1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, MARCH 30, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4831 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Coca-Cola contract for B.C. Summer Games. Mrs. Wallace –– 4832

Closure of Crestwood Guest Home. Mr. Cocke –– 4832

Mr. Leggatt –– 4833

Demolition of Robson St. apartments. Mr. Lauk –– 4833

BCSTA policy resolutions. Mr. Lauk –– 4834

Presenting Petitions

Vancouver Island Haven Society of Nanaimo.

Ms. Brown –– 4834

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4834

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it's

with profound sadness that we heard of the senseless, savage attack

upon the President of the United States. On behalf of the government,

all members of the assembly and the citizens of British Columbia, we

would like to extend our sympathy, best wishes and prayers for a speedy

recovery.

MR. BARRETT: On behalf of the opposition I

join with the statement of the House Leader of the government and

express our shock at such an inexplicable event taking place in our

family of North American nations. Even though we are of a different

country we share a common heritage. Our democratic political process

opens occasion for dispute and discord, but there is no place for

violence in that difference of opinion. We too wish Godspeed to the

President and his family and wish him an early recovery. We hope that

from this tragic event we can learn that with all our positive

attitudes towards government there is a frailty in human nature that

still needs to be conquered, and we hope we are one step closer to that.

want to add that we in British Columbia have a particularly close

relationship with the United States in north-south dialogue, and we

extend to our many personal friends on the American side our expression

of concern and hope for the best.

MR. SPEAKER . Hon. members, is it the wish of the House, on the basis

of the two statements made, that the Speaker send an appropriate message to

the White House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

From my great riding of Columbia River we have in the galleries today

12 students from grade 11 of the David Thompson Secondary School in

Invermere, together with their teacher, Mr. Chris Elford, and Mrs.

Elford. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them today.

MS. BROWN:

There are ten members of the Vancouver Island Haven Society with us

today: Annabell Cameron, Dorothy Mandy, Valerie Quan, Ruth Taylor,

Margaret Tuker, Nina Westway, Jackie Mode, Lou Holland, Kim Goldberg

and Marlene Slater. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I know that to many of us the constituency secretary is a

most important person. In your gallery today is Miss Carol Tichelman,

who serves the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and me in

Vancouver South. Would members join me in welcoming her.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, rejoining the press gallery after a year in the great city

formidable. Bienvenue.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, on

Saturday evening last I had the occasion to represent the government at

a dinner of the congress of Alpim Italian members — their first meeting

here in Vancouver. The local organization was holding its tenth

anniversary in the Italian Centre in Vancouver. We have in the gallery

a number of members of the association from across Canada and some from

the United States. I would like to mention that we have one gentleman

from North Burnaby, Mr. Umberto Turrin, and his two brothers from

Italy, Luigi and Lorenzo — if they would stand up. I would ask the

House to welcome them.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I

would like you and the House to join with me in welcoming a visitor

from the east, Mr. Raymond LeBlanc, from Shediac, New Brunswick. Ray

was one of 21 Canadians. Including my daughter, who went to Mali as

exchange students. They are back in Canada now.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague from North Vancouver–Capilano I

would like to extend a greeting on behalf of the Legislature to the

Alpini Association. Over 100 members have visited this past weekend and

will be in British Columbia for the next few days. The chairman of the

congress anniversary, which they have attended in Vancouver, is Arrigo

dalla Tina. He is accompanying the representative group in the

Legislature. Tarcisio Fogolin, the president of the British Columbia

organization, is in the gallery today as well. The national president

from Italy is here, Mr. Franco Bertagnolli. They are celebrating the

tenth anniversary of the Alpini Association in British Columbia. They

have marked this past weekend the very first anniversary of the Alpini

Association of Canada.

May I say on behalf of members of our

assembly, if they will accept this attempt at Italian — I say to the

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who is so good at

this kind of thing — members on all sides of the House join in a very

warm welcome to them. Buona sera, alpini di tutto il mondo, benvenuti a

British Columbia. Grazie per essere venuti. We hope you will return

again. Arrivederci.

MR. MACDONALD: E sempre un piacere essere con I alpini. Vivan I alpini!

MR. SPEAKER: Hansard is going to have a ball with this.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I can outdo that act. However, I thought

with your interest in tourism in British Columbia, you would be pleased

to know that over the weekend we not only had our very charming Italian

guests, but we had a number of other people — I'm not sure they spoke

service-station operators from Australia.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Well, if you hear them talk — "You're all right, Mike" — it makes you wonder. They were here

with us under the auspices of Shell Australia and are part of a program of that

company to encourage their service station operators to seek perfection and major

accomplishments not only in their work, but in international understand-

[ Page 4832 ]

ing. Some of them will be in the House later today — not all 500, you'll be pleased to know.

There

will also be some people in the gallery later today who are part of a

group of 100 tour operators and travel agents from San Francisco. They

have been with us for the last week in British Columbia under the

auspices of the federal government, through CGOT, and our own ministry,

with our director in San Francisco, Mrs. Marjorie Greene. All are

delighted with British Columbia and deeply regretful that they can't

spare more time in this chamber to see democracy in action, but I would

ask you to give them a very warm welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I think this could well be called Dewdney constituency day in this

Legislature, because today we have Mrs. Eileen Griffin and her sister,

Mrs. Masie Essex, from New South Wales, Australia, who is in Canada on

an extended visit. In addition to that we have 60 students of the

Garibaldi Secondary School under the direction of Mr. Mike McIndoe, Mr.

Ron D'Andrea, Miss Cindy King and Mr. Jim Dudley. In addition to that

we have had 20 students from Ferndale School in Mission, who have now

left the precincts, and their teacher, Mr. Ewert.

MR. KEMPF:

In the gallery with us this afternoon are three individuals

representing the Denturists Society of British Columbia: Mr. Ed Hawks,

Mr. Jim Connoly and Mr. Trevor Neet. I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon

are two young people from Cranbrook: Mr. Bronte Stefanuk and Mr. Terry

McMahon. I'd like the House to welcome them this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, I have a plea from Hansard ,

over the signature of the chief. It says that each desk has in it a

little pad, and they would encourage you to use this information notice

for the spelling of the names of the people you have introduced. It

will help them greatly.

Oral Questions

COCA-COLA CONTRACT FOR

B.C. SUMMER GAMES

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for

the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister confirm that Coca-Cola — a

drink of no nutritional value — has been designated the official soft

drink of the B.C. Games in exchange for $100,000 worth of advertising

for the games?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thank the member for

her question. I can't confirm her figures but, yes, there is an

agreement between Coca-Cola and the managing director of the games,

under which they have considerable obligations to provide services,

programs, etc., and under which they are the established soft drink of

the games. There are many other types of drinks — milk, tea and coffee,

etc. — provided to the athletes. From the point of view of the games,

there is a very beneficial arrangement under which they are the

supplier of all of these services: programs, schedules, etc. I can't

confirm the figure of $100,000 that she mentioned. I would have to get

back to the House on that matter.

MRS. WALLACE: That

was a very interesting answer from the minister. Can he confirm that

because of this unsavoury arrangement between Coca-Cola and B.C. Games,

B.C. Fruit Growers Assoc. were denied an opportunity to sell any

B.C.-produced fruit juices to spectators at the B.C. Summer Games last

year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In no way could this be classified as an unsavoury

contract or arrangement, Mr. Speaker. At the time such an agreement was entered

into, which I am told was 1979, other submissions were invited and were in no

way competitive with that made or offered by Coca-Cola. I am not informed that

this concern has been raised by the treefruit people, but I'd certainly

be happy to look into it.

MRS. WALLACE:

While the minister is looking into this, I wonder whether he would be

good enough to check whether or not this Coca-Cola monopoly has kept

competing beverages away from the games to the point that a desperate

cook had to make an almost under-the-table deal in order that the

athletes didn't have to drink Coca-Cola for breakfast.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I can only remind the member that this was an agreement made by the

games management which was of great assistance to the games. The

company is obligated to buy the back page of the program. They print

some 200,000 advance schedules and something like 7,000 posters for

these games, and they purchase 25 percent of the television coverage of

the games. For this, they are the only soft-drink beverage currently

provided to the games. It does not preclude the supply of milk, tea,

coffee or those kinds of beverages to the athletes. It's my

understanding that in 1980 the company spent something like $80,000 in

this connection on the B.C. Games.

MRS. WALLACE: I

would urge the minister to check and verify whether or not the athletes

— the ones who didn't drink tea or coffee — were in fact being required

to drink Coke for breakfast because there was no juice available, and

whether or not that juice was brought in as a result of negotiations

made by some of the food staff.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, please come to order. We're in question period. If the

hon. House Leader (Hon. Mr. Williams) would please take his chair, I

would appreciate it.

CLOSURE OF CRESTWOOD GUEST HOME

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I would ask

the minister if

section 14 of the Community Care Facility Act and

regulations which were revised by order-in-council November 25, 1980,

set out conditions for notice of change of operations of a facility.

Can the minister advise the House as to whether the owner and operator

of the Crestwood Guest Home in Maple Ridge complied with the

regulations that I have just alluded to?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll have to take the question as notice and get the specifics.

[ Page

4833 ]

MR. COCKE: I have a new question, which might help the

minister. Did Crestwood give 12 months' written notice to the

Provincial Adult Care Facilities Licensing Board of their intention to

suspend the operation of the Crestwood Guest Home?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Again, I will take that as notice to find out what notice was given,

what the length of time was, what the requirements may be under the

regulation, and also to ask officials what consequences, if any, could

arise from that.

MR. COCKE: I have another question —

and the minister may not have to take this as notice. Will the minister

advise the House as to whether or not he approved the 27-day notice

which was given to the 44 elderly patients at the Maple Ridge rest-home?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

We did not give notice to the people; the people who owned the facility

gave notice. The important aspect in this is that the guests at that

facility were relocated, which was the number one priority.

MR. COCKE: Did the ministry receive any representations from the MLA for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem)?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I don't know if anyone in the ministry received representations from

the MLA. I'm not quite sure what the member means by "representations,"

but I can ask my officials who may have contacted them in this regard.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Given the fact that it

is now general knowledge that at least two sections of the Community

Care Facility Act have been violated in this particular Crestwood

resthome case, would the minister advise whether he has now decided to

initiate proceedings against that rest-home. as is his duty under

section 15 of the Community Care Facility Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I have not now decided, and I won't decide until such time as the

Minister of Health returns with his answers to the questions posed to

him today.

DEMOLITION OF ROBSON ST. APARTMENTS

MR. LAUK: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. Tenants of 42 apartments at 1840 and 1860 Robson Street in the city

of Vancouver have been advised by Campeau Corporation that their apartments

will be demolished October 1 of this year. What steps has the minister decided

to take to prevent the loss of these rental units?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning I was in touch with the

property managers for the building, Macaulay, Nicoils, Maitland and Co., and

Mr. Steven Jung, who is the property manager responsible for that building.

Perhaps I can advise the member, through you, sir, of the information I received.

