[ Page 2455 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Presenting reports.

Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, 1978, interim report. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy–– 2455

Oral questions.

Youth workers for McLean housing project. Mr. Barnes –– 2455

Hauling of rock fill by Westcan Terminals. Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2456

Social Credit policy on the citizens' initiative. Mr. Gibson –– 2456

Maintenance proceedings on behalf of abandoned spouses. Ms. Brown –– 2456

Right-to-work campaign. Mr. Lauk –– 2457

Restraint of Greenpeace by injunction. Mrs. Jordan –– 2457

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 35) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 2459

Urban Transit Authority Act (Bill 19) Committee stage.

On section 2. On section 11.

Mr. Barber 2460 Mr. Barber –– 2481

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2460 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2481

On section 3. On section 12.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2460 Mr. Barber –– 2482

On section 3 as amended. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2483

Mr. Barber 2460 On section 14.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2461 Mr. Barber –– 2483

On section 4 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2484

Mr. Barber 2465 On section 15.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2466 Hr. Barber –– 2485

Mr. Lauk 2469 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2485

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2470 On section 18 as amended.

Mr. Barnes 2471 Mr. Barber –– 2486

On section 5. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2486

Mr. Barber 2471 On section 19.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2471 Mr. Barber –– 2486

On section 8 as amended. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2486

Mr. Barber 2473 on section 21.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2473 Mr. Barber –– 2487

On section 10. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2487

Mr. Barber 2477 Report stage –– 2487

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2478

Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 26) Committee stage.

On Section 1.

Mr. Barber i –– 2488

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2488

Report and third reading –– 2488

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 34) Committee stage.

On section 7. On section 9.

Mr. Barber 2488 Mr. Barber –– 2489

Hon. Mr. Curtis 2488 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2489

Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 17) Committee stage.

On section 1. Mr. Barber –– 2490

Mr. Barber 2490 Division on section 8 –– 2491

Division on Section 1 2490 Report and third reading –– 2491

On section 8.

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 34) Committee stage.

On section 9.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2491

Mr. Barber –– 2491

Report and third reading –– 2491

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

Committee stage.

On the amendment to section 2.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2492

Mr. Strongman –– 2492

On the amendment to section 3.

Mr. Macdonald –– 2492

On the amendment to section 6.

Mr. Nicolson –– 2492

Report and third reading –– 2492

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today from Bluff, New Zealand, is Mrs. Arnett, the mother of the press secretary to the Premier's office, John Arnett. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, touring the buildings at this moment is a group of elementary school students from Eagleview in Port Hardy. They are accompanied by their teacher, Miss McKimmon. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. KERSTER: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce to the House three very prominent gentlemen, one of whom wears several hats. An outstanding mayor in one of my communities, His Worship Jim Tonn, mayor of Coquitlam, wears another hat as chairman of the Parks Board with the Greater Vancouver Regional District. With His Worship today are Mr. Rick Hankin of the Parks Committee of the GVRD and Mr. Bill Lane, the Director of Regional Development. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. DAVIDSON: In the buildings today we have approximately 60 students from Burnsville Junior Secondary School in Delta with their teachers, Mr. Godwin and Mr. Moser. Mr. Moser is also an alderman with Delta. I would ask the House to bid them all a very warm welcome.

Presenting reports.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to table the interim report of the royal commission on electoral reform, 1978. The report, Mr. Speaker, was delivered to my office at 1:15 p.m. today by Judge Lawrence S. Eckardt, commissioner. I would ask that the pages deliver at the same time, if they will, a copy to the hon. Premier, a copy to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , a copy to the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , and a copy to the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens.) I would just like to inform the House, if I may, Mr. Speaker, that we have other copies being printed and I will have a copy for each member of the House, hopefully before the afternoon session is out.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the annual report for the year for the visionary, courageous, dynamic, progressive, action-oriented, helpful and aggressive Ministry of Economic Development.

Oral questions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if we could delay the question period for 10 minutes until the leaders of the opposition parties come in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, there have been several requests for the delay of question period. I have constantly resisted them and must do so today.

YOUTH WORKERS FOR

McLEAN PARK HOUSING PROJECT

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources. No doubt the minister is aware that the media reports have indicated social and economic difficulties in the McLean Park housing project, and I would like to ask the minister if he has now decided to fund the application for a Chinese youth worker and a native Indian youth worker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we have assigned four people specifically to the McLean project to assist with the difficulties that arose recently. However, I received a report on May 30 from staff in Vancouver on the hiring of a native or a Chinese youth worker and that decision was made, I believe, 10 days ago now that such a worker be hired.

MR. BARNES: I believe the original application was for one each - a Chinese, youth worker and a native Indian youth worker. As the minister is aware, the population in the area indicates a fairly significant number of each of these people. The problem which have been reported in the media haven't been too complimentary for the area. I don't want to elaborate on those, but obviously there is a need for persons indigenous to the area - a Chinese youth worker indigenous to the area and a native Indian person who can relate to that particular population. It's not the same. I'm wondering if the minister is suggesting that he is going to approve the Chinese youth worker but not the native Indian youth worker.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the report but certainly I think the recommendation was definitely for a Chinese youth worker, and that is the person who has been approved for hiring.

[ Page 2456 ]

MR. LAUK: My information is that a report is also before you that an Indian youth worker is just as important for the area. Has the minister received that information and has he made a decision with respect to an Indian youth worker?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have that information, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly seek it out if it's there.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the minister if he is simply ignoring the fact that the application specifically asks for two separate workers, and if the minister is now planning to carry out his earlier suggestion that perhaps the native Indian people would be returned to the reservation and therefore they would have no need for such a person in the McLean housing project.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in need of assistance for a variety of reasons, not only in Vancouver but in all areas of the province. As for the reference the hon. member just made now to someone having suggested that native Indians be shipped back or shipped out of Vancouver, let me assure the member that there is no such mention of any particular group being treated in that manner. I might answer by saying that if a social worker, as so of ten happens in Vancouver, finds that a young person is riot able to use the funds provided him wisely and continually to return for food vouchers and such things, I think that social worker has a responsibility to try and counsel that individual to return back to his or her community, wherever or whatever that may be.

MR. BARNES: On a final supplementary, I'm just wondering if the minister is suggesting that reports which have been recorded through the media, indicating that he did make statements that native Indian people would be returned to the reservations to help themselves, for their own benefit, are incorrect.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: 1 think perhaps that the question was asked as to whether native Indians might be treated similarly if provisions were made to assist them in outlying areas. I see no reason why they should be treated differently. If they are in fact in need of the assistance, it makes no difference whether they are native Indians, Dutch, or some other extraction. If they deserve the help, they'll get the help; and we'll provide the best help possible in that particular circumstance.

HAULING OF FILL BY WESTCAN TERMINALS

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The, member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . asked yesterday if I was aware that Western Terminals had been hauling rock fill Into, .-he north side of the causeway, and if so, either this was being done within the terms of the order-in-council which relates to that.

The company was in contact with the ministry. Approximately 200 cubic yards of rock mixed with soil have been brought into the area, but they are not in violation of the order, in that the material has not been dumped other than on their own private property.

SOCIAL CREDIT POLICY ON

THE CITIZENS' INITIATIVE

MR. GIBSON: Could I have the Premier's attention from the form chart he's studying for a moment? (Laughter.)

Yesterday I asked the Premier about the introduction of a citizens' initiative in British Columbia, and the Premier responded that it was a matter of policy. This citizens' initiative was a promise of the Social Credit Party prior to the election campaign in 1975. Will the Premier tell the House whether it is a matter of policy as to whether or not Social Credit keeps its election promises to the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The question suggests its own answer.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know the answer; but this promise hasn't been kept. This is a no-initiative government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is not admissible.

MR. GIBSON: Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Our record is much better than that of the federal Liberals.

MAINTENANCE PROCEEDINGS ON

BEHALF OF ABANDONED SPOUSES

MS. BROWN: Hr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Human Resources. According to order-in-council 113-8 dated April 15,1978, the Ministry of Human Resources gave social workers the authority to initiate maintenance proceedings on behalf of abandoned spouses. That has not been changed since that

[ Page 2457 ]

date.

This morning on the Jack Webster show the Minister of Human Resources stated that under the previous administration the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) did not allow social worker, P to pursue spouses for non-payment of support. Could the minister say that when he made that statement the was making it out of ignorance of the facts, or was he deliberately trying to mislead the listeners of the Jack Webster show?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question suggests its own answer, and therefore, hon. members, I wish that the questions could be made so they would be in order.

MS. BROWN: I-lay I be permitted to restate my question? I would like an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Did the minister make that statement out of ignorance of the facts?

MR. SPEAKER: I think a proper question would be: did the minister make the statement?

MS. BROWN: The minister did make the statement; I heard it. I'm asking him whether or not he knew the facts when he made that statement.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: 1 was not here during that particular time in history, therefore I am not familiar with all of the policies in effect then. But certainly I have been advised time and time again by social workers, individually and collectively, that one of the reasons we have had a rather poor success rate in enforcing maintenance from errant spouses is that the policy during those years was: "Don't pursue it; don't go after the errant spouse. Provide them with income assistance instead." I believe the message given to me, and I think it came from most reliable sources.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, at the end of question period may I table the order- in-counciI for the minister's benefit? Because it is still in existence.

MR. SPEAKER: That will have to be cared for following question period.

RIGHT-TO-WORK CAMPAIGN

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Ralph Purdy claims that the minister supports the right-to-work campaign of the Independent Contractors and Businessmen Association. Is Mr. Purdy's claim correct?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Beauchesne says in section 171 (z) that speeches made outside this House are not to be referred to in question period. Also, questions must not reflect on duties other than the minister's official duties. Perhaps on those two bases we would have to rule that question out of order. Does the member wish to rephrase the question?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I will on a point of order, after question period, take issue with your ruling. With respect to the question, I will rephrase it to the minister. Is the minister in favour of the right-to-work campaign of the Independent Contractors and Businessmen Association?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Vancouver Centre would do his homework and not try to make a little political hay during the question period, I think my views on this subject are very well known.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, is the minister in favour of the right-to-work campaign of the Independent Contractors and Businessmen Association? I don't think he heard the question in the first place because he hasn't answered it.

RESTRAINT OF GREENPEACE BY INJUNCTION

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to pose a question to the Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to plead the cause for some innocent people in this province, if I could have the floor. In view of the fact that Mr. Pat Moore, president of the Green-peace movement in British Columbia, has openly on the air this weekend threatened civil disobedience actions and is, as late as 1:05 today, misinforming the public in relation to the possible 2, 4-D milfoil programme on the interior lakes of the Okanagan, and that this action has already led to one near-fatal accident on our lakes involving an innocent civil servant, I would like to ask the minister if he will seek an injunction to restrain Greenpeace and their supporters from taking any

[ Page 2458 ]

action in the way of civil disobedience which would be contrary to responsible boating and acceptable, boating laws on the lakes of the Okanagan until such time as they have been cleared by a report of the former incident.

I ask this in the interest of innocent people who will be on the lakes at all times in this weather and who may be endangered by Greenpeace thinking they are members of the government, innocent civil servants who will be possibly carrying out duties assigned to them and summer students who are on the lake carrying out a number of duties which don't involve them with the 2, 4-D, but, again, where they might be mistaken by this civil disobedience and have their personal health jeopardized.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member's question relative to seeking an injunction, we would be seeking the advice of our legal counsel to see if they deem that to be necessary. I don't consider Greenpeace to be different from any other person who might be on the lake in violation of a specific order; I don't hold Greenpeace to have any added value over any other citizen. The order-in-council which was passed last week specifically prohibits entry onto submerged Crown lands. If any person who feels that they're representing some group, organization, or just them elves chooses to deliberately violate that, they will suffer the penalties of the law. They will suffer the consequences of the law, as they should.

Certainly our employees will be given all protection of the law. There is not to be any nonsense of any kind relative to those who wish to disrupt for whatever reasons, whether it's fund-raising or some other reason. We do not intend to put up with that and the RCMP will be asked to assist any member of the Ministry of the Environment to carry out their duties without any type of harassment and without any danger to their well-being.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I rise under the authority of standing order 42 (l) to correct a material misquotation of my remarks on Bill 14 which was made by the Minister of Forests in debate last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you?

MR. GIBSON: I was absent speaking to a graduating class in my constituency, but the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) raised a point of order at that time and Your Honour noted that any absent member could have recourse to the account in Hansard.

The minister suggested that my characterization of the Forest Act as a sellout related to a sellout to foreign companies. In fact, I spoke of it as being a sellout to the major companies with excess wood supply. It was nothing to do with foreign investment.

Using that false springboard, the minister went on to make a personal attack not on me but on my family. The minister stated that Gibson Brothers had sold their timber operation aver 25 years ago to the Tahsis Company, 'which is correct. That sale included no tree-farm licence, that being a tenure form the Gibson Brothers had never approved of nor applied for. Timber sold to Tahsis had been bid, bought and paid for at public auctions since there then was free competition in those days.

The minister went on to say that what he called "millions of dollars" were taken from that sale and invested in a foreign jurisdiction, namely Hawaii.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If this is to be a lengthy explanation, it would not come under the provisions of 42 (l) .

MR. GIBSON: It will be about one and a half more paragraphs, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: HON. member, a correction to be made under 42 (l) must be made, as I understand it, during the debate of the matter that was discussed. And that question was put, to my remembrance, some time yesterday, so we are seeking now to debate again or to correct matters in a debate that has already been concluded. Unless the member can show or gain leave of the House, I can't see how I can make the provision under the standing orders. The member may wish to ask leave.

MR. GIBSON: I'll ask leave to give another paragraph and a half.

Leave granted.

MR. GIBSON: The minister went on to say that what he called "millions of dollars" were taken from that sale and invested in a foreign jurisdiction, namely Hawaii. The minister is incorrect. While it is none of his business, since he has placed a wrong statement on the public record I will give him the facts.

Not one cent of Gibson Brothers' company money went to Hawaii. My family bought a home in Hawaii and eventually started a business, using largely bank money rather than equity out of Canada, and has brought back to our country much more than the capital ever

[ Page 2459 ]

exported. And I'm proud of that.

I regret the minister should have reduced the debate on government policy to the personal level and that he should use that as the occasion to make untrue statements.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to introduce three distinguished guests who were not here during the time for introductions.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three distinguished people involved with the Council for Canadian Unity, and particularly Mr. Allan Pierce, who is the provincial chairman for British Columbia, Mr. Guy Dancause, deputy general-manager of the council's secretariat in Montreal, and Mr. Peter Boothroyd, from Alberta, who is a consultant with them. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table order-in--council 1138 for the edification of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .

MR. SPEAKER: The member will require leave.

MS. BROWN: May I have leave to table?

