[ Page 2003 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act (Bill No. 159).

Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill No. 162).

Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act (Bill No. 161).

Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003

An Act to Amend the College Pension Act (Bill No. 160).

Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No. 102).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2003

Statement Agreement between Province of British Columbia and British Columbia Cellulose Limited.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2004
Mr. Smith — 2004

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2005

Mr. Wallace — 2005

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Participation of Ventures West Capital in Ocean Falls operation.

Mr. Phillips — 2005

Bridge link between Saltspring and Vancouver Islands.

Mr. Curtis — 2005

Mincome questionnaires.

Mr. Williams — 2006

Discussions between Hon. Mr. Williams and federal officials re dyking and wetlands.

Mr. McClelland — 2006

Policy on telephone companies and cablevision.

Mr. D. A. Anderson — 2206

Importation of turkey hatching eggs.

Mr. Wallace — 2007

Police confiscation of classical works from bookstands.

Mr. Williams

Committee of supply: Department of Municipal Affairs

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2007
Mr. Fraser — 2007

Mr. McClelland — 2012

Mr. Curtis — 2013

Mrs. Jordan — 2013

Mr. Williams — 2018

Mr. Chabot — 2019

Mr. Smith — 2020

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2021

Division on Minister's salary — 2023

Mr. Brousson — 2023

Estimates.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2028

Mr. Lauk — 2028

Mr. Curtis — 2030

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2032

Mr. McClelland — 2034

Mr. Wallace — 2036

Mr. Fraser — 2036

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2037

Mr. Williams — 2037

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2039

Mr. McGeer — 2039

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House 20 good people from the riding of Vancouver Centre — community workers from that area. Their leader this afternoon is Ms. Pat Colford. Could you welcome them here today?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today a group of students from the Chemanus High School and I would ask the House to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE
SUPERANNUATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.

Bill No. 159 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.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a second message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
SUPERANNUATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.

Bill No. 162 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.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a third message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TEACHERS' PENSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.

Bill No. 161 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.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a fourth message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COLLEGE PENSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the College Pension Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.

Bill No. 160 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: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR., SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 102 intituled Development Corporation of British Columbia Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the House having in charge the said bill.

[ Page 2004 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of the House having in charge the said bill.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to read a statement of urgent public importance.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that at 1:15 p.m. today an agreement was signed between representatives of the British Columbia Government, the Celanese Corporation, Columbia Cellulose Company Limited, Columbia Pulp Sales Limited, Canadian Cellulose Company Limited and Celgar Limited. The agreement, which is between British Columbia Cellulose Limited, a proposed Crown corporation, and the above companies, will give the province of British Columbia a 79 per cent interest in Canadian Cellulose Company Limited, the principle operating subsidiary of Columbia Cellulose.

Under the agreement, Mr. Speaker, the Province of British Columbia is paying nothing for a 79 per cent interest in an industrial complex with assets having a replacement value in excess of $200 million. The remaining 21 per cent common shares of Canadian Cellulose would be distributed to Columbia Cellulose's more than 8,000 public shareholders. Thus, under this agreement, the powerless minority within the present corporation structure of these companies would be assured of their position in relation to the assets of the company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Something new indeed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This action by the Government ensures the position of the minority shareholders which would have been in jeopardy had the proposed sale of the southern operations gone ahead. If, for example, the company's Castlegar operation, Celgar, had been sold to Weyerhaeuser Canada Limited last August, these shareholders would not have been able to recover any of their original investment which was some $25 million.

Under the agreement, the preferred shareholders will receive $1.80 per share and accrued dividend arrearages and will receive two common shares of Canadian Cellulose for one preferred share of Columbia Cellulose. The estimated cost of this $1,488,600 dividend payment will be born by Celanese, the parent company.

The terms of the agreement do not provide any payment to be made, either to Celanese or Columbia Cellulose. However, the government will assume the guarantee obligations with respect to the first mortgage bonds of Canadian Cellulose and the bank debt of certain other subsidiaries. This long-term debt is listed at $78 million.

Under the terms of the agreement, Celanese will release Canadian Cellulose from it's $73 million to the parent company, Celanese, which will improve the overall financial position of the company considerably.

Some of the benefits accruing to the government immediately are the repatriation of 9.1 million acres of land in tree farm licensed areas. Mr. Speaker, that is the repatriation of a land area equal to 1½ times the State of Switzerland.

The firm employs 3,000 people in its mill and logging operations. An additional 600 people work for logging contractors dealing with Colcel. This move on the part of the Government ensures that the jobs of these people will be maintained, including the 500 employees of the sulphite mill at Prince Rupert.

It is with some pride, Mr. Speaker, that I report this to this House. The province has had an excellent negotiating team, who have experienced good cooperation from both Celanese and Colcel officials. The Government sees this agreement as only one step in a series of interrelated programmes that will ensure a great economic future for northern British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask leave of the House to leave with the House signed copies of the agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you some extra copies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have only this copy of the agreement. The statement to the House will be made available forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've listened with interest to the statement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources this afternoon. Certainly, we will want to look very closely at the agreement between the Province of British Columbia and the Columbia Cellulose Corporation.

In first respect, it would seem that we now

[ Page 2005 ]

collectively in the Province of British Columbia have 79 per cent of a corporation which, by any test or standard you wish to use, has been an unprofitable corporation for many years. It has lost money on every operation but the one in the Castlegar area.

At this time, I think that we will reserve our opinion as to just whether this was a good deal for the people of British Columbia, not only in terms of the jobs that are there but also in terms of the commitment of long-term capital that may and will be required to bail out a financially inept company. Let nobody in this province be deceived, Mr. Speaker. The money that is going to be used to bail out a financially unsuccessful operation belongs to everyone in this province. As trustees and stewards for that money, be careful how you use the assets and facilities of the province.

See that what you do, in effect, will be profitable in the long run to the people of British Columbia. Don't just put us into a situation where we will be paying off forever for a defunct corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria. I hope each Member will try not to get into a too controversial debate on the issue. It's merely to state the position, if you wish to do so.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thanks, Mr. Speaker. First, I'd like to thank the Minister for making this announcement in the House, a practice which we do appreciate on the Opposition side.

Second, I'd like to congratulate him. The last time he announced a deal, it cost $1 million. Apparently, this time it cost nothing at all. But looked at a little closer, there are other costs which he didn't specify.

At this time, we would simply like to point out that there are many questions left unanswered, which undoubtedly the Minister will want to comment upon later — for example, the expectations of cost. Perhaps the expectations of losses are more appropriate in this case. We'd like to know what there is in the way of road and railroad construction that will be required to turn this from a non-profitable to a profitable operation. This type of thing is something which we think is particularly important. We'd like to know something more about the mortgages — the $78 million which came out later on in the Minister's statement as possibly being a fairly major charge to the taxpayers of the province. Minister, we'd simply like to thank him for his courtesy in bringing it before the House. Also we wish to state that in a thing as complex as this, we'd like to have a full scale debate in the House at some later date, when we've had a chance to examine the documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's too complicated a problem to comment on with sudden brief information. I would like to back up the suggestion of the former speaker that arrangements be made for a full scale debate.

It's obvious that we're dealing with very large sums of money. We're dealing with a company which has, I think, lost large sums of money six out of the last seven years. The public of British Columbia must indeed be somewhat concerned to think that the Government is apparently repetitively going into ventures which have a proven record of losing money.

Since this is the taxpayers' money that is going into these ventures, as of the start of this Government, I think it only proper that some attempt be made in this House to have a full scale debate before this session is over.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would just advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that a bill will be before the House with respect to this agreement.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

PARTICIPATION OF VENTURES WEST CAPITAL
IN OCEAN FALLS OPERATION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. The question is this: are Ventures West Capital Limited going to become partners in the Ocean Falls operation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No discussions have been held with Ventures West in that regard.

MR. PHILLIPS: By that I take it that they have not been approached. Would you tell me from where the capital is coming to operate Ocean Falls Limited after the purchase is made — the $2 million that will be required to run the operation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A bill will be presented in this House this evening, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

BRIDGE LINK BETWEEN
SALTSPRING AND VANCOUVER ISLANDS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Highways: is his

[ Page 2006 ]

department examining, in any detail at all, a possible bridge link between the western side of Saltspring Island and Vancouver Island in the vicinity of Crofton?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is a very definite, precise, incontrovertible "no".

MR. CURTIS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MINCOME QUESTIONNAIRES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement: I know that this matter has been raised in this question period before, but Members are receiving continuing inquiries concerning the questionnaire for Mincome. May I ask the Minister to what extent the distribution of the questionnaire has produced replies sufficient for this purpose? That's question one.

Secondly, can the Minister clearly state that the failure to answer the questionnaire will not in any way interfere with a recipient's right to continued Mincome assistance?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have very much more to add, other than that we've now had almost 70,000 of these applications back. As I said the other day, we'll wait to see what happens. It's going to take us about two to three months to assess the information.

I'm not prepared at this time to say, what will happen about people who do not send them back. I'm just hoping that we'll get the cooperation which we're getting up to now. In two weeks we've had 70,000 back. I gave each Member a copy of the Press release which explains, in some detail, why we need to do this. I'm quite prepared to wait and assist people if they need some assistance in terms of answering those questions.

Certainly, the amount we've got back indicates that three-quarters of the senior citizens of this province understand what we're asking and they're sending it back.

MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: is the purpose of the questionnaire such that 100 per cent inquiry will be required before the arrangements between the provincial government and the federal government can be concluded?

HON. MR. LEVI: When I was down there in February, we asked the federal government if they would agree to our doing a 10 per cent example. Their reply was a categorical, "No, you have to means test 110,000 people." We're complying with this.

I must say that I thought they might have come back and said, "Test half of them." But they didn't; they insisted that we test everybody. We are subject to their legislation. We have to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN HON. MR. WILLIAMS
AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS RE DYKING AND
WETLANDS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: would the Minister be prepared to give the House any information about his meeting with federal officials on Saturday? I'm particularly concerned with the discussions concerning the Mud Bay and Surrey dyking districts and the possibility of the wetlands problem in that area.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might say that it was agreed with the Hon. Minister of the Environment that another meeting on that particular problem should take place within the next two weeks. I hope we can settle the question at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

POLICY ON TELEPHONE COMPANIES
AND CABLEVISION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Public Works: may I ask him first whether his recent statement concerning telephone companies and cablevision is a definitive statement, or whether we can expect another policy statement in this House in the near future?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): There will be another policy statement later, not necessarily in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask then, Mr. Speaker, what in the mind of the Minister constitutes excess profits in operations of this nature? These were words used in the statement which I find difficulty in interpreting.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course, a statement of that nature is always comparative. I think we compare profits with investment.

[ Page 2007 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

IMPORTATION OF
TURKEY HATCHING EGGS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the situation of turkey hatcheries in the province? I understand that we're back on the old problem of imports. I've been contacted today to ask why, when we have 36,000 surplus turkey hatching eggs on March 22, we've imported another 30,000 from the United States.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

POLICE CONFISCATION OF
CLASSICAL WORKS FROM BOOKSTANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've a question for the Hon. Attorney General: would the Attorney General indicate whether his department is making any investigations into the actions of the Victoria police in removing from the bookstands certain copies of classical works which had been available for sale in this province? It seems to me that the works of Miss or Ms. or maybe it's Madam Hollander have been removed, and this action seems to follow upon the actions taken in the City of Toronto. Is this to be allowed to continue?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll have to make enquiries. I don't know anything about the action. I don't know anything about steps that have been taken in the City of Victoria in that respect. I'll make enquiries.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Ms. Young in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 176: Minister's office, $67,700.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want the money, eh? (Laughter).

HON. MR. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Ms. Chairman, I anticipate the two questions that might be asked, so I thought I'd answer them ahead of time. (Laughter).

I would like to make two brief announcements before we get on with the show. I would like to state that at the present time under the Trustee Act, loans or mortgages are limited to 75 per cent of the assessed values. By regulation, this will be changed so that 75 per cent limitation will be removed. Now this gives certainly limited advantages to people buying a home in that, at the present time on their 75 per cent limitation, they frequently have to go into second mortgages for financing the balances at a substantially increased interest rate. It may be a small measure, but I think it will help a certain number of people in the purchase of their homes.

The second matter I would like to bring up is regarding the increased grants to regional districts, as shows up in the estimates. The increase on the administrative grant to each regional district will be increased from $5,000 per district to $7,000, which is an increase of 40 per cent. The environmental management grant will be increased from 15 cents per capita to 20 cents per capita, an increase of a third.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I first of all would like to say to the Minister on his recent announcement that that is some help to the regional districts. It's certainly not enough, but it's going along in the right direction.

In the Province of British Columbia we have at the present time 144 municipalities, give or take one or two. They break down as follows: 31 cities; 39 districts; 14 towns; 60 villages. Over and above that we have the 28 regional districts, so we have 170-odd different jurisdictions in the province. In these jurisdictions there's 1,000-odd local people elected at the local level to look after the affairs of the citizens in the municipalities, as well as in the rural areas under the regional districts. I would like to say for them that the majority of these people are very dedicated citizens and do an excellent job on behalf of their individual communities or regional districts. They are the grassroot representatives and certainly deserve all the support that can be given them by the province, because they do operate under the Municipal Act and they are guided by that Act.

I have had some experience in that line — I served 20 consecutive years on one of the councils in this province. Certainly it is the grassroot level and you get a lot of hard knocks there, but my experience was that you certainly found out all the facts and it's a great experience.

I said there were 144 different jurisdictions, municipal-wise, in the province. All of these are under the Municipal Act except one, and I refer to the wonderful City of Vancouver, the largest city in the

[ Page 2008 ]

Province of British Columbia. They have operated since 1886 under the Vancouver Charter, which was given them by this Legislature.

I think, Madam Chairman, to the Minister, that the time has come when we should take a look and see why they should have a separate charter and why they shouldn't be brought under the Municipal Act. I think that at the time that this was granted there was good reason to grant this to them, but I feel the reasons for them operating separately now have vanished, the reason being that the Municipal Act has been completely upgraded through the years and now pretty well gives the same privileges as the Vancouver Charter.

In some cases it even gives more jurisdictional privileges. I think that this Legislature should consider eliminating the Vancouver Charter and bringing it under the Municipal Act. Then we would have one Act covering all the municipalities in this province.

I said that we have, in most cases, good councils and I think they've had good and bad in the City of Vancouver. But I think it would be of great assistance to the citizens of Vancouver if their elected officials had to operate under the same Act as the rest of the municipalities in this province. I think it would broaden their scope immensely. I have never thought that the past councils of the City of Vancouver were broad enough. They didn't understand the overall problems, and I blame it on the fact that they operated under the Vancouver Charter and didn't need to concern themselves with the problems of other municipalities.

The other thing is that they are continually appealing here to this Legislature through the private bills committee for amendments to their charter. It has to be handled this way in the procedure we have in this House. But if they were under the Municipal Act this would again eliminate this procedure, and they would no doubt get what they wanted through going through the amendments to the Municipal Act.

Madam Chairman, I don't think any municipality should have special privileges, if they have them — as I say, I doubt that they have. The Minister's large area of Burnaby operates under the Municipal Act. The capital city that we're in, Victoria, is under the Municipal Act. I can't see why Vancouver any longer has to have a separate charter.

I would just like to comment for a moment. I know there's been a criticism about regionalization of the province. It is dying down, but I would like to remind the House, Madam Chairman, that this Legislature brought in the regional districts of British Columbia in 1965, carving the province up into 28 regional districts.

I would remind the critics that I have heard from the Government side, particularly out in the hustings, that that vote passed here 55 to nothing. So I would say that there was unanimity there and I was very surprised to hear that a statement was made that this was thrust on the Province of British Columbia by the then government. It was certainly dealt with in this Legislature and voted on in a very democratic function.

I would like to review a few of the problems I see of the municipalities in British Columbia. One of their great problems is their financial situation. They are in good financial shape, but their sources of revenue are far too limited for the amount of duties that they have to perform. I think that we have to look at getting them a better base of financing, sources of funds.

I would just mention one item, Madam Chairman; I don't think that they should be picking up 15 per cent of welfare costs. I don't think municipalities were ever meant to help finance this kind of service. I hope that. later on I will be talking under the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement about this. I think that we municipal people who are interested in the municipalities should see that this is reduced and eventually eliminated.

