[ Page 7907 ]

CONTENTS

Letter of resignation. Auditor-General –– 7907

Oral Questions

Courtenay bypass. Ms. Sanford –– 7907

Mr. Gabelmann

Hopwood report. Mr. Williams –– 7908

Granting of liquor licence. Mr. Macdonald –– 7908

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. MacWilliam

Quality of Reswest accommodation. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7908

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

On vote 59: minister's office –– 7909

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Williams Mr. Davis Mr. Howard Mr. Mitchell Mr. Barnes Mr. Rose Mr. Cocke Mr. Michael Ms. Sanford Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1986

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are three people from the University of British Columbia, Margaret Nevin, Jim Murray and Peter Larkin, all here telling us all the great things coming out of research at UBC and post-secondary education in general. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: In spite of what it cost me for lunch, I'd like the House — you're not supposed to laugh yet — to welcome my daughter Carmen and her friend, Doug Leaney, to the gallery today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: May I, on behalf of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), welcome to the House and ask the members to join me in welcoming Clifford and Connie Tearoe, who are from near Sorrento on Shuswap Lake.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this morning I received a letter which I have been asked to communicate to members of the assembly. It's addressed to me.

"Sir:

"May I request that you present the enclosed letter to the members of the Legislative Assembly on my behalf.

Respectfully yours,
Erma Morrison,
FCA,
Auditor-General"

To: The Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have today tendered to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor my resignation from the position of auditor-general, to be effective October 31, 1986. I deeply value the honour conferred upon me in my original appointment in 1977, and the confidence implied in my reappointment to office in 1983. Most of all, I appreciate the privilege I have been given of serving this House and the public of this province.

Respectfully submitted,
Erma Morrison,
FCA,
Auditor-General

I table the above.

Oral Questions

COURTENAY BYPASS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Bud Smith, the former $77,000-a-year secretary in the Premier's office, recently spoke to a Social Credit Party meeting in the constituency of Comox. He said that the people in Comox constituency had better elect a Social Credit member in the next election if they wanted an inland bypass route. A few years ago the Minister of Highways was responsible for the construction of the 17th Street crossing in Courtenay, which was a much-needed facility at the time. He did not play by the rules of Bud Smith, and I wonder, with respect to the inland bypass route, whether the minister is going to play by the rules he has used in the past or adopt the rules of Bud Smith.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Comox, I am not aware what Bud Smith said. But I am getting pros and cons about building highways on Vancouver Island, I can assure you.

MS. SANFORD: I believe the minister is referring to a comment made by Courtenay council, which I can inform the minister has since been reversed. The Courtenay council in fact supports that corridor route.

I would still like to know from the minister whether the statement made by Bud Smith — elect a Social Credit member or you don't get a bypass route — is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, clearly the statement of another person cannot be attributed to the minister whose responsibilities are his own portfolio. The member continues.

MS. SANFORD: The statement made by the Social Credit candidate for the constituency of Kamloops seems to be outlining government policy. Is that government policy? Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the question is out of order on two points now. Government policy is not a matter for question period, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not responded with respect to the intentions of this government. Is the government going to build the inland bypass route depending on who is elected in the constituency of Comox?

MR. SPEAKER: Future policy, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Having managed last weekend to survive once again having to drive up and down that road, I say seriously that one's chances of surviving that drive weekend after weekend are quite limited. Inasmuch as the ministry conducts traffic surveys during the summer months.… Because of the overcrowded nature of that road at the present time, will the minister agree to put traffic counts on that road immediately so he, too, can determine the essential need to construct that road right now?

[2:15]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for North Island, we have traffic counts daily, yearly and by the century in our records in the head office, and we have them right up to date for every road in British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN: Then why haven't you started construction on the road?

[ Page 7908 ]

HOPWOOD REPORT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Forests. Yesterday he indicated that the Hopwood report indicated significant discrepancies between estimates that were allowed logging companies and the amount that construction actually cost. We have a system of stumpage credits in this province in terms of future credits that many of these operators would have against future stumpage. Can the minister advise whether he's reviewing those credits relative to the study he's received, which indicates that the Crown has been cheated by millions and millions of dollars?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yesterday when the question was asked I made it abundantly clear that I would not betray the confidence in which that particular report was given to me. Whatever information is within it, I have absorbed to some degree and I have no intention of making any public comment on that. I raised with the member yesterday that it is not up to the author of that report, but up to the group that had the report commissioned. If they wish to make that document public, it is entirely up to them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question is the data itself. Much of the data is in the files of the ministry. This is public money lost, public money that could be used for good purpose now, which we should have gotten for our timber but did not. The question is, will the minister make the basic data available to the Public Accounts Committee and/or the auditor-general so that a proper accounting can be done of these huge numbers of moneys?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the credits to which the member may be referring, I'm not sure if he's talking about section 88 credits, but I have reviewed those for both the coast and the southern and northern interior. As far as the information available in the ministry, to my knowledge the auditor-general has access to that information at any time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that so?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The information, if I understand the function of the auditor-general's office, is available to the auditor-general. I thought the member asked whether or not it would be made available to that office and I understand that it is, as a matter of law.

With respect to the report itself, I will take some time reviewing the contents of it. I can also advise the member and the House that I have met with the Truck Loggers' executive, both on the coast and in the interior. They have some concerns which have been with us for many, many years, going back to the time when the member asking the question held the portfolio.

GRANTING OF LIQUOR LICENCE

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who granted a liquor licence to H.S. Recreations Ltd. on a Friday afternoon against the objections of his officials, notwithstanding that the Whistler council was against it and the organization that runs a waterslide had promised, to get their development permit, that there would be absolutely no liquor. Why did the minister do it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I believe the hon. member is referring to the restaurant at the waterslides at Whistler that would serve beer and wine along with food. What could you possibly find wrong with people going out on a Friday or a Saturday or a Monday afternoon to sit there watching people slide down the waterslide and having a drink of beer along with a sandwich? I couldn't possibly understand what you could find incorrect with that.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister is attacking the Whistler council. This waterslide is a children's play area, basically, and the dining room is part of the same building. Are you going to allow liquor where all of these waterslides happen to be throughout the province of B.C.?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, as far as I know, they're not splashing down into a tub of beer. That's the first thing that isn't happening. Secondly, you can go into almost any restaurant in this province where they have a licence, with your family, and have a glass of wine or a bottle of beer. I find nothing offensive in that. Maybe the prudent hon. member opposite does. I don't.

MR. REYNOLDS: A question to the Minister of Tourism. Would he make available a pass for the second member for Vancouver East to visit the Whistler area and find out what a great resort it is and also find out that all the facts that he's had in his two previous questions are not accurate?

MR. MacWILLIAM: I have another question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in light of his answer to the previous question. Would he explain why, then, the ministry refused to grant the exact same licence, a class B licence, to a waterslide up in the Okanagan area, which is essentially the same situation?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Hon. member, I have no application from a waterslide or any other kind of slide in the Okanagan area that I am aware of — not even a snowslide, nothing at all.

QUALITY OF RESWEST ACCOMMODATION

MR. MacWILLIAM: A question now to the Minister of Tourism. There have been recent reports of travel agents inspecting the quality of accommodation booked through the provincial government's ResWest booking service. What steps has the minister taken to monitor the public claims being made by hotel owners through the ResWest service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, we have made it quite clear to the operators of the ResWest system that any accommodation that they book through that system must measure up to certain standards.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A supplementary to the minister. A travel agent from Burbank, California, was quite shocked to learn that so-called four-star accommodation offered through the ResWest system actually turned out to be in, in her own words, a raunchy hotel on Granville Street, renting for $95 a night. My question is: does the minister consider that this incident reflects an acceptable standard of performance regarding the long-term future of the travel industry in our province? Because if the people come up here, and they get

[ Page 7909 ]

burned in the short run, l don't think they're going to come back. I'd like the minister's response to that question.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't really know if there was a question there, Mr. Speaker. The travel agent mentioned has not been in touch with my office. Perhaps if the member would care to give me some names, maybe I would look into it and get an answer to those people.

In answer to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), the answer to the question is yes.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the minister is now attempting to answer a question which he didn't rise to answer at the time the question was asked — not quickly enough he didn't. An intervening member was recognized. I would submit that the minister can either file a return or answer outside the question period.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I take the answer back, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question to the same minister: the possibility exists that a few unscrupulous operators, who have evicted long-term tenants for Expo, will in fact damage the reputation of this province by overcharging for unacceptable accommodation, as has been cited in the previous question. What is the minister going to do about it?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention, upon examination, that most of the accommodation the member refers to is being upgraded for the opening of Expo. To my knowledge, we have no evidence of hotel operators overcharging.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, following discussion with the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and also the member for Skeena, I would ask leave to move the following motion: "Be it resolved that, pursuant to standing order 69(2), Mr. Graham R. Lea, MLA, be added to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs." His name was inadvertently deleted.

MR. HOWARD: I just want to point out that here is another example of whoever it was who was responsible for this oversight indicating that he hasn't got the competence to run things properly. In the selection committee itself the decision was made to have the member for Prince Rupert as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The government insisted that certain people be officers of that committee and insisted on certain structures, obviously showing its incompetence and that of the chairman of the committee.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It was at the request of the hon. member, of course, that he be appointed to that committee, and in view of what happened in Prince Edward Island today, we think it a most appropriate time to move that motion. Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 59: minister's office, $189,745.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, before we broke for lunch I was asking the minister about his reaction to the insurance problem that municipalities face. I asked whether he would indeed be considering some action on behalf of the government. It is the opinion of municipalities that action is still required by the government in terms of liability problems, and I'm wondering if the minister, before we move on to another topic, has anything to tell us this afternoon. Very soon he will be dealing with this issue on behalf of the municipalities. I took the liberty of discussing this during the lunch break, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. Members of the committee, there is an awful lot of noise here. The second member for Victoria has been recognized, and perhaps we could maintain some peace and quiet and decorum so the committee could operate and the member can speak without being interrupted.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister wants to respond.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member continues to be tedious and repetitious. He has already had the answer to that on a number of occasions. I cannot elaborate any further.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, we will leave that topic unresolved. The municipalities continue to wait for this minister to take some action on something in municipal affairs.

I'll move on, Mr. Chairman, to talk a little bit about the costs of policing for municipalities. It's an issue that continues to be raised by local government. I'm sure the minister is aware of a report that was done by the UBCM in 1984 on the role of local government in economic development. They went through the financing problems that local government is having, particularly in meeting the ongoing rising police costs in municipalities.

Police services obviously cannot be cut back, so consequently it's an inflexible cost. Many municipalities are indeed requesting and suggesting that that has to be addressed. There have been a number of task force reports advocating that there be a greater sharing by the provincial government on police costs. I know the minister is going to respond with: "Well, they get revenue-sharing grants; that's the way they do it." Unfortunately that is not dealing with the rising police costs in the province. A number of municipalities I've heard from have requested that there be some discussion of this issue by the minister and by this government.

It has come up in Williams Lake, in my understanding — the rising costs of police in that area. I think municipalities are asking for some cost-sharing on policing in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister wants to initially respond to that.

[ Page 7910 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do share in the cost of policing directly in the cases of those municipalities with a population below 5,000 and indirectly with all others through our revenue-sharing program.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that there are always ongoing discussions with UBCM, municipalities and regional districts in respect to the cost of all of their services, including policing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go through this a little bit, because I think it's in the interest of all members in this House, whatever political party they support or represent, because municipal issues go across all political boundaries. Police costs, as I've already indicated, have been a long-standing concern of some municipalities and the UBCM, and there have been two reports that I'm aware of on the subject by the UBCM. Unfortunately there has been little action or response by the provincial government.

Under the Police Act, municipalities with 5,000 population must provide or contract for police services; 12 municipalities in the province of British Columbia provide their own service and pay all costs; 43 municipalities contract with the RCMP and share the costs with the federal government; and the remainder of municipalities in British Columbia — about 80 municipalities — are policed by the RCMP and are paid for by the province on the basis of property taxes.

The basic concerns, Mr. Chairman, are the following. Firstly, inequities in the system. Small municipalities pay large per capita costs for a service provided under provincial agreement by the RCMP. It's particularly onerous on small municipalities. There is no control over standards and concentration of the service. We need some general standards laid out.

In some instances — and I've already mentioned Williams Lake — there is a resentment that the town population is paying for police costs in the rural areas, thereby creating an element of public perception that the crime rate may be interfering with an accurate assessment of relative equity and the need for increased police service. Again, a look needs to be taken at these particular kinds of concerns.

There is also a general municipal concern about shifting the burden of costs for enforcing federal and provincial legislation to the municipality. This is the main thrust of a 1985 UBCM resolution, particularly in the area — which we've brought before this House before — of costs of sheriff services. According to the UBCM, the RCMP does not want to expand the number of individual contracts to smaller municipalities; it wants to get out of this kind of service when the current agreement expires in 1991. There have been some ways suggested for dealing with this, and I think the minister is obliged to discuss this in this chamber. A suggested response is that the allocation of police costs can be related to the general effects of cutbacks resulting from the restraint program of the Bennett government.

I think there's no question that there's some correlation there in terms of what has happened over the last few years; also the recommendation of the B.C. Police Commission that municipalities could be better allocated funds, or compensated for their ongoing police costs. If the minister has not heeded the advice of the UBCM or the reports that have been done on policing, I certainly would like to see a thorough analysis of this particular issue. I think there is room for the Committee on Municipal Affairs, for instance, which never does any work because the minister clearly doesn't want it to do any work.... Here is an example of where a committee of this House could provide a useful mechanism whereby we could come to terms with the ongoing police costs faced by our municipalities. I hope the minister will pay attention to ongoing police costs. It comes up over and over again in resolutions and reports from the UBCM and in inquiries into our offices here in the Legislature.

