so that we can then study and determine whether the functions that are granted these lower mainland regional districts could be expanded or whatever in order to bring about greater dollar value to the public they are serving, which may or may not involve some boundary changes. But it's all a very interesting exercise, one that I'm sure is going to pay dividends not only in saving dollars and cents for the taxpayer out there but in stimulating interest in the management of the boards. We are indeed all going to benefit from that.

The property tax reform program that was put in place last year is working very smoothly. I would say that we can all be very proud of the way in which municipalities have handled this. It has been a very smooth transition indeed.

Finally, we have an ongoing review of the land use section of the Municipal Act. We believe that there is a need to update that portion of the act in order to streamline and eliminate, where necessary, regulations that get in the way of economic development throughout our province. There is an ongoing review there. A committee has been appointed, and they will of course be proposing some changes that will indeed assist in the development that takes place in requiring land use throughout the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I will now take my seat. I welcome any questions that my critic or any other member of the opposition may have in respect to the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 3939 ]

MR. BLENCOE: First I would like to welcome the staff that have come with the minister today: Mr. MacLeod and Mr. Bedford. I welcome you to this House. I hope you were given some notice. Unfortunately, your deputy minister could not be here, Mr. Minister.

Before I get into some of the details of this ministry, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate all those elected officials who sought office last November. Across our province many people seek municipal, civic or regional office. It's not a position that necessarily bring lots of attention or financial reward. Indeed, it's a very difficult and onerous job but an essential one. I'm sure the House will join me in congratulating all those who did get elected, and also congratulate those who sought office but didn't make it. We encourage them for participating in the democratic process at the local level. I have to report that the process is alive and well at the municipal level, in terms of the democratic process. There are improvements that can be made, however; we may want to discuss those. Indeed, I will discuss those a little further down in my discussion this afternoon.

First, I would like to talk a little bit in general to the minister about the state of municipal affairs in the province of British Columbia. I happen to believe, having worked at that level for a number of years and built up a lot of contacts.... I've got a certain amount of feedback from a number of people involved at the local level. There is a degree of apprehension about the direction and attitude of the current government towards local government in general. I won't go into detail, because I did express some of those feelings in the last session, in terms of the erosion of local autonomy, the move to take over some of the key elements of local government, particularly in planning and financial arrangements. I know the concept of the variable mill rate is a good one in general. But that legislation also moved the province more and more into the realm of what traditionally have been the responsibilities of local government. As an introductory comment I would just like to urge the minister to reconsider his feeling that the government must have a greater control over local government, local autonomy and decision-making. I would add that local government has been around for a long time, and those people who do seek office and get elected know their constituency well and I think are generally highly regarded by their electorate. They are elected to make decisions for the people they represent.

So I really would like at the start to put in a plug for decentralization rather than centralization in decision-making and in terms of local authority, local planning and local issues. They have the capabilities, and I think there are a number of areas we could consider in this House where local government should be taking on more of the responsibilities that have come into the hands of central government. I happen to believe that they are the most efficient level of government not only in this province but in this country. I think we can take a leaf out of their books in terms of how they manage their affairs and their budgets. I've said over and over in this House that restraint is nothing new to local government. They have always practised fiscal responsibility.

MR. R. FRASER: Not always.

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

They have already been responsible, basically because their process of budget deliberations is open and every code can be analyzed by the public. That kind of information is always available to people so they can know exactly what's going on. That process at the local level, particularly on financial matters, which are critical in this time, is very much open to public scrutiny, which I think senior government could take a look at. I think there's always concern about how senior government — particularly, I think, the provincial government — tends to wish to avoid the scrutiny of the people over their dollars. I've always found that scrutiny over public dollars at the local level has been a very open one, and I would not like to see that process hindered. I would like to see this government recognize and respect — and I've used that term before — local government.

That's a theme I would just like to start on today, and the minister may wish to respond. I think he knows that there is some apprehension, and he did get some words of wisdom from some of those local people. Some of those mayors and aldermen and alderwomen have been around in those local governments for many years, and they represent a cross-section of political viewpoints. One thing about local government is that they may have differing political viewpoints but they have the ability to resolve their problems in the long term. It sometimes takes a little while, but they resolve them collectively, and they make decisions in the interests of their electorate. Over and over what happens at local government — which is why it concerns me that provincial government is getting their hands more and more into local government.... In backing a particular issue at the local level, tradition has been to look to not necessarily who is right but in what is right for that municipality or regional district. I think that this is probably something we should think about a little more in this House.

[2:45]

An issue that revolves around this financial issue that I am discussing — and I wish the minister and the government were not so overly concerned about centralizing decision-making — is the area of revenue sharing, which obviously has to be of major concern to local government. We have seen a fairly substantial reduction in the last few years in revenue sharing. In 1979-80, the revenue-sharing fund was $141 million. Then skip a few years and in 1980-81 it was $176 million. In 1981-82 it was $252 million, and then in 1982-83 it was $235 million. This year it's gone from $210 million down to $174 million. That's a considerable reduction; it's close to a 17 percent reduction — $35 million reduction. The minister was saying that at the outset it would be about a 10 percent reduction; it is a lot higher than those municipalities had anticipated. Quite frankly, I believe it is going to have a direct impact on the local taxpayer; those local municipalities always have to maintain their plants in good running shape, and they will have to make up the shortfall. I think it is counterproductive to continue to erode the revenue-sharing portion to local government, particularly when.... The minister, interestingly enough, talked about some of these projects which he considered to be a little grandiose, perhaps was his word.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: "Cadillac" was his word. Thank you, Mr. Member. The minister has brought up an interesting viewpoint. We continue to hear from this government that they are interested in seeing the private sector help to get the economy rolling. Now he is saying, I guess to rationalize

[ Page 3940 ]

some of his major cutbacks to local government, which of course will affect servicing and therefore curtail economic grown and development.... I can assure you that some of those projects aren't particularly grandiose, but they surely would provide a number of jobs during this depression in the province of British Columbia.

It is really counterproductive, in terms of the so-called policies that are going to bring about economic recovery in this province, to say that the private sector will do the whole thing, while at the same time your policies are geared to stop some of those projects. You know, I wonder if that minister.... Is it cabinet policy now to want to stop economic growth and development projects? It seems to me that I clearly heard him say that we are going to curtail — he used the word "curtail" — some of these projects. It doesn't make economic sense to cut back on some of those very things that local government, particularly in sewer and storm-drain kind of funding ... to cut back in those areas, because they are the fundamental components of ensuring that development does go ahead, that economic growth does happen in the province of British Columbia.

I can assure you that a $60 million reduction over the last few years in this particular component is having a major impact on the private sector. In this government one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. We have the theme, which is failing, that the private sector will be the panacea, the prophet that will lead this province out of the depression; yet here we have the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying: "Well, we're going to curtail development because they're a little grandiose." Mr. Minister, maybe you should have a word with your cabinet colleagues because there is a little bit of a discrepancy here. It doesn't really make much sense to cut back in the very area that is fundamental to economic growth and development. Seeing this province pull out of recession, in terms of the private sector, is this particular revenue-sharing. It goes toward servicing and making sure that developers and contractors get their particular areas serviced properly. It's false economy.

Of course, we all know — we've said it over and over, and we'll continue to say it — that your policies vis-à-vis economic development in this province are not working, and we continue to see the horrendous unemployment problems and bankruptcies. We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs compounding this mixed-up government, because the minister is now saying: "Well, we'll curtail some of these projects." We know why: because they are taking away the fundamental components of grants and revenue-sharing that are essential to economic growth at the municipal level. A 17 percent reduction in one year is dramatic not only in impacting on economic growth and new plants, or new jobs or new industry, but in impacting on the local taxpayer. In many respects those local governments will have to make up that shortfall. It will have to come directly out of real property taxes.

Mr. Minister, last session I asked you to consider — and I put forward a proposal — joining or linking with UBCM and local government in a development economic recovery program. I asked you to consider developing a recovery strategy program with local government, your ministry and the UBCM — the very thing I have been talking about in terms of the funding for these essential programs so that growth can continue and the economy can start to pick up those grants and support worth millions of dollars. It is part of that economic development strategy that you should be trying to help. The private sector that you keep talking about wanting to help, you're cutting back on dramatically. Part of that strategy should have been to see what industrial development strategy you could have developed with the Minister of Industry and Small Business. The point I try to make is that local government knows their situation the best; they know what opportunities exist for industry; they know where the land is available. They know the developers and the contractors in the private and the public sector, and they are available, Mr. Minister, to work with you, to join with you and your cabinet colleagues in developing a provincial-municipal economic development strategy program in the province of British Columbia. It would be an exciting project, and they're just waiting. But I can tell you, if you continue to erode the very grants, the revenue-sharing which goes to ensuring that growth continues in those municipalities and you reduce it by millions of dollars each year, you're not going to see that economic recovery that you keep saying is happening or is around the comer. Yet unemployment continues to spiral in the province of British Columbia, and this Legislature unfortunately refuses to debate it as an emergency issue.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BLENCOE: Here they come to start the heckling. While we're trying to get into some interesting and positive debate, we have the negative elements from the Socreds on one side or the other.

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

MR. BLENCOE: Now I'd like to talk a little about whether the minister has some concerns about another particular topic vis-à-vis financial arrangements or possible further erosion of the resource revenue-sharing grants that have traditionally been given, and which I was glad we started as a government — I would like to add that. The minister is quite aware that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) announced that there would be virtually a $471 million loan to the BCR to pay back some of their horrendous debt. We all know why, but the interesting point, Mr. Chairman, is that that money is coming from resource revenue. I just leave the question with the minister as to whether he is concerned that some of the money that has come has gone toward revenue-sharing for municipal purposes and whether this trend will start to see an erosion of that particular component — that is, the resource revenue sharing for local government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, debate during Committee of Supply does not afford us the opportunity to discuss legislation. We are here to discuss the administrative actions of the minister's office. Please proceed.

[ Page 3941 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Good point, Mr. Chairman. The minister may not wish to respond, but it is an issue, that's for sure, because there is concern in local government that there may be additional calls on resource revenue, taking up that money for other purposes than local government. I just leave that with you, Mr. Minister, and you can write it down and answer it along the way.

So to finish off on revenue-sharing, I just would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that there is a high degree of apprehension in local government that the trend toward reduction in revenue sharing grants, which will have a major impact on economic growth, is not just an isolated situation, but will be a permanent feature of this government. I can assure you that if that continues to happen, the financial stability and the financial future of local government is at stake. They have to have that provincial kind of support. I believe it's incumbent upon this government to say that they believe totally in and will want to improve those revenue-sharing procedures. If there is, for instance, $470 million for BCR out of resource revenue during these difficult times and during this depression when local government is struggling, maybe there should have been money found to give the municipalities an increase in their grants because we all know that they continue to be strapped to make sure their operations continue in a safe way, Mr. Chairman. Again, I'm sure the minister will respond to this particular concern that I have and many municipalities have. I've certainly had many letters from mayors and aldermen on this topic.

I'll touch upon another issue, then I'll let the minister respond to some of these particular things I have raised. Again, it's an issue that brings up dollars and finances at the local level. It was announced in the budget that there will be cutbacks in provincial sheriffs' services. The budget speech promised that functions performed by sheriffs will be carefully reviewed to identify those that can be performed at the least cost by others. The UBCM is very concerned, and they know what these kinds of words mean. They mean, in part, transferring the responsibility for service of court documents, both civil and criminal, to municipalities. There is some concern that local governments or police officers are going to have to do the work of some of those sheriffs.

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

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, may I try to make a case for this? If the transfer of the sheriffs' costs is to the municipal police forces, that becomes a municipal cost.

