[ Page 11167 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No – 2), 1990 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 11167

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture estimates. (Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 47.- minister's office –– 11167

Hon. L. Hanson

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 9:33 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, expands the exemption for transfers of principal residences between related individuals retroactively to March 23, 1987. Under this bill, the existing requirement that the property must be the principal residence of the transferor is expanded to allow the exemption where the property has been the principal residence of either the transferor or the transferee for at least a six-month period prior to the date of transfer. This is an expansion of the exemptions and therefore, I trust, will receive the support of the members opposite; events will unfold in that respect.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Just prior to the next motion of business, hon. members, if I could have your, attention, please: as you know, the next time this parliament meets there will be more members than there are at present. Some of you will be returning as members; others of you will be going on to other duties. As a result of the fact that the chamber is not getting any bigger, we have modified one of the desks — as they would be to accommodate the new members. If any members wish to see it, it is currently being used by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Those of you who wish to cast a critical eye on it, come and have a look at it and give messages or suggestions to the Speaker. I'll be pleased to receive them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS, RECREATION AND CULTURE

On vote 47: minister's office, $330,518.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Shall vote 47 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: It's usual that the minister would....

MR. REID: He has said it all.

MR. BLENCOE: He hasn't said anything this session. Usually the minister would start off the estimates by giving us a rundown of the activities of the ministry, the highlights, the great things....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe I could ask the minister a very general question to start the morning — what he considers to be the priorities of his ministry and what current, active things he's doing.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Member, if you want to speak, take your place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we're getting off to a bad start this morning.

MR. BLENCOE: We are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If the minister doesn't want to give us some details on the activities of the ministry, I'll proceed. Maybe the minister would like to start this morning.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm just about to get some information in front of me. There are a number of things that I know the ministry is doing, and I'm sure the members opposite will be very pleased with them.

One of the things we discussed yesterday —  the White Papers that are going to be circulated later this summer —  will deal with an issue that is uppermost in many of our taxpayers' minds and certainly in the minds of many of my colleagues and the members opposite. When we do table those papers, I am sure they will receive the discussion they deserve.

It's my pleasure to present for the perusal of the Legislature the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture. In presenting these estimates, I would like to emphasize a few key points about the nature of my ministry and define its direction and purpose for the current fiscal year.

To begin, it should be perfectly clear from a glance at these projections that our principal concern is the growth and development of British Columbia's municipalities. We do this by taking measures to strengthen local democracy, to care for our heritage, to nurture our diverse and dynamic culture, to widen the recreational opportunities open to our citizens and to ensure their safety and security — all of which create the dynamic and progressive way of life we have come to cherish as British Columbians.

It is also our responsibility as a province to empower local governments so they may carry out their duties, address the needs of the day and plan

[ Page 11168 ]

adequately for the challenges of the future. It is also our responsibility to support the wider aspects of our community, as groups and individuals undertake projects which give British Columbians opportunities to achieve athletic excellence, to explore the arts, to develop their talents and to enjoy a healthy and active lifestyle.

The estimates I am presenting represent a commitment today to the concept of community life and its contribution to the advancement of the province. It is clearly a commitment to each community's democratic, economic, social and developmental well-being — an investment which deserves the wholehearted support of this House. As a reflection of that commitment, I am happy to confirm that our revenue-sharing program, the main conduit of provincial funding to our local governments, has grown to $338 million. That is an increase of 18 percent. Within this, the unconditional portion of next fiscal year's revenue sharing grants has been increased by $20 million. Furthermore, the basic administration grants to regional districts are rising from $40,000 to $50,000, to help with the implementation of comprehensive new regional district legislation enacted last year.

This legislation allows regional districts to establish local communities, which establish elected commissions to manage and administer residential services in unincorporated areas. Regional district administration grants will rise by $2,500 for each local community they set up.

The estimates will also show that the province will start paying interest to municipalities on unspent balances in the revenue-sharing stabilization account — something the Union of B.C. Municipalities has long sought. These additional measures, coupled with very substantial increases, are a clear indication of this government's commitment to our municipalities. I ask you to keep this in mind as we examine these projections.

We're striving for stability and growth in British Columbia's municipalities, and nowhere is the evidence of this clearer than in the establishment of the local government emergency fund. This $10 million fund will help local governments get through hard times, whether they are caused by natural disasters or by unexpected economic downturns, like the recent closing of the mine in Kimberley. The help provided by the new emergency fund is intended to prevent damage to a local tax base or infrastructure from adding to the community's economic problems. The establishment of this fund recognizes that community stability is a fundamental consideration in any economic development strategy. In achieving this local stability, we must also consider protection of the environment.

[9:45]

For this reason my ministry is increasing the amount available for sewer and water projects from $35 million to a new high of $65 million. This is a $30 million increase over last year's allocation and a fourfold increase over two years ago. These increases are evidence that when it comes to improving the province's infrastructure and protecting the environment, this government does mean business.

A community, however, is much more than infrastructure. It is a place where people live their daily lives, where they raise their children, where they provide for basic needs and express their individuality. It is a place where people are willing to invest of themselves for the greater good. My ministry believes that the best community development opportunities are those that spring from the energy and initiative of the residents.

One of the key ways we are able to support local economic development is through our downtown revitalization program. Communities across the province are continuing to take advantage of this program as well as the business improvement area initiative. These projects are injecting new life into our communities. They are encouraging and supporting community development. They are reinforcing the natural sense of personal pride each citizen has in his community.

Complementing these programs are measures to strengthen community heritage resources. Our Community Pride program, which provides technical and training resources, is receiving international attention. Thirty-two communities have already received workshops. There have been over 1,000 participants, including residents, heritage groups, civic leaders and business owners. This program is an excellent example of what can be achieved when local initiatives are encouraged and supported.

We know that British Columbians care deeply about local heritage resources, and my ministry has created the historic landmarks program to provide the needed financial investment in the conservation and development of important historic sites.

Our heritage programs have been greatly strengthened by funding provided by the minister responsible for lotteries. In particular, we are leading the way this year through the new $2 million Crown heritage stewardship fund. This fund is to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation and preservation of Crown-owned property with significant heritage value.

Lottery funds have also enabled us to renew our support for the British Columbia Film Society. We have again provided $15 million in funding over the next three years.

I must emphasize, however, that our support for cultural activities is only a part of the community spirit that makes things happen in British Columbia. For example, 30,000 British Columbia students were again able to explore the treasures of the deep as the Jason Project led another expedition, this time to the depths of Canada's Great Lakes and the 1812 warships found there. This Royal British Columbia Museum project was supported through lottery funds, but also through generous community contributions. I know this House will want to congratulate the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum for their accomplishments in this area.

Just as the Jason Project is helping our provincial showpiece, the Royal B.C. Museum, to establish itself

[ Page 11169 ]

as a leading museum in North America, so the museum carver, Tim Paul, has enabled us to put the culture of British Columbia's first citizens at the centre of important celebrations. One of the museum's dramatic totem poles was raised at the opening of the new national Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. The Royal B.C. Museum provided another pole for the closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth Games in Auckland, an event seen by an estimated 300 million people.

Plans for our own Commonwealth Games are progressing smartly. An independent socio-economic impact study commissioned by the Commonwealth Games Society indicates that the Games will indeed become significant economic benefits. The study indicates the proposed budget for the Commonwealth Games of $154 million will yield over $350 million in economic activity in lower Vancouver Island. In addition, the proposed centre of excellence at the University of Victoria will have ongoing benefits. The report also predicts long-term tourism benefits. In fact, over the next nine years British Columbia and greater Victoria will enjoy an estimated $466 million in economic activity, and that is activity that would not happen without the Games. These study results confirm the wisdom of our $36 million provincial investment in the Games.

While British Columbians can look forward to a strong economic performance resulting from the Games, I know we look forward to a strong and rewarding performance from our provincial athletes as well. The B.C. Summer and Winter Games continue to provide an excellent competitive training ground for our provincial best. I know my fellow members will want to join me in extending my congratulations to the people of Penticton for the outstanding job they did hosting the 1990 Winter Games.

We must also send our best wishes to the citizens of Prince George, who have recently completed the 1990 Summer Games. It was an excellent performance, and I was privileged to attend the opening ceremonies.

To help our athletes prepare not only for the Commonwealth Games in Victoria in 1994 but also for the 1993 Canada Games in Kamloops and the 1995 Western Canada Games, my ministry is again making training and professional development for coaches a top priority, because sport and recreation are critical to the health and well-being of our communities and their citizens.

We are also emphasizing the development and enhancement of recreation services in non-metropolitan communities throughout British Columbia. To accomplish this goal, a new branch has been created within the sport and recreation division of my ministry to deal exclusively with recreation and community services. This new branch will, of course, continue my ministry's longstanding practice of extensive consultation with local representatives. Consultation is the cornerstone of progress in Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture, and I am very proud of our record so far. We have kept the lines of communication open with the people working closest to the grass roots. It is only through consultation that we have achieved success in our record of legislative reform. We are committed to an ongoing program of legislative reform and continuing high levels of financial and program support for local government. Consultation and consensus-gathering are the primary means by which we have achieved this progress.

The most recent example of our provincial consultative approach has led to one of the main elements of this year's package of legislative adjustments. I'm talking about the reforms to property tax legislation. This legislation will bring stability to the province's assessment and property tax systems. It will streamline the assessment appeal process and will return certainty to the industrial tax base. All of the amendments have received the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The changes are the direct result of extensive public involvement during the property tax forum and the research conducted for the "Financing Local Government" study. These measures, combined with significant school tax relief introduced by the Education minister and the supplementary homeowner grant introduced by the Finance minister, will provide communities with a more assured tax base and bring much-needed relief to taxpayers all over the province.

