[ Page 3961 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

Employment development. Mr. Lockstead –– 3962

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

Reclassification of rehabilitation officers. Ms. Brown –– 3963

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

On vote 51: minister's office –– 3963

Mr. Howard

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. Davis

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Cocke

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

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 3976

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Howard

Mr. Kempf

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the Legislature today that Alderman Fred Macklin of Kelowna, who was the chairman of the board of directors of B.C. Transit since 1982, has passed away following a serious illness these last few months. Alderman Macklin was a council member of the city of Kelowna since 1976 and served on the board of B.C. Transit and its predecessor, the Urban Transit Authority, from its inception in 1978.

Mr. Macklin was a native of London and came to Canada in 1950. He served as secretary-treasurer of School District 53 in Terrace, and from 1956 to 1973 he was the chief executive officer of the Central Okanagan School District. During his time as chairman of the board of B.C. Transit, the rapid transit project moved into its peak construction period and there were major improvements in conventional transit and a handyDART system for disabled throughout the province.

His contribution to his community, province and country in public service will be remembered by all whose lives he touched. I would ask all members of our assembly to express their sympathy to his family at this time.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could respond to the condolences on behalf of our party. I happened to be employed in the Kelowna School District at the time that Mr. Macklin was appointed. I knew him very well and found him to be a man of integrity. He was distinguished in his field. On behalf of our party I would certainly like to have his family know of our deep regrets over his passing.

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

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I have two guests in the gallery today, Mr. Will Preston and Mrs. Molly Murray. Mr. Preston is the executive director of the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, and Mrs. Murray is the second vice-president. They are here to attend their annual convention, and I would like the members to make them welcome.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I too have a guest in the members' gallery today from Powell River, Mr. Jack Metcalf. I ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I too have some guests in the gallery this afternoon. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming Russ Colombo, his wife Joy and their children Greg and Leanne from Cranbrook. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is a very beautiful and charming lady from Cranbrook, Pamela Robertson. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them all.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is spring break and I have two very special guests in your gallery today. I would like the House to welcome my daughter Jody and my son Dean.

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

Oral Questions

HIRING PRACTICES OF QUINTETTE COAL LTD.

MR. GABELMANN: My question is to the Minister of Labour and concerns Quintette Coal. On Monday of this week the minister said that "no recruitment has taken place in eastern Canada or any other part of Canada at this time." Yesterday the minister admitted there had been recruitment in eastern Canada. He shifted his ground, stating that they have not hired anybody. Having had time now to reflect on these two different answers, I wonder if the minister is sticking by his second answer that no one has been hired.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No one has been hired in any current recruitment campaign. I have said that there are a thousand people working on that great northeastern coal project in that one mine; of them, about 70 to 75 percent were recruited in British Columbia. Some had to be recruited outside British Columbia. The company is exploring options in other parts of Canada. They have filed a manpower plan with the Ministry of Labour. That manpower plan is being adhered to. The company assures me that their hiring policy will be British Columbia first.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would agree to check back with his sources. If he would do this, he would find that in fact qualified British Columbians have been turned down. When I say "qualified," I mean heavy-duty mechanics with many years' experience in the industry in British Columbia have been turned down. In fact, non-British Columbians have been hired as a result of Quintette recruitment.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this will be the third occasion in this Legislature on which I've asked that member to provide me with that kind of information. If he has it, I would be happy to go back to the company. Up to this point, he has, for one reason or another, declined to provide me with that information. I don't have it. I'm not able to find any such evidence, but I'd be pleased to have it from that member, who, I think, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, has a duty, if he has that kind of information, to bring it forward.

MR. GABELMANN: The first time the minister asked me to provide information related to the question of recruitment outside British Columbia, which he said was not occurring. I've done that.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: If the minister will bear with me.... It is my understanding that in question period it is not appropriate. The minister will soon learn — and it won't be in the fullness of time, either — exactly what the names of these people are.

[ Page 3962 ]

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the Minister of Labour. The Sunshine Coast region of my constituency has a 36 percent unemployment rate; the number of people receiving income assistance in that area has doubled in the past three years. Will the minister advise whether the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development has developed any special plans regarding the escalating employment crisis on the Sunshine Coast?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, our committee doesn't deal with isolated local areas. We are concerned with developing employment possibilities all over British Columbia, and that will be our priority.

[2:15]

CONTRACTING-OUT OF GOVERNMENT WORK

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. On Monday, March 19, the minister filed a written answer to questions stating that no separate record is kept of consulting contracts approved by Treasury Board. The minister must share a concern that I had for a short time in that post as to whether or not some ministries might try to get around staff cuts by replacing them with consulting contracts. Is the minister indeed telling me that Treasury Board actually keeps no total of consulting contracts as such? It must be running into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is correct, and interested members would perhaps want to note the member's written question and my written reply. In the final preparation and publication of Public Accounts for each year that information is readily available. If the member has moved from the essence of the written question in terms of whether there is control with respect to consultancy contracts, the answer would be yes.

MR. STUPICH: I believe the minister is referring to individual contracts when he states that there is control. I note that there has been some relaxation in that the figure which used to be $25,000 is now increased to $50,000 –– I wonder at the rationale for relaxing control in that area.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years I and my colleagues on the treasury benches have exercised, through the Treasury Board and through the Ministry of Finance, pretty stringent control. But we are not prepared to put ministries and ministers through incredible paper blizzards in order to undertake normal work associated with a ministry, and on behalf of the people. Therefore the limitation which, as the member has observed, was at one level

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

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, what is the requirement in question period? To be interesting or accurate? That member is frequently interesting, but often — i.e. Bank of Commerce — inaccurate. So I accept the charge of being dull. If that is what the interjection means, then I am a dull person, but I do attempt to give accurate answers.

To the member for Nanaimo, some time ago we increased the amount of dollars for which a minister must come to Treasury Board in terms of a consulting contract. I believe that my colleagues welcomed that. It certainly appears to be working well; otherwise, as I said earlier, we have a paper blizzard of documents flying back and forth. One of the challenges that we've had in Treasury Board has been to reduce the paper flow, to get the job done, instead of just documenting every single activity.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may get away with reference to the Bank of Commerce as well, I am sure the minister will agree that the whole banking system was saved by the federal government — not just the Bank of Commerce. It was a bail-out of the entire banking system.

The Minister is trying to persuade us that the system is working well. For five years in a row, under his administration, we have had a deficit. I know that for two years it's still predicted rather than real. I wonder by what measure he believes it's working well.

I am still concerned, though, that the Treasury Board apparently keeps no running record of the total dollar figure for consultancy contracts, ministry by ministry, to compare them with previous years. Is the minister saying that Treasury Board doesn't keep that kind of record but relies on the ministers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that is not the case. The member, in the written question, posed the request that I provide information with respect to all consultancies. That information is made available in Public Accounts each year. While I have not reached for it in these few moments, in the answer that I provided earlier this week I quite clearly indicated that Public Accounts for the fiscal year 1983-84 are being prepared, and of course the fiscal year is not yet complete. Therefore, while a very accurate final accounting is kept with respect to consultancy costs, it is not possible to pull them together in response to the written question the member had on the order paper — not until Public Accounts.

MR. STUPICH: From the point of view of an opposition member trying to examine what is happening in public payments, I appreciate that the individual payees are identified, but they are not identified as to whether they are consultants or dishwashers, or whatever. There is simply a list of names and the amount paid, and there is no way we can pick the consultants out of that — at least, not that I'm aware of, unless I missed something.

HON. MR. CURTIS: During the limited time I served on the opposition benches, I considered it part of the responsibility of an MLA and his or her research staff to determine, by sample or by exhaustive research, whether a firm was engaged in dishwashing or in consultancy work for the government. That surely is part of the function of any research staff in any caucus.

[ Page 3963 ]

MR. STUPICH: I would ask the minister's assistance then. In those enlightened days under the NDP administration, research staff could examine such documents, but now they're denied to research staff.

RECLASSIFICATION OF

REHABILITATION OFFICERS

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver Centre. On March 19 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) raised the question of rehabilitation officers. At that time the minister stated that two or three of these officers were being deployed from their task of finding jobs for income-assistance recipients. Is the minister now prepared to advise the large number of rehabilitation officers in the various regions — I gather it's something in the neighbourhood of 40 — who have received notice that they're being reclassified to become financial aid workers, that they should ignore those reclassification notices?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As I took the question as notice, since that date I've been waiting for that member who asked the question, the Leader of the Opposition, to be in the House. However, since he has not been in the House and since you're taking his question in his place, I'd be very pleased to respond to the questions asked on that date. First of all, the question was asked — and I took it as notice — how many people were on income assistance. As of January 1984, there were 116,334 cases in the province; that means 217,922 recipients in total, when all family members are counted. That information was promised the House, and it is now a matter of record.

To respond to the member's question regarding a comment I made about perhaps three of the 60 administrative people who were reduced from our administrative staff last July, I said there may have been three who had to do with rehabilitation. In checking, I find that I was incorrect; there were not three. No one has received notice or lost their position in the Ministry of Human Resources who comes under the rehabilitation category. Rehabilitation officers all have a responsibility for the job action program, for the Individual Opportunity Plan and for all rehabilitative services to help people become independent. Again I reiterate: there have been no layoffs in our rehabilitation program.

MS. BROWN: The rehabilitation officers, the ones who have first contact with the client, not the job-action program which is the final contact.... Of that number in the region, something in the area of about 40 have been reclassified — not laid off, reclassified — and have now been told that they are going to be financial aid workers; they are no longer going to be rehabilitation officers. I'm asking the minister whether, in view of her statement that the rehabilitation officers are going to continue doing rehabilitation work, those 40 workers should ignore the reclassification notices which they received.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't operate and administer my ministry by telling my staff to ignore directives that are given by administration, and I will not start today.

Ministry of Human Resources rehabilitation officers have been responsible for the most successful job-finding program for rehabilitation in the country. It's called the job action program. The rehabilitative officers who have been involved in job action programs will continue with those programs, and any difference in those who have not been involved in job action will be allocated, as I understand it, to individual opportunity planning, as they have been doing for some time.

It is also important to note that beside any assistance to the rehabilitation program for our people who are on income assistance, this year we also have an increased budget for planning outside of our ministry staff for job action programs. So there will be independent programs going on simultaneously with added money to the budget of the Ministry of Human Resources for that particular area.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, before calling the vote, I would just draw to the attention of hon. members that there are two organizational committee meetings this afternoon: Labour and Justice at 3 o'clock in the Hemlock Room, and Standing Orders and Private Bills, same room at 3:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. HOWARD: I think it's important to reiterate the motion that was just made. I do this for the benefit of the minister. The motion before the committee now is that a sum not exceeding $174,580 be provided for the minister's office. That's the standard motion that the Committee of Supply passes with respect to an estimate: that a sum not exceeding a certain amount of money be allocated for the minister's office. That was precisely the motion, word for word, with the exception of the amount of money involved, that was passed during the last session. That motion during the last session in Committee of Supply was that a sum not exceeding $161,468 be made available for the minister's office.

Now he comes along, in the estimates book that he waved around yesterday, and says: "Oh, no, it wasn't $161,000" — which is what the committee [illegible] as a limited amount of money — "it was in fact $183,000." I won't say the minister has done this, Mr. Chairman; the minister is just an inadvertent kind of accident.

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

MR. HOWARD: The deliberativeness was done by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). These are the figures that the Minister of Finance put forward on the introduction of the budget. It was the Minister of Finance who presented this document called "Estimates: Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1985," with that false figure of $183,523 for 1983-84 in it. And that is a false figure, because the amount this committee passed last year was $161,468, not $183,523.

[2:30]

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

[ Page 3964 ]

the minister really wasn't paying attention to what he was saying yesterday — to say there has been a decrease in the amount of money available to the minister's office. He emphasized three or four separate times yesterday that it has gone down. In fact it has not gone down; it has increased.

In the book we have before us covering these estimates the figures show a difference on the down side, but those figures are not accurate. That figure of $183,523 for 1983-84, Mr. Chairman — to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is blabbing away something that I can't hear at the moment — is a false figure. I submit that it's put in there in an attempt to lead the general public to believe that in fact the estimates of expenditure for the minister's office have gone down when in fact they've gone up.

It's regrettable that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), a decent individual.... He's the addition to the cabinet as a result of the last election. Do you remember the Premier saying during the election campaign that he was going to have new blood in the cabinet? Well, this is the new blood. It's unfortunate that the figures have been presented to him to indicate something which is not accurate. I simply have to say that it is unfortunate. It permits the minister to make a statement to this House which is not an accurate statement. The statement he made to the House was that the expenditure for his ministry has gone down from last year; in fact it's gone up.

Above all else, especially in dealing with the taxpayers' money, as the Minister of Finance so clearly emphasized today in question period, we need accuracy, not the inaccuracy that's in this blue book before us.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would like to thank the member for those kind remarks, as he became slightly personal there. However, I repeat that indeed there is a reduction in the estimates for the minister's office in the year 1984-85 over 1983-84. However, the member fails to read the notes at the bottom. Having read the figures, which you have done and are usually very careful to do, by reading the notes you would understand why the figures show as they do. I'll read them for you: "For comparative purposes only, figures shown for 1983-84 voted expenditure have been restated to be consistent with the presentation of the 1984-85 estimates." What it really means is that the 1984-85 figures have included employee benefits and telecommunication expenses. This is a change that was made since last year's estimates, so in order to make the figures comparable — in order to be able to compare apples with apples — the same employee benefit and telecommunication costs were taken and added to the 1983-84 figures. That is what you're reading, but for comparative purposes only. There is indeed a reduction, which I believe is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6 percent.

MR. HOWARD: Contrary to what the minister just said, I did read the notes. I think it is significant that the minister emphasized that for comparative purposes only the 1983-84 voted expenditures have been restated — for comparative purposes only. The point that I was making is that the actual amount of money voted last year was $161,000, not the figure of $183,000 that was in the estimates this year.