Perhaps the minister could indicate to us that he's going to take this issue most seriously in the next six to nine months and maybe we'll find some satisfactory resolutions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the member that I will continue to take this item seriously and will deal with it in the usual manner.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the usual manner, Mr. Chairman, is that next year we'll be debating it and asking the same questions, because this minister doesn't take this portfolio very seriously at all. We on this side take municipal affairs very seriously. We think it is very important to the province of B.C., and we'll continue to advocate progressive and satisfactory answers to the problems of municipalities.

Another idea that we have not seen anything from this minister on is that municipalities have been requesting legislation for the establishment of area improvement districts within municipalities that wish to pursue certain courses of action for downtown business redevelopment or improvement. Many municipalities have asked this minister to put the legislation together and bring something forward in terms of business improvement areas. All parties, certainly on our side of the House, support the concept. It would allow local business people in a business area or a downtown business area to collectively get together to look at their problems and find ways to collect resources and finances, to have a close working relationship with local councils where the area improvement districts would be established.

We feel that legislation is required in this area. There have been successful business development areas in the United States and in other provinces. I ask the minister initially if he is looking at this concept, and could we be seeing something in the future on this topic.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. It's certainly worthy of consideration. I believe it's something that could and should — and no doubt would — complement the downtown revitalization programs. It is on the agenda and again I want to thank the member for drawing it to my attention here today.

MR. BLENCOE: It's been on the agenda for a number of years. I have to say that the New Democratic Party would not waste time. We would introduce it and bring in legislation because we believe the small business community needs this kind of legislation; it needs progressive changes. I'll just go through, for the minister's benefit, what this sort of thing would do. This government is supposed to be the supporter of business, but we all know that that is not exactly true in this province today.

This business development area legislation would allow business people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if we're discussing legislation, as the Chair has discussed with the member

[ Page 7911 ]

before, it is not appropriate nor in order during Committee of Supply.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. Let's talk about what the concept might be able to do, Mr. Chairman, and what has been advocated in reports by the UBCM — which is obviously policy, not legislation. It's suggestions.

It would promote business in the area improvement district through research, management, publicity and other means. It would allow those business people to undertake improvements to private premises with the consent of the owner. It would improve and beautify streets and sidewalks and publicly owned lands and buildings within the area improvement. It would initiate a cooperative and unified scheme for design for public and private premises within the area improvement district, and it could borrow money for the acquisition and the improvement of property.

It's particularly important, Mr. Chairman, in urban areas where the downtowns have been dramatically affected by suburban redevelopment. I won't go into the pros and cons of that or what's happened with shopping malls, etc. Suffice to say that the heart and soul and the core of many communities are being affected by suburban redevelopment and shopping centres, and many of those exciting downtown business sections — and here in Victoria we're part of that — have been dramatically affected in the last few years.

The business community, which I have met with and talked with about this idea, and which is in full support of this concept, has advocated to this government and to Municipal Affairs, with no action as usual, that this novel and unique — not experiment, because it's been done elsewhere — way to help downtown businesses thrive and expand, and to save some of these businesses, could be introduced very quickly.

Mr. Chairman, we support it. We would like to see something done about it and brought into this Legislature as soon as possible. It has potential for downtown areas that are going through business slumps and bankruptcies. And God knows how many bankruptcies there have been under this government in the last few years. It has the potential to deal with.... As you know, when downtowns deteriorate and the shops close down, the crime rate tends to go up and people tend to stay away from the downtown area. What we want is a dynamic, progressive program for rebuilding downtown cores in this province. That's the plan.

As a matter of fact, when I was on Victoria city council, this came up and we asked the government of the time to do something, and we're still asking. The business community of this province is asking. If the minister had taken some action, it is conceivable that some businesses that have gone today could still have been with us. Your abandonment of the small business sector of this province is noted. It's infamous through your tax system and your lack of support to these kinds of business-development areas.

Rather than laugh and giggle over there, let's pay attention to the small entrepreneur in the province of British Columbia. These small business people in the downtown areas are asking for this kind of legislation and this kind of policy. Let's hope we're going to see something very soon. Maybe the minister wants to respond, and maybe he'll be a little more positive.

[2:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of activity taking place out there over the past year or two in stimulating the local economy, pulling together councils, chambers of commerce, business groups and union groups in a number of our areas to work together to stimulate the economy. That member can rest assured and feel relaxed that things are happening for the small business man in this province and will continue to.

MR. WILLIAMS: For those who check the bankruptcy rates, we can reflect on the comments of the minister. With respect to the heritage programs and the improvement and upgrading of some of the small town downtown commercial areas, yes, I agree that some have been most effective and beneficial. Towns like Nelson clearly are great assets to the province. But I wonder if the minister has given some thought to the possibility of extending this heritage idea into other areas as well.

In the last little while they've suggested in Victoria, for example, that trolley cars might be established linking the downtown area. I think that has merit. I think it would benefit the downtown core. It would allow parking areas out on the edge of the CRD, and then integrate the downtown. Some additional aid in funding would be beneficial there. But I suggest that that might be applied in the city of Victoria, as citizens here have suggested. I think, too, it makes a great deal of sense in the city of New Westminster. The city of New Westminster now has the SkyTrain reaching the old core on Columbia Avenue, but what's really needed is some kind of loop system linking 6th and the 12th Street and the Columbia corridor. You could have a simple trolley loop serving New Westminster which, in my view, would be the catalyst that would transform downtown New Westminster and link the competing shopping centre with the old declining shopping centre of Columbia Street. All of them would benefit as a result of that simple looping operation.

I think there are other areas as well. North Vancouver city, for example, has steep terrain like New Westminster. I think cablecars could well have a useful role on Lonsdale in the city of North Vancouver, as they could on 6th in New Westminster. That, in turn, would reinforce the kind of historical heritage areas of these communities. Maybe the minister could comment on that useful proposal which would increase employment and improve the life of the small business community, which needs a great deal of help in this tenth, tough year of your administration.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm glad to, Mr. Chairman, but with all due respect to the member, he is speaking to the wrong minister. This minister is not responsible for heritage other than to approve the declaration of a building or whatever through the municipality. That comes under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), along with transit. I would suggest that you bring back those excellent ideas whenever the responsible minister's estimates come up in the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I'll be glad to do that. But I hope that you will reinforce these useful suggestions with your colleagues, who take their jobs so seriously.

Yesterday and today the member for Victoria has been arguing for special programs with respect to infrastructure, and increased expenditures. It's something to do that across the board, but surely the reasonable thing to do would be to

[ Page 7912 ]

consider special programs in areas of consistently high unemployment. Right now we have consistently high unemployment in the Kootenays, Kamloops and Prince George and the areas around them. It would seem reasonable to accelerate public spending in those areas and have infrastructure programs related to employment levels so that they would be works programs that would be triggered so that the communities could have a whole range of proposals ready to go. In turn, your administration could work along the lines proposed by the mayor of Vancouver and the mayors' federation, but more tied to the unemployment level itself. Has the minister given that some thought?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Always are we giving thought to what could be done to create more jobs in our province. It's really heartening, indeed, to hear particularly from that member that he vows supports infrastructure to create jobs. I would hope that you're not separating public works infrastructure from infrastructure that is shared by the private sector, because I can think of and recall in this House where you and a number of your colleagues were extremely critical of jobs being created as a result of the installation of infrastructure in the northern part of our province.

However, I repeat for the benefit of this member that under no circumstances am I prepared to back away from the excellent program that we have now for the funding of infrastructure. We will not get away from revenue-sharing to fund infrastructure. This year alone somewhere in the neighbourhood of $115 million is going into infrastructure at the municipal level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't need a speechwriter, because it's all with me; I'm living it all the time.

As I've said already, in the past ten years I believe in excess of a billion dollars has gone into infrastructure in British Columbia. As for the proposal that you refer to, I am opposed to the method. I am not opposed to the need for improved infrastructure in many parts of our country, because you know there are other provinces where the infrastructure has deteriorated through age and they are far behind. They are behind only because of their policy of funding it. British Columbia is not behind. Our infrastructure, when you speak of sewer and water in particular, is up to date. We will continue the way we are; we will not delegate our responsibility to some federal body which has no feeling for many of the small municipalities in this province, nor will we support a proposal by the mayor of Vancouver, Mayor Harcourt, who came along with a proposal that was ignoring small municipalities.

But then the other question arises: should we pressure the federal government for more funds to go into infrastructure at the expense of health and education? I say no. The majority of the councils say no. The UBCM has said yes, we must treat it in a very cautious fashion because that's not what we want either. The infrastructure of British Columbia is in much better shape than anywhere else in Canada. We will not cancel out revenue-sharing to fund infrastructure in favour of what you're proposing.

MR. WILLIAMS: You can always count on the straw man, you know. He'll knock it down every time. You can't go into any community in this province and not see a need. In my own community, in Vancouver, in my own neighbourhood, I can walk around and see all kinds of infrastructure improvement needs. There are sidewalks that are in disrepair or not there. How many municipalities in this province have a complete sidewalk program? They don't. They simply don't. We get this traditional Socred answer: "We're the best in the country. We're the best in the country." It's meaningless when you say that. It's absolutely meaningless.

MR. REID: Well, when you are, you are.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hah! You can walk in any community in this province and see the need, in terms of upgrading roads, in terms of parks and community rec centres and all the rest of it. There is the need there. It's reasonable to think in these terms. At the same time, we have some communities that have official levels of over 20 percent unemployment. At what point do you think that it makes sense to put those people back to work? Clearly you accept 20 percent. Well, I don't. Pretty radical — us folks on this side are famous for that. I suggest that 15 percent, at least, is the point where you should be triggering public works; probably it should be more like 10 or 11 or 12. In Scandinavia it would happen at 3 or 4, in terms of triggering public activity.

To suggest that it's always "either-or" is another straw man. I don't believe for a minute that this nation and this province could not afford to do all kinds of things. We can have education and social programs and infrastructure too. We are not part of the Third World. If we give you guys power for another decade, we may be very close to it. But at this point in time, we're not part of the Third World. We can do all of these things.

Just a few minutes ago we were covering tens and tens of millions that the former Minister of Forests was willing to let slip through his hands because he wasn't doing his job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: The revenues are there. Clearly the revenues are there. And the job can be done. It doesn't have to be either-or.

The minister says he can happily live with 20 percent unemployment levels. Is that it? At what point do you think some public works exercises in these communities should be triggered, since we already have 20 percent in the Kootenays and in the Prince George and northern regions right now?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: One of the difficulties that you have, Mr. Member, is that you're blinded by the situation in your constituency.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes, you are — no question about it; absolutely no question about it. You're being guided and steered by your conditions there, which simply says that we ignore the fact that the provincial government is providing over $17 million this year in revenue-sharing, unconditionally, to Vancouver. Over the past ten years the city of Vancouver has received from the provincial government as their share of revenue, with no strings attached, unconditionally, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million. Now you come here crying the blues because you don't have

[ Page 7913 ]

some sidewalks in some areas. Well, I would suggest to you, my friend, that you take a trip throughout this province, and you'll find out that there are many municipalities out there that are not as well done for.

In addition to that, the city of Vancouver is also talking about extracting some money from the land endowment fund. What are they doing with it? Are they giving it out in salary settlements? What are they doing?

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that indeed that is what they are doing; they are employing more people, and not giving more money to those already employed.

I can assure you that my concern in this province is to make sure that we are fair to all municipalities. I can assure you that the recommendations.... The idea that your side of the House is recommending in respect to infrastructure is like handing away the authority to provide the infrastructure throughout this province to some federal body, and that's not what we want. We can do it ourselves. Whenever the federal government is in a financial position to fairly provide some funds for some additional function like this, then certainly we'd be interested. But at this moment, the answer is no. We are doing a fine job in this province. I would suggest that if you are not prepared to delve into the activities of the city of Vancouver and how it spends its money.... This year it's receiving about $17 million. You ask them to put that where they think it's going to create more jobs, building sidewalks and whatever else you suggest that they need.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think the people in the city of Vancouver are the ones who make those decisions. They elect a council regularly, and they make.... But you have trouble with the decisions the citizens make: that's your problem, Mr. Minister. You're unhappy. You don't like the results. You don't like the idea that Mike Harcourt can get elected and reelected in Vancouver, and is going to come over here and cause you problems again and again and again, especially when you're sitting over here next time.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: There'll be more than one bald fellow on the other side next time around, I'll tell you. That one won't even be around.

There is also an anti kind of thing in terms of federal money. You don't want federal money inserted into job creation at the municipal level. There is an inherent bias there, and it is not just you. It's there in the Ministry of Mines; it's there in the other ministries as well. You don't want federal money. We now have a forest industry that is going downhill because we've never accepted federal money. You are talking the same language as your colleagues over there, saying we don't want any of that federal money at all.

[3:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The property endowment fund in the city of Vancouver seems to bother you. How do you think they built it up, Mr. Minister? You really don't know. In my view, they have in the city of Vancouver the most capable bureaucracy in the province of British Columbia, unfortunately exceeding our capacity here at the provincial level. It is truly a tragedy that we have not built up throughout many ministries the quality of staff that the city of Vancouver has built up. It shows in the salary levels they're prepared to pay. They get the best talent available.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I really resent the comparison that this member is making between the administration....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister. That does not appear to be a valid point of order. It seems to be a matter that can be addressed when the minister has an opportunity to stand in reply.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I sympathize....I've got my staff here. I really don't appreciate that, sir.

MR. WILLIAMS: His staff is a notable exception, without doubt. They are highly qualified and have served many administrations. What's sad is that you don't equal the salary levels at the civic level, as you might have for the quality staff that we do have.

