[ Page 1479 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Medical Services Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 210) Mr. Lockstead

Introduction and first reading –– 1479

An Act to Amend the Direct Legislation Act, 1919 (Bill M 211) Mr. Gibson

Introduction and first reading –– 1480

Oral questions

Sinking of Lady Grace. Mr. Lockstead –– 1480

Discrepancy in youth employment figures. Mr. Gibson –– 1481

Investigation of supermarket kickbacks. Mr. Levi –– 1481

Battered children. Mrs. Jordan –– 1482

Employment visas. Hon. Mr. William replies –– 1483

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates

On vote –– 1484

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1485

Mr. Barber –– 1487

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1490

Mr. Barber –– 1492

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1498

. Lloyd –– 1499

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1501

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1501

Mr. Gibson –– 1502

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1504

Mr. Nicolson –– 1506

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1507

Ms. Sanford –– 1508

Mr. King –– 1508

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1509

Mr. King –– 1510

Mr. Kahl –– 1510

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1511

Mr. Macdonald –– 1511

Mr. Barber –– 1511

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1512

Mr. Barrett –– 1512

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 10) .

Report and third reading –– 1513

Royal assent to bills –– 1513

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have visitors from the great core of the city of Vancouver, Vancouver Centre. On behalf of my colleague, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , and myself I wish to introduce Mr. Joe Arnault, Mrs. Thelma Pankiw and her son, Billy Pankiw, and young Gordon McKay, who is aged 5, Doris Mutch and Jean Christie. Would the House make these visitors welcome?

Also, Mr. Speaker, in the precincts - and hopefully they will be able to attend later this afternoon - are a group of city school students from Vancouver Centre. They have with them exchange students from the great province of Prince Edward Island, which has just taught the Liberal party a bit of a lesson. I hope that the House will make them welcome as well.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to welcome 19 students from Laval Catholic High School in Quebec who are here as part of the Open House Canada exchange. They are accompanied by their teachers, Miss Renate Isobo and Miss Linda Leboeuf.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the gallery this afternoon are two very fine people from Burnaby, Mr. and Mrs. Al Cameron. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon are four fine people, residents and former residents of the constituency of Omineca: Mrs. Kathleen Parrish, Mrs. Claudia Folk, Miss Debbie Turner and, with them, my good wife, Shirley. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. LEA: I would like to have the House welcome with me today two people from my constituency, from the Queen Charlotte Islands. Gary Edenshaw is one of those people from the Queen Charlottes; he assisted the well-known carver Bill Reed, who carved the totem pole which will be raised in Skidegate on June 10 on the Queen Charlotte Islands. With him is Thomas Henley, who is a coordinator of the environment and research and awareness programme on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Both of these gentlemen are here today representing the Islands Protection Committee. They are both interested, along with others on the Queen Charlotte Islands, in protecting the southern part of Moresby Island as a wilderness.

I would like to mention that both of these gentlemen along with their group are interested in a rational approach to saving the environment. They are not against progress, but they want a rational planned progress.

MR. KEMPF: They must be Social Crediters.

MR. LEA: They're here today, and I ask you to help me welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm most happy to welcome to the gallery today some charming grade 11 students from Crofton House School in Vancouver. They are here to see democracy in action, to witness the calm and the pleasantry of this chamber, and I do hope they see some lively debate. I'm sure all members will not only not disappoint them but bid them warm welcome.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I would like to add my welcome to Mr. Edenshaw and his colleagues from the Queen Charlotte Islands; I will be meeting with them later.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. John Ellis of the Credit Bureau of Victoria. Mr. Ellis is a member of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce committee on the harbour and has been working here with us today in reviewing the progress of the Inner Harbour redevelopment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Kraminsky, a newcomer to Victoria from Regina, and accompanying Mrs. Kraminsky is my wife, Sheila.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A final short welcome, Mr. Speaker. Coming to the House this afternoon I was being chased down the street by a gentleman. His name is Delft, he is from Pennsylvania and he wanted to come to the House to see it in action. I'd like to bid him welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago on June 25, a very important ceremony took place in which I was directly involved. I'm pleased to announce that in your gallery the second best man at that ceremony is present, Mr. Sam Fraser, and his wife Elly. I hope you would welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

MEDICAL SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Mr. Lockstead, Bill M 210, Medical Services Amendment Act, 1978, intro

[ Page 1480 ]

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE DIRECT

LEGISLATION ACT, 1919

On a motion by Mr. Gibson, Bill M 211, An Act to Amend the Direct Legislation Act, 1919, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A point of order was raised yesterday on a matter of privilege by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . Pending your ruling, other action may be necessary to be considered by members of the House. I wonder if you could inform us when your ruling will be forthcoming.

MR. SPEAKER: In due season, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked is that the action forthcoming from your decision should not be compromised based on the timing of your decision.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the importance of the decision, hon. member. I will have it to the House as quickly as possible.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order: with respect to your decision on the question of privilege, will other remedies in standing orders not be compromised? Is that the understanding of the Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that when any member rises on a point of privilege which requires a decision, that decision does not compromise that member's responsibility or that member's privileges.

MR. LAUK: Or other members of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that it pertains to the member who has raised the matter, and that is the undertaking that is given by the Chair at the moment. Every member's privileges must be guaranteed in this House.

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, any action that may be available to any member as a consequence of your ruling is the area that I am concerned about. A delay in subsequent action should not be a conditioning factor if the matter of privilege is not indeed one that you find exists. That's the point that I'm making. Is that understood?

Oral questions.

SINKING OF LADY GRACE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Recreation and Conservation regarding the Lady Grace, formerly the Langdale Queen. I would like to know if the Ferry Corporation received any payments for the Langdale Queen, and, if so, how much. Further, were tenders called? Who bid, and what were the bids received?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I could give partial answers to that question, but I would prefer to take it as notice.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister: did the B.C. Ferry Corporation give a mortgage loan to Coal Harbour Maritime Leasing Limited, and if so, under what conditions and what authority?

MR. SPEAKER: The original question was taken as notice and since the supplementary is related.... Is it a new question?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'd like a new answer.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I take it as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General: in view of the fact that the Lady Grace was apparently scuttled in Coal Harbour, is the Attorney-General conducting any investigation into the cause of that possible, apparent scuttling?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order because it is argumentative. However, the....

MR. MACDONALD: No, I have asked: is the Attorney-General investigating what may be a crime?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think, if the hon. member had some specific knowledge of there being allegations of a crime or facts of crime, I would commend that he report it to the RCMP.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, is the Attorney-General taking no notice of public statements of a Mr. Granberg that appeared in the public media or of two witnesses who were in a yacht adjacent to the boat prior to its sinking - or at the time of its sinking? Are you taking no public notice of

[ Page 1481 ]

that and instituting the necessary investigation?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Procedures may well be underway, hon. member. If they were, I don't really know that they are item that should be shared with the House at this point in time.

MRS. DAILLY: To the Provincial Secretary: were you or your ministry involved in any way in the government's involvement in the Langdale Queen, which has subsequently been renamed the Lady Grace, and if so, was the extent of your involvement anything apart from your usual publicity ploy of having your name or your picture on the ship?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know about the ownership of the Langdale Queen, but Mr. Granberg, who purchased the Langdale Queen, was turning it into a senior citizens' activity area. He asked his mother to loan her name to the ship, which was at that time called the Langdale Queen. His mother's name was Grace and, because of the connection, he asked if I would please attend with his mother to launch the senior citizens' programme at that area in Vancouver harbour. I was very pleased - along with very many other people in the Vancouver centre area, I might say - to be present at that time when that community effort was launched. That is my total and only involvement: simply being there at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the mother?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is no.

MR. COCKE: 1 would like to ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation a question with respect to the Lady Grace. Were any other cabinet ministers involved in the Langdale Queen loan, and which ministers helped approve that loan?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I've already taken as notice a question on whether there was a loan. I have no knowledge of the details. So, Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to bring the answers to these questions back to the House.

MR. COCKE: Since the minister is taking questions as notice, I would like him to take another question as notice and he can bring back all the answers. How were the B.C. Ferry Corporation's interests secured and has any money been recovered? Was there any insurance on the vessel? Who now owns the Lady Grace?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a series of questions.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Notice, Mr. Speaker.

DISCREPANCY IN

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT FIGURES

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. On April 4, Mr. Vern Burkhardt, who 1 believe is programme director for the youth employment programme, was reported in the Colonist as saying that the programme hoped to employ 17,000 students, which would have been an increase of about 2,000 over last summer.

In the minister's own press release of April 26, it states that only 13,700 students will be employed by the programme. I wonder if the minister could advise the House as to the discrepancy between these figures.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Knowing the accuracy of the Colonist newspaper, I would suggest that the member might recognize that it was the usual conservative estimate by the minister that resulted in the discrepancy.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a remark made by the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) at the Grown corporations committee this morning, I wonder if we could have a simultaneous translation into English of that reply. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, is this a report from the committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is a discrepancy, and I expect to be able to give to the House in the next few days accurate statistics as to the number of students who are employed as of this time.

At April 2 all students were not employed; all moneys had not been allocated in the programme. The figure that I gave was based upon the allocation of funds into the various categories of the programme. By reason of certain difficulties which have arisen, some funds have been transferred from one programme category to another. This will, I believe, result in an increase in the number of jobs over what I had anticipated. But in order that the member will be accurately informed equal to the Colonist, then I would ask him to wait until I can give the statistics.

INVESTIGATION OF

SUPERMARKET KICKBACKS

MR. LEVI: A question to the Minister of

[ Page 1482 ]

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has indicated publicly that he would like to see the investigation into kickbacks to the major supermarkets. The question is, Mr. Speaker: has he ordered such an inquiry?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I think "inquiry" is perhaps too broad a word, but I asked my ministry to look into the situation to determine whether or not, if the allegations made by two columnists, namely Ms. Parton and Mr. Evans-Atkinson, were correct in every sense of the word, there would be anything our ministry could do. In other words, taking the worst of what they had said, would there be something we could do?

I got a report back this morning, Mr. Member. Even if there were kickbacks in the accepted sense of the word, that would be a matter for the federal authorities, the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have been advised of that, and so has the federal ministry.

MR. LEVI: Has the minister given consideration to referring this matter to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture? I understand that they have a study going on at the moment. Would the minister agree in the interest of the public to a public inquiry where the principals in the major supermarkets are called to account for the accusations or for them to justify what is going on?

HON. MR. MAIR: It has been my understanding that the terms of reference of that committee were sufficiently wide to allow them to investigate it and in fact they had looked at this situation. It was perhaps going to be part of their report. Now this is in private conversation with several members of the committee, and I understand they have done that.

MR. LEVI: A further supplementary. The situation is that there has been no public inquiry by the standing committee on this. My question was: would he not be prepared to ask the committee to look into it in a public way? They're doing a study which is somewhat private and out of the public glare.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, Mr. Speaker, this gets me back to my original answer to the member. If my ministry is satisfied that if there is a breach of any law, it is a breach of a federal law. Any inquiry would therefore properly be called by the federal authorities.

If the allegations made by the two columnists are true to any significant degree, 'I think that the federal government ought to, in one way or another, investigate the situation. Whether it's by public inquiry or otherwise is up to them.

MRS. DAILLY: Are we to understand then that you are not going to initiate investigation or even ask the federal government to look into this matter?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had made it quite clear that I had instructed my staff to turn over the information they have at their disposal, which, quite frankly, isn't a great deal more than we have read in the press, along with their recommendations to the federal government for their consideration. I might say we have very good co-operation, and have had for the last couple of years, with the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it is very seldom that we are involved in one sort of an investigation or another that they aren't involved along with us. So they know about it, and whatever information we have we will freely make available to them.

MR. LEVI: Could I ask the minister if his staff, in doing that investigation, were in touch with the staff of the standing committee on agriculture, who, I am informed, have information which is perhaps more specific than he has in this matter?

HON. MR. MAIR: I believe the answer to that question is yes, but to be on the safe side I'll take it as notice and report back.

BATTER CHILDREN

MRS. JORDAN: My question is to the hon. Minister of Health. I understand that a research report was released in Vancouver last night indicating that there were possibly over 2,000 battered children in the greater Vancouver area last year, of which few were registered as battered children. My question is: is the minister making preparations to notify all hospitals, and medical, nursing and human resources personnel of this concern, and asking them to report immediately battered or suspected battered children, and requesting a full physical examination of these children?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In answer to the question of the member for North Okanagan, this is a very serious subject, and it's one which obviously has the attention of the research group which reported it. I'm not aware of the findings of that research group; I'll certainly look into them immediately. There is a dual

[ Page 1483 ]

responsibility here between the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and myself. The hospitals have been notified of their responsibilities, and there is an Act -the Protection of Children Act - in this province which insists that every person who has any grounds for suspecting that a child has been battered shall make a report immediately. If it's necessary for us to reinforce those instructions we'll be happy to do so.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House as to what research or knowledge he has that would impede parents who are having the difficulty of the battered child syndrome from seeking help if they were to be charged fees for service by the Ministry of Human Resources?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's a stupid question.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have difficulty in understanding the question?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I have difficulty in understanding you at the best of times.

MR. BARRETT: Well, the question is simply this....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think he has the question.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have the question?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I have the question.

MR. BARRETT: Do you have the answer accidentally on hand?

HON. MR. BAWLF: It's hypothetical.

MR. BARRETT: It's not hypothetical; it's going to be policy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I was asked a question by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) with respect to employment visas. I wonder if I might have leave to respond now.

Leave granted.

EMPLOYMENT VISAS

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: MR. Speaker, enquiry shows that in the functioning of the herring and salmon roe aspect of the fishing industry in this province, the Japanese buyers of such product - and by the way it's a $130 million a-year business - require that the roe be tested at the cannery sites. Herring roe and salmon roe, I'm told, are considered to be a special delicacy by the Japanese people and apparently these technicians are skilled in the testing of the quality of the roe for that purpose, much in the way that wine is tested in other jurisdictions.

