1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3215 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs estimates.

On vote 142.

Mr. Wallace — 3223

Hon. Mr.

Curtis — 3215

Mrs. Dailly — 3227

Mr. Nicolson —

Mr. Barber — 3227

Mr. Barber — 3215

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3230

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3216

Mr. Skelly — 3231

Mr. Barber — 3216

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3232

Mrs. Wallace — 3217 On vote 147.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3217

Mr. Barber — 3232

Mr. Gibson — 3218

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3232

Mr. Nicolson — 3220

Mr. Wallace — 3232

Hon. Mr. Curtis —

3221 Hon.

Mr. Curtis — 3232

Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 108.

On vote 109.

Mr. Wallace — 3233

Mr. Wallace — 3233

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3233 Hon. Mr. Curtis — 3233

Department of Transport and Communications estimates.

On vote 198.

Mr. Macdonald — 3238

Mr. Macdonald — 3234

Mr. Gibson — 3238

Hon.

Mr. Davis — 3235

Hon. Mr. Davis — 3239

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT

OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 142: minister's office, $81,506.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Chairman, although it is late in the session I look forward to

discussing the estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs and the

Department of Housing. As the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has

pointed out, my salary is contained under Municipal Affairs. I assume

that the Chair will allow a degree of latitude in terms of discussing

the two departments as they wish. I have a number of remarks prepared,

but perhaps I will have an opportunity to touch on these in the course

of the debate on the various votes.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to introduce — although they have been

in the House previously — the two deputies of the Department of

Housing. To my immediate right is Mr. Larry Bell, who succeeded Gary

Begg, who left the department a number of weeks ago; behind him is the

Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Bill Long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In order to determine what is relevant debate

in this, has it been determined whether or not only the Department of

Municipal Affairs shall be discussed under this vote, or is the

Department of Housing included?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is at the pleasure of the

Chair and the committee. The House Leader, I believe, called vote 142,

which is minister's office, Department of Municipal Affairs. It is

under that vote that I am paid my salary. It is at the pleasure of the

committee.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): No, let's do both of them. It would just lengthen things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is waiting to be guided.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think we could probably expedite matters

if we were actually to do both. The minister nods his head in agreement. We

feel that we could probably keep things fairly specific. We might go back and

forth a little bit, but we'll probably get through it a little bit quicker,

if the Chair is willing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then both the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Housing. General administration under vote 142.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start off by asking

for some information about commitments from the federal government

under various sections and programmes of the National Housing Act.

Perhaps the minister has information which he might be able to

distribute to members.

I would be interested in knowing what commitments they have this

year under

section 15 for non-profit housing cooperatives and senior

citizens' Housing under the Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act. Also,

what budget has CMHA set for AHOP for British Columbia, for

neighbourhood improvement programmes, and in general all programmes —

one or two of which I might have left out?

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Would the minister prefer to answer each of these questions specifically, or would he rather take them in groups?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Then referring at the moment to the housing

component of your ministry, I should like to speak briefly to a subject

of continuing contention in Victoria, which is the Mount Stephen

proposal. The minister has now received representations from the city

council of Victoria, the Victoria Labour Council is in the process of

making representations, and three cooperative organizations are now

considering proposals at the Mount Stephen property site.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to make a commitment to

the House than he will suspend the proposed sale of the Mount Stephen

properties to private interests until public cooperatives — or

quasi-public, as in the case of other cooperatives — have an

opportunity to consider the proposal call which was, as the minister

conceded, published inadvertently, in order to give them more time to

prepare a serious proposal. So I should first of all, regarding the

Mount Stephen proposal, like to know whether or not the minister will

suspend temporarily the proposal call in order to give them more time.

Secondly, if the minister is agreeable to that, in order that other

public-interest groups rather than private developers might have an

opportunity to make a serious proposal for the site, could he give a

commitment to this House that if it should go to a

[ Page 3216 ]

public-interest group, the cost of the land will be the original

price paid by the province, which was $190,000 — for the sake of

convenience, $200,000 — rather than the $600,000 proposed in the

proposal call that appeared in the Vancouver Journal of Commerce on

June 7?

I should like to repeat my questions, as the minister is consulting.

Will he be prepared to delay or suspend for the time being the proposal

call programme for the Mount Stephen site? Secondly, if it should be

determined by the department that it might go to a public interest

group, could the minister also tell this House that he would be willing

to sell or transfer the land at, in effect, the original price of,

shall we say, $200,000, rather than at the inflated price of $600,000

for private development purposes?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the specific

question from the hon. second member for Victoria with respect to Mount

Stephen, I'm not sure that I am in a position today to give all the

commitments that the hon. member seeks.

I would point out, however, Mr. Chairman, that the correspondence

from the mayor of the city of Victoria...and I emphasize the point that

it is correspondence from the mayor, not from the clerk representing

the opinion of the mayor and council. There was a letter on June 16

from Mayor Young of Victoria which traced the history of Mount Stephen

as far as the city was concerned, or certainly as far as that mayor was

concerned. I realize I can't table documents in committee, but the

second paragraph of page 2 I quote for the member: "We quite agree it

would be absurd for the province to sell the land in question to a

private developer for less than the current market price and we're not

suggesting such action." The letter goes on to indicate that really

there's nothing wrong with the increased price. I take issue with the

hon. member in use of the words "inflated price" — inflated would

suggest that we plucked the figure out of the air. This is the

approximate value of the land now and I think that can be supported

very well. The mayor in his letter of June 16 indicates that the

increased price would be okay as long as the increase itself accrues to

the city of Victoria for offsite servicing costs.

I would hope that we would be able to continue to work, Mr.

Chairman, as closely as possible with the city of Victoria in resolving

this particular problem. It has been of some interest and concern,

particularly to the second member for Victoria.

I can't really undertake to suspend the proposal call which is not

yet launched. Yes, an advertisement did appear inadvertently and as the

minister responsible, I spoke with my deputy and the corrective action

has been taken there. The individual in the department who permitted

the ad to slip through was told that this is not to happen again

because, frankly, the deputy minister and I had not had a chance to

finally resolve all the outstanding points on the proposal call. The ad

was in draft form — fair enough — but it went from there on.

I would hope that we receive a good number of submissions for this

particular piece of property from so-called private developers. We

shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's going to be housing for

people — no matter who eventually builds on that site.

Regarding the public-interest group, I can't give the precise

undertaking the member seeks, nor would I at this point, but I would

remind the member that we've also indicated to even the Mount Stephen

Co-op Society that they're most welcome to submit a proposal once we're

ready to receive them. A number of details will have to be worked out

with the city of Victoria.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), the former Minister of

Housing, asked for some figures. Federal commitments was the precise

question.

Section 15 provides $43 million — that's senior citizens and

municipal non-profit housing;

section 43, $38 million — public housing,

family; AHOP — a commitment for approximately 4,000 units; ARP — a

commitment for 4,000 units; rural and remote — 400 units; the NIP

programme — $10 million; and

section 42 — land servicing, $12 million.

I think that it would be helpful to the committee, Mr. Chairman, if

I could just refer to one point with respect to ARP — the assisted

rental programme. At this point in time, and recognizing difficulties

in the construction industry which are apparently just around the

corner, we are extremely encouraged by the response to the assisted

rental programme. This is designed to encourage those interested in the

creation of rental housing. It has met with, I think it is correct to

say, early, overwhelming success. CMHC has assumed, as the member for

Nelson-Creston would know, the principal administrative responsibility.

The response has been so great that approximately two weeks ago we had

an urgent call from CMHC asking for additional staff. We have had to

second six staff members from the provincial Department of Housing to

CMHC to assist them in the processing of applications. It is most

unfortunate that we appear to be entering a period of difficulty in the

construction industry, but that notwithstanding, I believe we're going

to see a great many rental units constructed in British Columbia within

the next 10 to 12 to 15 months.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about a crisis that

is going to occur this September and that has occurred every September

for the last many years. That is the crisis of student housing, a

crisis which, as the minister knows, has been a problem for governments

for many years. I wish to

[ Page 3217 ]

find out from the minister what kind of leadership he's willing to exercise in the provision of student housing.

I'd like to point out as well that in Canada the universities

located in British Columbia have the dubious honour of being among the

worst-provided-for of any in this country. To my recollection, when I

spoke on this matter earlier, the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser

University and the University of British Columbia rank within the

losing 20 out of 30 universities in Canada when it comes to the

provision per student population of accommodation on campus or, indeed,

closely off campus.

Last year the student union of the University of Victoria was

compelled to put up tents, to attempt to secure mobile homes, to

attempt to find placements for students in classrooms and other

dormitory facilities. This year the problem is going to be the same.

I've been in considerable discussion with representatives of the Alma

Mater Society and with the administration of the University of

Victoria, and they inform me that they are expecting an increase in

student enrolment this year; they inform me as well that similar

increases have been anticipated at Simon Fraser and at the University

of British Columbia.

I'd like to know generally, Mr. Chairman, what the minister's policy

is toward the provision of student housing on and off campus, whether

or not he's willing to undertake any kind of emergency programme which

will assist in the provision of housing which will be required this

September, and what the future is, as far as his department is

concerned, for arrangements under the Act — and I realize it's not

permitted generally to refer to it, the Educational Institutions

Capital Financing Authority. I'd like to know whether or not there is a

connection, whether or not there is liaison there, whether or not

planning is going on, and generally what the minister's position is on

the whole question of student housing. It's a very important issue to

many of my constituents, some 6,000 of whom will be attending

University of Victoria this year. It's a very important question to

other of our constituents, on both sides of the House. I should like to

hear from the Minister of Housing what his response will be.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, true to

type I wish to speak just briefly to the minister regarding the

taxation policy on farmland. As he is no doubt aware, farm buildings

are taxable in excess of some $5,000 under the Municipal Act. There is

no exemption apart from the $1,000 for school tax which has been there

for aeons, with no change.

It would seem that there is, at least in my opinion, quite a

detrimental effect to the farm community from this approach to

taxation. The average worker, of course, is not faced with tax on land

or on the means of producing his livelihood. He is taxed only on his

home.

I am sure the minister is familiar with the brief which was

presented by the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to the commission of

inquiry on property assessment. I think that, really, there is a lot of

accord in the House and in the province generally on this particular

thing, but the crux has been how you define actively used farmland and

how you define a bona fide farmer. I would suggest that the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture has come up with some very good suggestions

in this brief which outlines — I won't take the time to go into them in

too great detail — agricultural land and what would constitute farmland

under active production. They also go into several requirements to

classify a bona fide farmer, and indicate that perhaps three out of the

four or so of those criteria would be acceptable to put a farmer in

this classification.

My question to the minister is: is he considering taking some sort

of action to alleviate the tax load on the farmer in the immediate

future?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, briefly answering the hon.

member for Cowichan-Malahat, yes, I am familiar with the brief from the

B.C. Federation of Agriculture on this topic. I was fortunate enough to

be able to travel, while in opposition, with the agriculture committee,

an all-party committee, and also, as you might expect, the municipal

affairs committee. So I have available to me and was exposed to

considerable material relating to the whole question of property

taxation.

