[ Page 2629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Appointment of rentalsman. Mr. Smith — 2629

Provincial court facilities. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2629

Negotiations on Indian land claims. Mr. McClelland — 2630

Approved course status for teacher training. Mr. Wallace — 2630

Flat-rate premiums for ICBC. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2630

Arbitration in nursing dispute. Mr. Chabot — 2630

Status of bowling alley. Mr. Morrison — 2631

Examination of Ontario mining legislation. Mr. Gibson — 2631

Use of insurance premiums for investment profit. Mr. McGeer — 2631

Provincial freeze and involvement in mining exploration. Mr. Smith — 2631

Remuneration to student nurses. Mr. Wallace — 2632

Public use of ferry staterooms for cabinet Ministers. Mr. Chabot — 2632

Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 114).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 2632

Statement

Agreement with Japanese steel industry to help curb B.C. steel shortage. Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2632

Mr. Chabot — 2633

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2633

Mr. Wallace — 2634

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs estimates.

On vote 181.

Mr. Smith — 2634

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2636

Mr. Curtis — 2636

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2637

Mr. Gardom — 2638

Mr. Curtis — 2640

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2641

Mr. McClelland — 2641

Mr. Gibson — 2645

Mr. Lewis — 2649

Mr. Calder — 2650

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2651

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2652

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2654

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2655

Mr. McClelland — 2655

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2656

Mr. Curtis — 2656

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2656

Mrs. Jordan — 2657

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2659

Mrs. Jordan — 2659

Mr. Wallace — 2660

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2662

On vote 182.

Mr. Curtis — 2662

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2662

Motions Motion 22.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2663

Mr. Smith — 2663

Appendix — 2664

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of senior citizens from the Crescent Beach area of South Surrey, their president, Mr. Pears and their secretary-treasurer, Mrs. Child. They're travelling under auspices of the New Horizons Education Tours, and I hope the Members will bear that in mind this afternoon and I wish them to join me in welcoming them here today.

Oral questions.

APPOINTMENT OF RENTALSMAN

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. According to a newspaper account last Friday the Attorney-General made an announcement concerning the appointment of a rentalsman for the Province of British Columbia. I'd like to question the Attorney-General on the propriety of naming anyone to fulfil that position prior to the time that the Legislature has approve; the bill that sets up the Landlord and Tenant Act in this province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, that's a perfectly valid point. The bill has to pass. I think I tried to make that clear. It would then be a recommendation of cabinet to the Lieutenant-Governor at that time and the proprieties in a thing like that are terribly important. In answer to a question I took as notice from the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)....

PROVINCIAL COURT FACILITIES

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The same question. What's it about? I'd like to answer the one I can answer. I'd like to say with regard to provincial court facilities in the City of Vancouver, with leave of the chief justice of the supreme court, the Hon. Mr. Justice Hinkson, I have asked and he has accepted to give me a horse-sensical summing up of the situation in terms of present facilities, future growth, transportation of prisoners, convenience of the public. This is not a research project because we have the data, but he will look at the total picture and give me some recommendations on that basis within three or four weeks. He has agreed to do that and I think that will be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Attorney-General be sure to spell that out for Hansard?

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question to the Attorney-General concerning the appointment of a rentalsman for the province. Was the position advertised? If so, in the advertisement what qualifications did you require before making a selection?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it would be an order-in-council appointment but as we haven't really reached that stage there couldn't really be advertising at this stage even if that were appropriate, which I don't think it is.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Apropos of the question which the Attorney-General answered before he was asked about it, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the appointment of Mr. Justice Hinkson who you said would display "horse-sensical" attitudes to your tasks, you earlier indicated to the House that there were consultants. Would you inform us who the consultants have been to this point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there has been a wide variety of consultants from lawyer Paul Fraser, to the justice development committee, to Chief Judge Brahan, to the judges, to the Vancouver City Council through Mayor Phillips. I don't know how else I can say it but we have received advice, of course, from many many quarters. I will be asking the hon. justice to look at all of this data and to sum it up and give me his recommendation.

MR. GARDOM: The building is three-quarters finished at the present time. Is that in the firm contract price? Has construction come to a full stop at the request of yourself, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it was under contract with the city. Mind you, we have assumed a responsibility. The Hon. Member raised a factor which makes it quite urgent to get a decision on these future court facilities.

MR. GARDOM: Well is it, or is it not, at a firm contract price, the construction of that building for which you have assumed responsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will have to take that as notice.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, Hon. Member, there are other Members who would like to get questions too.

[ Page 2630 ]

NEGOTIATIONS ON INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like to address my question to the Premier as president of the council. I wonder if the Premier would advise the House of the government's attitude in relation to the charge by Mr. Phillip Paul, the land claims research director for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, that no negotiations are taking place with the Indian people with respect to Indian land claims and that the provincial government is refusing the Indians access to public documents.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can have supplementary on a question that has been taken as notice. You can have a supplementary when the answer is given in the House. If you will please save your supplementary until that time.

APPROVED COURSE STATUS

FOR TEACHER TRAINING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of Education (Mrs. Dailly) if she is making any effort to ensure that the special teacher training programme aimed at reducing the student-teacher ratio qualifies as a Canada Manpower approved course?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, at this time I can't give any comments on that. We have had this proposed by the BCFTA and we will have further discussions on it. But I really cannot give you an answer now on whether it can be used that way or not.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware that failure to secure Canada Manpower approval makes it impossible for trainees to receive unemployment insurance benefits? The whole point or part of the programme, of course, is to employ teachers presently unemployed. This is rather a serious obstacle. Could the Minister comment as to whether she will take action on it?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All I can say is that I will look into it. This is the first time that that has been drawn to my attention.

FLAT-RATE PREMIUMS FOR ICBC

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. May I ask the Minister if the principle of having insurance premiums of ICBC reflect the accident rate and the repair expenditure for the various regions of B.C. is to be abandoned as was most strongly urged by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) on the weekend?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Would you like to repeat the question please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the principle of having insurance premiums for ICBC automobile insurance reflect the accident rates of the various regions of B.C. and the repair expenditure — whether that principle is to be abandoned in the light of the very strong, indeed savage, attack upon that principle by the Minister of Highways in northern B.C. on the weekend where he said there should be a blanket, flat, postage-stamp rate across the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Such decisions can't be made until we have had more experience than we have had.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I take the Minister's reply as meaning he had no consultation with the Minister of Highways prior to his speech and that the speech indeed was not government policy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have had no consultation with the Minister of Highways on that.

ARBITRATION IN NURSING DISPUTE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Labour. On April 24, the Minister of Labour suggested to the House that the nurses had accepted voluntary binding arbitration in their dispute and two days later, on April 26, the chief negotiator accused the Minister of pressuring the nurses to accept binding arbitration. Would the Minister comment on the apparent conflict between his statement in the House and that made by the nurses' representative?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any conflict. I made the statement in the House and to the press that I had, indeed, stressed as strongly as I could to the parties that they should accept voluntary binding arbitration as a method of resolving the dispute. I make no apologies for that. I did exert every influence available to my office and I think the parties responded in a responsible and a very good way, and that the public and the Members of this

[ Page 2631 ]

House should applaud them for it.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Would you interpret the methods used as strong-arm tactics?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to my office and I would be quite willing to give him a demonstration of the kind of methods that were involved. (Laughter.)

STATUS OF BOWLING ALLEY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. What is the current status of the former Gibson's Bowling Alley at 910 Yates Street, now owned by the government? The inside of the building appears to have been gutted, yet no work is in progress. Could he advise us what it will be used for and when construction will continue?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): It's in the process of renovation. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: Perhaps he could answer the question. What will it be used for and when will construction continue?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As soon as the balance of the tenders are let, construction will proceed. It is to be used as a provincial government administration building.

MR. MORRISON: For what department?

MR. SPEAKER: He said government administration, I think.

MR. MORRISON: For what department?

STUDY OF NORTHERN COST OF LIVING

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Consumer Services. April 10, the Minister took as notice a question concerning a cost of living differential study between the north coast, the northern part of B.C., and the lower mainland. I wonder if she has any further information on that. Is such a study in fact contemplated or now underway?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): My department is arranging a meeting with other departments involved in the economic and social development of the north, at which time we hope to examine this area and all others like it, dealing with the sociological factors of development of the north.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I may take it then that the matter is under review by her department with others. Does it also include a federal department or agency?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, we are taking this under review; and no, at this point it is not involving federal people. It's merely in the study stage.

EXAMINATION OF ONTARIO

MINING LEGISLATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Premier on his return from Hong Kong. I was delighted to see that he said the B.C. government is going to take a close look at the Ontario approach to mining taxation, which is, of course, a surtax on profits rather than on royalties. I wonder if he could confirm that such a study is underway. Will he leave Bill 31 in abeyance pending results of that study?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I always look at all legislation, including the new Liberal legislation introduced in the federal House on the tax on excess profits. I will examine all of that type of legislation and see what effect it has on free enterprise.

USE OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR

INVESTMENT PROFIT

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. One of the criticisms of the private insurance industry was the utilization of premiums for investment profit. I'd like to ask the Minister whether it's the policy of ICBC to continue that policy of the private insurance companies.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member didn't state the criticisms made of the private companies. The criticism of the private companies was that they used the interest for private profit. Had you read the report I tabled last night, it made it very, very clear that the interest is to be used to reduce the rates to the automobile owners in the Province of British Columbia. Completely different.

PROVINCIAL FREEZE AND

INVOLVEMENT IN MINING EXPLORATION

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. In recent days, reports have been circulated in many

[ Page 2632 ]

parts of the province indicating the government plans to freeze all mining exploration north of the 56th parallel. Is that a true statement of government policy?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Not true. That's the first I ever heard of it.

MR. SMITH: There is also an indication that your department is actively pursuing a plan for the development of a government-owned-and-operated mining exploration consortium. Is that government policy?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At the present time there's no such plan.

REMUNERATION TO

STUDENT NURSES

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Health, in light of the fact that student nurses are not to be considered as hospital employees for the sake of bargaining, can he tell the house if any wage or stipend will be paid by the B.C. Hospital Insurance Service to student nurses?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the present time that wage is being appealed before the whole Labour Relations Board, I understand. Certainly, they'll be treated fairly in any event.

MR. WALLACE: Could the Minister say that, in general, it is the feeling of government that there should be some form of remuneration for services rendered by the student nurses?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can't make that suggestion while it's a case before the board.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is irregular.

PUBLIC USE OF FERRY

STATEROOMS FOR CABINET MINISTERS

MR. CHABOT: I have a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. Can the Minister advise if the private and exclusive staterooms on the B.C. ferries that are marked "Private, do not disturb," and reserved for cabinet Ministers are available to the general public when not in the use of cabinet Ministers travelling on the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't noticed any staterooms that say they're for the use of cabinet Ministers only.

[ Page 2633 ]

MR. CHABOT: "Private, do not disturb."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they're certainly available for use by anyone.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, as a point of order, I could inquire from the Premier and House Leader when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) will be returning to this House. He has been absent for approximately a week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, question period can hardly operate when Ministers are absent.

MR. SPEAKER: It may well be that in England they had this problem in 1878. The answer was that they gave notice to Ministers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's what I would like to have, Mr. Speaker: notice of which Ministers are away and when they are intended to return.

MR. SPEAKER: You gave notice to the Ministers when you wanted to ask them a question. That's what they did in Britain.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have notice when the Liberal Members will be present. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Introduction of bills.

ACCELERATED PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 114 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the House to make a short statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the steel shortage in our province is part of a worldwide shortage resulting from rapidly increasing demands with which the steel industry has been unable to keep pace. Most major steel producers have had to allocate supplies on the basis of 1973 orders. In British Columbia, the world steel situation has resulted in reduced shipments from eastern Canada. This has also been complicated by the increase in freight rates for steel products to western Canada.

The meetings in Japan began with discussions between myself and officials of my department with the Japanese steel industry. The situation in British Columbia was outlined and solutions were discussed. There were meetings between myself, the Hon. Premier, and with Mr. Inayama, the chairman of the Japanese Iron and Steel Federation, and with Mr. Mikita, the president of Nippon Kokan, one of the world's largest steel producers.

These talks have led to the decision by the Japanese steel producers to assist this province in curbing its steel shortage. On Friday, April 26, members of the British Columbia steel group along with us on this trip met with senior officials to work out the details of this agreement with at least five major steel producers. At last Friday's meeting, the industry representatives agreed to increase 1974 commitments of steel exports to British Columbia by 22 per cent over previous 1974 commitments to help curb a steel shortage in this province.

In addition, the steel industry in Japan will undertake to alleviate specific steel shortages which, once validated by the government through the Ministry of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, and identified by this government, would be carried out by established commercial channels. By this it is meant that where there are specific steel shortages of particular users, both government and private, in this province, my department will investigate and see that the shortage is valid. We have an undertaking by the steel producers in Japan that the shortage will be met on a normal basis.

We are experiencing a very real and serious steel shortage, as I say, globally and in this province. Specific steel types in short supply include plate, structural shapes, reinforcing bar, rounds, and some specialty steels. About 75 per cent of the overall shortage is in plate and structural materials.

This agreement follows a number of meetings held in Japan during the last two weeks to alleviate this shortage. I do not expect that the shortfall over 1973 will exceed 150,000 tons but we are not limited to that amount and the Japanese producers will go over that amount if we can demonstrate the need.

The representatives of the Japanese steel industry showed great understanding of British Columbia's problems and co-operated wholeheartedly in seeking a solution. The fact that discussions were held with the top officials of the Japanese steel industry is evidence of that industry's desire to assist and that country's good faith toward this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would point out before proceeding that it would be only fair to the House that the Ministerial statements that are asked of the House be given before question period.

MR. CHABOT: We appreciate the vague words from the Minister on the question of steel in an attempt, really, to justify the trip to Japan he took just a few days ago. I assure you the kind of information you have conveyed to this House this afternoon could have been secured by a phone call to Japan rather than the extensive trip such as you took.

You talked about the question of steel shortage in British Columbia. You at no time gave us any indication as to the volume of steel consumed in British Columbia, and the kind of shortage that does exist in this province.

You talked about a promise of 150,000 tons from Japan in extremely vague terms. You never suggested to us actually.... What are the shortages in British Columbia? Will this kind of steel delivery to British Columbia be in the unpredictable future? You never related in any talk just when we can expect the stipulated kind of steel you talked about from Japan to meet the pressing shortage which exists in British Columbia at this particular time. And what is the shortage? We don't know.

This is an extremely vague statement you've made and certainly not worthy of having taken that extensive, elaborate trip to Japan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that the Minister came back from Japan with something. We were perhaps expecting something a little more on fish farming, but we got our statement on steel.

There were, however, a number of questions that his statement raised which I would like to quickly go over. First is whether or not similar discussions were held with Canadian steel makers in an attempt to get the shortages met by Canadian producers. The second question is price.

It's fine to have an agreement which will apparently deal with the supply problem, but it would be important to know what the price will be when this steel is actually delivered. That, of course, raises the question of when it will be delivered.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that a Ministerial statement is not an opportunity or a springboard for launching a debate...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it is not a debate.

MR. SPEAKER: ...nor a series of questions.

[ Page 2634 ]

That's why I suggested to Ministers that statements should be made before question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate your comment. The comments I'm trying to make are on the failure of the statement by the Minister to deal with obvious questions.

I will end up, Mr. Speaker, with a request to table an agreement which was apparently signed by the Minister or by representatives of his steel committee on the 26th of this month. If there is such an agreement in existence, if it had been signed on the 26th, surely then, this should be made public to the people of British Columbia. Why has it not been made public? Why is it being kept under wraps? Surely something of which he is proud, something of the first fruits of economic diplomacy practised by the Minister of mariculture, should be made public for all of us to know of.