The Premier has also confirmed provincial commitment to the development of a new heritage conservation act. I will be introducing a White Paper detailing this proposed legislation later this year. Again, this legislation is a product of extensive consultation. It will provide the tools to allow the province to undertake its commitment to British Columbia's quality of life with regard to its fragile heritage resources. All our accomplishments, Mr. Chairman, have been built on a solid program of consultation. Our successes are the result of partnership and team-building.

In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the people who daily dedicate their skills and talents to the pursuit of our goals, the men and women who comprise the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. It is my firm conviction that they conduct the finest program of local government and community support in the country. I would like this House to offer them a vote of thanks and appreciation. I can also confirm that a significant attribute of quality in the ministry is its budgetary and organizational efficiency. I can say that once again a major percentage of our budget goes into our transfer programs, revenue-sharing, heritage, recreation and culture, which are key components of the quality of life we strive for in our communities.

It is this sense of concern for the quality of life that is the foundation of my ministry. To reiterate our concerns, we aim to ensure a vital, inclusive democracy, to provide the heritage that provides the context for our daily lives, to encourage the development and experience of our artistic talents, and to reinforce the

[ Page 11170 ]

physical and intellectual development of all British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman, I present to you the budget requirements of a ministry which is committed to the strength of our communities and to the personal development of the citizens who live within then. This ministry puts its commitment into action through policies of consultation and consensus at every turn.

I'd like to take the opportunity of introducing my staff who are with me today: my deputy minister, Mr. Ken MacLeod; my director of finance, Larry Seminiuk; and director of cultural affairs and ADM Barry Kelsey.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I knew the minister could give us an analysis, a summation and some introductions; it just took the staff to get here to bring the right notes and the right things.

As I start the estimates this morning, I also want to welcome and thank the staff of the ministry, who are always available to help me and other members of the opposition when delicate issues or inquiries dealing with local government come up. I know my good colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull), who has some direct experience in that ministry, will also be having some things to say today.

[10:00]

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off the discussion today not necessarily on bricks and mortar or specific questions about the ministry, but more on where we are going with the ministry. Where are we going with local government in the province of British Columbia?

I would very quickly like to indicate that the time has come in British Columbia — and it's happening in other jurisdictions — to look at a new approach to local government. This great province has grown up, has matured. Maybe not so long ago local government, local communities, villages and towns needed the experience, the wisdom and the perhaps fatherly kind of guidance that was provided by the provincial government. But those days have changed, have gone; yet laws haven't changed in terms of how we look at local governments, how we legislate them and how they do their business.

Simply, Mr. Chairman, we need a new Municipal Act, one that is simpler, one that empowers local government and one that really grasps the issues of devolution of power — real devolution of power. I'm not talking about some of the things that have happened in the past, where decentralization by senior government has tended to be: "How can we get rid of services that are costing the provincial government money and dump them on the local taxpayer, on local government?" That's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about empowering. That's where the action is. That's the level that's closest to the people. We say it over and over again, but we need to have a charter of rights, if you will, for local government, a charter of rights clearly articulated and constitutionally laid out in British Columbia, with greater powers and even with checks and balances, a charter of rights that states that powers not reserved for the provincial government are the prerogative of local government.

I realize I'm not citing specific kinds of powers or issues or a kind of bureaucracy that we want local government to take over. I'm talking in a philosophical vein, something we don't always do enough of in this House. We need some vision, Mr. Chairman. We've tended to see local government always just as the nuts and bolts — but important: the streets and the police and the fire and the roads. But there are a lot more things we can be doing with local government: empowering.

The Municipal Act, as I have said, needs to be far simpler. There are so many restrictions in that act that it dominates local government. It doesn't allow them to show their innovation and creativity in things like economic development and resource analysis, sharing of the resources and resource planning. It doesn't deal with proper regional planning. My colleague will talk about that later on.

The Municipal Act and how we treat local government really doesn't say: "What you're doing counts." We tend to still have this paternal attitude to local government: "Well, really, you're the sons and daughters of the provincial government, and you can do these one or two little things." But there is a lot more they could be doing, things that we tend to hang on to at the provincial level.

There are incredible impediments in the Municipal Act to local government and its stepping into the twenty-first century as an equal partner in the constitutional arrangements in the province. That's what we've got to be talking about. We've skirted the edges, Mr. Chairman. We've gone around it. I still think that the Municipal Act is archaic in many respects. We should be sitting down and really going over that act — and it's going to take time — and asking if we have to restrict these people this way.

Maybe we need sort of decentralized municipal acts that reflect the uniqueness of the north, of the interior, of the rural versus urban parts of our province. We're always talking about regionalism. We're always talking about — and my colleague from the Cariboo will probably reflect on that — the differences between the Cariboo and us folks that come from the urban area. But our municipal approach, our "municipal acts," our thinking, quite frankly, is still lower mainland and Victoria–Vancouver Island centralized thinking. How do we give those regions the ability in law to govern the areas that they really can make decisions for themselves on, without having the provincial government always looking down and saying: "Well, your letters patent say you can't do that"? Or: "If you want to go and do something pretty innovative, you've got to go back to the provincial government, through the regional districts, to get letters patent approved." That's like a child, and I think we've changed.

I think it's really time to take a look at the whole attitude we have towards local government. Empowering simpler municipal acts, saying to local govern-

[ Page 11171 ]

ment that what they're doing really counts, a statement that says categorically that a lot of the stuff in the Municipal Act is deadwood.... It's just old stuff on how to control, how to make sure. What it comes down to is that you're elected.... We support that, and we believe in local autonomy. I've heard that over the years from various ministers on the government side, and I've heard it on this side too.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Really, the attitude is still: "Yes, you're elected, but we're still going to look over your shoulder. We still don't quite trust you. We're still not quite sure that you can manage your books, that you can plan innovatively, that you can have the leading say in economic development in your community and in your region."

In the province today, we don't even allow communities to have local bonds — something I've often talked about. I know there are good reasons why you went the Municipal Finance Authority route: the smaller communities couldn't raise money locally. But that shouldn't preclude my community or any other community that has pride in their community from raising money for their infrastructure or their programs by putting out their own municipal bonds: city of Victoria bonds, city of Vancouver bonds, city of Cranbrook bonds; invest in your future. But no, we can't do that.

The minister knows what I'm talking about. I've mentioned one or two things specifically, and I want to know if this ministry.... I've said before that this ministry should be on the cutting edge of how we govern the province. It should be looking at other jurisdictions and at how they have seriously and really....

MR. REID: If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that we are.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's really hard when you have mental midgets interrupting you all the time.

MR. REID: Talk about a mental midget!

MR. BLENCOE: Why don't you go away?

The minister knows what I'm saying. This is a good discussion for the future. It's one that I welcome. I don't think it's based on partisan views of the province; I think it's based on what we know is going to happen. But it should be done cooperatively, it should be planned, and it should be done without fear that local government wants more power: "How can we stop them? How can we show that we support it, but through the back door? Don't let up. Keep the leash on."

I'll leave those comments. Maybe the minister has some thoughts.

HON. L. HANSON: The member raises some interesting points. I guess Municipal Affairs, because of the need to recognize the needs of everyone to have a balance, if you will, between the rights of the individual.... It is a very complex subject to deal with those issues in local government. It is relatively simple to deal with the provision of certain services and so on, but we get into very complex issues, as I am sure the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head will recognize, like planning, when we get to land use — the size of structures, the quality of structures, and all of those things.

Municipal government is, in effect, quite a complex form of government. I think that we as the provincial government recognize how important it is in the democratic process. We have continued to say that and have continued to be a supporter of local government's autonomy. I have had some time to look at what happens in the other jurisdictions — not in all jurisdictions around the world, but certainly in a number of them —  and it is my opinion that the regional governments in British Columbia enjoy a freedom that isn't matched in any other jurisdiction.

Another interesting fact is that our ministry and staff, in terms of per capita assessment, is probably the smallest in any of the jurisdictions we have looked at. As a ministry policy, we try to be less intrusive in the affairs and operations of local government; but we also get a lot of citizens who make representation to us by saying that local government is far too intrusive in people's personal freedoms. The member opposite will be very familiar with the "not in my back yard" syndrome. Those are things local government always has to consider. There are always things the provincial government is concerned about and, in some cases, asked to look at.

It wasn't long ago that we rewrote the land use provisions in the act. There's no question that the act is a very complex one. I am sure the member is aware that we just recently rewrote the regional district provisions of the act, with a number of improvements. The Municipal Act and those acts which regulate and govern the actions of our local governments have so many interrelations with other issues that they are very complex relations. It's a very complex act, and it deals with many issues that are very complex.

[10:15]

It is not possible to take that act, analyze it, create a perfect act and solve everything. We do go through a process, because it is a continually changing act. There's a need to continually change, because our society has different values as we change. The reactions that we have to those things are quite often changing because of changing times. Ten years ago we may not have seen something as being reasonable, but it is in great demand today. I think that we do continually review the Municipal Act and the authorities that are in it.

A number of them are permissive, such as the ones we recently put in place regarding the taxation that was the subject of our discussion just recently. Municipalities do have flexibility in taking on or not taking on some of those issues — if that be their decision. We continually monitor the act and how it is

[ Page 11172 ]

working. We make those changes. We have a number of studies going on.

One I could mention is looking at some of the liability issues that different municipalities face. It is a document that continually needs change, and we recognize that. Who knows? We may not recognize it as being the same document 20 years from now, but through the process of those changes as they are raised, with society's demands and changes in attitude, we do revise the act continually. My opinion is that if we rewrote the total act to include everything that was before us today, in a very short time there would be other changes needed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members know that the Chair has an abiding interest in this particular subject that we're discussing this morning, but I should remind hon. members that during estimates we do not discuss the need for future legislation. I just mention that in passing.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, your point is very well taken. Thank you for reminding us all.

