1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Appointment of rentalsman. Mr. Smith — 2629

Provincial court facilities. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2629

Negotiations on Indian land claims. Mr. McClelland — 2630

Approved course status for teacher training. Mr. Wallace — 2630

Flat-rate premiums for ICBC. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2630

Arbitration in nursing dispute. Mr. Chabot — 2630

Status of bowling alley. Mr. Morrison — 2631

Examination of Ontario mining legislation. Mr. Gibson — 2631

Use of insurance premiums for investment profit. Mr. McGeer — 2631

Provincial freeze and involvement in mining exploration. Mr. Smith —

Remuneration to student nurses. Mr. Wallace — 2632

Public use of ferry staterooms for cabinet Ministers. Mr. Chabot —

Accelerated Park Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

114).

Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 2632

Statement

Agreement with Japanese steel industry to help curb B.C. steel shortage.

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2632

Mr. Chabot — 2633

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2633

Mr. Wallace — 2634

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs

estimates.

On vote 181.

Mr. Smith — 2634

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2636

Mr. Curtis — 2636

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2637

Mr. Gardom — 2638

Mr. Curtis — 2640

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2641

Mr. McClelland — 2641

Mr. Gibson — 2645

Mr. Lewis — 2649

Mr. Calder — 2650

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2651

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2652

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2654

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2655

Mr. McClelland — 2655

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2656

Mr. Curtis — 2656

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2656

Mrs. Jordan — 2657

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2659

Mrs. Jordan — 2659

Mr. Wallace — 2660

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2662

On vote 182.

Mr. Curtis — 2662

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2662

Motions Motion 22.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2663

Mr. Smith — 2663

Appendix — 2664

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today a group of senior citizens from the Crescent Beach area

of South Surrey, their president, Mr. Pears and their

secretary-treasurer, Mrs. Child. They're travelling under

auspices of the New Horizons Education Tours, and I hope the

Members will bear that in mind this afternoon and I wish them

to join me in welcoming them here today.

Oral questions.

APPOINTMENT OF RENTALSMAN

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Attorney-General. According to a newspaper account

last Friday the Attorney-General made an announcement

concerning the appointment of a rentalsman for the Province of

British Columbia. I'd like to question the

Attorney-General on the propriety of naming anyone to

fulfil that position prior to the time that the Legislature has

approve; the bill that sets up the Landlord and Tenant

Act in this province.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

that's a perfectly valid point. The bill has to pass. I think I

tried to make that clear. It would then be a recommendation of

cabinet to the Lieutenant-Governor at that time and the

proprieties in a thing like that are terribly important. In

answer to a question I took as notice from the second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)....

PROVINCIAL COURT FACILITIES

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The same question. What's it about? I'd

like to answer the one I can answer. I'd like to say with

regard to provincial court facilities in the City of Vancouver,

with leave of the chief justice of the supreme court, the Hon.

Mr. Justice Hinkson, I have asked and he has accepted to give

me a horse-sensical summing up of the situation in terms

of present facilities, future growth, transportation of

prisoners, convenience of the public. This is not a research

project because we have the data, but he will look at the total

picture and give me some recommendations on that basis within

three or four weeks. He has agreed to do that and I think that

will be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Attorney-General be sure to spell that

out for Hansard ?

MR. SMITH: A supplementary question to the

Attorney-General concerning the appointment of a rentalsman for the province. Was the position advertised? If so, in

the advertisement what qualifications did you require before

making a selection?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it would be an

order-in-council appointment but as we haven't

really reached that stage there couldn't really be advertising

at this stage even if that were appropriate, which I don't

think it is.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Apropos of the

question which the Attorney-General answered before he

was asked about it, Mr. Speaker, dealing with the appointment

of Mr. Justice Hinkson who you said would display

"horse-sensical" attitudes to your tasks, you earlier

indicated to the House that there were consultants. Would you

inform us who the consultants have been to this point?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there has been a wide

variety of consultants from lawyer Paul Fraser, to the justice

development committee, to Chief Judge Brahan, to the judges, to

the Vancouver City Council through Mayor Phillips. I don't know

how else I can say it but we have received advice, of course,

from many many quarters. I will be asking the hon. justice to

look at all of this data and to sum it up and give me his

recommendation.

MR. GARDOM: The building is three-quarters finished at

the present time. Is that in the firm contract price? Has

construction come to a full stop at the request of yourself,

Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think it was under contract with the

city. Mind you, we have assumed a responsibility. The Hon.

Member raised a factor which makes it quite urgent to get a

decision on these future court facilities.

MR. GARDOM: Well is it, or is it not, at a firm contract

price, the construction of that building for which you have

assumed responsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will have to take that as notice.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, Hon. Member, there are other Members

who would like to get questions too.

[ Page 2630 ]

NEGOTIATIONS ON INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would like to address my

question to the Premier as president of the council. I wonder

if the Premier would advise the House of the government's

attitude in relation to the charge by Mr. Phillip Paul, the

land claims research director for the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs, that no negotiations are taking place with the Indian

people with respect to Indian land claims and that the

provincial government is refusing the Indians access to public

documents.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't see how you can have supplementary on a

question that has been taken as notice. You can have a

supplementary when the answer is given in the House. If you

will please save your supplementary until that time.

APPROVED COURSE STATUS

FOR TEACHER TRAINING

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of

Education (Mrs. Dailly) if she is making any effort to ensure

that the special teacher training programme aimed at reducing

the student-teacher ratio qualifies as a Canada Manpower

approved course?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, at this time I

can't give any comments on that. We have had this proposed by

the BCFTA and we will have further discussions on it. But I

really cannot give you an answer now on whether it can be used

that way or not.

MR. WALLACE: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

aware that failure to secure Canada Manpower approval makes it

impossible for trainees to receive unemployment insurance

benefits? The whole point or part of the programme, of course,

is to employ teachers presently unemployed. This is rather a

serious obstacle. Could the Minister comment as to whether she

will take action on it?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All I can say is that I will look into it.

This is the first time that that has been drawn to my

attention.

FLAT-RATE PREMIUMS FOR ICBC

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. May I ask the Minister if the principle of

having insurance premiums of ICBC reflect the accident rate and

the repair expenditure for the various regions of B.C. is to be

abandoned as was most strongly urged by the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) on the weekend?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Would

you like to repeat the question please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the

principle of having insurance premiums for ICBC automobile

insurance reflect the accident rates of the various regions of

B.C. and the repair expenditure — whether that principle

is to be abandoned in the light of the very strong, indeed

savage, attack upon that principle by the Minister of Highways

in northern B.C. on the weekend where he said there should be a

blanket, flat, postage-stamp rate across the

province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Such decisions can't be made until we

have had more experience than we have had.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I

take the Minister's reply as meaning he had no consultation

with the Minister of Highways prior to his speech and that the

speech indeed was not government policy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have had no consultation with the

Minister of Highways on that.

ARBITRATION IN NURSING DISPUTE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Labour.

On April 24, the Minister of Labour suggested to the House that

the nurses had accepted voluntary binding arbitration in their

dispute and two days later, on April 26, the chief negotiator

accused the Minister of pressuring the nurses to accept binding

arbitration. Would the Minister comment on the apparent

conflict between his statement in the House and that made by

the nurses' representative?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I don't

think there is any conflict. I made the statement in the House

and to the press that I had, indeed, stressed as strongly as I

could to the parties that they should accept voluntary binding

arbitration as a method of resolving the dispute. I make no

apologies for that. I did exert every influence available to my

office and I think the parties responded in a responsible and a

very good way, and that the public and the Members of this

[ Page 2631 ]

House should applaud them for it.

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Would you interpret the

methods used as strong-arm tactics?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) to my office and I would be quite

willing to give him a demonstration of the kind of methods that

were involved. (Laughter.)

STATUS OF BOWLING ALLEY

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Minister of Public Works. What is the current status of the

former Gibson's Bowling Alley at 910 Yates Street, now owned

by the government? The inside of the building appears to have

been gutted, yet no work is in progress. Could he advise us

what it will be used for and when construction will

continue?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): It's in the

process of renovation. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: Perhaps he could answer the question. What

will it be used for and when will construction continue?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: As soon as the balance of the tenders are

let, construction will proceed. It is to be used as a

provincial government administration building.

MR. MORRISON: For what department?

MR. SPEAKER: He said government administration, I think.

MR. MORRISON: For what department?

STUDY OF NORTHERN COST OF LIVING

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Consumer Services. April 10, the Minister took as notice a

question concerning a cost of living differential study between

the north coast, the northern part of B.C., and the lower

mainland. I wonder if she has any further information on that.

Is such a study in fact contemplated or now underway?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): My department is arranging

a meeting with other departments involved in the economic and social development

of the north, at which time we hope to examine this area and all others like

it, dealing with the sociological factors of development of the north.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I may take it then

that the matter is under review by her department with others.

Does it also include a federal department or agency?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Yes, we are taking this under review; and

no, at this point it is not involving federal people. It's

merely in the study stage.

EXAMINATION OF ONTARIO

MINING LEGISLATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a

question for the Premier on his return from Hong Kong. I was

delighted to see that he said the B.C. government is going to

take a close look at the Ontario approach to mining taxation,

which is, of course, a surtax on profits rather than on

royalties. I wonder if he could confirm that such a study is

underway. Will he leave Bill 31 in abeyance pending results of

that study?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I always look at all

legislation, including the new Liberal legislation introduced

in the federal House on the tax on excess profits. I will

examine all of that type of legislation and see what effect it

has on free enterprise.

USE OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR

INVESTMENT PROFIT

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. One

of the criticisms of the private insurance industry was the

utilization of premiums for investment profit. I'd like to ask

the Minister whether it's the policy of ICBC to continue that

policy of the private insurance companies.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Member didn't state the criticisms

made of the private companies. The criticism of the private

companies was that they used the interest for private profit.

Had you read the report I tabled last night, it made it very,

very clear that the interest is to be used to reduce the rates

to the automobile owners in the Province of British Columbia.

Completely different.

PROVINCIAL FREEZE AND

INVOLVEMENT IN MINING EXPLORATION

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources. In recent days, reports have

been circulated in many

[ Page 2632 ]

parts of the province indicating the government plans to

freeze all mining exploration north of the 56th parallel. Is

that a true statement of government policy?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Not true.

That's the first I ever heard of it.

MR. SMITH: There is also an indication that your department

is actively pursuing a plan for the development of a

government-owned-and-operated mining

exploration consortium. Is that government policy?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At the present time there's no such

plan.

REMUNERATION TO

STUDENT NURSES

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Health, in

light of the fact that student nurses are not to be considered

as hospital employees for the sake of bargaining, can he tell

the house if any wage or stipend will be paid by the B.C.

Hospital Insurance Service to student nurses?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the

present time that wage is being appealed before the whole

Labour Relations Board, I understand. Certainly, they'll be

treated fairly in any event.

