[ Page 2593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 115).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 113).

Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill 118).

Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

Oral Questions

Truth of Minister's statement on companies' view re copper smelters.

Mr. Bennett — 2593

Curbs on Hong Kong investment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2594

Conflict of interest alleged of Highways department engineer.

Mr. Wallace — 2596

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs estimates On vote 181.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2596

Mr. Bennett — 2597

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2598

Mr. Fraser — 2599

Mr. Wallace — 2603

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2606

Mr. Wallace — 2608

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2609

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2610

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2614

Mr. Curtis — 2614

Mr. Morrison — 2616

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2616

Mr. Morrison — 2617

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2617

Mr. McGeer — 2617

Mr. Curtis — 2622

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2624

Mr. Curtis — 2625

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2625

Mr. Phillips — 2625

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2626

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is Miss Janet Bulman, Outreach consultant for the United Church of Canada. I would wish you to bid her welcome.

Introduction of bills.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 115 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.

TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, Bill 113, Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act, 1974, 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 118, An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

TRUTH OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT
ON COMPANIES' VIEW RE COPPER SMELTERS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources....

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: He takes his own trip. He may not get to go to Japan.

In reference to his statement during the estimates that no private company was willing to develop a copper smelter in this province, and as the Minister's statement has been called completely false by the president of Granby Mining Co. Ltd., would the Minister care to clarify now his original statement to the House last week?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, they have not come forward with any definite plan. They have had several meetings but they haven't come forward with, any definite plans to have a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia. They were all unwilling to handle the sulphur problem of the smelter.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental: in the newspaper reports of Mr. Jewett's remarks, he says that on January 24 he had a meeting with officials and your Deputy, Mr. McMynn, at which specific proposals were discussed, and that to this day he has not received a reply from the government. Could you advise the House of the nature of his proposal then and why he hasn't received a reply, and why you would make a statement then that private industry wasn't willing to provide a copper smelter and that's why you're taking another action? Is Mr. Jewett not telling the truth in this statement?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'll take that as notice.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): As I understand it, a number of companies that are operating in the mining field in the Province of British Columbia have set aside substantial reserves for the purposes of building a copper smelter in the Province of British Columbia. Now, if they were not serious in their intention, do you think that they would have set aside reserve moneys for this specific purpose?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I have no such understanding.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the last question is sheer argument and opinion.

MR. BENNETT: I don't think that the Minister can take as notice a clear-cut question of his statement where it's been denied by a member through the press. It's really a matter of whether it's right or wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that his question is directed as to statements made to members of a department. Consequently, of course, it is in order and taken as notice. No Member is required to answer under our standing orders and parliamentary rules and forms.

MR. BENNETT: I'm questioning the Minister on

[ Page 2594 ]

his statement. His statement has been called untrue and all he has to do is stand up, Mr. Speaker, and say that he's telling the truth or....

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister answered the first question. The second question was directed to statements in regard to interviews with members of the department. A Minister is entitled under our rules to take as notice a question of that kind, and an answer may not be required under Beauchesne at page 148.

CURBS ON
HONG KONG INVESTMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), but before I do so may I welcome him back, along with the Minister of economic diplomacy (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and say we appreciate having them back. Progress was made in their absence, Mr. Speaker — substantial progress — and if they wish to go away again I'm sure it will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that your question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question refers to this morning's paper and the flaming headline: "Hong Kong Money Curb Sought." In light of this statement that Hong Kong and other overseas sources of capital are to be discouraged from entering the British Columbia housing market, may I ask the Premier what steps are being taken to replace this important source of capital for the rental area in particular?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would not consider that the information I have concerning Hong Kong money is in any way geared to serving the housing market; it's here to protect vast profits made, by taking advantage of lowly-paid Hong Kong workers in that Crown colony. There are two purposes for this announcement of mine. One is that we must not look upon this country, in my opinion, as a haven for rapidly gained profits to protect those people and their profits at the expense of a reasonable opportunity at reasonable price for property for Canadian citizens. Mexico learned this a long time ago.

I'm suggesting that the Canadian people not only in British Columbia, but in Alberta and Ontario, suffer severe competition unnecessarily caused by not only Hong Kong money but other foreign funds that are being invested purely on real estate speculation, not on any investment to build up the economy of this province or the rest of Canada. Those are the funds we're opposed to. Those are the funds that I hope this government will move in a fashion that's commensurate with the need to stop that particular kind of investment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary: in view of the fact that the Vancouver Real Estate Board in its report released very recently has indicated to us that much of the rental accommodation being built in British Columbia, much of the capital entering to construct rental accommodations for British Columbians, will enable British Columbians to have the choice.... The choice of housing comes from overseas sources.

May I repeat my question to the Minister? What steps are being taken to encourage Canadian investment in this area to replace the foreign capital which he does not approve of? Or are steps going to be taken to increase the amount of public sector money entering the area of rental accommodation construction?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member just misunderstands the problem as we see it. If he understood it, I'm sure he would agree with us. The problem is that Hong Kong and other money is buying existing buildings. That is what is forcing the price up in terms of accommodation for existing buildings. Regardless of what that Member says, he'll have an opportunity to vote on our policy because we intend to stop foreign money from coming into this country for real estate speculation.

The second thing is, Mr. Member: if you read your estimate book, you will find that this government is prepared to commit a total of $122 million to housing programmes. The third matter that we are concerned about is that we would hope that the federal government would return to Canadian investors the tax benefits they once had which allowed them to supplement....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, yes. Certainly. It was an advantage, taken away by the Liberal government, to encourage Canadian investors....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly. I think that that policy should be reinstituted by the federal government forthwith. I tell you right now that the federal government should encourage the investment of Canadian funds by that tax allowance. It's far better than encouraging foreign money in on a basis of real estate speculation. I have that opinion and I'm pleased with that opinion.

But I'll tell the Member that the federal government has a responsibility to all Canadians to curb foreign ownership of land right across this

[ Page 2595 ]

country. I urge them to take whatever action they can take as soon as possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the rhetoric; but do I understand the Premier and the Minister of Finance to say that if foreign capital is not to enter in and purchase existing buildings, or indeed enter in and purchase land, it will be permitted to enter the province for the purposes of construction?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The purpose of foreign investment as far as this government is concerned is to ensure that any foreign dollar coming in, regardless of national identity, is geared to meet the industrial development needs of this province, not to be placed in real estate speculation.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In light of the Premier's statement that the federal government should be encouraging Canadian capital and private capital to develop housing in British Columbia, and in light of his own legislation which has discouraged the development of housing...

MR. SPEAKER: Order! No debate — please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...capital in British Columbia, my question to him is: what is he, as Premier of this Province and Minister of Finance, prepared to do to restore the confidence in British Columbia so that individuals and capital will go into housing, both to build for themselves and for rental — and stop blaming the federal government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether or not I've been asked to answer a question or a speech. Confidence in this province has never been greater, as witnessed by all economic indicators, including unemployment, which is at a lower rate than it was under Social Credit for many, many years.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, in Beauchesne, that Hon. Members must not ask the government's opinion on matters of policy and you must not ask what advice a Minister proposes to give the Crown.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A further supplementary to the Premier. Now that he has finally discovered foreign real estate speculative money, could he tell the House exactly when he's going to do something about it — namely, at this session?

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of the worst legal drawbacks, Mr. Member, is the citizenship Act itself, which allows aliens to hold land in this country. That should be wiped out by Ottawa. But since we have that loophole continued by the federal government, we will act as quickly as possible through our own lawyers to find some way of protecting British Columbia. But I publicly call on the federal government to eliminate that loophole. The government of Mexico learned it a long time ago: aliens should not be allowed to hold land in this country.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has told us this afternoon of steps he plans to take to discourage foreign capital coming into the housing industry in British Columbia. Could he tell us what steps he plans to take to encourage Canadians to invest in the housing industry in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the Member that I've separated the housing capital, which he deliberately attempts to throw in. The federal Liberal government's policy is to allow non-Canadians to own property. This government is opposed to that. Secondly, this government is opposed to the onrush of funds from offshore into the real estate speculative business. That's what we're after.

MR. McGEER: Could you tell us what you're doing to encourage...?

Interjections.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): In view of the fact that the Premier has stated here this afternoon that he'd like to encourage Ottawa to reinstate depreciation so that people could get into apartment building and houses for rental purposes, does he plan on actually making a proposal to Ottawa along these lines?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I make the proposal now.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't make a proposal....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me put it to you this way: I have made proposal after proposal to the federal government. To my surprise and shock they've been turned down. Now I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Member, that I intend to make further proposals to Ottawa, and I publicly propose to Ottawa to reinstitute many of the Carter commission recommendations on taxation. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the ways of encouraging housing in Canada by Canadian investors is by giving that tax deferment back. That's my opinion.

[ Page 2596 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Everybody's enjoying themselves, but we are violating the rules. You're asking for opinion on government policy; you're asking for what advice the Minister proposes to give the Crown. It doesn't matter whether it's in the newspaper, Hon. Member. The fact of the matter is that it violates question period.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think it's time for a different subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you; I agree.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED
OF HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ENGINEER

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General whether he has instigated any inquiries concerning possible conflict of interest on the part of a senior Highways department engineer stationed in the Alta Lake–Whistler area?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar with that allegation. I'd be glad to have details.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It isn't an allegation; it's merely asking whether the Minister in fact has even discussed the matter with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Or does he consider that this would be an important enough issue? It was a front page news item at the weekend. One, has he discussed it with the Minister or, two, does the Minister feel that indeed he should discuss it with the Minister?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to discuss that with the Hon. Graham Lea. I vaguely remember, now that the Hon. Member has drawn it to my attention, that it was in a headline. But I will look it up.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 181: Minister's Office, $71,744.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Before this vote passes, I'd like to make a few remarks. I didn't want it to get away before I had a chance to speak.

I want, first of all, to express my appreciation for the great co-operation I have received from the Union of B.C. Municipalities over the past year. I'm sure that the assistance the chairman and president, Mayor Marks of 100 Mile House, and his executive have given to us in regard to legislation as it affects municipalities has been greatly appreciated.

Now problems have hit municipalities as they have hit other segments of our society. Although revenues increase, so also do expenses. Demands from citizens year by year increase and they want more and better services. Because of these substantial increases in needs, the government has tried to respond in three different areas. In the first, it has been by removing some of the responsibilities which municipalities previously handled on and for the provincial government as well as for themselves.

An example of this is the welfare costs — a reduction from 15 to 10 per cent in educational areas, diking charges, ambulance services, and as a matter of fact, the bill that was introduced by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) a few minutes ago.

The second method is by legislation. Examples of this would be the sewage assistance and the recreational grants. The third method is by increasing grants to municipalities.

It has always been a fair argument that the measures taken have not been enough, they've been too late or something of that sort. That's a fair argument, but I am here to say that on balance, the municipalities this year have been very well treated.

I want to mention one other area of concern — the question of the per capita grant which....

AN HON. MEMBER: The $2 Ministry.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's better than a two-bit politician.

The question of the per capita grant which appears on the surface to be a very fair method of distributing money, in my opinion, is not quite as fair as it sounds. I think we all appreciate the fact that if a community requires a swimming pool, whether it's a large community or a small community, the costs are basically the same. In different areas they may be more expensive, but the cost to a small community is very extreme. Whereas in a large community this cost may only be a small item in an enlarged programme, if a small community decides to go into a swimming pool they can forget all other aspects for a considerable length of time. It seems to me there has to be a different formula worked out to look after this sort of thing.

In addition, we say the people in the north or the Interior should get the same grant as the people on the coast, where the cost of construction and the introduction of sewage and water services is much more expensive in those areas. Yet we still stay to

[ Page 2597 ]

the situation where we give equal grants to equal population.

In my opinion there has to be a severe study taken as to how a fair method of distribution along the per capita grant setup could be achieved.

I have no answer for you today, and maybe you have an answer for me.

I would also like to mention something about transit. I have stated that I would be making some statement as to changes in fares and whatnot at this time, but I'm sorry to say that I'm not in a position to advise the House of any appropriate or proposed changes at this time. I will do so as soon as I am able.

Our transit programme is proceeding very satisfactorily, I believe. Much slower than we would have liked, but the major reasons for this is the fact that it is very difficult to obtain quick delivery of vehicles. The 200 that were ordered last fall and were expecting delivery on by June or July, will not be coming until, as I understand, the end of summer. As delays go, from our experience last year, it could well be the end of the year before we're able to put in the promised services in Surrey, Delta, Richmond and Whiterock. We are hoping to be able to speed this process up. I can assure you the areas which have been served appear to be most appreciative of it and the service seems to be working very well. Next year we hope to go into the communities of the Interior and supply services where needed in the towns and cities in the Interior.

I want to assure the House that it has been a good year in the Department of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities of the province are all very, very happy.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the Minister say that he's specifically concerned about the per capita grant because earlier in the session, during the finance Minister's estimates, we did bring up a suggestion that per capita grant wasn't the ideal solution for solving municipal financing.

We talked about tying financing for municipalities to some of the growth areas of the province because, as we note, senior governments, provincial and federal, get the benefit of inflation. They get it in increased revenues but the municipalities, regional districts and local government are basically stuck with the cost of providing the improvements and expansion that's necessary, which are all at that level and at highly accelerating costs. They are the ones who are caught with them. They are the ones who are paying a penalty right now in inflation.

We feel that the government and the Minister should be looking forward to tying municipal aid or municipal money to some part of the budget that will reflect the growth, whether it's to the province's share of income tax or whether it's to the 5 per cent sales tax — some provincial revenue and a fixed percentage of some provincial revenue that will give some idea and give moneys on a growth basis to the municipalities rather than on a handout basis.

There is also a problem with per capita grants where they're taken on a census basis where quickly growing communities and some of the fast growing areas are penalized because the per capita grants don't keep pace with their accelerated population and may be way out of date. I talk about submissions from one of our instant towns like Port McNeil which really has a lot of problems financing because it was created and it has a large acceleration of people, yet the per capita grant it's receiving do not reflect the number of people in that area now.

That brings up one of the other problems which some of these municipalities, particularly that particular municipality, have had where they service a resource area where you have the large forest management licences around them but they have no industrial tax base within their boundaries to help them finance. Is there some area where we could work part of the stumpage or part of the revenues from the resource surrounding those areas where these bedroom communities are built up to service the people who work in these industries so they can participate and receive some financing based on those resources where they don't have a tax base inside the town?

These are all areas of municipal financing that are mentioned to me when I'm travelling throughout the province where these councils and these communities are showing their concern. They are having problems and they can't provide the services that many of the people would like to see. Just sewage, for instance, in those small towns. With a very limited tax revenue base of less than $90,000, Port McNeil can't provide the sewage facilities that the province would like them to put in. Even with proposed new financing for sewage it would be very difficult for them. They have a very limited tax base.