I appreciate the minister's comments. I don't intend to dwell on this subject much longer. To cite something specific, because much of what we've both said this morning has been somewhat philosophical.... The Municipal Act is amazingly confining for local government. I have suggested that the act should reviewed on a biannual basis. It should be done automatically. We take too long to look at it, and it becomes an incredible hindrance to the objectives of local government.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any intention of really sitting down — it's a big job, I agree —  with local governments and representatives of the UBCM. I have suggested that we could do it through the municipal affairs standing committee, involving this Legislature as well. Then we could start to really look at the act in terms of how we can end the restriction placed on local government by the act and come up with an empowering document. Is there any work being done in that area vis-à-vis the Municipal Act? Or is it just that two or three things come up each year, and we change them three or four years hence?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON: I have to assure the member that the act is continually being reviewed in two or three different areas. We look at the act as a result of complaints from the public — that this has happened or that has happened or should have happened and didn't happen. We do that as a result of the LFBCM raising issues with us. We have our executive committee of the ministry continually review the act for things that could be better handled in different ways. We generally take two or three manageable projects a year and analyze those. That results in changes.

I don't think the member would suggest that it is a responsible action on the part of government to react in a knee-jerk fashion to everything that happens. It's interesting to note the member's concerns for the autonomy and flexibility of local government. When a number of concerns were expressed yesterday about the tax measures being given to communities, there was some question of whether communities could handle those in a responsible manner. One seems to contradict the other.

We do continually review the act. When we see difficulties, we review the process. But I assure the member that we are not just a reactive ministry; we do plan for difficulties in the future. We're continually doing that. We have two or three projects each year in various segments of municipal government. The two major ones before us now are liability and the issues of taxation which we discussed during the bill the other day.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the minister's comments. He says his ministry is looking ahead, not just reacting. Roughly what percentage of your staff are basically just reacting to complaints? What percentage of your staff are in policy and planning, being innovative, looking ahead, dealing with the problems of British Columbia local government? What's the breakdown?

HON. L. HANSON: My deputy here is rapidly writing me a note telling me how many are doing this and how many doing that. But I suspect that the member is asking a bit of a philosophical question. If he truly is interested in the technicalities of how many are doing this and how many are doing that, I'll do research within the ministry and then provide him with that information.

It is a responsibility of our senior management and a clear responsibility of all our managers that they should be looking at the future, regardless of what is written in their job description.

We have about ten or 12 people in our policy and research branch. Sometimes the policy and research branch is researching information that is needed because of a difficulty that has arisen, and sometimes it is researching a project that is looking at the future. It's really hard to be that definitive: these people are looking at the future, these people are looking at the present and these people are looking at what happened in the past. I think the member will understand and appreciate that that is a process that goes on in the ministry all the time, but very difficult to define in those specific terms.

MR. BLENCOE: I think, unless the minister is vehemently going to disagree with me, that predominantly the Ministry of Municipal Affairs does checks, looking into things. Most of the staff are preoccupied with that kind of occupation. The minister says ten or maybe 15 are in policy innovation, looking ahead and planning. Maybe the minister can tell me what the total staff complement of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is these days.

HON. L. HANSON: If the question is strictly Municipal Affairs, I don't have it with me. I do know

[ Page 11173 ]

that there are about 750 in the whole of the ministry, which includes Recreation and Culture.

MR. BLENCOE: So let's say maybe 200 or 300 for Municipal Affairs. Would that be fair?

HON. L. HANSON: There are sixty people in local government affairs as a division.

MR. BLENCOE: So we have maybe ten out of 60 taking a look at long-range policy and planning. I wonder if the minister can tell me some of the things that those ten people are doing these days.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I can't tell the member what everybody is involved in today, but I know that some of the issues before the policy development branch right now are some of the UBCM resolutions, as an example. A number of them were concerned with liability, as I mentioned earlier. There is a fair amount of research going on in that.

Another issue that is being researched are police costs and their application, how they are suited to today's conditions, how it is going on in other jurisdictions and so on. I know that a fair amount of research is going on right now to develop these papers on taxation that will soon be circulated for comments. Those are some of the major issues that are before them now. I don't know what minor ones may be included in that mix.

MR. BLENCOE: Are any of the staff looking at the things that I've been talking about — the key relationships between local government and senior government, and how we can truly do the empowering...? Obviously anything you recommend has to go through cabinet, and that can be difficult. It has to be policy accepted by the government. Is anybody in the ministry really looking ahead with some vision about what local government could be doing and what powers they could have —  the ideal, if you will? It may very well not be accepted as policy today by the government of day.

I am of the belief that the ministry generally — and it's no reflection on staff; obviously the ministry reflects its political masters of the day — is checks and balances, nuts and bolts and in many ways restraining or confining local government. They're helpful to things that come into the ministry and its concerns. Is anybody really thoughtfully and creatively looking ahead to the things that we're talking about this morning?

[10:30]

HON. L. HANSON: The member is asking a question that is very difficult to answer in specific terms. Yes, we are always looking ahead. We're always doing strategic planning. We look to a lot of advice and input from local government because they are the front line that is dealing with various things. We are continually looking at the concerns that they raise and looking at what the future might be. I know that concerns have been raised about whether the form of government that we have in place is the correct one. Should the regional district-municipality relationship be...? That has been raised with me many times. That question is subject to the opinion of various people who are dealing with it. It's a subject that we continually gather information on. As society's needs and wants change, and the density of people, different things are brought forward.

Yes, we watch very closely the philosophy of intergovernmental relationships, not only between regional governments but also between those governments and the provincial government.

Some of the conclusions we reach eventually evolve into legislation. Some of the observations we make never see the legislative process, because they are rejected for whatever reason. We continually look at that and plan for it. The question is very difficult to answer specifically other than to say yes, we continually look at the future, as we should.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to let my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head say a few things in a minute. One issue that I raised specifically, and that I felt strongly about for a long time — I think we can do it, and the minister hasn't answered, not because he doesn't want to but because there have been so many other things to talk about this morning — is the concept of invest-in-your-own-community bonds. I think we're missing a real opportunity here for people. We're talking about how we get economic opportunities going in the north or in the rural areas, those often marginalized areas where people feel alienated, feel that most of the activity and money is in downtown British Columbia, Vancouver and Victoria. Here's a way that really could stimulate pride and ownership in their community. The money wouldn't always have to come from far away — the U.S. or wherever MFA gets its money. Please, Mr. Chairman, I'm not knocking the MFA; they do a great job. But I am looking at raising money locally for local projects, and at the same time people investing in their future and in their community. It's kind of a dramatic impact.

I know all the arguments. I've heard them before — all the way from Hugh Curtis, who used to tell me all the various reasons why, to the Municipal Finance Authority — and the histrionics. But I don't think that precludes the MFA. It should be permissive, if you like. Has the minister got any comments on that? Is anyone in the ministry looking at that? That's what I'm talking about: is anyone in that ministry taking a look at those concepts of how you get people in their own communities to start coming up with their own ideas for investment and economic opportunities, rather than always relying on government?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not sure I completely understand what the member is talking about. Is he talking about the ability of the local community to invest in its own community in terms of the borrowing that that community needs for projects? He mentioned the MFA. The MFA, as I'm sure this House knows, is a body that was brought into effect

[ Page 11174 ]

some time ago and provides a source of funding for the borrowing needs of various local governments, probably at quite an attractive rate because of the combining and the amounts that it combines. So no, we're not looking at changes in that principle; there may be some minor changes.

If the hon. member is looking at the community's interest and ability to generate interest and opportunities within the community, I don't know of anything that is particularly restrictive of doing that. If the member is suggesting that there should be more encouragement of that, I know it's something we continually consider. The energy and initiative that each community directs at that, depending on the sophistication, I guess, of the community and exactly where they are, is very dedicated and very intense. We do a number of things that would assist and encourage that.

Maybe the hon. member can elaborate on what exactly he is suggesting.

MR. BLENCOE: My understanding — and maybe I've been wrong all this time — is that, for instance, if the city of Victoria or the city of Cranbrook wants to raise money for its own community centre or public works or some special project, it has to borrow the money, has to go through MFA. It can't issue city of Cranbrook investment bonds to do its own borrowing, if you will, through its citizens — issue a bond that has a return, etc., etc. We used to do that. We can't do that anymore. You can't have local citizens actually paying for the improvements in terms of the money they have to borrow. That's what I'm saying.

There are two effects here. You get local citizens investing. You also get a sense of pride that the community is part of the revitalizing of its own community. My understanding is that you can't do that in British Columbia. That's limited; it's gone.

I'd like to see us get back to that in some form. I don't see it as precluding the work of the MFA. If the community has that ability and wants to do that, it's part of revitalizing the grass-roots interest in building one's own community. Does the minister understand what I'm getting at now?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is correct: that isn’t in the permissive area. With short-term borrowing, they certainly can, as the member knows; but for long-term borrowing for longer projects, it's through the MFA. I think the member would agree that the volume efficiencies of MFA borrowing are not matchable by local community bond participation, or however you would structure it. The administrative costs of doing that are much more efficient when related to one organization on a large borrowing for a number of communities. Unless there was quite a heavy subsidization by the individuals in the communities of the interest rate that they may want for their contribution, it is not practical from a cost point of view to do that. A number of studies have been done on that, which all seem very logical.

So they are not permitted to do that other than in short-term borrowing, if they wish. The economies of the MFA, the volumes they borrow and the rates they can provide as a result of those volumes, are not matchable by or attractive to local communities.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chair, I want to take this general discussion we've been having about the role of the ministry and focus it on a couple of specifics and go back to some of the things said in earlier estimates. But before I get into the subject at hand, I want to extend my welcome to the minister's staff who are here with us today. I certainly enjoyed working with these people in my former capacity, and I'm enjoying working with them in my present capacity as well. This is one place where I'm in agreement with the minister: the ministry does have fine staff. I have less agreement when we get into the area of the "finest program in the country," but that's not the responsibility of the staff. There is definitely potential there, and what has been lacking is the political leadership to allow the staff to develop some of these programs further.