At the same time, the city of Vancouver, with a top-notch staff, has been able to be a significant player with respect to property that they own and have subsequently bought and sold and bought again within the city. What you're really talking about there is a kind of social democracy, Mr. Minister, where lands increased their value significantly, where the community improved the infrastructure and then got the benefit of the value increment with respect to the lands. That's what the property endowment fund is about in the city of Vancouver. You talk about it as this kind of very special, sacred area. That's very interesting. Imagine the guy from Central Fraser Valley talking in these radical terms. I wonder if he really reflected on what the property endowment fund represents. It represents public enterprise by the city of Vancouver, by Mayor Mike Harcourt, by his staff and the rest. Much of that land is leasehold land that will provide revenue in perpetuity to the city of Vancouver. That's the property endowment fund.

It makes sense — I mean, it doesn't take a radical.... Lord Maynard Keynes argued that in bad times one should spend money to lift up employment. In the city of Vancouver that is precisely what they've been doing. During the Socred bad times, the city council — which is not a Socred council — has been carrying out public works and spending to make sure that there are higher levels of employment in the city of Vancouver. That's exactly what has happened. They have used that public enterprise vehicle that they have, limited as it is, to create jobs and be able to use that pool of capital in times of need. It has been a very creative instrument.

I am so pleased that I will be able to get on the phone this afternoon and phone up Mayor Mike and say: "Lord, you've got a convert over there. The Minister of Municipal Affairs thinks that what you people in the city of Vancouver have done is something very special indeed." And it isn't just Mayor Mike. It has been around for a while. A guy you like to sing the praises of was one of the people who furthered it as much as anybody. His name is Art Phillips. He was mayor, and now he's your commissioner of critical industries, doing a good job there as well. Mayor Phillips, probably more than anybody in the last decade or two, saw that that fund evolved, was developed in a more creative way and in fact was a more

[ Page 7914 ]

creative public enterprise. Now swallow that one, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the member are almost an insult to the property tax payers of Vancouver. Really! You stand there and you say that the city bought all of this land — kept banking this land and so forth. Where on earth do you think the city gets the money from? Out of Mayor Harcourt's pocket or out of Harry Rankin's pocket, or where? Where do they get it from? They get it from the taxpayer. Shame on you. I would suggest to this member that he go back to the city of Vancouver and suggest to them that they start to return some of these funds to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, and remove the hardship that they've been placing on the businesses there by loading more and more taxes on their backs, while they are building a land bank. What do you think is going on out there? Where does the money come from? The taxpayer has to pay the bill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I do know. And I can assure you that any time governments use money it has to come from the tax.... Governments don't have any money.

MR. WILLIAMS: When did you leave the Highlands?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Never mind when I left the Highlands. Don't discriminate against someone from the Highlands. Ask Alex Macdonald; he knows when I left the Highlands.

But I can tell you this: the message from you should not be to continue to build a land bank, but rather to ease the pressure on the working men and women of the city of Vancouver, and on the small businesses of the city of Vancouver, and come in and state quite clearly that this year there will be no property tax increases, that there will be no increases in salaries, that indeed we are going to use any funds made available to us, including close to $17.5 million from the provincial government in unconditional grants-no strings attached — to create new jobs to put people to work, not add more to those already gainfully employed and not to increase taxes on the average man and woman or on businesses in the city of Vancouver. So don't give me this stuff about how great they have been in the city of Vancouver. Anyone could go ahead and build a great big land bank if all they had to do was increase taxes to do so. The big challenge here is not to build a land bank, but rather to hold their taxes. That's what I would suggest they try doing.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't know when you got off the boat, man, but whenever it was, you don't have much of a reading of the history of the city where I was born, and I think what you don't realize is that the origin of this land bank in the city of Vancouver is simply tax-sale lands from the Great Depression. That's what it is.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: What do you mean it doesn't matter? You're saying that they took it out of the hide of the taxpayer. That's not so at all. These were simply lands that reverted to the city from the Great Depression and through the Second World War. That's where the land bank came from in the city of Vancouver. They've since worked with it, enhanced it, and rolled it over and continued from that significant base. But this minister still can't sort things out very well.

He was complaining just a few minutes ago that money was going to be taken out of this endowment fund, and he was knocking it. Shocking — imagine, they're going to take money out of the endowment fund! Well, you can't have it both ways. Now you've given me a few straw men to kick around. You can't have it both ways, but that's what you're trying to do. That endowment fund is there. It should be used. Extra funds should be taken out in bad times. If we keep you guys in office, that fund won't be there for long. We'll have to empty it in order to deal with the problems you create for us in terms of your lack of strategies for employment.

I suggest you go back to the history books, look at the actual history of the city of Vancouver, and you'll find that the property endowment fund was lands that simply reverted to the city of Vancouver, and it wasn't new taxes levied on the citizens at all.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You cannot alter the fact, Mr. Member, that whether they took it in lieu of taxes or purchased it, they did it at the expense of the property tax payer. All I'm saying now is that they should use the $17.4-odd million, plus what's available in the endowment fund, to keep property taxes down for the hard-working men and women in the city of Vancouver, and for those businesses that are really suffering under their heavy taxation.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver East says that the land endowment fund which Vancouver city has really was acquired by accident. I don't think it should be acquiring lands by accident; it should be acquiring them by design.

First an item of personal history. My father, when he came to this country many years ago, bought several lots in the area of Southwest Marine Drive. Property values were rising in those days — 1910-11 or thereabouts. He let his lots go in the Dirty Thirties for taxes, and I assume that those lots on Southwest Marine first became the property of the city and have subsequently been sold. I think that's the way things are. Perhaps they needn't be as dramatic in the future.

But I think that each municipality, certainly including the city of Vancouver, should have a land-bank policy. It should be both acquiring lands for whatever reason and disposing of them. It has a substantial advantage in that it knows what its plans are for the longer term, and it should, because of its excellent staff, be in a position to acquire lands with a considerable potential. It should hold these lands for a time and then sell them off on another occasion when it could gain considerably from a financial point of view. But municipalities should be turning lands over.

In the four years I was chairman of the rapid transit committee responsible for planning and construction of the rapid transit line, I met often with Mike Harcourt and fairly frequently with his council. There was no interest whatsoever on the part of the city in acquiring lands along the route, which the city knew certainly in advance of rapid transit, and more particularly in areas close to the stations. Again, the location of the stations was known well in advance by the city. The city had an opportunity to buy lands which have benefited or certainly will benefit substantially as a result of public moneys being spent on a system designed to move people rapidly and also pick them up and deliver them at certain

[ Page 7915 ]

locations, namely the station locations. Experience in Toronto and in other parts of the world is that within the first 1,000, 1,500 or even 2,000 feet of a station, property values increase substantially – perhaps not immediately, but in most instances shortly after the location of the station is known, let alone after it's built and operating.

The city of Vancouver did not invest in any lands in close proximity to the stations. Now the province was faced with the possibility, and on the face of it it seemed attractive, that the province, through B.C. Transit or otherwise, might buy lands adjacent to the stations, knowing in advance that these lands would be increased in value as a result of the construction of the line. Looking carefully at the opportunity, the province decided not to. But the main reason it decided not to was that it would have inserted itself into an area which is of substantially local or municipal jurisdiction. It not only would have bought properties and created its own land banks in the area, but it would have had to establish certain rates — let's say property taxation rates — to recover its investment or pay for its investment in the early years, which certainly would have conflicted with the assessments and the municipal rates charged in Vancouver, Burnaby, New Westminster, potentially Surrey, Coquitlam and so on. So the province backed away, more for reasons of avoiding conflict with municipal jurisdiction than from the economics of buying up land which could be sold later and which could help pay for a system which certainly benefits those areas and indeed benefits the municipalities through which the line goes.

[3:15]

In other words, I'm really saying that municipalities, and on occasion other levels of government, should have a land bank policy and should be able to take advantage of the enhanced value of lands resulting from the investment of public funds, while I perhaps fault the city of Vancouver for not grasping an opportunity. The opportunity was there and I think it should have been grasped. In future when new stations are located, I hope other municipalities take that approach and perhaps sell off some lands they have which are marketable now, buy these strategically located lands and turn a profit, to recapture some of the value which is created by a substantial public investment like a rapid transit system or a change in routing of buses or a change in bus stop locations and so on.

In this respect I must say that we don't seem to have a mechanism at the provincial level — at least not an obvious one — for coordinating policy between Municipal Affairs and the minister responsible for transit, and indeed for transportation. In most other provinces buses and rapid transit systems come under the Minister of Transport. I think there is need for a closer coordination in British Columbia of the several ministries' policies. Transportation, perhaps more than anything else, helps the development — indeed, shapes the development — of municipalities, regional districts and so on. I hope that in future there is a mechanism for coordinating these policy initiatives. But my basic point was that Vancouver did not take advantage of land value enhancement close to stations. It should have done so, and I hope other municipalities do so in the future.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to say that once again we've had a thoughtful presentation from the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. It's always a pleasure to hear intellect from the back benches of the party in power, because it's so rare.

At any rate, I just wonder if the minister might respond to the member for North Vancouver on that question with respect to, say, Surrey and Coquitlam, which are the likely extensions of the light rapid transit system. Clearly there would be great benefits for both those municipalities if they became significant landowners in the station areas. That would be beneficial for them in terms of being able to lower taxes for other citizens and reap the returns from this huge public investment. I think the member for North Vancouver is right in criticizing Vancouver city council for not really fully realizing the opportunity that was before them with respect to the right-of-way for SkyTrain. But that opportunity is still there for the suburban municipalities.

At the same time, one might think about the other end of that project, the downtown peninsula, and what SkyTrain has done to increase land values in the downtown peninsula — a tremendous impact. Surely it is a legitimate area in terms of public taxation — not just the business of acquiring sites but also looking seriously at recouping some of the cost of SkyTrain from those increased land values in the central business district. Instead of looking at this business of five bucks a month on your light bill and increasing the transit fares themselves, I suggest that we could actually have free transit in downtown Vancouver, in terms of loop systems and all the rest of it, paid for simply by the tax because of the increased land values.

It's a double problem for us in this region because we have let downtown Vancouver, by and large, become owned by absentee landlords. We have people from abroad and around the world as the main beneficiaries of these huge expenditures on infrastructure, such as SkyTrain. The foreign, offshore Pacific owners and others who have bought up downtown Vancouver are the ones reaping huge profits in terms of increased land values in the downtown peninsula. It's not sound management. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that there's a need for some staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to look at this whole business of increments in land value relative to infrastructure and major public expenditures, so that the communities can be advised of the potential that's right there within their grasp — if there were some cooperation from your department.

I wonder if you might respond to the member for North Vancouver in terms of his suggestions with respect to SkyTrain and, at least, the suburban municipalities.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly my colleague makes an excellent suggestion. Remarks made earlier are not to say that we do not see a need for the provision of land for various functions. One of the permanent programs within this ministry has to do with the provision of land for parks purposes. What I'm talking about is where a city council is talking about eroding the land endowment fund in order to meet some wage increases or something along those lines.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Not at all. You are mixing apples with oranges.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think you missed the train.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's fine. Then we'll get the next one.

[ Page 7916 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for North Vancouver has said, when he so ably handled the initial work with respect to that system, that they looked carefully and thoughtfully and positively at the idea of land acquisition around the stations. If you go to Toronto, for example, and look at that system, you'll see the highrises at the nodes of the stations along the subway system. You'll find that universally.

I'm advised by experts who have looked at this question of land values relative to major new transit infrastructures that there are waves. There are actually three waves of increased values. Because of the depression you guys have created by your general economic mismanagement, we haven't even had the first wave — other than in Metrotown, which Burnaby council has almost generated itself.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, New Westminster is pretty flimsy, and I think it needs some additional help. That's why I suggested to you that a cable car loop system in New Westminster is, I think, the catalyst to make it actually work and to lift that thing up. My personal view is that New Westminster is a far more significant urban asset than Metrotown is, can be or ever will be.

The real estate industry hasn't seen that so far. That's a hidden advantage — not for long; but a significant advantage for the community itself. The Royal City might well look at these questions with you. If you had some supplementary staff in this area, you could really lift these things off the ground. That's not expensive job creation activity at all; just a couple of individuals with talent as a catalyst to work with the community. That's in the tradition of the department and it's worth thinking about extending it.

To get back to the member from North Vancouver, he's really saying that there are these golden opportunities. You're turning moose pasture into highrise land; tremendous increases in value once you put in a facility like light rapid transit. The question is, should those benefits be generally shared by the community? On this side — and I think generally in this province — people think yes, it's reasonable that those huge new benefits should be shared by the community. They're the most legitimate areas to tax. It's new values, new dollars; not coming out of anybody's pockets, simply created as a result of the activity of building this transportation system.

Isn't it reasonable then to pursue this? I don't think you caught the train last time. Look at staffing and at advising municipalities like Coquitlam and Surrey — and maybe still New West — on the opportunities that are there in terms of urban development and redevelopment as a result of this important infrastructure.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the ministry of course has a planning department that stands ready and willing at all times to assist local municipalities with all of their future planning functions. They work very closely with them. Certainly that is one of their roles, and they take it seriously. I think it's very important.

MR. WILLIAMS: So you're saying you have no problem in terms of recommending acquisition of the lands at the station sites, as the member for North Vancouver is suggesting?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I have no problem with a municipality doing some sound long-term planning. If it means acquiring — or obtaining in whatever form is permitted — land for park uses, to facilitate transit or whatever... I do not think municipal government should be getting into land that is going to be banked simply for some future use, possibly to generate income for uses such as we heard just recently in the city of Vancouver. When it comes to providing land for parks or any other public function, yes, to meet the shortfall in their operating budget.