As a consequence the buyers, which are the Japanese companies, and there are 29 of them, have applied to the federal Ministry of Manpower and Immigration for the issuance of visas to immigrant persons who will attend in British Columbia to carry out this responsibility. There were 437 visas issued in Tokyo to these Japanese technicians, giving them authority to enter Canada and to carry out this work.

Up to the present only 254 of such technicians have entered Canada, and they work in 29 plants in this province. The herring season, I'm advised, is almost over, and as of May 9 many of the technicians had already returned to Japan, having completed their responsibilities. Unfortunately, and I might say surprisingly, the immigration authorities are unable to advise - or were on May 9 - how many have returned and how many will remain in this province.

As a result of concern in this area expressed by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union and by officials of the Ministry of Labour, a meeting was convened on May 12, attended by officials of the Ministry of Labour and of the union, to discuss this whole problem with the representatives of the federal ministry. As a result of that meeting the current procedures used by the federal ministry are under review.

In the course of that review there will be efforts made to better define the limits of the responsibilities of the technicians and procedures with regard to the surveillance of the arrivals and departures of those to whom work visas are issued will be instituted.

So far as both the union and the representatives of the Ministry of Labour are concerned, the subject of the training of these technicians was also discussed in the hope that we can establish in Canada our own capability to carry out these testing techniques. The necessity of foreign workers coming to British Columbia for that purpose may continue. As of the moment the matter continues under review. As I have indicated earlier, the ministry is concerned about the issuance of immigrant work visas in many fields and no

[ Page 1484 ]

less in this one. The matter will be pursued to a conclusion until we can have some better arrangement than presently exists.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member seek the floor on a point of order? Hon. members, if there is a supplementary question related to the answer that was given, the time to ask it is in a subsequent question period.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking leave to ask a question. I am asking leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before asking for leave to proceed to public bills and orders, I would like to draw to the attention of all of the hon. members that His Honour will be coming to the assembly this evening shortly before 6. This will be his last official duty within these precincts. With leave, I would move to public bills and orders for report on Bill 10.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

On vote 184: minister's office, $153,456.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Next sitting, Mr. Speaker. That is, this afternoon, within a couple of minutes.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, you'd better ask that minister to correct himself. Otherwise we're out of work for the afternoon.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We don't want to be out of work. We've no intention of that.

MR. COCKE: Your motion was "next sitting."

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the committee will sit again at the next sitting after today. Will those in favour say aye?

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You caught me by surprise.

MR. COCKE: It's not a motion; it's an instruction.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That the committee sit again this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The answer to the question of when shall the committee sit again is "At the next sitting." That is not a motion; that is an instruction to the Chair, to which the Chair simply says, "So ordered." I call now on the House Leader for the next order of business.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to move to report on Bill 10.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: We have not yet had an order from the Chair correcting the first instruction. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: No. The reply of the Chair to the direction to the House is simply "So ordered."

MR. BARRETT: What has been so ordered?

MR. SPEAKER: That the committee will sit again at the next sitting.

MR. BARRETT: So there's no committee work today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no knowledge. The Chair simply takes the instruction from the House.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. You've blown it again. That's two times out of two. Do you want a third time?

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

[ Page 1485 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Am I to understand we are now on public bills and orders, or is this private members' day?

MR. SPEAKER: The motion simply put by the House Leader was that the House now move to public bills and orders, which motion has not yet been put.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I say that that motion is out of order because today is private members' day. We must proceed to private members' bills and motions.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, today is Wednesday; it's private bills day.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm just raising a point of order. I'm not challenging anything. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The motion is on the floor and the motion must be put. The motion is that we move to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 10.

MUNICIPALITIES AID

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

MR. SPEAKER: HON. members, the bill is not printed, therefore leave is required.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, we have already disposed of a priority motion today to go into Committee of Supply, and now the House Leader must ask leave to go back to Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've had better days.

MR. NICOLSON: You're just trying to impress your friend from the States, Garde.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a careful review of the practice of the House is simply that in order to return to the order of business of Committee of Supply, leave should be required. It appears to the Chair that all other business on the order paper having been disposed of , it would seem very logical that we would return to Committee of Supply. However, I am at the beck and call of the House. Leave must be required.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, without instruction of the House it is apparent that leave must be asked by the.... In understanding the granting of leave, there is a certain, as I understand it, level of cooperation and acceptance in the House. I want to assure the House that from our part when leave is requested, we will always co-operate if we are shown the same co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HOUSING AND MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 184: minister's office, $153,456.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a pleasure to participate in the debate on estimates before this committee for another fiscal year, and to attempt to answer those questions which are put by members of the committee in the course of the next afternoon and evening, and as many days as are required.

We have coming into the committee, as is the custom, Mr. Chairman, the two deputies for the ministry - in the case of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Bill Long and in the case of the Housing section, Mr. Larry Bell. I think that all members of the committee are familiar with these individuals and have worked with them on particular problems.

Mr. Chairman, these men and their staff, assistant deputy ministers, programme managers and others within the ministry, have, I believe, in the past year provided the kind of service to the people of British Columbia which any government would expect. I am proud of them; I am proud of their enthusiasm and the way in which they have carried out their administrative responsibilities in line with the policies of this government.

I'd like to touch on a couple of things. I did in the participation in the budget debate, Mr. Chairman, attempt as I believe was noticed by some members not to attack the policies of the past or to exchange in personality debate, but rather to present a stewardship report as far as the ministry is concerned.

[ Page 1486 ]

I think, though, that two items at least bear repeating today: SAFER, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters; and revenue sharing for municipalities.

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters will soon be celebrating its first anniversary on July 1,1978. The committee will know, sir, that there is a budget of almost $12 million for the fiscal year in which we are now functioning to carry this programme through the 1978-79 fiscal year.

It was the feeling of this government that our senior citizens should have the opportunity to remain in the dwelling unit of their choice if in fact that was their choice. And therefore it flowed from that feeling that it was the duty of government to ensure the preservation of a comfortable, disposable income for the pioneers of our province and our country.

We are in excess now of 16,000 senior citizens who are receiving SAFER payments on a monthly basis. I thank the members of the committee, members of the House, who last year were supportive of the programme. The response has exceeded our expectation. Certainly the letters which flow to my office and which I would think are flowing to other members' offices with respect to Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters attest to the wisdom of this particular programme.

At the same time we are carrying on with the construction of senior citizens' facilities under ECAA, the construction programme. There was an exchange just a couple of days ago in the course of debating a bill with respect to how many millions of dollars had been spent in the past and how many millions of dollars were being spent now. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the committee and the people of British Columbia that we remain committed to the construction of senior citizens' housing in British Columbia where there is no alternate accommodation or where there is no satisfactory accommodation.

Members will know from the announcements which have been made that the emphasis has shifted in recent months toward smaller projects in smaller communities. And I state again, sir, that an insensitive government or an insensitive bureaucracy or an insensitive people would say: "Well, you're old. It doesn't matter that you've lived in Chase for 25 years or in Valemount for 30 years, or in Burns Lake for 35 years, or on Galiano Island for 15 years. You're old; you need the kind of accommodation we can offer you in Kamloops or Prince George or Vancouver or Victoria." And so we are putting smaller units in smaller communities. These are not going to be grandiose projects, obviously - 9 units, 12 units, 15 units, that order of magnitude. We're going to use the capital assistance for those smaller projects.

Yet where a need is apparent, we shall continue in the metro Vancouver, metro Victoria areas and the larger centres. But wherever possible, I and this government want to direct our share of senior citizens' construction dollars, in conjunction with SAFER, toward the smaller communities. And that attitude, that philosophy and that action which is being taken has certainly met with widespread support.

We had lengthy debate last year, Mr. Chairman, good debate, about revenue sharing, and I am particularly pleased that that new programme has come together marking a new era -perhaps 25 to 30 years late in British Columbia with a fixed revenue-sharing formula for local government, municipalities and regional districts in this province. And the response to that from municipalities, from councils and from boards of directors of regional districts is indeed encouraging.

I think perhaps I should also point out that a great deal of time is being occupied now as far as the officials of the ministry and myself are concerned with respect to new negotiations with the federal government in Ottawa on a whole series of federal-provincial programmes and what has been referred to by my opposite number in Ottawa, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Hon. Andre Ouellet, as community services. We had very productive meetings over a couple of days last week, during which time we presented the provincial position. We are not necessarily in full agreement with the federal position on some of the details, some of the aspects of this transfer assistance from federal to provincial government and then to local government.

I won't be in a position today to specifically answer members of the committee's questions on that sharing programme because the provincial position and the federal position are not yet finalized. But I do want to assure the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, that what will come out of this, I think, is firstly -and again it is a commitment of government and it certainly must be something which would be echoed by the people of British Columbia -less duplication in the bureaucratic processing of various applications and various programmes.

We have had enough, I think, in Canada and in British Columbia, of people checking work which has been checked by others which has been checked by others and finally needs to be checked by still someone else. In that, the

[ Page 1487 ]

federal Minister of Urban Affairs and I are in complete agreement, and I note that his announcement yesterday re-emphasizes that particular point of view. So if we can have a simplification of the delivery process of these dollars, then indeed, Mr. Chairman, it follows that we may have more dollars available out of a particular block for the programmes which are intended.

Mr. Chairman, I know that some members of the committee will want to participate actively in this discussion. I shall attempt to assist the committee to the very best of my ability and to provide whatever information I can.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, there are some youngsters from my constituency in the gallery, and I would ask leave to introduce them to the committee.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it may seem to members of the committee that every second week this school attends the Legislative Assembly. However, they come down in various groups. I'm very pleased to introduce a group from Brocklehurst Junior Secondary School in Kamloops - a school which, I have indicated before, my four children attended. They are here with their two teachers, Mr. Mickey Premac and Mr. Denby, and I would very much like the chamber to welcome them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope they come to Victoria for some other purpose than just to appear in this chamber because it's a long drive for that.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I say, Mr. Chairman, just before I take my seat, that I did, in anticipation of the things I've seen in the House, warn them that it might be a little fractious and interesting.

MR. BARBER: I, too, would like to welcome to the floor today the deputy ministers for Housing and Municipal Affairs. As critic for the official opposition, I very much appreciated the assistance that each of them has offered to me when asking questions and raising issues. I, for one, together with the minister, am certainly very happy with the help they've been and with the information they have provided.

The official opposition intends to lead a generally very positive debate this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not prepared for that, Charles.

MR. BARBER: We do have some questions of the minister, with which he may not be entirely comfortable but, by and large, I want to lead the debate in two particular fields which I hope the minister will give some attention to. Neither of them is particularly partisan at all. The first concerns the future of local government in British Columbia, and the second concerns the future of the property tax as a device for raising significant revenues in British Columbia.

In a positive sense, I would like to start out by congratulating the minister in those fields in which I think he has done a good job. He's named one; I'd like to name the other. The one he named was SAFER. It's a very good programme. In my own riding, which has a very heavy proportion of senior citizens, the programme is popular and well accepted. The programme is well administered. My own community office, having occasionally had disputes with the SAFER programme itself regarding eligibility in criteria has, in every instance, received quick answers and....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrinkles are being worked out.

MR. BARBER: Sure there are wrinkles; that's okay. There are with any new programme. But the responsiveness of the SAFER personnel in the department has been very good and very quick, and their willingness to consider special circumstances has been very favourable. Therefore on behalf of those seniors who have come to my own community office for help, I'd like to pay particular thanks as well to the people in the SAFER programme, most particularly Sheila Frost, who has done a really excellent job.

The minister didn't mention another problem which his ministry has been responsible in helping resolve. and that's the question of a registry for mobile homes. In the capital city generally - most certainly in the riding of Esquimalt, but in my own as well because people are involved and move around from place to place - the registry for mobile homes that has been established in the last year is a very good step forward. It allows a guarantee, a level of protection and a quality of reliable information that is extremely important for the owners and prospective purchasers of mobile homes, and it generally makes a lot more credible a field of living that was in the past, in the view of some people anyway, somewhat shady and gypsy like.

[ Page 1488 ]

I have to say, however, as a member of the opposition, that the minister's performance to date in the field of transit has been a big flop. Two years ago we were promised a transit authority, last year we were promised a transit authority, this year we've been promised a transit authority. To date, no transit authority. My colleagues from Vancouver will be leading that part of the debate later on in the afternoon.

Secondly, in the field of housing - and I'll get to it in a few moments - I would like to mention at the outset that we remain very angry and very bitterly disappointed that the minister proposes to sell the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. In our judgment there is no good reason to do so. There are many good reasons to keep it. We'll be talking about that.

My colleague for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) will read into the record certain facts regarding senior citizens' housing construction and the capital grants therefore, which the minister did not read into the record just a couple of days ago. He may not wish to revive the particular debate. My colleague does, and I share with him a concern that the whole story be told. It is apparently the case that the whole story was not told the last time.

Now the first positive debate that I want to lead is on the question of the future of local government, and it is in that area, I suppose, that there are some philosophical differences between our side of the House and the minister's.

In our judgment, the minister has done a very capable job of living up to his own longtime promises as reeve and mayor of Saanich to engage in significant revenue-sharing. Indeed, that is an area in which the government itself has generally kept the promise that it made. But, in our particular view, that is only half of the promise that counts. Sharing money is only half the job that needs to be done; sharing power is the other half. It is in that area of philosophical debate that I propose this afternoon to make what, I hope, will be a significant proposal that the minister might want to consider. Sharing money being only half the job - sharing power being the other half - leads us to make some practical proposals regarding the future of local governments as increasingly autonomous and independent creatures, sensitive and responsible to local decision-making at a level that we have not yet seen in this province.

Last year I asked the minister if he would consider establishing either a committee or a commission that would look into regional government; and he did so. He was, I presume, going to do so anyway. But it was nice that we asked first and he agreed second - occasionally it looks like the opposition does something. However, the terms of reference that came down for the regional district review committee are, in our judgment, extremely and unnecessarily narrow and artificial. The members of the committee are well qualified, and I don't question that for a moment. In particular, I was happy for the appointment of Alf Hood as a member of it, as I have worked with former Alderman Hood from Victoria on some other matters, and I have a lot of respect for him. The terms of reference, well intended as they may be, are narrow and artificial in these particular regards. As far as we can tell, the minister has given the committee the task of looking through the wrong end of the telescope. By this I mean that the problem of local government are far greater and more subtle than simply a review of the role of regional districts would lead us to believe. The problem of local government require a level of sensitivity and planning that have not yet been considered and apparently cannot be considered by the regional district review committee. We have been promised mountains and we've been delivered molehills in this regard.