I gather that Macaulay, Nicolls assumed responsibility for these buildings on

March 20, about the same time as the purchase from Campeau. I'm further

advised by Mr. Jung that Macaulay, Nicolls manage a fairly wide portfolio of

apartments in Vancouver, and it will be their policy to provide priority to

these tenants in an effort to assist them in relocation. I further understand

that of the 42 suites in the building 40 are presently occupied and two are

unoccupied.

also gather that tomorrow evening Vancouver city council is having a

major meeting on the question of what steps, if any, will be taken in

that city by Mayor Harcourt with respect to proposed demolition bylaws,

but that a decision by Vancouver city council will not be made until

April 7. Before I say anything further, I very much want to have the

results of that meeting and the comments and recommendations of

Vancouver city council.

MR. LAUK: I thank the

minister for looking into this question promptly. Because of Campeau

Corporation's failure to maintain the building since last November, the

residents as a group have looked after the buildings themselves. What

steps has the minister taken respecting the failure of this corporation

to live up to its obligation under the Residential Tenancy Act to

maintain these buildings?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Following

that same policy as the Attorney-General outlined moments ago, I think

it's the practice of the government that we'd like some brief

opportunity to receive first-hand, from our own officials, a report on

a situation before trying and convicting people. I would think it a

retrograde step if, relying on one newspaper report, immediate

conclusions were drawn in this case. I shall see today, Mr. Speaker.

that officials of my ministry contact the Campeau people and find out

their side of the story. When we have all sides of the story fairly

presented, we will decide what steps to take.

MR. LAUK:

Apart from any newspaper story, complaints have been made to the

rentalsman with respect to those two addresses. Under the Residential

Tenancy Act, the rentalsman's office is unable to deal with obligation

repair cases under that act because "it is bogged down with the

government's cumbersome rent review program. Has the minister decided

to take specific action to hire emergency staff to deal with such

complaints under that act?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, as part of the answer I just gave I will certainlybe asking

the office of the rentalsman what steps they have taken and whether the

facts are as they arc suggested by the first member for Vancouver

Centre.

I should perhaps say by way of comment, with respect

to the accuracy of the quotation from the unknown author just uttered,

that I am advised by the rentalsman's office that as a consequence of

the additional funding and further staff provided in conjunction with

those amendments by this government in the last six months, for the

first time in several years the office of the rentalsman has been

closing more files in the last three months than it has been opening.

which is a sign to me that the staff are working very hard and are

doing very well with the new resources.

MR. LAUK:

Perhaps we should look into the minister's claims that they have been

closing more files. I would like to check with my officials and

research staff to determine whether the files have been closed resolved

or unresolved.

[ Page 4834 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. LAUK:

In any event, the question that I had to the minister was based on

information received this morning. It is that the rentalsman is still

not receiving obligation repair cases. Can the minister confirm that

that is the case?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to look into that and advise the member at the first opportunity.

BCSTA POLICY RESOLUTIONS

MR. LAUK:

I have a question to the Minister of Education. On March 9 of this

year, the B.C. School Trustees Association made yet another request for

the minister to respond in some way to their 1979 and 1980 policy

resolutions. So far the minister has steadfastly failed — or refused —

to do so. Has the minister now decided to respond?

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't minister when the 1979 resolutions were put

before that assembly and wouldn't be responding to those in any event,

but the 1980 resolutions I fully intend to respond to in due course. I

am preparing an educational report at present, which will respond to

those and a number of others, but I do intend to respond to those.

Presenting Petitions

MS. BROWN: I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted,

MS. BROWN:

The petition of the Vancouver Island Haven Society of Nanaimo "humbly

showeth that women are being battered and killed in Nanaimo and need a

safe place to go with their children. Wherefore your petitioner humbly

prays that your honourable House may be pleased to support the

Vancouver Island Haven Society in their request for funding for a

transition house in Nanaimo." It is signed, Mr. Speaker, by 2,477

signatures.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has an attending motion? There will be a ruling before a motion would be in order.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, during the question period the name of the member for

Dewdney was mentioned, and I find it difficult to remain silent when a

question was asked dealing with myself. I request the opportunity to

make a statement to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are asking leave to make a statement?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes.

Leave not granted.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I asked leave and I heard several noes,

hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

It is my understanding that the hon. member for Dewdney wishes to make

a correction of something stated in the House. This is his first

available opportunity, and perhaps he means that he wishes to rise

under that standing order. The opposition has no objection to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member simply asked for leave to make a statement, and the Chair is duty bound by the wishes of the House.

The member for Dewdney seeks the floor?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, with the sound and the fury I could not hear what you said. Would you repeat it again, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Dewdney seeks the floor on what basis?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I seek the floor on the basis that my name was mentioned and the member

for Dewdney should have an opportunity to answer that name.

MR. SPEAKER:

Standing orders do not provide for an opportunity for the member to

simply respond in debate fashion to questions answered in question

period.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Of course, and I was refused that opportunity by the House.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

First, I wish to take the opportunity of extending a real vote of

gratitude to the former deputy, Bill Long, who left the ministry in

order to take on the post of acting chairman of the Public Service

Commission late last year. I'm sure that we're well aware that Mr. Long

served the ministry for several years and did so extremely well, taking

various leadership roles in preparing for urban transit and other such

programs. I am very grateful for all of the help which was provided me

during my initial period in the ministry through the able assistance of

Mr. Long.

Mr. John Taylor, formerly an assistant deputy

minister, was appointed as acting deputy minister. Certainly Mr. Taylor

has long experience in the municipal field and will be a help not only

to all municipalities, but also to any of us in the Legislature who

would seek his assistance from time to time.

Mr. Chris

Woodward, also a former assistant deputy minister, was appointed as

acting inspector of municipalities. The responsibilities of this

position have been enlarged. The Municipal Act Review Committee's work

should also lead to some legislative changes, perhaps in order to

clarify and better spell out than presently the duties assigned to the

inspector of municipalities.

Mr. Larry Miller, formerly an assistant general manager with the Urban Transit Authority, was named acting general

[ Page 4835 ]

manager

of the Urban Transit Authority. The expansion of the bus service

throughout the province and the start of the advanced light rapid

transit project indicated a need for a full-time general manager. The

expertise which Mr. Larry Miller can provide in this field is not only

welcome but very necessary if these programs are to come to fruition as

we would see them. He has already been most helpful in the capacity of

assistant general manager and taken a very leading role in assuring

that all communities throughout the province have an opportunity of

providing a transit program to their citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a few moments on a very important program, one

which certainly our government and my ministry can be extremely proud of: the

revenue-sharing program. The total value of the 1981 revenue-sharing program

package is $213.8 million. That's an increase of $37.6 million or 21 percent

over last year's total of $176.2 million, which in turn was a 24 percent

increase over the 1979 total. Municipalities do require an increasing amount

of money in order to keep up with inflationary costs in providing services to

their citizens.

The

revenue-sharing program, of course, is one which is tied into the

various revenues that accrue to the province. These revenues are

calculated on the year previous. We're very grateful for the economic

prosperity of British Columbia that has been experienced by all of its

citizens. Again the municipalities, through their revenue-sharing

program, have been the beneficiaries of that. I say again that we're

extremely proud as a government that we have a program which is a model

for all of Canada in assuring that the municipalities do have a growing

source of income which helps to keep the taxes down at the local level.

The

lion's share of the revenue-sharing program — 76 percent or $162

million — is distributed as unconditional grants to the 140 B.C.

municipalities according to a formula which takes into account

municipal population, spending and tax base. The basic grant is

$30,000, which goes to every municipality and consumes 2 percent of the

program. For the 19 villages with a property tax collection of less

than $60,000, this grant pays for many local services.

Nine

percent, or $18.4 million, of the revenue-sharing pot is allocated for

the water facilities assistance program which covers 75 percent of the

annual debt per payment in excess of 2 1/2 mills for approved municipal

and regional water systems. This program's value has increased 66

percent over last year. As the loss of the federal community services

contribution program has placed in jeopardy many water projects

throughout the province, the funds made available for the sewerage

facilities assistance program have also increased. The same generous

cost-sharing formula is used for it as for the water program. The large

increase in this program value again reflects Ottawa's chopping of the

community services contribution program. The housing growth grant

distributes $10 million in proportion to the number of housing starts

in municipalities and regional districts; $15 million is used to pay

for 50 percent of approved road projects. To encourage proper long-term

planning at the local government level, my ministry reimburses up to

two-thirds of approved planning projects. Each of the 28 regional

districts receives a $40,000 grant as well.

In 1977

revenue-sharing legislation, as I mentioned, was the most significant

development in senior government financial assistance to local

government in Canada. I'm very pleased that it has been an enormous

help to municipalities in maintaining a more reasonable level of local

taxation. It's certainly an extremely important source of revenue to

all municipalities — to the smaller communities perhaps more

significantly so — and it provides services to the community that

wouldn't otherwise be affordable for its citizens. Because of

revenue-sharing, B.C. local governments will receive a total of $254.6

million in 1981-82 — a whopping 165 percent increase over the $96.1

million given by the former government in their last budget. So that

indicates the progress that has been made since 1975: we've managed to

increase the revenues to local government by a whopping 165 percent. I

am certain the municipalities must be aware of the efforts that have

been put forth on their behalf through the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, and the response which has been so generously granted by this

government in British Columbia at this time.

The community

services contribution program has been in effect only two years; it was

instituted by the federal government, but unfortunately they have now

suddenly decided not to continue their participation in the community

services contribution program beyond December 31, 1980. The community

services contribution program was only introduced in 1979, as I

mentioned. by the federal government as a block-funding arrangement to

replace three other federal programs which were specifically designed

to assist municipalities in providing essential services related to

housing and protection of the environment.

They

unfortunately. as they do with so many other programs, get the thine

started. change it to perhaps a block funding arrangement. as was the

case here, and then after only two years cancel out. The provinces

agreed to this change on the basis that an initial two-year agreement

would be followed by a long-term agreement to be negotiated prior to

December 31, 1980. and this latter commitment was included as a clause

in the agreements with each of the provinces. The program's funding was

given as a 20 percent grant of total capital cost to various municipal

projects. The federal funds were used to reduce the net cost of the

municipal sewer and water projects eligible for provincial assistance.

The provincial assistance programs provide 75 percent of project costs

above 2 1/2 mills in the municipality. In other words. for every

federal dollar lost or every dollar which was previously received from

the federal government, the provincial government will now be obliged

to again pick up directly 75 cents. and the municipalities will pick up

the other 25 cents. So it's 75 cents for the lost dollar, which needs

to be picked up directly by the province, and 25 cents directly by the

municipalities. The federal government had made the commitment to carry

on with the program, but they suddenly decided to cancel out.

1980 we had $25.2 million from the program. which was shared by B.C.

local governments under the program, and $80 million in applications

was received. So we actually inherited many of the programs which were

previously cost shared by the federal government. We were unable to

meet all of those indirect commitments which had been made by the

federal government, because we immediately received $80 million worth

of applications, but we were able to meet $25.2 million worth. The

federal government did not redirect to B.C. the funds lost by axing the

community services contribution program, so the money appears to be

going — at least we would hope — to the repayment of Ottawa's debt.