MR. WILLIAMS: I need help in terms of that convolution. I need a road map to follow that one.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you just check with the city and find out how they plan to meet the shortfall in our operating budget? I believe $13 million was the figure mentioned. I would suggest to you, Mr. Member, that you inquire as to why a shortfall, where it's going to be, and how they intend to take care of it.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, they have an endowment fund, just like the member for North Vancouver was saying, and as I've been saying this afternoon. Its value in the city of Vancouver has increased hundreds of millions of dollars because of these various infrastructure improvements. For example, the new Cambie bridge is a pleasure to see. It's a great change. But they owned land at the bridgehead, so they're going to end up with tremendous increases in value in terms of new revenues from those lands.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, that's revenue right into their pocket, because they're the landowner at the bridgehead. Not the poor taxpayer at all.

If you're going to turn moose pasture into land that's worth — what? Some of these prime sites — commercial space — are rented out right now for 75 bucks a square foot. From moose pasture to $75 a square foot. That's a tremendous increase in value. That could fund the municipal engine to a very great extent. It would not harm anybody. The member for North Vancouver is talking about that sort of thing. He's not talking about — and Art Phillips wasn't talking about that sort of thing either.... He really made that fund work, more than any mayor in modern history, in the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Indeed. He was a fine administrator and a creative person in politics. But you're talking about parks. I'm not talking about parks. The member for North Vancouver isn't talking about parks. If you build a new station in Surrey, you don't want it to land in Stanley Park; you want it to land in a commercial centre. That's what you want it to do, because that's what it will be in the future anyway. So the question is: isn't that a legitimate area in terms of funding municipal government in the future? I say it

[ Page 7917 ]

is. The member for North Van says it is. Come on, move over, catch the train.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you'll get the next train. You just don't want to face up to it. You've got an ideological problem. Isn't it an ideological problem?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. This would decrease taxes. You are a traditional Socred. It's "a ¢ b z." Come on. This is the way to lower taxes. Can't we get it through? It is a way to lower taxes in a most painless way. Where these huge increases in land values occur, the community could reap those differences and fund its programs without touching the average taxpayer at all. I'm suggesting it. The member for North Van is suggesting it. The present mayor does it. The former mayor, Mr. Phillips, did it. Don't you think you're in a bit of an old ideological ultra-conservative corner that's helping to sink the ship of state right now in this province?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I think that the ship that's about to sink is on the other side. You sunk it in 1975 with that same theme, that same philosophy, that same belief. The way to fund the operations of this province is to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why don't you sit down for a second? I've hit a little nerve here, have I?

Mr. Chairman, it's that the same political theory that sunk your ship in 1975. You went out into this province to take control over the forest industry. Your party went out into the province to take control over the food industry through Panco Poultry and everything else. That is a theory of your government, not of this government at all. No, I don't contribute to what you're saying, that you should use taxpayers' money to buy more control and generate more income and run the ship. Don't be silly. That's why you're in opposition and we're in government.

MR. HOWARD: I think, listening to this debate, that we truly have the measure of this minister in trying to have it both ways all the time, especially when it comes to economic matters and economic philosophies. The minister here talks, you know, that government has no money; it's all the taxpayers' money. They should receive the credit, and that's properly so. But when he came to Terrace a couple of years ago to participate in the commemoration of a project funded by the downtown revitalization fund, what we call the 4600 Block in Terrace, he saw all this taxpayers' money being used to upgrade the environment outside the store-fronts on that 4600 Block, and what was his phrase then? His phrase was praising the free enterprise system that made this possible. He was praising all the people on that 4600 Block for putting in their money. But it was taxpayers' money.

Again, he tries to have it both ways, depending on who the audience is. In that case it was some of the downtown merchants who were the audience, so he catered to them and said: "Yes, you're the ones." He went around the block, out of sight of them and then said, "Oh, I think it's the taxpayers who put up the money."

So, Mr. Minister, when you get on to that kind of tacky operation of being inconsistent in your declarations, in your phraseology and rhetoric about what the valuable economic forces in the nation are, you lose all the time, because you're caught out. The minister is caught out in trying to play two different games and tell two different stories. Be consistent and stick to a story and you'll get along a lot better.

Well, we've built a location for ambulances right on one of the main corners in Terrace a while ago. One of the signs up there that the provincial government provided was "We're providing jobs." Balance that against the rhetoric that just says the government can't provide jobs, and you see what's happening. It's that kind of doubletalk, Mr. Chairman, that makes people wonder whether they can believe you or not, that makes people react in disbelief when they say: "Well, he says this today and something different tomorrow." A lot of the general public listens to both messages, and they say: "We can't believe these guys." So stick to one line and you'll be a lot better off.

I want to ask the minister what steps he is taking or what approach is being made to municipalities from the government to find the $5 million that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) referred to in his budget speech — $5 million from municipalities that would go into a forest stand management fund. What's taking place with respect to mechanisms of acquiring that money from municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would refer the member to the Minister of Finance when his estimates arise. That announcement didn't come out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Finance, I'm sure, will be adequately equipped to answer your question.

MR. HOWARD: We heard that same argument from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) the other day. He said: "Nothing to do with me about job creation. See somebody else." Shift the responsibility off. But this is the minister, Mr. Chairman, in charge of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is the minister who by law is required to be the conduit pipe of communication between municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's not the Minister of Finance; it's this minister who is that communicating channel between municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If he's saying he doesn't know, that he's not doing anything about it, that he doesn't care whether or not the $5 million is acquired for municipalities, fine. I'll accept that as an answer. But he can't shunt it off to some other minister.

We ask the Minister of Finance questions during question period. He says: "Well, it's nothing to do with me. It's got to do with money, but it's nothing to do with me. Ask somebody else." It's the musical chairs game here, that whatever the question it's not the particular minister's responsibility; it's always off on somebody else's shoulders. But I submit that the minister has a responsibility under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act, a specific responsibility, inasmuch as he is the communicator between municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So is he saying he's not going to do anything about trying to communicate between the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and municipalities as to how that $5 million is going to be raised from municipalities?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is referring first of all to a proposal by the Vancouver Island municipalities in respect to this program of reforestation. I

[ Page 7918 ]

think the suggestion was that it be done on a partnership basis, and they also suggested that the municipalities come up with a given amount of money for that program which they are advocating. It's not my ministry, as far as the program is concerned, but I do think it's a good initiative, and it's certainly one that they should be encouraged in. However, to date there has not been any municipality that has participated in that program, or contacted our ministry in respect to how they wish to do that. We have, however, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member, allocated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million to Vancouver Island municipalities this year without any strings attached, so there is a good possibility that those municipalities that are advocating this program are going to consider using a portion of that for that very high-priority project, in their estimation, and I think it is a very high priority project.

So the best answer I can give you at the moment is that there have been no formal discussions with this ministry and municipalities in respect to that program, as it relates to the funding of that forestry project. But I would suggest to the member that having already allocated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million that they may spend as they see fit, they may wish to use some of that there.

MR. HOWARD: What the minister is saying is that out of his ministry, as I gather it, an amount of $10 million has been allocated and will go as an unconditional grant to municipalities on Vancouver Island on what — a per capita basis, or part of the revenue-sharing formula and so on?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Okay. So it will be spread out to all municipalities.

The minister then says that inasmuch as one pocket of government has taken $10 million and is going to put it over here to a number of municipalities on Vancouver Island, they will then have money that they can turn around and give back to the Minister of Forests to put into a forest stand management fund. What's the purpose of that? It's just recirculating the money through different hands. Where do the municipalities come into this? If it's just provincial government money that's involved — if that's what's anticipated — then why not do it directly? Why not put the money into the fund directly, instead of this hoax of municipalities participating? If it's money from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that is a direct grant to municipalities for the purposes of their activity in forest management, that's one thing. But if it's simply to be channelled to them and come back into a fund administered under the Ministry of Forests, why not do it directly? Why not be out in the open about what you're doing? This is just confusing the whole question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I believe the member fully understands the revenue-sharing program and how the money is arrived at. It's fairly straightforward. They share in the various areas of revenue of the province. We don't determine how that portion of the fund is spent by them. Where we do make that determination is when it applies to sewer, water, roads, planning, etc. But the unconditional portion is allocated to them on the basis that they use it as they think it can be best used in their community.

In the case of the city of Vancouver, I would suggest that the best use there is to apply it to their operating, so that they don't have to increase taxes to the property owners or the small business people.

In the case of the Vancouver Island municipalities that are promoting this program, it would appear that their best use would be to put it, or part of it, to that program. We believe that these municipalities have the ability to make their own decisions in that regard, and I believe very strongly in them having that freedom. Unconditional grants are there for them to spend as they see the funds can be best spent in the community. If the municipalities of Vancouver Island believe that that is one area that requires first attention, then they have that choice.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: The question that was asked related to forest management. It's just one of the ordinary amounts of money that come out of the ministry under the Revenue Sharing Act on some prescribed formula. I have no idea what it is. How much money, if any, has been allocated, say, to the district municipality of Terrace for its desired involvement in forest management? Anything? Or is it just for Vancouver Island? Is Vancouver Island a special treatment area, or what?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No. Obviously there are no areas receiving special treatment, as can be indicated by the allocation of funds. All municipalities in the province share in the revenue-sharing program, including the unconditional portion.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned as I'm sure we're all concerned about cooperation between different levels of government when it comes to longer-term planning for big projects which have longer-term effects.

The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) mentioned the new Cambie Street bridge. I made inquiries at the time and endeavoured to influence the design. My understanding is that the new Cambie Street bridge cannot carry rapid transit, that there is no provision in its design and construction to carry the light rail rapid transit system that we have. I also understand that in the view of Vancouver city hall the preferred southern route for rapid transit to Richmond is down Cambie Street. Because the tie-in with the present system will be much less expensive at the stadium station than at downtown Granville and Burrard, it would be much less expensive for all concerned — the province, the city of Vancouver, the neighbouring municipalities — if a line to Richmond ran directly south down Cambie and, incidentally, ran across the new Cambie Street bridge.

But it seems that with the priorities that Expo had, with the relatively short view that the city planners took in Vancouver, the need to get something built, they proceeded to build a magnificent structure which with a little foresight could also have carried rapid transit. That alternative, again as I understand it, is precluded because this brand-new structure isn't strong enough or isn't designed, doesn't have enough space, to carry light rapid transit.

I merely point to this case as one that really begs for the existence of some institution, some organization, even a committee to help to coordinate the longer-term planning of municipalities and the province. The province has a stake in this matter. It puts substantial sums of money into public transportation, buses, SeaBus, light rapid transit. The municipalities certainly have a stake in better planning.

[ Page 7919 ]

We did have, fortunately — and this wasn't my doing — a joint committee with the municipalities and the GVRD for the ultimate selection of route and stations of SkyTrain. But we should have some such setup available for longer-term planning. I am not talking so much about planning as excessive planning or directed planning. I am talking about getting together, talking out the alternatives, arriving at some consensus with all levels of government participating as to what is the best, most desirable system, not only of transportation but in respect to land use generally.

So I hope that the minister, if he has an opportunity to plan or be involved in another project that involves transportation, land use and so on, would draw on the municipalities for input but ensure that in the longer pull we do the best thing for all concerned and certainly the best thing for several levels of government. In the end the consumer means you and me, the population.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister's comments earlier about forest management that no money is being provided to municipalities through his ministry under the Revenue Sharing Act or in any other way for the purposes of forest management. Am I correct in that?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the member, we do not have within our ministry the authority to provide money for forestry specifically. We have the authority to provide money out of revenue-sharing that is unconditional. They may spend it as they see fit.

I'll run down what moneys are provided for in revenue sharing. There is a basic grant that goes to all municipalities, and that is $6,100,000 this year. Sewer and water — this is paying off the old debts — has come up from $98 million last year to $101 million this year. Highways has risen from last year's $5,200,000 to $10 million this year. Planning, $2 million again this year. Funds to regional districts, $1.1 million. Undergrounding, a $300,000 allocation there. Restructure grants have come from $2,600,000 to $4 million. Unconditional grants, the portion that they may spend as they see fit, have risen from $90 million last year to $95 million this year, and new sewer and water programs have risen from $4.2 million last year to $6.5 million this year.

We have come from a total last year of $209,700,000 to a total this year of $226 million. So you can see that there is a substantial increase in funding to municipalities through revenue-sharing, a major part of which is unconditionally in their hands.

MR. HOWARD: I take it from the minister's answer as well that no mechanism exists to provide a method of communicating with municipalities about the $5 million that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) used in his budget address as being moneys expected to be received from municipalities to go into a forest stand management fund; and that no representations have been made from municipalities to the minister with respect to that fund as well.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it would hardly be correct to say that no mechanism is in place to communicate, because there is a mechanism, and I am an easy fellow to get along with. They're communicating with me daily, and I am sure that if they should decide that they should communicate with me in this particular regard, they will. They never hesitate. There is no problem there at all.

You are correct, there has been no communication with my ministry in respect to any special funding for this particular program.

MR. HOWARD: I also want to put to the minister that he can do something in job creation with respect to sewage treatment facilities. The resumption of the 75-25 formula — 75 for the province and 25 for the municipalities — for a specific area in the Okanagan raised the question in a number of municipalities as to why this same 75-25 formula can't apply to other municipalities. I've spoken with those of my own constituency about it, and I'm sure other members have as well. Why can't there be a return to what it was earlier?