I also am concerned about the future of regional districts because it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, that the Minister seems to be neglecting them. These once promising areas of local self-determination where we were going to receive a lot of input and local initiative have been losing the impetuous and have not been encouraged to innovate and bring on new programmes. In fact he touched on it, lightly — that the province was taking responsibilities away from the areas back into the province and many of these functions which we felt the regional districts would cover are not being dealt with by them on a local basis.

I am concerned about it because I think we're on the right track with regional districts. I feel that what they need is more authority and the power to provide more functions rather than less, to be given more

[ Page 2598 ]

authority and more chances to provide those things that they need — not handouts, but a chance for local determination.

This is where I'd like a clear-cut statement from the Minister because the impression I get from the way he's been operating his department is that the regional districts' days are numbered. And indeed, they are not. They are not showing the type of growth and the taking on of responsibilities that many of us felt they should and could do. I feel that the government that's closest to people is not only the most economical, but the most responsible and responsive.

I would like to hear the Minister say that he's going to encourage these governments, these area governments and that those areas will indeed have self-determination.

One of the other problems, in referring to my own area in South Okanagan, that we have is with the expansion of the forced amalgamation of the City of Kelowna which was done in concert with the forced amalgamation of the Kamloops area.

During that time specific negotiations went on with the Minister, certain things were promised in writing, certain things were alluded to in general discussion. Whether they were brought up in advance or not, whether they could foresee them or not, they're faced with very serious problems on this forced amalgamation. Some of the things that they're talking about that were discussed in general were parks. The City of Kelowna — the new city, the expanded city — has a specific proposal in to the government. I understand it's been turned down, yet this was a problem that was discussed during the forced amalgamation.

We have this very large area that isn't an economic tax base now and the City of Kelowna has requested that the Minister, perhaps, to solve these areas of concern which cover policing, parks and flooding inside the new city boundaries, which they are not sure how it will be handled, areas where they may take over from the regional district....

Certainly, the $800,000 allowance they've asked for roads within that new boundary was promised to them as part of the $3 million road grant they've applied for. They've heard nothing back from the department when these things will be coming. They need them to plan their budget for this year.

They've requested this meeting with the Minister and I think the areas they need to cover are covered by several of the Ministers. Could the Minister indicate whether he can arrange such a meeting with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to solve these problems? They're beyond the ability of these local councils which, through no action of their own, found their boundaries expanded. They need some consultation with the Minister and these areas of the provincial government to iron out what are very real problems to them. These problems are in the new City of Kelowna. I received the same sort of requests relating to the same areas from the City of Kamloops. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us today as to what procedures he will take to solve these new problem areas.

Another area I received some concern from around the province are small areas that wish to incorporate, like Lantzville or Westbank in the Kelowna area, where they're looking for some policy from the government to cover areas of small population which don't want to be part of large cities. They feel they can incorporate and also be part of large cities. They feel they can incorporate and also be part of a regional district to solve their functions. If he can, I'd like the Minister during his estimates to tell us at what size he will allow these areas to incorporate on their municipal status. At what size and at what area will he force them into amalgamation as he did for the areas surrounding Kelowna and Kamloops? Those are areas of concern.

There is another area of concern in my own area. When will the Minister take the direction to set up the authority, either through the regional districts or an amalgamation of regional districts, so that we can bring about the implementation of the Okanagan basin water study? This study took five years of concentrated study and a major budget between the provincial and federal governments. It made some very strong recommendations, some of them on a fairly immediate timetable, particularly where they deal with effluent disposal. It's very important to a water basin area like the Okanagan which could suffer very real problems. I wonder if the Minister, when I'm finished, could stand up and announce that he's going to give some direction to bring about this authority which has the ability to deal with both this government and Ottawa to see if they'll share in the financing as recommended by that study.

These are some of the concerns I feel municipalities have: financing, responsibility and authority. What they're really looking for is some outline of how the Minister is going to deal with regional districts and directions for small areas incorporating.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked what my thoughts were for the future of the regional districts. I've always said I fully support the concept of regional districts. I agree that a number of them need to be bolstered and assisted; there's no question about that. A number of the regional districts are working very, very well; some of them are working reasonably well and others haven't

[ Page 2599 ]

started. Obviously, the requirement is to get into the areas to determine what appears to be the difficulties and what assistance can be given to get the regional districts moving along the lines of planning and development for the benefit of the region as a whole. There are a number of problems. I'm sure the Member is equally aware as I am with a great number of those problems. Certainly, I've always supported the regional-district concept and continue to do so.

The question of Kelowna and Kamloops amalgamations. At the time when we came into office there were two examples where very severe problems had arisen over a long period of years where communities had been developed on borders of other communities, as in the Kamloops case. In the Kelowna case, the city had spread beyond its boundaries and continued to spread and spread until the population on the outside of the city was probably as great as the population within the community. Precipitous action was required.

I accept the fact that the new council, when they were elected, accepted a great amount of responsibility in looking after the financial aspects as well as the community aspects of the cities.

I might say the agreements which I reached with the councils of the two communities will be fully kept; there's no question about that. In the case of Kelowna, the committee made their own arrangements with the Department of Highways. I arranged for the meetings and they came to an agreement on that. As I understand it, that's in writing. I am advised because I get phone calls from Mayor Bennett myself quite frequently and go after the Minister of Highways in regard to the questions that he raises. I'm assured the promises made by the Department of Highways will be kept right to the letter with maybe extras thrown in. There may be a time factor, but I'm convinced there will be no problems in clearing this up.

You mentioned Lantzville since at the present time there is a study going on in the Nanaimo area in which two representatives of Lantzville are on the committee. I don't want to say anything that might interfere with the group studying it. That group is totally a local group.

In regard to other communities bordering cities, I have no intention of creating new municipalities on top of other municipalities until such time as such a community becomes a logical size, whatever that might be. Certainly, in the smaller cities of the province, I would expect that most of them should be allowed growth in an orderly fashion. As the growth develops, they should be able to expand their boundaries and take in that growth.

When we're looking at a community like Kelowna, we're not just looking at the Kelowna boundary; we're looking at the area from which people go to Kelowna to do their shopping and which use the facilities of Kelowna and so on and so forth. We're looking at more than a political line, At such time when a city becomes what might be considered a large enough city and it would be more feasible to have another city, that's a different question. But I don't think the areas we're talking about have reached that stage.

The Okanagan water study has just come down. I haven't seen it yet, but it has just come down to the department, I understand, a few days ago. We'll be studying that Okanagan study.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I was happy to hear the Minister's opening remarks on the municipal affairs in the province. I would certainly agree with his first remark that the chairman of the UBCM (Mr. Marks) has co-operated well with him. Of course he has, he's from the Cariboo as well and that's the way we do business.

I can't agree with the Minister saying that the municipalities in general are in good shape. As a matter of fact, I just had a phone call from one today pointing out some problems. Of course, that's nothing new; I think the municipalities have for a long time felt they have been forgotten in the chain of command and by the different levels of government. I don't think this government has changed that to any great degree.

There have been a few small things this year given to the municipalities that certainly help — reduction of the welfare costs from 15 per cent to 10 per cent and, in some cases, they have had relief from police costs and others. I believe that is costing them revenue. I was going to ask the Minister about municipalities which really are going to lose because of the police cost function due to the fact they lose the fine revenue which is apparently exceeding their police costs. They find themselves in trouble there.

I also agree that other things have assisted municipalities. The sewage assistance might or might not help. But we can't talk about that; there's a bill on the order paper. We'll have something to say about it when it comes up. The other thing is recreational grants. I agree that has helped municipalities and also unorganized areas as well. While they are welcome, they don't really come out of the municipal budget. Maybe it's the policy of this government.

I think more should come directly out of the Municipal Affairs department. With the inflation that we have and the provincial budget we have in front of us, the per capita grant this year is an example. It's up 6.5 per cent, and the cost of operating the municipalities is probably up 12 to 15 per cent. As an example, I think they've been left out. The provincial revenues, though, and the national revenues have upped considerably, probably 20 per cent. I think they are the big winners when it comes to inflation. They are certainly the beneficiaries, compared to

[ Page 2600 ]

municipal people.

There is a lot bigger growth factor in other taxes — gasoline tax, 5 per cent sales tax, income tax, and so on — than there is from property tax. That is why I say that their source of funding is one of the last to catch up. In British Columbia we had better not have municipal taxes going up very much higher than they are or we are going to have people losing their homes and so on, because they are getting quite high as it is.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned that we have to decide on some different source. I might say that I am pleased to hear the Minister is willing — he hasn't got his mind closed — to find some new avenue of assistance for municipalities in general. But I think the per capita grant.... Probably what has happened there is that inflation is the root of the trouble. We will have to find maybe a criterion such as tying it to the rate of growth of income tax, or something like that. That's the way they should be assisted. But definitely something is wrong now.

I would just like to say that it is my information that this year in the province generally, in municipalities of this province, taxes are going to advance approximately 20 per cent.

As I mentioned earlier, I just had a phone call from one of the mayors in the Interior. This is where I think the Minister has got to watch what's going on. They have just been advised by their local school board that school taxes in that area are advancing eight mills over a base already of 30-odd mills.

Well, this, Mr. Chairman, is crucifying to the municipal property owner. I was given to understand in the Education budget that, generally speaking, the taxes wouldn't go up. Well, now they're all coming in with the mill rate. It certainly is part of the municipal story, because these mill rates, hospitals, schools and what have, you, are all added to the municipal taxpayer and they become part of the total bill.

It is quite alarming to hear in this particular school district of a 25 per cent increase in the mill rate from last year to this. And we haven't got the offsetting assistance coming from the province to overcome this. I think we're going to get a lot of shocks around the province.

The municipalities all have to have their budgets formalized by May 15; that isn't very far away. But it would appear that the municipal taxpayer is looking at a 20 per cent increase this year, and this is most unfortunate. With this, as I understand it, again on account of inflation, the municipalities will be standing still, and they don't like that.

The other thing that I'm thinking of in terms of cost to the municipalities that is of some concern — in fact, it's an area of concern to most municipalities — is the new voters list that has to be made up, I believe, by June 30 of this year. This is a door-to-door enumeration and it is going to be expensive.

I would like to hear the Minister say what assistance they are getting. I believe he has said 50 per cent, but I'm not sure of that. I would like to know what is definitely the policy on that. Preferably it would be 100 per cent because the province is certainly going to have use of this. If it is a 50 per cent cost, I think it is another net cost that's going on to the local taxpayer, which shouldn't be happening.

Another item that has been overlooked, and maybe it should be considered at the time they are looking at the whole grant structure, is the amount of taxes the provincial government pays to municipalities. It is based at the present time on 15 mills, and the average mill rate around the province is around 30 mills. In other words, they pay 50 per cent of the general municipal rate, and they don't pay any school and hospital taxes.

In view of the fact that this government is getting involved in so many spheres of business — as an example, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with their claims centres — this is, while it has been a bad enough item in the past, only going to become a heavier load by subsidizing these provincially run institutions.

As an example, B.C. Hydro: this Minister is a director, and I don't intend to get into B.C. Hydro problems; but B.C. Hydro don't pay the adequate grants to municipalities that they should pay. They also pay when they feel like it and not when the municipality wants them to pay. I don't think any Crown corporation should be treating a junior level of government like that.

Another Crown corporation that doesn't pay a bean on anything is the B.C. Rail. The B.C. Rail, in spite of all the problems it has, keeps on expanding and building more structures and so on, and they contribute, as far as I know, nothing at all to any municipality. I think it is time that that was looked at. Maybe it comes under the Premier, but I feel that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be reminding him of these things.

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the national government and the national Crown corporations in practically all cases pay their full share of municipal levies. They don't do it as a levy, but they do it in grant form which comes almost equal to the local mill rate that is set.

I want to bring up a point that was brought up earlier by the Premier...just to make it clear, it was the latter part of last year or the early part of this year, but it certainly deals with municipalities. It was where he intimated that the prior administration had given industry in the province preferential treatment with regard to tax arrangements made in different municipal areas.

The facts are that the prior provincial government didn't make these deals. The municipalities actually

[ Page 2601 ]

made these deals. If there were ever any preferential tax rates struck they were struck by the municipalities with the various industries involved. It was certainly put out a few months ago that the prior government had done this. In fact, the part they had to do with it was that they had them validated by this Legislature, all these agreements, and that's what they had to do with it.

I might say that I was here when some of these agreements were validated, and I don't recall when they were made a no vote on any of the validating agreements. In other words, the present Premier at that time was Leader of the Opposition, and the present Minister of Municipal Affairs was here, and they either didn't vote on them...but they certainly didn't vote against validating them.

There were a fair amount of these deals made around the province. They were made, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of services rendered. In other words, if a large industrial site didn't want garbage collection, well, they were given credit for that. A lot of these large industry sites have their own garbage collection; they don't want the services of the municipality, and they were given credit for that.

These formulas were all worked out by the individual municipalities and they happened.... There was an agreement at Powell River. It was made in 1965. At Stewart there were four different agreements apparently in 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1972. In Squamish, there was an arrangement — Port Alice, Quesnel, Campbell River, Prince Rupert, Sparwood, Trail, Tadanac, Castlegar, Fraser Mills, Coquitlam, Houston, Port Hardy. These were most of the areas where these agreements were made, but I think it is wrong to have the impression going about that those agreements were made by the province.

I certainly had a lot to do with one agreement where the reverse happened and the province actually assisted the municipality in bringing an industrial site into the boundaries, which the industry didn't want to happen. The province more or less made it clear then that they were coming in, in spite of their protestations. So I think there was a lot more to these agreements. For the Premier to say — I don't think the Minister of Municipal Affairs did — that these were all favours to industry given by the prior government.... That was hardly the case with these arrangements.

I might say that I hear of some difficulty over the scrapping of these agreements that this provincial government had up for bids. They were legal agreements constituted by the municipality with various industries. Again, they were just scrapped by the actions of this government.

I hear now that it all looks good, there is some more revenue. But now some of the industries are demanding that these services be delivered. It could well turn out that they'll turn out to be a liability, this scrapping of these agreements, because now that they are legally paying these levies they can, of course, legally demand the services be provided.

In this case it works in reverse. The municipalities are not in a financial condition to deliver them and if they're forced to by law, which it appears they can well be, it will put them in a bad deficit situation.

I think things were not all that bad about that. I only hope these other effects that I've mentioned don't have these affects, but the way I see it they legally could have. These people could be forced to deliver services that will cost them more than they will be able to get out of the delivering of the services.

I would like to get into the controversy or discussion for a minute going on, Mr. Chairman, and more recently spoken by the Minister of Highways. I think he's up in the Interior of B.C. somewhere where he says that he's going to run the Department of Highways and discriminate for the north between the south. I'm inclined to agree with some of his original remarks, and now he's repudiated them, so I don't know really what he did say, but....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, yes, that's apparently what he says.

Getting into the municipal end of things, the south and the north — the Minister of Municipal Affairs I note in his opening remarks said something about it — there is definitely, in my opinion, discrimination. It is caused by a lot of factors, but we'll deal with just the per capita grant.