They have plenty of problems in the municipalities as it is without having to worry about what are basically senior government's problems, and by that I refer to the provincial and federal governments. As you well know, the welfare costs are quite heavy. On these smaller municipalities, towns and small cities, in some cases it is 20 per cent; it takes 20 per cent of their general mill rate to just look after the cost of welfare.

I would also say, Madam Chairman, that this year the budget is out and we know what the per capita grants are. There was not a great advance in assistance for the municipalities under the per capita grants….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that is under a piece of legislation on the order paper, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act. Therefore I believe it is out of order to discuss it at this time.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just referred to it as a source of revenue that certainly should be higher than it is. I feel that what is happening now in municipalities, Madam Chairman, this year because of their inadequacies — of course they are affected by inflation, and so on — but it appears that this year taxes generally throughout the province in all the municipalities are going to advance at least 10 per cent.

Even with inflation this is a pretty heavy bite on the individual homeowner or business, whatever the case may be. The financial squeeze they are in is just getting that much more difficult. I'm afraid that we have to set up committees or something to study how we are going to get permanent relief for the

[ Page 2009 ]

municipalities or there are going to be a lot of difficulties.

Madam Chairman, as the Minister said today when we started here that there would be several things on the show, I would now like to deal with the subject of boundary extensions and amalgamations. I would like to say that they're a real problem and they still remain a real problem. I refer to the general boundary extension amalgamations throughout the province.

Under the present situation boundary extension can only be made by a vote requiring a 60 per cent majority of the citizens in the annexed area to agree to it. I don't think that there is too much wrong with that, but I am very critical of some municipalities. They decide that they want their boundaries extended and they run a legal ad that the Department of Municipal Affairs writes out for them, and they sit back and don't do anything to sell this boundary extension.

Certainly it's going to increase the taxes of the people affected, but I really don't think that these people, Madam Chairman, where the boundary extension took place, or was proposed to take place, are that concerned about their taxes increasing if the municipal councils involved would get off their butts and explain to these people what they are going to get for their money. In a lot of cases this doesn't happen and of course the boundary extension vote goes down in flames and is defeated. So the fringe area development continues without too much supervision, although I might say that in the last two or three years the regional districts, the greater part of them, are getting hold of the situation and bringing some sort of controls over the fringe areas. But it isn't enough.

I think when we get to a density — I'm referring to the immediate fringe area — I think criteria should be laid down that when these fringe areas get to a certain density of population that a vote be taken and then they be brought into the adjoining municipality.

On amalgamations: this is a far different situation than boundary expansion, and I refer to amalgamations of two or more municipalities. When this happens, the present Municipal Act, Madam Chairman, provides that where three or more municipalities are to go into an amalgamation, an overall vote is to be taken and a 50 per cent majority is acceptable.

In other words, the Act was amended a few years ago, two or three years ago, to allow this and I can't see anything wrong with this approach at all.

I might say that I am certainly very much opposed to the forced amalgamations that have come up, Madam Chairman, in the community of Kamloops and Carlysle with these provisions in the Act for amalgamation. I can't see a necessity for it and why these people can't be given their just vote on the subject. Again, the municipalities concerned should get out and sell what they have to offer.

In dealing with the community of Kamloops, Madam Chairman: they had an amalgamation there on a vote situation only about five years ago, when the town of North Kamloops was absorbed by the City of Kamloops. At that time the City of Kamloops advised North Kamloops that their taxes would certainly stay where they were. Well, they have gone way up and this, of course, is the concern in that area. They have, in other words, a factual background to go by and that's why they are concerned up there at the present time.

When we're talking about amalgamations and so on, I'm not one of those that believes that four municipalities amalgamating to become one large area is necessarily a good thing. It might look efficient, but believe me you sure get one big bureaucracy when you attempt these things.

I think there are other ways rather than by forced amalgamation. In other words, work out arrangements for sewer and water and so on. But I also firmly believe, on forced amalgamations of any community — whether it be with a rural fringe area or all municipalities — that you will have a bad feeling in the administration for years where this takes place. This bad feeling, of course, will continue with the new, larger concept and certainly to the detriment of the citizens and the community at large. I can't see that this is going to solve anything unless these people vote, which they are entitled to do.

After all, they are the citizens who are paying the bill and I can't see why the provincial government or the municipalities involved are so afraid of a vote.

I refer particularly to Kelowna. I would say in that case there — I know that I can't discuss too much about Kamloops, but I certainly can about Kelowna — and those people there are very upset. They have approached the Minister and given him a brief and asked a lot of questions and, as I understand it, are still waiting for answers.

In the meantime, Madam Chairman, the Minister has not answered these things but he is trying to rush them into forced amalgamation with their rural areas. For the life of me I can't understand why all the rush. I don't think things are all that bad in Kamloops or Kelowna that another six months or so to analyse these problems and get some of these answers isn't going to be to the benefit of the provincial government and, more important, the citizens of that area.

I have a copy of the brief here from a few things that they want to know, and certainly they are logical questions. Why the Minister hasn't answered them I don't know, but no doubt he'll tell us. When you are going into something like this surely the government should be able to answer some of these concerns before…they want to know what is going to happen in the future with highways.

[ Page 2010 ]

They have asked you on that — and I understand you have not replied. They want the provincial government to pay for maintenance of all roads, streets, bridges, culverts, drainage, signing, control of access permits and all other duties currently carried out by — the Department of Highways over a period of five years.

After five years the new city will assume financial responsibility to a maximum cost of 5 mills, any excess cost to be shared 20 per cent by the new city and 80 per cent by the provincial government. The provincial government is to pay for the cost of comprehensive community plan and base maps, the cost of which is estimated at approximately $150,000.

The provincial government is to construct all roads in the city in accordance with the provincial government grid road plan as prepared by the Department of Highways during the 1971 - 1972 year.

I think this one is the worst one of all, as they want to know about the cost of policing the new large area. This is what their brief says on policing:

"The staff sergeant in charge of the Kelowna detachment of the RCMP has advised the incorporation advisory committee that the detachment will have to be increased substantially to provide adequate police service to the new city area. The national average is one member of the police to 650 residents. It is estimated that the population, based on recent statistics, of the new city will be approximately 40,000 people. The incorporation advisory committee is advised that a total staff of 60 RCMP were required in the detachment. It is therefore the consensus of the committee that the provincial government should be responsible for all police costs within the new municipality from the date of incorporation.

"As an alternative, it is suggested that the provincial government provide and pay for an annual grant to the new city towards the cost of policing in the amount of $1 million."

These are questions, Madam Chairman, that these people would like answered before they are forced into this situation the Government is proposing for them now.

I might say for the benefit of the House, Madam Chairman, that it is only cities that in our Province of British Columbia pay towards the cost of policing. In a town or a village or a rural area the charge is picked up entirely by the province. Here we have a rural area being forced upon a municipality — and I am talking policewise and justice — and of course there is no revenue to offset it. They are going to have to pick up the added cost by the taxpayers of the new area.

These are small things that are very important to these people, and to go back, Madam Chairman, I can't understand why the Minister is in such a hurry.

It might be, as some have said, that these things should have been done long ago. But it wasn't the wish of those people to have it done. I believe they should be able to, under the Municipal Act, look after their own destiny. It might be well and good for big government in Victoria to say we know what is best for you, but it is not very palatable at the local level.

If things are so good or they are so desperate, I still go back to the question: why can't they vote on it, the local people that are affected!

I would like to remind the House, Madam Chairman, that this has been a subject of a lot of discussion in this Legislature. I refer to the problems of boundary extension and amalgamations all over this province. It further surprises me that this Minister was a member of the municipal matters committee for the last three years, as well as I was, and we have talked with the Union of B.C. Municipalities about this problem. We have received their briefs and we definitely were studying the problem, trying to come up with an answer. The Minister was well aware of their opinions on it and nowhere, in any of the advice we got from this responsible body, did they ever suggest that we have a forced boundary extension, or amalgamation take place.

I also cannot understand where the present Minister was when he lets other government departments issue directives to municipalities. I think any directives to all municipal councils should come from the municipal office. I refer to the current land freeze that is in existence in this province. Who do they get a directive from, Madam Chairman, about the land freeze and how to handle it? They got their directive from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). Every municipal council and every regional district in this province got their directive on how to handle that. Maybe this is all right, but I don't agree with this at all.

They want their direction from the Department of Municipal Affairs and not from the Department of Agriculture or any other department of government. I cannot understand why this directive — certainly it was needed, badly needed — but it should have been channeled through the Minister of Municipal Affairs or his department officials. I can assure you the people out there in the municipal councils don't know what is going on when they get bulletins from different government departments on things that have a very vital effect on their departments.

You can see that I am not very happy with the performance of the present Minister and his performance since he has been Minister — six months or so. Based on his performance as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am afraid I will have to give him a new title; I think he should be called the Minister of "Shot-gun Marriages," in view of what he has directed and done in the last while.

[ Page 2011 ]

I would now like to go into a few more things this Minister has done with his different jurisdictions and remind you, Madam Chairman, that this is the Minister that ordered 90 buses for the B.C. transit authority with no tender call whatsoever.

The tender call system has been in effect in this province for 20-odd years and I think it worked effectively and efficiently. To say that he couldn't get the buses in time if he had gone through all the red tape of tender call, I can't buy. This little effort, according to a very well established bus manufacturer, has cost the Province of British Columbia half-a-million dollars. Wells Wayne and Company was a well known company to me when I used to be in this business. They are a reputable manufacturer in Canada, and they said they could deliver the buses at $5,000 or less per bus than the company this Government awarded the tender to.

It seems that this Government avoided the tender call in this case so they could get their friends in Manitoba from sinking right out of sight with their deficit in their bus programme there. I believe Western Flyer is the name of the company.

Really, to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia half-a-million dollars unnecessarily…I think the Minister deserves a real rebuke for that.

The other item I'll just mention briefly is on low-cost housing. I'll never understand — I guess I'm pretty stupid, Madam Chairman, I'll admit to that — I'll never understand how you can pay $82,000 an acre for land bank land and then say it is for low-cost housing. Believe me, $82,000 an acre is certainly ridiculous.

In the short six months that this gentleman has been Minister it is hard to believe what has taken place. While other Ministers of the Crown haven't really done anything, anything this Minister has done is all bad. The Minister of Municipal Affairs in both his capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Commercial Transport has failed miserably, even after a first review of his department, in taking into consideration the normal courtesies extended to a new Minister.

He is guilty of bringing into British Columbia on a massive scale the practice of awarding contracts without tenders called. This practice which, amongst other things, finally ruined the coalition government and which, after Social Credit came to power, was abolished — we thought for ever. Now, in handling financial deals with Crown-owned corporations in Manitoba, we find the Minister indulging in this long ago discredited practice.

Whatever his reasons, among which is the idea no one else could deliver buses on time, one can find no single reason for condoning this practice at all, His handling of the transit situation in Vancouver is completely irresponsible. Not only has he offered the Greater Vancouver Regional District much less than was proposed by the previous government, he has methodically set out to add to the taxation burden on the property owner in the Greater Vancouver Regional district.

If one takes a 2 mill levy in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Minister is asking that regional district to provide each and every year for rapid transit over $6 million to the taxpayer. The previous government not only had an operating sharing formula but a capital sharing formula which would have given the Greater Vancouver Regional District the best region transit subsidy anywhere in Canada.

How can we expect, Madam Chairman, the recommendations that the Minister made to cabinet which would permit such an arrangement be placed before the Greater Vancouver Regional District, when one considers what they said in the election about greater aid to municipalities, and specifically far more provincial input by the province into rapid transit. The $6 million that the property tax alone would generate would be far greater than the current deficit.

I would remind you, Madam Chairman, that when the NDP campaigned last year they said "better deal for the cities." How can they justify this promise now in light of what has actually taken place, with taxes rising on the individual homeowner, costs increasing to municipalities and now not even a decent deal that the greater Vancouver area had for the very urgent need for help in rapid transit?

As Minister of Commercial Transport, the Minister has been party to the snow job perpetrated by the Premier in going to Washington with the prospects of thousands of cars transporting crude oil from Alaska and still he admitted in the House that he had no recommendations to offer the Government what they could carry on the way back.

The Minister is a lawyer, and yet he acted completely illegally in ordering amalgamation of the Kamloops area and the Kelowna area and has been unable, since in this House, to offer any democratic procedures for resolving the issue. Surely, Madam Chairman, legislation is put on the books of this province for Ministers to follow. That's what their oath of office is all about.

Madam Chairman, at this point I am quite incensed about a remark the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) made in reply to me through a talk that I made about this forced amalgamation of Kamloops and Kelowna. He said at that time that. I was inciting civil disobedience in this province. I want to tell you since then this matter has gone to court and I would wonder who is inciting civil disobedience. What I said in this House has now been vindicated by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

If they need legislation to carry out their policy, they should come back to the Legislature in the normal way and get it. The high-riding tactics of the

[ Page 2012 ]

Minister opposite are typical of everything that this Government has done to date — power-gone-mad in their first few months in office.

Madam Chairman, this Minister is party to a cabinet which brought in Bill 42 which completely emasculates the powers of the municipalities of this province. How the Minister representing the idea that local government has a part to play in the decision making process affecting land use in British Columbia could be party to such a statute is hard to believe. Maybe I can't refer to Bill 42, but it certainly is interrelated with local government. Why the Minister didn't get…Obviously he didn't worry about what effect it had, or it wouldn't have come out in its original draft form the way it did.

To sit silent while the municipalities and regional districts in this province are shackled by the formation of a faceless five-man commission is reason enough to vote no confidence….

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. I am sorry. That piece of legislation is still on the order papers and therefore it's out of order to discuss it at this time.

MR. FRASER: Thank you. I was only trying to discuss it in relation to how it affects local governments, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I know from having been the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, our municipal leaders go elsewhere in Canada. The story we hear outside the province is far different from the story that some of the Members opposite and others have created about the myth of the British Columbia municipalities, that they were driven into the dust by the former government. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Chairman. Everywhere across this country the municipalities of British Columbia were envied. The legislation which they had was there for all to copy. Regional districts were born in British Columbia and imported to Ontario. The joint legislative committee of Ontario in coming to British Columbia, expressed the view that British Columbia's municipal legislation was second to none in Canada and they wanted to adopt many of its measures in Ontario.

The municipal finance authority, that conference right across North America, was held as a tremendous new direction in the work of municipal financing. And yet the Minister opposite has let all this go up in smoke.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Who wrote that?

MR. FRASER: Mr. Minister, in view of all the performances of this Minister, I now move amendment to this motion. It reads as follows: "that the salary of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, included in vote No. 176, be reduced by $1 thereby decreasing vote No. 176 to $67,699."

I would just say in speaking to this amendment that I have outlined several reasons why this Minister's salary should be reduced by $1; that's certainly not a lot to affect his personal life but it certainly shows our side — that we don't think he's performed properly. I've outlined the different reasons where he hasn't performed properly. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, speaking to the amendment, if we only had to give one instance of non-responsibility in that department, we could hark back to the order of buses from Manitoba when we knew and were told right from the beginning by local people in our own midst that a company called Wells Wayne could have provided these buses for up to $5,000 a bus less — even on 30 buses that would have been a saving of $150,000 to the provincial Treasury.

That company wasn't even allowed the chance to have a look at specifications. There's a possibility if they had had that opportunity they may have saved even more than $5,000 a bus. The people who are agents for that firm in Surrey, British Columbia have said, though, that just guessing, from looking at the type of buses that are in operation in other transit systems and the type of buses that they've provided in places like Montreal and other areas, the same size buses with air conditioning, air ride, automatic transmission and the same kind of engine in them, they could have saved at least $5,000.

By going to purchasing these buses without any kind of tender, what we've effectively done in British Columbia is taken the first step back to patronage government. That in itself is reason enough for the reduction of this salary.

I would just relate, Madam Chairman, that when these buses were up for grabs, the local representative of Wells Wayne Company called the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his report was that the Minister didn't even answer his telephone call. As a matter of fact not only was there no tender on these buses, the Minister was quoted in the newspaper as saying he didn't want to horse around with tenders. He has said this in the House before, which surprised all of us I am sure, because we didn't know that tendering for public business was considered "horsing around."