The municipality of Terrace in particular feels itself in an awkward position on this matter because, as I recall, it was threatened by the Ministry of Environment that if it didn't do a certain thing with respect to sewage treatment, it would be in some difficulty with the ministry, and was then advised by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that they couldn't even conduct a plebiscite dealing with the question of raising money for sewage treatment. They were caught in a catch-22 situation as a result of two separate ministries of government making opposing demands upon the municipality. Regardless of that, they are vitally interested in a return to the 75-25 formula, as are other municipalities who now dump raw or near-raw sewage into the watercourses in that area. It won't be very long before that will have a very injurious effect upon our watercourses. It's a question of prevention as well, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure anytime. The minister well knows that.

I cite for him, as an example, the outflow of the sewage system in Kitimat. A number of years ago it was directly into the Kitimat River where it went into Minette Bay, and that sewage outflow virtually destroyed a native Indian fishery of oolichan in that river. They just will not fish there anymore, and the minister knew what occurred. He wouldn't fish for oolichan, either, with the small-mesh nets.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The minister says he has done it. But he hasn't done it in the Kitimat River. They were not only picking up oolichan in the Kitimat River, but also a variety of other items, some of them non-biodegradable items that people discard, some of them elastic, rubbery items that people discard –—and everything else that goes out through a sewer system went into their fishery area. They stopped. They went through it for one short period of time and said, "No more of that," and nobody would blame them. The minister, if he were there, would do the same thing. He'd say: "I don't want any more of that."

So maybe he should live through some of those experiences and see his way clear to reinstitute this 75-25 formula, so that municipalities in the north who desperately need sewage treatment facilities can take advantage of the same generosity that prevailed with respect to the Okanagan area.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The situation in the Okanagan area is quite different from the rest of the province, in that in that area the sewage requires a much higher level of treatment than is necessary in other areas.

As far as the change of formula is concerned, no, at this moment I cannot see at all changing back to the old formula of 75 by the province and 25 locally, because frankly, the money

[ Page 7920 ]

isn't there. You indicated that we look after the north. Well, that is precisely why the change was made. The major municipalities down in the lower mainland were very aggressive, and very successful over the years that the 75 cents was available. They really pushed it to the point where I could see that other municipalities were going to be suffering, particularly on the unconditional portion. The figures I just quoted indicate the already heavy commitment on old debts of over $100 million per year. That was changing the situation, from the unconditional portion, to paying off the old debts at the expense of the municipalities you talked about. When we made that change, we included additional funding for high-cost connections. Where a new sewage system was being put in and where the cost of the connection exceeded a given figure, we doubled the amount from 25 percent to 50 percent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring to your attention the fact that for two hours or more we have been debating vote 61, and I'm wondering if we have automatically passed vote 60, because we're long past debate on vote 60 and we're now two hours or more into vote 61.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Minister, the Chair normally allows debate under the minister's office vote on the fairly wide range of subjects under the minister's total estimates. What has been the experience in the past of this Chairman is that once the minister's vote is passed, all the other items, having already previously been canvassed, pass usually quite quickly. However, we will continue on the minister's vote, which is vote 59.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I was simply going to endorse fully what you said, Mr. Chairman, and point out to the minister that Committee of Supply has operated on that basis as outlined by the Chairman almost from time immemorial, and the widest possible opportunity is under the minister's salary vote. That is what we are dealing with. Once he gets that out of the way, then the focus becomes very narrow and it comes to the specific vote. The Committee of Supply shouldn't be hampered, Mr. Minister, in that way, even by the suggestion of the minister that it might be a more convenient way to function. We're so pleased that the Chairman of Committee of Supply came to the rescue of a historic method of dealing with things in this chamber.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, before I get involved in the debate, could I make a short introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: In the Sooke School District we have a program called the work study-work experience educational program. When one young lad was filling in the forms that all the students do about what they would like to learn about, he said he would like to learn about the Legislature. So Kathryn Clarke, who was coordinating that particular program for the Sooke School District, contacted my office to see what we could do. The young lad was allowed to work in our office. We exploited him, we utilized his services and we gave him a crash course of what a constituency office is between sessions. He spent a week there. He was very well received by the constituents who came in, and he did an excellent job. Part of that agreement that we made with the Sooke School Board was to allow him to see the Legislature in operation. I'm so glad that not only is he going to hear a little bit from his MLA but he will also see his buddy MLA — my buddy MLA — also in operation. So I'll ask the House to welcome Shane Eddy from the Sooke School District. He attends the Edward Milne Secondary School.

Often, Mr. Chairman, when I go around and talk to the students in the schools, they ask me: "What does the Legislature do? We see very little in the paper." So I have selective readings out of Hansard, and I explain how the government continually attacks the opposition on individual personalities and their political background and everything else. I often think that some of these students really think that I'm making it up. In fact, I'm reading it from Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We could no doubt address that concern by speaking to the estimates.

MR. MITCHELL: That's what I am doing. We were talking about this particular minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Vote 59, the minister's estimates, Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MITCHELL: It was this minister.... For a long time I used to be able to read how he talked about the Waffle Manifesto. Now I have a whole new set of statements that we can discuss.

I know to a certain degree, Mr. Chairman, this is repetition, but I feel it's important that each one of us in this Legislature bring the concerns of our particular constituents that are affecting all municipalities in British Columbia. I know that we have talked and our debate leader the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has talked about the concerns of job creation. Time after time he has brought to this minister's attention the need for municipal infrastructure. He speaks with the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the FCM. He is talking about a concern that is affecting all of us.

There is historical background in why provincial and federal governments share some of the tax revenues with the junior partner of the elected constituencies, the municipalities. It is for two things. It is because they have already set up a tax-collecting mechanism based on incomes, not on a narrow tax base based on land. They are getting some of the natural resource revenue back to a central collection agent like in the province.

This is why I find it very strange that the minister, in the debates that we have had just this last afternoon, keeps talking about these grants that the provincial government gives to the municipalities. But it's fascinating how he jumps from one side to another. I think my student who is here is making notes, and he'll go back to his school and point out both sides of these statements.

For the city of Vancouver, the minister says that they should take these grants and lower taxes. They should lower taxes, and that would take the tax burden off the small businesses and the landowners and everything else. Now it is not for me to tell any municipality how they should spend their money. These are unconditional grants. This is the minister's recommendation. But when we come over to my turf, to the municipalities on Vancouver Island....

[ Page 7921 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your turf'?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Vancouver Island is part of my turf. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) brought up a very valid point, referring to the statement made in the provincial budget about this $5 million that was coming from the municipalities to go into reforestation. The minister says: "Well, if any municipalities on Vancouver Island want to do reforestation, then they should maybe use that money to do reforestation."

He jumps from one side to another. NDP have been fighting for reforestation, complete reforestation to build up sustained yield in our foThe money that comes to these municipalities is coming indirectly from the resources of the province. It is the province that gained the bulk of the revenue that came from the denuding of the forests. Because it's popular, for the last 50 years the Social Democrats, the CCF and the rest bases. It is the province that has been getting the revenue from those resources. Now we have a few municipalities who are getting on the bandwagon and realizing what the NDP have been saying over these many years, that we must do reforestation. It has become a popular political high profile issue, so now the....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is on the wrong estimates. He is debating the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, not the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The member can confine his remarks to revenue-sharing, which is in this vote. The application for any municipality would be in order, but another minister's estimates or a budget for forest renewal would not be appropriate, except as revenue sharing would apply.

MR. MITCHELL: Again, Mr. Chairman, I bring it to your attention.... I don't know if you were in the seat there when it was this minister who said that if the municipalities who are receiving funds under the revenue-sharing.... If they want to put their money into reforestation, they can do it. He opened the debate, and you heard it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's what I said, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: But you whispered. Okay, so what I am trying to point out is that if we are going to have any debate, let's be consistent. Let's not say one thing in one town and another thing in another town, because in the municipality where I live, we don't have any forests. We don't, but we have a lot of people who work in forests, and we feel that the revenue that should come from the province should go back into reforestation to create jobs. That's all I wanted to do. It is not that Cowichan-Malahat or Port Alberni or some of these other areas should pick up that sole responsibility. It is a responsibility of B.C.

When we look at what this government is doing.... I am sorry that the member for Skeena is not here when he asks kind of intelligent questions, because we have got to realize that provincial budgets are political documents to say one thing but to do another. I think a lot of these TV ads that we're seeing today, paid for by the taxpayers, are in the same category. I feel that when we talk we should negotiate with the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government to become involved in the building up of our municipal infrastructure. We're doing it positively, because we feel we're committed to it; we're committed to creating the jobs.

I'm quite convinced, Mr. Chairman, and I say this.... You can mark it down in your little book, and keep it for a prediction. This province will meet with the federal government. They will get some of this money that the federal government has for job creation, and they will put it into municipal infrastructure. I know that the minister says that we cannot go back to the 25 to 75 grants that were given for sewer and water construction; that we have to stay at the 75 to 25, as he's brought in. Some of that federal money can come to the province, and some of that federal money will go into grants such as the sewer infrastructure. I know that maybe next year when the government is again trying to bring their image up, we'll be partners with the federal government, and the money will be going in for infrastructure. At that time we will read back to the students what the minister has said: that he wouldn't do it.

I know we are going to make progress. We have to have that cooperation at all levels of government — federal, provincial and municipal — with the business community, with the trade union community, and with all those others who fall in between. That's what the job of a Legislature is: to bring these ideas, to pave the way for this minister...to know that he has the support of all thinking people in the Legislature.

There's one other main program that I would like to hit on. It's been hit on by our debate leader. It's been brought out in other debates by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke): that is, the problem that is facing every municipality in British Columbia and the municipalities in my particular constituency — the problem of insurance. We all know that there have been all kinds of catastrophes: planes falling out of the air, and problems in India. But we must build in British Columbia a type of insurance that is going to protect the municipalities in our province. We have to do it.

I know philosophically the minister and the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, are against the public being involved in the general insurance scheme that was under ICBC. I know that when that particular plan was brought in it was to give protection to areas that could not get affordable — and I say that again — affordable insurance. They have made some agreement with the private insurance firms that they will not get into the business under ICBC, so we've been informed. I quite believe philosophically that they were outdealt by the private insurance companies, and they're not getting the protection that maybe they thought they were going to get.

I think that at this time, because of the danger that may arise, if municipalities do not have affordable insurance, they will be taking chances. There are some of those who are elected, or some of those who were in the position of making a decision to not take insurance.... And if there's some serious accident or some serious legal cost, individual municipalities will be caught holding the bag. I don't say that I'm going to tell the cabinet and the people who set up different types of insurance how to do it, but there is a method; there must be a method. We must get some way of coordinating the schools and the insurance people to get affordable insurance. I know the only people who can give

[ Page 7922 ]

that leadership are the provincial government, and I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has that responsibility.

[4:15]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: May I, very quickly, Mr. Chairman, also express my welcome to Sean as a buddy MLA for that constituency.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, that red light you've got behind me kind of scares me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Disregard that, hon. member. Just please proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm kind of shocked that the minister has not given any indication, besides that common little yes, there's something coming. I have municipalities who are waiting for some assurance that we are going to have some insurance program. Maybe indirectly I helped cause some of the premiums that were paid out by the insurance companies in the past, because I did instigate, through my community office, Mr. Chairman, certain legal action that some of my constituents had because of the poor — and I say it very bluntly — inspection services by certain inspectors that caused bad installation. A number of my constituents ended up with septic tanks that were not functioning. We managed to get it into the courts, and we got indirectly, through our office, some nice settlements to correct it. I guess, indirectly, that put up the premiums.

But I think these are justifiable premiums. Those premiums would not have made them go up 100 percent and 200 percent. This is why it's important that we put on the record that we are opposed to what the insurance companies are doing, and we're presently opposed to the inaction of this government. I want to say to the minister: we're waiting for something positive, constructive, that will give affordable insurance to all the municipalities.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, had the member been in the House since my estimates came up, or listening to his speaker in his office, he would know that that question has been well debated and adequately answered.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I have just a very brief inquiry to the minister.

Over the months of dealing with this minister, I must confess that I have been frustrated on more than one occasion in attempting to bring him some advice and enlightenment with respect to the democratic process. However, the minister has never hesitated to express his position, and for that I'm thankful. In fact, I would just like him to clarify for the House his position vis-a-vis the recent appeal — I think it was March 3 — to his office by city of Vancouver council. He was at his office, and I believe had a delegation led by the mayor, Mike Harcourt, and possibly some other interested citizens from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, asking for amendments to the municipal enabling act, or whatever legislation would be appropriate, in order to.... I see you shaking your head, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member. I'll advise the committee again that during estimates we are not afforded the opportunity to discuss legislation, amendments to legislation or future legislation. If the member wishes to discuss legislation, he will have to be ruled out of order.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize now that you are stating a fact that had slipped my mind for a moment. I don't really need to refer to legislation. I'll just ask the minister if he would respond on the basis of the government's position in light of the evictions that have been taking place and the inability of people in that downtown area of Vancouver generally to address this problem effectively. In other words, there does not seem to be in place any means by which the authorities can stop the tide of evictions and the escalating rent increases which are just going out of sight.

I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to intervene somehow and address this problem, because it is one that the city of Vancouver's social planning department predicts will continue throughout the course of the fair. These problems are anticipated to continue right up until the end of October, notwithstanding certain statements in some quarters of the community that there are adequate vacancies to accommodate those in need. The fact is that affordable accommodation has to be available for people on fixed incomes: pensioners, war veterans, persons relying on the GAIN program who, if they are employed, underemployed or working for minimum wages, are earning incomes below the poverty line.