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

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I am bringing it up under Municipal Affairs because there has been some concern from various municipalities that this will indeed be transferred to local government, and therefore local police officers. It really would be a ridiculous kind of situation if municipal police officers had to deliver court documents — taking them off the street, in terms of some of the other things that are happening on the street.

[3:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if that is your concern, there will be an appropriate forum for expressing that concern. This is not the forum. The Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) estimates would be more appropriate.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that is not appropriate.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the transfer of costs to local government is appropriate, I'm sure. We're talking about municipal affairs. We're talking about their financial arrangements, we're talking about the continual erosion of their financial base, and here we have a distinct possibility that local governments and their police forces are going to have to pay for the costs of sheriffs' services. That has to be a local concern. The minister had better be prepared for it, because I can assure him that local governments are very concerned that they are going to be facing that extra cost. If they do get that extra cost, I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would ensure that there is some reasonable compensation for that kind of transfer of responsibility. However, I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman, recognizing that it does also come under another ministry.

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very pleased to respond to some of the comments. First of all, let me tell the member and the House that I had the pleasure of meeting with all of the newly elected councillors, mayors and regional directors as I attended and spoke at their seminars in both Richmond and Kamloops. I was impressed with the calibre of people who were selected to serve on those various councils and regional boards.

I have a great deal of difficulty responding to that member, because he has two problems. One is that he obviously doesn't understand the program of revenue-sharing, in spite of the fact that he did serve on a council. What he was doing on that council is hard to understand, because revenue-sharing is a very important part of a council's income. Yet he continually demonstrates his total lack of knowledge of revenue-sharing. The other problem I have in responding is his failure, as usual, to do his homework and be able to ask some questions that could be answered in any way other than politically.

First of all, let me say that your first comment about government interfering and taking control.... Indeed, the opposite is taking place, as has been stated many times. This government and certainly this ministry are looking to every way and means of transferring autonomy to the local level, because we believe that they are best able to respond to the needs of the people they serve — they're closer to them.

He talked about them losing their autonomy in the case of planning. Well, I would like to assure that member that they do indeed have autonomy in planning. Funding is still available. However, it's not simply a matter of freely handing out hard-earned tax dollars for planning just at a whim. Nor is it the intention of this government to stand back and allow an elected regional board or appointed board to sit down in some area within a region and decide what is going to happen in

[ Page 3942 ]

that community. The veto power of the regional districts over land use planning within communities had to be removed, because the people of those communities had to be heard. Their wishes had to be respected, and that has been done. While there was opposition to that in the past, that's been well received.

He speaks about taking away the power over taxation. The opposite has taken place: the municipalities now have power that they never had before. They have the ability to vary the tax rate among the various classifications, which can be extremely beneficial to them. Should they be desirous of stimulating their industrial base in a community, then they have an opportunity to do that through the variable tax rate approach.

Mr. Member, it's really called revenue-sharing, not deficit-sharing. The local governments don't want to leave a legacy of debt to their children and grandchildren any more than does this provincial government. Keep in mind, too, that the municipalities were relieved of that restraint act last year. It lasted two years. Now they're on their own. They have responded to the needs of the taxpayer, and in most cases will be coming in with zero tax increases.

I really think we're not debating the revenue-sharing program at all. I think we're debating political philosophy. No doubt your political philosophy dictates that irrespective of where this money is going to come from, it should be made available so they can spend it. That's not going to be so. Revenue-sharing is based on the revenue of the province. The formula has not changed from the day that the plan was introduced.

For the benefit of the member — hopefully it will help him as he thinks about revenue-sharing — revenue-sharing is made up of 1 point of personal income tax, so if personal income tax is down, then that amount will come down; 1 point of corporate tax; 0.6 of sales tax and resource revenue. The formula stays in place. The change in the amount of dollars available is because there has been a change in the amount of dollars going into the pockets of the people of the province who are in turn paying taxes to the government. We can't get away from it unless we want to throw out the principle of revenue-sharing. The problem has been that in many cases municipalities have been spending the amount of revenue granted them as it comes in. That's fine as long as it's coming in. But there does come a time when that revenue is down and the money is not there. That's what we're living with now. I would hope that you noticed in the budget speech that some reference was made to setting up a reserve. I'm looking forward to that. I believed that was necessary right along, so we can ease the minds of people like yourself who think that revenue should never change, that it should always increase. At least by doing so we will be able to remove the impact of little downturns as they come along.

You said that the revenue was down 10 percent right across, again exposing your ignorance to what is really happening in there. The 10 percent reduction applied to the unconditional portion of the grant.

You mentioned that the Municipal Affairs ministry and regional districts, etc. were being robbed of funds because of a grant made to some department. Let me assure you that this can't happen under the formula. The formula is set. We receive the amount of money that's reflected by the income of the province.

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

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I got no specific answers, except personal attacks. Mr. Minister, is the provincial revenue-sharing reduced from $210 million to $174,590,000? Thank you. It is reduced by 16.9 percent. That's on the record.

The minister has tried to defend his position that there are insufficient funds to make sure that municipal operations get sufficient funds available to carry out their operations. However, I wonder how hard the minister fought to see some of that sudden, instant resource revenue money that was found to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal, because of your ineptitude as a government — $471 million for that....

You short-changed local government because of your inadequacies in financial arrangements in the carrying out of your B.C. Coal–BCR deal. How hard did you fight to see some of that money go toward local government? Yet $470 million to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal was found quickly enough. Why couldn't you find some additional money to ensure that municipalities continued to maintain their plants adequately and safely, I might add, Mr. Minister? Perhaps you could answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again I repeat — hopefully I won't have to keep repeating — that the ministry received the funding agreed to under the formula. The formula has not changed. Only the income changes, and that is what affects the total dollars going into revenue-sharing. I do not go to battle in order to attempt to get more money into an area where I don't feel it is justified, simply because we have an agreement on the formula. If we're going to change the number of dollars going into revenue- sharing, we have to talk about the formula, not about what spending is taking place in any other area.

MR. BLENCOE: We have the admission of the session from the Minister of Municipal Affairs: he doesn't go into battle for local government to ensure they have sufficient funds to maintain their operations and ensure that taxpayers don't pay increased real property taxes. He is saying that he doesn't go into battle. He is prepared to see resource revenue transferred to bail out BCR and B.C. Coal at the expense of local government. That's what he is saying to this House today. I say that you had better start battling a little more for local government, because they are the backbone of this province. What they do in terms of economic development, growth and keeping things going in this province is essential. You're not prepared to go to battle for local government. That's an amazing admission by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am sure the UBCM will be very interested in that admission by this minister.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that perhaps you should try to see if you can improve the grants, the revenue-sharing portion and funding for local government. I can assure you that many of them, because of the switch in policies....

For instance, the change in formula for the sewer grant, which used to be 75 percent provincial and 25 percent municipal, is indeed having a major impact on the infrastructure, particularly of older municipalities which are trying to ensure that their infrastructures remain safe and are maintained properly. At the same time, that kind of removal of funds for local government impacts on local jobs. Local government is a major creator of jobs and employment. I can assure you that

[ Page 3943 ]

not only are we losing jobs, but we're also starting to jeopardize the very infrastructure of local government and their services.

If the minister is not prepared to go to battle for local government, then I am prepared to say in this House that we on this side are prepared to go to battle for local government. They are the backbone of this province. Without their security, without them being financially stable and their municipalities in good shape, this province starts to fall apart. That is the concern of the UBCM and local municipalities. They feel that senior government is abandoning them when they see this $471 million bailout of BCR and B.C. Coal — resource revenue that could be going to local government to ensure that their fire departments, police departments, roads and sewers are maintained properly. In one year you bail out nearly half a billion dollars for one of the greatest financial faux pas in the province of British Columbia. You say you are not going to go to battle for local government. Well, that's most unfortunate, Mr. Minister; perhaps you may want to correct that statement.

I want to move on to a couple of little issues that the minister may wish to respond to. It's a local concern — not Victoria, but it's sort of in this region. It involves the Islands Trust, Mr. Minister.

[3:15]

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

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

The Islands Trust, which is responsible for planning and trying to maintain the unique Gulf Islands area, has a particular concern at this time. I'm hoping that the minister can answer me directly.

The minister may be aware of the Musgrave Landing decision. The Ministry of Highways has granted a subdivision of 30 strata lots against the wishes of the local Islands Trust. I might add that Highways initially rejected the application, but an end run was done by the developer on the Ministry of Highways through the back door, and the strata subdivision is to go ahead against the unanimous wishes of the Islands Trust. Not only does it bring up this particular question of Musgrave Landing, but, of course, it brings up the whole question of the Islands Trust. It's time that the minister gave the Islands Trust a mandate for the approval and final say in the land-use planning decisions of their islands.

The Musgrave Landing issue will, I believe, be broached in various areas, but it has again brought home the fact that the Islands Trust, which tries to maintain that particular unique environment.... In various ways their decisions and wishes can be totally avoided, Mr. Minister. Highways initially rejected this, and then the developer.... An appeal was made through the back door. The Islands Trust didn't know anything about it and are now being told that they have to have this. This development totally violates the official community plan for the area, and I think it brings into focus the fact that the government is still not recognizing the unique islands in terms of the planning of the Islands Trust. They should have the mandate to make the decisions on planning issues. I'm hoping that the minister will look at that particular issue. Give them the powers that they do have as a regional district; don't have the Highways department, by appeals through the back door, making end runs around the Islands Trust. They have the interests of those islands at heart, and it is in their interest to ensure that they have full mandate and the same powers as regional districts.

Perhaps the minister would respond to this particular issue.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest that possibly the member may wish to take up what he is claiming took place with the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). I cannot confirm such action.

Let me assure that member that while we have full respect for the Islands Trust and their responsibility — as we do for all councils and regional boards — there are times when we must also take into consideration the needs of the people we're serving. We're not serving Islands Trust or any particular body; we're serving the people of British Columbia. If indeed there is a decision made by the Islands Trust or any other body that could be looked at a second time, and there could possibly be some change made in respect to the decision made, then I can assure that member that I will not hesitate to do so. Again I assure the member that I have full respect for the Islands Trust and appreciation for the responsibilities they have, just as I do for any other regional district.

MR. BLENCOE: He may have respect, but I'm not hearing him standing up for the Trust or commenting about whether he believes they should have the mandate to make these decisions for themselves and not have another department making an end run around them. I didn't hear him defend the Islands Trust, and I didn't hear him say he's prepared to investigate this particular issue. It does have some impact. We have a community plan that's being violated, we have a unanimous decision of the Trust being violated, and we have a proposed subdivision that's going to go ahead totally against the wishes of the Islands Trust. I'd like to hear you stand up for the Islands Trust and say that you are going to give them full mandate to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, the Islands Trust are no more perfect than the critic or myself or any other regional board. Like I said, there are times — whenever it's necessary — to take a second look at a decision. If a change in a settlement plan or a community plan is made, this isn't a violation of that plan; it's simply a change that has been found necessary. What you must remember, Mr. Member, is that these plans are not cast in stone, nor would I ever stand by and allow them to be. These plans are simply guides that are used in the development of our province and must never be cast in stone. I can assure you that while every respect is given to the plan, times do change. and change according to the times is inevitable. Therefore if indeed you consider this to be a violation of that plan, then there are violations taking place all over this province as a result of the initiative of councils and of regional boards. Plans do change. If we're not going to allow that change, then we are heading for serious trouble. We'd be heading for a real dictatorship.

MR. BLENCOE: On the same topic, maybe the minister could tell me who is responsible, in his estimation, at the local government or the regional level for making planning decisions. Who should be responsible?