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

FIRE MARSHAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm just trying to find the point of order, but I will refer you to the order of daily routine standing order 25, in order to introduce it. It relates to question period.

This afternoon I asked a question that was a matter of serious concern to the people I represent. The news came to my attention just shortly before the House came into session, and the hon. member for Mackenzie objected to my asking this question as I was a member of government.

Am I to understand and are we to understand that under the rules of this House members of the government are to be silenced in this House and do not have the right to bring forth legitimate questions of serious concern to their constituents or this province during question period?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, we can dispose of the matter immediately. There was no formal protest by any member of this House, and all members have equal rights to ask questions in this House.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to clarify for the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) that people who are elected to this assembly but who are not in the executive council are not members of the government. After all those years, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the member for North Okanagan would know that she is not a member of the government. So her whole statement was based on a mis-fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it is a matter of an adjustment of terminology.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we cannot use points of order to enter into debate. The member for Mackenzie on a point of order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: First of all I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of silencing any member of this House.

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is this: in question period it is parliamentary tradition that question period is reserved for members of the opposition to raise matters of serious concern to the people in this province, and these put up jobs by this government, and the abuse of question period that has been taking place by this government is reaching the point of being ridiculous.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The matter has been disposed of.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2460 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 19.

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: 1 have a great many questions in committee, some of which I raised during debate on the bill in order to give the minister advance notice of it. One of the questions that I raised concerned section 2. 1 would ask whether or not the minister could inform us why the Companies Act does not or should not apply to the corporation being created. If it does not, what exceptional provisions does the minister intend to apply to the government of the corporation that would allow it to be exempt from the ordinary provisions of the Companies Act itself? Did the minister get the question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Have you got an answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you have others on this section?

MR. BARBER: Not on this section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to section 2 of this bill, we examined both routes. This appears to be the more standard procedure in British Columbia when a corporation of this nature is established. I think there are examples of a similar clause in legislation relative to other Crown corporations in the province.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I may be able to assist members of the committee if I simply point out that this is one of the more important sections. I look to you for direction, sir, with respect to an amendment standing in my name on the order paper which makes a numbering change. Do you wish the amendment later, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let us proceed with the amendment now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Very well then, sir. I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I confess I was unaware the amendment was even on the orders of the day.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is a numbering error.

MR. BARBER: That's all there is to it -nothing but numbers?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, without violating the rules of committee debate, there are two amendments which can be quite correctly described as numbering or printing errors. One is taken care of in this section; the second one follows in section 8; there is a third amendment with respect to section 18.

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. BARBER: The section contains in 2 (c) the uncommon provision that would allow the province to impose a binding transit agreement on municipalities or perhaps regional districts which otherwise may prefer not to have such an agreement entered into. It has been the argument of the opposition that the only reason a municipality would refuse to enter into such an agreement is because they may well conclude that they cannot afford it. The reason they may conclude they cannot afford it is because the kind of financing that we expect to be offered by the province will not be adequate to the job.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Pessimist.

MR. BARBER: Well, I'm going to read something which we dug up in the 1977 edition of the Province. I'll get to that in a moment. But what I particularly want to draw the attention of the committee to and ask the minister questions about is this: if we are not to be pessimists and if the sharing agreement from the financing formula is, in fact, generous, as the minister claims it is, what municipality would refuse to sign such an agreement? It is a logical question which almost answers itself.

If the agreement is simply not affordable, then a prudent municipality may refuse to sign it. Unfortunately, under this bill they will have no choice but to sign it. Unfortunately, section 3, which we are debating at the

[ Page 2461 ]

moment, makes it clear that this province will have the extraordinary power to compel a municipality, no matter what its finances, its problems, its planning, its priorities, its objects or its other concerns may be, to agree involuntarily to such a contract between the Urban Transit Authority and itself.

This is in the view of the official opposition a potentially dangerous section with potentially tyrannical implications, because what it means is simply this. If a prudent, cautious, conservative municipality, worried about the four new taxes that are created by this bill to finance transit, decides that it does not wish to have those taxes imposed and does not wish to enter into an operating agreement for transit, Socred-style, what they discover in this Section 1s that they have no choice.

I wonder if the minister might give us today his reasons for doing what he, were he still the mayor of Saanich, would no doubt oppose as vocally as we oppose it now. Why should any municipality be burdened with an agreement that they may not care to sign? If it's not because they don't think they can afford it, what other reason might there be for this quite extraordinary provision in section 3?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While I can appreciate the hon. member's position with respect to the principle of imposing an agreement, 1 think it should be pointed out that in section 3 the argument is misdirected. It will occur in section 10. This relates to transit service agreements, and I would draw the committee's attention to section 3 (c) . It appears later -under subsection 2 (c) - but the transit service agreement is not the cost-sharing agreement. The transit service agreement is the agreement to enter into the provision of transit service. We can argue the point later. I would suggest that it belongs more correctly in section 10 inasmuch as there is more than one agreement at large in this particular bill.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate that the binding provisions occur in both sections 3 and 10. 1 chose to raise it at this earliest opportunity. If the minister wishes to debate it more fully under 10, that's fine with me. However, I do have a couple of other questions and one comment, which is that section 3 (3) creates a committee of the executive council to be involved in assessing transit needs and, presumably having heard from the UTA to that effect, giving some attention to government priorities, such as they may be - in the field of highway construction particularly. I want to say on behalf of the official opposition that we welcome that - the idea of creating at cabinet level a committee concerned about these matters is a good one. It is meritorious and it has our support.

It's under section 3 (2) we find the first notice in the bill, as I read it, of a successor organization to Hydro which might be responsible as the "new operating company" envisioned in the minister's press release and in that red-covered statement which I paid some attention to. This being the first mention of it, I wonder if the minister might give the committee some appreciation of the kind of new operating company which lie anticipates might result from this and other provisions in the legislation. I would appreciate some description of it, as there is not a great deal in the press release so far.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the point might be dealt with here. In putting together the Urban Transit Authority Act, we were very careful to ensure that the authority not become an operating company. We've taken great pains to avoid that. The successor to B.C. Hydro might well be any number of agencies - a new Crown corporation established for that purpose later on, a private carrier in some instance perhaps, or indeed a municipality if, in some particular specific circumstance, that is found by the transit commission reporting to the Authority to be the appropriate vehicle - pardon the pun.

So there could be a number of successors. It's not that I decline to answer the member today; it's simply that that is the kind of decision which will flow out of negotiations with our partners in setting up transit - our partners being the provincial government's partners at the local or municipal or regional level.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his answer and, making certain that I understand it, if I may, let me play back a bit of it. You do not have presently on the drawing board one or any number of new operating companies as provided for in this bill. There is simply no extant plan right now; but, rather, the UTA presumably would be in a position to recommend to cabinet sometime in the future, based on the transit agreements that are signed with the various jurisdictions, whether or not such a company or companies are to be required.

What I am asking about is the planning role and operating authority, if any, of the UTA in this. As I read it, the UTA is empowered - if I recall, under section 5 - to, in fact, manage such a new operating company itself.

[ Page 2462 ]

When we get to section 5, 1 will be asking the minister about that more directly. What I want to understand, though, is whether you see - as the bill presents it and as you envision it -the UTA also providing directing capacity for the new operating company or companies or whether, in fact, they would simply recommend to cabinet the creation of some separate operating authority which they would have no direct management responsibility for. I appreciate the difference - as obviously the minister does - between an operating authority within the UTA and something that more separately and corporately makes distinctions between the two organizations - one simply giving leadership to the other. A somewhat parallel situation developed in this province for a couple of years during the previous administration regarding the transit services bureau in the minister's own ministry and Hydro's own transit services division. There was some overlap and some confusion there and I wonder if, as the minister has put it on other occasions, overlap and confusion might not also be created here if there is not a clearer distinction made between the operating company or companies that UTA might be responsible for and the operating authority, if any, of UTA itself for any of those companies themselves.

It's a confusing point right now because the legislation, as I read it, does not clarify the matter. I wonder if the minister might tell us a bit more about the relationship -organizationally, corporately, as planners, as financiers - of UTA and its board through the single or several operating authorities which may result.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to restate, fundamental to our approach to this very complex system is that UTA is not to be an operating company in any respect.

MR. BARBER: Nor to have a supervisory role?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. It is to plan and liaise. The situation which applied in the former government was that there wasn't the liaison or co-ordination. That really isn't dealt with in this bill. But on reflection, we had the transit services bureau in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - the Department of Municipal Affairs at that time -and we had B.C. Hydro operating in isolation, and they didn't seem to get together. That was one of the factors which motivated the introduction of this legislation.

UTA and the local component, whatever it may be, whether it is a municipality or a transit service area on a multi-municipal basis, will purchase service. Therefore the establishment of an "operating company, " as I indicated, might be a Grown corporation for a specific area or a subcontract with a private carrier who is in existence now. But to use an old trite phrase, for the foreseeable future, certainly in the transitional period, we would expect that B.C. Hydro will continue as the operator but will follow the planning and management decisions made through the transit service commissions and UTA and the provincial partnership.

I'm reminded by the deputy, who is not here, that the Seabus contract is an excellent example of what is happening and what is intended in this arrangement. Through government to the public, this ministry has the ultimate responsibility for Seabus, but we have an operating agreement with British Columbia Hydro. This ministry has made the decisions. I don't suggest this will continue in quite this way because of this bill, but this ministry has made decisions with respect to scheduling, promotional activities and related activities; B.C. Hydro delivers the service and sends the bill. I trust that explains it for the member.

MR. BARBER: This bill, then, would permit, say, looking at the current situation, possibly 14 operating companies, one per each of the jurisdictions that has them now, and perhaps two others, one for greater Victoria and one for greater Vancouver, where Hydro provides the service. We have no objection to that in particular. If the more flexible arrangement is preferred locally, that's fine.

What priority does the minister attach to separating from Hydro at the earliest date its operating responsibilities? On both sides of the House it has long been the opinion that Hydro generally is not enthused about transit and, quite particularly, would be happy to get rid of it. I refer to the comments of Mr. Olsen, the now president of Hydro, when he was testifying before the Crown corporations reporting committee just several weeks ago. He indicated at that time that he would be quite happy for someone to make an offer to buy Hydro's transit services. It's a loser for them; it's not at all consistent with their other objectives and it's by no means in the interest of Hydro to continue it. Well, it's by no means in the interest of the people to have Hydro continue it either.

So I wonder what emphasis, what push and what momentum the minister will add to the argument that Hydro should as quickly as possible have divorced from it its transit

[ Page 2463 ]

services division. Section 3 provides for that; it mentions Hydro specifically. Just looking at greater Victoria and greater Vancouver separately from the question of the other 14 areas, what priority does the minister give or does he anticipate the UTA might give to the question of removing at the earliest possible date the operating responsibility from Hydro itself for transit?

HON. Mr. CURTIS: I'll touch on the first point before I turn to the main point the second member for Victoria referred to.

Yes, in the extreme, there could be 16 or 18 .separate operating companies. That's unlikely, but it's permissible in this particular section. I don't think we will see that, but that really will develop with respect to the recommendations of the transit services commissions and the UTA, as I indicated earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot give the member an answer to his main question in this part of the debate as to how soon is soon. We are not concerned about the hardware, because I think we can make a very satisfactory financial arrangement with British Columbia Hydro regarding their fleet. Indeed, a large part of the fleet is already owned not by Hydro as such but by the people of British Columbia through the provincial government.

We have to take great care with respect to employees. The member may want to speak about that a little later on. In debate today I don't want to be tied down to a deadline which will prove to be difficult a little later on if we run into unforeseen problems. As soon as we have all the nuts and bolts together, I would like to see it happen.

It's just impossible for me, in all candour, Mr. Chairman, to say that we think it will be 12 months, we think it will be 18, we think it will be 24. We want to get started as soon as we can and, undoubtedly, we will run into unforeseen problems - that is, problems which are not known about now - but, as soon as it is possible, Hydro will be relieved of or divorced from the actual operation. I'm sorry, Mr. Member, it's very tough to put a date on it-

MR. BARBER: The minister touched on a question that I would like to raise now directly and that's the sale by Hydro of its assets -its rolling fleet, its stock, its equipment and its transmission facilities in Vancouver -to, shall we say, the subsequent operating company of whatever name we may care to give it.

As I recall - I'll look through my notes and find the source - Hydro estimated in a staff report prepared for the Committee on Crown Corporations that the total value of the fleet in British Columbia was about $103 million. That's the figure that I've got in the book. Further they said that they thought the replacement value of the fleet, which they would propose to sell to, shall we say, the UTA, would be about $25 million. So going on the more conservative of the two figures put forward by Hydro, the $25 million, which is their estimate and not my own, I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not he has received from Hydro advice about the extent to which they intend to charge us for the buses we have already purchased.

I'm concerned that we may end up in a situation where we will pay twice for buses we already own. During earlier debate I pointed out that there is some precedent for this in British Columbia. We are paying twice for ferries we already own now - a sensitive point with the government opposite.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But we're talking about buses, not ferries.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. I'm drawing a parallel in relying on precedent, and I know it's in order. What I'm asking specifically is whether or not the minister has received a price that Hydro wishes to negotiate around for the sale of what they think to be their buses to, shall w say, the UTA. If so, are those negotiations underway at present? If so, what is the price that Hydro is asking?

That generally being the topic, would the minister consider this proposal? We, on this side of the House, would strongly endorse it. We would insist that Hydro simply transfer at a cost of $1 only the entire equipment which they have in the transit services division to the UTA and/or its operating companies. I say "UTA" as a matter of shorthand. I appreciate that the UTA will not be the operating company itself, but if you'll permit the shorthand we would ask, we would urge and insist, that Hydro be compelled to transfer those assets at the nominal sum of $1 to the people of greater Victoria and greater Vancouver who, together with others in British Columbia, have already paid for the buses and needn't pay for them twice. I wonder if the minister could tell us about those negotiations, if any, as they have occurred to date.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no. I've not felt at liberty to enter into discussions, as far as I'm concerned, with British Columbia Hydro. We have a bill to put through this Legislature. Certainly there have been staff

[ Page 2464 ]

discussions on countless topics relative to the new Authority and the new thrust, but the member has made a very valid point with respect to ensuring that we get the best possible deal with B.C. Hydro. I'm confident that we shall. A purchase price of a nominal sum appeals to me, and that's what I shall strive for, sir.

We're not into negotiation, but the committee will realize, Mr. Chairman, that we're not just talking about buses, we're talking about real estate - some significant holdings by British Columbia Hydro in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. The Cambie maintenance site in Vancouver, as an example, Mr. Chairman, I think can be assumed to be worth in the neighbourhood of $4 million. So those negotiations will open after this legislation has received royal assent and various sections are proclaimed. I intend to strike the best possible deal that I can, not on behalf of government, but on behalf of the people of the province, to ensure that, in fact, we are not paying a significant amount of money for vehicles and other material which is already owned, albeit through B.C. Hydro, by the people of this province.