This is a serious crisis, and I'm sure that the government had no intention of having this fair, which is being underwritten by all taxpayers and which is supposed to be a friendly experience, a joyful occasion, a display, through the government on behalf of the people, of the hospitality of this province to the world.... The impact that is happening to individuals, the devastating consequences that some individuals and some communities are experiencing, I'm sure was not part of the design initially, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. If the members of the committee will remember the Journals and the debate from yesterday, you will note that this topic was given some latitude, although it is totally out of order inasmuch as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is not responsible for housing. That is a different portfolio. Nor is it responsible for consumer rent protection legislation. That point was made abundantly clear yesterday to another member of the committee after some length, and after offering the courtesy of some latitude. I think the matter is closed now in terms of this particular issue. I must advise the first member for Vancouver Centre that he should relate his remarks to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I detect in your remarks a suggestion that you are now entering the debate and have determined that all matters have been sufficiently debated and that closure is now in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. I am reminding the members of the committee that the record will show that the issue was discussed at some length in spite of the fact that it was out of order. I'll remind hon. members of the committee that standing orders state that debate in Committee of Supply must be strictly relevant to the vote before us, and I'll also remind hon. members of the committee that a member who persists in irrelevance or repetition may be asked to discontinue speaking, and if the member still continues to

[ Page 7923 ]

speak, the Chairman shall follow the procedures in standing order 19, which I'm sure the hon. member is well aware of. To vote 59, please.

MR. BARNES: I'd better check standing order 19.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new book, Em.

MR. BARNES: Oh, is it a new book? Let's see. I haven't checked my book for some time. Standing order 19....

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. BARNES: Oh, okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grossly disorderly.

MR. BARNES: "Grossly disorderly"? Well, I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with such behaviour. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your clarifying the rules, and I intend to abide by them absolutely and succinctly. And I'm sure you will realize that what I am trying to bring before the Legislature is a matter that cannot be canvassed enough, and certainly there isn't going to be any question about the validity of the subject, and certainly you must realize as well that the degree of penetration we've been able to make on this side of the House to that government has been minimal, and, if we were to gauge the debate on the basis of success, we have just begun to raise this issue.

I would ask the minister in as brief terms as I can possibly express: what action are you taking as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the only minister, as I understand it, with the ability to address the concerns of the city council of Vancouver in order that they may address this matter which is in the centre of the city and which is happening to the people of the city of Vancouver...? Their hands are tied. Officially they are not in a position to act, within the limits of the Vancouver Charter. Are you going to free the city council in order that it might restrict the evictions to those areas where it will not create the kind of distress and deprivation that it has so far caused in certain communities, certain parts of the city? We're talking about disaster areas. We're talking about war zone areas where people are hurting and where there is urgent need for action. And there's the other more general problem of controlling rents. It is absolutely incredible what is happening to the rent situation in this city.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again, a reference to the Vancouver Charter is a reference to amending legislation, which cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. Reference to Consumer and Corporate Affairs, rent control legislation or rent control actions would be best handled during the estimates of another ministry. A reference to housing would be discussed appropriately, as the name implies, during the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I would just like to allow the minister to respond, because that was my one single concern. What action will the minister take? He knows my situation. If he would respond, I would be most appreciative, Mr. Chairman.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, again, when I was asked to look into the matter, it was to attend a meeting on behalf of the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), after which I personally, in the company of Mr. Pattison, had a very close look at the situation. I came to various conclusions which are well known to this House. We also, with the cooperation of Mayor Mike Harcourt and Mr. Jim Green of DERA, agreed to put together a task force made up of the city of Vancouver, DERA, Affordable Housing, B.C. Housing and representation from my ministry. That task force was put up, with the assistance also, I might add, of the hotel keepers, and they established an office with a phone number, and to date — the last report I received was just Friday of last week — they have been very successful. They have successfully relocated 61 residents. They have 25 applications on hand and they had 104 vacancies available.

I have challenged the news media and I challenge you and all of your members to bring forth to me the name of anyone on the street, because I do not feel that that is necessary. I would like to just brutally make one suggestion to you: if you would really not allow yourself to be swayed by those who want to make political hay of this thing, think in terms of those people. Think in terms of John and May, who are now located in new premises, and others who have had an improvement in their facilities at a lesser cost. Then I'm sure that you will realize and agree that indeed we are looking after the situation, and there is no one on the street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Boy, we've got a lot of latitude now. Some latitude has been allowed, and I presume that we can quickly end this issue, inasmuch as it is out of order.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you can be relieved somewhat, because I am not interested in belabouring the situation. I appreciate the minister's response, which I felt was more than usually relevant, although not something that I would want to jump for joy over. It seems as though he has used great skill in arguing his point about the availability of accommodation. The problem with that is that accommodation is in fact available. I have to acknowledge that the problem is not that there is no accommodation; it's the quality and affordability of the accommodation.

In fact, on Thursday or Friday I intend to investigate this accommodation myself, because when I made some inquiries after the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Kempf) had suggested that the B.C. Housing Management Commission was available to provide accommodation where people were needing it and only had something like 13 applications.... I thought, for all these years I've been calling the B.C. Housing Management Commission to try to assist people in need of housing, and they've got a waiting list for three years and even longer — several years. There were hundreds of names on the list, and all of a sudden they now have housing available. This is good news, and this should make the headlines. All those people who are looking for social housing should get in touch with the B.C. Housing Management Commission, because they now have housing, and this notwithstanding the fact that the government hasn't built one single social housing unit since it's been in power, other than what it had out of the NDP that was already being constructed.

But it's amazing. I'm really going to be interested in seeing a breakdown of the amount of social housing that the

[ Page 7924 ]

government has produced that we did not realize was available.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you appreciate that that falls within the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and not.... We're on Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I did that just as a bit of background on the problem of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. The thing that I really want to ask the minister is: what are his views on the fact that the housing that people are being relocated in is in most cases hardly inhabitable as far as human consumption is concerned? I understand that the facilities are beyond description, they are in such deplorable condition.

This is something I want to investigate myself. Now when I was in the downtown east side....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: There is some good accommodation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are into the jurisdiction of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Today we are dealing with the administrative affairs of the minister of municipalities, who is not responsible for social housing, and if you would confine your debate to the present estimates....

MR. BARNES: You can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that these matters are interrelated. One of the difficulties that we have in this House is that we segment and we divide and compartmentalize everything. That's a word I haven't used before, but you get the picture. It's so difficult to be able to focus in on a particular issue without a kind of interministerial view of it, and we don't get all of the ministers here at one time. So you have to be tolerant of the problem that not only I but the Minister of Municipal Affairs has as well. He has addressed this concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair only enforces the rules laid down by the members. Many things are interrelated, but the rules established are that we deal with the matters of the minister at the time under scrutiny, and that is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: The preceding Chairman just made it quite clear to the House that the latitude had already been established, at least for this sitting, and so I'm only following the precedent set by the minister himself, Mr. Chairman. I hope that you will permit me to wind up my remarks on the Municipal Affairs estimates, which deal with this issue of the Vancouver Charter. You know that, and this is what this whole thing is about: the inability of the city of Vancouver, under its charter, which is governed by the Municipal Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Chairman, this issue is very relevant. I would appreciate it if the Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, matters of legislation are not dealt with in estimates, and the municipal charter, in my understanding, is legislation passed by this chamber at one time or other in its history. Open debate took place at that time with respect to the charter. We are not now dealing with the charter but with the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARNES: You know, Mr. Chairman, I haven't had this much difficulty before with you or any member in this House in dealing with a matter that obviously is of grave concern to the government. The minister himself has realized this and certainly has responded and is not trying to evade the issue. I would hope that the Chair, in light of the behaviour of the minister, would allow this debate to continue, because it is a very serious, urgent matter, and it is not a frivolous subject I am discussing, and I am certainly not trying to waste the time of the House.

I want to get to a specific point, which I think is important and believe is urgent. As you know, people have lost their lives down there. We've been saying that this is an urgent matter that has to be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair is not involved in a debate on what can or cannot be debated in the House. The rules are laid down by the members. If urgent debate is required, there are rules for bringing the same to the floor of this chamber.

At the moment we are on the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is not responsible for social housing within the Vancouver area. The Chair has no alternative unless the members change the rules.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, are you advising me that the rules being applied to me are not applied to the minister? The minister was not ruled out of order when he stood up and responded to my question dealing with that meeting he held on March 3 with the mayor of the city of Vancouver and with members from DERA and others. I am merely responding. How is it that I am out of order and the minister was in order?

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to this debate between the hon. member and the Chair, and I can't help but read standing order 43, which suggests that the Chairman has to either call this member to order.... He has already been told of standing order 19 by the previous Chairman, which is: "The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole shall order a member whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House or Committee of the Whole for the remainder of that day, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of this order."

The member has been warned, Mr. Chairman. There is no question whether this Legislature agrees or disagrees with your decision. You've made the decision that this topic is not debatable before this minister. And yet this member continues to persist. I would ask the Chair to make a ruling that either this topic is going to be debated, because I'll want to debate it myself.... But if the Chair has made the ruling that it is not a debatable topic before this minister, the Chair must take the position of telling the member either not to bring that topic up again or to withdraw from this chamber.

MR. ROSE: Again, on a point of order, it is somewhat difficult when the Chair keeps changing like the lines on a hockey team.

[ Page 7925 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. ROSE: Excuse me?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are the same rules.

MR. ROSE: No, they aren't, because there are certain kinds of background and things that were allowed by a previous Chairman and comments made from someone else in debate that make it very difficult for one to accept being ruled out of order on a particular topic in response to the same subject raised by the minister.

Can I give the Chairman a little example of this? The minister in a response to an earlier question said that he had named a task force. Now we're discussing in a very general way the vote of the minister's office. The minister said he appointed a task force. Presumably he has the authority to appoint a task force. Isn't that so? So the task force is going to make recommendations on a subject. I will not mention the subject, because I might get ruled out of order. So I won't mention the subject.

I would like to ask the minister what subject, as a result of Mayor Harcourt, Jim Green and others, and the minister spending taxpayers' money on his time as a voyeur down in skid row....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, a voyeur, someone who looks at things — not a voyageur. He takes no action, just looks. I think that I am perfectly in order to ask about the minister's task force. Number one, what is the task force studying?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I am on a point of order, right? And that's the point that I am attempting to make. Now if you rule me in order on this, I would like to achieve the floor once again to ask the minister some pertinent questions about the task force which he raises. I would appreciate your giving me this freedom to do it.

In the meantime, I just find it a little difficult to find the minister is in order on a particular topic, whether it is the Vancouver Charter, the task force or whatever, and our member here is out of order. He is very serious about this. Some people think he's tedious and repetitious. He's repetitious perhaps, but never tedious. He might even have been pressing and persistent, for all I know; anyway, that isn't part of the law anymore, so we don't have to worry about that.

That's really my point of order, Mr. Chairman. For the assistance of all of us, as well as the Chair, I think the Chairman should rule that anything raised by the minister in his response is in order for debate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) opened his debate on this item, and I, out of courtesy to him, with great feeling for him, responded. I thought that would be the end of it. I didn't think you'd come back saying you should do this, that or the other thing. The matter should be dealt with now and finished.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the comments from the various members, but the mere fact that the minister responds to an out-of-order question does not make the question in order. The minister himself may be out of order. The minister's appointment of a task force, or requesting another minister to appoint a task force, does not necessarily bring it within the administrative functions of the minister. The rules of the House are that in estimates you debate the administrative function of the minister.

MR. COCKE: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. When a minister accepts responsibility, the responsibility that he indicated was vested in him by the Premier.... He accepted the responsibility and then carried it further, beyond the responsibility to look into the subject, and set up a task force — not to report to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, not to report to the Premier, not to report to the Minister of Tourism, but to report to himself. Having done that, it's obvious that this then becomes his responsibility. It's an open-and-shut case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The mere fact that a task force is formed doesn't make it a subject matter to be necessarily opened up by the members. It could be on economics or other aspects. Social housing is the purview of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. In his estimates, the subject matter may be debated fully and completely by members.

MR. COCKE: Further on that point, Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to question the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing on the report of the task force because the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing will not be privy to it. The only minister in this chamber who is privy to the report of the task force is the minister who instructed the task force and asked for a report.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask a question of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the estimates or a point of order?

MR. ROSE: I'd like to direct a question as part of the estimates. Did somebody raise a point of order on that? I don't know.

The minister whose estimates we're debating is buried in his correspondence. Did the minister under his administrative authority, at the request of the Premier or someone else, appoint a body or a committee or whatever he wants to call it, or whatever the Chair wants to call it — and I'm certainly not attempting to abuse the Chair; I want the Chair to understand that — to study a particular problem, which I shall not refer to — but he referred to it — and who are its members and what set of guidelines has he given that committee?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister said he appointed this committee to look into a problem.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has said yes; or he said "time" or he said something. I don't

[ Page 7926 ]

know what he said. Half the time I don't understand him anyway. Is the committee meeting? Would you mind?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What's wrong with my accent?

MR. ROSE: I didn't mention your accent. Your accent is your problem, not mine.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Coquitlam-Moody has the floor.

MR. ROSE: I want to know if I can get an answer from the minister that he appointed a task force. Who is on that task force? Is it meeting? What are its terms of reference? When does he expect recommendations to flow from this committee?

MR. BARNES: I would just like to repeat the questions raised by the member from Coquitlam-Moody, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we could get on with the business of the committee if we could just have a confirmation with respect to the appointment of the task force, its mandate, membership, and the time-frame in which it's operating. If the minister would provide that information, then we could proceed. Would the minister care to clarify this matter, so that we could proceed?