MR. WALLACE: Could the Minister say that, in general, it is

the feeling of government that there should be some form of

remuneration for services rendered by the student nurses?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can't make that suggestion

while it's a case before the board.

MR. SPEAKER: That question is irregular.

PUBLIC USE OF FERRY

STATEROOMS FOR CABINET MINISTERS

MR. CHABOT: I have a question for the Minister of Transport

and Communications. Can the Minister advise if the private and

exclusive staterooms on the B.C. ferries that are marked

"Private, do not disturb," and reserved for cabinet

Ministers are available to the general public when not in the

use of cabinet Ministers travelling on the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't noticed any staterooms that say

they're for the use of cabinet Ministers only.

[ Page 2633 ]

MR. CHABOT: "Private, do not disturb."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, they're certainly available for use

by anyone.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, as a point

of order, I could inquire from the Premier and House Leader

when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) will be returning to this House. He has been

absent for approximately a week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, question period

can hardly operate when Ministers are absent.

MR. SPEAKER: It may well be that in England they had this

problem in 1878. The answer was that they gave notice to

Ministers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's what I would like to have, Mr.

Speaker: notice of which Ministers are away and when they are

intended to return.

MR. SPEAKER: You gave notice to the Ministers when you

wanted to ask them a question. That's what they did in

Britain.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have notice when the Liberal Members

will be present. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Introduction of bills.

ACCELERATED PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Accelerated Park

Development Fund Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 114 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the House to make a short statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the steel shortage in our province is part

of a worldwide shortage resulting from rapidly increasing demands with which

the steel industry has been unable to keep pace. Most major steel producers

have had to allocate supplies on the basis of 1973 orders. In British Columbia,

the world steel situation has resulted in reduced shipments from eastern Canada.

This has also been complicated by the increase in freight rates for steel products

to western Canada.

The meetings in Japan began with discussions between

myself and officials of my department with the Japanese steel

industry. The situation in British Columbia was outlined and

solutions were discussed. There were meetings between myself,

the Hon. Premier, and with Mr. Inayama, the chairman of the

Japanese Iron and Steel Federation, and with Mr. Mikita, the

president of Nippon Kokan, one of the world's largest steel

producers.

These talks have led to the decision by the Japanese steel

producers to assist this province in curbing its steel

shortage. On Friday, April 26, members of the British Columbia

steel group along with us on this trip met with senior

officials to work out the details of this agreement with at

least five major steel producers. At last Friday's meeting, the

industry representatives agreed to increase 1974 commitments of

steel exports to British Columbia by 22 per cent over previous

1974 commitments to help curb a steel shortage in this

province.

In addition, the steel industry in Japan will undertake to

alleviate specific steel shortages which, once validated by the

government through the Ministry of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce, and identified by this government, would be

carried out by established commercial channels. By this it is

meant that where there are specific steel shortages of

particular users, both government and private, in this

province, my department will investigate and see that the

shortage is valid. We have an undertaking by the steel

producers in Japan that the shortage will be met on a normal

basis.

We are experiencing a very real and serious steel shortage,

as I say, globally and in this province. Specific steel types

in short supply include plate, structural shapes, reinforcing

bar, rounds, and some specialty steels. About 75 per cent of

the overall shortage is in plate and structural materials.

This agreement follows a number of meetings held in Japan

during the last two weeks to alleviate this shortage. I do not

expect that the shortfall over 1973 will exceed 150,000 tons

but we are not limited to that amount and the Japanese

producers will go over that amount if we can demonstrate the

need.

The representatives of the Japanese steel industry showed great understanding

of British Columbia's problems and co-operated wholeheartedly in seeking a

solution. The fact that discussions were held with the top officials of the

Japanese steel industry is evidence of that industry's desire to assist and

that country's good faith toward this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would point out before

proceeding that it would be only fair to the House that the

Ministerial statements that are asked of the House be given

before question period.

MR. CHABOT: We appreciate the vague words from the Minister

on the question of steel in an attempt, really, to justify the

trip to Japan he took just a few days ago. I assure you the

kind of information you have conveyed to this House this

afternoon could have been secured by a phone call to Japan

rather than the extensive trip such as you took.

You talked about the question of steel shortage in British

Columbia. You at no time gave us any indication as to the

volume of steel consumed in British Columbia, and the kind of

shortage that does exist in this province.

You talked about a promise of 150,000 tons from Japan in

extremely vague terms. You never suggested to us actually....

What are the shortages in British Columbia? Will this kind of

steel delivery to British Columbia be in the unpredictable

future? You never related in any talk just when we can expect

the stipulated kind of steel you talked about from Japan to meet

the pressing shortage which exists in British Columbia at this

particular time. And what is the shortage? We don't know.

This is an extremely vague statement you've made and

certainly not worthy of having taken that extensive, elaborate

trip to Japan.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that

the Minister came back from Japan with something. We were

perhaps expecting something a little more on fish farming, but

we got our statement on steel.

There were, however, a number of questions that his

statement raised which I would like to quickly go over. First

is whether or not similar discussions were held with Canadian

steel makers in an attempt to get the shortages met by Canadian

producers. The second question is price.

It's fine to have an agreement which will apparently deal

with the supply problem, but it would be important to know what

the price will be when this steel is actually delivered. That,

of course, raises the question of when it will be

delivered.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that a

Ministerial statement is not an opportunity or a springboard

for launching a debate...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it is not a debate.

MR. SPEAKER: ...nor a series of questions.

[ Page 2634 ]

That's why I suggested to Ministers that statements should

be made before question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate your

comment. The comments I'm trying to make are on the failure of

the statement by the Minister to deal with obvious

questions.

I will end up, Mr. Speaker, with a request to table an

agreement which was apparently signed by the Minister or by

representatives of his steel committee on the 26th of this

month. If there is such an agreement in existence, if it had

been signed on the 26th, surely then, this should be made

public to the people of British Columbia. Why has it not been

made public? Why is it being kept under wraps? Surely something

of which he is proud, something of the first fruits of economic

diplomacy practised by the Minister of mariculture, should be

made public for all of us to know of.

I would also just ask one further comment. If this has been

carried out — and I quote him — "by established

commercial channels," does this not simply mean that the

government is putting its rubber stamp on requests to purchase

by Canadian corporations or British Columbia corporations?

In any event, these are the questions which I raise in a

constructive spirit and I trust the Minister will accept them

accordingly.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my reaction is rather similar

— that the statement of the Minister really raises more

questions than we already had in mind. Where the shortage is

found to be valid is one of the statements the Minister made.

There is so much indecision about the statement when, in point

of fact, we had all hoped this visit to Japan would bring forth

something much more positive.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the very fact that he made no mention

whatever of British Columbia trying to solve its own problems

by starting up its own steel mill — this, I thought, was

one of the main reasons that the expedition went to Japan.

I just have to go on record as saying that our party finds

the statement not much use, very disappointing. I would hope,

as the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) suggested, we may at

least have the agreement which was signed tabled in the

House.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure

the Premier doesn't want to get the vote over so fast that he

would deny the Members of the opposition of at least one

opportunity to question the Minister on some of the

responsibilities and policies of his office. Since this is the

first opportunity I've had in this debate, I'm sure the

Minister will give me his close attention and answer my

question quickly and positively, and perhaps because of that

attitude we might make great progress this afternoon.

I'd just like to refer back to the remarks of the Minister

when he spoke in opening the vote of his department. He

indicated to the House that he was giving consideration to the

system of per capita grants in relation to the municipalities

in the province, and perhaps would be coming forth with some

ideas as to the improvement of the system or some means of

providing financial assistance to the municipalities which

demonstrate the need.

I'd like to pursue that particular point for a few moments

this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that we do need

a change of the present per capita system so that we get into a

position of a revenue cost-sharing formula that more

accurately reflects the distinctive and individual positions of

each and every municipality in the province.

I know that the UBCM are greatly concerned about the same

matter. As a matter of fact, they turned out a very

comprehensive little report in September of 1973 called "A

Report on Municipal Taxation and Financial Matters."

At the present time the system you have of per capita grants

is the same throughout the whole province on a per capita

basis, regardless of the particular financial position of the

municipality concerned. So if you set the grant at $30 or $32

or whatever, that same amount of grant on a per capita basis

will be paid to large and small municipalities alike. The

report from the UBCM, and I think quite rightly, points out

that when you look at the amount of money paid to them in per

capita grants over the last number of years the per capita

grant they receive as a percentage of income tax, or any form

of taxation you want to take, has gradually been reduced so

that in 1969 it represented 30.9 per cent of the per capita

income tax which the province receives and by 1973 it had

dropped to 21.8 per cent and is projected that in 1974 it will

be 20.6 per cent.

You may not agree with their particular suggestion that the

grants to municipalities should reflect the increased

prosperity of the province and also the increased tax rebates

we receive from the federal government. But I do believe it is

incumbent upon the Minister to design a formula which takes

into consideration the fact that the government does today

share to a greater extent than before in federal revenue

— revenue collected by the federal

[ Page 2635 ]

government — that the money coming in from many

sources is increased. When you take a look at the

municipalities they face the same problems of escalating costs,

inflation, salaries continually going up, expenses of operation

the same as everyone else in this province. And to add $2 to

the per capita grant to take it up from $30 to $32 will not

even begin to meet the fixed costs they are faced with in terms

of just inflation in the period of one year in the costs of

operating their particular programmes.

It's been said by people on the floor of this House

yesterday, and rightly so, that the municipalities are the form

of government closest to the people. They certainly reflect to

a greater extent the thoughts and desires of the people in any

given locality than, say, the provincial government does

because of the fact that they are closer to the people.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that the grants paid

to municipalities should take into consideration a number of

very important factors. The factors are outlined in the

municipal annual report, the blue book as it's called, turned

out with municipal statistics. It's interesting to look over

that particular publication, the graphs and tables it includes,

because you'll find as you analyse it that on a per capita

basis some municipalities are involved in much heavier

financial commitments, to debenture indebtedness or whatever.

We could go down the list and I think it might be a good idea

to do it.

You could start with the debenture indebtedness of any given

municipality. That's one fixed cost they can't escape. You then

get into the cost of general government. It's probably

debatable that some municipalities operate more efficiently

than others, but there should be a norm there for general

government operation and costs. You can go then to the cost of

protective services and the costs of sewage, garbage, waste

collection and disposal, the costs of recreation and cultural

services, and then, of course, the costs of street, road, and

transportation services, and maintenance of those services.

I think you would find this would vary greatly from

municipality to municipality, depending upon the stage of

growth and the development of any given municipality.

So why wouldn't it be possible in terms of a per capita

grant, if you wish to stay with that system, to allot every

municipality of the province, as you have done so far, a basic

per capita grant which they would be entitled to, then take

that grant and on a system of the actual averages above or

below the provincial average assign additional dollars to any

given municipality?

