[ Page 2185 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 29) Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 2185

Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 26) Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2186

Oral questions.

Intervention on behalf of beaten woman. Ms. Brown –– 2186

Building of Volkswagen plant in B.C. Mr. Gibson –– 2187

Beer strike. Mr. Stephens –– 2187

School tax mill rate. Mr. Cocke –– 2187

Accident on Skaha Lake. Mrs. Jordan –– 2187

School tax mill rate. Mrs. Dailly –– 2188

Right of school boards to set own budgets. Mr. Stephens –– 2188

Alleged deception by municipalities. Mr. Barber –– 2189

Statement

Irregular payments to MLA. Mr. Veitch –– 2189

Mr. King –– 2189

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 17) Second reading.

Mrs. Dailly –– 2191

Mr. Gibson –– 2191

Mr. Stupich –– 2193

Mr. Nicolson –– 2194

Ms. Brown –– 2197

Mr. Cocke –– 2199

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2201

Division on second reading –– 2203

Urban Transit Authority Act (Bill 19) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2203

Mr. Barber –– 2208

Mr. Lea –– 2219

An Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada (Bill 402) .

Second reading.

Mr. Strongman –– 2220

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery visiting us today is Mr. Jos Van Hage of Surrey, his two brothers from Holland, Will and Nick, and their friend, Sjaak Van Der Slot. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon is Mr. Kelly Fogue. Kelly is from the city of Victoria and he's here to watch and see over his daughter, Marina Fogue, who is one of our grand and glorious page girls. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I see in the gallery this afternoon part of a group of students with whom I had the fun of spending an hour and a half this morning. They are from the environment studies class of Mount Douglas Senior Secondary School, together with their teacher, Bill Conconi. I ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to introduce two people from my constituency who, while not elected to any positions, have through many years taken a responsible interest in civic government in particular in the area and, as such, their position could be emulated by many people in the community. They are Mr. and Mrs. Verdon from Langley. Would you make them welcome, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, from the great city of New Westminster is one of the hard toilers for the New Democratic Party - I'd like the House to welcome Arvina Wilson in the gallery today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was privileged, on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, to receive the trophy which was brought to us from the Pasadena Tournament of Roses parade. I'd like to share this trophy with the House and to show them the very beautiful photograph that has been presented to us.

I would also like to ask the House if they would please greet the gentleman who brought and presented this very beautiful picture to us today. It is presented by the president of the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, Mr. Arthur Welsh. He and his wife, Ginnie, are in the gallery this afternoon.

Our float, Mr. Speaker, was seen by more than one million people along the parade route and an estimated 125 million more on television.

The picture is of the Ambassador's Trophy for exceptional merit for entries outside the territorial limits of the United States, and this is the photograph which I'd like to share with the House.

I hope you too will share our greeting and our appreciation to the president and his wife, and will greet them in a good British Columbian manner.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I advise the House of the passing of Mr. William J. Lyle on Saturday evening after a gallant battle against a long illness. Bill Lyle was recognized across Canada and elsewhere for his contributions as a pioneer in the development of universal hospital insurance among other services of the hospital and health services of British Columbia.

At the time of his retirement in October of last year, he was deputy minister of medical and hospital programmes and had completed 49 years in the public service. Bill will be missed by a multitude of friends and colleagues across Canada. I know that members of this House, Mr. Speaker, join with me and all of us in sending condolences to his lovely wife, Sylvia, their two daughters, Ginny and Susan, and other members of his family.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, some of us having worked very closely - and particularly myself - with Bill Lyle, we would also extend our condolences to a person who started in government service as early as being a page boy in this House. He was very proud of his work; we were very proud of him. Certainly we extend our condolences.

Introduction of bills.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS (1965)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Chabot presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum and Natural Gas (1965) Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 29 read a first time and ordered to be placed an orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2186 ]

MOBILE HOME AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 26 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

INTERVENTION ON

BEHALF OF BEATEN WOMAN

MS. BROWN: I have a series of questions which I'd like to ask, starting with the Attorney-General, who is not here. I'd like to do a bit of a preamble anyway, so that all the members of House can hear what I'm about to say and then I'll probably put my question to the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could move to the question.

MS. BROWN: Yes, you can move to the question, Mr. Speaker, if I can just start out by saying that I have before me some information. On August 13,1977, at approximately 11:15 p.m., a woman was taken from her home by ambulance to the Prince Rupert Regional Hospital. She was unconscious, with massive facial and head injuries, a possible broken neck, massive burns to the abdomen, and multiple burns to the chest, arms and face. It turned out that she had been beaten by her husband. The neighbours found her naked, bleeding from the eye and unconscious. They were the ones who called the ambulance and had her taken to the hospital. She was so seriously injured that she was transferred to the Vancouver General Hospital. While she was there, her husband broke into the hospital and beat her up again. She was then transferred to G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre and she is now going to be sent back to Prince Rupert, paralysed from the waist down, suffering brain damage and with impaired vision.

The question I wanted to ask the Attorney-General was whether he would intervene on this woman I s behalf. When the decision was made to lay a case, the police reported that they had no memory whatsoever of the incident and have refused to testify on her behalf. The Attorney-General is not here, but whoever the acting Attorney-General is, I would like to put that question to him that he intervene on her behalf.

Also, I'm not sure who the person is but I think it's the Minister of Labour who would be responsible for the criminal injury section of the Workers' Compensation Board. This woman's family has also been told that she is not eligible since the damage done to her was done by her husband.

My third question is to the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we ask one question at a time, please? The first question was for the hon. Attorney-General. I'm not aware of who the acting person is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice for the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: The second question was to the....

MS. BROWN: The acting Minister of Labour who is responsible for criminal injuries under the Workers' Compensation Board.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for the Minister of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MS. BROWN: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, this woman, who is 33, has two children, who are presently in the care of her mother. Apparently she would like to have them back. I'm wondering whether the Minister of Human Resources would be able to ensure that his ministry would investigate whether she could have homemaker service, which she would need 24 hours a day in order to have the children back with her.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly investigate.

MS. BROWN: Again, if the Premier would take this as notice for the Attorney-General, my final supplementary has to do with the fact that this is not an isolated incident. The police in the Prince Rupert area are not trained to deal with family violence. I don't blame them for not wanting to be involved; it is a very dangerous field for them to involve themselves in.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the question?

MS. BROWN: I am getting to the question. I'm sorry that it is making everyone uncomfortable; it's making me uncomfortable too.

[ Page 2187 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Please proceed to the question.

MS. BROWN: Part of the training which the police presently get has to be in the area of family violence. I'm wondering whether the Premier will take as notice for the Attorney-General that the police force in Prince Rupert need a course in this area, and whether he would ensure that it is instituted as soon as possible. It is not fair to ask the police to go through this without any ....

MR. SPEAKER. Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice for the hon. Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: As just a caution to hon. members, question period is not a time for debate.

BUILDING OF VOLKSWAGEN

PLANT IN B.C.

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Premier. It's my understanding that industry sources are suggesting that Volkswagen will soon be building a second North American plant and that British Columbia is high on the short list of potential locations. Can the Premier tell the House if he is aware of this and what action his government has taken in order to encourage that company to decide in favour of our province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The question might more aptly be put to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . I will take the question as notice for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a further question from, perhaps, a different member? We can't take further questions on matters taken on notice.

MR. GIBSON: This is a further question, really. It is an item of such importance that I'm sure the Premier would have been briefed on it. Can the Premier tell the House if Volkswagen has contacted the government of the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make a premature announcement on any car plant. I remember when once a Leader of the Opposition announced a Toyota plant for British Columbia, soon after he became government, and we never got the Toyota plant. I certainly wouldn't want to see that happen.

MR. GIBSON: I have a supplementary on the second question. I just want the Premier to answer that question. Has Volkswagen contacted the government or not? Just yes or no. I'm not asking him to make any announcements.

BEER STRIKE

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who might deal with this in conjunction with the Minister of Labour. It has cane to my attention that the members of the press gallery are looking a little droopy these days. There's a very serious strike on in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister might consider getting the Minister of Labour to declare the beer strike an essential service.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am truly without answer, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice.

SCHOOL TAX MILL RATE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education, my good friend. In light of the Premier's remarks disparaging efforts of local governments to keep taxes in line, and since the minister, in consultation with Treasury Board - I hear rumoured - sets the basic mill rate, will the minister confirm that he does, in fact, in that context, set the basic mill rate for school taxes?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the setting of the basic mill rate is a conjoint exercise between the ministry and the local school boards. In fact the local school boards set their budgets and, on the basis of these budgets, the mill rate is established by regulation. But it's the local school boards that set the budget and that's what determines the basic mill rate.

MR. COCKE: Since this minister has been minister it increased 50 per cent. I would wonder who is being conned by this conjoint effort, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. COCKE: I think I will leave it at that.

ACCIDENT ON SKAHA LAKE

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to ask a question.

[ Page 2188 ]

1 had waited for the hon member for Alberni, the conservation critic and man most interested in Greenpeace activities, to ask the question. But seeing he is not going to, I would like to address this question to the Minister of the Environment. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, there was a potentially fatal accident on Skaha Lake near Penticton this weekend when the environmental ministry employees were demonstrating for the press the new boat and equipment for the administration of 2, 4-D. The Greenpeace people were circling around.

There was a near accident when one of the employees was dragged out of the boat with a rope that caught in the rudder of the Greenpeace boat. Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that this accident is the result of irresponsible, foolish and ill-thought-out boating practices by Greenpeace. Fortunately, the man is not seriously injured.

My question is: is the minister going to aid this employee, who has little resources, to prosecute Greenpeace on the grounds of irresponsible and near-fatal boating practices?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the incident was just reported. The young man who is the employee apparently did suffer some injury when the rope caught around his arm and dragged him and his skiff a considerable distance until another employee of the Ministry of the Environment was able to go to his rescue and either severed the rope in some manner or called attention to the predicament to those who were responsible for the accident. I understand that that employee is considering action and possibly lodging a complaint with the RCMP under whatever proper statute it would be. Also, the possibility exists that he could seek redress through the civil courts as well.

I've made it clear to all employees who are engaged in this activity that they are not to tolerate any irresponsible actions on the part of any citizen on the water, and also to the super-visors of the project that they are to make maximum use of the law as it exists with those who are responsible for enforcing the law in the event that any actions in the future may endanger the lives or well-being of any of the employees, who are engaged in this programme.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to direct a supplementary to the acting Attorney-General, if I might. Notwithstanding the statement made by the Minister of the Environment, being conversant with the fact that the administration of boating practices on lakes in British Columbia and the nailing down, really, of an offence is extremely difficult, would the hon. Attorney-General, on the basis of the evidence that comes forth that would appear to indicate a clear-cut case of negligence and irresponsible boat management on a public waterway, undertake to investigate to see if the Crown might prosecute under those circumstances?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take this as notice for the Attorney-General.

SCHOOL TAX MILL RATE

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Education: in view of the unprecedented increase in basic school mill rate levies forced upon the school boards of this province by you and your government - increases which have amounted to the percentage of 30 per cent, whereas school board budgets have not exceeded 10 per cent on an average across the province - will the minister be prepared to provide supplementary grants?

HON. JR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the question was wrongly phrased, in that it contained a number of false allegations. So I can't really answer the preamble of the question. As far as special grants are concerned, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. DAILLY: On ' a supplementary, would the minister say whether some districts in this province had to have an increase of up to 30 per cent in their mill rate levies this year -on property taxes?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would have to look over each individual school district. it's possible, Mr. Speaker, because the school districts set their own budgets.

MRS. DAILLY: On a further supplementary, is the minister then suggesting that the 30 per cent increase, which involves 19 districts in this province, means that those districts had an increase of 30 per cent in their budgets?

RIGHT OF SCHOOL BOARDS

TO SET 0% BUDGETS

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education - who has made the statement that the school boards set their own budgets - if he's prepared, therefore, to turn over to the school boards the right to determine everything in those budgets, including class size, which you know perfectly well they do not have the right to do. How do they fix their own budgets if they don't have

[ Page 2189 ]

that privilege?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, once again a member is mistaken. School districts set their own class sizes. They determine how many teachers they hire, not the Ministry of Education.

ALLEGED DECEPTION BY

CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if lie would care to name to this House - specifically - those municipalities engaged in what the Premier had earlier called "sneaky and deceptive practices." That was a few days ago. It's a serious charge. They're waiting for the answer and so are we. I wonder if the minister might today inform the House which municipalities, by name, have engaged in deceptive and sneaky practices in British Columbia this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The question was taken on notice when it was asked and the prerogative is with the minister.

MR. BARBER: I don't believe it was actually taken on notice as such.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there will be many more question periods in this session, I'll take the question on notice.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a brief statement.

MR. BARBER: What about?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, ministerial statements can be made at any time and, when leave is granted, not even the subject matter is delved into. However, perhaps we should know the nature of the statement before leave is required. Can we ask what the nature of your statement is?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the content of my statement became known to me only recently and is a matter of great importance concerning matters of this House and the Committee on Crown Corporations.

MR. SPEAKER: A statement regarding the Committee on Grown Corporations. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

IRREGULAR PAYMENTS TO MLA

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member concerned in the potential problem here today has been notified of what I'm about to say and concurs that I must make a statement. He's been notified and has been well apprised of the situation.

Due to information made known to me and as a matter of great importance to the members of this House and to the members of the Committee on Crown Corporations, I'm duty bound to write and forward the following letter to the hon. Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia. To wit:

"It has been brought to my attention that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, Norman Levi, MLA, may have contravened order-in-council No. 3329, approved November 3,1977, as well as the Constitution Act of the province of British Columbia, in that documents in my possession indicate that he received $225 as per them and expenses for days April 5, April 6 and April 12,1978, for serving on the Committee on Grown Corporations while the House was in session.

"It is with regret but with honour that I bring this to your attention and ask that you deal with it in an expeditious manner."

MR. KING: In response to the statement, 14r. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. KING: My colleague, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, has reported this particular incident to me and I wish to advise the House that the money that was transmitted to him was not kept. It was returned immediately to the government, and the record of this House should be clear to that extent. I don't think there can be any question that it is not an offence or a breach of the Constitution Act to return money immediately when it may have been transmitted in error, and certainly any suggestion or any implication that there has been a breach of either a regulation or the Constitution Act is not valid. I would request, Mr. Speaker, that any imputation of wrongdoing against the second member for Vancouver-Burrard be withdrawn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 2190 ]

MR. KING: Well, there is a suggestion of breach by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and I suggest that imputation should be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, although I have had no previous knowledge of the matter, the matter appears to be one of privilege. If indeed it is, there should be an accompanying. motion. It further involves a legal opinion which, of course, the Chairman " to undertake to give. Therefore I would like to suggest to all hon. members that a matter of this nature, if it's to be brought to the House at all, should be brought to the

House with a proper motion attached to it. The member, in declaring the matter of privilege, should, out of respect for the House and its practices, be ready to state chat he has a motion prepared so that if a prima facie case of privilege can be determined the motion can then be considered.