If the minister wants to extend his knowledge gleaned from reading, then I suggest he read the estimates book for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where the item $161,468 appears. He will find this footnote there, and I will read it for him: "For comparative purposes only, figures shown for 1982-83...have been restated." So the same thing was done last year.

In other words, each year this government presents false figures to this Legislature to indicate that the comparison is not what it is. That's all that's happening. It permits the government and the minister to say that the money has gone down, whereas that is not correct. I was going to say that it was not true, but I hesitated, and I don't say it. But that is not correct. Look at the figures. This Legislature voted $161,468 last year. It's in the Journals. You can't fabricate anything about that; it's correct. This year he's asking for $174,580 — that's an increase over what was voted last year. No amount of restating the figures for comparative purposes, no amount of readjustment of figures, charge-backs or anything else can cover up the fact that there is an increase in money allocated to the minister's office this year over last year.

The budget, insofar as that aspect is concerned, is a lie. The minister knows it. It is unfortunate that he has been placed in the position of having to say something to this House yesterday which he is now backing away from.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the member would give serious consideration to the remarks he has just made concerning a lie or my being prepared to back down from anything I said yesterday. Let me put it another way; maybe he could understand if I tried another approach.

For instance, had we taken the employee benefit and telecommunication costs right off the 1984-85 estimates, then the same result would occur — you would see a reduction. It's for comparative purposes only — that's all. The figure is there. The figures for 1984-85 include the expenses that the figure in the blue book of last year didn't, but in order to make it easy for you, and others who would be interested in reading this, to compare, you have the comparative figures. There is a reduction of approximately 6 percent.

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point, although there is really no offence to a member in particular, I think we are, in fact, offending the rules of parliament in the language that can be used. I am sure there are other ways of stating an opinion without using language that the Chairman does find upsetting.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we tried to get some answers from the minister on planning, and his position on planning. Unfortunately we weren't able to get any clear indication of where he is going on planning issues, particularly with the Islands Trust, which is a bit unfortunate because there are indeed a lot of people wanting to know what is going to happen in the planning field in the province of British Columbia.

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

[ Page 3965 ]

question of planning in our province. One of the issues is the question that in municipal elections Vancouver has twice voted for a ward system. So far, the provincial government has not seen fit to recognize the democratic decision of the Vancouver electorate for a ward system in that city. Could the minister indicate to this House his feeling about a ward system for the city of Vancouver, and whether he indeed will make representation to cabinet that it be introduced as soon as possible?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I recently granted a request from the Nanaimo council for release from the ward system. In answering that member, I would say that that decision quite clearly reflects my views of the ward system. I understand that the Vancouver council has indeed approached a private member in respect to this question. I don't know what stage that is at, at this moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In case there is a concern, I will state that the committee is unaware of any legislation at this point, so you can continue to discuss that.

MR. BLENCOE: Sometimes it's very difficult to get what the minister means, or whether he's saying yea or nay. It's very frustrating to put questions to this minister about very important municipal issues. From his statement, I gather that the minister is saying he does not support the concept of a ward system in the city of Vancouver. Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will repeat what I said. I recently granted a request from the Nanaimo council for release from the ward system. That decision reflects my feelings in regard to the ward system.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'll try to discern from that remark that indeed it reflects his view that they've pulled out, which means.... I suppose that we in this House and the people of British Columbia have to deduce from that remark that you don't agree. He agrees with pulling out, and therefore doesn't support the concept of a ward system.

Then I have another question for you, Mr. Minister. It reflects back again to your statements yesterday that if the people wish it, or if it fits the needs of people, you will grant it. The local electorate will make decisions and you will honour those. Mr. Minister, how does that fit into your philosophy that you believe in local autonomy, when the electorate of Vancouver have twice now clearly said yes to a ward system? How do you match that with your view of supporting local autonomy and decision-making?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly I support local autonomy, and I will do all in my power to see that that does in fact take place, provided it does not infringe upon the provincial government in carrying out its responsibilities to the people of British Columbia. I would suggest that the member is getting into a debate on possible legislation, which I don't believe is part of these estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is interesting. Earlier I advised the member that this committee is not aware of a bill, but I guess one would have to consider that this committee is aware of another committee. I can only ask the member to deal with matters that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for. I appreciate that it's a tricky line of debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Any kind of topic is potential legislation, so if we got into that kind of a discussion we might start ruling out virtually everything in this House. The minister has a motion or a recommendation to come to this House about the whole question of elections at the local level. Clearly it's within his purview and his responsibility in dealing with how people elect local government officials.

[2:45]

I would like to continue on this theme, because it is a very critical one. It again, I think, reflects the views of this government about local autonomy. The people of Vancouver have twice made a decision; they wish to elect people to that Vancouver city council on a ward system.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: You know, Mr. Chairman, we do have an incredible group over there. When a vote doesn't suit this government, they can find every excuse in the world. That member over there is becoming quite famous for it. The people of Vancouver have clearly stated to this government that they wish to make their electoral decisions based on a ward system.

Mr. Minister, you've clearly said in this House that you believe that local decision-making and local autonomy are critical. You have eliminated all sorts of regulations to facilitate that kind of thing. You brought in Bill 9 to stop regional districts making decisions for regional districts because you believed in local councils making those decisions. Now you are saying that Vancouver city council doesn't have the right to have a ward system, when the people of Vancouver have clearly — over 50 percent — demonstrated that's the system they wish. Who is making the decisions for the people of Vancouver? Is it the people themselves democratically voting for what they want? Or is it this government, when it sees fit, making the decision that something won't happen? That is not good government; that is the tyranny of senior government. The people of Vancouver have said they wish a ward system. They have voted on it. They are entitled to it. It's their right. You have, as a government, no right to interfere in that process. You should automatically ensure that the city of Vancouver be rewarded, because they have democratically voted for a ward system. You, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have a responsibility to uphold the rights of local autonomy and the rights of local decision-making. You have said over and over again that that's what you believe in, that that's why you're introducing all these new deregulation ideas. The voters of Vancouver have said twice now that they wish to vote for their members according to a ward system. Therefore I have to ask: what other decisions that the people vote for at the local level are you prepared to overturn, even if that vote goes through by 50 percent plus?

You have said that we have been unfair in our criticism that you're centralizing local government decision-making. You say that's not true. If it's not true, you will then grant the wish of the people of Vancouver that they have a ward system.

[ Page 3966 ]

If it's not true, you will let the people make up their own minds about that — and they have done that twice. I again ask you, Mr. Minister: how do you equate your position on local autonomy and local decision-making — the people deciding their own future — with your view on this kind of issue that you won't go along with the people's democratically made decisions? Your credibility — if I may, Mr. Chairman — is suspect. I think you have to answer this House and you have to answer the people of Vancouver, and your cabinet colleagues as well on this issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the minister, I must say that the Chair is wrestling with this problem of Vancouver, because the city of Vancouver is governed by a charter, which is not really within the purview of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We can discuss administrative actions, but we would be anticipating a debate that could come to another forum if we continued this debate with respect to the city of Vancouver specifically. I'm sure the hon. second member for Victoria is aware of the guidelines we have in this Committee of Supply during estimates.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, you took almost all of the words I wanted to say out of my mouth. The member, I do believe, understands that Vancouver has their own charter. The procedure normally followed is for them to bring their proposed changes to a private member, hoping that that member will be successful in convincing the committee responsible that those amendments should go forward. I would suggest that under those circumstances we should not be anticipating what may happen there, but rather wait until it has followed its proper procedure. I think that should end this portion of the debate.

MR. BLENCOE: The charter is granted by the province. Therefore the province has jurisdiction. The city of Vancouver has before and will again come for a democratically made decision by the people to change that charter. What is happening in the province of British Columbia when this government can control the wishes of Vancouver people on the way to elect their officials? It is becoming a tyranny of senior government. It is a very serious matter. If the minister has any credibility left in terms of municipal affairs in the province of British Columbia — making up their own minds about their own issues, and controlling their own plans and destiny — then he has to say to this House that he believes a ward system, based on the democratic decision of the electorate of Vancouver, should be introduced. He said yesterday.... I know he's not prepared to go to bat for municipalities — an incredible statement by a Minister of Municipal Affairs. Obviously he is not prepared to go along with the electorate of Vancouver who had over 50 percent support of a ward system.

The minister's credibility is on the line. Since taking this portfolio he has said over and over that he believes in local autonomy: let the people decide their own future, their own goals, their own plans. Here we have another example — it's about the fourth one I have given to you in the last day — where you are going to deny that. Your credibility is on the line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I will advise the committee that in the case of the Vancouver charter, neither this committee nor the Minister of Municipal
Affairs has responsibility for that charter. The member's debate would be in order in a different forum, a different committee, but regrettably not this committee. I am sure the member understands the distinction in this case.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those insights. I intend to move off this topic. I fully understand what you're saying, Mr. Minister, but you and this government won't listen to the electorate of Vancouver, and if it doesn't suit your purposes you won't go along with a democratic decision. We have seen that over and over again in this Legislature in the past ten months: that you will violate democratic principles over and over again. You don't believe in many of those principles, and here we have another example where you're clearly not going to support a democratic decision made by a large group of people in the province of British Columbia. I think the people of British Columbia and the people of Vancouver are beginning to recognize what is happening.

I would like to touch on another subject if I may. The Vancouver MLAs from the other side will all leave; we know that. Mr. Minister, we are told by you and by others that your ministry is trying to save money. I'd like to know if you can very simply outline for us what kind of publications you put out which are not necessarily a normal type of municipal business. This sort of thing — The Downtown Advocate, your downtown revitalization newspaper: how much is this newspaper costing the taxpayers of British Columbia? How do you defend this kind of publication?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The cost of that is approximately $500. Of course, it is an informative piece of literature that I think is an important part of the whole downtown revitalization program. It keeps people up to date with what's going on there. It gives them an opportunity to see other ideas and there is information in there that they can use in their own community should they decide to move in that direction.

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Each issue.

MR. BLENCOE: How many issues do you print?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Four a year.

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We don't have any other publications covering downtown revitalization. We do have a staff member available to go out and assist and advise, etc. No doubt there are small pieces of literature available to those who are interested, but as far as a publication is concerned, I am advised by my ministry staff that that is it.

MR. BLENCOE: Then I assume that this guide to downtown revitalization is no longer in use. This is the guide that is put out as well. Do you no longer use this guide?

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

[ Page 3967 ]

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

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Correct.

MR. BLENCOE: Then this is just a bit of superfluous kind of publication which has the minister's picture on the front. We all know what it is. It's a bit of political fluff, I suppose, for the minister.

MR. MOWAT: It's called communication.

MR. BLENCOE: We've got lots of communication $27 million worth from this government each year under our friend Mr. Heal.

Is this really necessary, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The issue is well received and quite informative. I would suggest to that member that it is my practice to review such issues on a periodic basis. That one has not had any review lately because we are still satisfied that it is accomplishing the job it was established to do. Certainly it is our intention to continue to advise the people out there, those hard-working, dedicated members who work on our councils and volunteer so much of their time for so little, and keep them up to date on all the things going on within that program so that they can improve their knowledge and be able in turn to pass that along for the benefit of their community. Yes, it is, in my opinion at this moment, still worthwhile.

MR. BLENCOE: It's all very important — $2,000 here, $2,000 there. It saves a lot of money. If you look after the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves. This government talks about believing in that sort of thing, yet he continues to publish this sort of information.

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

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

MR. BLENCOE: I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that I don't know what else you put out in terms of this kind of newsprint. I think you said this is the only thing you put out in this kind of style. Most of it is in official ministry-type guidelines. It may be useful to reflect that I think there are better ways to inform people. I would also point out that $2,000 — which is, for instance, 40 CIP grants for handicapped people — is something I wish you would look at. Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure how useful this is.

[3:00]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would suggest to that member that he go to such communities as Terrace and Chemainus and various others that have benefited through the efforts of the staff in this particular program and tell them that money is being wasted. Tell them that you're no longer interested in seeing them being assisted and helping their communities and helping them revive their downtown cores. You go out and tell them. Don't say it in the House here. Get out and tell them yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: A very simple letter to all the various councils announcing the program, with a copy of this, is quite adequate. Why you would have to publish four times a year, with your picture all over the front of it, at a cost of $2,000 to the taxpayer.... That's just an ongoing propaganda from your ministry, and you know it — with your picture on it. Be honest with this House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I feel compelled at this moment to suggest to that member that he compare the cost of that document with the one that he sent out during the municipal elections, at a cost, I believe, of over $1.50 in postage alone, trying to convince the people out there that they should vote for those radical types and those NDP people who would run for council. Compare the cost of this document that is helping the communities with your political junk, costing the taxpayers money to build your own party affairs.

MR. BLENCOE: We always know cabinet ministers will refer to the opposition's little bit of perk, but we still have to try and inform the citizens of British Columbia what exactly is happening in this Legislature. There is $27 million being spent by this government on propaganda to convince the people that they're good government. We have mail-out privileges that inform the people exactly what we're doing here as official opposition. If you want to deny us that, Mr. Minister, I would say my accusation of tyranny of government is indeed quite accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it would seem we are straying a little bit from the estimates that are before us: the administration of Municipal Affairs. Perhaps we could be a little more direct.

MR. BLENCOE: I will.

I have another issue, and I think it's one the minister has to respond to. Thus far he hasn't. I believe it tests the credibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I asked a question some time ago in question period about this particular issue, and I want to know his policy on this kind of issue. It's a known fact that people in high office can use their position to try to influence or set a direction of local councils and regional districts. It's also known that — I don't want to get into personalities; that's not the issue — the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) did use her MLA office to try to influence a decision in White Rock. She wrote at a very bad time in the public hearing process. It had been adjourned, and they were waiting for the decision. You know, Mr. Minister, that that is a very serious situation, and that can lead — and case law indicates has led — to challenges of the decision.

