1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2593 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 115).

Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

Tuberculosis Institutions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

113).

Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill

118).

Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2593

Oral Questions

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

Mr. Bennett — 2593

Curbs on Hong Kong investment.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2594

Conflict of interest alleged of Highways department

engineer.

Mr. Wallace — 2596

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs

estimates On vote 181.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2596

Mr. Bennett — 2597

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2598

Mr. Fraser — 2599

Mr. Wallace — 2603

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2606

Mr. Wallace — 2608

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2609

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2610

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2614

Mr. Curtis — 2614

Mr. Morrison — 2616

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2616

Mr. Morrison — 2617

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2617

Mr. McGeer — 2617

Mr. Curtis — 2622

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2624

Mr. Curtis — 2625

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2625

Mr. Phillips — 2625

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2626

MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is

Miss Janet Bulman, Outreach consultant for the United Church of

Canada. I would wish you to bid her welcome.

Introduction of bills.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supreme Court

Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 115 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

TUBERCULOSIS INSTITUTIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Cocke, Bill 113, Tuberculosis

Institutions Amendment Act, 1974, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 118,

An Act to Amend the

Protection of Children Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

TRUTH OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT

ON COMPANIES' VIEW RE COPPER SMELTERS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources....

Interjections.

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

Japan.

In reference to his statement during the estimates that no private company

was willing to develop a copper smelter in this province, and as the Minister's

statement has been called completely false by the president of Granby Mining

Co. Ltd., would the Minister care to clarify now his original statement to the

House last week?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

they have not come forward with any definite plan. They have had several meetings

but they haven't come forward with, any definite plans to have a copper smelter

in the Province of British Columbia. They were all unwilling to handle the sulphur

problem of the smelter.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental: in the newspaper reports of Mr.

Jewett's remarks, he says that on January 24 he had a meeting

with officials and your Deputy, Mr. McMynn, at which specific

proposals were discussed, and that to this day he has not

received a reply from the government. Could you advise the

House of the nature of his proposal then and why he hasn't

received a reply, and why you would make a statement then that

private industry wasn't willing to provide a copper smelter and

that's why you're taking another action? Is Mr. Jewett not

telling the truth in this statement?

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): As I understand it, a

number of companies that are operating in the mining field in

the Province of British Columbia have set aside substantial

reserves for the purposes of building a copper smelter in the

Province of British Columbia. Now, if they were not serious in

their intention, do you think that they would have set aside

reserve moneys for this specific purpose?

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

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

argument and opinion.

MR. BENNETT: I don't think that the Minister can take as

notice a clear-cut question of his statement where it's

been denied by a member through the press. It's really a matter

of whether it's right or wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Leader of the

Opposition knows that his question is directed as to statements

made to members of a department. Consequently, of course, it is

in order and taken as notice. No Member is required to answer

under our standing orders and parliamentary rules and

forms.

MR. BENNETT: I'm questioning the Minister on

[ Page 2594 ]

his statement. His statement has been called untrue and all

he has to do is stand up, Mr. Speaker, and say that he's

telling the truth or....

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister answered the first question.

The second question was directed to statements in regard to

interviews with members of the department. A Minister is

entitled under our rules to take as notice a question of that

kind, and an answer may not be required under Beauchesne

at page 148.

CURBS ON

HONG KONG INVESTMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask a question of the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), but before I do so may I welcome him back, along with

the Minister of economic diplomacy (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and say we

appreciate having them back. Progress was made in their

absence, Mr. Speaker — substantial progress — and

if they wish to go away again I'm sure it will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that your question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: My question refers to this morning's

paper and the flaming headline: "Hong Kong Money Curb Sought."

In light of this statement that Hong Kong and other overseas

sources of capital are to be discouraged from entering the

British Columbia housing market, may I ask the Premier what

steps are being taken to replace this important source of

capital for the rental area in particular?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I would not consider that the

information I have concerning Hong Kong money is in any way

geared to serving the housing market; it's here to protect vast

profits made, by taking advantage of lowly-paid Hong Kong

workers in that Crown colony. There are two purposes for this

announcement of mine. One is that we must not look upon this

country, in my opinion, as a haven for rapidly gained profits

to protect those people and their profits at the expense of a

reasonable opportunity at reasonable price for property for

Canadian citizens. Mexico learned this a long time ago.

I'm suggesting that the Canadian people not only in British Columbia, but in

Alberta and Ontario, suffer severe competition unnecessarily caused by not only

Hong Kong money but other foreign funds that are being invested purely on real

estate speculation, not on any investment to build up the economy of this province

or the rest of Canada. Those are the funds we're opposed to. Those are the funds

that I hope this government will move in a fashion that's commensurate with

the need to stop that particular kind of investment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary: in view

of the fact that the Vancouver Real Estate Board in its report

released very recently has indicated to us that much of the

rental accommodation being built in British Columbia, much of

the capital entering to construct rental accommodations for

British Columbians, will enable British Columbians to have the

choice.... The choice of housing comes from overseas

sources.

May I repeat my question to the Minister? What steps are

being taken to encourage Canadian investment in this area to

replace the foreign capital which he does not approve of? Or

are steps going to be taken to increase the amount of public

sector money entering the area of rental accommodation

construction?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member just

misunderstands the problem as we see it. If he understood it,

I'm sure he would agree with us. The problem is that Hong Kong

and other money is buying existing buildings. That is what is

forcing the price up in terms of accommodation for existing

buildings. Regardless of what that Member says, he'll have an

opportunity to vote on our policy because we intend to stop

foreign money from coming into this country for real estate

speculation.

The second thing is, Mr. Member: if you read your estimate

book, you will find that this government is prepared to commit

a total of $122 million to housing programmes. The third matter

that we are concerned about is that we would hope that the

federal government would return to Canadian investors the tax

benefits they once had which allowed them to supplement....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, yes. Certainly. It was an advantage,

taken away by the Liberal government, to encourage Canadian

investors....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly. I think that that policy should

be reinstituted by the federal government forthwith. I tell you

right now that the federal government should encourage the

investment of Canadian funds by that tax allowance. It's far

better than encouraging foreign money in on a basis of real

estate speculation. I have that opinion and I'm pleased with

that opinion.

But I'll tell the Member that the federal government has a

responsibility to all Canadians to curb foreign ownership of

land right across this

[ Page 2595 ]

country. I urge them to take whatever action they can take

as soon as possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. We

appreciate the rhetoric; but do I understand the Premier and

the Minister of Finance to say that if foreign capital is not

to enter in and purchase existing buildings, or indeed enter in

and purchase land, it will be permitted to enter the province

for the purposes of construction?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The purpose of foreign investment as far

as this government is concerned is to ensure that any foreign

dollar coming in, regardless of national identity, is geared to

meet the industrial development needs of this province, not to

be placed in real estate speculation.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In light of the Premier's

statement that the federal government should be encouraging

Canadian capital and private capital to develop housing in

British Columbia, and in light of his own legislation which has

discouraged the development of housing...

MR. SPEAKER: Order! No debate — please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...capital in British Columbia, my question to

him is: what is he, as Premier of this Province and Minister of

Finance, prepared to do to restore the confidence in British

Columbia so that individuals and capital will go into housing,

both to build for themselves and for rental — and stop

blaming the federal government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether or not

I've been asked to answer a question or a speech. Confidence in

this province has never been greater, as witnessed by all

economic indicators, including unemployment, which is at a

lower rate than it was under Social Credit for many, many

years.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out, in Beauchesne , that

Hon. Members must not ask the government's opinion on matters

of policy and you must not ask what advice a Minister proposes

to give the Crown.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A further

supplementary to the Premier. Now that he has finally

discovered foreign real estate speculative money, could he tell

the House exactly when he's going to do something about it

— namely, at this session?

HON. MR. BARRETT: One of the worst legal drawbacks, Mr. Member, is the

citizenship Act itself, which allows aliens to hold land in this country. That

should be wiped out by Ottawa. But since we have that loophole continued by

the federal government, we will act as quickly as possible through our own lawyers

to find some way of protecting British Columbia. But I publicly call on the

federal government to eliminate that loophole. The government of Mexico learned

it a long time ago: aliens should not be allowed to hold land in this country.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has told us this

afternoon of steps he plans to take to discourage foreign

capital coming into the housing industry in British Columbia.

Could he tell us what steps he plans to take to encourage

Canadians to invest in the housing industry in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the

Member that I've separated the housing capital, which he

deliberately attempts to throw in. The federal Liberal

government's policy is to allow non-Canadians to own

property. This government is opposed to that. Secondly, this

government is opposed to the onrush of funds from offshore into

the real estate speculative business. That's what we're

after.

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

Interjections.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): In view of the fact

that the Premier has stated here this afternoon that he'd like

to encourage Ottawa to reinstate depreciation so that people

could get into apartment building and houses for rental

purposes, does he plan on actually making a proposal to Ottawa

along these lines?

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

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

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me put it to you this

way: I have made proposal after proposal to the federal

government. To my surprise and shock they've been turned down.

Now I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Member, that I intend to make

further proposals to Ottawa, and I publicly propose to Ottawa

to reinstitute many of the Carter commission recommendations on

taxation. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the ways

of encouraging housing in Canada by Canadian investors is by

giving that tax deferment back. That's my opinion.

[ Page 2596 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Everybody's enjoying themselves, but we are

violating the rules. You're asking for opinion on government

policy; you're asking for what advice the Minister proposes to

give the Crown. It doesn't matter whether it's in the

newspaper, Hon. Member. The fact of the matter is that it

violates question period.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think it's time for a

different subject, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you; I agree.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ALLEGED

OF HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT ENGINEER

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney-General whether he has instigated any inquiries

concerning possible conflict of interest on the part of a

senior Highways department engineer stationed in the Alta

Lake–Whistler area?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is

no, Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar with that allegation. I'd be

glad to have details.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It isn't

an allegation; it's merely asking whether the Minister in fact

has even discussed the matter with the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea). Or does he consider that this would be an

important enough issue? It was a front page news item at the

weekend. One, has he discussed it with the Minister or, two,

does the Minister feel that indeed he should discuss it with

the Minister?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to

discuss that with the Hon. Graham Lea. I vaguely remember, now

that the Hon. Member has drawn it to my attention, that it was

in a headline. But I will look it up.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

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

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Before

this vote passes, I'd like to make a few remarks. I didn't want

it to get away before I had a chance to speak.

I want, first of all, to express my appreciation for the

great co-operation I have received from the Union of B.C.