I think the B.C. Federation of Agriculture brief in this regard was

a very thoughtful document. There is a problem, Madam Member, through

you, Mr. Chairman, with respect to what is genuine, bona fide farm as

opposed to a hobby farm or land which is just held because it's nice to

go there once in a while.

MRS. WALLACE: That's been a problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's been quite a problem.

I think the correct statement at this point would be to remind the

committee, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) notified the taxation and assessment commission of inquiry a

few weeks ago that the government expected their report by the end of

July. I don't think we should anticipate what that report will say on

the whole question of property taxation and the raising of revenues for

local government and, to a very lesser extent, for the province. I hope

that the commission addresses itself to a number of specific areas

including this one. Then through the course of the balance of the year

it will be the responsibility of the executive council to assess — I

suppose it will be

[ Page 3218 ]

my responsibility in partnership with the Minister of Finance — and

then the responsibility of the executive council or a committee of

cabinet to review all the points that have been made and determine

where the very major inequities are to be found.

Therefore it is not possible for me today to enunciate a taxation

policy on farmland, as much as I would like to, because it would be

nice to have that one out of the way, frankly. But it is simply not

possible.

With respect to the later comments by the hon. second member for

Victoria (Mr. Barber) on student housing. Yes, I am aware of the

problem; you would expect me to be very much aware of it. As a native

of the greater Victoria area, particularly with the growth of the

University of Victoria, I have become increasingly aware of the

problem. The member will know that CMHC has just backed right away from

it. They are out of the field completely, and that is unfortunate.

In the slightly longer run — that is, other than September of this

year.... I spoke, I think, with understandable enthusiasm a few moments

ago about the interest in the ARP, the assisted rental programme. We

certainly believe that this is a way in the longer term to easing the

student housing crisis. Because it follows that if more rental units

are built — if the vacancy rate increases from its virtually zilch

figure at the moment — then there will be more competition in rental

housing and students will be able to take advantage of that.

With respect to this September, quite frankly, Mr. Member, through

you, Mr. Chairman, no, I have not addressed myself to that crisis. We

have had a fairly active six months, as the member would recognize.

That is not to in any way place the problem in a corner or just sort of

forget about it. But, frankly, I have not had an opportunity with my

senior staff in Housing to address myself to the problem this September.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): This is a very

important minister and a very important portfolio. We are having our

own little Habitat conference here this morning, as it applies to

British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I'll just touch over some important

subjects very briefly and hope that the minister could give us a bit of

information on them.

First of all, as the minister knows, I am a great supporter of the

ferry system that's soon going to be operating across Burrard Inlet. I

think it has an enormous capacity to clear up congestion and absorb

growth currently afflicting the Lions Gate Bridge and the Second

Narrows Bridge — there are some 1,500 persons per hour at peak periods

when it is up and running in a satisfactory way. I would be grateful if

the minister could tell us a little bit about how that is coming along,

when in the fall we might expect it to start and progress in planning

for transit connections up and down Lonsdale, because this is

tremendously important for the operation of the system. I would also be

grateful to know anything he could tell us about transit connections at

the south end. I appreciate that the bus network is better developed at

the south end; nevertheless, there will have to be some amendments, I

would think.

In the same connection, I would like to express appreciation through

him to his departmental officials for the way they have cooperated with

the city of North Vancouver in terms of giving them access to planning

for the property. My understanding is that the question is more or less

laying on the table now and maturing while people have a chance to get

their thoughts together on it, and to also express appreciation for the

way particularly Mr. Spratt of the transit bureau cooperated with the

people who were being displaced in terms of moorage by the incoming

ferry terminal arrangements.

The next subject I would like to raise is the most important

subject, I think, to the minister in his portfolio, at least the one

that causes him all the problems, and that's the question of growth in

the urban areas of British Columbia. As we all know, the long-term

trend has been something around 3 per cent, which is an extraordinarily

high rate of growth — it doubles every 22 or 23 years.

The first question I would ask him is: what new internal mechanisms

has the new government developed to deal with the overall problem of

growth? It's a multi-departmental question, but somewhere there has to

be a lead department, I would ask the minister whether that is his

department, as I would hope that it would be. What cabinet committee is

seized of the problem? What internal mechanism is the government

developing?

As new people come to our province, it's important for them, and

important for those of us already here, that their new residences and

their new jobs should be in places which are both congenial to live in

and economic to live in. There must be some kind of analogue on a

provincewide basis to the livable-region plan that the GVRD brought up

in Vancouver. I think the minister is on record as being much in favour

of that concept of the livable-region plan. I'd like to ask him, or to

suggest to him, that that "livable-province plan" should be developed.

As I say, it would seem sensible to me that his department should take

the lead in that development.

Even within the existing planning there are many things that the

government can be doing to implement the philosophy of the

livable-region plan in the GVRD, for example. One of the important

suggestions that the plan makes relates to the distribution of

employment around the Greater

[ Page 3219 ]

Victoria Regional District and the hope that, in general, it will be possible to locate employment closer to jobs.

One of the major employers in the lower mainland is the provincial

government. I would welcome any news the minister could give us as to

the siting of the provincial government offices in various areas of the

lower mainland. For example, I have long been interested, and my

constituents have been interested, to know whether or not there is a

possibility of the British Columbia Railway head office being located

at the southern terminus in Vancouver; alternately, the minister and

the government may have thoughts that it would be located in Prince

George. It would make an argument either way. But my point is that it

is important that the government address these particular questions.

The next overall issue I would raise is that of transit planning. We

have some apparent insight into the thoughts of the government in terms

of a column which appeared in The Vancouver Sun on June 23 this

year, written by Harvey Oberfeld, which apparently deals from a leaked

document of some kind — a staff report of the GVRD claiming that the

government has in mind the creation of something called an urban

transit authority which, according to the report, would deal with urban

transportation problems all over the province of British Columbia. The

report goes on to suggest that GVRD people feel that there's a special

regional transportation problem in the GVRD and there should be a

separate authority to deal with that largest, single transportation

question in the province. To me this makes good sense, Mr. Chairman,

because presumably on any transportation authority, regional

representation will be looked for.

The distinct problems of the GVRD are such that it should have a

large regional representation. People from Prince George or Kamloops or

Prince Rupert on a general provincial urban transportation authority,

in dealing with GVRD questions, would be dealing with questions very

different from those of their own communities. The matter of scale is

important in things like transportation, and it would seem to me a

useful suggestion to have one general urban transportation authority

and another separate and distinct body to deal with the particular

problems of the GVRD.

The same report gave us to understand that the GVRD, at the staff

level, favoured what they call the Ontario financial formula in the

distribution of costs, which is to say 75 per cent provincial and 25

per cent local as to capital and a split on the operating costs. I'd be

grateful if the minister could tell us his thinking on that particular

line. What does he consider to be the appropriate local levels? I think

that as a matter of public policy we must accept the fact that there is

and there will continue to be substantial deficits in a narrow

cost-accounting basis on the public transportation system. But, Mr.

Chairman, these deficits are by no means real when looked at in the

overall, when looked at in terms of the money not spent on parking

lots, on gasoline, on rubber tires, on freeways, roads, bridges of all

kinds.

Urban transportation is a much lower-cost way to go when you do your

overall accounting — at least, that is my firm belief, I'd like to ask

the minister if that is his belief and if there are any studies in the

works to qualify this kind of intuitive feeling that we have.

Next I would congratulate the minister on his general approach to

the acceptance of growth by municipalities around the province. It's a

policy that I have long been arguing for. In other words, the incentive

which one gives to municipalities to accept each additional new housing

unit is the receipt of a grant of X dollars. In ideal circumstances,

they now receive $1,000 from the federal government and $ 500 from

the provincial government. That probably becomes roughly a balance on

the new costs of a municipality of accepting a new dwelling unit, and

this has been one of the problems over the years.

City fathers have looked at the question and said: "Well, now here's

to be a new block of housing, but that's going to cost us money. It's

going to cost taxpayers money in terms of schools and roads and all the

other amenities that have to be provided, and therefore, on a net

basis, the more people who come to our city the more it costs our

existing taxpayers." This kind of grant system, this kind of up-front

money, does a great deal to change the mind of municipal councils in

that regard.

So I congratulate the minister on that direction, as I say, but I

would ask him further if he has available now, or will put underway,

any studies to once again quantify this intuitive direction. How much

does it really cost a municipal district to receive a new dwelling unit

and a new family, and are the existing grants sufficient to cover those

costs?

Parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that on this same line

the minister would be in negotiation with his federal counterpart to

receive those same kind of growth grants for the province of British

Columbia that we are giving to municipalities, because just as the

municipalities have costs in receiving new people, so, too, does the

province of British Columbia. Our burden of growth is far in excess of

the average burden of growth borne by Canadians across this country

generally.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, before I sit down at this point, a question

based on something the minister said earlier. He thought that we would

see a lot of rental units over the next year. I wonder if he could put

a rough kind of number on that and what it might do to the vacancy rate

by the end of the year. I appreciate there's a lot of hypothetical

thinking in

[ Page 3220 ]

this, but has he some just very rough order of magnitude? It would be helpful to this House to know.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask a few more questions, and I'll try and keep things brief.

I believe that transit subsidies are still under the minister, and

I'd like to know how much he's going to move in the area of rural

transit subsidies. There was an intention to extend the Nelson

transportation system into a Kootenay transit authority, and in fact

the buses already have that designation painted on them and have had

for some time. I'd like to know when a referendum could be anticipated

so that we can start experimenting with the practicality of extending

bus service out of the Nelson area and, hopefully, throughout the

Kootenays.

Also I would like to know what intentions the minister has to

implement the Audain report. There are so many recommendations and

really I would have hoped, had I been minister, to act upon about 40 of

the recommendations of the report.

I would say the thing I get the most concern from is the exit-fee

problem. I have three letters right here, and there are others which

I've received which deal with the exit-fee problems, particularly in

the lower mainland area. There's a whole range of recommendations, and

rather than repeat that which we've all read, I would like to have some

indications from the minister — a little bit specifically, hopefully.

But I don't want to give a shopping list of 30 or 40 items to which he

might be expected to respond.

I'd also like to know what has been the final disposition of the

Natal urban renewal project, and I would maybe save some time by saying

that this is a thorny problem which I grappled with. I'll say now, from

this side of the House, that I do believe that a great deal of the

problem was, I think, the inability of some persons to recognize.... In

the partnership — it's a three-way partnership, in some respects a

four-way partnership, since Crowsnest Industries or Kaiser has one of

the first options to purchase on that.

But in reaching an equitable settlement we were willing and made our

intentions clear to the regional district who were actually the

administrators. We were willing to go considerably in excess of — and I

won't say how much in excess because there still might be negotiations

going on — the D.P. Squarey and Associates appraisal. I would say that

if the matter has not been resolved, then I would urge the minister to

do what I was quite prepared to do, and that is to unilaterally settle

with those few outstanding resident owners if they are still

outstanding. Unilaterally settle with them; then make your peace with

the rest of the partnership.