Mr. Chairman, I really feel that.... This reminds me of back in 1983, when the government began to introduce its closure measures, and denied the opposition an opportunity to debate. Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should either answer the questions or get another minister here who will and he should just withdraw his estimates. I think these questions are very relevant. They are not frivolous. The minister just made a statement: he mentioned the fact that the there is going to be a task force appointed. In fact, he has appointed one. We're asking him to please clarify the situation, and all we're getting is this garbage.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that the minister feels too reticent to get up and reply to a valid question. The only observation that I could make would be that there's obviously some very disquieting disharmony in the family of cabinet. I would think that the great two-storey member for Omineca (Hon. Mr. Kempf), the Minister of Housing and various other things....

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop mumbling.

MR. COCKE: And I won't get my hands out of my pockets either.

It strikes me that the minister has infuriated one or two of his colleagues. There's that possibility; otherwise, why is he not answering the questions? It strikes me that the Minister of Housing is very angry that you were sent down there to do a job and you're not even reporting on the job. What's the matter? Anyway, I'd just like to get off the subject. I'll leave it to my colleagues, if they wish to pursue it later.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about this partnership business. I understand that you've been to Westminster, and a number of other areas, talking partnership — partnership in exaltation, partnership in politics, or partnership in something. I would just wonder, however, what the cities and municipalities might expect to get out of it. I would like to do a bit of history, in terms of past partnership relationships that we in New Westminster have had with the provincial government.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I'm not wanting to know now. I want to inform you of some things that happened before you happened to appear in this, and before your colleague from Kamloops appeared. If you're not interested, I can carry on tonight, tomorrow and the next day, if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just give you a bit of history, in terms of some of these partnership arrangements. In the late 1960s, New Westminster was asked to absorb the then district 179, which was a separate district outside the city of New Westminster. Connaught Heights is what we call it, but it's a district that was outside New Westminster. The promise was made by the provincial Socred government of the day: "If you will absorb this area into New Westminster proper, we will upgrade it to the standards of the remainder of New Westminster." Well, it sounded like a good deal, as far as we were concerned — some bits of concern about it. But you know what happened? New Westminster kept their end of the bargain. They absorbed Connaught Heights, and found that after that decision was made, when the time came and it was part of the city of New Westminster, no deal. New Westminster had to upgrade the sewers — put in sewers, because there were no sewers in Connaught Heights. Yet New Westminster proper had been sewered for years and years. There were no sewers in Connaught Heights; no proper streetlighting; lousy roads, sidewalks and all the rest of it. And that landed on our table in the city of New Westminster. That's what partnership with the Socreds is like. It's partnership to be taken to the cleaners.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You think so? Okay — just might do it. Anyway, I suggest that that is not the way I would like to see us treated in the future.

Another arrangement was made sometime later. We have another area in New Westminster called Queensborough. Queensborough is down on Lulu Island. There is not too large an acreage there, but it's significant. A lot of people live down there. There is some industry and some commercial development. But it was suggested that we go into the sewer business down there — in other words, have proper sewage down in that area. One of the main reasons, of course, was the fact that there was a 75-25 split on sewer financing. They got nicely into the program, and the government turned its back on the 75-25. Again, New Westminster, in this marvellous partnership with this provincial government, wound up at the bottom of the heap.

Now we have this new "partnership" arrangement, whereby New Westminster can give up a percentage of their taxes and the provincial government will provide some electrical power at a low rate and other enticements. I just would like to know where you think this is going to take us, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On the road to greater things.

[ Page 7927 ]

You want to know what it has done in some communities? I don't have the record in front of me, but not too long ago New Westminster signed....

[5:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Give it time.

But let me tell you that if it weren't for the initiatives of this government, New Westminster would be dead. New Westminster has been saved by light rapid transit.

I spent the largest part of a day in New Westminster when we were signing their agreement, and I can assure you that there is no one, not one mayor in this province, more enthusiastic about that program than your mayor. I might add that your mayor is quite anxious that light rapid transit not go beyond New Westminster until New Westminster has had the opportunity to fill up and get full advantage — that everything is built on, filled up and so forth. That's great. That's good. I appreciate that.

Anyway, one of the things that New Westminster will get out of it, as all other communities have, is that it is creating a good feeling out there, in that people are working together. The provincial government is working together with municipal governments, chambers of commerce, union groups and so on, and we're making things happen at the local level. It has happened in Maple Ridge, Squamish, Kamloops, Penticton and Prince George. It goes on and on, and it's going to keep on happening.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that is probably the most amused that I've been in some time in this very unamusing chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm glad you're happy.

MR. COCKE: Happy my foot! In 1976 the Socred government came in, the plans for New Westminster were there, ICBC headquarters land had been acquired, the downtown commercial development would have gone and we would have been so far ahead of where we are now. They've tried, Mr. Chairman, after wrecking the town.... They're the biggest bunch of plunderers that I've ever seen in my life. They came into New Westminster and wrecked the future of that town, and then they come up with these piddling proposals about partnership.

Light rapid transit — marvellous. As a matter of fact, I thought I'd try it the other day. I live right beside Queen's Park and about half a block from 2nd Street, so I decided to....

MR. CHABOT: Fat cat.

MR. COCKE: Yes, fat cat, if you like.

I went to get a bus — just in the middle of a weekday. I waited for about 35 minutes. I had no trouble once I got down to the ALRT; it goes bing, bing, bing. But you need feeders to that thing too. So it's not the end of the earth as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know what the blazes we're doing discussing light rapid transit under that minister's portfolio, yet he's the chap who got up and was totally out of order and managed to get away with it. But had my colleague from Vancouver Centre dared to mention anything like that, he would have wound up in the bad books of the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds).

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned, this government is not to be trusted. Anything that ever happened that would have assisted Westminster happened when we were government.

Interjection.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, ask the people at the Royal Columbian if I did. Ask the people who were there and saw the acquisition of that land for (1) a court house, (2) a B.C. government building, and (3) ICBC headquarters. Beyond that of course there was to be a transit terminal there — not the ALRT, but transit nonetheless, and running on the same corridor. But it certainly wasn't going to be SkyTrain. I hope SkyTrain works. If it doesn't, it sure cost us a lot of money — $1 billion for a ride in the sky.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, while you were away and the other line was on the ice, we had prolonged but not very raucous, bellicose or rancorous debate about whether or not it was in order under the minister's estimates to ask questions about a task force which he appointed. I have received professional advice of the highest order, and I am informed that it is perfectly all right to ask about the mechanics of this committee, but not to go on and use that as a springboard to get into the details of the committee.

I don't understand why the minister is reluctant. I have a series of questions for the minister, and I would like to ask them one at a time, seriatim — I will be up and down for a series of six questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seriatim?

MR. ROSE: Well, I just want everybody to realize that the minister doesn't have an opportunity to just decline to answer a six-part question. I want him to decline six times, if that is what he intends to do.

The first question is: did the minister recently appoint a task force under his authority in the city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How recently?

MR. ROSE: In the last three months.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer is that I suggested that that be done, and it has been done.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us who the members of that task force are.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, in order to preserve the time of the House — and I know that there are other members here who want to get into debating my estimates — I will provide you with the last report received from there, which gives you all the information you require.

MR. ROSE: I am well aware that the minister appreciates my great ability to read, but he is here to answer oral questions by members. I don't think he should fob us off with the thought that perhaps I may be one of these adult illiterates and

[ Page 7928 ]

that I might not be able to find out from reading his document. I would like the minister to name the members of that committee.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will get you a copy of that report, and then it's going to be dead accurate.

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the minister the purpose of the task force. What was it set up to study?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've no choice, hon. members. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

MR. MICHAEL: Well, I thought it would be appropriate to rise regarding the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates and make some comments on behalf of the constituents of Shuswap-Revelstoke. I can tell you that the indications that I've received regarding the increase in revenue-sharing are certainly heartening from what was reflected in the budget speech. I'm very pleased, and I'm certain that all of the mayors and councillors throughout my constituency will be pleased. We have five councils in my constituency.

The other thing I can say is that the majority of those councils have signed the partnership agreement, and I know that there are many instances where they have taken advantage of the provisions of the items contained in that partnership agreement. Further to that, I can say that all of my organized areas, all of the councils, the municipalities and cities, have taken advantage of the tremendous downtown revitalization program put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with the exception of one small community, that being Chase, and they are currently studying a program for that community.

But I can tell you that Salmon Arm is a much different community. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in that community on downtown revitalization in the last three or four years. There have been several phases in the last three years in Salmon Arm, and it is a different city than it was just a very few short years ago. Everybody in the community, and anybody who visits the community, knows full well that it was the result of the downtown revitalization program put forward by the Social Credit government many years ago and taken advantage of by the municipal councils that have beautified that town to the extent that it is today.

It is now undergoing the third phase — Lakeshore Avenue, the main frontage road going into the community. Construction is currently underway, and that phase will be finished within a very short number of weeks, certainly before the heavy tourist traffic hits. Anyone visiting that community would be very proud of the planning, the cooperation, the partnership between the municipality and the provincial government, that being the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I can also tell you that the city of Enderby has done a firstclass job of downtown revitalization. It is one of the nicest little towns that you will find anywhere in British Columbia, and that is a direct result of the dollars made available to that beautiful little city by the downtown revitalization program.

Armstrong as well has undertaken a program. It is now in place and complete, and the city of Revelstoke has just embarked on a massive downtown revitalization project. As a matter of fact, they started construction just a very few days ago. They will be spending a total of in the neighbourhood of $1.86 million in downtown revitalization projects – money creating thousands and thousands of man-hours of employment and putting a lot of contractors to work in that community.

It's been a pleasure, Mr. Chairman, working with the minister in a spirit of cooperation with the municipalities, with the senior officials in the minister's ministry and with the ministry. Getting the approvals put through, piloting these projects through to completion and seeing the thousands of man-hours of employment that have been created as a result of this tremendous upgrading — not only the face-lift but the infrastructure.... A lot of power lines have been put underground; the streets have been beautified. Salmon Arm, as an example, has gone into quite an extensive flowerbasket program, somewhat taken from the city of Victoria. There have been a lot of old telephone poles removed and, as I say, a lot of jobs created, a lot of dollars spent. On behalf of my councils and constituents, I would like to sincerely thank the minister for the assistance that has been put into Shuswap-Revelstoke, and I look forward to working with him and his officials in the coming year.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that enough is said about the tremendous cooperation that is given by people of all levels of the bureaucracy and the civil servants. I can say in all sincerity that since I've been an MLA I have had 100 percent cooperation from ministry officials, from the deputy minister right down to the clerks. I don't think we in this House often enough express our gratitude for the tremendous job done by those working for government. They certainly have assisted me in any way they can in unravelling problems on behalf of my constituents, trying to cut red tape, make things happen and create those jobs that are possible to be created by this tremendous program, the downtown revitalization program, throughout British Columbia.

I notice, Mr. Chairman, in travelling through many other constituencies, that I find similar indications of cooperation and programs that are progressing. A lot of capital is being put into these programs, and a lot of jobs are being created.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to wind up by saying that I look forward to working with the minister and his staff during the coming year. I've certainly enjoyed working with them over these past three years.

[5:15]

MR. ROSE: I really enjoyed that speech on the minister's estimates by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. I just love these sort of fawning compliments to the minister. He gets up and he pelts the minister with a few marshmallows, and then he sits down. As a matter of fact, I just came back from....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I was up in Salmon Arm, and it is a beautiful community; I agree with that. As a matter of fact, they expect the next election to be a real cliff-hanger.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll mark that one down. Perhaps we could get to the estimates.

MR. ROSE: I have two or three more questions that I want to get into the record. I know that somebody else is likely to jump up and run interference and protect the minister. He needs some protection on this. I was talking about the task force when I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Salmon Arm-Shuswap. What I would like to ask....

[ Page 7929 ]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: He's not retarded; he just quit.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Order, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the following questions. What was was the nature of the task force? What was it assigned to study? Is the minister going to get up? I'll sit down if the minister will answer that, but I'm not going to sit down in case the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke jumps up again.

What was the task force designed to study, and what were its terms of reference?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The task force was not asked to study anything. The task force was suggested and has been put in place to assist people. The member will receive, and all members may receive, a copy of the last report I received that will indicate just what they're doing, who is on it and so forth. I believe that that will answer all of the questions that that member may have.

You may be the lucky winner. I will just open the envelope and find out. Who knows? It's from the office of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I asked to have a copy of the last report sent down to me so that I could respond. The heading is: "Report of Vancouver Downtown Eastside Relocation Task Force," dated April 16, 1986.

"Communication with the relocation task force has yielded the following summary of activity: "The number of people successfully relocated, 61; number of applicants in hand, 25; inventory of available units, 104.

"The task force consists of representatives of the provincial government, the city of Vancouver, the B.C. Hotels Association, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, the Greater Vancouver Housing Association, the B.C. Housing Management Commission and the Affordable Housing Association" – partnership at work in helping those who are in need.

"The relocation registry is located in the Carnegie Building at Hastings and Main; phone 665-2127."

Again, a group of people concerned about the welfare of those who require to be relocated, all working together as partners, being successful — having received 86 applications and relocated successfully 61 of those, and they still have 104 units available to them.

MR. BARNES: I'm very pleased that we have now settled the question of admissible subjects. Housing obviously is no longer a contentious matter under these estimates, so I would just thank the minister for that report — an update on that committee of community-spirited people. I'm wondering, though: the minister did not state — of the 104 available units that are left, what price range are those and what condition are they in? This is one of the questions that I was trying to ask earlier, because that is the most essential part: affordability and habitability. My understanding is that some of the accommodation that's available is hardly habitable for human beings.

Now I realize that there are some exceptions, as in the case of Mr. Olaf Solheim, the 86-year-old man who was evicted from the Patricia Hotel and relocated in, I think, the Columbia. In any event, he had excellent accommodation compared to where he was before, but the impact on him as a person was such that he refused to eat, because after 62 years of living in one place, there was a problem with his becoming adjusted to the new home. This is one of the things we have been saying. You just don't take old people and relocate them and shock them and expect, because you put them in an even more attractive-looking environment, that you are doing them a favour. It requires more skill and more sensitivity to the realities around which that person had been existing and subsisting.