Municipalities over the past year. I'm sure that the assistance

the chairman and president, Mayor Marks of 100 Mile House, and

his executive have given to us in regard to legislation as it

affects municipalities has been greatly appreciated.

Now problems have hit municipalities as they have hit other

segments of our society. Although revenues increase, so also do

expenses. Demands from citizens year by year increase and they

want more and better services. Because of these substantial

increases in needs, the government has tried to respond in

three different areas. In the first, it has been by removing

some of the responsibilities which municipalities previously

handled on and for the provincial government as well as for

themselves.

An example of this is the welfare costs — a reduction

from 15 to 10 per cent in educational areas, diking charges,

ambulance services, and as a matter of fact, the bill that was

introduced by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) a few

minutes ago.

The second method is by legislation. Examples of this would

be the sewage assistance and the recreational grants. The third

method is by increasing grants to municipalities.

It has always been a fair argument that the measures taken have not

been enough, they've been too late or something of that sort. That's a

fair argument, but I am here to say that on balance, the municipalities

this year have been very well treated.

I want to mention one other area of concern — the

question of the per capita grant which....

AN HON. MEMBER: The $2 Ministry.

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

politician.

The question of the per capita grant which appears on the

surface to be a very fair method of distributing money, in my

opinion, is not quite as fair as it sounds. I think we all

appreciate the fact that if a community requires a swimming

pool, whether it's a large community or a small community, the

costs are basically the same. In different areas they may be

more expensive, but the cost to a small community is very

extreme.

Whereas in a large community this cost may only be a

small item in an enlarged programme, if a small community

decides to go into a swimming pool they can forget all other

aspects for a considerable length of time. It seems to me there

has to be a different formula worked out to look after this

sort of thing.

In addition, we say the people in the north or the Interior

should get the same grant as the people on the coast, where the

cost of construction and the introduction of sewage and water

services is much more expensive in those areas. Yet we still

stay to

[ Page

2597 ]

the situation where we give equal grants to equal

population.

In my opinion there has to be a severe study taken as to how

a fair method of distribution along the per capita grant setup

could be achieved.

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

for me.

I would also like to mention something about transit. I have

stated that I would be making some statement as to changes in

fares and whatnot at this time, but I'm sorry to say that I'm

not in a position to advise the House of any appropriate or

proposed changes at this time. I will do so as soon as I am

able.

Our transit programme is proceeding very satisfactorily, I

believe. Much slower than we would have liked, but the major

reasons for this is the fact that it is very difficult to

obtain quick delivery of vehicles. The 200 that were ordered

last fall and were expecting delivery on by June or July, will

not be coming until, as I understand, the end of summer. As

delays go, from our experience last year, it could well be the

end of the year before we're able to put in the promised

services in Surrey, Delta, Richmond and Whiterock. We are

hoping to be able to speed this process up. I can assure you

the areas which have been served appear to be most appreciative

of it and the service seems to be working very well. Next year

we hope to go into the communities of the Interior and supply

services where needed in the towns and cities in the

Interior.

I want to assure the House that it has been a good year in

the Department of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities of

the province are all very, very happy.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

was very pleased to hear the Minister say that he's

specifically concerned about the per capita grant because

earlier in the session, during the finance Minister's

estimates, we did bring up a suggestion that per capita grant

wasn't the ideal solution for solving municipal financing.

We talked about tying financing for municipalities to some

of the growth areas of the province because, as we note, senior

governments, provincial and federal, get the benefit of

inflation. They get it in increased revenues but the

municipalities, regional districts and local government are

basically stuck with the cost of providing the improvements and

expansion that's necessary, which are all at that level and at

highly accelerating costs. They are the ones who are caught

with them. They are the ones who are paying a penalty right now

in inflation.

We feel that the government and the Minister should be looking forward to tying

municipal aid or municipal money to some part of the budget that will reflect

the growth, whether it's to the province's share of income tax or whether it's

to the 5 per cent sales tax — some provincial revenue and a fixed percentage

of some provincial revenue that will give some idea and give moneys on a growth

basis to the municipalities rather than on a handout basis.

There is also a problem with per capita grants where they're

taken on a census basis where quickly growing communities and

some of the fast growing areas are penalized because the per

capita grants don't keep pace with their accelerated population

and may be way out of date. I talk about submissions from one

of our instant towns like Port McNeil which really has a lot of

problems financing because it was created and it has a large

acceleration of people, yet the per capita grant it's receiving

do not reflect the number of people in that area now.

That brings up one of the other problems which some of these

municipalities, particularly that particular municipality, have

had where they service a resource area where you have the large

forest management licences around them but they have no

industrial tax base within their boundaries to help them

finance. Is there some area where we could work part of the

stumpage or part of the revenues from the resource surrounding

those areas where these bedroom communities are built up to

service the people who work in these industries so they can

participate and receive some financing based on those resources

where they don't have a tax base inside the town?

These are all areas of municipal financing that are

mentioned to me when I'm travelling throughout the province

where these councils and these communities are showing their

concern. They are having problems and they can't provide the

services that many of the people would like to see. Just

sewage, for instance, in those small towns. With a very limited

tax revenue base of less than $90,000, Port McNeil can't

provide the sewage facilities that the province would like them

to put in. Even with proposed new financing for sewage it would

be very difficult for them. They have a very limited tax

base.

I also am concerned about the future of regional districts

because it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, that the Minister seems to be neglecting them. These

once promising areas of local self-determination where we

were going to receive a lot of input and local initiative have

been losing the impetuous and have not been encouraged to

innovate and bring on new programmes. In fact he touched on it,

lightly — that the province was taking responsibilities

away from the areas back into the province and many of these

functions which we felt the regional districts would cover are

not being dealt with by them on a local basis.

I am concerned about it because I think we're on the right

track with regional districts. I feel that what they need is

more authority and the power to provide more functions rather

than less, to be given more

[ Page 2598 ]

authority and more chances to provide those things that they

need — not handouts, but a chance for local

determination.

This is where I'd like a clear-cut statement from the

Minister because the impression I get from the way he's been

operating his department is that the regional districts' days

are numbered. And indeed, they are not. They are not showing

the type of growth and the taking on of responsibilities that

many of us felt they should and could do. I feel that the

government that's closest to people is not only the most

economical, but the most responsible and responsive.

I would like to hear the Minister say that he's going to

encourage these governments, these area governments and that

those areas will indeed have self-determination.

One of the other problems, in referring to my own area in

South Okanagan, that we have is with the expansion of the

forced amalgamation of the City of Kelowna which was done in

concert with the forced amalgamation of the Kamloops area.

During that time specific negotiations went on with the

Minister, certain things were promised in writing, certain

things were alluded to in general discussion. Whether they were

brought up in advance or not, whether they could foresee them

or not, they're faced with very serious problems on this forced

amalgamation. Some of the things that they're talking about

that were discussed in general were parks. The City of Kelowna

— the new city, the expanded city — has a specific

proposal in to the government. I understand it's been turned

down, yet this was a problem that was discussed during the

forced amalgamation.

We have this very large area that isn't an economic tax base

now and the City of Kelowna has requested that the Minister,

perhaps, to solve these areas of concern which cover policing,

parks and flooding inside the new city boundaries, which they

are not sure how it will be handled, areas where they may take

over from the regional district....

Certainly, the $800,000 allowance they've asked for roads

within that new boundary was promised to them as part of the $3

million road grant they've applied for. They've heard nothing

back from the department when these things will be coming. They

need them to plan their budget for this year.

They've requested this meeting with the Minister and I think the areas they

need to cover are covered by several of the Ministers. Could the Minister indicate

whether he can arrange such a meeting with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to solve these problems? They're beyond

the ability of these local councils which, through no action of their own, found

their boundaries expanded. They need some consultation with the Minister and

these areas of the provincial government to iron out what are very real problems

to them. These problems are in the new City of Kelowna. I received the same

sort of requests relating to the same areas from the City of Kamloops. Perhaps

the Minister could enlighten us today as to what procedures he will take to

solve these new problem areas.

Another area I received some concern from around the

province are small areas that wish to incorporate, like

Lantzville or Westbank in the Kelowna area, where they're

looking for some policy from the government to cover areas of

small population which don't want to be part of large cities.

They feel they can incorporate and also be part of large

cities. They feel they can incorporate and also be part of a

regional district to solve their functions. If he can, I'd like

the Minister during his estimates to tell us at what size he

will allow these areas to incorporate on their municipal

status. At what size and at what area will he force them into

amalgamation as he did for the areas surrounding Kelowna and

Kamloops? Those are areas of concern.

There is another area of concern in my own area. When will

the Minister take the direction to set up the authority, either

through the regional districts or an amalgamation of regional

districts, so that we can bring about the implementation of the

Okanagan basin water study? This study took five years of

concentrated study and a major budget between the provincial

and federal governments. It made some very strong

recommendations, some of them on a fairly immediate timetable,

particularly where they deal with effluent disposal. It's very

important to a water basin area like the Okanagan which could

suffer very real problems. I wonder if the Minister, when I'm

finished, could stand up and announce that he's going to give

some direction to bring about this authority which has the

ability to deal with both this government and Ottawa to see if

they'll share in the financing as recommended by that

study.

These are some of the concerns I feel municipalities have:

financing, responsibility and authority. What they're really

looking for is some outline of how the Minister is going to

deal with regional districts and directions for small areas

incorporating.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked

what my thoughts were for the future of the regional districts.

I've always said I fully support the concept of regional

districts. I agree that a number of them need to be bolstered

and assisted; there's no question about that. A number of the

regional districts are working very, very well; some of them

are working reasonably well and others haven't

[ Page 2599 ]

started. Obviously, the requirement is to get into the areas

to determine what appears to be the difficulties and what

assistance can be given to get the regional districts moving

along the lines of planning and development for the benefit of

the region as a whole. There are a number of problems. I'm sure

the Member is equally aware as I am with a great number of

those problems. Certainly, I've always supported the

regional-district concept and continue to do so.

The question of Kelowna and Kamloops amalgamations. At the

time when we came into office there were two examples where

very severe problems had arisen over a long period of years

where communities had been developed on borders of other

communities, as in the Kamloops case. In the Kelowna case, the

city had spread beyond its boundaries and continued to spread

and spread until the population on the outside of the city was

probably as great as the population within the community.

Precipitous action was required.

I accept the fact that the new council, when they were

elected, accepted a great amount of responsibility in looking

after the financial aspects as well as the community aspects of

the cities.