Really, from a humanitarian point of view, it doesn't matter if the

thing is ever legally settled as long as the people who have property

interests in there, particularly the resident owners who are just a

handful, can be satisfied or at least given a fair offer. Then, if

necessary, there will maybe still be hard cases and the necessity to

proceed with expropriation.

But I would say that some of the frustrations I found were when the

administration suddenly decided to cut off water to the area in the

middle of winter. Actions like that weren't conducive to settling that

thing.

I'd also like to know about the Hastings Street urban renewal

project which was another thing which started before I was minister,

before we were government, I believe. It goes back a long way. Has the

relationship of Summerhill Development been satisfactorily eliminated?

The last time I drove by, there was still a huge vacant lot — fine land

tied up. In fact, I must confess that it was some time before this

thing was even brought to my attention in the department. It's a

long-neglected problem. So I'd like to know something about the

disposition of that. Those are two urban renewal projects.

The matter of Pemco Holdings: I'd like to know how it is being used,

how many mortgages and debentures are now held in the name of Pemco

Holdings. Is it perfectly legal and can it be...? I was often urged to

utilize it in this respect myself, but I don't think that it should be

done without bringing it before the Legislature.

Another question I'd like to ask about is capital.... Well, two

other questions. The whole programme which arises from Bill 49 and

such. Would the minister give an undertaking to prepare some

informational material which would outline some specific cases of how

the programme would work? That is, assuming a $47,000 mortgage in

Vancouver, or case No. 2, assuming a $45,000 mortgage in Victoria and

maybe a $44,000 mortgage in Prince George, how would it operate if

there was partial AHOP, partial or full AHOP, full AHOP with federal

subsidy — say part of the federal subsidy, full federal subsidy? Then

another breakdown of maybe part of the $750 provincial subsidy coming

into play and full provincial subsidy coming into play.

How would these provincial subsidies phase out maybe in a typical

example during the next four years? What I'm talking about here is

probably going to take 16 different examples. How would it phase out

the provincial subsidy, the federal subsidy? Then at the end of five

years, what would be the capitalization and the new face value of the

mortgage, because the subsidies in some of these cases will bring the

mortgage in five years to a point where the mortgage will actually be

more — the person will actually be owing slightly more — a reasonable

amount more than what they actually undertook as a mortgage at the

beginning. This is based on the assumption of continued inflation.

[ Page 3221 ]

I really think that that is something that we should have had when

we were debating the bill, but I would hope that I can get an

undertaking that such information could be given to the members of the

House so they could better understand the ramifications of this. I've

tried to work some examples out. I wouldn't want to quote what I've

worked out because I'm sure that it's so complicated that it would be

subject to error.

Finally, under the commitments from the federal government.... You

gave me a

section 15 figure. Of course, there are different parts of

section 15. There's (e) . So the

section 15 figure, which is rather

large, was that all non-profit? Are there any commitments toward co-op

housing or any budget or expectation for next year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I had better start answering

some of these questions. Otherwise I'll become a little confused with

all the scribbled notes that I've got.

First, for the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr.

Gibson), I thank him for his kind remarks on a couple of points that

fall within my jurisdiction.

The Burrard ferry system was subjected to the most critical analysis

upon change of government, at the end of December and the first part of

January, to determine if, in fact, it should be proceeded with.

Obviously the decision, Mr. Chairman, was "yes, we go." A considerable

public investment had gone into the project already, but quite apart

from that we sensed that it was a system which with the type of

land-based support to which the member referred would be a very vital

link and would grow in importance over the next few years.

The member will know that in fact the original plan, I believe,

spoke of eight vessels — ultimately eight. Two are under construction

and they are now in the water. They were launched very quietly just a

few days ago — quietly only because they're the type of vessel that

still looks rather like an ugly duckling until further work is done.

MR. GIBSON: But they're floating?

HON. MR. CURTIS: They're floating. Yes, they're floating very well, I understand.

We would expect, subject always to the kinds of problems one

encounters, that they will be in operation in mid-winter — December,

January, more likely January of 1977.

We have tried to cooperate very closely with the city of North

Vancouver in particular because of the impact on the North Shore and,

to a lesser extent but still recognizing its importance, to co-ordinate

with the city of Vancouver. I know that Mayor Phillips is particularly

enthusiastic about the system.

We went specifically — I say we, that's the representatives of my

department — to meet with North Vancouver city at a special meeting on

a Saturday afternoon in their council chamber to review some of their

concerns. I must say, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that that

sort of dialogue did not take place under the former government, and

that was to be regretted. Whatever North Vancouver city could learn

about the Burrard ferry system in its infancy, in its early planning,

it learned through the press or second-hand. I simply cannot and will

not operate that way when dealing with a community where a major link

such as this is about to be injected.

There are several components obviously — British Columbia Hydro, its

transit operation, both the north shore and south shore. The city of

North Vancouver is concerned about open space. I endorse that principle

and we shall do whatever we can to ensure that not only is a ferry

system provided but some public area right on the water adjacent to the

ferry system is available for the use and enjoyment of individuals who

find themselves on the North Shore or live on the North Shore.

I hope that the system will also prove to be something of a visitor

attraction, I think that many youngsters in downtown Vancouver hotels

will quickly convince their parents that they want to ride that, as

perhaps you and I did, Mr. Member, when we first saw the ferry from

Quebec to Levis.

MR. GIBSON: Cable cars.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They may well be our cable cars.

You mentioned Mr. Spratt. I'm sorry to report that Mr. Spratt is in

hospital. This happened within the last couple of days. I hope that he

recovers very quickly so he can carry on with the important liaison

work there, co-ordinating with the city of Vancouver, the city of North

Vancouver, to a lesser extent Greater Vancouver Regional District, and

with B.C. Hydro transit division. Most recently, as a matter of fact,

my views have gone to the chairman of British Columbia Hydro and also

to the minister responsible, pointing out precisely the type of thing

that we see as being necessary.

Hiring of the staff is underway now, the initial staff, so they can

train on the model that Case Existological Services...where the vessel

has been designed, and also train and work with the vessels as they are

nearing completion,

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the delay broadly caused by the south terminal in Vancouver?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member, Mr. Chairman, asks: "Is the delay caused by the south terminal?"

[ Page 3222 ]

It's really just a series of things. It's running a little later

because I frankly put a hold on it for a short while until we examined

the total system, as I indicated a few moments ago.

I must move on, Mr. Chairman.

Growth in urban areas: I would hope that with the encouragement of

the Premier and the cooperation of other ministers we are breaking down

whatever compartmentalization has existed in the provincial service in

terms of one department to another. I don't think we can any longer

afford to have that splendid isolation in various departments of

government.

Certainly I am receiving and I hope that we are giving the closest

kind of cooperation with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

— particularly Lands branch — and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), which have a very significant comment to make on development

in British Columbia, as the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr.

Gibson) would know.

Of course, I have a rather unique opportunity at the moment to

ensure that the Departments of Housing and Municipal Affairs are

functioning not as a single department — one department is not superior

to the other — but they must mesh well together. I am very encouraged

by the clearly evident degree of cooperation that has been established

between the two deputies, as an example, the assistant deputies and

other senior people who are in both departments and are finding that.

Indeed, I notice it in my own office, Mr. Member. When a delegation

comes to discuss Municipal Affairs, inevitably there is going to be a

housing matter on the agenda or the reverse. So we are attempting to

the very best of our ability to ensure that these two departments plus

others are pulling together.

There is a land strategy policy being developed for each community.

We are conducting an inventory of Crown land suitable for residential

development. I don't think that will come as any surprise to the

committee; that has been announced previously.

Jobs and housing: you spoke of livable region; why not a livable

province plan? Well, the indications are that that is going to take a

little while to work out. But we do see some encouraging signs. Under

section 21 5 (

a) we anticipate an application soon from Surrey for Port

Kells industrial land to be tied into servicing adjacent residential

land. We will offer all the encouragement that we possibly can when a

community or a region is interested in pursuing that particular

approach. Then you went back, Mr. Member, to transit planning. With the

permission of the committee I would just like to move away from the

Greater Vancouver Regional District and touch on transit generally. I

will take only a few moments to do it.

Mr. Chairman, for whatever reason, the fact remains that upon

assuming office I found, and this government found, a most unfortunate

lack of cooperation and consultation between the various components

involved in transit or public transport — the moving of people by

whatever means might be under consideration.

Again, there was this compartmentalization and an attitude, almost,

of competitiveness. This extended into the bureau of transit in the

Department of Municipal Affairs. I suppose elements of it were found in

the transit division of British Columbia Hydro and the other companies

which had been acquired by the former government all sort of working

for the same people — that is, the public of British Columbia — but not

being encouraged to get together.

It was for this reason that I brought in Mr. Ken Smith as a

consultant — not as an expert in transit, because that was not the

indicated requirement, but rather someone who understood the workings

of government and its agencies and could identify for cabinet and for

me the breakdown in communication which had grown over a good number of

years.

Mr. Smith is still serving in a consultant capacity and reporting on

that regularly. His findings have been most helpful not only to the

Department of Municipal Affairs but, I believe, to the government,

because we simply cannot afford to have one sector doing this and

another sector doing something else and occasionally a little bit of

information moving back and forth more by accident rather than design.

The Greater Vancouver Regional District proposal on a transportation

authority is a unilateral document that was presented to me about 10

days ago. I met with representatives of the GVRD, including Mayor Blair

of Richmond, who is chairman of the transportation committee of the

GVRD. I wouldn't describe the document as "leaked." They saw fit to

release it in Vancouver. It states their point of view.

I don't take strenuous exception to the main thrust of the document.

It can be argued in both ways that the Greater Vancouver Regional

District is unique, but we also want ultimately to establish the kind

of transportation authority which, with minor variation, would be as

effective in Prince Rupert or Penticton as it is in greater Vancouver.

Transportation problems in greater Vancouver are unique only in terms

of scale, I would suggest. A smaller community with no bus service

considers its problems to be very, very serious.

The financing formula has yet to be resolved. Certainly, though, I

can assure the member and the committee, Mr. Chairman, through you,

that we will want municipal — where appropriate — or regional district

involvement not only in sharing the cost, but in making the decisions.

I would not want to see a regional district simply provided with

quarterly billings saying: "Okay, your bus service has cost X dollars

and here's your share." We've not been

[ Page 3223 ]

involved in the planning — perhaps not on whether we go down First

Avenue versus Second Avenue — but the planning, the type of service,

the extent of the service...and then, as a natural follow-up to that,

will be cost-sharing.

Next, Mr. Chairman, the member for Nelson-Creston spoke about rural

transit subsidies. We expect that very shortly now we shall be able to

give final dates for the implementation of service in the following

communities, and these were identified as priority communities, I

believe, both by the former government and certainly confirmed by this

government, Not necessarily in order of importance, Mr. Chairman, they

are: Prince Rupert, Trail, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton and Maple

Ridge. Of all the communities interested in transit operations of one

kind or another, that's where referendums have been held, where the

community — the electorate — have said, "yes we want to go," and where

we are in a position to proceed, hopefully as soon as possible.