The book value that was quoted in the Crown corporations committee report is book value. I indicated earlier that a large proportion of the fleet which now runs under B.C. Hydro designation is, in fact, not owned by British Columbia Hydro, but is, in fact, owned through this ministry or certainly by government. So that particular portion of the fleet presents no problems. But we'll strike a very satisfactory deal with B.C. Hydro. I can hardly wait, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: I presume that the is section allows us liberty to do so. I note that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is here at the moment, and I wonder if he might care to answer this question. It is within the rules that other ministers speak in the debate. Evan? No, he went away. But that minister who sits on the board of Hydro might have been able to tell us whether or not Hydro has named the price. They have not named the price? Okay.

The $25 million I referred to is the figure that they appeared to want, according to the staff report of the Crown corporations committee, for their share of the fleet. I appreciate that the whole fleet, whose book value is $103 million, as I recall it, is not entirely owned by Hydro. I gather about 25 per cent is.

The minister has raised another important question that concerns land value and development rights, and I'll get to those in a later section of the bill. But I want to state a philosophical argument, which is that 1, on behalf of my many colleagues here today, would find it most objectionable that any more than the figure of $1 be assigned to the valuation of assets to be transferred from Hydro to the UTA.

It is not as if Hydro in any sense is going to take a loss when the Cambie yards go, when the Surrey yards go, when the buses themselves go, and the rest of it. To the contrary, Hydro will benefit in a very direct operating and capital way - both - by having divorced from itself the possibility for transit services. Any attempt by Hydro to come hat in hand, pleading poverty and saying, "We really have to have $4 million for the Gamble yard and we have to have some more for the turnaround at Victoria Drive and we have to have some for the turnaround at Boundary by Capital Hill there, " is really a bit of a joke. I would very much hope that the government will not take Hydro's requests at all seriously.

Hydro did not manufacture the money itself. It got the money from the whole people. Hydro did not obtain that land by itself. It got the money for it from the whole people. And now the people are saying through this bill - at least to the extent that the people are represented by the government which authors the bill - that they want some of those assets back. They want to use them in a different way for a new purpose with the new objects in mind.

To me there is no credible argument that could be made by Hydro to suggest that somehow we have to pay them for the assets we have already provided them. Those assets have been provided by fare payers for 60 years. They've been provided by governments in previous form and in present form for at least 45 years. The systems have been subsidized heavily for decades and decades. The system has been paid for for decades by the whole people.

Hydro has been only the trustee of those assets. Hydro has been supposedly the guardian of those assets. Hydro happens to hold title to some of them, but I think that is simply a legal convenience which should not distract us from the basic point. Hydro has held in trusteeship some of our assets; now, through this bill, they are going to be transferred to another place.

There is no excuse for Hydro to hold out for any more than $1 for the assets which we gave them in trust for our purposes. I would urge the minister, especially when he negotiates with his colleague the Minister of Finance, to make the point that I make today as strongly

[ Page 2465 ]

as I can. It's been a relationship of trust.

Hydro has no right, no claim, no authority and no demand on that trust. What we gave then to use through this bill, the government says we now wish to be used in a different way. They have no claim whatsoever on the presumably added value of those assets. They should be transferred for $1, no more than that - no holding out, no bartering. A dollar, as far as

I am concerned, is the only reasonable price that should be paid for those assets. There is no , reason that we should pay twice for any of them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am not about to take issue with the comments of the member opposite, because I think we are saying the same thing. He is in opposition, and therefore has the opportunity to state more positively how he believes it should be done.

I have yet to enter into negotiations with B.C. Hydro but with respect to co-operation from my colleagues on the executive council, I've had no difficulty whatever thus far in putting together the principles and the concept of this legislation. Therefore I don't anticipate and do not see any need to be concerned about difficulties with respect to B.C. Hydro's assets which fall into the transit category when we get to that point.

I simply reassure the committee, Mr. Chairman, that we have not yet - quite deliberately - entered into negotiation with Hydro. nor has Hydro communicated officially or unofficially with my office or with this ministry as to what a selling price might be.

I'm in agreement with the member, and frankly I would suggest we move on to another section.

Section 3 as amended approved.

On section 4.

MR. BARBER: Section 4 allows the minister to appoint his own board of directors. This is a subject which has been of some contention in debate around Bill 19. As the committee will know, there is, in a sense, a two-tiered system, one of which tiers has three parts created by this bill. Section 4, which we are debating now, allows the minister to choose personally all of the members.

The minister has argued publicly and during second reading of this bill that one of the features that we should support is section 4, which allows the municipalities or the regional districts, or whomever from local government, to be represented on the small communities transit commission, on the greater

Victoria transit commission and on the greater Vancouver transit commission. From those, minimally 15 persons - five assigned to each of the local transit commissions - are then chosen eight persons. What the committee will recall is that those eight persons must of necessity be chosen from among the 15. Those eight are chosen on the basis of four from the greater Vancouver Commission, two from the greater Victoria commission and two from the smaller communities commission.

The minister has argued that that means that these people are somehow accountable to the municipalities and that therefore a level of accountability and self-government is introduced. We don't conclude that at all and view that, in fact, as a completely wrong argument that doesn't reveal anything like what the bill reveals. Section 4 does not provide that municipalities may nominate their own people to the transit commissions or to the UTA; it provides quite the opposite. The minister may nominate his own people. They happen to be members of local government. But so what? The point is local government does not choose them. That's the key matter. For the minister to pretend that accountability exists simply because he picks from his own short list a group of political appointees from local government to the UTA or the three commissions does not mean that real accountability can be found at all in this bill.

I want to know what objection the minister has or would have to municipalities nominating their own people along the lines of the formula outlined here in section 4. If there is no objection, why isn't it provided for? If there is objection, we take issue with it. It occurs to us that the kind of self -government in transit matters that the minister has bragged about is contradicted in section 4. If it were not the case, section 4 would be written very differently and would provide for a mechanism of nomination and consultation and finally, after those two steps were taken, only then would the third be taken - that is, actual appointment by order-in-a-council to the UTA and to the other commissions. We don't find that here at all. It's a matter of some philosophic concern, and it's been raised not just by us, but to my certain knowledge, in private with the minister by other people from local government. They want to know why they have been left out, why there is no process for consultation or nomination of their people representing them.

Let me illustrate, if I may. Let's presume that the day sometime arrives when someone like, say, Joe Richards - who I know the minister knows - was elected to Victoria Council

[ Page 2466 ]

If, somehow, the minister decided that Joe Richards was to be his appointee to the UTA, the minister could, without consultation with the city of Victoria itself, make such a choice. I like Joe, by the way; I should tell you he's an old pal. He's a most interesting man and he adds a lot of colour and flavour and tone to public policy debate in the city of Victoria. He's a fine guy who, I gather from today's redistribution report, will shortly live in my riding. Anyway, you may have met him. I think everyone has.

The point is obvious. It is possible under this Act for the minister to nominate people supposedly representative of a local govern-ment who do not, in fact, represent that government at all, because there is no-process whatsoever in here that guarantees consultation or even the hint of a nomination procedure. It may well be the case that from time to time a person will be nominated at the minister's will and whim and convenience who does not, in person or in fact, reflect the attitude and the policies of the majority of the members of his or her own council. It's a dangerous problem; its a serious issue. This is the section that, no matter what the minister says in public, is revealed here in the committee to make it very clear that the minister intends to appoint all his people according to his criteria of appointment and nothing else shall make any difference. I wonder if the minister might tell us why there is no procedure for consultation, why there is none for nomination and what criteria he intends to apply if this section goes through without providing either of those two arrangements. A lot of people in local government are, to my certain knowledge, not happy at all that they have been left out in this fashion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the member's point just made, that a lot of people in local government are unhappy with this particular approach to setting up an authority. Yes, some have expressed opposition. But the member and I disagree as to whether that's a large number or small.

First of all, I would like to draw to the committee's attention the fact that there will be consultation. There are certain things we can do beyond the statute as it is before this committee today and eventually becomes law. We are in the process of, at some point in the next several days or few weeks, communicating with municipalities and regional districts, asking that they nominate from among their ranks those individuals - elected representatives - they believe would be suitable and interested in transit. I think that's one of the criteria which we certainly want to apply - an interest in transportation matters. But the committee has my assurance that those letters of invitation for nomination will be going out.

The member also seems to be having a little difficulty with respect to the actual role of the municipality. Mr. Chairman, I look to you for direction; I don't think we're straying too far from this Section 1n committee debate. We have an authority. Below it, we have transit service commissions.

Incidentally, with respect to a point made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) earlier, it is not less than four from the lower mainland, not less than two from greater Victoria. So if it is found by all concerned that it should be seven from the lower mainland transit commission, then it would be seven, or whatever number is considered appropriate, but not less than the numbers indicated in the legislation.

However, when you get down to the annual operating agreement and the transit service agreement, Mr. Chairman, it is not the nominee who is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council - and I'd like to come back to that in just a moment - who will sign those agreements. It is the mayor and council; it is the corporation of the municipality which is a participant in a transit service area. So, with respect, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the member to leave abroad the impression that somehow all the responsibility rests with the members of the authority.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

First of all, they must be locally elected. Secondly - and this is the point with which the member disagrees - they will be appointed not by the minister who is designated as minister responsible but by cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

MR. BARBER: Well, well. Who else is going to recommend to cabinet?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member says "Well, " but some names are going to be approved by the Lieutenant--Governor-in-Council. Therefore I just don't want the impression left today that the minister is going to go through a short list of "his people." They will have to be approved by the cabinet. The member will know that there are differences of opinion in any cabinet on a number of issues. That's what makes cabinet work.

Okay, the member disagrees with the fact that they are appointed. But put the authority

[ Page 2467 ]

to one side in the more important activities as to whether transit is to be provided in an area and what makes up the agreement which will provide that transit. It is not the nominee who sits on the authority; it is the mayor and council in meeting assembled who will authorize that a document be signed. I don't think I've convinced the member, but I trust that I've assisted him to understand what is particularly at issue here.

MR. BARBER: I quite understand that no person appointed to the UTA would have the authority to commit his or her municipality to an operating agreement or a transit agreement, of course. I didn't raise that point. I'm not quite sure why it came up.

However, I would remind the minister that under the section just passed, he does have the power to impose a binding agreement on a municipality that might refuse it, thus somewhat undercutting the argument he made in reply to my own just a moment ago.

There's another matter, however, that I wish to raise and it once again concerns the appointment procedure. When you establish a Crown corporation like the UTA, no one, and not myself - and I don't want to be misinterpreted - opposes the principle that those people have to be appointed by the provincial government that established the corporation in the first place. I accept that. You can't have the township of Revelstoke, somehow with the authority of an order-in-council behind it, naming through its own order- in-council someone to an authority. There has to be a confirmation process and I wouldn't deny that at all. What I was talking about was the process of nomination, whereby one would accept the nominee put forward by a local community.

I want to talk, however, about the smaller transit commissions. As the minister knows, there are 14 presently operating in British Columbia, separate from greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. That includes, by the way, West Vancouver, which is an anomaly that I never quite understood that we'll get to perhaps in a moment. The minister has said that minimally two persons from those 14 smaller communities will sit, representing them on the UTA. Minimally, five persons will represent those 14 communities on the smaller transit commission established by this Act.

Well, I'm not at all convinced that that's enough, and I'm pretty well certain that there will be some debate and some difficulty among the 14 as to who gets represented on the smaller commission and who later on represents that commission on the UTA itself. Fourteen reduced to five, reduced to two, will lead to a great deal of conflict. Unfortunately, this bill provides it.

I wonder if the minister might tell us whether or not, even overnight, so to speak, since the bill was passed, he's given consideration to considerably increasing the number of people who would be on the smaller transit commission. I don't see how 14 disparate, unrelated communities located in any old place across the province you want to name, without much connection between them as far as transit planning goes, save the way they've been connected artificially in this bill, could come to agree on five people who would represent the 14 and on two who would represent the five. I don't see that that's going to work as practically as the minister might hope. I wonder if he could tell the committee whether he's given any thought from the beginning to expanding, from the beginning, the membership on the presently and minimumly five-person smaller transit commission. I think it's going to lead to a lot of conflict. I've also heard that hinted at by people who want to make very sure that Nanaimo, say, is represented, or Prince George, or Prince Rupert, or Trail. They all want to be represented and you don't have enough positions for them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're dealing here with minimums. There may be more than one small community transit commission, and each commission may have more than the minimum number of members. We may have more than one small community system commission; we may have more than the minimum number of members, and probably we shall. But I think we would want to start in a relatively small way. I disagree with the member's proposition that somehow it wouldn't work, even in the most minimal sense. There are examples on various province-wide organization executives, perhaps in his party, certainly in our party, where an individual represents a region. It certainly works at the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

The best parallel, I think, is the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia, which was established by statute several years ago. There are directors who are called together twice a year, I believe, representing all the regional districts. The bulk of the work is done by a committee of trustees who are selected from the much larger group. Therefore one may be from Kitimat, and he or she will have some regional interests and some regional information to provide to the trustees' meetings, but that individual is also expected to be concerned about a situation relative to Penticton or Cranbrook or Fernie or Duncan or whatever other community it might be. There

[ Page 2468 ]

are the regional interests, whether it is the East Kootenays and West Kootenays, whether it is northern Vancouver Island - or central and northern Vancouver Island, more realistically - the Okanagan or the upper Fraser Valley. There are these regional interests which I think can and will be taken into account as these individuals start serving on the small community systems.

In addition, there is the fact that we have a number of communities seeking the introduction of transit Service. They will be seeking service, and that will, I suggest, indicate the need for additional transit commissions, hence more people to serve from local government around the province. I don't share your concern about the situation. It's spelled out here in skeletal form.

MR. BARBER: I don't want to belabour the point, but the minister has, by way of illustration described a system that doesn't exist here. He talks about the Municipal Finance Authority, the and his own party or mine, and he describes in those illustrations a system where the people in the party choose their representatives and assign them to represent them deliberately. That system doesn't exist here in section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It does. I disagree.

MR. BARBER: Well, it doesn't say it in the Act, although you say that you have invited nominations and you will honour them to the extent that you can.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We shall be inviting them.

MR. BARBER: That you shall be inviting them and will honour them to the extent that you can. But unfortunately, the legislation doesn't say that. My colleague from Vancouver Centre has pointed out to me that you could in fact - and I omitted to argue this before -create by statute a situation where local authorities would in fact nominate without dispute their own representatives to a corporation like this. That, too, is another approach that could have been taken and most certainly is not by this bill.