I can take for instance as an example, if you like, this problem of debenture

indebtedness. I've taken from the municipal blue book four municipalities of

approximately equal population in the province. They all average around 8,000

persons according to the statistical information we have in that book. It's

interesting to note that the debenture indebtedness in those municipalities

runs from a low of $1,200,000 in one municipality to a high of $3,600,000 in

another municipality of almost equal size. In other words, the debenture indebtedness

for which the people within that municipality must assume financial obligation

is in one case three times higher than in the other.

Now, obviously it's a municipality that is expanding and

building as compared to a municipality which may have static

growth and has paid for water and sewer, those type of

installations, over a period of years and the debentures have

worked down to a point where there's very little debt to

retire. But in cases like that it's incumbent upon the Minister

to provide additional finance to those municipalities that have

the high debt structure facing the people who live there.

I would think then that you could come up with your basic

formula for per capita grants and grants over and above that

for municipalities which qualify, and they would have to do it

on some legitimate graph or scale set up in co-operation

with your department and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Then

it would be fair, equitable and understandable to every

municipality in the province. And upon that basis they would

have to understand that in certain times they might get more

money and a year later, because of their structure, they might

get slightly less.

It does, I believe, reflect more fairly the particular

circumstances and situations of the municipalities

collectively in the province if we use that rather than take a

straight flat rate of per capita grants for each and every

municipality throughout British Columbia.

There's another point I would like to bring to the attention

of the Minister. I'd like the Minister's view on where he

stands on taxation of Crown corporations and companies owned

either partially or entirely by the Crown. Certainly as the NDP

programme unfolds in the Province of British Columbia we see

the government moving more and more into the private sector of

business. We have now, to name a few, organizations or

corporations such as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Railway. In most

municipalities you have provincial buildings, Department of

Highways installations and B.C. Forestry buildings. And now

we're moving into the area of buildings and permanent fixtures

and structures put in for the use of ICBC. The government has

purchased Can-Cel, Ocean Falls, Plateau Mills and

Kootenay Forest Products — private firms that are now

owned either entirely or partially by the government of this

province.

Mr. Minister, where do you stand on taxation of these firms?

Will they be taxed on exactly the same basis as any other

corporation in the Province of British Columbia?

Will the municipalities, who have to look to land

[ Page 2636 ]

tax and improvements on land for the bulk of their money,

receive equitable treatment from the Crown corporations and

Crown companies which happen to be located in their particular

area? Will they be taxed at the same rate as any other

corporation? Or is it the intention of the provincial

government to write a check for X number of dollars to the

municipality and say that this grant is in lieu of all Crown

corporations and government-controlled corporations

within your municipal boundaries?

I know it's a question that's asked by the mayors of many

municipalities in the province because it is a matter of great

concern. It's a matter of increasing concern particularly with

the attitude we see expressed by the government in moving into

the field of private endeavour and private enterprise in

British Columbia.

Those are a couple of points that I wanted to raise this

afternoon during the Minister's salary estimates. I would

appreciate a little explanation and expansion on the points

which the Minister first made when he spoke on his

estimates.

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

all, the per capita grant, as you know, is only part of the

area in which governments assist municipalities; you can't

basically take that in isolation when you are looking at

assistance to municipalities.

However, I might just point out that there was a $2 per

capita increase this year and $2 last year, I believe. You

might remember also that with the previous administration it

wasn't a yearly thing to give an increase in the per capita

grant. I just point out that in 1971 and 1972 there were no

increases in the per capita grant at that time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's right, but what I'm saying is that

the per capita grant can't be considered as the total benefits

given by government to municipalities.

There were other discussions regarding the fact that the per

capita grant may not be equitable. I agree fully with you and I

think some of your suggestions are well-founded. We hope

we'll be able to come up with a more equitable system of

distributing the funds the municipalities need badly.

The Crown corporations. All the new Crown Corporations which

have come about since this government has taken office have all

paid a grant representing full taxation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Full taxation, yes. All the new

corporations that have been created.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: They pay full land tax and on buildings

and so on.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): How many are there?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The new ones. In the previous

administration, I would suggest, there were none that did.

In the case of Col-Cel, they had a concession and only

paid on a 10-mill base. When the government took it over,

it paid a grant in lieu of tax in the full amount. There's no

question about the Crown corporations paying full tax.

There are still the leftovers of the B.C. Rail. B.C. Hydro

pays full tax except for dams and transmission lines; but in

the property holdings the grant is full tax. I think that was

the list of the questions. Of course, any new Crown

corporation, as you suggested, will be paying grants in full

tax.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I think the

Minister better get this word out to the municipalities of

British Columbia because, as some other Members on this side of

the House have asked in interjection, they're not at all sure

that Crown corporations, new or old, are paying full taxes.

Let's not get hung up in municipal affairs; if the province

isn't paying the money, then the province is being subsidized

by the homeowner, by the businessman, by the individual who has

to pay full property tax. The mayor of Vancouver (Mr. Phillips)

is uncertain. He's an intelligent municipal leader. He is

confused by the contradictory statements made, first of all, in

December by the Premier as Minister of Finance when he said in

Mackenzie, I believe, on Sunday, December 2:

"We will have a redistribution of the tax load to

ensure that every major international corporation in B.C. and Crown

corporations will pay their fair share of taxes in every town of this

province."

In response to that, I believe Mayor Phillips fired off a

letter of congratulations to the Premier and Minister of

Finance saying this was a very praiseworthy step. On December

13, in fact, he wrote a letter to the Premier, a copy of which

I and perhaps other Members of this House have.

However, it appears a little later that the Deputy Minister

of Finance (Mr. Bryson) contradicted the statement by the

Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance is quoted

in a memorandum from the director of finance for the City of

Vancouver, P.D. Leckie, to the mayor, a commissioner and an

alderman in Vancouver, saying:

"Mr. Bryson stated that the Premier was

[ Page 2637 ]

speaking only with respect to private corporations and was

not including Crown corporations, to the best of Mr. Bryson's

knowledge. Mr. Bryson was not aware of any consideration being

given to changing the tax-grant picture with respect to

Crown corporations, either for regular property taxes or

business tax."

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is going on? Either Crown

corporations are paying full tax or they are not. We have this

indecision, this contradiction where the Minister of Finance

says one thing and the Deputy Minister of Finance is quoted

— and I emphasize "quoted" — as saying another

thing. And there is yet another statement by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs in this House this afternoon.

On page 7 of the budget speech for this year,

"One further step this government has taken on

business assessments effective in 1974 is the ending of special

property-tax concessions to a number of industrial firms.... We see no

necessity for an incentive which adversely affects the property-tax

liability of other property-owners."

Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is not fair for private enterprise

to have tax incentives which "adversely affect the

property-tax liability of other property-owners," then surely it is not fair for the province. This has

gone on for far too long in British Columbia under previous

administrations and it's being perpetuated by this

administration. The people of British Columbia who pay property

tax are being ripped off by the Crown provincial — not by

the New Democratic Party, not by the Social Credit Party, but

the Crown provincial which cops out on the payment of full

property taxes.

Every Member in this House, every citizen of British

Columbia who pays property taxes can't say to the municipality

or the city or the regional district, "Well, I think I am just

going to pay you 75 per cent of what you're asking this year," or, "It's been a tough year; I'm just going to pay you

40 per cent of the bill." No way; they pay 100 per cent of the

bill after the grants, whichever may apply.

But this provincial government says, "Oh, I think we'll just

pay a fixed rate again. We're not going to pay our fair share."

That's precisely what it is. The Crown provincial fails to pay

its fair share of property tax in British Columbia and has

failed for years. The time has long since passed for that to be

corrected fully. Why should the people of British Columbia

subsidize the coffers of the provincial Treasury? Why should

they subsidize the Province of British Columbia because of some

formula which has been in effect all these years —

indeed, decades?

I'm really not satisfied with the statements made by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs when he responded to the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) yesterday or

in his comments just a few moments ago. I think it's time the Minister of Finance,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs

got their heads together and decided precisely what the policy is for British

Columbia today in terms of Crown corporations and all government agencies —

new or old is beside the point — in British Columbia paying their fair share

of local or regional property tax.

Let's not have any more wishy-washy answers; let's not have

any more dodging behind one statement or another, which has

been done over the years not just by this Minister but has been

carried out over the years. Those Members who have served on

UBCM (Union of British Columbia Municipalities) are fed up with

it and absolutely tired of it in terms of the unwillingness or

inability of provincial people to recognize that they are being

subsidized by property taxpayers throughout the length and

breadth of British Columbia and have been for years.

On the per capita grant, there has been lengthy discussion.

But I think we just have to look at a couple of figures to

realize that the per capita grant is not increasing as it

should. This again isn't money which goes to some great

organization or to some massive corporation; this is money into

or out of the pockets of the people of British Columbia who own

property or pay property tax through rent.

The Minister knows full well that the per capita grant in

1968 was $25. Before that, it was on a sliding scale with a

maximum of $24; established originally, as I see it — at

least the earliest figure I have at hand — at $20 in

1965, a decreasing scale as municipalities grew in size. So we

could look back to 1968: $25; and today, 1974: $34. That just

isn't sufficient growth in the per capita grant to assist

municipalities, notwithstanding the positive and helpful steps

that have been taken by this government in other areas of

financial assistance to municipalities.

I submit that $25 in 1968 to only $34 several years

later in 1974 is not sufficient revenue sharing between the

provincial government and the municipalities. The Minister may

care to ignore the remarks or may care to comment on them.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll comment on them. I again want to

repeat, and I'm surprised that the Member, who has been in

municipal matters for some years, still confuses the per capita

grant as the total figure for help from one government to

another. The differences in legislation and so on, can either

put burdens on a municipal government or take them away.

There's no way that you can look at a per capita grant, or work

out percentages, because percentages on a budget of a few years

ago didn't take into account a number of programmes that are

now taking parts out of the budget. So anyone who tries to use

percentages in working out figures from a previous budget to an

existing budget will arrive at

[ Page 2638 ]

figures which will be very confusing.

There's some question about statements being made about

non-payment of taxes by Crown corporations. Some

reference was made to a statement by the Premier — I

don't know exactly which statement you're talking about besides

the one that you read out of the budget speech....

Interjections..

HON. MR. LORIMER: I didn't notice the statement made by the

Deputy Minister of Finance, but I'm making statements here and

these statements are accurate and I'll stand by them. That is

that the new corporations are paying full property tax to the

municipalities. Col-Cel in Castlegar and Col-Cel in

Prince Rupert are paying full tax. The one up in Vanderhoof

— Plateau — will be paying full tax. The government

itself doesn't pay full tax — it pays on a basis of 15

mills. I don't say that I support that, but that's what it is

— it's 15 mills at the present time. B.C. Hydro pays full

tax, or grant in lieu of tax, on all their lands and buildings

with the exception of some of the dams and transmission lines.