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

[ Page 3944 ]

humble opinion, that decision should be with the people who are going to be affected by the plan. After that decision is made, and if the decision is in the affirmative, then the question must then come before the board as to the funding of it. Of course, I as minister have the responsibility of the final approval of funding for a plan. But under no circumstances can any one of us in that system believe that that plan, when done, is cast in stone. It is subject to change, and there is a procedure necessary in order to make that change. It's a democratic procedure. So the responsibility lies there. Then, of course, to carry out the plan becomes the responsibility of the local people.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister didn't answer my question. I'll try and simplify it for him. Who should do the planning for a local area? Should it be the locally elected group — council or regional district? Or should it be an agency or arm of the provincial government? I say that in light of the fact that the minister, a few minutes ago, was saying he believes in local autonomy and that one of the reasons why he took away regional planning was so local government could do that planning. Careful, Mr. Minister. Maybe you could answer that question.

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

MR. BLENCOE: Not good enough. Who should do the planning at a local level? Should it be those elected at the local level, either the municipality or regionally? Or should it be the provincial government? Who should do the planning? Who should make the decisions?

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

MR. BLENCOE: It's a very simple question. All right, I'll simplify it even more. Who should set land use and zoning policies in a municipality or a regional district?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No doubt the procedure is that those who are expert in the field of planning will give their advice to the council or regional board, and the final decision as to what route to follow will be theirs. Hopefully that will be in line with the wishes of the people in the community whom the plan will affect.

MR. BLENCOE: Still no answer. I'll try the question again: should the duly elected people at the local level — council or regional district — be responsible for setting the land use and zoning policies of that area? Or should it be the provincial government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe that member would be much happier if he answered his own question, because apparently he's not happy with the answers I give. There's an answer that he wants, and it may be much easier for the member to answer his own question. I'll repeat: as far as planning is concerned, that will be recommended to council or the board by those who are expert in their field. Then it will be dealt with. As far as the cost is concerned, I would have to approve that. That would be done on the basis of how efficiently they intend to go about it. Is it going to be done in-house, or is it going to be done by the private sector? That decision will be based on the efficiency of the plan to be carried out and its cost to the taxpayer.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: It's quite clear why the minister can't answer this question, because he knows he's being caught up in his own petard. He's caught, because on one issue he says he believes in local autonomy and local planning and local decision-making, but here on the Islands Trust he's saying that that shouldn't happen; they're duly elected and they shouldn't have that kind of decision-making. Now, Mr. Minister, it's one or the other. Obviously you don't want to answer the question because you know that you've quite clearly got a double standard here. Perhaps you may be able to clarify it in your own mind, as you get into your portfolio a little more and learn a little more about local government and how it works. You might be able to clarify and get a conformity in terms of local planning, local decisions and local zoning what happens in regional districts and municipalities, and what really should be happening on the Islands Trust. You know and I know that your argument doesn't stand. Your argument that the local areas should do the decision-making and planning falls flat, because you will not give a mandate to the islands Trust to be able to carry out that land use and zoning themselves. You've got an end-run here in Musgrave Landing. It's a total violation of the folk on Saltspring Island, and the Islands Trust — an end-run by the developer, I might add, in conjunction with the Highways department.

Really, you know, those people over there feel that this government doesn't really care too much at all about the islands. All you've got to do is make a special appeal to somebody, and you don't even get notified of that appeal and that decision, and you've suddenly got a major development in your back yard that violates the community plan, violates the Islands Trust's wishes and violates the principle of local planning and decision-making, which you support, Mr. Minister. I would suggest that in the next few months you give them that mandate and back up your own kind of philosophy; otherwise, there may be some serious questions asked about your philosophy.

[3:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to that member that in making reference to the proposed zoning by the Islands Trust in the Saltspring Island area, he inquire as to whether those who would be affected by that zoning were asked if they favoured zoning or not.

I have to emphasize again that we are here to serve the people, not our own philosophical ideas or dictatorial ideas in respect to what we think people should be doing with the land they own. That is a philosophy of your government. That is the reason why you have people on your side who don't believe people should own land at all. You have people over on your side — and no doubt you're one of them — who don't believe people should have any control over the air. I assure that member that I will always take full responsibility for a decision that is going to demand that the people affected, the people who own the land, have something to say as to what's going to happen to that land. If the Islands Trust or any other regional district wishes to do a zoning that will have some dramatic effect on that land, whether it's on the value of the

[ Page 3945 ]

land or on free landowners' ability to use the land as they should, then they must go to those people and ask, not sit in a little office and decide what they think should happen. If you would keep that in mind, I think you'd find out that that is the approach of this government and certainly of this ministry, and it's an approach that will continue.

MR. BLENCOE: We're really not getting very far, because the minister is just refusing to try to.... Just admit, Mr. Minister, that you've really got a problem here. You talk about local planning, but you're not allowing the Islands Trust to do it. What you're now saying is that....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's why it's one of the most beautiful areas in this country. That's why we attract thousands of people to Victoria. Millions of people come to this town because it's beautiful. If we allowed people like you to get hold of it, we know what would happen to it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was a reference to another hon. member's motives. I think it clearly does offend the House. A simple withdrawal will be sufficient.

MR. BLENCOE: There was no reference, Mr. Chairman, to any particular person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair found it offensive, hon. member. A simple withdrawal will suffice.

MR. BLENCOE: If it's a matter of getting kicked out of here or staying here, I will withdraw the remark — fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do us all a favour and get kicked out.

MR. BLENCOE: You'd love it.

There was a statement made by the minister which I find most interesting. He made the statement about land use and zoning that the owners should be able to do exactly what they liked with their particular pieces of property. What the minister is really saying is that individuals who own property should do 100 percent anything they want to their land, despite what the community might think or their neighbours might think or the impact on that community in terms of the general welfare or the common good. Let's put it in those terms. I think that's an interesting statement by the minister. Is he saying that he now believes that anybody who owns private land should do absolutely what they want? For instance, can they build a highrise right next to the most beautiful residential area and not have anything to do with the local area planning at all? That's the implication of the minister's statements. I keep asking him if he believes in local area planning, and he won't answer the question. Does he believe in land use and zoning matters being finalized and policy set by the local council or local regional district? Yet he won't answer my question on the Islands Trust. Now he's making a statement saying that the owners of private property should do exactly what they want with that property. Now I agree, to some limit the owners of private property should be able to do certain things — there is no question — and I should also add, Mr. Minister, that as one member I indeed believe in the private ownership of land; I happen to believe in that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Your party is split.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no. However, in that ownership, Mr. Minister, there are certain responsibilities as a part of a community. What you're saying now is virtually that an owner of property should be able to do exactly what he wants. I suspect, of course, that's what Bill 9 was all about, the Spetifore amendment. I suspect that's what's going to happen to a lot more planning. We're going to see the big wheeling dealing kind of mentality coming here. We've got wide-open deregulation, and municipalities are going to see all sorts of things happen and they're going to lose all sorts of control over what's going to happen in their communities. I would remind that minister that those people are elected to make those decisions. You know, this minister is just one bag of conflicts, Mr. Chairman. He talks about local planning and the believing; he says he believes in the Islands Trust, and he believes that they should be respected, yet he won't give them the mandate to make those kinds of decisions. He then says that owners should be allowed to do exactly what they want with their own property.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of regional districts and local councils and policy that comes out of provincial government. We have a real baggage here of all sorts of conflicts and mixed messages. I think the minister has a responsibility to clear up this matter of the Islands Trust, regional planning and local planning. Who sets land use and zoning policy? Is the Islands Trust to be totally alone? And if they don't have that, the Ministry of Highways is going to be free to do end-runs, because the developer may or may not have some special kind of string they can pull, and Highways will allow that development to go ahead totally against the wishes of that Islands

[ Page 3946 ]

Trust community and that trust board. We need some clarification; we need some conflict resolution, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will try to be kind. Mr. Chairman, again I say that we cannot afford to leave entirely in the hands of one small group the decision as to what any one landowner may or may not do with his property. Could I remind that member, who is young in years and young in this House, about the devastating effect that their land policy had on many senior citizens of this province when they came in with their bill and said: "No, you cannot do anything at all with this land except farm it." And that involved land that was unsuitable for farming; it included small parcels of land that were purchased by wise couples during their working years so that when they reached retirement they would be able to sell all or part of this land for some purpose and to give them the security that they required in their senior years. Mr. Chairman, that was taken away with the stroke of a pen by that socialist government, which does not believe that people should own land or that those who own land should have any right as to what to do with it.

I know that the member is referring now to some land on the island, much of which has been owned for many years by families who have held it and are expecting to benefit from this land in years to come. Mr. Chairman, it would be very much against the policy of this government or any like government to take away that liberty and opportunity to benefit. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't times when it's necessary to bring about some regulation that would prevent the pollution of wells or make it almost impossible to provide proper sanitation disposal, etc.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said: "or subdivide farmland." I'll respond to that, Madam Member, in just a couple of minutes.

There are times when some regulation is necessary in order to preserve the environment — whether it's the water or whether it's got to do with the terrain or what have you. But, Mr. Chairman, under no circumstances could I put myself in a position of doing the things that the socialist government did when they were very briefly in power: take away the rights of the people in respect to land ownership. I believe in land ownership, and I believe people should be allowed to enjoy having ownership of that land. I will always hold that position as long as I am in the position of being able to take a look at some of the zoning requests, so that we are not taking away the rights of the people who have invested so heavily in it.

Responding to the question of subdividing farmland, I am reminded of a couple of cases of farmland subdivision when the socialist party was in power during 1972-75. The one parcel I can think of was hundreds of acres of the finest farmland in British Columbia and possibly in Canada, highly productive land. It had everything going for it — soil qualities and proper moisture — for it to be highly productive in this valley. Tilbury: hundreds of acres taken out by the NDP government when they were in office, with absolutely no regard for the land as far as its agricultural capabilities were concerned. What did they do with it? They simply covered it with I don't know how many feet of sand in order to make an industrial site out of it. An absolute disgrace, hypocritical. How can you make such comments across this floor when you know of the terrible, devastating, hypocritical decisions that you and your government made when you were very briefly in office?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The word "hypocritical" when applied to a member is unparliamentary. Furthermore, we are in the current estimates, Mr. Minister, and perhaps we can relate our remarks to that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While fitting, I will withdraw it.

The question of agricultural land could also be applied to the Stirling property. The finest, most productive dairy farm in the lower mainland, and the oldest one in Matsqui, was split up during their term of office.

MS. SANFORD: Colony Farm?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, not Colony Farm, but Stirling farms. In order to get around their own regulation, they refused to remove the land from the agricultural land reserve, but allowed the owner of that land to go ahead and build homes on a portion of it, literally cutting up the farm and making it useless as a farm, which it had been operating as for years — another way for them to get around their own policies. So please be cautious when you come out with any accusation that we have no regard for agricultural land. Your sins are quite well recorded in the books and certainly show in the landscape how you live up to your philosophy with respect to the preservation of agricultural land. Rather, Mr. Chairman, it was an opportunity for them to expound and further promote their own philosophy of control. They didn't mind what happened to agricultural land as long as they were the ones to make the decision on it.

[3:45]

MR. KEMPF: I'll attempt to be very brief this afternoon. I have only a couple of subjects I want to touch on in this minister's estimates, but as we are into a bit of a history lesson in regard to the preservation of agricultural land in this province, for some of the newer members here I want once again, as I have over the years in this chamber, to remind the people of British Columbia that the agricultural land reserve was brought in by the socialists opposite not to preserve farmland — it was never brought in to preserve farmland — but rather as a tool to control all land in the province of British Columbia. Never let anyone forget that!

AN HON. MEMBER: We remember.

MR. KEMPF: You bet we do, and it's one of the reasons I came to this chamber in the first place, Mr. Chairman.