I have issued instructions to the department, now that we've

straightened out a number of questions and resolved several

difficulties, to proceed with the implementation of bus service in

those areas just as quickly as possible. Please don't ask me precisely

when, but certainly in a matter of weeks or within the next quarter —

the next three months.

The Natal urban renewal project in the regional district of East

Kootenay, through you, Mr. Chairman: yes, it is a long-standing and a

very thorny issue. I understand there are just about five or six

resident-owners left now out of 28. The utility system is falling

apart. The responsibility in terms of negotiation is primarily that of

the regional district of East Kootenay. We have told that regional

district board to proceed on the basis of the agreement made earlier

and I am most hopeful that that matter can be finally resolved. I'd

like to close the file on it. I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston,

while he was minister, would have liked to have closed the file on it

as well. It goes back seven years, eight years, or more.

The Audain report, Mr. Chairman, is under review by several

departments of government concerned, particularly Housing, obviously,

and the Department of Consumer Services. I've had considerable

assistance and interest shown by the hon. Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Mr. Mair) .

We have in draft form a mobile home registry Act, It is not being

presented in the drying days of this session but will be perhaps

circulated as a working paper, as a white paper, or something along

that line, in order that the community, the public at large, can

examine the proposals. Clearly, out of all the recommendations, that is

one which requires the earliest possible attention. The municipalities,

I trust, in British Columbia will be pleased to know that some form of

registry is under consideration.

The member for Nelson-Creston asked about Panco Holdings. I am informed....

MR. NICOLSON: How about the exit-fee problem?

MR. CURTIS: Well, I zeroed in on the mobile home registry,

but exit fees, along with a number of other problems, are under review

not only by this department but by the Department of Consumer Services.

We first of all resolved whether it was a consumer good or a vehicle or

a home, and we settled that pretty quickly.

As for Pemco Holdings, to the best of my knowledge, nothing is being

held by Pemco. It has been empty and the member will know that it is

now known as the B.C. Housing Corp. established for the purpose

initially — and that's all that's happening at this point — of

receiving funds from the federal government. Debentures are in the

course of preparation and we will have our first money towards the end

of July, I believe. We saw Pemco as sitting idle and believed that

converting it to B.C. Housing Corp. for this federal relationship would

be particularly helpful.

The member for Nelson-Creston also spoke about AHOP examples.

Brochures have been prepared, and we will be happy to provide all

members of the House, Mr. Chairman, with as much material as we can. We

do find, however, that there are so many variations that to list them

all would be more confusing than of help. We're prepared to look at

those rather unusual ones on an individual basis, and assist wherever

possible. But the supporting material, in terms of print and so on, is

available.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to touch

on one or two points that haven't been mentioned so far. Initially, in

the municipal field, I know the minister has commented that the

assessment commission is expected to report by the end of July. I want

to make it very plain, Mr. Chairman, that despite the claims of the

former government and this government, the taxpayers of Oak Bay, in

regard to property, are most unhappy. They believed that the NDP and

then the Socred government were going to, at least in stages, reduce

the cost of education tax on property. They've had a very rude

awakening in this first session of the Social Credit government.

While I realize that this minister has no direct control over the

budgeting set by school boards, it would be very wrong if we let this

debate go by without conveying to the minister the deep sense of both

concern and betrayal that many people in Oak Bay feel in regard to the

fact that here in this first session of the Social Credit government

the property tax in a place like Oak Bay has gone up something in

[ Page 3224 ]

the order of 20 per cent. Admittedly, two-thirds of the increase is

education tax increase, but I've had many contacts by letter and

telephone from the homeowners in Oak Bay who just cannot see how, if

this kind of escalation of property tax is to continue year by year,

they can continue to live in their homes. Even in my own particular

case — I'm not a person who's looking for the next dollar — my taxes

are up by almost $300 in one year on my home. I want to make it clear

that it is not just a person who has a comfortable income that I'm

talking about. There are many people in the municipality who are very

distressed at this year's property tax increase.

I'm getting calls and letters saying that if inflation on prices and

wages is supposed to be limited at 10 per cent, some of the property

owners in Oak Bay have decided that they'll send a 10 per cent increase

into the municipality. When or if they propose to pay the rest I don't

know, but there's quite a movement afoot, I understand, by taxpayers

who wish to demonstrate their sense of betrayal that everybody else

seems to be tied to a 10 per cent wage increase or thereabouts, but the

provincial government and the municipalities and the school boards seem

to be able to set any kind of an increase that they find appropriate.

It seems to be a double standard. The person on a fixed income, whether

it be Mincome or other pensions, or a person employed in a job where

she or he has to bargain through the union — they're tied down to 10

per cent, but when it comes down to receiving your property tax bill,

it's a completely different situation.

I know the minister can't solve all that in any hurry, but I do want

to get the message over very loud and clear that the continuing

escalation of property taxes has to be modified in some way —

presumably by a very critical analysis of the report that finally

emanates from the assessment commission.

I would ask the minister in his deliberations in cabinet and

elsewhere to look even further. We have to ask if the municipalities,

somehow or other by legislative change, have to take some control over

the cost of education. I know this may sound rather radical. We've

always felt the tremendous importance of autonomy in the education

field, but more and more I'm encountering the individual in my riding

who says: "Enough is enough." There is very deep concern, this year in

particular, that two-thirds of the property tax increase is related to

the cost of education. Everybody but the educator says: "Well, I can't

do anything about it. That's the school board — district 61 has that

authority and that autonomy." I agree that is the case, but what I'm

saying is that in this overall review that the assessment commission is

doing and that the minister and his department are doing, I think we

have to start looking at whether or not the present ground rules can

continue, where the complete and total autonomy to decide the cost of

education resides at the present time purely in the hands of the

elected school board officials.

I wanted to try and clear up another issue, Mr. Chairman, that

erupted at the public accounts committee two or three weeks ago. There

was some very clear divergence of facts and figures in relation to the

purchase of the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Member. May I just remind

the member that details of discussions in public accounts are not fair

game for this committee. I'm sure that the hon. member is aware.

MR. WALLACE: There are statements that appeared in the press,

Mr. Chairman, which, very briefly, revealed probably what the minister

has already acknowledged in debate this morning — that there was a very

definite balkanization of authority. Statements were made as to the

high cost of purchasing the trolley buses and high cost of having

purchased a streetcar from a German company to see if it could be some

kind of model for development of transit services in the lower

mainland. I don't want to go into great detail, but so much taxpayers'

money is involved that I would like to get the truth. I'd like to have

the real facts and figures revealed in this particular committee

debate, which seems to be the most appropriate place at which to get

the truth.

The prices which were stated by Hydro were said to be highly

inflated. Statements were made that the car couldn't even operate on

the track — the wheels were too small, the wheels were too narrow, and

the car would topple on curves. The minister subsequently made a

statement to the press that the vehicle certainly could operate over

railway trackage, but there would be a considerable outlay of something

on the order of $100,000 to set up two temporary stations and to carry

out the study.

The minister also said that perhaps the city of Edmonton, which

already had such cars, might be making a bid on the particular one that

had been purchased by the NDP government. I wonder if the minister

could tell the House if in fact a bid has been received. I think with

the trouble that's been taken to find out about this vehicle, we surely

must be at the point where we're either very happy to sell it to

Edmonton, or alternatively, if it holds any hope for being a suitable

vehicle in the lower mainland, we should know what plans the minister

has to develop it for that purpose.

The minister has said that he wants to co-ordinate all the transit

activities and have the various arms of his department functioning in

harmony. I wonder on that basis if he's suggesting any definite

reorganization of the whole transit department and the composition of

the transit bureau, because

[ Page 3225 ]

without reflecting on the statements made elsewhere other than in

the House there certainly was, if not a competitive, almost an

aggressive approach by certain voices from the echelons of Hydro in

relation to the way in which transit previously functioned and the way

in which decisions were taken in isolation. I wonder if the minister's

got some specific suggestions as to how he's about to correct that.

Quickly, with regard to ferries and the Burrard ferries, I'm just

surprised that some consideration has not been given to a complete

integration of all transportation of citizens by boat. We now have

three ferry systems: we've got the B.C. ferries under the Minister of

Transport and Communications; we've got the Burrard ferries under this

minister; and we've got ferries under the Minister of Highways. One of

the strong planks in this government's election platform was that it

would be an efficient, businesslike government. It would seem to me

that we have a three-level administration of ferries in the province.

While this is an enormous subject in itself, and I've no wish to

have a prolonged debate, I wonder if the minister, in conjunction with

the Minister of Transport and Communications and the Minister of

Highways, has in fact looked at the possibility of having any

passengers that are moved by ship integrated within one form of ferry

service. It seems to me there must inevitably be an increase in the

bureaucracy and an overlapping of functions which could well be tied in

for all the services that involve the movement of either vehicles

and/or passengers by ship.

I'm not aware of the details of how such a bureaucracy can be

minimized, but I have learned that already four top management

positions have been advertised to deal with just the Burrard ferry

crossing. While I am not in any way trying to minimize the importance

of having efficient administration, I wonder if the minister.... I can

see that you're occupied for the moment. But I understand that general

manager, operations manager, engineering superintendent and marine

superintendent — these four top posts have all been advertised. I

presume we have similar top posts in B.C. Ferries, and I imagine that

in the Department of Highways there are many senior men. I haven't the

figures for their salaries available right now, but I just begin to

think that when you add all that up and they are three different

groups....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members, could we have just a little lower noise level, please, out of courtesy to the speaker?

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't belabour that,

but I wonder if the minister could comment on the potential to minimize

the number of top senior positions that would be necessary if the three

ferry arms were tied together. There may be reasons why this can't be

done, but at a time when we're talking about big government — trying to

minimize big government and minimize the size of Crown corporations —

it would seem to me that here's an area where we might tie something

into what is ultimately a smaller unit.

Very quickly on some of the housing questions: I realize that the

minister has a problem over the continuing decisions on the Mt. Stephen

site, but I do want to ask the question...or at least I wish to agree,

first of all, with his premise that he cannot make a windfall profit

available to a private developer. But all the advertising and all the

lip service we give to housing in this chamber is to make housing

available at the lower possible unit cost.

It was my understanding, for example, that in Prince George the

municipality years ago acquired land and has subsequently made lots

available at slightly less cost than they perhaps could otherwise

realize if they wanted to put it in at the full competitive price — the

concept being that if their lots were slightly less than market value,

then this would drive down the cost of other lots provided by other

private owners.

Now that seems a pretty logical approach, and since the government's

stated objective is the lowest unit cost possible — in other words,

affordable housing — I wonder why the minister could not make the Mt.

Stephen site available at the initial price to Dunhill Development on

the understanding that Dunhill would not use the up-to-date price in

calculating the land cost, and consequently should surely be able to

put a unit on the market which is the lowest possible cost attainable.