You can quote me on that and that's the statements that I make.

Those I understand and believe are correct.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Carrying on

with this point, Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly support the remarks

of the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) because

we have in B.C. a constant con, and that's the Crown

corporation con against the municipalities.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Which one?

MR. GARDOM: I'll come to which one specifically —

Hydro and B.C. Rail, to give you two examples. These Crown

corporations have been swinging the lead and not paying their

share of the load at all. As the Member said, you're just

ripping off the municipalities. This is your responsibility,

Mr. Minister. You're now in the position to do something about

it. I think you recognized the fact that it is wrong, but it's

very disturbing to us to see that notwithstanding the fact you

appear to recognize an injustice, by a mere snap of the fingers

— that's all it would need — you could cure it.

You've not done that. So the net result is that when the

municipalities are ripped off what can they do but turn to lard

the Crown corporations' failure to pay their share of municipal

taxes right back onto the homeowner?

Here is a good example from the City of Vancouver. The B.C. Hydro does pay

full school taxes, but look at general purposes property tax. It pays a grant

in lieu of that, but on a normal basis and last year, Hydro would have paid

an additional $19,000. Hospital purposes property tax — B.C. Hydro doesn't pay

that and I don't suppose it pays it in many of these other municipalities in

B.C. In Vancouver their hospital purposes property tax would amount to $35,000

which B.C. Hydro doesn't pay.

It doesn't take care of general purposes taxes on equipment

on city streets. In 1973, according to the figures furnished by

the City of Vancouver, this would have saved B.C. Hydro

approximately $143,000.

And B.C. Hydro doesn't pay business tax in the City of

Vancouver. Are you going to suggest to us that it pays business

tax in the rest of the municipalities in B.C.? That's a bunch

of dish wash. In Vancouver it would have amounted to $220,000

if Hydro had to pay business tax last year.

General purposes property tax, $19,000; hospital purposes

property tax, $35,000; general purposes tax and equipment on

city streets, $143,000; business tax, $220,000 — those

four figures Hydro does not pay in the City of Vancouver alone

and doesn't pay in the rest of the municipalities, to the best

of my knowledge and information and belief.

Late payment of taxes — people are supposed to pay

their taxes around the beginning of July but Hydro doesn't even

pay on time.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Has that been now fixed? Well, I understand

formerly it didn't pay it in time and in 1973 there was a cost

to the city which saved Hydro about $33,000.

Look at B.C. Railroad. Under the Act this corporation

appears to be exempt from a municipal taxation, but the City of

Vancouver doesn't receive any taxes or grants in lieu of taxes

relative to the B.C. Railway property. It's only got the one

property. But the 1973 taxes which B.C. Railway did not pay in

the City of Vancouver and which it should have paid amount to

these: school purposes tax, $8,100; general purposes tax,

$10,000; hospital purposes, $200; business tax, $6,000 —

for a total of $24,300.

Your Liquor Control Board, doesn't pay business tax in the

City of Vancouver. If it paid business tax in the City of

Vancouver that would have amounted to $60,000 last year

alone.

As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Minister, the

Insurance Corporation of B.C. does not pay business tax. In

1973 that would have amounted to a $30,000 levy in the City of

Vancouver.

In very, very quick arithmetic, I think those figures come close to

half-a-million dollars worth of taxes that have been absolutely ripped

off by this Crown corporation in the City of Vancouver. Surely to

goodness there are applicable and similar figures for other

municipalities. For you to suggest to this

[ Page

2639 ]

House, Mr. Minister, that the Crown corporations are paying

their way and paying their fair share of the load is absolute

nonsense.

I agree with the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) that it's very disturbing. It was enlightening, but it

was disturbing to hear the remarks of the Premier which he

apparently did make in Mackenzie on December 2 of last year,

which indicated to the people in B.C. that there would be

elimination of tax subsidies given corporations in the past.

Okay, fine and dandy. The Crown corporations are still

subsidized and make no mistake of that fact.

This really and truly just points again to what the first

speaker today from the Social Credit Party (Mr. Smith) was

emphasizing — the great need that we have in the Province

of B.C. to come up with some kind of a realistic, practical

formula and a realistic, practical, philosophical attitude.

The Plunkett Report — 1971, I believe it was

— came up with very, very devastating conclusions. It

reached the conclusion that the provincial side in B.C. was

avoiding its constitutional responsibility for the assumption

of municipal costs, and it was certainly denuding the

municipalities of their proper and fair share of provincial

revenues.

Now, there's one way to overcome this. I think myself that

we should have a complete review of municipal taxation. The

call for that review is not new; it's only becoming louder

every day. The municipalities have an unequivocal right, Mr.

Minister, to a fair share and a fair entitlement of provincial

revenues. I gainsay that their costs are increasing in excess

of those in the provincial sector. We need more than just one

more formula. What we have to have is a change of philosophy to

the whole thing.

I think you've got to appreciate as a fact that the

municipalities and the cities must have a freer rein to guide

their own destinies, so let's have this change of attitude.

Let's throw out the old concept that they're merely creatures

of senior levels of government and, secondly, let's see that an

ingestion of funds is provided, but on a balanced and in a

predictable method of receipt and payment.

If you wish to use the per capita grant, maybe it can be used, but if it's

going to be used it has to be used realistically by tying it into provincial

revenues. That's the only fair way to do it. In 1970 your provincial revenues

in B.C. were $1,165 million. The grant was $30. In 1973 we find that the municipal

grant was $32,

whereas the revenues went up to $1,722 million. That was up 48

per cent. In this year the per capita grant is going up another $2, yet we find

the provincial revenues coming in at $2,177 million — nearly a 90 per cent increase

in provincial revenues from 1970, yet roughly a 13 per cent increase in the

per capita grants to the city. That's just not right. It's unfair, Mr. Minister,

and surely to goodness you must accept that.

I would suggest to you that you should look at this side of

municipal financing and municipal needs from the point I have

indicated, that they are entitled to a fair share, and that

share should be tied into the provincial revenues. As

provincial revenues increase, their revenues increase; as

provincial revenues decrease, they have to bear the burden of

decrease as well.

Over and above that, this is one of the largest, most

conflicting and compounding problems we have in Canada: the

share of the tax dollar. It is not so much the share of it,

it's the competition for that tax dollar between the municipal

side and the provincial side and the federal side. I think we

have got to have a complete 100 per cent reform of all of our

municipal, provincial and federal taxation-sharing

arrangements in order to face the reality which is a reality

today: we are an urban society. This business of dipping a

little into the pot, putting a little here and a little there,

worked perhaps adequately when we were a rural society, but we

are no longer a rural society. We are an urban society.

The study which I am calling for is certainly not a

one-shot effort. I think there should be standing

committees in Canada, right across the country, composed of the

provincial side, the municipal side and the federal side to

continuously deal with this problem. I'm very much in favour

of the federal side taking a far larger share in matters which

are becoming, in my view, far more federal than they are

provincial, e.g. education.

I think you have got to accept the philosophy, Mr. Minister,

that the cities and the municipalities cannot any longer be

regarded as creatures of the government. They have to be

regarded as partners of the provincial sector, as I said, with

a much greater degree of flexibility to guide their own

destinies both in planning, in taxation, and in the operation

of their affairs.

Mr. Minister, I would commend your comments on this point.

We all know the almost stultifying problems which are faced by

the municipalities in raising money in the money market. I

would say it would be the responsibility and the duty,

unequivocally, of a provincial government and this provincial

government to guarantee all future municipal bond issues.

I think in B.C. you should also go ahead and initiate here.

You can do it from your own side of the income tax, the

provincial income tax side if nothing else because it is 30.5

per cent — having just done our returns over the last two

days or so. You should initiate in B.C. income tax relief

— I would say request the federal government to do the

same thing if you can — but initiate income tax relief to

individual purchasers of municipal bonds to the extent that the

interest those purchasers would

[ Page 2640 ]

receive from those municipal bonds would be tax free in

their hands. This is not a new procedure. It has been tried. It

has been tested. It has been proven to be highly successful in

many areas in the United States. Surely to goodness you must

have that criteria and that information at your fingertips, and

that again would provide a great source of revenues to the

municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, my friend suggests perhaps with a ceiling

as to the interest rate — that would be only fair. I'll

agree to that very valid suggestion, indeed — also

perhaps a designation as to the amount of bonds a person could

have.

It's not supposed to be a get-rich scheme for anybody.

It is supposed to be a

get-to-the-money-market-more- readily

scheme for municipalities.

If we don't make those kinds of financing attractive in the

inflationary trend that we are facing today, God knows how the

municipalities are ever going to be able to raise funds. I just

don't know. It is going to be extremely difficult for them,

make no mistake of that.

Again, getting back to the Crown corporations, there can be

only one rule in the Province of B.C.: they have got to pull

their weight and pay their way, just the same way as everyone

else.

Finally, I would again stress to the Minister, as I have

done in earlier debates in this House, that I do hope he is of

the view that the cities and the municipalities are going to be

permitted to have zoning control over provincial government

developments within their own areas. I'm afraid this government

has not only followed but compounded the practices of the

former administration by denuding the municipalities of that

right to see that they can plan their own areas in the way they

wish to do it.

Before sitting down, Mr. Minister, I would indeed also hope

we could perhaps interest and enthuse our citizens, perhaps

through the ingestion of funds and ideas from your government,

to have happier municipalities, more attractive municipalities,

more unique.

I think if there is anything that we are suffering from in

the Province of B.C. it is the drabness insofar as construction

is concerned. I think many of the new structures we are putting

up today are really just monuments to concrete firms. The

architecture per se in many cases is anachronistic and is a

copying of architecture that was really tried and found largely

disproved, and has been not satisfactory for livable cities and

livable municipalities in more congested areas of the world

over, let us say, the past 15 years.

In B.C. we really don't seem to have too many areas that are unique and distinct

unto themselves. Our streets are all pretty well straight lines, the curbs are

all the same level and the sidewalks are all concrete. The kind of buildings

we are constructing in the Province of B.C., which I suppose will continue to

carry on in their gloomy fashion as long as this government is in power, are

indeed gloomy to the extent that they are certainly not going to end up being

a monument to anybody. I think very shortly, in a 15- or 20-year period, they

will sure as heck be turning into great slum areas.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Do you think the Vancouver

Building is gloomy?

MR. GARDOM: Which one?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The new Vancouver Building.

MR. GARDOM: The Premier says do I think the new Vancouver

Building...You're speaking of the block that is behind the

courthouse? No, but you're talking about one government

structure; I'm talking about the multitude of buildings. I

don't think that's a gloomy building. No, I don't. I'm happy to

see that we are making some strides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if this really comes under this

vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Premier says.... I'm trying to....

He's just back from Japan and I'm wanting to make him welcome

here. I appreciate his interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm glad you said that, but you haven't

been here for a couple of days.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes I have. Just missed a day, Mr. Premier.