I want to talk about section 4 (6) for a moment. I raised this during second reading. Section 4 (6) provides for a form of proxy voting. I know the minister will fall back on the conventional legal definition which suggests that proxy voting only occurs when you assign control of shares or some other stock-voting authority to another person to exercise for you. Section 4 6) reads, most unusually:

"The board may pass resolutions for the management and conduct of the affairs of the authority and the exercise of its powers or duties and a resolution

" (a) approved in writing, or

" (b) approved by Telex, telegraph or other means of graphic telecommunication confirmed in writing

"by all the directors, is as valid and effectual...." - and so on.

What it allows is an opportunity which I do not see justified by the operations of the UTA as the minister has described it. It's an unusual provision to allow this kind of proxy voting, and it seems to me that this could lead the board into error, further dispute and debate. As the minister himself has described it, the principal responsibility of the UTA is planning, negotiation, consultation and determining of objects for the various transit systems across the province.

I don't take issue at all with those objects. But it seems to me that they are of such sensibility and balance that they require such judgment of proportion and relationship -planning always does; budget limitations require it and so do other limitations - that to allow, in this artificial way, a form of proxy voting is, as far as I can tell, an unnecessary thing and potentially a dangerous thing. These are sensitive questions of public policy that will have to be determined by the UTA. The sensitivity that will be required is not added to or complemented by allowing proxy voting to occur. If there is a case for proxy voting, we haven't heard it; if there is a case, we'd like to hear it now. Otherwise I will continue in my own objection to this particular system, because I think it could hurt the balance of consultation and negotiation which will be required by the UTA if it's to work as the minister outlines it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member is incorrect. I will expand. While he has referred to this repeatedly as "proxy voting, " that is not correct, and I am sorry that the member persists in identifying it as such. It is nothing approaching proxy Voting. He has stopped short in his quoting of that particular subsection where it says, first of all, in (a) and then in (b) "...approved in writing or approved by Telex, telegraph or other means of graphic telecommunication, confirmed in writing by all the directors." Now, Mr. Chairman, that's the key: "...by all the directors." it's not an assigned vote, and it is not unprecedented in British Columbia. I would again refer to the Municipal Finance Authority

[ Page 2469 ]

legislation - and, perhaps, a better illustration in this discussion would be the Islands Trust, which has a similar authority to confirm a decision to the secretary-treasurer or to the chief administrative officer of the trust.

Yes, this board is there for policy decisions, for looking at the very large picture, Mr. Chairman. But, I submit, there are going to be those occasions when, after a lengthy and very successful meeting, lasting two or three days in Victoria or Vancouver, one point will remain unresolved, and the directors will then return to their homes; the point will come together, it will be resolved as they are on their way home - perhaps an answer back from another party or something along those lines. And then, by confirming their decision, all the directors who have been at the meeting and have all the background will be able to ratify that particular decision. I think that in 1978, coming up 1979, it is not a dangerous arrangement; it is not unprecedented in British Columbia; it's not unprecedented in other jurisdictions; and, were those words "by all the directors" missing - if it said instead, "by a majority" - then I would, perhaps, understand the member's concern. But it is required that all the directors must confirm their particular point of view, yes or no - whatever the matter may be, whatever the question may be - before that becomes valid. So, please, may we not refer to it again as "proxy voting."

MR. LAUK: I rise to speak on section 12 of Bill 18. 1 want to take issue with my friend from Victoria on one point, and that is: I do believe that you could draft a section whereby the Greater Vancouver Regional District or an originally designated transit area can, by statute, appoint members to the board of a Grown corporation. There is nothing that's offensive or repugnant to constitutional law or the powers of this Legislature in doing that kind of thing. As a matter of fact, it should be done in this case, and I will outline briefly why I think it should be done.

First of all, let me state that I find Mayor Volrich of the city of Vancouver, in his response to this bill, very surprising indeed, and particularly because of section 4. He has voiced general support for the bill. It's been my experience that the mayors of the city of Vancouver Hr. Volrich and Mr. Phillips before him have been quite vociferous in dealing with our administration, the previous Social Credit administration and the current administration so far with respect to the city of Vancouver. I'm surprised therefore to see that, especially in the face of section 4, Jack Volrich would express some support for this bill. I voice that criticism because I do not feel he's representing the true interests of the people of the city of Vancouver when he expresses support for the Urban Transit Authority Act.

Now what is this minister trying to do? I'm going to impugn improper motives to the minister, but only on a general, political basis; and I absolutely refuse, until called upon to do so, to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I call upon you now, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Well, I haven't made them yet.

hr. Chairman, the minister, through this section of the statute, says: "Four members from the Greater Vancouver Regional District or the designated area..." - which, I understand, is the same thing....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Four members - pretty close - but four members out of what? 30, 40, 50 council people? I mean, who's he trying to kid? Are those four going to be Harry Rankin, Mayor Tom Constable, Mike Harcourt and Darlene Marzari?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Will you stake your seat on it?

MR. LAUK: You can bet your sweet dollar that all of those four will be appointed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's conditional. Oh, all of the four - I see.

MR. LAUK: Sure, put your token on there.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Which one is the token out of those four?

MR. LAUK: Never mind. Mr. Chairman, the point is that this minister wants to blackjack the lower mainland into a transit system. He knows lie can only do that by appointing his hacks, who somehow escape the proper attention of the people and get elected to the council. The majority of council will not be represented nor will a cross-section of the people of the city of Vancouver or the lower mainland be represented. This minister wants to deliberately pick up people who are sympathetic with the government of the day and put them on that board.

What would he say if the NDP introduced this bill? He would say: "Oh, this Section 1s so

[ Page 2470 ]

offensive. This Section 1s a blackjack section. It's a section that will force a transit system on the poor lower mainland. It's a socialistic section. It's a section that comes from the Kremlin. It's a Trotskyite section. It's a Prince Kropotkin section." That's what he would say.

Section 4 gives extreme authority to this minister. I mentioned Mayor Volrich in the first instance because I think he has deceived himself. He has read the Act and he's said: "Well, at least we are getting the provincial government involved."

This total bill is a Trojan horse. This section particularly is a Trojan horse. This is where you are hiding the Socred troops - in section 4. It's in section 4 that we will get a pro-Victoria government transit system for the lower mainland imposed upon us by a partisan board appointed by the partisan administration. It is not expressing good faith at all to the good people of the city of Vancouver and the regional district of Vancouver by saying that the government will appoint these members. Why don't you leave it up to the councils themselves, Mr. Chairman? Why is the minister so frightened that we can't get a good and fair representation on that board through a democratic process? There are only four. He is still outnumbered by eight members of the government. I don't see anywhere in the Act that the government is going to be paying more than the regional districts and the municipalities. Is that in the statute? They are paying only half the cost but they want two-thirds of the say.

I appreciate that particularly the people in Delta are concerned about this section. You don't want partisan Social Credit hacks appointed to the board, do you, Mr. Chairman?

In all seriousness, if the minister was confident in. the democratic system and if he had confidence in fair play, this section would not read the way it does. It would have a balance of non-partisan members on the board for the entire province. Instead of eight appointed by the government, they should be elected at large or be appointed at large by the various transit authorities and sit on the board accordingly. In other words, each transit area elects a board member. and, for each board member elected by the transit area, only one should be appointed by the government. What can be fairer than that? The share is 50-50 of the cost. This minister refuses to accept fair play. He has introduced an anti-democratic section. I think we should vote against it.

MR. BARBER: I'm referring to section 4 (7) now. It allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to pay a per them to the persons appointed under section 4 generally. My two questions are: Does the per them apply to persons at the three transit commissions as well as at the UTA? Secondly, what is the per them that the government intends to pay the persons who will be serving at the three commissions and on the UTA itself?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, there will be a per them paid to the members of the Authority; that is the eight or more who sit an the Authority board. The member will notice in an amendment in orders of the day today, page 14, we are picking up the per them for the transit commission representatives as well.

What will the per them be? Mr. Chairman, we've not even attempted to discuss that. I think it would be in line with what is accepted now in regional districts - in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, in the Capital Regional District - and the kind of per them which is paid to a number of elected persons who serve on a variety of agencies in British Columbia today. We don't want to make it a great deal more than the average, and certainly there is no reason to make it a great deal less. It will be adjusted from time to time depending upon the amount of work to be done. There might be a minimum - not less than two hours or four hours must constitute a day, or something like that.

MR. BARBER: Will there be a maximum?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I would ask the member to accept the fact that where I have been involved in setting per diems, they have been fair both to the receiver and to the public paying. I have no idea whether there will be a maximum or not, but they will certainly be in line with other per diems that are comparable today.

MR. BARBER: Perhaps I should have asked the question more directly. Will there be a maximum total that may be earned, so to speak, by the combining of a per them over a period of a year? Will you put a ceiling of, say, $10,000 on per diems per year per person? I appreciate that you are talking about a per them once only. I'm talking about an annual total.

Could someone serving on both the local transit commission and on the UTA, say, at $175 a day, end up receiving by virtue of this section $20,000 or $30,000 a year for that service?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, when I came

[ Page 2471 ]

into this ministry and found the amount of money being paid to the director of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission - many, many thousands of dollars on an annual salary - we then went to a $75 per them for the new chairman. I don't really think I can say much more than that. These individuals are going to be very busy. There will be a great deal of pressure on them in terms of activity, certainly in the implementation and start-up stage, but if it is found that some of them are getting a great deal of money, then steps will be taken to control that.

We can't cover everything in legislation. I learned that, Mr. Member, and I think you know that too. You will have to accept the fact that I want to be fair to the person who receives the per diems in total but I also recognize that it is public money.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and to express my regrets that I wasn't here for the debate on the principle of the bill.

Obviously this is a bill that could very easily be called a Catch-22 bill in that if we're going to have a public urban transit system, a consistent system of continuity in the province, it's going to be at expense of co-operation because of the politics that the minister has very cleverly inscribed in the legislation.

At the risk of being called out of order, I will just close by suggesting that if we're going to have continuity in the system, it will be because politicians locally will be taking the responsibility that the provincial government should be taking. By that I mean they will elect to raise taxes in certain situations in order to augment the lags that exist in developing a consistent transit system.

I am not going to try and stretch these sections to make a general comment on the Urban Transit Authority bill, but I do feel that it will fall short of what is required if we are to have a programme that makes sense at an economical cost and without politics to the people.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. BARBER: Section 5 permits the minister to appoint the general manager of the Authority. The minister will tell us it is the cabinet who appoints it, but reality being what it is, it is the minister who will make the recommendation and the cabinet who will approve it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Have you just read it now?

MR. BARBER: I raised this question during debate on principle because the aside made by my colleague from Vancouver Centre is a fair one. What justification or reason can the government offer for a provision that sees not the Authority itself but the government appointing the general manager of the Authority? To the best of my knowledge, most other operating authorities and planning authorities with Crown corporation status granted to them by statute in this House allow the members of their own boards to appoint the general manager of that authority. Why that should be not the case here I don't know. I wonder what the minister could offer in the way of justification for a further centralization of power in the hands of the cabinet in the field of transit planning in British Columbia.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there's a weakness, a fatal flaw in the arguments advanced by the socialists, the NDP official opposition in this debate throughout. Because on the one hand we are accused of tossing transit into local government's hands and walking away from it....

MR. BARBER: Only as far as money is concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, I might remind you that committee is strictly relevant and your remarks weren't strictly relevant so please refer them to section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the last speaker for the official opposition, I submit that that was the case too.

We are accused - and this is relevant, sir -of being centralists, of taking unto ourselves or the provincial government in the future the appointment of the general manager. Of course it will be done in consultation with our partner in local ....

MR. LAUK: Well, how do we know that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: May I continue without interruption, Mr. Chairman? I listen carefully as each member makes his point.

It will be done in consultation with the individuals who are serving on the transit

[ Page 2472 ]

commissions and the Authority. 1 give the member opposite my undertaking that that will be the case.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, we see here one of the fundamental principles of the bill, and that is to ensure the relationship between several ministries of government - and they are spelled out - the Authority itself and its general manager. I would submit that the general manager must have very senior public service status. Status is not a bad thing in certain instances, Mr. Chairman. He must be seen to be of very senior calibre.

MR. LAUK: Jiggery-pokery.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member can call it jiggery-pokery, but that is what is behind the section. I was asked to explain it, and I have done so to the best of my ability. It is important for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a person who, in its view and after consultation with local government representatives, is satisfactory in terms of ability to put the Authority together and enter into the many agreements which will flow from the establishment of urban transit.

MR. BARBER: Section 5 provides that the Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the Authority. I want to know why it is, in the judgment of the minister, that the employees of the UTA itself should not be covered by the ordinarily beneficial provisions of those two pieces of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, these individuals are not public servants in that sense of the word. I think there is precedent for this type of section or subsection 1n other legislation, and there is nothing sinister about the fact that subsections (3) , (4) and (5) are in this particular section.

MR. BARBER: I am concerned about the pension funds of the Hydro employees. I am concerned that section 5 (5) makes no apparent reference to a problem that has been drawn to my attention. I am told that the bulk of the pension funds owned by transit employees presently in the service of Hydro are owned in the form of bonds themselves held by Hydro. As the minister knows, a bond is a legal agreement. It cannot be changed. It's like a contract and it is very difficult to alter.

The committee will recall that during the last election the now Premier argued that when he got to power he would sell the B.C. Tel shares purchased by the previous government.

What he discovered upon taking power is that he couldn't do so, because those shares were tied up in pension funds, because those shares themselves had become part of one of the pension funds in this province, administered by the government on behalf of public servants.

Well, apparently the same matter applies here, and what I want to ask the minister is what study he has given to the likely problem of the nontransferability of those pension funds and that pension resource for the employees presently within Hydro who, as a result of section 5 (5) , may end up with the UTA or may end up with the operating companies - as many of them as may result from the provisions of other sections of this bill which we have already debated.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite raised this point in second reading debate and indicated he would be discussing it. I have to reiterate that we are dealing here with the establishment of an Authority, not an operating company. Therefore the portability of pensions is not at issue because we don't anticipate transferring any British Columbia Hydro employees to this Authority -to what is the subject of this legislation. They will be in B.C. Hydro. They are in an operating company and when, as we discussed in an earlier section, a new operating company is ultimately set up, then, of course, the transfer of pension rights at that time would have to be satisfactory to the employees as well, as to B.C. Hydro, from which they are leaving, and the new operating company to which they are going. So the member need not be concerned.

First of all, they are not going to the Authority now, and the operating company for the foreseeable future will be B.C. Hydro, as it is today.