I want to talk a bit at first about the nature of the ministry, because Municipal Affairs is unlike any other ministry. It doesn't have a sector of the economy to manage, as does the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. It is unique, because its role is to provide coordination, leadership and basically a framework for another level of government — a junior level of government, if you like.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs Act makes it quite clear that the mandate of the ministry is to be the medium of communication between municipalities and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It's a very unique role. Partly because municipalities are in many ways a mirror of the senior governments, they also provide a wide variety of services in various sectors in the local economy, rather than just being a single-purpose agency As time has gone on, over the last number of decades, people have been looking more and more to local government to provide services that in the past have been provided by senior levels of government, and they are calling on municipalities to provide more and more services, to be more and more responsive to them. They are not just entities that pave the streets and put the pipes in the ground and make sure the garbage is picked up. People are looking to municipalities to provide a wide variety of social services — day care, community health services, recreation and culture, as you well know through your own ministry. Certainly they are looking to municipalities to provide some real leadership in terms of the unfolding of urban growth, the pattern of development and growth in their community.

Earlier in the debates in the session I had some difficulty because I would be canvassing issues with other ministers, specifically the Minister of Education and the Minister of Social Services and Housing, getting into areas that are really delivered at the local level, and I ran into blocks where the minister would say: "That's really not in my ministry's mandate. Why don't you take that up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs?" So I want to go back to two issues that I

[ Page 11175 ]

raised earlier in other estimates, where I was directed to bring these concerns to you. I want to note that it's very difficult to extract them from the ministry structure, because the issues I want to talk about — school sites and housing — are very much involved in a number of agencies, both within the province and between the province and local levels.

I'll start with the easier one, or at least I hope it is the easier one; one I have a direct question for the minister on. During the estimates of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), we got into a discussion about providing facilities for schools, and the minister came up with what I'm sure he thought was a novel idea; he talked about innovation, and if municipalities and school boards were more innovative they'd do this. He said:

"A municipality and a school board could get together and say that, because there are so many restrictions on zoning regulations for 600 new houses in a residential development, they should consider the statistics which said that 600 new houses generate enough pupils for an elementary school, that one of the conditions to get that permit approval to build 600 houses is that it's not just the roads, not just the playgrounds and not just some of these other facilities that the municipality requires in their zoning structure.... Suppose they turned around and said that with 600 houses, there must be a turn-key school operation paid for."

[10:45]

The minister and his staff know that I have some personal interest in the subject, having been a school trustee. But the matter was raised by the Minister of Education, suggesting one of the things that have been suggested by municipalities and by school districts throughout the province: that consideration be given to the social needs of communities in the powers that municipalities have to control development. I know this exists in other provinces. Our neighbour, Alberta, certainly has provisions in legislation, and in the way they operate between the province and local government, to allow for such social concerns to be considered as part of the overall development package.

I wonder if the minister can confirm whether the Minister of Education has been discussing this with him, and whether he is in support of the Minister of Education's ideas. When the Minister of Education rose to make these remarks I was certainly delighted to hear it and was hoping to hear that there was also support coming from the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this matter.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I can tell the member that there have been discussions at the staff level, although no conclusions are reached as yet. What the member is asking for is the equivalent of development cost charges for school purposes. Whether you translate that into the provision of land and the putting up of the building or whatever, the concept is a development cost charge for the purposes of school provision.

The reason I say development cost charges is that where it is a large enough development, you may be able to look at the provision of land and a building for a school to serve that development, but throughout British Columbia most of the residential subdivisions occur in small pieces — there are eight lots here, ten lots over there and another 20 over in another area.

If you were going to adopt that philosophy, you would have to have some kind of a development cost charge, because there really isn't a development large enough to support a school, nor should the responsibility of supporting a school be attributed to a development of that size. It's a very complex philosophical issue. I know that the member is aware of some lobbying for other development cost charge issues, such as day care, provision of low-cost housing and a number of other things. So it's a very complex issue, and as yet there is no conclusion.

There are discussions going on at the staff level. I imagine the results of those discussions will eventually be revealed, but at what point in time I don't know.

MS. CULL: The minister mentions development cost charges. That certainly is one way that the provision of social services can be provided, as the need for them arises as a result of development. There are other ways and I won't get into them. I am sure your staff is fully aware of other means used in other provinces to do this.

What I want to do is get the minister's reaction on the general notion of such services being a part of the development approval process. It wasn't that long ago that even the so-called hard services of roads, sewer and water were paid for and put in place by local governments, as opposed to the developer. Over a period of time things have evolved, and now nobody thinks twice about asking the person who is developing the land to either provide the services directly or pay for them, or — if it is a situation where the service required is really larger than is justified by that individual development, but three, four, five or six developments will add up to create a demand for a particular kind of facility — a charge is extracted that's in relation to their contribution to the demand or the need for the service.

Is the minister generally in support of recognizing that the world is constantly changing? As I said when I started my remarks, our communities are looking at local governments not just as the people who provide roads, sewers and garbage service, but for quite a larger variety of social services. Is the minister in support, in a very general way, of having those kinds of services, whether they are education services or recreation — which is already covered, not fully but to some extent — or day care and those kinds of community-based services which municipalities are responsible to a large extent for providing, included in the negotiations of the development approval process?

HON. L. HANSON: The member is much more experienced than her appearance seems to show, because I can't even remember the days when developers were not required to put roads and sewers in

[ Page 11176 ]

subdivisions. I have to say that that has been in place for some time.

The basic philosophy of costs being attributable to the developer is complex. Where should it stop? Is the list of things that have been in place for a number of years now — the hard services, plus the provision of parks, recreational land or some compensating amount of money if the land isn't provided...? We are now looking at those and have had a number of requests — and I have to say some are with some justification — to broaden that list of requirements.

I'd point out to the member that British Columbia is made up of a variety of communities in size, needs and desires. Some of the much smaller communities, if they had their wishes answered, would probably have development cost charges that are different than some of the very large communities. To expand them takes an awful lot of thought and consideration.

It goes back to the philosophy of what portion of the social costs a community faces should be attributable to the development. At some point, I suppose, the development will become too expensive to put in place if you have no controls on what the charges could be. It's a difficult philosophical issue. I recently had an issue where a piece of land intended for a school was to be excluded from the tax issue, but it wasn't, because the school hadn't been built yet.

There are a number of complex issues in the relationship between communities and the communities' social needs, and who should be providing them — whether it's senior government or local government. I'm a firm believer that local government is really much better equipped to provide social services, because they know their own community. In the areas of recreation and so on, we as a provincial government provide a lot of assistance. But the actual provision to the community on-site is done by the community. I suspect that if there were a change to that philosophy, the communities would be disappointed. Some communities decide that their recreation facilities should be in this area, and that is a major interest to that community. Another community decides that it has a different interest. They're all very complex issues.

I believe that the increased ability of municipalities to collect development cost charges — give them whatever name you want; to collect from the developer the costs of provision of some of those services — has to be looked at very carefully before it is expanded by a large amount. I recognize that there is some demand and that society is making some demand. But at this point I think they have to be looked at very carefully; the interests of everyone have to be very carefully considered, not just the provision of the service. The developer has an interest, the person who buys the product that the developer is putting on the market has an interest, and the community has an interest after it is developed. All of those things have to be considered before you decide what burden should be placed in that area.

MS. CULL: I listened with great interest to the minister. Many of things that he said have given support to the remarks made earlier by the first member for Victoria. He talked about the fact that we have quite a variety of local governments in the province — complexities going from small villages all the way up to the metropolitan areas — and that it would be difficult to sort out a way of recovering part of the capital-related costs of development that would suit all of those communities.

This lends weight to my colleague's suggestions that we need to have a more flexible Municipal Act — something that would recognize the differences between communities and something that would truly empower them to meet their own unique needs in their own ways without being forced into a system that says if it's good for Chetwynd, it's good for Coquitlam. We all know that this doesn't make much sense. I'm going to return to this in a few minutes.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to come at this from another angle. I mentioned that there were two sets of estimates that I'd been involved in earlier where I was directed back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The other area was in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates when we were talking about housing program. The Minister of Social Services and Housing and many ministers and members on that side of the House have complained during this session that municipalities are not giving the zoning to the housing projects and that municipalities are the block thwarting the plans of this government to increase the supply of housing.

I suggested to the Minister of Social Services and Housing, and I suggest again to you, Mr. Minister, that there are perhaps very valid reasons why local governments have been reluctant to provide the zoning that the development community is looking for. They're reluctant to provide it quickly and without some kinds of consideration being given. It leads right back into what we were talking about in terms of the total cost of growth in a community.

At the time I asked the Minister of Social Services and Housing about the consultation that had happened prior to the introduction of the municipal incentive grant program that your ministry administers. I asked him whether there'd been consultation in advance. I think he said there had been, but he referred to a meeting of lower mainland mayors which took place last February. So perhaps this was consultation that took place partway into the implementation of the program.

I know that your ministry was involved as well as his. I would be curious to know what local governments have been saying about why they have not taken up the development-incentive grants that have been offered for housing. I would like to know whether the minister, through his discussions with the UBCM or with particular municipalities, has been discussing why local governments are having difficulties providing the zoning needed to get on with housing.

[11:00]

[ Page 11177 ]

Specifically, I'd like to know whether the problem relates to the cost-of-growth issues that we've been talking about, or whether there has been discussion about that. Through the ministry's own studies I know that a number of communities systematically evaluated the cost of certain kinds of development within their community — whether it's opening up a new area that is currently rural, and they want to see if that would make sense to move it into urban densities, or whether it's a decision to sewer an area that's currently unsewered. What many of those municipalities have found out is that high-density growth costs them in the end, not in terms of the hard services — you don't have to be an engineer to understand that if you run a pipe by a lot of people who are on a small piece of land, it's probably more efficient per person than to have them spread out in suburban-style densities — but in terms of the costs that the community ultimately bears for administration, police, fire and those social amenities that residents have come to expect as their right in an urban community. They've discovered that in those services, the costs begin to rise very rapidly, particularly if they have to be borne through the tax base of the municipality as a whole. If those municipalities were taking a cold hard-hearted, bottom-line view of development, they might conclude that it would be better not to have that kind of development take place, because the increase in population would cost them in the end. It would cost the taxpayers and not only the new people who are moving into that community — moving into those units — but everyone else who already lives there who finds that when they go their rec centre, it's crowded. When they send their child to school, they are in the tenth portable on the site. I could go on and on with illustrations. I don't need to expand on this. The minister understands quite well what I'm talking about.