I am particularly concerned that we need a broad-view and long-range strategy for improving urban life and local government in this province. What we have had from the minister is that look through the wrong end of the telescope at regional government. What we require instead is a much more philosophical and subtle debate about the nature and quality of local government in the province of British Columbia, one that takes us into the 21st century. The committee has not been empowered to do that. The committee will come up with some very specific recommendations regarding regional government, but that is a very small picture when you question the principles of local government and anticipate that phenomenon as it evolves into the 21st century.

I want to state again some proposals; we made them in small part last year, and make them in larger this year. What the official opposition would call for specifically is a royal commission on local government in British Columbia. We call for a royal commission that would have four significant tasks which, in our judgment, are far more broadly and strategically inclined than those presently assigned to the regional district review committee.

The royal commission on local government as its first task would have as a principal responsibility that of examining constitutional

[ Page 1489 ]

changes that may be required in the British North America Act to bring local government into the 21st century. Particularly, the commission must examine the relationship between cities and provincial and federal governments. In this country, almost uniquely and certainly backwardly in the western world, cities are entirely the puppets of their provincial administration. That is not the case in the United States of America; that is not the case in many western European countries. Cities in those other states have lives and powers of their own in a free and autonomous fashion. Cities here in our country, by virtue of our constitution, are entirely the puppet and the property of the provincial administration.

As part of that first task that should be undertaken by a royal commission on local government, the commission should examine those areas of new power and new authority that should be granted to local government under a changed national constitution. That whole debate on new powers within a new national constitution should very ouch be studied by a royal commission examining the whole phenomenon of local government, and not just of regional districts. That's the first task - to examine such changes as may be required constitutionally in Canada, in order to grant further powers and more sensitive powers to local government here in this province and, of course, in every other.

Secondly, the royal commission should be responsible for examining the taxing powers and prerogatives of local government in British Columbia. In a lot of ways, they're completely inadequate. In one particular way, in my judgment, they are over-powerful indeed. Particularly I should hope that the royal commission on local government might examine the possibility of abolishing altogether local taxes on home improvements. I'll be talking about that at some length in a moment.

As part of the second major task to be assigned to this commission, that commission should inquire into the fairness of and the purposes that should be served by the property tax itself. I mentioned that we're leading two positive debates today, and that's the second - the nature of the property tax and whether or not it serves any instrumental purpose. If so, what is it? What should it be in the 21st century? So that's the second field that the royal commission should address itself to -taxing powers of local government.

Thirdly, it has to examine the question and the principle of metro or amalgamated government. It has to examine ward systems of government and neighbourhood decision-making as well and determine whether or not neighbourhoods, in some constituted fashion, should be granted some authority and some power. That idea is by no means far-fetched. It's a practical reality in many of the great cities of this country already. The way in which it's become real is through the federal government and the provincial government and the NIP programme - the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. Already it has been clearly demonstrated that in many of the neighbourhoods of our great cities in this country neighbourhood decision-making is a real and practical thing. In consultation with the cities, and with the province, the NIP project committees themselves have demonstrated at a local neighbourhood level real accountability and, most certainly, real imagination.

The third major task that the royal commission should examine is the likelihood of introducing, and the worth of introducing, if any, forms of metro and amalgamated government and forms of neighbourhood decision-making in those area where the neighbourhoods themselves can best determine what should be done for themselves. Again, the NIP committees are a perfectly good, sound and reliable example of how that has succeeded in many places - I admit not all. It's not worked everywhere but it's worked in a lot of places, most certainly in the capital city.

It's my personal opinion that municipal government as we now know it may have no future at all in British Columbia, that in fact the future here in this province may see a combination of metro and neighbourhood self governments, and that the old inherited structure of municipal government may be well on the way out the window. It may be that we will see in combination the greatest possible sensitivity to local decision-making and local need through the neighbourhoods, and the greatest possible strategic use of local resources through what we may now call regional districts and what may be known in the future as metro or amalgamated government, and that the in-between halfway house where we presently live called municipal government may simply not serve any more. It was, in the past, a reasonable compromise between neighbourhood and regional interests. In the future it may prove to be no such compromise at all. Personally I suspect that municipal government as we now know it in its present form may have a very limited future indeed. That future will probably be exercised in small towns and villages - places like Parksville and Quesnel and so on - but certainly in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Nanaimo and the other increasingly urbanized areas of this province,

[ Page 1490 ]

municipal government in its present form may not be with us much longer.

Fourthly and finally, I would propose that the royal commission, as the result of the three previous general inquiries, should prepare a model municipal Act. 1 know the minister's concerned about the quality of the present Act. Previous ministers have been as well. The present Municipal Act is a mess; the minister said so. We say so. It has more than 900 sections to it and there is little order, direction or clear philosophy represented therein. A model Municipal Act would serve a number of purposes. It would codify those recommended changes that the royal commission could look into along the lines of those three areas of inquiry that I've previously named. A model Municipal Act would generate public interest and debate in a significant way. It would guide governments, provincially and federally, given the peculiar nature of the national constitution, and it would be an important talking piece. To the best of my present knowledge upon inquiries that we made just a little while ago, no other provincial jurisdiction is presently engaged in this procedure of creating through a royal commission a model Municipal Act. It could well lead the way significantly and valuably across Canada in making the changes that will be required to our own constitution to permit cities the increasing power that they require in order to do the jobs that we want them to do.

A model Municipal Act could lead to substantial administrative clarity and legislative improvements. Again, the Act itself is simply a mess. It's difficult to read, difficult to follow and completely incoherent in some parts. It's been built up over more than 72 years. It requires wide scale and massive reappraisal.

What a model Municipal Act could do is aid in the transition of local government from what it now is - an inherited ramshackle structure that has been thrown up over the years - into something possessed of much more local power, much greater flexibility of action and much more sensitivity to the unique qualities of urban life in Canada, and most specifically here in British Columbia. A model Municipal Act, as prepared by this royal commission, could assist in cleaning house internally, could assist the public in coming to grips with an understanding of the sensitive and unique qualities of local government and, most importantly, allow local people themselves some choice and some debate in the matter about the future of that level of government which more imaginatively and more poetically sometimes - genuinely poetically sometimes - reflects the way people feel about living with one another. They live with one another in the great cities. They live with one another in homes that our forbears never dreamed and that our national constitution never anticipated.

A royal commission on local government could handle these four tasks in a very admirable and important way. A royal commission that produced a model Municipal Act would be producing for this province an extremely valuable and important document.

I will take my place at the moment. I would appreciate the minister's comments now or at any time in the future. I have other matters to raise later on in the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has touched on a number of points as the critic for the official opposition. With respect to, as he said at the outset, matters which are not necessarily partisan, such as the future of local government and the sharing of power, I will attempt to respond to that observation.

The future of the property tax.... Just in passing, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to the mobile home registry, and I would simply like to report to the committee that to date we've registered just about 11,000 mobile homes in the province. That's about 25 per cent of the expected total, and I also pay credit to the staff of the mobile home registry head office here and to the government agents in the province who are certainly working to assist us in something brand new in British Columbia - indeed, in Canada.

They were working against terrific odds with a very new creature and new legislation. The interesting thing, just in an aside, is the number of mobile homes that are moving back and forth., which certainly proves the need for some kind of record keeping in terms of where they are and where they are going. In its short life since the end of March, 1,129 transport permits have been issued, which is a phenomenal number as far as the staff and I are concerned. That's not those not required to report a move within the province, such as those which might be moving from Washington state to Alaska and so on, or to a sales point.

Mr. Chairman, I take issue with the member in his assessment that we had the wrong end of the telescope up when we decided to establish the regional district review committee.

MR. BARBER: But it's a nice metaphor.

[ Page 1491 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, it's a metaphor. Whether it's a good one or not.... Do you want a division? I don't know how we would all vote on that. But I think, with respect, that we gave that committee, in terms of regional districts, the widest possible terms of reference to look into the structure, the administrative responsibilities of regional districts, their internal and external boundaries, how they relate and get along with municipalities, with the province and, most importantly, with the citizens, and provincial financial support policies. The regional district creature in British Columbia is still quite young - 10, 11, 12 years. It has its vehement detractors and its vocal and enthusiastic supporters, many of them on regional district boards in the latter case.

I don't know what the committee report will say. Other than one or two technical contacts simply to say, "How's it going? Are you having any problems?" and that sort of thing, I haven't attempted to direct the committee or redirect it in terms of what it will say. It concludes its hearings at the end of this month and will take as long as it requires - I would think several weeks - to bring in a report.

Clearly, though, the hearings have in many instances been volatile, and strong views have been expressed. Also, we're looking at two types of regional districts, are we not? We're looking at the two metros, which have very unique characteristics, the GVRD and the capital regional district, because they are essentially urban. Then the very large rural regional districts, which equal much of western Europe in a couple of instances - they are a staggering size.

The antagonism which has been directed toward regional districts has centred largely around two factors: land-use control and the cost of what appears to be another level of government. Indeed, I'm not very satisfied with the escalation of costs at the regional district level in some instances, nor with the regional district board's deliberations every month or twice a month, when it tends to think it doesn't really need to worry about its letters patent and the functions that are assigned to it - rather it becomes a forum for anything and everything.

There is a third element of conflict - other than land use and the escalating cost, whether that is fully justified or not - and that is the dispute between municipalities and the electoral areas, the we-they thing. I hope the committee will comment on that - certainly the terms of reference will permit it - because it is very troubling to a number of members of this House and is obviously very troubling to a number of citizens of British Columbia.

The member speaking for the official opposition indicated, Mr. Chairman, that he wonders whether municipal governments as such will remain in essentially the shape as we now know them: the Deltas, the West Vancouvers, the Oak Bays, the Saanichs and the Prince Georges of this province. I rather think they will. If I were not in elected office today, I think I would still have a very deep and sympathetic affection for local government -partly because I served in it and also because I think, as far as I can see in the future -and maybe somebody has dropped something down in the middle of the telescope, but I don't think so - there will still be the need for that cohesive unit called a municipality.

I hope the committee will understand and indeed expect, Mr. Chairman, that we are not just always pushing paper in this ministry. As the minister responsible for local government and housing and a couple of other little things in the province, whenever possible I like to sit down in a think-tank situation and let the senior, experienced staff of the ministry bounce all sorts of ideas off themselves and off me in order to see if we are responding, to see what the situation will be five years from now and what the situation will be 10 or 20 years from now.

In connection with housing, several months ago we moved ourselves out of the legislative buildings into a think-tank situation - no telephones, no interruptions. We brought in an economist, a representative of the academic world - from one of our universities - and a developer, and we listened to them as to what is going to happen to housing between now and the year 2000. The only instruction I issued was: I don't want to hear about 1978 or 1979; I want to hear about the 1980s and the 1990s. It was a fascinating experience and we'll be doing it again, not only with respect to housing but also in terms of some of the things the member has commented on relative to local government. We will leave our offices, get away from the phones and from the day-today pressures and paper work, and we will examine local government between now and the year 2000. 1 think we will also want to pull in those who are not directly involved in local government.

The municipalities, essentially as we know them and have known them for many years, will be here for quite some time.

I think the Union of B.C. Municipalities could perhaps usefully address itself one year to the question of where now and where later, for local government. This coming September

[ Page 1492 ]

will be the 75th annual convention of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and we hope to mark that in a special way. Perhaps this year they could reduce the number of resolutions and set aside an afternoon or an evening -but it's their programme and their organization - for all members interested in debating where local government is going and should go between now and the end of the century.

The member spoke about the future of property tax. If revenue-sharing for local government has attracted the kind of attention across the country which we know is the case, then perhaps the opposition members, other than saying that it's a pretty good deal, should see that, as far as we are concerned, this is the start of a move to ease the pressure on property tax.

I was not in local government when the famous General Murison report came down. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , I'm sure, was just a tot at the time.

MRS. WALLACE: How can you remember?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was told about it - by my elders.

The Murison report looked at the property tax. Whoever I asked is now going to be offended. I think it was in the mid-50s. General Murison, the reeve of North Cowichan, a very respected local government figure in British Columbia, looked at the property tax. Yes, the property tax is a regressive tax.

Yes, it is asked to do too many things. It has been asked aver the past few years, in many instances in response to citizen demand -let's be frank about it - to do more and more things. Clearly, we can look back not too many years ago to where the property tax paid for a share of education, maintenance of roads and ditches, the essential public works in a municipality, particularly in a rural municipality, a volunteer or paid fire department, and policing. That was about it, but largely in response to citizen demand. Because of our fetish for more and more government these days, more and more activity by government, the property tax has been getting a great deal of pressure and squeeze.

Revenue sharing is the first small but positive step as far as British Columbia is concerned towards easing some of that pressure. Revenue sharing, as we have agreed in this chamber, and as has been observed outside, is here as long as that statute is here. And I hope it is here for a long time and through many, many governments. Following governments will find ways in which to improve and enrich it and, hopefully, to ease some of the burden that the property tax is now required to cover.

Getting back to your concept of a royal commission on local government, Mr. Member, I don't expect that we shall follow that route. I think that the regional district review committee will prove an interesting and productive experiment in that kind of examination, in this case of regional districts but next of rural municipalities or urban municipalities or large ones or small ones.

Yes, there is clearly a growing interest in the neighbourhood concept. We would debate quite a bit today about how big or small the ideal neighbourhood is. I don't know. But I do know that in a number of the United States and in parts of Canada - I think the member has alluded to this before, and I have spoken of it as well - there is clearly a dissatisfaction with the large city, [illegible], megalopolis, metro - where you lose your identity. You pick a number. What is an ideal-sized community - 70,000, 80.000, 90,000, somewhere in that neighbourhood, perhaps?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As one member observes, 82,500. Well, that may be it.