MR. BARBER: Do I take it from the minister that not one single transit planner from within Hydro is going to be seconded or transferred and appointed to the staff of UTA? Not one from among all their transit planners is worthy of appointment to the UTA? I am surprised to learn that. That confirms our worst suspicions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I take offence at the suggestion that if there are none to be transferred, they're not worthy. I think that should be corrected, Mr. Chairman. That's not an attack on me; that's an attack on some individuals in B.C. Hydro. There will be some senior management people who may be required

[ Page 2473 ]

by the Authority, but we're speaking of the bulk of the employees who presently work for an operating company called B.C. Hydro and who will continue to do so.

There are a number of transit planners - to use the member's phrase - already in place in this ministry. Therefore the argument is lost on me, sir.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper with respect to section 8, which is, again, a numbering correction.

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

MR. BARBER: This is the section that outlines in further detail the power of the Urban Transit Authority itself and raises a number of important questions to us. Sections 8 (2) and 8 (5) appear to apply a double standard in regard to the relationship between the UTA and municipalities, and the relationship between the UTA and regional districts. Section 8 (2) , specifically, as 1 read it, ensures that municipalities may voluntarily enter into a transit agreement, but it makes it quite clear in section 8 (5) that regional districts may not. There's a different kind of relationship and a different sort of stature offered here under the Act. Basically, I wonder why the apparent double standard - why regional districts may not enter voluntarily into an agreement and why municipalities may. What's the difference? It may well be the case that a regional district would be the most appropriate jurisdiction responsible for transit in a given area of the province. No municipality may wish to take it on. There's an unusual disparity here, as I read it, between the relationships of municipalities and regional districts as they attach to the UTA itself. I wonder if the minister could tell us a bit about this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any problem. Section 8 (2) deals with the definition of municipalities and regional districts, whereas section 8 (5) deals with the transfer of a function to a regional district, empowering a regional district to undertake the transit function. That's a distinction that is historic between regional districts and municipalities. Section 8 (2) refers to both municipalities and regional districts. A municipality may undertake the transit function by a resolution of its council. A regional district cannot undertake a new function except by an amendment to its letters patent, a new function as has been the case since regional districts were established. So that's why the difference. There is no more to it than that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Then, as I understand it, section 8 (5) is virtually an amendment to the Municipal Act, which allows carte blanche the authority for a regional district to enter into a transit agreement. That's the practical outcome of it as this, indeed, suggests that notwithstanding the Municipal Act, et cetera.... Fair enough. I didn't read it that way, but I accept that interpretation. That makes sense.

Section 8 (2) , however, the minister said, applies to municipalities and regional districts. I don't find the words "regional district" anywhere in 8 (2) .

HON. MR. CURTIS: By definition.

MR. BARBER: A municipality, by definition, is expansive enough to include a regional district?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. BARBER: That's in the Act? I've never read that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's quite common in the Municipal Act where, in certain contexts, the regional district is covered by the term "municipality." We refer to municipalities in everyday activities of the ministry. We refer to them as municipalities. It's generic by definition.

MR. BARBER: Then, as far as section 8 is concerned, there is no difference whatsoever in law - once this becomes law - between the authority of a regional district or a municipality, voluntarily or bound under it by section 3 of this bill, to enter into either of the agreements? No difference at all?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Correct.

MR. BARBER: Section 8 raises another matter of concern to us, and it was raised by one of the members for Vancouver South, as I recall. That's the question of who should obtain development rights and benefits from the land the Authority or the operating company may

[ Page 2474 ]

acquire. As was pointed out very ably last week when we debated the principle of this bill, one of the great values that accrues, particularly with LRT and subway planning -I'm not proposing either of them, I'm merely referring to them - is the value that is built up around the depots themselves where, because of the placement of them, thousands upon thousands of people who ordinarily wouldn't travel there come Lo do so, if the system succeeds. I recall that speaker saying and, as I've read elsewhere, what you end up with most often are really very high density areas of population right around the depots.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to answer?

MR. BARBER: Right now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well I can, if you wish.

MR. BARBER: If you've got an answer all ready, sure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have an answer ready. The question has been put before, Mr. Chairman. The member has referred to it. I would draw his attention to last year's amendments to the Municipal Act, in particular with respect to 702 (AA) . This deals with the development cost charge and the development permit system which is coming into final place in January of next year. Looking ahead, as we attempted to do, the municipality - again, in the broad sense of the term - may require that funds be assigned. "The council shall have due regard to the following considerations in addition to those referred to in section 702 (2) . The council may provide for the issue of development permits.... consider the provision of sewage, water and drainage facilities" - and here in clause E (II) - "the construction of highways, street lighting, underground wiring, sidewalks and transit service facilities".

In other words, a council or, as the case may be, the board of directors of a regional district may look to that particular aspect of a transit service, by conventional or advanced means, and charge what the member opposite has referred to as development rights. It's common practice in other parts of the world. Certainly it is common practice in Europe, and we are pleased to have it in place in British Columbia. Thank you for permitting me to stray back to a piece of legislation last year to answer a question.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the answer the minister has given, but it's only an answer to part of the question. The other part, which I will frame, is this. It's been the experience of many equivalent urban transit authorities, as the minister just mentioned, that extraordinary increases in real estate value are discovered centred around the principal depots of the major arteries of those systems. I refer particularly to subways and LRT systems. That should come as no surprise. Obviously it is advantageous to be located in an area where 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 people a day walk by. Anyone would like to own a bakery or a used car lot at such a corner - even me, I suppose, if I were so inclined.

What I don't see here, or even in what the minister just referred me to, is the opportunity to assess in advance, to plan in advance and to capture in advance some of that increased value which is the direct result of the work of the UTA. The minister indicated, if I understand him correctly, that the municipalities or regional districts may charge for certain costs associated with this kind of development. In that sense, they have recaptured some of their otherwise lost funds. Now that's very good, that's important and I respect that. But it is by no means a proper way to assign the whole value which has substantially increased when, say, LRT - for the purpose of this argument - goes into an area.

I am familiar somewhat with the BART experience in San Francisco. I have traveled the line a number of times and I have met with people at BART and have read some of the works. A study that they undertook - if I recall it properly, last fall - was a study of the extent to which real estate values increased around the BART depots, particularly as they went up to Daly City and later on as they went up towards Richmond. They looked at those two ends of the line. One of the conclusions they reached was no surprise at all. Persons who were lucky enough - by accident, they weren't claiming collusion or corruption - to be located along these lines where the depots were have discovered that they can reap an extraordinary benefit that they did not earn, by simple virtue of the fact that they happened to be located along LRT or BART lines. I don't think that's fair.

If people want to earn money on the basis of their holdings, it should be because they have added to the value of those holdings. It should be because in a practical way they contributed to the worth of those assets. It is not fair that the state, by virtue of planning, say, an LRT line in Vancouver, should end up giving some real estate company, some development outfit, some speculator, who hasn't done anything at all to increase the value of his land, an increase of perhaps 500

[ Page 2475 ]

to 1,000 per cent in the value of that land because he's lucky enough to have an LRT depot located 20 yards away.

So the other half of the question, which I think is more broad and more important than just assigning charges for the actual construction of these things and for the sewers and lights that will be required and the rest of it, is the question of assigning value, particularly in real estate, to the land around those areas where LRT goes. If the government has intentions to assign that value and to recognize the increase of it, do they have any plan at all to recapture at least part of the value? That value is increased only by virtue of the UTA having made a certain decision about where transit should go. That value increase does not belong to the people who happen to own the land, because they didn't earn it. They didn't work for it; they didn't contribute to it; they didn't do anything at all on purpose. By fortuitous circumstance the value is increased because, say, the UTA decides to put an LRT line down their front street and the depot 20 yards away brings thousands of customers to their businesses.

There is no provision at all in this bill for the recapture of those increased values to the benefit of the people who own them in the first place and who should obtain them in the second. I wonder if the minister would care to reply to that particular argument. The section he referred me to in the Municipal Act doesn't apply to it at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has taken some time to outline a particular point of view. I think there is some authority here in this particular, bill with respect to development rights. With respect to what the transit commission may recommend to the Authority in terms of acquisition, they could be very much in control of a particular area which is going to benefit significantly from the introduction of a new line, LRT, commuter rail, or whatever it may be. When seen in company with the amendments to the Municipal Act last year, which I outlined for the member, I'm satisfied that there is really good opportunity there for an imaginative transit service area to benefit from its share of introducing a service to an area.

MR. BARBER: Let me make a practical proposal on my own behalf; I don't do so on behalf of my own colleagues.

Let's say that the first LRT line goes out Kingsway and intersects, say, at Victoria or Knight or something like that. In his view of it, does this bill allow a situation like the following to occur? A depot is placed at the intersection of, say, Kingsway and Knight. That depot will add immensely to the real estate value and the business worth of commercial enterprises operating at that intersection. Would the minister see a special tax being levied against those persons who within a specific radius of that depot will most certainly have an advantage as a result of the placement of that depot there? Would the minister consider that that might be one way of recapturing for the public the increase in value of those businesses and that real estate through no action of those business and that real estate itself, but rather through simply a decision of the public?

I think it's unfair and dishonourable for people to take benefit that they have not earned. It's very clear to me that if benefit is going to accrue because you're lucky enough at the corner of Kingsway and Knight to have an LRT depot there, you should have to pay for that. That should be one of the ways that benefit can be recaptured for the public. Would the minister conclude that this bill permits that kind of recapture of value to the public purse?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before I recognize the minister, we're in clause-by-clause discussion, and it's to be strictly relevant. I believe the last question is dealing with items that are not in this bill and therefore are not really debatable at this time. It probably would have been better asked at another time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a good point, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I might ask that the minister consider commenting from the correct seat, if he wishes to comment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Which minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. However, I'm having difficulty keeping the other minister in order as well. When we consider things, they should only be those clauses that are actually in the bill. The minister may wish to comment.

MR. BARBER: For the purpose of debate, it seems to me that sections 8 (1) (a) and (b) allow debate on this subject, if you take a quick look. There is just perhaps enough of the eye of the needle for us camels to sneak through. I would appreciate some statement

[ Page 2476 ]

from the minister about the principle of recapture for the public of value that the public alone has created in the first place. I think it's an important principle and if sections 8 (l) (a) and (b) allow us to debate it, I would appreciate the minister's reply.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, paying heed to your admonition a few moments ago, (a) and (b) under subsection (1) of section 8 deal with the acquisition and disposition of real and personal property for the purposes of this Act. There is no recapture factor in this particular legislation, but I did indicate earlier the opportunity is available. I've done so three times now, sir. The opportunity is available through the amendments to the Municipal Act in terms of development rights and ensuring that local government will recover from new development.

I understand the opposite side advancing the principle of recapture. That was fundamental to the transit proposals which were made by my predecessor, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, but Mr. Lorimer's proposals did not get as far as this one has thus far.

MR. BARBER: On another subject within the section, I argued in second reading - and I'm referring to section 8 (l) (b) - that there is no apparent provision in this bill for obtaining from B.C. Hydro its rail division. I would remind the committee that B.C. Hydro at the moment operates a rail system for freight only that is some 106 miles in length. It runs from downtown Vancouver out the former interurban line and proceeds out to, as I recall it, Chilliwack. It is mile by mile, I'm told, one of the very most profitable rail lines in all of North America.

This bill, at the moment, does not refer -although section 8 (1) (b) might, depending on the minister's interpretation of it - to acquisition of that rail system from Hydro. It occurs to us, and 1 proposed it before and I do so again now, that two steps might be taken regarding B.C. Hydro's rail system itself.

First, it's very clear that the rail system, that the rights-of-way, the track and even some of the rolling equipment might form the heart of a suburban LRT system. UTA surely should have control over that.

Secondly, the profits which last year were $1.5 million on Hydro's freight-only rail system should and could be diverted to subsidy of the overall transit system itself. The profits from that could be used to diminish the burden on property which property taxpayers will have to suffer as a result of the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 14 of this Act.

I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to acquiring from Hydro its entire rail system and allowing the UTA thereby to apply its profits to subsidize transit and to use its system for the construction the right-of-way and the rolling equipment that will be necessary for the anticipated LRT lines that will be required in or around greater Vancouver and up into the Valley in the century to come. I would appreciate the minister's comments on that proposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, and much as the Chairman might like to be listening to the debate, the fact that it's not in the bill makes it not admissible. It should have been covered earlier on second reading.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, section 8 (l) (b) says the Authority may acquire and dispose of real and personal property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're suggesting that when the Authority is set up, some extra additional things be included in the Authority, and it's not spelled out. We're going to get vague. The word is "strictly" relevant in your standing orders. At that point I'm going to have to stick to the word "strictly."

MR. BARBER: Well, as you'll see in section (c) and (d) of 8 (l) , it also refers to Hydro, whose rail system we are now discussing. If you'll bear with me, I think the point will be passed over relatively quickly, and the point is this: the Act appears to grant authority to UTA to obtain real and personal property. What I argue is: does the minister debating this section of the Act anticipate or support the prospect that Hydro's rail system may also be obtained for UTA purposes, and that thereby its profits and its rights-of-way and equipment may be used for UTA purposes and subsidies as well? The bill would appear to provide it, but I'd like to know from the minister if he thinks it does.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill which would prevent that from occurring. In answer to the members question, it could be considered in establishing operating agreements. It could be considered in this particular case if the lower mainland transit commission wanted it considered and such a recommendation went forward to the Urban Transit Authority board.

I am informed that B.C. Hydro's rail profitability is not quite as significant as some

[ Page 2477 ]

of us might have thought. It's still profitable, but I think it is likely that the authority with the provincial partnership will enter into far more agreements with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific rather than B.C. Hydro rail. That's an assumption on my part. It's possible; it's not prohibited in the bill.

MR. BARBER: Section 8 (1) (g) will, as far as we view it, make it most unlikely indeed that any local jurisdiction will be able to enter into a research or demonstration project related to the provision of public transportation. The reason for that is because (g) requires a municipality to pay 50 per cent of the cost of such a project. As far as I can tell, the only municipality with sufficient assets to do that is the city of Vancouver itself. Most certainly, the city of Victoria could not afford to enter into a significant research or demonstration project if only 50 per cent of the funds for it were picked up by the Urban Transit Authority itself.

In the United States of America, in its own department of transportation and its rapid transit branch, they pick up 100 per cent of the cost of significant research and demonstration projects. They recognize, as well, that very few local areas have the money. Very few of them even have the inclination to do the necessary kind of homework and preparation and experimentation that should and could take place in order to properly plan a good transit system from practical experience.

Section 8 (1) (g) here simply provides 50 per cent, and no more, for the sharing of what is referred to as a demonstration project related to the provision of public passenger transportation. I want to make the point that we chink 50 per cent is completely inadequate, that the UTA should be willing, for significant demonstration projects, to pick up the whole shot. Their unwillingness, as this bill makes it clear, to pick up anything like that will mean that we won't see any demonstration projects initiated locally anywhere at all, save perhaps in the city of Vancouver. No one else has got the money, no one's got the budget and, least of all, they have no inclination.