I don't think that I would like to see the practice in this House where information can just be brought to the floor of the House under any other provision than as provided for under the standing orders.

Does that close the matter?

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there was clear imputation that my colleague, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, had breached the Constitution Act. I suggest that that is an improper imputation under the standing orders of this House, and I ask that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon withdraw that imputation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, that's exactly where the legal opinion needs to, come in.

MR. VEITCH: It is a fact that a portion was paid back, but there's still $150 outstanding. I cannot withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, not only do I respect your instructions that on a matter of privilege a motion is to be presented to the House, but I ask the Speaker to take under consideration the statement made by the member before the item was discussed. The member said that he wanted to bring to the attention of the House a matter of committee business. He was not discussing committee business; as a matter of fact, under a matter of privilege he was commenting on another member. I find that, perhaps, a basis for a prima facie case of a breach of privilege in itself, and I would appreciate your ruling on that perhaps misleading statement by the member.

MR. KING: My colleague the second member for Vancouver-Burrard is not present. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has further charged, and continues to charge, that the member for Vancouver-Burrard has breached the Constitution Act. My colleague is not in the House. There is no question that that is a charge of improper conduct by a member of this House. In the absence of any substantive motion, I insist, Mr. Speaker, that the member be required to withdraw such an allegation and such an imputation.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention and suggest that you take into consideration the fact that, from time to time, matters have been brought before this House which constitute in the minds of some people a matter of privilege and which have been followed up, at a time convenient to the person raising the matter, with a motion of privilege - if that was found to be the course of action. That particular person or that particular member has not been prejudiced in his position to present such a motion by the fact that it was not immediately available to the Speaker at the time the matter was first raised on the floor of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has brought to the House some information regarding an hon. member of this House. If you will recall last Friday, this House dealt with a special selection committee, which would appoint a special committee which could give attention to like matters that overshadow some members of this House. It would seem to me that, when we ask the committee of selection to appoint a special committee, this matter could be referred to that same special committee. If you require a motion to that effect, I would so move.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it's just unacceptable for such a motion to be contemplated in the absence of the member whose conduct is called to question here and in the absence of any substantive motion dealing with the matter. The facts before the House at the moment are that an unsubstantiated allegation has been made without any substantive motion. And on that basis, Mr. Speaker, I must respectfully request that the member withdraw any improper imputation against my colleague.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps, in the light of the various opinions that we have had

[ Page 2191 ]

proffered by the hon. members, I could take all of the statements under review and come to the House with a decision which would reflect also the precedents and the authorities of the House. Would that be acceptable - without prejudice to the requests?

MR. BARRETT: It is certainly acceptable, except for one point - the second statement made by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, alleging a non-payment, without any substantive motion. I ask that that specific comment be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: In the absence of a substantive motion, I would have to say that the rules of the House would apply, and any imputation of wrongdoing against any other member would have to be withdrawn at this time - without prejudice to a motion which may be forthcoming. Would the hon. member withdraw?

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not alleging any wrongdoing against any member. I'm merely stating certain facts which have come to my knowledge, and I withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement is withdrawn. The Speaker will undertake to bring back to the House a decision on the matter which could guide the House for future incidents of the same.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would wonder what's happening with the Crown corporation reporting committee's expense account situation, in that I was given just recently -within the last few days - more money than I had coming and had to send it back. I'd like to talk to you privately about that, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

MUNICIPAL AMMENDMENT ACT, 1978

(continued)

MR. BARBER: I rise on a point of privilege to correct a statement that I made during debate, which I now find is incorrect.

During debate on this bill on Friday I told the House that the previous Social Credit government had introduced the principle of two-thirds voting requirement on councils in land use matters. I am now told that that is not entirely correct; that in fact it was our government that introduced the two-thirds principle on zoning bylaws. The previous Social Credit government introduced the same principle on land-use contracts. On that basis, my statement was not entirely correct. I apologize for having made a statement that was not correct and I ask that that aspect of it be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement stands corrected.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't wish to reiterate what I was saying just before we adjourned on Friday morning because there are other members on the floor of the House who also wish to take part in this debate. just to jog the minister's memory on the basic points, I was concerned about getting over to the minister that we do not understand why he has moved on changes In regional boards for the regional directors, when he has a committee studying the whole aspect of regional government. It is completely incomprehensible to us why the minister should make a major change in this area before any results have come in from his study. When the minister closes debate on the principle of this bill I hope he will explain to the members why he has moved so quickly on this before completion of the study.

I want to reiterate to the minister that I was speaking not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of one of the largest municipalities in this province, the municipality of Burnaby. The members of that council are very concerned over the passage of these two major amendments: the regional directorship elections and, of course, the changing of the zoning bylaws back to 50 per cent.

I want to sit down now, Mr. Speaker, so that some of my other colleagues and other members of the House will have an opportunity to speak in this debate an principle.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. GIBSON: I'll be brief in this debate on second reading. As I see it, there are two main principles in this bill. The first is the provision for the appointment of regional district members by municipal councils rather than by their direct election, which is the present case. I oppose this first suggestion of the government on two grounds. First of all, it seem to me to be- a clear contempt of

[ Page 2192 ]

the commission that has been instituted by the government to study the principles that should apply to regional governments. On that basis it is, at best, a premature move. That is completely wrong. Indeed, were I one of those commissioners, upon hearing of the intentions of the government to pass this kind of legislation, I would have been sorely tempted to send to send a message to the minister saying: "You have a perfect right to do this if you want, but it shows you are not paying much attention, to our work here. Here is my resignation." I don't think that is any way at all to treat a commission.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It didn't happen.

MR. GIBSON: It didn't happen, Mr. Minister, but perhaps it should have.

HON. I-JR. CURTIS: It didn't happen. You're twisting by suggesting that it did or might or should.

MR. GIBSON: I suggested that had I been one of the commissioners, that is the message you would have received.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But it didn't happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that the minister kindly wait to participate in the debate at the proper time. Hon. member, would you please address the Chair?

MR. GIBSON: I'm suggesting to the House that if there is any merit to this motion, it could very well. have been brought in after the report of that commission rather than before it. Another year under the present system is surely not something that is going to be of grave danger to the province. There is such a thing as courtesy in this world. When you ask somebody to give you advice, one of the courtesies is to listen to what that advice is before you move on the subject you asked them about. That's the courtesy aspect of the case.

The second aspect of the case is that this amendment would weaken the legitimacy of the regional level of government because it would remove the direct electoral base from regional government. A second-level representation is never quite as strong as having your direct roots with your own constituents. One might, in theory, appoint this chamber from among the mayors and councillors of the province of British Columbia but I haven't heard any suggestion by the minister or any other member that that would be a good idea. I don't think it would either. We have to have our direct contact with those we seek to serve. I suggest that applies to persons in regional government as well as municipal councils or the Legislature of this province.

This kind of appointment process, of course, has another effect which some would say is not to be protested but it's something that I regret. That is that it freezes out the Harry Rankins of this world from the regional level of government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're not going to call it the Harry Rankin amendment, are you?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, he's not a Liberal - certainly not. He's a very popular councillor in the city of Vancouver. There are other people like that around this province. It's a curious thing if people who would be good representatives of the electorate but not necessarily tools in the hands of their municipal council are frozen out of the regional level of government. I don't think that's a good thing at all.

So I oppose it on all these grounds. This part of the bill is, at very best, at the most kindest, debatable. It is certainly premature.

The second principle of the bill, as I see it, is whether or not zoning changes are to continue to be on the basis of approval by two-thirds of the members of council or whether it should go to one-half. I notice the minister, in opening second reading, made this statement, speaking of this principle: "By introducing it, we seek to implement the principle that major land use decisions of enduring significance should reflect a broad community consensus rather than the veto power of small factions."

Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused. How could you better reflect, in the minister's words, "a broad community consensus" than by requiring two-thirds of the membership of a council to approve the voting change? If it's not a broad community consensus, if it's just a whisker-thin community consensus, then maybe the change shouldn't be made.

There have been suggestions that that's how democracy works, that 50 per cent plus one always governs. Well, that's not always the case, Mr. Speaker, nor should it always be the case. Perhaps if we're talking in this House about something that's reversible, if we're talking about passing a law requiring the use of seat belts, for example, that can always be changed next year if we want to go back to the old way. That's fine. But suppose we're talking about a law in this case which will

[ Page 2193 ]

put structures or developments on the ground which can't be changed next year. They're there. The nature of the neighbourhood has been amended and changed and it's not reversible.

That is why, to some extent in Canada and to a great extent in other parts of the world, matters of new law that involve minority rights or that involve framework legislation or organic legislation, matters of these kinds are customarily required to pass a test of greater than 50 per cent. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and many of the individual states require two-thirds majorities. In the case of the U.S. federal legislation, it requires two-thirds in each House of Congress plus ratification by three quarters of the states, not half the states.

When you come to basic law, there is every reason for asking for a stronger protection than this 50 per cent plus one provision.

MR. BARBER: It's basic and basically irreversible.

MR. GIBSON: Basically irreversible, that's right, Mr. Member. I point out to the minister the obvious: a building cannot be reversed by * 50 per cent vote. It can maybe be put up by * 50 per cent Vote if this amendment Act passes but it sure can't be reversed. I say that something of that kind of irreversible nature requires the exact thing the minister said in his statement should be had - that is: a broad community consensus. The only way that we in this House can be certain that that broad community consensus will be reflected is to say that it should require the support of at least two-thirds of the members of council.

It seems to me the law as it presently stands is a good and proper one. It should not be changed. The minister has given us no persuasive reasons, in my view, why it should be changed. The housing stock situation is far better now than it was a couple of years ago. The apartment vacancy situation is far better now. The minister has not given us positive reasons as to why this fundamental protection of a two-thirds rather than a 50 per cent requirement should be removed. Absent those reasons and assurances, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against this bill in second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, there are two main principles in this legislation. I'd like to deal with the one that has to do with the appointment of regional board directors rather than their direct election, as is now the case.

Mr. Speaker, during the past 18 months, I suppose, perhaps one city council has come more to the attention of the minister than any other in the province. It has made headlines locally and even provincially from time to time, and these headlines have always been about the arguments that have gone on in council meetings and the disagreements among the aldermen and between some of the aldermen and the mayor. The whole year and a half since the present council took office has been fraught with these disagreements.

In this particular case I have a letter from the city of Nanaimo. It's a copy of a letter that was addressed to the Premier, and the same letter went to the minister, Hon. Mr. Curtis. The letter reached my desk this morning, and it is possible the minister hasn't seen it yet. But the significant point about this is that on this question of naming regional board directors from municipalities, the Nanaimo city council, including the mayor, is unanimous in opposition to it.

I think I would like to get some of this letter on the record, Mr. Speaker. The significant thing in my mind is that the Nanaimo city council, which has disagreed on almost everything that has happened in the past 18 months, is unanimous when it comes to opposing this particular change in the Municipal Act. The letter is dated June 7 and it reads:

"At the last regular meeting of the council of the city of Nanaimo, the members present unanimously adopted a resolution registering in the strongest possible terms the council's objections to the proposed changes in the Municipal Act that would allow regional board directors from municipalities to be appointed rather than elected."

It goes on to raise the arguments and the question as to just why the Nanaimo city council was unanimously opposed to this particular change. I think, significantly, they unanimously agreed that the most important point, the first point they raise, is that the very basis of democracy is that people should be able to elect their representatives - to directly elect the people who will represent them on the city council but also on the regional district. This does take away some of that direct representation.

The second point they make and on which they unanimously agree is: "Appointed representatives may not enjoy the confidence and support of the citizens." Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been some question over the last year and a half as to just how much support some of the representatives have enjoyed from time to time on the Nanaimo regional district. But in this particular instance, certainly, it is taking away from any feeling of confidence when the

[ Page 2194 ]

regional board members know that they are not directly responsible to the electors as such; they are responsible to the people who have appointed them. Those people are the members of the city council rather than the citizens who took part in the election.

"3) Substantial amounts of money are handled and voted upon by regional board directors, and it is undemocratic and dangerous to have appointed directors deciding these issues.

"4) The government should await" - and this point has been made by the hon. member who just spoke, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) - "the report of the regional board review committee before fundamental changes are made in the operations and representations on regional boards."

Mr. Speaker, as I say, that point has been and will be made, I suppose, by almost everyone who is speaking on this particular point. Why the rush to do it? The minister, in his opening remarks, gave some reason and I'll deal with that briefly later on.

"It may open the way to cliques appointing themselves into positions on regional boards."

The city council of Nanaimo then goes on to say that they are quite satisfied with the present system of naming those regional board members who will represent the Nanaimo city on the regional board.

In introducing second reading of this legislation and in dealing with this particular point, here is one sentence from the minister's remarks: "This government has become increasingly aware of the dissatisfaction associated with the present method of selecting municipal directors to sit on a regional board." Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would change his mind about this particular change.

My second position is that I would hope, in winding up in second reading, you will give us something more about the details of this dissatisfaction. Coming from the city of Nanaimo, with the disagreements which have been so obvious in the past year and a half, I can't imagine what cities are expressing dissatisfaction. If Nanaimo city can be unanimous in support of the present system of naming regional district directors, then I'm amazed as to just what cities are recommending any change in this.

I'd invite the minister, in winding up second reading, to tell us just where the dissatisfaction is evident. Who is complaining about the present system? Are they regional board directors? Are they regional board directors who do not represent municipalities? Are they regional board directors who represent municipalities? Are some of the municipalities, in fact, raising arguments against the present system and recommending a change? Just where are these areas of dissatisfaction that prompted the minister to bring this change in and to bring it in ahead of the expected report from the regional board review committee?

MR. NICOLSON: It seems most people who are speaking on this bill are opposed to the two principles embodied within it, one concerning the doing away with the two-thirds majority and the other one, of course, the concept of going back to having appointed representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked in my riding for some opinions on the return to the practice of appointing regional district representatives, and I must say that I've heard one good argument put forward to me. It was put forward by a municipal clerk, and he is about the only person I know of who has welcomed this change. I respect this clerk: he's a very good administrator. But his reason was that because of health reasons, the person who had been elected by the people to represent that particular town in my riding - the person who had been elected democratically by the majority of the citizens of the town of Creston - had withdrawn from the regional district duties and had therefore caused a by-election to be created. So it was very inconvenient. It was going to necessitate another election.

I would suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to go along with this line of thinking perhaps we should make the appointment of the people who make the decisions about our municipalities even more convenient. Maybe they should all be appointed. You know, where does it stop? Maybe all of the councillors could be appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . Maybe the mayors and school boards and one entity after another could also be appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing or the cabinet.

What we are really talking about here is whether or not you believe in democracy, if you just believe in administrative convenience or if you're worried about inconvenience. It does cost a little bit of money to have another type of ballot, I suppose, and to administer it. It certainly does cost more if there is a necessity for a by-election because somebody steps down for health reasons, having been duly elected in mid-term, and causes an election.