My concern is not particularly with what the first member for Surrey did. I don't believe it was correct, but I want to leave that aside. What I would like to know from the minister is: what is your policy in terms of that kind of thing happening? I've had a number of letters from other elected officials, not only in White Rock but from other areas, saying they really feel that we have to be very careful about that. If senior government or members try to influence votes on land-use matters — this was the first member for Surrey's own land

[ Page 3968 ]

use matter — it certainly brings a degree of influence on that council. You've got to remember that councils these days are struggling for dollars and revenue-sharing, and they feel that if they don't go along with a member or a cabinet minister or whoever tries to do it, that might impact on them later on. Mr. Minister, I think you have to comment on this particular issue. You haven't thus far, but it's one that is very important in terms of independent local decision-making. Again I refer back to that which you say you support. Here we have a member of the government, at a very critical stage in a landuse matter, trying to impact upon the decision. I don't want to get into the first member for Surrey. I'd like to know what your policy is, because I think the UBCM would like to know, and I certainly think other councils would like to know.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Immediately it was brought to my attention that government stationery and government postage was being used to influence people at the municipal level, I did express some concern. I had documents to assure me that indeed this had taken place. The second member should be aware of this, because he is the one who was guilty of using government postage to distribute NDP literature to influence people at the municipal level during municipal elections. When evidence of that was brought to my attention, I did become quite concerned. No doubt that matter will be looked at in the future.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about what the official opposition is permitted to send out of this House. It's our democratic right to inform the citizens what we're doing in this House, and what should happen. If you're saying that will stop, you're in for one heck of a fight in this House, Mr. Minister, I can tell you that.

I want to know what your policy is about MLAs influencing local government on local developments, particularly if they own them, and writing to members between the public hearing and the decision being made. It's a critical issue, it's one of influence, and it's one that I think has to be dealt with quickly.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: My policy will be quite clear. If that member did indeed spend many tax dollars on postage to distribute NDP material to influence the voters in the municipal elections, then I can assure you that policy will be necessary to make sure that that sort of abuse of tax dollars does not take place again.

MR. BLENCOE: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about a serious matter, about a member of the government trying to influence a land use matter in White Rock and about how that impacts on other municipalities. When we have government officials using their positions during a public hearing or after a public hearing is adjourned, that brings doubt on the whole independent system. I think you as minister should not try to detract from that issue by saying that because I as Municipal Affairs critic informed people of this province — who asked me for information, by the way, and it's within my right as a member of the opposition to do that.... He should not try to mix that up with the issue of trying to influence a land use decision which involves thousands and thousands of dollars. Land use and zoning is very controversial and, of course, can be subject to all sorts of influences. I believe it's incumbent upon the minister to answer this question. What is his policy about government officials trying to influence decisions at the local level on land-use matters?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's quite obvious that this member, through either his inexperience in this House or just his spoiled-brat sort of approach, seems to insist on receiving the answers he wants. I would suggest that what he should do is not waste his time — and ours — here, and just go back to his office and ask and answer his own questions, if that's all he's going to be satisfied with.

But I repeat, for the last time, that I take very seriously any member in this House who would use tax dollars for the purpose of distributing material that is intended to influence people at the municipal level, as you, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, have been accused of doing, much to the dismay and anger of those people out there who do not support your political philosophy. According to the information that has been received, you did indeed abuse and misuse tax dollars in distributing NDP material to people you thought might support you, encouraging them to get out and support the advocates of the NDP philosophy. Certainly we must look into it, it will be looked into, and there is a committee established that I'm sure will do that in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister and hon. member, before we continue, the Chair has been listening very carefully over the past ten minutes to what has been going on. May I suggest to both hon. members that it would seem to me that this particular subject has been very well canvassed, and that perhaps some other approach to carrying on with the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs might prove much more fruitful.

MR. BLENCOE: It may indeed be tedious and, I'm sure, repetitive to many members. But this particular issue of influence at the local level by senior government officials and MLAs is a very fundamental issue to local government, and one that cannot be avoided. Certainly the minister cannot skirt around it by saying that I as a member of the opposition no longer have the right to send out official opposition positions on issues. That's what you were saying, and you were very careful about that: you were saying we can't send out official positions on issues. Oh, you're going to limit it. Now we have tyranny of this government again. They want to control everything. I imagine this government will next be scanning our mail and having pictures taken to see what we're sending out and who we're sending it to. Is that the next step, Mr. Minister, of the tyranny of your government? It probably is. I tell you here and now that as a member of this opposition I will continue to inform the people of this province of what's happening in this House, of opposition positions on issues and of what we feel about local government. Your attitude to local government runs totally counter to the traditions of local government, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, perhaps if both members were to address the Chair we could have a much calmer discussion. They seem to be getting rather noisy and shouting at each other, and I think we could calm things down if they would both address the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

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

[ Page 3969 ]

[3:15]

Interjections.

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

MR. BLENCOE: The right of the opposition, in terms of how we inform the people of British Columbia, is a very important issue, Mr. Chairman. Here we have an issue on which I am trying to get some information and which has nothing to do with that.

This is a profound issue about senior officials being able to try and influence votes on a major land-use decision in White Rock. It is not the question of the member; it's the principle of the idea. You are the Minister of Municipal Affairs and you have to maintain credibility with the UBCM, local councils and regional districts. They have to know that they will not be subjected to senior government pressure to make a decision one way or another on something like a landuse zoning matter. That is very serious business. It is something that cannot be avoided, and the minister cannot walk away from it. He is the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and one of the biggest issues at the local level is dealing with land use and zoning. It is a very delicate issue, and I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to know what the minister's policy is about the potential violation of the autonomy of local government to make a decision alone, without being threatened or jeopardized by senior influence, as happened in White Rock from an MLA who actually owned the development — and right in the middle of the decision-making.

What is your policy? Are you going to allow that to continue, Mr. Minister? Will you allow that to continue, or do you believe it should be stopped forthwith?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member seems to be getting nowhere. I'd just like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs a question which is quite important to parts of my riding.

The minister is well aware of communities such as Logan Lake which are really resource communities and which have a difficult time because of a very small industrial-commercial tax base within the municipal boundaries, and yet they act as bedroom communities for a large number of people who work in the mines some miles away. Recently I was very much against including these industrial plants in the municipality just for the sake of providing a tax base, and I still am. However, I think there is general agreement among those people in the mining industry in the small resource-oriented communities that there should be some equitable way of providing funds from those large industrial plants to the small communities, which, in the case of Logan Lake at least, are having a very difficult time. Does the minister have any plans of pursuing this type of a thought process?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly a matter of great concern to me, because these industries that establish in the unorganized areas outside municipal boundaries do, in most cases, impact on the cost of local services where their employees are being housed, However, it is not my wish to allow boundary extensions in order to overcome this problem, because that could create a hardship on those industries at a time when they can least afford it.

However, a task force was put together that involved people from my ministry and from the industry, and a thorough study of the problem was conducted. There has been a report provided, and I do hope that I will have success in shortly bringing about a solution to the problem that will be equitable to both the municipalities and the industrial taxpayer. In addition to that, it will remove from them the fear which hangs over their heads all the time that someday they could wake up and find themselves within a municipal boundary and facing a substantial tax increase.

MR. BLENCOE: Nice try, Mr. Minister.

I want to finish off this influence issue, but I think it is very serious business. The minister is not prepared to admit that he's prepared to have a policy written or brought before this House. I can assure you that there is great concern, not only in White Rock but in other areas, that in the future they could be subjected to senior government influence on such land use and zoning matters. You know, Mr. Chairman, how important and how controversial that particular issue is with local government. Land use and zoning is probably the biggest thing they're involved in. They have to be independent, and they cannot be subjected to any MLAs or cabinet ministers trying to influence decisions, especially before the vote is taken. It is a serious matter, and I believe once again the minister has indicated to the people of British Columbia and to this House that he is not prepared to take seriously the whole question of the credibility of his ministry and his position, and to say to this House that he doesn't approve of that kind of action and will bring forth a policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. He has a duty to perform, and he is avoiding that particular issue.

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

Interjection.

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

The other day I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) whether he was prepared to take a look at the concept of working with you on pulling together the UBCM. municipalities and regional districts to take a look at the concept of utilizing vacant land in municipal areas for food purposes — an urban agriculture kind of proposition. As you may not know, many municipalities do indeed have land that they own or have leases on that sits vacant, collecting weeds. The Minister of Agriculture and Food thought it was a good idea. I'm wondering whether you would be prepared to work with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the UBCM to try to get local municipalities to take a look at that issue, not just as an isolated kind of thing but as a general idea across the province. I suppose much of the idea would come now, during this awful depression that British Columbia is in, but I think it's also a positive thing for the future and maybe something that you and the Minister of Agriculture and Food can get involved in. I'm wondering whether you have any thoughts about that particular issue, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the first thought that comes to mind, of course, goes back to the last war, when there was indeed a shortage of food. I was in my teens then, but the decision of many of us on our own initiative was to dig

[ Page 3970 ]

up the nice lawn in the back yard and start growing some food. But before I would answer the member I would like him to tell me if he is talking about biological farming or root crops. It is important to know that before I could, with some sense, respond.

MR. BLENCOE: Whatever you think is appropriate. If we can do some of the other, fine, but all I'm basically talking about is utilization of land in urban areas for the production of food. That's very simple.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, I doubt very much if we could convince the UBCM, the municipalities or many of those bodies in the developed communities to go along with hog farming, chicken farming or whatever. So we'd have to rule out biological farming. Then we could get into root crop farming. We're then talking about, in most cases, small parcels of land that would require some real hard, backbreaking work, because farming today has become so technical with the need for modern, automatic equipment to produce the product at a cost that people could afford, in order to return a fair living to the person who would do it. It wouldn't be feasible at all. As a matter of fact, I doubt very much if it would get very far. I see no reason why a municipality may not wish to offer the people of the community who do have the time and the desire to produce some of their own food.... Making spare lots available — there's nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, your government, when they were in for a very brief time, introduced a program of lot-plot farming. It could be done, but I will be pleased to discuss it with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and who knows?

MR. BLENCOE: I'll just finish on a positive note. That's the first positive response I've had in this whole.... I don't know how many hours we've been going. Let's end it on a positive note. I was hoping to get some other issues responded to in a positive fashion. Unfortunately we haven't been able to do that, but maybe we'll try again next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Through you, Mr. Chairman, maybe there'll be some changes in attitude by that minister. I understand my colleague over here has a few things to say.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, a subject of concern, certainly, for the municipalities, and a matter which has to be of concern to the provincial government is that of taxi-licensing, in the lower mainland particularly. The municipalities individually license taxi fleets operating within their own areas of jurisdiction. The lower mainland happens to have a number of municipalities. Unlike some city areas in North America, there are numerous municipalities and therefore numerous boundaries. Some municipalities are relatively small, geographically speaking. As a result of each municipality licensing taxis, they often run empty on a return trip. For example, if a taxi licensed by the city of Vancouver picks up a fare in Vancouver city and delivers that fare to Burnaby, New Westminster, Surrey or Richmond, that taxi cannot legally pick up a return fare anywhere en route home until it arrives within the boundary of Vancouver. Similarly, taxis licensed on the North Shore cannot pick up in the cities of Vancouver, Burnaby or Richmond.

Several studies have been done on this sort of thing. One that I think should be reported here in the Legislature is the study done by the Economic Council of Canada. It concluded that the least efficient taxi system in metropolitan Canada was in the greater Vancouver area, mainly because taxis had to run empty, also because taxis were licensed by the municipalities individually and separately, and because it was illegal — perhaps it sometimes happens — for a taxi to pick up a return fare outside of the jurisdiction within which the licence was operative. The proposal which makes the most sense would be that the licensing of taxis become a matter for, let's say, the GVRD, that licensing be for the larger territory, all of the municipal areas covered by the various municipalities, all of whom are within the GVRD; in other words, make the licensing area the total area of the GVRD and not a patchwork of smaller areas — namely, individual municipalities. Then taxis could pick up fares on return trips, then they wouldn't run empty as often, then they would be more energy-efficient. But most important, I think they would better serve the public today. Because they run partly empty they have to charge more. The Economic Council of Canada concluded that taxi fares in the greater Vancouver area could be reduced by at least a third if licensing was on the basis of the GVRD area rather than the separate municipalities.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Recently there has been quite a bit of public discussion, particularly on hot lines, about this subject. Members of the Vancouver city council, I think, have changed their minds. Some months ago they were very possessive about this longterm licensing authority they had in Vancouver.  Now I think they would like to turn it over to anybody, including the GVRD.

There is the question of how many taxis. Do you set a limit on the number of taxis? Do you therefore create a value in the licence? That would have to be dealt with by the GVRD and not by individual municipalities. I personally would favour a limit on numbers of taxis, but I would eliminate any provision as to level of fares. I would focus the regulations almost totally on the quality of the taxi service, on the physical condition of the taxis, on their cleanliness and so on, and make that the basis for regulation — in other words, the quality of the service. Then we would have a situation, let's say, come Expo 86, when taxis originating anywhere in the lower mainland could deliver patrons to the Dome, downtown Vancouver. Conversely, taxis from all over the lower mainland could line up there at the end of an event, be it a sports program or Expo 86, rather than as it is under the present arrangement whereby only Vancouver city taxis could pick up at Expo.

[3:30]

We have to generalize the taxi arrangement. While I know this is a matter of direct concern to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would also get behind this move. I think it's a desirable one. Generally speaking, the outlying municipalities now agree that it's a reasonable move. I think the majority of the Vancouver city council believe it's perhaps the best thing to do — to get on with it and make the GVRD area the area for licensing, and give the GVRD some responsibility in that connection.

[ Page 3971 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The question of regionalizing taxis has been given some thought. There are no conclusions at this moment, I should point out one problem that has been highlighted: that is, when you regionalize the taxis, there could be a tendency for the bulk, if not all, of the taxis to congregate in the most densely populated section of the region, thereby not giving the level of service that those in the outer area would require. However, I take the member's suggestion seriously. It is something of real interest to me. Hopefully a satisfactory answer can come in time to accommodate the people during Expo 86.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a very brief statement and question of the minister at this time. The minister will recall that an extraordinary resolution was passed at the UBCM convention last fall. I'm not going to read all of it. As I recall, the resolution passed unanimously was: "Resolved (1) that there be no further erosion of the autonomy and powers of local government; and (2) that there be no added cost burdens or reductions in revenue-sharing grants." Mr. Chairman, the subject of my short statement and question here this afternoon is revenue-sharing grants.