The provincial homeowner grant was an innovative idea introduced by the former Social Credit Government in 1957.

[ Page 4836 ]

Since

that time the homeowner grants have increased from $28 to a maximum of

$630 per year for senior citizens, GAIN recipients and the handicapped.

In this session of the Legislature the eligibility for the $200 extra

grant is being expanded to include all physically disabled homeowners.

That certainly is a welcome response by this government in follow-up

from the various delegations that have been presented to me and others

by the handicapped people of the province who previously had to be in

receipt of GAIN to be eligible. We've recognized now that the handicap

should be the eligibility factor. I'm pleased that the government once

more took the initiative to expand the benefits to this very deserving

group of citizens. We have come a long way since 1975, in the period

that we've been government. In 1975 the homeowner grant program

totalled $124 million; now we see a program that is $253.5 million.

That's an increase of 104 percent in just over six years.

have a very good committee actively reviewing the Municipal Act. From

time to time we are asked by members of the Legislature and especially

by people in municipal government why certain aspects of the act should

not be reviewed more regularly. Of course, we know that every year

there are changes to the act, but there has never been any complete

review. I suppose the last time might have been 1914, which is a good

while back, and portions of the act are not only out of date and

archaic but do not have application in any way, shape or form. So the

Municipal Act Review Committee is a group which has been meeting fairly

regularly, and they're hoping to complete their work later this summer.

The

committee comprises chairman Ted Whelen, who has been with the ministry

for a good many years, a very able person who has been a tremendous

assistant to all those who have served in the capacity of minister for

the ministry; Mr. Stew Fleming, a very capable manager for the city of

Kelowna, who gives us the necessary municipal input; Ted Pearce, the

lawyer for the UBCM for the last number of years; Mr. Jeff McKelvy, the

executive director of the UBCM; and Mr. Don Lidstone and Mr. Galt

Wilson, lawyers specializing in municipal law.

They have

been working very hard and, as I mentioned, by the fall of this year we

hope to be prepared to present a discussion paper in time for the UBCM

convention so there might be ample input and the municipal people will

have the opportunity to make recommendations on the suggestions from

the committee. Seminars will be held throughout the province, and I

will receive written briefs and reports from any and all groups or

individuals. The format and process will I be the same as was followed

for the planning act. I feel that this gives British Columbians a

chance to look at legislation before it goes into effect and becomes

accepted, so that they will be afforded the opportunity to propose any

changes they might wish.

The downtown revitalization program

is relatively new, but we have a large number of communities very

interested in the program, and a good number of communities have

received the initial $5,000 grant in order to do the required studies

within the communities to determine the needs and the best approach to

the revitalization of the downtown cores. As was said last year when

the program was introduced, and I repeat, it is the wish of government

that we assist the small businesses in the downtown cores of the

smaller Communities which are often being threatened by the regional

shopping centres just out of the towns.

For the most part

these small businesses have been a part of the downtown core in their

small communities for a good many years. They are the people who stuck

through thick and thin and who stayed. They are not the

johnnies-come-lately, the shopping centres which so often tend to move

in when they find there is a type of growth that will sustain them —

and very often it sustains them at the cost of those who have been

there providing a service to the people for a good many years. So the

downtown revitalization program is off to a good start, it's beginning

to jell well and I expect to see good things flow from it.

Mr.

Peter Dueck is the coordinator of the program and has visited over 60

B.C. communities to date. The downtown cores of 42 B.C. communities

have received ministerial designation for revitalization, and 22

communities have received the startup grants. Courtenay was the first

community to receive approval in principle for a $215,000 loan to

improve the main street of that community.

We are covering

the whole of the province, and our priorities are only a matter of the

community being eligible for it and in need of it, and the program

assuring us of the sort of results we want for the small businessman.

If the community group required to be a part of promoting and

initiating the program is very active, then they tend to get first in I

me. That's the case in Courtenay, as it is in White Rock, where the

community has been extremely active and the council and mayor have been

taking a leading role in assuring that there is a continued interest

and that all the facts are known. In White Rock we are ready to provide

a $78,000 allocation for the facade treatment in the Marine Drive area.

June the ministry will be sponsoring workshops on downtown

revitalization in Vernon, Creston, Campbell River and White Rock, and

we expect to see a good representation of council members as well as

board of trade, chamber of commerce or downtown business-group

representatives who will provide us with further input and give us a

progress report on various activities in the different communities.

should mention as well that the Pacific Rim Metropolitan Conference

will this year be held in Vancouver from April 5 to 10. We're very

proud to be hosting this event with the regional district of greater

Vancouver. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

will be taking a lead role. Their involvement with the conference stems

from its recognition of the links between effective public management,

the economic development of member nations and the growth of the world

economy. As part of its activities in this area, the OECD's joint

activity on urban management sponsored the symposium on metropolitan

government organization and structure in Yugoslavia in November 1978.

That symposium brought together about 80 practitioners from 13

countries to share their perspectives on this subject. The Pacific Rim

Metropolitan Conference is one of several initiatives undertaken to

follow up on the symposium. The B.C. government maintains links at the

international level for the exchange of ideas about metropolitan areas.

The discussions at the upcoming conference will follow up some of the

debates of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements held in

Vancouver in 1976. Representatives from over 40 metropolitan cities in

the Pacific Rini and many interested organizations will be discussing

four major themes. The first will be relations between senior

governments in metropolitan areas; the second, coastal and estuary

management in metropolitan areas; the third, transportation, land-use

planning and urban form; and the fourth, decision-making in

metropolitan development,

[ Page 4837 ]

large part of the ministry is the Urban Transit Authority, and this is

one which is getting more of our attention all the time. The UTA will

receive approximately $95 million from the province in this fiscal

year, and under a five-year cost-sharing arrangement with local

governments the province pays 75 percent of transit operating deficits

in the first and second years. In the third year it's 70 percent, and

from then on it's two-thirds. These agreements provide the greatest

amount of provincial government financial contribution or support for

public transit of any province in Canada. Our cost-sharing formula to

provide local transit to communities throughout British Columbia, and

the system which is being developed for greater Victoria and greater

Vancouver, is the most generous of any province in Canada, and probably

rates among the highest for any place in North America, and possibly

the world. It's one which is recognized by people involved in other

transit programs elsewhere throughout the world. We receive many

inquiries. Each and every time, there is considerable astonishment on

the part of those inquiring at the participation by this provincial

government in that very rapidly growing program.

On December

6, 1980, I had the pleasure of announcing the provincial government's

support for the construction of an advanced light rapid transit system

in greater Vancouver. The cost of the project is expected to be $650

million in inflated dollars. That's certainly taking it from today

through to 1986. Looking at it today, we are looking at an approximate

figure of $290 million in 1979 dollars. We must inflate those, of

course, because we recognize that the cost will increase between now

and 1986. I was very pleased, too, that when this announcement was

made, we were able to announce the commuter program at the same time.

I'll just speak on that a little more in a moment.

We were

able to tie it in as well with the announcement by the Ministry of

Lands, Parks and Housing that we would make large tracts of Crown land

available — especially in the Coquitlam, Port Moody and Surrey areas —

for the development of housing. It's certainly recognized, and it's a

problem that comes to us at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs as well,

that with the tremendous growth in British Columbia and with the

enormous influx of people....

I believe we're getting

something like 1,000 people moving into the lower mainland every week

right now. It's the greatest growth we've ever experienced in British

Columbia, and of course these are people from other parts of Canada.

Understandably, they're moving here in part because we enjoy the best

of weather, but similarly too, they're much impressed by the economy,

the opportunity that British Columbia offers and the fact that the

government of British Columbia is not only planning and looking at

today but is concerned about the future. Any and all of those people —

not only in Canada but elsewhere — are viewing British Columbia as one

place where they would like to bring their families to see them have

job opportunities available to them, not only now but in the future,

and the Opportunities to build something for themselves of which they

and the family can be extremely proud. Because we are living in the

best province in the whole of Canada and possibly the best part of the

whole world — I would certainly say so but perhaps someone might think

me to be biased — people from everywhere are moving to British

Columbia. This is why I again mention the fact that we were able to

coincide the announcements of providing the most innovative transit

program for the whole of anywhere — it's never been equalled anywhere.

will certainly be viewed by people from all over the world as being not

only innovative but foresightful and futuristic. Because we were able

to tie that program into making land available to people for housing, I

think we can see a tremendous success from both of the announcements.

They do tend to go together. If you do see — as we would expect — a

large amount of development taking place in the northeast sector,

especially in the lower mainland or in the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. then transit is a very much required part of it.

is expected that at least 60 percent of the moneys required for the

project will be spent locally. As well, the Urban Transit Authority and

GVRD are examining the possibility of leasing air right along the line

of residential and commercial development, which once more will provide

for considerable spinoff in benefits to accrue to the system and the

economy of the Greater Vancouver Regional District generally. Mr.

Chairman. we have some proposals which have been provided to the

ministry with respect to what opportunities do exist regarding the

potential for air rights, and certainly this will be considerably

developed upon by the ministry.

I see that you are pointing at the lights, so I should speed it up. I only have a couple of items left to mention.

The

bus system has now been expanded into a large number of communities. It

was 20 at last count; it may be 21 now. It's a comprehensive program.

In 1981-82, over 68.5 million kilometres of transit service, carrying

in excess of 118 million passengers, will be provided in B.C. Over

1,100 vehicles are in revenue service in transit systems under the

agreement signed with the UTA, and the arrival of 40 trolley buses, 29

diesels and 22 custom vehicles is expected this year, and 160 new

trolleys are on order. There is a tremendous expansion in the program.

The

UTA funds door-to-door service for those people unable to use

conventional transit buses on the same basis as it does for

conventional transit, except that these custom transit services require

that only 10 percent of revenue be raised from the fares. as opposed to

35 percent for conventional transit in Vancouver and Victoria and 30

percent in other communities. The difference is made up by the special

provincial grant as a supplement to the user fees. The UTA will spend

almost S3 million this fiscal year for transit for the physically

disabled. aside from greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. Kelowna

enjoys — and on April 1, Prince George, and in May, Kamloops will

enjoy — the benefits of the UTA's custom transit program. Four other

B.C. communities should be receiving this service over the next year.

1975 only a few dedicated organizations. such as the B.C. Lions

Society, provided this service. The province contributed nothing

towards this type of large-scale transit service for the physically

disabled, except through grants from the Ministry of Human Resources.

But now these are certainly and totally under the program — at least

according to its guidelines — and supported through the Urban Transit

Authority.

The SeaBus will celebrate its fourth anniversary

in June of this year. This vessel has a capacity of 150,000 crossings

of the beautiful Vancouver harbour. We're pleased to say that it has

been able to do so without one lost trip due to mechanical problems.

Mr.

Chairman. I thank you very much, and I'd be very pleased to take my

seat and answer any questions that might come from the members opposite.