For instance, no matter where the municipal citizen lives in the province they get the same per capita grant to assist them in different services. But in all cases from the central Interior north in this province, they should be getting more of a capital grant than the south.

Again, it's probably in what the Minister announced at the start — that it will have to be dealt with. I think the mayor of Prince George outlined it fairly well in a letter that he circulated to quite a few of us, as to where the extra costs are to municipalities in the central Interior north of the province where they have problems unheard of on the lower part of Vancouver Island. I refer to snow removal costs, I think probably the far bigger thing is the burying of water and sewer lines which I know they don't understand on the lower mainland. The mayor of Prince George says that they have to have a bury of eight feet. Well, I know some places burying deeper than that. I think the average they can get away with down here is probably four. So it is a distinctly bigger cost to these people. The citizens of the north Interior have a lot more of the elements to fight and I think because of this the municipalities should be

[ Page 2602 ]

given some consideration. I hope that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has a discussion with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on this.

At this session, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's anything to stop us now talking about assessments. There was an assessments committee and I was honoured to be on it. While we're on assessments, hopefully, there's a bill coming in about that. It hasn't arrived yet but I certainly think we're on the right road there.

Getting off assessments and onto taxation, it appears that we're going to have to.... The Minister has indicated here that he's going to have a committee on this, looking into the tax structure. I look forward to that committee going to work, but it appears to me that we have to find a different structure than just the one overall mill rate that the municipalities have now and let the taxation apportionment be made at the local level. It was pretty difficult, or impossible, with an overall mill rate before. I'm referring to the general municipal mill rate.

Possibly they should be looking at, say, three or four levels of a mill rate for the future, in view of the changes coming in the assessment and so on. The foremost thing there is to give them the authority to make these decisions at the local level rather than them being made down in Victoria. I really think that most in Victoria feel that way, but it will be interesting to see what comes of it after it's been in committee.

I mention now that it's hard to keep up, Mr. Chairman, with these cabinet Ministers on tours of the province. I think they should be here, but that again is a personal view — they are supposed to be the most important. I refer to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and his reference to instant towns. I'd like to make the observation that the instant towns really had no difficulty until this government came along. They certainly have some now, with housing, so on and so forth, but I don't think instant towns had too big a problem prior to a year or so ago.

I'd like to point out that the very Minister making these remarks has all the answers; why he has to say what he said, I don't know. He has all the answers to the problems because, in effect, his department of government from natural resources.... One natural resource that I know of, its revenue has tripled in the last year and a half. Maybe he could cough up some of this dough to help these people if he's really concerned.

The Department of Forestry, of which he is the Minister, in a lot of cases is the cause of the instant towns. He had a $75 million revenue in 1972. In 1974 he's budgeting for and it appears he will have for the 1973 year a $240 million take. I think this is where the trouble is — he takes it and gets it down here, but he doesn't send it back to the instant towns. This is the crutch of our municipal financing.

The same thing could be said for mining, but I'm much more familiar with the instant town that he spoke in, and the fact that the provincial Crown has tripled their revenue out of that community — I refer to Mackenzie. Then he gets up and says, "Well we're going to have another task force to look into it." They don't need another task force to look into it. It's obvious that they probably have some difficulty for which this Minister and his own department have the answers, but he didn't say anything about that, as I understand it, last evening in Mackenzie.

The other thing before I sit down I'd just like to mention, Mr. Chairman, is that this Minister is in charge of transit. Again I say in the case of transit I have no objection to the lower mainland — the large populated areas — having rapid transit, but it again makes another level of citizens in the province, the people in the Interior north, practically all of them, who can't take advantage of rapid transit. Again they are subsidizing this which is given out to the lower mainland.

I might be wrong, but I understand they lost $11 million last year in rapid transit. Of course this will continue to escalate because of, again, inflation and so on and additional services rendered. But none of these offsetting things are going on in the Interior and the north.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the, Hon. Member Bill 70, the Transit Services Act, which does encompass this area.

MR. FRASER: Okay, fine. I haven't too much to say on it, Mr. Chairman, other than that there's no offsetting municipal grants going to other areas in the community that are not able to take advantage of it.

Somebody mentioned what about the Highways department? Well, the Highways department, they haven't enough money to do their work and their work is done in the south as well as the north. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a special subsidy going to lower mainland and Island citizens. I don't deny them for a minute, but I think if we're going to subsidize, well turn around and give the Highways department $11 million so they can at least grade some roads and so on that are so badly needed in the Interior and the north part of the province.

I have heard, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) mentioned it, that they forced a shotgun marriage of Kamloops and Kelowna, and their areas are not going too well. I'm not happy to hear that. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned — of course, one of them embraces his riding — that promises that were given are not being kept.

I was happy to hear the Minister say that the promises he gave were to be given, but again I would

[ Page 2603 ]

suggest to him that the one that I hear about not fulfilling their promises is the Highways department. I've heard this several times and there's something to it. But I've also heard the Highways side of the story and they say, "Yes, money was set aside, a promise was given, but the municipalities have never asked for any of that help."

I can't really believe that the mayors of those communities knew that $5 million I think that's the amount in the case of Kamloops was set aside. I'll agree that an administrative person in Highways said this, but it's just hard to believe that the reason the government hasn't fulfilled their promises is because the municipality hasn't asked for it. So I think there's something there that maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs could look into.

I just want to sit down in a minute here, Mr. Chairman, but I want to make one mention of regional government in the province. We have 28 regional districts in the province and I think that they've got along fairly well. I realize some are probably not as good as others and probably some are into too many things. But generally speaking it's not too bad.

While we're on the subject of boundaries and that, I know new boundaries are coming up. I don't want to get the regional directors all alarmed that they're maybe going to have new boundaries, maybe not, but we have such a proliferation of jurisdictional boundaries in this province now. What I have in mind is the assessment that's coming up. I certainly said it in committee, but hopefully they will go along some line boundary that already exists. We have school district boundaries overlapping regional district boundaries and so on. I hope now another level of jurisdiction doesn't create a further boundary problem at the regional level.

While on there and the cost to local taxpayers in this region, there's something that no doubt has to be discussed in the Provincial Secretary's department, believe it or not, coming up shortly. But I see another load being put on the local municipal taxpayers via the regional level, and I'm referring to the library service. I'll have something more to say on that there, but again, I don't know whether this is a move to try and get the costs out of the provincial end of the municipal level. The indications are that it isn't, and I hope it isn't. But believe me, I'm telling you the controversy's really flying around the province about it at all regional district levels at the present time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll have something to say later.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I just want to touch on one or two points of local interest.

I'm particularly interested to comment on and ask some explanation — and I think the people of the greater Victoria area deserve an explanation — of recent events over the Reid Centre property on the waterfront in Victoria. I understand the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) were the three musketeers on that occasion. I think we should find out 'if this particular action of government is to be a precedent for the future. I think it should be made plain that the City of Victoria for a period of several months negotiated or at least entered into discussion with the provincial government, seeking some form of participation in the purchase of this site, a very valuable site on the waterfront, in the hope that in fact the area could be preserved and that the construction of a high-rise building of some sort could be prevented.

We have the final action of the government very much at the eleventh hour in a rather arbitrary way, with the promise that of course public hearings will be held sometime in May. Mr. Chairman, however valid it is to be concerned about valuable waterfront property in the capital city — and that's a very valid concern — I think many people in municipal government in this province are somewhat shocked by the provincial government's blunt use of power. This is not to dispute the fact that the government has the power and has used the power constitutionally and legally. That is not what I'm questioning. I'm just wondering if the Minister would care to explain. I'm glad to see the Minister of Public Works listening very eagerly with both ears wide open as always, Mr. Minister. I would like the Minister to explain why the government did not give some kind of information, or if they did, perhaps explain what information they gave to the City of Victoria in the course of the last several months.

In listening to comments by the mayor and other members of council of the City of Victoria, one certainly got the impression that this government was leaving the City of Victoria dangling in uncertainty over a very valuable piece of waterfront shoreline which was a matter of public controversy. The Minister can correct me if I'm wrong and I won't go through all the clippings I have here, but certainly if I were to read some of the extracts, it's to the effect that the City of Victoria felt that they wanted to enter some agreement, perhaps a 50-50 per cent agreement with the government to purchase that site. Apparently there was no real commitment or refusal to commit by the provincial government. When the negotiations reached some kind of climax between Mr. Reid, the owner, and the Holiday Inn Company, then all of a sudden government did move in and put a freeze on the site.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, in the light of past events and probably when we all look back on it, we'll realize that this did in fact save a valuable waterfront

[ Page 2604 ]

site for the people of the greater Victoria area and, indeed, visitors to the capital city from all over the province. But that really isn't the point.

There are two points I'd like to raise. Why does the provincial government, when it's asked for help from the capital city, for example, or any other municipality, dilly-dally around and try to stay out of the issue, when it should be showing some kind of leadership and perhaps trying to have the final solution brought about through the aegis of the municipal government itself, rather than wait until the eleventh hour and then lower the boom in what I think is a very dangerous precedent, even although carried out in a legal and constitutional way?

At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, the government and this Minister should tell the people of British Columbia if the government has, in fact, bought the site. Who owns that site, here, Monday, April 29? We're talking about $1.7 million of taxpayers' money. Has this government bought the site? Have they frozen the site? If they've frozen the site, who still owns the site? The ramifications from this kind of very complicated situation are very substantial. Mr. Chairman, it's your tax money and my tax money that's involved here. If the provincial government has bought the site outright for $1.7 million, it is not just Victoria taxpayers' money we're talking about. We're talking about the provincial taxpayer.

I think that at a time when we're debating the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and he has been so intimately involved in this particular important deal — I shouldn't use that word, I certainly don't mean it disparagingly — in this particular agreement, I think municipalities all across the province are probably very uneasy that the government moved in a manner which suggested desperation as the only last possible way in which it could preserve that piece of land, and in fact froze it.

Not only is it frozen, we don't know who owns the land and most of the people in this area who followed the matter with great interest are wondering just what the future method of handling the situation will be. I notice it has been said that there will be public hearings as to what should be done with the land. Again, I'd like to know who owns the land before we can have public hearings to decide what can be done about it. If a private individual owns that land and it's frozen, it's a very dangerous precedent to be having public hearings and having everyone in a community putting in his opinion as to what should be done with somebody else's land. On that basis, I would suggest it's a little less disturbing at least if the provincial government now owns the land on behalf of the people.

I would ask several questions, Mr. Chairman, which I hope the Minister will answer: (1) Who owns the land? (2) What sum of money was paid for that piece of land? (3) What valuations were done on the land and how recent were these valuations?

I'm sorry the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) isn't in his chair, Mr. Chairman, because he has shown an interest and claims that the land, according to the assessment rolls, has a market value of $600,000. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) nods his head in agreement. In that case, to know the price that has been paid for the Reid Centre property is of the greatest importance. So I hope the Minister will tell us who owns it and what was paid for it. When was the most recent evaluation done on the property and what did the evaluation give as a figure?

In terms of further development of the City of Victoria, or an equally important aspect of all this, what about the government's attitude further around the shore to where there's another proposed hotel complex, which in many ways falls within the same line of reasoning?

The municipal government in the City of Victoria is presently negotiating for a land-use contract to permit construction of a high-rise hotel development. I understand that already it's reached the point where a land-use contract has been all but finalized.

Now I think it's reasonable to ask the Minister whether the government plans the same kind of last minute intervention to stall or to prevent this further high-rise development at Laurel Point. I think the Minister 'Would agree that in the light of events regarding the Reid Centre property, it wouldn't be unreasonable for many people in the greater Victoria region and all across British Columbia to wonder if the same kind of last minute action might be taken on that site.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, maybe the waterfront should be completely preserved and kept open for access by everyone. I'm not questioning that that may be a reasonable proposal. The Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) is back in his chair and is giving me lots of encouragement. The fact is that sometimes ideas are very valid and sound, but it's how the authority and the power is used to bring about the desirable goal.

I think that delay and lack of commitment by this government and the eleventh hour action on one site which insight be repeated on another site is certainly not worthy of this government's respect for municipalities, particularly in this case where the City of Victoria wanted very much to work out some mutually satisfactory agreement with the provincial government and apparently was thwarted in this attempt. I'd like the Minister to answer some of the questions I have raised on that particular point.

The only other point I want to raise, Mr. Chairman — and I've certainly no wish to transgress on a bill before the House...and I'm referring to the transit bill. Once again, I've no wish to refer to transit as an issue, but simply to some of the attitudes of this

[ Page 2605 ]

Minister which I find most difficult to accept. When he was on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, he was the most peace — loving, pleasant guy you could ever find. You never thought that if you would put a little power in his hands you would have such a Caesar Augustus.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's just a change of atmosphere.

MR. WALLACE: I probably should be quoting the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) who always talks about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I can never remember the lord who first said that. Acton? Yes, that's right. Anyway, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you give him a little authority, look out, I'm referring in particular to his highly sensitive nature when certain matters regarding public transit were disclosed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that Bill 70 covers virtually every facet of public transit. Therefore, I would ask him to refer to it only in relation to other remarks.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The rules of the House are that a bill has precedence over any other matter. Therefore, if there's a bill on the order paper, we must await that time to debate any matter that is touched on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we subsequently will be having votes 183, 184, and 185: one of which is entitled "transit services division; — another is "metropolitan transit subsidy;" the third is "provincial rapid transit Act." I just wondered if you could bear this in mind when we are discussing this, because perhaps it will be done pretty quickly if we adopt a fairly tolerant attitude toward specific votes in this Minister's estimates which deal with transit matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any Member may discuss the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister in regard to transit. However, any matter which is a matter of proposal, or proposed in this legislation, cannot be touched upon.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respect your ruling and say that I've every intent of merely discussing the administrative responsibility of this Minister.

One of the first things this government ever promised about administration was open government. Some of the statements this Minister has made about his attitude to the regional and municipal elected officials in Vancouver are a disgrace. "Oh," he says, "we mustn't give them undue expectations; so let's keep it all secret."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: "Mr. Lorimer" — I'm quoting from The Province of January 7: "Mr. Lorimer said talks will be in secret because some things were being talked about that would never become fact." Well, there was a good example of that premise right here on the floor of this House.

There's an enormous number of things discussed in public here that never become fact. "To let the public know would mean raising expectations that would be never translated into action." Then, Mr. Chairman — talking about the administrative responsibility of the Minister — in an interview with Chuck Davis on CBC radio, he said:

"Furthermore, if any other information leaked out, the provincial government would simply stop having meetings. It would go it alone and plan and implement rapid transit without any input from the municipal officials."

This is very fierce, dictatorial talk from a man who sat on this side of the House in opposition and took a very reasonable and tolerant approach to municipal affairs — as I recall from many of his speeches.

But to have the Minister suggest first of all that he would insist on total secrecy on the part of elected officials dealing with something which is of the greatest public interest.... It's a topic which is in just about every edition of every newspaper. I would imagine that in every edition of The Province and the Sun there must be several clippings or articles, or comments on rapid transit. I can think of very few issues that are of more interest or concern to urban residents, and not only in Vancouver.