I might say the agreements which I reached with the councils

of the two communities will be fully kept; there's no question

about that. In the case of Kelowna, the committee made their

own arrangements with the Department of Highways. I arranged

for the meetings and they came to an agreement on that. As I

understand it, that's in writing. I am advised because I get

phone calls from Mayor Bennett myself quite frequently and go

after the Minister of Highways in regard to the questions that

he raises. I'm assured the promises made by the Department of

Highways will be kept right to the letter with maybe extras

thrown in. There may be a time factor, but I'm convinced there

will be no problems in clearing this up.

You mentioned Lantzville since at the present time there is

a study going on in the Nanaimo area in which two

representatives of Lantzville are on the committee. I don't

want to say anything that might interfere with the group

studying it. That group is totally a local group.

In regard to other communities bordering cities, I have no

intention of creating new municipalities on top of other

municipalities until such time as such a community becomes a

logical size, whatever that might be. Certainly, in the smaller

cities of the province, I would expect that most of them should

be allowed growth in an orderly fashion. As the growth

develops, they should be able to expand their boundaries and

take in that growth.

When we're looking at a community like Kelowna, we're not just looking at the

Kelowna boundary; we're looking at the area from which people go to Kelowna

to do their shopping and which use the facilities of Kelowna and so on and so

forth. We're looking at more than a political line, At such time when a city

becomes what might be considered a large enough city and it would be more feasible

to have another city, that's a different question. But I don't think the areas

we're talking about have reached that stage.

The Okanagan water study has just come down. I haven't seen

it yet, but it has just come down to the department, I

understand, a few days ago. We'll be studying that Okanagan

study.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I was happy to hear the Minister's

opening remarks on the municipal affairs in the province. I

would certainly agree with his first remark that the chairman

of the UBCM (Mr. Marks) has co-operated well with him. Of

course he has, he's from the Cariboo as well and that's the way

we do business.

I can't agree with the Minister saying that the

municipalities in general are in good shape. As a matter of

fact, I just had a phone call from one today pointing out some

problems. Of course, that's nothing new; I think the

municipalities have for a long time felt they have been

forgotten in the chain of command and by the different levels

of government. I don't think this government has changed that

to any great degree.

There have been a few small things this year given to the

municipalities that certainly help — reduction of the

welfare costs from 15 per cent to 10 per cent and, in some

cases, they have had relief from police costs and others. I

believe that is costing them revenue. I was going to ask the

Minister about municipalities which really are going to lose

because of the police cost function due to the fact they lose

the fine revenue which is apparently exceeding their police

costs. They find themselves in trouble there.

I also agree that other things have assisted municipalities.

The sewage assistance might or might not help. But we can't

talk about that; there's a bill on the order paper. We'll have

something to say about it when it comes up. The other thing is

recreational grants. I agree that has helped municipalities and

also unorganized areas as well. While they are welcome, they

don't really come out of the municipal budget. Maybe it's the

policy of this government.

I think more should come directly out of the Municipal

Affairs department. With the inflation that we have and the

provincial budget we have in front of us, the per capita grant

this year is an example. It's up 6.5 per cent, and the cost of

operating the municipalities is probably up 12 to 15 per cent.

As an example, I think they've been left out. The provincial

revenues, though, and the national revenues have upped

considerably, probably 20 per cent. I think they are the big

winners when it comes to inflation. They are certainly the

beneficiaries, compared to

[ Page 2600 ]

municipal people.

There is a lot bigger growth factor in other taxes

— gasoline tax, 5 per cent sales tax, income tax, and so

on — than there is from property tax. That is why I say

that their source of funding is one of the last to catch up. In

British Columbia we had better not have municipal taxes going

up very much higher than they are or we are going to have

people losing their homes and so on, because they are getting

quite high as it is.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

mentioned that we have to decide on some different source. I

might say that I am pleased to hear the Minister is willing

— he hasn't got his mind closed — to find some new

avenue of assistance for municipalities in general. But I think

the per capita grant.... Probably what has happened there is

that inflation is the root of the trouble. We will have to find

maybe a criterion such as tying it to the rate of growth of

income tax, or something like that. That's the way they should

be assisted. But definitely something is wrong now.

I would just like to say that it is my information that this

year in the province generally, in municipalities of this

province, taxes are going to advance approximately 20 per

cent.

As I mentioned earlier, I just had a phone call from one of

the mayors in the Interior. This is where I think the Minister

has got to watch what's going on. They have just been advised

by their local school board that school taxes in that area are

advancing eight mills over a base already of 30-odd

mills.

Well, this, Mr. Chairman, is crucifying to the municipal

property owner. I was given to understand in the Education

budget that, generally speaking, the taxes wouldn't go up.

Well, now they're all coming in with the mill rate. It

certainly is part of the municipal story, because these mill

rates, hospitals, schools and what have, you, are all added to

the municipal taxpayer and they become part of the total

bill.

It is quite alarming to hear in this particular school

district of a 25 per cent increase in the mill rate from last

year to this. And we haven't got the offsetting assistance

coming from the province to overcome this. I think we're going

to get a lot of shocks around the province.

The municipalities all have to have their budgets formalized

by May 15; that isn't very far away. But it would appear that

the municipal taxpayer is looking at a 20 per cent increase

this year, and this is most unfortunate. With this, as I

understand it, again on account of inflation, the

municipalities will be standing still, and they don't like

that.

The other thing that I'm thinking of in terms of cost to the municipalities

that is of some concern — in fact, it's an area of concern to most municipalities

— is the new voters list that has to be made up, I believe, by June 30 of this

year. This is a door-to-door enumeration and it is going to be expensive.

I would like to hear the Minister say what assistance they

are getting. I believe he has said 50 per cent, but I'm not

sure of that. I would like to know what is definitely the

policy on that. Preferably it would be 100 per cent because the

province is certainly going to have use of this. If it is a 50

per cent cost, I think it is another net cost that's going on

to the local taxpayer, which shouldn't be happening.

Another item that has been overlooked, and maybe it should

be considered at the time they are looking at the whole grant

structure, is the amount of taxes the provincial government

pays to municipalities. It is based at the present time on 15

mills, and the average mill rate around the province is around

30 mills. In other words, they pay 50 per cent of the general

municipal rate, and they don't pay any school and hospital

taxes.

In view of the fact that this government is getting involved

in so many spheres of business — as an example, the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia with their claims

centres — this is, while it has been a bad enough item in

the past, only going to become a heavier load by subsidizing

these provincially run institutions.

As an example, B.C. Hydro: this Minister is a director, and

I don't intend to get into B.C. Hydro problems; but B.C. Hydro

don't pay the adequate grants to municipalities that they

should pay. They also pay when they feel like it and not when

the municipality wants them to pay. I don't think any Crown

corporation should be treating a junior level of government

like that.

Another Crown corporation that doesn't pay a bean on

anything is the B.C. Rail. The B.C. Rail, in spite of all the

problems it has, keeps on expanding and building more

structures and so on, and they contribute, as far as I know,

nothing at all to any municipality. I think it is time that

that was looked at. Maybe it comes under the Premier, but I

feel that the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be reminding

him of these things.

I point out, Mr. Chairman, that the national government and

the national Crown corporations in practically all cases pay

their full share of municipal levies. They don't do it as a

levy, but they do it in grant form which comes almost equal to

the local mill rate that is set.

I want to bring up a point that was brought up earlier by

the Premier...just to make it clear, it was the latter part

of last year or the early part of this year, but it certainly

deals with municipalities. It was where he intimated that the

prior administration had given industry in the province

preferential treatment with regard to tax arrangements made in

different municipal areas.

The facts are that the prior provincial government didn't

make these deals. The municipalities actually

[ Page 2601 ]

made these deals. If there were ever any preferential tax

rates struck they were struck by the municipalities with the

various industries involved. It was certainly put out a few

months ago that the prior government had done this. In fact,

the part they had to do with it was that they had them

validated by this Legislature, all these agreements, and that's

what they had to do with it.

I might say that I was here when some of these agreements

were validated, and I don't recall when they were made a no

vote on any of the validating agreements. In other words, the

present Premier at that time was Leader of the Opposition, and

the present Minister of Municipal Affairs was here, and they

either didn't vote on them...but they certainly didn't vote

against validating them.

There were a fair amount of these deals made around the

province. They were made, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of

services rendered. In other words, if a large industrial site

didn't want garbage collection, well, they were given credit

for that. A lot of these large industry sites have their own

garbage collection; they don't want the services of the

municipality, and they were given credit for that.

These formulas were all worked out by the individual

municipalities and they happened.... There was an agreement at

Powell River. It was made in 1965. At Stewart there were four

different agreements apparently in 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1972.

In Squamish, there was an arrangement — Port Alice,

Quesnel, Campbell River, Prince Rupert, Sparwood, Trail,

Tadanac, Castlegar, Fraser Mills, Coquitlam, Houston, Port

Hardy. These were most of the areas where these agreements were

made, but I think it is wrong to have the impression going

about that those agreements were made by the province.

I certainly had a lot to do with one agreement where the

reverse happened and the province actually assisted the

municipality in bringing an industrial site into the

boundaries, which the industry didn't want to happen. The

province more or less made it clear then that they were coming

in, in spite of their protestations. So I think there was a lot

more to these agreements. For the Premier to say — I

don't think the Minister of Municipal Affairs did — that

these were all favours to industry given by the prior

government.... That was hardly the case with these

arrangements.

I might say that I hear of some difficulty over the

scrapping of these agreements that this provincial government

had up for bids. They were legal agreements constituted by the

municipality with various industries. Again, they were just

scrapped by the actions of this government.

I hear now that it all looks good, there is some more revenue. But now some

of the industries are demanding that these services be delivered. It could well

turn out that they'll turn out to be a liability, this scrapping of these agreements,

because now that they are legally paying these levies they can, of course, legally

demand the services be provided.

In this case it works in reverse. The municipalities are not

in a financial condition to deliver them and if they're forced

to by law, which it appears they can well be, it will put them

in a bad deficit situation.

I think things were not all that bad about that. I only hope

these other effects that I've mentioned don't have these

affects, but the way I see it they legally could have. These

people could be forced to deliver services that will cost them

more than they will be able to get out of the delivering of the

services.

I would like to get into the controversy or discussion for a

minute going on, Mr. Chairman, and more recently spoken by the

Minister of Highways. I think he's up in the Interior of B.C.

somewhere where he says that he's going to run the Department

of Highways and discriminate for the north between the south.

I'm inclined to agree with some of his original remarks, and

now he's repudiated them, so I don't know really what he did

say, but....

Interjection.