I would also just ask one further comment. If this has been carried out — and I quote him — "by established commercial channels," does this not simply mean that the government is putting its rubber stamp on requests to purchase by Canadian corporations or British Columbia corporations?

In any event, these are the questions which I raise in a constructive spirit and I trust the Minister will accept them accordingly.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my reaction is rather similar — that the statement of the Minister really raises more questions than we already had in mind. Where the shortage is found to be valid is one of the statements the Minister made. There is so much indecision about the statement when, in point of fact, we had all hoped this visit to Japan would bring forth something much more positive.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the very fact that he made no mention whatever of British Columbia trying to solve its own problems by starting up its own steel mill — this, I thought, was one of the main reasons that the expedition went to Japan.

I just have to go on record as saying that our party finds the statement not much use, very disappointing. I would hope, as the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) suggested, we may at least have the agreement which was signed tabled in the House.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the Premier doesn't want to get the vote over so fast that he would deny the Members of the opposition of at least one opportunity to question the Minister on some of the responsibilities and policies of his office. Since this is the first opportunity I've had in this debate, I'm sure the Minister will give me his close attention and answer my question quickly and positively, and perhaps because of that attitude we might make great progress this afternoon.

I'd just like to refer back to the remarks of the Minister when he spoke in opening the vote of his department. He indicated to the House that he was giving consideration to the system of per capita grants in relation to the municipalities in the province, and perhaps would be coming forth with some ideas as to the improvement of the system or some means of providing financial assistance to the municipalities which demonstrate the need.

I'd like to pursue that particular point for a few moments this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that we do need a change of the present per capita system so that we get into a position of a revenue cost-sharing formula that more accurately reflects the distinctive and individual positions of each and every municipality in the province.

I know that the UBCM are greatly concerned about the same matter. As a matter of fact, they turned out a very comprehensive little report in September of 1973 called "A Report on Municipal Taxation and Financial Matters."

At the present time the system you have of per capita grants is the same throughout the whole province on a per capita basis, regardless of the particular financial position of the municipality concerned. So if you set the grant at $30 or $32 or whatever, that same amount of grant on a per capita basis will be paid to large and small municipalities alike. The report from the UBCM, and I think quite rightly, points out that when you look at the amount of money paid to them in per capita grants over the last number of years the per capita grant they receive as a percentage of income tax, or any form of taxation you want to take, has gradually been reduced so that in 1969 it represented 30.9 per cent of the per capita income tax which the province receives and by 1973 it had dropped to 21.8 per cent and is projected that in 1974 it will be 20.6 per cent.

You may not agree with their particular suggestion that the grants to municipalities should reflect the increased prosperity of the province and also the increased tax rebates we receive from the federal government. But I do believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to design a formula which takes into consideration the fact that the government does today share to a greater extent than before in federal revenue — revenue collected by the federal

[ Page 2635 ]

government — that the money coming in from many sources is increased. When you take a look at the municipalities they face the same problems of escalating costs, inflation, salaries continually going up, expenses of operation the same as everyone else in this province. And to add $2 to the per capita grant to take it up from $30 to $32 will not even begin to meet the fixed costs they are faced with in terms of just inflation in the period of one year in the costs of operating their particular programmes.

It's been said by people on the floor of this House yesterday, and rightly so, that the municipalities are the form of government closest to the people. They certainly reflect to a greater extent the thoughts and desires of the people in any given locality than, say, the provincial government does because of the fact that they are closer to the people.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that the grants paid to municipalities should take into consideration a number of very important factors. The factors are outlined in the municipal annual report, the blue book as it's called, turned out with municipal statistics. It's interesting to look over that particular publication, the graphs and tables it includes, because you'll find as you analyse it that on a per capita basis some municipalities are involved in much heavier financial commitments, to debenture indebtedness or whatever. We could go down the list and I think it might be a good idea to do it.

You could start with the debenture indebtedness of any given municipality. That's one fixed cost they can't escape. You then get into the cost of general government. It's probably debatable that some municipalities operate more efficiently than others, but there should be a norm there for general government operation and costs. You can go then to the cost of protective services and the costs of sewage, garbage, waste collection and disposal, the costs of recreation and cultural services, and then, of course, the costs of street, road, and transportation services, and maintenance of those services.

I think you would find this would vary greatly from municipality to municipality, depending upon the stage of growth and the development of any given municipality.

So why wouldn't it be possible in terms of a per capita grant, if you wish to stay with that system, to allot every municipality of the province, as you have done so far, a basic per capita grant which they would be entitled to, then take that grant and on a system of the actual averages above or below the provincial average assign additional dollars to any given municipality?

I can take for instance as an example, if you like, this problem of debenture indebtedness. I've taken from the municipal blue book four municipalities of approximately equal population in the province. They all average around 8,000 persons according to the statistical information we have in that book. It's interesting to note that the debenture indebtedness in those municipalities runs from a low of $1,200,000 in one municipality to a high of $3,600,000 in another municipality of almost equal size. In other words, the debenture indebtedness for which the people within that municipality must assume financial obligation is in one case three times higher than in the other.

Now, obviously it's a municipality that is expanding and building as compared to a municipality which may have static growth and has paid for water and sewer, those type of installations, over a period of years and the debentures have worked down to a point where there's very little debt to retire. But in cases like that it's incumbent upon the Minister to provide additional finance to those municipalities that have the high debt structure facing the people who live there.

I would think then that you could come up with your basic formula for per capita grants and grants over and above that for municipalities which qualify, and they would have to do it on some legitimate graph or scale set up in co-operation with your department and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Then it would be fair, equitable and understandable to every municipality in the province. And upon that basis they would have to understand that in certain times they might get more money and a year later, because of their structure, they might get slightly less.

It does, I believe, reflect more fairly the particular circumstances and situations of the municipalities collectively in the province if we use that rather than take a straight flat rate of per capita grants for each and every municipality throughout British Columbia.

There's another point I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I'd like the Minister's view on where he stands on taxation of Crown corporations and companies owned either partially or entirely by the Crown. Certainly as the NDP programme unfolds in the Province of British Columbia we see the government moving more and more into the private sector of business. We have now, to name a few, organizations or corporations such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Railway. In most municipalities you have provincial buildings, Department of Highways installations and B.C. Forestry buildings. And now we're moving into the area of buildings and permanent fixtures and structures put in for the use of ICBC. The government has purchased Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, Plateau Mills and Kootenay Forest Products — private firms that are now owned either entirely or partially by the government of this province.

Mr. Minister, where do you stand on taxation of these firms? Will they be taxed on exactly the same basis as any other corporation in the Province of British Columbia?

Will the municipalities, who have to look to land

[ Page 2636 ]

tax and improvements on land for the bulk of their money, receive equitable treatment from the Crown corporations and Crown companies which happen to be located in their particular area? Will they be taxed at the same rate as any other corporation? Or is it the intention of the provincial government to write a check for X number of dollars to the municipality and say that this grant is in lieu of all Crown corporations and government-controlled corporations within your municipal boundaries?

I know it's a question that's asked by the mayors of many municipalities in the province because it is a matter of great concern. It's a matter of increasing concern particularly with the attitude we see expressed by the government in moving into the field of private endeavour and private enterprise in British Columbia.

Those are a couple of points that I wanted to raise this afternoon during the Minister's salary estimates. I would appreciate a little explanation and expansion on the points which the Minister first made when he spoke on his estimates.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): First of all, the per capita grant, as you know, is only part of the area in which governments assist municipalities; you can't basically take that in isolation when you are looking at assistance to municipalities.

However, I might just point out that there was a $2 per capita increase this year and $2 last year, I believe. You might remember also that with the previous administration it wasn't a yearly thing to give an increase in the per capita grant. I just point out that in 1971 and 1972 there were no increases in the per capita grant at that time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's right, but what I'm saying is that the per capita grant can't be considered as the total benefits given by government to municipalities.

There were other discussions regarding the fact that the per capita grant may not be equitable. I agree fully with you and I think some of your suggestions are well-founded. We hope we'll be able to come up with a more equitable system of distributing the funds the municipalities need badly.

The Crown corporations. All the new Crown Corporations which have come about since this government has taken office have all paid a grant representing full taxation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Full taxation, yes. All the new corporations that have been created.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: They pay full land tax and on buildings and so on.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): How many are there?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The new ones. In the previous administration, I would suggest, there were none that did.

In the case of Col-Cel, they had a concession and only paid on a 10-mill base. When the government took it over, it paid a grant in lieu of tax in the full amount. There's no question about the Crown corporations paying full tax.

There are still the leftovers of the B.C. Rail. B.C. Hydro pays full tax except for dams and transmission lines; but in the property holdings the grant is full tax. I think that was the list of the questions. Of course, any new Crown corporation, as you suggested, will be paying grants in full tax.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I think the Minister better get this word out to the municipalities of British Columbia because, as some other Members on this side of the House have asked in interjection, they're not at all sure that Crown corporations, new or old, are paying full taxes. Let's not get hung up in municipal affairs; if the province isn't paying the money, then the province is being subsidized by the homeowner, by the businessman, by the individual who has to pay full property tax. The mayor of Vancouver (Mr. Phillips) is uncertain. He's an intelligent municipal leader. He is confused by the contradictory statements made, first of all, in December by the Premier as Minister of Finance when he said in Mackenzie, I believe, on Sunday, December 2:

"We will have a redistribution of the tax load to ensure that every major international corporation in B.C. and Crown corporations will pay their fair share of taxes in every town of this province."

In response to that, I believe Mayor Phillips fired off a letter of congratulations to the Premier and Minister of Finance saying this was a very praiseworthy step. On December 13, in fact, he wrote a letter to the Premier, a copy of which I and perhaps other Members of this House have.

However, it appears a little later that the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson) contradicted the statement by the Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance is quoted in a memorandum from the director of finance for the City of Vancouver, P.D. Leckie, to the mayor, a commissioner and an alderman in Vancouver, saying:

"Mr. Bryson stated that the Premier was

[ Page 2637 ]

speaking only with respect to private corporations and was not including Crown corporations, to the best of Mr. Bryson's knowledge. Mr. Bryson was not aware of any consideration being given to changing the tax-grant picture with respect to Crown corporations, either for regular property taxes or business tax."

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is going on? Either Crown corporations are paying full tax or they are not. We have this indecision, this contradiction where the Minister of Finance says one thing and the Deputy Minister of Finance is quoted — and I emphasize "quoted" — as saying another thing. And there is yet another statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this House this afternoon.

On page 7 of the budget speech for this year,

"One further step this government has taken on business assessments effective in 1974 is the ending of special property-tax concessions to a number of industrial firms.... We see no necessity for an incentive which adversely affects the property-tax liability of other property-owners."

Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is not fair for private enterprise to have tax incentives which "adversely affect the property-tax liability of other property-owners," then surely it is not fair for the province. This has gone on for far too long in British Columbia under previous administrations and it's being perpetuated by this administration. The people of British Columbia who pay property tax are being ripped off by the Crown provincial — not by the New Democratic Party, not by the Social Credit Party, but the Crown provincial which cops out on the payment of full property taxes.

Every Member in this House, every citizen of British Columbia who pays property taxes can't say to the municipality or the city or the regional district, "Well, I think I am just going to pay you 75 per cent of what you're asking this year," or, "It's been a tough year; I'm just going to pay you 40 per cent of the bill." No way; they pay 100 per cent of the bill after the grants, whichever may apply.

But this provincial government says, "Oh, I think we'll just pay a fixed rate again. We're not going to pay our fair share." That's precisely what it is. The Crown provincial fails to pay its fair share of property tax in British Columbia and has failed for years. The time has long since passed for that to be corrected fully. Why should the people of British Columbia subsidize the coffers of the provincial Treasury? Why should they subsidize the Province of British Columbia because of some formula which has been in effect all these years — indeed, decades?

I'm really not satisfied with the statements made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he responded to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) yesterday or in his comments just a few moments ago. I think it's time the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs got their heads together and decided precisely what the policy is for British Columbia today in terms of Crown corporations and all government agencies — new or old is beside the point — in British Columbia paying their fair share of local or regional property tax.

Let's not have any more wishy-washy answers; let's not have any more dodging behind one statement or another, which has been done over the years not just by this Minister but has been carried out over the years. Those Members who have served on UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) are fed up with it and absolutely tired of it in terms of the unwillingness or inability of provincial people to recognize that they are being subsidized by property taxpayers throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia and have been for years.

On the per capita grant, there has been lengthy discussion. But I think we just have to look at a couple of figures to realize that the per capita grant is not increasing as it should. This again isn't money which goes to some great organization or to some massive corporation; this is money into or out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia who own property or pay property tax through rent.

The Minister knows full well that the per capita grant in 1968 was $25. Before that, it was on a sliding scale with a maximum of $24; established originally, as I see it — at least the earliest figure I have at hand — at $20 in 1965, a decreasing scale as municipalities grew in size. So we could look back to 1968: $25; and today, 1974: $34. That just isn't sufficient growth in the per capita grant to assist municipalities, notwithstanding the positive and helpful steps that have been taken by this government in other areas of financial assistance to municipalities.

I submit that $25 in 1968 to only $34 several years later in 1974 is not sufficient revenue sharing between the provincial government and the municipalities. The Minister may care to ignore the remarks or may care to comment on them.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll comment on them. I again want to repeat, and I'm surprised that the Member, who has been in municipal matters for some years, still confuses the per capita grant as the total figure for help from one government to another. The differences in legislation and so on, can either put burdens on a municipal government or take them away. There's no way that you can look at a per capita grant, or work out percentages, because percentages on a budget of a few years ago didn't take into account a number of programmes that are now taking parts out of the budget. So anyone who tries to use percentages in working out figures from a previous budget to an existing budget will arrive at

[ Page 2638 ]

figures which will be very confusing.

There's some question about statements being made about non-payment of taxes by Crown corporations. Some reference was made to a statement by the Premier — I don't know exactly which statement you're talking about besides the one that you read out of the budget speech....

Interjections..

HON. MR. LORIMER: I didn't notice the statement made by the Deputy Minister of Finance, but I'm making statements here and these statements are accurate and I'll stand by them. That is that the new corporations are paying full property tax to the municipalities. Col-Cel in Castlegar and Col-Cel in Prince Rupert are paying full tax. The one up in Vanderhoof — Plateau — will be paying full tax. The government itself doesn't pay full tax — it pays on a basis of 15 mills. I don't say that I support that, but that's what it is — it's 15 mills at the present time. B.C. Hydro pays full tax, or grant in lieu of tax, on all their lands and buildings with the exception of some of the dams and transmission lines. You can quote me on that and that's the statements that I make. Those I understand and believe are correct.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Carrying on with this point, Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly support the remarks of the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) because we have in B.C. a constant con, and that's the Crown corporation con against the municipalities.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Which one?

MR. GARDOM: I'll come to which one specifically — Hydro and B.C. Rail, to give you two examples. These Crown corporations have been swinging the lead and not paying their share of the load at all. As the Member said, you're just ripping off the municipalities. This is your responsibility, Mr. Minister. You're now in the position to do something about it. I think you recognized the fact that it is wrong, but it's very disturbing to us to see that notwithstanding the fact you appear to recognize an injustice, by a mere snap of the fingers — that's all it would need — you could cure it. You've not done that. So the net result is that when the municipalities are ripped off what can they do but turn to lard the Crown corporations' failure to pay their share of municipal taxes right back onto the homeowner?

Here is a good example from the City of Vancouver. The B.C. Hydro does pay full school taxes, but look at general purposes property tax. It pays a grant in lieu of that, but on a normal basis and last year, Hydro would have paid an additional $19,000. Hospital purposes property tax — B.C. Hydro doesn't pay that and I don't suppose it pays it in many of these other municipalities in B.C. In Vancouver their hospital purposes property tax would amount to $35,000 which B.C. Hydro doesn't pay.