I respect the fact, Mr. Chairman, that specific details regarding routes which might involve property acquisition and discussion of matters affecting personnel involved or people involved require a reasonable measure of secrecy. But this kind of edict from a Minister of a government that talks about open government is just a complete sham and a contradiction to what they claim to stand for.

I gather and maybe the Minister can confirm or deny this that Vancouver Alderman Walter Hardwick originally brought the issue to the surface by protesting that even he couldn't find out what Victoria was up to as far as rapid transit was concerned. "Mr. Lorimer told Davis" — that's Chuck Davis — "that he delivered his secrecy threat to Hardwick personally."

So we don't only have the issue dragged out piecemeal, Mr. Chairman; we find out that earlier on

[ Page 2606 ]

the Minister was using all his political muscle to tell Alderman Hardwick that he would take certain pretty serious actions if there was any further public discussion of the content of transit discussions by duly elected representatives in the city.

We've had a few episodes in this session already about Ministers exercising political muscle in something less than orthodox fashion. It appears that here again we have a Minister who, in administering his department, isn't above descending to tactics which I don't think would come under the heading or description of open government.

In one other matter, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has also shown a very haughty and cavalier attitude to this whole subject of amalgamation. I was interested to hear his comments today. I didn't get them down as quickly as he said them. But he did say something to the effect that he had no wish to add municipalities on top of existing municipalities.

Now I hope the Minister will correct me if I'm misunderstanding that comment. That may not be word for word, as he said it fairly quickly, but I understand — and we've had some of it in question-and-answer period in the House — that a lot of the problems with municipalities result from rapid growth and the difficulty in providing adequate service quickly enough to rapidly growing areas in the province.

That's a fact of life and very understandable. Our population in this province is increasing at 3 per cent per year and there is this great tendency for people to collect in the urban areas. I can see the argument that in some rapidly growing areas some form of amalgamation and co-operation among neighbouring municipalities is probably a good idea.

But how you can equate that premise with the Minister's plans to amalgamate the riding of Oak Bay with parts of the City of Victoria and Saanich I just can't imagine. Oak Bay happens to be one of the oldest municipalities in the province with the greatest degree of development. It hardly has a vacant lot left, it has most of its services which it has put in and paid for over the years. It is a very efficiently and economically run municipality which is anything but afflicted with rapid growth. I just can't understand why it should be so much on the Minister's mind that Oak Bay should be amalgamated with other municipalities. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe the Minister will stand up and put my fears completely at rest.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You're wrong.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister says I'm wrong. Well, maybe I can quit while I'm ahead and take that as an assurance. But I would like him to say it into his microphone when he has the floor so that, like any other diligent politician, I can always refer back to the record in Hansard.

I should just say, though, that, regardless of the merits or otherwise of amalgamating Oak Bay with anything, we had a very blinding revelation of some of the thinking that goes on on that side of the House when the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) expressed his concern about the municipality of Oak Bay because it had too many millionaires. Then, to cap that inaccurate and unfair statement, he went on to say, "And anyway, the NDP will never win Oak Bay."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says he's optimistic. I hope he'll prevail with his sound, Scottish wisdom and point out to the Premier and Minister of Finance that municipalities should all be treated with equity and justice. If we have the Premier and Minister of Finance taking an attitude towards the municipal administration of Oak Bay because he's under the mistaken impression that it has too many millionaire residents, then I think this is a shocking way in which the Minister of Finance and Premier should go about his duties as the leader of the government.

Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) can tell me: Does he intend to amalgamate Oak Bay with other municipalities, and, if so, why and when? Furthermore, I wonder if the Minister would clearly disassociate himself from the statement of the Premier that Oak Bay, because various millionaires reside in that municipality, doesn't need help and the government's lack of interest in the municipality of Oak Bay is based on the fact that they'll never win the seat for the NDP anyway.

These are some of the shocking statements that the Minister has made in relation to secret meetings in discussing transit, arbitrary and total action by the government in regard to the Reid property and, finally, this attitude toward amalgamation as expressed by the Premier in relation to Oak Bay. Maybe the Minister would care to answer some of these questions. But most of all, Mr. Chairman, would he please tell us once and for all: does he wish to amalgamate Oak Bay and, if so, why and when?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was talking about police costs. I agree with him; some of the communities previously had made money on their administration of justice and, as a result, will lose revenue. We have assured the municipalities that at the end of the year when we determine what their losses have been, and so on, those losses will be phased in over a period of years. As the costs of the administration of justice will rise, presumably their returns would have depleted and

[ Page 2607 ]

would have balanced off in a few years. Some will take longer than others. We have agreed with the municipalities; we will deal with each municipality separately in determining the phasing-in programme on the cost of the administration of justice for their losses.

The enumeration, I mentioned, would be approximately 50 per cent. We expect that is about the right figure. We anticipate that the cost of enumerating in the more rural areas of municipalities will be more expensive than the urban areas and, as a result, it may not come out exactly. We have put in $300,000 in the estimates to cover the cost. If more is needed, I think probably I can wangle some more money for that.

As you know, a number of municipalities already did enumerations and covered the whole cost themselves. The province is also supplying the registration forms so that will save a small cost to each municipality in having to prepare those.

B.C. Hydro, as you know, does pay a grant in lieu of taxes as per 100 per cent of the tax, with the exception of some of the dam sites and the transmission lines. As far as their buildings and land holdings are concerned, they give total grant.

You brought up the subject of the concessions. I left it out, but I would indicate to you that at no time did this party ever support the idea of concessions. The concessions were placed not by agreement but were placed in letters patent which were passed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is true enough that some of the old ones were not properly done at the time, and they went through the validating Act subsequently to correct it. But to say we supported the concessions is quite untrue. The removal of the concessions, in fact, has allowed the City of Prince George to reduce its mill rates and has assisted to a great extent in the better financial position of some of the instant towns in the province.

The transit matters. You've mentioned there is a lot of money being spent in the lower mainland, and that's very true. There will be a lot of money because transit is not going to be a profitable operation; it's going to be a cost item — a very severe cost item. But I would point out that a great number of municipalities and cities in the Interior have made requests for planning studies, which we are doing for them, and we hopefully will be able to give exactly the same treatment there as we do at the coast for those communities. Some of them are Prince Rupert, Prince George, Kitimat, Kamloops and others. I believe there are some in the Okanagan.

In answer to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), his information regarding the Reid Centre is not correct. I admit he has statements from the press, which again were not correct in some cases. I would point out that we discussed the matter of the Reid Centre with the three Ministers he referred to plus

Mayor Pollen. We had a lunch and we're in complete agreement that we would proceed with the purchase of the Reid Centre. There are two questions at issue. One was the question of whether the city would come in for 50 per cent with the province or whether the province would pick up the whole amount. Mayor Pollen was to go back to his council, discuss it and let us know. The other item was the question of amount, although the amount, I think, for what the property could be purchased was reasonably clearly established.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Somewhere between 1.5 and 1.7. We had this dinner, and probably it was about five days later — I think it was a Friday or a Thursday — that it was announced they were transferring the options to another group and this was being approved by the city. Why this was done without further discussion or telephone calls to anyone of us who were involved in the meetings, or anyone in cabinet, I'm not able to answer. I tried to figure this out ever since that time. It was some four or five days after this particular meeting that this took place. The action was taken to preserve the area so the people of Victoria could have an opportunity to decide what they want in that particular area.

You asked who owns the property. I believe it is still registered in the name of the Reid Centre, although whether there's any transfer gone through from the Reid Centre I couldn't say. The Province of British Columbia doesn't own it. That's your main question.

The public hearings will take place in May, at which time the people in the area in the city, interested parties, will present their views as to whether Reid Centre should go ahead or what should happen. Then if it does not, if the decision is for another form of development, I presume then we would have to look at the purchase in negotiation with the company for purchase of the property.

You asked about Laurel Point. Mayor Pollen spoke to me about Laurel Point probably a year ago. I don't know when — quite a long time ago. He had some sketches of what they were looking at. That's the last I've heard of it, so I've no idea what the city is intending to do in regard to that area.

You mentioned that I was being dictatorial about transit. That was not a kind statement. But to explain it, throughout the operation of the transit development or expansion, we have continually had discussions with the local councils of the areas in which we were presenting new services, in order that they could assist in determining the routes to be taken. In both North Vancouver and Coquitlam we sent out buses to shopping centres with people to take information from shoppers — what routes they

[ Page 2608 ]

wanted and so on. So we had plenty of input from the local level and from the community level as to the bus routes and that sort of thing.

We found in our discussions with the regional district and with the City of Vancouver that in some cases the reports came out in the paper the next day of things that were discussed as possibilities and things that were not discussed at all. We brought this to their attention. However, this continued.

The next stage of discussion, of course, is the question of the more sophisticated systems of transit, and that entails the purchasing of not only corridors but the purchasing of sites for development at stations and so on. As a result, once a leak is out where a particular station is going to go, the cost of land will soar so high that it would cost the people of the province a great amount of money, a great deal more money than it will by proceeding in secrecy. I agree that it would be very good to have the regional district and the city participating in these discussions, but all I was trying to urge them was that there would have to be secrecy or else the costs of this transit system would be out of reach.

In regard to the ferry terminals, the City of Vancouver is working with us right along on determining the approaches and the area for the southern terminus of the ferry system. In Victoria, of course, we are dealing regularly with the Capital Regional District and with the cities and municipalities involved. So although I've got a reputation for a dictatorial attitude in this regard, I feel it is mostly undeserved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as amalgamation is concerned, there is an obvious need for the areas of Langford, Colwood and View Royal to come within an umbrella of self government somewhere. Now, how it is done, I don't know. Some months ago I requested a meeting with the mayors of the municipalities from Sidney and North Saanich right down through to Esquimalt, and with the representatives of the regional districts of the other three communities. At that stage I suggested to them that there would undoubtedly have to be some action taken in the Colwood–View Royal–Langford areas for their own community. I thought it was a good time for them to look at the whole political structure to determine whether or not the existing boundaries were realistic or whether or not there should be some change in the boundaries, and whether there should be possibly a multiplicity of communities or whether there should be three or four municipalities in this area.

Now that is what the meeting was about and I suggested to them that they have a study and consider it and bring in some suggestions. I haven't had any official suggestions from any of the municipalities at the present time, but it seemed to me that when there was going to probably be a change with reference to the three areas that are unincorporated at the present time, it was a good opportunity for the area to take a good look at itself and see whether it was really in the best interests of the people at large whether or not they stay the way they are. That's as far as I go.

The only suggestions that I have heard made that we do away with Oak Bay have come from the Hon. Member, because he keeps asking questions about them. There's never been from anything I've said....

MR. WALLACE: Nothing you've said publicly. But you've said privately....

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, no. I haven't said anything privately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: Except to the Hon. Member. But certainly if there is a suggestion or a serious request that there be changes, then I would suggest that the decision would be made by the voters in the whole area. I am considering preparing possibilities of six or seven different options for people in the area to consider to have a debating point on, but that's as far as I've gone.

MR. WALLACE: Just one or two quick questions. On that last point, I'm still uneasy when the Minister answers the question about amalgamation by saying there will be several options and the decisions will be by the people of the whole area. I wonder if he is referring to the total regional area, or is he talking about the total people in just the municipalities that would be involved? If, for example, Oak Bay were destined to become Victoria East, would it just be the total voters in the combined municipalities concerned, or the total people in the whole regional district? If that kind of vote is held, why should it matter two hoots to some people in one municipality what happens to another one they are having no connection with?

So while the Minister tells me my fears are groundless, I'm just saying that there is too much uncertainty on this whole subject of amalgamation and I think that when we debate the administrative responsibility of the Minister's department, there would never be a better time to try and pin down precisely what the Minister has in mind, if and when certain municipalities are to be asked their views on amalgamation. Perhaps the Minister could give me a little more specific detail.

[ Page 2609 ]

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

On the second question, I would like to clarify on the Reid Centre. I'm sure the Minister's statement is correct and some wrong impressions have been created, unfortunately. I take the Minister's word, as he has said it, that he had a meeting with the mayor and with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). Can I ask the Minister in regard to his mentioning a 50-50 cost sharing proposal if he would tell the House if the government, or at least the three Ministers concerned, made a specific commitment to Mayor Pollen telling him that if, in fact, the City of Victoria was willing to pay half, the provincial government would pay half? Or was this simply a tentative figure that was being kicked around and that might be something they could go into greater detail later?

The facts as described by the Minister leave me with a clear implication that the government offered to go 50-50 on the cost of buying the Reid site, that the mayor went back to city council and that the government heard nothing more about it. Now, if that's what happened, then of course I think the people of the greater Victoria area want to know the exact facts because it would appear, in light of what the Minister has just told the House, that the City of Victoria council did not come back to the government for any further discussion or exploration of the 50-50 proposal.

That is my understanding, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, of your remarks and I would most sincerely ask the Minister to leave no details unexplained, because there are many, many people in this area of the greater Victoria region who are very confused and unhappy, not only over the way it's dragged out over a long period of time, but over the uncertainty generated over the issue.

There's one last question I'd like to ask. Since the Minister has not been approached in the last year or so — I respect his approximate term of a year regarding the Laurel Point complex — would he have any comment to make on being told now that there is a large multi-million-dollar hotel-apartment complex to be built at Laurel Point? The Premier has left the chamber again, but I think it might be interesting....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I want to get closer to you.

MR. WALLACE: He wants to get closer to the Member for Oak Bay. That can be serious, Mr. Chairman, when one side wants to get too close to the other; but he's on the right side of the House.

I would just like to quote the Premier's words when he was opening the Inner Harbour promenade.

He said at the causeway opening:

"So, Mr. Mayor, while you may find some news coming in the next few days that may be in conflict with the immediate desires of city council, rest assured that the provincial government intends to back up that action with sums of money to ensure you the possibility of developing this city in an open, warm and friendly manner."

It would just seem to me, Mr. Chairman — and I think the Minister should explain to the House — that it seems rather ridiculous to put out perhaps in the neighbourhood of $1.5 million on the Reid Centre property when just literally around the corner we have another high-rise, a huge multi-million-dollar complex, almost on the point of beginning at Laurel Point.

In the light of the Premier's statement that they obviously value the waterfront and have taken action on this one site and now that the issue is here for public debate, will the Minister consider any action in trying to acquire the Laurel Point site so that the same aesthetic and environmental consideration which led the government to act on the Reid site property might prevail and pertain to the Laurel Point property?

I'm not again necessarily saying that the government should do this. But I think, to be consistent.... The whole Inner Harbour is an important piece of real estate, not only to the people who five here, but for every person from B.C. and every part of Canada and elsewhere who comes to visit greater Victoria. Again, the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) cheers loudly. With the Member for Esquimalt cheering and the Premier sitting so close to me, I feel that we're really making progress on this whole issue, Mr. Chairman.

But, seriously, would the Minister enlarge on these points I've raised?