Where you have a very large urban city, such as the Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal example, perhaps there is a desire and need and logic in reducing that level of government into some kind of smaller unit. I think that we are open to suggestions and we are certainly willing to look elsewhere. We are being examined here for a number of things we have initiated, Mr. Chairman, and we are quite prepared to admit freely that we don't have all the answers and we don't have all the knowledge and all the expertise with respect to local government.

To summarize very quickly, the Union of B.C. Municipalities could and indeed perhaps should address itself to the question instead of its routine annual operation. The Municipal Officers Association of B.C. could and perhaps should do the same. We as members of the provincial Legislature and citizens themselves should also do so.

The member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) is yawning. I'll take my place, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the minister's reply. I point out that if this year we have a review of regional districts and next year of urban municipalities and the year after that of rural municipalities, we will by and by have a royal commission into local government. I suppose that is better than nothing. It strikes me, though, that it might be done all

[ Page 1493 ]

at once and save a bit of time.

I do think the concept of a model Municipal Act serves a number of purposes simultaneously and that's worth exploring. Now maybe the UBCM itself could be the author of that, I don't know. The minister may want to grant it the finances and the time and the responsibility to do so, but somewhere or another, some time or another surely, if no one else will agree, apart from politicians - civil servants will agree - the Municipal Act has to be cleaned up. It's a bloody mess! It is a mess, everyone agrees. That's not partisan at all, because it was our mess and now it's your mess. It's been a mess for years.

I sent the minister a copy of my speech notes regarding the royal commission. They're on Bill's desk right now, and he might want to take a look at them.

I want to reply again, kind of philosophically just for a moment, to the question of urban life. Speaking for myself, I love cities. When I want a rest or a vacation, I go to New York City, believe it or not. I have a girlfriend in New York who studies music. She is a contralto at Juilliard. She lives in the upper westside, and I go and stay with her about every six months. One of the things that I most enjoy doing with my friend is getting up early in the morning and going for a walk on one of the highways that Robert Moses built along the west side and making it into midtown, going to Lincoln Centre, which Moses also built, and reading in the library of Juilliard and doing all of the other things that you can do in a great city. And New York is still, contrary to popular belief - and the Chairman will know it - in many places perfectly safe and one of the most exiting urban environments in the world. The great cities of America - Canada and the United States - must be protected.

We have great cities in this country and Vancouver is becoming one. Our great cities presently are Montreal and Toronto, but Vancouver is on the way. Cities are, in the words of a thinker who's concerned about these matters, the storehouses of civilization. They contain all of the great qualities of human endeavour. Everything that civilizes us can be found in a city, most particularly the educational, the artistic, and the theatrical. The human opportunities for people to grow in diversity and freedom are found in the great cities of the world. They are the centres and crossroads of learning and feeling and growth and imagination. When I want to do something for fun, I go to New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles or Toronto; I don't of ten go to Duncan, with respect, although Duncan is a very nice place.

I think some philosophic attention must be paid in this province, particularly regarding Vancouver, to its future as a great city in the North American context, and these are questions and problems of more than just transfer of revenues - although that's important, and I applaud it - they are questions of feeling and attitude as well. There are questions raised, I think most marvelously....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might take this opportunity to remind you that the Vancouver Charter doesn't come under this particular vote.

MR. BARBER: There are opportunities for human living in a circumstance and with a future that doesn't exist anywhere else and it can exist in Vancouver. Vancouver, hopefully one day, will have a great opera company. It presently has a very great symphony and a fine library system. Hopefully soon it will have a transit system worthy of the word. It does not at present, but it deserves one and needs one. It is the centre of almost half the total population in the province; it is potentially a great city.

One of the great thinkers in this field is Jane Jacobs. Jane Jacobs, in one of the most important works on the nature and the question and the philosophy of urban life in a work called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities, " talked a lot about New York City and she talked as well about Canada, and in particular Toronto. Three years ago Jacobs moved to Toronto because she has written off New York and Philadelphia and Boston as being uninhabitable. She believes that those cities have now failed. She thinks that Toronto is the last livable great city on this continent. She may well be right. There are qualities of life in Toronto, of ethnic life and of ethnic diversity, of religious and cultural life, that are tremendously vivid and tremendously powerful and they could and should be in Vancouver, and to a lesser degree in all of the other cities of this province.

Personally I think cities hold the whole key to the promise and the problem of the future -promise and problem both. And I've been in parts of New York which aren't very safe as well, parts where it's healthier, I suppose, to have a police escort. I spent some time with people at the Metro Transit Authority in New York and talked a bit about those problems as well. I'm perfectly well aware of some of those difficulties, I think. But again, just speaking personally, cities are the most invigorating experience that modern man can possibly know, I think the most invigorating

[ Page 1494 ]

experiences any of us will ever have. Those experiences should be made safe, literally safe, physically safe. They must be made safe for our children and families to enjoy right downtown and not just in the suburbs and they must be made economically sound as well; increasingly they are none of those things.

I said that the second part of the major positive debate that the opposition wishes to lead today concerns the property tax, its future and, in particular, the home improvement tax. I want to talk about that for a few moments, if I may. Again, I have speech notes which I'll be happy to send to the minister now or at the conclusion of my remarks.

I want to talk about the principal way that local government raises money, which is through the property and the home improvement taxes. I want to try and demonstrate, if I may, from the point of view of this opposition, some of the unfairness of certain aspects of the property tax. In particular I wish to call for the abolition of the home improvement tax altogether.

To start with, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the history of the property tax as a phenomenon in the western world. We've been doing some digging and I would like to pay particular thanks to Mr. Del Hall, who is an intern in our caucus, for the assistance that he has given me in this regard, and were able to find that the first known property tax, as recorded in present records anyway, was known as the "classified property tax" and it was levied in the city state of Athens in 596 B.C.

Now under Rome in imperial times, for a period of almost 1,200 years, the imperial tax system did not employ a property tax at all, but rather they employed a variety of direct and indirect taxes on commerce and trade. In medieval times in England, they had a variety of tithes on property. There was a saluddin tithe - indeed, that was brought in to finance the Third Crusade. They didn't know them elves the tax on property, as we know it.

It's fairly clear from most authorities in the field that property taxes have come and gone. over a long period of time, and quite cyclically. They have occasionally been a major force, and on other occasions been hardly there at all, replaced instead with income and commerce taxes.

In 1697 in England, what had been theretofore a rather chaotic set of land taxes became codified as a general property tax, and that general property levy for the first time, in 1697, became what we now know as the basis in English common law for the authority of the state to create and manage a property tax.

In British Columbia the first property tax was levied on December 10,1860, and this tax was known as "An Act to Levy an Annual Tax of One Pound Per Percentum on the Value of All Real Estate in the Colony of Vancouver Island and Its Dependencies." As is usual with most taxes, it was brought in in a very small way. Most people who write tax laws tend to deliberately underemphasize their importance and diminish their magnitude at the beginning, so it was "one pound per percentum."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I don't know. I haven't read the Act at all. I'm reading the title.

I gather this was not a terribly successful tax, because it was repealed in 1872 and another tax was brought in. But this is the first known property tax in the Grown colony of Vancouver Island. Thereby, Mr. Chairman, we have inherited the property tax in British Columbia, from Athenian times to medieval England, from 1607 and its codification in the general property levy, to the first known tax here on December 10,1860.

The tax on home improvements we have not been able to trace down. It apparently began in a rather sporadic and erratic fashion sometime in the early 20th century.

I want to talk about the nature of the property tax and first point out the obvious: it's a very unpopular tax. In 1970 the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, referring to property taxes, said at its annual convention: "Being regressive, they are subject to increasing taxpayer resistance as they are pushed towards the limits of political acceptability."

It's an inequitable tax in one very profound regard. Municipalities with a rich property base do well with property taxes. Land-poor municipalities must accept poor services, poor libraries, fire, police, sidewalks, sewers, other public facilities and services. The difference is really obvious. It was pointed out to me just this morning by my colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) . In a town like Trail, whose property taxpayers include Can-Cel and Cominco, that town will do enormously better than a town like, say, Qualicum Beach, whose property taxpayers are retired persons and summer residents. Clearly a property tax discriminates inherently against those areas of our province which are, in a sense, land rich, and those other areas which are, in another sense, land poor.

Revenue sharing by itself cannot address that inherent profound inequity. It can help redress certain imbalances, but the fundamental inequity of that tax, when you look at

[ Page 1495 ]

some municipalities that were, in a sense, born with more than others, particularly in the fields of resources, makes that tax inherently an unfair one. There are lots of unfair taxes, but this particular one has some serious consequences.

One of the consequences is that the unfairness of this property tax also results in school levies that are totally inadequate for school purposes. The land is simply not valuable enough to support a good school system. I was reminded of this just two weekends ago in Prince George when I attended the annual convention of the B.C. School Trustees Association. North Thompson school district pointed this out by resolution. They're in trouble because their property tax base in North Thompson, for the purposes of schools, is totally inadequate. They could, I suppose, be encouraged to tax the tree farm licences and other resource bases in that area, but at the moment that is a tax to which they are not entitled.

HON. MRS. CURTIS: Education estimates.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'm talking about the property tax which, as you know, municipalities raise on behalf of the school districts. It's another of the inequities of the property tax.

There are further inequities in the property tax, and that is in the whole field of the exemptions of certain properties from property taxation at all. Now conventionally churches are exempt from the property tax across the board. However, it varies from town to town in the case of other exemptions. Right now, as the minister is well aware, in his own home riding of Saanich there has been a proposed exemption from the property tax - that's what it amounts to - for the Racquet Club. Now Saanich may be able to afford that. They may be able to afford the significant gift that it has been proposed to give by reducing, quite incredibly and artificially, the taxable level to be paid by the Racquet Club of Saanich and Oak Bay. Private facilities like the Racquet Club in other parts of the province have to pay full taxes, no matter what their circumstances, no matter what they propose to do for the people, publicly or privately. it's another of the features of an inherently unfair tax, the property tax, that inequity occurs in the field of exemption from property tax altogether.

In the National Tax Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, September, 1973, a tax authority in the United States had this to say to the National Tax Association annual conference. He talked about this, referring to the question you raised: "Glancing ahead now over the next two decades, I would expect to see the property tax all but wither away. I would predict that - in absolute terms - property taxation is headed for oblivion." Well, unfortunately he has been proven totally wrong, because the trend is just the opposite. It's quite clear that the property tax is not going to go away, but it is clear as well that it's in trouble, and that's the next part of the debate that I wish to raise.

(Mr. Kerster in the chair.]

There is, across North America, a taxpayers' revolt underway against the property tax. Now in the United States of America, which often leads us culturally and in a number of other ways, the voters, through a referendum or a recall or a proposition procedure, exercise power directly. In the United States where they do so, the property tax is now under direct political attack from the taxpayers. Most spectacularly, the property tax is being challenged by the taxpayers of California.

On June 6 of this year the taxpayers of California will be asked to vote on two propositions on a ballot. One of them is Proposition 8. That proposition is sponsored by the Legislature of the state of California, particularly by Senator Peter Behr of the bureau. The impact of Proposition 8 is such that it would reduce the homeowners' property tax in the state of California by 30 per cent overnight.

Proposition 13 is the other initiative on the ballot. This is the so-called Jarvis-Gann initiative, and it's been quite openly sponsored by major landowners in the state of California. Proposition 13 would reduce all property taxes - not just homeowner taxes - by 60 per cent overnight and would require future property tax changes to be approved by a two thirds vote in the California state legislature. At the moment, Proposition 13 - the Jarvis-Gann initiative sponsored by the landowners - is well ahead in the Gallup poll in California. It is widely believed that Proposition 13 will succeed on the ballot, June 6, in California.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I suppose. But it also shows or implies what you might do to local government if it passed. Let's talk about that for a moment. Let's talk about some of the other sources. Governor Jerry Brown of California has gone on public record repeatedly as saying

[ Page 1496 ]

that if Proposition 13 passed, it would bring overnight chaos and disaster to government in California and to its revenue-raising capacity, and has indicated that his state will not, repeat not, provide relief to local government if Proposition 13 is passed.

Now we do not have these provisions in our country, but any sensitive person will recognize that popular opinion, that cultural change, that overwhelming political attitudes in the United States are inevitably reflected in our own country. We know that is a fact of life, unfortunately, here. And I predict -it's an easy thing to do - that if Proposition 13 passes the ballot in California on June 6 of this year, similar propositions will be on the ballot in other of the 35 states that have referendum procedures.

At the point when a majority of the United States is in the middle of a taxpayers' revolt against the very nature of the property tax, there will be a spillover effect in Canada. The ability of local government to raise funds through the property tax in this country will begin to be impaired politically because the voters won't stand for it any more.

I predict we will be in for very serious times if, as is likely, these taxpayer initiatives, starting in California but in other parts of that country, succeed. The political spillover will be here in our country. So that affects the ability of local government here in British Columbia, through the property tax, to raise money for what it needs. It's clearly time - and this debate is the start of it - to debate the nature and the future of the property tax in British Columbia.

I want to talk about the revenue that's raised through the property tax here in British Columbia. The property tax is itself an enormous generator of revenue in this province. Most taxpayers have no idea at all of the magnitude of the property tax and its effect on our economy. The last year for which I have figures is the fiscal year 1976. I'm sorry it's not more up to date, but that's all we've got. In fiscal 1976, the real property levy in British Columbia for local government purposes only raised $851.8 million. My source for that is the Canada Tax Foundation, 1977, in its section on provincial and municipal finances.

The $851.8 million raised in fiscal 1976 from the property tax does not include additional moneys raised for school purposes. According to the finance branch of the Ministry of Education yesterday afternoon, the property tax raised an additional $502.4 million for public educational purposes in fiscal 1976. So let's look at the total raised from the property tax in fiscal 1976; $851.8 million for local government, $502.4 million for education. The total raised that year from the property tax in this province was $1,354, 200,000. Of that $1.3 billion raised in fiscal 1976, 37 per cent was spent on education.

Now just bringing us up to the future for a moment, in fiscal 1977 the school property tax in British Columbia raised $531.9 million, and in fiscal 1978 it's expected to raise $619 million. A-11 of this is a tax on property. In Vancouver itself, in fiscal 1977, the property tax raised $182,656, 000 for school and local government purposes. Of that $182 million figure, 54 per cent went to service schools and 46 per cent to service property.