General Motors, as a matter of fact, Madam Chairman, didn't even get a letter. There was such an urgency, I guess, to get these buses ordered without tender — they received a telephone call giving them a purchase order, which is an unusual way to do

[ Page 2013 ]

provincial government business.

Madam Chairman, the other comment I'd like to make has to do with rapid transit. Rather than moving ahead it would seem to me in the matter of rapid transit, particularly in the greater Vancouver area, we seem to be moving backwards.

For instance, the offer by this government made to the Greater Vancouver Regional District was a whole lot less than the government was prepared to pay to the Greater Vancouver Regional District before — a lower offer than what was made by the previous government. Certainly the Greater Vancouver Regional District is up in arms at that offer. In fact their comment was that they "laughed and laughed" when they heard the offer from the provincial government. They've unanimously rejected that suggestion that they share the transit deficits first of all by placing a 2 mill tax on the property and then sharing up to 50 per cent in the losses thereafter.

Just briefly, a quote from the Vancouver Regional District itself, Madam Chairman, in which the district directors say they were adamant that transit losses should not be financed by a property tax. We can't help but go along with that, because we're paying enough out of property taxes now that we can't afford. The directors endorsed a motion that the GVRD transportation committee continue talks with the government, discussing other possible sources of revenue for financing losses, but specifically excluding the property tax.

The formula, as I've mentioned, Madam Chairman, calls for the GVRD to share 50-50 with the government all transit deficits. It was suggested that this could be accomplished through a 2 mill levy on property. The proposal is financially worse than that agreed to by the previous provincial government which had agreed to pick up the entire deficit for the first year of provincial cost-sharing, estimated at $2.3 million, and then split additional losses over that amount.

Another comment I'd like to make, Madam Chairman, has to. do once again with the possibility of picking up land bank land throughout the province for low-cost housing or for whatever. We don't really care what it's for.

The Minister has gone hat-in-hand to the municipalities, giving a blanket letter asking the municipalities, first of all, do they have any land they want to get rid of at fire-sale prices, I suppose? And if they don't have any land, would they look around their municipality and find out if anybody wants to get rid of some of their land and sell it to the government?

It would seem to me that that's an open invitation for the government to step in and pay those same kinds of prices for land that they paid in Victoria. Once again, in answer to a question some time ago, the Minister has confirmed in this House that the government is buying land on a per-unit basis. It would seem to me that that per-unit cost is going in regardless of what the land is actually worth. If the municipality can come up with a high enough per-unit cost, the government pays it. I imagine that the price goes on to the consumer in the end result.

Mr. Chairman, since we've now told the Greater Vancouver Regional District that they're not going to get as good a deal as they got before with regard to rapid transit, I would like to know if we are going to develop a transit programme at all. Are we working within the guidelines developed by the Greater Vancouver day, I do not know whether the Minister recognizes that domestic water usage is less than agricultural water usage and what he proposes to do about it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I think you're straying from the point, that is to reduce the vote by $1.

MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I'm attempting to show some of the reasons why that vote should be reduced. One of those reasons is the lack of action on the transit problems in the greater Vancouver region. Those problems are vitally important and must be developed as quickly as possible. I've said before, Madam Chairman, that rather than developing a programme, we seem to be moving backwards.

I'll save my other questions for later, Madam Chairman, with regard to transit. There are some other questions I'd like to ask but I'll save them as well because I don't want to stray, Madam Chairman. I fully support the amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Madam Chairman, this party will not support the amendment. Twenty-five cents, we might have, but not $1. (Laughter).

I'm going to quickly stray from speaking to the amendment. I hope that we'll be able to make some objective and constructive criticisms after the amendment has been dealt with. It is the feeling of the Progressive Conservative Party that the amendment is frivolous and we cannot support it.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Madam Chairman, I find the comments, in speaking to this amendment, of the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) remarkable. This Member is a previous mayor of a municipality, charged with the responsibility of defending not only the needs of the

[ Page 2014 ]

people of a municipality but the democratic rights of the people of a municipality. That he would equate the democratic rights of the people of British Columbia with 75 cents is utterly astonishing.

The Member has also held an honourable position in the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and on the Municipal Financing Authority in British Columbia. Again, Madam Chairman, I find it astonishing that he could be so little concerned about the responsibilities that he previously held and that he would condone the actions of this Minister.

I suppose the price of being a Conservative in bed with the NDP is 25 cents. (Laughter). That, Madam Chairman, equates the quality of the bed partners.

MS. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the amendment before the House, Madam Chairman….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In Ottawa we're in bed with the Liberals; here we're in bed with the Tories.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Their leader's wearing a red flower today.

MRS. JORDAN: He's wearing the red flower, Madam Chairman, whether he knows it or not, because he should be bleeding for the democratic rights of the people of this province as they're being trampled by this Minister.

In speaking to the amendment, I must suggest that I will support the amendment. I must speak on behalf of the people not only in British Columbia but in the riding I represent. Never before in the history have people's rights been so blatantly abused as they have under this Minister's direction in relation to these people.

Madam Chairman, some time last fall the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that there would be a compulsory expansion of the city limits of the City of Kelowna, "to create a new and exciting Kelowna," he said. He indicated at that time that there would be no vote and that the people would not have an opportunity to have a say in this.

Very shortly after his statement, the following points were brought to the Minister's attention, not only by the people themselves but by their elected representatives in their various fire districts, irrigation districts, community associations and service clubs, which are the backbone of any unorganized area: (1) They would like to study fully what this amalgamation would mean, to know the consequences in both benefits and costs to the individual people; and (2) After these benefits had been clearly studied and explained, they would like the opportunity to vote on whether or not there should be such an enlarged city as he projected for Kelowna.

Following this, Madam Chairman, that Minister sat on the television — rather like a blimp, I must say. When he was questioned about his reaction to these requests by the people in a democracy, he smiled in what could only be charitably described as a smug manner and said, "I'm quite confident that this is what the people want."

I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that had he been confident, he would have shown himself a man of responsibility and democratic ideas and proven his confidence by suggesting that when the studies had been done, there would be a democratic vote.

Madam Chairman, we suggest that this Minister has been getting incorrect direction from party supporters in this region. We suggest that not only is it wrong to be getting direction from party supporters, but it is wrong that he should be adhering so closely to it and that it is so obviously against the wishes of the people.

When the Minister stated that he would not hold a vote, he then proceeded to announce that an advisory committee would be formed — not a committee elected by the people of this area, Madam Chairman, but one appointed by the Minister. Instead of then giving them the opportunity to go to the people, he outlined a proposed boundary extension. At that time it was clearly understood that this boundary extension could be subject to change at the discretion of the people as they filed their views before this advisory committee.

Has the Minister responded to this? Not in any way. The people have been inundated with statement after mis-statement. They now feel in a position that not only are their rights being violated, but the Minister himself has no comprehension of the complexities that he's creating or the services that are going to be given, nor is he paying any attention to the wishes of the people in the area.

Madam Chairman, within the district that he proposes to annex, there are no less than four irrigation districts, all undertaken and supported by the local people. There has been no discussion on what is to be the future of these irrigation districts. There has been no discussion as to what costs are going to be returned to the people who have supported these districts, nor whether their democratic roles in organizing their own irrigation districts are going to be honoured.

The costs in these irrigation districts vary from place to place. In the District of Ellison there are two small irrigation districts, one paying approximately $12 an acre for water and another one paying approximately $15 an acre for water. These people formed these districts; they built the services; they need it for their agriculture; and they have a good

[ Page 2015 ]

price on it through good planning and frugal management. Adjacent to them there is an irrigation district charging as much as $27 an acre.

This acreage price for water varies. The Minister, to this date, has stated nothing about this. These development districts were predicated on so much subdivision or domestic water usage and so much agricultural water usage. To this day, I do not know whether the Minister recognizes that domestic water usage less than agricultural water usage and what he proposes to do about it.

In the boundary extension, in the extremes which the Minister has accepted, there are people today without water. This is a justifiable situation. When the ARDA programme was brought in, it was made very clear that the farmer had the right to designate his land as either dry land or wet land and he paid accordingly. We now have a position where houses will be on dry land for which the only water available is from the ARDA programme irrigation districts. These people will be taxed on a municipal basis rather than a provincial agricultural or rural basis.

Yet to date, there is no way that the Minister can provide them with water unless he violates the original ARDA agreement with the farmers. The Minister has stated nothing about this and these people are concerned and they're deeply disturbed that they have had no answers from him. They're willing to honour the original agreement. They understood it but they feel that the Minister has not. They wonder what the future will be in relation to contracts between municipalities and their various involved bodies and this Government of British Columbia.

Madam Chairman, I would like to refer specifically to Zone A of the regional district of Central Okanagan, which includes the areas of Ellison and Winfield, and McKinley Landing, an area, Madam Chairman, of 129.6 square miles, 82,944 acres, most of which is usable agricultural land. Madam Chairman, Zone A is 15½ times larger than the present City of Kelowna. This area is being forced to a large degree into the new City of Kelowna by this Minister.

When this amalgamation talk first started, a member of the department, Mr. Woodward, announced at a public meeting held that the areas of Winfield, Okanagan Centre, and Oyama — including Ellison and McKinley Landing — should form their own municipality and that this would be required in the future. I spoke about this to the Minister and asked him if he understood the complexities of this request. To his credit, he said "No."

At that time I extended to him an invitation to visit in this area when the session is over. I asked him at that time if he would leave Zone A out of the enlarged boundaries of the City of Kelowna; that I could give him, on behalf of the people in that area, a commitment that they would form their own citizens' committee and examine thoroughly over the next two or three years the pros and cons and problems and benefits of forming a municipality.

This would have been a valuable input by the people; it would have been valuable information to the department, and it would have precluded the disastrous situation that we have now — and the anger of these people.

What disturbs these people — and the Minister at this time seemed to feel that this was a reasonable request — was that they now find a large portion of Zone A in the extended boundaries of the City of Kelowna — including Indian reserve land, over which the province has no jurisdiction and which is not required to comply with any municipal regulations at this time — as well as the major tax base for what might well be the new community of Winfield-Okanagan Centre, and that is the industrial park.

Madam Chairman, that industrial park didn't come from Heaven or appear by a miracle. It was developed through the cooperation of the chamber of commerce and the provincial and federal governments and the people of the area in their desire to form a tax base.

If this area is taken into the new Municipality of Kelowna, the major tax base of any new development in the way of a municipal avenue in that area is gone.

It's all very well to talk about "grants in lieu" to the regional district. But you cannot change the boundaries of a city willy-nilly. It would be far better for the boundaries to be along the old boundaries of the fire district, as was previously proposed by the Minister, and let the future take its course as it's examined.

The Minister claims that it has to be included — most of Zone A and in the industrial site and the Indian Affairs lands of Winfield — because this was the recommendation of the advisory committee to him and his department. Madam Chairman, I publicly dispute that statement, on behalf of these people, in this chamber — which in itself is a serious charge against this Minister.

These people have not had any representation on the advisory committee. When they did make representation it was supported by the committee, but rejected by the Minister's contact in the area and they are not being allowed a free vote. When they found out that they had been included, last week, they find that there is no opportunity to appeal because the census figures are already being made up.

Madam Chairman, what an incredible situation for the Province of British Columbia to have a Minister who would so sideswipe the issues and the democratic rights of the people of this area without any concrete evidence that the advice he's getting is within the wishes of these people and that he is adhering to the Municipal Act and the democratic rights.

[ Page 2016 ]

When the people found that the Minister would not listen to them — and it came out in the Kelowna Courier on February 22 — it says: "Area Wants Out of New Kelowna. Directors of Central Okanagan Regional District have supported the right of Winfield-Oyama-Okanagan Centre Director John McCoubry to ask that his area be left out of plans for the new City of Kelowna to be born May 1. The directors" — and I repeat, Madam Chairman, because this is contrary to what the Minister is advising in public — "The directors of Central Okanagan Regional District have supported the right of Winfield-Oyama-Okanagan Centre Director John McCoubry to ask that his area be left out of plans for the new City of Kelowna to be born May l."

Mr. McCoubry, for your information, Madam Chairman, is a duly elected regional district director since the inception of regional districts. He has the confidence of the people and is their spokesman.

I would read on: "Mr. McCoubry said people in his area were definitely against their area coming into the city. He said the incorporation advisory committee had exceeded terms of reference in considering the Winfield area." And that statement was made on the basis of the Minister's original outline of where the boundaries for the new Kelowna should be.

[Mr. Dent in the Chair]

"On the committee are directors of the regional areas concerned and members of city council. Those are the regional areas that were included in the Minister's original boundary and the present City of Kelowna. Since Mr. McCoubry is not on the committee, he said the only place he could get support was at the regional district meeting."

At that meeting, Madam Chairman, it was suggested to Mr. McCoubry that he make a public statement on behalf of the people of Zone A to the advisory committee. This motion supporting Mr. McCoubry was endorsed by all directors at that meeting except the mayor of the City of Kelowna. That was February 22, 1973, at a time when I assume the census lists were not being made up — at least I would certainly hope were not being made up.

On February 25, 1973, I have the submission made by Mr. McCoubry to the advisory committee, and I'll read it for your information, Mr. Chairman:

"To incorporation advisory committee from Mr. John M. McCoubry, Director of Zone A Regional District of Central Okanagan, Oyama, Okanagan Centre and Winfield:

"As much concern is being expressed by many residents of Zone A about the suggested inclusion of that area, or any portion thereof, within the proposed boundaries of the new City of Kelowna, I felt it to be my responsibility to submit an objection on their behalf.

"The boundaries as first proposed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, The Hon. James Lorimer did not include Zone A. The members of the advisory committee are all representative of the various areas that will be included in the city. It is felt that it would be outside of the committee's terms of reference to consider any extension beyond the original proposal.

"A representative of the Municipal Affairs department, Mr. C. Woodward, stated, at a meeting held to consider the suggested inclusion of Zone A, that to do so would create a city that would be very unwieldy. Those are the statements made by the Minister's representative in the negotiations for the expansion of the City of Kelowna."

I'll repeat, Mr. Chairman, "that to do so" — that is, include Zone A — "would create a city that would be very unwieldy." And I go on quoting:

"The distance from Okanagan Bridge to the north boundary would be over 25 miles. In Zone A there are 129.6 square miles, 82,944 acres, most of the usable land being agricultural. Zone A is 15½ times larger than the present City of Kelowna.

"Mr. Woodward also stated that he could foresee Zone A forming a separate municipality in the future. There has been a suggestion that only the industrial section be taken into the new boundaries. If this were done it would remove for all time the formation of a municipality in this area."

Since that time, Mr. Chairman, representatives have been down to see the Minister, to explain the situation — he has consistently refused to listen. His statement at this time for including Zone A is that it is "recommended by the advisory committee."

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not so. I have talked to the advisory committee — if the Minister would like their names, I'll give them to him — and they said that in their presentation to both he and his department they recommended that if Zone A was to be included there were certain conditions and benefits to these people which must be met. These conditions have not been met; nor is it even possible for them to be met. Yet the Minister says that the committee recommended it to him — they say, Mr. Speaker, that they did not. They made it very clear to the Minister that if they recommended it with these conditions, they would not recommend it unless the conditions were met.

So we had the people on February 22, 1973, going to their regional district, which was their avenue of appeal. The silent Members in this House might do well not to smile. Their one avenue of appeal was the regional district, and this granted them the right to speak to the committee and supported them. As their next avenue of appeal, their regional district

[ Page 2017 ]

representative presented a brief to the committee, and that's been denied.

At no time has the Minister or any member of his staff entered into any dialogue of a public nature with the people of this area to be affected or with their representative. Mr. Chairman, these people deeply resent this, and this type of action by a Minister of this Government cannot be condoned. We see the actions of this Minister of Municipal Affairs, on the matter of this boundary expansion and amalgamation, as being totally irresponsible and against the obvious displeasure of the people who are affected. Direct orders on amalgamation are being pushed ahead without any inkling as to what the letters patent for the new corporation will be. The Minister has asked these people to accept his dictum without knowing any of the rules of the game, any of the benefits, or any of the costs.