I think it's a shame and a disappointment that only this level of funding should be provided. If one could amend it with any hope of getting it through the committee, we would amend it co read 100 per cent on the part of the UTA. But I know, of course, we could not do that so I wonder if the minister might explain how he justifies picking up only half the tab for significant demonstration projects.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, this is precisely that which was requested by the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Not the city of Vancouver, but by the GVRD. I don't share the member's pessimism with respect to greater Victoria. It doesn't have to be all municipalities, as the member knows. It may be groups of municipalities in a greater Victoria transit commission with respect to a specific project.

There is some federal money available also, albeit a limited amount, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not referring to the UTAP - Urban Transportation Assistance Programme - which has severe stress on it. In addition there are some dollars that could be secured from the national government in this kind of activity. But, as I say, Mr. Chairman, this was suggested by the GVRD. It seemed like a good idea to us, and we've undertaken it.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. BARBER: This is the Section 1n which cost is shared. This is the section where silence reigns. This is the section where the minister says nothing about the extent to which the province will actually share in part of the cost of the operating and capital deficits inevitably associated with transit in this province.

It is clear that the annual operating deficit includes capital costs as well and provides that they may be amortized under the annual operating agreement. What concerns the opposition is that in this particular case, paradoxically, the government is indeed going to honour a campaign promise that it made.

In the last campaign, the now Premier, on the Jack Webster show of December 8,1975, said that he would propose to finance transit as follows: he would require the municipalities to pick up 50 per cent of the operating costs and require them as well to pick up 25 per cent of the capital costs.

One of the reasons that this bill is such a loser for local government in British Columbia is section 10. What it means is that in the 14 non-metro areas of the province currently served by transit, they will now have to pick up 25 per cent of the capital cost. Previously they picked up zero. The capital equipment was provided entirely at no charge directly to then by the provincial government.

The amounts of money are significant. A modern diesel bus, with 64 or 72 passengers,

[ Page 2478 ]

runs at about $80,000. A modern trolley in the city of Vancouver runs at about $125,000 to $140,000, depending on the time of supply and other stuff, whether or not you have two or four doors that open in the middle and the rest of it. But basically it is about $125,000 for electric and $80,000 for diesel.

What section 10 means is that local, nonmetro areas, which used to have all this equipment provided at no charge, will now have to pick up - if Mr. Bennett's promise is honoured - 25 per cent of the cost. What it means in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria is that a system that previously cost nothing directly is going to have to be subsidized to the 50 per cent extent.

I want to talk about what that means. I want to refer to an article, if I may, in the Vancouver Province, written by Nate Smith, April 2,1977. It's an article that anticipates provincial funding for transit, and section 10 refers to provincial funding for transit. It's an article that apparently managed to overhear a meeting between the minister and Vancouver council. If I may quote from it:

"Curtis told city council in a private meeting last week that under a financing formula now being proposed, the province will pay all capital costs of transit, and local governments will pay half of operating deficits. Details of Curtis' statement are contained in a city staff report that council received Friday." The chairman of the GVRD transportation committee, the mayor of White Rock, Don MacDonald , went on to say: "We perceive a rather bleak outlook for all of us .... "

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could indicate the relevance of reading newspaper articles in section-by-section debate. It doesn't trouble me, but I frankly think that it is off the point. I am quite prepared to debate the question with the member if he wishes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. We are on section 10.

MR. BARBER: Yes, the sharing of costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those points that you wish to bring out that are strictly relevant are appropriate, but those matters which should have been covered under second reading, or which were covered, are not appropriate. We're really into the technical language of this section. I know the member will take that into consideration in the debate. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: As you know, the member respects the Chair.

What I am doing is pointing out the likely formula for cost sharing as provided in section 10. 1 do so because the minister has not done so. A-11 I can do is refer to public statements made by himself and the now Premier on earlier occasions. I do so out of respect for those statements because I know they were made sincerely. I know that when the Premier, on the Jack Webster show, on December 8,1975, talked about a 50-50 sharing agreement for operating deficits and 75-25 for capital, he was being sincere and announcing government policy. He is now the Premier. We are now dealing with the policy here in section 10.

What disturbs us is that the result of section 10, if that promise is honoured - and the minister appears to have reflected it in the Province article from which I quoted ever so briefly - will be that we will discover that in Vancouver and Victoria especially the burden for financing transit locally will be intolerable.

We're concerned that if that is the case, these inevitable things will result. There will be a deterioration in service because no local politician will want to raise local taxes in order to pay for more service. There will be an increase in fares and that has already been anticipated by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) , who in the Colonist on June 7 of this year talked about an increase of five or 10 cents to pay the greater Vancouver shares of the transit deficit at the fare box.

There will be a deterioration in the capital equipment itself because the moneys that should be used to replace buses won't be available. The moneys that should be used to buy new buses won't be available either. Hydro has estimated that in the period 1978-82 they will require $142 million to replace rolling stock and to add to the fleet according to their present plans. Under section 10 we discover that if the Socred promise is honoured, that $142 million will have to be borne to the greatest extent by people who cannot afford to pay for it. That concerns and disturbs us greatly.

Section 10, in our judgment, represents a deliberate withdrawal of financial participation by a car-dealer cabinet whose interests are not served by public transit. The minister said that we were attacking him unfairly for centralizing power in another section. We're leading two attacks, and they are: on the one hand the government wants all of the Authority to run its system; and on the other, it wants to make sure that local government pays for

[ Page 2479 ]

the running of that system as much as they can get away with it.

Section 10 is no doubt going to come to light in regulations when the minister tells us, by regulation, how generous this sharing agreement will be. We fear that if the agreement were as generous as the minister allows it to be, that announcement would have been made already. Because it has not been, it isn't so generous at all. We suspect that the commitment made by Social Credit during the last campaign will be kept and section 10, when enacted, will reflect this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, when we're in committee and going through the bill clause by clause, I must remind you that the section has already been approved in principle. At this point we are really only debating the language of the section and the technical aspects of the section. Your debate has heretofore been back on to the principle of the bill which was covered and approved by this House at an earlier time.

MR. BARBER: It was approved by some people in the House who happen to have a majority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was approved by the House.

MR. BARBER: To restate it so as to meet with the rules of the committee, referring to the annual operating agreement herein, I am concerned that the cost of that agreement will be a cost that no local taxpayer can afford to bear. I think that's a fair argument to lead, Mr. Chairman. If it is not, call me to order again and I will try a different way.

I am concerned that the annual operating agreement will be unaffordable by all but the wealthiest of municipalities with the densest of populations. That specifically refers only to the city of Vancouver. Only the city of Vancouver today could afford within its boundaries a transit system that actually made a bit of money. They are the only ones who have the density. No others do and no others can afford the agreement as provided for here in section 10.

Referring in section 10 to the annual operating agreement provisions, we discover that the anticipated loss in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria alone in fiscal 1978-79 is $74 million for transit purposes. That is, of course, an extraordinary burden for anyone to bear and up until the passage of this bill, that burden has been borne by Hydro.

When the bill passes and when section 10 becomes law, we will discover, I expect, that 50 per cent of that burden will now be borne by the people of greater Vancouver and greater Victoria. This bill will require that they raise that money locally through one or a combination of four new taxes that the bill provides for. It is only fair to ask, and I do so now under this section, what the government's intentions exactly are. If it was their intention to be generous toward transit, we would not see a requirement for four new taxes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you asked me to call you to order, and I'm going to call you to order on irrelevancy. Once again, we're in the technical aspects of the bill and to ask the government a matter of policy at this time is not appropriate.

MR. BARBER: Well, then, let me put it in another way. We want to know at the earliest opportunity - and section 10 would allow the minister to take that opportunity - what the government's intentions are regarding the share of operating losses and capital costs for the transit system. Surely that's in order. That's a fair question. It's the only Section 1n which I can debate it. It's the only Section 1n which I can raise it. It's the only Section 1n committee in which the minister can answer it. If he's going to answer it, let now be the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your question may be very fair but its not the appropriate time to ask the question.

MR. BARBER: Well, when is? Will you name the other section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second reading is the appropriate time.

MR. BARBER: Well, I did and he did not answer so I'm doing it again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The opportunity has passed then because the opportunity was during second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I'm trying to recreate the opportunity and restate it in such a fashion as to be within the rules of the committee and basically hear from the government what they intend to pay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not possible within the rules of this House to recreate that situation.

MR. BARBER: Well, love tried my darndest.

[ Page 2480 ]

hope the minister has listened and will give an answer. I thought the minister was going to say something. He can; that's within the rules; the minister has that authority. Will you tell us today what you intend to pay for transit in the province under section 10, "Sharing of Costs"? You must know. Cabinet would not have approved a bill like this without a financing formula being attached to it. Cabinet would not have approved a financing formula without the minister knowing what it was. Tell us what it is.

HON. Mr. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, you may call me to order. The member has made this point repeatedly and insists on referring to such things as "four new taxes." The fare that a user pays is not a tax. I really resent the inference that there are four taxes, including a fare one pays to board a vehicle.

The point is that we have said in this chamber and I've said to the representatives of local government, with whom I've met, and I've said publicly that there is going to be a phasing in of the local share over some four years. In the metropolitan areas that starts next fiscal year. I've said also that the formula for operating and capital will be at least as generous as that provided for in current agreements under the small communities programme. As the critic for the official opposition, the member opposite should know what that formula is. When it is put into place the formula will be one of the best, if not the best, in Canada when it is put into place. We are not playing games with local government. After years and years we are finally....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The same rules apply to both sides of the House; I'm sure the minister knows that - just an the technical aspects of the bill, rather than the political aspects.

MR. BARBER: I'm of the opinion chat, if the deal were as good as it is supposed to be, it would have been announced weeks ago. However, I simply refer to Socred promises, and that is no good deal at all - it's a terrible deal.

Section 10 (3) permits the local jurisdiction to pay, as part of the operating agreement, for the cost of the Authority itself. This strikes me as a somewhat unusual provision. Ordinarily, when the province establishes a Crown corporation to do the provinces business, it pays - at least in part - for the cost of that corporation or, in this case, that authority. In this case nothing of the sort occurs. Not only will people be bound by four or, if you include the fare box, five new taxes to finance transit, but they are now also bound by section 10 (3) to pay for the cost of the Urban Transit Authority itself. I want to know why that should be the case. Secondly, I want to know what the minister anticipates will be the annual operating cost of the Authority as a planning body, including all its overhead, its salaries and its other obligations. What is the burden that will be imposed on local government by virtue of section 10 (3) ?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as a percentage of the total cost of operating transit in British Columbia, it will be absolutely minuscule. I don't have a figure today for the member. I believe the member understands that this is essentially enabling legislation; it's skeletal legislation.

We're going into a partnership with local government with respect to transit. Therefore it follows - since the question has been asked about section 10 (3) - that in a partnership you share the costs. In effect, this is the cost of the head office. It's cost-shareable. The province will pay its share of those costs. I trust that assists the member.

MR. BARBER: If you would be good enough to tell us what the share is for the operating cost of the Authority, then we could presumably calculate the province's share for all of transit. I don't expect you will today, but I look forward to the day.

Section 10 (2) provides that an amount to amortize the capital expenditures under the transit services agreement shall become part of the annual operating deficit as calculated for the purposes of an agreement itself. I just want to raise the point, as an argument, that it strikes us that, for greater clarity of accounting and bookkeeping, the two charges should be separate and unrelated. What we have here is a provision whereby the capital costs amortized shall be included in the operating deficit. I don't think that, for the purposes of public policy and determining of the expenditures of public money, this is good enough. There should be a much more separate and much more clear statement of capital charges and operating losses - readily understood by the public. At the moment this tends to blend the two and will do so, I suspect, in such a fashion as to confuse the ordinary lay person who is concerned about and interested in the real costs of transit, operating and capital. I would just argue that greater clarity would serve the purpose of greater public understanding of policy in this bill.

[ Page 2481 ]

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. BARBER: This is the first of four new taxes created for transit purposes in British Columbia. The four taxes are: the property tax, the gasoline tax, the surcharge on natural gas via Hydro, and the surcharge on electricity via Hydro. The minister referred to a fifth tax - he called it a tax - that's the fare box.

I have to argue again, Mr. Chairman, that, if the government intended to be as generous as it claims it is, they would not find it necessary to create and impose four new taxes to be borne by the local taxpayer for transit purposes. Indeed, if they were going to be as generous, or more generous than they have been, we wouldn't see the creation and the imposition of any new local taxes at all.

One of the reasons that the government's own argument is undercut is that we see here in the bill, section 11, fund raising for transit purposes by what's called a municipal tax levy. I want to go on record, on behalf of the official opposition, as stating that we believe that the limit has already been reached whereby property should pay for services to other than property. It is arguable and questionable whether or not transit is a service to property. It is arguable whether or not property should pay to any major extent at all for transit. This bill provides for the creation and imposition of a new property tax for the financing of transit. It's the first of four new taxes created by Social Credit to subsidize transit.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Particularly, I want to point out that section 11, as I read it, says that the municipality "shall" impose a rate sufficient - via property - to pay for transit. It is not enabling in this section, it is not permissive; it is mandatory. Section 1t requires that "the municipality shall impose a rate sufficient to meet that prescribed portion of the estimated annual operating deficit on all taxable land and improvements in the transit services area...." The government does not propose to allow local government any choice. The government does not propose to allow flexibility. The government does not propose to do anything other than increase the burden on the homeowner for the subsidy of transit in this province. We reject that. On this side of the House, we believe that - more or less -the limit has already been reached whereby property may pay for anything else, much less this else, and this much else, for transit in British Columbia. So I ask the minister why he has found it necessary to make it obligatory on a municipality to raise part of its share of the transit burden by a compulsory land tax. If he could answer that, I have another question about the province's own responsibility in the matter.

HON. R. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid the member i-, having a little bit of difficulty with respect to this, because section 11 (l) says that "Where a municipality enters into an annual operating agreement..." - then the rest flows from that. It follows that the municipality, or municipalities as a group, will be discussing the annual operating agreement and to what extent this particular municipal tax levy will be implemented. In other words, it's not an imposed decision. The "shall, " which suggests that it is mandatory, follows only after the annual operating agreement is struck in draft form and debated back and forth and then finally agreed upon between the two partners. So I think there's that flaw in the argument that has been advanced.

Property tax is not going to be a very desirable means of raising large sum of money. However, Mr. Chairman - through you to the committee - I think that it can be used very lightly, very sparingly, in terms of funding transit. I've given examples in and out of this chamber - and I'm now probably moving into other sections - where the gas tax - as an example only - will raise a significant amount of the money which is required locally. In the case of the small community systems, they've entered into this with a 2-mill ceiling on property tax and, with the most pessimistic projections, they cannot reach that 2-mill ceiling. I trust that helps the member.