There's no question that if this is not done, then the minister only

has two options — either sell the land back to the city of Victoria, or

make it available to private developers in competition and charge the

current market value. But in the long run, if you go that route,

whoever finally buys the units or rents the units is certainly going to

be paying a higher price than is necessary. It seems to me that the

government here has an opportunity, through the vehicle it acquired —

namely, Dunhill — to try and provide a lower unit cost on whatever

project is finally placed on that site than will be the case if the

full current price for the land is charged.

The minister's housing report, which was tabled yesterday, is

interesting in one or two respects, Mr. Chairman. On page 21 the

minister deals with home-conversion mortgage loans and points out:

"Rigid municipal zoning and building bylaws were major obstacles and

only 43 applications for the loans were approved in 1975." This is just

a drop in the bucket, and maybe not even that. Again, without going

into all the details, I wonder if the minister in some quick general

way could tell us what he intends

[ Page 3226 ]

to do to try and overcome or legislate ways in which some of these

applications can be increased in number and expedited in the manner in

which they are processed.

The minister also comments on page 20 regarding leased land. Another

platform of the Social Credit government in the last provincial

election was to provide leased land with an option to purchase after

five or eight years or whatever. I notice in this report that was

tabled yesterday that on page 20 the minister mentions that there are

99-year leases and 60-year leases. I wonder what plans, if any, we can

expect in the near future which would seem to meet the commitment the

government made encouraging ownership rather than the leasing of land.

In other words, does the government have some plans to provide

leased land with an option to purchase, which was a very integral part

of their election platform?

One of the last points I just want to make in regard to Housing is

another statement that was made by the president of Dunhill, where he

said that municipal red tape adds 20 per cent to the price of a house

and $5,000 to the price of a lot and that only very few municipalities

are prepared to accept medium-density and high-density projects. I

think in this area we're getting into the same kind of thinking that I

mentioned in regard to education costs a few minutes ago. The

municipalities can't have their cake and eat it, Mr. Chairman. The

municipalities want autonomy, and that would be just great if they can

look beyond the specific parochial limits of their own specific

municipality.

I know I'm not winning any municipal friends when I say this, but

the more I read about the problems of housing and the problems of

municipal financing and so on, each little empire just seems to be able

to focus its attention only on its own self-interest.

The schools and the school boards quite naturally want the best

possible education for our children. So do we. The municipalities want

the highest quality housing and the best possible circumstances with

lots of open space and all kinds of frills. It seems to me that much as

I'm opposed to Big Daddy government, if we allow the present trends to

continue in these two particular examples I have taken, the problems of

accommodating our urban population become enormous and the problems of

paying for the cost of education by the homeowner will also become

equally impossible.

I'm just wondering in these two particular examples I've chosen

whether the minister, for example, might be contemplating some kind of

conference with municipal representatives and school board

representatives and provincial government to look at some of the issues

that I've tried to raise very quickly in relation to these problems of

municipal development and paying for the cost of education,

particularly if it's to be based so clearly on taxes paid by the

homeowner.

The statement by the president of Dunhill was quite emphatic and

quite clear cut. He pointed out that the same problems pertain in other

cities, not only Victoria and Vancouver, but he quoted Edmonton and

Calgary. Again, I would just ask the minister: has he got any specific

ideas as to the way in which the municipal red tape can be cut and ways

in which municipalities will find it more financially attractive to

accept medium-density and high-density housing?

I realize that this government has embarked on a progressive policy

of trying to share tax revenue from other sources with the

municipalities and that that's probably a year down the road. I'm not

expecting the minister to give us a detailed outline of that policy.

But I am certainly acutely conscious and aware of the anxiety by

homeowners in urban municipalities such as Oak Bay that the present tax

situation cannot continue. The possibility of being able to stay in

your own homes seems even to people on what were once considered to be

very comfortable incomes a bigger and bigger problem.

The last question, Mr. Chairman, is rather a large area to cover,

but it is the question of the minister's role in continuing discussions

within the government on what is a case with enormous precedent, which

I am sure is of enormous interest to you, Mr. Chairman.

I hate to butt into your little conversation. But I'm talking about

the precedent-setting situation which is about to be decided in

Chilliwack....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): We were just talking about Chilliwack.

MR. WALLACE: It is the question of the municipality which is

continuing to grow at 6 per cent per year and which has made the

crucial appeal to cabinet that the only way it can expand is by using

somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,720 acres of farmland. The reason I

raise this, just quickly, in this particular debate is simply because

municipalities all through the lower mainland and the Fraser Valley in

particular must be sitting just waiting with bated breath to find out

how this particular first challenge to the basic concept of the Land

Act is going to be handled. While again I don't expect the minister to

know what the government decision will be, I wonder if the....

MR. NICOLSON: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, it's obvious

that the hon. member for Oak Bay is canvassing matters way outside of

the duties of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing — on the

Land Commission — and that's already been

[ Page 3227 ]

discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for drawing it to my attention. I've

heard no protest at all from the minister involved, but please maintain

relevancy in your debate, if you would, Mr. Member.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I always try very hard to do that in this House.

I'm talking about the problems facing municipalities where the

population of the municipality continues to grow and where that

population has to be housed and where the immediate land neighbouring

on the boundary of the existing municipality happens to be agricultural

land.

I think that it is a primary responsibility of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs to be intimately involved in the discussions and,

hopefully, to be able to give the municipal leaders and the particular

aldermen most acutely worried about this problem some indication, for

example, that if the expansion is to occur on higher land, which is

perhaps class 6, then what about the substantially increased costs of

developing in these areas? How does one balance off the overall

provincial policy of putting land to its best possible use?

I don't think that, frankly, is breaking the rules of debate. I am

just simply saying that we needn't run away from the fact that this

particular decision that the cabinet are faced with right now will be

one of historic precedence, because if, in fact, the decision is to

allow this land to be used for housing, then that simply opens the door

to a whole series of similar applications which I'm sure the minister

is well aware of will be coming his way, or will be coming the way of

cabinet in the future. I just wonder if he would care to comment in

general terms on that problem.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have a brief topic I wish

to bring up which I don't think the minister has discussed yet today,

although I think the question was broached to him. It's in the area of

co-op housing. I simply want to point something out to the minister and

then ask the question.

First of all, as he knows, the former government was committed to

giving leadership and financial assistance in the area of co-op housing

for a number of reasons, because a great number of our citizens believe

in the philosophy of the co-op housing. As a government, we were very

pleased, under the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson), to

encourage this, because primarily what is very appealing is the

non-profit feature of co-op housing. When you get a group of people who

are willing to go into co-op housing knowing that it is on a non-profit

basis, we believe they should be encouraged.

In Burnaby, as the hon. minister knows, we've had a number of co-op housing

projects which have been, I think, by and large successful. My concern is that

since the minister has assumed office, and following a number of policy decisions

made in this area, it is becoming apparent that this government, the Social

Credit government, doesn't have the same commitment, to encourage co-op

housing in this province, and yet thousands of our citizens wish to have the

opportunity to go into co-op housing.

In the particular area of Burnaby which the minister is well

familiar with, the Norman Bethune project, I understand a decision has

been made to allow some co-op housing to go on. When I say allow, it's

with the assistance of the provincial government, but not entirely.

Part of it will be co-op housing and the rest will not be. It will be

straight selling of the areas built and not on the co-op basis.

My question to the hon. minister is: what is your government's

policy on co-op housing, and why has the Norman Bethune project in

North Burnaby been restricted, I believe, to roughly 80 units for co-op

housing in the new expansion?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, racing to meet our unspoken

deadline, I wonder if the minister would care to wear his Municipal

Affairs hat for a moment. I have seven questions that I should like to

put to him, but I am mindful of the silent agreement of which the

Chairman has no knowledge.

I am concerned about thef land-use contracts. I am concerned about

section 702 (a) (3) of the Municipal Act, which has granted to

municipal councils the authority to enter into land-use contracts with

developers. It has granted those councils the opportunity to vary

zoning bylaws within certain limits and, in effect, to bargain for

extras that may come their way.

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is this: land-use contracts have come to

be used so frequently and in some cases, if I may say it, so mindlessly

that they have been very substantially abused. They have been used in

effect to implement spot zoning, which is a very backward step and

which is a contradiction of the purpose for which land-use contracts

were conceived in the original case.

I wonder whether or not, in my first question, the minister would

consider an examination through his department of abuses of land-use

contracts and whether or not he might consider at perhaps the fall

session of this House amending the Act further to be a little more

specific, to be a little more directive, in the employ to which

land-use contracts can be put. I think the minister does acknowledge,

as many people acknowledge, that they have been abused, that they have

been an excuse for permitting, in effect, spot zoning. They have, in a

number of instances, done real harm to the community or neighbourhood

plans that may be developed in various of the municipalities in British

Columbia.

[ Page 3228 ]

My second topic that I should like to raise is the question of

heritage building preservation. At the moment, municipalities have no

authority under the Municipal Act whatever to refuse demolition

permits. This is a very serious omission. It was one that concerned me

when our government was in power; it's one that concerns me now that

the minister opposite is in office. The city of Victoria has made three

very specific requests. These requests include an amendment to the

Municipal Act which would give the councils the power to withhold, at

least temporarily, demolition permits in order to obtain, perhaps,

alternate financing, to make changes to the rules, or generally to come

up with a better plan for the preservation of heritage houses and sites

in their jurisdictions.

They have secondly requested that the registrar of lands be

permitted to enter heritage designations against property titles in

order that anyone searching titles — anyone concerned about a specific

property — should be able to understand from the outset whether or not

he is dealing with a heritage site or property. I wonder if the

minister would be willing to consider going through his cabinet to

implement that particular recommendation. It seems to me a very small

and very sensible means of determining what sites are heritage and what

are not — what buildings should be preserved and which need not be.

The third proposal made by the city of Victoria, which I wonder

whether or not the minister would also discuss, is the possibility of

giving municipal councils in a very limited and careful way, in effect

the power to expropriate heritage buildings where it is clear that

through neglect, through abuse, the developer is allowing a heritage

building to fall apart in order that he shall finally be able to turn

around and say: "Now that my building has collapsed about my ears, can

I tear it down and put a 40-storey highrise in its place?"

If the minister acknowledges that problem, would he consider an

amendment to the Municipal Act to give councils the authority, when

that situation presents itself, to in effect expropriate that building,

to in effect counter the move that a sneaky or rascally developer might

make to allow his heritage building to fall apart in order to put

something on the site which is not consistent with the goals of that

municipal council?

The specific one, though, of concern regarding demolition permits is really

a very urgent one, and the minister is well aware of it. In Victoria we have

lost a number of buildings in the last year because the municipal council had

no power under the Act to refuse a demolition permit. I wonder if he might be

willing, perhaps even through the extraordinary device of an order-in-council,

to grant in some fashion as quickly as possible that authority to at least temporarily

— perhaps for a period of 60 or 90 days — grant municipal councils the power

to withhold demolition permits. Otherwise, these guys have no choice. They have

literally no choice in the matter but to permit McClure house after McClure

house after McClure house, Rattenbury houses and buildings throughout the province,

to be torn down. They can't stop it; they just have no power at all to stop

it. It is most unfair.