[ Page 2195 ]

If you don't think that regional districts are important that would seem like a very irksome, very tiresome, very unnecessary and very inconvenient type of thing, to have to put on a by-election just to fill a position on the regional district. If you don't believe in regional districts, if you don't think that that's where the action is, then, of course, this is what you want to do: you want to make it as inconvenient as possible. In fact, we should maybe ask ourselves the question, and that minister should ask himself: is he not really saying in this piece of legislation that he has made up his mind on regional districts and that he doesn't believe in regional districts, period? They aren't important. They don't justify that degree of inconvenience of having to go through that messy, inconvenient, costly, democratic process of having elections, and not only just having elections, but having to have by-elections in mid-term, when somebody steps down.

It's so much more convenient to just let the municipality appoint a replacement instead of having a by-election. Let's not even have an election in the first place. Let's unclutter the ballot. Let's cut things down and get it back to the good old days.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are my thoughts on this. If I were a municipal clerk who had more work to do than he or she could handle, I would see from their point of view that this is a rather tiresome piece of business to have a by-election in this type of instance, in terms of getting the best kind of representation and certainly allowing the kind of people who are considered by the people to be the best representatives in the municipality - the best in the city, the best in the town, the best in the village - to stand up and represent them in a regional district and to have them elected on their own merits; to have the Harry Rankins of the Vancouver city council be able to stand and be elected. Let the people judge, not the power base on council. Let the people make that decision.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Harry has always been a member of the GVRD.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, he says he always has been, and there are others. lie is saying that because he was appointed, that justifies this change. I thank him for that bit of information, but I certainly know that there are some people in some districts who would not have been appointed.

I might say that in the town of Nelson we have unfortunately come to what appears to be a very polarized type of council. Some people

2195 say it is polarized left and right. Nobody that I know of on council is a signed-up member of the New Democratic Party. I don't know what other leftist party they might belong to. It is said to be polarized left and right. Mr. Speaker, I know that the casting vote is made most often by the mayor, by necessity, and there appears to be one power base on one side and one on the other. But I would say that the alderman who would probably top that aldermanic election in future comes from the minority, the side that does not have the power base. If the people of Nelson wish to place those people onto regional district in future elections, then I think that that should be the right of those people. Let's not just reduce everything to the most convenient %my. If we're going to appoint the people who make the decisions in municipal councils, legislatures, provincial and federal governments - if we're going to carry this on to its logical conclusion - we would have government by decree.

Mr. Speaker, I have examined in the last two weeks the number of countries in this world which have this type of government, which have one party systems, which have what are called presidential republics." Let there be no mistake about it. This is a very trifling step, perhaps, but a step in the direction of presidential republics and one-party states -the type of thing which is, unfortunately, proliferating in a lot of the emerging nations.

Mr. Speaker, in the other matter, I am informed that, in terms of changing from two thirds back to a simple majority - where subdivisions or subdivision approvals and land use contracts and so on are concerned - this change back in terms of rezoning is, as was said by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , in slightly different terms.... When a zoning is given the go-ahead, it is for all intents and purposes irreversible. It's very unlikely that it will be reversed. It's like a ratchet: you turn it one way and it doesn't back up; it clicks and, the farther you turn it around, the less it can turn back. There is very little turning back of this type of decision. So these are decisions that have to be made in a very cautious, very conservative and very well-thought-out manner.

Did the minister get up, in opening second reading, and tell us how many applications were heard in the last two years for rezoning or for subdivision approval, and how many of those were refused by city councils by a two thirds majority? Did he tell us how many of those would have been passed had there been a

[ Page 2196 ]

50-50, simple majority required? Did he give us numbers? Is the minister aware that he is trying to bring in this type of an expedient at a time when our population is growing at less than half its normal rate here in British Columbia? Why do we have to do this? A few years ago, the average increase in population per annum was 3 per cent. In 1976 it dipped to 1.4 per cent. Last year, according to the Ministry of Economic Development, it dipped to 1.3 per cent per annum - less than half the rate of growth that we have traditionally experienced in British Columbia. Could it be that in spite of this decreased rate of growth, we are not approving rezonings fast enough? Are we holding back and where are we holding back? Where is the need? Where is the vacancy rate?

On the one hand, we have seen bills brought into this House in which we have measures to do away with rent control, and we're told that the market situation is so good, the supply is so abundant, that we don't need it any more. If that's the case, then surely we don't need this kind of a measure. All it takes is for a council to pass a rezoning once and it's through. They can say no several times; the possibility is still there. It doesn't mean that a piece of land will not be rezoned some time in the future, a year from now, two years from now. And if a minority of a council wants to prevent a zoning from going ahead right at this particular point in time I it might mean that there will be more favourable terms brought in, in terms of off-site services, for the municipality or for the regional district.

So to my knowledge the minister has not come in and given us chapter and verse on the rate of applications. He hasn't told us about the number which have been refused. What is the present supply of zoned multi-family dwellings in the Capital Regional District and in the Greater Vancouver Regional District? how much land is presently zoned for multi-family? How much is presently zoned R-2, R-3 and so on and so forth? On how much of this land is there any active pursuit of building, where they are actually putting something on to this land?

It would appear that at the present time we have a very large inventory of new and unoccupied dwellings, particularly in the greater Vancouver and Victoria areas. I haven't known of areas outside of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria where the provision of two-thirds has created a great problem. Mostly in places like Fort St. James, they welcome almost any kind of development and outside interest of developers to come in and build housing, service lots and build apartments. They go after the provincial and federal governments for federal and provincial housing programmes. So we're probably talking about problems as they exist by and large in the two metropolitan areas. We haven't had chapter and verse from the minister, whom I see making some copious notes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'm writing to my mother in New Mexico.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we are bringing this type of legislation in at, I would think, the most inopportune time. If we were facing a real shortage of housing, I think that to change the legislation like this for perhaps a limited period of time.... Maybe some argument could be made for it. If we were increasing our population at the rate of maybe 3.5 per cent per annum, instead of at 1.3 per cent as we did last year.... We had zero vacancy rates. If we had almost no nearly completed and unoccupied dwellings available, then there might be a case to be node. But if the minister would examine the most recent reports of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in which the number of nearly complete and unoccupied dwellings is stated, he will note that those figures are staying up at such a high rate that it might even be said that oversupply is a problem.

If we want to look at problems, we might look at the extent to which we are losing our capability to build in this province, and at how many small contractors have maybe gone out of the business and into other pursuits. If we should ever return the economy of this province to good health - this government having done its best to kill the economy - we would be in a very poor position to react, but not because of legislation which we have in the Municipal Act or these remedies which the minister would seek to bring in. I might say that this is, as I sometimes say about other pieces of legislation, the cure for which there is no disease. This is not the time to administer the cure. It's like taking an aspirin when you feel absolutely healthy.

To change from the two-thirds majority - the very cautious, conservative approach -allowing developments which are irreversible, changing back to simple majority.... That sounds a little bit misleading, but it's a simple majority of the members present. That means that while a minority of council - for some reason or other, one or two may not be present at council - may make decisions which will create a change in zoning, in neighbourhoods and in terms of perhaps bringing in commercial zoning and multi-family zoning, which, once passed, there is no remedy for.

[ Page 2197 ]

1 know that the minister seems to be doing this without even the support of municipal councils around this province. I don't know of any of them who have said that this is what they want. I understand that while the Nelson city council has not as yet taken an official position, the indications are that they do not favour these changes.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, you know, the real puzzle is why the minister has decided at this time to introduce these amendments. Maybe when he stands up to close the debate he'll give us some kind of rational explanation for his decision to remove these safeguards, which were introduced because it was deemed that they were necessary - and they have been working very well.

I don't know how much consultation the minister has had with any of the municipalities prior to introducing this particular Act, certainly on these two sections in it which we oppose. I know that the mayor of Vancouver, which is the city in which the riding which I represent is located, is certainly not in favour of it. lie's made a statement that says, in fact, that we're going to have decisions being made based on who is away with the flu and who happens to be present. That's not a good way for decisions to be made on matters dealing with zoning, the changing of a neighbourhood, the building up or destroying of a neighbourhood. They are much too important, Mr. Speaker, to be decided on that basis.

Of course, if we want some specific examples, let us look at the neighbourhood of Kitsilano, which is in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard and which has been one of the most pleasant neighbourhoods - a truly family neighbourhood down through the ages -in which one can live. Sometime during the late '60s and the beginning of the '70s, the developers moved into Kitsilano and that neighbourhood was in clear and imminent danger of being destroyed. At that time council operated on the simple majority rule. That's all you needed and, because we happened to have a council in Vancouver at that time which was heavily representative of the development sector of the community, the destruction of Kitsilano began. It almost ceased to be a neighbourhood, Mr. Speaker, and began to be just another highrise jungle.

So a lot of thought went into the amendment Act of that time, to introduce the two-thirds majority rule. The New Democratic Party is not going to take credit for the originality of that idea because, in fact, the idea of the two-thirds rule was actually introduced by the previous Social Credit Party government - as it applied to its land use contracts. It was possible for the New Democratic government to witness the successful way in which the two thirds rule was being used. So the Act was amended to introduce the two-thirds rule, because it was recognized that that was a careful, cautious and conservative way and certainly a protective way in which to deal with a neighbourhood.

AN. HON. MEMBER: No growth.

MS. BROWN: The member for Burnaby says: "No growth." Well, the people of Kitsilano have never been in favour of growth for growth's sake. They have valued their community, they have valued their neighbourhood. At their bidding, city council moved in to protect their right to continue to live in this neighbourhood and in that community. It was at their bidding that the developers were told that this was not going to be turned into a highrise jungle, as some other parts of the province have been.

Let us look at Richmond, Mr. Chairman..

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. Sometimes you're a chairman, sometimes you're a speaker. I don't know whether one can refer to that as legislative schizophrenia or what, but you certainly succeed in being a lot of things at the same time, Mr. Speaker.

Nonetheless, I can remember - and this is going back 20 years - when Richmond was really a farming community. Do you remember that? When my children were small, we used to drive out to Richmond to buy our vegetables straight from the farms, to pick strawberries, to go cycling, to introduce them to cows and horses and all of these animals. Then the developers moved in.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: That's right, because city slicker kids didn't have that access, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) . So I used to take my city-slicker kids out to Richmond to introduce them to the good life that farmers had in that area. Then the developers moved in. I don't know if anyone has seen Richmond lately, but if ever there is a community that needs a two-thirds majority rule to protect it from being further denuded by the developers, certainly Richmond is one. I'm hoping that the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , who is presently the representative for that area, is going to stand and participate in this debate and speak against these amendments.

A lot of thought went into that two-thirds

[ Page 2198 ]

majority rule, a lot of real soul-searching, and there was an attempt being made to protect communities and to be sure that no rash or hurried decisions were made that would affect changing a community from one type to another - either downzoning it or upzoning it, as the case may be.

There should be a lot of consideration on the part of everyone, and that council should be as close to consensus as possible before any Act as radical as rezoning takes place in a community. It was protective legislation, and now this is being wiped out. The minister must have a good reason for doing this at this time. In fact, what he is doing is opening the doors to the developers again.

MR. KEMPF: You don't like democracy.

MS. BROWN: But this is not democracy. This is the Whole point that the member for Omineca fails to take into account.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could have the member speaking address the Chair, and then perhaps the member for Omineca will rise in his place at a later time in this debate.

MS. BROWN: I certainly agree with you, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are much more rational and much more understanding of what democracy is all about. You recognize that I am speaking in defence of democracy, not against it. Maybe you will be able to convince your colleague, the member for Omineca.

For example, let us look at the council in the Vancouver area, which is the area which you represent. The number of aldermen on that council who live in one segment of that city is overwhelming. I think something like 80 per cent of the councillors on the Vancouver city council live in the western end of that city. It may even be higher than that; it may be 85 or 90 per cent. In order to really have any kind of decision about zoning or rezoning on the eastern end of the city, which is not as well represented as the western end is, it is important that more than just a simple majority have the right to make that kind of decision. That is what democracy is all about.

We haven't got a ward system in the Vancouver area; people are not being represented by people who live in their neighbourhood or in their community. For everyone to have fair representation, the council has to be as close to a consensus position as possible. That is what democracy is all about. That is possible under the two-thirds rule. We have incredible evidence that it is working.

The city of Vancouver did not ask to have that rule changed. The letter from the Nanaimo city council which the member for Nanaimo read into the records and which was received by all of us showed that they did not ask for that amendment. The press reports show that Burnaby did not ask for that amendment. Who asked for that amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam member, just on a point of relevancy, the city of Vancouver is not covered under the Municipal Amendment Act. The city of Vancouver is dealt with under its own city charter. I know you will always endeavour to be relevant, so I thought I would bring that point up.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is use it as an example because it is the city that I know best and the city where I can see that the two-thirds amendment has worked very effectively. I hope you will allow me the indulgence of calling upon my experiences in that area.

But in any event, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that when the minister stands up to close debate, he will have a very good reason to give us as to why this amendment is being introduced at this time. There has not been a request for it from the municipalities; there has not been a request for it from the community at large. The only group which will benefit from it, as I've said before, is people who are committed to development and to growth for growth's sake.

Mr. Speaker, the other amendment which I would like to speak in opposition to, of course, has to do with directors being elected to the regional boards. I'm sure the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) will say that elections are not democratic and that appointments are. But in fact the reverse is true. By having elections we were, in fact, dealing with democracy; we were, in fact, indulging ourselves in the democratic way of doing things. There are a number of reasons why we should continue to do so, and I'm again going to call upon my experiences with the Vancouver community.

We have in our city council a council that is reasonably polarized. They even go under titles; there is TEAM and there is the NPA group. If there are not elections for the regional district, what happens is that the appointments are made on the basis of whoever is in control at that time. Independents like Harry Rankin, whose name has been used quite often in this House, or like Darlene Marzari whose name has not been used, or like Michael Harcourt, the independent thinkers on council, would never stand a chance of being appointed

[ Page 2199 ]

to the regional district board of directors. Only through the process of election do we have a really democratic way of ensuring that even the independent voices on these councils get an opportunity to be heard.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of accountability. Why should the representatives be accountable only to the minister? The representatives should be accountable to the community at large. That's what you have when you have your members elected rather than appointed - the whole question of accountability. It was the same question that was raised - and I'm not being irrelevant; I'm just drawing a comparison - with the Vancouver Resources Board and the whole concept of the community resources board idea. As long as there were elections, people were accountable to the electorate rather than to the minister involved, or rather than to one small group. By using appointments, we are wiping out the whole business of accountability to the community.

I notice that the minister's brow is furrowed, so he has obviously not thought of the whole idea of accountability before.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You referred to the minister. They're not accountable to the minister, whoever that may be.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I'm suggesting is that the best way of protecting accountability to the community is through the election process. I notice that the minister is nodding in agreement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I've got a sore neck.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you are not nodding in agreement; you're shaking your head. Okay.

But I am committed to the belief that the best way of ensuring accountability from all representatives at any level is through the election process. Then you have to be accountable to the people who elect you, and this is what we lose when we use appointments rather than the election process. This is the reason why I was opposed to the wiping out of the community resources board concept, and certainly why I am opposed to this section of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the present system, as I said before, provides us with a safeguard. The minister is removing these safeguards and, in addition, is forcing us back into the old parochial way in which the board used to operate before. That is what I am also concerned about. We're going back to the old parochialism, where people just looked at their own particular interests of their area rather than taking the global view, which is what the regional district boards are doing at this point.