In rising on this minister's estimates, I would be remiss if I did not compliment the seven municipalities and one regional district within my riding for the frugality they have shown over the last couple of years during this time of restraint, these most difficult economic times. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the local governments which I have the pleasure to represent in this chamber have risen to the occasion and have, in my estimation, been very frugal. I realize that they have found it much easier than many of their colleagues in the urban areas of this province to reach acceptable levels of expenditure. They've found it easier because unlike some of their colleagues in the south, they have always been

[ Page 3947 ]

frugal. They have always practised restraint. I just want to compliment them for the job they have done since the restraint program was brought in.

I want to approach a couple of subjects, one of which I have spoken at length to the minister about, and which is a very real problem for one of my municipalities, the district municipality of Houston: it is the question of boundary extension. I know it's a very serious problem, and one which is giving the minister some concern, because to expand boundaries of municipalities to take in industrial sites is not really the way to go. But there must be some policy — some overall provincial policy — which will save municipalities such at the district municipality of Houston from the very real problem that they now find themselves in. This district municipality recently accepted into their midst some 350 employees of Equity Silver Mines. Equity Silver Mines opened a mine a short 25 miles from that municipality. In accepting those new people within their boundaries, they had to expend many dollars for the building of new roads and the extending of services — sewer, water, etc. — and now find themselves in a very serious economic situation because of that, and because of the fact that they are not receiving any tax dollars whatsoever from that new mining operation, which I'm proud to say is one of the most successful in this province. But that still leaves that district municipality in a very serious economic position.

Unless something is done very soon, with the finalization of the 1984 budget at their doorstep, some very serious moves will have to be made which will probably, unfortunately, raise the taxes to the people and the other businesses and industrial plants within the boundaries of that municipality. I think that's sad. I think it's unfortunate. I don't think it's fair. The two sawmills which are now operating within the boundaries pay their share. They pay their share to the coffers of that municipality in a very real way. It is through no fault of theirs that an additional 350 families have been introduced into the community. It is through no fault of theirs that services had to be extended and roads built, and the like. But I want to attempt to find out from the minister this afternoon how soon.... It's a very serious matter that has to be approached almost immediately, because of the fact that their 1984 budget has to be finalized.

In order to emphasize that fact, I wish to read into the record a letter from the mayor of the district municipality of Houston, which was written very recently to the minister and to all of the members of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. It reads:

"Dear Sir:

"As you are very aware, the annexation of the Equity Silver Mines site into the district of Houston tax base has been an ongoing issue since 1978. The district of Houston has been experiencing ongoing problems with the upgrading of the infrastructure in order to provide the services demanded and required by the influx of Equity employees. Although negotiations have been in process since 1979, no decision has been reached.

"The majority of mine employees — in excess of 350 — live within the municipal boundaries of Houston. It is only reasonable that Equity should contribute their share to the operating costs of the community. The municipality of Houston can no longer provide the increased services which are drastically needed. As well, we are not in a financial position to provide a proper access to the mine on a cost-sharing basis, which would eliminate dangerous toxic substances and heavy traffic through our residential areas.

"We are in the process of finalizing our budget for 1984 and anticipate receiving taxation from Equity Silver Mines Ltd. Therefore we strongly urge the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development to institute immediate proceedings for the inclusion of the mine site into the tax base of Houston, which would enable us to budget and plan with realistic figures."

Mr. Chairman, with that, I would implore the minister to exert whatever force must be exerted in order to assist this municipality in its time of need.

There's only one other subject that I want to touch on very briefly in this minister's estimates, and that's the subject on which I have spoken to the minister on many occasions. The subject of settlement plans was raised earlier. Really, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has any idea what a settlement plan is. My problem is that settlement plans have been adopted within my riding by the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. In no way do they adhere to the way of life which the rural people that I serve wish to see in that area. They were adopted with a preponderance of municipal members on the board of the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako. I think that ways must be found and avenues must be presented which will allow those people within that regional district to seek some relief from those settlement plans. As I've said before in this House, we're planning ourselves to death in the rural areas of this province. Settlement plans which have been brought in by the regional district of Bulkley-Nechako are, in fact, at least 50 years ahead of their time in the area that I represent in this House.

Some means must be presented and some relief must be given to back up on some of that planning process that has been put into place. I would ask the minister today whether there is any possibility of that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Before I respond to the member for Omineca, Mr. Speaker, please allow me to finish my comments in respect to the previous speaker's questions in relation to the use of land. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read some quotes into the record. First of all is a quote by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who recently made some remark about our respect for agricultural land:

I believe people should be considering at this point ... to have land available on a lease basis. I personally feel that land and land use are far too important to be left to the whims of the marketplace.

That was on February 1, 1973.

Another quote is from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), who is not in the House today. As a matter of fact it is very discouraging that such an important ministry, with such a large budget, should have to discuss the estimates with only two members of the opposition in their place. In any case, it's a reflection of their interest in municipal affairs and municipal government.

On February 21, 1973, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds said:

Land belongs to all of us and is here to benefit all of us. The government has to take responsibility for administering this resource. The private sector has proven itself to be too irresponsible for this priceless resource to be left in its hands.

[ Page 3948 ]

Here's another quote, this one by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann):

Maybe the government has got to be involved in building homes. Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air should be owned privately. Air was given to us by God, or whoever we believe gave it to us, and so was land, Mr. Speaker. It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is natural should be privately owned.

[4:00]

How much more clearly can you put it? It's in the records. It's clear where they're coming from. I hope that the new member, my critic, will take this very seriously and hopefully change his whole approach.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That statement was made September 24, 1973.

It's sad. You hobble around, you jump around and you don't know where you're at. But I'm going to tell you, we know where you're at. The NDP Waffle Manifesto tells us where you're at. Where you're at is that you don't believe in the private ownership of land. But we will defend it.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) praised the municipal councils in his area. I would like to join him in that. All people in the position of spending tax dollars these days are having their ability to manage challenged. They are also having their courage to make some very tough decisions tested. I'd like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the House, that municipal councils and regional districts are meeting this challenge and are doing an excellent job in most cases.

Two questions came up from the member for Omineca, one on boundary extensions. I realize that this is a problem, not only in that area but also in other areas. We have industry developing in an unorganized area, and of course, the number of employees has some impact on the servicing of the communities in which they live. I'd like to advise the member that first of all I cannot agree that we should allow for boundary extension — which, of course, would require legislative amendments.... But I don't wish to pursue the idea of extending boundaries simply for the sake of increasing a tax base. However, I am concerned about the cost of the impact, and a task force was put together some months ago to study the whole matter. I have their report. I am hopeful that a solution can be found whereby, through the provincial government, there could be some easing of those costs by assigning some portion of a tax to those industries, which can then be transferred over to the municipalities affected.

He mentioned settlement plans. I agree with the member with respect to settlement plans. As a matter of fact, I would go on record as saying that we've had too much planning, particularly in the unorganized areas and as we go further north in our province. That's not to say that there shouldn't be any planning. There must be some planning. But we have people who go north because they are pioneers. That is the life they want. They don't want to be restricted by the socialist attempt to control every little move they want to make on their piece of property up there. It is my intention, as time progresses, to make sure that we do not have one person — say a regional director along with the support of a board — decide that a plan will be imposed on a community. Rather, that community itself will be asked if they feel that a plan would be in their interest. We will follow that procedure so that we are not imposing hardship on people who really don't require it and don't wish it. Settlement planning will continue but there will be a more democratic process in arriving at a decision as to whether it's going to be done or not.

MR. KEMPF: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to hear the minister's remarks in regard to settlement plans. I hope it's sooner rather than later that regulations are brought in to not only curb what settlement plans are doing but also back up some of the settlement plans in place.

As for the boundary extensions, I care not about a boundary extension per se. Nor, I think, does Mayor Mickaelsson of Houston. We only want to see some fair method adopted whereby the second industry in that community — in this case, Equity Silver Mines Ltd. — pays its fair share of taxes to the municipality, so that they will not have the trouble they are experiencing in providing the services for the people working at that plant.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to pursue the theme of planning. It's a good discussion, given that the minister has indicated a number of times — and he's indicated again today — that there's too much planning but he believes in some sort of planning. I'm trying to get some answers from him about the Islands Trust situation. He indicated that he does believe in local autonomy in making those kinds of decision, yet he would not answer that particular question.

I would like to reiterate quite clearly that we are disturbed by this minister's and this government's attitude towards the concept of planning. It would appear that planners are an endangered species in the province of British Columbia. Anyone who works in that profession is somebody who has to be shoved aside as fast as possible. There is always doubt being thrown upon that profession. I would like to say that we do indeed need planning in a civilized society, particularly in urban areas. It's absolutely essential that we have that. Without that planning we risk chaos.

I know why this minister and this government are down on planning. It's because they know those professionals are trained in trying to give ideas on policy that benefit the entire community, not necessarily vested, small interest groups that want to benefit and gain financially at the expense of the majority in a community. I know that this minister....

We've seen it in the past with the Bill 9 stuff, which was a real disaster. It was a sad day when that passed in this House through closure — the elimination of regional planning. The minister may have taken it back, but there's still some doubt; he's talked about farming out planning into the consulting field as an idea. We won't have objective local planners separate from the private sector to make and recommend planning decisions to their elected boards or councils.

There's no question about this government's attitude towards planning and bringing down sensible ideas on land use and zoning. If they frustrate the development industry....

If they don't want to take any notice of local input or concerns, then they do an end-run and eliminate that democratic process, that public-hearing process that has developed over years and years at the local level. The minister is well known for his position about planners. He prefers to call them urban development officers or some such thing these days. Don't even mention the word "planning" around Municipal Affairs these days, because it's a bad word. We don't want to talk about it. We don't want to plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're all socialists too.

[ Page 3949 ]

MR. BLENCOE: All planners are socialists too. Yes, you're quite right. That's the threat.

There should be a recognition by this minister that we do need to plan. We do need to look to the future. We do need to know where growth is going to happen. We do need to know where the economic development is going to happen. We have to have long-range plans and directions that lay out an orderly development pattern. We know what this government's all about: they want to open the doors wide to various special-interest groups so they don't have to obey the local rules and have the local public-hearing process for the people who support that community, pay the taxes in that community, defend that community and preserve that community and those environments where they live. Now we know that the concept of planning in the province of British Columbia is a bad concept and that the planner is an endangered species. I would urge this minister to really think seriously about that approach. We've already seen it in regional planning. We know that without regional planning and a total approach to planning on a regional basis, which involves economic planning, you don't get decisions on where development should go or local municipalities agreeing on a regional direction for growth and economic development. I think this minister and this government should really seriously consider their position on the whole concept of planning.

I want to touch upon a particular area that has become quite well known for excellent planning. I'm going to ask the minister the status of this plan. I refer to the Slocan Valley plan. I don't know whether you are aware of what's happening in the Slocan Valley. It's been an extremely good process, where we've had an integrated resource planning concept at work. The regional districts of Central Kootenay, the resource management committee, the provincial government and the local interest groups have got together to develop a plan for the Slocan Valley based upon consensus, public participation and local decision-making about what should happen in the Slocan Valley. I think it's a particularly positive way to plan. I happen to believe, however, that the minister's attitude about planning and local input and consensus deliberations is going to go against this kind of process that's been happening in the Slocan Valley. I know that this current Slocan Valley plan dealing with land use and development is now currently before the Environment and Land Use Committee for their perusal. But I'd like to know the minister's response to the Slocan Valley concept, which I think has been recognized by both the private and the public sectors as a good model to continue local planning, and to continue to use the word "plan" — integrated resource planning. However, if the minister has his way, and the way things are going around the planning concept, this kind of unique process will be history in the province of British Columbia. What does he think about this particular process? Perhaps he could tell us what the status of this plan is.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Planning is necessary. I do love planners. In fact, many of my good friends are planners. We'll continue to call them planners — no problem.