There is an overall conclusion that can be drawn from this. The property tax is an enormous generator of revenue in this province, and most property taxpayers don't realize the scale of it. In fact, just looking at 1976 and years previous, one fact becomes especially clear. Local government, through the property tax, annually raises the equivalent of one third of the entire provincial budget over and above that budget itself. In that year, $3.8 billion was spent on the provincial budget; in the same year, $1.3 billion was raised additionally from local property taxpayers. At the point at which local taxpayers become aware of this, they will increasingly call for reforms in a system that has some inherent inequities.

I want to call for one immediate reform. I believe personally that the tax on home improvements must be abolished, and the sooner the better. The province must expand revenue sharing to make good the loss of this revenue to local government.

In Australia and New Zealand, I am informed, there is no tax whatever on home improvements. I personally believe that taxes on home improvements are stupid and self-defeating. People should be encouraged to paint their fences; they should be encouraged to plaster their walls and fix their roof and add a sundeck and finish a basement. Taxing that labour and taxing that kind of family investment is simply wrong. It is a wrongful tax; it shouldn't be done. Local governments have been doing it for years and years.

The family as an institution is surely under enough attack already. The attack on the family home is compounded when we tax improvements to the family home. It's a cruel and unnecessary tax and it should be done away with.

Interjection.

[ Page 1497 ]

MR. BARBER: The scale for major renovations? Why not? You're talking about a single-family dwelling and one family investing in it. What on earth is wrong with encouraging people to make investments as a family unit in their own home? I'm not talking about improvements to apartments or buildings; I'm talking about the homes of human beings living in condominia or owned apartments or single-family dwellings or duplexes or triplexes where they themselves have wanted to make improvements, where cash and sweat equity is something that at the moment is taxed and shouldn't be.

By the way, the model Municipal Act that I proposed could well ensure that the home improvement tax is abolished overnight. It should be. It's an unfair tax. It hurts the family; it hurts the family home. The revenues generated are themselves not sufficient justification for the damage that it does to the family, and the revenues could be made up through a more generous form of revenue sharing.

Finally, I would like to draw to the attention of the committee at least three significant alternatives to the property tax. These are three alternatives that could well be studied by the royal commission on local government that the opposition has proposed. At the outset I want to emphasize that I am not personally endorsing any of these three means of raising taxes alternatively to the property tax. I'm just saying that they are worthy of study. I don't know enough about them individually to say that they should be introduced. I am aware that they have been introduced elsewhere and they are worthy of study because they appear to have succeeded elsewhere.

The first alternative to the property tax that could and should be considered is a heavier reliance on a form of local income tax, coupled with a local sales tax. At the present time, more than 4,000 municipalities in the United States now employ these two taxes and have managed to reduce property taxes accordingly. It is their view that a fair income tax and a fair sales tax....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please, just for moment. I would like to draw to your attention that we are discussing the minister's office under vote 184 and your debate has been rather far-ranging, particularly in the areas of taxation. Any changes, as you know, made in taxation would require legislation. I would like to draw your attention to the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May, page 739, where it is stated that the administrative action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I would ask you to confine your remarks to vote 184, please.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, I just want to suggest to you the possibility that in pursuing his administrative duties, the minister might have examinations underway in his ministry right now on these various subjects. I might also mention to you that a bit of latitude at this time might considerably shorten the time this estimate will take.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, hon. member. I have, I think, allowed a very great range of latitude to the member speaking before you brought up your point of order.

MR. BARBER: I did mention, being aware of the rules for the committee, that one of the things that a royal commission on local government could look into is alternative forms of property taxation. I know that falls within the rules. In any case, I draw it to the minister's attention.

By the way, we're trying to conduct a relatively non-partisan debate this afternoon and I think we should be encouraged.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you're doing an excellent job, hon. member. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: I would draw to the minister's attention under his vote the possibility of examining what 4,000 municipalities in the United States have already examined and concluded, which is that a means of reducing reliance on the property tax can be found in relief granted by the local income tax and the local sales tax. In particular, in the city of New Orleans, which is very progressive in a number of taxation fields, that city today obtains some 40 per cent of its total revenue from the sources of a local sales tax and a local income tax. That city today has among the lowest property taxes in the United States.

The second alternative to property taxation that I hope the royal commission could consider and the minister examine is what is known in the field as differential taxation. We have forms of it in this province, but they're not coherent or codified and it's hardly a matter of public policy. It just sort of happens because local governments occasionally do it that way.

Differential taxation is a procedure in which there is a markedly higher mill rate on non-residential properties than on single

[ Page 1498 ]

f family dwellings. This has particular value when you are attempting to shift the burden of the school tax away from the private homeowner and on to the more broadly based industries and businesses that can more appropriately assume that. The value of differential taxation is that in the marked sense in which the mill rate is applied, the homeowner, through the property tax, is charged less because he is viewed as, quite properly, having a lesser ability to pay than, say, Can-Cel or Cominco.

The third and final alternative form of taxation that I want to raise is what is called site-value taxation. This is, as I understand it, a means of taxing the value of land itself but not the dwellings or the improvements on the land. Major thinkers in this field and major writers who have been examining it for more than half a century include the economists Johnson, Gaffney, Brown and George. These people are worthy of study by the government; they have been studied by many other governments in many other places.

In Alberta today that study has gone on and in Alberta there has been a gradual shift toward relatively heavier taxation of land and relatively lighter taxation of improvements on the land. The conclusion is obvious. Alberta itself may well be leading the gradual way to abolition of the property tax system that we have inherited but not much understood and that we employ perhaps overmuch.

To wrap up that particular debate, again I want to urge the abolition as soon as possible of any taxes on the single family dwelling for the purpose of home improvements. People should not be penalized for making improvements to their homes, they should be encouraged. In fact at the moment we are in the rather bizarre position under the RRAP programme of giving people grants to improve their homes via provincial programmes for which the minister is responsible and, having made the grant for improving their homes, we then turn around and tax the grant we gave them in the first place. It's a bizarre and absurd situation that should not apply. There should in fact be no tax for improvements to a home owned by a single family for family dwelling purposes.

That's the second basic debate that I wanted to lead this afternoon on the nature and the history and the role of the property tax and its value, if any, as a significant generator of revenue.

In particular, I'd appreciate the minister's comments on the alternative forms of taxation that do exist, such as reliance on a local income tax and sales tax; reliance on perhaps differential taxation; or reliance on what is known as sitevalue taxation. Again, I don't endorse any of those three particularly, save to say that they are clearly worthy of study as a means of further reducing the burden that individual homeowners have to pay through the property tax which, again, we have much inherited and little understood in this or any other province for a long, long time. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on those points.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has dealt at length and in an interesting fashion with a number of matters which relate to this ministry, although from time to time they were clearly more closely associated with the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . I refer to the taxation on home improvements, which is really an assessment function. Just because it has been that way for so long does not suggest that it should not be changed at some time but, as the members of the committee will know, the assessment on a particular property is based on the value of that property. I would answer briefly that there is in effect a tax differential, if you go back to the assessment part of the equation, because there are varying percentages for varying types of property at the time the assessment is levied. That really exists.

Site-value taxation. Yes, I'm aware of two of the economists the member named. I think that the committee would not need much reminding to know that this was looked at at length by the McMath commission in its report, and certainly by government, following the receipt of the McMath report and its review leading to various changes which have taken place through the Minister of Finance and through this ministry as well.

The member mentioned site-value taxation as one alternate form of taxation. I am not at all impressed with site-value taxation, and I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that we will see it used less rather than more in North America in years to come.

The alternate forms. Yes, I have been to those areas - San Francisco and so on - where I realize I am paying a state tax, a county tax and a city tax, one on top of the other, for a particular good or service.

MR. BARBER: Just like gasoline.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just like gasoline.

I think the property-taxpayers' revolt in California is a fascinating matter to discuss at length, perhaps not in these estimates but at any time any hon. member wants to.

[ Page 1499 ]

I return, Mr. Chairman, to a point I tried to develop earlier in response to the member's remarks about the property tax and its regressiveness. It's fine to have a property taxpayers' revolt and indeed there may be good reason for it. But is there also at the same time a recognition of the direct linkage between what the property-taxpayer is asking of that jurisdiction and what he is being asked to pay? Today, as compared with 1938 or 1948 or 1958, far more is expected of the local government jurisdiction and far more is demanded of it by the citizens of a community than was the case 15 or 20 or 30 years ago.

So if there's a taxpayers' revolt regarding property tax - and no one likes any tax at any level, whether it's federal, provincial or municipal, whether it is up front or whether it is somewhat disguised - it will only work if there is a reduction in the demand by the property taxpayer for those services which he has ' come to expect and understand. Garbage collection every two weeks - incredible! I have been getting my garbage collected every week. '!Don't tell me you have to cut costs, 1' says the citizen. "What do you mean you can't cut the grass in the park. Why isn't the swimming pool open from 6 a.m. to midnight? Why can't I have practice in the ice arena at 2 a.m. It's my ice arena." Et cetera, et cetera, Mr. Chairman - an increased demand. It follows logically: increased costs to meet those demands.

Transit. I did not speak of transit when the second member for Victoria made his opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. The legislation is coming to this House.

MR. BARBER: This session?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This session? I have no knowledge of when this session would end. This session could adjourn tomorrow for three months for some reason or other.

MR. BARRETT: Like the Bawlf transcripts?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you - and I realize that we're close to offending the rules of the House in anticipating legislation and so on - that we are now at the point of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Or is it dotting the t's and crossing the i's? There will be legislation at the earliest possible time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it was alluded to two years ago. It was expected last year and it shall arrive this year, Mr. Chairman, and it will be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, it hasn't been derailed, Mr. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) . It will be here and it will present an opportunity for very interesting and, I'm sure, extensive debate. There may be some other questions the member wishes to ask with respect to transit, within these votes as they are presently listed - or some other member.

But I'll just take one more moment, Mr. Chairman. I think the committee might be interested to know that we will be in a position later this year - depending only on delivery - to equip several standard transit buses in British Columbia with the type of hydraulic wheelchair lift which has been spoken of before. The literature which I have in my hand now is not necessarily about the type that which shall be purchased, but this is the one, I think, where, in a space of 40 seconds, from start to finish, a person confined to a wheelchair may board a standard transit vehicle. One set of seats is removed to permit space for that. We'll be bringing these units in and installing them in buses, using them in a pilot way, perhaps moving them around through systems some of which are within the jurisdiction of this ministry and some of which are not. Based on experience of several months, good weather and poor, we'll then perhaps be in a position to add more. But I thought that the committee would be interested in that fact that I think some $90,000 will be expended in the acquisition of the first conversions of existing vehicles. I'm pleased to report that to the committee today and will be reporting it in the next few days to various organizations for the handicapped in the province.

MR. LLOYD: I'd like to enter the debate today on the concept the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was bringing up about smaller and smaller local governments. I can't agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I think a single central government has a lot more to offer to its citizens. I think you can get a better government at a far more reasonable cost. I would think that the example they set right here in Victoria should show the cost of having several local, municipal governments. The duplication of services - fire protection, police - co-ordinating growth patterns and making full utilization of our recreational

[ Page 1500 ]

facilities, water lines and sewer lines are all, I think, problems if you splinter local governments too much.

Certainly, I'd have to say that the larger city of Prince George has since amalgamation been working a lot better at a lot more reasonable cost to the taxpayer and providing a great deal more services to everyone as well. There's a lot better recreational facilities in the area. The fire protection alone was a great asset. It really lowered the insurance costs to all the residents. I think it really proves that too much duplication certainly is expensive.

The smaller areas in my riding - Mackenzie, Valemount and McBride - have responsible councils and good local government. They meet on a regular basis and I feel they service their communities quite well too.

I think we run into more problem when we get to the next step in local government, which the minister referred to - the larger regional districts. Certainly it creates a problem and a lot of friction in my area where you have regional districts overbalanced by the major population centre of Prince George, with some 60,000 people having an influence over an area 180 miles in one direction and 120 miles in the other direction. They meet only once a month. I think anyone can under stand the logistics of trying to supply services on a local level. In that respect I would possibly have to agree with the second member for Victoria that local government, in that instance, I think would be a lot better with probably the municipal type of government such as Mackenzie has, where they have full control of the area around them. Certainly that's what I would like to see.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I've expressed my concern several times to the minister on this concept under Bill 42 of the settlement plan. I think at times it is going to create more problems than it solves. The second member for Victoria mentioned the local public hearings that you can have. I think these are probably a problem unless the local residents are really made aware of the importance of these public hearings. If a settlement plan is developed without full input of all the local citizens, particularly the property owners and the long-time residents of the area, then I think quite possibly pressure groups and non-residents even can influence the direction of the public hearings. I would say that is not a very democratic process, and I'd say we'd be far better off with a municipal type of government. Let them run their government for the two years, or whatever the term is, and you have the opportunity of electing a new government the next time. I think public hearings are quite effective if there's a real contentious subject in an area, but I can't really believe that they are a way in which we should establish settlement plans and community plans in large areas where it wouldn't necessarily reflect the needs of the residents themselves.

I think we're talking also of the rationalization of the property tax proceedings. Mr. Chairman, I just received a letter today from the village of Valemount. I think it really reflects what has been happening to municipalities collecting local taxes. Of a total Valemount record of $173,799, over 60 per cent of that goes to the school for the education tax. A further 31 per cent is all they have to run the village on, with the other balances being made up between the regional district and miscellaneous costs.

Mr. Chairman, they go on to state in their letter that they feel it's rather an onerous load that is [illegible] on the municipalities, and in particular on the smaller ones with a limited budget.

Preparing the annual tax notices, distributing them, collecting them, applying for the homeowner grants - they do this all at their own expense and the school levy gets the majority of the revenue from it. I think it is a very logical argument.

The municipality is also required to pay the entire school requisition each year, even if all the collections aren't made - and I've heard this one in Prince George as well. They're quite upset about this. I think it is something that should be reviewed.