They are working well. Why is the minister going to tamper with the process? Nobody has asked him to, or at least he certainly has not told us that this request has been made. We note that the committee which is traveling around the province, listening to what the community at large has to say, has still not brought down its report. Yet the minister is going to proceed with the passage of this bill. It doesn't make any sense to me that a committee would be struck to do a job and the minister would not at least wait to have the report of that committee before introducing this kind of legislation.

So for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposing and I am speaking in opposition to and intend to vote against Bill 17.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: Speaking to second reading of Bill 171 would certainly like to show that my support is behind the last two or three speakers on this subject. I was very interested in the fact that the member for Vancouver-Burrard talked about the township of Richmond. I'll have more to say about Richmond in a few minutes.

I would like to say to begin with that I'm wondering why it is that the minister feels that he knows better and that he knows what should be done in our province. Really, the consensus on this issue is against him. On both issues that we are talking about, by far the majority out there at the city council level, at the municipal council level, the aldermen and mayors, feel that he is doing a disservice to the province.

The two main issues, of course, are the matter of the two-thirds vote for amending or zoning, and also the question of the election of the regional directors. Just let me first deal with the regional directors. I believe the minister said some time ago that he was quite concerned with the direction in which the regional districts are going in this province. I certainly feel that his concern was shared by many in this province, and with good reason. But one of the things that I felt was turning around the direction of the regional districts was this whole question of responsibility to the voters. I hear criticism from time to time about elected members. Most of it is totally unjustified. Most of it is inspired by the press who have nothing more to do with their time than write those kinds of

[ Page 2200 ]

articles.

But there is something about an election, whoever the elected official might be and at whatever level he might attain, that tends to influence his behaviour. On the other hand, when the person is appointed by some of his peers, that modifying influence is not there or certainly not to the same extent it would be were he elected. One of the reasons our government brought in the whole election process - which, incidentally, was not easy to run in tandem with the municipal elections -was the fact that it was the majority opinion within that municipality, city or whatever that decided that this person should represent the people's opinion on the regional district.

1 agree; he had to be either an alderman or a mayor. Re had to be elected for both. But it did give the voters influence over that particular representative. I'm delighted that has occurred up until now, and I'm very sorrowful that the minister has decided to take that initiative away from the voters. Really, that's what he's doing. He is taking away the right from the voters to decide who they want to represent them on the regional district.

Every other person in government in this province is elected. Why do we have this anomalous situation going back to the bad old Dan Campbell days? I can give him some excuse in that he probably didn't know any better at the time. He felt that was the easiest way to go when they set up the regional districts. Fair enough, but there has been an improvement. There has been an improvement in what we need most and that is the representation of the grassroots voters.

This minister has decided to take away the initiative; he's decided to take away the rights of the local people, in New Westminster, for example, to decide who will represent them on the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I think that is sad. As a voter in New Westminster, I want to have a vote in that. I want to have that right to decide who it should be that represents me and who can best represent the opinion that I have. That's a major safeguard and we've now had that taken away, providing this amendment passes.

I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would stand in his place and say: "I've made a mistake. I'm going to amend that." As a matter of fact, we would applaud his amending this section of the Act, and we would vote with him on this particular section of the Act if in fact he would just amend it right out.

I just say that people have that right; they've earned that right. This is a free country. I cannot imagine why it is that any level of government in this province should not be elected at large by the people for whom it works.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you one example of a regional district that's rather long, and many different interests are covered in this particular regional district. It's a regional district in the interior - as a matter of fact, the regional district where the Minister of Agriculture and member for Boundary Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) resides. Now they have diverse problems in that area and they have many very fine elected people on the regional district board. They had sow problems a couple of years ago about where they were going to locate a feedlot and also a slaughterhouse. It was the opinion of many of the members of that regional district that it should be located in a little town called Okanagan Falls, right in the town. It was incredible; but, you know, what happens is that people from farther away are not quite so concerned about what happens within a particular area. But when those regional directors are absolutely, totally reliant upon support of their community base and when people within diverse communities begin to say: "Well, what's going on in Okanagan Falls?" and when that word comes from as far away as Naramata and as far south as Osoyoos, et cetera, et cetera, it begins to have an impact. There are really no power blocs that can be established when you are totally dependent upon the basic voter to make that decision available to you. And I suggest that, had it not been for this type of an election, that facility would very likely have been there now, smelling up the place like crazy. It's not, thank heaven. And I suggest that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing should really take another look at this particular proposition.

Now let me deal with the other area - the zoning. The member for Burrard (Ms. Brown) was talking about the whole question of what has happened to Richmond. And it's a real shame that Richmond, that garden of British Columbia - Richmond is a delta land that would provide six crops a year; there is no other land in North America with the same kind of capacity as Richmond had - now is a mass of concrete and asphalt and houses from one end to the other. That land can never be rejuvenated, in my view. That land has been alienated forever and that land we will some day need. 1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the day when most of that development took place was prior to 1972, and what did we have in those days? We had a simple majority of council making the decision over zoning. As the member for Burrard said, you can have of your total

[ Page 2201 ]

council - provided there is a quorum there - a vote that would even be unrepresentative on a simple majority basis, if not all the council members are there - and that happens many, many times. And another thing too - you can do a little bit of manipulating to see that things come up when certain people are away. That's one of the safeguards of the two-thirds majority required for zoning and allied situations. And look, if you've got a real case to make, you can make that to that number, you can make that to that percentage and it will carry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record a letter from Richmond, of all places. Richmond seem to have learned their lesson. It's a letter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett):

"Dear Sir:

"At an adjourned meeting held on May 24, 1978, the Richmond municipal council unanimously endorsed the following resolution with regard to Bill 17, the Municipal Amendment Act" - the one that we are now debating - "which received first reading by the Legislative Assembly on May 17,1978. The resolution is as follows:

'RESOLVED: The provincial government is amending sections 697 (l) , 702A (b) and 704 (l) of the Municipal Act to provide that a bylaw establishing an official community plan, a land use contract or a zoning bylaw requires only a simple majority of council to pass; AND WHEREAS this could, at times, be a simple majority of a bare quorum and thus a minority of council;

'THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this council inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs of its opposition to this change and that copies of the council's views be forwarded to the Premier and leaders of the other parties in the Legislature and to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.'

"The resolution is hereby forwarded for your immediate attention and it is respectfully requested that the opposition of the Richmond municipal council to the above proposed changes contained in Bill 17 be noted. Yours very truly, R.N. Drennan, Acting Municipal Clerk."

Mr. Speaker, this was a unanimous position taken by a responsible council which has lived with the bad decisions that have been made in the past. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate that council. I urge the minister again: what's he thinking about? What thought from heaven suddenly inspired him to bring in two changes that have not been proposed, that are not supported by anybody of significance in the province, except the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) - and everything he supports is a disaster. The Minister of Mine Closures is not one that I would particularly want to have as an ally on this one. As a matter of fact, I would suggest to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that lie tells you he doesn't need your support.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, so much for New Westminster. So much for Richmond. So much for the whole province. The inspired Minister of Municipal Affairs is coming down like an angel to change rules, to change laws that really should not be changed. I suggest he knows it. Who has got to him?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we've had several speakers from the official opposition and one representing the Liberal Party. I think that, to get back into focus, I should point out for the record that the Municipal Act is each year made up of a number of amendments - some years, many; this particular year, not very many. There are 15 sections to the bill, as all hon. members will know. The debate has focused on only two points covered in a couple of other sections.

I was going to seek your direction earlier, Mr. Speaker, to see if you felt that this debate would be more appropriate in committee, because what we have in an amending Act such as this particular Bill 17 for 1978 is a series of not necessarily related changes to a very lengthy and complex Act.

Mr. Speaker, the sections which provide for a bylaw establishing an official community plan, a land use contract or a zoning bylaw requiring a simple majority of council rather than a two-thirds majority have been the focus of the debate, or at least part of the focus of the debate - two points only which have distressed the other side of this House.

I think the arguments presented are, in fact, based on two rather questionable assumptions: first, that land use initiatives which are presented to local councils are motivated solely by profit - therefore it follows in this particular reasoning that they are injurious to the community; secondly, they assume that somehow municipal councils in the simple majority are too gullible, too weak or possibly too corrupt to judge land-use questions according to the same rules and the same majority by which they judge nearly every other question.

I think, with respect, that both of these assumptions are somewhat patronizing. To

[ Page 2202 ]

suggest that municipal councils require special policing in their land-use policies and decisions is to question the integrity and the responsibility of elected officials. To suggest that every proposal for land-use change is commercial exploitation is to ignore and to overlook the experience of recent years. Because what we're doing in the sections which reduce the required majority from two-thirds to a simple majority is for all land-use matters. It works both ways. It works in zoning to a higher use but, Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite did not indicate in their debate is that it also works in zoning to a lower use. There have been many examples in recent years of downzoning.

Surely the members opposite are aware of those examples. This provincial government, Mr. Speaker, is prepared to place the same degree of trust in local governments on landuse questions as on most other municipal decisions. We're not yet prepared to sustain a bylaw approval requirement which is virtually unparalleled in any other province in Canada.

I have to read the list with respect to zoning, and hear me out: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland require a simple majority for rezoning. For Alberta, the official plan is a simple majority, except that the regional plan requires two-thirds of the regional planning commission. Continuing with the official plan category, however, it's a simple majority in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Prince Edward Island has a two-thirds majority. That is what happens in other provincial jurisdictions and in other local government jurisdictions with respect to the simple majority and the two-thirds majority.

I think the House has to ask itself whether the arguments against simple majority land-use decisions are more than opportunistic. After all, these arguments - and a fairly lengthy debate, at that - come from the same group which fought so vociferously last year against section 28 of Bill 42. That debate went on for a long time. It is now incorporated in new section 879 of the Municipal Act. That was fought on the grounds that it would inhibit the exercise of local democracy. Mr. Speaker, what is more democratic than 50 per cent plus one? We can speak about that subject more in committee debate if the members so wish.

There has been criticism with respect to the relationship of Bill 17, or at least parts of it, to the regional district review committee. I would direct the members' attention to the terms of reference assigned to the regional district review committee, which continues its work. It has not resigned in protest over two changes to the Municipal Act prior to the completion of their report. It is not correct to suggest that the RDRG has been undermined because of these two changes.

The committee remains absolutely free. I have taken great pains, sir, to ensure that there is no ministerial interference with its deliberations. The committee remains free to develop and submit a report within extremely broad terms of reference. The government will consider that report with the utmost care. The report will be made public as soon as possible after it is received, whether its recommendations deal with legislation passed in 1964 or 1965 or 1978.

In Bill 17 we are simply proceeding on a business-as-usual basis, regardless of anyone's conjecture about what the regional district review report may contain.

I have to be honest with respect to the regional district review committee. When the committee was established, I wondered if we should stop all activity with regard to the regional districts, legislation affecting them, additional supplementary letters patent, and whether there should be a moratorium on all regional district activity. I wondered whether we should ask them to maintain the absolute status quo. After a period of a good many months, I decided that that was not necessary. I apply a similar test against the changes which are incorporated in this bill.

We have a difference of opinion, and it doesn't necessarily follow party lines in British Columbia. The difference of opinion is: What is regional district activity? Is it a fourth level of government in the province? The opinion of this ministry of this government is that it is not a fourth level of government. If I have heard any cry in British Columbia in recent years, it is that we are overgoverned; we have too much government. Let's not lose sight of the fact that as originally conceived and introduced - whether we believe it should or should not have been introduced is beside the point - regional districts were seen as a functional amalgamation. That which a municipality or an electoral area could not do on its own it could do, or would be permitted to do, as an amalgamation, function by function by function within a much larger area. So we have drifted away from that particular concept. I think it is time that we came back to the original concept of regional district government in British Columbia.

We, the citizens, have been exposed to a combination of hastily accepted demands from a

[ Page 2203 ]

minority, from a director, from a particular part of a regional district. There has been provincial lenience. There has been snowballing growth, eventually leading regional boards to think they are, indeed, another level of government and to take unto themselves powers and budgets which were scarcely dreamt of when this was first introduced.

They are essentially a co-operative device for providing a restricted number of key services on a regional basis. If there is a message for the regional districts of British Columbia, for their critics and their supporters, this government states that there is not a fourth level of government in this province. There is a functional amalgamation and it is called regional districts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in getting back to the original concept, the member for Vancouver-Burrard spoke about accountability - that's when I was frowning. I had a furrowed brow, and I was shaking my head because I had difficulty following. If you accept, and you may not - the first member for Vancouver-Burrard may not accept it - the fact that we are restating this position and returning to the position that municipalities must have the accountability on regional district boards.... There is public confusion, but that isn't as distressing as the fact that we've been locked into a battle between regional districts and municipalities. That's what the relevant amendments to this bill attempt to correct today.

So put confusion in the voters' minds aside, because frankly that is not reason in itself as to why we introduced this change. We want to remind regional districts that they are operating as a functional amalgamation, so the directors from municipalities must first be elected to a municipal council and then they must reflect that council's point of view, that community's point of view in dealing on the broader, larger and often the more complex regional scene.

That is why it has been introduced. The member opposite shakes her head and disagrees. That's fair enough; that's what it's all about in this House. But we want to return to regional district government as it was originally seen to be, as it should have remained, but regrettably as it has changed over the last few years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for commenting at length on these two or three sections which we knew would be controversial. That's where the government stands, and I believe, because of the widespread concern about regional districts in British Columbia, that's where the majority of the people of this province stand, and they will support these amendments.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 17, Municipal Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 19.

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the government is particularly pleased to introduce this Bill 19 because it represents two years' work. More importantly, it represents a commitment to public passenger transport, or transit, and also a commitment to local government.

Transportation is of fundamental importance. It's a powerful force, a basic kind of organizing force underlying all social activity. Much of the social, political and economic well-being of a community is dependent on its transportation system, and the community suffers in the absence of a transportation system.

The issues of transit go far beyond questions of technology or the numbers of buses or whether to build a light rapid transit line. These issues significantly affect the quality of life in communities in basic and fundamental ways.

[ Page 2204 ]

Transit is one of the most difficult and complex public policy issues. It is not surprising that on an issue of such importance and complexity individuals hold very strong, differing views. But if we are to resolve these issues, if we are to meet the challenges that these issues offer, a spirit of cooperation, of tolerance and of compromise must prevail.

In British Columbia we've reached the point in the development of our communities at which a major evaluation of the role of transit is required. In performing such an evaluation, the government thinks we can learn a few lessons from our own history. There are many parallels between our present situation and the early development of our cities. In fact, the imagination and the energy which the pioneers of this province brought to the resolution of their transit problems can serve us all as an example in our present deliberations on a new policy for the balance of this century and into the next.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If I may illustrate the last point, Mr. Speaker, almost 90 years ago, in 1890 and 1891, the electrified urban and interurban transit lines were introduced, as all members will know, in the Vancouver and Victoria areas. To appreciate fully the imagination that lay behind these events, one has to place them in historical context. The technology of electric rail transit was not developed until the mid-1880s, and yet only a few years later it had been adapted to and introduced into what was at that time virtually the frontier.