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

Getting into the municipal end of things, the south and the

north — the Minister of Municipal Affairs I note in his

opening remarks said something about it — there is

definitely, in my opinion, discrimination. It is caused by a

lot of factors, but we'll deal with just the per capita

grant.

For instance, no matter where the municipal citizen lives in

the province they get the same per capita grant to assist them

in different services. But in all cases from the central

Interior north in this province, they should be getting more of

a capital grant than the south.

Again, it's probably in what the Minister announced at the

start — that it will have to be dealt with. I think the

mayor of Prince George outlined it fairly well in a letter that

he circulated to quite a few of us, as to where the extra costs

are to municipalities in the central Interior north of the

province where they have problems unheard of on the lower part

of Vancouver Island. I refer to snow removal costs, I think probably the far bigger thing is the burying of

water and sewer lines which I know they don't understand on the

lower mainland. The mayor of Prince George says that they have

to have a bury of eight feet. Well, I know some places burying

deeper than that. I think the average they can get away with

down here is probably four. So it is a distinctly bigger cost

to these people. The citizens of the north Interior have a lot

more of the elements to fight and I think because of this the

municipalities should be

[ Page 2602 ]

given some consideration. I hope that the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) has a discussion with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs on this.

At this session, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's

anything to stop us now talking about assessments. There was an

assessments committee and I was honoured to be on it. While

we're on assessments, hopefully, there's a bill coming in about

that. It hasn't arrived yet but I certainly think we're on the

right road there.

Getting off assessments and onto taxation, it appears that

we're going to have to.... The Minister has indicated here

that he's going to have a committee on this, looking into the

tax structure. I look forward to that committee going to work,

but it appears to me that we have to find a different structure

than just the one overall mill rate that the municipalities

have now and let the taxation apportionment be made at the

local level. It was pretty difficult, or impossible, with an

overall mill rate before. I'm referring to the general

municipal mill rate.

Possibly they should be looking at, say, three or four

levels of a mill rate for the future, in view of the changes

coming in the assessment and so on. The foremost thing there is

to give them the authority to make these decisions at the local

level rather than them being made down in Victoria. I really

think that most in Victoria feel that way, but it will be

interesting to see what comes of it after it's been in

committee.

I mention now that it's hard to keep up, Mr. Chairman, with

these cabinet Ministers on tours of the province. I think they

should be here, but that again is a personal view — they

are supposed to be the most important. I refer to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and

his reference to instant towns. I'd like to make the

observation that the instant towns really had no difficulty

until this government came along. They certainly have some now,

with housing, so on and so forth, but I don't think instant

towns had too big a problem prior to a year or so ago.

I'd like to point out that the very Minister making these

remarks has all the answers; why he has to say what he said, I

don't know. He has all the answers to the problems because, in

effect, his department of government from natural resources.... One natural resource that I know of, its revenue has

tripled in the last year and a half. Maybe he could cough up

some of this dough to help these people if he's really

concerned.

The Department of Forestry, of which he is the Minister, in a lot of cases

is the cause of the instant towns. He had a $75 million revenue in 1972. In

1974 he's budgeting for and it appears he will have for the 1973 year a $240

million take. I think this is where the trouble is — he takes it and gets it

down here, but he doesn't send it back to the instant towns. This is the crutch

of our municipal financing.

The same thing could be said for mining, but I'm much more

familiar with the instant town that he spoke in, and the fact

that the provincial Crown has tripled their revenue out of that

community — I refer to Mackenzie. Then he gets up and

says, "Well we're going to have another task force to look into

it." They don't need another task force to look into it. It's

obvious that they probably have some difficulty for which this

Minister and his own department have the answers, but he didn't

say anything about that, as I understand it, last evening in

Mackenzie.

The other thing before I sit down I'd just like to mention,

Mr. Chairman, is that this Minister is in charge of transit.

Again I say in the case of transit I have no objection to the

lower mainland — the large populated areas — having

rapid transit, but it again makes another level of citizens in

the province, the people in the Interior north, practically all

of them, who can't take advantage of rapid transit. Again they

are subsidizing this which is given out to the lower

mainland.

I might be wrong, but I understand they lost $11 million

last year in rapid transit. Of course this will continue to

escalate because of, again, inflation and so on and additional

services rendered. But none of these offsetting things are

going on in the Interior and the north.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the, Hon. Member Bill 70, the Transit Services Act,

which does encompass this area.

MR. FRASER: Okay, fine. I haven't too much to say on it, Mr.

Chairman, other than that there's no offsetting municipal

grants going to other areas in the community that are not able

to take advantage of it.

Somebody mentioned what about the Highways department? Well,

the Highways department, they haven't enough money to do their

work and their work is done in the south as well as the north.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a special subsidy

going to lower mainland and Island citizens. I don't deny them

for a minute, but I think if we're going to subsidize, well

turn around and give the Highways department $11 million so

they can at least grade some roads and so on that are so badly

needed in the Interior and the north part of the province.

I have heard, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

mentioned it, that they forced a shotgun marriage of Kamloops

and Kelowna, and their areas are not going too well. I'm not

happy to hear that. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned

— of course, one of them embraces his riding — that

promises that were given are not being kept.

I was happy to hear the Minister say that the promises he

gave were to be given, but again I would

[ Page 2603 ]

suggest to him that the one that I hear about not fulfilling

their promises is the Highways department. I've heard this

several times and there's something to it. But I've also heard

the Highways side of the story and they say, "Yes, money was

set aside, a promise was given, but the municipalities have

never asked for any of that help."

I can't really believe that the mayors of those communities

knew that $5 million I think that's the amount in the case of

Kamloops was set aside. I'll agree that an administrative

person in Highways said this, but it's just hard to believe

that the reason the government hasn't fulfilled their

promises is because the municipality hasn't asked for it. So I

think there's something there that maybe the Minister of

Municipal Affairs could look into.

I just want to sit down in a minute here, Mr. Chairman, but

I want to make one mention of regional government in the

province. We have 28 regional districts in the province and I

think that they've got along fairly well. I realize some are

probably not as good as others and probably some are into too

many things. But generally speaking it's not too bad.

While we're on the subject of boundaries and that, I know

new boundaries are coming up. I don't want to get the regional

directors all alarmed that they're maybe going to have new

boundaries, maybe not, but we have such a proliferation of

jurisdictional boundaries in this province now. What I have in

mind is the assessment that's coming up. I certainly said it in

committee, but hopefully they will go along some line boundary

that already exists. We have school district boundaries

overlapping regional district boundaries and so on. I hope now

another level of jurisdiction doesn't create a further boundary

problem at the regional level.

While on there and the cost to local taxpayers in this

region, there's something that no doubt has to be discussed in

the Provincial Secretary's department, believe it or not,

coming up shortly. But I see another load being put on the

local municipal taxpayers via the regional level, and I'm

referring to the library service. I'll have something more to

say on that there, but again, I don't know whether this is a

move to try and get the costs out of the provincial end of the

municipal level. The indications are that it isn't, and I hope

it isn't. But believe me, I'm telling you the controversy's

really flying around the province about it at all regional

district levels at the present time.

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

say later.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very

brief. I just want to touch on one or two points of local

interest.

I'm particularly interested to comment on and ask some explanation — and I

think the people of the greater Victoria area deserve an explanation — of recent

events over the Reid Centre property on the waterfront in Victoria. I understand

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

and the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) were the three musketeers

on that occasion. I think we should find out 'if this particular action of government

is to be a precedent for the future. I think it should be made plain that the

City of Victoria for a period of several months negotiated or at least entered

into discussion with the provincial government, seeking some form of participation

in the purchase of this site, a very valuable site on the waterfront, in the

hope that in fact the area could be preserved and that the construction of a

high-rise building of some sort could be prevented.

We have the final action of the government very much at the

eleventh hour in a rather arbitrary way, with the promise that

of course public hearings will be held sometime in May. Mr.

Chairman, however valid it is to be concerned about valuable

waterfront property in the capital city — and that's a

very valid concern — I think many people in municipal

government in this province are somewhat shocked by the

provincial government's blunt use of power. This is not to

dispute the fact that the government has the power and has used

the power constitutionally and legally. That is not what I'm

questioning. I'm just wondering if the Minister would care to

explain. I'm glad to see the Minister of Public Works listening

very eagerly with both ears wide open as always, Mr. Minister.

I would like the Minister to explain why the government did not

give some kind of information, or if they did, perhaps explain

what information they gave to the City of Victoria in the

course of the last several months.

In listening to comments by the mayor and other members of

council of the City of Victoria, one certainly got the

impression that this government was leaving the City of

Victoria dangling in uncertainty over a very valuable piece of

waterfront shoreline which was a matter of public controversy.

The Minister can correct me if I'm wrong and I won't go through

all the clippings I have here, but certainly if I were to read

some of the extracts, it's to the effect that the City of

Victoria felt that they wanted to enter some agreement, perhaps

a 50-50 per cent agreement with the government to

purchase that site. Apparently there was no real commitment or

refusal to commit by the provincial government. When the

negotiations reached some kind of climax between Mr. Reid, the

owner, and the Holiday Inn Company, then all of a sudden

government did move in and put a freeze on the site.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, in the light of past events and

probably when we all look back on it, we'll realize that this

did in fact save a valuable waterfront

[ Page 2604 ]

site for the people of the greater Victoria area and,

indeed, visitors to the capital city from all over the

province. But that really isn't the point.

There are two points I'd like to raise. Why does the

provincial government, when it's asked for help from the

capital city, for example, or any other municipality,

dilly-dally around and try to stay out of the issue, when

it should be showing some kind of leadership and perhaps trying

to have the final solution brought about through the aegis of

the municipal government itself, rather than wait until the

eleventh hour and then lower the boom in what I think is a very

dangerous precedent, even although carried out in a legal and

constitutional way?

At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, the government and this

Minister should tell the people of British Columbia if the

government has, in fact, bought the site. Who owns that site,

here, Monday, April 29? We're talking about $1.7 million of

taxpayers' money. Has this government bought the site? Have

they frozen the site? If they've frozen the site, who still

owns the site? The ramifications from this kind of very

complicated situation are very substantial. Mr. Chairman, it's

your tax money and my tax money that's involved here. If the

provincial government has bought the site outright for $1.7

million, it is not just Victoria taxpayers' money we're talking

about. We're talking about the provincial taxpayer.

I think that at a time when we're debating the estimates of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and he has been so intimately

involved in this particular important deal — I shouldn't

use that word, I certainly don't mean it disparagingly — in this particular agreement, I think municipalities all across

the province are probably very uneasy that the government moved

in a manner which suggested desperation as the only last

possible way in which it could preserve that piece of land, and

in fact froze it.