Municipal revenue-sharing is to be reduced from $210 million to $174 million, a cut of 16.9 percent. The minister knows this, I'm sure, since it's his ministry. For the 1984-85 fiscal year $90 million will be available as unconditional grants, a reduction of $10 million from last year. The minister, Mr. Chairman will recall, did state at that convention before the assembled delegates: "To the extent that economic circumstances permit, I will do my utmost to maintain the 1984 revenue-sharing unconditional grants as close as possible to the 1983 level." The allocations for conditional grants have not been announced. I might ask the minister at this time if he's prepared to tell us what those unconditional grants are, and to explain, perhaps, to us the severe cut in revenue sharing.

While I'm on my feet, I might ask the minister as well.... It is anticipated that the municipal highways grant long held at $15 million may be subject to cuts. Perhaps the minister would tell us now, under debate of his spending estimates, if the ministry is going to cut that $15 million highway allocation budget this year.

As well, there will be no housing grant or mobile-home grant. They were eliminated, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, on July 31, 1983.

1 note that funding for all 1983 grant programs, except housing starts, was maintained at the 1982 level. Three programs were funded in whole or in part from the previous year's surplus. However, funding for the new sewer and water grant programs was increased in 1983 by 7.85 percent. But not enough was estimated by the UBCM to be required to fund the old program to establish a reasonable level of funding for the new program. Does the minister understand that? I'm not sure I do. We just haven't got enough money; that's what he was saying. That sounds good.

Last but not least, the UBCM has proposed the establishment of a revenue-sharing stabilization fund to protect against sudden changes in unconditional grants and to maintain the taxing autonomy of local governments. I wonder if the minister has considered establishing such a fund.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I always appreciate that member; he's so honest. I can appreciate that it's difficult to understand all the ramifications of this particular program. First of all, let me say, as I've said here many times, what we must first understand is that when you talk about sharing revenue, that means sharing when it's up and sharing when it's down. It so happens that at this moment revenue is down, and therefore the share is down. It's beyond our control. We're not going to go borrowing money just because we want to keep up to the spending desires.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: But Bill, you gave $470 million to B.C. Rail.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We're talking about revenue sharing.

You talk about autonomy at the local level. Yes, we've moved in that direction in a very positive way. In the area of taxation we've given them the freedom to set the variable tax rates. We have taken away the control of land use planning from the regional boards and given that local decision to the local council.

As far as revenue-sharing is concerned, the statement I made was that I would do my very best to come as close to the unconditional portion as possible, simply because the unconditional portion is the portion that's most important to all municipalities. Not all municipalities can take advantage of the rest of the program, particularly the conditional portion, so we did all in our power to protect that portion. When it was announced that that would be 90 percent of last year, which was a 10 percent reduction — certainly a lot less of a reduction than would be indicated by the decrease in the revenue — the response was that they were relieved because they expected it to be considerably less. As far as the conditional portion is concerned, that will be announced shortly. But we do feel quite happy indeed that the amount of $174.59 million assigned to revenue-sharing has been brought up by the addition of some funds carried over from the previous year, bringing it to a total of, I believe, $202 million. So there is a rather positive feeling out there in respect to the revenue sharing program, and certainly satisfaction with our ability as government to maintain it at the levels we have.

You mentioned setting up some sort of a reserve fund. Yes, there's no question about it; I believe very strongly in that. As a matter of fact, I have asked some of the councils why they haven't been doing it themselves. It's always wise, in good times, to reserve a little bit for tough times by putting a little bit in the bank. You know that yourself. However, not all councils want to do that. So it's certainly under serious consideration in this ministry to set up a reserve fund in revenue-sharing, so that whenever we do have a downturn we will be able to cushion it with that reserve and not have to argue or try to explain why there isn't enough money.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the answer, particularly the fact that the unconditional portion of the grant will be increased; you found the money somewhere. I'm sure many municipalities are going to be happy to hear that. However, the funding is down, and basically this means one of two things: in order to meet their budgets, the municipalities have to either lay off people, adding to our economic difficulties in the province, or increase local taxes. I personally don't know of any other options available to them. I think this is what the minister is telling us is going to happen.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite incorrect. Whenever that first expression was made, I

[ Page 3972 ]

advised the councils without any hesitation that first of all, I did not expect to see any increase at all in property taxes. However, don't forget that taxation at that level is based directly on their spending desires and ambitions. Therefore, if their spending ambitions are greater than their income, then I would expect them to get the difference out of the system itself — in other words, look for more efficiencies within the system. This may mean some layoffs, but I can assure you, Mr. Member, that municipalities are coping extremely well. They're finding out that they can operate with less, and are realizing that in many cases they don't have to increase taxes in order to meet their spending habits.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't really planned on getting up, but I couldn't resist. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) does something to me when I'm sitting here in this exciting chamber listening to him talk about certain things. He talked about the Islands Trust. I happen to have Islands trustees in my constituency and I don't support any of the things that the second member for Victoria said about the Islands Trust. In fact, if the minister was to have a plebiscite, a lot of the people who live in those areas might decide they don't need the Islands Trust anymore.

MR. BLENCOE: Let's have one.

MR. REYNOLDS: You know, I would go a little further and suggest to the minister that his department should be looking into a plebiscite right across this province. Have the people of this province start to decide whether some of our municipalities shouldn't be merged, some of our councils shouldn't be reduced in size, and some of the bureaucracy within those councils shouldn't be reduced. That might solve an awful lot of the problems that this NDP member talks about, Mr. Chairman, because I think the people of this province would overwhelmingly support a plebiscite that called for the reduction of governments at all those various levels. If they had the choice of reducing the size of the bureaucracy at those levels.... My God, if they could vote twice, they certainly would. Anybody I talk to in this province, whether it be in areas that elect NDP members or Social Credit members to this Legislature, say that the bureaucracy is driving them crazy.

I want to congratulate you, Mr. Minister, because I know you're looking at a lot of areas in your ministry where things can be cut down, and I know it must be frustrating to sit here and listen to the old arguments the NDP have been making. For 20 years they've been saying the same things — nothing new, nothing exciting. They don't want to attack the planning departments across this province that are overloaded with bureaucracy and delay things.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about getting new industries, changing things, the Spetifore development and — what did he say? — the "free-dealing Spetifore property stuff." He always wants to get into that issue. I feel sorry for George Spetifore. He only owns the land; he's not the developer. He's been trying to sell it for, I guess, about 12 or 14 years now. You can't farm on it. It's been sitting there as an eyesore in some parts of Tsawwassen. The GVRD at one time voted unanimously to take it out of that reserve, and only when Rankin and a few other guys got heck from the NDP did they change their minds. They don't want to talk about that in this House. They don't want to talk about the facts.

I would really suggest to the minister that this is where his department should be going in the area of municipal affairs. Reduce the size. Amalgamate some of these areas. Let's get the taxpayer's dollar working for the taxpayer, not for the bureaucracies that are within those areas.

[3:45]

The second member for Victoria was talking about unemployment. I know we can't talk about that in these estimates, but it does really get involved in the municipal level, Mr. Minister, because planning departments are holding back development.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He laughs. Well, in the same council that he sat on, the mayor of the city of Victoria.... What did he call it on February 14? The Valentine's Day Massacre. He talked about the number of jobs lost in Victoria. I haven't seen the mayor or any of his council or the first or second member for Victoria get up and congratulate the new entrepreneurs who are starting a major business in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Dynatek?

MR. REYNOLDS: He mentioned Dynatek. I suggest to that second member for Victoria.... You see, it's always negative. What about this?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm asking.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's not my business; I'm representing people. What I'm suggesting to you is that you'd better keep your eyes and ears open because some exciting things are happening in this area of British Columbia. In Victoria, with no help from the municipal government or their employees in the planning department, entrepreneurs who support this government and the policies we have....

To help speed up this process I would suggest to the minister that we look at enacting laws in this province to allow a developer to buy a piece of land in a municipality and develop something without council delaying him. If you want to go to Arizona or California and buy your piece of land and start, you go in and they've got X number of days to give you an approval or you can automatically go ahead. Why can't we have those same rules in British Columbia? Instead we've got these situations here on Vancouver Island. We've got a golf course and a major development that are being held up and held up until they may fail. I think we need changes in our Municipal Act so that we can deal with these things and make this bureaucracy know that they're not out there to increase the size of their staff; they're out there to facilitate those investors who want this province to grow.

MR. REID: The taxpayer.

MR. REYNOLDS: Of course, that's the bottom line.

But our municipalities, just like provincial and federal governments over the last 15 years.... Our bureaucracies are growing, and they seem to be doing everything to interfere with the investor, the entrepreneur, the person who wants to go out and make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word, Mr. Minister. Profit is what makes this free enterprise system

[ Page 3973 ]

work. All we've done over the last 20 years is start to interfere and make it more difficult.

Sure, they want to knock the Spetifore land and knock the minister for the steps he's taken. Look at the millions of dollars that are invested in that land by the investors — hardworking people who are trying to turn it into homes for people and to get exciting things happening in that area. What are they upset about? Maybe George Spetifore might make $10 million. What's wrong with George Spetifore making $10 million if that's what his property is worth?

I would go right through to your Capital Regional District, if necessary, and your regional boards. I would suggest that you seriously think of having a plebiscite across this province. The NDP talk about public participation. Let's let the public participate, and ask them across this province if they would like to see the size of their councils and regional boards reduced. Maybe the Islands Trust should be eliminated if it's not doing its job.

The Islands Trust is now trying to form their own regional district. I've seen some material sent to me from some of the Islands Trust elected officials who are totally opposed to it. They want to start their own regional group now so that they can have a bureaucracy for that and create some more jobs for their friends. It won't do the taxpayers one little bit of good.

I'd also like to talk about the ward system. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is asking you, Mr. Minister. I would like to tell you that I don't support the ward system in Vancouver. I certainly support your move to tell the council of Nanaimo that they could eliminate the ward system, because they found out it didn't work. I would suggest that now that they don't have the ward system and that there are no more ward systems left at the municipal level in this province, we leave it that way.

MR. BLENCOE: They had a plebiscite.

MR. REYNOLDS: Thirteen percent of the people voted in Vancouver, and by 1 percent they said they wanted a ward system. I would suggest to that member that we won six out of ten seats in the city of Vancouver last time, when 70 percent of the people voted, and our members are all saying: "No ward system." There are two plebiscites there. I would suggest to him that people today, including members of his own party, aren't too excited about the ward system in Vancouver. They might like to talk about it, but.... I would like to suggest to you that you take the charter away from the city of Vancouver. Why should the city of Vancouver be any different than any other city in British Columbia? Victoria doesn't have a charter. Kelowna doesn't have a charter.

MR. BLENCOE: Don't let that one get out.

MR. REYNOLDS: "Don't let that one get out." I'm standing up here saying it. I'm not afraid to speak my mind for the citizens of British Columbia. The people that I know are saying to me: "Why is Vancouver so special? Why do they have a charter of their own? Why aren't they treated like everybody else?" Let them make their own decisions. I think you should seriously look at that, Mr. Minister. Why should they be so special in the city of Vancouver? Take their charter away. Let them operate on their own. Let them start making these decisions so that we don't get the communists and the socialists on council trying to blame everything on this government over here. Let them make decisions themselves. Then things will be a little better in this province.

I would also like to support the member for North Vancouver-Seymour's (Mr. Davis') comment on taxis. We've got the greatest taxis in the world on the North Shore and lower mainland — they're clean. I see no reason at all why, as a person who lives in West Vancouver, when I go to the Hotel Vancouver to attend a function, I have to get in one of those dirty cabs in the city of Vancouver. Let's open it up. Let's let free enterprise take over, because free enterprise will work — free enterprise during 1986 when Expo's here. Let the North Shore cabs compete with those cabs in Vancouver. I'll tell you what will happen. The cabs in Vancouver will start to clean their cabs up, and I won't get my shoes or my suit dirty when I jump in a cab. I might also find a driver who knows where he's going. I had some friends come into Vancouver the other day. They arrived at Vancouver International Airport, jumped in a cab and asked for the Granville Island Hotel, which is a new hotel right down on Granville Island. They found themselves at the foot of Granville Street with the cab driver wondering where the hotel was. I find that shameful. I think if we would just make sure that free enterprise takes that industry over, instead of the licensing system we have now, we might get better service. The competition would certainly put those who don't know where major areas in our city are right out of business.

I know that you have to sit and listen to some of these...especially the critic for the NDP on some of these municipal things. But he didn't do anything for his city of Victoria when he was an alderman, as far as bringing industry to it or creating businesses is concerned. It is private enterprise that is bringing these new businesses to Victoria, Mr. Minister. It is negative — thinking people who have scared the people away from Victoria. But we're going to change that, because there are those of us in this government who are going to work awfully hard to convince people around the world that not only Victoria but Vancouver Island as well is a great place to come to create high-tech industries. They are coming to Victoria in spite of what you might hear from the second member for Victoria. They are coming here because of the Premier of this province and the tough stand he's taken, the restraint program he's put in in this province and the things that are to come. They like our form of government.

Mr. Minister, you keep on going in the direction you're going. Don't be swayed by the comments from the second member for Victoria, because his type of thinking is as old as some of the other members.... I thought, when I first got here, that this member might be giving us some good ideas, because he's young and aggressive. He's certainly a good speaker; he speaks for the socialist cause extremely well. That's good; you should speak it well. But unfortunately he's reading from the same book as the guys who have been around for 40 years. I would have hoped that he would have had some new, fresh ideas, and that he'd talk about creating jobs. Last time I spoke I asked him why he hasn't got the union to put some money into that fish plant down the street. I notice they still haven't got it open yet. I know there's lots of money in those union funds, and they should open that fish factory up. If he thinks it's such a good idea, his union friends should back him up. Our private enterprise friends are backing us up. They're opening up businesses in Victoria. Where are the unions opening up businesses in Victoria? Mr. Minister, you keep on doing your good job, and things will improve

[ Page 3974 ]

in Victoria, as they will improve in the rest of British Columbia.