The third point that I would like to raise is the question of land

speculation and the profits that result from it. As the minister knows

— and it has been raised in the House on two previous occasions; he has

promised a policy statement, and perhaps today we'll get it — the

Canadian delegation to Habitat proposed, and many of the nations at

Habitat recently agreed, that unearned profits as the result of land

speculation should be subject to a 100 per cent tax.

The minister also knows that if someone earning welfare for a year,

without doing any work to get it, makes $6,000, shall we say, hues and

cries — cries of anguish and bitterness — arise throughout the

province. Someone sitting on his butt for six months or 12 months

earning $3,000 or $6,000 is properly criticized throughout the

province. If a developer sits on his butt for a year and earns $60,000

because through inflation the price of his land has increased by

$60,000, everyone thinks he is a great businessman. The fact is that

both people have sat on their butts for a year and done nothing. One of

them is in receipt of welfare, and in receipt of criticism. The other

owns property which through inflation has increased wildly in value,

and through the result of the non-work of that speculator has increased

in value tremendously.

I was on a television programme on Friday night last. It might

interest the minister that I was appearing on that programme with a

member of the Social Credit Party who, to my great surprise and

delight, agreed that unearned profits — the results of land speculation

— should be taxed 100 per cent. That person agreed that 100 per cent

taxation would be a fair and reasonable way of dealing with unearned

land speculation profits. The member of the Social Credit Party who

made that statement, by the way, is a director of the Social Credit

Party responsible for Vancouver Island and Mackenzie area. He is a good

friend of the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and

past-president of the Saanich and the Islands Constituency Association,

Mr. Bud Mesher. I know he's a good friend of the minister, he has told

me so often.

He told the people of Victoria on Friday night on television that he

personally agrees, and he felt many members of his party did, with the

position that unearned land speculation profits should be taxed in the

amount of 100 per cent so that, indeed, we kill the speculators from

the beginning. Habitat has said

[ Page 3229 ]

that; the Canadian government in its position paper said that. I hope it's something that the minister comes to say.

Next I would like to raise the question of regional districts. This

year, 1976, marks, roughly, the 10th year that regional districts have

been in existence in a serious way in the province of British Columbia.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to consider appointing some

kind of commission of inquiry to re-examine the fundamental terms of

reference, operations and procedures of regional districts.

When they were first brought in by the previous Social Credit

government, the minister of the day announced — and I've read his own

remarks, at least as they were available through the press, Hansard not

being in existence then — that regional districts were in a sense

experimental in nature. They were certainly experimental in origin, and

the minister of that day said: "We're going to try a few models. We're

going to try a few programmes. We're going to try a few different means

of exploring the nature of regional districts."

Well, 10 years have passed, Mr. Chairman, and it seems to me that

this year would be an appropriate time to re-examine, to restudy and to

rethink the nature of the duties, the roles, the preferences, the

powers and the obligations of regional districts in British Columbia.

We're moving into the 21st century and I think it would be most

worthwhile if we engaged in that kind of study. I hope very much that

the minister would consider authorizing it under his own jurisdiction

as Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The next point I wish to raise is the question of the authority, or

lack of it, of regional districts to act in a positive way when

questions like the Triangle Mountain development come up. Once again we

find that divided authority in a divided house is present. We find that

the Capital Regional District of Victoria is very concerned about a

proposal by private developers for Triangle Mountain, a proposal which

calls for the creation of a subdivision on that.

The chairman of the regional board has been quoted as saying that

the board's hands are tied as long as the Highways department can

approve subdivisions without substantial reference to the regional

board. It might be part of a proposed study of the powers of the

regional boards and regional districts or it might be part of the

minister's consultation with the Minister of Highways to determine

whether or not the Department of Highways should any longer have that

substantial power and, if it should have such power, whether or not

regional districts themselves should be granted the right of

consultation before a Department of Highways approves a subdivision.

Obviously the department is well within the law in doing what

they've done at Triangle Mountain. Obviously the Capital Regional

District is not very happy with the fact that they have no power

whatever to intervene, no power whatever to influence opinions and no

power whatever to take action. I think that it would be fair and

reasonable for the minister to consider the possibility that regional

districts should, at least as a matter of law and course, be consulted

before such subdivisions are permitted to occur.

I just have a couple of more matters I'd like to raise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you table them?

MR. BARBER: In the district of Sooke, the minister recently

authorized a referendum which he knew and we knew was going to fail. In

fact, it was defeated by a five-to-one majority. We knew and he knew it

was going to fail because no one wanted it, save a small clique of

merchants, save a small number of people associated with the chamber of

commerce and the Social Credit Party in Sooke. The vote was defeated by

five to one. The vote was unnecessary.

I'd like to know who asked for that vote, who wanted the vote to be

taken, What interests did those people represent and with what degree

of seriousness did the minister view their claim that a vote this time

might likely pass? Anyone familiar with the area, even the member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), could have told the minister it was going to

flop. It flopped five to one. The voters defeated it. It was a totally

unnecessary vote. I'd like to know how much that vote cost the

taxpayers of British Columbia and how much that unnecessary vote was

really required and who requested that unnecessary vote. I wonder if

the minister could perhaps provide us with the names and addresses. An

amusing correspondence might result if he did.

In Kamloops recently, concerned with the same matter, the minister

rejected a proposal by Kamloops council that the 12 aldermen and the

mayor be elected through a ward or semi-ward procedure. The letters

patent of the city could have been amended to permit that. The minister

chose not to amend it.

According to Kamloops council the questionnaire submitted to

residents of the Kamloops area, at least those who could be bothered to

reply to it, was more than 70 per cent in favour of ward or semi-ward

election procedures....

AN HON. MEMBER: A straw vote.

MR. BARBER: A straw vote, that's right. It wasn't an official

referendum. Now as the minister knows, under

section 53 (

b) of the

Municipal Act, he does have the authority to permit a ward system.

section 53 (

b) clearly allows the minister to permit ward voting. I'd

like to know on what basis the minister refused that and on what basis

the minister forms

[ Page 3230 ]

policy and whether or not he intends in the future to permit any

ward system of voting throughout the province of British Columbia. He

does have the power within the Act already. I'd like to know whether or

not he ever intends to exercise that power.

The final matter that I'd like to bring to him — with six minutes left — as Minister of Municipal Affairs...

HON. MR. GARDOM: You've got about five now. (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: ...racing to the deadline, is the question of

revenue-sharing. The minister has on four occasions in this House

informed us that it's under serious study at the moment. The minister

at that time earlier, in these debates, was unable or perhaps unwilling

to provide a deadline.

Now as the minister knows, I wrote personally to the mayor of every

city, town and village in British Columbia, and I wrote personally to

the chairman of every regional district in the province. I received

dozens upon dozens of letters in reply, and consistent in all of them

was the concern about revenue-sharing, and consistent in many of them

was a request that we press the minister to find out what deadline he

has employed and what time-table he's working with for the presentation

of a report which examines the several systems of revenue-sharing, the

several different choices that he might make.

There is considerable urgency. The dozens and dozens of letters I've

received compel me to believe that urgency is really at hand. I wonder

if the minister could at least tell us whether or not by the end of

this calendar year or this fiscal year, or perhaps at the Legislature

in the fall, he might be able to make public these proposals.

Responsible members of municipal councils and regional districts

throughout British Columbia want to be able to provide for proper

revenue-sharing as it can be anticipated in next year's budget. They

would like to be able to study it this fall, and any commitment the

minister might make toward a time-table, toward a deadline, would be

enormously helpful to them. Those are the seven final questions that I

raise with the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that

have been made by the several speakers on the opposition side of the

House. I find myself in a difficult position of wanting to answer in

the fullest possible detail and perhaps not being able to, due to the

time constraints.

The member for Oak Bay talked about property tax increases, and I

want to assure him that I am very concerned about the increase — not

only in Oak Bay but in a number of British Columbia communities. He

correctly identified the main offender, if you will, as the education

portion of the tax bill. I believe that my information is correct. On

an average in greater Vancouver the increase this year was about 9

mills — 8 of which were directly attributable to education. So we've

identified the villain. Now we have to find a way of removing the

villain from the stage. That frankly will involve discussions among my

colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and I don't believe that I can comment

further on that now.

If nothing else this morning, Mr. Chairman, I hope I can convince

members of the committee to no longer refer to the light rail vehicle

which is presently resting in New Westminster as a streetcar. It is

not. It is a light rail vehicle and, while it may look like a

streetcar, it has a number of characteristics which distinguish it from

the ordinary streetcar that we've come to know. The NDP, for a variety

of reasons, spent about $238,000 in bringing the vehicle to British

Columbia from Europe. Built into that figure also, of course, are the

unloading charges and a number of other related matters.

We've not had a bid, Mr. Member. Rather we have had an inquiry from

Edmonton. I believe we've had one from the United States. I simply

state again that, as I have outside this House, the purchase of the

vehicle was horribly premature. There was no point at all in bringing

the vehicle here at this time. I also had to make the decision and

recommend to my colleagues that I was not prepared to spend about

$100,000 of public funds for a short test track which would have been

in operation for a few weeks on the Central Park Line in Burnaby.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You have no imagination.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I've a great deal of imagination, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that rather than just buying

vehicles willy-nilly around the world we can get down to business and

work with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and with other

agencies in moving particularly metro Vancouver along the route, along

the rail, if you will, towards the light rail vehicle. But you put your

plan in place long before you go out and buy those vehicles.

The member for Oak Bay also spoke about reorganization of transit in

general and the fact that there are now three ferry systems. Well, I

think it should be pointed out, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this is

essentially a seagoing bus. It's not a question of "Two other ministers

have their ferry systems; I want my ferry system." But it's so directly

related to transit — to land transit. In fact, it has been suggested

that the vessels could be known as Sea Bus — Sea Bus I and II. It

leaves me rather cold.

But it's a side-loading vessel,400 passengers on and off, very quickly, no smoking and no food

[ Page 3231 ]

service. I don't think we're getting into another bureaucracy or a

duplication, because the people being engaged now — it's a very small

group, for one thing — are going to be based on and for that particular

system. It has to be very carefully tied in with British Columbia Hydro

transit and with whatever in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

MR. LAUK: May I draw your attention to the clock?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Lauk talks about the clock, but I would

like to talk about Mount Stephen. We've gone through this before, Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. The difference is that in Prince

George the city has been able to set the market. I'm going to Prince

George in a very few days to have another look at what they've been

doing, and I'm particularly interested in what they're doing. Here

we're not in control of the market. The market is in control of us in

the Mount Stephen specific.

MR. LAUK: Will you table the rest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Chilliwack — the Environmental Land Use

Committee will examine that and I have no further comment. Then we have

the heritage....

All members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, seem to want to get through my estimates. I've been waiting a long time too.