There is no known provision, Mr. Chairman, in the legislation of this province for provision for tax differential between highly serviced and unserviced areas of the newly proposed municipal corporation. The people want to know about this, Mr. Chairman. The Minister sits silent in his chair, his department does not listen to the people, and then they have the nerve to say, "Trust us, we know what the people want." There is no guarantee of the kind of urban service which residents in newly incorporated areas will obtain. There is no definite timetable for the delivery of urban services.

I submit, in examining that regional district, that there is no way this Minister, or this Government, or the people themselves can provide the services that they should rightfully have if they are to be in a municipality. There is not enough money in the whole budget of British Columbia to provide that type of service and to provide it for any other municipality of the province that should incorporate.

We would hope that the Minister is not going to enter into preferential treatment for the new City of Kamloops and the new City of Kelowna that he would not be prepared to offer to other municipalities, should they choose to incorporate and amalgamate. We've had enough of six months of this Government's preferred treatment for preferred people.

There is no real statement about the tax levies which will apply in newly incorporated areas in British Columbia or within the area about which I specifically spoke.

There's been a total disregard by this Minister and, I regret to say, his staff for the first principle of local government, which is self-determination. The Minister is clearly, Mr. Chairman, flying in the face of a great public outcry — from a public who are deeply affected, who are deeply concerned, who have not been informed, who have no course of appeal, and who feel themselves nothing short of under the heel of a man who has become drunk with power.

The Minister is showing fright, they feel, by sending in officials. If he's so confident in his proposal, if he has the answers that the people want, why doesn't this Minister go up there today and answer their questions? Meet them eyeball to eyeball, Mr. Minister, and say, "I believe we have a good proposal. Here it is — now have a vote." Have some confidence, Mr. Minister, in the democratic process, and have some faith, Mr. Minister, in the common sense of people, which is certainly outshining this Minister's common sense at this time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I realize government has problems, but I didn't know this Government's problem was so great it had to send the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to deal with the Minister of Municipal Affairs' problems.

Mr. Chairman, this Minister should get out of that chair as soon as his estimates are over. After he's made a statement that he will return the right to a vote and the right to public information he should go up and meet these people face to face on their home ground. As the Member for North Okanagan, I find this whole calendar of events, connected by this forced play, to be totally unacceptable — not only to these people directly, but an unacceptable action by this Government, and an unacceptable practice in the Province of British Columbia, or in Canada. This Government keeps crying that we should trust them. Every day that we sit in this Legislature we see more and more proof of why they should not be trusted. This session is making a mockery of that plea, and it's making a mockery of the democratic process and a mockery of the rights of the individuals in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I don't trust them. In light of the conflicting statements that are consistently being made, in light of this Minister's excuses for why this part of Zone A is going to be taken in, in light of the fact that the people from the Ellison area, which is all agricultural, with no interest of any of the people in there to subdivide…In spite of this knowledge and the fact that these people have come down here and spoken to the Minister's department, and spoken to the Minister, they are completely ignored and forced into a municipality. How ridiculous can you be?

Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of these people. It has never been my policy to condemn a department of government, but I have no alternative, in light of the actions of this Minister and. this department, but to stand here today and condemn their actions, as this Minister has been responsible for them. In doing so, I fully support this amendment. I feel this Minister's actions warrant nothing but the highest contempt of this Legislature and the people of British

[ Page 2018 ]

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have many questions to pose to the Minister about his performance to date and about the task that faces him with regard to municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to support this motion. As a matter of fact, I'm rather surprised that the official Opposition has brought this motion forward at this time. When I was first elected to this assembly, I was a member of municipal government. Indeed, it was my concern as to the direction that the then government was proceeding and the impact that they were having on the municipal governments in this province which encouraged me to seek election to this Legislature.

To find that the official Opposition has moved to reduce the Minister's salary after six or seven or eight months in office, is not only frivolous, as the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has said, but I suggest is also vexatious. Indeed, to think that any Minister or any government could undo the, 20 years of inactivity, so far as local government is concerned, from the previous government is ludicrous. I would think that this official Opposition, knowing so well what has gone on in the past, would say to any Minister that took on the job of Municipal Affairs that his salary should be increased by a dollar.

Has the official Opposition, Mr. Chairman, forgotten what happened at Dufferin? Is this what they call the democratic approach to local government administration in the Province of British Columbia, the way Dufferin was established, where we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the previous government (Mr. D. Campbell) putting before a committee of this House a question as to how the establishment of new local governments in British Columbia should be carried out? Immediately following upon making that request to the select standing committee, we suddenly found that Dufferin was established. We know the tragedy that that has been.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talks about changing boundaries willy-nilly. How many of the Members who have sat in this House for the past decade will recall how convenient it was for the previous government to change the boundaries of municipalities so as to reach out and take in industrial manufacturing plants, all for the purposes of improving the assessment base of the local government, and therefore taking off the shoulders of the provincial government the financial responsibilities which it would otherwise have to bear? Then, having done this, they placed burdens upon municipal governments in this province such as are not witnessed in any of the other provinces of Canada.

Year after year after year, local governments and the representatives of the municipalities came to the previous government with positive suggestions to improve the lot of local government and of the taxpayers in those regions, and year after year after year they were refused any change at all by the previous government.

Questions were raised about the direction in which we are going with regard to public transit, and we'll have some questions to pose to the Minister at the proper time on this matter — questions which the Minister must answer. But when I think of the treatment that the previous government and the previous Minister gave to urban municipalities in desperate need for improvement of the public transit system, of the attitudes expressed by the Crown corporation to this problem — obviously under the fiscal control of the previous administration — it makes one wonder how this motion could have been brought forward at this time.

Well I recall, Mr. Chairman, when communities within my constituency came to this government asking assistance for such necessary work as waterworks and sewers, and were refused assistance. In fact, one time they were promised assistance and it was withdrawn.

For them to criticize the conduct of the Minister today is truly incompetent.

Yes, we've got a long way to go, and the Minister has got a long way to go. He'll have to work very hard if we're to make any real progress with local government to help remove some of the burdens which the people feel as a result of the tasks which those local governments had to perform. But the task, Mr. Chairman, upon which this Minister is set, is made much longer and much harder by reason of what has gone before and what has been left undone by the previous government — Members who supported it. being in the Opposition today, including a number who proposed this very motion.

I remember before that Member was in this House, actions taken by the previous administration which caused that Member and other mayors of municipalities to come down to Victoria — special trip — opposing what the government of the day was then going to do. And yet I don't recall that when he was sitting in the Government benches he made criticisms of the way in which the then Minister of Municipal Affairs was carrying on his affairs. Not one of the Members of the Opposition in those days moved to reduce the salary of that Minister.

So based upon balance, Mr. Chairman, there is no basis upon which anyone can reasonably and logically support this motion.

[ Page 2019 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and I want to say that I don't take very seriously all the statements made by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), having myself served on a municipal government probably as long as he has. This is the Opposition responsible for the introduction of local government at the unincorporated level which today is strongly supported throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I don't think that that Government over there has the kind of good relationship which the former Minister and the former government experienced with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. This Government has failed to keep up the percentage of per capita grants to the municipalities as previously granted by the former government. When one looks at the attempts to assist municipalities in financing, one has to look at the Municipal Finance Authority as a step forward for municipalities.

When one looks at the financial position of municipalities in British Columbia, one can readily see that the municipalities in this province are better off than any municipality in all of this country. For the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound to say that the former government did not look after or assist the municipalities with their problems is sheer irresponsibility as far as I am concerned.

Now the one point that justifies my support of this amendment really is the obsession the Minister has relative to the acquisition of land. In one particular instance here in the City of Victoria — and I have a clipping giving the full details of the purchase of land carried out by the Minister in that department….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, I've never read this clipping before, Mr. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). It doesn't say $82,000 in this clipping. I've never read this clipping in the House before at any time. It's from the Victoria Times of December 29, 1972 — but it does come to $82,000 an acre eventually. It says here:

"Victoria city council agreed Thursday to sell 4.3 acres of municipal property on McCaskill Street, in Victoria West to the provincial government as a housing land bank.

"The original price offered by the B.C. government was $275,000, based on a total development of 55 units and unit cost of $5,000.

"But council was told that provincial authorities had agreed to the higher density envisaged for the site by council's planning department, and as a result the offer had been increased to $350,000 on the basis of 70 units.

"City manager Bill Hooson said the provincial government aims to stockpile land" — you know, stockpile it like cordwood — "for all forms of residential development and not simply for subsidized rental or low-cost housing.

"The intention was to avoid the type of institutional development as provided in the Rose-Blanshard complex, he said.

"Under the sale agreement, the city will have a say in setting development standards and also the right to buy back the land if no construction has started by January 1974."

I want to assure you that the City of Victoria will not be buying back the land if there's no development taking place prior to January 1974. At those prices they'll let the provincial government keep the land.

"The province will pay taxes equivalent to 15 mills until development when normal taxes will come into effect."

You'd better believe they won't take the land back from the city, because they made a tremendous deal and the disposition of that land at $82,000 an acre, plus the interest they'll get on an annual basis until construction takes place at the equivalent rate of 15 mills per year.

Now if the Government really is concerned about the construction of low-cost housing, I think there are sufficient examples in the Vancouver and Victoria area to indicate to them I am sure that high-density, low-cost housing construction should be a thing of the past. When they pay this type of money for land in Victoria, all they are doing is establishing high density ghettos for low-cost housing — a most disgraceful approach to low-cost housing. I think the experiences should justify new guidelines for low-cost housing.

The Minister has indicated really that there will be a mix of subsidization in these housing complexes and non-subsidized residential tenants. I wonder what kind of programme he's going to initiate to attract those people who don't need subsidization into government low-cost housing complexes. He's indicated there's going to be a mix.

I'll tell you, there won't be much of a mix in those kinds of high-density complexes you're considering establishing, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman. I suggested to the Minister, the last time I spoke on this subject, that he should consider the subsidization of rent rather than these high-density complexes. I thought this would be a much better way because you would scatter, the people throughout the community, you would decentralize this type of housing. It's not necessary, really, for anyone to know, in any particular complex or unit,

[ Page 2020 ]

that these people really are getting some form of subsidization from the government. Then there wouldn't be the stigma on these people of low income that comes from the low-cost housing ghettos. But no doubt it's because of your socialist philosophy you won't go for this type of programme. You want to put everybody in the same size and same height type of box.

MRS. JORDAN: Socialist straightjackets.

MR. CHABOT: That's socialist philosophy — everybody must be equal. The homes must look alike. They must be on smaller lots than what is generally the case in non-subsidized housing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: What are you quacking about?

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the Minister will tell us what particular objective he has in attempting to acquire — land in just about every municipality in British Columbia. He's searching the entire province for land accumulation. This tremendous obsession he has about land I'll never understand.

Is it because you want to pay the equivalent of a 15 mill tax rate on this land? Is it because you feel you haven't treated the municipalities fairly on the per capita grants that you're insistent upon buying land at almost any price and paying the equivalent of 15 mills? Is that the reason, Mr. Minister?

No, I think you need some new direction in your policies on low-cost housing. Because the evidence you've given me today and in the past is that the low-cost housing programme that you have on the books and in the works is in a shambles. That's why I'm supporting this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Taking my place in debating the amendment to the motion that the Minister's salary be reduced by $1 I think that, even though we've had only six months in which to observe his actions, it can be truthfully be said that this Minister for some reason has placed a cloud of doubt in the field of municipal government.

They must wonder if they were elected at a local level to solve local problems, hopefully with the cooperation of the Minister, or whether they've been elected only to be used as puppets on a string. It is my impression that local government should be allowed to control local matters, Mr. Minister, and that where possible it is the position of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to cooperate with these people who have been duly elected to local offices; that you do not usurp the powers of local government; that instead you set broad policies for the operation of your department, and that when matters of importance are presented to you by duly elected members of local government, provided it has a consensus of opinion within their area, you try to accommodate their requests.

It's obvious that in the situation in the Kamloops area you really have had very little in the way of input from the locally-elected people on those councils. The decisions that you've made, in my estimation, are arbitrary, based more on NDP philosophy and policy than on the requests and the desires of local people. I won't cover that in any great detail because some of the other Hon. Members speaking in this debate have already mentioned the subject, Mr. Chairman.

Your attitude would tend to indicate that the representatives on the regional level of government from municipalities and duly elected municipal officers should be a matter of appointment by some means other than we presently use. What is more democratic than for the duly elected mayor and members of council, after, having gone through an election and becoming elected representatives, to hold a meeting and decide amongst themselves who will represent their particular council on the regional board? Is that not part of the democratic process?

It seems that they can use this matter of representation at every other level on every other committee on any other organization in which they choose to join or have membership. But at a very important level of regional government somehow Victoria must control.

Certainly I think the previous government did more to return control to the local level through municipalities and regional government authorities than any other government in this province has done.

There was a new concept, one which the people themselves feel is required in the Province of British Columbia — one which is working fairly satisfactorily, considering it was a new concept when first introduced. Surely the Minister must have concern for the areas of the province where we must be concerned about additional facilities for people, particularly community recreational facilities for better sewage and water plants and all the type of facilities that a new community must provide, sometimes in a very short period of time.

Well, the communities of Fort St. John and Taylor, working jointly and cooperatively together, worked out a plan for the sharing of some of the assessment from the industrial areas that would have helped them provide better recreational facilities. They didn't ask the provincial government to come in with any great direct subsidy. All that they asked was

[ Page 2021 ]

that the Department of Municipal Affairs approve a plan which they had worked out where the basic 10 mill levy would be available to them to provide recreational facilities that they were faced with building and supporting.

It wasn't a large request, but the revenue available would have greatly offset the costs of providing these facilities for a large segment of the population that lives outside of the municipal areas. It may be that the Minister is going to suggest that they should have increased their municipal boundaries. But that is only a stopgap, temporary proposition, because you increase the size of your municipal district and, in an area as big as the Peace River country, you suddenly find that a number of the people have just moved beyond the boundaries again.

Most of those people are there as a result of the impact of the petroleum industry. So what would be more fair than to have the basic 10 mill levy available to the communities that provide the services?

They had the plan all worked out, Mr. Minister. You know of the plan; you know of the motions that have come from those councils asking for the plan to be approved. The only answer I understand that they have received somewhere, or somehow or sometime in the past few months is that you "have something better in mind."

Well, if you have something better in mind, perhaps it's time that you told the two communities involved, because so far they've got nothing. The revenue that they would have been able to share this year obviously is still going into the provincial Treasury through your basic mill rate and they get none of the advantage of it. The small increase in per capita grants is not going to be enough to offset that revenue. The small increase in grants to regional districts will not, over a period of time, offset that.

So it would seem that for a Minister who professes to be concerned, the concern has not really manifested itself in some of the newer communities, those that are growing rapidly in the Province of British Columbia.

Those people who live in mobile homes have petitioned the Minister concerning a more equitable way of arranging to pay taxes and receive benefits. The mobile home associations in the province have had some very good ideas. Yet we have seen no action in that respect to take into consideration the suggestions that they have made regarding both tax revenue and services in the province.

The matter of acquisition of land for low-cost housing is certainly one which we must evaluate in a critical matter. We must also consider the action that was taken in respect to amalgamation of communities without their consent. The suggestion that the present method of appointing representatives to the regional government by local municipal authority is not correct — we take exception to this.

For a government which made a great deal of noise about their concern about northern development….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Action? Yes, we saw some of that action today. We'll have a chance to debate that in more detail when the bill comes before the House, Mr. Minister.

The action that is taken, in many respects, is the type of action that must be examined in the greatest of detail. I would say that when that examination is complete, there will be a lot to be desired on the part of the Government, and we'll have very much to say about the action contemplated and taken this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons we support the amendment to reduce the Minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few remarks regarding some of the statements made. I might say that what they lacked in facts, they made up in fervour.

It seems to me that the basic problem is that they can't stand a Minister who is prepared to make a decision. It's a new experience. For 20 years they've gone without anyone making decisions. When decisions are made, they just don't understand it.

Some of my decisions may not be correct. At least I have a batting average of over 50 per cent. Really, I think that a government that is elected or a Minister who is appointed has a duty to make certain decisions, whether they're popular or unpopular. I think it's absolutely necessary. When this happens, I feel that the Minister must make decisions.