An electric transit system began operating in the Victoria area in February, 1890, with four street cars. At the same time, only two other cities in Canada had electric street railways. I believe they were St. Catherines and Windsor.

MR. NICOLSON: How about Nelson?

HON. MR. CURTIS: A little later, Mr. Member. The Vancouver electric transit system began operating in June, 1890, a few months after Victoria. What is particularly interesting about the Vancouver system is that the decision to use electric cars was made virtually at the last moment. The original intention had been to use horse-drawn carriages, and this last-minute change illustrates how quickly technology was changing at that time.

In the context of current transit issues, perhaps the most interesting historical example of early transit is the interurban line established in October, 1891, between Vancouver and New Westminster - or should I say New Westminster and Vancouver? At that time probably the latter would be more correct.

It was 12 miles in length. It was the first of its kind in the western half of the continent. Only one other interurban line had been established in Canada. In the jargon of today, this line would be described as light rapid transit. It's interesting that almost 90 years later there is a suggestion to solve some of our present problems in the lower mainland by applying a similar technology in approximately the same location.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge in our present deliberations is to show the same initiative and imagination as the pioneers of this province have shown. Bill 19 offers just such an opportunity.

The next section of my remarks would be headed "The Present Situation." To place this bill in context, I would like to outline very briefly the scope and nature of existing transit operations in British Columbia and then discuss some of the current problems.

Transit services are provided in the large metropolitan areas of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria and also in some 14 other municipalities in the province. Providing transit to the citizens of British Columbia is an enormous undertaking. For example, more than 114 million transit passenger trips are taken annually in the British Columbia area. Of these, about 105 million trips are taken on the two major B.C. Hydro systems.

On an average day in Vancouver, Hydro boards four times as many passengers as all of Canada's scheduled airlines combined. By the time the morning rush is over, the fleet has traveled a distance equal to circling the globe and it will do so three more times before that day is through. Almost 40 per cent of downtown commuters travel by transit.

However, the most revealing statistic about the size of our provincial transit operation is this: the total expenditure on transit now exceeds $100 million annually. Responsibility for the transit systems now in operation is divided between British Columbia Hydro and the transit division of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. B.C. Hydro operates transit in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. It also operates interurban lines in the Fraser Valley and what are called the cross-water systems, across Georgia Strait. All other transit services are handled by the transit division of this ministry.

The involvement of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in the field of transit is

[ Page 2205 ]

perhaps not widely known and so it's worthwhile to say a few words about it. Transit services division finds a natural home in this ministry because of the link between transit and local government. We finance systems in many areas of the province including Kamloops, Kelowna, Kitimat, Prince Rupert, Maple Ridge, the Nanaimo regional district, Nelson, Penticton, Powell River, Port Alberni, Prince George, Trail, West Vancouver and portions of the Capital Regional District. In addition, transit services in this ministry has basic responsibility for the cross-Burrard system -Seabus - and an intercity bus network on Vancouver Island, Vancouver Island Coach Lines.

The total of subsidies paid under the provincial transit programme was $4.4 million in the last fiscal year and is budgeted to be almost $5.5 million in the current fiscal year. This, Mr. Speaker, is exclusive of subsidies paid to B.C. Hydro.

A particularly important feature of our activities in the smaller centres is the very active involvement of local government, not just in running the buses but in the design, the development and the funding of transit systems. In the past year we have developed new system in Kelowna and Prince Rupert. The process by which these systems are established illustrates the point. The first step is for the municipality concerned to pass a bylaw and petition the province for service. Provincial staff then get together with local government to design routes and to set service standards. Generally, the next step is to put open to tender a purchase of service contract, which is awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. This firm, these operators, are then provided with buses from the provincial fleet under a lease arrangement. The costs of the operating deficit are shared between the province and the municipality.

Throughout the whole process, local governments are asked to take on the major part of the responsibility for the planning and the provision of service in their areas. Both the 14 systems funded through this ministry and the B.C. Hydro systems incur, as we know, very substantial operating losses. However, at present, the operating deficits that are incurred are not treated on an equal basis. In the case of B.C. Hydro, the province has provided ad hoc subsidies from time to time. But Hydro itself must make up part of the deficit through the rates it sets for all users of electricity.

Electricity consumers, in other words, subsidize transit. Local governments in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria do not contribute to the transit deficits incurred in their areas. Operating deficits in the 14 small city systems in the province are treated quite differently. This is where the inherent unfairness comes into focus, because in the small city systems the deficits are shared on a 50-50 basis between the province and the participating municipality.

There has been a very rapid increase in expenditure on transit services in the province. This has brought into focus some pressing and fundamental problems. I would like to discuss a few of them today. Certainly the most visible difficulty in recent years is the rate at which the deficit incurred by transit operations has been increasing. In the space of just five years, it has grown from $6.5 million in the fiscal year 1972-73 to over $57 million in the last fiscal year. That is a nine-fold increase in only five years. However, despite its size the transit deficit itself is not so much a problem as it is a symptom of more fundamental problems.

To identify these it's useful to find the basic purpose of an urban transportation system. Put more simply, the task of an urban transportation system is to move people - and in some cases, goods - from place to place within a specified area. This emphasizes that transit is not just a question of hardware and technology, but it's also a question of land use, community layout and planning. It's because transit is so closely related to other transportation and community issues that the point is often made of the need for an integrated and a comprehensive approach to these very important issues.

It's often argued that the development of an integrated approach is the very solution to our transit problems, and there is merit to this point of view. At the present time the responsibility for transportation and transit is spread among a literally bewildering number of interests. The resulting duplication and confusion can only increase the difficulty of resolving our transit problems. However, although the lack of a comprehensive approach is a factor in the present difficulties, I don't believe that it is the fundamental problem. Although there is no doubt that rather sweeping organizational changes are necessary, it's not sufficient simply to identify this need. One must also recognize that the purpose of changing the present structure is to make it more responsive to the transit needs of communities.

The fundamental issue - and we've debated it other times in this House - is accountability. It's a question of ensuring that the transit system is responsive to the need of local communities and their citizens. I suppose the

[ Page 2206 ]

basic problem with the present system is that it is not sufficiently responsive and account, able to the communities it has to serve. Local communities do not have sufficient opportunity to influence transit policy and expenditure in the lower mainland and the capital regions. They've been excluded entirely from the transit decision-making process.

The lack of accountability is most evident in the present financing arrangements for transit. At the moment, all consumers throughout B.C. are taxed to finance transit losses in the lower mainland and greater Victoria. The point has been made often that this arrangement is discriminatory because taxpayers in many municipalities pay twice for transit losses. They pay once by contributing 50 per cent of the transit deficit in their own municipality or area, and they pay again when the money from their Hydro bill is used to subsidize the transit losses in the two metros. There is, however, a more basic objection to the use of Hydro money to subsidize transit; this arises because the Hydro subsidy is a form of taxation without accountability. Hydro customers have no control over the amount of surcharge on Hydro bills needed to subsidize transit, nor do they have any control aver the use to which that surcharge is put.

It's not only in the present financial arrangements that there is a lack of accountability. The responsibility for transit policy is so diffused that citizens are not able to judge the performance or the effectiveness of any particular level of government in transit. The public debate and discussion on transit goes back many years. One of the principal reasons that many of the issues and problems have remained unsolved is precisely because responsibility was not clearly defined for the public to hold any particular group of elected officials accountable for the inaction or lack of progress in transit.

There is a pressing need in British Columbia to introduce common sense and accountability into the present organization and financing of transit services. Transit is too important and the amount of money at stake is too large to postpone further the organization and financial changes that so clearly must be made. Accordingly, the government has designed a transit reform package around this particular bill.

Now to the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker. It deals directly with the existing lack of accountability and local control in two ways. It provides for the establishment of a new organization which will work in partnership with local governments in the development and management of local transit systems, Secondly, it provides for new financial arrangements which are controlled, in part, by local governments. I would like to deal with each of the points in turn, beginning with the structure and activities of the new organization and its relation to existing transit systems, particularly those of B.C. Hydro. Following that discussion, may I outline the principles underlying the new cost-sharing arrangements?

To describe the new organization, the legislation creates a new body named the Urban Transit Authority, or UTA. UTA will include a board of directors and three regional transit commissions. To ensure maximum local input, all UTA board and regional commission members will be locally elected representatives. The transit authority will function on two levels. On one, an eight-member board will provide overall policy and budget direction and will liaise with a special committee of cabinet. This committee is to include the Ministers of Finance, Highways, Energy, Transport and Communications and Municipal Affairs and Housing.

On the second level, three regional commissions will deal with planning and funding issues at a local and a regional level. One commission will deal with the lower mainland area, one with the capital region and the third with transit in the remaining area of the province - the small cities, if you will. Each regional commission will include at least five members. This is a minimum number, Mr. Speaker. More may be appointed if necessary. Members will be appointed by the province for a two-year term. The important point again, though, is that all members must be drawn from locally elected representatives. Each commission will also send representatives to the board, four from the greater Vancouver area, two from the capital region and two from the third commission.

The organizational structure that I've outlined will accomplish several important objectives. These include local participation and accountability, regional balance, workability and, I think most Importantly of all, interministerial co-ordination at the provincial level. The fact that only locally elected officials will be appointed to the commissions and the board ensures the maximum local policy involvement and also ensures that decisions are made by persons who are accountable to the public.

Accountability is also ensured by having UTA work with a designated committee of cabinet. This relationship will also require a coordination of all provincial activities rela-

[ Page 2207 ]

ted to transit. The trade-off between roads, bridges and transit is an obvious example of the co-ordination that is not only necessary but long overdue.

Regional interests are to be met in two ways: by the use of regional commissions and in the composition of the board which provides for a balanced regional influence in the development of overall policy.

Workability is ensured in three ways. The organization is simple in structure, small in size and has a clearly defined mandate.

Under the heading, "Activities of the UTA, " I would like to say these words. The primary purpose of the new organization is to plan and finance transit in partnership with local governments. The steps involved are quite simple. The first is to identify transit service areas. In many cases these transit service areas may cut across municipal and regional district boundaries.

The second step is to negotiate a transit service agreement with the appropriate jurisdictions within that transit service area. In some instances, this could be one or more regional districts; in others, one or more municipalities. The transit service agreement is simply an agreement between the UTA and the appropriate local authority to cost-share transit expenditures.

The third step is to negotiate an annual operating agreement which would specify the fares, level of service and the financial contributions of the provincial and local governments for a specified fiscal year.

In addition to the annual operating agree ments, the new organization will also have several other important tasks. The authority will manage a fleet of buses which it will lease out to local systems. This will provide logical economies in bulk purchasing, use of repair and maintenance facilities, as well as vehicle allocation. The authority will be able to investigate such matters as the possibility of integrating public transit and school buses, developing special buses for the handicapped, and reviewing proposals for advanced transit systems, including commuter rail and light rapid transit.

In my comments to this point, I've emphasized that UTA is a policy, planning and funding body. It's not an operating company. To avoid any confusion on this point, may I speak directly to the question of the relationship between the authority and B.C. Hydro.

The problem is not, as we see it, with Hydro's role as a transit operator. Rather, the problem has been that in addition to being a transit operator Hydro has also been responsible - in relative isolation - for policy, planning and financing.

Transit involves a host of difficult and often conflicting pressures and demands. The solution to these problems generally involves a balancing of conflicting interests and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is not the appropriate agency to strike this balance. Transit questions should be resolved in a manner that is more directly accountable to local residents, to the users. That's precisely what the new legislation provides for. UTA will undertake the policy and the financing roles. Hydro will continue its role as an operator, for the foreseeable future.

There has been considerable discussion and speculation as to how long Hydro will retain its present role as a transit operator, and I say, Mr. Speaker, there is logic in the suggestion that there is no logical connection between its role as a utility company and its role as a transit operator, so the link should be formally separated. There is considerable merit in this point of view, but we really will want to hear from the Transit Authority and from the transit commissions as to how long is short-term.

Certainly UTA should not undertake the responsibility of somehow being or becoming a separate organization to operate the transit services that Hydro presently provides. LJTA will have its hands full developing a comprehensive and co-ordinated policy as well as negotiating operating agreements by the next fiscal year. More importantly, if the UTA -the authority itself - became an operator, it could have the same conflicts of interest presently experienced by Hydro.

Under the heading of "Financial Questions, " Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that the legislation has two main thrusts: organizational and financial. I've discussed the first of these at some length; I propose now to turn to the financial arrangements. The details of the new financial arrangements will, of course, be prescribed by regulation, but what I want to touch on now are the principles that underlie these arrangements.

At the core of the financial questions is the problem of striking a balance between the relative contributions of the local and provincial governments and the users. This balance revolves around two basic issues. The first is the relation between the size of the deficit and the amount of passenger revenue. The second is the financing of the deficit, in particular the contribution of locally raised taxes. The provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that a balance i maintained between passenger revenue and the transit

[ Page 2208 ]

deficit. In striking and maintaining this balance, two points are of fundamental importance. The first concerns the social objectives of transit and the need to provide reduced fares for groups such as children, students and senior citizens. The second concerns local control of the balance between the transit deficit and revenue.

The question of reduced fares is extremely important, but at the present time there is no consistent policy in this area. For example, sir, in the core area of the capital region, 15-cent fares and six-month passes are available to senior citizens. But in other areas of the capital region - that is in the western community of Colwood, Langford and View Royal, and the Saanich Peninsula - senior citizens pay the full adult fare. The new financial arrangements will provide for a consistent and comprehensive programme of reduced fares for those groups of our citizenry who are entitled to it.

The balance between transit revenue and costs can be expressed as a revenue target, which prescribes the share of total annual costs to be raised from passenger revenue. Fares can be adjusted from time to time to ensure that a revenue target is achieved. To ensure local flexibility, local governments will have an opportunity to set fares to achieve higher or lower revenue targets than those prescribed in the regulations. All revenue in excess of the prescribed amount will be used to reduce the municipal share. Un the other hand, revenue shortfalls will have to be made up by the local government. This approach to revenue targets, we think, will accomplish two objectives: first, create an incentive for municipalities to ensure that revenue keeps pace with transit expenditure; secondly, introduce local control and accountability into the setting of fares.

(Mr. Speaker in the chair.)

This brings me to the second major financial issue, the question of local cost-sharing and revenue sources. Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer pays the cost of the transit deficit one way or another. What this bill does is ensure that all taxpayers are treated more fairly and that they have more control over the amount and the use of taxes raised for transit.

The legislation provides for two new revenue sources to supplement, if necessary, the role of property tax in financing the local share of transit. The new revenue sources are a power surcharge and a gasoline tax. However, we expect that these new revenue sources will be used only in the lower mainland and the capital region. In all other areas all our projections suggest that the local share of the transit deficit can be financed entirely from the property tax base, with only a modest levy of less than 2 mills, as is the case today by agreement with those local governments.