Let me again assure you that planning will be done for the benefit of the people of British Columbia, and not just to satisfy an overabundance of a particular group of planners. As far as planning is concerned, planning will be done and funding will be made available for planning, but it will be done in the most efficient and least costly way that we can find.

The plan that you refer to, I believe, is in the second stage and is ready for public review. That plan will be received in my office in the not-too-distant future, at which time I will look at it, as I do all plans, and will be discussing it with my ministry staff. If indeed the plan is in keeping with the needs of the community and the people, as we see it, then no doubt that plan shouldn't have any problems progressing. But I'm unable to tell you exactly what I think about that plan until it has been completed.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to continue to talk a little bit about the Slocan Valley plan. The minister has said it's in the process at the moment, but I would like the minister to comment about the particular process that's been in place for this plan. I think the process has been a very rewarding one. It's been one that has involved the various agencies and resource management committees.... It's involved a lot of public participation through various interest groups, and I believe they have made some important decisions about what they think should happen in their own particular area. That's democracy in action. Yet unfortunately, it would appear that this kind of process is not looked upon favourably in the province of British Columbia these days, because we continue to see this kind of process removed. Mr. Minister, do you believe in the kind of process where the people in an area get together and through some consensus deliberations try to achieve their own objectives, goals and aspirations for their particular area? This kind of language that you people speak in these days, with phrases that mean absolutely nothing and really should be....

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, let's have some description. You say: "As long as the plan is in keeping with the needs of the people." Well, Mr. Minister, maybe you'll explain to me and to this House that if the people have determined that this plan is in keeping with the needs of the people, it is supported by that community, they have full public participation and have, through consensus, determined the needs for the Slocan Valley — or wherever else, in terms of this process being applied elsewhere — then what's this thing you keep saying? "Well, if it's in keeping with the needs of the people.... Are you going to determine what the needs of the people are when the people of an area, through a very deliberate, careful process have determined the goals and aspirations? Who are you to judge what people should do in their area and what should happen in their area? I'd like you to describe it. This language that the Social Credit members continue to use is misleading and means nothing: "...in keeping with the needs of the people." I'd say this Slocan Valley process, and other regional planning processes that we've had in the province of British Columbia, but which you have thrown away, were determining the needs of the people in those regional areas through very unique processes of public participation, discussions with various groups who are involved in the decision-making of those areas. I think you should be enhancing that process, not taking away from it. This language: "Well, as long as it's in keeping with the needs of the people...." In other words, if it reflects what this government wants as opposed to what local government wants, local people or local communities want. We've seen that process,

[ Page 3950 ]

that if it offends what you want — your aspirations, your hidden agendas — you are prepared to take away that local planning process. Let's have some answers, Mr. Minister, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am very pleased to answer, but, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to answer something where there is nothing to grip onto it. It's like boxing with your shadow. Certainly what you've just said is the proper process, and it confirms what I said. We must respond to the needs of the people of the community — the people who will be affected by a plan. But would the member kindly tell the House and tell me what plan he is talking about that has been rejected on my judgment? You've gone through a great deal of chit-chat here, and you've been dreaming up some great things that seem to cause you to have nightmares. What plan are you talking about that has gone through this process that I agree with, that I've turned down? Name the plan and then we'll deal with it. Otherwise I think you should get one with something more constructive, if you're ready.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has asked me what kind of planning process he has curtailed. Well, we had Bill 9, which opposed the regional planning and the regional district of the GVRD that wanted Spetifore to remain and not be taken out. That was a total violation of the local decision and the local regional board. That's not the kind of planning we want — local decision-making. Through your Bill 9 you have violated the very principle of regional districts making up their own minds about their own plans and what should happen. That's what I'm talking about, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if that's what the member is talking about, he is contradicting himself. The decision on the particular property he is referring to was placed in the hands of the council who represent the people in that community who elected them, rather than have a board that was made up of people who represented 14 other municipalities in three electoral areas. You're contradicting yourself here when you say that we're not responding and respecting the needs of the local people. It was the people of Delta who spoke there. What is the matter with you? Have you not got anything else prepared to discuss in these estimates, or do you want to keep going back to last year all the time? You've hashed that over and over. The people of the community have accepted it. I met with the GVRD board yesterday, and we had a very friendly meeting and friendly exchange between a number of us, including our good friend Alderman Harry Rankin, who, I think, in spite of what you're attempting to keep alive, has accepted the decision to respect the people of Delta.

MR. BLENCOE: Is it not true that the Greater Vancouver Regional District voted against Spetifore, and you had to bring in Bill 9 to get around it? You violated regional planning and planning processes, and you know you did. You brought that in for private gain, not in the public interest. You know exactly why you did that, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we know that we are not to reflect on legislation that's already passed through this House, which is what it appears you're doing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister can reflect on what we did in government in past legislation, but we can't do it? Oh, come on, Mr. Chairman!

Well, I'll be pleased to see what happens and how the minister reacts to the Slocan Valley planning concept. I'll be pleased to see the response and whether he indeed believes it's the kind of process that should be returned to the province of British Columbia. We will wait and see. I suspect we are going to be unpleasantly surprised that planning will continue to be eroded and we will continue to see that gates will be opened for unfettered kind of private interests being able to avoid the normal panning and public-hearing procedures and the normal local council control and autonomy over these kinds of issues.

I want to return very quickly to something that I missed when I was talking about the Islands Trust. It's a positive thing, and maybe the minister can give us some clarification. There has been talk for some time — and I know the minister is aware of this — of setting up the Islands Trust Fund under the Islands Trust Act. The proposal for the establishment of a trust fund has been around for some time. It would allow for donations of grants and gifts to be administered by the trust or a committee. The purpose of the fund would be to further the objectives of the trust, to preserve and protect the heritage of the islands. Through this fund they could hold lands and receive money to acquire land. It would be, I think, a particularly novel way of accepting, for instance, bequests from people who love those islands and who would like to leave something. However, we have heard nothing more about the establishment of this fund which, I understand, has been the subject of ongoing negotiations between the trust and the government. Perhaps the minister would update us on where we are with this Islands Trust Fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman. I have had meetings with the members of the Islands Trust and advised them of my decision not to support such legislation, simply because I don't believe that the Islands Trust should get any different treatment than any other regional district. Their responsibilities are no different, in my eyes. Certainly they're looking after islands rather than a solid mass of land. But I believe that if anyone out there wished to donate property or dollars for the benefit of the province, whether it be specific to an island or whatever, I don't think our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would turn it down. I will not support this request and I have made that official with the members of the Islands Trust.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm really sorry to hear that. I don't know if the minister has visited the islands....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Some of them.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay, good. This is probably one of the more beautiful and unique parts of British Columbia. The people who live there really care a great deal about those particular islands. They are heavily involved in and very sincere about wanting to control, as much as possible, the direction and the decision-making and the policy for their own environment — their own community. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

They failed to get an answer from the minister about being able to get a mandate to plan and set up their own

[ Page 3951 ]

decision-making process so that they could avoid the Highways kind of fiasco that they've currently got. Now the minister is telling me that he is going to turn down a proposal that would allow the trust to start building a fund that they could start to take over and thereby help government to save some money — a fund that would allow them to accept bequests and start to do some rather unique things in those particular island communities.

It really doesn't make much sense. Clearly he doesn't want them to have a mandate to be able to make their own decisions about their community, which makes me think that he doesn't really believe in the concept of the Islands Trust. Maybe we'll have Bill 9A to remove the Islands Trust very soon. Maybe that's what we're going to get. He is being, I think, rather ridiculous in saying that he's going to turn down a proposal in which an organization is saying: "We're going to collect money to try to do things in our own community by donations and this sort of thing." It really doesn't make much sense. I can't see where the minister's coming from. What's wrong with the trust having this kind of fund and controlling it? Do you think they might become too powerful and might actually start to make decisions for themselves and set their own direction? Is that what you're afraid of? Is that the concern — that these people on these islands might actually get control of those islands in terms of their objectives and their goals? That seems to me what you're saying to us today. I can tell you, the Minister of Finance, who comes from Saanich and the Islands, is perhaps going to have a few words with you out the back door. I can tell you that that's a pretty sensitive area.

MR. ROSE: Out in the woodshed.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, he's going to have a word with you out in the woodshed.

You're saying not only that you are not going to allow them to plan, but also that you are now really starting to affect their ability to finance some of their own particular projects and unique ideas. I happen to think, Mr. Minister, that you don't really believe in the Islands Trust. I think that's what the problem is, and I suspect that little by little you're going to erode that very unique board and that unique planning process out there. In time we will see these islands ... whatever ends you have. Maybe it's greater development so they can be exploited, and that natural island environment can be ravaged and taken away forever. Maybe that's what the game plan is. At the moment you're giving them virtually no power to ensure that that doesn't happen.

There's another thing coming up, Mr. Minister, that I want to ask you about a little later on. We understand the bare-land strata regulations are going to be amended. That will even more take away local control over these particular issues. There's no question about what's happening in the province of British Columbia. This government is going to take away the control that people have in their local area to ensure that their communities are planned properly in the interest of the local person. The regulations are going to be taken away for the vested interests and the friends of whomever can get through the back door and get things done. Today we have the minister finally saying that he won't allow the Islands Trust to collect money from people who want to leave money to that beautiful island community so it can develop and grow and develop programs. Well, Mr. Minister, it's a sad day for the islands. It's certainly a sad day for this thing you keep saying you believe in: local autonomy and planning. I think you've blown it all away today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member used a phrase there that I guess frightens all of us. Since he's referring to the islands, he frightens them much more. He said "these people get control of the islands" — he's referring to the Islands Trust. He seems to think that someone has devised a way of obtaining capital in order to get control of the islands. I would like to assure that member that those islands belong to the people over there. There is nobody that we will allow to get the sort of control over the islands that you would desire and that your colleagues have already been quoted as suggesting in years gone by about all land in the province. I would suggest to you that there are more important things to get on with in these estimates than to carry on with something on which a decision has already been made. If there is anyone out there, I repeat, who wishes to donate land or whatever to the benefit of the people of British Columbia, particularly to those people on the islands, then there is a method of doing that. I would suggest you follow that route. But the decision is made and further discussion here is fruitless.

I don't think you're talking to the right minister when you bring up the question of the bare land strata regulations. I would suggest you check that. I think that what you're referring to belongs to another ministry.

MR. BLENCOE: We know why the minister wants to get off the question of planning and local autonomy and decision-making and the Islands Trust. It all revolves around this general theme of deregulation, taking away the control of local citizens about what's going to happen in their community or the land-use and zoning and environmental decisions, setting the directions, goals and aspirations for their own community, and removing the checks and balances. That's why the minister wants to get off this topic, but I'm not going to get off this topic, because it's very critical. There are thousands of British Columbians who believe in the system that has been in place for a long time and believe that there should be checks and balances and that planners, for instance, are necessary. There are processes that have evolved over time. I might add that the minister may want to go back and do a little bit of reading about how planning evolved and why we got into it. I won't go into it for him. It would really bore him if I got into the whole concept and philosophy of planning in North America or in the western world. There are some very good reasons why we have these particular processes in place and why they were established, particularly for urban areas. I think the minister should do a little reading to see why we have them.

I'd say it's very important that this government stop and once again recognize the aspirations of local citizens and local areas. It's very important that they not continue to erode the local planning process. I could have used other areas, but I decided to use the Islands Trust. Here we have a very dedicated group, a very sincere and honest community. All they want is the ability or the mandate to have decision-making power and to watch it happen on their own islands. That's a theme that I think is worth discussing, Mr. Minister, but I know that you want to get off it.