I want to mention that I appreciate the positions taken by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, who at least appear to have some understanding of the problems which I face. The Member for….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I wasn't appreciative of the criticism levied by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) regarding the staff in the municipal offices. She can complain to me all she wants about myself and my activities in this portfolio. But in the future, I hope she will refrain from criticizing the staff and vent all her efforts against myself.

First of all, I want to discuss the question of the announcement which I made in December regarding the vote in Kamloops and Kelowna — the non-vote, I should say — on the amalgamation and

[ Page 2022 ]

extension of boundaries. At that time, I announced that there would be legislation introduced in this session. Legislation will be introduced in this session.

I think it was the Member for North Okanagan who said that there was no local input into the whole question. I wish to advise that immediately upon making the announcement, I announced as well the formation of an advisory committee created, in the Kelowna case, from representatives of the city council and from representatives of the regional district, who were involved in the original proposal which I made, the areas covered by the original proposal of boundaries which I made.

I advised this committee that if they had any suggestions in regard to boundaries and other matters, we would certainly take a serious look at them. At the time, we explained to them that within the letters patent that would be produced the farmers and the people who didn't have the services in the other areas involved would receive protection in the letters patent from a large tax increase — which they shouldn't have if the services aren't provided for them. This was assured and will be done.

Soon after the advisory committee met in Kelowna they requested an extension of boundaries to the area to which the Member for North Okanagan is objecting. I understand that the one area that wasn't included was the particular area of Winfield, although the suggested new boundary was to go to Winfield. I suggested that the industrial area of Winfield be included, due to the fact that it has an assessment of some $10 million. It seemed to me to be a substantial source of revenue for that new city and a strong industrial base to carry out the wishes of the people in the future in a large-growth city.

The other areas involved were all recommended to me by the local committee. It may be surprising to the people here that there was a great unanimity between the advisory committee and the municipal affairs department in regard to this proposed new city. Although a number of people wrote objecting to the proposition, a number of people also wrote in support.

Some three weeks ago, after the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett) returned from a tour of the Pacific and visited the area, there seemed to be an awful lot of questions being asked by the regional district people and so on and so forth. The problems that we did not experience until some three weeks ago are now manifesting themselves in great numbers.

I'm not suggesting that the Member for South Okanagan had any effect on this. I'm just mentioning it as an interesting feature. But this is the case. It may be coincidental.

Let's talk for a moment about past incorporations. As we know, the Municipal Act was amended periodically to allow for changes with reference to needs for amalgamations and extensions of boundaries. There are a variety of sections in the Municipal Act at this moment which deal with this matter. I believe that the Municipal Affairs Committee met on it for two years. No action was taken on their recommendations by the previous administration. I think the reason was that it was impractical to actions as recommended at that time by the committee.

The question of my not answering letters written to me wanting information from the advisory committee is quite untrue. It's completely false. The questions that were being read out by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) were answered in the main some two weeks ago — there were some five pages of questions. I explained to them that I would answer the questions over which I had jurisdiction and could answer, and I did so. I also obtained information from other departments and answered almost all of their questions. There were one or two that we didn't have complete information on at the time and I couldn't answer. All the rest of them were answered.

Another question about the amalgamations: in the past little enclaves of people bordering on municipalities or cities were given a vote as to whether or not there should be an incorporation.

The area that was primarily involved, of course, is the neighbouring municipalities, but in those cases, those municipalities are not given a vote. It is only that little enclave of people asked to register and vote as to whether they want to continue to live next door to the large city, with the benefits of the city, but having the advantages of a cheaper rate in taxation.

But, when we talk about votes, these are phony votes — some of those votes. We must keep in mind that in all those areas, or a great number of those areas, the region at all on prices of land throughout the area, land banking is essential as a first step outskirts asked whether they wanted to incorporate or not. I think that pretty well covers the questions that were raised with reference to the amalgamation.

The housing: the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) discussed housing, talking about cheap housing or low-cost housing. But, I would like to point out that the era of cheap housing, the era of the low income ghettos is over in this province. There's no such thing any more as cheap housing. Housing will be standard. Housing will be good housing. In those houses, there will be a complete mix of all income levels in the areas involved. It will not be just subsidized housing, as I mentioned earlier on a number of occasions. The whole thrust in housing is completely changed. In order to have any effect at all on prices of land throughout the area, land banking is essential as a first step in order that lots can be put on the market at a lower level than there is at the present time.

He was questioning the values paid, I think, on the Victoria housing projects. I might say that there's been nothing purchased that hasn't been pre-valued —

[ Page 2023 ]

assessed as to values and so on. The one item that the Hon. Member for Columbia River was discussing was the 4 point-some-odd acres in Victoria West. The valuation that we had received from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation evaluators was $465,000 — which we have in writing. The one from the City of Victoria was $454,400. The price that we paid was $350,000 — a reduction of over $100,000 from valuation. This was done because Victoria, I suggest, has a conscience in regard that they feel that subsidized housing is necessary and were prepared to transfer this property over at a sum less than the assessed value.

Now the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) mentioned the fact that I wasn't cooperating…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LORIMER: …mentioned the lack of cooperation between myself and representatives of the municipalities, regional districts and so on. I might say that the impression I received from those particular people in that I am convinced that they have never received such good cooperation in their lives. I have no hesitation in stating that fact.

The question of Taylor and Fort St. John areas: I discussed their problem with them. I explained to them that I hoped I could produce something a little better for them, and promised to see them after the session was over in regard to their problems. They went away completely happy. I don't think there was anything further that could be done in that particular case at that particular time.

Mobile homes — saying that there's no relief for mobile homes: I've told them, and I've stated that there will be legislation brought down regarding mobile homes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in closing the discussion here, I am of course quite surprised that the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and also the Liberal Party may feel that this amendment is frivolous. Particularly the Member for Saanich and the Islands who is a respected municipal leader of very long standing — apparently he agrees with forced amalgamations. On that subject, I would also, on behalf of the Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett), thank you Mr. Minister for congratulating him for getting things going in his own riding. I know he is well able to look after himself, but he appreciates that.

What we're concerned about here is not only these two, but how many more, and what is your long term policy? Who's next on the forced amalgamations? Is

Prince George next? Nanaimo next?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Conservatives and the Social Credit. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: Burnaby with Vancouver, is that going to be next? So these are the things that concern us and….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the amendment that the salary of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, included in vote 176, be reduced by one dollar thereby decreasing vote 176 to $67,699?

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 39

PAIRS

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't help commenting, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very pleasant, friendly Minister with whom we are dealing today. I don't think we want to be too hard on him, but he was laying claim a few minutes ago to making a lot of decisions. Well, it is true, he did in the first week or so that he was in office make three quick decisions that I am aware of. He did something in

[ Page 2024 ]

Kamloops; he did something in Kelowna; and he bought 99 buses. But it really seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that having done that in the first week or two, he hasn't done very much since. I guess we're still waiting for the buses to come, and it's a long wait.

I would like to perhaps, Mr. Chairman, suggest to the Minister some other matters that he might like to make decisions on, or consider for the future.

The first item I want to raise — I want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, very carefully to start with — it may sound as if it's out of order when I start, but it's very definitely going to be in order. I want to build the case a little bit to start with, about the people about whom I wish to talk. I refer specifically to the Squamish Indian band in North Vancouver. They have a group of reservations there. To clarify the situation, there are very definite problems that affect the municipalities of the north shore, and the powers of the municipalities and that sort of thing — as far as the Indian bands are concerned.

To lay the background for this case, I want to say only about the band that this is one of the most exceptionally well organized, exceptionally progressive band, I think, in British Columbia. It is one that I am very proud to represent in this House. They have an excellent organization. To give you an idea of the kind of organization they have, and to compare it if you like with municipal organizations — they have actively operating committees for economic development, for finance, for education, for social welfare and for housing. In fact, in terms of housing it was the Squamish band who broke new ground in Canada and developed the first Central Mortgage and Housing-financed project of its kind on any Indian reservation in Canada — just last year. They have a recreational committee, arts and crafts, and finally, they actually have their own police organization on the reservation. I mention those points only to emphasize the degree of initiative and responsibility that this band has taken.

The problem I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that which arises whenever commercially attractive areas on an Indian reservation also adjoin or come within the boundaries of a municipal area. These problems are becoming more and more frequent, more and more serious.

To give you the specific example that comes to mind now, and really has created this problem, of course I refer you to a case which goes back to April 22, 1970. In the B.C. Court of Appeal this was the Corporation of Surrey v. Peace Arch Enterprises and Surfside Recreations Ltd. The problem here was that these two companies had made certain arrangements to construct certain works, do certain commercial projects, on lands which were part of the Semiahmoo Indian reservation. The Corporation of Surrey wished to make certain rulings with regard to these works…the case went to court. To summarize the result of this, the judge's ruling was: "My conclusion is that the exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the land in question remains in the parliament of Canada, and that provincial legislation, including municipal bylaws, which lays down rules as to how these lands shall be used, is inapplicable."

Now that was the ruling of the judge in 1970. That ruling has left a great many problems in its wake, Mr. Chairman.

To go specifically to the Squamish Indian reservation, within the boundaries of my colleague from West Vancouver-Howe Sound they have the Park Royal development; they have a new building on the west bank of the Capilano River, the Salish Towers. On the east bank of the Capilano River, within the boundaries of my own riding, they have a large mobile home park that has, over the years, had some controversy regarding it. Finally, at the corner of Capilano Road and Marine Drive in North Vancouver, within the boundaries partly of the District of North Vancouver and partly in the District of West Vancouver, they are proposing to build an apartment-hotel complex which is very large in its scope.

Now in going on from here, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize what I said at the beginning. This is a very fine, responsible band with a good deal of initiative and community responsibility. They have this very valuable property within their area, and they are looking for ways in which to develop it. But, I have correspondence here, Mr. Chairman, which indicates that going back to June 1972 — about nine months ago — the mayor of the District of North Vancouver wrote to the Squamish Indian band referring to this proposed apartment-hotel complex, which as I say is at the corner of Capilano Road and Marine Drive, right in the heart of a very busy suburban area within my riding. I am sure most of the Members know the area I am talking about.

Just to quote very briefly from this letter:

"The council has now had an opportunity to consider your proposal in detail, and I must now advise you that while the municipality is prepared to cooperate in providing all required services at standard district rates and fees, council cannot agree to the following aspects of your proposal: 1. the magnitude of the structure in this location. 2. Inadequate parking provisions. 3. the inclusion of beer parlours in the complex. 4. location of the towers close to Marine Drive."

He goes on at some length to the reasons for this. There was no answer. And to amplify, Mr. Chairman, obviously what the mayor is saying — the mayor and council — is that in terms of the zoning requirements, of bylaws and other municipal requirements of the District of North Vancouver, this proposal simply does not meet those requirements, or come within those regulations.

[ Page 2025 ]

Of course what developed over a period of time in this particular case was that the mayor of North Vancouver, having no response directly from the band, then wrote to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs — with very little response there. So finally we come down to November 1972, now four months ago — I'm sorry, October 23, 1972 — when a special assistant to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs says this to the mayor. "I understand that the major objections raised in your letter have now been overcome, and the leasing agreement and development agreement will be concluded soon. We are most pleased about this and hope that no further problems arise. Thank you for your patience and cooperation in this matter."

Now, you would take it from that letter, Mr. Chairman, that all of this has been worked out and the thing has been satisfactorily arranged. But the fact is that the situation has not changed in the slightest to this day from what it was last June when this building wag going to contravene the bylaws, and the zoning regulations and be opposed to the wishes of the council of the District of North Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member if he would relate this to the administrative competence and responsibilities of this department.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to do exactly that. I want to point out that what we have here is a municipality that is required by its responsibilities to the Province of British Columbia to set up zoning and other municipal regulations. It's being completely frustrated in doing the zoning and enforcing its own regulations in this situation.

Because of this ruling which I read to you from the B.C. Court of Appeal two years ago, they have no jurisdiction at all over this. It means that the only way the District of North Vancouver or the City of North Vancouver or West Vancouver — all of which are involved in this low area — can enforce the desires of the other people of that area is to negotiate individually on each building, each project, whatever it may be that the Indian band wishes in their wisdom and in their very natural and responsible desire to improve their lot.

If I might read one quotation from an editorial of the Vancouver Sun January 11 this year, it says:

"Indian land is beyond the zoning control of provincial governments and municipalities. A development will be approved if it complies with federal regulations and if it will bring a fair return to the band. The final decision will rest with Mr. Chretien and to heck with community objections."

Now, that really summarizes the present situation, Mr. Chairman. I think this is an absolutely untenable situation. Municipalities are completely dependent on this individual — negotiation in each case. Now, this is not an isolated case — the one that's happening in North Vancouver and West Vancouver. It's duplicated in many parts of British Columbia. It's duplicated in many parts….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that this would appear to be a matter of federal jurisdiction and a matter of negotiation between the municipality and the federal government, and therefore outside of the administrative competence of the Department of Municipal Affairs. I would therefore rule further comments on the matter out of order.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, the negotiation that must take place is between the municipality and the individual Indian band. I am saying that the municipality, being a creature of the provincial government, is being placed in an untenable position.

The problem is, it appears to me, that the federal government is totally uninterested in resolving this situation. My question to the Minister is this: will he take some responsibility for taking the initiative in this situation in going to the federal government and saying, "Look, we have a situation in North Vancouver, we have it in…."? I won't list the others. But I think he will find that there are at least half a dozen instances right now in British Columbia and elsewhere where this is becoming a very serious and a very difficult problem. Will this Minister — who I think is a responsible Minister in this Government and who is aware of this problem — take this matter up with Ottawa and try to find a way of resolving it? It might be necessary to involve other provinces, because truly it's a national problem. That's the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman. I won't debate longer, if it's not in order. I think in that way it is in order and the Minister have some useful responsibility to discuss with the House.

I want to go on to a different subject, and that's transportation. At some point in the estimates in the House last year we had a long afternoon's very philosophical discussion on the third crossing of Burrard Inlet. As the discussion went on during the afternoon it was quite interesting. The NDP Members, who were at that point in Opposition, gradually talked themselves in the course of the afternoon from starting off from quite a mild position into being quite strongly against the third crossing by the end of the afternoon. Well, O.K., that's the position they have taken and the Government has repeated that position quite strongly since it came into office.

But having said we're not going to build the third crossing, at least in the immediate future, we've got to do something in its place. The former government, Mr. Chairman, refused to recognize the overall

[ Page 2026 ]

property of transportation in the lower mainland. The federal government and the provincial government today are still not getting down to the core of the problem. 'They're still putting little band-aids on it here and there, but not getting into the basic problem, which really is this: there are locked into this thing about a dozen or more problems, none of which can be separated from the others.

If you're going to consider the equation of the transportation problems of the lower mainland — or any part of B.C., but I think the lower mainland has the really serious problem — all of these things have to be put into the equation when you try to find a solution.

As I've tried to do in some of the other debates, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go into great length about these, but you can summarize them very quickly: the clear problem of the crossings of Burrard Inlet and where that traffic originates, which is not North Shore traffic, as we've told this House on countless occasions; the problems of ferry traffic; the problems of the recreational traffic that goes to Whistler and Cypress Bowl and Seymour and the Sunshine Coast; the problems of the other river crossings which other Members of the House are concerned with in their constituencies; the growing problem of downtown parking in Vancouver.

I've outlined this last one before. No one seems to appreciate the problem created by the fact that the City of Vancouver in the central business district has more parking spaces available per capita or per thousand population than any other city in North America which is comparable to Vancouver — three times what Toronto has. And it's cheap parking. I parked this morning in downtown Vancouver at 11:45, a very busy hour. I rolled into an area where I could park for 15 cents for the first half hour within a block of the central core — Georgia and Granville. As long as all those spaces are available at cheap rates, we're going to have cars pouring into downtown Vancouver. That's one of the things in the equation.

All of these items — the freeways, the accessibility of the freeways, and so on — have to be included.

I'd like to refer you, Mr. Chairman, to an editorial of the Toronto Daily Star of March 23, which quotes from a statement on June 3, 1971, by Premier William Davis of Ontario:

"The city does not belong to the automobile. We have taken this decision not to support the Spadina Expressway in the clear understanding that those who live in the suburbs, for whom Toronto is their place of work or the scene of pleasure, that alternative, efficient and economic means can and will be provided for their transportation requirements.