To avoid any confusion about the power surcharge, I want to clarify the differences between it and the present system. There are two differences between the present financing of transit losses by electricity sales and the type of surcharge authorized in this bill. First, whereas at present all consumers of electricity pay for transit losses, the proposed arrangement will restrict the surcharge to the particular transit service area which requests it. Secondly, whereas locally elected officials presently have no control over the surcharge on power sales, under the proposed arrangement a surcharge will be applied only at the request of locally elected representatives.

The legislation provides new revenue sources to help finance transit, but it also ensures that the sources can be used only at the discretion of elected officials who are fully accountable to the electorate for their actions.

In these introductory remarks, which have run longer, perhaps, than some members would wish, I stated that this bill represents a commitment on the part of the government of British Columbia not only to transit but to local governments' involvement with and participation in transit because of that link which is historic and vital. I've also spoken of the need to introduce common sense and an element of order into the organization and financing of transit in place of what some might call the chaos which has existed for a number of years.

In the final analysis, the success of the initiatives I have outlined will depend on the co-operation, the common sense and the judgement of the electorate at the local level. It's because of my confidence in the locally elected community government that I'm pleased to move, after a long, long time, second reading of Bill 19.

MR. BARBER: I rise as the designated speaker fur the official opposition.

When this bill was introduced, the press instantly asked comment of myself as opposition critic for transit. Indeed, one well-known member of the gallery was particularly annoyed when I instructed a colleague of mine to say nothing until we had studied the bill. In a rare aside to the press gallery - one of whose members is here today - may I tell you

[ Page 2209 ]

that the minister is perfectly correct about this bill. It is enormously complicated. The planning and the human, the governmental implications are very deep and very elaborate. I think it is important for the House to realize that there are such bills, when it is appropriate, and this is one of them.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps I should remind the hon. member that there is no press gallery in this House.

MR. BARBER: Of course; we all know that. Some days we even wish it, don't we? But not today.

I just wanted to say that the minister is perfectly correct about the complexity of this bill. Even though sometimes this House is attacked by the press gallery that isn't here for being too quick and too knee-jerkily responsive, I think even more often it's appropriate that every member of the opposition take some time to study a bill as elaborate as this one. That's what we have done. And that's why I just want to say to the press that isn't here that we respect your endless criticism that we are too fast off the cuff with response. We hope, in turn, you will respect our need to take some time to study a bill such as this one of great complexity and detail. If, accordingly, we can't make your 30-second voice clips or your deadlines for the Vancouver Province, maybe sometimes you should have patience with that if you want the kind of detailed analysis that we propose to present now.

There are some admirable features to this bill. If only those admirable features were brought to life in a supportable form, we would be voting for Bill 19, at least in the official opposition.

The first admirable feature is that at last, and significantly, we have created a separate Crown corporation to govern, to plan and to finance transit in British Columbia. It's long overdue. We support it. It's a valuable step forward. In bringing home transit planning and finance under one roof in this province, we establish a Crown corporation to do so. The official opposition supports that.

Secondly, we also support the removal of all transit functions from British Columbia Hydro. We have never understood any logical or plausible or intelligent reason whereby a system which is fundamentally charged with the generation and distribution of electrical power - and later on of natural gas in this province - should also for some reason or another be responsible for transit. There is no logical connection at all. The fact that this bill separates that from Hydro - save, perhaps, temporarily as an operating authority -is a fact that would suggest the bill could be supported.

Thirdly, the bill also argues in favour of the concept of what it describes as "custom transit services" for what we presume to be elderly and handicapped persons and for public school students and so on. This third feature is also admirable, and by itself we support it. This suggests that there is a kind of social cost accounting to which we must also turn our minds, as well as to that fiscal cost accounting more ordinarily represented in bills of this sort. The kind of social value as well as fiscal value that has to be placed on transit is implied in the opening sections of the bill, which describe in concept the custom transit services.

So for those three reasons, the establishment of a separate Crown corporation, the removal from Hydro - that's transit planning and later transit operating functions - and the concept of custom transit services, one could ordinarily support this bill.

However, what concerns us is the way in which these principles are brought to life. What concerns us most of all is the fact that this government of car dealers is proposing to create four new taxes to subsidize transit at the local level and remove the greater burden from the province at the provincial level. What concerns us is that this car dealer cabinet should propose to add to the property tax burden, significantly and dangerously, a burden that is already too significant and too great in this province.

It amazes and amuses us both that the car dealer cabinet should propose to add to the property tax burden in this last couple of weeks. You would think that they might have paid some attention to the cultural, and later the political, significance of Proposition 13 in California. You would think that a government would have been thoughtful enough to anticipate.... The fact that the week they bring down the urban transit bill with four new taxes, one of them on property, in the same week that the property taxes are going out in municipalities across British Columbia might be considered, to say the least, somewhat bizarre timing. But no, they blundered ahead. No, they did it anyway. No, without regard to the inevitable popular outcry, they brought down a bill that creates four new taxes, one of them an additional levy on property in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. So, to say the least, the political judgment, as well as the planning judgment, of the coalition is suspect.

[ Page 2210 ]

The bill itself, apart from creating four new taxes and burdening the local taxpayer with them, apart from reducing provincial responsibility for transit - because that's the inevitable result when you create four new local taxes - the bill itself raises a number of questions, and I hope the deputy minister might take note of them.

As the Speaker is aware, during committee we often raise questions that cannot be answered right away because the government has had no advance notice of them, and that's fair enough. Often they're questions of such detail and complexity that you have to do a bit of homework. So what I propose now is to ask some questions which we think are important, and which, in the time elapsed between this debate today and committee stage in the future, the government might be able to find answers to. Therefore we would question on the following grounds - not pro or con, but merely question - certain aspects of the bill that we find at the moment vague and unclear.

We would question the apparent double standard that is applied to municipalities and regional districts regarding their responsibility for transit functions in particular, and that's in sections 8 (2) and 8 (5) . As part of that question, particularly we emphasize as a point of philosophy the apparent decision the government has taken to allow municipalities to enter voluntarily into transit service agreements, but not allow regional districts the same choice, because section 8 (2) makes it very clear that municipalities have the freedom of choice but regional districts do not. We don't understand why that is the case. There may be a reason. If so, we should like to know what it is. In the absence of a case made for it, this appears to be an unfair double standard applied to regional districts and municipalities, each of which may have particular interest in transit.

There is another question raised in section 5 (5) , and that's about Hydro pension funds. We question how and whether these Hydro pension funds for its transit service employees, now invested, will be transferred to the Urban Transit Authority or the subsequent operating company, as we find no answer to this in the Act. Now I am informed that pension funds for transit employees are largely invested in Hydro bonds themselves. This is a reasonable practice and occurs all the time, and we don't object to it. Our problem is that we cannot find provision in this bill, at the time of the establishment of what's called the new operating company in the minister's remarks, for removal of those pension funds or, in some sense, their redirection to value of employees in the new operating company. This concerns them and it concerns us. It may well be, comparably during the last election campaign when the issue was raised concerning the B.C. Tel investments, that you can't remove them, that they are, by virtue of bonds, which means contracts, committed to Hydro for a fixed period of time and therefore cannot be removed or transferred.

So on behalf of the - if I recall it properly - 3,600 employees involved in transit operations, we'd like to know during committee, if it cannot be answered today in the minister's windup remarks, what happens to the Hydro pension funds.

A fourth question that we have which could be answered today or in committee is why, in the judgment of the government, the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act should not apply to the authority itself or to the subsequent operating company. We don't understand the advantage that government might find, if any, in excluding its employees in the planning section. UTA is anticipated at 40, 60, 75 at most, and the operating employees in the UTA controlled company will, we expect, be excluded from the value and the benefits of the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act. If there is a case, we would like to hear it. At the moment they are simply excluded. We haven't heard any case in favour of that and therefore must question it.

Fifthly, there is another point of philosophy that concerns us as well. We ask whether or not the authority will be able to obtain development rights and benefits from land it acquires - which it has the power to do - particularly around LRT depot sites. I refer the minister to section 8. In my understanding of it, it's been the experience of other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States involved in transit that one of the great rights and benefits their equivalent of our now proposed UTA shall acquire is that ability to take benefit from the development that inevitably accrues around depot sites, around pickup sites, around - in the case of San Francisco Bay area, with which I am somewhat familiar - BART sites, BART depots. The bill makes no provision for allowing the authority itself to take benefit or to hold development rights from the inevitably increased land values that will result when, say, LRT depots are planned and built from place to place. We believe on this side of the House that public planning authorities have the right to take benefit from the public plans for which they are responsible. This may mean, in literal fact, accrued and increased value of land that

[ Page 2211 ]

it owns or controls along rights of way or around depots. This concerns us as well, and it's an important: planning principle implicit in the operations of the UTA, implicit in the nature of the bill.

Every time you sit forward, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you are going to try and call me to order, or if it's just a bad back. I think you will find this is all in order.

Now there's a sixth question that is of some concern to us. We ask whether or not municipalities may tax provincially owned land for transit purposes. The Act, to say the least, is unclear on this - I refer you to section 11 (2) . What we want to know is whether or not the new land tax, the anticipated 2-mill levy that the minister mentioned in his speech, may be applied to provincially owned land. There's some question about whether or not it should. It may be redundant, in fact. It may be an unnecessary duplication for a municipality to tax a province on land, which in turn reduces its grant to the municipality for transit purposes by what could be an identical amount to that land tax. The question is not answered at all by the bill. Indeed, the somewhat obscure section 11 (2) seems to suggest that provincially owned land will be exempt from the new property tax created for the subsidy of transit at the local level. So we ask what the government's intentions are here. It may be that I have misread it; but I gave it to two of our lawyers and they didn't read it any more clearly than we did. Perhaps your lawyer knows it a little more. Larry might know about it.

We have another question. As we read it, it is an apparent fact that B.C. Hydro will be able to keep the interest on electricity and natural gas surcharges payable to the municipalities under section 12 (2) . Now the section at present simply requires Hydro to make payments on specified occasions to municipalities, which are equivalent to the special natural gas and hydro taxes that are being created for transit subsidy purposes. Section 12 (2) does not require Hydro to pay interest on the money which it may accumulate from time to time and hold in the bank. It seems to us that Hydro should be obligated not just to pay the money - if this is the system the government wishes to impose - but rather the interest as well as the principal. The amount will be considerable. It will be in the tens and hundreds of thousands over a period of years, according to a very simple calculation that our research staff made. We ask simply what the government's intention is here.

There's another question, not addressed by the bill nor the minister in his opening remarks, which is, again, one of considerable principle. It's the possibility - and it was raised in the Crown corporations reporting committee - that Hydro does intend and will sell its buses for an estimated $25 million -that was the amount that they were claimed to be worth in the Crown corporations reporting committee Hansard minutes - to the new operating company which the minister anticipates will eventually be established under section 8 (1) .

There's a major philosophic problem here again, and it's this. Why should the people have to pay twice for their own buses? Hydro rolling stock is estimated at book value to be worth some $105 million today, they tell us. The value that they want for their buses, they tell us, is $25 million. That's Mr. Olsen's testimony to the Crown corporations committee. Hydro apparently wants $25 million for its buses or, at least, thinks that they are worth $25 million. That may or may not be the case. I'm not competent to judge the valuation of those assets. But we are concerned that the people may end up having to pay twice for their own buses, if this government decides to allow transit in the form of Hydro to charge them to transit in the form of UTA. So we would like a policy statement from the minister. Will you compel Hydro to transfer its buses to the new operating company at $1 value, at face value, at replacement value or what? Hydro's only figure so far is $25 million, that they appear to want for the buses. The minister has made a reasonable case about double taxation as it applies to people in the north. That's fair. Why should you pay twice through your Hydro bills for a transit service you don't actually enjoy? Similarly, we would argue: why should you pay twice for buses you've already bought? So we would like a commitment from the minister on behalf of the government that Hydro will not charge us for the buses that we've already paid for and that they will be awarded for, say, $1 to the new operating company that will result from UTA. If not, we then have to ask something about the government's intentions.

There is a precedent for such a move, and the precedent for this kind of double billing is found in the operations of the government itself. The Speaker will recall that already the people of British Columbia have had to pay twice for something they own. I refer, of course, to the notorious ferry leaseback. agreement. Already this government has made us pay twice for the ferries. We bought them. We paid cold, hard cash. And, by the way, the three ones in question were built in British Columbia by an enlightened administration; Mr.

[ Page 2212 ]

Barrett compelled it to do so. Now the government has sold those ferries to back-east interests and is making us pay for them a second time via a leaseback. It is a notorious arrangement that has been discredited across the province. We hope that the same arrangement won't apply to B.C. Hydro buses. We should not have paid twice for our own ferries. We will not pay twice for our own buses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's not a subject for debate under this bill.

MR. BARBER: The ferries? I quite agree. But as a point of precedent that illustrates something or another about this government's practices, we think it's a legitimate question to raise. They've already done it with the ferries and they might try and do it with the buses.

Now those are the questions that we put to the government which they may care to answer today or in committee. There are, however, a number of points of argument that I want to raise.

As a matter of principle, the official opposition rejects completely the creation of four new local taxes to finance transit in British Columbia. These taxes are created in sections 11, 12 and 14 of the Act. In particular, we reject the fare increases that will inevitably result when local government attempts to reduce the burden imposed on it by Social Credit in the form of these four new taxes.

Let me illustrate, if I may, the problem faced by local government. What alderman in his right mind would campaign this November on a platform of: "Vote for me and I will increase your property taxes, I will increase the charge at the pump, I will increase your electricity bill and I will increase your natural gas bill in order to subsidize transit. Vote for me and I will impose on you four new taxes. If only I get elected, I'll do that first thing."? No person responsible for local government will be in the least comfortable with accepting the burden that Social Credit wants to put on it of raising the subsidy for local transit by four new local taxes.

In fact, the opposite will occur. Local government will make every effort they can to reduce the local tax burden for transit. How will they do that? Very simply. They will do it by reducing service, they will do it by increasing fares and they will do it by ensuring that no new services are introduced. Again, in the aftermath of proposition 13, you can reasonably ask what local politician in his right mind is going to propose increasing property taxes for transit or any other purposes?

One of the problems with this bill is that the government compels municipalities. It doesn't empower them; it compels them to raise property taxes in order to subsidize transit. It's an extremely grave matter of public policy that would see four new local taxes created to subsidize transit. It is our position that the major burden of transit financing in the province should be provincial, period, pure and simple. The lesser burden should be local.

The reason for that is that indeed everyone pays, but by virtue of some taxes, some people pay more fairly and equitably than others. Everyone in this House knows that some taxes are by definition more equitable in nature and more fair in application than others. What we propose is that the most fair and the most equitable taxes are those that should be applied to transit, because transit serves more than just a local purpose. Transit has a broader function. It serves the purpose of binding the province. It serves the purpose of allowing the province to move goods and to move people around its great metropolitan areas at the lowest possible charge for the greatest possible good. Transit serves provincial as well as local policy 'needs. It's the judgment of the official opposition that correspondingly that means the greater burden of transit costs should be borne provincially and not locally, because that's where the greater burden of revenues is raised and that's where the more fairly raised taxes can be applied.