I ask you to consider those thoughts that I had on a plebiscite around the province to let the people decide on the size of government at the levels this member is talking about. I think we know what would happen. People would support the downsizing of municipal governments and school boards and the amalgamating of a lot of them. We could save a lot of money for the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just want the member to know that we are pursuing the land use section of the act so that we can remove any unnecessary obstacles and clear the way for the proper economic development that we can experience in this province. There is also a vigorous review taking place now of all regional districts to make sure that they are operating efficiently, and this same service is being offered to municipalities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I had finished, but I have a little bit of information that might be very useful to this House and the people of British Columbia.

A little earlier I was talking about a policy on influence and about MLAs trying to influence land use and zoning decisions. This afternoon we've had the member for North Vancouver-Seymour complain about the Tod Inlet development and its problems. He is very upset about that. I think the House should know why that member is upset about that particular issue. That member, as of April 26, 1983, became a director of International Corona Resources Ltd. Tod Inlet Estates Ltd. is indebted to International Corona Resources Ltd. for $1.2 million. Tod Inlet Ltd. is trying to develop the golf complex at Tod Inlet, and that is what that member is complaining about. He has a personal interest in that development and is trying to influence this House and that minister — $1.2 million worth of influence.

MR. DAVIS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I'm the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, and I'm not quite sure where Tod Inlet is, let alone the corporation he's talking about.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is totally mistaken.

MR. BLENCOE: Again?

MR. REYNOLDS: It wouldn't be the first time he's mistaken. If I got him right, he said I became a member of the board of International Corona on April 26, 1983. Mr. Chairman, I resigned from the board of International Corona, which invested $2 million in the Tod Inlet, and of which I was a member, after the election. I see no problem at all in talking about the fact that that is a good development for this area. The member is mistaken, and I think he should withdraw.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the member denying that he...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 51, Mr. Member. That is the debate at the moment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think a number of things that were brought to the minister's attention by the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) should be looked at from a different perspective. I am somewhat resentful that people of his ilk decide that their ideas are without any doubt the best on earth, and that anybody else, whether they have grey hair or otherwise, or whether they've been around here for a while or otherwise, might have some wrong ideas.

I listened very carefully to a number of the member's suggestions, and I heard enough to put a balloon up which would go higher than a weather balloon. The hot air that emits from this chamber from time to time becomes super hot, and this afternoon was one of the record-breaking heat races as far as some of the suggestions that he made are concerned.

[4:00]

In the first place, what he wants us to do is enact a situation in this province where councils are given a week, or some other suggested very short time, in order to delay development. He takes us on a guided tour down to the United States where that has been happening in some areas. I can take you to some of those areas, and I know some of the people in this House have been hooked in some of those areas, where the most disgraceful kind of development goes on, uninhibited by any kind of "bureaucracy" at all, because they don't have time to inhibit dishonest development.

Nobody has any questions about honest development. There is nothing wrong with honest development, but to make an irresponsible statement in this House stating that a city council should not have....

The Premier laughs and croaks a little bit. The fact of the matter is that if he doesn't understand this.... City council should have the absolute right to look into every development that takes place in its area. They should have that right, and it should be uninhibited by this House. What have we got municipal governments for? It's absolute rubbish that their obligation should be taken out from under them by this House. Bureaucracy, certainly. The easiest thing to attack today is bureaucracy. I suppose I've done it, and everybody else has. Certainly there are bureaucrats who stand in the way. I made a speech in the House the other day about a three year problem that I have. That's one thing. But inhibiting people from protecting the environment, from protecting those around them, would be absolutely crazy. I hope the minister pays little or no attention to that suggestion.

He talks about the poor investor. I really have a great deal of pain in some part of my anatomy about some of those poor investors. There are only two cities in this country that aren't absolutely ringed.... Most of the developable land around those cities is held by very large trusts — you know, the Cadillac Fairview syndrome. Montreal has not permitted it. What have you got in Montreal? You have a lot better prices and a lot better planning. Little old Prince George in B.C., for a long time — and, I think, still — was in a position to be able to control the development. The problem is that when you're choked off, with your developable land all in the hands of a very small consortium, they dribble it out at the rate that keeps the prices right up there where they want them. There's no such thing as free enterprise when it's all controlled by a small group. That's sheer nonsense. We keep hearing all these myths about free enterprise, private enterprise and so on. You're willing to sell out to those kinds of consortiums. You're willing to give away the people's rights to monopolies and cartels. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about some poor little investor who's trying to develop a piece of land for the good of the community, We're talking about the investor who chokes the community.

[ Page 3975 ]

When the member for Victoria makes those statements, don't take them out of context. When the member for West Vancouver runs off.... He takes those remarks out of context and implies that what we're saying is: no more developers, no more development. That is sheer and utter nonsense. What we are saying is: don't feed us to the lions; don't put us in the hands of cartels and monopolies who choke development at their will, not at the will of the people in those particular communities. I hope I've made some kind of point there.

That is what we've been fighting for years. Who were the flippers in gay '81 and early 82? A lot of little flippers got burned; very few big flippers did. Skalbania was one of the exceptions. Of course, he started pretty small as well. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact of the matter is that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said: "Let 'em win, let 'em lose." I say let 'em win, let 'em lose; that's fine. But don't let them win and don't let them lose at the expense of the general public, if in fact we can avoid it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member says: "What's wrong with George Spetifore making ten million bucks?" I don't think there's anything wrong with George Spetifore making $10 million or $100 million, if that happens to be the worth of his deal. But if the deal is not in the best interest of the community, then there's an argument to be made. There are those over there who have a difference of opinion.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That member over there can get up at the mike and do his best at arguing this point. The fact of the matter is, you're going to drown New Westminster in the traffic that emits from those kinds of developments that go on unhampered in that Delta region.

I remember when I was a kid and Spetifore's land was being farmed. All that land was being farmed out there. It was the breadbasket. You could get six crops a year off most of that Delta land. It was the richest land in North America, and it was raped.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Did you build your house on it?

MR. COCKE: I built my first house on a hill in North Vancouver, which I think is pretty good business. My second house is on a hill in New Westminster, and it was built in 1902. Now how's that for business?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How about your third house?

MR. COCKE: My third house is where I live now. It's in New Westminster, where I've always lived.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On nice agricultural land?

MR. COCKE: It's not agricultural land.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It was.

MR. COCKE: It was never agricultural land! It was developed before the turn of the century by the sappers. It was never agricultural land.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Are you still there?

MR. COCKE: Of course I'm still there.

The minister is proving to me that he hasn't got the ability to handle his portfolio. Look at him sitting there, saucing back when arguments are being made. If he's got arguments relevant to what I'm saying, then he can get up in his turn and make those arguments. Instead, he sits there and chatters like a monkey. Mr. Chairman, I think it's poor behaviour for a minister of the Crown to take that kind of an attitude.

Going on to the Islands Trust, what's wrong with the Islands Trust? The Islands Trust was set up because that's precisely what was needed in that area. You see, it's a unique geographical area. The problem with the islands was that they were in three different regional districts. Their decisions were being made by landlubbers, so to speak. A decision was made for some of &se islands to go one way, decisions made to go another way, and we said: "For heaven's sake, let's put it all together."

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't have to defend history; it's so defensible. Certainly the Islands Trust is among the most defensible of things that have been done.

I'm not going to say more on that. I think it's absolutely crystal clear that the Islands Trust should be maintained. It's a different kind of region we're dealing with. We're not dealing with.... For instance, is it fair that the people sitting in my constituency in New Westminster, because they have the greatest number of board members, make decisions about what happens on Galiano Island? When those islands are so distinct, different and beautiful, I say keep them in their own particular...at least give them an opportunity to participate in the decisions made around what happens there. So I disagree with that member on the Islands Trust.

The ward system is just a delight. Do you know what that believer in democracy said? "Hey, only 13 percent of the people came out and voted" — the majority of whom voted for the ward system — "so ignore what they say." He said: "After all, 70 percent of the people in Vancouver voted for a provincial government." Mr. Chairman, that ignores democracy totally, because you can always make that argument. In any election you can say, if there's 70 percent: "After all, 30 percent did not come out to vote." And I predict that the whole 30 percent would have voted New Democrat. Now what's he got to say to that argument? It's nonsense! The people who are interested in coming out to vote come out and vote, and you can't say that because there was only 13 percent of them.... Incidentally, there were far more than that the last time that referendum was held, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, it's an argument that's baseless, soundless and mindless. It's absolutely ridiculous if in fact you believe in the democratic process. Therefore that's down the tube.

"Let's take the charter away from Vancouver." What a marvellous idea! I'll tell you something: if we took the charter away from Vancouver they might be a little bit better off, because right now we're able to choke them with their own charter. So what do we want? Have your cake and eat it too? It's nonsense! The charter was there historically. If you're going to take it away, you'd better have an awfully good reason. There are one-quarter of a million people living there. They have a great interest in their community. I might suggest to you that Vancouver is a relatively well-run city in

[ Page 3976 ]

this country. They've got some troubles in the West End which I don't know how to deal with, and they don't seem to. In any event, taking the charter away from Vancouver is another nonsensical suggestion.

In closing, he said that private enterprise brings lots of work to Victoria. Read the statistics. If in fact that's the case, then the government must be firing at a rate even greater than I had thought, because we have continually, in this area.... In the province we have 15.5 percent unemployed now, but in this particular region we're very hard pressed to find jobs for people. They're talking pie in the sky when they talk about high tech and all these other things they're going to do. The fact is, what have you done for us lately? Zero! You get a failure mark in terms of running this economy — a mess in every department.

Mr. Chairman, having said that, I will return to my quiet meditations.

Vote 51 approved.

Vote 52: operations and administration, $9,186,203 — approved.

Vote 53: municipal revenue- sharing, $174,590,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 13: minister's office, $200,449.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks before I respond to any questions that the opposition and government members may have.

[4:15]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The key activities of my ministry over the past year have been to review, to analyze, to consult and to consolidate, to ensure that our administrative and regulatory responsibilities have been carried out in the spirit of restraint and with minimal governmental interference in the marketplace but still in the best interests of all the participants in that marketplace. It's my firm belief that our policies of restraint and deregulation, while they have wide public support, demand good communications if they are to be successful. That's exactly what my ministry and, I can say in general terms, this government has been trying to do over the past many months. We've been trying to accomplish good communications with all people involved.

I have met with groups representing almost every segment of the consumer and business communities, who have provided to me valuable information, advice and guidance on the many subjects we have dealt with. The meetings have been constructive and extremely helpful in determining new policies. Most notable, perhaps, are my discussions with landlord and tenant groups with regard to the need for revisions to Bill 5, which was on the order paper in the last session. We've been able to incorporate many of the recommendations that were made from both tenants and landlords. I will be introducing a bill into this House dealing with residential tenancy matters in the near future. I can assure the hon. members that that bill will satisfy most of the concerns expressed over recent months, while at the same time fitting in with the government's firm objective of restraint in the size of the public sector and less government involvement in the marketplace.

In Consumer Affairs we have taken steps to remind the public that despite the elimination of our consumer centres and the discontinuance of the complaint mediation services, most of the program services and all the statutes in the consumer field remain intact. For example, Consumer Affairs still investigates and takes enforcement action against violators of our legislation. It still licenses and regulates motor dealers, cemeteries, travel agents, etc. We still provide consumer credit counselling and debtor assistance. We still regulate the credit industry, including collectors and bailiffs.

On the corporate side we have concentrated over the past year in two main areas: legislative change and administrative improvements. As the chief corporate regulatory arm of government, our corporate affairs program strives for a delicate balance between the commercial, the economic and the financial activities of business, with resulting benefits to the economy on one hand and the interests of investors and consumers on the other. Major corporate statutes have received close scrutiny over the past year. Consideration has been given to amendments to improve their administration. Administratively, our emphasis has been on a close examination of our procedures and requirements to ensure they are appropriate and necessary. We are identifying and weeding out procedures that serve no useful purpose or are simply too costly or time-consuming to justify the limited benefits they produce.

As an example of this streamlining process, we recently made a decision to privatize certain licensing functions in the office of the superintendent of brokers, real estate and insurance. This move will greatly reduce the amount of paperwork in the superintendent's office, without in any way reducing the powers of the superintendent. It would still allow him, of course, to suspend or revoke licences or otherwise exercise his statutory authority.

Also, we continue to integrate computers into our procedures, not only to achieve maximum internal efficiency but to help us keep pace with the technical developments in the business world of which we are such an integral part.

Mr. Chairman, an important ongoing issue facing Corporate Affairs is the whole question of interrelationship in B.C. and the rest of Canada of financial institutions. This complex issue includes such questions as: Should banks be permitted to sell securities? Are brokerage houses in effect carrying out banking functions? What level of government could best regulate trust companies? We have already completed considerable policy work on these and other issues and questions, but much more is required in the months to come.

In our capacity as corporate watchdog, we are pleased to note positive signs that business is gearing up for more prosperous times in the upcoming year. Almost 14,000 new companies set up businesses in the province last year — a 17 percent increase in incorporations over 1982. These statistics on incorporations have been used for many years as a reliable indicator of the health of the economy as it is perceived by the business sector, and as such I anticipate new business growth, increased confidence in the private sector and, most important to us all, more jobs for our citizens in the coming year.

Turning to another part of my responsibilities, that of liquor distribution and licensing, I would like to advise the members that I've commenced a review of our present policies in that area. Officials of my liquor distribution and

[ Page 3977 ]

liquor control and licensing branches will be making recommendations based on an upcoming study designed to bring our liquor laws up to date wherever necessary and wherever possible. Already the relaxation of liquor laws that permit beer and wine ads on the electronic media have been well accepted by the public. I must commend the B.C. broadcasters on the manner in which they have risen to the challenge of providing sales messages that incorporate educational themes of moderation and responsibility. I sense an ever-increasing movement toward the responsible use of alcohol in our society. Of course there will still be the tragic exceptions, but I'm confident that we are ready in British Columbia to take further steps toward more civilized liquor laws that recognize the inherent dangers of alcohol abuse while still taking appropriate action against offenders, particularly drinking drivers.