[ Page 4838 ]

MR. BARBER:

I too would like to congratulate Jim Lorimer for having had the guts,

the courage, the vision, the initiative, the money and the ability to

get SeaBus done. It was and is a fine thing, and on this side of the

House we're terribly proud of it. I would also like to point out that

it was the Social Credit Party when in opposition that opposed it, that

laughed, that jeered, that hooted, that ridiculed, that acted in a

typically negative, negative, negative way and said SeaBus would never

work. Well, fortunately, then, as now, they were wrong. And

fortunately, SeaBus has been a tremendous success — and we need two

more of them.

We need two more of them in part as a means of

staving off all those persons who hate cities and build bridges, all

those persons who hate cities and build highways in them, all those

persons who hate cities and smash the highways and the bridges through

the established neighbourhoods of the cities. We need to find a way —

and SeaBus is one of them — to prevent the destruction of cities by the

building of unnecessary, unwelcome, unaffordable and inappropriate

systems like highways and great bridges in Vancouver or in any other

place where they clearly do enormous damage to the fundamental human

foundation and the economic fabric of a great urban community. Thank

God for SeaBus, because it was a means of stopping another crossing

over the Burrard Inlet. Thank God for Seabus; it's been as much an

economic success within its framework as any public transit is. Thank

God for SeaBus; it's safe and reliable. And thank God for Jim Lorimer,

who did it in the first place.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

MR. BARBER: His wife is very ill and he has gone to visit her in the hospital, as a matter of fact.

are discussing today — at least in the opening hours and days of these

estimates — the ability of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

competence of his office and the policies of his ministry. The minister

has a growing reputation in British Columbia, but unfortunately for

him, in the last couple of years it has been growing in a very negative

way. Increasingly the reputation of this minister is that of bullying

and bungling, and in the hours and days to come we're going to be

looking at the record of bungling and bullying associated with the

current Minister of Municipal Affairs. We're going to look, for

instance, at the remarkable achievement he obtained when he made

himself the laughingstock of the UBCM by putting forward the simply

goofy, simply irrational idea of tying the salaries of elected persons

in local government to their population, and a few other devices that

he cooked up. This was bungling and bullying both at the same moment.

It was, of course, vastly laughed at by persons who know how local

governments work, and it was entirely repudiated by the UBCM and

virtually every one of its members. Even the minister himself, in a

rare moment of candour, admitted that it was not an altogether

successful initiative. But it was successful in this way, Mr. Chairman:

it demonstrated once again the propensity of this minister for bungling

and bullying his way through ill-conceived public policy to get himself

into trouble with his own constituency — by which I mean the

constituency of persons concerned about local government. So we'll be

talking about that in the hours and days to come.

We'll be

talking as well about why he would have appointed Peter Dueck of all

people to be responsible for what he grandly calls the downtown

revitalization program. Is this the same Peter Dueck who has been

active with Social Credit in the Fraser Valley for the last two

decades? Is this the same Peter Dueck who has acted as a fiscal agent

for the Social Credit Party in the last, I think, three elections? Is

it the same Peter Dueck who goes as a delegate to the regional meetings

of Social Credit? Maybe we're misinformed, but I kind of doubt it,

because, you know, the home addresses all check out — they're one and

the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: It couldn't be.

MR. BARBER: You checked it out as well?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He's smart.

MR. BARBER: He's smart? Well, so you say. He is a Socred, so we know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, will you address the Chair, and only one member speak at a time.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, Mr. Chairman.

I'm

concerned about the implications of political patronage here, which are

beginning to wend their way into the administration of local government

in British Columbia. The political connections of Mr. Peter Dueck will

be examined in due course in the next hours and days.

We'll

also be looking at some rather unusual expenditures that we have

uncovered, the chief purpose of which seems to be to promote the

now-failing political ambitions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

who, it is well known, wishes to become Premier. We'll be talking about

the money he's spent; we'll be talking about the money the taxpayers

spent, against their will, to promote him when he went on television a

little while ago and told us what a wonderful thing the planning act

was. In his TV spectacular devoted to his own career, he omitted to

tell us that it was significantly repudiated by many people in local

government. He neglected to mention anything whatever in the broadcast

about the legitimate, reasonable and intelligent criticisms put forward

by elected and appointed municipal officials across British Columbia.

What he did, in fact, was attempt to pull off a snow job. I think what

he did was to completely misinform the people of British Columbia about

the real political agenda of this highly centralist government. During

that television show — which I watched very closely, as did our

research office — he omitted to mention anything at all about the

tough-minded, sensible and appropriate criticisms that could be made of

his centralist policy toward attempting to control everything from his

desk in Victoria, rather than from the desks of many elected and

responsible persons across British Columbia.

It is certainly

a matter of public record, well beyond dispute, that the Social Credit

coalition is the most heavy-handed, centralist government this province

has ever suffered under. The planning act is one illustration of this

heavy-handed, centralist, state controlling approach — which we reject,

and which we rejected when we were in government. The financial

administration act is another example. There are many others, including

the ridiculous and insupportable way in which the Agricultural Land

Commission has been politically meddled and interfered with for the

sake of friends of Social Credit who are in the land development and

speculation business. Those are three illustrations, but in the

[ Page 4839 ]

hours

and days ahead more will come forward of the ways in which, in

attempting to control things centrally in Victoria, the minister has

earned the reputation for both bullying and bungling.

We're

concerned as well — I repeat it this year; I've said it every year for

the last six years, I guess, since I became critic for municipal

affairs — that this minister and this coalition of opportunists has no

notion at all of what makes a great city work. This government has no

vision of how urban life can succeed. This government seems utterly

preoccupied with doing favours for the boys, be it Peter Dueck, the

Wengers of Windermere, Gloucester Properties in Langley, George

Spetifore in Delta, or any number of the chosen who apparently make

large donations to Social Credit at election time and thus mysteriously

have their land removed from the ALR. They are terribly concerned and

interested in their ability to do favours for their pals, but they seem

to have no concern whatever to develop a competent, modern, appropriate

policy for urban communities in British Columbia.

Let me

offer one illustration of simply grotesque bungling on the part of the

minister. I refer, of course, to the Spetifore deal. I refer to the

threats of the minister to use politically — if I recall it correctly —

section 942 of the Municipal Act, a

section brought in by his

predecessor, Mr. Curtis, opposed by us, a

section which will be thrown

out by us when we win the next election, a

section which allows the

minister, in a heavy-handed, centralist way, to overturn the intent,

purposes, policies and bylaws of duly and honourably elected persons in

local government.

One of the important policies regarding

land use in British Columbia is the agricultural land use policy

established by the first New Democratic administration. The point of

that policy was threefold and simple, and it is the minister's

important responsibility to understand those policy objectives and the

requirements of the law, and to collaborate with his colleagues the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) to ensure that we have a

comprehensive urban development policy in this province.

When

the New Democrat administration stood up to the developers, speculators

and real estate charlatans in this province, who seem to think it is

their God-given right to make a paper profit regardless of the fact

that they didn't actually work for any of it but they somehow earn a

profit by the result of speculation.... It is not their right.

Profits have to be earned, money has to be earned; they simply can't

construe they deserve it. When we stood up and said no to the

developers, the speculators and the other people who were abandoning

and misusing farmland in this province, we did so first of all because

we are committed to an agricultural option and its preservation in

British Columbia. We did so secondly because we realize that if we

abandon farmland in this province at the rate that the Socreds and

their pals in real estate would have us do.... By the time we got

elected in 1972, 20,000 acres of farmland a year were being lost to

shopping centres, car parks and urban development, when they should

have stayed farmland.

We said as well that the time would

inevitably come when we could no longer afford the produce of

California and Mexico. We said that the second burden of our policy was

to make food available as cheaply, as efficiently and as appropriately

as it could be produced in this province by the agricultural industry

of British Columbia.

The third objective of our policy was within the whole framework and character

of a notion we had about urban life in British Columbia. Part of that notion

says that agricultural zones are appropriate instruments of public policy. We

said that we reject utterly the plan that the Socreds had prior to 1972 — a

plan called "neglect" — a plan called " indolence"; a plan

called "lack of vision" — which would have seen the Fraser Valley

from Tsawwassen to Chilliwack as one long string of K-Marts. That is what Social

Credit policy was, Mr. Chairman, which is to say that they have no policy to

the contrary. Under them that was what was happening 20,000 acres a year were

being lost.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day was as neglectful as is the

current minister and was as unwilling as the current minister to

recognize what the consequence is of such a foolish abandonment of

public responsibility. The Wengers, with their pal, the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing, attempted to get their land out of the

agricultural land reserve in Windermere. What did the Minister of

Municipal Affairs do on behalf of the urban interests, the community

interests and the human interests of local government in that part of

the province? Well, Mr. Chairman, he did precisely nothing. He did

nothing whatever to defend the local community plan or the regional

plan, both of which were under assault. He did nothing whatever to

stand up and support those people who understand why we must preserve

an agricultural option in British Columbia. To the contrary, he allowed

his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to bully his way

through cabinet and to have this land withdrawn from the agricultural

land reserve.

The Wenger land has been discussed on a number

of occasions by my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson). It will be discussed in the future and will be once again held

up as an example of the serious and indefensible way in which Social

Credit is attacking the ALR system in the province. This was an

occasion when the Minister of Municipal Affairs, were he able and if he

had wished, should have stood up and defended the integrity of the

agricultural land reserve system in this province. He didn't. because

favours to the boys have got to be done, debts have got to be paid off

and the Wengers — the wife of which partnership was the constituency

secretary to the same Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — needed the

land out in order to make a large and unearned profit.

That

was one example of when the Minister of Municipal Affairs bungled.

Instead of standing up for the integrity of the local plan, regional

plan or the agricultural land reserve obligations of this province, he

stepped down. turned his back, walked away and let the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing do a totally unreasonable and improper favour

for his pals, the Wengers. Fortunately that one is currently in limbo.

The NDP has been fighting it, and we may just win that one.

Let

me offer a second illustration of the pattern of bungling and bullying

on the part of the Minister of Municipal Affairs: it is, of course, the

Gloucester Properties in Langley. Who's involved here? Surprise — more

Socreds! In this case a political assistant, an adventurer in elections

and a personal friend of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). This woman is the secretary of the

corporation that administers and co-owns the Gloucester Properties land

in Langley. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — the

Minister of Health at the time — once again saw fit to do a favour for

a pal, in this case to remove 626 acres of farmland from Langley.

[ Page 4840 ]

I've

been to that farmland, Mr. Chairman, and you may well have too. A

number of our colleagues on the opposition side went up there one day

and met with agrologists. representatives of the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and local persons who were concerned to point out the fact

that these 626 acres not only were potentially good farmland, but they

had in fact been operated profitably as farmland.

Here was

another occasion when the minister could have stood up in favour of the

integrity of the local community plan, the liveable region plan and the

ALR system. What did he do? On a second occasion, this neglectful

Minister of Municipal Affairs said no to competent planning and said

yes to doing another favour for one of the boys — or in this case one

of the girls. Sure enough, Gloucester Properties was also removed

mysteriously from the ALR. Fortunately on the second occasion the NDP,

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and many persons concerned about the

future of farmland and the preservation of an agricultural option

succeeded. Once again, we've managed to stall it at least temporarily.