I have argued before in other estimates that there are some inequitable features to the property tax, per se. I have personally not been persuaded by anything the government says that the property tax should be the major generator of revenue for transit subsidy purposes. Especially today, after proposition 13, who would try and make such a statement? We think there are other, more fairly generated, more broadly applied taxes that should bear the greater burden for transit subsidy.

We reject this bill on a third ground. It does, in fact, no matter what the minister says, represent a retreat by Social Credit away from responsibility for transit financing in this province. If that were not the case, this bill would not contain certain key provisions that I'll be arguing about in a minute. If that were not the case, then this cabinet has no car dealers at all in it, and we and the press have been wrong for lo these many years.

The point is: it represents a cutback and a withdrawal of provincial responsibility for financing transit. If that were not the case,

[ Page 2213 ]

we would not see four new taxes at the local level created to finance it. If it was the intention of the coalition to finance transit in a generous and a thoughtful way, they would not create four new taxes at the local level in order to do so. They would reassign revenues provincially in order to do so. It should be no surprise that a car-dealer cabinet would take this particular approach to transit, and no one who voted for them should be surprised either.

We reject in particular the poor service and reduced routes that will result when local government attempts to reduce the burden imposed on it by Social Credit. And we reject broadly the refusal of the current government to accept major responsibility for financing transit in British Columbia out of provincial revenues. It's a philosophic dispute; we disagree. And the minister, in his usual way, will stand up at the end and say: "We disagree, and that's fair." That's his usual line and it is indeed fair. But we'll stand on it; we will, in fact, campaign on it, I promise you. We will go to the people with a simple argument, and it is this: the major burden of financing transit should not come out of the property tax or from new local taxes at all. Transit serves provincial policy needs; transit should be paid for, to the greatest burden, by the province itself.

Now we reject, in particular, section 11, which makes it compulsory for municipalities to subsidize transit by raising property taxes. Section 11 is not permissive, Mr. Speaker, and, if you'll permit just for a moment, I'm going to refer to it, because it's most unusual language. It is headed "Fund Raising by Municipal Tax Levies" and reads:

"Where a municipality enters into an operating agreement and is required under section 10"- that's the section regulating sharing of cost - "to contribute a prescribed portion of the annual operating deficit of operating a public passenger transportation system, the municipality shall impose a rate sufficient by taxing taxable land improvements in the transit area...." et cetera.

Section 11 - we'll debate it in committee -makes it obligatory on a municipality to raise the property tax for the purpose of subsidizing transit. In British Columbia at present that is largely the case in the 14 nonmetropolitan areas served by transit and, indeed, the difference for those people in this section will not be considerable; they're already doing it that way more or less, with the exception of capital costs - and I'll get to that in a minute. The greatest new burden on the property tax will be felt in Greater Vancouver and Greater Victoria, a burden that never previously was on their property, will now be, and the municipality has no choice in the matter at all. Section 11 makes the coalition's intentions clear - it is obligatory. We reject the compulsory, heavy-handed attitude and the provision in this bill that makes municipalities have no freedom at all in determining how to subsidize transit.

Section 18 we reject as well, and that creates what to us is a clumsy and costly corporate structure in the form of the UTA. The minister said he thought it was simple and clear, he thought it was straightforward. Well, perhaps by Social Credit standards it is - given their obsession with committees and bureaucracy and red tape. To us it isn't clear and simple at all. The new operating authority and the new commissions are, from our point of view, simply clumsy and costly, and they will prove - what we anticipate and predict then to be - unworkable in a great many areas and the subject of endless revision in the future.

There is another peculiar provision in the bill, that's got much to do with the nature of it, that we don't understand. Section 10 (3) requires local government to finance the urban transit authority itself. Now this is a provision that we are not able to find applies to any other Crown corporation in the province. Ordinarily you'd think, Mr. Speaker, that when a province wants to establish a Crown corporation to do such and such a job, it will have that corporation paid for by the province that wants it, or in some fashion by the users of the service to be provided. This government is taking a most unusual attitude - they compel local government to pay for the whole opera ting cost of the authority, the Crown corporation which they themselves have created. It's a very unusual provision; to the best of my knowledge, it does not apply to B.C. Rail or B.C. Hydro or to any of those Crown corporations at all. Why it should apply to UTA is a little beyond us. As far as we're concerned, it simply represents one more attempt by this government to abandon its responsibility for transit financing in British Columbia.

There is another provision that we reject. Section 10 (2) is a bit of a cover-up, Mr. Speaker. It was a cover-up that was overlooked by local government leaders when they came down here on the Friday morning that the minister presented Me bill to them; but it's. a cover-up that they've become aware of since. Section 10 (2) makes it clear that the annual operating deficit provisions will include capital cost as well as operating cost. Local government in the 14 areas of the province

[ Page 2214 ]

outside Greater Vancouver and Greater Victoria, that presently enjoy transit, presently enjoy an arrangement established by the New Democratic Party. And that arrangement was this: the provincial government would pay for - and did pay for - 100 per cent of the capital costs of those systems. Under the new arrangement those 14 areas are going to be the poorer for it, because they now discover in section 10 (2) that not only do they have to pay operating losses, but they have to pay capital costs as well. The section makes it very clear that the inclusion of capital cost amortization shall be part of the operating deficit provisions of this bill. It means that what they got before at no direct charge for capital they will now have to pay for under the rules and the cover of operating deficit provisions.

We believe that, the two charges - capital and operating - should be entirely separate and entirely clear, and we think that the kind of financing provided for in 10 (2) is, to say the least, more than a little designed to obscure the problem, more than a little designed to confuse the taxpayers in the 14 so-called rural areas of the province that have transit as to what the real costs will be. Not only for Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver is this bill a loser; it's also a loser for the 14 areas that used to have capital provided gratis from the provincial treasury and how have to pick up quite a bit them elves.

There is another philosophical element in this bill which we reject. That is the awesome and arbitrary power of the minister and cabinet to appoint itself all 15 members of the local transit commissions and all eight members of the authority. In particular, we oppose what is in fact the lack of accountability for transit planning as the UTA would have it - the lack of accountability to their councils of the 15 local commissioners and the eight authority members appointed not by the councils but by the minister and cabinet.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister tried to pull a bit of wool over our eyes. In his opening remarks he tried to tell us that the provision that the three regional commissions and the UTA itself be composed of elected persons means accountability. It does not at all.

The problem with this bill and the reason we oppose its lack of accountability is simply this; those local governments do not get to choose who shall represent them on the three commissions or on the UTA. The minister won't deny it. He said so himself. They don't get to name their representatives. Their representatives are, therefore, not accountable to them at all, because they weren't chosen by them. They are chosen by the minister from his list of friends, no doubt. They are chosen by the minister and not by the councils. How can the minister, with a straight face, pretend that that's accountability? He can't at all.

As it happens, they will be members of local council. The minister believes that that implicit accountability is adequate. We don't believe that is implicit or adequate enough at all. If the minister believed in genuine accountability, he would allow the councils them elves to nominate their own persons to the three regional authorities and to the UTA, but he won't. He's going to choose them all by himself, courtesy of his power in cabinet to do so. Therefore what happens is that there is no genuine accountability at all. There's only the kind of fake accountability that results when the minister gets to choose from his own long list the short list of his guys on council who will sit on his creation, the three local commissions and the Urban Transit Authority.

There is no requirement anywhere in this bill for consultation between local government and the province concerning appointments to the authority and the local commissions. There's none at all. We reject that provision. Every time the minister tell us there is real accountability we will remind him of the fact that under this Act no council has the power to appoint its own people or even to recommend them. The minister has all the power. The minister makes all the recommendations and he acts on his own advice.

We reject, as well, the arbitrary and meddling power of the minister and cabinet to appoint the general manager of the authority, as provided for in section 5 (1) . Surely this appointment of the general manager, who is the chief operating officer of the UTA and later, presumably, of the operating company, should be the prerogative of the authority itself. What business is it of the government whom the authority has as its general manager - to meddle in this? We don't understand. They didn't make a case for it. As far as we are concerned, we see no good case made for the meddling by the government in the appointment of the general manager. Surely that should be the prerogative of the authority itself.

There is a particularly offensive section to this bill which betrays every Socred intention behind it. Under this Act the minister has the authority to order a binding transit agreement on municipalities and regional districts. When a municipality says, "No, we can't afford what you want us to do, " he has the power to order them to do it anyway.

[ Page 2215 ]

Why might they want that power? To answer that question you have to ask why a municipality would refuse to enter into an agreement. That question answers itself. The reason they would refuse is because they would decide that they cannot afford Socred-style transit. They would refuse because they might well decide that they don't want to impose four new taxes on their taxpayers. They might reject such an agreement because they would decline to campaign on the slogan: "Vote for me, and I'll give you transit, courtesy of four new taxes imposed on you." No prudent, cautious or reasonable council will go along with that kind of scheme. The minister knows it. The reason he knows it is because we see reflected in this bill the additional power to compel a municipality to accept an agreement that a prudent municipality might wisely reject. The reason they have this tyrannical power to impose a binding agreement is that they may discover that a cautious and prudent municipality would reject it.

Once again we see that Social Credit is attempting to relieve itself of the burden for financing transit in this province, and attempting instead to impose it on the shoulders of local government. Once again we see them protecting themselves by sections 5 (3) and 5 (5) , which allow them to impose an agreement if a local government should otherwise reject it. A prudent municipality may refuse Socred-style transit and may refuse to impose four new levies in order to pay for it. Under this bill, they have no choice but to do so. As you think it through logically, the only reason for this binding provision is that a municipality might refuse to pay, and the only reason they will refuse to pay is that Social Credit wants them to pay too much.

There is another provision in this bill that offends us. It is the decision of the province, as reflected in section 8 (l) (g) , to pay only 50 per cent of local research and demonstration costs. That's only 50 per cent in order to test new ideas, to try new planning, and to develop and see whether or not those forms of advanced technology that may or may not be appropriate actually work. The decision of the province to pay only 50 per cent of these local costs means the effective stifling of any such local demonstration project, because no one could afford it. Even the city of Vancouver could not afford to pay for a significant new demonstration project under the provisions of this bill', because the province will now only-pick up half of it. As an aside, because the minister has so far refused to announce the province's share in these matters, the 50 per cent figure in this section probably anticipates the level of financing that Social Credit will pick up for all operating costs in the province, and I'll get to that in a moment.

There is another aspect of the bill which we also reject. It is the unheard of provision in a Grown corporation charter that would allow proxy voting; section 4 (6) allows proxy voting. Can any member tell me of any other Crown corporation charter that allows that? Well, we looked at a few, and we couldn't find them. A Crown corporation is a delicate, sensitive instrument. It is supposed to reflect policy; it is supposed to make policy and be accountable for it. It is not like any other private institution that may, for its own reasons from time to time, especially in shareholders' fights, allow proxy votes.

A Crown corporation has a very different function. Section 4 (6) allows by telegraphy and other means the casting of a vote, if that person who would otherwise cast it could not be present. We object to that very much, and to the whole idea that proxy voting is an appropriate means of registering an opinion within the operations of Crown corporations. In any case this is a potential abuse of power within the authority, and the government has provided no justification whatever for this unusual feature. If there is a justification, let's hear it. If there isn't, this would appear to be simply a bureaucratic convenience that could not and should not be justified in the composition of a democratically chosen -through this Legislature - new Crown corporation. The minister wrinkles his brow and pulls out his few remaining hairs. The minister should know this is proxy voting, no matter how you name it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's absolute nonsense. You're completely mistaken.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'd like to hear your legal opinion, because ours made it very clear that votes will be exercised by telegraphy or mail or other means, presumably read out by the chairman for the purpose of so doing. That's proxy voting. There are other forms of proxy voting that you will rest your defence on. The form I'm referring to is the one you've created here. I'm not concerned about the other forms where one person casts one vote or more for someone else; I'm concerned about the kind of proxy voting you've created here.

Finally, we reject especially the total failure of the car-dealer cabinet to announce the share it will pick up of capital and operating costs. The government's wilful

[ Page 2216 ]

silence on this key issue is irresponsible and unnecessary.

Talking about financing in the bill, during the last campaign Social Credit did make a promise. They haven't kept a lot of their promises, but we think they're going to keep this one because its the cheapest promise they could have made in regard to transit. On December 8,1975, on the Jack Webster programme - we have a transcript of it - the then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier said that if they came into power they would finance transit on the following basis. As far as capital costs were concerned they would see the province picking up 75 per cent of the charge and the municipalities picking up 25 per cent. As far as operating costs were concerned, they would see a straight 50-50 split between the province and the municipalities. On the same programme the now Premier alleged that this was the system followed in Ontario.

That's all we have on the record. The government has been wilfully and deliberately silent on any other matter concerning financing to this date. The only statement they've made is the one made by the now Premier: 75-25 regarding capital and 50-50 regarding operating. So we're going to take them at their word. What I now propose to do is talk about the cost of transit, Socred style, if they intend to keep their promise.

In greater Vancouver and in greater Victoria in the next fiscal year the anticipated transit deficit is $74 million. We are informed by Hydro that roughly 77 per cent of that is a direct charge in the Vancouver operating area itself. The remainder is in Victoria. Now if we observe the Socred campaign promise made in 1975, 50 per cent of that loss, or $37 million, will now be borne by local government in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. At the same time the 14 existing transit system in other areas and all future systems will now have to pay, according to the Socred promise, 25 per cent of all capital costs, although they previously paid no capital costs. Additionally they will pay a likely 50 per cent of losses as they presently do.

Therefore we observe that in the 1978-1979 budget estimates of this government, municipal grants and revenue sharing total $179 million. We observe that commendably this is an increase of 27 per cent over last years figures. This is an increase of $38.3 million. But what a strange coincidence, you then go on to observe when you look at the two columns. You find in column A that they've increased revenue sharing by $38.3 million. You find in column B that the new burden for transit in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver alone will be $37 million. The figures are almost identical. By an unusual coincidence, the $38 million that will be added to revenue sharing is almost equal to the $37 million that will be charged for transit sharing in Vancouver and Victoria alone. So we see that what the Socreds give with the hand called revenue sharing they take back with the hand called transit sharing.

However, the burden is worse on the local taxpayer when you look at it from another point of view - and that concerns us as well about this bill - and that is the nature of the property tax and its applicability to the financing of transit. Making the burden on the homeowner worse under Socred-style transit, however, is the fact that the cost of education paid by property has increased 78 per cent since the coalition came to power in later 1975. This 78 per cent increase will not be offset in any significant way by revenue sharing. What we discover, therefore, is that very deliberately and very cynically the government has managed to add to revenue sharing what they are going to take back in transit sharing. The figures are almost identical -and that concerns us a very great deal as well.