It doesn't take care of general purposes taxes on equipment on city streets. In 1973, according to the figures furnished by the City of Vancouver, this would have saved B.C. Hydro approximately $143,000.

And B.C. Hydro doesn't pay business tax in the City of Vancouver. Are you going to suggest to us that it pays business tax in the rest of the municipalities in B.C.? That's a bunch of dish wash. In Vancouver it would have amounted to $220,000 if Hydro had to pay business tax last year.

General purposes property tax, $19,000; hospital purposes property tax, $35,000; general purposes tax and equipment on city streets, $143,000; business tax, $220,000 — those four figures Hydro does not pay in the City of Vancouver alone and doesn't pay in the rest of the municipalities, to the best of my knowledge and information and belief.

Late payment of taxes — people are supposed to pay their taxes around the beginning of July but Hydro doesn't even pay on time.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Has that been now fixed? Well, I understand formerly it didn't pay it in time and in 1973 there was a cost to the city which saved Hydro about $33,000.

Look at B.C. Railroad. Under the Act this corporation appears to be exempt from a municipal taxation, but the City of Vancouver doesn't receive any taxes or grants in lieu of taxes relative to the B.C. Railway property. It's only got the one property. But the 1973 taxes which B.C. Railway did not pay in the City of Vancouver and which it should have paid amount to these: school purposes tax, $8,100; general purposes tax, $10,000; hospital purposes, $200; business tax, $6,000 — for a total of $24,300.

Your Liquor Control Board, doesn't pay business tax in the City of Vancouver. If it paid business tax in the City of Vancouver that would have amounted to $60,000 last year alone.

As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister, the Insurance Corporation of B.C. does not pay business tax. In 1973 that would have amounted to a $30,000 levy in the City of Vancouver.

In very, very quick arithmetic, I think those figures come close to half-a-million dollars worth of taxes that have been absolutely ripped off by this Crown corporation in the City of Vancouver. Surely to goodness there are applicable and similar figures for other municipalities. For you to suggest to this

[ Page 2639 ]

House, Mr. Minister, that the Crown corporations are paying their way and paying their fair share of the load is absolute nonsense.

I agree with the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) that it's very disturbing. It was enlightening, but it was disturbing to hear the remarks of the Premier which he apparently did make in Mackenzie on December 2 of last year, which indicated to the people in B.C. that there would be elimination of tax subsidies given corporations in the past. Okay, fine and dandy. The Crown corporations are still subsidized and make no mistake of that fact.

This really and truly just points again to what the first speaker today from the Social Credit Party (Mr. Smith) was emphasizing — the great need that we have in the Province of B.C. to come up with some kind of a realistic, practical formula and a realistic, practical, philosophical attitude.

The Plunkett Report — 1971, I believe it was — came up with very, very devastating conclusions. It reached the conclusion that the provincial side in B.C. was avoiding its constitutional responsibility for the assumption of municipal costs, and it was certainly denuding the municipalities of their proper and fair share of provincial revenues.

Now, there's one way to overcome this. I think myself that we should have a complete review of municipal taxation. The call for that review is not new; it's only becoming louder every day. The municipalities have an unequivocal right, Mr. Minister, to a fair share and a fair entitlement of provincial revenues. I gainsay that their costs are increasing in excess of those in the provincial sector. We need more than just one more formula. What we have to have is a change of philosophy to the whole thing.

I think you've got to appreciate as a fact that the municipalities and the cities must have a freer rein to guide their own destinies, so let's have this change of attitude. Let's throw out the old concept that they're merely creatures of senior levels of government and, secondly, let's see that an ingestion of funds is provided, but on a balanced and in a predictable method of receipt and payment.

If you wish to use the per capita grant, maybe it can be used, but if it's going to be used it has to be used realistically by tying it into provincial revenues. That's the only fair way to do it. In 1970 your provincial revenues in B.C. were $1,165 million. The grant was $30. In 1973 we find that the municipal grant was $32, whereas the revenues went up to $1,722 million. That was up 48 per cent. In this year the per capita grant is going up another $2, yet we find the provincial revenues coming in at $2,177 million — nearly a 90 per cent increase in provincial revenues from 1970, yet roughly a 13 per cent increase in the per capita grants to the city. That's just not right. It's unfair, Mr. Minister, and surely to goodness you must accept that.

I would suggest to you that you should look at this side of municipal financing and municipal needs from the point I have indicated, that they are entitled to a fair share, and that share should be tied into the provincial revenues. As provincial revenues increase, their revenues increase; as provincial revenues decrease, they have to bear the burden of decrease as well.

Over and above that, this is one of the largest, most conflicting and compounding problems we have in Canada: the share of the tax dollar. It is not so much the share of it, it's the competition for that tax dollar between the municipal side and the provincial side and the federal side. I think we have got to have a complete 100 per cent reform of all of our municipal, provincial and federal taxation-sharing arrangements in order to face the reality which is a reality today: we are an urban society. This business of dipping a little into the pot, putting a little here and a little there, worked perhaps adequately when we were a rural society, but we are no longer a rural society. We are an urban society.

The study which I am calling for is certainly not a one-shot effort. I think there should be standing committees in Canada, right across the country, composed of the provincial side, the municipal side and the federal side to continuously deal with this problem. I'm very much in favour of the federal side taking a far larger share in matters which are becoming, in my view, far more federal than they are provincial, e.g. education.

I think you have got to accept the philosophy, Mr. Minister, that the cities and the municipalities cannot any longer be regarded as creatures of the government. They have to be regarded as partners of the provincial sector, as I said, with a much greater degree of flexibility to guide their own destinies both in planning, in taxation, and in the operation of their affairs.

Mr. Minister, I would commend your comments on this point. We all know the almost stultifying problems which are faced by the municipalities in raising money in the money market. I would say it would be the responsibility and the duty, unequivocally, of a provincial government and this provincial government to guarantee all future municipal bond issues.

I think in B.C. you should also go ahead and initiate here. You can do it from your own side of the income tax, the provincial income tax side if nothing else because it is 30.5 per cent — having just done our returns over the last two days or so. You should initiate in B.C. income tax relief — I would say request the federal government to do the same thing if you can — but initiate income tax relief to individual purchasers of municipal bonds to the extent that the interest those purchasers would

[ Page 2640 ]

receive from those municipal bonds would be tax free in their hands. This is not a new procedure. It has been tried. It has been tested. It has been proven to be highly successful in many areas in the United States. Surely to goodness you must have that criteria and that information at your fingertips, and that again would provide a great source of revenues to the municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, my friend suggests perhaps with a ceiling as to the interest rate — that would be only fair. I'll agree to that very valid suggestion, indeed — also perhaps a designation as to the amount of bonds a person could have.

It's not supposed to be a get-rich scheme for anybody. It is supposed to be a get-to-the-money-market-more- readily scheme for municipalities.

If we don't make those kinds of financing attractive in the inflationary trend that we are facing today, God knows how the municipalities are ever going to be able to raise funds. I just don't know. It is going to be extremely difficult for them, make no mistake of that.

Again, getting back to the Crown corporations, there can be only one rule in the Province of B.C.: they have got to pull their weight and pay their way, just the same way as everyone else.

Finally, I would again stress to the Minister, as I have done in earlier debates in this House, that I do hope he is of the view that the cities and the municipalities are going to be permitted to have zoning control over provincial government developments within their own areas. I'm afraid this government has not only followed but compounded the practices of the former administration by denuding the municipalities of that right to see that they can plan their own areas in the way they wish to do it.

Before sitting down, Mr. Minister, I would indeed also hope we could perhaps interest and enthuse our citizens, perhaps through the ingestion of funds and ideas from your government, to have happier municipalities, more attractive municipalities, more unique.

I think if there is anything that we are suffering from in the Province of B.C. it is the drabness insofar as construction is concerned. I think many of the new structures we are putting up today are really just monuments to concrete firms. The architecture per se in many cases is anachronistic and is a copying of architecture that was really tried and found largely disproved, and has been not satisfactory for livable cities and livable municipalities in more congested areas of the world over, let us say, the past 15 years.

In B.C. we really don't seem to have too many areas that are unique and distinct unto themselves. Our streets are all pretty well straight lines, the curbs are all the same level and the sidewalks are all concrete. The kind of buildings we are constructing in the Province of B.C., which I suppose will continue to carry on in their gloomy fashion as long as this government is in power, are indeed gloomy to the extent that they are certainly not going to end up being a monument to anybody. I think very shortly, in a 15- or 20-year period, they will sure as heck be turning into great slum areas.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Do you think the Vancouver Building is gloomy?

MR. GARDOM: Which one?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The new Vancouver Building.

MR. GARDOM: The Premier says do I think the new Vancouver Building...You're speaking of the block that is behind the courthouse? No, but you're talking about one government structure; I'm talking about the multitude of buildings. I don't think that's a gloomy building. No, I don't. I'm happy to see that we are making some strides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if this really comes under this vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Premier says.... I'm trying to.... He's just back from Japan and I'm wanting to make him welcome here. I appreciate his interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm glad you said that, but you haven't been here for a couple of days.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes I have. Just missed a day, Mr. Premier. I suppose it is possible to miss one day or two during a session. All right. Okay. I'll give you your gold star. It's all right.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister, in replying to my earlier remarks, felt that somehow, paraphrasing, as I recall, you couldn't break out the per capita grant and look at that alone in terms of financial assistance to municipalities. But you know, we all have to live with Hansard and that is not the way he felt on February 17, 1970. In, I gather, reply to the budget he said:

Now, the budget has also shown an increase to the municipal governments, a $2 increase per capita, which is a welcome step to assist the local governments in their financing. However, I suggest that the $2 per capita increase will not anywhere near meet the additional costs that the municipalities will be involved

[ Page 2641 ]

in in the current year. I foresee that the local taxes, and as has been stated by a number of city fathers, that the $2 increase will not cover the additional costs involved in local government.

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways: if $2 was not a satisfactory increase in 1970, then surely it is still not a satisfactory increase in 1974. The Minister, then sitting in opposition, very clearly dealt with that in isolation. He had been talking about housing before it and then he moved on to another subject relating to Municipal Affairs. But that paragraph very clearly stands in the records with respect to his views in opposition on a Social Credit $2 per capita increase in February of 1970. So let's have the record straight.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think I should reply to that first before I go on with the others.

In 1970 the difference was that there were no legislative benefits to municipalities. Here we've got a variety of legislative benefits which will reduce the cost to municipalities, and that is the difference. When you only have a $2 increase and nothing else to go with it, that's one thing. But when you have a $2 increase with a variety of legislative benefits to go along with it, that's a different thing altogether.

I want to tell the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that I, at no time, defended the non-payment of taxes by Crown corporations. I didn't do it today and I haven't done it before. However, I tried to indicate that certainly the policy of this government is to recognize the fact that Crown corporations have a responsibility, in my opinion, to pay their fair share. And the new Crown corporations are doing so.

I might also say that there is a study at the present time in Hydro, checking out exactly what they are paying and so on, with the intention of making some recommendations.

I want to state also that I was incorrect in my statements as to what B.C. Hydro pays — they pay full school tax and they pay hospital tax under a special Act. I am not sure whether it is full tax or not; it may not be. And they pay general tax, or at least grants in lieu of it, on administration buildings in the communities. They do not pay full general tax on all their lands, and they do not pay business tax.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things that I want to ask the Minister to comment about.

First of all, with respect to transit, I wonder if the Minister could fill us in on where we stand in relation to Vancouver Island Coach Lines at the moment — whether or not we have bought that company. If the sale has been completed, do the people have their money?

I would also like to know what the relationship is with Vancouver Island Coach Lines and Gray Line. Has there been some kind of a purchase there or is there a separate company? Has Vancouver Island bought Gray Line? Has the government bought Gray Line? What about Pacific Commuter Tours? The whole area seems to be a little complex, with Vancouver Island Coach Lines purchasing some companies and the government purchasing Vancouver Island Coach Lines. I think the Minister should make it clear at this time exactly the companies the government has bought and whether or not it is negotiating for any others.

I would like also to know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, how many more buses are on order — transit buses of any kind — where they're coming from, and whether or not they were put out to tender, If some of them weren't put out to tender, which ones? I understand that there is going to be a delay in the delivery of some 200 buses, which will also cause a delay of the upgrading of services in some areas on the lower mainland. I wonder whether or not those buses will now be here this year.

I would also like to ask the Minister a question I asked some time ago and never really got an answer to, Mr. Chairman, and that has to do with intra-provincial bus services. Is the government planning to go into that intra-provincial bus service? Will we be running buses from Vancouver to Prince George and from Vancouver to Kamloops? Will there be any changes in our relationship with Greyhound Lines? I know that some time ago in a letter to the Greater Vancouver Regional District the director of transit made mention of the fact that the government would be going into intra-provincial bus lines and I think he even mentioned at that time trans-oceanic passenger service. Maybe that's the North Vancouver ferry — I don't know — but is there some other trans-oceanic service that we are going into besides the North Vancouver ferry?

I think the whole area of transit with regard to what we are doing in purchasing other companies and where we stand in relation to those negotiations at the moment should be cleared up, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know whether the Minister is giving any more thought to the restructuring of regional boundaries. I know that on the lower mainland there is a lot of concern, right at this present time, about the present structure. It seems to me that the time is far overdue for some changes to the boundaries of the and the Greater Vancouver Regional Districts. The areas as they are now set up are not serving the communities to the best of their ability.

I think there are probably too many regional districts in the lower mainland, and we could probably get by with a couple instead of the four that we now have. Are we actively considering that possibility at this time? Are we actively considering any expansion of the Greater Vancouver Regional

[ Page 2642 ]

District? Or if a request was made for some restructuring from the local municipalities, would the Minister look favorably upon such a request? Are there any studies going on at this moment?

There is a problem, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, with regard to boards of variance. A recent court case in Surrey in the Supreme Court of British Columbia made some pretty significant changes or at least indicated that there should be some pretty significant changes in the powers of the board of variance. For years, the board of variance ruled on the siting of homes where the builder, either through accident or for some other reason — maybe a badly drawn boundary line or something like that — failed to meet the zoning bylaw siting requirements. I know that you have a letter on this, Mr. Minister, to you through the Chairman, from the City of Langley.

Briefly, local solicitors in our area feel that the board of variance, because of this court case in the supreme court, can no longer rule and deal with these kinds of appeals. Many people are running into problems with regard to getting a surveyor's certificate so they can get their necessary mortgage requirements. I am sure the Minister knows about that. Have you taken any action in this regard? Will the municipalities and, of course, the citizens who are having trouble getting conveyances be able to rest their minds? I'd like some comment on that, if I may.

I don't know whether this comes under the Minister's department or not but it has to do with the snoopers who were going around in the City of Vancouver. I wonder which provincial department gave them the okay to do that. I don't know whether they are the Attorney-General's snoopers or somebody else's. Actually they are federal people, I understand — private people who are doing federal surveys, stopping people on the streets of Vancouver and asking the personal questions about their drinking habits and many other kinds of habits. I wonder whether or not the Municipal Affairs department was contacted in this respect and who gave them the permission to operate in British Columbia in this manner, because it's a serious breach of privacy, in my opinion, and one which should never have been allowed to happen.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, sure, it's volunteer. Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says it's a volunteer thing. I'm sure it is, but once somebody official-looking stops you in the middle of the night in your car — most people are intimidated slightly by that. They don't know whether it's volunteer or not, and it takes on the trappings of some kind of an official survey. I don't think it should have happened and it shouldn't happen again.