MR. BARBER: As the minister will know, it was our government that introduced the 2-mill ceiling and our government that recognized that property tax had a limit. It couldn't go beyond it, and we thought 2 mills was the limit. What we agreed during our administration - briefly, for purposes of history in the committee, Mr. Chairman - is that 100 per cent of the deficit over 2 mills would be picked up by the province.

Now I read section 11 as being, indeed, mandatory, no matter what the level may be. If the loss is only $1, section 11 requires the municipality to impose a property tax to pick up a share of that. But that's not the

[ Page 2482 ]

significant argument here, because we already know the loss is much greater than $1. In the fiscal year that we're presently in, Hydro estimates its losses in greater Victoria and greater Vancouver alone will be $74 million. Seventy-seven per cent of that deficit will accrue to the people of Vancouver, because that's where the deficit is charged. Seventy seven percent of that money is going to have to be picked up by the people of Vancouver, together with the province, in the agreement established by this bill. It makes it very clear, by my reading, that municipalities will have no choice but to impose at least some additional burden on property. The minister says it's light and sparing. Well, I'm not sure that property taxpayers would agree with this government's version of light and sparing property taxes. They are rejecting many of those taxes as they apply to education. We suspect them, as well....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you again to please get back to the section. You had your opportunity in second reading to discuss the principle. We must now relate to the specifics of the section.

MR. BARBER: That's right, and I am relating my remarks....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Mr. Member, you are not, and you've been drawn to order on that many times. I would ask you now to relate to the specifics of the section.

MR. BARBER: You are referring to remarks made in section 10. This is section 11. Okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know what I'm referring to.

MR. BARBER: I understand perfectly well what you are referring to.

What concerns us is that the light and sparing level of taxation provided for in the section, referred to just now by the minister in his remarks, may not prove to be light or sparing at all as far as the homeowner is concerned. Is that okay? What I was doing is making a connection with taxpayer unrest regarding education as paid for by property. However, I won't pursue that one any more, because I know you'll rule me out of order.

Therefore I want to question section 11 (2) , which appears to suggest that provincially owned land will not be subject to this first of four new taxes for transit. What I question is whether or not municipalities may, by bylaw, tax provincially owned land for transit purposes. Section 11 (2) is not entirely clear on the matter, because it obviously exempts or intends to exempt certain classes of property.

The minister may well argue that the province shouldn't pay, if you will, a transit property tax, because to the extent that it pays a transit property tax in a local area, it will reduce its contribution in the same local area for transit purposes. There may be no absolute benefit at all, just an exchange of dollars. If that's the argument, I'd like to hear it. At the moment it's not been presented, so I'd like to know, by interpretation of the minister, whether or not 11 (2) provides for taxing of provincially owned land for transit purposes under the general section 11 - fund-raising by municipal tax levies.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to section 11 (2) , what we have attempted to do is provide the broadest possible tax base exclusive of British Columbia Hydro lands. We want the best base from the local government's point of view, and that is what we shall be providing.

MR. BARBER: Do I understand the minister to say, then, that all provincially owned property, except that owned by Hydro corporately, will be subject to taxation under the provisions of this section?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There may be the odd anomalous situation.

MR. BARBER: Like a park or something like that, sure. But improved land owned by the province will be subject to tax for this purpose, is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the expectation, yes.

MR. BARBER: Fine. I'm sure that's enough questions for the section.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

MR. BARBER: This is a section that creates another tax; these are the taxes on electricity and the tax on natural gas for the subsidy of transit. Section 12, municipally imposed power rates, allows the creation of two new taxes for the subsidy of transit.

Now section 12 (2) , to which we also opposed in principle, permits apparently - and I ask the minister's interpretation of this - B.C. Hydro to be able to keep the interest on

[ Page 2483 ]

electricity and natural gas surcharges payable to the municipality that calls for them. What the section does is Empower a municipality to levy an additional charge on natural gas and electricity for transit purposes. What it does is require Hydro to collect that on behalf of the municipality and then give that money to the municipality at regular intervals - quarterly, if I recall it properly.

What I wonder is whether or not Hydro will also be required to pay to the municipalities the interest collected on the moneys which it holds in trust for those municipalities. The interest in a period of time will be considerable. The section refers to how Hydro is obligated to do these things. I wonder whether or not the minister could tell us if the section also will require it to pay the interest on the moneys which it holds in trust for local government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the power rates which are referred to here in section 12 are optional, again at the choice of the local government or groupings of local government. They may be natural gas or electricity, but not necessarily.

With respect to the member's second point, the pay-over by B.C. Hydro of that which it collects in the areas which decide to use this mechanism, we anticipate that by regulation we shall require prompt pay-over on a regular basis so that interest would not mount up significantly. That will be provided for by prescription. We want to see the money, in effect, in a draw, or in a fund. It will be drawn on just as regularly as possible; I don't think much interest will build up.

Sections 12 and 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. BARBER: The bill provides for transit service areas. Presumably those areas could be simply a municipality or an area composed of several municipalities. Section 14 imposes the fourth new tax for transit purposes in British Columbia.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The fourth optional tax, Charles.

MR. BARBER: What section 14 does is permit a municipality, on request by bylaw, to impose up to the limit of 3 cents a gallon a tax at the pump for a subsidy of transit.

I want to point out right now that we have no objection, by its nature, to the use of tax revenues generated by the private auto for the subsidy of public transit. We don't dispute that at all. The proposal that we made, however, during second reading - which 1 shall not debate at this point - was simply for diversion of part of the gas tax at its present level. The proposal of the government is to increase the gas tax, and to apply that increase up to 3 cents a gallon for the subsidy of transit.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: You guys are going to be paying more for transit, and you don't seem to know it yet.

What I'm worried about is the potential anomaly that may exist. Given that a municipality may, under section 3 of this Act, be bound to enter into an agreement, we may find that a municipality like Vancouver, for the purposes of its transit, will impose a tax at the pump of 3 cents a gallon. We may find that a municipality like West Vancouver, which, at the moment, operates on a totally separate system - it's not part of Hydro at all - to pay....

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you like to pay 21 cents more a gallon, like we do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: What we may see is the following anomaly: in the city of Vancouver, for their own reasons, given the level of transit they wish to operate, their commitment to LRT, perhaps a downtown subsidy, or the rest of it, the imposition of, say, a 3-cent-a-gallon tax at the pump, whereas in West Vancouver with lower costs and lesser ambitions, only half a cent a gallon.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to explain?

MR. BARBER: Well, I know what you I re going to tell me in part, but hear out the rest of the argument.

It would revolve around the question of the area defined under the transit service area provided for in the bill. However, that has flaws as well. You cannot create a transit service area that encloses or encompasses the entire Greater Vancouver Regional District. If you propose to do it, how then will you differentiate the gas tax at the pump to pay for these things? You will be led into the following problem. The people of Delta may well decide, on the best information they have at their command, that they don't need to pay more than I cent a gallon at the pump for

[ Page 2484 ]

transit subsidy as provided in section 14. The people of West Vancouver may find it half a cent a gallon, the people of Richmond 2 cents, the city of Vancouver 3 cents, or whatever. These figures are hypothetical, but the problem is real. The people of Delta have different transit needs from those in downtown Vancouver, and the problem, inevitable to the solution imposed by this bill, is the anomaly that will result when various municipalities -talking about the greater Vancouver transit area - will discover that they wish to apply taxes differently.

Do you propose, under section 14, to require a uniform additional gas tax at the pump throughout the entire greater Vancouver area? Because if that gas tax is not applied uniformly, you will end up in the bizarre situation of having people fill up in Burnaby, because it only costs an extra penny a gallon, and not at all in Vancouver, because it costs an extra 3 cents a gallon.

That problem is a real one. That problem has financial consequences, and is not addressed at the moment by remarks the minister has made. If you intend to oppose, and allow only uniform tax at the pump, then that should be announced right now because, at the moment, we have no information on the subject. The problems that I've raised are, I think, real and legitimate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member has anticipated some of my response, because in fact we discussed this, I think, in second reading. There cannot be a variation between the gas tax levied for this purpose in New Westminster versus the city of Vancouver, because one would expect, and all logic would suggest that will be a single transit service area, and not necessarily just the boundaries of the GVRD. I haven't drawn the map, but portions of the GVRD may be deleted. Bowen Island comes to mind as an immediate example.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Ioco? No, I don't know about loco. The Chairman is trying to lead the debate.

MR. BARBER: Does he live in Ioco?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, he lives elsewhere.

But where the transit service area boundaries are finally defined and drawn by, in this case, the lower mainland transit commission, ratified by the UTA and by the partnership in Victoria, then the gasoline tax for transit purposes will be levied equally and equitably over the entire transit service area. One can argue about the varying needs between a resident in the city of Vancouver and a resident in Delta or Richmond or Tsawwassen, but that kind of comment really would apply to a lot of levies, a lot of services.

1, in Saanich, don't receive as satisfactory a garbage collection service as a business operating in downtown Victoria, for a variety of reasons. But that kind of disparity is not that bad, and certainly the gasoline tax cannot be imposed on a municipality-by municipality basis. That would be chaos. However, it has been pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that, as we know from our own movement in the community, there is a larger gas price disparity from pump to pump or station to station within a neighbourhood, depending on the chain and the type of service that is offered. That I think we have come to accept and understand over a good number of years.

MR. BARBER: May I take it then that you have announced a policy which is that you will not permit any other than a uniform gas tax under section 14 in the greater Vancouver transit area and the greater Victoria area? The minister may think he has said this before, but to the best of my knowledge he has not made that statement publicly before.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. Where a transit service area is defined - and that definition process will take place as I described a moment ago - the gasoline tax, if that is used as a mechanism for raising local share, will be levied over the entire transit service area.

Now for purposes of illustration only, in the event that it were found to be desirable to have two transit service areas in the lower mainland - a highly unlikely situation, but in the event that that occurred - then there could be a gasoline tax in the one transit service area but not in the other. I use it for illustration and I really don't know why I did, because it is a crazy idea.

MR. BARBER: I want to ask questions now about the bureaucracy and the mechanism for assessing the amount payable to the municipality of the municipally imposed gas tax.

Section 14 permits a municipality, by bylaw, to impose the tax. The policy that the minister has now announced is that all of the municipalities have to impose the same tax. Fair enough; that's a reasonable answer.

What I wonder now, however, is about the cost of the imposition of this tax, because 14 (2) and 14 (3) talk about how the money shall

[ Page 2485 ]

be paid to the Authority for the credit of the municipality, those amounts being equivalent to the net revenue collected under the enactments referred to in section 1, that being the gasoline tax.

Can the minister tell the House, in a practical way, how this is going to work? Does the province pick it up? Does the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) have responsibility there? Does he then, so to speak, issue a cheque to the UTA, some portion of which will be understood to be a credit to this municipality or does the municipality itself have to collect the money by some new system of red tape that hasn't been anticipated yet?

The Act does not make clear - at least as I read it - who actually collects the money. It says that the Minister of Finance pays out of consolidated revenue, but does he collect? How will the tax actually be assessed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we looked at this very carefully. It is a good point. It would have been ludicrous and very expensive to have set up a completely separate collecting agency and mechanism. It will be collected in the same way that the provincial gasoline tax is collected now, and it is readily identifiable since it will be within a specific service area. That may take a little mechanical work in the Ministry of Finance, and then it will be paid by the Minister of Finance to the municipalities.

It is to be collected provincially in precisely the same way that is employed today for the provincial tax.

MR. BARBER: I ask this question on behalf of a couple of people in local government who have come to me. Did I misunderstand you? You said the money was going to be paid to the transit commission by Finance?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. BARBER: Who actually holds the money? Is it the fund that is being established here under section 13?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. BARBER: That's where the money goes. And the share of it that was raised within municipality A will be credited to the account of municipality A out of the fund. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. BARBER: Briefly, what is the ceiling here? This is the section which deals with municipal borrowing authority. It allows a municipality to borrow money by bylaw for the purpose of meeting its obligations under this Act for capital expenditures. I'm not familiar with the section of the Municipal Act. As we described during an earlier debate, it is an unreadable mess and I couldn't find the Section 1 in the index. What is the ceiling of municipal debt that is now established under the provisions of section 15?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, they would be the same as those provided for in the Municipal Act in terms of the debt limitations which apply to individual municipalities. They are based on a formula which has been in place for a number of years, and relate to population and to the borrowing power of municipalities. They relate to a number of factors.

There is no ceiling as such, other than that which is already in place and which applies whether it is an arena, a recreation centre, a new sewer system or whatever.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could help me. Let me illustrate this. If it is the case now that municipality A has a debt limit of, say, $20 million up to June 20,1978, and they've reached that limit, by and large, through expenditures on roads, sewers, lights, arenas, public recreational facilities, swimming pools, parks and so on, they will now discover, it seems to me, that the additional borrowing requirements for transit purposes cannot be met because the ceiling has already been hit for other purposes.

What the minister does in this Act through section 15, as I understand it, is allow them to assume additional obligations for capital purposes transit, without at the same time increasing the actual limit on borrowing that the municipality may obtain. If the limit has been $20 million for all the other purposes so far, and now one new purpose is transit and the limit is still $20 million, some municipalities may be in difficulty. They may discover that the capital equipment they wish to obtain for their new transit system is unaffordable because they have reached the limit when they built the last rec centre down the street.

What I want to know is whether or not the minister has given any consideration to that possible problem on the part of heavily indebted municipalities. Saanich is one of them. It's tremendously in debt and it's had a

[ Page 2486 ]

lot of obligations in the last few years - you know, sidewalks and sewers and so on, because it's a growing municipality. That municipality might find itself unable to take advantage of the provisions of section 15 because they have already reached the limit.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I know of only a couple of communities in British Columbia where one could describe the debt load as being of concern. It is described as being of concern long before that ceiling is reached. The inspector of municipalities and his staff traditionally have watched over the increase in debt. Long before you get to that magic number, the alarm bell is sounded and the municipality concerned would be encouraged to undertake certain activities or curtail certain activities. I frankly do not see it as a problem in this context.

MR. BARBER: I think you are falling asleep, Mr. Chairman.

Does section 15 permit a municipality, through the Municipal Finance Authority, to raise money for capital purposes? Would there be a connection between the MFA and the obligations that likely will have to be met under section 15?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

Amendment approved.

On section 18 as amended.

MR. BARBER: I am concerned about the definition of the third transit commission, the non-metro transit commission. In an earlier part of this debate, the minister referred to regional interests that would obtain. He said there are West Kootenay interests, East Kootenay interests, Okanagan interests, central and north Island interests, northern interior interests. That is very much the case. But once again, I want to draw to his attention the problem that has been raised and drawn to mind by people from the non-metro areas about the definition of the transit service areas, as provided for under section 18.