What is the ministry doing on this? I would have liked to have heard you talk about this when you answered my colleague's question on what the policy and research branch was doing. This is one of the major issues having an impact not only on your mandate with local governments but on your colleagues' mandates in providing housing and in getting on and dealing with the school system in the province. I'd like to hear the minister's comments on this, because it seems to me that this is a very important issue that deserves considerable attention by his ministry.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, the member is aware that the municipal incentive grants that were put in place for quick zoning, higher density and that sort of thing were established a little over a year ago. I wasn't personally aware of the process that was followed before. That was one of your first questions.

We have had a number of meetings with UBCM on these various issues. Quite frankly, there isn't even a consensus at the UBCM level on all of the reasons that municipalities are sometimes reluctant to provide zoning. The member is probably aware of some instances where municipalities have issued no-growth philosophical statements. That's for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is a cost that they want to stop and assess.

Another reason is that quite often a community develops an attitude that the community has grown, and they do not want it to be changed. Some recent articles in the news described a community to the north of Victoria that is very concerned with retaining the rural atmosphere of their community. I respect that request or desire.

In the simplest of terms, it boils down to a quality-of-life issue. British Columbia is a very large province with a very small population mainly concentrated in a couple of areas. As more people come to British Columbia — as they will, because it has such a wonderful ability to attract people, a great way of life and so on — local governments will face the issues of quality of life more and more. For example, the housing issue. Quite often municipalities are faced with the quality-of-life issue. If a multifamily type of dwelling is being proposed for a certain area, quite often the area is concerned about what that will do to their quality of life, to their parking and traffic issues.

I'm not convinced that it is strictly a problem of cost. I think there are some other things, such as quality of life. Attitude towards it is one of the concerns that keeps getting raised.

Even if the issue is totally cost, I have a feeling — and maybe the people of British Columbia and the people of those communities have the feeling — that if there is a cost attributable to a public interest, is it completely fair to put that total cost on an individual development? There are things of interest to the whole community, and I question whether that is completely fair.

You know, the ministry has quite a variety of planning grants available — certainly the hon. member would be knowledgeable about those, with her past experience — and a number of them are dedicated and do in fact attempt to clarify a lot of the cost issues that communities face with development.

I think the member would agree that everyone in a community has a responsibility, including the councils, the neighbourhood groups and the individual developers. The balancing of all those responsibilities is the complex and difficult task. I think the member would admit that if that gets out of balance, communities would not have or allow development. If it gets too far out of balance in the other direction, no one will be interested in developing anything, because it goes beyond what is reasonable and cost-effective. It's complex, and it's a balancing process that always has to be faced.

I know the hon. member is also aware of the grants that we provide through the ministry through the revenue-sharing program which help with infrastructure costs. Those do tend to mitigate the effects of development. Balance is a very complex issue, and we try and maintain that in some reasonable manner.

[ Page 11178 ]

MS. CULL: The minister has mentioned quality of life, and that's precisely where all these things come together. It isn't simply a matter of cost, although cost is often what prevents the services from being provided in the first place. A lot of the concerns that come from municipalities that appear to be asking for slower growth, or for a breathing-space and no growth for a little while, come because people have seen what happens when growth occurs in a way that's not managed well. They see the population increase, the buildings going up, the homes, roads, sewers, water; but they don't see the counterpart. They are unable to see an increase in their social services or community services which are very important to them.

I know from talking to many people — residents, neighbourhood groups — that those groups are willing and ready to talk about trade-offs in communities, because for the most part, British Columbians do recognize that there is a wider responsibility than their own narrow interests. If there is a forum for discussion and negotiation, then we could get somewhere with it.

Many groups would be willing to deal with the question of a multiple-family project in their neighbourhood if they felt they had some more control over it. It's more control over the visual appearance and the massing that is just not there in the Municipal Act right now. As you well know, or certainly your staff well knows, in 1985 a lot of that flexibility was taken out of the Municipal Act in the guise of providing consistency. Now municipalities find that they really can't manoeuvre very well. They are faced with two options. One, they do under-the-table deals, where they negotiate with the developer well beyond the scope of their power under the Municipal Act. That works fairly well in communities if they can sort out something where they can control the development in a way they're not permitted to under the act but that works out well for all parties and so be it. The other way they go about doing it is by saying no to development. I think a lot of developments get turned down that could proceed if there was more flexibility for the municipality to negotiate on the way the development looked and also on the provision of these other services.

While we always have to be conscious of the public interest that the minister mentioned and the fact that we can't just keep on dumping the costs for growth onto all the newcomers in the community, if the response of municipalities — and I certainly think this is the response in some of the suburban communities — has just been to say no, no more growth, no development, then we have to find some middle point where the community can have control over what's happening and can manage the growth. That's what it's really all about.

The metropolitan areas in particular, greater Victoria and greater Vancouver, are going to be experiencing immense growth. They are experiencing it right now, but it's not letting up; it's going to continue to happen as long as people keep moving to British Columbia and coming to these communities which have right now a terrific quality of life. If we look at some of the projections and think that we may have ten million people living here in the Georgia basin area within the next 25 or 30 years, then we have got to get quite serious about how we manage that growth. It's not a question of stopping it. It may be stopped for a short period of time; it may be stopped in certain isolated spots; but it's going to happen somewhere. I think that the concern of the citizens of this province is that they and their municipal councils have the tools to ensure that it happens without detracting from their quality of life. That's what's really significant here.

[11:15]

Other communities, other provinces, have recognized the need for this. I just want to point to the province of Ontario, which last year brought in an act to provide for the payment of development charges which allows municipalities to negotiate with developers to get development cost charges or levies, as they call them, to provide for some of these services. They've recognized, particularly as a result of the growth in the Toronto region, what happens to the community under conditions of rapid growth: the incredible stress it places on the social services and community services and the stress it places on those councils.

It's interesting; municipal councils are so close to the people. You can go in there and sit in that council chamber and tell them what you like or don't like about what they're doing. We're much more isolated here. Those people, because they're on those front lines having to deal with the cost of growth in their community, need to have these more flexible tools. If you back them into a corner the answer becomes no, and then that's not going to solve the problem at all.

The other issue that I'd like to mention, and I'm just going to flag it now because I want to come back to it after some of my other colleagues have had a chance to talk, is that you can't deal with some of these issues municipality by municipality. In greater Victoria, where there are 11 different municipal governments in a geographic area the size of Surrey, you can't deal with the fact that the growth is coming into metro Victoria. People who come here don't move to Oak Bay or Central Saanich or View Royal; they come to Victoria and they live wherever they do in the community. The growth is something that we all share in this community, and it can't be dealt with in 11 small isolated municipalities. If we're going to deal with growth, with housing, with transportation, with any of these major quality-of-life issues, we just can't do it that way. Anyway, that's the flag. That's a theme I want to come back to.

There are other instances we could look at. In San Francisco they have something called a "linkage policy"; I may not have the term quite correct. They recognize that growth has impacts on the community. They recognize that even the development of a commercial office tower, which perhaps attracts many more people to work downtown, has some impact on the amenities in the city. Whether it's cultural amenities, a park or open space, there is an

[ Page 11179 ]

impact. They have recognized that, and the state government, I believe, has provided the authority to the city to extract a portion of the cost from the development, recognizing it contributes to it. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It has happened in Ontario, it has certainly happened in San Francisco, and I believe it's happening in Seattle.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: My colleague from Victoria says it's in Portland as well.

Many communities have put in place these kinds of provisions to give municipalities the power to deal with the impact of growth on their community. I think we in British Columbia need to look to that. We have two large urban areas — Vancouver and Victoria — which are experiencing these problems. Perhaps only Vancouver is experiencing it right now to a level that is approaching what is happening in the communities I've just mentioned in the United States or in Toronto, but it's coming. You only have to look to the future and say: "Gee, if it's happening in Toronto now with their growth, at their size, surely Vancouver, if it doesn't think ahead, will experience similar problems." We here in Victoria only have to look at Vancouver and say: "Gee, if it's happening there, it's going to happen here fairly soon."

What I'm asking for and what local government is asking for is a recognition on the part of the province that they do have to provide more than just the hard services. They need a mechanism for ensuring that new developments do not place all of the costs of their growth onto the existing community — some fair system for sharing it. Just as you have worked out development cost charges under the Municipal Act to deal with the oversizing of sewers, water, highways and the rest of it.... There is a recognition there that growth contributes to the need for that physical infrastructure and for the social infrastructure.

I know the city of Victoria has asked your ministry to provide something. The city of Vancouver has asked for it in the way of bringing forward amendments to the Vancouver Charter. I think that these are very important, forward-looking policies that deserve a lot of attention from your ministry. I would like to think that this issue is on the list of the people in your ministry who are charged with looking at the future, because if we don't start looking at it now and planning for it now, we're going to be trying to react and repair after the fact.