I would like to comment briefly, too, on the threats that have been delivered to the municipalities by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and get the Minister of Municipal Affairs to comment on that. If those threats given by that Minister are correct, and if those threats constitute some kind of future government policy, we are going a long, long way down the road, Mr. Chairman, to removing all of the rights and responsibilities of local government. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources said very dramatically that from now on this government expects better service and better co-operation when seeking permits and implementing policies from local governments.

He told a meeting recently in Delta that the province has no intention of accepting the kind of treatment they have been getting from municipalities any longer in the future. I would say it's the other way around — the municipalities should be revolting and saying that they have no intention of accepting the kind of treatment they have been getting from the government in the future, not the province getting on its high horse and complaining about some kind of severe actions by the municipalities. The Minister even warned about some kind of a system of incentives and disincentives for municipalities if they don't do as they are told in Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister's comment on that. How far down this road are we going to go to take away the right to govern their own affairs from the local municipalities? It is my opinion that we have gone down that road almost to an irreversible degree.

Although I wasn't here yesterday, I notice in Hansard that the Minister opened his remarks yesterday with some comments about new methods of financing for the municipalities. I think that's a welcome announcement. I hope that he will get on with that as quickly as possible. I have given my comments during the debate on the municipalities per capita grant Act about the methods by which I think we can achieve some new ways of financing for municipalities. I know the Minister will take those ideas into account and particularly the ideas of tying the grants to municipalities, or at least aid to municipalities, to the increasing provincial revenues, because I feel that's the only fair way we can go. If we are going to treat municipalities as equal partners in the growth of this province, then we must treat them as equal partners financially and every other way.

I was a little concerned about the press reports saying that the Minister felt that the northern municipalities deserve some special kind of treatment because they had more costs in their development. I would like to take the side of the poor relatives in the lower Fraser Valley, if I may, because we have some

[ Page 2643 ]

special problems as well. They have to do with growth. We must recognize, Mr. Chairman, that it's the lower Fraser Valley where it's at right now in British Columbia.

I pointed out in this House before that in one municipality, one school district in British Columbia, which is Langley School District, we had one-third of the total growth of school enrolment in British Columbia this past year. One-third of the total growth of school enrolment happened in Langley School District.

That's where the action is, and that's where the action is going to be forced in the future because all of the other Ministers of this government are saying that we must disperse housing, we must disperse people, we must have more housing available. There's no place for it except in those areas that are already experiencing high growth — the lower Fraser Valley — and particularly even outside the Greater Vancouver Regional District today.

In a recent discussion paper for the Greater Vancouver Regional District issued in February of this year there are outlined a number of policy options, Mr. Chairman, about municipal and regional financial resources. It points out very well that we are going to suffer some special problems in relation to financial need, because we're going to have to take the burden and provide for the planned growth that's necessary in this whole rapidly growing lower mainland area.

We who live in that part of the country won't be able to restrict that growth rate because as we restrict the growth rate, we place the burden on somebody else, and we also accelerate that inflationary cycle because of that very restriction. We've seen that very clearly in relation to Bill 42 and to other restrictive measures put in by both the provincial government and municipal levels of government as well.

So we can't restrict that growth very much more because there's nowhere else for it to go. We must accept it, we must manage it and we must plan it. But the province has got to help us out by realizing those special problems and by helping us financially.

I'd like to quote again from this report just briefly, Mr. Chairman — just one paragraph, which says:

"Fast-growing municipalities have a problem in financing municipal activities of all sorts. The faster the rate of residential growth, the greater the problem. This sooner or later leads fast-growing municipalities to introduce policies to restrict the rate of residential development...." We've seen that happen in all of the high growth areas of the Lower Mainland right now.

"...and to confine residential development to types of accommodation that create relatively lower costs and/or higher assessment per dwelling for the municipality, or to discourage residential development by high servicing standards and developer charges."

That's a report that really is not reporting something that could happen; it's reflecting on something that's already happened and is out of control in the lower mainland — that kind of reaction to high growth because of the need for more money. Because those people aren't getting enough money they have to react in negative ways and react with other kinds of restrictions. Those restrictions simply put the inflationary cycle out of control even more.

So they're happening in the lower mainland already, and they lead as well, those kind of restrictions, to the kind of threats that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) made again when he said: "We'll create some incentives and disincentives if you don't do the kind of planning we want you to in Victoria."

So Victoria has really got the municipalities in a terrible bind. On the one hand it's saying, "you can't have the money;" on the second hand it's saying, "we're going to have disincentives if you don't do as you're told."

How are you going to rationalize this total problem? It's one that has to be rationalized pretty quickly or the municipalities in high-growth areas are going to strangle in their own problem. I'm speaking particularly now of areas which are just really facing the kind of crunch that Surrey and Delta have had in the past — areas like Langley, Surrey, Abbotsford. They're really in need of the kind of direction and help that will be necessary right now. If they don't, everything gets out of whack and there's not enough money to go around, and the planning process falls apart and the municipal process falls apart, and you don't have anything left.

I want to ask the Minister a question about the Bridgeview. Just before I do that, perhaps I can deal briefly with financing again. I know that the 15-mill municipal aid grant thing was dealt with yesterday to some extent. But I wanted to bring the Minister's attention to some of the direct results that happen because of this 15-mill grant. Not only does it only allow the 15-mill grant for certain type of provincial properties, but it also exempts a large number of provincial properties from any kind of grant whatsoever.

Just to take as an example the municipality of Surrey, for only nine properties which the provincial government owns in the municipality of Surrey and which have been totally exempted, those properties under 1974 estimated assessment would have paid in estimated taxes almost $47,000 for municipal taxes, and almost $45,000 for school, municipal finance authority, GVRD, and hospital taxes. That's $90,000 or better that would have come to the municipality of Surrey, except that those properties are totally exempt and pay no taxes whatsoever.

[ Page 2644 ]

On other properties which do get the 15-mill municipal aid grant, if those properties would have been subject to full taxation — and here again we're dealing with five pieces of property — we would have seen, under 1974 estimated assessment, a total of $37,000 — these are for improvements — $37,000 in municipal taxes and $33,000 for school, municipal finance authority and hospital, for a total of almost $40,000 for those five properties which would have gone to the municipality of Surrey. Instead, under the 15-mill grant, all the municipality gets out of that is $5,000 — as compared to $40,000 if they had been getting full taxes.

You know, that $5,000 figure is way out of whack, even at the 15-mill levy, because not only does the government rip the municipality off in relation to only giving them 15 mills, but the assessments which are set by the assessment commissioner on which that 15 mills is based are 86.3 per cent lower than the assessments levied by the municipal assessor — 86 per cent less than the assessments levied by the municipal assessor.

So it's a double rip-off, really. The assessments are way low; they only pay 15 mills, so the government is getting off scot-free: $5,000 on property which should be returning a minimum of $40,000 to the municipal coffers.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs should check into the municipal assessor's department and find out why there's such a large discrepancy between the provincial assessment and the municipal assessment, because it's certainly out of whack. And even if those assessments had been brought up to municipal level, that would have been another $6,000 — double, even on the 15-mill rate.

So I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs had better look into that. If this is prevalent throughout the whole province, then the municipalities are losing out perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars on even the 15-mill rate.

I'd like to ask the Minister whether or not he has been in consultation with the Minister of Housing since the weekend to talk about what's going to happen in the Bridgeview area of Surrey. That area was for some strange reason left out of the neighbourhood improvement project grant, even though every municipal official and every provincial official who looked at the problems of Bridgeview — sewerage problems and drainage problems — said that that had to be the area of the province which should have the most priority of any other area in this province. Yet for some reason when it came time to pass out those NIP grants, the Bridgeview area was passed by.

Now I understand that on Saturday morning the Minister of Housing managed finally to get himself down to the Bridgeview area and have a look at it. He was sufficiently alarmed, I hope, that some kind of action needs to be taken right away. I hope he's been in touch with the Municipal Affairs Minister. If not, would the Minister, Mr. Chairman, assure us that he'll take urgent action on the Bridgeview problems to tell the people of Surrey that they're going to get that area upgraded at last with some immediate action.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask a few more questions of clarification in regard to the question of disposal of surplus assets for B.C. Hydro, which I canvassed with the Minister in the House on another occasion and which needs some answers pretty soon if the people of B.C. are to be assured they're not getting ripped off again in the case of selling assets which are no longer of use to the people of British Columbia.

Now one Hydro official has already admitted that Hydro made an error in judgment in selling its old Jordan River generating station for scrap. It was funny because I asked this of the Minister in the House on three of four or five occasions to tell me whether or not that scrap at Jordan River was sold to an American company.

I got no answers from the Minister. Yet I look in the press account of a statement from a B.C. Hydro man, and he has finally admitted, or he did finally admit, that it was a Seattle company which was the successful — I can't call him a bidder because there were never any tenders put out.... But he was successful in getting that project from the Jordan River hydro station.

The question, however, which still hasn't been answered is: how much did the people of British Columbia get for that old hydro station? Was it $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000? That's the rumour.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Those questions were answered on the order paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, they weren't. We never got the total amount of the sale on that. What precautions, Mr. Chairman, were taken? What precautions are being taken, if the project is still going on, to ensure that that penstock and hydro power plant are not shipped down to the United States and re-installed as a complete hydro unit in another location? It's my information, Mr. Chairman, that the installation was being taken out of there so very carefully that each piece of the old power plant could have been easily re-assembled and used again, not as scrap, but as a complete power plant.

The situation is complicated even further, Mr. Chairman, because when the Seattle company first put in an option on that power plant it was as a complete unit, because Hydro put it out as a complete unit in the first place. The Alaska Junk Company of Seattle, Washington, apparently put in two options as a complete power unit, but at the last

[ Page 2645 ]

minute decided for some reason that it was of no use to them as a complete unit, but then later on we find Alaska Junk of Seattle successful in getting this job despite the fact that at least two Canadian companies begged Hydro to be able to go in there. Companies with the expertise needed to make that disposal begged Hydro to go in there and be allowed to at least bid on it. Hydro refused the Canadian companies and gave it to the same American company which backed out of its option to buy that unit as a complete power unit. Now the fear that I have is that we're going to find that unit operating somewhere else as a complete power unit and instead of getting the half-million bucks, or whatever that outfit was worth, we'll be stuck for $50,000 or $60,000 because of the practices of B.C. Hydro.

The other thing that we need from this Minister is a guarantee that never again will any assets be disposed by B.C. Hydro without going to public tender. I think this Minister should now finally give us that guarantee that every Crown corporation in its disposal of assets, or in its business in public.... Even if we're buying buses — it doesn't matter what we're doing — we must go to public tender and make sure that everything is open and above board.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'd like to start by adding my voice to the many Members who have called on the Minister for an endorsation by the provincial government of the idea of the full payment of city taxes — the admission of full liability. I won't repeat the many arguments that have been gone into. It's a matter of equity. It's a matter of one part of the province and one class of taxpayer not being asked to subsidize the general provincial taxpayer.

I want to explain to the Minister why I particularly raise it with reference to my own riding, and that is because one of those Crown corporations that pays no taxes, namely the British Columbia Railway, has its southern terminus in my riding. Were such a general provincial policy of the payment of civic taxes in effect, the District of North Vancouver would receive taxes of approximately $125,000 on that British Columbia Railway property, and that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is something that is of great importance to that municipality.

I compliment the Minister on his quick reaction to the question I asked him on the 17 acres being acquired by the government for property for the northern terminus of the Burrard Inlet ferry. With reference to that property he said at once that the government would propose to pay full taxation on it. I know that this is the Minister's general line of thinking, and I would plead with him to extend that general line of thinking in what is the only fair and equitable policy to the remaining Crown corporations and the one that particularly affects my riding, British Columbia Railway.

I'd next like to ask the Minister if he could clarify his thinking, his intent, with respect to the amalgamation provisions of the Municipal Act. I didn't have the honour of being present in the Legislature when the amendments to the Act went through last fall on this matter. Perhaps it was dealt with at that time but perhaps the Minister could clear something up for me. As he knows, there's a long-standing question as to whether the District and City of North Vancouver should amalgamate. It has been considered as a matter of equity over the years that both of those jurisdictions should agree before any amalgamation took place.

Now, the Municipal Act as amended now provides that the Minister shall cause a vote to be taken on such an amalgamation before it happens, but then that he may incorporate all of the area into a single municipality if there is a majority of the votes cast. The interpretation I would like from the Minister, because I would think he has a good deal of discretion here, is whether he would require what I would call a "double majority," in other words a majority in each of those jurisdictions. I would represent to him that if he does not require a double majority, he ought to do. Each of the jurisdictions ought to be required to approve. He has lowered the limit to a mere 50 per cent. Now I think it's a matter of simple justice, particularly when the units are of such relatively equal size. We're not talking about a municipality with 10,000 getting together with a group of 1,000. They are relatively of equal size, they're both grown- up municipalities and I think they both have the right to their own opinion on a matter of this kind.

The Minister, I think, has kept a reasonably open mind on the concept of what I refer to as an inevitable third crossing of Burrard Inlet. In this connection I would ask him again, as I have asked him recently by letter, to use his influence with the City of Vancouver to continue the protection of the so-called through corridor, which is a tunnel underneath the City of Vancouver and an indispensable concomitant of a proper third crossing and also a corridor useful to the city in its own right. City council has been finding increasing difficulty in protecting this corridor as it receives applications from developers whose building foundations would interfere with the possibility of having a corridor in the long-term future. Minimal financial and moral assistance from the province in this regard would for the foreseeable future preserve this option, requiring no commitment of the government at this point but simply the preservation of an option for a third crossing.

Related also to the question of transportation across the inlet, the Minister has been doing a very

[ Page 2646 ]

good job of increasing the bus service to the North Shore, particularly on the eastern side of the North Shore in the riding of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) but also within my own riding of North Vancouver–Capilano.

I would ask him if he would comment on a suggestion which I sent to him some days ago relating to an even greater improvement of bus service and therefore a consequent upgrading of the transportation capacity of the existing Lions Gate Bridge. At the moment there are about 3,500 automobiles crossing that bridge at peak hours, say between 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning. That number of automobiles carries about 4,500 people. At the same time another 3,000 people, roughly, go over by bus, and this is a magnificent achievement that that many go by bus already.

I would like to suggest that if a major park-and-ride facility could be established near the northern foot of Lions Gate Bridge, and if it were possible to negotiate with the Squamish Indian band for a lease of some term — probably a fairly short term because they will have other uses of the land in mind in due course — but at a lease of roughly 10 acres, which might be sufficient for the establishment of a 1,000 car parking lot.... The Minister could check my arithmetic on this, but if we could run a shuttle bus service from such a parking facility during peak hours — 7:30 to 8:30 — and thereby remove up to 1,000 cars off the bridge over that period, this would vastly extend the service ability of that bridge to the North Shore and to Vancouver.

I think it could be done for a reasonable cost — something like perhaps 15 buses would be required, and I know buses are scarce. It seems to me that the total capital cost needn't be over, say, $2 million and the annual operating loss perhaps a matter of $0.5 million.

These are important figures but they are relatively minor in nature when you consider that we're spending $12 million over the next couple of years for the resurfacing of the bridge and other needed repairs, and when you consider the amount that will be spent on a ferry service, and especially when you consider the amount that will be required for a new third crossing.

I'd appreciate the Minister's comments on this idea of a park-and-ride facility which, as I say, could expand by almost one-third the current automobile carrying capacity of that bridge effectively.

I compliment the Minister on his recent announcement of a ferry service for Burrard Inlet. I would much appreciate if he could give us more details at this time as to the phasing of this service, as to when we might expect the first load of ferry passengers to cross Burrard Inlet, because this too will take a great deal of pressure off the strained transportation systems on that important north-south link.