Not only is it frozen, we don't know who owns the land and

most of the people in this area who followed the matter with

great interest are wondering just what the future method of

handling the situation will be. I notice it has been said that

there will be public hearings as to what should be done with

the land. Again, I'd like to know who owns the land before we

can have public hearings to decide what can be done about it.

If a private individual owns that land and it's frozen, it's a

very dangerous precedent to be having public hearings and

having everyone in a community putting in his opinion as to

what should be done with somebody else's land. On that basis, I

would suggest it's a little less disturbing at least if the

provincial government now owns the land on behalf of the

people.

I would ask several questions, Mr. Chairman, which I hope the Minister will

answer:

(1) Who owns the land?

(2) What sum of money was paid for that piece

of land?

(3) What valuations were done on the land and how recent were these

valuations?

I'm sorry the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) isn't in his

chair, Mr. Chairman, because he has shown an interest and

claims that the land, according to the assessment rolls, has a

market value of $600,000. The Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) nods his head in agreement. In that case, to know

the price that has been paid for the Reid Centre property is of

the greatest importance. So I hope the Minister will tell us

who owns it and what was paid for it. When was the most recent

evaluation done on the property and what did the evaluation

give as a figure?

In terms of further development of the City of Victoria, or

an equally important aspect of all this, what about the

government's attitude further around the shore to where there's

another proposed hotel complex, which in many ways falls within

the same line of reasoning?

The municipal government in the City of Victoria is

presently negotiating for a land-use contract to permit

construction of a high-rise hotel development. I understand

that already it's reached the point where a land-use

contract has been all but finalized.

Now I think it's reasonable to ask the Minister whether the

government plans the same kind of last minute intervention to

stall or to prevent this further high-rise development at

Laurel Point. I think the Minister 'Would agree that in the

light of events regarding the Reid Centre property, it wouldn't

be unreasonable for many people in the greater Victoria region

and all across British Columbia to wonder if the same kind of

last minute action might be taken on that site.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, maybe the waterfront should be

completely preserved and kept open for access by everyone. I'm

not questioning that that may be a reasonable proposal. The

Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) is back in his chair and is

giving me lots of encouragement. The fact is that sometimes

ideas are very valid and sound, but it's how the authority and

the power is used to bring about the desirable goal.

I think that delay and lack of commitment by this government

and the eleventh hour action on one site which insight be

repeated on another site is certainly not worthy of this

government's respect for municipalities, particularly in this

case where the City of Victoria wanted very much to work out

some mutually satisfactory agreement with the provincial

government and apparently was thwarted in this attempt. I'd

like the Minister to answer some of the questions I have raised

on that particular point.

The only other point I want to raise, Mr. Chairman — and I've certainly no wish to transgress on a bill before the

House...and I'm referring to the transit bill. Once again,

I've no wish to refer to transit as an issue, but simply to

some of the attitudes of this

[ Page 2605 ]

Minister which I find most difficult to accept. When he was

on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, he was the most

peace — loving, pleasant guy you could ever find. You never

thought that if you would put a little power in his hands you

would have such a Caesar Augustus.

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

MR. WALLACE: I probably should be quoting the Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) who always talks

about absolute power corrupting absolutely. I can never

remember the lord who first said that. Acton? Yes, that's

right. Anyway, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, if you give him a little

authority, look out, I'm referring in particular to his highly

sensitive nature when certain matters regarding public transit

were disclosed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that Bill 70 covers virtually every facet of public

transit. Therefore, I would ask him to refer to it only in

relation to other remarks.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The rules of the House are that

a bill has precedence over any other matter. Therefore, if

there's a bill on the order paper, we must await that time to

debate any matter that is touched on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we subsequently

will be having votes 183, 184, and 185: one of which is

entitled "transit services division; — another is

"metropolitan transit subsidy;" the third is "provincial rapid

transit Act." I just wondered if you could bear this in mind

when we are discussing this, because perhaps it will be done

pretty quickly if we adopt a fairly tolerant attitude toward

specific votes in this Minister's estimates which deal with

transit matters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Any Member may discuss the

present administrative responsibilities of the Minister in

regard to transit. However, any matter which is a matter of

proposal, or proposed in this legislation, cannot be touched

upon.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respect

your ruling and say that I've every intent of merely discussing the administrative responsibility of this

Minister.

One of the first things this government ever promised about administration

was open government. Some of the statements this Minister has made about his

attitude to the regional and municipal elected officials in Vancouver are a

disgrace. "Oh," he says, "we mustn't give them undue expectations; so let's

keep it all secret."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: "Mr. Lorimer" — I'm quoting from The

Province of January 7: "Mr. Lorimer said talks will be in

secret because some things were being talked about that would

never become fact." Well, there was a good example of that

premise right here on the floor of this House.

There's an enormous number of things discussed in public

here that never become fact. "To let the public know would mean

raising expectations that would be never translated into

action." Then, Mr. Chairman — talking about the

administrative responsibility of the Minister — in an

interview with Chuck Davis on CBC radio, he said:

"Furthermore, if any other information leaked out, the

provincial government would simply stop having meetings. It would go it

alone and plan and implement rapid transit without any input from the

municipal officials."

This is very fierce, dictatorial talk from a man who sat on

this side of the House in opposition and took a very reasonable

and tolerant approach to municipal affairs — as I recall

from many of his speeches.

But to have the Minister suggest first of all that he would

insist on total secrecy on the part of elected officials

dealing with something which is of the greatest public interest.... It's a topic which is in just about every edition of every

newspaper. I would imagine that in every edition of The

Province and the Sun there must be several clippings

or articles, or comments on rapid transit. I can think of very

few issues that are of more interest or concern to urban

residents, and not only in Vancouver.

I respect the fact, Mr. Chairman, that specific details

regarding routes which might involve property acquisition and

discussion of matters affecting personnel involved or people

involved require a reasonable measure of secrecy. But this kind

of edict from a Minister of a government that talks about open

government is just a complete sham and a contradiction to what

they claim to stand for.

I gather and maybe the Minister can confirm or deny this

that Vancouver Alderman Walter Hardwick originally brought the

issue to the surface by protesting that even he couldn't find

out what Victoria was up to as far as rapid transit was

concerned. "Mr. Lorimer told Davis" — that's Chuck

Davis — "that he delivered his secrecy threat to Hardwick

personally."

So we don't only have the issue dragged out piecemeal, Mr.

Chairman; we find out that earlier on

[ Page 2606 ]

the Minister was using all his political muscle to tell

Alderman Hardwick that he would take certain pretty serious

actions if there was any further public discussion of the

content of transit discussions by duly elected representatives

in the city.

We've had a few episodes in this session already about

Ministers exercising political muscle in something less than

orthodox fashion. It appears that here again we have a Minister

who, in administering his department, isn't above descending to

tactics which I don't think would come under the heading or

description of open government.

In one other matter, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has also

shown a very haughty and cavalier attitude to this whole

subject of amalgamation. I was interested to hear his comments

today. I didn't get them down as quickly as he said them. But

he did say something to the effect that he had no wish to add

municipalities on top of existing municipalities.

Now I hope the Minister will correct me if I'm misunderstanding that

comment. That may not be word for word, as he said it fairly quickly,

but I understand — and we've had some of it in question-and-answer

period in the House — that a lot of the problems with municipalities

result from rapid growth and the difficulty in providing adequate

service quickly enough to rapidly growing areas in the province.

That's a fact of life and very understandable. Our

population in this province is increasing at 3 per cent per

year and there is this great tendency for people to collect in

the urban areas. I can see the argument that in some rapidly

growing areas some form of amalgamation and co-operation

among neighbouring municipalities is probably a good idea.

But how you can equate that premise with the Minister's

plans to amalgamate the riding of Oak Bay with parts of the

City of Victoria and Saanich I just can't imagine. Oak Bay

happens to be one of the oldest municipalities in the province

with the greatest degree of development. It hardly has a vacant

lot left, it has most of its services which it has put in and

paid for over the years. It is a very efficiently and

economically run municipality which is anything but afflicted

with rapid growth. I just can't understand why it should be so

much on the Minister's mind that Oak Bay should be amalgamated

with other municipalities. I hope I'm wrong. Maybe the Minister

will stand up and put my fears completely at rest.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You're wrong.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister says I'm wrong. Well, maybe I can

quit while I'm ahead and take that as an assurance. But I would

like him to say it into his microphone when he has the floor so

that, like any other diligent politician, I can always refer

back to the record in Hansard .

I should just say, though, that, regardless of the merits or

otherwise of amalgamating Oak Bay with anything, we had a very

blinding revelation of some of the thinking that goes on on

that side of the House when the Premier and Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) expressed his concern about the municipality

of Oak Bay because it had too many millionaires. Then, to cap

that inaccurate and unfair statement, he went on to say, "And

anyway, the NDP will never win Oak Bay."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) says he's optimistic. I hope he'll prevail

with his sound, Scottish wisdom and point out to the Premier

and Minister of Finance that municipalities should all be

treated with equity and justice. If we have the Premier and

Minister of Finance taking an attitude towards the municipal

administration of Oak Bay because he's under the mistaken

impression that it has too many millionaire residents, then I

think this is a shocking way in which the Minister of Finance

and Premier should go about his duties as the leader of the

government.

Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

can tell me: Does he intend to amalgamate Oak Bay with other

municipalities, and, if so, why and when? Furthermore, I wonder

if the Minister would clearly disassociate himself from the

statement of the Premier that Oak Bay, because various

millionaires reside in that municipality, doesn't need help and

the government's lack of interest in the municipality of Oak

Bay is based on the fact that they'll never win the seat for

the NDP anyway.

These are some of the shocking statements that the Minister

has made in relation to secret meetings in discussing transit,

arbitrary and total action by the government in regard to the

Reid property and, finally, this attitude toward amalgamation

as expressed by the Premier in relation to Oak Bay. Maybe the

Minister would care to answer some of these questions. But most

of all, Mr. Chairman, would he please tell us once and for all:

does he wish to amalgamate Oak Bay and, if so, why and

when?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

was talking about police costs. I agree with him; some of the

communities previously had made money on their administration

of justice and, as a result, will lose revenue. We have assured

the municipalities that at the end of the year when we

determine what their losses have been, and so on, those losses

will be phased in over a period of years. As the costs of the

administration of justice will rise, presumably their returns

would have depleted and

[ Page 2607 ]

would have balanced off in a few years. Some will take

longer than others. We have agreed with the municipalities; we

will deal with each municipality separately in determining the

phasing-in programme on the cost of the administration of

justice for their losses.