I suppose it is possible to miss one day or two during a

session. All right. Okay. I'll give you your gold star. It's

all right.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister, in replying to my earlier remarks,

felt that somehow, paraphrasing, as I recall, you couldn't

break out the per capita grant and look at that alone in terms

of financial assistance to municipalities. But you know, we all

have to live with Hansard and that is not the way he

felt on February 17, 1970. In, I gather, reply to the budget he

said:

Now, the budget has also shown an increase to the municipal

governments, a $2 increase per capita, which is a welcome step

to assist the local governments in their financing. However, I

suggest that the $2 per capita increase will not anywhere near

meet the additional costs that the municipalities will be

involved

[ Page 2641 ]

in in the current year. I foresee that the

local taxes, and as has been stated by a number of city fathers, that

the $2 increase will not cover the additional costs involved in local

government.

Mr. Chairman, you can't have it both ways: if $2 was not a

satisfactory increase in 1970, then surely it is still not a

satisfactory increase in 1974. The Minister, then sitting in

opposition, very clearly dealt with that in isolation. He had

been talking about housing before it and then he moved on to

another subject relating to Municipal Affairs. But that

paragraph very clearly stands in the records with respect to

his views in opposition on a Social Credit $2 per capita

increase in February of 1970. So let's have the record

straight.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think I should reply to that first

before I go on with the others.

In 1970 the difference was that there were no legislative

benefits to municipalities. Here we've got a variety of

legislative benefits which will reduce the cost to

municipalities, and that is the difference. When you only have

a $2 increase and nothing else to go with it, that's one thing.

But when you have a $2 increase with a variety of legislative

benefits to go along with it, that's a different thing

altogether.

I want to tell the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey that I, at no time, defended the non-payment of

taxes by Crown corporations. I didn't do it today and I haven't

done it before. However, I tried to indicate that certainly the

policy of this government is to recognize the fact that Crown

corporations have a responsibility, in my opinion, to pay their

fair share. And the new Crown corporations are doing so.

I might also say that there is a study at the present time

in Hydro, checking out exactly what they are paying and so on,

with the intention of making some recommendations.

I want to state also that I was incorrect in my statements

as to what B.C. Hydro pays — they pay full school tax and

they pay hospital tax under a special Act. I am not sure

whether it is full tax or not; it may not be. And they pay

general tax, or at least grants in lieu of it, on

administration buildings in the communities. They do not pay

full general tax on all their lands, and they do not pay

business tax.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just a couple

of things that I want to ask the Minister to comment about.

First of all, with respect to transit, I wonder if the

Minister could fill us in on where we stand in relation to

Vancouver Island Coach Lines at the moment — whether or

not we have bought that company. If the sale has been

completed, do the people have their money?

I would also like to know what the relationship is with Vancouver Island Coach

Lines and Gray Line. Has there been some kind of a purchase there or is there

a separate company? Has Vancouver Island bought Gray Line? Has the government

bought Gray Line? What about Pacific Commuter Tours? The whole area seems to

be a little complex, with Vancouver Island Coach Lines purchasing some companies

and the government purchasing Vancouver Island Coach Lines. I think the Minister

should make it clear at this time exactly the companies the government has bought

and whether or not it is negotiating for any others.

I would like also to know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, how many more buses are on order — transit

buses of any kind — where they're coming from, and

whether or not they were put out to tender, If some of them

weren't put out to tender, which ones? I understand that there

is going to be a delay in the delivery of some 200 buses, which

will also cause a delay of the upgrading of services in some

areas on the lower mainland. I wonder whether or not those

buses will now be here this year.

I would also like to ask the Minister a question I asked

some time ago and never really got an answer to, Mr. Chairman,

and that has to do with intra-provincial bus services. Is

the government planning to go into that intra-provincial

bus service? Will we be running buses from Vancouver to Prince

George and from Vancouver to Kamloops? Will there be any

changes in our relationship with Greyhound Lines? I know that

some time ago in a letter to the Greater Vancouver Regional

District the director of transit made mention of the fact that

the government would be going into intra-provincial bus

lines and I think he even mentioned at that time

trans-oceanic passenger service. Maybe that's the North

Vancouver ferry — I don't know — but is there some

other trans-oceanic service that we are going into

besides the North Vancouver ferry?

I think the whole area of transit with regard to what we are

doing in purchasing other companies and where we stand in

relation to those negotiations at the moment should be cleared

up, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know whether the Minister is giving any more

thought to the restructuring of regional boundaries. I know

that on the lower mainland there is a lot of concern, right at

this present time, about the present structure. It seems to me

that the time is far overdue for some changes to the boundaries

of the and the Greater Vancouver Regional Districts. The areas

as they are now set up are not serving the communities to the

best of their ability.

I think there are probably too many regional districts in

the lower mainland, and we could probably get by with a couple

instead of the four that we now have. Are we actively

considering that possibility at this time? Are we actively

considering any expansion of the Greater Vancouver Regional

[ Page 2642 ]

District? Or if a request was made for some restructuring

from the local municipalities, would the Minister look

favorably upon such a request? Are there any studies going on

at this moment?

There is a problem, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, with regard to boards of variance. A recent court

case in Surrey in the Supreme Court of British Columbia made

some pretty significant changes or at least indicated that

there should be some pretty significant changes in the powers

of the board of variance. For years, the board of variance

ruled on the siting of homes where the builder, either through

accident or for some other reason — maybe a badly drawn

boundary line or something like that — failed to meet the

zoning bylaw siting requirements. I know that you have a

letter on this, Mr. Minister, to you through the Chairman, from

the City of Langley.

Briefly, local solicitors in our area feel that the board of

variance, because of this court case in the supreme court, can

no longer rule and deal with these kinds of appeals. Many

people are running into problems with regard to getting a

surveyor's certificate so they can get their necessary mortgage

requirements. I am sure the Minister knows about that. Have you

taken any action in this regard? Will the municipalities and,

of course, the citizens who are having trouble getting

conveyances be able to rest their minds? I'd like some comment

on that, if I may.

I don't know whether this comes under the Minister's

department or not but it has to do with the snoopers who were

going around in the City of Vancouver. I wonder which

provincial department gave them the okay to do that. I don't

know whether they are the Attorney-General's snoopers or

somebody else's. Actually they are federal people, I understand

— private people who are doing federal surveys, stopping

people on the streets of Vancouver and asking the personal

questions about their drinking habits and many other kinds of

habits. I wonder whether or not the Municipal Affairs

department was contacted in this respect and who gave them the

permission to operate in British Columbia in this manner,

because it's a serious breach of privacy, in my opinion, and

one which should never have been allowed to happen.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, sure, it's volunteer. Mr. Chairman, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says it's a

volunteer thing. I'm sure it is, but once somebody

official-looking stops you in the middle of the night in

your car — most people are intimidated slightly by that.

They don't know whether it's volunteer or not, and it takes on

the trappings of some kind of an official survey. I don't think

it should have happened and it shouldn't happen again.

I would like to comment briefly, too, on the threats that

have been delivered to the municipalities by the Minister of

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

get the Minister of Municipal Affairs to comment on that. If

those threats given by that Minister are correct, and if those

threats constitute some kind of future government policy, we

are going a long, long way down the road, Mr. Chairman, to

removing all of the rights and responsibilities of local

government. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

said very dramatically that from now on this government expects

better service and better co-operation when seeking

permits and implementing policies from local governments.

He told a meeting recently in Delta that the province has no

intention of accepting the kind of treatment they have been

getting from municipalities any longer in the future. I would

say it's the other way around — the municipalities should

be revolting and saying that they have no intention of

accepting the kind of treatment they have been getting from the

government in the future, not the province getting on its high

horse and complaining about some kind of severe actions by the

municipalities. The Minister even warned about some kind of a

system of incentives and disincentives for municipalities if

they don't do as they are told in Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister's comment on that.

How far down this road are we going to go to take away the

right to govern their own affairs from the local

municipalities? It is my opinion that we have gone down that

road almost to an irreversible degree.

Although I wasn't here yesterday, I notice in Hansard

that the Minister opened his remarks yesterday with some

comments about new methods of financing for the municipalities.

I think that's a welcome announcement. I hope that he will get

on with that as quickly as possible. I have given my comments

during the debate on the municipalities per capita grant Act

about the methods by which I think we can achieve some new ways

of financing for municipalities. I know the Minister will take

those ideas into account and particularly the ideas of tying

the grants to municipalities, or at least aid to

municipalities, to the increasing provincial revenues, because

I feel that's the only fair way we can go. If we are going to

treat municipalities as equal partners in the growth of this

province, then we must treat them as equal partners financially

and every other way.

I was a little concerned about the press reports saying that

the Minister felt that the northern municipalities deserve some

special kind of treatment because they had more costs in their

development. I would like to take the side of the poor

relatives in the lower Fraser Valley, if I may, because we have

some

[ Page

2643 ]

special problems as well. They have to do with growth. We

must recognize, Mr. Chairman, that it's the lower Fraser Valley

where it's at right now in British Columbia.

I pointed out in this House before that in one municipality,

one school district in British Columbia, which is Langley

School District, we had one-third of the total growth of

school enrolment in British Columbia this past year.

One-third of the total growth of school enrolment

happened in Langley School District.

That's where the action is, and that's where the action is

going to be forced in the future because all of the other

Ministers of this government are saying that we must disperse

housing, we must disperse people, we must have more housing

available. There's no place for it except in those areas that

are already experiencing high growth — the lower Fraser

Valley — and particularly even outside the Greater

Vancouver Regional District today.

In a recent discussion paper for the Greater Vancouver

Regional District issued in February of this year there are

outlined a number of policy options, Mr. Chairman, about

municipal and regional financial resources. It points out very

well that we are going to suffer some special problems in

relation to financial need, because we're going to have to take

the burden and provide for the planned growth that's necessary

in this whole rapidly growing lower mainland area.

We who live in that part of the country won't be able to

restrict that growth rate because as we restrict the growth

rate, we place the burden on somebody else, and we also

accelerate that inflationary cycle because of that very

restriction. We've seen that very clearly in relation to Bill

42 and to other restrictive measures put in by both the

provincial government and municipal levels of government as

well.

So we can't restrict that growth very much more because

there's nowhere else for it to go. We must accept it, we must

manage it and we must plan it. But the province has got to help

us out by realizing those special problems and by helping us

financially.

I'd like to quote again from this report just briefly, Mr.

Chairman — just one paragraph, which says:

"Fast-growing municipalities have a problem in financing municipal activities of all sorts. The faster

the rate of residential growth, the greater the problem. This

sooner or later leads fast-growing municipalities to

introduce policies to restrict the rate of residential

development...." We've seen that happen in all of the high

growth areas of the Lower Mainland right now.

"...and to confine residential development to types of

accommodation that create relatively lower costs and/or higher assessment per

dwelling for the municipality, or to discourage residential development by high

servicing standards and developer charges."