HON. MR. LORIMER: On the Laurel Point thing I think we may be a little premature. As you know, the whole concept...as I remember it, there was the closing off of Belleville Street before anything could be done there. It would require government action to close Belleville Street. And there's been no application, either formally or informally, of the City of Victoria for the closing of Belleville Street.

So I would rather not get into the ifs and buts and so on about the things until there has been some proposal made. As I understand it at the present time there are some discussions going on by some developer in that area. I might say that if we're interested in the Reid Centre, we're obviously interested in Laurel Point. But I can't forecast what action might be taken here.

Now you ask about further information on the Reid Centre. No, when we met with the mayor, we

[ Page 2610 ]

didn't say definitely that we would buy. What we said was that it would have to be a cabinet decision, but that we didn't anticipate any difficulty whatever that our recommendations would be accepted by cabinet. There's that qualification. But we told them that we didn't anticipate any difficulty in that regard. So that's about where it was. Now it's up to the city to decide whether they want to come in 50-50 or to allow the province to proceed the whole way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off by referring to a subject which came up in question period. It was the question of investment and the housing that's generated by that investment. This is particularly appropriate during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs because that essentially is where the bottleneck lies.

If we are to have housing in B.C. In a mix which people can choose — namely, purchase, condominium, rental, multi-unit, or whatever — we are going to have to consider what has provided housing up to now, where the bottlenecks are and where indeed we can make changes.

Now we've heard from the Premier that he has no wish to continue the flow of foreign investment from overseas, in particular from Hong Kong. Apparently, according to a report put out by the real estate board of greater Vancouver entitled, "The Impact of Foreign Investment in Commercial and Multiple Family Residential Real Estate in the Greater Vancouver Area" — it came out last month, prepared by P.S. Ross and Partners — the foreign investors have been a major factor in stimulating housing and housing construction. This is, in particular, the multiple-family dwelling.

They talk of $60 million in foreign equity which flowed into Vancouver area real estate in 1973. They talk about 5,000 jobs being the result of this, and 15,000 to 20,000 jobs being in turn dependent in a secondary way on that investment flow. They say that in balance there appears to be "a strong positive socio-economic impact resulting from the flow of foreign investment into multiple-family housing and commercial real estate in the Vancouver area."

It goes on to talk about the more adequate housing stocks which have resulted from foreign investment because of the inability or unwillingness of local or Canadian investors to provide the funds required. It goes on finally to talk about the serious negative impact of cutting off this flow in a sudden manner.

I don't know how good the report of P.S. Ross is. I'm not an expert in the field. I don't know how it's been analyzed by the Vancouver Real Estate Board. But there's no question that there is a substantial amount of money going into housing at the present time; and there is no question that to cut it off suddenly will have some sort of dislocative impact.

I'm particularly concerned about this at the present time because, Mr. Minister, the ability to pay for development costs of service lots depends to a very large extent upon capital. The municipalities at the present time are extremely reluctant to service lots, to put lots on the market within their municipalities.

I was speaking to a couple of mayors of the greater Vancouver area and they were telling me that you lose $275 in the first year, which is a direct loss to the municipality resulting from having another single-family unit established in their communities. They point out that because of the increased costs that result from servicing of all sorts — police, lighting, curbs, roads, et cetera — there is no real incentive whatsoever on them to encourage having serviced lots put on the market and no incentive on them whatsoever to have subdivisions approved.

Now these gentlemen, both of them, were adamant that the present situation, with the lack of financing they get and the lack of help they get from the Minister's department, has created a situation in which the municipalities which have the ultimate control in the areas where people apparently wish to live — and we apparently have an 80 per cent urban population — that these municipal authorities simply have no wish whatsoever to proceed.

They're apparently willing to stall and willing to delay. They simply don't want to saddle their municipalities with extra costs at a time when their budgets are extremely tight, thanks to the actions of this Minister and his budget and estimates that we are discussing today.

The result, of course, is that we have a total bottleneck. The only way to overcome it is by loading the servicing costs of the lot on the initial purchaser. And the only way to succeed is of course to find a purchaser of that serviced lot who has a large amount of capital to buy up a high-cost lot. The way we've done that in the past may not be the best way. But the way it's been done up to now to a large extent is to find offshore capital to do that. I'm thinking now. In particular of the multiple-family unit which will be used for rental.

Now I would like the Minister to comment upon this because we had a few questions today which were unsatisfactory, at least as far as I was concerned. The Minister of Finance was apparently unaware of the impact of this capital upon the actual new construction of rental accommodation in the city of greater Vancouver. I wonder whether the Minister himself, in considering his estimates and the amount of money he's providing to municipalities, has gone into some calculation of what the effect will be of a bar, or severe restrictions, upon overseas capital coming in.

The municipalities quite clearly are not going to put serviced lots on the market or service lots unless

[ Page 2611 ]

they can be sure of getting back a substantial chunk of money directly and very quickly from the developer or from the purchaser. They are not getting that at the present time to the degree they would like from Canadians. The result is, of course, a gap which at least, in the case of rental accommodation, foreign capital is filling.

As a general principle, I think most of us here would accept the Premier's statement, which is that we would prefer to have Canadian investors serve this particular function. I hear the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) agreeing with me. But regardless of what our desires are, regardless of what the objective is, are we creating an even greater short-run problem in the area of housing in the municipalities by curbing this capital inflow and, at the same time, doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to encourage the municipalities to service lots?

I would like to point out that what we have been given today and yesterday has been the same type of notice to speculators as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) gave to speculators in the agricultural land deals in late 1972 when he went to a meeting of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, I believe it was, in New Westminster and announced they would be bringing in measures soon to deal with the problem. He set off the biggest land rush since the Oklahoma land rush of the last century.

I don't know whether we are going to see the same thing in this instance, but I certainly trust that instead of simply announcing future policy objectives and potential curbs, the government has something up its sleeve very, very quickly indeed. Unless we do, we have just given notice to these speculators to rush in. "Do it now, boys, because later on we're going to get after you." I sure hope there is some information coming up very quickly about legislation which, of course, I cannot at this time talk about.

On a second point, I'd like to mention the tax revenue on provincial buildings. I understand from the Minister that the Government of British Columbia and the City of Victoria have finally settled the garbage problem and the cost of clearing out all that waste paper Members like the Minister and myself like to throw into our wastepaper baskets every day. I trust that has all been resolved, and I believe it has. Perhaps he would like to indicate whether or not that problem between the city and provincial government has been resolved.

On the question of the 15 mill levy, there simply aren't adequate funds available in the grant given by the provincial government in lieu of domestic and local taxes. I trust this problem will be considered by the Minister.

It is all very weft for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to talk about regional governments and municipal governments treating the provincial government as a third-class citizen in their approach to applications from ICBC or any other provincial Crown corporation. But if the municipalities and the citizens of those municipalities are to suffer as a result of granting zoning applications which permit Crown corporations and the provincial government to establish offices or something else — maybe a claims centre or something of that nature — it is quite clear they have no wish to get into deals of that nature.

I refer the Minister to the statement by the Minister of resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) when he was talking at the Delta Chamber of Commerce and said the government is planning incentives and disincentives for municipalities if they do not change zoning in accordance with the desires of the provincial government. Surely this is the responsibility not of the Minister of resources but the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If he plans to overrule or set up the mechanisms for overruling the municipalities in their zoning jurisdiction when it comes to housing developments, I think this is the time to make it more clear. The statement by the Minister of resources was a straight threat and it is time the government as a whole came up with a clear policy in that regard.

I would like to say a word or two about Westside, the area of Kamloops on which I've questioned the Minister before in question period and failed totally to receive adequate responses. Here is a situation where, because of the Highways department's mistakes, the flooding problem and the drainage problem was severe. The provincial government, in turn, by unilateral action of the Minister, went out and amalgamated that particular area with the City of Kamloops and did nothing to provide them with the financial resources to handle this specific problem caused by the failure of the Department of Highways at an earlier time.

I wonder whether the Minister could today inform this House and the people of Kamloops through this House that the whole problem has been resolved and that funds will be made available to deal with specific problems of this nature which occurred prior to the municipality taking over that area and prior to it being forced to take over that area by the provincial government's decision.

On the Reid Centre, I was very, very interested indeed by the Minister's statement. The Minister went on to say that there had been a meeting with the city authorities — I should say the mayor — and that four or five days went by after this amicable meeting, at which time the 50 per cent or the 100 per cent provincial financing formula was discussed. They were very surprised to find suddenly that at a council meeting a decision was made to transfer the land-use contract from Reid to a hotel chain, Commonwealth Holiday Inns.

It is very curious that the Minister should say this

[ Page 2612 ]

inasmuch as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), as I understand, was kept fully informed at all times. It was with considerable concern that the mayor, when he was discussing this, found he could not get a decision out of the provincial government. As there was an existing land-use contract between Reid and the city, he felt that at that time he would have to proceed and transfer it as requested.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): What you're saying is a lot of rubbish.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Public Works states that the mayor's explanation, as given by me....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the mayor's explanation as given by me. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll go back. The Minister simply states that it's a lot of rubbish. But the city is very concerned about this property and the Minister rightly says he is too; no question on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Minister?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who seems to think he has your job, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The mayor's point of view was that the difficulty lay with getting the provincial government to make a decision either on a 50 per cent or a 100 per cent basis. The failure of the government to come up with a decision led to the transfer of the land-use contract and a subsequent repurchase by the provincial government at a figure which we are told is between $1.5 and $1.7 million and which is apparently greater than it otherwise would have been had the provincial government come up with a decision earlier.

Well, I don't know whether the mayor or the Ministers concerned, the Minister of Public Works, who is quick to say it's all a lot of rubbish, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I said what you said was a lot of rubbish.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you can speak in this debate too, Mr. Minister of Public Works, if you wish. Any time you would like to speak up, you can. You can get to your feet; just the regular procedure. The Minister of Public Works is very touchy on this; he keeps interrupting. But there is very definitely a discrepancy between the two stories. I think it would be well worthwhile for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to meet with the mayor and straighten this out. A lot of public money is involved. The fact that the stories are not contradictory but vary at least in some details, and in important details, is something of concern in particular to residents of Victoria.

I don't like the concept of the provincial government stepping in on top of municipal councils and ruling them out of order. I think that is unattractive. It has been done by this government frequently, but I don't like it at all. I think if we constantly interfere with the municipal level of government, as the Minister has done and as other members of his government have done, we will dissuade good and responsible members of the public from running for these offices. They will feel there is really no point in taking anything seriously; whatever you do will simply be overruled by the provincial government if they don't like it. Therefore, the responsibility will not be there and there is no point in devoting a great amount of time and effort to serving on municipal councils. I think that would be very serious indeed.

We're seeing far too much centralization in Victoria by this Minister. We're seeing far too many people who live in the province, but who are governed by regional government or municipal government, having the views of their elected representatives ignored by the Victoria government.

I won't mention the Gulf Islands case because that's legislation. But that's not the only one. The Reid Centre case is another example. There have been plenty more. Rapid transit in Vancouver — which I'll mention in a moment — is another case of this. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if we are to get local people interested in their communities and to do good work on local councils, we are going to have to stop this interference.

The example was given in a press story of the fact that it's the province's right to overrule anything that the municipality does, and that's true, but it's also in the British North America Act that it's the federal government's right to overrule a provincial government's decision. They have the right of disallowance, but for the federal government to use it in a frivolous manner or in a capricious manner would be absurd.

I think the same should hold true with respect to the province and the municipalities. These people are elected by their fellow citizens; they're elected to perform certain duties. Obviously they must have contact with the provincial government, there must be coordination, but this constant overruling of local

[ Page 2613 ]

decisions is something which I think will totally destroy effective municipal government in the Province of British Columbia, simply because people won't think it's worth doing.

I would like to ask the Minister on another point about the relationship of B.C. Hydro and the Bureau of Transit. I think that when the provincial government owns B.C. Hydro it's essentially providing transport to the province, but we seem to have an unnecessary level of administration interfering in a manner which does not give the ordinary citizen the best service for his dollar. Why is it necessary to have that when you indeed do control through another Minister B.C. Hydro? What is the failure of B.C. Hydro in this regard? Why is it that we have to have an extra and unnecessary level of government here? I'm sure you could have them integrated and we would avoid the present two-headed situation where responsibility is not clear and where expenses multiply as each arm of the government tries to justify its superiority or its position and tries to suggest its superiority over the other.

Another point I'd like to raise is the municipal grant's use of the census of previous years — the five-year census — for calculation of municipal grants. I feel that it should be quite possible for growing municipalities — and I'll refer to the municipality of Surrey which has been discussed in another context in this House. There they have an additional 7,000 people over and above what the census figures say they have. The result is, of course, that they're being deprived of money from the provincial government for the people who actually reside there when it comes to municipal grants. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what steps he plans or, if I've missed them, what steps he's taken to resolve that difficulty.

The question of transit I think is again interesting. If the provincial government wishes to force certain bus services upon municipalities, surely it's up to the government to provide the wherewithal for it out of perhaps the gasoline tax. If the objective of the exercise is to persuade people to take the bus instead of taking their private vehicles when they go downtown to work — I'm thinking in particular of the greater Vancouver area here, because that's where the problem has been most acute — why doesn't the government provide the revenues out of gasoline tax and thus avoid the question of having the homeowner saddled with an extra two mills to provide a service which has no real relationship or relevance to his home and to his lot? If it is to be pushed anywhere other than general revenue, surely it should be pushed upon the gasoline tax and therefore you penalize the people who drive and you encourage the people to take the bus. But to push it onto the shoulders of the homeowner, who may well be taking the bus and trying hard to act in a responsible social manner, is obviously wrong. I trust the Minister will give us something on that, because it's a source of real frustration for the municipalities and in particular for the individuals there.

I wonder whether the Minister also could 'indicate to the House whether he's been able to work out some better relationship with the City of Vancouver and greater Vancouver in terms of rapid transit. I'm thinking now of his statement that streetcars were going to be the answer. Then the mayor came back and said they had to be underground, which turned them into a subway, and there's been dispute ever since as to what's what.

Surely if we are going to enter into extraordinarily expensive rapid transit proposals, we should have a little more knowledge, a little more certainty, a little more in the way of background studies so that it's not just a question of argument between two elected officials. The City of Bonn in West Germany does not expect to have its trench up and down its main road, where they're building a subway, to be completed for almost a decade. The City of Tokyo spent many, many years building the subway extensions which were constructed for the Olympic Games essentially prior to that time. The whole city was tied up in knots. If we're to have the same thing in the City of Vancouver, I think that it should be based at least on adequate studies and knowledge of what is going on and not simply charge and countercharge between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the mayor of Vancouver itself and the mayors of the other municipalities. Surely we can have something a little more clear and we can Work out the mechanisms of consultation and control which would avoid the problems we now have.