They go on to point out that the municipal mill rate in the smaller areas, particularly in the Valemount one at least, hasn't increased in seven years, and yet the school mill rate in that same period has gone from 33.58 to 46.21 in 1976, which was an increase of 12 mills in six years, or 34.5 per cent.

They have some suggestions. They'd like to see the school district administer their own taxes, their own collection, and then they would be responsible for holding the line on their budget or at least the taxpayers would definitely know who was responsible for that increase in their budget. I think that is something that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should look into with the assessment department. I think the revenue-sharing formula should reflect this. I think we need more refining between the school district budget and the share of the taxes that are used for local government, and I think the

[ Page 1501 ]

public should be made more aware of the actual portion of the taxes that are forced up by school boards not holding the line, rather than the municipalities trying to keep the cost and the level of services down.

The second member for Victoria also mentioned the taxpayers being in revolt, Mr. Chairman. I think I would have to concur with that, but it is not just a revolt against property taxes. It's a revolt against the higher and higher and higher costs of education, especially in areas where the school population is levelling off or, in some areas, even dwindling. We only have to look at our provincial budget itself and see how much is being spent on education this year as a provincial priority. Some of these wage earners and small businessmen are starting to wonder if the province can really afford that type of spending.

So I think I would have to agree with him. There is a taxpayers revolt, but it should really be reflected right back to the area it belongs to - not to the municipal administration, not to the provision of services, but the school boards that aren't holding the line on costs. I think the minister should represent the municipalities' concern in this particular area.

MR. D'ARCY: The minister does not want to get up at the moment, so I'm going to be rather brief.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister and his capable deputy on his right if they can possibly give me some information on the status of the request for intercity transit services in the southwest Kootenays, particularly the potential services between Rossland and Trail, Trail and the Beaver Valley, and the secondary service between Trail, Castlegar and Nelson. The municipalities and the regional districts involved are all on the record for a substantial period of time as of requesting these services. The municipalities in Kootenay-Boundary in fact have already passed a I mill levy for this purpose to show their intent and good faith. Referendum have not been held, but there is no question where public opinion is on this matter.

I realize some people around have suggested there may be a transit Act forthcoming at this session. However, I would like to find out if we can have any encouragement at all in this very needed service.

The reason it is so needed - I know that there are many municipalities and regional districts which make similar requests and claims. The fact is that this area, while heavily populated, has no public transportation whatsoever. It's even rather difficult to get a taxi on many occasions. The Greyhound buses do not travel through the area, they bypass the area, going through Castlegar and Nelson, and the only service that is available is airporter service and the occasional Greyhound feeder bus. So there is a certain degree of urgency.

As the minister well knows, we have a very high percentage of senior citizens living in our area, largely because of the recreational amenities - almost as high as the percentage in Victoria. As a matter of fact, many of these people do not have cars. Even if they do have cars, in the winter months they don't wish to use them because of the nature of the topography and the weather.

The other question I would like to ask the minister is whether any decision has been made at all on the student housing units at Selkirk College. lie is probably aware that these units were closed in January of this year due to condensation and leakage problems and the students were put into motel units. The college has offered to take them over; I gather from verbal discussions that the Ministry of Education is in agreement to pass them on to the college. The question really is: who's going to pay for the repairs to the units? The hope is all around that the Ministry of Housing will put up the money for whatever is needed to make these units serviceable again, at which point they can be turned over from Housing to Education and thence to the community college. Hopefully the provincial government won't have to worry about them anymore, either from a capital or an operating cost point of view.

Those are my two questions, Mr. Chairman. If the minister, whom I see is consulting with his deputy, could perhaps give some answers, I'd certainly appreciate it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the remarks of the last two speakers in the debate on these estimates. The member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) asked about the transit service in that city and adjacent area. There is no question that the extension of the transit service is a matter of the highest priority. We have a high priority category for a number of requests and that is one of them. The extension to a shopping centre will take place, I think, very quickly.

MR. D'ARCY: This is being done by the city, in any event.

[ Page 1502 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes. But, Mr. Chairman, as I attempted to explain - and there was some criticism earlier because of the explanation in writing to a number of communities - we have given the direction to the rather small transit staff that exists within this ministry to do all that is necessary with respect to existing systems, and some changes had to be made, and provide the backup and the putting together of all sorts of pieces which are required for legislation I expect to be introduced in this House. We spoke about it while you were out. So we have said - understanding there would be some disappointment and that I would take some criticism for it - that through this period of late spring and early summer into the fall, we cannot extend the staff, service and the expertise to individual communities with regard to their requests. We asked them to be patient and most have responded favourably and in an understanding way.

Notwithstanding that, when we do start again, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, we will be working on a priority list - category 1, 2 and 3 and Trail and its extensions are category 1, assure you.

You spoke also of the student housing at Castlegar. I had a number of conversations about this with the housing section of the ministry. On the basis of the physical inspection, Mr. Chairman, the situation was found not to be as bad as was originally thought or feared. The member nods his head in agreement. We're simply now waiting for approval through the process. Treasury Board, I believe, is where it rests at the moment; it hasn't been resting there very long. I concur with the member's observations. We would like the housing to be transferred en route through Education to the college and I would expect that will be done.

MR. GIBSON: This has been one of these fine afternoons in the Legislature when people are well advised to read Hansard for its educational value as well as its usual entertainment value I want to congratulate the minister for that and the hon. opposition critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , as well as other speakers, for the very well-researched remarks on this issue. I'll endeavour to maintain a brevity that will not unduly prejudice that atmosphere.

Commenting briefly on what the second member for Victoria had to say about local taxes and somewhat echoing what the minister said about it, I very much concur that there are inevitable inequities because of the different tax bases that one finds around the province available to the various local governments. But there are important advantages too with respect to locally levied taxes. As the member knows, it does give more local control and a feeling of local involvement by citizens in their own government. One of the advantages of property taxes is that there is no question as to where they are levied because the boundary lines of local governments are clear. There are difficulties with income taxes and sales taxes levied at the local level. In spite of the fact that many jurisdictions in the United States do have them, they still do present administrative difficulties.

I wonder if some of the problems perceived by the second member for Victoria such as the unequal tax base, particularly in terms of industrial and commercial property, might be solved by some kind of an equalization formula based on tax yield and available tax base. This already is the case to some extent, as the member knows, in terms of the educational levy, to the extent that the province pays a certain proportion of the basic educational programme.

The California situation and the tax revolt there is.... I think the minister used the word "fascinating"; it certainly is. I, of course, am a proponent of a certain amount of direct democracy being available to the voters to sometimes get the message through. I think there is a message coming through there and I think that we are well advised to react to it. I think the revenue sharing propositions of the current government are one reaction to that. It's going to have to be pushed further.

I have relatively little to raise with this minister on his estimates, and I'll say why, Mr. Chairman. He and his staff are so cooperative throughout the balance of the year that most of the problem get solved outside of this chamber. I don't mind paying that tribute. So rather than giving my own views, I want chiefly to seek advice on various problems, some problems one simply can't cover right now. Much of the department is on hold, one might say, pending revision of the Municipal Act, and the report on regional districts, and the Transit Act, and so on.

I have some very brief comments on transit, without in any way wishing to anticipate the report of the Crown corporation committee or the bill which the minister will bring into this Legislature this session. There is a tremendous urgency, as the minister knows, for answers in transit for planning purposes in the lower mainland of British Columbia. There is a great need to involve local government, not only in this planning but in whatever scheme he eventually comes up with in terms of ongoing administration and operation. I will

[ Page 1503 ]

not say anything further or I would be making representations with respect to legislation, but I think the minister takes that point.

There is an urgency because of the huge cost. The cost of running the public transit system to B.C. Hydro is 80 cents per passenger mile, which is just about exactly the cost of sending people around in taxis. When you think of that for a moment, it is incredible that the cost of public transit for passengers is the same as individual taxis. This simply has to be tackled and rationalized. There are, of course, unintended redistributive effects from this kind of deficit. The hon. member from Prince George from time to time raises the point that utility purchasers in Prince George are in effect paying for the lower mainland transit deficit. I agree that's not right. People in the lower mainland will also say they are paying a lot for highways in Prince George and you have to balance these things out. But to the extent it's possible, this transit system is very serious and must urgently be rationalized.

I was out of the House for a few minutes but I don't think he covered this. Could the minister advise us on the progress on the enormous job of redrafting the municipal Act? How is the work progressing on that? As the minister knows - certainly the deputy does, because I write a letter at least once a year on this - I have some constituents who are extremely concerned with the replotting section, a very complicated section of the Act. Is progress being made on that?

I would ask the minister if he would be kind enough to give us a current report on the SeaBus operation, of which both he and I have been supporters. One of the questions, of course, is bicycles. I know that there have been many vexatious problems in the way of getting bicycles on that SeaBus and I think that people would be glad to hear that the good fight is still being fought.

I would like to know how the cost picture is developing. There have been some rather critical articles in the Vancouver press this spring suggesting that in fact SeaBus is not serving its purpose because there's more traffic over the Lions Gate Bridge than there was before the SeaBus started, and suggesting that because the bus routes have been altered and SeaBus attracts persons from a certain area of North Vancouver, people from areas west or east of that find it less convenient to use buses and more necessary to use the bridge because of the SeaBus operation. I am very skeptical about this and I would like to ask the minister if he has analysis. I continue to believe that the SeaBus, on balance, has and will continue to take pressure off the existing Burrard Inlet crossings.

My next question is a very general one and the minister might prefer to leave it to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. William ) to answer. We have seen in other provinces, and to a certain extent in British Columbia, Indian bands increasingly assuming some of the functions of municipalities. As I say, the minister might prefer to leave this one to the Minister of Labour with his particular responsibility, but if he has any comment on how this is evolving, I would be interested in it.

A question of concern, certainly to the district of North Vancouver which sent me a submission on it, has to do with the report of the Law Reform Commission on tort liability of municipalities. Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a delicate area. We are not allowed to discuss legislation but I do believe that the Union of B.C. Municipalities certainly made a submission to the Law Reform Commission and may well have made a submission to the minister on this. He might be able to give us a status report on that question as well.

I would draw to his attention the representation of the city of North Vancouver with respect to a need for a re-assessment of fiscal transfers to municipalities. Their particular proposal was for an increase in the homeowner grant because of the tremendous increase in taxes that have hit residential homeowners in the city of North Vancouver as a result of having adopted option D in the new Assessment Act. They have been in the order of $200 to $250 per home.

I agree with the city in general that more transfers are required. They might more equitably be done under the revenue-sharing Act and further increases in the homeowner grant. In general, I support the representation.

I would ask the minister about the payment of provincial taxes to local authorities on provincial land. I'm thinking not of the general case where moves have been made to improve things but to particular issues. One is land expropriated for the SeaBus operation, which remained in private hands for some months before title was transferred to the government. At least, as of the time of my last meeting with the North Vancouver city council earlier on this year, that situation had not been cleared up. I'd ask the minister if he has a current report on that.

I would ask him also, although it's outside of his portfolio - because he understands the needs of municipalities so well - if he would use his good offices with the minister responsible for the British Columbia Railway to

[ Page 1504 ]

finally end the situation where the BCR does not pay taxes on land within municipalities. It's most inequitable to municipalities like the district of North Vancouver, to some extent the city, and especially Squamish and, I suppose, Prince George as well, where there's a major tax impact from the fact that the BCR has that exemption. The BCR is a very good thing for those cities, I don't question that, but we say in this province that industry should pay its share and the BCR should be considered another industry for these taxation purposes.

The final information I would seek before sitting down is what progress report the minister could give us on the use of the surplus SeaBus land at the northern terminal where the province owns a good deal of land. There have been proposals for its development in various ways. I will have the pleasure of attending the annual meeting of the Citizens Association of Lower Lonsdale towards the end of this month, and it would be tremendously helpful to be able to report something to that group who have been enthusiastic supporters of the concept of a waterfront park in that area. I have supported them in this. I participated in a march last year where we planted a fine little dogwood tree on the waterfront to hopefully do our best to protect the area, because dogwood trees aren't allowed to be disturbed in British Columbia.

I have written to the minister. Representations have been made by the North Vancouver city council, which has taken a very strong and definite stand on this in the interests of the people of North Vancouver. As the minister will be aware, the waterfront between the two bridges, between the First Narrows Bridge and the Second Narrows Bridge, is almost completely devoted to industry. The waterfront west of the Lions Gate Bridge is almost completely devoted to parks, to recreation, to private homes and so on. We in North Vancouver are glad to provide the land base for jobs, but at the same time we do believe that there should be some park access for people. This is a golden opportunity, this particular piece of land that is controlled by the provincial government.

I would ask the minister to resist any pressures that may be put on him to try and recoup the cost of the SeaBus operation by the development of these lands to a high intensity. I believe that at least for a major portion of that property, a park use is good. I think those are the minister's sentiments as well. If he can give us a progress report on thinking and consultation and work that's being done on this, I would be very grateful.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With the permission of the committee, I'd like to respond to the comments and questions made by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano before we proceed, because there were quite a few of them.

I was interested in his remarks regarding the need for local government property tax.

The cost of transit is staggering. Indeed, when we enter into another debate in another form in this assembly, Mr. Member, that will have to be something faced by members on all sides of the House. The cost of operating the transit systems we have now - to say nothing of those which have been proposed by individuals whose enthusiasm has perhaps exceeded their ability to understand the multimillions of dollars which would be required .... It costs roughly $25 an hour to run a transit bus in British Columbia today. How many people are in it determines how much it loses. The cost in greater Vancouver was stated by the member. There are instances where it is more and a couple of instances where it is less. I should have said, when the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) was speaking, that the Trail system is one of the exemplary small-city systems in British Columbia in terms of usage. Ridership seems to be the current terminology. I am therefore very pleased, and we are very pleased.

The rewriting of the Municipal Act is a monumental task. A year ago I indicated that I had no timetable on this one. We're looking at at least a full year's work, with individuals doing nothing else, and a cost of something well in excess of $150,000 - that's for starters - in terms of rewriting the Act.

Those members today who identify it as being a clumsy document, a difficult document with which to work, are right on. I inherited it, the former minister in the last government inherited it, and the minister before that inherited it. The review is carrying on. Mr. Chairman, if we could only fix the index I would be pleased. If I could only use the index I would be pleased.