We recognize that the homeowner is going to recognize when these four new taxes are applied. We recognize that Socred-style transit simply costs too much for the local homeowner, and again, it is perhaps no surprise that Bill 19 permits the province to impose a binding agreement that no prudent municipality would otherwise sign.

I want to talk about alternatives for a moment. The minister may and should thoroughly reply: "Right, you guys don't want to finance it our way. What's your way?" It's a reasonable counter-argument to ask: "Okay, if you don't like what we're doing and the four new taxes we've created to do it, what would you do instead?" So I'm going to offer to the minister five alternatives that are worth studying. I want to say at the outset that we do not endorse all of them or any of them in combination, because the minister has all of the detailed figures at his command and we don't. He's in government and we are not.

But from our experience in government and from my own look at transit financing elsewhere, these five alternatives are worth study by the government and they are worth study by the people of British Columbia. They are worth examination as potential alternatives to the four new taxes that will be imposed on the people of British Columbia under the new scheme called Socred transit. These are options worth studying by this House and

[ Page 2217 ]

by the people. We believe they would result in better and more fairly apportioned taxation for transit than do the four new taxes imposed by Social Credit under this bill.

The first alternative worth study is the gas tax. But the gas tax is applied in a different fashion. We think that consideration should be given to diversion of part of the gas tax at its present level to a provincial transit fund. I will go on about that in a moment.

Under the bill and under the Socred-style transit it represents, we may end up seeing the city of Vancouver - because it may do so under the Act - charge an extra 3 cents a gallon, say, for transit purposes. We may also see the city of West Vancouver charge, say, half a cent a gallon for their transit. As this House will know, they are presently on two different systems. West Vancouver is one of the 14 nonmember systems. Vancouver city is part of Hydro.

Let me reiterate for a moment. Vancouver, under this bill, could charge 3 cents a gallon at the pump for its transit. West Vancouver may decide to charge only half a cent. What would happen, of course, is that many motorists on the North Shore would fill up on the North Shore at the half-cent rate. They would come into Vancouver and they would turn this Socred proposal into an unworkable joke. The minister may reply that a transit service area and corresponding transit service agreement would prevent this. Well, unfortunately the bill does not prevent it. Only the agreement does and we only have the minister's word for it.

The bill permits the situation to occur that I have just described. Vancouver may charge an extra 3 cents at the pump; West Vancouver, say, half a cent. The situation would become unworkable. It would become a joke and it would defeat a considerable portion of the financing that the government intends. On this side of the House, as an alternative, we believe that the gas tax should be uniform &cross the province. It, should provide transit benefits from automobile charges, thus the creation of a provincial transit fund from the gas tax to allow that.

The second major alternative is simply that whole field of provincial revenue. Just as British Columbia Rail is itself considerably subsidized by general revenue, so should transit be. No one in their right mind would think of charging residents along the B.C. Rail line the whole cost of subsidy of that rail, or even half the cost. Reduction of provincial transit subsidies would be equally senseless. Tying of provincial transit charges on such a basis would be equally ridiculous. We, on this side of the House, view B.C. Rail as an asset for all of the people. We expect that all of the people should participate in its subsidy. Similarly, just as even Mr. Omineca, backward as he may be, wouldn't want B.C. Rail citizens along those rights of way charged for B.C. Rail losses, so too do we think transit should be generally financed out of provincial revenues.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt just long enough to say that perhaps accusations of a personal nature may best be avoided in the debate?

MR. BARBER: It wasn't personal. Let us say that he is simply not forward. I'm reminded of a joke of another member of that cabinet in walking certain creatures backward, but I won't bring that up.

What we observe as a matter of policy is that a return to succession duties and better revenues from coal and other natural resources could, in fact, provide the basis of more general and more generous provincial support for transit. So the second alternative that we believe should be examined is that of simply increasing by provincial revenue the provincial share of transit.

Thirdly, electricity sales. We believe that studies should be made of adopting the Ontario system whereby a municipality can purchase electricity from Ontario Hydro at block rates, or what we might call industrial rates and, in turn, retail that power to its citizens and use the profits thereby to help subsidize local transit. In British Columbia today there is precedent for doing just this. In British Columbia today the city of New Westminster operates this kind of agreement with B.C. Hydro. It buys electricity from Hydro; it re tails that electricity to its own citizens in that area.

There is another precedent. In the interior of this province the towns of Grand Forks, Princeton and Kelowna buy electricity from West Kootenay Power and Light. In turn, they retail that electricity to their citizens. Their rates in Grand Forks, Princeton and Kelowna are among the very lowest in the province. We believe that such a retailing system for electricity would not only help subsidize transit, but it has the additional benefit of reducing the size of B.C. Hydro itself. We think the Ontario system is worth studying. There is precedent. It is successful both here and in Ontario. It's worth a look.

The minister argued earlier that Hydro right now creates a kind of hidden tax to all those Hydro users in the province who don't enjoy

[ Page 2218 ]

Hydro transit. That's perfectly correct. But what the minister failed to promise, because a he cannot promise it, is that when transit is financed Socred style, Hydro rates will go down. The truth is, of course, that Hydro will not go down and all of those Socred backbenchers who yammer about unfair taxing are going to have to stand up in their own ridings; and answer the question that will be posed at the next all-candidates meetings: did the Hydro rates go down because of the new financing? Of course not. Did rent on apartments go down when Socred-style assessments reduced the taxation to be paid by apartment owners this year? Of course not. The renters got no benefit and the electricity users in the other parts of the province will get no benefit either. The minister did not promise that Hydro rates would go down, because he knows they won't, and whatever you think you're getting out of this you will discover you are not getting at all.

There is a fourth alternative that should be examined: the B.C. Hydro rail system. At the moment Bill 19 does not mention B.C. Hydro's rail organization at all. This rail line is reputed to be, mile by mile, the most profitable rail line in North America. Originally the interurban line to which the minister alluded in his opening remarks, it now stretches some 100 miles around Vancouver and into the valley up as far as, I believe, the Speaker's own riding in Chilliwack. B.C. Hydro's rail line today carries freight only. Last year it made a profit, according to Mr. Bonner, of $1.5 million.

We would argue on this side of the House that Hydro's rail systems and profits could be taken over by the Urban Transit Authority. Having been taken over, it would serve the twin purpose of further reducing the local tax burden, because Hydro's rail service makes a profit, and it would reduce Hydro's vast size.

We see no argument presented by the minister as to why B.C. Hydro rail should remain the property of B.C. Hydro. The rights-of-way, the rail lines and the operating equipment presently used by Hydro's rail service could and should be turned over at least in part to the Urban Transit Authority for transit purposes. The profits and the control of B.C. Hydro's rail system could and should be turned over as well.

The fifth and final alternative that we believe is worth study is the formula that our government introduced during its term in office. I want to say at the outset that when we return to government we may well discover that this formula is not, by that time, wholly adequate - which is to say a year or two from now. When we return to office we may find that it will be necessary to support transit in a slightly different fashion, but I think it is important to go on record - because we're proud of it - as noting the financing formula established by the New Democratic Party for transit when they were in office.

In 1974-75 the New Democrat Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer proposed the following financing formula to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the Capital Regional District and interested small communities across the province. At that time the New Democratic Party government agreed to pay for transit on the following basis.

Firstly, the government agreed to pay 100 per cent of all capital costs in the province including, in greater Vancouver, all LRT costs.

Secondly, the New Democratic Party government agreed to pay 50 per cent of the straight operating deficit. Let me remind the House that: that's not Socred style operating deficit which also includes capital, except the bill isn't straightforward enough to admit so. That's simply 50 per cent of the operating deficit, period.

Thirdly, the NDP government agreed to pick up 100 per cent of the operating deficit in excess of 2 mills to be raised from the school levy. So there was a ceiling as well on the amount that would have to be borne by the local taxpayer. Any more than 2 mills on the school levy meant that the province would pick up that additional amount as well.

During committee stage of this bill, we will be presenting detailed figures that demonstrate the cost of the New Democratic approach as compared to the cost of the Socred approach to transit financing. But I think it's very fair and very clear in conclusion that transit in this province never got a better deal than under the NDP government.

We argue as well that transit, under the Socred style of it, will mean a tougher and more burdensome deal for local taxpayers, especially in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver, but also as well in the 14 communities that may well continue to use transit and the others that may want it.

The local taxpayer, the local homeowner, simply cannot afford Socred-style transit in British Columbia and cannot afford the four new taxes being imposed to pay for it. We believe that the five alternatives I have outlined are worth study and are worthy options to be considered by the government and by the people as a whole in order to avoid an increased property tax that is too heavy already. Dumping more taxes on property makes no sense

[ Page 2219 ]

at all.

Further, we would conclude that Hydro has estimated - and we get it from their own notes in the Crown corporation committee - that from 1978 to 1982, it will require $142 million for new vehicles and equipment in its system . Under Bill 19, this cost becomes unaffordable at the local level. No municipality served by Hydro in Victoria or Vancouver could afford, as well as the operating burden, the $142 million for new equipment and replacement of old that Hydro proposes in the period of 19781982.

Bill 19, in our judgment, is a poor deal for the smaller communities served by transit. They will now pay capital costs they never paid before. It is a worse deal for greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. Their burden will be in the tens of millions. We need a guarantee of LRT financing by the province, if LRT is the way that the greater Vancouver regional district decides to go, and there is no such guarantee here.

There is no guarantee in any of the minister's remarks. There is no reason to believe that a car dealer cabinet is going to finance LRT. It's against their interest to do so, wouldn't you think, Mr. Speaker? People who make their money out of the private automobile, surely, are not interested in subsidizing public transport or, if they are, that's a switch.

We, on this side of the House, recommend stable fares for the first five years' operation of the new authority. In November, 1976, fares for transit Socred-style were increased 40 per cent on the Hydro system. Since November, 1976, we are informed that the system has lost 13 million passengers because of the fare increase. Hydro itself, explaining this loss, tells us that for every 10 per cent fare increase there is a subsequent 3 per cent loss of passengers.

In November, 1976, the Socreds jacked up the rates by 40 per cent and we see that since that time Hydro has lost 13 million passengers. Inevitably, if rates go up, if the fare box costs more - as it will under Socred transit - that will result in a further loss of passengers. To say the least, that's foolish.

We want to encourage passenger traffic. Fare increases only discourage it. Hydro knows it. The passengers have been lost. The minister knows it, and further fare increases would be even more detrimental to the transit system. We recommend stable fares for the first five years' operation of the new authority.

Further, we would urge that mini buses and feeder buses and all of that smaller equipment be introduced as soon as possible - within a year - to the metro systems. That would have the twin benefit again of reducing costs and improving efficiency in the system. It's something that transit must consider, especially in greater Vancouver and, as well, to my own knowledge, in greater Victoria.

We want to make some predictions as well. We predict quite simply that when four new taxes are imposed, when fares go up and service goes down, there will be a backlash of commuters against transit. This backlash will result in more pressure for freeways and roads and bridges and it will result in further destruction of city neighbourhoods. Opposed as we are to the top-heavy and unaccountable structure, opposed to the lack of social cost accounting implicit in this bill, opposed especially to four new taxes being thrust on the homeowner, and opposed to the obvious Socred desire to reduce provincial participation in transit, we cannot and shall not support Bill 19.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the city of Prince Rupert was incorporated in 1910. Sixty-five years later a New Democratic government brought good transit to that community. I believe that this legislation under this government could be sounding the death-knell for proper transit in that community.

The other day I phoned the mayor of Prince Rupert. I said, "Mr. Mayor, I'm a little concerned that this bill is going to add costs to the city that haven't been there before."

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Pete. That's right, Pete Lester.

He said: "Well, what makes you say that?"

I said: "Well, reading the bill, it looks to me like for the first time, we are now going to have to start paying money for capitalization. Tied into it, the city is going to have to pick up amortization costs, or a portion of them, for the capital costs and the amortization of those costs."

He said: "No, you're wrong. I was just in Victoria the other day and we met with the minister. He didn't mention that. If that were true, I'm sure the minister would have mentioned it."

I said: "Pete, are you sure that the minister didn't mention that?"

He said: "Absolutely positive. I just can't believe it. I can't believe that the bill would say something that important and the minister, calling people all over the province to Victoria to tell them about the bill, wouldn't mention one of the more fundamental aspects of the bill that's going to cost municipalities money."

[ Page 2220 ]

He didn't mention it, Mr. Speaker. But I'll tell you, we've got some pretty frightened people now looking at that bill. For the first time, with this new transit system that we have in Prince Rupert, the city of Prince Rupert is going to have to face paying a portion of those capital costs, something that hithertofore we didn't pay.

Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that this piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that the minister who brought it in really agrees with. Either he took this piece of legislation to his cabinet in a different form and was sent back time and time and time again by that car-dealer cabinet to bring in changes, either that's what's happened, or that minister's public life in the municipal office is a complete hoax.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that anyone should indicate that another hon. member's activities in public life at any time, past or present, should be deemed to be a hoax. I would ask that it be withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the offending word.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, 1 don't understand that. Either one of two things happened. I mean, he has not been insulted.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please withdraw?

MR. LEA: I will withdraw.

Now one of two things happened. Either his cabinet colleagues forced him to bring in legislation that is not compatible with the needs of people living in municipalities or that minister, all the years he was in municipal life.... What can you say? Was he a Liberal? Was he a Tory? Was he a Socred? Where are the principles? Where are the principles when a minister who has spent years and years in municipal politics would bring into this House a piece of legislation which is a sham directed at those municipalities? He's been doing that with legislation after legislation since this government has taken office.

He brings a piece of legislation into this House and says to the municipalities: "On the one hand, we're going to pretend that we're going to give you some autonomy. Mind you, we're going to maintain for ourselves the big stick. You're not going to have complete autonomy." How can you have partial autonomy? So what he has done is bring in legislation that brings in no autonomy. All the structure of this bill does is allow municipalities and representatives from those municipalities to be an advisory group. That's all they are. They don't make the final decision. And if you don't make the final decisions, all you are is an advisory group.

I think the second member for Victoria outlined pretty succinctly -that there is going to be no election of those people. They're all going to be appointed by the minister and by the government. They're going to be people who have been elected but not elected to that office. They're going to be appointed to that office. So we have an advisory group that is not elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sounds like the cabinet.

MR. LEA: Yes, an advisory group that is not elected to make decisions surrounding transit. That is something new. But that's the carrot that's been held out. Up until now, municipalities haven't had much say; they haven't even had much opportunity in a structured way to be an advisory group on transit. Now this bill is going to give them some advisory capacity, but the advisers are going to be people who have been politically appointed by a political cabinet. I imagine they'll make a very careful selection of the people they're going to appoint. So you can't really call that a democratic process of putting in place an advisory group. It's going to be a political appointment group appointed by the Social Credit government, appointing people who they would hope would meet their aims, not necessarily the aims of the community, but the aims of the Social Credit or coalition cabinet.

Mr. Lea moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, private bills: second reading of Bill 402.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ROYAL TRUST COMPANY

AIM ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 402.

Motion approved.

Bill 402, An Act Respecting the Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 2221 ]

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The house adjourned at 5:58 p.m.