I'd just like to finish, Mr. Chairman, on the question of amalgamation. I have a clipping here of April 5 dealing with Nanaimo and district. There's a committee which has been set up to study amalgamation of the surrounding area. They're studying the question of fire services and other things which need to be amalgamated. This clipping, which is April 5 and may well be out of date — perhaps the Minister can inform me of new developments — talks about how the whole thing has ground to a halt because essentially they don't know what the provincial government intends to do. They want additional funds for their study and yet the government apparently has declined to give them the funds that they have asked for. The committee is quite unable to come up with firm recommendations, this article points out, because of the provincial government's lack of clarity in its amalgamation plans.

If we are to have amalgamation forced upon areas such as the amalgamation that took place in Kamloops, and such as the amalgamation that took place in Kelowna, then surely other areas which are

[ Page 2614 ]

threatened by this should be dealt with as quickly as possible so that we don't have the present situation of people being unable to put forward fire protection services because they don't know where the boundaries are going to be drawn by the Minister's office in the future for the general area that they're trying to provide services for. Nanaimo is a pretty good case, and I wonder whether the Minister would indicate to us what steps have been taken to deal with that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I was wondering what newspaper that was. Was that The Vancouver Sun?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Sun on April 5.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, that account is quite untrue — it's very far from the truth. The committee in Nanaimo is working very well. There's been no refusal to give them financial assistance in their study. Where the reporter would get that kind of information I'm at a loss to understand, but I can assure you there is no validity in it.

You made mention of the report of the Vancouver Real Estate Board. You opened a pretty big subject there, and I might say that my Associate Deputy Minister is meeting with a group of elected people from the Greater Vancouver Regional District next week and the subject will be basically the question that you were discussing. I have no ready answer for that problem at the time. Of course, as far as extension of lines and so on, in the housing budget there are some funds for helping municipalities with the installation of services. Also there maybe should be some type of incentive programme along with that. But those items are under very active consideration.

I'm advised by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) that the paper problem between the Public Works department and Victoria has been settled. I don't know, but that's what I'm told. Westside Road — I can't answer the question if it's been resolved or not. I've been discussing the matter with the mayor for some time and also with the Department of Highways, and I'm presuming that it's resolved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It doesn't come through me — the money part. I'm hoping it's resolved and I presume it's resolved. I'm not saying for sure, but it will be resolved if it isn't resolved.

I think I've discussed the Reid Centre pretty fully. If you're not in favour of the government taking action there, there will be public hearings and you can go and speak in favour of the erection of the Reid Centre.

The transit bureau — the reason for the transit bureau, of course, was to study and look after transit throughout the province, not just in Victoria and Vancouver. The B.C. Hydro is an operator under the transit bureau for services in the areas.

Subways are in the future. The modern term for streetcar is light rail. Everyone is opposed to streetcars, but they are all in favour of light rail. It's the same thing, except that there's a different type of model — that's all. Light rail can easily be turned into subways. It's a question of eventually having a subway in Vancouver, the necessity of which I think is pretty clear.

At the present time, I am suggesting that light rail could be used in Vancouver and throughout a large area of the regional district. They will move people much faster than buses and will not interfere nearly as much with vehicular traffic. I suggest that the light rail will be the first step; the second step would be the subway.

I might say that regarding the planning of this there are plans going along in conjunction with the City of Vancouver and the transit bureau in these studies. We'll be getting together from time to time and comparing what has been done up until now and looking to the future and trying to determine when the need may be there for the subway.

I agree with you that it will take a number of years from the completion of the planning stage to the running of the subway. It will take a number of years — I would guess five or six.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): And the Islands, Mr. Chairman.

There are two or three points I'd like to raise with the Minister in discussing his estimates. I heard his earlier remarks on the subject of enumeration and I welcome that observation which was made some time earlier, too. But I hope that the Minister understands that it is an additional expense for municipalities which was not expected. In this area Victoria city, Saanich, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Sidney and Central Saanich — which is just about all the municipalities — their first estimate, Mr. Chairman, was around $84,000 to $85,000 to enumerate this year. In addition, of course, there was an estimate late in 1973 of about $35,000 for the regional district electoral areas. So it isn't cheap. It's just one more item to add to an already fairly heavy municipal load.

Esquimalt, as an example, indicated that projected costs for this undertaking, including the necessary equipment and materials, would be about $7,000. That was an estimate on March 1 and, indeed, by the time the work is done it may be found that the cost is going to be considerably more.

I wonder if the Minister would like to comment,

[ Page 2615 ]

Mr. Chairman, on the possibility of some government department or departments having a look at a single voters list. I've raised this subject before, even before I came to this Legislature. It seems to me that with electronic data processing and some very sophisticated techniques available to us, we could have a voters list which would serve more than one level of government and more than one purpose. There could be a list which certainly could be put into operation for both provincial and regional/municipal elections. I realize that the Minister has no responsibility for the mechanism leading to provincial elections, but it seems rather wasteful to have enumerators now chasing around to every home in British Columbia for three purposes at least — federal, provincial and municipal or regional elections. I would hope that if he hasn't looked at that, he would comment on it and perhaps initiate some cabinet discussion which might prove very, very useful.

Apart from the cost there is the inconvenience of being canvassed on more than one occasion — sometimes quite close together, in the case of a provincial and a federal election.

I feel, Mr. Chairman, that there is a lack of liaison between the Department of Municipal Affairs and other departments of the provincial government. I don't necessarily blame the Department of Municipal Affairs for this. It has been traditionally a small department but one gets the feeling from time to time that there is a tendency on the part of other departments to overlook Municipal Affairs. Perhaps they look upon it as being purely concerned with cities, district municipalities and towns.

There was an example earlier this year which I found rather troublesome. It was a reference by a senior official in the Department of Agriculture to a regulation dealing with agriculture soil conservation, to be precise. The reference was to municipalities, to regional districts and to "all other areas of the province." That shows, frankly, pretty poor homework on the part of the official concerned, because surely more people in provincial government service should realize that regional districts cover all of British Columbia. It may seem like a small point, but I also feel from time to time there isn't the consultation between the Attorney-General's department and Municipal Affairs, and there isn't consultation between the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and Municipal Affairs.

Again I emphasize that I'm not sure that this is the fault of the Minister whose estimates we are debating now. Perhaps he should adopt a slightly higher profile from time to time. No doubt about it, the Department of Municipal Affairs is very important and not just to a few elected officials — the mayors and aldermen and regional district directors. It affects an increasingly large percentage of the total population in British Columbia. As such, that department should be consulted, I think, to a far greater extent when action by another government department is under consideration when something is being contemplated.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister could also tell us, on something which relates directly to his responsibility, what he intends to do about enabling municipalities to legally require subdividers to contribute land or cash in lieu of land for public use within that subdivision. I would have thought that this would be one of the first steps taken by this new government along with foreign ownership and public disclosure and other matters. But nothing has happened on this one. We know that some municipalities are doing it and it's a fairly dicey situation for them, because as far as I am able to determine, and I believe as far as the Union of B.C. Municipalities is able to determine, they do not have that right by provincial statute.

Surely this is something which should be acted upon very quickly. Municipalities who do it are on thin ice and they should be supported by provincial legislation. The Minister, I would think, would have to acknowledge that a subdivider is going to realize considerable profit in some instances by creating lots out of a piece of raw land. Yet — I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong — I know of nothing on the statutes which permits a municipality to demand that subdivider to give a certain percentage of his land or, if that is not practical with the size of the subdivision, then to give a percentage equivalent to the land which he would normally donate — 10 per cent, 12 per cent, whatever the figure might be (8 per cent is pretty popular with this government). But this land should be insisted upon by the municipality with the full support of provincial law behind the municipality, and that land should be made available for public use in perpetuity.

I would like some comments on that. This isn't only to provide land for people in the subdivision which is being created, but clearly for the benefit of the community at large.

Per capita grants were raised earlier but I don't believe this particular aspect was touched upon, Mr. Chairman, and that is some form of per capita grant to electoral areas of regional districts. This has been the subject of discussion, I would think, with the UBCM in recent months — although I have no direct information on that particular point. But the Minister must know that many regions, particularly those more rural in nature with a lot of electoral areas or with large electoral areas, are finding it expensive to provide services to the electoral areas. We have a per capita grant structure for municipalities. Surely there is merit then, on a sliding scale basis, in a lower per capita grant to the regional district on behalf of residents of the electoral areas concerned.

Now this is a matter for the Minister of Finance

[ Page 2616 ]

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) to finally rule upon, I recognize, but it's clearly within this Minister's jurisdiction in terms of recommendation. I'm sure that he has received a submission on this from a number of regional districts, particularly those in the north and in the Interior of the province.

There is every justification, in my view, for some direct dollar assistance to those electoral areas through the regional district. It should not be the full amount made available to municipalities for obvious reasons, because of the sophistication of the services provided by the municipalities in many instances. There is justification, I submit, for a smaller per capita grant on that particular scale.

I have some other points, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps the Minister would like to respond to these now.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to ask the Minister if he could give us specific suggestions as to what their programme for the Victoria area is in rapid transit. I understand we've had some difficulty in acquiring sufficient buses to implement the programme that he would like to start, but I wonder if he could give us a few more details on it.

Could he please also advise the House what the programmes are for a park-and-ride system, particularly for the employees of this building — for the precinct area — in order to remove some of the vehicles from this area and remove them from the core of the city? Do they have any specific plans for parking areas outside the core of the city and any form of transportation from those areas to the precinct area?

He has covered to some degree the Reid property. I think it's a little unfortunate that obviously the Minister hasn't had much communication with the city or with some of his other Ministers, but I would like him to tell us what the programme is for the Inner Harbour area, specifically the area directly north of the Reid development where those old, perhaps historic, buildings — such as the rock buildings right directly next to the Reid property — perhaps heritage buildings. Then coming south from the Reid property what is the intention now for the Ocean Cement property? Are you going to acquire that, now that the city has it? What are you going to do with the Black Ball Ferry property which is now ours? Are you negotiating with Marathon Realty for the CPR area?

We have discussed a little bit the CIL property, the Bapco Paint property — whichever you want to refer to it as — but let's now go across the waterway to the other side. Do you have any plans for what used to be the Sidney Roofage property and the area from there up to the Johnson Street bridge? The Inner Harbour is a complete area and we can't talk about only the south and the east side, which is the city side of it.

Have you any programmes planned at this moment to utilize the former railroad bed from the City of Victoria to Sidney? For example, parts of that area are still available. They haven't yet been built on and perhaps we have a rapid transit corridor there available.

I'd also like to talk about the railroad area to Shawnigan Lake from the City of Victoria. There has been a lot of discussion as to how some of that roadbed might be used for bicycle paths. It's a pretty wide area and nothing appears to be happening with it. The government has made a number of announcements as to railroads on the mainland, particularly utilizing old engines, but there is a young entrepreneur here who'd like to utilize an old engine on part of that railroad, out around Six Mile bridge. Is anything being done to encourage him? Is any of that track being made available so that he could use it?

Just to change the subject for a minute, could he advise us also when his department plans to settle with the shareholders of Vancouver Island Transportation? That arrangement apparently was concluded some time ago but I understand that many of the shareholders have not yet received their money. Having now acquired that company, could he tell us what they intend to do with it? Are they going to operate it just as the former shareholders did, or do they plan to expand it?

On that area as well, could he tell us what's happening with the Saanich commuter bus service that operates out of Sidney? Are they negotiating with the owner of that business and if so what is the current status of that?

Could he tell us if there are any plans for the development of the E & N Rail lines even beyond Shawnigan Lake, back into the Youbou area?

He realizes, I'm sure, that any time we put in a rapid transit system, regardless of whether it's light rail, or road system, or bus system or whatever, you do have a tremendous influence on the growth in the area that touches that system. You will have considerable influence on the housing developments in the areas that it goes through and where 'it terminates. It is a very critical issue in the lower part of the Vancouver Island area, particularly the Saanich peninsula area, as to how the housing development will grow, and I understand that they have given us an indication of the growth that you're going to permit into the Saanich peninsula. I wonder if you could comment on that particular section also. I have a few other questions to put later.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In answer to the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), the single voters fist is one of the main items for the enumeration. It seems to me the sensible thing to have a joint voters list and it would be helpful, I

[ Page 2617 ]

think, eventually to turn that into a voters list that will be useful for federal, provincial and municipal operations. This is the first step towards that. If there is any municipality that is suffering because of high costs regarding enumeration, we will take a look at it.

You were saying that I wasn't tough enough with some of my colleagues who make statements regarding some areas of municipal jurisdictions. It just reminds me that your colleague called me "Caesar Augustus" and you call me "Casper Milquetoast," so we have a problem there.

A number of the other items were fairly subjective, I think. I agree with a number of items that you mentioned regarding the question of exchanging land or cash for public use in subdivisions. This will be discussed fully, as I mentioned at the meeting with Mr. Pretty and the people in the Vancouver Regional District. This was one of the topics of discussion and how this is best worked out, so we're moving along on that.

In answer to the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) we are hoping for and expect 30 buses for the Victoria area this year, providing deliveries are no more than three or four months late, or else it will be early next year. At that time we will then be able to redesign the whole transit system, in co-operation with Victoria and Saanich and Esquimalt, covering the whole area and redesigning it probably to better serve, we hope, the public that will be using the systems.

The park-and-ride is being looked into. The site hasn't been located. The sites that were mentioned by the Hon. Member were looked at and were considered not to be appropriate. They wanted them farther out.

The question of the rail. Victoria is very fortunate in the amount of rails that they have and we are trying to preserve them all for use, as you say, for future transit or possibly some transit in the short-term as well. But we are trying to preserve the whole thing so that it can be used.

The question of the private operators and so on is being worked out one way or another.

On the Vancouver Island Coach Lines, as you know there's a basic agreement that we will buy Vancouver Island Coach Lines. At the present time we haven't bought it. They are still operating their company. I would say at the end of the session.

MR. MORRISON: Are you going to change it, or are you going to leave it as it is?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, I think basically the way it is. There will be changes, of course. There will be different lines put in and expanded, but the services will be there.

I agree with you as far as the inner centre — the Reid Centre. The rest of it all ties in, but I would hope that there would be complete agreement between the City of Victoria, Esquimalt and the areas around as to what was done with that particular area you discussed.

MR. MORRISON: When the Minister refers to complete agreement in that inner area, I'm sure he appreciates that what happened in the Reid Centre was, to put it mildly, unfortunate and expensive. I hope that that same sort of thing isn't going to happen in the Bapco Paint area. I realize you said that no one has asked you yet to close those streets off, but someone is spending a great deal of money in programmes and obviously would like to proceed.

It's really unfair to a developer and to the city to have no understanding of what the government's intentions are in that area, and I think it's only fair that you should tell them as quickly as possible rather than wait until they've done all the things that they believe they should have done in the hope that they can proceed and then suddenly find that there's a freeze on that piece again. I'm sure that applies to the other pieces that I referred to, particularly the ones on the west side of the waterfront. The development, orderly or otherwise in that area, really depends in your department.