The enumeration, I mentioned, would be approximately 50 per

cent. We expect that is about the right figure. We anticipate

that the cost of enumerating in the more rural areas of

municipalities will be more expensive than the urban areas and,

as a result, it may not come out exactly. We have put in

$300,000 in the estimates to cover the cost. If more is needed,

I think probably I can wangle some more money for that.

As you know, a number of municipalities already did

enumerations and covered the whole cost themselves. The

province is also supplying the registration forms so that will

save a small cost to each municipality in having to prepare

those.

B.C. Hydro, as you know, does pay a grant in lieu of taxes

as per 100 per cent of the tax, with the exception of some of

the dam sites and the transmission lines. As far as their

buildings and land holdings are concerned, they give total

grant.

You brought up the subject of the concessions. I left it

out, but I would indicate to you that at no time did this party

ever support the idea of concessions. The concessions were

placed not by agreement but were placed in letters patent which

were passed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It is true

enough that some of the old ones were not properly done at the

time, and they went through the validating Act subsequently to

correct it. But to say we supported the concessions is quite

untrue. The removal of the concessions, in fact, has allowed

the City of Prince George to reduce its mill rates and has

assisted to a great extent in the better financial position of

some of the instant towns in the province.

The transit matters. You've mentioned there is a lot of

money being spent in the lower mainland, and that's very true.

There will be a lot of money because transit is not going to be

a profitable operation; it's going to be a cost item — a

very severe cost item. But I would point out that a great

number of municipalities and cities in the Interior have made

requests for planning studies, which we are doing for them, and

we hopefully will be able to give exactly the same treatment

there as we do at the coast for those communities. Some of them

are Prince Rupert, Prince George, Kitimat, Kamloops and others.

I believe there are some in the Okanagan.

In answer to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), his

information regarding the Reid Centre is not correct. I admit

he has statements from the press, which again were not correct

in some cases. I would point out that we discussed the matter

of the Reid Centre with the three Ministers he referred to

plus

Mayor Pollen. We had a lunch and we're in complete agreement

that we would proceed with the purchase of the Reid Centre.

There are two questions at issue. One was the question of

whether the city would come in for 50 per cent with the

province or whether the province would pick up the whole

amount. Mayor Pollen was to go back to his council, discuss it

and let us know. The other item was the question of amount,

although the amount, I think, for what the property could be

purchased was reasonably clearly established.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Somewhere between 1.5 and 1.7. We had this dinner,

and probably it was about five days later — I think it was a Friday or a Thursday

— that it was announced they were transferring the options to another group

and this was being approved by the city. Why this was done without further discussion

or telephone calls to anyone of us who were involved in the meetings, or anyone

in cabinet, I'm not able to answer. I tried to figure this out ever since that

time. It was some four or five days after this particular meeting that this

took place. The action was taken to preserve the area so the people of Victoria

could have an opportunity to decide what they want in that particular area.

You asked who owns the property. I believe it is still

registered in the name of the Reid Centre, although whether

there's any transfer gone through from the Reid Centre I

couldn't say. The Province of British Columbia doesn't own it.

That's your main question.

The public hearings will take place in May, at which time

the people in the area in the city, interested parties, will

present their views as to whether Reid Centre should go ahead

or what should happen. Then if it does not, if the decision is

for another form of development, I presume then we would have

to look at the purchase in negotiation with the company for

purchase of the property.

You asked about Laurel Point. Mayor Pollen spoke to me about

Laurel Point probably a year ago. I don't know when — quite a long time ago. He had some sketches of what they were

looking at. That's the last I've heard of it, so I've no idea

what the city is intending to do in regard to that area.

You mentioned that I was being dictatorial about transit.

That was not a kind statement. But to explain it, throughout

the operation of the transit development or expansion, we have

continually had discussions with the local councils of the

areas in which we were presenting new services, in order that

they could assist in determining the routes to be taken. In

both North Vancouver and Coquitlam we sent out buses to

shopping centres with people to take information from shoppers

— what routes they

[ Page 2608 ]

wanted and so on. So we had plenty of input from the local

level and from the community level as to the bus routes and

that sort of thing.

We found in our discussions with the regional district and

with the City of Vancouver that in some cases the reports came

out in the paper the next day of things that were discussed as

possibilities and things that were not discussed at all. We

brought this to their attention. However, this continued.

The next stage of discussion, of course, is the question of

the more sophisticated systems of transit, and that entails the

purchasing of not only corridors but the purchasing of sites

for development at stations and so on. As a result, once a leak

is out where a particular station is going to go, the cost of

land will soar so high that it would cost the people of the

province a great amount of money, a great deal more money than

it will by proceeding in secrecy. I agree that it would be very

good to have the regional district and the city participating

in these discussions, but all I was trying to urge them was

that there would have to be secrecy or else the costs of this

transit system would be out of reach.

In regard to the ferry terminals, the City of

Vancouver is working with us right along on determining the

approaches and the area for the southern terminus of the ferry

system. In Victoria, of course, we are dealing regularly with

the Capital Regional District and with the cities and

municipalities involved. So although I've got a reputation for

a dictatorial attitude in this regard, I feel it is mostly

undeserved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as amalgamation is concerned, there

is an obvious need for the areas of Langford, Colwood and View

Royal to come within an umbrella of self government somewhere.

Now, how it is done, I don't know. Some months ago I requested

a meeting with the mayors of the municipalities from Sidney and

North Saanich right down through to Esquimalt, and with the

representatives of the regional districts of the other three

communities. At that stage I suggested to them that there would

undoubtedly have to be some action taken in the

Colwood–View Royal–Langford areas for their own

community. I thought it was a good time for them to look at the

whole political structure to determine whether or not the

existing boundaries were realistic or whether or not there

should be some change in the boundaries, and whether there

should be possibly a multiplicity of communities or whether

there should be three or four municipalities in this area.

Now that is what the meeting was about and I suggested to them that they have

a study and consider it and bring in some suggestions. I haven't had any official

suggestions from any of the municipalities at the present time, but it seemed

to me that when there was going to probably be a change with reference to the

three areas that are unincorporated at the present time, it was a good opportunity

for the area to take a good look at itself and see whether it was really in

the best interests of the people at large whether or not they stay the way they

are. That's as far as I go.

The only suggestions that I have heard made that we do away

with Oak Bay have come from the Hon. Member, because he keeps

asking questions about them. There's never been from anything

I've said....

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

privately....

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

privately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: Except to the Hon. Member. But certainly

if there is a suggestion or a serious request that there be

changes, then I would suggest that the decision would be made

by the voters in the whole area. I am considering preparing

possibilities of six or seven different options for people in

the area to consider to have a debating point on, but that's as

far as I've gone.

MR. WALLACE: Just one or two quick questions. On that last

point, I'm still uneasy when the Minister answers the question

about amalgamation by saying there will be several options and

the decisions will be by the people of the whole area. I wonder

if he is referring to the total regional area, or is he talking

about the total people in just the municipalities that would be

involved? If, for example, Oak Bay were destined to become

Victoria East, would it just be the total voters in the

combined municipalities concerned, or the total people in the

whole regional district? If that kind of vote is held, why

should it matter two hoots to some people in one municipality

what happens to another one they are having no connection

with?

So while the Minister tells me my fears are groundless, I'm

just saying that there is too much uncertainty on this whole

subject of amalgamation and I think that when we debate the

administrative responsibility of the Minister's department,

there would never be a better time to try and pin down

precisely what the Minister has in mind, if and when certain

municipalities are to be asked their views on amalgamation.

Perhaps the Minister could give me a little more specific

detail.

[ Page 2609 ]

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

On the second question, I would like to clarify on the Reid

Centre. I'm sure the Minister's statement is correct and some

wrong impressions have been created, unfortunately. I take the

Minister's word, as he has said it, that he had a meeting with

the mayor and with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). Can I ask the Minister in regard to his mentioning a

50-50 cost sharing proposal if he would tell the House if

the government, or at least the three Ministers concerned, made

a specific commitment to Mayor Pollen telling him that if, in

fact, the City of Victoria was willing to pay half, the

provincial government would pay half? Or was this simply a

tentative figure that was being kicked around and that might be

something they could go into greater detail later?

The facts as described by the Minister leave me with a clear

implication that the government offered to go 50-50 on

the cost of buying the Reid site, that the mayor went back to

city council and that the government heard nothing more about

it. Now, if that's what happened, then of course I think the

people of the greater Victoria area want to know the exact

facts because it would appear, in light of what the Minister

has just told the House, that the City of Victoria council did

not come back to the government for any further discussion or

exploration of the 50-50 proposal.

That is my understanding, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, of your remarks and I would most sincerely ask the

Minister to leave no details unexplained, because there are

many, many people in this area of the greater Victoria region

who are very confused and unhappy, not only over the way it's

dragged out over a long period of time, but over the

uncertainty generated over the issue.

There's one last question I'd like to ask. Since the

Minister has not been approached in the last year or so — I respect his approximate term of a year regarding the Laurel

Point complex — would he have any comment to make on

being told now that there is a large

multi-million-dollar hotel-apartment complex

to be built at Laurel Point? The Premier has left the chamber

again, but I think it might be interesting....

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

MR. WALLACE: He wants to get closer to the Member for Oak

Bay. That can be serious, Mr. Chairman, when one side wants to

get too close to the other; but he's on the right side of the

House.

I would just like to quote the Premier's words when he was

opening the Inner Harbour promenade.

He said at the causeway opening:

"So, Mr. Mayor, while you may find some news coming in the next few days that may be in conflict

with the immediate desires of city council, rest assured that

the provincial government intends to back up that action with

sums of money to ensure you the possibility of developing this

city in an open, warm and friendly manner."

It would just seem to me, Mr. Chairman — and I think

the Minister should explain to the House — that it seems

rather ridiculous to put out perhaps in the neighbourhood of

$1.5 million on the Reid Centre property when just literally

around the corner we have another high-rise, a huge

multi-million-dollar complex, almost on the point

of beginning at Laurel Point.

In the light of the Premier's statement that they obviously

value the waterfront and have taken action on this one site and

now that the issue is here for public debate, will the Minister

consider any action in trying to acquire the Laurel Point site

so that the same aesthetic and environmental consideration

which led the government to act on the Reid site property might

prevail and pertain to the Laurel Point property?