I would ask him as well if he could give further details on the use of the 17 acres, which the Department of Public Works is acquiring on his behalf, at the northern end of the ferry route for the northern terminal. Seventeen acres is obviously a good deal more than is required for a ferry terminal. What other uses does he have in mind for that land?

Finally, in respect to bus transportation from the North Shore, I would make a representation to him that he should reduce the ordinary fare from the North Shore to Vancouver from 40 cents to 25 cents. It is, or course, a much shorter distance than you can travel within the City of Vancouver for a fare of only 25 cents. I would hope he could make that reduction in the fairly near future. I know that the Minister said in his opening remarks that he couldn't make a hoped-for announcement on that now.

There have been recent suggestions and proposals in various municipalities, among them the City of North Vancouver, that one way to solve the apartment residence problem in British Columbia is to set up apartment-only zoning areas within municipalities. I can see advantages and disadvantages to this particular concept. It perhaps really falls more into the subject of the Housing estimates, but as it is a problem to be faced by many municipalities in this province, I would ask the Minister if he would undertake to have his officials look at this concept and give some general advice to municipalities as to whether it would work, whether it could be of assistance in solving the rental problems we see these days.

Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns I have, and what seems to be almost a continent-wide problem is that municipalities are gradually losing their powers to the provincial level of government. Indeed many of the measures for financial relief of municipalities, which amount to takeover of municipal services by the province, are such as to further take away powers from municipalities and reduce the meaningfulness of being a city counsellor or alderman.

To demonstrate that this is, indeed, not merely endemic to British Columbia but, also in other parts of the country, I quote from a recent report from the Ontario Economic Council relating to the Province of Ontario. It says: "Municipalities are now being stripped of their powers at such a rate that soon few people will be willing to run for municipal office." It attacks the provincial government strongly, saying: "Queen's Park is always talking about strengthening municipal autonomy, but doing just the opposite."

Indeed, we have seen that to some extent here in British Columbia. The study points to a trend to centralize authority over police services, to keep road grants rigidly tied to conditions laid down by Queen's Park, to remove municipalities' discretion in spending money allocated for water and sewage services. Those

[ Page 2647 ]

are familiar words, Mr. Chairman, with much reference to the Province of British Columbia.

The study says that few meaningful functions are being left to the local governments to perform unilaterally, therefore less remains in substantive terms to be decided by local councils. Municipalities are being reduced to mere agents of the province, yet there's been no real study of the values of centralization and decentralization, nor does there seem to be any appreciation of the fact that efficiency was never intended to be the only objective of local government. The people want to decide on their own local services even though this may provide inefficiencies and inequities compared to other areas.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a similar trend underway here in British Columbia. It is a matter which has been of concern to many municipal governments. It is a matter which I would draw to the Minister's attention, not just in terms of the functions that were mentioned there, but also the set-up of the human resource boards, many of the ideas of this government which would in some cases provide for the upgrading of service but at the same time remove responsibilities from local elected bodies. I think that is a trend to be discouraged.

There's been much talk about the adequacy of the increase in the per capita grant to municipalities. I repeat that the proper solution to this problem is the indexing of these municipal grants, these per capita grants, to some province-wide measure of revenue or gross provincial product, or some index that relates to the general resources of the province as a whole because, as is well know, the municipal resources based on land simply do not grow at a rate to meet their own responsibilities.

Moving on to the administration of the transportation system which is the Minister's responsibility, I want first of all to congratulate him on his obvious determination to have a good public transportation system. It's long overdue in British Columbia, that this kind of a commitment by the provincial government should be made. The Minister has made it; he's gone ahead to convert into tangible ways, into tangible manifestations, the realization of that intent.

He has perhaps not always appeared to consult with local authorities to the extent that should be done. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has been very active in transportation planning, making very considerable efforts in that regard. In a recent report the district noted that the province and the regional district need to decide what their respective roles should be in setting policies and priorities on transportation and transit, and who is responsible for carrying out these policies.

On deciding what role the regional district should play in setting transportation policy and priorities the board — the regional district board — must give consideration to the fact that 15 out of 30 of the livability policy statements adopted by the board in December of 1972 depend upon vigorous implementation of transit for their achievement. The objectives implied in these policy statements include ones affecting the pattern of growth, conservation, recreation, residential settlement inclusion, as well as transportation itself.

Since the attainment of livability objectives depends to such a degree on effective transit programmes, the board's negotiators must press for a significant role for the regional district in setting public transportation policy and priorities.

I commend that statement to the Minister's attention. I know he has been doing his best to work with the regional district. I hope he will find ways to overcome the great concerns he has about improper speculation or rise in prices of transit rights-of-way which might be the case if public discussion were to happen about these rights-of-way prior to their acquisition. I wonder if it is beyond the bounds of possibility to work out ways and means of providing that the acquisition of these rights-of-way, when they are acquired after the discussion should be at a price to be determined and arbitrated on the basis of their value before the proposal of such a system.

I mentioned very briefly to the Minister the role of the GVRD and the municipalities in the financing of public transit. I quote here from Alderman Harry Rankin as appearing in the March, 1974 issue of The Barker. He says in part:

"...which raises the question: when are we going to get going on rapid transit in the greater Vancouver area? We've had enough studies and reports to fill a library, but little action. What is holding up rapid transit now is lack of agreement on how it should be financed. The Greater Vancouver Regional District takes the position that one method should be a two — or three — cent tax on gasoline.

"The provincial government says it must be financed by an increase of two mills in taxes. This deadlock must be broken. The longer we delay it, the greater will be the cost. It will take at least 10 years to build once a decision is made."

Mr. Minister, this question of how to finance the municipal share of transit deficit is a continuing one. The regional district has advanced positive suggestions, in my view — one of them being this additional tax on gasoline.

I wonder if the Minister, in his remarks, could explain why the share of tax on the property is more equitable than one on gasoline, particularly when it has been the policy of his government to encourage people to ride in public transit rather than in the private automobile. In that case, you would think he would prefer to finance public transit by a tax on the

[ Page 2648 ]

private automobile, which a tax on gasoline would effectively be.

I would suggest to him that his concept of yesterday that the two mills would not necessarily apply to all property in the area but rather to the property that particularly benefited from public transit patterns — namely, the shopping centres — isn't really an acceptable solution or answer because all that would happen is that the shopping centres would pass their cost onto the consumer, onto the people who shop at the shopping centre. They have to pass that cost on.

Therefore, he would simply be raising the prices of goods in those shopping centres. I think he would be better to seek an alternate route than the property tax for this whole matter of transportation.

It's a big subject, but it certainly is within the Minister's administrative responsibilities: namely, how does he assess how the regional districts are working in British Columbia? Does he feel they are doing the thing they've been designed for? Are the current boundaries appropriate? And so on.

It is my personal belief and experience that the Greater Vancouver Regional District is doing an excellent job, particularly in conceptual terms. They're doing some of the best municipal work in the Province of British Columbia right now. At the staff level it's very good.

But I would be very grateful to hear the Minister's assessment of this sort of fourth level of government since it is pretty well unique to us here in British Columbia. The metropolitan districts in other parts of the country are, generally speaking, districts with far more power.

There were suggestions yesterday by some of the Members that there is a need for municipalities to have the power to vary their mill rates as between different classes of land use — in other words, the power to set one mill rate for residential, another for industrial, perhaps yet a third for commercial.

I'd ask the Minister if he would wish to comment on that. I personally can foresee problems. There would certainly arise inter-city competition for industry, which might be a good thing. But the Minister might have views on that.

The final topic I would like to canvass with the Minister at this point is the question of growth in the lower mainland and the impact of that growth on the municipal responsibilities. Alderman Walter Hardwick was quoted extensively in The Province of April 20. One of the things he mentioned that surprised me was that Toronto was North America's 10th largest city and Vancouver is well down the list at No. 21. But in terms of growth, Toronto was third and Vancouver was tenth on the whole continent. I'm sure in that respect he is referring to the Greater Vancouver Regional District rather than Vancouver itself. But the problem of growth is certainly very acute in our area.

One of the things the Minister has not yet canvassed is what the provincial government and particularly his department might do not so much to control as to influence growth throughout the Province of British Columbia.

One of the Members yesterday brought up the idea of a light-rail transit system on the southern end of Vancouver Island. This is the sort of thing that I would think would encourage growth to come to the southern part of Vancouver Island and away from the lower mainland. So there are transportation initiatives: the idea of a LRT system out to Mission or along the BCR right-of-way up to Whistler. All of these would have important impacts on growth patterns.

At the same time, the Minister, I would think, should be developing programmes to encourage both provincial agencies and major corporations — such as, for example, B.C. Tel, which is currently talking about where to locate its new office building — wherever possible, to set up their headquarters away from crowded urban areas. Perhaps the Minister could at this time say what general provincial policy is on that sort of general planning for growth. It would be very helpful to many of the municipalities of British Columbia.

One of the difficulties of differential growth in between the municipalities of the lower mainland has been the difference in costs imposed on them by such growth. Another recent GVRD study gives the reason that municipal revenues can't possibly keep up with municipal growth. The first reason is:

"The financial base of a municipality in one year is the total assessment of the preceding year. Depending on the municipal practice, there can be a lag of up to 18 months between the time new buildings are constructed and the time their full assessed value becomes available to the municipality for taxation."

That is a considerable lag, particularly when we look at growth rates such as between 1966 and 1977. Delta, for instance, grew by 122 per cent; Port Coquitlam by 79 per cent; Port Moody by 53 per cent. An enormous strain is placed on these municipalities by the lag in assessments.

A second fundamental reason is that in most developing municipalities commercial and industrial development follows the residential development. In other words, the productive tax base follows the tax base which makes the greatest demands on services for people.

A third reason is that the annual per capita grants to growing municipalities lag well behind their needs because the province pays on the basis of the latest census, which is adjusted only once every five years with, incidentally, no retroactive payment to compensate for growth between censuses.

[ Page 2649 ]

There is a tremendous discrepancy between the loads that different municipalities around the lower mainland are carrying in respect to the growth problem. I would ask the Minister if his department is doing any work on the sharing of growth between municipalities. Again, speaking of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, they are working out pro forma allocations of the desirable extent to which the member municipalities should accept growth.

Let us hope they are able to come to an amicable compromise. At the same time, let us realize the possibility that there are going to be a lot of municipalities that say: "We appreciate that we are not taking our fair share of growth right now, but we don't want any more than we are taking now. We simply can't afford it. Our taxpayers can't afford it because of these extra costs of schools and parks and roads and the many things that new people in a municipality require that government to contribute."

I'd ask the Minister if any work is being done to provide incentives to municipalities to accept growth — not, as the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) said a few weeks ago, "disincentives," not threats to the municipalities, but rather positive incentives. What could these be?

The most important single thing the provincial government could do in this regard would be to say to each municipality: "We will pick up the cost of a new citizen in your municipality, recognizing it as a proper charge on the whole province rather than simply on your taxpayers." In that way, the patterns of growth within the province can be best and most rationally determined, rather than basing it simply on local financial difficulties. What the province should do, in other words, is to pick up those fees which are currently being charged as impost charges — running up to, say, $ 1,000 in Surrey — sharing and charged in several other municipalities. Equally important, pick up the servicing charges on new lots for housing coming on the market.

By picking up these impost charges and servicing charges the provincial government would be doing two things: first, they would be assisting the municipalities to bear the burden of growth which, as I say, falls on them in unequal ways. The second would be to help keep down the price of housing by keeping down the price of new land and thereby keeping down the price of all the existing housing as well.

So I would commend to the Minister that basic policy of giving an incentive and a financial ability to the municipalities of the lower mainland to absorb the inevitable growth which is coming their way and, at the same time, planning to distribute a certain amount of that growth around other parts of the province.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I just have a few words to contribute to the debate today on the Minister's estimates. First I would like to say how pleased I am with the co-operation I have received from the Minister and his staff — not only the co-operation I've received, but also the co-operation that municipalities within my riding have received when they've come to Victoria to meet with the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: No, we're hearing a little truth for a change with regard to what is going on.

In regard to the action this Minister took with the Sewage Facilities Assistance Act, which I know is out of order but at the same time I'm going to comment on it, I'm going to say for municipalities in my riding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would like to draw to the Member's attention that there is a bill on the order paper, so that is not a subject for discussion. You discuss that when that legislation comes before the House.

MR. LEWIS: I have a few things to say in regard to regional districts. I served four years on the Columbia- Shuswap Regional District and my views with regard to the usefulness of regional districts are a little different than the Minister's.

I feel that when the former government instituted regional districts as a fourth form of government, it was done as a place to foist problems which they didn't want to handle — things that were not in their best interest, something which the taxpayers would stand up and holler out against. I'm still concerned that this could happen.

Regional districts have a large responsibility. I think some of the people on them are very, very capable people, but at the same time these people are working with a handicap. Directors on the regional districts receive a per diem of $25. In effect they receive $25 for any work that they do within that month, which I really think is shameful.

I, as a director in the past, would sometimes take two days to attend a meeting. I would travel a distance of 180 miles, stay overnight and not return until the following evening, for which I received $25.

Since the Land Commission Act came in, regional districts were expected to do a lot in regard to the mapping, and you can imagine the amount of contribution they were willing to put forward when they were receiving $25.

I'm hoping the Minister is taking a serious look at this aspect. If regional districts are here to stay, I say that the representatives on those regional districts should receive fair remuneration for their efforts.

I would just like to make a few comments in

[ Page 2650 ]

regard to planning within regional districts. If the regional districts are going to have this function, I hope the Minister is going to see that it remains within the regional district concept, that the directors on that board will be the ones to make the decisions, not the Department of Highways, as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) indicated in the past. He felt that the Highways department should have control of all planning within half-a-mile of the highways.

I'm strongly opposed to this. Every small community in my riding would be totally controlled by the planning of the Highways department. If we are going to have a regional district supposed to be in control of planning, then I say that they have got to retain this power, not hand it over to the Highways department.

I have every confidence that the Minister will see that there is proper planning throughout the province, and that regional districts will be moving in the proper direction. I am hopeful that in this Legislature, during this session, there will be fair remuneration put forward for the regional district directors, and that they will be treated the same as councillors and aldermen on municipal bodies that are presently operating in this province.

Thank you.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Chairman, I would like to remark on northern development, okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member that we are on vote 181, Municipal Affairs, Minister's salary.

MR. CALDER: It relates to administration of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. CALDER: I am quite concerned, Mr. Chairman, about public services in the north and it definitely relates to this Minister's portfolio. It is sort of negative in a way, because if I asked him if he could provide sewage disposal systems in Telegraph Creek, in a God-forsaken area, absolutely remote, isolated, and say to him: "Gad, people are moving into this territory. Why can't we have a sewage disposal system in that area? Why couldn't we have water supply system, or any public service?" — but these two relate to his department. I know the answer he's going to give to me. I've been saying that for 20 years to the previous administration — why couldn't you provide these things to people who are pioneering in that part of the country? The answer I would get would be: "Well, I'm sorry, I can't give you that public service because you've got to be incorporated as a village. Then you, as a village, take the responsibility of providing these services."

This government here is giving the old jazz on northern development. I couldn't see for the life of me why laws couldn't be provided by which they would say, particularly in his department or the government department, "Well, why do we have to wait for this incorporation? If this is a particular town site and requires a sewage disposal system and it requires a water supply system, why do we have to wait for this jazz about incorporation? Why can't we give it to these people?" There's nothing to stop them! Nothing to stop them, for crying out loud, and this is what I'm saying to this Minister.

I'm looking at my territory; I'm looking at every northern territory where people have been working hard to build that blasted north. Why should we have to go and tell the world, "Well, look, you've got to get incorporated first and then you've got to pay your share of that."