That's a report that really is not reporting something that

could happen; it's reflecting on something that's already

happened and is out of control in the lower mainland —

that kind of reaction to high growth because of the need for

more money. Because those people aren't getting enough money

they have to react in negative ways and react with other kinds

of restrictions. Those restrictions simply put the inflationary

cycle out of control even more.

So they're happening in the lower mainland already, and they

lead as well, those kind of restrictions, to the kind of

threats that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) made again when he said: "We'll create

some incentives and disincentives if you don't do the kind of

planning we want you to in Victoria."

So Victoria has really got the municipalities in a terrible

bind. On the one hand it's saying, "you can't have the

money;" on the second hand it's saying, "we're

going to have disincentives if you don't do as you're

told."

How are you going to rationalize this total problem? It's

one that has to be rationalized pretty quickly or the

municipalities in high-growth areas are going to strangle

in their own problem. I'm speaking particularly now of areas

which are just really facing the kind of crunch that Surrey and

Delta have had in the past — areas like Langley, Surrey,

Abbotsford. They're really in need of the kind of direction and

help that will be necessary right now. If they don't,

everything gets out of whack and there's not enough money to go

around, and the planning process falls apart and the municipal

process falls apart, and you don't have anything left.

I want to ask the Minister a question about the Bridgeview.

Just before I do that, perhaps I can deal briefly with

financing again. I know that the 15-mill municipal aid

grant thing was dealt with yesterday to some extent. But I

wanted to bring the Minister's attention to some of the direct

results that happen because of this 15-mill grant. Not

only does it only allow the 15-mill grant for certain

type of provincial properties, but it also exempts a large

number of provincial properties from any kind of grant

whatsoever.

Just to take as an example the municipality of Surrey, for

only nine properties which the provincial government owns in

the municipality of Surrey and which have been totally

exempted, those properties under 1974 estimated assessment

would have paid in estimated taxes almost $47,000 for municipal

taxes, and almost $45,000 for school, municipal finance

authority, GVRD, and hospital taxes. That's $90,000 or better

that would have come to the municipality of Surrey, except that

those properties are totally exempt and pay no taxes

whatsoever.

[ Page 2644 ]

On other properties which do get the 15-mill municipal

aid grant, if those properties would have been subject to full

taxation — and here again we're dealing with five pieces

of property — we would have seen, under 1974 estimated

assessment, a total of $37,000 — these are for

improvements — $37,000 in municipal taxes and $33,000 for

school, municipal finance authority and hospital, for a total

of almost $40,000 for those five properties which would have

gone to the municipality of Surrey. Instead, under the

15-mill grant, all the municipality gets out of that is

$5,000 — as compared to $40,000 if they had been getting

full taxes.

You know, that $5,000 figure is way out of whack, even at

the 15-mill levy, because not only does the government

rip the municipality off in relation to only giving them 15

mills, but the assessments which are set by the assessment

commissioner on which that 15 mills is based are 86.3 per cent

lower than the assessments levied by the municipal assessor

— 86 per cent less than the assessments levied by the

municipal assessor.

So it's a double rip-off, really. The assessments are

way low; they only pay 15 mills, so the government is getting

off scot-free: $5,000 on property which should be

returning a minimum of $40,000 to the municipal coffers.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs should check into

the municipal assessor's department and find out why there's

such a large discrepancy between the provincial assessment and

the municipal assessment, because it's certainly out of whack.

And even if those assessments had been brought up to municipal

level, that would have been another $6,000 — double, even

on the 15-mill rate.

So I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs had better look

into that. If this is prevalent throughout the whole province,

then the municipalities are losing out perhaps hundreds of

thousands of dollars on even the 15-mill rate.

I'd like to ask the Minister whether or not he has been in

consultation with the Minister of Housing since the weekend to

talk about what's going to happen in the Bridgeview area of

Surrey. That area was for some strange reason left out of the

neighbourhood improvement project grant, even though every

municipal official and every provincial official who looked at

the problems of Bridgeview — sewerage problems and

drainage problems — said that that had to be the area of

the province which should have the most priority of any other

area in this province. Yet for some reason when it came time to

pass out those NIP grants, the Bridgeview area was passed

by.

Now I understand that on Saturday morning the Minister of Housing managed finally

to get himself down to the Bridgeview area and have a look at it. He was sufficiently

alarmed, I hope, that some kind of action needs to be taken right away. I hope

he's been in touch with the Municipal Affairs Minister. If not, would the Minister,

Mr. Chairman, assure us that he'll take urgent action on the Bridgeview problems

to tell the people of Surrey that they're going to get that area upgraded at

last with some immediate action.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask a few more

questions of clarification in regard to the question of

disposal of surplus assets for B.C. Hydro, which I canvassed

with the Minister in the House on another occasion and which

needs some answers pretty soon if the people of B.C. are to be

assured they're not getting ripped off again in the case of

selling assets which are no longer of use to the people of

British Columbia.

Now one Hydro official has already admitted that Hydro made

an error in judgment in selling its old Jordan River generating

station for scrap. It was funny because I asked this of the

Minister in the House on three of four or five occasions to

tell me whether or not that scrap at Jordan River was sold to

an American company.

I got no answers from the Minister. Yet I look in the press

account of a statement from a B.C. Hydro man, and he has

finally admitted, or he did finally admit, that it was a

Seattle company which was the successful — I can't call

him a bidder because there were never any tenders put out....

But he was successful in getting that project from the Jordan

River hydro station.

The question, however, which still hasn't been answered is:

how much did the people of British Columbia get for that old

hydro station? Was it $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, $80,000?

That's the rumour.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Those questions were answered on the order

paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, they weren't. We never got the total

amount of the sale on that. What precautions, Mr. Chairman,

were taken? What precautions are being taken, if the project is

still going on, to ensure that that penstock and hydro power

plant are not shipped down to the United States and

re-installed as a complete hydro unit in another

location? It's my information, Mr. Chairman, that the

installation was being taken out of there so very carefully

that each piece of the old power plant could have been easily

re-assembled and used again, not as scrap, but as a

complete power plant.

The situation is complicated even further, Mr. Chairman,

because when the Seattle company first put in an option on that

power plant it was as a complete unit, because Hydro put it out

as a complete unit in the first place. The Alaska Junk Company

of Seattle, Washington, apparently put in two options as a

complete power unit, but at the last

[ Page 2645 ]

minute decided for some reason that it was of no use to them

as a complete unit, but then later on we find Alaska Junk of

Seattle successful in getting this job despite the fact that at

least two Canadian companies begged Hydro to be able to go in

there. Companies with the expertise needed to make that

disposal begged Hydro to go in there and be allowed to at least

bid on it. Hydro refused the Canadian companies and gave it to

the same American company which backed out of its option to buy

that unit as a complete power unit. Now the fear that I have is

that we're going to find that unit operating somewhere else as

a complete power unit and instead of getting the

half-million bucks, or whatever that outfit was worth,

we'll be stuck for $50,000 or $60,000 because of the practices

of B.C. Hydro.

The other thing that we need from this Minister is a

guarantee that never again will any assets be disposed by B.C.

Hydro without going to public tender. I think this Minister

should now finally give us that guarantee that every Crown

corporation in its disposal of assets, or in its business in

public.... Even if we're buying buses — it doesn't matter

what we're doing — we must go to public tender and make

sure that everything is open and above board.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'd like

to start by adding my voice to the many Members who have called

on the Minister for an endorsation by the provincial government

of the idea of the full payment of city taxes — the

admission of full liability. I won't repeat the many arguments

that have been gone into. It's a matter of equity. It's a

matter of one part of the province and one class of taxpayer

not being asked to subsidize the general provincial

taxpayer.

I want to explain to the Minister why I particularly raise

it with reference to my own riding, and that is because one of

those Crown corporations that pays no taxes, namely the British

Columbia Railway, has its southern terminus in my riding. Were

such a general provincial policy of the payment of civic taxes

in effect, the District of North Vancouver would receive taxes

of approximately $125,000 on that British Columbia Railway

property, and that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is

something that is of great importance to that municipality.

I compliment the Minister on his quick reaction to the question I asked him

on the 17 acres being acquired by the government for property for the northern

terminus of the Burrard Inlet ferry. With reference to that property he said

at once that the government would propose to pay full taxation on it. I know

that this is the Minister's general line of thinking, and I would plead with

him to extend that general line of thinking in what is the only fair and equitable

policy to the remaining Crown corporations and the one that particularly affects

my riding, British Columbia Railway.

I'd next like to ask the Minister if he could clarify his

thinking, his intent, with respect to the amalgamation

provisions of the Municipal Act . I didn't have the

honour of being present in the Legislature when the amendments

to the Act went through last fall on this matter. Perhaps it

was dealt with at that time but perhaps the Minister could

clear something up for me. As he knows, there's a

long-standing question as to whether the District and

City of North Vancouver should amalgamate. It has been

considered as a matter of equity over the years that both of

those jurisdictions should agree before any amalgamation took

place.

Now, the Municipal Act as amended now provides that

the Minister shall cause a vote to be taken on such an

amalgamation before it happens, but then that he may

incorporate all of the area into a single municipality if there

is a majority of the votes cast. The

interpretation I would

like from the Minister, because I would think he has a good

deal of discretion here, is whether he would require what I

would call a "double majority," in other words a

majority in each of those jurisdictions. I would represent to

him that if he does not require a double majority, he ought to

do. Each of the jurisdictions ought to be required to approve.

He has lowered the limit to a mere 50 per cent. Now I think

it's a matter of simple justice, particularly when the units

are of such relatively equal size. We're not talking about a

municipality with 10,000 getting together with a group of

1,000. They are relatively of equal size, they're both

grown- up municipalities and I think they both have the

right to their own opinion on a matter of this kind.

The Minister, I think, has kept a reasonably open mind on

the concept of what I refer to as an inevitable third crossing

of Burrard Inlet. In this connection I would ask him again, as

I have asked him recently by letter, to use his influence with

the City of Vancouver to continue the protection of the

so-called through corridor, which is a tunnel underneath

the City of Vancouver and an indispensable concomitant of a

proper third crossing and also a corridor useful to the city in

its own right. City council has been finding increasing

difficulty in protecting this corridor as it receives

applications from developers whose building foundations would

interfere with the possibility of having a corridor in the

long-term future. Minimal financial and moral assistance

from the province in this regard would for the foreseeable

future preserve this option, requiring no commitment of the

government at this point but simply the preservation of an

option for a third crossing.

Related also to the question of transportation across the

inlet, the Minister has been doing a very

[ Page 2646 ]

good job of increasing the bus service to the North Shore,

particularly on the eastern side of the North Shore in the

riding of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Gabelmann) but also within my own riding of North

Vancouver–Capilano.