Mr. Minister, British Columbia has such a wide variety of communities that I think it's time we looked at the urban areas, particularly Vancouver and Victoria, recognized the complexity of growth problems that those communities face and started to develop something a little more sophisticated than a Municipal Act that applies equally to Chetwynd and Coquitlam. They do need some more flexible tools. They're asking for them, and I hope that you will give it very serious consideration. Because if we don't, I think we will find ourselves continuing to wonder why municipalities are not providing for growth and housing, why school districts are continuing to have problems providing for their physical structures, and why people are increasingly becoming anti-growth. It's because they see their quality of life being affected very significantly.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I understand quite clearly what the member is talking about. I may have some difference of opinion as to where those responsibilities lie. The front-end costs being faced by various communities as a result of development and expansion puts in front of us the dilemma: who should carry the burden of those costs, and on what basis? Is it fair to put the whole load on the existing community? No. Is it fair to put the whole load on the new development? No. We have to reach some rational compromise between those two extremes.

The member referred to an issue that would bring to my mind the old development cost charges that were rescinded some time ago, and that the new Bill 80, which is still under serious consideration.... I can assure the member that those issues — concern about growth in those areas that the residents express as a result of the pressures of that growth, a concern that the way of life they have enjoyed is being threatened — are very high on the research list through our policy department. I suppose that when we come to a recommendation or supply some information for consideration by the public, there will be a variety of opinions as to what we see those solutions to be.

Unfortunately, more people change a lifestyle. It's very difficult to retain a rural style of life with more and more growth. But for sure, we should work as hard as possible to retain the best possible lifestyle that we can with that growth. I agree that the growth is going to happen; there's no question of it.

We have been in contact with one of the foremost experts in Canada on development cost charges and similar mechanisms. The study of the things that are appropriate to charge developers and the impact of various types that have been experienced in other jurisdictions is well underway, and it is one of the higher-priority issues in our policy and planning department. I can assure the member we are aware of it, and that it is being looked at. What I can't assure the member is exactly when we may find this magical answer. But I'm sure that whatever answer or recommendation we come forward with, there will be arguments both ways. Eventually I hope for some sort of consensus on the best approach we can take to preserve the way of life in British Columbia that we all enjoy. That is the best approach we can take at this moment.

MS. CULL: I have a brief comment on the minister's remarks, Mr. Chairman. I would have been more encouraged with the minister's answer — which, on the face of it, is a very encouraging answer — if in his opening remarks there had been any mention of this issue as one of the major concerns that your ministry is dealing with. I've just looked again at the list that I jotted down as you started off, and it's nowhere in

[ Page 11180 ]

that list. The question of the quality of life, growth management and recognition particularly of a metropolitan area seems to be missing both from that list, the list you gave us of the priorities of the policy and research branch a few minutes ago, and from any knowledge I have of the priorities of the ministry. If this is a new direction of the ministry, terrific. It deserves the kind of attention the minister has said it's going to have. I will be keeping a close eye on it. Everybody — certainly in my constituency — is interested in seeing more leadership coming from the provincial government on matters like this.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate the remarks of my colleague. Something we've all been talking about and discussing is how we find ways to deal with growth and the costs of growth. I'll share with the minister that my colleague for Oak Bay-Gordon Head and I attended a day-long seminar at UBC in March. We were absolutely amazed to see how far the United States has moved in dealing with development costs. I was surprised because one has a perception that the development industry in the United States is so powerful that any suggestion they have a greater social responsibility to pay for the costs of growth — as my colleague has outlined — would result in a vehement attack that it is interference with free enterprise and has nothing to do with the market. From the examples we witnessed and were introduced to — particularly in Washington, Portland and California — the responsibilities of the development industry in terms of paying their fair share for the costs of growth were quite dramatic.

They are not only called linkage policies but they are also called litigation. When they build a highrise tower or an office block that has mitigating circumstances or impacts on the community as a whole, they have to pay a share, either in cash or.... When they are developing an office block or housing project, the social component is that they have to contribute some affordable housing. They have some responsibility in that community. It's exciting. I don't know if the ministry staff, in its innovative-policy division, is taking a look at what's happening south of the line, but it's something we should be doing.

[11:30]

I re-emphasize this because I've looked at this. If we talked about it in British Columbia, the development industry would probably react in a negative way. I would have thought the reactions in the United States would be even greater, but they've accepted them. It's working. The mitigation and linkage policies are alive and well. Some incredible things are happening in Seattle, Portland and California, where downtowns are being revitalized. At the same time, innovative housing is being built, or they are helping to share the costs of doing some of those things.

We have a long way to go in British Columbia, quite frankly. My colleague is correct: growth is going to happen. It has to be on our terms. We have to set the parameters. We have to make sure it's paid for — not always out of the general taxpayers' pockets but by those who are directly benefiting from growth. They have a responsibility to pay for the results of growth — the social costs, economic costs, environmental costs.

What should the share be? That's always the difficult question. They've overcome a lot of those things south of the line. I just put that to the minister and his staff to take a look at what's happening south of the line.

I want to move onto a couple of topics before some of my other colleagues get into the discussion this morning. We have an hour before lunch.

Connected to the issue of flexibility in land use and zoning and developing, the problem with the Municipal Act, as my colleague said, is that what is the same for Chetwynd is not necessarily the same for Coquitlam.

One of the things that I worked with when I was in local government, and which worked extremely well, was the whole concept of land use contracts. I forget when it was eliminated. I thought it was a great shame. I am sure the minister is aware of what the land use contract was all about. It gave a local council or community flexibility to sit down with a local developer and say: "Some trade-offs. You want to do certain things. You want a certain density and municipal approval for something that may not be quite allowed in the etched-in-stone zoning rules. We'll give you that, but in return we want some day care, some social return and some benefit." You negotiated with the developer in the land use contract.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, that's not political blackmail at all. Developers welcomed that discussion. I can recall — I won't mention any names — playing some hardball. Those in that field expect it. We came up with some really great developments that were win-win. So often, with that kind of contract missing today in development and growth issues — and it's just one example — it's win-lose. What I'm suggesting is that we need that ability to sit down and negotiate in these circumstances of development and growth so that those who are affected by the development and the community can negotiate a win-win.

A simple question to the minister: will we see the return of the land use contract in British Columbia?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I'd like to assure the member that we're very aware of what is happening in California and the various things that are going on there. Quite frankly, from our observations so far, we see many of them are working very well and some are not working, or not working as well. There's again a little experimentation. But the member is absolutely correct: we should and do keep track of those things. While British Columbia is the greatest part of the world that I have ever seen, I guess there are ideas in some parts of the world which may help us with the issues we have in front of us.

[ Page 11181 ]

I have to agree again with the member that the issue is not the cost, but how that cost should be appropriated in a fair and reasonable manner. That's always the issue — to decide what is fair.

The land use contracts the member mentioned were removed sometime in the early eighties. I think the member would also admit that because of the way they were structured at the time, there was the odd instance of them being used when they weren't really necessary.

When we tabled Bill 80, which the member is referring to and which is a similar bill to the land use contract, it was an exposure bill. We've had a lot of reaction to that — both pro and con. It's very difficult to reach a consensus when you have those sorts of things. It is something that we're looking at very closely, and sometime in the near future there may be an opportunity to give the member opposite our final position on that. There have been a lot of modifications suggested for it. We're going through a consultative process, particularly with the UBCM, in looking at Bill 80. I have to admit that most of the members of the UBCM are for Bill 80 and would like to see it enacted. But there are some concerns about it — and from more than just municipalities.

MR. BLENCOE: I appreciate that update. I'll leave that and will look forward to some conclusions to that discussion.

Before we move to one of my other colleagues who wishes to bring up some issues, I want to cover quickly two things that are nuts and bolts to local government.

Financial matters. Local government, as we all know, is always struggling to raise dollars and to find new ways to collect revenue to run their operations. One of the bones of contention — not controversial, but there are often disputes — is in areas where the provincial government collects fines or gets revenue, but often the municipal government is exposed on the actual.... For instance, with motor vehicle fines, obviously various police departments are heavily involved in issuing them, but the local government does not get a share of the fines. It's been around for a long time; there have been requests for review. I wonder what things we might look forward to, to assist the general policing and enforcing of the Motor Vehicle Act. Has the minister decided that a portion of the Motor Vehicle Act fines will be returned to local government?

I know millions of dollars are collected. My good colleague the mayor of Surrey tells me it's about $3 million annually in Surrey, for instance. Surrey staff and police are heavily involved. It's costing the municipality to issue those motor vehicle tickets, but they get no return. Is that an ongoing discussion, or can we look forward to some resolution?

HON. L. HANSON: The issue is one I'm very familiar with. The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has agreed and has in effect advised us.... The hon. member may or may not be aware of this: there was a process. I don't have the exact timing of it, but the Solicitor-General did undertake to look at the impact of the costs and the extra expenses municipalities face as a result of the fines. Once that study had been completed — at that point there hadn't been enough experience to study the impact — and he was able to measure it, he would deal with the issue of sharing the fines that have been collected.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I know there have been a number of requests for that. As I understand it, at this time it's still in the hands of the Solicitor-General. Hopefully in a very short time we will have an answer, because I believe that was about five or six months ago, and the study was to take about six months. We should be getting the results very quickly.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll leave the Motor Vehicle Act fines. A tangential issue to that, of course, is the whole question of the policing costs of local government. Ever since I've been here I have — and I'm sure those who were here before me did — brought up the issue that local government has asked for some greater sharing of policing costs and some greater provincial support for such things.

One of the areas where revenue could be sought for such things is this. We have in the province a property purchase tax, raising close to $300 million this year; I forget the actual estimate. Obviously our policy is that first-time homebuyers would be exempt from that tax, and I think that would be an innovative way to help new, younger British Columbians, especially, get into their first home. But many municipalities are seeing extracted out of their local economy millions of dollars annually. Local government is encouraging growth and development and issuing building permits. I'm wondering if the Minister of Municipal Affairs is at bat, if you will, for local government, in cabinet or wherever else, to see some sharing of the property purchase tax, lucrative tax that it has become, to see some of those dollars shared with local government. That's another way to help local government to pay for their services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The subject matter of cabinet discussions is not a normal part of questions in Committee of Supply.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I won't refer to cabinets again. But I ask the minister if he has decided to look at the issue of the property purchase tax and make recommendations where necessary to see if some of those funds can be acquired for local government.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sure the member is aware that the government took the initiative of adding a percentage of the water tax to revenue-sharing, and were thus able to provide some assistance in police costs to those municipalities that maintained their own police forces as opposed to the RCMP, who

[ Page 11182 ]

contract with a lot of municipalities for police services.