It would indicate to me also that before too many years the Work point Barracks area might become available, because the federal government does not appear to be spending any money in that area or expanding it, and it would indicate to me that probably in the not-too-distant future you can see this area become available to the municipality or to the provincial government. Have you any plans for that complete area? That whole Inner Harbour. Is pretty important to this city.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I thought we did have complete agreement on the Reid Centre, but apparently we didn't. If and when any development comes into the Bapco Paint site...we own the property in the middle of the development, as I understand it. If I was the developer and was going to spend money, I would certainly discuss the matter with the people who own the property I am trying to develop.

MR. MORRISON: Have you heard from the developer of that area?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I've had not a word from them.

MR. MORRISON: Incredible!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I don't intend to spend very much time with the Minister at all. When he opened the estimates this afternoon, however, he left the suggestion that the

[ Page 2618 ]

cities and municipalities were never happier. He actually said that, Mr. Chairman.

I thought of the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) from that dreadful old Social Credit government, that departed Minister who few people regret having passed — mostly because he used to say those kinds of things. At least he had a little more behind him than a cheap, niggling, crummy $2 per capita to offer to the cities and municipalities of British Columbia.

That's the kind of background against which that Minister got up and suggested that the cities and municipalities were happy. I'll tell you that if they are, every last mayor and alderman ought to be kicked out of office by the public. Because that kind of grant from the government is simply not good enough for the public, who will bear the consequences of this on their property taxes.

The other area which the provincial government has entered into as policy, which I say should be unacceptable to the property owner and to city councils, is the idea that municipalities must share transit losses.

They are to be nailed for two mills. I suggest that if the Minister does not radically change his policies, that figure will go up two, three, four or fivefold. I warn the property owners of our urban areas: do not fall for this or for the Minister's transit programmes, because they are impractical and will be a financial disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that for the past four or five years people have been talking utter nonsense when it comes to urban transit in the greater Vancouver area and the greater Victoria area. I don't regret the passing of the streetcar one little bit. I remember it....

AN HON. MEMBER: How about that wine? Do you regret that? (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I sure regret three of those wines I tasted last Thursday, Mr. Member, and I don't intend to taste them again for quite some time. I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was merely trying to speak the truth. That's what I'm trying to do today. I'm quite sure I'll offend very many people who have been living in a dream world about rapid transit.

In the Bay area, which is a much larger urban area than greater Vancouver, people came to believe in a myth that you could revive the old streetcar or its equivalent. They built a system, a multi-billion dollar system, in the belief that people would switch from the convenience of their automobiles to a type of transit system that went out 30 years ago. The people didn't switch because the system was non-competitive in speed and convenience.

For that reason rapid transit is a disaster, a financial disaster. That's in an area that started from a far better base than anything we have in British Columbia.

The federal government of the United States recently supported another model programme. It was to move people between one campus, the University of West Virginia, and another. The federal government of the United States is considering abandoning that programme after spending $69 million on it — nearly five times what the original cost was projected to be. Why? Because it's totally impractical in competition with the speed and convenience of the automobile.

I don't want to go back to the bad old days of streetcars in the City of Vancouver. They were noisy, they were cumbersome, they were slow, and they were inconvenient. You took them because there wasn't any other choice. The Minister of Municipal Affairs suggests we should go back to the streetcar. I say it would be a "streetcar named disaster" if we were to attempt that kind of thing again.

Mr. Chairman, it's fun to ride a streetcar once every 10 years for the sake of nostalgia. That's just to do something that you did a long time ago to remember your childhood or some bygone era. But for everyday, practical convenience streetcars are terrible. They go on rails; they're out in the middle of the road; people are running back and forth where they can get killed; they are not rapid; they are not convenient. The public will not use them.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "What about trolley buses?" says the Minister of Consumer Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I don't miss the trolley buses either, because the overhead wires are a pain in the neck. And with the trolley buses, every so often the trolley comes off and all the traffic gets tied up. They are limited in the routes they can choose.

It's been suggested that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to run trolley buses along University Boulevard from where the city limits end out to the university. I hope he doesn't do it. We don't want any overhead wires; at least I don't. We've got enough of a rat's nest of overhead wires all over downtown Vancouver, I think we should be trying to get rid of the overhead wires. Nothing is more polluting than the rat's nest of overhead wires. Let's get rid of them. I don't like diesel fumes particularly, but I'd prefer diesel fumes to those terrible, inconvenient overhead wires that are all over the place.

You've got to consider the disadvantages, and at least a diesel bus can go on any road. It's not stuck just to the lines where you've got the wires.

University Boulevard, by the way, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2619 ]

is 30 years behind the times as a road. It's not wide enough for buses, unfortunately. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) said in the north that he was going to discriminate against the south — on us.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: That's shocking, but he's been doing that for years, so what's new? I don't think it's humorous at all that only $25,000 is to be spent on the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey.

I can tell you one place that needs money: that's to widen University Boulevard so buses can go on it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Take away more university land?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Just a few feet. Just a few feet. Get the people to the park that we're going to have there, Mr. Chairman, despite the Premier. Despite the Premier!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: A park destroyer — that's what he is. He wants to take away that marvelous area, the last area that could be used for a second major park in an overcrowded district — the overcrowded district of British Columbia. He wants to take it away. He's a park destroyer, and I hope he's going to repent. But the people of British Columbia want that area properly developed — that means for a major parkland you're going to have to have access roads for public transportation.

One of them is going to be University Boulevard, and I hope that the road will be widened enough for proper b uses to go back and forth. Not streetcars...nothing with these overhead trolleys. No more rats' nests! Let's get rid of it all.

Mr. Chairman, about rapid transit: if you try and get into streetcars and begin tearing up the main arteries, putting tracks down again, it's going to run into an enormous expense for something that was outmoded 30 years ago. Don't do it.

The Minister has talked about the subways. Again, Mr. Chairman, there isn't anywhere in the world where a community the size of the lower mainland area — that is greater Vancouver — has a successful subway system — nowhere!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Again, to talk about subways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm not sure whether the Hon. Member is planning to go on at length about proposals for public transit....

MR. McGEER: No, I'm not. I'm just....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw his attention to Bill 70, Transit Services Act.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I'm just saying, Mr. Chairman, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister. Please proceed.

MR. McGEER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I would presume that his present administrative responsibilities have in it a compartmentalization in his mind that the property owner is going to have to pay two mills of the cost of whatever he devises. I'm merely saying that the sorts of things that he's devising are going to break the back of the property owner without giving him any real service.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't have that idea, if that helps.

MR. McGEER: Well, you're quoted in the paper as saying "Municipalities must share transit losses" — Thursday, March 14 — in that great paper that supported the NDP causes, the Vancouver Province. Did you abandon that idea since March 14?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Can the property owners breathe easy that you'll pay for your own experiments out of their other tax money? I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has bought a lot of bunkum. A lot of it was put forward by the NDP when they were in opposition: ideas that seemed impractical in debate then, but have been proved to be impractical by experiments undertaken elsewhere, at great public cost, to my way of thinking, proving conclusively that rail transportation in urban areas the size of Vancouver or indeed larger places is not coming back at all. Attempts to revive it are ending in financial disaster.

Perhaps at some time in the future some of the large corporations or other governments may invent a small, electrically driven automobile that will allow people to move back and forth to the urban areas with far less cost and with far less congestion than we're going to have through continued use of the automobile.

Maybe it's time to think a little bit, however, about anticipating what surely will be public demand for some time to come. That is to continue using the

[ Page 2620 ]

automobile for transportation. People want the other guy to use the lousy methods; that includes buses and rail transportation.

The mayor of Vancouver was all for using the buses — the other people. He did get on a bus once with a photographer, but he doesn't use the buses regularly. I don't use the buses regularly. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and stand up here and say other people ought to use the buses when I know I'm going to continue to use my car.

MR. FRASER: A Cadillac?

MR. McGEER: No, it isn't. It's an old Ford.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A collector's item.

MR. McGEER: No, it's not a collector's item yet.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I was hoping you'd get out of your car and stop polluting.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's not a Mercedes, no sir!

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I never even had a limousine that I could mothball. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He knew he was going to do that, didn't he? He wasn't going to put that chauffeur-driven limousine away for long.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, he won't be buying another Volvo either.

But for people, Mr. Chairman, even if they do stick with Volvos and Volkswagens or whatever their own little private transportation system is, they are going to want to stay with that because it is rapid transit — not a bus; not a subway. A person's own individual automobile is his rapid transit.

If you are going to want to make him switch, you'd better produce something better for him that perhaps he could park downtown more easily and more cheaply. You can't call the downtown area of Vancouver a difficult area in which to find a parking space. Why? — because the surrounding areas are well developed. That's where people do their shopping. The downtown core is rotting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Therefore, there is lots of area for automobiles to park. Can I talk about automobiles?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he would mind discussing the general administrative responsibilities of the Minister. The matter which you are discussing at length now would more properly be discussed at two places: either under vote 183, transit services division, or when we call Bill 70, which is the Transit Services Act. There will then be ample opportunity for a full discussion of the whole transit area.

I would ask the Hon. Member to consider the general responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. McGEER: The Minister has talked about buses. He's talked about subways. He's talked about streetcars. He's talked about ferries. I'd just like to talk for a moment or two about the automobile. I think the automobile has been underrated. I think it's been berated.

I think that it's all very well for everybody to stand up and ask the other person to give up the automobile but, Mr. Chairman, there's no evidence at all that people will do that. There's no evidence they will do it because the systems that have been suggested by that Minister and which have been tried out by other places have not succeeded in providing the speed and convenience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I don't want to see the Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am appealing to the Hon. Member to wait, to just leave his very important remarks for a much more appropriate time — and that is, consideration of Bill 70 in principle and also under vote 183.

I would rule that any further discussion of the general concept of transit services is out of order at the present time.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will have a great deal more to say. Is it all right to talk about property taxes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as you relate it to the Minister's responsibilities.

MR. McGEER: Well, I can't talk about assessments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: lion. Member, you may refer to anything, providing you relate it to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

[ Page 2621 ]

MR. McGEER: Well, the Minister made a pretty fat, flat statement when he got up to the effect that cities and municipalities were never happier. I don't think that property owners are the happiest they've ever been, unless they enjoy paying taxes. Because property taxes, Mr. Chairman, have never been higher.

All the policies of the Minister that I am able to follow in my mind are going to lead to higher property taxes on the part of the people in cities and municipalities. I think what we have to have in British Columbia, and indeed all across Canada, is a complete new deal for city governments and for property owners. I believe that this is the only way we're going to get successful planning of our cities, the only way we're going to keep them as livable places.

I really don't think that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the best person to design a transit system. I'm not sure of the appropriateness of the bills which are on the order paper. I'd rather see the money go to cities and municipalities so that they can do their own planning in this field. I believe they will come up with far better solutions without the help of big daddy Lorimer, because people have....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is proper in parliament to refer to Members by their titles, not by their names.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The lovable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The problem is this. People go to the polls; they elect a mayor; they elect a whole city council. They do this in every place all around the province, believing they are going to be voting for people who will tackle problems of cities and municipalities and deal with them effectively. They go to the polls at provincial election time, voting in a provincial government of socialists, heaven help us. Out of that, one man gets appointed by the Premier, and he then has power to make all kinds of decisions that are far more vital to the future of cities and municipalities than the city councils can make. That one man wasn't elected by the people for that particular purpose; he gets his job almost by accident. Like as not he's a person who never came from a city. That's how it was for years. We had a gymnasium teacher from Campbell River making these kinds of decisions for years and years.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I know, but, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to make a point. I'm sorry I have to make it this way, but what I have against it is this. People go to the polls and vote in mayors and city councils to do a job for their cities. The power to undertake those projects and to reach those solutions properly belongs with people in cities and municipalities who are voting in elected members for that purpose. When you hog the revenues, as you do as Minister of Finance, and give the cities and municipalities $2 per capita grant...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: ...to try and deal with all these problems, you effectively take the power out of the hands of the people to elect their representatives to do those jobs. Cities and municipalities cannot reach their destiny in this province. They couldn't reach it under Social Credit and they're worse off under you, Mr. Premier, for these reasons: you are not prepared to give the financial power or the legislative power to cities and municipalities to do the job they must do in order to make these cities and municipalities proper places to live in. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: It's all very well for you to use that defence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: You have the power; you're supposed to do this kind of a job for the people you represent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: You're not doing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MR. McGEER: Are you speaking to the Premier or to me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just ask the Hon. Premier not to interrupt the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey while he is making his speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry I interrupted and I'll never interrupt the snob again.

[ Page 2622 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think I would ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw the remark. I think it is inappropriate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...and I apologize to all gym teachers in British Columbia.

MR. McGEER: I don't ask for an apology from the Premier. I think it's about par for the course for him. I don't want an apology; I want some decent policies for cities and municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, that's what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said. That's what we used to hear from the former government before they got tossed out: how happy the cities and municipalities were.

Mr. Chairman, I really am appealing to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the Premier; I'm really appealing to them to take another look at their policies. If they were to give financial and legislative power to the cities and municipalities they would be able to say to them, "We've given you the chance; solve your own problems." But if the provincial government retains the power then they are also asking for the problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is not permitted in estimates to discuss matters which must be rectified by legislation. He should confine his remarks to the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. McGEER: I'd be delighted though, Mr. Chairman, just to see the government express an interest in their children. The cities and municipalities are children of the provincial government. If they were to have opportunities, they might do a great deal better job than the provincial governments we've had for a generation in British Columbia; I don't think the cities and municipalities are that happy or that well off. I think the challenges they are going to have to face in the future are greater than the ones they have had to face in the past. They are going to do a better job if the provincial government gives them — power and finances, and tells them to go ahead and solve their own problems.

MR. CURTIS: The gym teacher who became Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell) didn't do a very bad job for municipalities in British Columbia. He had trouble with the boss fairly often, but then a lot of former Ministers had trouble with the boss. But he was sincerely interested in local government, and he listened and he tried his very best.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He shouldn't be attacked for being a gym teacher.

MR. CURTIS: He should not be. I agree, Mr. Premier. That has nothing to do with it, agreed; nothing to do with it at all. I associate myself with the interjections of the Premier just a few moments ago in response to the comments by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

The Minister did not comment on a per capita grant increase, even on a sliding scale, for electoral areas of regional districts. I think he owes this House an answer. I realize we can't compel him to answer, but I would like to have his point of view on that particular topic because this is a subject of increasing concern among those regional districts with large electoral areas and relatively sparse population. Let's hear it from the Minister: what kind of recommendation is he thinking of making to the Minister of Finance, or is his department examining the subject at all?

On the question of amalgamation of municipalities, my colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) questioned about Oak Bay in particular. But with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few more general observations. No Minister of Municipal Affairs, no matter how carefully he treads or how much responsibility he wants to approach a problem with, is going to have an easy time when he discusses amalgamation. People resist change; they particularly resist changes in political boundaries. We do have the example of Kelowna and Kamloops soon after he assumed office. Some of the dust is settling there now.