I would ask him if he would comment on a suggestion which I

sent to him some days ago relating to an even greater

improvement of bus service and therefore a consequent upgrading

of the transportation capacity of the existing Lions Gate

Bridge. At the moment there are about 3,500 automobiles

crossing that bridge at peak hours, say between 7:30 and 8:30

in the morning. That number of automobiles carries about 4,500

people. At the same time another 3,000 people, roughly, go over

by bus, and this is a magnificent achievement that that many go

by bus already.

I would like to suggest that if a major

park-and-ride facility could be established near

the northern foot of Lions Gate Bridge, and if it were possible

to negotiate with the Squamish Indian band for a lease of some

term — probably a fairly short term because they will

have other uses of the land in mind in due course — but

at a lease of roughly 10 acres, which might be sufficient for

the establishment of a 1,000 car parking lot.... The Minister

could check my arithmetic on this, but if we could run a

shuttle bus service from such a parking facility during peak

hours — 7:30 to 8:30 — and thereby remove up to

1,000 cars off the bridge over that period, this would vastly

extend the service ability of that bridge to the North Shore

and to Vancouver.

I think it could be done for a reasonable cost

— something like perhaps 15 buses would be required, and I

know buses are scarce. It seems to me that the total capital

cost needn't be over, say, $2 million and the annual operating

loss perhaps a matter of $0.5 million.

These are important figures but they are relatively minor in

nature when you consider that we're spending $12 million over

the next couple of years for the resurfacing of the bridge and

other needed repairs, and when you consider the amount that

will be spent on a ferry service, and especially when you

consider the amount that will be required for a new third

crossing.

I'd appreciate the Minister's comments on this idea of a

park-and-ride facility which, as I say, could

expand by almost one-third the current automobile

carrying capacity of that bridge effectively.

I compliment the Minister on his recent announcement of a ferry service for

Burrard Inlet. I would much appreciate if he could give us more details at this

time as to the phasing of this service, as to when we might expect the first

load of ferry passengers to cross Burrard Inlet, because this too will take

a great deal of pressure off the strained transportation systems on that important

north-south link.

I would ask him as well if he could give further details on

the use of the 17 acres, which the Department of Public Works

is acquiring on his behalf, at the northern end of the ferry

route for the northern terminal. Seventeen acres is obviously a

good deal more than is required for a ferry terminal. What

other uses does he have in mind for that land?

Finally, in respect to bus transportation from the North

Shore, I would make a representation to him that he should

reduce the ordinary fare from the North Shore to Vancouver from

40 cents to 25 cents. It is, or course, a much shorter distance

than you can travel within the City of Vancouver for a fare of

only 25 cents. I would hope he could make that reduction in the

fairly near future. I know that the Minister said in his

opening remarks that he couldn't make a hoped-for

announcement on that now.

There have been recent suggestions and proposals in various

municipalities, among them the City of North Vancouver, that

one way to solve the apartment residence problem in British

Columbia is to set up apartment-only zoning areas within

municipalities. I can see advantages and disadvantages to this

particular concept. It perhaps really falls more into the

subject of the Housing estimates, but as it is a problem to be

faced by many municipalities in this province, I would ask the

Minister if he would undertake to have his officials look at

this concept and give some general advice to municipalities as

to whether it would work, whether it could be of assistance in

solving the rental problems we see these days.

Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns I have, and what seems to

be almost a continent-wide problem is that municipalities

are gradually losing their powers to the provincial level of

government. Indeed many of the measures for financial relief of

municipalities, which amount to takeover of municipal services

by the province, are such as to further take away powers from

municipalities and reduce the meaningfulness of being a city

counsellor or alderman.

To demonstrate that this is, indeed, not merely endemic to

British Columbia but, also in other parts of the country, I

quote from a recent report from the Ontario Economic Council

relating to the Province of Ontario. It says: "Municipalities

are now being stripped of their powers at such a rate that soon

few people will be willing to run for municipal office." It

attacks the provincial government strongly, saying: "Queen's

Park is always talking about strengthening municipal autonomy,

but doing just the opposite."

Indeed, we have seen that to some extent here in British

Columbia. The study points to a trend to centralize authority

over police services, to keep road grants rigidly tied to

conditions laid down by Queen's Park, to remove municipalities'

discretion in spending money allocated for water and sewage

services. Those

[ Page 2647 ]

are familiar words, Mr. Chairman, with much reference to the

Province of British Columbia.

The study says that few meaningful functions are being left

to the local governments to perform unilaterally, therefore

less remains in substantive terms to be decided by local

councils. Municipalities are being reduced to mere agents of

the province, yet there's been no real study of the values of

centralization and decentralization, nor does there seem to be

any appreciation of the fact that efficiency was never intended

to be the only objective of local government. The people want

to decide on their own local services even though this may

provide inefficiencies and inequities compared to other

areas.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there is a similar trend

underway here in British Columbia. It is a matter which has

been of concern to many municipal governments. It is a matter

which I would draw to the Minister's attention, not just in

terms of the functions that were mentioned there, but also the

set-up of the human resource boards, many of the ideas of

this government which would in some cases provide for the

upgrading of service but at the same time remove

responsibilities from local elected bodies. I think that is a

trend to be discouraged.

There's been much talk about the adequacy of the increase in

the per capita grant to municipalities. I repeat that the

proper solution to this problem is the indexing of these

municipal grants, these per capita grants, to some

province-wide measure of revenue or gross provincial

product, or some index that relates to the general resources of

the province as a whole because, as is well know, the municipal

resources based on land simply do not grow at a rate to meet

their own responsibilities.

Moving on to the administration of the transportation system

which is the Minister's responsibility, I want first of all to

congratulate him on his obvious determination to have a good

public transportation system. It's long overdue in British

Columbia, that this kind of a commitment by the provincial

government should be made. The Minister has made it; he's gone

ahead to convert into tangible ways, into tangible

manifestations, the realization of that intent.

He has perhaps not always appeared to consult with local

authorities to the extent that should be done. The Greater

Vancouver Regional District has been very active in

transportation planning, making very considerable efforts in

that regard. In a recent report the district noted that the

province and the regional district need to decide what their

respective roles should be in setting policies and priorities

on transportation and transit, and who is responsible for

carrying out these policies.

On deciding what role the regional district should play in setting transportation

policy and priorities the board — the regional district board — must give consideration

to the fact that 15 out of 30 of the livability policy statements adopted by

the board in December of 1972 depend upon vigorous implementation of transit

for their achievement. The objectives implied in these policy statements include

ones affecting the pattern of growth, conservation, recreation, residential

settlement inclusion, as well as transportation itself.

Since the attainment of livability objectives depends to

such a degree on effective transit programmes, the board's

negotiators must press for a significant role for the regional

district in setting public transportation policy and

priorities.

I commend that statement to the Minister's attention. I know

he has been doing his best to work with the regional district.

I hope he will find ways to overcome the great concerns he has

about improper speculation or rise in prices of transit

rights-of-way which might be the case if public

discussion were to happen about these rights-of-way

prior to their acquisition. I wonder if it is beyond the bounds

of possibility to work out ways and means of providing that the

acquisition of these rights-of-way, when they are

acquired after the discussion should be at a price to be

determined and arbitrated on the basis of their value before

the proposal of such a system.

I mentioned very briefly to the Minister the role of the

GVRD and the municipalities in the financing of public transit.

I quote here from Alderman Harry Rankin as appearing in the

March, 1974 issue of The Barker . He says in part:

"...which raises the question: when are we going to get going on rapid transit in the greater Vancouver

area? We've had enough studies and reports to fill a library,

but little action. What is holding up rapid transit now is lack

of agreement on how it should be financed. The Greater

Vancouver Regional District takes the position that one method

should be a two — or three — cent tax on gasoline.

"The provincial government says it must be financed by an increase of two mills in taxes. This deadlock

must be broken. The longer we delay it, the greater will be the

cost. It will take at least 10 years to build once a decision

is made."

Mr. Minister, this question of how to finance the municipal

share of transit deficit is a continuing one. The regional

district has advanced positive suggestions, in my view —

one of them being this additional tax on gasoline.

I wonder if the Minister, in his remarks, could explain why

the share of tax on the property is more equitable than one on

gasoline, particularly when it has been the policy of his

government to encourage people to ride in public transit rather

than in the private automobile. In that case, you would think

he would prefer to finance public transit by a tax on the

[ Page 2648 ]

private automobile, which a tax on gasoline would

effectively be.

I would suggest to him that his concept of yesterday that

the two mills would not necessarily apply to all property in

the area but rather to the property that particularly benefited

from public transit patterns — namely, the shopping

centres — isn't really an acceptable solution or answer

because all that would happen is that the shopping centres

would pass their cost onto the consumer, onto the people who

shop at the shopping centre. They have to pass that cost

on.

Therefore, he would simply be raising the prices of goods in

those shopping centres. I think he would be better to seek an

alternate route than the property tax for this whole matter of

transportation.

It's a big subject, but it certainly is within the

Minister's administrative responsibilities: namely, how does he

assess how the regional districts are working in British

Columbia? Does he feel they are doing the thing they've been

designed for? Are the current boundaries appropriate? And so

on.

It is my personal belief and experience that the Greater

Vancouver Regional District is doing an excellent job,

particularly in conceptual terms. They're doing some of the

best municipal work in the Province of British Columbia right

now. At the staff level it's very good.

But I would be very grateful to hear the Minister's

assessment of this sort of fourth level of government since it

is pretty well unique to us here in British Columbia. The

metropolitan districts in other parts of the country are,

generally speaking, districts with far more power.

There were suggestions yesterday by some of the Members that

there is a need for municipalities to have the power to vary

their mill rates as between different classes of land use

— in other words, the power to set one mill rate for

residential, another for industrial, perhaps yet a third for

commercial.

I'd ask the Minister if he would wish to comment on that. I

personally can foresee problems. There would certainly arise

inter-city competition for industry, which might be a

good thing. But the Minister might have views on that.

The final topic I would like to canvass with the Minister at this point is

the question of growth in the lower mainland and the impact of that growth on

the municipal responsibilities. Alderman Walter Hardwick was quoted extensively

in The Province of April 20. One of the things he mentioned that surprised me

was that Toronto was North America's 10th largest city and Vancouver is well

down the list at No. 21. But in terms of growth, Toronto was third and Vancouver

was tenth on the whole continent. I'm sure in that respect he is referring to

the Greater Vancouver Regional District rather than Vancouver itself. But the

problem of growth is certainly very acute in our area.

One of the things the Minister has not yet canvassed is what

the provincial government and particularly his department might

do not so much to control as to influence growth throughout the

Province of British Columbia.

One of the Members yesterday brought up the idea of a

light-rail transit system on the southern end of

Vancouver Island. This is the sort of thing that I would think

would encourage growth to come to the southern part of

Vancouver Island and away from the lower mainland. So there are

transportation initiatives: the idea of a LRT system out to

Mission or along the BCR right-of-way up to

Whistler. All of these would have important impacts on growth

patterns.