I was a freshman alderman, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to filibuster my own estimates, but I thought I was stupid because the index never told me what I wanted to find. It does not work; it is a non-index. The deputy minister, the senior people in the ministry now, and I have indicated to my colleagues on the treasury benches that we want to correct those things which are grossly wrong in terms of the Municipal Act. When a full rewrite will be undertaken, I don't know. I simply don't know, but it's constantly under review.

MR. GIBSON: How about the replotting sec

[ Page 1505 ]

tions specifically?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We'll examine the replotting sections now that you've identified them for me today. I give you that undertaking, Mr. Member.

The SeaBus. Yes, there are some individuals in the media in Vancouver who.... I don't want to be unkind, but they didn't expect it to work, they didn't want it to work, they didn't think it would work, and they're having difficulty in admitting that it is working well ahead of projections. As I observed the other day, well over three million people have ridden Seabus in just about 11 months.

MR. NICOLSON: Jim Lorimer was right.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, a member interjects that the former minister was right. I've never denied that, but this is the government that took it, carried it through and put it into operation, so we can both take credit if that makes everyone feel better. The fact is, it's in place, and it has those who detract. I think, Mr. Chairman, that members of the committee will be interested to know that SeaBus, from the south to north shore and north to south shore, carries more passengers per day than the highly touted Edmonton LRT system carries per day. Yes, I think it is taking pressure off the bridges. We're undertaking a brief survey in questionnaire form which is being handed out to selected passengers. They are being received and will be analysed. It asks: "Why are you here? What did you do before Seabus? Where have you come from and where are you going to? Do you use it of ten - once a month, once a day?" and so on. That sort of information, I think, will assist us and will assist the transit division of British Columbia Hydro in integrating the marine portion and the bus connectors to an even greater extent.

I can only say in addition, Mr. Chairman, that certain SeaBus sailings in the morning are at capacity, and passengers must wait for the next vessel. So that's encouraging. I'm extremely pleased with the public response, and would like to pay tribute to the management and the crews of the system, who have just taken it as their own and have shown a tremendous amount of interest in it and are doing a fine job.

With respect to local government and Indian lands, I would prefer to leave that matter for discussion under the estimates for the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) responsible for Indian affairs in the province. I turn to him for his ministry's comment and advice when a matter of this nature arises, and I think it would be more appropriate to deal with it there.

MR. GIBSON: You didn't mention bicycles by SeaBus.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I shared with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano correspondence which suggests that everyone except the Newfoundland government has become involved in wanting to regulate bicycles on SeaBus. The National Harbours Board.... I don't think Customs and Excise were involved, but I handed to the member - for reasons which will be apparent to most members of this House - some of the difficulties we I re experiencing with national authorities and national agencies. I have not given up, and won't give up, but when one suggests that it may be necessary to complete a bicycle permit in order to take your bicycle on the SeaBus, and you might have to do this every trip, it becomes ludicrous. It's obscene, as a matter of fact. That is not something being thrown in the way by the provincial government.

MR. GIBSON: That particular one is not federal either.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, that particular one is not federal. That relates to another level of government, i.e., Marathon. But any assistance any member can offer with respect to getting bicycles on SeaBus so that people can truly ride to the terminal, ride the SeaBus and then leave the terminal will be gratefully received.

Payment of taxes to the city of North Vancouver with respect to the Lonsdale lands -yes, I have authority to transfer the requested amount and the cheque can be presented relatively soon, Mr. Member. Thank you for asking, because it's a pleasure to be able to announce that. There was a commitment, clearly, inherited by this government and we are meeting that commitment and those moneys will be transferred.

Now with respect to the land itself, I think that the member may know that approximately two weeks ago we met with virtually the full council of the city of North Vancouver - Mayor Loucks and his aldermen and staff - and we decided at that point to start the meter running. We said that afternoon that within 120 days from that date, just roughly 10 days or two weeks ago, we would have an agreed-upon plan for general development of that property - development in the broadest sense of the word, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1506 ]

MR. GIBSON: "Use" is what you mean.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Use, yes. Development isn't just something done by a developer in my terminology, but as you wish - use. It is a $10 million asset, not just on behalf of the people of the city of North Vancouver, but an asset of the people of British Columbia. I restate today my desire to see a portion of that land - to what extent I'm not prepared to say - used for open space or park purposes, green purposes, because of the distinct absence of that sort of marine access and pedestrian area between the two bridges and, in fact, beyond.

MR. GIBSON: Would you use the word "substantial, " Hugh? Would you go that far?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, for the moment I'm satisfied with the words I've used. But the council of the city of North Vancouver left the meeting quite satisfied, I believe, with first of all the deadline which had been set and which has been imposed on both parties -the city and the province - and the route we proposed to follow in terms of assigning various uses.

I shall continue to discourage agencies and levels of government and individuals who have ideas in isolation for some particular part of that property. I make no apology for the fact that it's pretty much as it was a year ago. I think with something as large and as valuable - in more than dollar terms but also in dollar terms - and as prominent as that 20-plus acres, that the year or two which has been taken in looking at it and getting the feel for it and having citizens' groups make their observations and dealing with council has been time well spent - no apology at all.

We did, as you know, clean up the property. It was very unsightly, so there has been some levelling done and it has been made safer in terms particularly of youngsters who might want to wander down to look at the waterfront. Some additional landscaping will be put in in June, so the site will come along. That is the site immediately adjacent to the SeaBus terminal

But not all of the land is required for SeaBus or transit. Nonetheless we will have, through the course of these 120 days, the kind of creative and co-operative thinking, I think, that the site deserves, and I do anticipate some recovery. I think there should be some dollar recovery, but not in conflict with the city of North Vancouver and not in conflict with the legitimate desires of the citizens of North Vancouver district and city or North Shore who see a need for open space. I feel the same way but I cannot use your word "substantial" as an adjective in discussing that open space, simply because at this point I don't know.

MR. GIBSON: At least not yet, but you wouldn't rule it out either necessarily.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that concludes my remarks.

MR. NICOLSON: I intended to make some very brief remarks but I would like to ask a couple of questions of the minister.

What is the success of the mobile-home registry concept in terms of obtaining for purchasers of mobile homes a more favourable rate of interest from lending agencies? Is the concept encountering difficulties with the lenders? Does it have the full co-operation of the credit unions, the banks and the other lending agencies and are they satisfied? Has any difficulty been encountered in that area?

On my second concern, only about a month ago I was once again contacted by people from Tantalus Village concerning the Atco and Homeco homes and the difficulties that they have been having. I understand that the ministry has taken a more direct hand in that and taken some responsibility in that rather than the Housing Corporation, which, with all of its skills, I do not feel is perhaps adequately sensitive to the problems of mobile homes. Could the minister give an update on the present status of those projects?

I might also just say in passing that when we had this philosophical debate earlier today, I might recommend to the minister that he read some of the works and some of the articles concerning Jerry O'Neill. He was one of the prime minds, a physicist with the NASA programme, who has come up with proposals and with technology which would make the setting up of cities in space, orbiting about the earth or somewhere in the solar system, very much a reality, something which would come about within the next 25 years. This is no longer a fanciful type of dreaming. Actually, some very hard questions have been asked in this respect. It does not encompass mining the earth and building things up in space, but actually mining sources in space.

.So when we're thinking about the types of cities in which we might be living in the future, it could be that the poor planet earth cannot withstand any more civilization, as much as some of us do enjoy larger cities. I might say that I prefer to live in a small city. But I certainly enjoy even being in the

[ Page 1507 ]

largest city in the world.

What I would like to bring up is the matter which was raised during a debate. It pertains to the minister's responsibility. If the easygoing minister has a little bit of a short fuse, it seems to be triggered whenever merr.tion is made of the fact that during the NDP administration, the budget for elderly citizens' housing was $10 million, plus another $2 million for special-care homes, for a total of $12 million under the authorization of that bill.

Under this government, that $10 million was reduced to $4 million. This year, it will be $6 million. As I explained to the minister we first signalled our invitation to the volunteer sector to take a greater role in the building of senior citizens' housing by increasing that budget to $10 million. It had been $2 million when we first took over government; it was raised to $4 million.

Then the signal went out to the religious foundations such as the Baptist Foundation. The non-profit societies and such were invited and were welcomed as partners in building housing for senior citizens, and they did respond.

As the minister says, in the fiscal year 1974-75, $10 million was budgeted but the money spent was 5.8 million. The minister must remember that a department had just been created and that the cash-flow problem which is encountered in administering that Act had taken some time to realize when we went to this level of activity. So indeed, as he said, for the fiscal year 1974-75, $10 million was budgeted and $5.9 million was expended.

So I asked the minister: "How about 197576?" The minister said: "I'm coming to that one. Do you want 1975-76, Mr. Member for Nelson Creston?"

Figuratively, the minister was politically salivating. He was seizing this opportunity. He said: "You really want that one, Mr. Member." So I said yes, I did; I wanted to hear about it. He said: "Thank you for that opening. In 1975-76 another $10 million was budgeted by the New Democratic Party government. Expended - $3,431, 427, about one-third of the allocated amount.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how we might handle this. Maybe the minister will take my word if I read to him from the public accounts of 1975-76. Would you take my word, Mr. Minister, if I were to tell you that the total expenditure under vote 105, grants in aid of construction of homes for elderly citizens, was $6,247, 498? 1 don't know where the minister got that figure, but the underexpenditure was somewhat close to that if you take the difference between that and $10, although that isn't exactly the figure, either. Also in that year, grants in aid of special-care homes, which is another part of the Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act, budgeted $2 million and spent $1.8 million. I would just like to know if the minister would like to take, my word for that and have the record corrected or if he would like me to send over public accounts for fiscal year 1975-76.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, all members are honourable members.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He asked if I would take his word. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) suggested that perhaps I had misinterpreted or misread the numbers. The fact is that from time to time when numbers and dollars are bandied back and forth....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I have a short fuse. I don't think it's on fire at the moment.

Mr. Member for Nelson Creston, through you, Mr. Chairman, we have to reflect on some of the earlier discussions. In pretty strong language we were accused of cutting back or slashing the amount of money for senior citizens' facilities construction. I stand by these figures in terms of ECHAA. You have identified personal care as well, the care component which is no longer a part of this ministry.

We can argue back and forth and say "you did" and "we didn't" and "we did" and "you didn't" and so on. But the language used was in critical comment and was very strong, and I think that will always evoke a justifiably strong response. The fact is that for April 1,1977, to April 30,1978 - that's 13 months; it's more than the fiscal year - we have a total of 3,002 senior citizen units: 1,405 completed in that period; 1,216 under construction; 381 not yet started but having received approval in principle. The grand total is 3,002. In that respect alone, I take a great deal of satisfaction as far as this government's commitment to senior citizen construction is concerned.

The opposition has the right to debate and to suggest that we could or should do better, but please don't accuse us of hypocrisy or of slashing, when in fact we hit those kinds of numbers in the 13-month period just ended. I defend it on that basis alone, but when coupled with SAFER, we projected and know now

[ Page 1508 ]

that we can help so many more senior citizens - 16,000-plus, instead of 3,000 who would occupy some double or single units - I think this government can take justifiable pride in its assistance to senior citizens in B.C.

We can get angry over the numbers and we can get angry over the dollars, but I accept what the member has said in his part of the debate and I trust he will do the same in my part.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry. I completely forgot to answer the other questions put by the member for Nelson-Creston.

Yes, the mobile home concept in terms of financing is encountering some difficulties, and you are quite right. The problem relate to everyone being very keen and desirous to make it work. It's one of those strange things. There have been three meetings in the last two weeks. One of the meetings I attended briefly to indicate that the co-ordination with the financing institutions up to that point has not been the best. Now we have a situation where someone in a financial institution has to sign to a document. They were being very wary. They were being very cautious about doing so without adhering strictly to their own policies. I think that as a result of the meetings which have taken place within the past two weeks, these difficulties are going to be overcome pretty quickly. But the member is right. There have been problems and we have been responding to them.

With respect to Tantalus, we are bringing all parties together at a meeting scheduled here for June 2. We intend to have representatives for Atco and Homeco present along with the owner so solicitor, CMHC inspectors and the quantity surveyor we engaged to evaluate the difficulties. In other words, all who have had a part in this business will be brought together in a meeting that will last just as long as is necessary to bring it to resolution.

MR. NICOLSON: When will that be held?

HON. MR. CURTIS: My suggested date is June 2. Now I've not heard back from everyone as to whether it's acceptable, but it will be that soon, Mr. Member.

MS. SANFORD: I have just a couple of brief issues that I would like to raise with the minister. One relates to the present Home Purchase Assistance Act, which states that a person cannot qualify for a home acquisition grant - now called home purchase assistance grant - or the second mortgage if in fact the person has received a mortgage in the past or a grant in the past, even though they have paid that grant back.

I feel that this is a hardship to some people who have not met the requirements under the legislation when they first obtained a grant, paid back that grant, subsequently have gone to purchase a home and have not been eligible because of the provisions of that Act.

Now I think that people do not understand, for instance, why they are being disqualified. They have paid the money back and, as a result, feel that they should be eligible for a grant again. Now I know that the thinking of the people within the ministry is that they have had the use of that money for a period of time, even though it might be only a year and therefore have benefited under the Act and should not be eligible for a second grant. But I hope that the minister will look at that particular aspect of the legislation and make the change so that if people receive a grant and then for one reason or another do not qualify under the Act and pay the grant back, they should be eligible for a second grant.

The other brief point that I would like to make relates to the new assessment bill. I know that the minister is very familiar with what has happened in Courtenay as a result of the shift in the incidence of taxation, which is based on the changes to the forest land and the treefarm land in the area. The Courtenay people and the people in the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona are facing increases on their taxation because of this shift. Now the government told us that no one would suffer as a result of this new assessment bill. The Minister of Municipal Affairs recognized that the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona and the city of Courtenay had a problem. The only thing that they were able to do, Mr. Chairman, was to allow them to raise their mill rate -illegally, I might add - with the provision that they go to a referendum this fall.