The Islands Trust is just an example. I think it's time there was an admission by this government that what they're really

[ Page 3952 ]

after is taking away the checks and balances that have evolved over a long time at the local government level.

Sure, make faces. That's fine, but you're not answering many questions for the people of British Columbia today, Mr. Minister. Certainly your answers have created all sorts of conflicts for the planning process.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would you like me to...?

MR. BLENCOE: A little more. Just hang on.

You mentioned that the bare-land strata regulations are not necessarily in your particular area, but I would have to say that the concept of eliminating section 2 is going to have a dramatic impact on the planning process in the province of British Columbia. You should be concerned about it. If you don't know about it, you had better find out about it, because what is going to happen.... Currently, under section 2, strata plans have to comply with official community or settlement plans. We believe there is going to be an amendment to, again, eliminate that local decision-making process whereby strata plans have to fit into the wishes of those citizens who have developed the planning components of those areas. They have to fit those wishes. We're going to have another change, another erosion of the local decision-making process and an avoidance of the official community plan that has been developed and devised by certain processes. That's why I used the Slocan valley as an example. That was an interesting process, which so far has survived this government's attack on civilized planning practices. Mr. Minister, I would say that you had better get a handle on these bare-land strata regulations, because this is another attack on the ability of local councils and local regional districts to control decisions about their official community plans. It's going to be taken away.

Deregulation. Once again the local citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. There's a theme here, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. member that the Chairman is still here.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There's a theme here, and I think it is a very serious one. If you ever do studies or talk to local people about what the most important thing is for local government.... One of the most important things they talk about is the whole process of planning and land use and zoning — what is going to happen in their neighbourhood, village or town, and the ability to be able to control the direction of the planning of that village, town or city. Slowly but surely in the province of British Columbia those checks and balances are being removed, for various reasons — vested interests and private gain, and I refer again to Bill 9 and other, private-gain bills. That's what is happening. Slocan valley processes will end. The Islands Trust concept will die. We'll see the end of official community plans in terms of strata development proposals having to comply and fit in with the wishes of those local citizens and their plans. What we'll start to see is the law of the jungle and the law of the private sector in terms of the development industry. They will do what they want, when they want and wherever they want. Mr. Chairman, that is not part of a well-organized, well-disciplined, well-prepared community or province, particularly in urban areas. Again, I refer you to some basic planning philosophy and journals, which might tell you why we have to have planning, checks and balances.

Perhaps there'll be some answers from the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the Municipal Affairs critic reminds me of the young fellow who lost three days of his life. He didn't want to do anything outside, because the weatherman had forecast rain. It's sad, you know, that you should be feeling so sad and negative because of what you think may happen.

As far as the bare-land strata question is concerned, it's obvious that you are on a fishing trip. You're speculating about what may or may not be future policy. It's premature. I would suggest that you put it to rest. I don't intend to respond to it again.

As far as anything else is concerned, yes, I do believe that planning is necessary — planning in the interests of the people of the province and not in the interests of a small group who would have the same desire that you have to get that rigid control.

You mentioned that planning is necessary in the western world, and I agree with you, but let me remind you that I want to be very careful, as long as I am in a position to do so, to make sure that planning doesn't become as rigid as it is in the eastern world, because we want people to be able to own and enjoy their land with the least amount of regulation.

Finally, as a commitment to our support and dedication to a certain level of planning, my ministry has allocated $2.1 million in this estimate toward the cost of planning throughout the province of British Columbia. Planning, of course, will be done within the municipalities, and those plans known as community plans will receive funding provided that it is considered that what they are wishing to do is justified and done in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. Settlement planning in the unorganized areas will continue, but in that particular area, we will be paying more attention to the....

Mr. Chairman, it really depresses me to think that the member is so upset and concerned about a group of planners out there, and when I get up to respond to his question he's off in another meeting. This is sad, and I'm wondering if maybe the member has run out of things to say and is not interested in continuing to be the critic of Municipal Affairs. Are you ready?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It is all very well for the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) to make smart-alec remarks. It is nice to see that now we have five members of the opposition in their seats. An interest in the regional district affairs of the province is starting to grow with the opposition. Now we have four members in the House, and the critic attempting to....

Planning will continue in the province. I covered community planning. Planning in the unorganized areas will continue but we will take a different approach to it. In the past a director could decide that a plan should be done for his or her community, brought to the regional board and passed there and money made available, and presto, a plan was underway whether or not the people of the community wanted or needed it. I hope to change that process, so that the people of that community will have the say as to whether a plan should be done or not. Certainly I place a great deal more

[ Page 3953 ]

importance on the judgment and the wisdom of the people out there than I do in the critic for Municipal Affairs in this House.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wounded.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you still interested in Municipal Affairs?

Once the people have spoken, and if indeed they have decided that, yes, they think their community should be planned, then the procedure will be for the director to bring that to the board and convey the wishes of the people he represents, then talk about the funding to cover the cost of the plan. At that point I will become involved, and my role will be to respect the wishes of the people and see that a plan will be done. I will have another responsibility that I will carry out: that is, to make sure that the plan is going to be done in the most efficient and cost-effective way. You have mentioned doing away with planners and having it done by the private sector. Certainly we will look at the private sector, and if they are in a position to do the plan more efficiently and at lesser cost, then that will be encouraged by me. So keep in mind that planning will continue, and if there are not enough jobs within the public sector, then I'm sure that those jobs will be created out there in the private sector. Planning will continue, but it will be planning for the people, not for some small group such as you would claim to represent that says what you really want is control. Planning will not be allowed in a way that will allow small groups, such as you would like to represent, to control the land, but rather in the interests of the people of British Columbia, particularly those people who own the land.

MR. BLENCOE: It's really hard to deal with such bizarre remarks. However, let's move away from planning because we're not getting too far with it. The minister clearly is not going to answer my questions and is going to leave poor old Islands Trust in the dark, and they're not going to know what's going to happen to them. I suspect that their days are numbered in this government.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Ah! There we are. We got one. Their days are numbered; they're not going to allow them to make their own decisions. Perhaps they'll be brave enough to actually state that that's their policy, rather than whittle them down little by little and try to break their spirits in terms of trying to plan properly for areas like the Islands Trust and other unique areas in British Columbia.

I want to move on to one issue that is of particular concern in this area of greater Victoria. I know the minister is aware of this issue. For a number of years council after council and mayor after mayor have been trying to get the provincial government to do something about the fire regulations and the problems of second-storey changes and renovations which continue to halt major downtown revitalization in Victoria. It is becoming — not only becoming, but is — a real economic problem. It also would create all sorts of new housing and renovations and reconstruction. The city council still is waiting. This minister, I believe, said he was going to do something, but we have seen nothing. I can assure you that there are many entrepreneurs and owners of buildings downtown who have space they can't do anything with because it's not economically viable to go ahead under the current regulations. We've waited, oh, at least seven or eight years since I remember it coming up first, and nothing has been done. It is an important issue. It could really do something for downtown Victoria, and would certainly help the economic viability of downtown.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One of the very first pleasant duties that I had after my appointment was to meet with representatives of the Victoria council at 7 o'clock one morning and have a walk through the downtown section that the member refers to. The problem, pointed out to me during that early morning walk, was that the previous fire chief had imposed some regulations on those buildings which literally closed them down. During the discussions I discovered that the alderman I was visiting and viewing the buildings with was the fire chief who closed them down. That left me in a bit of a dilemma as to how I was going to convince this alderman that he in fact should oppose the decision of the previous fire chief, who was himself.

Anyway, I was totally convinced that what they were attempting to do was correct and would be good for the community. As a result, I instructed my deputy to fast-track the activities in respect to the building code in order to get some changes to the....

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Is your meeting over with?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, go ahead.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If my critic asks me questions and then doesn't listen to the answers, he's wasting his time and mine, and that of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm listening, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Anyway, I instructed my deputy to fast-track the changes necessary to the fire regulations so that indeed we could have something done with these beautiful buildings in downtown Victoria. I then proceeded to appoint Alderman Eric Simmons to the committee because of his vast knowledge of that particular field as it would apply to fire regulations. There has been some delay in moving that along simply because we had a problem within the building code as it would apply to part 10, the portion that covers the handicapped. That problem has been going on for some time. We settled the problem here.... I believe it was last week when I met with the committee which had been working on the building code, and a decision was made there that would overcome the problem. Now I think that it should be full steam ahead on achieving what I consider to be a very worthwhile goal for the city of Victoria. I'm quite sure that all of those involved are now satisfied with the decision. There is nothing in the way of progress. We have indicated that we will be prepared to receive applications for renovations of these buildings in the meantime so they can be getting them through the system and processed so that once a final decision is made they can fire right ahead. But really I'm surprised that this isn't something that you, Mr. Member,

[ Page 3954 ]

through you, Mr. Chairman, weren't really hot on when you were a member of that council.

MR. BLENCOE: I just told the minister that for seven years we tried to get the provincial government to take some action, and now. they're fast-tracking. We still don't have a deadline. I would like to also remind that minister....

MR. COCKE: They're fast-tracking because there's nothing in the way of progress.

MR. BLENCOE: Right. We've heard fast-tracking for seven or eight years.

I would also like to correct the minister when he unnecessarily attacks Alderman Eric Simmons, who was the fire chief in the city of Victoria and is now the deputy mayor of Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, he didn't, actually, because the fire chief does not set the regulations, Mr. Minister. You know the rules. He enforces the building codes, and that's the problem. All he was doing was carrying out his duties under the building code and as the fire marshal he is required by law to do that. I take exception to you personally attacking that dedicated former fire chief for the city of Victoria. He was carrying out what he is supposed to do under law. We've been asking you and this government to try to amend that particular section so he would not be jeopardizing the law or risking his position in terms of not ensuring that those codes are followed to the limit. So perhaps you'll take back your attack on that former fire chief and the deputy mayor of the city of Victoria.

MR. COCKE: A formal apology is....

MR. BLENCOE: He was carrying out his duties as laid down by law. Do you want that fire chief or any fire chief to break the law? That's what's going to have to happen if these buildings are to remain economic in downtown Victoria. People are going to have to break the law to ensure that they can be utilized. That's what the city of Victoria, for seven to ten years, has been asking this government to get a handle on — to get something done. We still don't have a deadline. Can the minister say when we will have these changes in effect? Six months?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As soon as possible.

MR. BLENCOE: As soon as possible. We're not going to get any other answer. Formerly I asked the minister to make an apology to the deputy mayor of the city of Victoria.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member, of course, wasn't listening closely to my comments. I indicated that the gentleman who was showing me around and promoting the change was also the gentleman who was in the position of fire chief, who, of course, imposed the regulations at the time, and I was in a little bit of a dilemma as to how I would approach it. Alderman Eric Simmons and I have had a good laugh over that and certainly the working relationship that exists between Alderman Eric Simmons and me is a very good one, one that will be very productive, indeed, and one that no doubt will be of great benefit to the people of Victoria and certainly should please the council of Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: But no apology? Okay.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, my intervention will not be lengthy or particularly controversial, I don't think, unless provoked. Sometimes I get provoked. People applaud when I say that I'm going to express a few brief remarks, and that forces me to go on and on.

I've spent a very interesting afternoon listening to the exchange between the minister and the second member for Victoria. I can see that they enjoy their little joust. What comes clear to me.... I don't intend to make a lengthy speech and give you the history of when there was a lower mainland regional plan and all that stuff and how that was broken up and how power relationships alter decisions frequently. I think maybe the Islands Trust might be an example of where an opportunity comes for a body to become autonomous and independent, and it can threaten the existing power structures if it's able to express itself in a way through the media and all the rest of it. So I can understand why the minister would be reluctant for the Islands Trust to receive money and bequests for promoting their own particular views. I can understand that because the ministry wants to maintain that control. That's the basis of my intervention today.