This past year has been a challenging one for my ministry, but there are indications in all areas that we are achieving our policy of less government spending and less government involvement in the marketplace and still providing essential services and a regulatory presence in that marketplace.

With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any questions the opposition may wish to raise with regard to my responsibilities as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next speaker, I'll remind the minister and the committee that the necessity for legislation or amendments to legislation is not within the scope of committee debate.

MR. COCKE: This is a very strange afternoon as far as I'm concerned. I'm not the critic. The critic was fogged in in Castlegar and we informed the Whip that the critic was....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What was he doing there?

MR. COCKE: Look at that! Here's a guy who's been away playing hookey for the last three days, and he says: "What was he doing there?" Come on there, Mr. Provincial Secretary, will you explain it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the committee....

MR. COCKE: Tell us where you've been and what you've been doing, and how much you lost.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Provincial Secretary will come to order. The member for New Westminster will address vote 13, please.

MR. COCKE: It was nice, you know, the last three days. We had kind of an easy time. The minister was not here to do all his heckling. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, his heckling doesn't bother me the remotest bit.

I just wanted to draw your attention to the good, great, lovely cooperation we get. We inform the government that the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) could not be here because of a plane being fogged in. No, no, they're going to soldier on. We have a number of other critics here, but no, we must soldier on with Consumer and Corporate Affairs. So we're just going to have to soldier along with ICBC for the rest of the afternoon, because the member will be here tomorrow. His plane will be in at 6:05, I'm informed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. To the minister's vote, please — vote 13.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of things I would like to discuss with the minister vis-à-vis ICBC. I think probably I'm going to start out with one or two of the negative bits in terms of the way I see it. I recognize that ICBC was not set up as a banking institution in the first place. I recognize that the financing of premiums has been a problem, but it has been relatively small when you consider the cash flow of that very large organization. But I was disappointed because of the fact that it was such short notice. I know it was a few months, but that's relatively short notice for people to come to grips with this whole question of financing their autoplan premiums. The autoplan premiums are a fairly significant sum for some people. Therefore they need time to make those payments. Many of them went to the ICBC agent or whatever and found that there was no way they could finance their premiums. Then they had to scurry about — and if they were late, they may even have had a car that was parked without decals — in order to get their financing arranged. I thought that was a bit short-sighted. I think that if there's a loss in the financing, the loss can be accounted for by raising the interest rates commensurately.

I do think that the one company that does all of the business in the province — in terms of liability for automobiles, in any event — should in fact permit financing. One of the things we have a tendency to do in this situation is send people.... Particularly when they have to have that money very quickly, we really consign some of them to the loan sharks. All of us who have read any of our mail, I'm sure, over the last few years know what happens to the odd person who does get into the grips of these people. I can just see a person who gets down there and finds that he suddenly has to raise $500 or $600; it's too late to get to the bank — or, at least, the bank's going to need a few days to ascertain whether or not they'll give him this money; so the next recourse is loan sharks.

So I think ICBC made a mistake in going out of financing automobile insurance premiums. I thought it was an excellent idea when they began it. I remember that when we first started ICBC it was a real problem, because we were in such a rush — we were forced to be in a rush by the insurance industry, which just pulled out of the province en masse — that we had to set up everything. It was just impossible to set up the financing arrangements, except through the Royal Bank of Canada, which we did. But as far as ICBC handling it themselves, we just didn't have the time to set up that function as well. But eventually it came, and I think it has been relatively successful. People have had to pay quarterly, or whatever, and they've paid at an interest rate in keeping with the times. As I pointed out in the first place, if in fact there are losses there, then those losses can be endured by increasing the interest rate commensurate with the losses being endured. And I don't think that they are that great, even though these times are tough. My heavenly days, what a club ICBC has in any event! Wouldn't other insurance companies love to be able to go to the motor vehicle branch and say: "Hey, don't issue this guy a plate or a driver's licence until he

[ Page 3978 ]

pays every bill he has with ICBC." That's exactly the club they've got, and that's the club they use.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's precisely right. It's better than a cartel, wouldn't you say, fair-minded Provincial Secretary?

I think maybe we could explore that little factor first, and then we can get on to some other areas. I would like to hear what the minister has to say in defence of what I consider to be ICBC's rather poor policy in automobile premium financing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member is correct. We discontinued premium financing. We gave several months' notice that it was going to be discontinued, and we put advertisements in the media in order that people be well informed well in advance so that they could make other arrangements. What has changed since that member was involved with ICBC is that we now have a staggered renewal of licences. Less than 40 percent of the people now get their licence renewed as of the end of February each year; the other 60 percent are in various other months. So there was ample time for them to know that the premium financing was discontinued.

[4:30]

The banks, credit unions and other financial institutions stepped in, and they have provided that funding, because they're in the business of making loans and collections. One of the biggest problems ICBC had was dealing with time payment plans, NSF cheques, and people changing their address. If you change your address and move, your banking institution is informed immediately by you. But when you just renew your licence once a year, you neglect to tell your insurance company that you've moved; you've moved your account from one branch of a bank to another, and when we send the cheque through, it comes back "account closed" and we have a difficult time. As the member knows, in the end we tell all the insurance agents: "Here's your book of outstanding accounts. Collect the money when next year's licence plate and insurance are to be picked up." But that causes great difficulty out in the field.

Our interest rate, I believe, was approximately 21 percent, which was very close to the current rate for consumer finance. Even with that, our losses relating to the operation of our "credit department" and our actual losses totalled in excess of $4 million. The big issue, Mr. Member — and I think it's important to note — is that the other drivers in the province, you and I and everybody else who pays their account on time, subsidize those drivers who don't pay their insurance on time. The main reason for the change in policy is that we're in the insurance business: we charge a premium; we're paid for the premium; we cover those people for 12 months. We are not in the finance business. At the board, looking at the administration costs and the loss in the bad debt, we felt that it was better for the financial institutions to provide that service, rather than the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: I have just a few questions for the minister. I'd like to ask him a little bit about the regulation of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. There has now been some move to dismantle the securities regulation and approval procedures of the provincial government. I'd like the minister to tell us what he is proposing in terms of withdrawing the provincial presence from such things as the approval of prospectuses, the release of shares from escrow at the appropriate time, and the consideration of the scams that do go on in the stock market — that kind of thing. I listened to the minister's opening statement. There was a general reference to the kind of questions I'm asking. But specifically, in terms of securities and stock exchange activity, what does the government propose?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is reminded that questions which would involve the necessity of legislation or amendment would not be in order in this committee.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member's question is very broad. Perhaps, until he gets a little more specific, I'd say only that the regulatory function and the monitoring of the marketplace and the efforts by the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to ensure that the public is protected will be maintained. We may improve the processing of documents, speeding up the process. The member is probably as well aware as I am that one of the major concerns expressed by the investment community is that about time delay. We have met with representatives of the investment community, the legal community and the stock exchange to attempt to process documentation through the Vancouver Stock Exchange in an efficient manner — one which allows the investor ample protection, and also allows the person who's placing the security on the market a fairly quick response to his request with regard to a prospectus or statement of material fact. I want to assure the member that the regulatory side and the protection of the public will be maintained.

MR. MACDONALD: We'll watch with interest what's happening in the field of securities. I hope the public presence doesn't get withdrawn to the point where the control of the industry is in the hands of those who are engaged in participating in that industry, which is a very dangerous thing. The government protects all of the people, not just those who are engaged in the industry.

I have another question to the minister, in regard to ICBC. I know the minister's concerned about the kind of court cases for damages, particularly personal injury, that consume a great deal of court time and a big proportion of the budget of ICBC to defend them — and, from the point of view of the victims of accidents, a great deal in the way of fees to prosecute cases of that kind through the courts. The minister might explain to the committee what the present standing is. I know he's received a report on this subject in general terms. What does the government think about that report? What proposals do they have in mind?

I think part of what I'm asking relates to the Ministry of Attorney-General. With some knowledge of the situation in the courts, it appears to me that there should be a simpler way of adjudicating these matters, while still having the resort of a final appeal to a judge, in terms of quantum of damages and liability. Legal reform is mixed up with the same subject. You might, for example, have assessment procedures in ICBC where someone who wants to litigate a claim first has to go through that assessment procedure — which would be a lay body, no doubt, although with legal representation on it as well — and get an assessment of his case, which under certain circumstances a court could upset, but might not, and

[ Page 3979 ]

which would, perhaps very substantially, lessen the number of these cases which have to go through the long court procedure and involve a great deal of legal expense. I would ask the minister where he stands in terms of that report at the present time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, there are two reports. One is the report that I have here, the report of the Automobile Accident Compensation Committee, which was a committee appointed by ICBC. There is a second report, as the member is probably aware, from a committee which I struck to review the operations of ICBC. We have not finalized our position with regard to either report, but I can advise the member that we are still in the process of review, and, as I have said before, when a decision is made we will announce it.

To touch on the point the member raised regarding claims, particularly in the bodily injury section. I'll give you my view because I think we're somewhat in agreement, just with the system we have at present. I don't want to talk about the no-fault system that people are talking about from time to time. It seems to me that there could be improvement where the determination of liability would be done quickly. The only argument left is as to the quantum. How much? If the system that we presently have continues, with regard to bodily injury, that is an area we should be addressing. How can we speed up that process to determine liability? What happens now is that we get these cases stretched out for lengthy periods of time — one, two or three years — and we're arguing over the liability issue and tying it into the quantum, whereas the liability could be resolved very quickly, and then we could get down to dealing with the amount involved.

You talked about a lay body being involved with assessment procedures in ICBC. That might be an approach to take. The concern I have is that the party that is not satisfied will usually be advised by their lawyer not to take that decision as being the right one and that they should go to court and fight it. Step 1 is the assessment procedure by the lay committee; a party that was dissatisfied with the decision might move on to step 2 on the advice of a lawyer, to go to court. I look for input from the second member for Vancouver East. I would think that there could be a possibility of having the case heard and the liability determined quickly in a court, and then determining the amount after that. Maybe the member would like to give me some comment on that.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the liability can be just as much of an issue of contention as the quantum. Somebody who feels they have been badly dealt with has to shoulder 25 percent of the fault and they get very angry about that. It affects their premiums, too, for a long period of time. So both liability and quantum are important.

It may be that a domestic tribunal within ICBC, or set up to work with ICBC, through which litigants had to go first...but a much more informal thing than court procedure. It would be made up of experts who do this work all the time and would come down with findings which a court would be very reluctant to upset. They would upset in appropriate cases, but a plaintiff or defendant who came into court and still fought after that procedure would be faced with a judge asking if there was something wrong in the assessment already given by that body. Were the procedures fair? Did they got a chance to be heard properly? Was what they decided obviously wrong? It would discourage people from challenging an assessment body of that kind, which had made findings on both liability and quantum, from going to court against the kind of a decision, even though it wasn't one of final determination. So that kind of procedure, which works in other avenues of the law.... For example, to take a simple case, if somebody is going to adopt a child, there would be a report from the social worker — an expert out there — and the judge looks at that; it's confidential material usually. It's a very strong determinant of the merits of the issue. Is this a good family to adopt a child? What is the health and condition of the child? That kind of thing. The investigation and determination is set out in that report. It doesn't bind the judge, but it certainly shortens the procedures. That's the kind of thing I'm suggesting might be possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister gave some answers with respect to the whole question of financing premiums. I accept it, but I'm not too fond of the argument. That's his approach and so I accept it.

[4:45]

The next thing. I don't know whether or not we'll ever get through to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser). ICBC put out a report, which that minister just sloughed off, in terms of the need for motor vehicle testing. The report was, to my mind, very conclusive, because they were using figures from those areas where motor vehicle testing was going on, compared to areas where there was no motor vehicle testing. They were consistent. The areas where there was no motor vehicle testing were a far greater risk to ICBC, by their own figures. It went beyond risk, of course, because the claims in those areas were extremely high, or at least were much higher.

I don't know what to suggest to the minister, but I hope he can go to cabinet and say: "Look, I'm responsible for ICBC. These are the stats that have been produced by ICBC. Colleagues" — I'm suggesting what he should say — "I'm talking about lives. We're talking about the health and welfare of the people of British Columbia. The very fact that we have removed automobile testing is going to cost us in those terms." The Chairman, who in this House is always neutral, is shaking his head. I gather he's probably doing that because he wants to shake off some dust or something; certainly he couldn't disagree with the statement I've just made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Except that it refers to the administrative actions of another minister, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, these statistics were produced by ICBC. Are we to say, "Let's consign those statistics to another ministry," which at once decided that it didn't want to listen? I will use those statistics to say to you.... Okay, for the moment let's forget about the lives. Let's just talk about the cost of insurance as a result of this very unworthy move of another minister in that same government. The comments on cost-effectiveness of vehicle testing are clear. It goes beyond this, and we'll review that just for a moment. It's talked about elsewhere. The Vancouver Sun:

"In the name of restraint, mandatory inspection of most motor vehicles is being abolished. The Insurance Corporation of B.C., which is in the business of assessing risks and what those risks will cost in the

[ Page 3980 ]

settling of claims, predicts that doing away with the testing will mean four additional people will die on B.C. roads annually, another 237 hurt and added to the injured list."

They don't go on to say that it's also going to make ICBC more costly. The insurance plan will become more costly to the people who are buying — and they must buy that insurance. So how much more costly will it be? If based on the new expected overall percentages there are 4.8 percent injuries and deaths instead of the average of 4.1 percent for 1982 with testing stations in operation, we have the following: 1982-83, 25 fatalities and 1,386 injuries; 1983-84, 29 fatalities and 1,623 injuries. When you add up the dollars those additional injuries are going to cost ICBC, it strikes me the minister should be going to his cabinet colleagues and saying: "Hey, we're on the wrong track."