It is a second case in hard and evidentiary form that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs turned his back on his responsibilities and walked

away from his duty to protect the viability, structure and integrity —

if I may say it again — of local planning, and the local necessity to

defend farmland wherever it exists, and the provincial necessity to

preserve every single acre of worthwhile farmland we've got. That most

certainly includes the 626 acres in Langley.

But there's a third example. This is, I suppose, the most timely and crucial. This example is in Delta.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'll find it very difficult to

respond to the comments which have been made so far with respect to my

budget, as they all tend to relate to the Ministry of Agriculture. I'm

just wondering if perhaps you should make the member aware that this is

Municipal Affairs, not Agriculture.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you. The member will continue. As the member is well aware, we

can deal in the minister's estimates only with those matters

specifically encompassed by the minister himself. I would ask the

member to continue, with this thought in mind.

MR. BARBER: I agree entirely, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then do it.

MR. BARBER:

I'm doing it. I'm referring to local plans, settlement plans and

regional plans, all of which are his responsibility and many of which

involve the ALR. Of course, there are co-responsibilities here, and the

minister knows it. It serves him politically to try to avoid the heat

for his neglect, to try to get out of the criticism properly due him

for his incompetence. I've said before that there are three ministries

involved in the correct statement of a competent land policy in British

Columbia. They are the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of Lands. Parks and Housing.

That being the case, I'm dealing with one-third of it at the moment.

The third example that I would hold out of the wilful neglect of

office on the part of this minister is his threat — an here comes the

bullying part — to use the awesome, unjustified, heavy-handed state

power of

section 942 of the Municipal Act to require the GVRD to change

their mind. We've seen that sort of thing before. There are, I suppose,

in the western world certain political traditions that find such an

approach consistent with who they are and what they stand for, but in

B.C. we don't and we won't; we never did and we never will. Local

government is at least as able as the provincial government to run its

own affairs. Local government, from which the minister himself sprang

and to which he will inevitably return, is itself at least as competent

to decide what does and does not belong as housing — in the case of

this particular GVRD issue at hand.

Once

again we see the Socreds turning their backs on competent planning and

the necessity to preserve agriculture, and opening the door instead to

their pals — in this case Mr. Spetifore and company. Once again we see

the Minister of Municipal Affairs leaping to the defence of another

improper and unwarranted exclusion from the agricultural land reserve,

and once again we see him flying in the face of the liveable region

plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which recognized a

long and foresighted time ago the necessity — may I repeat — to

preserve the agricultural option in British Columbia.

These

three examples — the Wenger property at Windermere, the Gloucester

property at Langley, the Spetifore property at Delta — are all examples

of why the Minister of Municipal Affairs stands properly

criticized....

Am I being interrupted again?

MR. RITCHIE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should again draw to

the attention of the member that we are in the estimates of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and not the Minister of Agriculture and

Food. I think that is the time we can debate that. That's when I would

like to debate that. If this continues, I will be compelled to get into

it also. But I have respect for the rules and orders of the House and I

suggest that he stay within the ministry we are debating.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you. I can assure all hon. members that the Chair is paying very

close attention to the remarks of the first member for Victoria and

finds them to be in order so far.

MR. BARBER: Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you appreciate that I'm referring to the

necessity to develop a competent land-use policy in this province. The

way the government has it at the moment, it touches three ministries.

MR CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the member is starting to suggest a need

for legislation, then he does transgress.

MR. BARBER:

Oh, no. I'm suggesting a policy. I understand. I took Speaker Smith's

"short course" when I first got elected. I understand that rule too.

Where is Mr. Smith these days, by the way? I think he got another

Social Credit appointment. I think he's earning about $46,000 a year

doing a job for which he's amiably unsuited — I said amiably, not

eminently.

Let's come back to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and his record of bungling and bullying. We have the example of

his pathetic and silly attempt to set salary levels for persons in

local government on the basis of a simply specious and ridiculous

formula that was utterly unrealistic, except in this aspect of realism:

it was an attempt to exploit for political purposes the antagonism of

six or seven people in British

[ Page 4841 ]

Columbia

who hate all local persons in local office. Why do they do that?

Because they hate local planning. If they had their way, there'd be no

zoning at all in British Columbia; it would be free-wheeling,

carte-blanche capitalism of the worst cowboy sort. But fortunately, Mr.

Chairman, years ago the people won a great victory over these cowboy

capitalists of real estate when we gradually introduced a system of

zoning in this province. Originally, it was in the corridors of

transportation in downtown communities. That's literally how it

started. Then it was established on a broad basis, originally according

to population as well. Then, finally, it was extended to rural

communities, and in another important aspect of the New Democrat policy

toward preserving the agricultural option it was extended to the

agricultural land of this province.

What does the minister

do about this? Nothing, except turn his back. What does he do to

protect the community and regional plans at Windermere, Langley and

Delta? Nothing, except allow another favour to be done for one of the

Socred campaign contributors in the last several elections. Well, it's

really not acceptable, because we resent, and the people of British

Columbia reject, favours for the boys — in this case unwarranted

exclusions from the ALR. We reject and resent it, because it's a

foolish, dim-witted approach to developing an able statement of the

municipal interest in British Columbia. It's simply dim-witted, Mr.

Chairman; it doesn't make sense in the long run, and, as the government

continues to find to its political horror, it doesn't even make sense

in the short run.

In the hours and days to come we'll also

be looking at waste in the minister's office. We'll be proposing a

series of amendments to reduce his budget. These amendments, once

again, will focus on political expenditures that are not justified

except by Social Credit partisans. We'll be looking at the way in which

the minister has upped his personal travel budget in order to meet more

and more Socreds prior to the next leadership convention. We'll be

looking at the ways in which the minister has purchased commercial

television time, allegedly to sponsor a debate on the planning act —

shortly to be called the Community Planning Act — but in fact for

attempts to sponsor himself into the leadership of the coalition. We'll

be looking at the ways in which the minister himself has fallen victim

to ridiculous proposals to increase building occupancy charges — in

this case by 44 percent, and computer services by 193 percent, in one

fiscal year. We'll be looking and hoping for some rational explanations

of these grotesque increases in the public expenditure. We'll be

proposing amendments which I now give notice of, because I hope the

minister will be prepared at least to consider accepting them. These

amendments will save a lot of money; they will, as cost-conscious New

Democrats across the province of British Columbia are aware, attempt to

trim the fat and unnecessary and wasteful expenditures of a government

desperate to buy itself back into political favour.

We'll

also be leading a debate on the way the minister has mishandled transit

in greater Vancouver, alienated the few remaining Social Credit

supporters in local government in the GVRD, and attempted to foist upon

them an untested, untried and unproven system, which may or may not

have technological merit — a case the minister has yet to make.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you against transit?

MR. BARBER:

Am I against transit? Of course not. Every single speech I've given in

this estimate for the last six years has been in favour of transit —

and you know it — and been opposed to some major extent to those

automobile dealers who would, if they could, no doubt abandon all the

buses and shove everyone into Cadillacs and Chevrolets or whatever

other franchise they may own. It's a matter of public record that this

Social Credit coalition has terrible conflicts of interest when it

comes to public transit, because half of them seem to own private car

dealerships. You wonder how on earth they can plan to put themselves

out of business by promoting public transit over the private

automobile. It's a terrible conflict of interest. They know it, we know

it and the people of British Columbia know it. So are they planning to

put themselves out of business as car dealers? Well, apparently not.

Because what they've done, Mr. Chairman, is give the responsibility to

a minister who can't plan anything; he can't even plan how to organize

the salaries of local officials, and gets laughed at when he tries in

his half-hearted and half-headed way.

We're concerned about

the willingness of this minister to say no to all of those

short-sighted, selfish and greedy folks who favour the private

automobile over public transit at every juncture and who would, if they

could, have built another bridge across Burrard Inlet but fortunately

were stopped by an enlightened government that said no to that and

built SeaBus instead. We're concerned about the ability of a minister

to say no to his colleagues in cabinet, who would, if they could,

destroy the entire ALR, as they promised to do when they were in

opposition, and who are now setting out quietly and secretively to do

just that, and to keep those promises. Ask the Wengers in Windermere,

for instance.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Tell the truth for a change.

MR. BARBER: I tell the truth all of the time; your discomfiture with it is also a matter of public record.

We're further concerned about the seeming unwillingness of this minister to grasp the necessity for vision.

want to talk for a moment about how cities succeed and fail. I want to

refer to American and Canadian precedent, because unless one can

stretch the imagination beyond the credible point, it's pretty hard to

find precedent in European cities that applies helpfully. Certainly

there are successes in Europe that we should and could know about,

successes with which the minister is personally a lot more familiar

than I am — he's been there; I've not. I've done as much reading as I

can and have spoken with people who've studied there, and we may well

have something to learn from European example and precedent, but by and

large we have to look to North America for the roots, origins and

connectedness of success and failure in urban development in this

continent.

For instance, we look at what happened to a city

like Los Angeles when they said yes to the private automobile and no to

public transit. We have to look at what happens to a city which is

described as a loose confederation of shopping centres, like Los

Angeles, and which has no downtown, no heart and no core, and which

could therefore, in the opinions of many people, be described as a

failure of a city. On the other hand, we look at cities which have made

a serious commitment to transit, to neighbourhood and to the local

family and economic values that help a city succeed, and we see, for

instance, a community like Toronto.

[ Page 4842 ]

the last decade Toronto, thanks to the enlightened leadership of people

like David Crombie, Jane Jacobs, John Sewell and, we hope, the current

council, made a serious attempt to roll back the dreadful impact of

stupid proposals for freeways through the heart of the city, like the

Spadina expressway; stupid proposals to raze family neighbourhoods and

put up office towers with no residential component; stupid proposals to

destroy the basis of the small economies of a city like Toronto, the

neighbourhood shopping centres on a small scale, the neighbourhood

shops and stores on a small scale and the neighbourhood gas stations;

all of the other enterprises often far more free enterprising than any

of the downtown and shopping centre things would ever be; all of the

foolish ways in which Toronto was going until about a decade ago when

they said no to that wrong-minded and wrong-headed example of progress,

and instead said yes to the important values of neighbourhood, the

important principles of small and human scale in proportion and the

important values to be achieved by saving, restating and reanimating

some of the economic and architectural successes of the previous

periods of that city.

As a result of saying no to the

private automobile, unwelcome development, real estate sharks and

speculators, Toronto has now turned around, and Toronto has become in

the minds of many people one of the most successful urban environments

in all North America. It has an enormously able, successful and

economically vital ethnic community and set of ethnic neighbourhoods in

its downtown area. It has an enormously successful cultural life and

apparatus available to its citizens. It has a tremendously successful

public transit system; and I think one of the major reasons why the

neighbourhoods of Toronto succeed is because public transit has

succeeded. The neighbourhoods have not been smashed by ruinous freeways

and expressways; they have been preserved by small and appropriate

transit that allows people to move back and forth from their jobs

downtown to their homes in the neighbourhoods and suburbs without the

private automobile.