Northern development? Look! Listen to this bloody jazz which I've been listening to for years: to return people who have been raking off the north and filling the coffers in Victoria and who don't provide services for the north.... I'm saying they should provide them regardless of this jazz about "you've got to get incorporated first." Oh, come off it! I've got a word for this but I don't want to say it because I will be ruled out of order.

I think this government should consider these things. I really do.

I'm glad to see that my boss is back from Japan. I think he should listen to this because he'll be going up there and people are going to be inquiring about these things, believe me. So that's No. 1, Mr. Minister.

Don't ever tell me, if you come into my country, that we couldn't do this because we are going to have to get incorporated first. Don't give all this jazz I've been looking at for 20 years in this bloody place! Cut that out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member that....

MR. CALDER: I didn't say it. I didn't make that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I caution you about unparliamentary language. (Laughter.)

MR. CALDER: But it's true. That's his department — he can provide the law that says he'll put a sewage system in an unincorporated place, an unorganized place. That's the administration. Now, don't rule me out of order — I'll fight you.... C'mon.

Number two, about the Indian affairs. There is one recommendation that I would have made. This was the number one recommendation I would have made

[ Page 2651 ]

if things hadn't happened the way they happened. I was going to pinpoint to his department that the government, through the Municipal Affairs department, automatically recognize Indian reservations as municipalities. No negotiations, partner — you just automatically recognize that they are municipalities. I don't give a hoot about negotiations — you just automatically recognize that they are municipalities.

That was my number one recommendation. No government was going to buy that. That was too hot for you, because you know what it means? It means that the minute you do that, then the Indians will have to, if they lease lands, collect taxes. That's why the government wouldn't recognize them. That was my number one recognition, partner. I don't give a hoot how you look at it — an automatic recognition.

I'll tell you where it happens. I see my good friend from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not even listening. But there are only two places in North America where such a thing is recognized — Ontario and the United States. They recognize automatically that Indian communities are communities as such, including the matter of taxation.

I would like to ask the Minister, and he doesn't have to answer this question: are you, Mr. Minister, going to recognize 188 communities in this province under the Indians as municipalities? No doubt the answer might be no, because it involves taxation. I am going to ask the Minister if he could recognize that, because if one Canadian province could recognize that, I would like to see this province automatically recognize that without any consultation — just automatically recognize that Indian reserves and communities are municipalities.

You can repeal what is written in the Municipal Act that you have to go and vote to become a municipality. I don't grab that nonsense. Automatic recognition — you think it over. I doubt if you are going to buy it, because it is a hot issue. Ontario recognizes it. The United States recognizes it. I will just leave that to your damned conscience. It should be recognized.

If the Indians want to lease out lands, let them do their thing with it. Right now, the province hates that little method to come out, because they'd love to grab the taxation. But if the recognition comes in, the Indians can lease out their lands and they will pay the taxation. This is one reason why the province hates them — you know?

Have a cup of coffee with me upstairs and I will give you the type of language I would like to use. But eventually, partner, that is going to have to come about.

I am asking this Minister to now recognize, automatically, Indian reservations and communities as municipalities and repeal what is written in the Municipal Act where you have to vote with at least 60 per cent to become a municipality. That's hogwash in my books. Take a look at it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In reply to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), he asked about the Gray Line. The Gray Line is owned by the Vancouver Island Coach Lines. The negotiations between the province and the Vancouver Island Coach Lines include all their assets which include the Gray Line. We hope to have the matters completed by the end of the session.

As far as the delivery of the 200 buses — it was all put to tender. As for the delivery dates, they will start or were supposed to start in early summer, coming piecemeal. I think that is still true but they will be coming in smaller dribbles. That's why I mentioned that there would be a delay. We hope to have full delivery by late fall. Although the deliveries will be starting, I expect, in the early summer, I don't expect to have full deliveries by the end of the year.

You asked about the Greater Vancouver Regional District expansion. There has been some activity along that line. The City of Langley, I believe, has passed a resolution requesting an extension of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The District of Langley has not as yet made up their mind whether they wish it or not, and are looking into it. We haven't heard yet what their opinion is, one way or the other. We don't know what the rest of the regional districts' official stand is on this.

In regard to the supreme court case with reference to boards of variance, we have submitted that to the department in the hope that there can be some amendments brought before us in the session to correct or make definite the functions of the boards of variance.

I didn't know about the snoopers that you referred to. But I think that's the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald's), probably. I think he is the one.

Regarding the sale of surplus assets of B.C. Hydro, as I mentioned earlier to the Hon. Member, it was the policy to put up for sale assets of B.C. Hydro with or without tender. I indicated when he brought this matter to our attention that we had passed out directives immediately that no more of that kind of sale could take place. I checked back and the question that he asked on the order paper was No. 172. I did reply to that question on the order paper and I have the answer here if you want me to read it all out, but it is a very lengthy one. I certainly will say that that sort of sale will not take place again.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) questioned whether the city and the district should amalgamate in North Vancouver. He's gone.

The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) mentioned the fact that the regional district directors were not getting adequate payment at the present time. I agree

[ Page 2652 ]

that that is correct. We hope to bring something for the House before the end of the session for consideration.

The Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) questioned the need to incorporate Telegraph Creek. Well, there is no need to incorporate to get assistance for sewers or water or anything else. It could be a benefiting area of a regional district and get assistance completely for this.

Now in the case of Telegraph Creek a group was set up — an investigative group — including the regional district, the province and the federal government, who were looking at the possibility of putting sewers into Telegraph Creek this summer. As far as I know, the study is still proceeding and we hope to have it finalized, and we hope that Telegraph Creek will be able to get their sewers.

The federal government is interested basically because they have the RCMP installation there. They're anxious to have sewers in location and are prepared to pay some of the cost. It is a difficult situation physically to put the installation in, but we are hopeful that it will be done.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The other question about the Indian reserves being considered municipalities: as the Hon. Member knows, the Indian reserves can become municipalities now under the Act if they so wish by voting it by 50 per cent. Now there's only one area that appeared interested in this section of the Act and that was Cape Mudge. They have never, since I have been the Minister, come back to request it further.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think what we're getting into is legislative matters. The Minister is on his feet answering the questions.

HON. MR. LORIMER: But I'm not prepared to suggest that the reserves should automatically become municipalities without the consent of the people that reside there.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman I shan't be long. I think that the Minister touched very lightly upon the question of serious concern raised by the Member of Atlin (Mr. Calder). It's the whole problem of people who live in our so-called unorganized areas in the Province of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, when it comes to the services that mean most to the people in our communities, those people who do not live in municipalities are in fact second-class citizens of this province. They have to rely upon Victoria to provide them with those public services which people who live in municipalities take for granted.

I think that maybe the solution to this, as far as the northern communities are concerned, is for the government to get a Minister of Municipal Affairs who comes from the north — who can recognize some of these problems. Maybe he will treat the matter as seriously as the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who says: "If we're going to have disparity, then I'll settle it in my budget."

Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs might take the same look at some of these problems in outlying areas outside of municipalities. It's all very well to talk about becoming a benefiting area under a regional district, but the size of some of the regional districts and the major problems that they must take responsibility for are so great that they cannot get down to the job of providing services like sewers and water.

It takes somebody who has the time, who has the experience and is prepared to devote his energies to the development of these community facilities to make them function. The staff in Victoria of the Minister's department is just not large enough to fulfil these responsibilities. Between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Department of Highways and their planning responsibility, their subdivision approvals, the Water Resources, which has a responsibility in these outlying areas.... The Department of Lands has a responsibility. Once you send one of these problems to Victoria for a solution, by the time it gets passed around all of the government departments that have to take a kick at it, it's too late.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the Land Commission.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And then the Land Commission; they get into the act as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think that what needs to be done is for the Minister to devote his energies to resolving some of these difficulties by the establishment of incorporated areas and lending them assistance so that they can get on with the job of providing the fundamental public services which people in the presently organized areas take for granted.

It's all very well for me from West Vancouver or Members from Langley and Chilliwack and so on to talk about the problems in unorganized areas. We've got ours largely solved. We've got existing administrative structures that can carry out these responsibilities. But the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his department have got to shoulder the responsibility for getting the administrative machinery established in outlying areas, because then and only then are you going to get these services provided — services which we in this province — the

[ Page 2653 ]

majority of the citizens — consider are absolutely fundamental.

We are talking about things like water and sewer and garbage collection, and things of that kind. But the Minister is not doing it. If you look at the vote that we're concerning ourselves with and the ones we'll be dealing with shortly, the Minister has increased his staff for administration by three people.

He couldn't do the job before — and I'm not criticizing the staff of the department. You increase it by three people, and that does nothing towards the solution of these problems.

As far as Telegraph Creek is concerned, sure, there has been an investigation going on — an investigation which the Minister somehow or other hopes is going to come to an end, and somehow or other is going to result in the federal government providing some money. But that's not very much consolation for the people who live in the community of Telegraph Creek. The same kind of problems exist in many other of our unorganized areas.

The government of British Columbia hired a planner whose name was Blakely to carry out a study in the Whistler Mountain area, and that study was finally delivered to the government. It's been through the committee of Ministers, it's come to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it's gone to his staff.

I've asked the Minister and I've asked the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) if they're going to make the Blakely report public, because it seems to me that the discussions involving the Alta Lake area are matters which should be part of a public discussion, because incorporation is exactly the problem there.

You already have a community. You have expensive investment. You have an emerging situation whereby the lake system in Alta Lake, which feeds the Squamish, is polluted and it's going to get worse. It's only going to be solved if they get a proper sewage system until you get some organization in that area.

It is also being subjected to another major pressure influence, and that's the possibility of this area in Whistler Mountain becoming the site for winter Olympics. There's a major drive underway to bring the winter Olympics to Whistler Mountain.

Now what's taking place? There is a controversy in that community as to whether or not they should support the move to bring the Olympics to Whistler Mountain. And what is the community being offered? Oh, you let us hold the Olympics here and, lo and behold, what are you going to get? Because of all the money that the federal government is going to pour in and because of all the money that is going to have to be spent in order to provide facilities, you'll get your sewage treatment plant.

Now this is not being offered by the provincial government. I want to make that perfectly clear. This is not a carrot which is being held out before this community by the provincial government; and I say more power to the provincial government for not taking that position.

But the proponents of the Olympics at the Whistler Mountain are saying to the people there: "If you want to get your sewage system, support the Olympics and somehow or other they money will be found, because it will be an absolute necessity that sewage comes along with the Olympics."

Mr. Chairman, what needs to take place is for the Minister to indicate that that area is going to be incorporated, that they are going to be given the responsibility of administering their own affairs, and that once they are incorporated the provincial government will assist them in providing the sewage facilities which are necessary for the support of that community and to prevent the destruction of the lake and the river system from pollution.

The question of the Olympics at Whistler should be decided solely on the merits of whether the Olympics should be held in that area, so the people who live there should not be subjected to a carrot game of: "Support our bid for the Olympic games and you'll get your sewage system."

Whether the Olympics are a good idea for Whistler Mountain, whether they're a good idea for the Province of British Columbia, whether the Province of British Columbia is prepared to make its financial contribution to such an event, whether the federal government is prepared to make a contribution to such event, should be decided entirely apart from the wisdom of having an incorporated community with the proper facilities for public service.

I just wish that the Minister would indicate whether or not he favours the incorporation of the community which surrounds Whistler Mountain, whether or not in the formative stages of that community the results of the Blakely report will be made available to people who live in that area so that there may be proper discussion as to the steps to be taken in the formation of the municipal organization, and whether the Minister, encouraging incorporation, is prepared to indicate to the people who reside in that area that they will be assisted in having those basic public services — sewage, (they already have water), garbage collection, and the like — which the rest of us take for granted in the Province of British Columbia.

I think that the Minister should look very seriously at the rest of this province as well because we are establishing communities in these unorganized areas, and they must not be treated as second-class citizens who would need to depend upon the government departments in Victoria getting together to resolve problems many, many hundreds of miles away from this fair city. With all due respect to the public service in the Department of Municipal Affairs, Department

[ Page 2654 ]

of Highways, Water Resources, and the Department of Lands, the scope of their responsibilities as members of the public service is so large that they can't be expected to bring to bear upon the problems of those various communities throughout the province the same force and the same dedication as you would get from people who live right there on the spot and who have to suffer with the problems of inadequate services.

Yes, they will need help. Small communities where you expect the local teacher and the local service station operator and the local druggist to join together and form a council will need help. And that is what the Department of Municipal Affairs should be giving them — help to get their administration underway. It will take a lot of help. It will take many months, sometimes years, before they can be standing on their own two feet. But unless we make the move, it's never going to get any closer. It's a long journey and this Minister and his department have got to take that first step.

There's just one other matter that I'd like to raise with the Minister before I sit down. There's been a lot of discussion about the revenue sources available to municipalities. The per capita grant has been criticized, with the suggestion of whether we're going to have gasoline tax or some other source of revenue to discharge municipal responsibility. I would like to hear the Minister comment on what appears to be a direction that this government has set upon. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), speaking in the Burns Lake community, has suggested that the revenues from forest management are going to be made available to municipalities in the north and that with this revenue they will be able to discharge their obligations to their citizens. I would like to know if this is government policy and if the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of this.

If it is to be the case, then would the Minister please indicate what additional revenue sources this government will make available to those other municipalities that don't have forest lands capable of being placed in their hands for management? Perhaps he could indicate that the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is going to go around and say: "Well, the people that live in the north have petroleum resources in their areas — we're going to give them the revenue from the petroleum resource." Maybe if we get down into the Cariboo, and we....

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has said it, and you've got to believe that when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources says something, everybody in the cabinet seems to perk up their ears and listen. So I'd like to know if the Minister can tell us that these additional revenue sources are going to be made available to municipalities. Up in the Cariboo, is the revenue from mines going to be turned over to the municipalities in the Cariboo? Fantastic idea. It could solve many of their problems. It would look after the reduction of school taxes and land taxes. But what are you going to do for the municipality of Chilliwack, Mr. Minister, if this is going to be the government policy? I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will give the revenue from agricultural production in the Chilliwack area to the municipality of Chilliwack.

This is a delightful concept that we have had disclosed to us by the Minister of Lands, and I would like to know from the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he sees an extension of this programme throughout the province, because it's going to be a tremendous boon, along with a great deal of added responsibility, to those municipalities who have natural resources that they can administer. If this is to be the solution of the government, I think we're entitled to know.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I wasn't going to take part in this debate until the last few speakers got up. I was surprised to hear the statements of the Member of Atlin (Mr. Calder) on incorporation before you can get services. I was astounded to hear the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) taking the same vein. I just don't know where they've been in the province, really. I know the Member for Atlin has been a long way north and south.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I come from a riding, and this is the only riding I will speak of, and I can certainly speak of my own area, which was known as the area of Brocklehurst before incorporation. It was not incorporated; it was an unincorporated community. We did have an improvement district and under this improvement district we had water, sewer, street lights and garbage collection all through the area. There's another community about 40 miles north known as Barrier, and they have water service, ambulance and fire protection, and they're unincorporated. When you move up to the fast growing area of Clearwater, which may incorporate some time in the future, they have a water system, a hospital, a sewage system and ambulance service, and they're not incorporated.

This is the question that was raised in my mind and I thought perhaps the Minister could clear it for me. We have had two Members say that you cannot have these things without being incorporated, that this is an excuse that's been used, and one Member asked for an area around Alta Lake to be

[ Page 2655 ]

incorporated. Yet in the area of Kamloops where I've lived since 1956, and up and down the north river, we have community after community with the sign as you drive into it saying "unincorporated," with pressure water, and in many cases sewers, fire protection, ambulance service and sometimes garbage collection. So I would just hope that the Minister would clear this up. Dufferin had quite a few services, but mostly contracted to the City of Kamloops. And they were under threat of having all these services cut off.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: That could have had something to do with it. Perhaps the Minister could clear that for me, too. Maybe it was the previous Member who got it for all this area in Kamloops. If that's the case, that's all he ever gave to the riding. Perhaps that was his contribution. If so, it was a worthwhile one.