But I wonder if the Minister would reassure us that in Prince George, as an example, in Nanaimo, in the Campbell River area, in greater Vancouver perhaps in some portions of the metropolitan area, in greater Victoria, the Minister will make absolutely certain there is ample lead time once a series of propositions are put forward. He had indicated privately and publicly today that he might put forward several proposals which could be debated, which could be reviewed, and then, as I understood him to say, which would go to the individual citizens for their final opinion. So it is not an easy task for you; it's going to be very, very tough no matter which way you move. Study groups are fine but they involve a relatively small number of people: elected, appointed, senior municipal staff, whatever it may be. You can only have a reasonable chance of success once you get those propositions out into the community with as much lead time as is absolutely possible to grant in terms of months, indeed, perhaps in terms of more than a year, where the proposals are fairly complex or where the subject involves very large populations such as in greater Vancouver or greater Victoria.

[ Page 2623 ]

If the Minister rushes an amalgamation proposal, then we're really not going to have the matter satisfactorily resolved at all. The status quo will be maintained or the citizens will be rushed into something which they may come to regret later on. So I urge upon the Minister all the necessary time — and then probably taking that time and doubling it in order to guarantee that everyone has all the opportunity in the world to sit back and consider whatever particular proposition it may be.

It's very complex, and there are some interesting comments on both sides of the story. I would commend to the Minister, if he has not read it — or if he hasn't seen it recently to re-read it — a short paper by Mark Sproule-Jones of the University of Victoria's Department of Political Science. This is an excellent example, in my view, of the university looking into and getting involved with the community. This is entitled, "Four Myths of Municipal Amalgamation."

Myth No. 1: Amalgamation will reduce the costs of local government.

Myth No. 2: Amalgamation will provide better services for the tax dollar.

Myth No. 3: Amalgamation will make local officials responsive to the needs of the whole community rather than to their own small empires.

Myth No. 4: Citizen participation will increase as the large and confusing number of separate local elections are reduced.

Professor Sproule-Jones takes each suggestion, deals with it at length, and deals with it very, very positively as far as I'm concerned. Amalgamation in a given area X, for the purposes of discussion on the Minister's estimates today, may be a very good move, but it isn't all it's cracked up to be in some instances. I do remind the Minister of this paper which was dated October, 1973. I think if anything is guaranteed to provoke strong citizen reaction, it is an attempt to enforce amalgamation on an area without this opportunity for the most careful consideration, debate and then a decision in the ballot box.

The continuing fight between North Vancouver city and North Vancouver district is well-known. Common sense would suggest from this distance that the two areas should be amalgamated.

But then we move to Campbell River and see heated debate earlier this year, particularly with respect to Oyster Bay. The Minister may care to comment on that. That is just another example of the fight which is certain to develop when a move to change political boundaries is under consideration.

I've tried to follow to the best of my ability the uni-city situation in Greater Winnipeg. I would refer you to a Southam News Service story in The Province, November 7 of last year. It is headed: "Uni-city 22 Frustrated Months Later."

"Uni-city is being attacked on three fronts.

"Firstly, it said amalgamation has destroyed the suburbs and that those with good tax bases are now paying for the improved services that poorer areas couldn't afford.

"Secondly, the Winnipeg council is being criticized for its slowness in meeting such major issues as land use. Many politicians believe the council must have its size reduced and be made less cumbersome.

"There's a feeling that in 22 months the council has not done enough of substance. The fact that there are 50 councilors simply slows down its work. Richard Wankling, the chairman of the council's finance committee, has said the council has developed into a horrendous kind of situation with about 23 subcommittees serving three standing committees and an executive policy committee. In the last 15 years the phenomenon of the people alienation has grown and grown. There's a feeling that you can't get at city hall."

One of the challenges for this Minister of Municipal Affairs is to attempt to determine in these several areas of British Columbia the ideal political population unit. Bigger is not necessarily better.

In the case of greater Victoria, being specific for a few moments, the time may well have arrived when the whole question of amalgamation should be studied, referred to the people, and dealt with once again. A number of years have passed since it moved out of the politician's hand and into a vote at the ballot box.

I heard the Minister's comments earlier with respect to the unorganized areas or the electoral areas of Colwood, Langford and View Royal. Certainly the problem there is quite extreme. There is no local government, with a few rudimentary services being provided through the regional district. That refers again to my comment on per capita grants for electoral areas. Perhaps this is the time, Mr. Minister, to look at the entire area.

But please, not a unilateral decision or favoritism for one particular approach from your department which would be rammed down the throats of the citizens of this area who subscribe to that particular point of view. Give the area as many options as you can possibly think of with your departmental advisers, including, simply, incorporating Langford, Colwood, View Royal, probably not Metchosin with its density at this time — including an amalgamation of Esquimalt with those previously mentioned unorganized areas; or, as another alternative, amalgamating Oak Bay and Victoria and a portion of Saanich; Oak Bay and Victoria; amalgamating perhaps on the northern Saanich Peninsula.

I plead with you Mr. Minister: don't rush it; don't make up your mind before you put it to the people. Then make absolutely certain that as many months as are necessary are allocated for the kind of careful,

[ Page 2624 ]

informed public debate, discussion and reflection before they have to go to the polls and say yes or no.

The situation is not restricted to greater Victoria by any means; I recognize that. The Minister might favour us with some comments on Prince George, Nanaimo and anything in greater Vancouver with all the municipalities there.

I would also like to spend a few moments on the question of a provincial guarantee for debentures issued by the Municipal Finance Authority (MFA).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CURTIS: One member says, "Hear, hear!" He may not say that when I've concluded my remarks.

I have to disagree with those who feel a provincial guarantee is absolutely necessary. I suggest those who advocate this have not kept up with development as far as the MFA is concerned. Certainly there is a senior member of the Minister's department now who is as familiar with the Municipal Finance Authority as anyone could possibly be. He has experience gained during his term in local government.

The Municipal Finance Authority has successfully marketed approximately $75 million in debentures on behalf of cities, regional districts, district municipalities and other local government units since it was established in the spring of 1970. It has a double A rating with Standard and Poor's Corporation in New York and, an A rating with Moody's. I certainly would like to see the ratings increased. Perhaps the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs could direct themselves to that at some time.

I imagine representations are being made to the Minister of Municipal Affairs at this point in time with respect to a provincial guarantee. I have no objection to a provincial guarantee if that is all it is — a rubber stamp which goes on a debenture and says, "This is guaranteed by the Government of the Province of British Columbia."

But there is a very real danger that in getting that sought-after provincial guarantee — sought after on the part of some individuals and proposed by some Members of this House — the MFA will lose the autonomy given to it in 1970 in the spring session of the Legislature and will lose that local input which seems to be a keystone in the MFA's activity. It's very easy to imagine that the MFA would no longer be marketing as and when and how it and its advisers consider to be the best time and the best location and in the best way but, rather, when the Deputy Minister of Finance decides that the MFA should go to the market.

I think it's an extremely important point. This is not just a matter for the Department of Finance; it requires very careful and objective study by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

A provincial guarantee is not the great panacea that some Members of this House have suggested, as recently as just a few days ago, because all the property tax in the province is already there as a guarantee for the debenture which is issued. That's a fundamental point which I think has to be recognized by those who perhaps have not kept track of the MFA.

I'm not particularly excited about the prospect of the Municipal Finance Authority, in getting a provincial guarantee, simply becoming another branch of the provincial Department of Finance. That is not what is necessary and I don't believe that is in the best interests of capital financing on behalf of municipalities and regional districts in the Province of British Columbia.

A number of us had some doubts about the absence of that guarantee. We were disappointed in 1970 when the MFA was created and the guarantee was missing. Once again, I have no direct knowledge but I would suspect that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs wanted a provincial guarantee but could not get it from the Premier of the day. As events have turned out, as the authority has grown and matured, there is very strong indication that the guarantee is not as important as we once thought.

So, Mr. Chairman, I realize, as I said, that representations are being made to the Minister now. Undoubtedly they have been in the past. He may be entering into discussions with the Department of Finance, for all I know, with respect to that provincial guarantee. But if provincial guarantee is equated with loss of autonomy for the locally elected people we've spoken of who, through regional districts, reach the MFA Board of Trustees, and try to make the very best decisions on behalf of local government, then I would be very, very unhappy. Would the Minister comment on those, Mr. Chairman, perhaps?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Speaking on the last point first, as you know, as far as the Municipal Finance Authority is concerned, there have been requests from time to time through their group and through the UBCM over the years. I might say that we've received no requests and I don't recall any requests for the last, year for any guarantees, so it's not an issue at the present time, in any event. I don't anticipate any requests at this time.

As far as amalgamation again is concerned, all I can say is that nothing will be rushed and it will be an open discussion, I hope, as far as this area is concerned, so that if they don't want it they don't need it. I don't fear a study and I don't think the politicians should fear a study or having public hearings and allowing the people in the area to express their opinions.

As far as per capita grants for regional districts, as

[ Page 2625 ]

I mentioned earlier today, we are looking at better ways of financing some of the communities, especially those smaller communities in the Interior and the north. This is one method by which this sort of thing might come about. Certainly the whole question of per capita grants, or something similar to it, is under review. But I can give no report today on any decisions.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) referred to the terrific cost of transit. It's true it's not cheap, but unfortunately a great number of people rely on transit because they don't have the choice of taking their car. It would be much easier if everyone could drive their car and park it and pile it up and so on, but it's not possible because there are many people who have to go here and there and have no automobile and therefore have no choice.

Transit today, I suggest, is just as. Important as sidewalks or bridges or roads or sewers or water rights. As such we have to live with it and we have to try and plan it in the best way we can.

I may not be the right person to design a subway system and I don't intend to do it personally myself, so that relieves you. I want to assure you of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I've been thinking about it.

I just want to make one more mention about this two-mill thing that seems to be not understood at all. The original suggestion which I made on financing was that the province would pay 100 per cent of all capital costs. There's going to be deficits in every area in which transit is functioning. We would share 50-50 with the regional district or municipality or whatever it was up to a total input by the municipality of what could be raised by two mills. Any additional deficits beyond that would be paid completely, 100 per cent, by the provincial government.

I indicated to the directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District that the two-mill levy was not suggested to be an overall levy of the area concerned on the two-mill base, but was a figure to be used in determining an amount. I suggested to them that there are certain benefiting areas. Those benefiting areas are shopping centres and areas which should receive a great benefit from the use of transit. For instance, I am told that the shopping centre at Lougheed Mall in Burnaby has increased its gross sales by some 30 or 40 per cent since the transit has come into it. Now, I'm suggesting that this sort of an area should pay a levy towards the transit system.

I have never suggested that 2 per cent be covered throughout the area, but part of it maybe should. Certainly I left the whole subject of how the money was to be raised entirely to the local area. At no time did I suggest that the total of two mills be a general tax on the other communities.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, one brief point. What is the status, Mr. Minister, with respect to amalgamation in the Prince George area? Where do we stand now?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll just deal generally with it because the study is in progress. I was first up to see them, I think, about a year ago, or better than that I suppose. There's a study representing the different regional district representatives. The improvement district people, the City of South Fort George and the City of Prince George have a committee and they're meeting and holding public hearings throughout the area. I believe that the report might be finalized, as I understand, in about a month or six weeks, so I'm told, and I hope to have it done at that time.

Nanaimo is basically the same thing. I understand they intend to hold four more public hearings, which will be the final ones, and that they will then file the report.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in the Prince George case does the Minister see a vote this November, possibly?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would expect that the report is in in June and probably a vote in September. If it's later than June I would expect November, or something of that sort. It will probably take two months from the time the report is in before....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River has been waiting patiently most of the afternoon to get time to speak.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to discuss the Minister's responsibility as a director of Hydro for just a moment and change the subject. I'd like to talk to the Minister, Mr. Chairman, through you, about a little village, a little area up in the great Peace River country, and it's known as Lone Prairie.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Oh, carry me back....

MR. PHILLIPS: I've talked about the residents of Lone Prairie in the Legislature before. As a matter of fact I think the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) sent me a note once after speaking about the residents of Lone Prairie saying: "When I die you can bury me not, out on the Lone Prairie, because there's no power out there." All those wonderful pioneering residents of that great little area of Lone Prairie are without the benefits of hydroelectricity

[ Page 2626 ]

when they live in an area that has one of the greatest hydro developments of any place in the whole world.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't the Socreds plug them in?

MR. PHILLIPS: There those big silvery sentinels pass by carrying that long silver thread of wire overhead, carrying off their natural resource, whole, to the lower mainland. There those poor pioneering people who went to Lone Prairie and still don't have power.

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is in the House, because it's under his vote that we give $3 million to Hydro to subsidize rural electrification.

The problem today, Mr. Chairman, through you to the director of Hydro, is that the formula is outdated. Most of the areas in the province that would qualify under the old formula, which was a good formula, now have rural electrification. But there are many pockets still left in the province where this formula is really without the reach of the particular area concerned.

Maybe it just doesn't quite qualify for the number of residences in the particular area — as in the case of Lone Prairie. The Hydro line has to go quite a distance before there are any residences at all. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, as I pointed out in a personal plea to the Minister a month and a half ago, seven miles of this Hydro line have to go through government Crown land, and the cost of clearing this seven miles of government Crown land is in the vicinity of $18,000.

Now I've asked the Minister to go to his friends in Hydro and see if we can get a bit of a special grant for these wonderful people in Lone Prairie. You know, Mr. Chairman, what is $18,000 to this government today? It's not even peanuts.

The policy has got to be changed. All the Minister would have to do is to make a phone call to B.C. Hydro and say: "Make a grant to these people, or at least clear the right-of-way through the seven miles of Crown-owned land." I remember in this House not too long ago that $18,000 was spent on just a little helicopter trip.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I sit down when.... Well, I'll try it, because it may be the Minister of Finance who's in the House would....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh! You know, Mr. Chairman, I won't say.... I wouldn't use the word trick. I have tried to discuss this Lone Prairie Hydro deal during the Premier's estimates, during the Minister of Finance's estimates — even under the vote. But he said, "leave it until you get to the Hydro."

Now why doesn't the Premier stand up in the House and say: "Mr. Member for South Peace, you've got your $18,000"? Just make those 32 residents out in Lone Prairie the happiest people in all of British Columbia tonight. Let the light shine in, Mr. Premier. Let the light shine in on that Lone Prairie.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll make my phone call tomorrow, Mr. Member, and I'll do what I can for Lone Prairie.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Strachan presents the first annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an apology to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Campbell). I wouldn't want him to think I was insulting him during the estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I said things that some Members thought might be regarded in that way.

I want to make it quite clear to the House and to that Minister that I would only insult him if he were here in the Legislative Assembly to answer. I did not intend to, and I apologize.

MRS. JORDAN: You should apologize to the grape growers.

MR. McGEER: I'm not apologizing to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: He won't apologize to the gym teachers. Politicians can take it, but gym teachers were insulted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I want to make sure it's on the record that that Member said he'd never apologize to the grape producers in this province; and they will know that he carries his silver cork in his mouth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know how a guy can get into trouble by standing up and apologizing. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2627 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.