"No one told the Premier then and no one apparently has been able to get through to him since there was a fundamental error in his argument. Conventional transit systems such as GO trains and subways do not attract a significant number of people away from their cars.

"An American expert, Professor George Hilton, underlined the point again at a transportation seminar at York University."

— and this was a recent seminar, Mr. Chairman.

"He said: 'Commuter or rapid transit systems are rarely able to encourage even 10 per cent of motorists to leave their cars at home.' As examples he pointed to the Yonge Street subway, which attracted only 8 per cent of the drivers when it opened, and the traffic on Queen Elizabeth Way, which increased from 80,000 vehicles to 90,000 between 1970 and '71 alone, despite the GO train which runs right alongside it and is a very, very efficient operation.

"This is not an argument opposing public transit. The enormous increases in both train and subway use demonstrate how essential such systems are. But it does emphasize that car owners will continue to bring their cars into town one way or another. This in turn suggests that the real transportation issue is not how to stop cars being used but how to control them at tolerable levels."

It's simply ill-informed for the Premier to insist that failing to build decent roads acts as a significant deterrent to vehicle use.

"If that point can be grasped," —

and I think this paragraph is the key to why I read this editorial, Mr. Chairman, because I think this is what the Minister needs to listen to.

"If that point can be grasped, Metro Toronto might move its transportation planning to making the central city work with the automobile, not against it. This would require: parking lots on the periphery of the core area; rapid, possibly free, transit within the core; road pricing for cars determined to enter congested areas; split-level routes with pedestrians above and vehicles below; overnight servicing of stores,"

"The techniques for all of these controls and other area available or are being developed. But Toronto will make no real progress in transportation as long as the province clings to the mistaken theory that conventional transit systems make any significant dent in the number of people who prefer to travel by car."

So what I want to ask now, Mr. Chairman, is: what is happening here in British Columbia? Apparently, from the question I asked the Minister the other day in the question period this much-heralded Bureau of Transit Services is really going to study only buses and rapid transit.

That is a pretty uncoordinated approach when you consider the implications of this editorial, the points

[ Page 2027 ]

raised there, and the implications of the other problems I have mentioned that are part of this overall transportation problem.

I'll give you a tiny example, Mr. Chairman, of how already we have got uncoordinated. The Minister has ordered 99 buses for B.C. Hydro but it is my understanding that those buses are 8 ft. 6 in. wide. Not one of them will be able to travel on the Lions Gate Bridge, which will only allow traffic 8 ft. wide because the lanes are so narrow. If all of those 99 buses are going to have to go somewhere else than over the Lions Gate Bridge to the North Shore, there are obviously some major problems here. I wonder if the Minister even knows that?

We must look, Mr. Chairman, at the whole problem of transportation in the lower mainland. I urge the Minister to reconsider the terms of reference to this Bureau of Transit Services and to broaden the terms of reference to bring in all these different things into the problem. I would urge him to perhaps give his views to the House on that subject.

To move on to a different area entirely, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss a matter now which has become known as the "White Rock case." To explain it very briefly, last November the former building inspector of the City of White Rock was assessed by Mr. Justice Berger in the supreme court $7,500 costs and damages because of a roof that collapsed eight years after a renovation job was completed. Presumably, without going into the details of the case, the owners of the building sued the building inspector for having allowed, in effect, this building, this faulty renovation, faulty construction, to take place. In the B.C. Supreme Court the Hon. Justice awarded the owners $7,500 damages and costs.

The reasons for the judgment is a matter of great concern, Mr. Chairman. The building inspector of the City of White Rock was found liable for not having done what was reasonable to see that the building was remodeled safely.

The inspector testified that when this building was being renovated eight years ago, he made inspections when called to do so. That, of course, is a very common practice, whether it be the electrical inspector, the fire marshal (if it is an oil installation), gas inspector — building inspectors of all kinds. They normally make inspections on a building under construction or being renovated when the builder calls them to do so. And this inspector did that.

The judge ruled, however, that when a council passes a building bylaw it also assumes the obligation to enforce the bylaw, an obligation it also makes incumbent on its building inspector So this ruling of the court, Mr. Chairman, is imposing on the inspector the duty to carry out a reasonable inspection and to ensure that the terms of the bylaw are complied with. If the inspector fails to inspect any part of that and somehow overlooks a part because maybe it has been covered up, or whatever, or he wasn't called in time to do it, then he becomes personally liable. Equally liable is the municipality concerned. Of course, this goes far beyond the building inspector — it could be a health inspector, maybe even a dog catcher, if in some way he can be shown in any way not to have carried out his duties.

These are very, very far reaching implications to this ruling of the Hon. Justice, Mr. Chairman. It potentially is very expensive to municipalities in British Columbia and potentially could make it very hard for them to get and to keep their employees. I know the Minister's department and his officials are aware of this case and of the implications. I would hope that some action is to be taken on it and I hope the Minister would comment on that in due course, Mr. Chairman.

One final point I want to raise with the Hon. Minister — one that he is well aware of my interest in ' personally. That is the matter of the national building code in general and the B.C. plumbing code in particular, as it could or should be applied in British Columbia. This has been a matter that has been discussed and researched by officials of the Department of Municipal Affairs for many years and by many people in industry. It has been discussed in this House at some length by the former Minister and myself and others.

In 1971 we passed amendments to the Municipal Act. At that time those amendments were supported by the NDP Opposition in the House, as they were by this party and as they were by all the House. At that time, the amendment was passed providing for the application of the national building code and the B.C. plumbing code to all municipalities within the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Member that he is not to discuss legislation but rather administrative matters of the department.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, this is legislation that was passed two years ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, if it concerns the administration arising from this legislation, it is all right, but as to the merits of it….

MR. BROUSSON: Yes, it concerns exactly that, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that the amendments we passed two years ago haven't yet been proclaimed by this Government. I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: every day that we go on without that being proclaimed is costing the people of British Columbia money — a good deal of money.

I have had some very amicable, private discussions….

[ Page 2028 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that this is, I think, right out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to move on to another subject.

MR. BROUSSON: Yes, I'll move right on, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make one final point here. I have had a good many private discussions on this subject with the Minister and what I want him to do is say publicly what he is going to do about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The question the Hon. Member raised about the Indian band: I hadn't been aware of this particular instance. We are having problems along the same line in a variety of places. One of the recent ones discussed in the newspapers, of course, is the Kuper Island question in the Gulf Islands.

Regarding transportation: if I led the Hon. Member to believe that the transit bureau will only be concerned with public transit, I apologize. As I have mentioned a number of times, we consider public transit as merely an extension of the highway system. You cannot have transit, as you say, in isolation. It has to be tied in with something else. The bureau is cognizant of this fact and they are studying the problems not only in the North Shore area and the area up to Garibaldi but, of course, the whole lower mainland area, the Victoria area and also preliminary work on some of the cities in the interior.

Also, we are not hung up on any particular mode of transit. We feel at the moment that the surface bus is a quick patch on the problem but certainly not a long-term solution.

Regarding the 8 ft. and 8½ ft. buses, we realize that 8½ ft. buses don't go across the First Narrows — they go across the Second but not the First. We have a lot of 8 ft. buses now which we can use on the First Narrows and we also have 8 ft. 6 in. buses. Most of the express buses are 8 ft. buses. It is difficult to appoint them properly under our present method of wanting comfort on buses, but they are still used as carriers on longer distances.

The building inspector in Surrey: that is under active review. We expect to have more to say later on in the year about The question of the building codes maybe is out of order, but I would point out that I have spoken to the Member about the building codes. The problem we are faced with he appreciates, I believe. I promised him I would do my utmost to get things straightened around so we could proclaim them in the immediate future and I am going to try and keep that promise, but there are a few problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk about housing with respect to this department. The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mentioned briefly in his opening remarks that Vancouver city shouldn't have special privileges through the Vancouver Charter. I am not aware of what privileges it has, except perhaps that it has a charter rather than under the Municipal Act. I would suggest this: because it is the largest city, as he described, in British Columbia, and because the Greater Vancouver area is over one million in population and the centre core of Vancouver serves that population and indeed the entire province, it has special problems. Special problems, Mr. Chairman require special solutions.

I wasn't going to get into too much detail about the automobile and the city and the traffic problems we are having in the hard core of the Vancouver Centre but I think it must be realized that in North America the automobile is stifling the kind of quality of life that at least most of us envisage for the city itself. Vancouver is no exception to this, Mr. Chairman.

At the turn of the century, Canadian cities made a great effort — although maybe not consciously — to establish their cities around the principle that people should live close to where they work. This is why we have a high density area in Vancouver Centre, in the West End of the city. You find other high density situations in other Canadian cities. This is because the use of the automobile was not widespread in Canada until long after it became widespread in the United States.

It is important that we protect that principle, which seems to be largely a Canadian characteristic. Our emphasis on the use of the automobile is much less than it is in American cities. We have escaped, at least in part, the tremendous difficulty that they're having in the major metropolises of the United States with respect to their dependence upon the automobile. Their dependence is such that even the casual observer can say that the cities of the United States are built for automobiles and not for people.

With this in mind, I wish to discuss a very urgent and critical problem involved in the hard core of the city and in Vancouver city itself. That is housing. Recently we have seen news reports such as that in the Vancouver Sun of February 27: "City Faces Serious Apartment Lack. Apartment Shortage in City Termed Serious." It has not improved; it has become worse. It is something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of and something, I am assured, to which his department is addressing itself.

I don't think that this House can really consider the seriousness of the problem without some further investigation. I wish to provide a brief review of that

[ Page 2029 ]

to the House, so that when steps are taken by the Minister they will be understood.

This housing shortage be it for rent or sale of housing units or whatever has occurred because of a number of factors. First, the income tax provisions of the federal Income Tax Act were changed and eliminated a certain profit motivation that was available to people who wished to construct new apartments in the city. This does not necessarily affect the West End because the city council recently indicated that it is planning to down-zone the area so that density will not be increased. But it does affect other areas in the city that could be developed with respect to multiple-dwelling units.

As I say, the income tax provision prohibits certain individuals investing in apartment block construction from deducting the loss they may incur by so doing from their total income. It must now be considered separately. That's putting it in the simplest way I can but it describes to you a situation which de-emphasizes an incentive to people who might invest in the construction of apartment houses. I think it is not contrary to New Democratic Party philosophy to encourage private enterprise insofar as housing is concerned and this should not be discouraged. In any event, this has happened.

I have already mentioned the second point. That is the down-zoning of the West End. That has created a housing shortage because people hesitate to build in a zoning situation where they cannot expand.

Thirdly, in the past year or so construction costs have climbed alarmingly with respect to the construction of both multiple- and single-dwelling units.

Lastly, we all know, of course, the problems that we're having with land speculation.

These are the problems facing the present Minister of Municipal Affairs in terms of his approach to creating new housing. I must emphasize, though, who needs housing. There's a lot of talk about low-income this and middle-income that, but I don't think people realize the tremendous need for housing among all groups of our citizens, especially within the city.

The first and foremost group that needs housing and needs it now are the old age pensioners. We are developing very fast. We have one unit in the West End called Nicholson Towers. We have another one that's starting construction. It's attached to the new complex for the community centre in the West End, and so on. But the real need is still with old age pensioners. We've got to get them out of these pitiful surroundings, where dozens of them share one toilet and where they have to pay what I would consider exorbitant rents, considering the amount of money that they have to live on. This is the major thrust that should be taken by this Government, Mr. Chairman.

The second group would be the low-income — the working poor and welfare recipients. I think that it's no secret — certainly it was recognized even by the Social Credit administration just before the last election — that large public housing units are a disaster. In effect, it's an institutionalization of the poor. These things must stop. I'm gratified to hear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is changing emphasis away from this kind of complex to a mixed-housing complex.

When he's doing so, Mr. Chairman, I hope that he will take into consideration the family man who makes between $8,000 and $12,000 a year. He's not considered the working poor; he's not considered a poor man. Yet today in our city he makes up the greatest number in need. The family man or the family woman cannot purchase their own house. They cannot get a mortgage. They cannot finance it. They are forever faced with increasing rents in areas that are close to their work within the centre of the city. It is with this in mind that I propose certain answers.

There are two things that I believe the Government should not do. First, at this stage rent controls should not be imposed. To have a natural balance of housing, a certain fluctuation in the market is required within the hard core of the city. At the same time, we cannot turn our backs on the ever-increasing danger that housing in the West End will be made available only to those in the upper-income groups. This must not be allowed to happen. There are people who should live in the city, especially the poorer people who do not have adequate transportation or the means for adequate transportation to get to their jobs or to the cultural centre of the city. We must create incentives to private enterprise to build middle-income and low-cost housing, either through tax incentives or direct subsidies.

Secondly, the Government must purchase high-rises and housing within Vancouver Centre and other areas of the city for mixed housing as well as middle income.

Someone said this was expensive. I think the Minister has already indicated that it's not expensive. $82,000 an acre is about the cheapest we're going to get away with these days. It will cost us more to move into the West End. But I'm saying that it must be done. We must immediately intervene, to the Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, as best we can in False Creek. We can cooperate with the local government there but we must purchase as much as we can in that area. We already have a vast amount of land in that area. We should make sure that it's available to all classes of persons wishing to obtain housing.

I would be most disappointed if it were left the private preserve of the rich or the near-wealthy. It must be available to all classes of persons. We must take care, as I say, of the greatest number in need, and that is the middle-income and lower-income groups.

[ Page 2030 ]

Secondly, I would ask the Minister to move into the university endowment lands. I understand that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) has announced a programme. It must not be put off. The housing crisis is serious, Mr. Chairman. It is serious and we are not even facing the full peak of the housing shortage yet.

I suggest that a plan be set up for the university endowment lands as soon as possible. The plan should have generally in mind one-third of that land for mixed housing as I've described, one-third wilderness and one-third recreation or developed park. That must be done now, Mr. Chairman. It can't wait for lengthy studies. We must move into the area of housing in a full scale way. People are waiting.

Although it's outside of the Vancouver area, another area that should be looked into is the Blair rifle range on the North Shore. We have interest in that range, Mr. Chairman. This is one area that we can look to seriously for constructing housing and making contracts with private enterprise to construct housing in that area.

It is only by such an approach, Mr. Chairman, that we will begin to serve the needs of people with special problems in a large city.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to take my place in the discussion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs' estimates. First of all, I would like to tell him that I think he has an outstanding departmental staff. I'm sure he doesn't need me to tell him that, but as one involved in municipal government over the years and seeing a number of changes take place in the staff, with transfers to other departments, I think the quality has stayed at an extremely high level.

They are always most interested, most helpful, most positive and sympathetic whenever a matter is raised by someone from a municipality.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's important to just catch up for a moment with the comments made by the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I'm delighted that among his comments on housing he referred to incentives for private enterprise in the housing field. That's certainly very good news from that particular side of the House.

There are about 2,152,000 people in British Columbia, according to the 1971 census, Mr. Chairman, This House must realize that virtually all of them live in cities, towns, district municipalities and villages. Now it might be a slight exaggeration to say "virtually" all of them; but of the 2,152,000, 1,800,000 live in organized areas. Therefore, the department which is being discussed now is, in my view — and I am biased towards it, I suppose — one of the most important departments of government.

The present Minister, or his successor somewhere down the line, has an excellent opportunity to show very real leadership in bridging the communications gap between local regional government and provincial government. He knows it exists, Mr. Chairman, through you, and he has not contributed to it to any noticeable extent since he assumed office last September, but he knows that it's a chronic problem.

I spoke of it the other day in reference to another Minister's estimates.

In 1968, in its brief to the provincial cabinet, I notice that the Union of B.C. Municipalities' executive said:

"There is a very real need for improvement in the channels of communication between provincial and municipal governments. The ultimate goal of both governments is to provide good and efficient service in the public domain to the citizens of British Columbia. But in our opinion this can never be done while unilateral decisions and actions directly affecting municipal planning, administration and cost sharing are made by the provincial government without prior discussion and negotiation."

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the best efforts of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the previous government in this province must stand condemned for its insensitivity to local government in British Columbia and for its unilateral decisions, its actions without consultation. I do hope that that is not to be repeated by this Government or this Minister.