Has the minister given consideration to further regionalizing by this Act or some regulation - does this Act provide it? - those kind of transit interests? If it is the case that, say, the Okanagan has a particular regional approach and should take it to transit, what we discover under section 18 is that that is not provided for. What section 18 does is lump together all of the 14 groups, as disparate as West Van to Trail, in one transit service commission. From West Vancouver to Trail demographically and humanly and socially is a world of difference, with all respect to both communities. That being the case, is there any provision here for further regionalizing the planning approaches and transit interests of those areas, which the minister has already said share a regional approach to transit needs?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Within the framework of the legislation, the answer is yes. Indeed, that may be found to be desirable. I discussed this earlier in committee. There are regional interests or multi-regional interests, if you will, and there is nothing in this legislation which would prevent that from occurring if it is found to be desirable by those in the partnership, i.e. local government and the province, with the Authority recommending the same . I'm quite sure it will happen, in due course, on a year's or two years' experience.

Section 18 as amended approved.

On section 19.

MR. BARBER: Section 19 says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. When will you do this? When thereby will we find out what share you intend to pay for transit in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to suggest to this committee that we have regulations sort of ready to roll. They are being worked up; they are in draft form. We would like to do it very soon.

MR. BARBER: Could I squeeze from the minister a commitment to do it, say, by the end of August, September, December? Will it be done in this calendar year so that municipalities and regional governments may know as soon as possible what their obligations are and what four new taxes shall have to be raised in order to finance transit, Socred-style, in British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was going to try and give an answer until we hit

[ Page 2487 ]

the last few comments.

It's a proclamation bill. Regulations will flow out of various sections as they are proclaimed. I don't want to be political this afternoon but this is the government which, under other legislation - revenue sharing -gave the earliest notice to municipalities as to the amount of money they would be receiving, far earlier than has been the case in the past. We want to get this information out. The regulations will flow just as quickly as we can have them in final form.

Sections 19 and 20 approved.

On section 21.

MR. BARBER: I'm asking for interpretation and perhaps the Clerk might be able to advise. Sections 21 through 24 apply to other pieces of legislation. What is the procedure here if there are other ministers whom we wish to question responsible for these other pieces of legislation?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I didn't hear all the question, but I believe it's correct to say that the minister carries the bill regardless of other incidental amendments that might affect other ministers. Does that answer your question?

MR. BARBER: Well, I hope so. But this section 21 which we're on right now amends the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, for instance. The minister is not responsible for the administration of that Act. He's not on the board of B.C. Hydro. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolf e) is and he's not here. Is it the common procedure that other ministers' bills can be amended, but they're not here to answer questions about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The bills don't belong to ministers. They're actually Acts of the Legislature.

MR. BARBER: Well, I appreciate that. They're assigned administrative responsibility for certain Acts. Specifically the Hydro Act is the assigned responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not completely convinced that Acts are assigned to ministers. I think ministers are assigned to portfolios and various Acts come under those portfolios.

MR. BARBER: By order-in-council - 1 forget the number - this government has established the Minister of Finance as being responsible for the administration of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act. lie indeed sits on their board. Is that not correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the practice of the House is that the minister who is sponsoring the bill is the minister who takes the bill through the House. Therefore the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will answer the questions for this one.

MR. BARBER: All right. I have questions. I hope he can answer them.

Section 21 (b) says that in section 53 (6) of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act, the words "and the Public Works Fair Employment Act" shall be struck Out and the words "Public Construction Fair Wages Act and The Urban Transit Authority Act" shall be included. I confess again that I've not read the Hydro Act. Can you tell us what that means and why it has been found necessary to amend the Hydro Act in this fashion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will attempt to answer the question. In the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act there is reference to Acts which are superseded in the transit context by that which we are doing here. It was another debate in another year when we moved from the Public Works Fair Employment Act to the Public Construction Fair Wages Act. Obviously, the insertion of the name of the Urban Transit Authority Act, Mr. Chairman, relates to that which we are doing today.

Sections 21 to 25 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Urban Transit Authority Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 17.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, it was the

[ Page 2488 ]

Whips' agreement that Bill 26 would be next.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair is not aware of any Whips' agreements.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I withdraw the previous statement and we'll go to Bill 26, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think that was a simple mistake or a simple transposition in numbers, if I may be permitted to say so. The committee on the Mobile Home Amendment Act is Bill 26.

MOBILE HOME

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: I believe this is the section where I am Empowered by the rules to raise the definition of mobile home and to ask whether or not the people in Tantalus Village in Squamish will in any fashion be protected by the Mobile Rome Amendment Act, 1978. 1 gave the minister advance notice of my questions about this. I know it concerns him, as it does us, that the people whose mobile homes, as defined in section 1, we are concerned about may find that they are not protected at all if the bill goes through without some advice from the minister about whether or not they can be protected. Anything at all that the minister cares to say on the Homeco and Atco construction at Tantalus Village in Squamish I would very much appreciate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is for you to rule if this question is in order. I hope it is because the matter of Tantalus has been of concern as a result of a series of events which have occurred. There was a meeting with Tantalus at the beginning of June. It is our expectation and hope that, yes, they will be assisted as a result of this amendment. It is the thrust of the amendments throughout to correct a few inequities which were found.

Sections 1 to 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Committee on Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. BARBER: I want to go on record, Mr. Chairman, as congratulating the minister for this section; it's the one that permits amendment to the provincial homeowner grant so as to allow persons who are the owners of 99-year leases on their apartments to take advantage of the provisions of the general Act.

It's something that was originally fought for in a previous parliament by David Anderson. It was fought for by David Anderson on behalf of the people of Villa Royale in Victoria riding. Since the problem was not resolved by the time of the election, Mr. Anderson turned over his files to me, not to my colleague from Victoria, and asked me to take up the cause of Villa Royale. I was happy to do so, and it was later expanded to include that of Orchard House, where the Premier's press secretary lives - and he, no doubt, is also happy with this provision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All of this should have better been discussed under second reading of the bill.

MR. BARBER: We're discussing section 7. I'm just thanking the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that you may wish to thank the minister; however, it is not strictly relevant.

MR. BARBER: Very briefly - if you'll permit, Mr. Chairman - what I want to do is thank David Anderson, the previous member for Victoria, for initiating this on behalf of the people of Villa Royale and thank the minister, at last, for having done this on behalf of the people of Villa Royale and Orchard House and

[ Page 2489 ]

others in the province of British Columbia. It's a good section; it's overdue. I'm glad I sent all the letters I sent to the people of Villa Royale - and I signed my letters - and, having done so, I thank the minister for putting this section forward.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, the first member for Victoria, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , I'd like to accept on his behalf, with grateful thanks, the plaudits of the members opposite.

MR. BARBER: Where is he? They never saw him.

HON. MR. MAIR: Working. Doing the people's business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps, hon. members, if the levity of the hour were to cease, we could proceed with the bill. We are on section 7 of the bill and, perhaps, we can have it in order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Speaking to section 7, Mr. Chairman, the House is in a light mood, but I must say to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that I did not appreciate the inference that this government had broken faith on a matter which proved to be extremely technical and complex. We made a guarantee last year that we would do that which is now in section 7; we understood that it could be done by regulation and then later it was determined that legislation was required. The commitment was made and the commitment was kept.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the minister that the fact that other members previously speaking have been out of order is not licence for the minister to also be out of order.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, this is a technical matter. As the minister knows, the Urban Transit Authority Act contained a number of printing errors, which were corrected on amendment. The Mobile Home Amendment Act, which we just passed, contained a number of somewhat more important errors, which have been corrected in substance; indeed, one of these sections, section 32, was never even proclaimed, because of the difficulty that was determined to be surrounded when enacting it. I think there is an error here in section 9.

It refers to: "...SBC 1921, section 13 of the Victoria City Act, 1921, is repealed...." Well, I can't find a Victoria City Act of 1921. There is a City of Victoria Act, 1922; there is a City of Victoria Act, 1892; but, when I look up vol. 5 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, page 5363, all of the private Acts referring to the city of Victoria are listed, and not one of them refers to a bill called "Victoria City Act, 1921, " which, in this section, has section 13 of it repealed. I presume it's just an error and, rather than having it repeated or corrected next year, if the minister could correct it now - I'll send a copy of RSBC across to you. I presume it is the 1922 bill that the minister thought is supposed to be repealed; there is no Victoria City Act, 1921, on the books.

If we pass section 9, we're amending a bill that doesn't exist.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's his problem.

MR. BARBER: Well, maybe it's good politics to leave the government to stew in its own problem , but I think this is just a minor error and I wonder if the minister would care to correct that now or do whatever is necessary in order to correct what, presumably, is simply a typographical error.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I look to the Chair for guidance. I'm not aware that it is an error and yet I have heard what the second member for Victoria has said. What would the Chair do in a circumstance such as this? If what appears to be an error has been pointed out, I can't confirm this afternoon that it is or is not an error. That's the difficulty I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The advice the Chair would render to you is that the committee can rise and report progress and you can have a chance to have your staff check this, if you like. That's about the only alternative that is available to the Chair.

MR. BARBER: While the minister considers it, I will send across the floor RSBC, Vol. 5, "Table of Private and Local Acts", page 5363. 1 have felt-penned the Victoria City Act, 1922, referred to. I can't find anything for 1921 in it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will take your advice and do as you say.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 2490 ]

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: A point has been raised which I cannot confirm. I would like the committee to sit again at the earliest possible time, if later today is acceptable to you.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion or the directive can even be made, Mr. Minister, that we sit later this sitting or later today. In either case, it provides the opportunity for us to go back into committee. The Chair will accept the directive. When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Later this sitting.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: This is the first opportunity we have to discuss, under section 1, the provision that directors of regional boards representing municipalities will no longer be elected directly, but will be appointed by their councils for one-year terms. I would like, if I may, to read into the record on this subject a statement made by the Capital Regional District, here in my own riding, dated June 14,1978. It was moved by a director, a Saanich alderman, Mr. Sturrock, and seconded by Mr. Hill:

, 'Whereas the terms of reference of the regional district review committee require it, among other things, to examine and recommend on the relationship between the regional districts and the citizens; and whereas the means by which the citizens place representatives on the regional district board is an essential aspect of that relationship; and whereas legislation has been introduced which changes the means by which the citizens place representatives on the regional district board; and whereas this action pre-empts a significant and major aspect of the committee's duties, therefore be it resolved that the Capital Regional District board requests the Premier to withhold or withdraw the Municipal Act amendment affecting the election of regional district directors until the full report of the regional district review committee has been seen by members of the Legislature."

I want to state once again that it concerns us significantly that the regional district review committee has been, to a considerable extent, undermined in the authority it might eventually have to recommend legislative changes. Their work has been pre-empted by the minister and their authority has been subverted by this section. We oppose it on that ground and, further, on the ground that we believe that as a matter of principle people should be able to elect their representatives directly to regional government.

The point is that they cannot. The point is that after this bill they will not. We think that's a loss. It's an anti-democratic move made by a government afraid of local representation, elected with power and vigour. It's a move made by a government that is worried about the democratic instincts of people as represented through the regional district. We don't know why they are afraid of democracy over there, but we have our suspicions.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

Mr. Barber requests that leave be granted to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. BARBER: I want to go on record again, on behalf of the official opposition, as stating that we are entirely opposed to this section. It will make local government more vulnerable to developer pressures. It will make them more

[ Page 2491 ]

susceptible to influence that should never be peddled by speculators in favour of their proposals. It is an attack on a conservative and prudent and cautious approach that should be taken when concerned about local planning and development issues in this province. We are opposed to it. We believe that the two thirds requirement is cautious and prudent and conservative. We introduced it, and we're proud of it, and we're shortly going to divide on it.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 15

Mr. Barber requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Municipal Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Leave granted for divisions to be, recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 34.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The point was made that perhaps this section contained an error. While I appreciate the member opposite raising that possibility, we have had an opportunity to consult. There is, indeed, in the Statutes of British Columbia, 1921, an Act relating to the corporation of the city of Victoria. Therefore the section as printed and before us today is correct.

I think it was useful to doublecheck in case there was a printing error. There is further reference in the Statutes of British Columbia, 1958, Mr. Chairman, which again relates to the Victoria City Act, 1921.

MR. BARBER: May I just point out, for the final time, that in my reference book, RSBC 1960, at page 5363, there is no Victoria City Act, 1921. It says 1922. Presumably this book, then, is in error and I thank the minister for straightening the question out.

Section 9 approved.

Section 10 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 402, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ROYAL TRUST COMPANY

AND ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA

The House in committee on Bill 402; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

[ Page 2492 ]

On section 2.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 2.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. member was good enough to circulate the amendment. I think it means that in the transfer of a large number of titles, the land registry offices will still receive $5 per transfer. Before it was nothing. I think it's a good idea that the Royal Trust Go. should pay the overhead expenses of the people who have to write the transfers up on each title, so I support the amendment.

MR. STRONGMAN: I'd just like to clear up something that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) stated. Section 2 does not do what you indicated. The amendment to section 3 does that.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

MR. STRONGMAN: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 3.

On the amendment.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want my words on section 2 to be recorded as applying to section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would help, hon. member, if you would wait until you are recognized by the Chair. However, I'm sure Hansard recorded your remarks.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. STRONGMAN: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper for section 6.

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the member a question. This amendment would change section (d) so it would read:

"any real and personal property owned by or held by, vested in, or granted to The Royal Trust Company, and which is held by The Royal Trust Company exclusively for its own use and benefit, and not in trust for or for the benefit of any other person."

One would assume that this would now read "for any other person or purpose." I'd like the member who is presenting this amendment to explain what the purpose would be.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Section 7 approved.

Preamble approved.

On the title.

MR. GIBSON: I want to ask the hon. member for Vancouver South a question. How do you get a private member's bill through this House so successfully?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not a private member's bill; its a private bill.

MR. GIBSON: But it was moved by a private member; that was my question.

Title approved.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 402, An Act Respecting The Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. STRONGMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 402, An Act Respecting The Royal Trust Company and Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, read a third time and passed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I stand on behalf of our caucus on a matter of privilege. The matter of privilege is that this afternoon we had a very important redistribution report, a

[ Page 2493 ]

report that one would wonder about in terms of its distribution. The Leader of the Opposition received one copy; the 17 remaining opposition members received no copies. Yet I an informed that the press received one copy each and I believe that is a disgrace. I believe that is turning its back on the members of this assembly who are vitally affected by this report. It reflects the kind of report that I see, in terms of gerrymandering.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on the matter of privilege, I will review the Blues. As I remember, when the report was filed, it was stated that extra copies would be available. But I do not recall exactly when extra copies would be available. Nonetheless, I would think that the members' ability to perform in the House may not have been impaired. However I will review the matter and report to the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.