I'm not again necessarily saying that the government should

do this. But I think, to be consistent.... The whole Inner

Harbour is an important piece of real estate, not only to the

people who five here, but for every person from B.C. and every

part of Canada and elsewhere who comes to visit greater

Victoria. Again, the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) cheers

loudly. With the Member for Esquimalt cheering and the Premier

sitting so close to me, I feel that we're really making

progress on this whole issue, Mr. Chairman.

But, seriously, would the Minister enlarge on these points

I've raised?

HON. MR. LORIMER: On the Laurel Point thing I think we may

be a little premature. As you know, the whole concept...as I

remember it, there was the closing off of Belleville Street

before anything could be done there. It would require

government action to close Belleville Street. And there's been

no application, either formally or informally, of the City of

Victoria for the closing of Belleville Street.

So I would rather not get into the ifs and buts and so on

about the things until there has been some proposal made. As I

understand it at the present time there are some discussions

going on by some developer in that area. I might say that if

we're interested in the Reid Centre, we're obviously interested

in Laurel Point. But I can't forecast what action might be

taken here.

Now you ask about further information on the Reid Centre.

No, when we met with the mayor, we

[ Page 2610 ]

didn't say definitely that we would buy. What we said was

that it would have to be a cabinet decision, but that we didn't

anticipate any difficulty whatever that our recommendations

would be accepted by cabinet. There's that qualification. But

we told them that we didn't anticipate any difficulty in that

regard. So that's about where it was. Now it's up to the city

to decide whether they want to come in 50-50 or to allow

the province to proceed the whole way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off by

referring to a subject which came up in question period. It was

the question of investment and the housing that's generated by

that investment. This is particularly appropriate during the

estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs because that

essentially is where the bottleneck lies.

If we are to have housing in B.C. In a mix which people can

choose — namely, purchase, condominium, rental,

multi-unit, or whatever — we are going to have to

consider what has provided housing up to now, where the

bottlenecks are and where indeed we can make changes.

Now we've heard from the Premier that he has no wish to

continue the flow of foreign investment from overseas, in

particular from Hong Kong. Apparently, according to a report

put out by the real estate board of greater Vancouver entitled,

"The Impact of Foreign Investment in Commercial and Multiple

Family Residential Real Estate in the Greater Vancouver Area" — it came out last month, prepared by P.S. Ross

and Partners — the foreign investors have been a major

factor in stimulating housing and housing construction. This

is, in particular, the multiple-family dwelling.

They talk of $60 million in foreign equity which flowed into

Vancouver area real estate in 1973. They talk about 5,000 jobs

being the result of this, and 15,000 to 20,000 jobs being in

turn dependent in a secondary way on that investment flow. They

say that in balance there appears to be "a strong positive

socio-economic impact resulting from the flow of foreign

investment into multiple-family housing and commercial

real estate in the Vancouver area."

It goes on to talk about the more adequate housing stocks

which have resulted from foreign investment because of the

inability or unwillingness of local or Canadian investors to

provide the funds required. It goes on finally to talk about

the serious negative impact of cutting off this flow in a

sudden manner.

I don't know how good the report of P.S. Ross is. I'm not an

expert in the field. I don't know how it's been analyzed by the

Vancouver Real Estate Board. But there's no question that there

is a substantial amount of money going into housing at the

present time; and there is no question that to cut it off

suddenly will have some sort of dislocative impact.

I'm particularly concerned about this at the present time

because, Mr. Minister, the ability to pay for development costs

of service lots depends to a very large extent upon capital.

The municipalities at the present time are extremely reluctant

to service lots, to put lots on the market within their

municipalities.

I was speaking to a couple of mayors of the greater

Vancouver area and they were telling me that you lose $275 in

the first year, which is a direct loss to the municipality

resulting from having another single-family unit

established in their communities. They point out that because

of the increased costs that result from servicing of all sorts

— police, lighting, curbs, roads, et cetera — there

is no real incentive whatsoever on them to encourage having

serviced lots put on the market and no incentive on them

whatsoever to have subdivisions approved.

Now these gentlemen, both of them, were adamant that the

present situation, with the lack of financing they get and the

lack of help they get from the Minister's department, has

created a situation in which the municipalities which have the

ultimate control in the areas where people apparently wish to

live — and we apparently have an 80 per cent urban

population — that these municipal authorities simply have

no wish whatsoever to proceed.

They're apparently willing to stall and willing to delay.

They simply don't want to saddle their municipalities with

extra costs at a time when their budgets are extremely tight,

thanks to the actions of this Minister and his budget and

estimates that we are discussing today.

The result, of course, is that we have a total bottleneck.

The only way to overcome it is by loading the servicing costs

of the lot on the initial purchaser. And the only way to

succeed is of course to find a purchaser of that serviced lot

who has a large amount of capital to buy up a high-cost

lot. The way we've done that in the past may not be the best

way. But the way it's been done up to now to a large extent is

to find offshore capital to do that. I'm thinking now. In

particular of the multiple-family unit which will be used

for rental.

Now I would like the Minister to comment upon this because

we had a few questions today which were unsatisfactory, at

least as far as I was concerned. The Minister of Finance was

apparently unaware of the impact of this capital upon the

actual new construction of rental accommodation in the city of

greater Vancouver. I wonder whether the Minister himself, in

considering his estimates and the amount of money he's

providing to municipalities, has gone into some calculation of

what the effect will be of a bar, or severe restrictions, upon

overseas capital coming in.

The municipalities quite clearly are not going to put

serviced lots on the market or service lots unless

[ Page

2611 ]

they can be sure of getting back a substantial chunk of

money directly and very quickly from the developer or from the

purchaser. They are not getting that at the present time to the

degree they would like from Canadians. The result is, of

course, a gap which at least, in the case of rental

accommodation, foreign capital is filling.

As a general principle, I think most of us here would accept

the Premier's statement, which is that we would prefer to have

Canadian investors serve this particular function. I hear the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) agreeing

with me. But regardless of what our desires are, regardless of

what the objective is, are we creating an even greater

short-run problem in the area of housing in the

municipalities by curbing this capital inflow and, at the same

time, doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to encourage the

municipalities to service lots?

I would like to point out that what we have been given today

and yesterday has been the same type of notice to speculators

as the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) gave to

speculators in the agricultural land deals in late 1972 when he

went to a meeting of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, I

believe it was, in New Westminster and announced they would be

bringing in measures soon to deal with the problem. He set off

the biggest land rush since the Oklahoma land rush of the last

century.

I don't know whether we are going to see the same thing in

this instance, but I certainly trust that instead of simply

announcing future policy objectives and potential curbs, the

government has something up its sleeve very, very quickly

indeed. Unless we do, we have just given notice to these

speculators to rush in. "Do it now, boys, because later on

we're going to get after you." I sure hope there is some

information coming up very quickly about legislation which, of

course, I cannot at this time talk about.

On a second point, I'd like to mention the tax revenue on

provincial buildings. I understand from the Minister that the

Government of British Columbia and the City of Victoria have

finally settled the garbage problem and the cost of clearing

out all that waste paper Members like the Minister and myself

like to throw into our wastepaper baskets every day. I trust

that has all been resolved, and I believe it has. Perhaps he

would like to indicate whether or not that problem between the

city and provincial government has been resolved.

On the question of the 15 mill levy, there simply aren't

adequate funds available in the grant given by the provincial

government in lieu of domestic and local taxes. I trust this

problem will be considered by the Minister.

It is all very weft for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) to talk about regional governments and municipal governments

treating the provincial government as a third-class citizen in their approach

to applications from ICBC or any other provincial Crown corporation. But if

the municipalities and the citizens of those municipalities are to suffer as

a result of granting zoning applications which permit Crown corporations and

the provincial government to establish offices or something else — maybe a claims

centre or something of that nature — it is quite clear they have no wish to

get into deals of that nature.

I refer the Minister to the statement by the Minister of

resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) when he was talking at the Delta

Chamber of Commerce and said the government is planning

incentives and disincentives for municipalities if they do not

change zoning in accordance with the desires of the provincial

government. Surely this is the responsibility not of the

Minister of resources but the responsibility of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. If he plans to overrule or set up the

mechanisms for overruling the municipalities in their zoning

jurisdiction when it comes to housing developments, I think

this is the time to make it more clear. The statement by the

Minister of resources was a straight threat and it is time the

government as a whole came up with a clear policy in that

regard.

I would like to say a word or two about Westside, the area

of Kamloops on which I've questioned the Minister before in

question period and failed totally to receive adequate

responses. Here is a situation where, because of the Highways

department's mistakes, the flooding problem and the drainage

problem was severe. The provincial government, in turn, by

unilateral action of the Minister, went out and amalgamated

that particular area with the City of Kamloops and did nothing

to provide them with the financial resources to handle this

specific problem caused by the failure of the Department of

Highways at an earlier time.

I wonder whether the Minister could today inform this House

and the people of Kamloops through this House that the whole

problem has been resolved and that funds will be made available

to deal with specific problems of this nature which occurred

prior to the municipality taking over that area and prior to it

being forced to take over that area by the provincial

government's decision.

On the Reid Centre, I was very, very interested indeed by

the Minister's statement. The Minister went on to say that

there had been a meeting with the city authorities — I

should say the mayor — and that four or five days went by

after this amicable meeting, at which time the 50 per cent or

the 100 per cent provincial financing formula was discussed.

They were very surprised to find suddenly that at a council

meeting a decision was made to transfer the land-use

contract from Reid to a hotel chain, Commonwealth Holiday

Inns.

It is very curious that the Minister should say this

[ Page 2612 ]

inasmuch as the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley),

as I understand, was kept fully informed at all times. It was

with considerable concern that the mayor, when he was

discussing this, found he could not get a decision out of the

provincial government. As there was an existing land-use

contract between Reid and the city, he felt that at that time

he would have to proceed and transfer it as requested.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): What you're

saying is a lot of rubbish.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Public Works states that

the mayor's explanation, as given by me....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the mayor's explanation as given by

me. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I'll go back. The Minister simply

states that it's a lot of rubbish. But the city is very

concerned about this property and the Minister rightly says he

is too; no question on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Minister?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley), who seems to think he has your job, Mr. Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

The mayor's point of view was that the difficulty lay with

getting the provincial government to make a decision either on

a 50 per cent or a 100 per cent basis. The failure of the

government to come up with a decision led to the transfer of

the land-use contract and a subsequent repurchase by the

provincial government at a figure which we are told is between

$1.5 and $1.7 million and which is apparently greater than it

otherwise would have been had the provincial government come up

with a decision earlier.

Well, I don't know whether the mayor or the Ministers

concerned, the Minister of Public Works, who is quick to say

it's all a lot of rubbish, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs....