I would like to urge that the Leader of the Government party free a couple of his backbenchers in the next two or three weeks from some duties in this House in order that they can be assigned to sit in as active participants as municipalities discuss their 1973 budget. They would certainly be welcome in one municipality; I am sure they would be welcome in any municipality — to examine in detail with elected council, mayors and aldermen, just how little maneuvering room one has in putting an annual budget together.

The squeeze of wages, of costs of materials, the general inflexibility of an annual budget as it is presented to a municipality is a very frightening thing for a newcomer to local government. Again I would suggest that the Minister and some of this associates in the New Democratic Party would concur with this.

It might be an extremely helpful action, Mr. Chairman — I make it in all seriousness, this year or next year — to let some Members of the Government who do not have local government experience sit down and watch a municipal council struggle through two or three or four or five days of budget paring, attempting to put something together for the people which will not send them into shock.

[ Page 2031 ]

I have to speak on the Plunkett Report, which is known to some Members of this House. It was finally issued under date of May 15, 1971, and, Mr. Chairman, it deals exclusively with the problems facing local government in British Columbia. I spoke earlier about the shortcomings of the previous administration with respect to relationships with local government. I want to quote just a couple of parts — I'm not going to read the whole report; you can relax on that score, Mr. Chairman. The letter of transmittal said in part:

"The first phase of this study was completed in July, 1970, in the form of a two-volume report setting out a variety of statistical data developed by the technical working committee of officials but, as had been their instructions, not drawing any conclusions from the assembled data. Our interpretation of the original terms of reference and our understanding of the agreement as to the division of financial responsibility, led us to believe that the next step in the completion of the joint report would be a series of discussions between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ourselves, leading to a third volume of the report setting out the conclusions and, finally, publication of the complete study by the government.

"Unfortunately, to our disappointment, this second phase has not developed in the way we had envisaged it. Last September we received a letter from the minister that effectively ruled out the possibility of our working out any conclusions together. In the Minister's opinion our joint efforts had been concluded following receipt of the statistical material put together by the technical staff. In his opinion, anyone was now free to draw such conclusions as they wished on their own responsibility."

The former government again, Mr. Chairman, stands condemned for backing out of an agreement with local government in British Columbia for commissioning jointly in 1968 a study of all aspects of the financial relationships between municipalities and the Crown provincial.

I do hope that in his response to this or a little later on the present Minister of Municipal Affairs will speak specifically about the Plunkett report and how he would suggest the report might be acted upon or implemented in part or in total.

There are some very brief quotes which I think are quite vital to the discussion of the Minister's administrative policies. On page 49 of the same study — and it goes through a number of pages of statistical data:

"From the foregoing it can be concluded that, as a result of provincial fiscal policies, increases in municipal revenues from the two primary sources — property taxation and grants — have been diverted to the support of services over which municipal governments have no control, namely education and social welfare. When measured in terms of the revenue allocation which prevailed in 1957, this diversion in revenue increases by 1968 amounted to $46,497,000. Even if the homeowner's grant could be considered an offsetting revenue factor, which it cannot, the increase in this grant does not equal the extent of the diversion."

And the clincher, Mr. Chairman:

"In terms of their capacity to support expanding municipal needs, municipal governments in British Columbia in 1968 were in a much worse position than they were in 1957."

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that very little has changed to alter the accuracy of that statement by Mr. Plunkett.

And a final diagnosis on 62-64; in the interests of time I will not read all of it:

"Municipal government has always had an important role to play as an institution that is responsible and accountable to the citizens it serves. It cannot play this role effectively if it does not control a significant portion of its revenue sources. If the trend toward increasing provincial control over the allocation of its revenues continues, municipal government will lose its capacity for being responsible and accountable.

"It is because community services are considered important and the maintenance of effective municipal government is regarded as an essential element in our governmental institutions, that the suggestions for the adoption of new approaches to municipal finance have been put forward. As a consequence such action is imperative."

Mr. Chairman, 1968-1971 — an extremely important document which gathered dust under the former administration. I hope that will not be the case with the new Minister and the new Government.

The very fine mayor of the District of North Vancouver was referred to earlier. I don't know what his partisan politics are, but I agree with a number of things which he said. He was speaking just last week. Mr. Chairman, to the municipal finance authority on the same theme. It's absolutely vital that this House understands that municipalities are very concerned about local autonomy — not just for their prestige, but in order that they can work efficiently and effectively for the people in their cities, districts and towns.

"Local government autonomy," said Mayor Andrews, "working through their regional districts, is essential because." —

and he's quoting a special meeting of experts at the United Nations in 1970 —

"regardless of the type of political system, it has become apparent that responsibility for effective planning and administration of community services should, to the fullest extent practicable,

[ Page 2032 ]

rest with local units that are able to view the urbanized community as a whole and at close range, and are therefore able to plan comprehensively for their economic and social development."

One final point — I was told during the discussion of the estimates for the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), that this would be the appropriate time to raise the matter, and that is with respect to the duplication or doubling of cost for organized areas with their own police departments. I think it's generally understood that if we are all taxpayers at the provincial level, then we are supporting the RCMP services in unorganized areas or in municipalities without their own departments. Yet municipalities such as New Westminster, Vancouver, Victoria, Oak Bay, Esquimalt, Saanich and several more — Nelson is one — are paying for their own police services.

It does seem to me that that is not a fair system at the moment. It's been in effect for a long time. I would hope that the Department of Municipal Affairs will consult with the Department of Finance and find some way in which that can be eased or straightened out.

Mr. Chairman, again I congratulate the Minister on his first few months in office. A couple of points we've discussed privately as well where I'm not too happy. But I think that hopefully we have a Minister who recognizes the attitudes and the needs of local government and is responding to them. But more importantly, because I think we had the same with the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. D. Campbell), I hope we have a Treasury Board which will listen as well when the Minister of Municipal Affairs makes a particular point on behalf of local government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: First I'd like to answer the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I would certainly re-echo his call and encouragement to private individuals to go into the housing field. There's a great need for participation, both in the private and public sector in housing, and there's no question in the world that the public sector cannot keep up with the demand for new houses in the Province of British Columbia. We urge any of the apartment builders or house builders to carry on as usual, even though, I think, the major problem has been the changes in the federal legislation.

I realize also the difficulty in going into the housing field, the public housing field in the City of Vancouver. The cost of land is very great. The cost of apartment blocks and so on are very high. However, we are determined to get into the field in the West End, and also in the False Creek area.

In regard to picking up land or existing premises in order to have a presence in both areas, which is most desirable, the people who require the availability of local transit or want to be able to walk to work find themselves forced out into distances far removed from the area of their work. This we hope we can attack over a period of time.

With regard to the questions of the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), certainly I appreciate the fact that the municipalities are not rich. The municipalities have a big job just carrying on with their last year's long-term plans with their budgets. They may have no more than 5 per cent of their total budget, which you could call "mad money" for them to go out and blow. I realize that they're hamstrung. However, I would like to point out that the question of welfare payment from land, the question of school functions paid from land — these all tie in with the total question and the question of the per capita grants. They're all one bundle; I don't think you can deal with one without dealing with the whole thing to determine where we're going. This is what is being done at the present time.

I might say that the $2 per capita increase helps the municipalities but probably doesn't improve their situation as costs go up each year. I appreciate that. This is under study and we hope that we can produce something in due course.

The question of the Plunkett report: I agree that I will meet at any time with the directors of the UBCM regarding this report or regarding other matters of financing. As you probably know, there is now a committee of the UBCM dealing with finance, more in regard to suggested changes in areas of collecting money. We have met with them only once, but expect that these meetings will carry on.

Now I must say that I forgot the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). He had some questions before the motion came in. I forgot to answer some of his questions and I would like to discuss them now. Like him, I would agree that the functions being performed by local representatives are invaluable to the province, because the province couldn't operate without these dedicated people looking after their local areas.

You mention about doing away with the Vancouver Charter. I'm not convinced that the Vancouver Charter is necessary. However, there's one good feature about it, it seems to me, and that is that experiments can be tried on the Vancouver Charter and if they look successful then we can use them in our own Act.

The criticisms of the regional district concept: I'm sure the Member has never heard me criticize the concept of the regional district. I never criticized that concept. I hope to improve it. I think he was under a misapprehension when he suggested that I stated that we would be appointing members to the regional

[ Page 2033 ]

district. That's not my intention at all. I don't suggest that and I have never said that. I don't agree with that principle at all. I think it should be worked more the other way around where we elect all of our representatives to the regional districts.

Now we've covered the boundary extensions and the amalgamations. I think the next thing we have to do with is the buses. I was hoping that the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) would be in, because he did bring it up a number of times before I answered that question. I'm not trying to filibuster, but I might speak just for a few minutes to explain the situation. I'm in agreement that you don't order buses without a tender, as a general principle. But in this particular case the space had been booked for both Flyer and General Motors on their runs and the replies had to be in by December 15. There was no time to put up a tender. The tender was put up in — I've forgotten the date exactly — but by the time the replies would come in and so on, there would have been no time to have the reports in by December 15. In other words, we would lose a year on our deliveries of buses, which would delay the whole programme of supplying surface transit to the lower mainland and the Victoria districts by a period of approximately a year.

Dealing in buses is not like buying an old pair of slippers. There are certain requirements in transit buses which maybe everybody isn't quite familiar with. On the basis of information received and recommendations from the transportation division of Hydro, the order was divided between the two manufacturers, Flyer Industries and General Motors, to fit into the delivery promises. Now, there was a choice of going through with the tender but, as I stated, the bids would not be in on time and we'd be delaying the delivery of the buses.

There was a suggestion that there was a Wells Wayne group in London, Ontario that would supply transit buses at $5,000 cheaper. That is on the information of a Mr. Sumpner, who was an agent for Wells Wain. First of all, Hydro doesn't buy buses from agents or anyone else — they go to the source, the manufacturer, to buy their buses. So, in any event, Mr. Sumpner would not have received any contracts from Hydro.

Secondly, Wells Wayne have not ever built a transit bus. They build school buses. School buses and transit buses built by Wells in the United States, but certainly there are none produced at London, Ontario, or none produced in Canada at this stage.

There was some question that the specifications can be picked up by anybody at any time by phoning B.C. Hydro or going to Hydro to pick them up. They are public documents. There may be the odd change when there are tenders going out as to seating styles or something of that sort, but the basic construction is there.

Now referring to February 22, the speech from the Hon. leader of the Liberal Party, he was saying that Sumpner had bid on the buses 48 hours after he'd received the specifications. Under the system of building a school bus, that's fine. He could bid on it. And he could probably sell a school bus for $15,000 cheaper than what it would cost to produce the buses for transit. That's briefly the situation.

If you are interested in how buses are built, the type that Wells Wayne produced went out of style in 1936. General Motors have never produced a bus of that nature since 1936. Now we don't mind going back a little way, but that's a little much.

Now they say that Sumpner phoned me. Well, I've never heard of Mr. Sumpner, at least to my knowledge I haven't. I have spoken to a lot of people and I am not saying that he didn't phone. But I don't recall his phone call. He certainly didn't write to me. I am sorry if I didn't return his call but I can't remember him doing so.

The technology of construction of a transit buses what they call today….

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Aye? I guess I'm getting the message. But in any event I want to state very briefly the cities in this country and what kind of buses they have: Calgary has GM Flyers, Canadian Car, which is out of work, Daimler, which is English, and Twin. The Canadian Car is no longer producing buses.

Edmonton — GM and Flyer, Canadian Cars, so on and so forth, a Japanese firm and the Bluebird. The Bluebirds will not be produced any more. They are the same type as Wells Wayne. They haven't stood up and they're going out. They won't be ordered again.

Regina — General Motors and Minibuses.

Saskatoon — General Motors and Canadian Car.

Winnipeg — General Motors, Flyer, Canadian Car, Mitsubishi.

Thunder Bay — General Motors, Canadian Car.

Toronto — General Motors, Flyer, Canadian Car.

Montreal — General Motors, Flyer, Canadian Car, Flexible of Canadair and Mack.

Quebec — General Motors, Canadian Car.

Halifax — General Motors.

Vancouver — General Motors, Canadian Car. Twin Coaches, Prevost.

Victoria — General Motors, Canadian Car.

Now that shows that there are only two companies which produce transit buses in Canada, or that produce buses.

Now when we didn't go to tender we got bids from both General Motors and Flyer. On balance Flyer was approximately $1,500 a unit cheaper than General Motors.

[ Page 2034 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to take issue with the Minister on the Wells Wayne thing for just one point; that is that regardless of whether or not the specifications were available, if the project doesn't go to public tender, the specifications are of no use.

The other thing is that Wells Wayne, according to its spokesman at least, is developing a new type of chassis and is building city transit buses now for Montreal and would have like the opportunity to at least bid on buses for Vancouver and Victoria as well.

On the subject of transit, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask if the Minister might, some time during the debate on his estimates, tell us just a little bit more about what the bureau of transit is going to do. And I'd like to get the answer to the question of whether or not that bureau is developing a new transit programme for the greater Vancouver area or whether they are in fact working along the lines of the programme and the report prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional District in cooperation with B.C. Hydro.

One specific question I'd like to ask is whether or not the bureau and the department agree with the report from the GVRD that all public transportation services should be under one single agency and whether or not they agree also with the second part of that recommendation that that agency should be responsible to the regional government; or do they feel that the agency should be responsible to the provincial government?

I'd like to ask as well, Mr. Chairman, what interim steps if any are going to be taken, and quickly, to provide some kind of other relatively fast and relatively cheap surface transit in the metro Vancouver area, such as a dial-a-bus programme or perhaps some kind of entry into the park-and-ride programme that's already involved in Vancouver.

Coming from an area just outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the service in our area and in many of the outlying areas is absolutely lousy. We'd like to know what kind of upgrading of that kind of service we're going to get. I appreciate the problems in greater Vancouver. They are urgent at this moment. But outside the area there is just absolutely no concern by the looks of it and never has been, and at the moment anyway we don't seem to be able to get any commitment from anyone to upgrade the Pacific Stage lines service, just to begin. That's a start.

The terminals are open too few hours in the outlying areas. Passengers are forced to wait outside in all kinds of weather, regardless of their age. The schedules on Pacific Stagelines in many of our suburban areas are erratic to say the least, and nothing seems to be done about it.

The system incidentally of leasing out and franchising out the terminals for Pacific Stagelines I think needs looking into as well, because I think that's a problem that's existed for a long time and doesn't seem to be going to solve itself.

I'd like to say too, Mr. Chairman, that the people in the communities in the outlying areas seem to be much more interested in developing their own rapid transit services than the Government does. As you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, through to the Minister, there are a lot of commuter bus programmes now working from points as far away as Chilliwack.

The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) indicated that people couldn't be coaxed into bus services. But I believe that they can be coaxed into those services much more easily than they could two or three years ago. All they really need is some kind of reliability and some kind of economy involved with that and they'll get into those commuter bus services if they're provided. It's being proved all over the lower mainland.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it's imperative that the number of cars pouring into that greater Vancouver area, regardless of what else we do in the area of transit, from the Fraser Valley be reduced by any means possible. It's only good business I think for this Government to get involved in those commuter bus services and all of the other attempts that are being made to alleviate the problem of cars streaming into the greater Vancouver and Burnaby areas.

If you can get involved in those kinds of park-and-ride systems or anything else — the commuter bus services that are now going — coordinating perhaps just the development of those services from the bureau of transit if that's where it's going to come from, coordinating the local bus services to fit in with the city transit systems that are already there, I think you'll find that people are not only willing to take those buses but they're willing to pay for them as well.

If you can offer the automobile driver any kind of decent alternative, particularly in these days, I think he might just jump at the chance. I can recall a few years ago when I lived in Langley and worked in Vancouver, getting sick and tired of driving through that traffic every day for a year and a half. Finally, I just chucked the whole thing and got into a Pacific Stagelines bus every morning that took an hour and a half to get into Vancouver. It was far better than wasting that hour and a half driving and cursing and swearing and sitting and choking on….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Under my breath, of course, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2035 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they could hear me in Langley, Mr. Chairman, as I was fighting those traffic jams.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They can hear you now.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to relate a few comments about one of the commuter bus services that is working in the area. That's the one running through the Surrey area. Those people who take the bus every day from White Rock to Vancouver pay only $31 a month, which is a pretty good deal for them, particularly when you can hardly get full-time parking for that kind of money in downtown Vancouver.