It seems to me that as we look at what's happening, not only in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs but also in education and in other matters, there is a tendency to centralize. There's a tendency to put more power in the hands at the centre in many things, certainly in budgets and in education. Here the ministry says: "Well, no, we want to decentralize. We want to deregulate. We want to give more autonomy to the municipalities. That's why we want to get rid of all this planning. People are fettered because of this kind of undue regulation. It's not good for us. It's socialistic. By definition it's very bad for us."

[5:00]

I notice that at the same time we tend to be centralizing our decision-making we tend to be decentralizing our costs. In other words, I think more responsibilities usually shared by the provincial government are being passed off to the municipalities. I really only want to discuss one example of that today with the minister. This really doesn't come under the direct control of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Chairman; it has to do with the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Before you rush to rule me out of order, I would like to say that a decision of the Attorney-General's department has implications for municipalities. I would like to know the minister's reaction to it.

I have a letter here from the office of the mayor of a city I represent, Port Coquitlam. The mayor has written to the Attorney-General over a decision to remove from the responsibilities of the sheriffs the criminal document service. The mayor and his council point out that there'll be a requirement of two police officers to assume additional administrative duties to look after something like 350 to 400 documents. They also say that the time of these police officers, who are not trained to do sheriffs' work but work in criminal investigation, traffic control and the like — highly trained officers — will probably cost in excess of $50,000 each year. That's what it costs the municipality to keep a constable on duty. The constable's responsibilities have shifted from law control

[ Page 3955 ]

— bylaw control, law and order, criminal justice and that sort of thing. Because we've replaced the sheriffs we force these highly trained RCMP officers to be paper-shufflers and catalogers. It doesn't seem to be a very effective use of that time, In addition to that, though, the implication that is probably of more concern to the municipalities is the fact that the dollar shift at a time when they're being cornered in terms of restraint has placed an additional $100,000 on the municipalities I represent — Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam. I'd like the House to know that the matter was discussed in the council on March 12, 1984, and the following resolution was passed: "That the Hon. Brian Smith, QC, be informed that the corporation of the city of Port Coquitlam will instruct the Coquitlam RCMP force not to deliver criminal documents until a cost-sharing program with the province is instituted."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the minister has been briefed, I'd like an answer to that before I go on with any other remarks. Is the minister aware of this move? Is he in favour of the move to replace what were normally the sheriffs' duties and load those jobs onto the RCMP? If so, what consideration has been given by cabinet, either through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the Ministry of the Attorney-General, for a reasonable kind of cost-sharing arrangement so that if the move does take place this total extra cost is not to be loaded onto the municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, indeed, as a member of cabinet I'm fully aware of the decision. I would like to advise the member that there have been ongoing meetings between me and the officers of the UBCM. I have been in communication with the chairman, Mayor Audrey Moore, and also with other table officers. I am fully aware of the impact that this can have on some municipalities. It varies, I would guess, from almost zero to a fair number of documents to be issued. However, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that there is any great argument — I have discussed this with a number of mayors in respect to the principle. It is just one of those many things that we as government — and I include the municipal as well as the provincial — must face up to at times where there can be a proven saving to the taxpayer, where there can be greater utilization of people on staff, etc. However, I think that the problem may just possibly lie with the implementation of the program, and that is something that is being discussed. Certainly I will be doing my best as Minister of Municipal Affairs to make sure that the impact of this move is not going to be one that would be a tremendous burden on any municipality.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his response. I'd like to know if the minister, since he is a member of cabinet, will indicate whether he supports the move. I would think that would be obvious: it was a cabinet decision; then he does support the move. Can I get his agreement? I'll even announce to Hansard that he nodded his head or he shook it. Or, if he wants to speak, go ahead.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm always afraid of them taking a message with a nod of the head. I agree with the principle. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that quite possibly there could be an added benefit to such a move in that it would be something that could be done while an officer is on the beat, and the delivering of a document doesn't take too many minutes when you're passing down a particular road. However, I don't wish to go into any more detail at all, because the decision was not mine; the decision was made in the Attorney- General's ministry. The impact on municipalities is one that we will be watching closely, and we will do all that we can in order to make it as smooth as possible.

MR. ROSE: I think the imagery is amazingly humorous when you think of a well-trained, yellow-striped, heavily booted Mounty on his horse running around the street with a bunch of filing folders — 300 or 450 — while he is on the beat. I think that's an idea that's hard to beat — impossible to beat.

Anyway I would like to respond to the minister about savings to the taxpayer. Everybody is in favour of that — motherhood, God, the Queen; we're all in favour of all those things — but what will happen? It will be a saving as far as provincial taxes are concerned, but unless he's going to employ meter maids to do this....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Meter people.

MR. ROSE: Okay. Meter persons.

The added burden of cost is going to be passed on to the property taxpayers at the municipal level. I don't see how he can avoid it. There is a cost, whether it's high, medium or low. So if it's not borne by the provincial government, it's going to be borne by the municipality if that work needs to be done. It's passing court costs from one jurisdiction over to another. Agreed, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs? He's nodding his head. He banged his head twice on the table, so I know he agrees. Once for yes and twice for no, or vice versa.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: No, you can't cast reflections on a member. That's his line. Mr. Chairman, I will acknowledge that that's your line.

Since the minister has assured us that he intends to minimize the impact, I wonder if he would mind amplifying and elucidating on how he intends to minimize the impact, because if my question was gobbledegook, minimizing the impact is gobbledegook as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, yes, I will do my utmost to minimize the impact, and there are a number of ways of doing that, which I'm not prepared to discuss at this moment since I am in the midst of discussions on the matter. So have faith that I will do my best as Minister of Municipal Affairs. Trust me to do all in my power to minimize the impact. I'm sure that very soon we will hear of those measures.

MR. ROSE: That "trust me" business, I think, is what General Custer said when all the Indians came over the hill at the Little Bighorn. I think a sign in a restaurant that we saw 30 years ago: "In God we trust; all others pay cash, " might be a way out. I can understand if discussions with the UBCM are ongoing. I hope that they will bring sufficient pressure on the minister and the ministries and the cabinet so that there will not be an added burden for this important service placed on the municipalities, because my own municipalities — the municipalities that I represent, the officers there, the duly elected people — are extremely concerned that this isn't just

[ Page 3956 ]

another example of shoving more costs onto the municipalities or the other jurisdictions, while the power flows to the centre.

MR. MITCHELL: It's interesting when I go through my notes on some of the things that I'd like to talk about. I'm going through some notes now about a case that I inherited when I first got elected here in 1979 from my predecessor, Mr. Lyle Kahl, who was the Social Credit MLA for my riding. The first meeting I attended on this particular problem was set up by my predecessor. The two people who attended with me.... I don't know if they attended with me or if I attended with them, but one was the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill Vander Zalm, and the other person who came along with me, or with Mr. Vander Zalm, was the present Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). It was really interesting, because in 1979 we solved this problem. It was a very non-political consultation, and we listened to the residents who were involved in this particular problem. I thought it was all water under the bridge, and I intended to forget about it. This is a problem of the community plan in Sooke.

I would like to give you, Mr. Chairman, because you weren't lucky enough to come along with us who went out there and talked to the residents.... It was a community plan that was being put into its final stages in 1979. It was to industrialize a piece of property — a waterfront area that was rural-residential. A lot of people had built their homes along the waterfront and were quite happy watching the birds. Also through this little area was a salmon stream that they maintained and looked after. It was a very idyllic little area. With the help of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, pressure was brought on the regional director at that time not to make this area industrial. All the residents were very happy with the actions of the minister, and they were very happy with the Social Credit MLA who came along with us. They gave all that credit to Mr. Lyle Kahl, who had set up the meeting.

[5:15]

Everything went along fine until the life of that particular community plan ran out. Then there was a new community plan being put together by a new regional director. Again the new regional director decided that he was going to industrialize Cooper Cove. I, among many other people, wrote to the regional director and said: "There are many acres in the Sooke community that are presently zoned industrial. They are away from the water and are in areas that are better served by the road system. They are not going to affect any of the rural residents of the community." I said in letters to the regional director that if someone had the intention of bringing in an industrial area, they should utilize the modern methods of industrial development, and those are the methods of building an industrial park — a proper area serviced with the amenities that are needed for an industrial park; and that if any industrial park.... I asked the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, and he did a study. He did a study of building industrial parks in the Sooke area on land that was already zoned industrial.

After all the studies, he found there was not a market for an industrial park in the Sooke area. There was no need for additional industrial development in that area. There was sufficient industrial land, but there wasn't the need for an industrial park. But again, with the community plan that is now going through the process, they are going to industrialize Cooper Cove. All the people who live in the area do not want it industrialized — all those who live in that particular waterfront community. There is one piece of unused commercial property there, and no one in the area is complaining about the commercial property. It became an issue, and I believe there were two or three public hearings. The presentations from the community were something like four to one not to industrialize Cooper Cove. Community plans are submitted to what is known as the local planning and zoning committee. The local planning committee in the Western Community is made up of all the regional directors of the Western Community. They listened to presentations from the Sooke community and added some, amendments to the proposal made by the regional director. The main one was not to industrialize Cooper Cove. It went back to public hearing, but in the meantime there was an election, and this is democracy in action. If there was any one issue in that particular election, it was that Cooper Cove should not be made an industrial area. The final vote was something like two to one against the sitting regional director, who was determined to push it through. So he was replaced by another regional director who campaigned on not having Cooper Cove industrialized, and he supported the amendments that were proposed by the capital region that this area not be industrialized.

So what happens? It is really interesting how time flies. The MLA who came along with Mr. Vander Zalm and me, and who appeared to be supporting the keeping of Cooper Cove as the rural-residential community it is, came out and spoke to the Sooke–Jordan River Chamber of Commerce. According to the Times-Colonist of February 9, 1984, and the Goldstream Gazette of February 15, 1984, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs says that this particular area should be industrial and not be kept rural-residential.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, because I wouldn't miss your position — that the area has never been industrialized; the community does not want it to be industrialized. Democracy spoke very loud and clear last November, and they replaced the regional director who wanted to change it from rural-residential to industrial. After a public hearing the present regional director has supported the amendment that this area remain rural-residential. I have brought this to the minister's attention, and I know that he has quite a file of all the people who live in that area. They are well aware of his flip-flop. I would hope that he would flop-flip back to the position that he took in 1979, and that he would continue to support democracy. The community has spoken out, and I would ask him to continue to give assurance that he will support the statements he made an hour or so ago, when he said that he wants community planning to come from the community. I hope that he will stand up today and give assurance to the people of Sooke that he will listen to their decision and to the regional director whom they have elected, and that he will listen to the majority of the regional directors from the Western Community, who support this position that waterfront should not be industrialized.

If you look around Victoria, Mr. Chairman, the city of Victoria and the provincial government are spending literally millions and millions of dollars to move industry away from the water. They are attempting to develop the commercial core or the residential core on the waterfront. Maybe 100 years ago when this area was settled and the only means of transport wag sailing ships, then it was necessary to use the

[ Page 3957 ]

waterfront, to unload the materials that were used in industry. But today the mode of transportation is by truck.

The salmon streams that would be running through the middle of this industrial area that would be destroyed would be ruined if it's made industrial. There is no need for an additional industrial area in Sooke. There is no demand. There are no proposals for it. It appears to be a whim of someone who has a very strong personality and pushed it and pushed it until he was defeated at the polls.