HON. MR. LORIMER: In answer to some of the questions of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), the decision as to whether or not to amalgamate the City of North Vancouver and North Vancouver district will be a decision for the people as a whole. Under the Act, the whole group will vote, if in fact it comes to that point. I've had no indication from either the city or the district that they're desirous of having a vote, so at the moment it's a dead issue, it seems to me. But in the event that there were a request, then it would be a vote of an overall area, because we look at a community, not at isolated political boundaries. I don't think you can tell when you go out of the district and into the City of North Vancouver. I think it's all one community.

The question of park and ride is being looked at in North Vancouver, but at the moment there are no vehicles to operate, in any event. That whole area's being looked at as a possibility around the end of the bridge. I hope the ferry will be running in 1975.

The livable-region plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, when it is published, we will co-operate completely with the districts to try and get transit to work in to help them develop the areas which they want developed and relieve the areas they don't want developed. Transit can play a very strong part in this whole plan. The whole question of growth is a pretty big question and I agree with a number of the things you mentioned about it.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggested that there were delays at the levels of government where we are dealing with regional districts to get approvals from different departments. I certainly agree with him; that is absolutely correct. We're trying to streamline it, and we're getting a few weeks knocked off the process, but I agree that it's a long process. We are still working to try and get it reduced in time. But I must say that a lot of the delays are not always at the Victoria level; in some cases they are at the local level. I accept the fact that there are delays which seem very unnecessary, both when you're in Victoria and when you're outside Victoria. We're trying to help that part out.

As you know, there is an intense study going on at the moment in the Whistler area. I think there will be some announcements very shortly in regard to that area.

In regard to the Burns Lake area for resource revenue for municipalities: this is a pilot project in the Burns Lake area. If it's successful I think it will expand into other areas. It's an interesting plan for assistance to municipalities and regional districts in operating their communities.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask one further question. The question that was most important wasn't answered with regard to the B.C. Hydro project at Jordan River — the fear that that scrap will not be used for scrap in fact, but will be used for some other purpose. In fact used to re-establish a complete power unit. If that happens, of course, it makes the worth of that installation probably 10 times as much — I don't know how much more it would be worth under those conditions. Is there any security, or was there any security to ensure that didn't happen?

Another question: I wonder if the Minister could tell us if there's anything happening within the government to attempt to coordinate all of the ferry services under one single Minister. At the moment we've got B.C. Ferries under the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), we have the Highways ferries under the Highways department and now we're going to have transit ferries under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It seems to me that all of these bureaucracies which are building up should be stopped now and all of the ferries put under one department. There are too many ferries involved here.

The third thing I want to ask is about the levies for transit in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. What is going to happen? Are the municipalities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District in fact going to have to pay two mills, or what? They don't know.

Many of the municipalities.... I know one of them, Coquitlam, I think set their budget last night. Most of the municipalities are now setting their budgets and they're not including those two mills in their budget. Are they going to get hit later on with that levy from your department? If so, where are they going to find the money? When are they going to get some direction?

[ Page 2656 ]

I suggest it's too late now, but will you tell them that you're not going to charge them with that two mill levy this year? I think it's vitally important, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The two mill thing — the policy was discussed and mentioned some time ago, about a year ago probably, so the municipalities have had plenty of notice about it. However, in any event there would be no moneys payable this year because the amounts of the losses, if there are any losses, won't be known until after December, won't be known until next year, so it will be a question of next year's budget rather than this year's budget.

MR. McCLELLAND: So they won't have to pay any losses retroactively.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, the losses will start this year but we won't know them until the end of the year, so they won't be payable till next year.

MR. McCLELLAND: Stick them with the two mill levy.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, not necessarily, depending what the losses are, if there are any losses. I expect there will be losses, but it may not come to the two mills.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister's statement in the response to the Member for Langley was, I think, rather vague. The point he was obviously trying to get at, the point which concerns us in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria, is: okay, if there are losses for the operating year 1974, you won't realize those, you won't know what they are until the end of 1974. Are you going to hit the municipalities or regional districts retroactively? I don't think that has been answered, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister.

There are a couple of other points I would like to raise briefly. One concerns the apparent developing conflict between the Bureau of Transit, which is the Minister's responsibility, and the Department of Highways on some railway rights-of-way. A reference was made yesterday to the old CN right-of-way, but I wonder if the Minister would reassure us that this matter has been resolved with respect to the CN right-of-way along the Trans-Canada Highway leading out of the Greater Victoria area.

As I sense it, the Department of Highways is casting covetous eyes on the right-of-way area for expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway road surface. Yet, surely it must figure very prominently in plans that the Minister and his transit people have in mind with respect to some form of light rail rapid transit, whatever it may be, to the Colwood-Langford areas.

Who is going to win in that inter-departmental battle? I'm not going to be satisfied if the indication is that there is no battle. Obviously there is and we have to watch with interest to see just which department wins out.

The other point, Mr. Chairman, is the Queen Charlotte Islands. I've questioned the Minister before about this. He indicated at that time that he was going to visit the islands and I realize he has been there in the interval.

What is the future role of the Queen Charlotte Islands as an electoral area in the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District? The Minister indicated at the time, during question period, that after his visit he might have some answers.

I am aware of some unrest on the Queen Charlotte Islands with respect to the regional district, and in reverse, on the other hand, the concern that the regional district has for the Queen Charlottes some distance removed from the balance of the regional district.

The Minister is quoted in The Province on Tuesday, April 23, as saying that the regional district is an advantage to the Queen Charlottes. Does he, Mr. Chairman, through you, feel that after his visit the situation has been eased somewhat? Have the regional district people on the north coast settled down a bit in terms of their earlier fears and concern about the situation?

The Minister will be aware of the conclusions and recommendations which form part of this brief. One of them, very briefly, is self-government for the Queen Charlotte Islands within the existing regional district, so that the authority and responsibility for administration of the Queen Charlotte Islands will be assumed by the residents themselves.

Now, I'm not going to trespass into Bill 112, the Islands Trust Act. The Minister can be assured, however, that he's got some trouble with other islands — that will come a little later in the session. But I would appreciate an up-date on his visit to the Queen Charlotte Islands and the difficulties which have been apparent there for some time as far as regional government is concerned.

HON. MR. LORIMER: With the Queen Charlotte Islands, it's a difficult situation there. The regional district would just as soon have the Queen Charlottes taken out. The Queen Charlotte Islands themselves don't want to be in because they feel they aren't getting any benefits, but I have no answer as of today.

I think the question of the two mill thing that we're talking about — in that case, 50 per cent of the 1974 losses will be paid up to a maximum of what can be raised by 2 mills on the school tax. It will be raised by most of the greater Vancouver area, not the area that hasn't got the services but in the other areas — Burnaby, Vancouver, Coquitlam, North Vancouver

[ Page 2657 ]

— but will not be payable until 1975 due to the fact that we won't know what the losses are in 1974. So they'll be paying a year behind — if you get what I mean. Now, in Victoria because the services haven't been provided yet, they won't come into this formula for another year, till 1975.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, I'm quite sure that won't be used for highways.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What was that, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to ask one or two questions of the Minister before his vote goes through.

You mentioned yesterday, Mr. Minister, that you are not about to let one municipality super imprint itself on another municipality. I would like to ask you, because you didn't completely fulfil the question in terms of your answer: what is your policy and your department's policy in relation to the groups of people in an unorganized area adjacent to these shotgun marriages that took place in Kamloops and Kelowna? I would refer specifically to the area of Winfield as one example that was previously looking into the feasibility of becoming a village or municipality in coordination with Okanagan Centre and Oyama, and now, since the forced boundary extension, find themselves completely out in limbo in terms of what their future is and their own development. No land can be rezoned; housing permits are not being given. They are almost in a state of freeze.

We have a similar situation which is not related to a boundary extension yet, I hope, and that is Okanagan Landing outside the City of Vernon. It is fairly typical of many other centres around the province.

The Minister will recall that we applied to him for some direction as to what the future of this area should be in his view, and received no direction. I then suggested to the Minister and his department that assistance be given in outlining the pros and cons of the various options they had in order that they might, as a committee, go to the people in the area and come up with some reasonable consensus of what the future should be or could be, and what would be the benefits and the drawbacks.

We've had no specific word from this Minister or his department in relation to their future. All we know is that it is frozen. We did get a specific turndown on the assistance in this questioning. Since then, I have heard leaks from the various areas of the sieve of that department that no community or people within a 10-mile boundary of any city will be allowed to even investigate the feasibility of forming their own municipality.

It is my opinion, Mr. Minister, that in the area of Winfield, in light of the fact that the new City of Kelowna has proved unwieldy, unworkable and an uneconomic tax base, the Minister should accede to our constant request and withdraw the boundary fine of the new City of Kelowna from the Winfield area and go back to what was his own original proposal: the new City of Kelowna withdraw from Winfield and Ellison and go back to the Reid's Corner area over to Glenmore and then through.

So my questions in this area, Mr. Minister, are: Will you consider withdrawing the boundary of the new City of Kelowna or recommending it to the council on the basis of the unwieldiness of the situation — namely, the uneconomic tax base the new City of Kelowna has — and, most importantly, on the basis of the wishes of the people in that area, particularly in Ellison where they are solely agricultural and committed to agriculture and find themselves now imposed with the problems of city living?

Secondly, what is your thought about the future of the area? Should it become a village, a community? When will you release their land in order that they may carry on even routine additions to their farm holdings, farm buildings, and any changes they may wish to make to their homes or other buildings they wish to use for homes or other purposes? In other words, when can they play a role in their own future destiny?

Regarding Okanagan Landing, is it true that no group of people within a 10-mile radius of a city will be allowed to investigate any possibility of self-government and must rest dormant, creating greater problems within their own area, until they are eventually taken over by a city?

The next question I would like to ask the Minister is in relation to the rural municipalities and the Land Commission. All over the province incidence after incidence is growing where the Land Commission is drawn into an interest within the municipality, takes an area under study, but does not meet with the people who own part of the area or who might have a social interest in the area and are not kept informed of any of the thinking of the Land Commission, other than the fact that they are looking at it. These people are then subject to various statements made by the chairman of the Land Commission, Mr. Lane.

Conversely, when they go to the municipal council, they can get no information; they have no idea of what is going on. The municipalities respond by saying, "Well, that's the responsibility of the Land Commission." If the people go to the Land Commission, they say, "That's the responsibility of the municipality."

[ Page 2658 ]

I would cite a specific example which I am very familiar with, although it is not unique to Vernon; it is happening, as I mentioned, in other areas of the province. There is a portion of land called the Hill. It is in itself unique and there was a strong desire to have it preserved as a park. There were also private holdings in that area. We had the position where there were individual people owning land which was zoned by the advisory planning commission to the municipality as residential and multiple family dwellings. Then we had on the other side a group of citizens who bordered this area and were very keen to have it preserved as a park.

I don't question here the advisability or not of whether it was a park. What I do bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, was that the Land Commission was brought in and examined the area. Neither the owners of the land nor the interested citizens were allowed to go to any meeting with the Land Commission or with the architect who was brought in to draw up a plan. These people could not have any admission to the city council on the subject. The people who owned the land woke up to find they were restricted in any development even though they were going to develop within the zoning as it had been zoned by the municipality on the advice of its advisory planning commission. They found people walking over their private property, surveying, digging up samples, and generally having a delightful time without any consultation with the owners of the land.

I was drawn into this because the owner became very angry. In fact, he put a bulldozer on the land, and one can hardly blame him although it was anything but a diplomatic move and certainly wasn't designed to encourage public sympathy for his part. Nonetheless, he was being excluded from his land. His taxes had doubled this year. He was trying to conform with the zoning; but this had been cancelled and nobody had spoken to him. He heard Mr. Lane say on the air that he was thinking of purchasing the land but there had been no contact with him.

When I became involved I went to the municipal council on the basis of "Why hadn't the people been allowed to go to the meeting?" and, secondly, "Why hadn't permission or consultation taken place with the owners before architects and engineers were trundling over this land?" They said, "Oh, that's the responsibility of the Land Commission." When I went to the Land Commission, it was the same problem. They said, "Oh, that's the responsibility of the municipality."

What is happening, Mr. Minister, is that the people who own the land or who are interested in the land are just a football to be kicked from one to the other. No one is assuming responsibility. I propose to you that any time a municipality or any level of government is interested in an individual's piece of land, unless they are abusing the zoning or in any other way, it be the responsibility of both the local body and the regional district to contact those owners. If the Land Commission is brought in, then it should be a matter of courtesy and law that both the Land Commission and the municipality contact the owners in order that their rights are not so blatantly abused as these people's rights were. Furthermore, it is just good, common public relations sense.

I would ask you how you would feel if you owned a piece of land and were conforming to the zoning and you woke up one day to find that everybody wanted your land, your taxes had doubled, your land was frozen, and people, without your permission or any consultation with you, were running over your land, through your property, with transits and whatever-they-call-them for getting core samples. You would be incensed and any citizen would be incensed.

So I hope that the Minister will respond to that, and I hope that it will be a positive answer. I hope he will accept my suggestion to stop making a football out of individual citizens in this province who are being kicked between municipal councils and the Land Commission. Make somebody responsible, on the basis of courtesy if nothing else, for the movement of these bodies.

I have another point I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention, seeing he is so interested in public transit and he's going to bring streetcars back on an historical basis to Vancouver. Every year in this Legislature I have suggested that the congestion in Stanley Park on holidays and weekends hardly adds to the pleasure of the people or the pollution-free environment they have. I would suggest the Minister get on the ball right now, talk to the people at Expo in Spokane, and contract to buy those electric sightseeing cars they will be using there, I understand. I wanted him to buy them from Expo but he wouldn't. I wanted the former government to get them from Expo and they wouldn't. Utilize these in Stanley Park as sightseeing transportation. There can be a small charge. Prevail upon the private sector to put a major parking lot in, not on the waterfront and certainly not on Georgia Street but within a reasonable area.

On Saturdays and Sundays, high days and holidays, let's have a majority of the traffic out of Stanley Park and help it be a place of pleasure and peace and quiet for people. Many senior citizens could go down there where they can't now, and many handicapped people could. I'm sure many tourists would much rather be able to get on and off one of these open tourist trains at will, walk a little way, go back, get on, and see the rest of the sights.

I believe, Mr. Minister, that your costs, other than the capital costs — and perhaps the City of Vancouver would even share the capital costs — would be minimal. It is an excellent summer job for students.

[ Page 2659 ]

With the amount of money the Minister of Labour has to dispense this year in the summer, the fact that there may be a construction strike this year and many students will be out of work, you could do a great public service to people and to the park and provide employment to the students.

HON. MR. LORIMER: On the question of Okanagan Landing and Vernon, I'm surprised at the Member saying they hadn't heard from me. I received a letter from her and I answered the letter and said that at the present time we didn't have staff to look into the matter. Then I got another letter from her. I wrote back again and asked her for suggestions because I would be interested to know whether she was in favour of supporting the claims of the people of Okanagan Landing or whether she was prepared to support the claims of the people from Vernon in wanting to extend their boundaries to Okanagan Landing. I didn't get a reply from her so I don't know whether she is for Okanagan Landing or Vernon. There are more voters in Vernon than there are in Okanagan Landing, I might suggest to her.

The question of Kelowna. There is going to be no change in the city boundaries of Kelowna, certainly at the present time. I mentioned earlier that we have no intention of building cities on top of cities. I think that has been cleared up before.