Toronto works and Los Angeles doesn't.

One of the reasons Toronto does is because transit does. One of the

reasons Los Angeles failed is because General Motors and Ford succeeded

in that notorious public referendum in Los Angeles in, I think it was,

1936 when they decided to scrap the municipal railway system and

instead bring in the horror show they have now. Los Angeles is

described as a loose confederation of shopping centres because Los

Angeles has no core, no downtown, no heart and no public transit

whatever of any important kind. Toronto works because Toronto,

fortunately, realized and appreciated the necessity and urgent vitality

of transit in its downtown area. I call on the minister to reconsider

his bullying approach with the GVRD, to be willing to resume

negotiations of an adult and mature — not meddling — sort, and allow

the GVRD to remain co-responsible for transit planning in its

jurisdiction in British Columbia.

There are many other issues we'll be raising in the vote, but the green light's on and I wait for the minister's reply.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The honourable critic for the NDP takes the usual pot-shots at the car

dealers' caucus. We get rather accustomed to this, but if he would mind

his total error and lack of judgment when he suggests that it's a

caucus, when there's only two of us here that can in any way relate to

being a car dealer.... The Hon. Mr. Wolfe and myself are the only

two, and I don't think they can relate us very well to being car

dealers, because since we've been in this House we've lost all

connection with the business that we are supposed to own. However, our

friend is an authority on almost everything, especially on transit. You

will notice that most people are great authorities on things they know

very little about. It's easy to be an authority on automobiles when you

don't know anything about automobiles. It's easy to be an authority on

transit when you know nothing about transit. It's easy to be an

authority on why some systems work and others do not if you don't know

any system at all.

Let me tell the hon. member, just in

passing for his consideration, why Los Angeles does not work in the

broad aspect, and why Toronto does, and why San Francisco — he didn't

mention that but he could have — in the broad aspect does not work. And

why do other cities work — Edmonton, for example? Toronto works like

the spokes of a wheel. A system will work when you can radiate from the

centre outward and inward. Los Angeles had the same problem. It's at

one end of a spectrum, like us, and there are no spokes to a wheel.

They must radiate in and radiate out. That's why it's costly and ever

more costly to have transit in this city in the lower mainland, and why

it took the courage of that minister and this government to attempt to

put in rapid transit — even over the objections of the people that

should be supporting it. You'll notice it's going in anyway, but it's

going in factually, properly and on a businesslike basis.

The

member speaks highly of the SeaBus, and who am I to depreciate the

SeaBus? But I hope that when the transit system works and gets into the

establishment — which I know the minister will do — it will run on a

reasonable cost basis and not lose $1.40 on every passenger who gets

on. It's all very well to have these fancy gold-plated systems.... I'm

pleased that the North Shore has that system in place, but it's a

gold-plated system. It's costly and it costs the government a lot of

money, but you could not run British Columbia on this level and in this

way. It has to be businesslike or it will not work.

That

government was wonderful at starting, doing and creating schemes that

wouldn't work. We have the most beautiful ferry system in the world —

the B.C. ferry system. But before that government was through, it was

$154 million in debt and collapsing. Today we have the finest ferry

system anywhere in the world, and it's paying its way. That's the

difference. Everything we do is on the ascending scale with prosperity

ahead, not descending down to the depths. That's the socialist way.

Level everything out. Sink the fleet. Sink the system. Some people

think — and I speak this kindly — that they just don't know what

they're doing. I think they know what they're doing. I think they know

that when a system collapses, you have two orders of society. You have

the masters and the slaves. While we in this House would be the

masters, the poor slaves would be outside. But that's not the way we

work. Certainly that's the socialist system — the masters and the

serfs. Call it anything you want, and it works that way. Look at

Russia, Poland or anywhere you want. It's the same — the masters and

the serfs. But we believe in the democratic system based on equal

rights — everyone doing the best that they can for themselves.

The

hon. member makes a great point of transit being of low cost to the

public. I want to tell you the lowest-cost transit for the public is

the automobile transit. A study made in San Francisco.... At the

present time in British Columbia — and the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) looks at me

[ Page 4843 ]

askance

— if you will work out the cost of running the buses and the transit

system, it is getting approximately seven miles per gallon per person.

There is no automobile that low. Do you understand what I'm talking

about now? If you'll look into it, you will find I'm correct. It could

be as high as eight at this time, but there is no automobile that uses

that much gasoline. If you had two in a car you'd double that. They

don't want to hear that, but the automobile is yet....

Mind

you, the automobile has its drawbacks. It has its drawbacks because you

can't be sure of the time you leave and the time you arrive. The other

way is better for the public, it's better for the people and that's why

this ministry is going to put in transit — not because it saves fuel.

That's not what it does at all. It's not a fuel-saver but a

people-saver. If you're talking about saving fuel, don't talk about

that. It costs more fuel in the transit system than we're using today.

I just have to tell this hon. member to be more factual, be

understanding, and know what he's talking about.

MR. BARBER:

Anyone listening to that speech would understand why Social Credit has

such a heck of a time delivering a transit policy to the people of

British Columbia. It certainly may be true that buses get fewer miles

to the gallon than cars do, but if anyone thinks that's the only way to

measure the actual costs of delivering transportation in British

Columbia, then he should probably go back to Chevrolet school.

The

costs of transit include the costs of building and maintaining the

roads, the bridges, the connectors, the cost of appropriating or

acquiring the land, and the social costs of moving people out of

communities they did not want to move out of because the bridge went by

their houses or the expressways stole their front yards. The costs

include the environmental costs, which are enormous and tragic. In

greater Vancouver, if I recall correctly, something like 900,000

internal-combustion engines a day chum out pollution, pollution,

pollution into the environment. And one day we're going to pay the

price for that, if we have not done so already. Anyone who has flown

into Vancouver recently will understand the fear some of us have of

allowing the private automobile to continue to dominate that city. Why?

Because a disgusting brown mark of aerified sludge now runs from

Chilliwack to North Vancouver. You fly into Vancouver and you see all

of the horrors of urban pollution, and you understand the necessity,

therefore, of public transit instead.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

member's comments totally ignore as well the demonstrable public record

which suggests that good public transit allows us to avoid, to abjure,

to get around the inevitable consequences of what happens in — back to

the analogy — a Los Angeles, and why a city fails. Of course, on the

test of miles per gallon, the member's own Cadillac does better than a

GM diesel bus. But so what? That has nothing to do with anything when

it comes to planning and financing public transit. Is public transit

expensive? Of course it is, and it's all the more expensive because 20

and 30 years ago the Social Credit government of the day decided

instead that they would attempt to push through ridiculous schemes like

the Strathcona Expressway in Vancouver. You may remember that one, Mr.

Chairman. That would have smashed and ruined the heart of the

traditional Chinese community of greater Vancouver, which is the second

largest, after San

Francisco, on the whole of the west

coast, and thereby the third largest in North America — third only to

New York and San Francisco. What would have happened to Chinatown?

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to the streetcars?

MR. BARBER: The streetcars?

AN HON. MEMBER: The old streetcars did darned well.

MR. BARBER:

That's right, they were perfectly efficient and effective. Had

governments of the day been enlightened enough to renew the capital

investment and obtain new equipment as they should have year by year,

instead of throwing out the whole system because they had allowed it to

run down by virtue of their own foolish policy, we'd still have

streetcars in Vancouver, and they'd still work and they'd work in

groups a heck of a lot better than the private automobile ever does. Of

course they worked well.

In greater Victoria we had at one

time three operating rail lines on the Saanich Peninsula. They ran from

the heart of Victoria out to Pat Bay, out to Sidney and out to what we

now call Lochside Drive. We had three operating urban transit systems

with the most modern technology of the day. But thanks to the private

automobile. that was abandoned, and instead we now have a system of

roads and not much public transit that works on the Saanich Peninsula.

I'm sure the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would

share my opinion, that he would be grateful if we had even one of those

railways available today. If even one of the three were still working

it would be terrific and save the people a heck of a lot of money

public transit expensive? I You bet it is. Is the alternative more

expensive? You're darned right. The alternative is more expensive in

terms of ruined neighbourhoods, unnecessary bridges, connectors,

expressways, freeways, highways, and especially in terms of the

environmental damage done by the internal-combustion engine. Private

transit is simply no longer affordable in the extravagant and wasteful

way that it's been paid for in the last 60 years in North America.

want to talk a bit about a policy towards cities. I'll refer, in

particular. to greater Vancouver. But, of course, these comments could

be applied to other communities, including the one which I represent.

competent urban policy has to take into account a number of issues. As

the chairman before you observed, Mr. Chairman, these do appropriately

in debate reflect on the agricultural land reserve system, because that

impacts on the availability of land for non-agricultural purposes — if

you're clumsy with it — and, of course, on the policy of the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing, or the lack of policy in the case of the

current minister.

What I want to talk about and identify are

some six principles of a competent urban policy, which I commend to the

minister's attention. They are: transit that works; housing that's

affordable; cultural enterprise that gives vitality; public safety that

gives reassurance, especially for senior citizens; the availability of

schools and recreational facilities; and the particularly difficult

question of urban density being one of the prerequisites of transit,

public safety and affordable housing. It's item number six that's the

most difficult of all to manage as a stated policy and as a reasonable

objective. The issues of transit, housing, cultural enterprise, public

safety,

[ Page 4844 ]

school and recreational facilities and urban density are the six issues that I'd like to discuss briefly.

I've

observed before that this minister seems to have no vision whatever in

the ways in which cities succeed and fail, because he never talks about

them. The minister seems to have no imagination at all about the ways

in which our great urban communities, particularly Vancouver, can be

enhanced, revitalized, reorganized and reanimated in such a way as to

guarantee them a bold and brilliant future in the lives of the people

of British Columbia. He never talks about it. I have yet once to hear

him make a statement at UBCM or in this House about his version, his

vision or his view of the essential role of the city in the human

environment.

Cities traditionally have been storehouses of

civilized values, the marketplaces and the learning places, the places

of public safety behind the great walls and fortresses that once

created them, and the centres of military and economic power that once

established them. As storehouses of civil value cities traditionally

have been the places where people draw learning, where they draw new

arguments and new ideas and where they draw new notions of the ways in

which the world might work.

I mean no disrespect to rural or

non-urban communities, because they also have great merit and great

value. but their origins are different by definition. Their problems

are different, and I'm not addressing them now. Their options are also

different, and I'm not referring to them now. I mean no disrespect

whatever to people who do not live in cities or persons who are not

concerned with the problems of cities. Fair enough. There are other

problems and other people. I don't by any means wish to belittle the

efforts that people make so that the great rural areas of British

Columbia might also succeed in a human and important way.

want to talk about cities as a policy, as a history, as a statement of

human aspiration and as a statement of human energy. For the purposes

and discipline of debate, one can describe an urban policy as having at

least the six components that I've outlined. Let me go back to them one

by one for a minute.