I will undertake, Mr. Chairman, for the second member for Victoria,

to review all the heritage matters. Perhaps after the session, since

we're both here, we could discuss this in detail and where appropriate

I could make recommendations through the Department of Municipal

Affairs. I would be happy to do that.

MR. BARBER: Demolition permits?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Demolition permits — really, I don't think

we can break out one specific, but I will look at it with you. That is

an undertaking.

Regional districts: yes, I think the time has arrived to re-examine

the fundamental terms of reference of regional districts. I am

concerned, and I believe that a number of people are concerned, about

the increasing hostility towards regional district government. I hope

that regional district people themselves, both the senior staff and the

elected directors, are cognizant of this increasing hostility — this

feeling that here is yet another level of government and, by George,

this one is growing faster than the provincial or municipal ones.

There's a lot of unrest with respect to regional districts out

there, and if I can do nothing else in these few moments, I'll identify

for regional districts that they should examine very, very carefully

themselves what issues and what problems are causing that hostility,

because they are at the bottom of the popularity poll in many parts of

British Columbia right now, and either they correct that situation

themselves or the province will correct it for them, speaking very

frankly.

Kamloops and the ward system: I am philosophically opposed to a ward

system, except in very unusual circumstances. The size of the city of

Kamloops is such that I believe it can be served by a central council

elected at large, and, in addition, the size of the council itself I

felt was unreasonably large for a community which is not that

significant in terms of total population.

Revenue sharing: my target is, with fingers crossed, 1977 — that is,

immediately after this session I am going to sit down with my staff and

identify the priority problems that both departments have — Housing and

Municipal Affairs. We are looking for a revenue-sharing programme to be

in place, given approvals and doing all the work, by 1977.

1 have really skated over all the stuff, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have taken longer.

MR. BARBER: Sooke?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Sooke: I don't think that it is a waste of

time or dollars when there is a demonstrated interest, in voting on

something such as incorporation, to go to a vote. The matter has been

resolved; it was decisively defeated. That's fine. Fair enough. There

seemed to be strong interest on the part of individuals in the

community. The matter now, as far as I am concerned, is at rest for a

good long time. They have made their decision and voted on it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): One short question, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think the question of the Sooke vote has been resolved. There

were some citizens, apparently, who suggested that they did have an

interest in an incorporation vote out there, but apparently a very

small number of citizens. A committee was struck by the chamber of

commerce in Sooke to look into the idea of incorporation, and that

committee then proceeded to almost dissociate itself with the chamber

of commerce and proceeded in making political contact, according to the

chamber of commerce, with members of the Social Credit government. The

second member for Victoria asked who those members were, these people

who made political contact with the government. What number of people

petitioned the government to hold an incorporation vote to set up a

municipality in Sooke?

Looking back at the Sooke Mirror of June, 1976,

[ Page 3232 ]

the chamber of commerce complained, they were upset that their

committee on incorporation should have made political contact, and

should not have gone ahead advocating a date for a vote on the matter

of recommended incorporation without getting the support of the

chamber. So the chamber did not support an incorporation vote in Sooke

at the time it was held.

In another

article in the Sooke Mirror of June 16, 19 76: "Overheard

at the last incorporation workshop: 'Hey, there's the local Social

Credit caucus.' " I am wondering just who the people were who

approached the minister to hold that incorporation vote in Sooke. How

many people? Who were they? Who were the people who established

political contact with the Minister of Municipal Affairs without having

the backing of the chamber of commerce and local groups in the

Sooke-Jordan River area?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I recall, there was no "political

contact." A number of votes on incorporation or amalgamation are in

various states of preparation now in British Columbia. There was one in

your constituency the other day, Mr. Chairman, for Chilliwack and

Chilliwack township — also one in Okanagan Falls and so on.

It seems to me — and I don't have names available — that there was,

again, a demonstrated interest on the part of some individuals to study

the incorporation of Sooke into a district municipality. Now I respond

to that as I would respond whenever I experience a demonstrated

interest in that sort of decision. Really, it's interesting that you

would raise it in this way. There was a restructuring committee: my

department examined the proposal; we decided on the date of June 22;

the vote was held. The vote was rejected. Fair enough — the matter is

closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Vote 142 approved.

Vote 143: deputy minister's office, $197,928 — approved.

Vote 144: administrative services, $275,252 — approved.

Vote 145: financial management, $291,564 — approved.

Vote 146: planning services, $487,432 — approved.

On vote 147: Islands Trust, $195,000.

MR. BARBER: Vote 147, Mr. Chairman, has the effect of

reducing from $236,000 to $195,000 the funds available to the Islands

Trust. My question is very simple. Does the Islands Trust have a

future? If so, what is it? What is the minister's personal position on

the role and responsibility of the Islands Trust in safeguarding that

quite remarkable heritage which we uniquely possess on the west coast

of North America — the Gulf Islands themselves? I was over there as

recently as Sunday and was reminded once again of how extraordinary it

is that that particular miracle should be here in the Gulf of Georgia.

The Islands Trust is at the moment the only instrument presently

available for safeguarding it. I want to know what the minister's

policy is towards the Islands Trust corporately.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, not facetiously at all, the

Islands Trust is still in place six months after the change of

government. That should be of some reassurance to the second member for

Victoria. But again, I'm concerned about the sort of thing we discussed

with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and that is duplication and

unpopularity. The Islands Trust should also look to its degree of

acceptance and popularity among the residents of the Gulf Islands. The

vote is there. The island Trust is in place for this year, 1976-77, at

any rate. I have not reached any conclusion with respect to what I

might recommend to my colleagues for 1977 and beyond. If anything — I

emphasize that, as I wouldn't want the member to read into that that it

may be shut down — I would like to consider the democratization of the

Islands Trust and that is perhaps the election of trustees at large,

but that also has to be examined pretty carefully.

The reason the budget was cut was that I, along with many other

ministers, was asked to examine every possible area, understandably so

with the situation in which we found ourselves, and we felt that the

trust could function, and indeed the first few months have proven that

it can, with a budget of $195,000 instead of $236,000. It's as simple

as that.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, I just wonder if the trustees

themselves made any formal recent representation to the minister,

either seeking for any clear-cut change of direction or amendments to

the existing Act. In other words, while there have been comments raised

in public and some comments by the minister that the matter of how the

trust is functioning should perhaps be reviewed, has the minister been

approached in any specific or documented way by the trustees themselves?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I met with the general

trustees on a number of occasions. I think that it would be accurate to

say that they understood that on my priority lists for the first six

months of government and with a session coming up, the Islands

[ Page 3233 ]

Trust was not a major item for urgent, immediate action. I would

assume that following the conclusion of this session they will want to

meet with me. I will be happy to meet with them.

Vote 147 approved.

Vote 148: transit management services, $2,752,428 — approved.

Vote 149: transit demand programme, $324,568 — approved.

Vote 150: transit supply programme, $15,104,620 — approved.

Vote 151: grants and subsidies, $125,877,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

On vote 108: minister's office, $22,400.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I notice the staff in the

minister's office has decreased from nine to one. I presume that he's

using staff in the Department of Municipal Affairs, but that's a very

abrupt change of allocation of staff. I would like to know if that is

the fact, that all the people that were previously working under the

minister's office in Housing are now being used from Municipal Affairs.

Is there an addition of eight people to the Municipal Affairs

department? I can't find them in the Municipal Affairs vote. I

understand that Mr. Gary Begg was hired as a special consultant to the

minister. Yet in this vote 108 there's no allowance for a special

consultant.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we have combined the two

departments in my office only. There are seven persons, including

myself, in the minister's office. They are paid largely through

Municipal Affairs, that is correct.

With reference to Mr. Begg, if I could catch up just a little later, I'll find out where that money is.

Out of general administration, I am informed.

Vote 108 approved.

On vote 109: general administration, $2,981,269.

MR. WALLACE: Again, a brief question. Maybe the minister

means that some of the people listed under general administration are

really in the minister's office, but the top appointments in this vote

look very top-heavy. For example, there are two new positions as

programme manager 5, and each is paid $30,900 a year. I'd like to know

what was the necessity for the two programme managers at that high

salary. If you count up the deputy minister, associate deputy minister

and all the programme managers, Mr. Chairman, the total salary bill is

$642,210. Important as housing is, it seems to me that's a very

top-heavy allocation of senior appointments, costing a great amount of

money. In particular, as I said a moment ago, two new programme

managers 5 at a cost of $30,900 each — could the minister explain why

we need all these senior people?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Firstly, Mr. Chairman, none of these people

under vote 109 are in my office. They are in the Department of Housing

but not all of them are there — a number of appointments have not been

made. As an example, we have one associate deputy minister; we are

under complement. Mr. Bell is a recent appointee as deputy minister,

and I'm sure he wants to discuss this with me as soon as other matters

are out of the way. We have no programme manager 5 at the moment, and

we do not have 11 programme managers 2. While the authorization is

there, the positions are not filled.

MR. WALLACE: How many programme managers do you have, and why

do you have three allocations for associate deputy ministers? If you've

only got one, are you meaning to get another two? I don't like this

vagueness in the debate. If you prepare a budget — and we've heard

about how ministers have been told to cut expense to the bone.... Here

we have goodness knows how many positions listed at high salaries, and

the implication from the minister's answer is that they're not going to

be filled. If they're not going to be filled, why are they in the

budget in the first place?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for

Oak Bay will understand that the budget sheets are prepared well in

advance. You know, they are halfway through now, and they were prepared

almost when I arrived in the minister's office. We have eight programme

managers in total, and if circumstances change, I'm sorry. But if the

positions are not filled, and are not all going to be filled, then the

money simply will not be spent. It can be spent elsewhere, hopefully,

at some time and may produce more housing as a result.

Vote 109 approved.

Vote 110: grants in aid of construction of homes for elderly citizens, $10 million — approved.

Vote 111: housing and development, $44,720,45 9 — approved.

[ Page 3234 ]

Vote 112: Home Acquisition Act, $16 million — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

AND COMMUNICATION

On vote 198: minister's office, $153,642.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Is the minister going to make a statement?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: I yield to the minister if he intends to make a statement first.

Mr. Chairman, I start off by welcoming a new minister, but I'm a

little concerned, during the change of guard here, that while it is not

yet Christmastime I feel the minister is making some Christmas presents

in the summer to people who don't need them. That does give me some

concern.

I've got a few topics to raise. The one I would start off with is

this question of a Christmas present made in April, which upsets me

because I come from a Judaeo-Christian background....

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were a Scotsman.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe I don't fall into either one of those two, eh? Not really.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're the other side of Hadrian's Wall. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like the minister to tell me whether I'm

correct in saying that the petroleum corporation held a meeting in

April, at which he was present, and raised the rate of return of

Westcoast Transmission on its rate base from 10 per cent to 10.5 per

cent. I don't think that can be denied. But the effect of it during a

period of inflation has to be of concern to the Legislature and to the

people of B.C. I don't think it's been announced that this has

happened, as it has in fact happened.