On behalf of the Sooke community, the regional director and the majority of the regional directors from the Western Community, I ask the minister to support the amendments to the Sooke community plan and put this problem to rest forever, or at least until the next community plan comes up four or five years from now, so that every four or five years I don't have to go through this battle that Lyle Kahl gave me when I got elected and I don't have to take some other MLAs and some ministers out there again to look at this area.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the meeting that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew refers to goes back a few years. I think he should realize that I was a guest at that meeting and did not participate in the discussions; nor did I flip or flop, because I did not take any position, not understanding just what the matter was all about. I was there as a guest.

I have had discussions with various people in regard to the Sooke settlement plan and the amendments that have been called for. I did speak to the chamber of commerce in Sooke and heard the president of the chamber of commerce express his concern for the need to get on and get some industrial land available in the community. Of course, my comment was that one amendment is creating that and I couldn't understand why there was this opposition.

However, Mr. Chairman, the member knows only too well that the only real concern I had with the Sooke settlement plan was that there was absolutely no protection in there for a very substantial job creation program, which that community needs very badly — a housing project, etc. Rather than go ahead and endorse a plan that I felt uncomfortable with and that may have caused some hardship to that particular project and caused a loss of jobs to people in the community, I sent it back and said that they must make some changes to the plan in order to protect that multimillion-dollar project known as the Deer Trail project. Of course, that has taken place. They've had a public meeting, and I would expect that the plan would be coming forward to me very soon, at which time, if I am satisfied that that project is protected, then I don't see any more hurdles at all.

Mr. Chairman, the member indicated that he has spent seven years working on this. I have been the minister for going on ten months, and you have yet to come to me or to my office and sit down and discuss just what you think I could do in order to speed this thing along. I would suggest that that is not the first time that there has been some indication from you that you are unable to get assistance in these things. I'd suggest you take advantage of it, because you could benefit from understanding the real reasons why such action was taken. I don't see any great hurdles now to be overcome in respect to the Sooke settlement plan.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I think if the minister will check his files he will find numerous letters on this particular item to the previous minister. I do admit that he's only been there ten months. This particular issue was one that came back up. We thought it had been put to rest until the minister brought it up in February in Sooke. He said that he would not sign the Sooke settlement plan if amendments were made to it that would delete the industrial area from the proposed plan. The amendments have been made by community public hearings. The present regional director has recommended that that property be taken out. The amendment that the minister brought forward, to bring the Deer Trail subdivision into the community plan, was endorsed at the same meeting.

[5:30]

When the minister uses the Deer Trail development as an excuse.... He calls it a multimillion-dollar project. I would like to ask the minister why it was allowed to proceed as far as it did go without its being brought into some community planning area. I believe that the community has some rights to make presentations on a development of that type. Many concerns were expressed to me, and I believe to regional directors, about what was taking place. They were told that it was no one's business, because the province was looking after it. It was all in provincial jurisdiction, and they did not have any input. Once it had gone to the point of no return, then it was brought into the community plan. I believe that when any project of that type is allowed to proceed, without community involvement and input, that in itself is wrong. Though I was able to personally attend and talk to the developers, the engineers and many people in the various ministries about what was taking place up there.... I got excellent cooperation. When the province puts in $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money, and they have given all the permits to proceed with it.... Then they say: "Well, we're not going to sign the community plan, because you didn't include this particular development." They created it. I think the province has some explanation to give to the community about why that wasn't brought into the community plan a long time ago.

There's one other problem — not so much a problem, Mr. Chairman, but a position I would like to bring again to the minister. I've brought this to him many times in his office and over coffee, and talking out in the parking lot, I believe. In our discussions through the corridors and with the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs.... We must come to some better method of communities evolving into a municipality or an incorporated area. Every three or four or five years the provincial government funds another study of another incorporation in another area in the Western Community. Over the years we have been studied to death in the Western Community. We've had studies for three or four or five different municipalities. There has to be a better method. The Western Community has the highest density of population for an unincorporated area anywhere in Canada. I make this proposal again to the minister, that we must have some way, when an area the size of Langford with 16,000 people, or the area of Colwood pushing 10,000, or Sooke with 8,000.... There has to be some method, when the density and the value of that community grows to such a point, to decentralize and democratize the community involvement.

I've said to the minister, and I say it again on the record, that if we are going to have any logical development of an area there must be something laid down in the Municipal Act that an area goes from an unincorporated area to village status to a municipal status to a city status, based on density and

[ Page 3958 ]

population. I believe that we must have community involvement and responsibility, and I believe that the leadership has to come from the government. I just don't want to see that area develop to such a state in an unplanned.... There is a certain amount of planning that comes from the capital region and the Highways department. The Highways department is giving out subdivision plans without any endorsement from the community. I think it's time that an area of that density be given the responsibility. It has to involve, somewhere along the line....

We must come up with some type of legislation, and I'm hoping the present minister will give some leadership in this unpopular political hot potato. I know it's a political hot potato. It's a continual waste of provincial money to do another study, another sorting out of facts. One done in Metchosin was very positive. One done in Langford had six different options. It took part of the Langford and Colwood regional districts, part of View Royal, all of Metchosin — completely unrealistic in what we're going to have. It ran little wiggly lines up and down the maps that made no sense at all. It left all these unincorporated areas that were going to be headaches, and the MLA would have to try to service them. If you're going to do any planning, you've got to take the regional districts that you've set up, come up with some way they can be incorporated somewhere along the line, and get on with it instead of wasting money.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, responding to the Sooke plan, the minister did respect the community there, and that's why it went back to public hearing. You should be aware of that.

As far as incorporation is concerned, I don't think I wish to bail you out. But if you think and believe strongly in what you're saying here in the House today, why don't you take a public leadership role out there and do as you are saying? You know that I did join you on a platform in Metchosin at a meeting attended by approximately 325 people. It was a very positive meeting. I indicated there that it's time to stop wasting money on studies but rather to make a decision to get on with the job or forget it altogether. In any case, the hot political potato is not mine; it's yours. If you want me to bail you out, then you're off beam. Get out there publicly and promote it. Certainly if it's right for the people, I will assist it along.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to again bring to the attention of the minister that he's missing the point. It's not a hot political potato in my area; it's a hot political potato in the province of British Columbia. It's not that I should take the leadership, because I've always taken the leadership. I have said that there has to be a positive method. When an area becomes a certain density, when the population and the development in that area reaches a certain level, the community should evolve into either village status, municipal status or city status. It doesn't matter if it's in my particular riding, which is in the Western Community, or if it's in the Duncan area or the Chilliwack area. The legislation.... I think today we are debating with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on what type of leadership and what type of regulations and what type of development we can see in British Columbia. It's not that each MLA or each regional director or each political activist in the community should take a position.

You go through the municipal records. I believe there are some incorporated cities of 912; I think I read of that figure. I don't know how they became incorporated, at what time in life. We are in 1984, and in 1984 we must have some kind of development program that is going to be effective throughout the province. It shouldn't be that people like me or the minister or anyone else........ The minister's not bailing me out; he is giving leadership for the province. Everyone knows my position: I say that we should decentralize, we should democratize, and we should give the responsibility of the development of that area to the community. It should be laid out in some reasonable, straightforward method, and not make a political problem where a problem should not exist.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of questions for the minister. They have to do with reducing the provincial costs for the training of firefighters and municipal police. I'm wondering whether the minister has any figures on what this actually means in dollars and cents to the municipality of Burnaby, because it was stated in the budget but I really haven't been able to put my hands on any figures. Does the minister have those figures?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking the wrong minister for this information. It should be requested from the Attorney-General.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that's wonderful. Is that the same thing as the transferring of the sheriffs' costs? Is that the Attorney-General too?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That was discussed already.

MS. BROWN: Yeah, I know. I heard my colleague from Coquitlam discussing it, and you responded. Do you have any figures on that?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What kind of figures?

MS. BROWN: Dollars and cents.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On what?

MS. BROWN: The sheriffs.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, I do not have any figures on it. I have numbers in respect to documents that would be issued, but no figures as far as dollars and cents are concerned.

MS. BROWN: Would it be possible to have some accounting as to what kind of financial burden this is going to be on the municipality of Burnaby?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this has already been well canvassed. I just suggest to the member that if she is indeed looking for some answers that she may convey to her council, they can be found in Hansard from discussions earlier today.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I heard the discussion and it all centred around a letter, a copy of which I have, from the

[ Page 3959 ]

mayor of Port Coquitlam. I'm just wondering whether I can have a similar response in terms of dollars and cents — the financial burden on Burnaby, that's all.

[5:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, this is quite impossible at this time, Mr. Chairman, simply because I don't believe that I have in my possession the number of documents that that particular community would have issued in any particular month or year.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the minister what is, I think, is a rather uncomplicated question — the answer may be complicated. Can the minister tell me why the budget for the minister's office — that's vote 51 — has increased over what it was last year in last year's budget?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what figures the member is looking at. Are you on the right estimate sheet?

MR. HOWARD: It's vote 51, minister's office. That's what I understood we were on.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, and the figure for the minister's office, vote 51, is $174,580. Have you got that? The figure for 1983-84 — vote 64 then — is $183,523.

MR. HOWARD: I asked the minister why the budget for the minister's office has increased this year over the budget for last year, and he quotes me a figure of $183,523, which is not the figure that was voted last year. In last year's estimates — vote 64 — the amount that this Committee of Supply approved and which subsequently got incorporated in the supply bill was $161,468, so it has increased from $161,000 to $174,000. I want to know why the increase.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am talking to the 1984-85 estimates and there is a reduction from $183,523 to $174,580. That's a reduction.

MR. HOWARD: I have a book in my hand; I'll hold it up so the minister can see it. It's called "Estimates: Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1984." That's the estimates book for last year, which the Committee of Supply dealt with a year ago. In that book the vote for the minister's office was $161,468. In the book before us this year we have a fictitious figure, a padded figure of $183,000; but the actual dollars that this committee voted for the minister's office last year were $161,468, as in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984. The same document for this fiscal year, "Estimates: Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1985, " shows $174,580. That's an increase. I want to know why the increase. This is a year of restraint. Why does the minister want the difference between $161,000 and $174,000 in this year's estimates? It's some $13,000 extra this year.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Actually, when you take it on a comparable basis the spending is down, but some adjustment took place as far as employee benefits were concerned. Benefits were transferred from the ministry to the Provincial Secretary's estimates. But when you compare it, on the sheet here the ministry estimate is down.

MR. HOWARD: You can bring fudged accounts into this place if you feel like it, but the fact of the matter is that in estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, the amount of money that this Legislature authorized for the minister was $161,468 — black and white. That's what the committee voted. Look in the Journals. Now the minister wants $174,000. He wants more money this year than was granted to him last year. Why? No amount of conversation about transferring money back and forth last year between the Provincial Secretary or whatever will answer the question as to why you want $13,000 more for your office this year than you wanted last year.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's very difficult, Mr. Chairman, if the member is going to stick to the previous blue book, because you're not comparing apples with apples. But whenever you adjust for the employee benefits in the 1983-84 estimates, you find that the figure used here is indeed a higher figure than that for 1984-85. It's an adjustment that affects all ministries.

MR. HOWARD: Then is the minister saying that in the coming fiscal year, for the $174,580 that's in the book of estimates — vote 51 that we are now dealing with — that is not a correct and an accurate figure? That's going to be adjusted? It's going to be changed as we go throughout the year? Is that what the minister's telling me? If he's saying that, then you're not asking for the correct amount of money. You're trying to fool the committee.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to fool the committee. The figure of $174, 580 is correct, and it won't be adjusted. The reduction shown here when you adjust the '83-84 figure is the result of a reduction of the number of employees in the minister's office.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.