First of all, a successful city must

enjoy a successful transportation system. That much is obvious. A city

by definition is larger than a village. It's hard to get around. You

can't ordinarily walk from one end of it to the other. Public

transportation of some sort has to be provided — be it the automobile,

buses, underground railways, overhead trolleys or whatever form it

might take, including marine transportation. For instance, in a city

like Venice part of the public transportation system is on water rather

than on land. In any of those environments and circumstances, transit

of one sort or another has got to be provided.

However,

there are ways to provide transit that do fundamental damage to the

integrity of an urban community. The notorious example once more is Los

Angeles. There are other examples. Until 1967 Montreal had a distinctly

inferior public transit system, Many of Montreal's neighbourhoods,

especially east of Montreal Main, Saint Laurent, were failing in

important ways. Vancouver has failed in some important ways as well.

The uncontrolled, undisciplined and unwelcomed growth of housing and

economic development — literally on farmland in Vancouver's case — is

further proof of what happens when you don't provide transit. If you

don't provide transit in an organized and sensible way along corridors

where housing belongs, where development is welcome and where farmland

is not undermined, then you will inevitably have the sort of shapeless,

formless but not harmless urban sprawl that greater Vancouver suffered.

It's

similar to Los Angeles where General Motors and Ford conspired — I use

the word purposely, Mr. Chairman; they were found guilty of conspiracy

in court later in a civil suit — to mislead and misinform the people of

Los Angeles. They conspired to mislead and misinform the people of Los

Angeles about a referendum to get rid of a perfectly useful municipal

railway system and instead bring in freeways. Ford and General Motors

were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the people of Los Angeles in

a famous civil suit They did it for obvious commercial gain: they

wanted to sell cars; they wanted to flog Chevys and Fords. That's fair

enough, I suppose, for the people who live by those rules — that's

acceptable. For people who think the only benefit is money and the only

honourable course is to get more money, I guess that's all right. But

there are a lot of people — I suspect the majority of people in British

Columbia — who have no respect whatever for greed as a policy or for

selfishness as a motive, and who don't care a darn about what happens

to car dealerships. They do care a lot about what happens to whole

communities, and so do we on this side of the House.

The

first element of a competent urban policy has to be transit — transit

that's in the right place, runs at the right time, can be paid for in

the right way and serves the right purposes. What's the minister doing?

Well, in a very undemocratic way, he has simply demanded that the GVRD

roll over and play dead duck to his scheme to bring in a system. Today

he called it "advanced light rapid transit"; on other occasions he has

referred to it as "automated light rapid transit." Whatever label he

currently uses, we'll call it ALRT. Later on, in the hours and days to

come, we will be examining the so-called Canadian content of ALRT. In

fact, we'll be examining the European and American components of this

project and whether or not it is a credible claim that this is a

Canadian system at all. When you examine the contracts that have been

signed by UTDC in Ontario and find out who is paying money where for

the component parts of the ALRT system, you begin to discover that

there is, in fact, a significant non-Canadian economic package here.

The minister's patriotic argument that we have to support it, whether

or not it works, just because it's Canadian begins to fall apart.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. BARBER:

The minister should resign, that's right. For a city to work, transit

must work. For a minister to allow a city to work, he has to give that

city some power, autonomy, authority and independence. What has the

minister done? He has removed autonomy, diminished authority and

independence, and decided that he's going to bully his way through, no

matter what. At the moment he's ordering the GVRD to accept a system

which, it would appear, they — significantly — do not want. The

minister can't have it both ways. He can't play the heavy-handed state

centralist ordering the GVRD to adopt a system that he alone seems to

want, then turn around and talk about respect for the integrity of

local government — because, you see, he's disabusing anyone of that

notion by his own example and behaviour. If the minister had authentic

respect for local government he wouldn't be bullying the GVRD. If he

had real respect for local government he wouldn't be threatening to use

his authority in the Municipal Act to order them to change their minds

on the Spetifore property. If he had real respect for

[ Page 4845 ]

local

persons in local office he would be negotiating in an adult and mature

way, but he's not. He's not negotiating anything. He's arguing,

bullying, demanding, forcing and pushing. He's also coming up against

resistance; he's also meeting objectors.

It's not surprising

that some of the people who object are members of the New Democratic

Party. We take that much for granted in B.C. Members of the New

Democratic Party who also hold local office can, I suppose, for

partisan reasons be expected to object from time to time to this

minister's policies. That's how it works. Certainly the Socreds opposed

our policies when we were in office and they were in local government.

The only difference — if I may say so — is that New Democrats tend to

be a lot more up-front about their political affiliations. Everyone

knows the mayor of Vancouver is a New Democrat. He's made no bones

about it. He's run for us twice and done very well. He has made no

attempt whatever to deceive people about his personal political options.

However,

there are some people in local government who are Social Crediters but

would have us believe they're not, really. They try to maintain the

fiction that somehow they can separate themselves from their provincial

party memberships. But finally — in the last couple of years, at least

— finally this old fiction is being broken down. Finally people are

coming to recognize that Social Credit has always used local government

as their farm team, and the guys who make it in the farm team get

promoted to provincial office — there was even a day when they thought

of federal office, but that's long ago.

I think you

yourself, Mr. Chairman, have had some involvement in local government

in Prince George — and no doubt very commendable involvement, because

they elected you locally and provincially. Good for you; you earned it.

I'm sure you yourself wouldn't have deceived people about your Social

Credit affiliations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you

can make comments about any member in this House as long as they're

parliamentary, but I must ask you to refrain from making comments about

the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I thought they were parliamentary and I intended them to be flattering. However, if they're objectionable I withdraw them.

Nonetheless,

it is a matter of public record that many persons have been secret

Socreds all along, but have posed as something else while in local

office. Fortunately, though. that facade, charade and joke has been

exploded in the last few years.

So I get back to the central

point. There are New Democrats in local government in greater

Vancouver, and I suppose you can criticize their motives when they

criticize the minister. Fair enough. But the unique thing about this

minister's incompetence is not that he has alienated New Democrats;

that is to be expected. The unique thing is that he alienates Socreds;

that's interesting. The unique thing is that he embarrasses Socreds in

local government. That's fine, we enjoy watching that, and we wonder

how many more Socreds there are left to alienate on the GVRD, whom you

in effect threatened with political expropriation ever the Spetifore

property, and who you are currently accomplishing political

expropriation with in regard to transit.

The minister can't

have it both ways. If he would simply stand up and admit that his

policies are centralist, bullying and an attempt to ram his private

notion of transit down the throats of properly elected persons in

Vancouver, fair enough. But the minister gets on television — I watched

him on channel 8 — and poses as a democrat. He poses as someone who

respects local opinion. What a joke this is. He's no democrat at all.

If he were he wouldn't be ordering the GVRD to accept his transit

system or to do anything of the sort. He would negotiate as a democrat,

a co-equal and a person who respected the worthwhile and honourable

opinions of persons in local government. But he does nothing of the

sort. Rather he turns himself into a person with a reputation for

bullying and bungling his way through local government.

need a transit policy that works, transit technology that works, a

transit finance formula that can be afforded and a transit

decision-making system that's streamlined. That brings me to another

issue within the first of these six.

MR. LEA: He thinks democracy is watered-down communism.

MR. BARBER:

My colleague from Prince Rupert says the Minister of Municipal Affairs

suspects democracy to be a sort of watered-down communism. Well, we all

know about the state planning of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) and his five-year plans. However, we're now learning about

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we learn that he doesn't care at

all for local opinion, because he's prepared to overrule it in the

field of transit.

I want to hold out the possibility that

the Urban Transit Authority has got to be reorganized. The complicated,

clumsy, elaborate and almost Byzantine structure of the UTA seems to be

breaking dm.N n. Again, you needn't refer to New Democrats in local

government for that. You can refer to well-known Socreds and their

opinions, because they too, as members of the board of the UTA, have

recently and publicly been suggesting that it may well be that the

Urban Transport Authority Act needs a rewrite. The seeming inability of

the UTA to make decisions. to collaborate with the Metropolitan Transit

Operating Company, to collaborate with persons in the GVRD or the CRD

who are concerned about transit and, most of all, to find a Nvay to

avoid the bullying of the minister is such that they are no", provoked

to going public with their criticism that the Urban Transit Authority

Act is simply too Clumsy and needs to be redrawn.

I recall that when the now Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) brought it

in lie argued that he thou ht this was a means of connecting with all people on

all levels and drawing together a package that would work to everyone's

benefit. I commend that ideal: it's a worthwhile objective. But we now have

a few years . experience with it. and it just doesn't seem to be working

that way. Instead, what initially might have been a welcome means of accountability

being provided in a structural sense through the UTA, the MTOC and regional

governments with their transit committees seems not to be succeeding. Rather.

what we have is a simply unworkable, bureaucratic system of obstacles, delays

and imprecision in the execution of public policy that we just have to reconsider.

regard to transit I would ask the minister, first of all, to stop

bullying the GVRD. Secondly. let him prove that the new technology lie

wishes to foist on the GVRD actually might work and, if so, demonstrate

with what precedent,

[ Page 4846 ]

documentation,

experience and example he can that we should believe him; because

frankly at the moment we don't. Thirdly, we call on the minister to

prove that there is in fact majority Canadian content of the whole

physical proposal called ALRT. At the moment we have some evidence to

the contrary. Fourthly, we call on him to reconsider the basic

administrative and political structure of the UTA and its related

organizations. It would appear it's simply become a bit too clumsy and

can't do the job.

I know what the minister will reply. He'll

say: "That's why I stood up and told them to select ALRT." He'll stand

up and say: "You're right. In order to cut through all the red tape,

bureaucracy, headaches and hassles, I've got to give some direction."

The problem for the minister if he makes that kind of reply is that the

reply is bogus, because it was his government that invented the UTA,

and his government that can amend the legislation. It's his government

that created the problem and his government that can resolve it. You

don't resolve the problem by throwing out the legitimate opinion of

persons in local government and bullying and blustering your way

through; you solve the problem by changing the structure. Don't tell us

the reason you're being a bully with the GVRD in trying to deliver

transit on time is that they can't make up their minds, when you know

full well the reason for much of the confusion lies in your own law,

which you passed through this House four years ago. You can't have it

both ways. They're operating under your law. You gave them the

authority. Either you take it back through a statute here, or you leave

it with them and allow them to do the job. The fact that the job they

wish to do is not the job you want them to do is a second and secondary

matter.

The second aspect of a competent urban policy lies

in the field of housing. We currently have a Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing who is the most do-nothing minister of housing this

province has ever seen, and we've only had three since the department

was created by the New Democratic Party in 1973.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, perhaps at this point I should point out to the committee

that while we're in Committee of Supply, firstly we cannot discuss

matters involving legislation or matters that require legislation, and

secondly, we should constrain our remarks to the minister's vote that

is before the committee, which is the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I

am sure the hon. member can relate all of his remarks to vote 156, the

estimates of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARBER: I can and I will relate my remarks as you suggest, Mr. Chairman.