I am hoping that the minister would respond in terms of the quality of the 104 units, the price range of those units. Could he also reflect on the adjustments taking place particularly with respect to these older folks. How are they doing in terms of their ability to function?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister.... I will allow some latitude, so please don't be upset. However, as has been observed by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), discussion of the appointment of the task force is appropriate, but the results are not.

MR. BARNES: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right, and that was a point put forward by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. But the minister may wish to respond to the first member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, only out of courtesy to the member, because this could go on forever. I can only accurately report on what I saw with my own eyes. I visited one building where I believe approximately $10.5 million was invested to provide such low-cost accommodation. I believe the cost of each of those small units runs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $75,000. It's excellent accommodation. As for those who are in real need, those who come under the umbrella of our Human Resources, I'm sure that that ministry is looking after those clients.

From what I saw, the accommodation that was provided with public funds was very good indeed. Again, I bring you back to Apt. No. 407 of the Fleck Building, where John and May are housed. It's a new apartment, new furniture, $100 per month less. There are many situations like that.

I really think that it's time to get off this and allow the task force to continue to do the job that it's doing. It's doing an excellent job, and certainly they have the commitment of this minister and the minister responsible for housing to make sure that there's no one on the street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I'll remind the committee that we have allowed an awful lot of latitude during this debate. We have discussed the mechanism of the task force, which was under the guidance of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Perhaps now it would be most appropriate if we could return to strictly relevant debate regarding vote 59, the minister's salary.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I've noticed that there has been a fair amount of advertising by this government with respect to a partnership program that relates to the municipalities. I've noticed lots of ads. So I thought I would check

[ Page 7930 ]

with the five municipal councils in my constituency to see what sort of impact this partnership program has had and how many jobs might have been created within the constituency of Comox, under five separate municipal councils, as a result of this partnership program that we're seeing advertised so widely. I have to stand up today and go on record as saying that not one single job has been created in the constituency of Comox under that program.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman — I'm relevant and I'm brief.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Did you suggest they pull out of it?

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few comments to make. The minister is probably well aware of an issue that affects part of my constituency. It's the recurring flooding problem in the Rolling Hills subdivision of Okanagan Landing. This is an issue that the minister knows has been ongoing for quite a number of years now. It's all tied up with environmental and climatic factors, but it also relates to the spray irrigation program in the city of Vernon and the overwatering of the hillside behind this particular subdivision. As the minister is also aware, as a result of a rapid infiltration system, whereby the sewage effluent was allowed to filter into large settling basins up on the hillside, and as a result of a heavy load of runoff through the ground structure, meltwater, etc., in the spring, this particular subdivision has had recurring problems with flooding. Earlier this year — as a matter of fact, it was just before Christmas — I contacted the ministry regarding this situation. One of the residents there had been virtually at the point of being flooded out as a result of meltwater coming in under the ice and building up in the backyard, right up to the steps. I think the minister even received a fairly detailed report regarding this, along with many recommendations that have been made in previous reports that the regional district had commissioned.

It's my understanding that just the other day the regional district did receive a sum of about $50,000 for correction of the drainage problem in that area. I'd like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the residents of the Rolling Hills subdivision and the surrounding areas, to thank the minister for finally coming to terms with this longstanding problem that these residents have had, and finding within his ministry the funds to help alleviate that problem. I think that it does show that the minister is willing to listen to a concerted voice of reason. Far be it from me to try to take full credit for that, but I would like to point out that it does show that an effective voice in opposition can actually sometimes get things done. But on behalf of the constituents of that area.... As the minister is well aware, they are thankful that something is finally happening.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

However, related to that matter, the question I would like to address to the minister concerns whether or not the $50,000 allocation of funds does have any time attached to it for the implementation of corrective measures. Secondly, does the study that the ministry did demonstrate that $50,000 in funding is adequate for the correction that needs to be implemented?

[5:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, Mr. Chairman, this is a project that has been going on for quite some time. I have to give a great deal of credit to the previous member, and also to the buddy MLA, who has worked extremely hard in bringing that about. This is something that, you know, we were working on before you left the classroom. Anyway, they received their money, and we expect them to get on with the job and get it finished.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I don't think the minister heard one of the questions that I asked in relation to that. Does the $50,000 in funding have a time allocation for implementation of the changes? Secondly, the previous studies commissioned by the regional district indicated that the cost of adequate corrective measures may in fact be much greater than the $50,000 which has been allocated; is it his estimation that this $50,000 will in fact allow a long-term correction of this problem?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't know how on earth I can put a time limit on an amount of money that has already been paid. It's there, they have it, and we would expect they'll now get on with the job. If the job exceeds the amount first calculated, then no doubt they're going to come back to us. If you could, explain to me how we put a time limit on an amount of money that has already been issued to them. I don't know how to do that. They have it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Perhaps I didn't phrase the question as well as could have been done. I was wondering whether, in the decision to allocate that money, there was any agreement as to when the work would commence. I mean, it's one thing to give the $50,000 to the regional district for the work to commence; it's another thing to place some conditions upon the granting of that $50,000 which will in effect force the regional district to implement those corrective measures as soon as possible.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I frankly don't follow the line of questioning at all. It's an urgent thing and we have trust and confidence in them when they put it forward. I would gather that they are working as rapidly as possible with our engineers to make sure that indeed this urgent project is started and completed as quickly as possible.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In regard to another issue, a number of mobile homes in the North Okanagan area have some concerns in terms of tax assessment. One gentleman in particular has contacted my office and is concerned about the property taxation bill for 1985. He feels that the minimum of $175 is unfairly high for mobile homes, arguing the point that mobile-home values are much lower than a home on a lot. Has the minister considered any legislation to reduce the minimum tax payable for such mobile homes to perhaps reflect their lower value?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we cannot be discussing legislation here. I am aware of the problem and will be dealing with it in due course, but to discuss legislation would be out of order.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Also regarding mobile homes, as the minister knows, the supreme court recently brought down a decision whereby mobile homes, if they are located on

[ Page 7931 ]

properties other than that of a mobile-home park, apparently cannot be assessed for municipal purposes. I was wondering if the minister has made any decision in terms of the rectification of this.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The same reply to that, Mr. Chairman. Again, it would require legislation, which we can't discuss here. I am fully aware of the problem, and we will be dealing with it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In terms of the municipal partnership agreement, it is interesting to note.... A little while back there were a number of articles that appeared in papers throughout the North Okanagan — fairly large articles, I might add — with pictures of the local council members and the minister. There was even one in Lumby that.... I recall that I was with the minister at the time, but unfortunately the picture that they took of the two of us, Mr. Minister, didn't appear; it was just the one with you and the mayor. That was kind of unfortunate. I don't know why; perhaps the other picture just didn't turn out. Could that be the reason?

Irrespective of that, of course, it was interesting when we contacted the papers about the cost of these ads. This one here, being about 5 by 9, something like that.... It cost just about $300 for that ad. These ads appeared a number of times. Here is one that appeared in the Vernon paper that is actually an ad about the municipal partnership agreement in Trail. Now I don't know why they had to advertise the Trail agreement in the Okanagan papers.

It seems to be the situation that with every partnership agreement that has been signed there are large ads placed in the papers. I wonder if the minister could direct the House as to how many ads have been placed through papers throughout British Columbia and the approximate cost to the ministry.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member has just suggested that with every signing there is an ad. I would request that the member provide me with a list of all of the ads that he indicates would apply to each signing.

MR. MacWILLIAM: That's precisely the question that I'm asking the minister. It would appear that these ads are being placed wherever a partnership agreement is being signed. I'm asking the minister if that is in fact the case, and whether the minister has an estimate on the total cost to his ministry for the placement of these political ads.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I just refuse to answer iffy questions or "appears to be." Did an ad appear without resigning? Not that I'm aware of.

MR. MacWILLIAM: In arguing that point, I don't think it's an iffy question at all. I would like to be a little more direct and ask the minister exactly how many partnership agreements he did sign with the different municipalities in the last fiscal year.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I believe the exact number is 128, with three further committed recently which will be signed as soon as I can get to it. I believe I'm correct: 128 signed, with three municipalities having passed the resolutions wishing to receive them. We'll be doing those shortly.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It is correct, then, that with the 128 partnership agreements signed there have been at least 128 advertisements placed through papers — I'm saying, at least 128.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're going to have to ask the minister responsible for that. My ministry doesn't look after the advertising. I would suggest you hold that for the minister responsible for that function. I take it that you are opposed to your local papers getting advertising. Is that correct?

MR. MacWILLIAM: No, that's incorrect.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, I see.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting when the minister passes the buck to another minister, saying that his ministry is not in charge of these ads, when in fact it says right at the bottom: Province of British Columbia, Hon. Bill Ritchie, Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would suggest to the minister that if he's not responsible for the ads, what's his signature, or at least his name and his title, doing on the bottom of those ads?

Once again, to make that point, this one ad alone: $283. If we say 128 different partnership agreements signed, then we have a considerable expenditure of moneys just in the political component of these ads.

I'd also like to ask the minister, in terms of the effect of the partnership agreement, if he can detail exactly how much increased economic activity there has been in the north Okanagan subsequent to the signing of that agreement?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am unable to respond accurately to that question. There's been so much activity throughout the entire province as a result of this and other initiatives of our government that it wouldn't be possible for me to do so. But I will be pleased to obtain that information for the member and advise him at some other time.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Perhaps I can give him some information right now, as the result of a study that I put together in the latter part of the year, December 1985, "An Economic Profile of the North Okanagan," which that minister did receive a copy of. It was found that in the city of Vernon, the year-to-date totals for industrial development showed that there was virtually no industrial development, no building permits issued for the city of Vernon, as of the end of 1985, despite the signing of that provincial-municipal partnership program.

Perhaps the minister, if he makes the accusation or suggestion that there has been considerable economic activity in the interior regions as a result of this, can be a little more specific and cite some cases in point.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I've already responded to that question. I will be pleased not only to cite specific cases of success, but also to indicate where there are a number of others pending.

But you know, it's interesting to hear the observation from someone just out of the classroom. You don't sign a document and then wake up the next morning and have people banging on your door. The signing of the document....

[ Page 7932 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Quit your squeaking from the background, would you? We've listened to you for two days and that's enough.

The program is designed to pull the community together with the provincial government, and it's doing that. I would suggest to you, Mr. Member, that you talk to the chamber of commerce and indicate to them your negative approach to this thing. Talk to your local newspaper and tell them that there's no darn way they should have received that advertising. You go talk to them that way, not us.

MR. MacWILLIAM: As a matter of fact, I did talk to members of the chamber of commerce, as well as to members of the business community and members of council. And many of them quite frankly admitted that they saw very little in terms of increased economic activity — or the potential therefore — as a result of this program.

The minister has suggested that my naivety from spending years in the classroom, in terms of expecting jobs to pop up overnight, is in fact an unrealistic expectation. I would like to point out that the minister makes the very suggestion that that is in fact happening at the time these ads were placed. The ad says: "Today, more than 100 B.C. municipalities have joined the partnership program, giving our province a business climate that offers a warm, encouraging welcome. The solution is working." If it's working, Mr. Minister, you're suggesting that the activity is being created now, and I think you've failed to demonstrate that the solution is working at all. That's just a point I'd like to make. Nobody can expect everything to happen overnight, but I am saying that if it doesn't happen overnight, then your ad is misleading, because it gives the suggestion that it is working, and it's working now.

[5:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's worth noting, when we're talking about partnership, that the minister couldn't even be bothered to bring — and has admitted he didn't bring — any facts and figures on the partnership program to the estimates. Clearly he had nothing to bring to this chamber. As the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Okanagan North have indicated, in their particular areas it has failed. It's just another propaganda scheme by this ministry.

Let me add that one of the things that has happened to many of those local governments.... Those local government officials have told me that they feel quite offended about how they have been used as a group in this advertising propaganda, trying to get this government re-elected. Certain Socreds show up on these ads, but there is an inference that local government is totally behind what this government is doing. There has been feeling that this government is using local government for its re-election propaganda machine, and they don't accept that one little bit. This government will use any trick in the book to get itself re-elected. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia have smartened up, and they won't be re-electing this government. They'll never re-elect this government, this coalition of turncoats.

Now I'd like to finish the day by asking the minister if he is aware that there is an Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. It recently had a meeting in Courtenay, I believe. The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities has endorsed the extension of the Vancouver Island highway. I'd like to ask the minister if he agrees with the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities' endorsement of the extension of the Island highway. The mainland bypass....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, this is a motion passed by municipal people collectively, the municipalities association, and is something which is very important to Municipal Affairs. I am asking whether the minister responsible for municipal affairs, who has some responsibility to local government, will indeed support and endorse the AVIM resolution on this particular matter.

Well, I'm not going to get an answer on that, obviously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the member to either continue in the debate or take his seat. The members are aware of the rules of the House. We can ask questions, but the ministers do not have to reply. The member either continues with his debate or takes his seat.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'll come back to that when I can get the minister's attention, and I'll ask one other thing before we leave for today.

I have written to the minister about this particular issue. There have been some reports of problems during municipal elections with voting irregularities, and I have written to the minister with some of those particular problems. One of the areas of concern is that in British Columbia we often have municipal elections and school board elections at different times....

Actually, Mr. Chairman, given that the minister is not paying attention to this House one little bit, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the House is aware of communications made to the House last Thursday by the government House Leader, and the Chair recognizes the government House Leader.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, could I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a. m. tomorrow.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.