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

rubbish.

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

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, you can speak in this debate too, Mr. Minister

of Public Works, if you wish. Any time you would like to speak up, you can.

You can get to your feet; just the regular procedure. The Minister of Public

Works is very touchy on this; he keeps interrupting. But there is very definitely

a discrepancy between the two stories. I think it would be well worthwhile for

the Minister of Municipal Affairs to meet with the mayor and straighten this

out. A lot of public money is involved. The fact that the stories are not contradictory

but vary at least in some details, and in important details, is something of

concern in particular to residents of Victoria.

I don't like the concept of the provincial government

stepping in on top of municipal councils and ruling them out of

order. I think that is unattractive. It has been done by this

government frequently, but I don't like it at all. I think if

we constantly interfere with the municipal level of government,

as the Minister has done and as other members of his government

have done, we will dissuade good and responsible members of the

public from running for these offices. They will feel there is

really no point in taking anything seriously; whatever you do

will simply be overruled by the provincial government if they

don't like it. Therefore, the responsibility will not be there

and there is no point in devoting a great amount of time and

effort to serving on municipal councils. I think that would be

very serious indeed.

We're seeing far too much centralization in Victoria by this

Minister. We're seeing far too many people who live in the

province, but who are governed by regional government or

municipal government, having the views of their elected

representatives ignored by the Victoria government.

I won't mention the Gulf Islands case because that's

legislation. But that's not the only one. The Reid Centre case

is another example. There have been plenty more. Rapid transit

in Vancouver — which I'll mention in a moment — is

another case of this. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if we are to get

local people interested in their communities and to do good

work on local councils, we are going to have to stop this

interference.

The example was given in a press story of the fact that it's

the province's right to overrule anything that the municipality

does, and that's true, but it's also in the British North

America Act that it's the federal government's right to

overrule a provincial government's decision. They have the

right of disallowance, but for the federal government to use it

in a frivolous manner or in a capricious manner would be

absurd.

I think the same should hold true with respect to the

province and the municipalities. These people are elected by

their fellow citizens; they're elected to perform certain

duties. Obviously they must have contact with the provincial

government, there must be coordination, but this constant

overruling of local

[ Page 2613 ]

decisions is something which I think will totally destroy

effective municipal government in the Province of British

Columbia, simply because people won't think it's worth

doing.

I would like to ask the Minister on another point about the

relationship of B.C. Hydro and the Bureau of Transit. I think

that when the provincial government owns B.C. Hydro it's

essentially providing transport to the province, but we seem to

have an unnecessary level of administration interfering in a

manner which does not give the ordinary citizen the best

service for his dollar. Why is it necessary to have that when

you indeed do control through another Minister B.C. Hydro? What

is the failure of B.C. Hydro in this regard? Why is it that we

have to have an extra and unnecessary level of government here?

I'm sure you could have them integrated and we would avoid the

present two-headed situation where responsibility is not

clear and where expenses multiply as each arm of the government

tries to justify its superiority or its position and tries to

suggest its superiority over the other.

Another point I'd like to raise is the municipal grant's use

of the census of previous years — the five-year

census — for calculation of municipal grants. I feel that

it should be quite possible for growing municipalities — and I'll refer to the municipality of Surrey which has been

discussed in another context in this House. There they have an

additional 7,000 people over and above what the census figures

say they have. The result is, of course, that they're being

deprived of money from the provincial government for the people

who actually reside there when it comes to municipal grants.

Perhaps the Minister would indicate what steps he plans or, if

I've missed them, what steps he's taken to resolve that

difficulty.

The question of transit I think is again interesting. If the provincial government

wishes to force certain bus services upon municipalities, surely it's up to

the government to provide the wherewithal for it out of perhaps the gasoline

tax. If the objective of the exercise is to persuade people to take the bus

instead of taking their private vehicles when they go downtown to work — I'm

thinking in particular of the greater Vancouver area here, because that's where

the problem has been most acute — why doesn't the government provide the revenues

out of gasoline tax and thus avoid the question of having the homeowner saddled

with an extra two mills to provide a service which has no real relationship

or relevance to his home and to his lot? If it is to be pushed anywhere other

than general revenue, surely it should be pushed upon the gasoline tax and therefore

you penalize the people who drive and you encourage the people to take the bus.

But to push it onto the shoulders of the homeowner, who may well be taking the

bus and trying hard to act in a responsible social manner, is obviously wrong.

I trust the Minister will give us something on that, because it's a source of

real frustration for the municipalities and in particular for the individuals

there.

I wonder whether the Minister also could 'indicate to the

House whether he's been able to work out some better

relationship with the City of Vancouver and greater Vancouver

in terms of rapid transit. I'm thinking now of his statement

that streetcars were going to be the answer. Then the mayor

came back and said they had to be underground, which turned

them into a subway, and there's been dispute ever since as to

what's what.

Surely if we are going to enter into extraordinarily

expensive rapid transit proposals, we should have a little more

knowledge, a little more certainty, a little more in the way of

background studies so that it's not just a question of argument

between two elected officials. The City of Bonn in West Germany

does not expect to have its trench up and down its main road,

where they're building a subway, to be completed for almost a

decade. The City of Tokyo spent many, many years building the

subway extensions which were constructed for the Olympic Games

essentially prior to that time. The whole city was tied up in

knots. If we're to have the same thing in the City of

Vancouver, I think that it should be based at least on adequate

studies and knowledge of what is going on and not simply charge

and countercharge between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

the mayor of Vancouver itself and the mayors of the other

municipalities. Surely we can have something a little more

clear and we can Work out the mechanisms of consultation and

control which would avoid the problems we now have.

I'd just like to finish, Mr. Chairman, on the question of

amalgamation. I have a clipping here of April 5 dealing with

Nanaimo and district. There's a committee which has been set up

to study amalgamation of the surrounding area. They're studying

the question of fire services and other things which need to be

amalgamated. This clipping, which is April 5 and may well be

out of date — perhaps the Minister can inform me of new

developments — talks about how the whole thing has ground

to a halt because essentially they don't know what the

provincial government intends to do. They want additional funds

for their study and yet the government apparently has declined

to give them the funds that they have asked for. The committee

is quite unable to come up with firm recommendations, this

article points out, because of the provincial government's lack

of clarity in its amalgamation plans.

If we are to have amalgamation forced upon areas such as the

amalgamation that took place in Kamloops, and such as the

amalgamation that took place in Kelowna, then surely other

areas which are

[ Page 2614 ]

threatened by this should be dealt with as quickly as

possible so that we don't have the present situation of people

being unable to put forward fire protection services because

they don't know where the boundaries are going to be drawn by

the Minister's office in the future for the general area that

they're trying to provide services for. Nanaimo is a pretty

good case, and I wonder whether the Minister would indicate to

us what steps have been taken to deal with that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I was wondering what newspaper that was.

Was that The Vancouver Sun ?

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

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, that account is quite untrue — it's very far from the truth. The committee in Nanaimo is

working very well. There's been no refusal to give them

financial assistance in their study. Where the reporter would

get that kind of information I'm at a loss to understand, but I

can assure you there is no validity in it.

You made mention of the report of the Vancouver Real

Estate Board. You opened a pretty big subject there, and I

might say that my Associate Deputy Minister is meeting with a

group of elected people from the Greater Vancouver Regional

District next week and the subject will be basically the

question that you were discussing. I have no ready answer for

that problem at the time. Of course, as far as extension of

lines and so on, in the housing budget there are some funds for

helping municipalities with the installation of services. Also

there maybe should be some type of incentive programme along

with that. But those items are under very active

consideration.

I'm advised by the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) that the paper problem between the Public Works

department and Victoria has been settled. I don't know, but

that's what I'm told. Westside Road — I can't answer the

question if it's been resolved or not. I've been discussing the

matter with the mayor for some time and also with the

Department of Highways, and I'm presuming that it's

resolved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It doesn't come through me — the

money part. I'm hoping it's resolved and I presume it's

resolved. I'm not saying for sure, but it will be resolved if

it isn't resolved.

I think I've discussed the Reid Centre pretty fully. If

you're not in favour of the government taking action there,

there will be public hearings and you can go and speak in

favour of the erection of the Reid Centre.

The transit bureau — the reason for the transit

bureau, of course, was to study and look after transit

throughout the province, not just in Victoria and Vancouver.

The B.C. Hydro is an operator under the transit bureau for

services in the areas.

Subways are in the future. The modern term for streetcar is

light rail. Everyone is opposed to streetcars, but they are all

in favour of light rail. It's the same thing, except that

there's a different type of model — that's all. Light

rail can easily be turned into subways. It's a question of

eventually having a subway in Vancouver, the necessity of which

I think is pretty clear.

At the present time, I am suggesting that light rail could

be used in Vancouver and throughout a large area of the

regional district. They will move people much faster than buses

and will not interfere nearly as much with vehicular traffic. I

suggest that the light rail will be the first step; the second

step would be the subway.

I might say that regarding the planning of this there are

plans going along in conjunction with the City of Vancouver and

the transit bureau in these studies. We'll be getting together

from time to time and comparing what has been done up until now

and looking to the future and trying to determine when the need

may be there for the subway.

I agree with you that it will take a number of years from

the completion of the planning stage to the running of the

subway. It will take a number of years — I would guess

five or six.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich.

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

Mr. Chairman.

There are two or three points I'd like to raise with the

Minister in discussing his estimates. I heard his earlier

remarks on the subject of enumeration and I welcome that

observation which was made some time earlier, too. But I hope

that the Minister understands that it is an additional expense

for municipalities which was not expected. In this area

Victoria city, Saanich, Esquimalt, Oak Bay, Sidney and Central

Saanich — which is just about all the municipalities

— their first estimate, Mr. Chairman, was around $84,000

to $85,000 to enumerate this year. In addition, of course,

there was an estimate late in 1973 of about $35,000 for the

regional district electoral areas. So it isn't cheap. It's just

one more item to add to an already fairly heavy municipal

load.

Esquimalt, as an example, indicated that projected costs for

this undertaking, including the necessary equipment and

materials, would be about $7,000. That was an estimate on March

1 and, indeed, by the time the work is done it may be found

that the cost is going to be considerably more.

I wonder if the Minister would like to comment,

[ Page 2615 ]

Mr. Chairman, on the possibility of some government

department or departments having a look at a single voters

list. I've raised this subject before, even before I came to

this Legislature. It seems to me that with electronic data

processing and some very sophisticated techniques available to

us, we could have a voters list which would serve more than one

level of government and more than one purpose. There could