The graphs that were developed for this report show the figures very distinctly: accidents in the nomested area, the upper line, all the way across the graph; the accidents in the tested areas are in the lower line. The disparity there is so utterly conclusive that if the minister had even taken this graph alone in — maybe some of his colleagues can't read, but they can see — and showed it, there might have been second thoughts on this whole thing.

I think he owes it to ICBC to really fight for this, because if he doesn't, then ICBC looks worse and worse as time goes by. I know that he doesn't want something that he's responsible for to be a costly operation, to not look competitive. ICBC has been boasting for years, with good reason and arguments, that they have maintained a relatively low-cost automobile insurance policy. They've kept their administrative costs at a reasonable level, and compared to the private sector, I'll suggest to you very clearly that it's an excellent level. The private sector that so many people across the way are in love with run administrative costs for casualty insurance up in the 25 to 30 percent range, and ICBC has managed since its inception to keep its administrative costs under 20 percent — 16 to 20 percent. The Premier smiles and looks smug. I don't know whether he wants to argue that point, but unless there are some figures that have just come out recently.... I wouldn't be surprised if they are worsening now with this group that is overseeing the administration.

MR. MACDONALD: He should stand up if he wants to smile.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he should. Stand up and smile like a man!

Would the minister tell us whether or not he has gone to his colleagues with the arguments with respect to cancelling out motor vehicle testing? I loved the Province editorial: "How Many Lives Lost for 50 Cents?" That tells it all. Beyond that, why did ICBC go to this trouble of producing an excellent report, to have it totally ignored by the government of the day?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, once again I will remind the committee that discussion with respect to the minister's office, the administrative actions of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is quite relevant to this committee debate. However, administrative actions of another minister are not within the scope of this debate. There will be an opportunity to discuss the issue that the member for New Westminster has addressed, but it will not be under this particular vote.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member refers to an internal report. It's a two-page document regarding.... The question was raised by actuaries in determining possible future claims. The question was asked: "What do you think might be the impact of not testing vehicles?" I'm going to send for a copy of that report. I thought I had it with me, but I don't.

MR. COCKE: This report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: You're waving a piece of paper, Mr. Member. I can't tell. But if you read the report, you can see very quickly that it talks in the range of possibilities. It may or may not be. There is a possible exposure. I notice the many editorials that have been written which really take a staff report from a member of ICBC when they were asked questions in attempting to determine what our claims experience was going to be for the coming year and what the impact of automobiles not being tested might be. It's not a conclusive report. It's not even a report that the writer says is his determination. It was a very broad, brush-stroke approach of "maybe we should look at this increased exposure."

I'll get a copy of the report. The member may have it. I'd be quite prepared to quote from it to indicate how general and how broad it really is. Yet many editorials have been written which take it as a given fact, which, of course, does to a certain extent mislead many readers into thinking that this is, in fact, what's going to happen. I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who drive automobiles — and we only tested automobiles in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island — recognize there is a responsibility to keep their car in good condition and in good order. I'm not sure whether or not the testing of vehicles by government testing facilities in two parts of the province — the lower mainland and Vancouver Island — solves all the problems of risk. Even the report that was given by staff doesn't address the whole province. I think the member is attempting to make an issue. He points to it as being a given fact that this is what's going to happen, when even the man who wrote the report is very general and says it may or may not happen.

MR. COCKE: There may be some iffy words in the report. I know that some people who write reports try to protect whatever parts of their anatomy they can by the wordage in that report, but the one thing that you can't argue with are the statistics in this report. In 1977 the yearly percentage of total injury death accidents in B.C. was 4.6 percent in the tested areas and 9.7 percent in the untested area — a 11 I percent difference. The same thing goes fight through. Three to five in 1983. Is this a coincidence, or is this fact? It is fact. I've read the narrative too. Naturally there are protective words there, but the numbers, in my view, don't lie. So that's really what I'm getting at.

The minister can review the report, have some fun with it and I'll wait till he gets a copy. I could run out and get this one copied for him and then we could have a debate around the whole thing. I'd prefer not. I wanted to make a case. If he's not interested and says it's hypothetical, I tell you, I want to be on the side of the "hyp" rather than the "thetical, " believe me. These figures, in my view, leave little room for argument at all. The nomested areas are the areas where there is the

[ Page 3981 ]

high accident rate and the high death rate. I don't know how many times I've seen cars around that should not be on the road. We all have. The minister is trusting of his fellow British Columbians and says: "Look, they're all going to be responsible. They're going to drive carefully and they're going to have a motor vehicle that's no problem." I'm not going to necessarily take that without many, many grains of salt.

I'm going to leave this now and let my colleague the opposition House Leader make some suggestions as well.

[5:00]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a well-known fact that the minister has never — and I emphasize that word "never" — been a supporter of ICBC being involved in the general insurance field. One can quarrel with that, of course; it depends on one's point of view. I'm not going to quarrel with it, because it's the minister's opinion and view on the matter. What I hope would not occur is a biased attitude about a subject matter of that nature which would have an influence upon policy and decision-making. A bias of that nature can tend to cloud an objective assessment of the merits or otherwise of whatever the bias is about. I admit to my own. I have a bias that is different than that of the minister. That could have an influence on making a judgment about something in an objective way.

I want to advance what I hope is some factual information about the value that the general insurance side of ICBC has to the general public. Mr. Chairman, you and others in the House will recall participating in meetings of the Crown corporations reporting committee, examining matters relating to ICBC, discussing its activities with the officers, and working with the research staff that was employed by the committee at that time. Without any hesitation, I think I can say that the committee did an excellent job of examining the activities of ICBC and reporting on them in an objective way. I am not going to attribute views to any member of that committee. Each person may have his own view about a particular item. But in essence they did a fine job, and, I submit, they found that ICBC was also doing a fine job. That committee was representative of both the government side and the opposition side, and it operated, particularly when the committee met in camera, in an extremely helpful and supportive way, one with the other, to accurately discover what was happening within ICBC.

From the beginning ICBC had a bit of difficulty on the general insurance side. It was faced with playing roles which in some respects were different. For instance, it had the unique role of being a publicly owned insurance company in the province. Because of that role, and due to the reluctance or outright refusal of private companies to insure property or to issue insurance or write policies, ICBC was frequently asked to provide coverage for people who were unable to arrange insurance coverage elsewhere. So ICBC perceived its role on the general insurance side to be one of serving interests not only of the owners as residents of B.C. but also of the owners as insurers of their own property. On the other hand, it was required and expected to employ — and it did employ — sound underwriting principles. And it produced what one could call a modest profit for the owners, the people of B.C.

Insurance firms in the private sector have as their primary objective the amassing of profits. I know that some people identify "profit" as a dirty word; I'm not doing that and I never have. What I'm identifying is the force behind a private insurance corporation — its purpose, what it looks at. It looks at the bottom line, to start with, and it says: "The greater the profits we can earn, the better off we are." ICBC and others had another role to play. They had the requirement by government policy to follow sound underwriting practices in their activities and to produce at least an equation at the end of the year — no loss and no profit. But they did produce a modest profit. On the other side, they had the obligation to serve the interests of the people they were insuring, where other private corporations would not insure. They went in that direction, and lCBC general side — I have some views about the Autoplan side as well, but I'm talking specifically about the general side of the corporation now — did a commendable job.

In the private sector, where there are private insurance companies, it's all too easy for them, in the pursuit of the bottom-line philosophy, to decline an insurance risk because of either underwriting rules or policies established, usually in eastern Canada and ofttimes out of the country. Ofttimes not even in the country were these underwriting rules made for private insurance corporations. So they find it best, in the interests of that private corporation, to decline to write certain policies and do certain things.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

But ICBC — answerable to the public, to the government, to the Crown Corporations Committee when it existed under statute and had a staff. and to what ICBC calls the "watchdogs of the public," as represented, for argument's sake, by the Human Rights Commission — felt a moral obligation to pay a greater amount of attention to the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Code than would a private corporation. So using their experience, rather than saying no to insurance applicants who may have been rejected by private insurers, ICBC said: "Let's see if we can proceed to provide the coverage within the bounds of the ethical considerations we have to make in being a company."

Let me recite and put on the record some specifics. ICBC was advised by many insurance agents that other private companies would not participate on subscription policies for personal line risks under any circumstances. They just would not do it. As a result, ICBC was called upon to assume larger percentages of the total, and they did. They were advised by many insurance agents that if they didn't do it, it wouldn't be a good thing. By doing it they would, in the sense of what is competitive, attract other private corporations to move into that field as well.

ICBC continued to receive a fairly large number of what are classified as non-bound applications from agents who were having difficulty placing the risks with private companies. A variety of reasons were given for that. In the great majority of cases in which ICBC was approached with nonbound applications, they were able to arrange the coverage — for people who would otherwise be unable to get coverage on that basis.

For many years ICBC had observed that there was a reluctance on the part of private insurers to write coverage on mobile homes located in unprotected areas. Mobile homes rented by the insured to a tenant are almost impossible to insure. At one time there was only one other private company that would insure mobile homes, would accept them, and that was at a rate two to three times higher than ICBC. As an

[ Page 3982 ]

example, Royal Insurance at one time — I don't know the situation now — would just refuse to insure any mobile home that was within 15 feet of another mobile home — an arbitrary assessment. The individual could have been the safest risk in the world, but Royal would refuse coverage. ICBC felt that that was inappropriate, and moved into that area as well.

Here's an example of the difficulty that can arise with the private sector. There was a forest fire recently in the Houston area. At the moment of the fire one private sector company immediately suspended binding authority for any new business from the Houston agent, even though the fire was ten miles away. Immediately there was an indication of a fire, there was no binding authority for any new business. ICBC advised the agents to contact them, keep in touch, tell them the status of the fire and follow it along, and move in that direction. It was ICBC that played the role of being a responsible, good corporate citizen in the Houston area, not the private insurers. The general insurance of ICBC was the first company to provide sewer-backup coverage in B.C. Before ICBC, nobody would touch that. I know that from personal experience. As the result of a flood — heavy rain, clogging of sewers and so on — the sewer backed up into our basement; there was no coverage. It didn't exist, and I wasn't able to get it. ICBC moved into that area and provided coverage that was otherwise not available.

This is what competitiveness is supposed to be all about. Competition is supposed to result in a better service to the customer, a better quality product at a better price. That's the theory of competition. Often it's ignored, disregarded. As a result of ICBC being competitive, many private companies now follow suit and also provide that kind of coverage. We were unable to get it before. ICBC, with its understanding and commitment to the ethics of what it was out to do — namely, serve the general public and follow sound underwriting principles.... Private corporations follow sound underwriting principles to serve the balance sheet. I'm not decrying that. It's a fact of life. That's the way it functions.

[5:15]

From the beginning, the general insurance side of ICBC recognized the need of our senior citizens for low-cost coverage for those who live in apartments and rest homes. It recognized that the so-called risk factor was much less with senior citizens in that type of accommodation than it was with others. They moved in the area of a program called Program 65 to provide low-cost protection for personal possessions. Recognizing that an element of lower risk was involved, it provided a 20 percent discount in 1980 for those seniors who owned their own home — a tremendous innovation. I was walking uptown the other day and a sign in the window of a private insurance company said: "Special rates for senior citizens." That came about because ICBC showed the way. ICBC general insurance had the morality and ethics to say, once again, that it served more than just the balance-sheet philosophy, that it wasn't exclusively dollars that it was interested in; it was interested in service.

ICBC was among the first — it wasn't the first — to recognize the special problems involved with using wood to heat in the province and the increased use of the dos and don'ts; how to protect yourself, and what are the hazards in using wood. We have two or three generations of people now who never used wood. They don't know what it is to split wood. You know, Mr. Chairman; I know that. Not from your telling me; I just know from looking at you that you know that. Other members of this chamber know what it is to split wood and heat with wood, and pack in the kindling when they thought their parents were being overly officious in forcing those chores to be done. But a lot of people grew up with oil and electricity — simple kinds of energy for heating. So ICBC recognized that there was that lack of knowledge about the hazards and the values of heating with wood, and they entered into an educational program because they were interested in saving that.

On the general insurance side, ICBC discovered four East Indian agencies — that means insurance agents who were of East Indian descent — who had been unable to get any other company to write business for them, who had been unable to get any private company to do business with them. ICBC did it. In one case a lot of matters had been cancelled, contracts refused and so on. If it were not for ICBC the agents would have been out of business, and the individuals would not have been able to get insurance coverage. They also mentioned that this may well be a factor in why native Indians and many other people of ethnic origin are not able to get insurance. ICBC said: "We don't base our decisions on that factor, we base them on the risks involved with the individual applicant." Maybe that's what was meant earlier when, in the development of ICBC's philosophy about the general insurance side, it determined that it, as a publicly owned corporation, was morally — not only legally, but morally — bound to follow the example set in the tone and principle of the law — the human rights code — rather than the legal letter of it. Those private insurance companies may have been following the absolute legal letter of the law, but they were not following the morality of it. ICBC was, and did, and I hope will continue to be able to.

In 1976 and 1977, ICBC was the only company in the province willing to write business in the Queen Charlotte Islands or in Stewart. Every insurance company in the private sector discriminated against residents in the Queen Charlottes and at Stewart. But ICBC said: "No, we have a moral obligation, because they are our owners and are residents of this province, and we also have a sound underwriting philosophy to follow as well." They didn't shirk from their responsibility. They went there.

There are other instances. I don't want to enumerate them. The West Kootenays is an area where people have difficulty getting insurance from the private sector. One Fort St. John agent lost his only company because of the refusal of 13 companies to become involved there.

ICBC was among the first companies to develop a policy for condominium owners which recognized their special needs, one based upon the Condominium Act.

ICBC is also frequently approached by agents who represent non-resident owners of property in B.C. — usually rental property — who cannot get coverage, as they have no supporting business in B.C. They're in an odd situation. They don't have a supporting business and they can't get coverage, and if they can't get coverage, they can't afford to expand to get the supporting business. They're caught both ways. But ICBC moved into that area as well and said, "We can accommodate that, we can deal with that," with their usual manual rates for such coverage for rental properties with out-of-province landlords.