Westcoast Transmission, of course, is the big carrier that is owned

about 48 per cent by Phillips Petroleum and 12 per cent by the B.C.

government but has had a very, very healthy profit picture over the

last two years, raising its rate of return on its base rate from 10 per

cent to 10.5. The directors of that corporation are, of course, the

Minister of Transport and Communications and the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Waterland) plus other directors. Raising its rate of return

from

10 per cent to 10.5 in a period of so-called restraint — it certainly

is restraint for the people of the province of British Columbia — was

to raise the corporate return to the shareholders of that company by

about $2.5 million.

When we look at the facts of the profit picture of Westcoast

Transmission we see figures like this. In 1972 when the NDP became

government, Westcoast Transmission's dividend per share was 60 cents;

in 1973, 75 cents; in 1974, $1.30; from 1974 to 1975 the dividend per

share of Westcoast Transmission went from $1.30 to $1.80. The 1974 net

income was $24,000,731; by 1975 that became $33,019,000, which is a

profit increase of roughly 23 per cent. Why, then, would the minister,

with that kind of a growing profit picture for Westcoast Transmission,

sit down on the board of directors and increase the return on rate base

of Westcoast Transmission from 10 percent to 10.5?

The members of the Legislature have suffered — I say this with

sorrow — a reduction in their own salaries of 10 per cent. I just

wonder why a company that is immensely profitable and is really in the

position of being a public utility in B.C., since it is a carrier now

and sells the gas and deducts its net return for the carrying cost and

sends the rest to BCPC, should hand out such a bonanza, a Christmas

gift, to the shareholders of Westcoast Transmission, which is largely a

foreign-owned company which was making very, very healthy profits from

1974 to 1975.

Why were they given this Christmas present by a resolution of the

board of directors of B.C. Petroleum Corp. In April of 1976 at a time

where everywhere else the government was preaching restraint on

everything except its own taxes and charges that it imposed? I think,

Mr. Chairman, that we have here another example of where this

government has been hard on people but soft on big business and has, in

this case, just given a totally unnecessary bonanza to the shareholders

of Westcoast Transmission.

Westcoast, of course, with that 10.5 on rate base, is announcing big

plans to expand the pipeline system. Of course that is good, but what

has to be borne in mind is that if they have a rate return of 10.5 per

cent every dollar they spend on new pipelines and facilities adds to

the net income available to shareholders. Even though the new pipelines

and the pipeline into the Quasar gas fields will be the biggest of them

all — I think it's over 80 miles which is planned to be constructed in

the next five years — as they expand the pipeline system, of course,

their rate base goes up. They may do that on borrowed capital but the

equity return to the shareholders increases.

This was not a company deserving of an increase in a period of

inflation, in a period of so-called restraint on the part of this

government. Yet this is what

[ Page 3235 ]

happened in April at a board meeting. I'd like the minister to explain why he would increase that rate base in April.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the allowed rate of return for

Westcoast Transmission was increased, as the hon. member for Vancouver

East has said, earlier this year from 10 per cent to 10.5 per cent. The

main reason for this was the necessity of expanding very substantially

the supply of natural gas available to consumers of British Columbia,

an expansion not only of the pipeline system itself but also the

development of substantial storage to look after tight situations in

the wintertime.

Westcoast Transmission, in order to finance this very large

programme — this large, new programme — needs an overall rate of

return, and indeed a return on equity, somewhere near the rates of

return permitted by the National Energy Board to other corporations

similarly engaged in expanding and assuring the gas supply to Canadians

and for export. Westcoast Transmission, like other utilities, like

other operating companies nowadays, is facing a continual turnover of

its debt and, as it raises new money by the sale of bonds, has to pay a

higher rate of interest. It was essentially because of the much higher

rate of interest which is required to float new bond issues that it was

deemed necessary, or desirable, to increase the rate of return by 0.5

per cent — from 10 per cent to 10.5 per cent.

I might say, in answer to the hon. member, and indeed to allay some

of the concern that might exist in other corners of the House, that the

same staff, the same people who advised that member when he was the

minister responsible for energy matters in the province, made that

recommendation that the rate of return be increased from 10 per cent to

10.5 per cent.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

In

summary, then, Westcoast Transmission is engaged in a very large

programme of expansion. It has to raise new money. Much of that money

is debt money. It has to be raised in today's inflationary environment.

Debt money costs a good deal more than the old debt money available to

Westcoast Transmission, and it was therefore necessary, in order to

maintain, to come somewhere near maintaining, the return of equity, to

raise the rate base so that this additional cost — the cost of buying

bond-type money — could be met.

I might, in closing, Mr. Chairman, say that our natural gas supply

situation in British Columbia is still very precarious. We face several

years at least in which we are likely to have great difficulty in

meeting both the export contracts we have and the mounting demands of

British Columbians for natural gas. We have to find new sources of

supplies. Certainly we have to increase the deliverability in the

wintertime of our gas supply. This is one of the reasons why British

Columbia has to be interested in a resolution of the question of

bringing Alaskan gas down to the United States. If we were able in any

way to speed up that process, we might relieve some of the export

demands which are now being placed, or which now continue to be placed,

on our own B.C. gas reserves and we could reserve more of our own

lower-cost gas for British Columbians. It is urgent that we expand our

own supply so that we assure ourselves of being able to get through the

winter months in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

It is urgent, and Westcoast Transmission needs the capital in order

to carry out the expansion programme that is necessary to head off a

very tight situation in the late '70s.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on the last point about the gas

supply, I'd just like to point out that the drilling season that I

suppose is just over — it's been over a month or two — is the most

successful in B.C.'s history. Sometimes, when some of the bottom lines

go round the province and say that the NDP couldn't run a peanut stand,

I wish they would add that we could run the natural gas fields because

we had about 100 wells drilled this season, which was one of the best.

I hope the minister will not listen to some of the briefs that are

being presented to the energy commission at the present time which say

that you should get away with the incentive price. When we gave 35

cents on old gas we gave 15 cents off it with a hooker, and the hooker

was you've got to spend the money. You had to get it into circulation

in the province of B.C. in drilling and exploration, and if you didn't

accept the hooker you didn't get your 15 cents.

I see that the oil industry, which seems to have the ear of this

government, is determined to get rid of that hooker. I certainly hope

the government won't allow that to happen because I know that's still

before the energy commission. I think the incentive plan that was

introduced under the NDP was one of the best things that happened in

terms of innovation, and I wish the federal government would adopt the

same thing so that when these oil companies get an increase in the

price of a barrel of crude, or whatever it is, then they get it on

condition that they reinvest those proceeds in Canada in drilling and

exploration to replace the stock that is being depleted.

But coming back to the increase in the base, in the return to

Westcoast Transmission, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the House can

accept the minister's explanation at all. Certainly with an expansion

of the gathering system and the pipeline system in the north and

twinning the line here and there, looping it down to the coast to

provide additional capacity, Westcoast

[ Page 3236 ]

is going to have to go out on the bond market and raise capital for this construction.

But what I'm talking about is a totally unnecessary Christmas gift

in April to the shareholders of Westcoast Transmission, because this

return goes to equity capital, eh? And when a company on the basis of

10 per cent return from 1974 to 1975 increases its net profits after

taxes by 23.5 per cent, and the government looks at that.... I don't

care who the advisers are. The government finally has to make the

decision, as I had to do in some cases myself, and take it to cabinet.

But when, after that kind of increase, the government says it isn't

good enough and increases that rate of return to the equity

shareholders, I say that's a sellout and a ripoff of the public. If we

are to make wage and price controls work in this country and hold

labour down to 8 or 10 per cent, how can we justify a foreign company,

basically Phillips Petroleum, making that kind of a return — 23 per

cent gain in one year after taxes — and then say that it's not good

enough and increase the rate of return for 1976?

I say the minister has been taken on this proposition, This was

totally unnecessary. It's going to deplete the revenues of the province

by about, in my calculation based on the base rate, about $2.5 million

a year — not as big as some of the other things that have happened

around this province such as the coal business. But there's $2.5

million per year which we have just simply given to the equity

shareholders of Westcoast Transmission at a time when they've just

increased their dividend rate from 60 cents four years ago, $1.30 a

year ago, to $1.80.

That is allowing profiteering in what is basically a public utility,

and I can't for one minute accept the minister's explanation that they

couldn't raise borrowed capital, debenture capital, for the new

gathering systems to be constructed before 1981. In fact, that pipeline

construction was well underway six months ago. So, you know, I think

that's a very black mark against the government and that $2.5 million

should be in the public revenue of the province through the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. and was a totally unnecessary gift to the shareholders

of Westcoast Transmission.

Now, Mr. Chairman, maybe I should just say something about the crude pipeline

and ask the minister a couple of questions about that. As I understand it, in

terms of the northern tier crude pipeline from the Rupert-Kitimat area — I think

Kitimat is the latest proposal of TransMountain — through to Tête Jaune Cache and

then to Edmonton, that would be a very major project to carry Alaskan American

oil across the top of B.C. There could be very serious problems in the unloading

of that oil and transmitting it into pipelines at either Kitimat or Prince Rupert

because of the.... Well, in the case of Kitimat, which is the more desirable

port, it is nevertheless a long, narrow passage down Douglas Channel for the

super-tankers, and therefore very dangerous for the ecology of the Kitimat area.

And if it's Rupert, it's very dangerous in trying to take that oil from

big tankers and transmit it into pipelines at Rupert. So you get that ecological

problem in B.C. in order that we should carry not our own oil for our own markets

but U.S. oil.

If you do that, I think there is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the

very fine plan of Governor Dan Evans of Washington for a multipurpose

port at Port Angeles to save the Straits of Georgia from the entry of

tankers, big or small.... I think there is no doubt that if this

northern tier thing is constructed by TransMountain, that port is down

the drain, because there is no way it can sustain itself without the

flow of Alaskan oil coming in through that way and then being piped

through the Pacific northwest and into the central states of the United

States in the north.

So we've killed the plan of Governor Evans if this plan goes ahead,

and I understand the minister has indicated approval, at least

tentative approval, of it. We've killed that port, and the result

follows as night follows day. That tanker traffic will build up in the

Straits of Georgia. It will be coming past Victoria. The tankers will

be going past Victoria, with all the dangers inherent in that

situation, and then proceeding on to Cherry Point and Ferndale where

the four refineries are located.

Now I think it has been suggested that some of the supply for the

refineries at Ferndale and Cherry Point might be unloaded at Rupert or

Kitimat and then brought down the pipeline where it joins

TransMountain, or would join it at Tête Jaune Cache and then come down

the existing pipeline to Ferndale. But I would point out to the

minister that you've got two problems if that's the solution.

First you've increased the cost very substantially because you have

to pay for carrying charges, and you've probably increased the price of

the barrel of crude oil by about $1 over what it would cost to bring it

down by sea, and the major oil companies, which are very often licensed

with foreign registrations, are certainly going to fight back.

The other problem is that the Alaska crude is not what the Cherry

Point area refineries basically rely upon, because I think the

refineries you've got there are Shell, Mobil, Texaco and Atlantic

Richfield. The only modern refinery able to process the particular

crude being produced at Prudhoe