When

we talk about a housing policy, we are once again discussing three

ministries at once; therefore you may if you wish consider these

remarks as one-third of the whole issue related to the office of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs. The three ministries are those of

Agriculture and the Land Commission, Lands, Parks and Housing and

Municipal Affairs. He cannot, however, shirk his whole duty and pretend

that it's the other two guys who are responsible, because he too sets

the ground rules. He cooked up what he calls a "planning act," which

is — if I may say it again — one of the most centralist and

heavy-handed proposals that any jurisdiction has ever brought forward

in this country. The planning act is an obvious attempt on his part

to....

MR. BRUMMET: What's wrong with all the people out there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member for North Peace River please come to order.

Once

again, I will remind the first member for Victoria that the necessity

for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed

in the Committee of Supply. The administrative actions of the minister

or the department are open to debate.

MR. BARBER:

That's right. I'm discussing the administrative actions taken by the

minister when he went around the province telling people that they

should support his Planning Act. I'm not discussing the act, but I'm

discussing his actions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would involve legislation, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

That's right, but in any case, there's no legislation here so the rule

of anticipation is not offended either. We have no bill on the table

right now.

The minister's heavy-handed approach is further

exemplified by the statements he made, coincidental to the release of

the planning act. What the minister indicated there is that he was

prepared once more to play favourites, and once more the losers were

people in local government. Once more the losers were people in the

neighbourhoods. Once more the losers were people who were interested in

longrange planning and in what makes cities work. Cities do not work

because you sell out your policies to real estate speculators. Cities

do not work because you abandon neighbourhoods to the developers.

Cities do not work because you offer bribes through tax incentives to

people in the real estate industry. That doesn't make cities work at

all. Cities work for a lot of other reasons — quite distinct and quite

different in an important way. A housing policy is one of the six

fundamental aspects of an urban policy that we're addressing in this

Legislature. A housing policy surely has to have as one of its basic

requirements this simple notion — housing has to be affordable. Now I

realize that the minister does not have direct authority over mortgage

rates. That's fair enough, although certainly there are initiatives

that could be taken by this government, including proclaiming a bill

which they themselves voted for, called the B.C. Savings and Trust Act,

which was put forward by our government in 1975. They voted for it, but

now they've refused to proclaim it. That would have brought down the

interest rates in a spectacular way.

Leaving that aside for

a moment, we know that the minister also has responsibility for housing

by virtue of the Municipal Act, which he himself is responsible for.

I'd like to know why the minister, quite regardless of the planning

act, has not seen fit to exercise some kind of leadership by

considering those sections of the planning act — hear me out, Mr.

Chairman; I'm wording this very carefully so as not to offend the rules

— which allow, or do not allow, municipalities to engage in what the

minister himself has referred to in another context as "vertical

zoning." Why, for instance, could we not consider a policy that Toronto

has right now? Toronto introduced — I gather something like two and a

half years ago — a policy it argues, and is granted its authority under

the Ontario Planning Act to do.... It says if you

[ Page 4847 ]

wish

to build — I'm working from memory; I'll get my notes for tomorrow — an

office tower over 12 storeys within a given perimeter, you are required

to apportion a given percentage of the total space for housing.

What

Toronto has said is this: "If you as developers wish to build anywhere

downtown, we want you to know that it's our policy to reintroduce

residential components to the whole of downtown. Therefore we will

require of you that you must mix your development. We will no longer

allow your corner of the street to become unsafe after 5 o'clock

because no one lives in your building. But rather, we will acknowledge

that one of the successes of urban planning in other communities,

spectacularly in...." The safest parts of New York city are those

which by day have any number of office workers running in and out, and

by night have people living above the offices looking down on the

streets and keeping them safe because they watch their own front yards.

They phone the police and they catch muggers and they do all the other

things that people in New York do sometimes to defend their turf. One

of the unsafest parts of Manhattan is Wall Street. After 5:30 in the

afternoon you'd have to be nuts to go into Wall Street, because no one

lives there, Mr. Chairman.

Whereas in Toronto, if you go now to Dundas

and Bay, if you go to those areas of downtown Toronto where they have

required a mix of commercial and residential in one building, you

discover that the city streets there are perfectly safe, because people

live there and they play there and they work there, and because they

are there the streets are safe.

One of the aspects of

leadership that I call upon the minister to enunciate is: whatever

changes may be made — they might even be legislative, but I'm not

recommending that — allow municipalities to exercise this option freely

and beneficially, because at the moment that isn't happening. At the

moment there is no such leadership; at the moment municipalities are

not following those kinds of examples. That's a very disappointing

thing and it's one of the further aspects of criticism we have of the

minister.

The green light is back on, so I will take my place for a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Once again, I'll remind all hon. members in the committee that the

essence of committee debate is to, in fact, discuss whether or not the

vote, which is a money vote, should be approved. That is all the

committee is allowed to discuss. The necessity for legislation or

matters involving legislation is not open to debate in Committee of

Supply. So if we could confine our remarks to the administrative

actions of the department, then the committee would be in order.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to detract from the remarks of the member

and the consistency of his remarks, nor their direction and thrust to

any great extent. In the committee, of course, an intervening speaker

provides him an opportunity to continue.

I would just like

to serve the minister with notice about some discussion that I'd like

to have with him two or three or four days from now with respect to

some of the situations that are occurring in the Royal City. Thanks to

him and his government and some of their policies, that city has been

ill served. We will be discussing it to some extent later on.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Dennis.

Housing

has got to be affordable. The mortgages have got to be something that

people can pay, and it's got to be located in the right place. In

Vancouver and Victoria housing should increasingly be located downtown.

I call on the minister, for instance, to formally endorse the city plan

of the city of Victoria called Harris Green. The proposal which the

city has made.... The minister shakes his head. Have you read it?

Do you know it? How can you shake your head if you haven't read it?

Except if you like to hear the rattle when you do so.

The

Harris Green proposal is a fine idea put forward by the council of my

city, which argues that in the district bounded roughly by Chambers and

Douglas at the east and west respectively, and by Pandora and View at

the north and south respectively, there is an opportunity to

reintroduce very high-density urban residential life. What they've

tried to describe and what they've tried to put forward is a proposal

which needs provincial help. This is a proposal that needs provincial

help because they don't have the money to obtain the land, they don't

have the wherewithal to make the land available for developers public

or private or both. The city of Victoria needs help to make the Harris

Green proposal a reality, and it's a good proposal.

Downtowns

are safe when they are populated. I'll get to the issue of public

safety in a minute, but I want to point out that obvious fact of life:

downtowns are safe when people are around living on top of the stores,

living in the highrises, looking down at the streets, protecting their

own front yards and looking after their neighbours' kids. That's when

downtowns are safe. Downtowns are unsafe when everyone abandons them at

5 o'clock in the afternoon and goes home to the suburbs. That's when

you'd be out of your mind to walk along Wall Street in New York city.

What

the minister has to do, if he has any vision of cities at all and how

they work, is encourage municipalities directly and indirectly by tax

money, by statute, by example, by argument, by persuasion, to

reintroduce human living downtown. That has to be done in Vancouver and

that has to be done in Victoria, and increasingly it will have to be

done in Nanaimo, Prince George and Kamloops. But it certainly has to be

done in the two largest cities of British Columbia.

The

Harris Green proposal — which I commend to the minister's attention and

which I expect his ministry has copies of — is something that the city

needs help with. They don't have the capital to assemble the land and

they never will. Victoria doesn't have that kind of tax base; there's

no industrial base at all in this city. Victoria needs help to assemble

the land. Victoria needs help to cooperate with private and public

enterprise, with co-ops and with developers who know what they are

doing and do it well, to put together a scheme that's really extremely

important to the future of this community, which is the capital city.

Victoria needs help for that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we've listened for a good while all

about the agricultural land reserve. That certainly is for the Ministry

of Agriculture. Now the member is on the Ministry of Housing. I'm just

wondering if we could get to Municipal Affairs and if the member could

reserve his other remarks for the appropriate ministries.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, hon. member. The committee is advised that we are on vote 156 of the

[ Page 4848 ]

Ministry

of Municipal Affairs. If all members of the committee could confine

their remarks to the administrative actions of that ministry, then the

committee could proceed.

MR. BARBER: I don't think

the minister's point was well taken at all. I think the reason it was

not well taken is that he chooses to avoid his responsibilities. His

responsibilities currently include making grants available through

another vote and for the purpose of housing starts — for instance, the

Revenue Sharing Fund, the act. The responsibility includes housing. For

the minister to mislead this committee into thinking he has nothing to

do with housing is to do a wrong thing. He pays money for housing

starts, and he can't turn around and tell us he has no responsibility

for housing policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll

have to ask you to withdraw the phrase, "the minister misleads the

committee." Will the member please withdraw it?

MR. BARBER:

All right. The minister failed to mislead the committee, because I'm

not misled. The minister has responsibility for housing in this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the member withdrawn?

MR. BARBER:

Yes. I am not misled by the minister's comments. I know that he has

responsibility for housing. I know that his ministry makes grants for

housing. I know that he writes bylaws that allow municipalities to plan

for housing. I know that he could be a leader in the field if he

wished; but he won't, because he's neglectful and slightly lazy. The

reputation is getting out, the word's getting out. And he prefers to

allow the old patterns of unearned profit, windfall profits and

inflationary profits to try and govern the provision of housing.

I've

identified housing as one of the six elements of a competent urban

policy, for which this minister is principally responsible. In certain

aspects of them he is co-responsible. But I will show you in estimates,

if need be, the extent to which this minister is financially liable for

the provision of housing. And I was not misled by his comments.

call upon him to exercise leadership and to make moneys available to

the city of Victoria, to plan for in greater detail, to assemble in

greater complexity and to make available in every way needed the lands

described by them in their Harris Green proposal. It's a good proposal.

It has received, I believe, the unanimous vote of city council. I don't

think there was a single dissenting opinion among the eight aldermen

and the mayor. As well, I think it's something that should be

undertaken by this minister.

In Vancouver the provision of

housing includes, of course, a debate over the allocation of Crown

lands, over the allocation of private lands, over zoning prerogatives

available and, as well, over the farmland problems that this government

has because they keep toadying to their friends who own farmland and

want to take it out of the ALR.

There is an enormous new area available for housing in greater Vancouver. It

is not in the ALR; it is within easy commuting distance of downtown. It is considerably

held by the Crown. It's called Indian Arm. Indian Arm is a new district

which could and should be made available through the GVRD, and through both

public and private enterprise, for housing purposes. Indian Arm is a spectacularly

beautiful area of greater Vancouver. It's an area that we think, and that

I strongly urge the minister, should be considered one of the areas in which

he could be co-responsible for the provision of new housing. How does he do

this? Clearly by negotiating with the GVRD. How does he do that? By examining

the proposals for the Indian Arm district within the livable region plan and

proposals that have come forward since. How does he look at Indian Arm? By looking,

for instance, at the other major regional district in the Fraser Valley, which

may have an interest in transportation corridors and energy corridors from its

end of the valley. The two regional districts, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and persons concerned with it could and should take a look at Indian Arm as

a site for major new housing development in grea