I know of a specific case in point where the owner of a rental property in this province, living in another province, had at one time received coverage; but then the private insurer, at the renewal date, said: "Well, you've got this rental property, but you've also got your own residence in

[ Page 3983 ]

another province. So if you take out insurance on both places with us, then we'll cover your rental property. Otherwise not. " That's a specific case in point which did occur; I know the people.

In addition to that aspect of it, there is the head office aspect. As I mentioned earlier, many decisions are made in eastern Canada, where attitudes are different in a corporate sense, and where those of us who live out here in the boonies are considered to be good for the gravy income on the insurance premium side but not really good for the service side of it, because we don't provide the volume. The decisions which are made in eastern Canada, or worse still, the decisions made by head offices out of the country — and they exist as well — have no concern whatever about what is going on in this province. The general insurance side of ICBC is specifically confined to this province. Its head office is in this province, and it is staffed by British Columbians who know what our needs and requirements are, what the geography is and what the circumstances are.

Here's another specific I can tell you about, Mr. Chairman. Some years ago ICBC was approached by CMHC. CMHC was referred by the B.C. Housing ministry, who, in discussing a particular problem, had said: "Well, why don't you go to ICBC? They might be able to do something about it." Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant what is known as a section 40 mortgage to low-income people in remote areas, and they make specific reference to native Indian people; that's companion to what I spoke about earlier with respect to the East Indian agencies. Often they neglect to take out insurance, or they move away from home to go somewhere else to work and the house is vacant, or something of that sort. CMHC could not get coverage from any private corporation under those circumstances. They came to ICBC and asked if they could do something about it. ICBC worked out a special program and now has a means of insuring CMHC for their equity in property. ICBC didn't take the private corporation approach and say that the risk was too great and that they wouldn't insure, or that it didn't fit within their balance sheet objectives so they wouldn't insure. ICBC didn't say no. They asked: "Can we work this out? Can we provide the coverage within the sound underwriting principles that we have to follow? We are not going to take a risk that's going to ruin our position, but within those principles, can we do it?" They were able to. Private corporations wouldn't have anything to do with that. Many companies will insure during construction, but they won't insure vacant buildings. ICBC is into that as well when they're called upon to provide, it and they do.

ICBC is the only company in the province that provides coverage on floating homes on a residential or habitational basis, as they call it. Otherwise the owner of a floating home has to end up in the private insurance companies' hands paying marine insurance rates which are tremendously in excess of residential property rates. But ICBC again says: "We have the ethic to follow here, and we'll follow it." They provide it.

I think there can be repetition of that case after case, under the Strata Titles Act: tenants' insurance; loss of possessions; always matters of that nature.

Let me wind up what I'm trying to get across to the minister. The minister will remember that I said from the outset that I do have a bias and these examples and instances that I've been giving the minister are not my own bias. They're reflecting facts — actual situations. They reflect the realities of the case of the general insurance side of ICBC in this province. The last thing I can say here about the people who put this together.... ICBC sees many examples of the "public be damned" attitude by the private insurers. I've indicated some of them. Here's a case in point. An insured person suffered a fire loss due to....

[5:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in order that we may comply with the rules of the House, perhaps the member for New Westminster will interject momentarily so you can continue with your very interesting and informative speech.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, would the member be permitted to carry on, as I've interceded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carry on, please.

MR. HOWARD: I'll probably just be a minute, my friend from Omineca. I thank him for his courtesy.

An insured suffered a fire loss due to vandalism. While he was living elsewhere — after the fire he had to move out and live someplace else — the home was broken into by squatters. They broke in and lived in it, and almost set fire to the house again while they were in there. The private insurance company hand-delivered a notice of cancellation on a Friday, giving him five days to arrange alternate coverage. They moved in and said: "This is bad. We're liable to lose something on this, so you're out of business." ICBC was asked to ensure .... He came to ICBC and said: "Look, will you do something about that?" They examined it. It's interesting that in the examination they learned that the former subscriber agreed to subscribe on a policy. It's easily done. ICBC now shares, with four other companies, that type of activity on an equal basis.

If they hadn't taken the initiative and established the competitive stance of opening up another field of additional coverage for people in circumstances of this nature, I don't think the private insurance corporations would have moved in that or in all the other numerous instances to which I have referred. I have tried to put an objective stance forth, to say to the minister that even though he is well known for his position of never having supported the idea that ICBC should be in the general insurance field, I hope he will reconsider that view. He may continue to hold his attitude and perception, but I think that if the general insurance side of ICBC is dismantled or sold off to the private sector, British Columbia will be the loser for all of that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the specific example that the member has given concerning the initiative or innovativeness of ICBC with regard to coverage. He expressed concern about the lack of coverage in the past by certain general insurance companies in the past in various parts of the province. It's usually the rural areas of the interior and the northern part of the province.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The general insurance companies are there. In ICBC general division we only write about 7 percent of the coverage in British Columbia. The private insurance companies write about 93 percent, and we don't write all the bad

[ Page 3984 ]

risks. We do have independent agents selling general insurance in other parts of the province, and maybe it is fair to say in defence of ICBC's general division that maybe some of them have stayed there because they didn't want to get the reputation that they wouldn't provide service in those areas.

We only provide about 7 percent of the coverage, and the other 93 percent is provided by the private insurance companies, which leads me to ask the question: "Why, as government, are we in the business?" You're quite right. I've been minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation since 1979. I have never made any bones about the fact that I personally do not endorse the fact that we're in the general insurance business. But we're in it. We've been in it since we came into power in December 1975. If the status quo remains, we will stay in it until the government makes a policy decision.

Three provinces out of ten are in the business of state-owned insurance companies, and those three were set up by NDP governments, which indicates the bias of the NDP towards state-owned insurance. That's your bias and your philosophy; mine just doesn't happen to agree with yours. Seven other provinces out of the ten have not gone that route, and I think it is fair to say that government, to use an old phrase, is elected to govern. We are elected to bring in legislation and regulation to ensure that the public good is served. I think that if we looked at getting out of the general insurance field, we'd have to ensure that the public was still served. You've touched on some of the examples about the remote areas and policies that have come into place through ICBC. I would suggest to you that I, as a person not supportive of general insurance sold by the state in competition with the private sector, also have a concern that if we did move out we should assure ourselves that coverage would be there for the people of British Columbia.

We may make that decision, and you may not agree with it. I guess that's no different than the philosophy of your party when you brought in the Agricultural Land Reserve Act and determined for the good of the people of this province — although you had lots of people lined up on the front lawn of the Legislature — that you were going to bring in that legislation because that was your philosophy. I don't happen to agree with that one either. The agricultural land reserve is still there. Since we've been in office since 1975 we've not attempted to make it a zoning piece of legislation, but we've attempted to identify good agricultural land and preserve that, not zone land, because that was our philosophy. We wanted to have provincial zoning of land in effect.

You gave a number of examples. You took a fairly lengthy time to cover them all, but they were good examples. I don't disagree with the concern you've expressed about making sure people in the province have adequate protection. If the future holds that ICBC general division no longer will exist, then I as a member of government would want to ensure that the public good is served by the private sector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member interjects that it never worked before. There may be examples that prior to 1973 that was a concern. It may also be, Mr. Member, that since 1973, because of the fact that the market was there, the private insurance companies recognize their responsibility far more now than they did prior to 1973. As I said before, 93 percent of the coverage is written by the private sector. We don't write all the bad coverage; if we did, we'd have monumental losses. So there is a sharing with the private companies in covering those ones. If they were at fault prior to ICBC, Mr. Member, they have probably learned from that. If they came back into the field, they would provide that service, as they are doing now for 93 percent of the population.

MR. KEMPF: I want to change the direction of the debate just a bit. It has been on insurance and ICBC most of the afternoon. That is not to say that I haven't anything to say about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Like the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I think they're doing a bang-up job for the rural residents of this province in regard to general insurance, a lot of which was not available to them prior to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I have to commend them for that.

I'll say only one other thing about ICBC. Mention was made of the Committee on Crown Corporations. If you really want to find out about the corporation which the people of this province own, then call for the report that was done by the Committee on Crown Corporations, which never saw the light of day in this province. I would suggest that maybe it's in contravention of the law that that report wasn't filed with this Legislature. It does a very good job in explaining to the people of British Columbia what that corporation is really all about, what it's doing and, yes, its shortcomings. An awful lot of work went into that report, an awful lot of taxpayers' money was spent on it, and never has it seen the light of day in this province.

What I rose to talk about — and I guess I would be totally remiss and would completely ruin my reputation if I did not once again talk about it, as I've done many times in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' estimates, both of this minister and his predecessors — is regulations in regard to neighbourhood pubs. I guess it's no longer the regulations themselves but the principle of the thing with me at this point. Those are regulations 17(f) and 17(g), regulations which govern the issuing of licences for neighbourhood pubs in this province. I want to read into the record those two regulations. Regulation 17(f) reads: "No licensed neighbourhood public house shall be located within one mile of another licensed neighbourhood public house or licensed motel, except as approved by the general manager." Regulation 17(g) reads: "No licensed neighbourhood public house shall be located within one-half mile of a main or secondary highway."

Mr. Chairman, I take exception, as I have many times in the past, to those regulations being prejudicial to 99 percent of the communities in British Columbia. In my constituency, Mr. Chairman, if you were to abide by these regulations, you'd be out in the bush. How can you possibly be half a mile from an arterial highway or a mile from another licensed premises and have a neighbourhood pub in the small communities in this province? I realize that both regulations say "as approved by the general manager." Yes, it's left up to the general manager's discretion. But in my experience, never.... I have correspondence here on two applications, one which, I have to commend the minister, has been sanctioned, but the other has been going on since 1981. A regulation in the case of the application in Burns Lake has been awaiting sanction for three years.

[5:45]

Some of you haven't been through the community of Burns Lake. It's sliced down the centre by Yellowhead 16, an

[ Page 3985 ]

arterial highway. To have an application turned down on the basis that that neighbourhood pub must be at least half a mile away from that highway would put it out into the bush. To have an application sanctioned if the neighbourhood pub was built one mile from the other liquor outlet in town, to which I would suggest Mr. Chairman wouldn't want to take his wife on a Saturday night, would as well put that neighbourhood pub a mile out of town. I said at the outset that it's a principle with me, and it is. As long as I'm sent here by the people of Omineca, I'll speak on every occasion in this minister's estimates, saying that those regulations are prejudicial to the communities that I serve and it's about time they were changed.

I would ask the minister: is there consideration being given to changing regulations 17(f) and 17(g) ? They make absolutely no sense whatsoever, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

The only other question I have is in relation to the application for the neighbourhood pub in Burns Lake by Rushworth Hotels Ltd. I want to know, after three years, why it is that that application hasn't been accepted and why it is that Rushworth Hotels Ltd. haven't been given a licence to build and operate a neighbourhood pub in that community.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, we do have a problem with neighbourhood pubs. Those who want in are quite concerned. Those who are in are quite concerned about their viability. I guess the previous administration named these — I think it was under the previous administration that the first neighbourhood pub was set up. "Neighbourhood pub" means it should be in a residential area. It shouldn't be in a downtown location. It means that it should be in reasonable walking distance so customers can get there. It should be a place for residents to meet and socialize. It's not necessarily like an English pub, but it's one that adopts that theme. But it shouldn't be a facility that is on the main drag or in the downtown core. It was originally designed to provide a social facility where people could meet and enjoy a quiet drink. We've gone a long way from that, Mr. Chairman. We have some 180 neighbourhood pubs in this province, and I guess these regulations have been stretched quite a bit. Yes, maybe we'll have to address them again. The system is in place and works reasonably well. Regarding the member's application for Burns Lake, the individual applied and was denied. He appealed but lost the appeal. He has the ability to return, and I believe has, because after a two-year period you can come back and test the waters again, so to speak. That is basically the procedure we put into place.

We have had approximately 1,000 applications for neighbourhood pubs since 1974. It is one of those areas that is most difficult to adjudicate and determine whether or not a licence should be granted. In the member's town of Burns Lake, the impact on the people who, I believe — and the member can correct me — bought the hotel and have put in approximately half a million dollars — I'm not sure of the exact amount — worth of renovations, because they had a market to serve.... To have someone come along and put up a much lower- cost neighbourhood pub within that area, not serving a neighbourhood but serving a whole community, if you want to interpret that as a neighbourhood.... As a result, that investment of a half million dollars is at risk.

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is yes, we are going to have to address those issues. I have commissioned a study to give me input regarding all aspects of liquor distribution and licensing, because of the many conflicts we have with interpretation of the present regulation.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Minister, that seems to be the problem with a number of people in this chamber when it comes to small communities in the rural areas of this province.

Mr. Chairman, the minister speaks of a social facility. Yes, the new owners of the Tweedsmuir Hotel in Burns Lake have spent an awful lot of money sprucing up that facility; God knows it needed it. But if you call the beer parlour of the Tweedsmuir Hotel a social facility where anyone can take their wife or girlfriend, or both, on a Saturday evening in Burns Lake, you've got another thought coming. It just isn't so.

Studies! Great, we're going to have another study. I want to know when the hell this application for a neighbourhood pub in Burns Lake, after these people have done everything in their power to assure the manager and the minister's office that what is going to be done with that neighbourhood pub is right.... All the people of Burns Lake are for it; the council is for it. There are letters on file. I'd like to know when it's going to once again be considered, because the people have the money to go ahead. They want to spend that money in that community. They want to produce a couple more jobs in that community. I think you have to take that into consideration, as well as the fact that there is no social facility for drinking in Burns Lake.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Omineca understated the case a little bit there. He did make reference to the extensive report prepared by the Committee on Crown Corporations, and said it had never seen the light of day and would be helpful if it did. So I would like to ask permission to table that particular report, just so it can see the light of day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Documents may not be tabled in committee, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Well, we'll raise it when Mr. Speaker comes in, if that's possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be up to Mr. Speaker, hon. member.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3986 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is our son Dave, with a business associate of his, Ken Robinson. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, during Committee of Supply reference was made to a Committee on Crown Corporations report on an inquiry into the Insurance Corporation of B.C., and I'd ask leave to table that particular report.

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.