That kind of assistance is not much help to the homeowners who are going to have to face that increase this year because of that shift in the incidence of taxation as a result of that new assessment bill. I suppose we should be grateful that the minister allowed them to raise the mill rate illegally but we were promised that there would be no adverse effects on homeowners as a result of this new assessment bill. The approach taken by the government, in my view, is very inadequate.

MR. KING: I just wanted to raise with the minister the ineffectiveness of a housing subsidy programme. I forget what the proper

[ Page 1509 ]

name of it is; there are so many different plans. I think it's the AHOP plan. Is that the one where the ceiling for the assistance is set at $38,000 in my particular area?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. KING: It's got different levels in different regions of the province.

In any event, I want to take the minister's mind back to the debate that took place in this House when that bill was introduced -that particular provision was introduced - and the fact that I, among others, predicted at that time that not very many people were going to benefit from that plan and said that it was, in fact, a bit of a hoax. Here's a government plan that sets a provision which no one can comply with.

Now I want to tell the minister that I do have a file of - I'm not sure how many it is -12 or 15 people who have applied for that assistance in the city of Revelstoke, and not one has yet to qualify because it is simply impossible to build a home under a $38,000 cost in the city of Revelstoke. I suspect that there are not very many places in the province of British Columbia where a home can be built for that kind of price in today's inflated market.

I ask the minister: if I produce those letters to him, and show him the people who have had their hopes dashed by an unrealistic ceiling, would he be willing to have a look at an adjustment to that ceiling? Either that, or the programme may as well be thrown out ' because it gives false hope to citizens of this province who are seeking to acquire their own home. Here's a provision that carries with it some help, and then the unrealistic ceiling of $38,000 is set - under which you can gain assistance, but over which you do not qualify. Now I'd like to hear the minister's comments on it. I would give the commitment that, if the minister wants the names and addresses and the circumstances of the people involved, I'm very willing to provide them to him. It's a bit of a heartbreak and it seems to me almost like a cruel hoax on the people. Here's a plan held out to them and, when they reach for it to gain some assistance, the ceiling is altogether unrealistic and nobody in that territory can qualify.

HON. M. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal first with the remarks by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) . There is, with respect to the home purchase assistance, no second chance. There are mixed views, I think, in this chamber as to the fairness of this parti-

cular requirement. It is a matter I have thought about a great deal recently, hon. member, and I have not yet put a position paper together for review by my colleagues; but I think that may happen. It's a question of priorities in terms of dollars available, and if we - again, there is legislation proposed for this session with respect to family first purchase - are able to enrich a programme for individuals, such as those who are securing their first home, by having that kind of flexibility and that kind of flex within the dollars available ... we could examine additionally a second chance on the second mortgage. All I can undertake this afternoon is to look at that as well. But I heard at least one member on this side of the House generally support what you were saying about no second chance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, you were speaking. Someone else - another member on this side of the House - was hitting the desk.

I'm being quite frank with the committee, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I know there is concern about it. There are points to be made for both sides of the question, as there frequently are in these kinds of assistance programmes.

With respect to the assessment situation and the regional district, the hon. member for Comox will understand that I really am rather reluctant to speak on that subject at this particular moment because of a court case elsewhere.

The member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) will admit, I think - or will certainly agree -that his is a very highly inflationary area right now because of a number of expectations. AHOP is a federal programme and, Mr. Member -through the Chairman - we simply piggyback on that, and I think that was explained when the programme was first introduced. The $38,000 figure is correct. It varies from place to place, and we review those limits every six months. The next review will take place in a matter of days, as of June I - or for June I -and it may be that the limit with respect to Revelstoke should be changed as a result of what is happening in that particular community.

I think the member would also know, though, that if they wish a second mortgage - and I accept that they're having difficulties - then they're talking about a $46,000 limit, not the $38,000 that was referred to. But that's why we have the opportunity to review the limits every six months. Therefore we can't fall too badly out of whack with what is actually

[ Page 1510 ]

happening in a community.

MR. KING: The initial assistance is not a mortgage, though, it's a grant, as I understand it. A second mortgage is a different programme altogether.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's an option - either one, either way.

MR. KING: Okay. But the $38,000, 1 submit, is unrealistic for anywhere in this province, and that was pointed out during the debate. What kind of a home do you build for $38,000 in the province of British Columbia now, unless it happens to be way out in some rural village? In any of the larger towns in the province of British Columbia, no way do you get a house for $38,000 today. Yes, Revelstoke is in an inflated economy brought on by the Revelstoke Dam. Revelstoke also happens to have some other problem in terms of construction - I hope the minister is listening - in the same way that the city of Kimberley and the city of Rossland have problems. Their snowfall requires that the superstructure of homes and buildings be much heavier to carry the snow load on the roofs that was experienced during the spring. So there is a variation in construction costs throughout the province, and I don't think that variation in construction costs has been looked at in terms of setting this ceiling. I want to tell the minister that nobody is qualified under the programme, and that's unfair. I don't know of one in Revelstoke which is qualified. I really don't. I've got, as I say, between 12 and 15 people who have come to me and said: "Hey, what kind of a programme is this? They hold out something positive to us and then when we go to collect they say: 'Oh, well, sorry, you're over the $38,000."'

It's physically impossible to build a house there under $38,000, and it's too bad that something can't be done retroactively for those people who banked on getting that assistance last year. I guess nothing can be done retroactively on it. But I do hope and I do urge the minister to look realistically at an adjustment to that ceiling - not only in terms of the inflated economy due to the Revelstoke Dam, but in terms of the real building costs in various parts of this province, and that varies a great deal.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Chairman, I have four or five points that I would like very briefly to cover here, and one of them deals with mobile homes. I know there was some discussion on this. I'm sorry I was absent from the chamber earlier on this afternoon though you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister when some discussion took place.

A great number of people in mobile homes in my constituency are in dire need of some direction; a number of them are attempting to set up co-operative mobile home communities. I think that if someone from the ministry could spend more time.... Perhaps you could designate someone from your ministry to take a closer look at this situation in and around the very highly urbanized areas - and that leaves the area of Colwood-Langford in my constituency -because of the extremely high land costs and the owners of some of the parks preferring to go to a higher land use. The situation in a number of mobile home parks in my constituency quite frankly is extremely bad and needs some direction and some guidance.

A lot of the people are senior citizens who cannot afford the move or the rental of other places, and I would like very much to recommend that someone be designated specifically from the ministry to look at this area on behalf of some constituents of mine.

The second item I would like to talk about specifically is section 713 (a) of the Municipal Act, as it applies to the subdivision of property for relatives. There seems to be a bit of confusion. Just this morning I had constituents discuss with me that section of the Act. The Act is very clear, I believe. It says that the owner can apply for a subdivision under that particular section for him-self, and in this particular case the owner was turned down. I think that's an area which needs to be looked at.

I caught the tail end of the member for Comox's (Ms. Sanford's) remarks regarding homeowner grants. I would expect she was perhaps referring to service people because in the member's constituency as well as mine, there are a large number of service personnel who continually run into problem.-, in this area.

Again, I would like to recommend that someone from the ministry take a close look at this particular situation and perhaps review that whole area as it applies to service personnel to see if we couldn't be of more assistance to them.

The next point I wanted to cover was one under the restructure formula that has been set up for various areas of the province or for any areas that would like to take part in this programme. I would like very much to see included in that restructure formula some form of monetary incentive as far as drainage is concerned. My area of the province particularly is one where a large amount of moneys

[ Page 1511 ]

must be spent on drainage if and when any kind of development takes place in the very near future. For a small community to carry that burden I think should be a point of negotiation at least under the restructure formula.

The last point I wanted to cover was one of funds under the neighbourhood improvement programme as it applies to areas outside of municipalities. I believe that I sent the minister a copy of a letter to the chairman of the regional district here, and asked that the chairman investigate some possibility of funding under this programme in the unorganized territories. I am left with the understanding there was an announcement by CMHC the other day that dealt with this. I wonder if the minister could just bring me up to date on a couple of those points.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think if the committee has no objection, I'd like to clear the deck of a couple of matters which have been raised, and to return to the point made by the member for Revels toke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who is not in his seat at the moment. I reiterate that, his comments notwithstanding, the limits which have been imposed and which are subject to review on a six-month basis resulted last year in over 5,000 new homes being built in British Columbia. The majority of them are single detached and the majority of them are also in the Greater Vancouver Regional District where it is recognized by the limits that costs are considerably higher.

Now there will be those specific areas where the limit is found to be unrealistic after a few months' experience, and I give the commitment to the member - although he is not here at the moment - that we will pay particular attention to Revelstoke because of the inflationary factors to which I referred earlier. But at the same time, we want to be cautious with these limits because they are in fact designed to be anti-inflationary.

I thank the member for Esquimalt for his comments. One of them relates to the rentalsman. Neighbourhood improvement in regional districts would be appropriate if this agreement which has been spoken of is signed.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask the minister: what's the worst thing you've done in your portfolio in the last year? That's a serious question. If the minister won't answer, I'm going to.

Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously doesn't know his ministry, or he would give the answer to a very simple question. The worst thing you've done is to announce the sale of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia once it became a success. It's got over $11 million in retained earnings, and I suppose this government is just going to strip it. Strip all the assets built up by a sound, businesslike administration under the previous government. Take that $11 million in retained earnings, take it into your general coffers to show what smart businessmen you are, and kill a thriving enterprise that is engaged in land development at the present time. It has three projects in Vancouver, three in Surrey.

Mr. Chairman, I'm almost to the end of what I'm going to say. This is Stone Age thinking on the part of this minister. I say he's destroying a very useful administrative and public agency in terms of land development. Leave the profit to this land assembly and land development to the speculators. That's your philosophy, Mr. Minister. You know, you're doing it for political spite.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nonsense!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I would like to know why you're doing it. You're stripping the company. The minister has offered no adequate explanation of that. You know, Mr. Minister, Ronald Reagan wouldn't have done a thing like that. You're taking us back to the Stone Age.

I cannot say any more. I've run out of time, but that is the worst thing you've done, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, might I remind you that the Lieutenant-Governor will be here in 11 minutes.

MR. BARBER: I should like to go on record as very much supporting the comments of my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) . It's a very serious error that you are abandoning the professional expertise, the talent, the experience and the uniquely irreplaceable body of information possessed by the Housing Corporation. There is no reason why you should abandon that inside track. There is no reason why you should abandon that access to the marketplace. There is no reason why you should abandon that ability to understand what developers and speculators are doing in this province via the instrument called the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. It's dumb from beginning to end and you shouldn't do it.

The dumbest thing the minister did last year was get all mixed up with the notorious Bawlf committee, and I have a question on that. Last year the minister told us during his explanation and apology for the mishandling of the funds that the three members involved - the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon.

[ Page 1512 ]

Mr. Bawlf) , the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) - were going to be asked to pay the money back which they received. Has the money been paid back? If so, how much was paid back and when?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the last question which has been asked, that is not within the jurisdiction of this ministry. I have no knowledge in that respect.

I am somewhat offended by the use of the phrase "the notorious Bawlf committee." It was a committee which, I think, helped us understand the housing market and gave us an opportunity to hear from a number of interested individuals, municipalities and so on.

But I have no comment for the member other than to say that it is not within the ministerial responsibility of this particular ministry.

Mr. Member for Vancouver East and Mr. Second Member for Victoria, only time will tell, with respect to the proposed sale of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. We've had a productive afternoon. You come in here and you get me angry. Interjections from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) notwithstanding, it is a change in philosophy. I was not instructed to do it. I proudly report to the committee that I recommended that we consider the sale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I am doubted on that point, then I am accused of misleading the House, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, will you call those unruly members to order?

Mr. Chairman, we now have a fully mature section of the ministry handling housing. Staff assistance such as was required in the ministry from HCBC is no longer required because of the maturing process which has taken place in the ministry and, as I say, time will eventually prove whether those who criticize the sale were right, or those who support the sale were right. I rather think the latter, Mr. Chairman.

I also point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) should check his figures when he's speaking in Prince Rupert.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, let's get it straight in terms of the dispute on the figures. First of all, the corporation made money for the people of British Columbia. It proved that in a time when the private industry wouldn't move, the government could and did move and provided housing, and made good profit for the people of British Columbia. You stand condemned for giving away the corporation. You are selling off a corporation that makes money. If you want to sell something off, why don't you sell the losers? It's an incredible performance. The British Columbia Buildings Corporation, Panco Poultry, Can-Cel, Plateau Mills - every one of them made money for the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING: If you want to sell a loser, sell the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Well, they sold the Lady Grace.

The point that I'm trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that minister is letting the people of British Columbia down by peddling their assets. Shame on you, Mr. Minister, you should know better.

Vote 184 approved.

Vote 185: office of the deputy minister -Municipal Affairs, $8,518, 528 - approved.

Vote 186: grants, contributions and subsidies - Municipal Affairs, $40,700, 000 -approved.

Vote 187: revenue sharing fund, $138,300, 000 - approved.

Vote 188: office of the deputy minister -Housing, $38,122, 106 - approved.

Vote 189: central ministry services, $449,243 - approved.

Vote 190: shelter aid for elderly renters and renters' tax credit, $28,996, 905 -approved.

Vote 191: mobile home registry, $443,764 -approved.

Vote 192: building occupancy charges, $889,521 - approved.

Vote 193: computer and consulting charges, $525,890 - approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[ Page 1513 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES AID AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Bill 10 read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have been advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to approach the chamber. If all members would perhaps retain their seats and wait until the bell is rung, the ringing of the bell will indicate that he is prepared to enter the chamber.

The House took recess at 5:43 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:44 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is now preparing to enter the chamber. May we all rise?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Revenue Surplus of 1976-77 Appropriation Act, 1978

Pari Mutuel Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1978

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1978

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1978

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1978

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1978

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

HON. W.S. OWEN (Lieutenant-Governor): Hon. members, since this is the last occasion when I'll be privileged to perform this job, I hope you will pardon me if I simply say what a great pleasure it's been to work with all of you over the last five years. They have gone all too fast, and I'm extremely grateful to you for the many courtesies which you have extended to Mrs. Owen and myself. Thank you very much.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:51 p.m.