At the same time, the Minister, I would think, should be

developing programmes to encourage both provincial agencies and

major corporations — such as, for example, B.C. Tel,

which is currently talking about where to locate its new office

building — wherever possible, to set up their headquarters

away from crowded urban areas. Perhaps the Minister could at

this time say what general provincial policy is on that sort of

general planning for growth. It would be very helpful to many

of the municipalities of British Columbia.

One of the difficulties of differential growth in between

the municipalities of the lower mainland has been the

difference in costs imposed on them by such growth. Another

recent GVRD study gives the reason that municipal revenues

can't possibly keep up with municipal growth. The first reason

is:

"The financial base of a municipality in one year is

the total assessment of the preceding year. Depending on the municipal

practice, there can be a lag of up to 18 months between the time new

buildings are constructed and the time their full assessed value

becomes available to the municipality for taxation."

That is a considerable lag, particularly when we look at

growth rates such as between 1966 and 1977. Delta, for

instance, grew by 122 per cent; Port Coquitlam by 79 per cent;

Port Moody by 53 per cent. An enormous strain is placed on

these municipalities by the lag in assessments.

A second fundamental reason is that in most developing

municipalities commercial and industrial development follows

the residential development. In other words, the productive tax

base follows the tax base which makes the greatest demands on

services for people.

A third reason is that the annual per capita grants to

growing municipalities lag well behind their needs because the

province pays on the basis of the latest census, which is

adjusted only once every five years with, incidentally, no

retroactive payment to compensate for growth between

censuses.

[ Page 2649 ]

There is a tremendous discrepancy between the loads that

different municipalities around the lower mainland are carrying

in respect to the growth problem. I would ask the Minister if

his department is doing any work on the sharing of growth

between municipalities. Again, speaking of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, they are working out pro forma

allocations of the desirable extent to which the member

municipalities should accept growth.

Let us hope they are able to come to an amicable compromise.

At the same time, let us realize the possibility that there are

going to be a lot of municipalities that say: "We appreciate

that we are not taking our fair share of growth right now, but

we don't want any more than we are taking now. We simply can't

afford it. Our taxpayers can't afford it because of these extra

costs of schools and parks and roads and the many things that

new people in a municipality require that government to

contribute."

I'd ask the Minister if any work is being done to provide

incentives to municipalities to accept growth — not, as

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

Williams) said a few weeks ago, "disincentives," not

threats to the municipalities, but rather positive incentives.

What could these be?

The most important single thing the provincial government

could do in this regard would be to say to each municipality:

"We will pick up the cost of a new citizen in your

municipality, recognizing it as a proper charge on the whole

province rather than simply on your taxpayers." In that way,

the patterns of growth within the province can be best and most

rationally determined, rather than basing it simply on local

financial difficulties. What the province should do, in other

words, is to pick up those fees which are currently being

charged as impost charges — running up to, say, $ 1,000

in Surrey — sharing and charged in several other

municipalities. Equally important, pick up the servicing

charges on new lots for housing coming on the market.

By picking up these impost charges and servicing charges the

provincial government would be doing two things: first, they

would be assisting the municipalities to bear the burden of

growth which, as I say, falls on them in unequal ways. The

second would be to help keep down the price of housing by

keeping down the price of new land and thereby keeping down the

price of all the existing housing as well.

So I would commend to the Minister that basic policy of

giving an incentive and a financial ability to the

municipalities of the lower mainland to absorb the inevitable

growth which is coming their way and, at the same time,

planning to distribute a certain amount of that growth around

other parts of the province.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I just have a few words to contribute to the

debate today on the Minister's estimates. First I would like to say how pleased

I am with the co-operation I have received from the Minister and his staff

— not only the co-operation I've received, but also the co-operation that

municipalities within my riding have received when they've come to Victoria

to meet with the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: No, we're hearing a little truth for a change

with regard to what is going on.

In regard to the action this Minister took with the

Sewage Facilities Assistance Act, which I know is out of

order but at the same time I'm going to comment on it, I'm

going to say for municipalities in my riding....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would like to draw to the

Member's attention that there is a bill on the order paper, so

that is not a subject for discussion. You discuss that when

that legislation comes before the House.

MR. LEWIS: I have a few things to say in regard to regional

districts. I served four years on the Columbia- Shuswap

Regional District and my views with regard to the usefulness of

regional districts are a little different than the

Minister's.

I feel that when the former government instituted regional

districts as a fourth form of government, it was done as a

place to foist problems which they didn't want to handle

— things that were not in their best interest, something

which the taxpayers would stand up and holler out against. I'm

still concerned that this could happen.

Regional districts have a large responsibility. I think some

of the people on them are very, very capable people, but at the

same time these people are working with a handicap. Directors

on the regional districts receive a per diem of $25. In effect

they receive $25 for any work that they do within that month,

which I really think is shameful.

I, as a director in the past, would sometimes take two days to

attend a meeting. I would travel a distance of 180 miles, stay

overnight and not return until the following evening, for which I

received $25.

Since the Land Commission Act came in, regional districts were

expected to do a lot in regard to the mapping, and you can imagine the

amount of contribution they were willing to put forward when they were

receiving $25.

I'm hoping the Minister is taking a serious look at this

aspect. If regional districts are here to stay, I say that the

representatives on those regional districts should receive fair

remuneration for their efforts.

I would just like to make a few comments in

[ Page 2650 ]

regard to planning within regional districts. If the

regional districts are going to have this function, I hope the

Minister is going to see that it remains within the regional

district concept, that the directors on that board will be the

ones to make the decisions, not the Department of Highways, as

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) indicated in the past.

He felt that the Highways department should have control of all

planning within half-a-mile of the highways.

I'm strongly opposed to this. Every small community in my

riding would be totally controlled by the planning of the

Highways department. If we are going to have a regional

district supposed to be in control of planning, then I say that

they have got to retain this power, not hand it over to the

Highways department.

I have every confidence that the Minister will see that

there is proper planning throughout the province, and that

regional districts will be moving in the proper direction. I am

hopeful that in this Legislature, during this session, there

will be fair remuneration put forward for the regional district

directors, and that they will be treated the same as

councillors and aldermen on municipal bodies that are presently

operating in this province.

Thank you.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

remark on northern development, okay?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member that we are

on vote 181, Municipal Affairs, Minister's salary.

MR. CALDER: It relates to administration of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed.

MR. CALDER: I am quite concerned, Mr. Chairman, about public services

in the north and it definitely relates to this Minister's portfolio. It is sort

of negative in a way, because if I asked him if he could provide sewage disposal

systems in Telegraph Creek, in a God-forsaken area, absolutely remote, isolated,

and say to him: "Gad, people are moving into this territory. Why can't we have

a sewage disposal system in that area? Why couldn't we have water supply system,

or any public service?" — but these two relate to his department. I know the

answer he's going to give to me. I've been saying that for 20 years to the previous

administration — why couldn't you provide these things to people who are pioneering

in that part of the country? The answer I would get would be: "Well, I'm sorry,

I can't give you that public service because you've got to be incorporated as

a village. Then you, as a village, take the responsibility of providing these

services."

This government here is giving the old jazz on northern

development. I couldn't see for the life of me why laws

couldn't be provided by which they would say, particularly in

his department or the government department, "Well, why do we

have to wait for this incorporation? If this is a particular

town site and requires a sewage disposal system and it requires

a water supply system, why do we have to wait for this jazz

about incorporation? Why can't we give it to these people?"

There's nothing to stop them! Nothing to stop them, for crying

out loud, and this is what I'm saying to this Minister.

I'm looking at my territory; I'm looking at every northern

territory where people have been working hard to build that

blasted north. Why should we have to go and tell the world,

"Well, look, you've got to get incorporated first and then

you've got to pay your share of that."

Northern development? Look! Listen to this bloody jazz which

I've been listening to for years: to return people who have

been raking off the north and filling the coffers in Victoria

and who don't provide services for the north.... I'm saying

they should provide them regardless of this jazz about "you've

got to get incorporated first." Oh, come off it! I've got a

word for this but I don't want to say it because I will be

ruled out of order.

I think this government should consider these things. I

really do.

I'm glad to see that my boss is back from Japan. I think he

should listen to this because he'll be going up there and

people are going to be inquiring about these things, believe

me. So that's No. 1, Mr. Minister.

Don't ever tell me, if you come into my country, that we

couldn't do this because we are going to have to get

incorporated first. Don't give all this jazz I've been looking

at for 20 years in this bloody place! Cut that out....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the Member that....

MR. CALDER: I didn't say it. I didn't make that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I caution you about unparliamentary language.

(Laughter.)

MR. CALDER: But it's true. That's his department — he

can provide the law that says he'll put a sewage system in an

unincorporated place, an unorganized place. That's the

administration. Now, don't rule me out of order — I'll

fight you.... C'mon.

Number two, about the Indian affairs. There is one

recommendation that I would have made. This was the number one

recommendation I would have made

[ Page

2651 ]

if things hadn't happened the way they happened. I was going

to pinpoint to his department that the government, through the

Municipal Affairs department, automatically recognize Indian

reservations as municipalities. No negotiations, partner

— you just automatically recognize that they are

municipalities. I don't give a hoot about negotiations —

you just automatically recognize that they are

municipalities.

That was my number one recommendation. No government was

going to buy that. That was too hot for you, because you know

what it means? It means that the minute you do that, then the

Indians will have to, if they lease lands, collect taxes.

That's why the government wouldn't recognize them. That was my

number one recognition, partner. I don't give a hoot how you

look at it — an automatic recognition.

I'll tell you where it happens. I see my good friend from

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not even listening. But there are only

two places in North America where such a thing is recognized

— Ontario and the United States. They recognize

automatically that Indian communities are communities as such,

including the matter of taxation.

I would like to ask the Minister, and he doesn't have to

answer this question: are you, Mr. Minister, going to recognize

188 communities in this province under the Indians as

municipalities? No doubt the answer might be no, because it

involves taxation. I am going to ask the Minister if he could

recognize that, because if one Canadian province could

recognize that, I would like to see this province automatically

recognize that without any consultation — just

automatically recognize that Indian reserves and communities

are municipalities.

You can repeal what is written in the Municipal Act

that you have to go and vote to become a municipality. I don't

grab that nonsense. Automatic recognition — you think it

over. I doubt if you are going to buy it, because it is a hot

issue. Ontario recognizes it. The United States recognizes it.

I will just leave that to your damned conscience. It should be

recognized.

If the Indians want to lease out lands, let them do their

thing with it. Right now, the province hates that little method

to come out, because they'd love to grab the taxation. But if

the recognition comes in, the Indians can lease out their lands

and they will pay the taxation. This is one reason why the

province hates them — you know?

Have a cup of coffee with me upstairs and I will give you

the type of language I would like to use. But eventually,

partner, that is going to have to come abou