[11:45]

I guess the member is also aware that the issue of the new contract with the RCMP is under discussion and negotiation at this moment, and certainly that does bring it to our attention as an issue that we discuss. Without revealing any secrets of cabinet, all sorts of discussions go on all the time about our various revenues and how they are allocated. Suffice it to say, municipalities quite often come up in those discussions, but it's not appropriate to discuss what policies we may be formulating.

MR. JONES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the minister and his staff. Often we on this side rise with some expectation that the minister will be familiar with the issue about to be raised, and I certainly hope this is true in this instance.

There has been an intense effort on the part of a teacher and a group of students who for some time have been trying to preserve some of British Columbia's heritage. I just happen to be the member representing the area in which this particular teacher and group of high-school students carry on their educational activities. This has to do with the Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail and the efforts of the teacher and these young people to preserve it.

For some 14 years over a thousand students have taken the time and effort and enjoyed the opportunity to retrace the steps of some 30,000 prospectors who hiked in that area in the 1850s and 1860s. The students have done trail-clearing. Last spring they sent to all members of this Legislature a very beautiful calendar showing the beauty of the area and making very compelling arguments for preserving that very small part of British Columbia.

While they had been doing these trips for 14 years and trying to preserve this area, it was last year when the lobbying effort intensified. It was because the highlight of the trip for many students was the touring of the Port Douglas site. Although that town burned down in 1898, the students were able to observe the foundations of early buildings, the remains of more recent buildings — like the hotel that was built in the 1920s — and such things as cemeteries and artifacts. This was at the start of their six-day hike.

In 1989, the thirteenth year of the hike, they were greeted by a pile of bulldozed rubble; a creek that had been diverted, which certainly affected the fish-spawning run there; and a six-foot trench cut right through the centre of what was the town of Port Douglas. A mining company had desecrated one of B.C.'s most important historic sites.

At one time it was a centre in British Columbia. It was the second-largest town. It was the hub and was even talked about, at one point, as the capital of British Columbia. It had stood there for some 90 years prior to the terrible desecration carried on by a particular mining company.

It was at that site that Chief Justice Matthew Begbie held his first trial. An entrepreneur had been charging prospectors $10 to roll them out to a paddle-wheeler. After some prospectors had trashed this person's boat, justice Matthew Begbie found them innocent and found that the prospector had been overcharging these prospectors. That was B.C.'s first Chief Justice in his first trial in 1859.

There is tremendous tourism potential in this area. The students very clearly point that out on the back page of their calendar. They point out the route contains B.C.'s most beautiful native church at Skookumchuck; a natural hot spring at St. Agnes' Well, named after a daughter of Sir James Douglas; and the semi-wilderness hiking and tourist potential is tremendous.

I'm sure the minister is aware of the tremendous Japanese investment in the areas of Harrison Hot Springs and Whistler. It is anticipated that in the not too distant future, boats will likely be taking tourists on cruises up beautiful Harrison Lake. A lodge or camping area at Port Douglas is a distinct possibility, with hiking trails into the surrounding mountains and up the Harrison Trail. And the year-round tourism development at Whistler will likely develop a route to the area from the north to visit this beautiful valley.

We clearly have an area of tremendous historic and tourism value. It's a very small area — I think it's half of the 16-mile trail from Port Douglas to Gowan Creek that we're talking about. These students and their teacher are desirous of designation of the Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail as a heritage trail under the Heritage Conservation Act and, in addition, designation of it as a mineral reserve or provincial park, so that this very small section of British Columbia can be protected from mining and forestry damage.

I know there has been some protection from forestry. I believe a corridor is protected there. But these students are after a little more than that. It is the designation of it as a heritage trail and as a mineral reserve or provincial park that is going to provide real protection. They are desirous of making this the third heritage trail.

In 1987 your government designated the Alexander Mackenzie Heritage Trail, a much larger undertaking of some 347 kilometres from Quesnel to Bella Coola, at a cost of $300,000 for the preservation of that trail, shared fifty-fifty with the federal government. And it's my understanding that last year you designated the Hudson's Bay Brigade Trail — again, a much larger undertaking.

It is the goal and aspiration of these young people and their teacher to benefit all of British Columbia through this designation. I'm sure they don't want assurances that the minister is aware of this issue, that he cares about this issue or that he appreciates the efforts and the intention of these students. What they want and what I would like to see is protection — an assurance that there will be protection from damage by logging and mining to this significant historic wilderness and tourist area. It's an important area for all British Columbians.

[ Page 11183 ]

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I am aware of the issues that the member raises. I might deal with them in some sort of sequence, although he was far-ranging in his remarks.

Dealing with the Port Douglas issue, there was a placer mining operation going on there. As a condition of renewal of the lease, we were able to request a study to determine the extent of the disturbance that had already been done, to recommend options that might be put in place to mitigate the damage and what preservation should go on. The company has retained the services of a qualified, professional heritage firm, and they are conducting the impact assessment. To date, about one-third of the investigation has been completed. The study should be completed by about September of this year. That is being done under the auspices of the heritage conservation branch, which is the lead agency in respect to managing the issue.

Yes, we have had the issue of the Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail raised with us by the.... We'll be doing an impact study as to its valuation in terms of preservation. I'm sure the member is aware that preservation can be done by designation of the trail as a heritage asset, but we look to the Ministry of Forests to assist with the management, because they are best equipped to handle that. We deal, or at least communicate, with the Ministry of Forests before a designation is made to ensure that there is a management plan in place. We also allow for public input before we do the final designation.

I believe that one of the concerns raised by the students, and particularly the teacher, was that the preservation should go beyond designation and beyond management by the Forest Service and that it should be declared a linear park, which would have further protection initiatives attached to it. We're still in the investigation stage to determine what should happen, and we will reveal the results of that investigation when we have them before us and a conclusion is reached.

That's an update on what is happening at Port Douglas and with the trail. We're very aware of the petition that was received. They added to your remarks that they thought the preservation could be best handled by having it declared more than just a heritage preservation requirement; that it should be declared a linear park, a provincial park, that would be protected under the rules of the park. We are looking at that. We're looking at the parameters of the Heritage Conservation Act as it applies to that. We're looking at other land-use interests that would be involved. But as yet, there's no finalization.

[12:00]

MR. JONES: I certainly want to temper my remarks, because there's a strong natural inclination on my part and on the part of members on this side, when we hear so often that there are studies going on, that the ministry is looking at it, that there is a sincere desire to do something, that they care and that it's just in the works.... I want very much to be fair to the minister. I have some difficulty with his answer. This has been a 14-year campaign for this particular teacher and his students. I appreciate the complexity of it. I know a lot of ministries are involved in this process. I'm only a conduit here. I've no desire to take any credit for moving the government in any particular direction, but something has to happen to cause your government to move on this. I don't think we can wait around a long time for more studies when these kinds of areas are being threatened and historic towns are being razed by mining companies.

The minister is well aware of the issue. He's been working on the issue; I will give him credit for that. He sent Mr. Suttill, who has major responsibilities for designation under the Heritage Conservation Act. Mr. Suttill is project officer with the archaeology and outdoor recreation branch, and as well a representative of the Squamish forest district. The Squamish forest district has already designated the area for 100 metres on both sides of the trail as a forest reserve.

It is clear that the issue is protection, and there are various routes to the method of protection. Designation as a heritage trail under the Heritage Conservation Act would be the least complex of all. However, that would not guarantee protection against damage due to mining. You're quite right; there needs to be something further. I don't think it's the position of the teacher or the students that it necessarily has to be a provincial park, but there has to be protection from the kind of thing that happened at Port Douglas, so there does have to be some kind of designation as a mineral reserve so that for this very small section of British Columbia that we're talking about there is protection from the damage due to mining activities. That could be designation under the mineral reserve or, as you suggest, as a linear provincial park.

I am interested in something a little more concrete. I know in this chamber ministers are loath to be too definitive, and I can appreciate that.

The students and the social studies teacher concerned had hoped to be here today. We had such little notice that they were unable to be here. You can imagine how difficult it is to get students together in the summer when many of them are working. Their commitment is so strong that they wanted to be here today. It was only about 9 o'clock this morning that they found out that these estimates were up, and they knew I would be asking this question. They are intensely interested because they have spent time in the area. They see the value and the potential of the area, and I know they want a little more than "We care; we're studying."

Can the minister give any indication of the chances of this designation? Can he give any indication of the time-frame should such a designation be successful? Can he give any more assurance to these constituents than he has? Clearly the answer of the minister is not going to give these young people any confidence that their children are going to be able to enjoy the kind of experience that they have.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I acknowledge and I hope the member opposite understands — and

[ Page 11184 ]

recognize that the students are sincerely interested in it. They've gone to a lot of effort to prepare petitions and make me and my ministry very aware of the concern. But I'd like to point out to the member that it is not true they have been lobbying government for preservation for 14 years. They've been travelling the trail for 14 years, and it's just recently that they've started.... The concern was most recently raised by the mining issue at Port Douglas, so to suggest that the government has been dealing with this for 14 years as a question of heritage designation or preservation is not true. That doesn't belittle the importance of the issue, and government will deal with it.

I did not suggest — as the member may have been leading us to believe — that it be turned into a park. I simply said that the petition said they were concerned with the level of preservation that a heritage designation would apply to it, and that it was their suggestion it might be declared a linear park, which would provide that further protection. The member is absolutely right. Their bottom line or the underlying reason behind this was that the preservation of a heritage designation was in their opinion not adequate and that it had to go further than that. I wasn't suggesting that we were using the park designation as the method that this might happen under. There are a number of ways it might happen. That was their suggestion; that's all.