As for the Land Commission, this is the first time I've heard the Land Commission has not been co-operating with the municipalities. This is the first time I've had that complaint.

MRS. JORDON: Mr. Minister, first of all, I did not say they weren't co-operating; they just aren't doing anything. People are being kicked around, either intentionally or unintentionally. The point is to clear up the problem.

The second thing is that you didn't answer my question. Do you have a policy, as is rumoured, that no group of people within 10 miles of any formal city can form their own governing body?

You asked my position regarding Okanagan Landing and Vernon. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the proper evolution is for the people in the Landing to know the pros and cons of both and go to public meetings. I have no fear of this. They get a little bumpy but, after all, if you can't face the people with the facts then you shouldn't be in government. I think you should do that, Mr. Minister. If it's their choice, recognizing that they may well have to put in a sewage system (but that depends on good planning; they may not have to put in a sewage system if they plan and develop properly. The Pollution Control Board has some fine information on this), then I see nothing wrong with this. I don't think people live in the area of Vernon to live in a city. That's why people move there. They basically want a stable economy and a small-town environment. They don't want to be one of 50 small North American cities with no character, no personality and no personal contact. I'm sure, Mr. Minister, if you had a vote in the City of Vernon today, you would find the majority of the people are for moderate, orderly expansion of their boundaries. They don't want to be giants. They don't want to be another City of Kelowna; that's why they don't live in Kelowna.

As far as the Landing community is concerned, I see nothing wrong, if it is their choice and they know the facts, of letting them become a village and forming their own governing body. Mr. Minister, they don't want 80-foot-wide roads in all their areas. They don't want a lot of sidewalks; they don't want a lot of streetlights; they don't want a lot of commercialism. That's why they live out there. They want to function as an informal entity within themselves. They are quite willing to pay any extra charges to the City of Vernon for any services they use. But they have their own community hall; they have the water; they have a good deal of their own recreation; they have their own Guides and Brownie groups.

I think it would be wrong, Mr. Minister, to side with the City of Vernon. A few very able politicians have indeed; but politicians who may well be motivated by wanting to be king-pins in the great march of the city advancement and the megalopolises. I don't stand with that; I stand with the right of the people to decide their own future.

If the Minister wants my suggestions and he hasn't got the staff or the money, then I would suggest the staff down here — with your permission, Mr. Minister — outline in writing. I'm not sure of all the advantages and disadvantages. Seeing the eager ears are here, basically outline what the minds of the department and the Minister feel this community needs in the way of amenities that they don't already have and outline the costs involved in becoming a village if that is what their option is. Also, outline the obligations and benefits there would be if they joined the City of Vernon. I would be very happy to take it up if you don't have the time. Give it to the people and let them study it. As I mentioned before, I'm not waffling on my position; it is very clear. It always has been very clear, and the people know it.

I hope the Minister will give me an answer on that and a commitment that this information will be put together so I can take it to the people.

As far as Winfield is concerned, you only said you have no intention of withdrawing the boundary. I want to know what the future of Winfield is going to be in Okanagan Centre. You have taken away their freedoms; what are your intentions for them? Have you got some options open to them? If so, let's take them to the people. All they know right now is that

[ Page 2660 ]

the Minister of Highways is going to blast four lanes right through the centre of the whole social and business community, and they are not very happy about that. So perhaps the Minister will give some more definite answers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yesterday I criticized the Minister for being a dictator. I've no reason to review that opinion. I got a little distracted on the subject yesterday. I did mean to put on the record also, that in many of the places where I meet with municipal people the Minister has a very unfortunate record of being regarded as not being available, not answering his letters and, in general, being a person who really seems to bring a very superficial attitude to his job. In fact, one of my municipal friends refers to him as the provincial government Rip Van Winkle.

I was surprised to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) pay such glowing comments to the work of the Minister of Municipal Affairs this afternoon. I can tell the House, Mr. Chairman, that that certainly isn't the glowing appraisal that exists in all the municipalities in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Premier, I'm not talking about Oak Bay. I'm talking about certain other municipalities who have made it very plain to me that they are sick and tired of the delays, the lack of decision and the lack of leadership by the Municipal Affairs Minister. I quoted a good example yesterday in relation to the Reid property in the City of Victoria, and I don't want to rehash that. But I want to ask the Minister, if he is listening — and I'm not sure that he is — very clearly and unmistakably if he has had any specific discussion in the very recent days or weeks with the developer, Sandy Reid, that the government will consider paying $1.7 million for the Reid site on the waterfront in Victoria. I hope we won't have evasion, Mr. Chairman, because this is a very direct question. The information I have is that the developer, Mr. Reid, has freed himself from any involvement with the Commonwealth Holiday Inns and is in a position to sell the property to a buyer. I have good reason to believe that the same said Mr. Reid has already discussed with this government the purchase by the government of the property for a price of $1.7 million. These are large sums of money.

There are many issues involved here. There is the paternalism of this government toward the municipalities — that the municipalities apparently don't know what is good for them or that elected aldermen or mayors apparently don't know how to listen and respond to the wishes of the electors in the municipalities.

This issue on the waterfront is extremely important not only because of the reasons I have outlined, but because of the fact also, as I said yesterday, that we have an equally large development on the waterfront in Victoria very close to the one where the government has intervened and frozen the site.

I have since talked with the officials, or with the mayor of Victoria, and asked him at what point the negotiations are on the proposed development at Laurel Point. I think, Mr. Chairman, this House and the Minister can understand how apprehensive the municipal government of the City of Victoria must be in developing plans and negotiations on one area close to the Reid site when in fact the government has recently stepped right in and imposed a decision which might well be emulated on this other site.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister's answer yesterday, "Well, I suppose that if we acted on the Reid site, we might take a look at the Laurel Point site," is very vague. It is not a very useful kind of comment for the council in Victoria. And it is certainly my impression that there are many other — perhaps smaller, but important — issues where this Minister is stalling, delaying. I understand it is very difficult for municipal aldermen and mayors to obtain appointments to meet with the Minister. Again, it seems to me that that is somewhat of a contradiction of the open-government theory.

MR. LEWIS: That's not our experience.

MR. WALLACE: No, you are on that side, my friend. What an interesting remark that is! The backbenchers in the NDP have no trouble getting to see the Minister. I'm not talking about party supporters; I'm talking about mayors and aldermen who may or may not have any political allegiance.

MR. LEWIS: That's what I'm talking about, too. Phone the mayor of Salmon Arm.

MR. WALLACE: I'm speaking on the direct evidence of respected, trustworthy aldermen and mayors who have this problem. I don't care how much squawking and yelling we get from the NDP backbenchers. These are the facts that I think should be put on the record.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Name names.

AN HON. MEMBER: One name.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just one.

MR. WALLACE: I'll name names. No problem.

[ Page 2661 ]

HON. G.V. LAUK: (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Rubbish. What's their phone number?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, I know I have names. Oh, yes, it's no problem. I can give you names.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm fighting for greater Victoria. I could name every mayor in the greater Victoria area — every single one. You ask them; you phone them up. You'll find out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What does the Member for Victoria say?

MR. WALLACE: You asked for the names; the names are in the greater Victoria area, Mr. Premier. You phone them up and ask them.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): If you're working for Reid, why don't you say so?

MR. WALLACE: I don't know how the Member for Delta is so sure that this isn't the fact. A lot he knows about what goes on in the greater Victoria area! But we are getting lots of....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, he may not even know what's going on in Delta. But how he knows about the situation in the greater Victoria area, I wouldn't know.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: But maybe the Minister is just trying to divert attention from the situation at the Reid property and the fact that he intervened there at the twelfth hour, and it looks as though there may be episodes in the future when this would be repeated.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Another area that.... I think, Mr. Chairman, that the apprehension among the backbenchers seems to suggest that I've hit a chord somewhere. We haven't heard all this screaming and squawking from the backbenchers, I don't think, recently for many of the debates we've had. So perhaps we are getting a little close to the truth.

MR. LIDEN: Usually you're okay, but you're haywire on this one.

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm not haywire on this one, Mr. Chairman.

There's another area where I would like to ask for the Minister's comments. Since we have a government that apparently is paternalistic towards the municipalities, would the Minister consider amending the Municipal Act in relation to zoning so that municipalities can have control over design? I think this is a suggestion that has been put forward by more than one municipality. I know that there have been official requests from certain municipalities in this regard.

I wonder if he would comment. If he will not allow municipalities to control design, why not? What is the reasoning behind it?

On the question of the heritage advisory committees that municipalities are allowed to set up, I wonder if the Minister has been asked to the effect that it could be interpreted as implying compensation for the owners of buildings that are so designated. I gather that there is some difference of opinion on legal interpretation. Would the Minister consider it worthwhile bringing in an amendment to make it very clear that, in fact, the legislation does not involve compensation?

I have also had requests from Terrace and Kitimat areas regarding what they consider to be inadequate action by the Minister in these areas. I am particularly referring to — I'm sorry that the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is not in his place — what is known as the "cable-car subdivision" in Kitimat.

The Members who were doing so much squawking from the back benches a minute ago have asked for examples. Here is an example of where a situation has dragged on and on, leaving the people in the local area in a complete state of dismay and uncertainty as to what is to be done with this particular subdivision.

The information I have been given was that two or three years ago this government-owned ground was to be subdivided. Something in the order of 200 people, I understand, had their names put on a list as wanting to purchase lots in this subdivision. Time went by and nothing happened.

Then, I gather, in November of last year the mayor of Kitimat paid a visit to the parliament buildings and went back to Kitimat with the news that this ground would not be available for purchase, but there would be auctions held and the lots could be leased over 60 years.

Mr. Chairman, we have been all around that subject of whether or not individuals should be allowed to own land or lease land, and I am not proposing to suggest that that's the issue we debate at this moment. But as recently as last month there was a meeting held in Kitimat at the YMCA building. There were several resolutions passed. But the main concern of the people in that area — in Kitimat — is the apparent indecision by the provincial government as to proceeding with this particular subdivision.

[ Page 2662 ]

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that while we all know that housing is a problem all over the province, there is a particularly serious shortage of housing for the workers of Eurocan and Alcan in the City of Kitimat.

I also understand that the most recent research of the problem shows that there are seven serviced lots in Kitimat. That's the total number of available serviced lots in Kitimat. The situation seems to be one of drift and uncertainty. I have been told that the local MLA seems to be too busy or not interested enough to get some action and decision on this very important subdivision which, I understand, is to provide something in excess of 100 lots.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with the housing problem there the people are eager to get going, to get the subdivision carried out, services brought in. Even though they would prefer to have some option to purchase after a period of lease, they are even ready to forgo that agreement just to get the subdivision underway and get the accommodation built.

I wonder if the Minister can bring the House up to date so that we can communicate and let the people in Kitimat know just exactly what the situation is at this time with the cable-car subdivision.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You know, this Hon. Member for Oak Bay stands up and makes a lot of charges with no substance. He stands up there and insults people with no basis. You know, there hasn't been an elected person in this province who has asked to see me and has been turned down. I resent you coming into this chamber, self-righteous there, standing up and talking nonsense.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: How long do they wait?

HON. MR. LORIMER: At the first convenient time that I'm available and they're available.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: He knows he's talking nonsense. He didn't know what to say — he's having problems in the caucus. (Laughter.) Yesterday he asked me question after question about the Reid Centre; I answered every one of them. Today he says, "He didn't answer. He's wishy-washy."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: If you want the proper answers, you ask proper questions in a proper way, I say. That should be the attitude in this House. And I don't expect to get a bunch of insults from you from across the floor. I don't want to have any more of it.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as Sandy Reid is concerned, I have not spoken to Sandy Reid lately, nor I don't think I ever have, but I may have, though certainly not in the last year.

The question of whether or not someone had suggested $1.7 million to him, I can't answer because I don't know. The figures that were floating around between the mayor and our group were between $1.5 million and $1.7 million, so I can't answer for anyone else. It's possible, but I don't know.

As far as the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is concerned, there's no rule in there that people can't incorporate within 10 miles of another community. I understand the department is in discussion with some of the people that you're talking about in regard to that area.

Vote 181 approved.

On vote 182: general administration, $740,588.

MR. CURTIS: It's a straightforward question on this vote, Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. One gets the distinct impression that the planning function within the Department of Municipal Affairs is being eroded. Now, if that is an incorrect impression, I would be happy to hear from the Minister.

I notice there are planning officers, but certainly the feeling is that with the Land Commission, with a greatly enlarged and improved bureaucracy in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, planning as we knew it — that is, a planning relationship between municipalities and the Department of Municipal Affairs — is not functioning as it has in the past. A brief comment on what is happening there would be appreciated.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The planning is not being eroded. We have been very short of planners, as you know, in the department. We have advertised and advertised, increased the salaries and so on, and it's still been very difficult to get replies. But we do have now a new chief planning officer and everything is moving along very, very smoothly. We're working very closely with the department of Lands and with the secretariat who are doing a certain amount of work in resource planning. We are working in conjunction with them, but we need more bodies.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister indicates, then, that these positions are not now all filled.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, they're not. I think

[ Page 2663 ]

there are two vacancies at the moment.

Vote 182 approved.

Vote 183: transit services division, $139,940 — approved.

Vote 184: metropolitan transit subsidy, $2 million — approved.

Vote 185: Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act, $500,000 — approved.

Vote 186: grants and subsidies, $1,423,000 — approved.

Vote 187: grants in aid of local government and home-owners subsidies, $76,900,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I call motion 29 on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a copy of the motion?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I move motion 29, standing in my name on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, and send you a copy of it. (See appendix.)

In addressing myself to the motion, speaking in support of it, Mr. Speaker, I will remind you, although I know that no such reminder is necessary, that you have over the course of this parliament presented to the House a number of reports flowing from the passage of the bill on the Legislative Procedures and Practice Inquiry Act, and we have for our edification some of the recommendations contained in those reports — three in number. That, together with a number of expressions of opinion during this current session of parliament, leads me to think that maybe we are at a point in time when we can usefully debate in committee, the appropriate committee being the Select Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, some improvement in the way with which we are handling the province's business.

I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the motion covers the essential parts of that business with which we are all particularly concerned, if not, indeed, worried.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in moving this motion I am drawing to the attention of the House, and asking for full support of all Members of the House, for us to meet on this Select Standing Committee to discuss those items listed in the motion and to present to the House for its full consideration and deliberation at this sitting measures which will seek to improve the conduct of the business, the speed and efficiency with which we comport ourselves, and make, indeed, progress in the essential part of running this province's business.

I therefore move this motion, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, this is an important motion, one that we wish to have a fairly full scale debate on, and in view of the time I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I ask permission to have resolution 20 in my name removed from the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I can't call the motion under our rules.

MR. BARNES: I ask leave.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

[ Page 2664 ]

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 2663:

That the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills examine the following matters:

(1) Recommendations No. 1 and No. 2 of Mr. Speaker's Second Report of September 28, 1973, dealing with the duration of debates such as the Throne and Budget Debates and second reading of Bills:

(2) Length of speeches generally:

(3) Some appropriate rule or order for completing estimates in Committee of Supply within a fair and reasonable time:

(4) What, if any, authorization should be obtained from the House for the amplification and control of the Chamber sound system, bearing in mind the practice, in this regard, used in Ottawa, Westminster, and elsewhere with regard to control by the Speaker and Chairman of the equipment used for recording as well as the amplifying of speeches:

(5) An appropriate method of providing assistance to private members to ascertain whether or not Public Bills and Motions which they desire to introduce comply with Parliamentary rules and to determine compliance with such rules prior to such Bills being placed on the Order Paper for second reading.

The Committee shall report its recommendations on the said subjects to the House before the conclusion of this Session.