I was looking through some figures awhile ago which pointed out that that only comes to $372 a year. If you figure just 20 cents a mile to run your car back and forth five days a week from White Rock to Vancouver for a year, it'll cost you about $3,000, and that doesn't include your parking. So it's a pretty good buy. I think if you can convince automobile drivers that you can give them that kind of a deal, they'll jump at the chance to get into a bus and leave their cars at home, providing of course that they don't need their cars for their work in town.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister might offer his department's help to these people and all the people in the commuter bus services. As well, if you have a mind to, through you Mr. Chairman, you might talk to the highways Minister about developing steps up the sides of the embankments off the freeways so that the people can get out of those commuter buses and back up to their cars without stumbling and tripping all over the banks, particularly in the wintertime. I think that that's an excellent programme that the department could develop in conjunction with the highways department.

One other item I'd like to ask about, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the municipal affairs department has to do with municipal administrators and clerk-administrators. I think you're probably well aware, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, that in the next two or three years there's going to be a serious shortage of these types of trained people. Probably in the next five years we're going to find a couple of dozen senior administrators with the municipalities retiring. At the moment, at least, we don't have any replacements for these people.

I'm wondering whether or not the department is actively considering going into some kind of a training programme to make sure that when this crunch hits us in four, five, six, seven or eight years, we'll be able to supply the necessary personnel able to take over these vitally important areas of public service in British Columbia. If you ask anyone in the municipal field, they'll agree that the crunch is going to come and we have to be prepared to meet it.

I'd like to ask the Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, if he's given any thought to developing some kind of system that would recognize the fluctuation in population in municipalities, cities, towns and unorganized areas, in order that the per capita municipal grant may be upgraded each year. I think it would be quite simple if you took an estimate of the housing units. It's done in other areas. It has been done in the past with regard to centennial grants and things like that. I'm sure it could be done in the municipal affairs department as well.

I'm thinking once again of Langley City, which is probably now the fastest growing small city in British Columbia. The per capita grant just doesn't keep up with that growing population. If there were a method by which you could at least give recognition to that growing population each year, so that the municipality could take advantage of that grant that year as it should be, then I think that that also should be done.

Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about the people who live in mobile homes. For many years, and up until the present as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we've been treating those people like second-class citizens in British Columbia. I think it's about time that we recognized that they contribute to our life and our society just as much as any other type of home owner or renter in the community. The Active Mobile Home Owners Association prepared a brief not too long ago in which….

HON. MR. BARRETT: He answered that earlier this afternoon.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wasn't here when he answered that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This matter concerning mobile homes was already canvassed earlier this afternoon. That was the point.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll just briefly point out to the Minister that the people who live in trailer homes comprise a very important part of our community. I'd like to say that of the people in our community aged 60 to 69 — only 10.7 per cent of our population is in that age group — 17 per cent of them live in mobile homes.

The other point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that those people who make between $2,000 and $6,000, who are the low income earners in our society, make up some 64 per cent of the people who live in mobile homes at the present time. It's a very good area for low-cost housing. The Government should get involved in it as quickly as possible because of those two facts if nothing else.

I'd appreciate some of the answers to those

[ Page 2036 ]

questions, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. One of the questions I'd like the Minister to answer is the degree to which municipal councils are bound by certain requests that are made to them.

All of us who have sat on councils have had various bodies come requesting money. I think it's getting "a bit thick," as we say back home, when we have some organizations asking financial assistance from the municipalities to repeal certain federal legislation. I'm quoting the kind of approach that was made by the Canadian Women's Coalition to repeal the abortion laws. This committee asked Vancouver city council for moral — which is an interesting word — and financial backing for a conference in Toronto which is designed to try and pressure the federal government to repeal all its abortion laws and create abortion on demand.

I'm not sure if the Municipal Act spells out the confines within which local taxpayers' money can be spent. As I say, I well remember being on council and meeting with many different organizations seeking financial assistance for various projects. I'm pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that on this occasion the council turned down the request. But I would like the Minister's comment on whether it would have been acceptable within the confines of the Municipal Act if they had put up financial backing.

On another subject, speaking for the council in Oak Bay, it is very grateful for section 702(a) in the Municipal Act, which allows the designation of development areas and assigning of land use contracts. It still leaves gaps in the possibility for the council to govern design of buildings in particular. That same section, Mr. Chairman, talks about the aims of the section for the betterment of the environment and the fulfillment of community goals.

While the council appreciates the added strength in 702(a) compared with the Municipal Act before, it hopes that the Government could give still greater authority in the Municipal Act by which the council could control design. In certain areas, it is rather important that council can have some say in whether the proposed design really fits in with the community goals and the environment in that area. Apparently, council feels at the present time that we could go further, with benefit to the whole community. I wonder if the Minister would comment on that.

As a third quick point, I'd like to refer to a rental aid service which an individual in Victoria started. We've heard a great deal this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, about the problems of creating enough low-cost housing. In a city like Vancouver or Victoria, there's also a tremendous problem in having the necessary help and assistance in finding what is available for individuals who require low-cost housing.

This particular gentleman, who happens to be unemployed and on welfare, developed this rental aid service on his own volition and with his own initiative. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in the past 11 months Mr. Nelson and his staff have found accommodation for 300 poor people either working for low wages or on welfare. I would like to ask the Minister whether he foresees any kind of financial assistance that could be provided for this kind of rental aid agency.

In this case, the man has shown a real need. He's done a good job working out of a free room in the First United Church. He's been getting by on a local initiative grant but has subsequently been turned down by Canada Manpower. Some rather unusual grants have been made for various kinds of studies and so on. Here is an agency trying very hard to help low-income people find low-rent accommodation. I understand that this agency is just about to fold. In fact, March 31 was the date quoted in this article in the Press.

I made inquiries today, and Mr. Nelson has received no approval of any of the other applications. The further local initiative application has been turned. He's been turned down by Canada Manpower. I understand that there is no other visible means of support, if that's the phrase. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on that.

Lastly, I would like to enlarge on what the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) said about the limited maneuverability of municipalities in deciding their budget. In one of the UBCM releases I read that one proposal that has been discussed is to tie the per capita grant to a definite percentage of income which the province receives each year. I wonder if the Minister is ready to comment on whether this particular approach of relating the per capita grant to the income tax income is under consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just two or three short questions. I was wondering, Mr. Chairman through to the Minister, if he would entertain giving the letters patent proposed for Kelowna, particularly, prior to when the amalgamation is supposed to take place on May 1.

I would also still get back to what is the long-range policy on boundary extensions and amalgamations. Have you any thoughts on that which should come back to the municipal matters committee, or what?

I would like to know how many regional districts

[ Page 2037 ]

have regional plans at the present time. I understand 20 out of 28, but I am not sure.

Just one more quick statement about the police cost to municipalities. They are completely out of control, particularly as referring to smaller municipalities. I refer to the ones over 5,000, which are classed as cities. Are you considering changing the status at all of, say, a town when it goes to a city, having attained a population of 5,000? I think that these figures should be upgraded. In other words, why should a community of 5,000 take on city status? Would you consider raising that, say, to 10,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), as far as the police costs are concerned, I think you will find something coming in during the next session regarding that problem which you are talking about.

The regional plans: I'll get that figure for you later, the exact amount.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the grants that you were talking about from the City of Vancouver for some purpose: they have the right to give grants if they feel this is for the public good. City councils throughout the province have that jurisdiction.

Now, on the question of section 702(a): we'll be looking into that matter. I see it is here and we'll check it out, and take cognizance of your suggestions.

Rental assistance: the only ones I know of are the tenants' associations. The City of Vancouver had one for a short time last year, but they didn't continue the operation. Certainly I agree with the philosophy that people should get help regarding this matter. We'll look into it.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — the whole question of transportation that you were discussing is under consideration, and I agree with what you said. It is under consideration from the committee, and it is a little premature for me to make any statements at this particular time.

As far as training of municipal employees is concerned, there are some areas where they are being trained — at the Chartered Institute of Secretaries and at UBC. I'm trying to deal with the Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) regarding having courses at the regional colleges.

As to mobile homes, there will be legislation on that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Vote 176 pass? I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as time allows.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister gave some fine answers to questions that were raised by the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). But he did not say very much. He encouraged people to go into the business of building single- and multiple-family dwellings in this province.

But, Mr. Minister, I think what the people are anxious to hear you say is what you are going to do about it. Everyone recognizes that some of the changes that were made by the federal government in the tax legislation have turned away from investment in rental accommodation funds that previously were directed to that area. There are also people who say that that change by the federal government in the tax laws was designed to prevent certain segments of our society from enjoying a tax haven. You know, they were part of the tax rip-off boys. You can't have it both ways. But aside altogether from changes in federal tax laws, there have been some other significant developments that have interfered with the construction of dwelling accommodation, particularly for rent. Hence the growing incidence of tenant organizations, which have made it increasingly distasteful for people to be landlords. That is one of the matters that they should take into account.

Then, of course, we have the rising cost of land and rising construction costs, which are very rapidly shrinking the investment return. So while you say that you encourage people to go into these fields, there are equal encouragements for them to stay out.

But as logical as all these arguments may be, the fact of the matter is that housing starts and dwelling starts for rental purposes are dropping at an alarming rate, and they are being followed at an equally alarming rate by a drop in the vacancy rate of rental accommodation. They are going down almost parallel until, in the City of Vancouver, in an area which the Second Member for Vancouver Centre is particularly concerned about, the vacancy rate is down to 0.6 per cent or 0.5 per cent which is, as I said in an earlier debate, no vacancies at all. It is like hot layers in the Navy. You are into bed and out of bed, and somebody else takes your position — that is what rental accommodation is like. They are moving into buildings as fast as people are moving out. This situation is creating one of the problems that was raised earlier — the change to condominium ownership.

But the fact of the matter is that for the tenant, Mr. Chairman, the Minister's answers and all these logical explanations are no good. The tenant asks: "Where do I rent my accommodation?" Where are the young couples who are getting married today and in the weeks and months to come going to live? And what is the Government prepared to do about it? What is the Government prepared to do with regard

[ Page 2038 ]

to assistance to municipalities to enable them to open up additional land areas for development?

The Member for Vancouver Centre says the Blair Range property. You know that the mayor of the District of North Vancouver has already made a statement as to precisely what the implications of that kind of development might be. Where is North Vancouver going to get the money with which to provide the water, the sewer services, the transportation, the roads and all of the other municipal costs which accompany expanded land development?

These are problems, Mr. Chairman, which fall directly on the Government, and largely on the shoulders of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Because as well as looking after the housing problem, he has to look at all of the combined problems that this presents to the municipalities, who only have one revenue source, the land base, and the per capita grant which the Government is prepared to give.

So I would like to pose a series of questions to the Minister. Is the Minister prepared to indicate that there will be increased assistance from the provincial government for general municipal revenue purposes? Is the provincial government prepared to give either some part of the provincial income tax, some part of the social services tax, or some specific share in provincial revenue sources to the municipalities?

My second question: is the provincial government prepared to make some special additional provisions for municipalities which make land available for residential development with regard to the cost of sewer and waterworks expansion?

Is the provincial government prepared to take into account the additional burdens that may be placed on public transit by the expansion of municipal areas for housing purposes?

Is the provincial government prepared, if individuals will go into the business of building and renting dwelling accommodation, to allow some relief under provincial income tax, with respect to that kind of activity?

Is the provincial government prepared to remove some or all of the 5 per cent social services tax on building materials? All of which adds to the increasing costs of construction of accommodation. Would it even go so far as to remove some or all of the 5 per cent tax if the building materials are required for the purposes of building rental accommodation, as opposed to accommodation to be privately owned?

I think that if we could have some indication that the Government is even considering activities of this kind, we might then be more satisfied that the concern which all Members feel, so well expressed by, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), exists for the people of this province.

As well as cleaning up that problem with regard to the area of municipal finance, it may do something else which is of growing concern to those who are watching what is happening in the Vancouver metropolitan area. That is a growing part of the City of Vancouver and some of its surrounding municipalities. There is a gulf being created between that large city and the municipalities which surround it. The people in the city are increasingly coming to the point of view that the City of Vancouver is somehow or other a beleaguered city providing all kinds of services for the municipalities which surround it, as if they are appendages which are sapping at the strength of the city. That is the city's point of view. But it is becoming increasingly clear that the opposite point of view equally prevails, and that is that the City of Vancouver sits like a big sucker on the heart of the metropolitan area, drawing its strength from the surrounding areas.

Why do we have urban sprawl? We have urban sprawl to provide the living area which the City of Vancouver itself needs and can't provide. Those surrounding municipalities provide schools and the welfare and recreation facilities and all the other things the citizen needs in conjunction with his residence so the City of Vancouver can grow in assessments through its industrial and commercial development and rise as a city properly should.

This widening gulf is one that is going to cause increasing concern in the future unless this financial difficulty that the city and surrounding municipalities have is met with some pretty positive action on the part of this Government and of the Minister in order to keep that gulf from becoming ever wider until one day it may have consequences which none of us would like to contemplate — the possibility of takeover of the surrounding municipalities by the city, producing a bigger and bigger and more unwieldy local government area. It is bad enough as it is but it could become much worse.

One of the reasons we have such great problems in public transit is because of this desire to move everybody to the centre of the metropolitan area, which is the City of Vancouver, and away from it twice a day to get them to work at 9 o'clock in the morning and get them home at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. The consequences of this weighs heavily on the Minister's shoulders. I think some of these things can be resolved if greater attention is paid to providing resolved if greater attention is paid to providing financial relief for the municipalities. We need some real direction in this regard from the Minister.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Get a load of who is talking about time — the man who talked for hours and hours and hours in this House. To what avail the people of the Province of British Columbia must surely wonder.

[ Page 2039 ]

MRS. JORDAN: The Act was amended….

MR. WILLIAMS: The Act wasn't amended by anything that gentleman had to say, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. JORDAN: Try running against him in South Peace. We'll see how good you are.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm resisting the opportunity. I thank you, Madam, for those kind words and I don't care how you spell that either. (Laughter).

Mr. Chairman, I really feel that we must begin to approach some of these fundamental problems of municipal finance and the inter-relation of municipalities. We must come to grips with some of the basic needs of the people who live in those municipalities and one of the most basic needs must be that of accommodation. We are not even beginning to discharge our responsibility, nor is the Minister. I would like to hear what he has to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, in reply to the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), I can't very well argue with you. I agree with what you have said. The problem of housing, especially in the populated areas of the province, is almost critical. I think we all recognize the problem; the solutions are a little more difficult.

As far as Blair Range is concerned, I have been in negotiations with the mayor of the District of North Vancouver in regard to Blair Range and those are still going on. They are not that good at the moment, but certainly there are other areas around the city that have large tracts of land and we are certainly seriously looking into that.

The question of sewers and water. Of course we will supply sewers and water unsewered areas in t e province as part of our housing programme. We are paying for the sewers and water when we are buying land that has been sewered and watered, and we will buy land and do our own sewers and water as well. There is no problem in that aspect of it.

The question he raised about taxation distribution. I mentioned earlier that UBCM has a committee looking at possibilities of changing the methods of getting money from either federal or provincial agencies in cooperation with the province and we are certainly looking at that. The Mayor of Vancouver is one of the members on that committee and we have mention two different occasions now. It is something new and we are working through it as he is one of the representatives of the UBCM.

The question of provincial income tax — 5 per cent sales tax refunding for building materials. That is all under active review at the moment; I can't give any announcements today, but that is one area where we feel there may be some saving in house construction. Also, we are looking at the 12 per cent federal tax on the same thing. If this is at the root of what we finally decide on, we can get this as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): In view of the Minister's policy on forced amalgamations, will he be forcing the amalgamation of Burnaby with the City of Vancouver?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not this week. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN; Shall vote 176 pass?

Vote 176 approved.

Vote 177: general administration, $672,644 — approved.

Vote 178: grants, subsidies, $701,000 — approved.

Vote 179: housing redevelopment, $5 million — approved.

Vote 180: grants and aid, $68,750,000 — approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again. It further reports a division on an amendment proposed on vote 176 and asks that the division be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.