As far as giving the students encouragement is concerned, I can't do that. There are too many consultations that must occur before we take that action of a heritage designation. It's only appropriate that we very seriously consider that, because a heritage designation is a very serious and important designation. I can't say to the students: "Be encouraged — time will give you the answer you want." I can say: "Be encouraged. Time will give you an answer to your request." We haven't been dealing with it that long, quite frankly.

MR. JONES: The minister is quite right. Although inquiries have gone on for much longer than the last year, the lobbying effort really did intensify after the Port Douglas incident.

I have to convey to the minister — and I'm sure he understands this — the disappointment that those people will feel. Although the minister hasn't closed the door on the very laudable hopes and aspirations of this group, he certainly has not given any encouragement either. As the minister can appreciate, I have to report that back. I'm saddened that this very worthwhile, non-political and laudable effort on the part of these people — who just happen to be in my constituency; they could have been in anybody's constituency — has not, at least to this point, borne any fruit. I am very disappointed, and I will pass that on to the students.

HON. L. HANSON: I just want to point out that the member says I can't offer any encouragement. I'm certainly not offering any discouragement either. In fairness, the report should be in neutral position at this point until we've made a decision.

MS. EDWARDS: I want to ask the minister to address some questions about heritage legislation. There is a White Paper out, and there certainly is legislation promised, but I haven't seen it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The need for or existing legislation is not a matter of debate in Committee of Supply.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, whether or not that legislation is going to come forward and we'll have the opportunity, or whether I have a chance to talk to the minister about some of the issues that would be involved in expenditure under the Heritage Trust....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the need for legislation is not a subject matter of Committee of Supply. On a point of order, second member for Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister, I think very wisely and I compliment him, put out a White Paper for discussion. The legislation ideas are in here, and I would hope that there can be some response from the opposition in terms of its thoughts on the White Paper. I don't think the member is saying that we need legislation; the minister has already indicated that there will be legislation. We have the White Paper. I think my colleague just wants an update of where that's at, and I don't think that's unreasonable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate your concern and your point of order, but the Chair can only conduct the business of the House under the authority of the mandate given to it by the hon. members of the House. It is established. I quote from MacMinn's second edition of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, page 107: "Legislation Not Proper Subject for Committee of Supply. Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...." I have no option but to bring that to the hon. member's attention.

MS. EDWARDS: I would like to talk to the minister about his plans for the B.C. Heritage Trust under his estimates for this year. I know that the Heritage Trust takes some directions now, and I wonder if the minister is planning for it to operate differently. Will the Heritage Trust continue as an advisory board this year, or is it likely to be turned into a Crown corporation?

HON. L. HANSON: The hon. member is quite right that there was a White Paper circulated on heritage conservation. As a result of that, I might add, we had an awful lot of feedback from members of the community at large and members of various organizations; members of the opposition, as a matter of fact, wrote in with comments on that White Paper.

[ Page 11185 ]

Generally speaking, those comments were pretty positive; there was the odd negative one. I guess the major issue on the negative side was the question of compensation and the rights of the individual who owns the particular piece of land.

That is being compiled right now. What we are doing right now — I don't think it's any particular secret, because we have announced it previously — is translating the White Paper into proposed legislation, because sometimes suggestions come out differently in legalese. We are including in that some of the ideas we got as a result of this feedback. We're hoping to publish that shortly, but some of the drafting responsibilities our people have slowed it down a little more than I had expected.

[12:15]

I have to say to the member that the Heritage Trust is already a Crown corporation. In the short time between now and when we publish our legislative proposal and actually adopt it, it will continue to act in the same manner as it is now and as it is mandated to do. It isn't likely that there will be any legislative change in this session.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the minister for the statements he has made since he became minister — some of them are his; some of them came from before — about broadening the subject matter and the number of people involved in dealing with heritage to more completely include native people and native heritage. Although I still believe that the branch within the ministry deals more with built heritage and with heritage of the white people since they came here, we are getting beyond that to a situation where the native people will have a much stronger and more appropriate say in their own heritage, and where natural heritage will be more recognized. There is some recognition of that, but not enough yet, Mr. Minister. I'd like to put that to you as strongly as I can. I often get a lot of feedback about the kinds of heritage markers that get lost in logging, in the natural resource extraction and so on that goes on in my area and throughout other areas in the province. However, as I say, I'd like to congratulate the minister on having broadened the terms of reference, if you like.

I understand that the minister has some plans to allow the Heritage Trust — which so far has not been able to charge for any of its services — to charge not only for admission to any of its facilities if it owns facilities, but also for services that it might provide. My question is: whom would it charge, and for what services?

HON. L. HANSON: It's premature to make any announcements. All I can advise the member is that it is a topic of discussion.

MS. EDWARDS: Does that mean, Mr. Minister, that if the Heritage Trust agreed to do an assessment for a community group of a building's status as a heritage building, the Heritage Trust would charge for that? Does it mean the trust would charge if it put in a historic site marker? Would it charge for its educational services? What would the trust be charging for, and whom would it be charging?

HON. L. HANSON: The answer is no to the member's question. We are not contemplating the Heritage Trust charging for assessment proposals. There are some heritage designations for sites that may have a charge for visiting. If I understand your question correctly, at this point we have no intention of instituting fees for assessment of historical values of sites. There are a number of people in the consulting business who do that for a fee. We do provide some funding to do that, but that's not our intention. It's not under any discussion that I know of.

MS. EDWARDS: This paper says on page 21, section 25(5): "The Heritage Trust should be able to charge fees for admission or use of its facilities or for any service that it provides." That's what I wanted to clarify. Is that in the minister's plans for this year? I guess the answer is no, it's not in the plans. It is in the White Paper. I don't know what was intended by this part of the White Paper. Perhaps the minister would like to clarify that.

HON. L. HANSON: I'd point out to the member that this is a discussion paper and not to be taken as government policy. It is a discussion paper compiled from a lot of opinions and recommendations. A lot of suggestions were included, not necessarily suggestions that we as a ministry were opposed to or in favour of, but because they were brought forward by various organizations.

I think it is true that we do look at some of those facilities that have heritage designation attached to them — that there may be a user fee to go into them. I am not aware of, nor would I be in favour of, a fee for some of the services that we provide, but it's far too soon for me to start commenting on specific issues. I guess the Keremeos Grist Mill is a good example where a fee may be appropriate. But it's an issue in the paper for discussion purposes and not government policy at this point.

MS. EDWARDS: I appreciate the minister's somewhat frank response. I simply would like to urge again that this paper be put through; that we go ahead with it. It will come in legislation, and I know we can discuss it then.

I would like to mention to the minister that the whole paper seems.... I've scanned it relatively closely, and I don't see a single mention of Fort Steele historic park. I believe it should be mentioned, and therefore I'll mention it: Fort Steele is a major part of the heritage in our part of the world.

With that single exception, I think the paper is fairly good, and I hope that the minister proceeds on it quickly and that he broadens what he can in the natural heritage aspects of it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: My question revolves around what I expect is the lead role taken by your ministry

[ Page 11186 ]

in putting together the package for the Williams Lake area for the South Lakeside water and sewer. As you know, the Ministry of Health has expressed concerns about effluent coming from septic tanks and so on. There are some site instability problems in the area that date back to earlier years of development, and there is the need to get beyond the 50-cent dollar on the sewer. I understand that an application is with the Ministry of Environment.

Can you give me an update on this? I understand that there has been some progress on putting together a package. We heard back in September from the Premier that it probably required a little bit of fine-tuning — or perhaps it was the Minister of Highways who stated that. Can you give me an update on the status of that project, and confirm whether or not your agency is taking the lead role in coordinating the efforts of the other departments so that the package can be put together in an orderly fashion?

HON. L. HANSON: No, Mr. Chairman, I can't tell him that there has been a resolution. I think that we are exploring a number of options, and it appears that there may be a resolution. I guess there has been an application made to the Ministry of Environment for high-cost grants which exceed the 50 percent qualification that my ministry could supply. I don't know whether that has been resolved as yet. But I know that the enhanced grants from the Ministry of Environment are usually to provide funding for enhanced-treatment projects, not for collection or additional projects. So with that, knowing those guidelines, it would appear that it wouldn't qualify. But I don't know that that's the case or not.

There is a suggestion being looked at in order to expand the boundaries — as you know, it's not within the municipality now — to take that community into the municipality. There may be restructuring grants that could, in fact, help to assist that program. All of those things are being looked at now, and as yet there hasn't been any final resolution. I had heard that the actual residents of the area were not terribly excited about going into the municipality. All of this may result in a referendum and hopefully will provide a resolution. As yet we don't have that. But I'm very aware of the issue.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I realize that you are well briefed and that you have had continuous meetings. My concern is that one agency or the other be taking the lead role to coordinate the efforts of the different departments. I wanted assurance that that was happening.

I'd like to point out another attendant problem there, which has to do with the continuing problem of slippage on the hillside. Some houses have slipped in years gone by. I'm wondering whether your department is considering restructuring or considering funding services in that area which may encourage further development. What will you be doing to assure the people — prospective residents — in the town that the area will be stable? In other words, this should be factored into the project, because if you expand the services in the area and therefore encourage development, then you are going to encourage development in some of those sites. Has that been considered in this whole issue?

HON. L. HANSON: The issue the member mentions is a responsibility that lies with the local government. Generally, in those situations, local government seeks professional advice as to the stability and problems that the slope may cause. It has come up in some of the discussions we have had with the municipality. They are very aware of it, and would require, I would think, professional advice as to the stability and the concerns that might arise before zoning was applied and before building permits were issued.

If we can reach a resolution — if there is a process where it becomes part of the municipality — we will ensure that they are aware of those concerns. I'm sure you as an individual would make them aware.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I move the committee rise, report great progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Dirks moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.