1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1531 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Government leasing of Burnaby office building. Mr. Bennett

— 1531

Grant for strata body. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1531

Health hazard of septic tank use on Shuswap Lake. Mr. Wallace —

Body shop apprenticeship training in Prince George. Mr. Phillips —

Funds for Careers '75. Mr. Chabot — 1532

Delta strata title property. Mr. McClelland — 1533

Electoral redistribution. Mr. Gibson — 1533

B.C. Ferry fares. Mr. Wallace — 1533

Dispatch of government aircraft. Mr. Morrison — 1534

Government aircraft insurance. Mr. Morrison — 1534

Number of government aircraft. Mr. Fraser — 1534

Federal use of B.C. government aircraft. Mr. Morrison — 1534

Sale of B.C. Tel shares. Mr. Chabot — 1534

Salary increases for medical officers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1534

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs estimates

On vote 178.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1534

Mr. Curtis — 1534

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1539

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1540

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1543

Mr. Fraser — 1545

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1547

Mr. Wallace — 1548

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1551

Ms. Sanford — 1553

Mr. Bennett — 1554

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1555

Mr. Bennett — 1556

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1556

Mr. Bennett — 1557

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1558

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1558

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1560

Mr. Rolston — 1561

Mr. Curtis — 1562

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1563

Mr. Gibson — 1564

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1564

Point of order

Schedule for Committee of Supply. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Mr. Smith — 1565

Mr. Speaker — 1565

Mr. Bennett — 1566

Mr. Speaker — 1566

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1566

Mr. Speaker — 1566

MONDAY, APRIL 21, 1075

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon at 3

o'clock, 34 students from the North Shuswap School will be in

the House, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Terry Clark,

their teacher Hugh Charmichael, and chaperons Carol Bower and

Gail Clark. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, it gives

me great pleasure to ask the House to welcome with me some

students from grade 12, from the senior secondary school in

Prince Rupert along with their teacher, Barry Bolton. They're

here on a "Learning About Leadership" course, a course on

leadership in this House. I would ask the House this afternoon

to try and indicate to these students that we do have some of

those qualities that make up leadership. Help me.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, at four this afternoon

we're going to be joined by a group of 20 students who are part

of the choir from the junior secondary school at Port Hardy and

who are down here to participate in the music festival. They

will be accompanied by their teachers Miss Cowan and Mr.

Jansen, and I would like the House to welcome them at this

time.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would ask the House to join with

me in welcoming two members of the Mills Memorial Hospital

board in Terrace, Mr. Bruce Ferguson and Mr. Guy Rushton. Mr.

Ferguson is also the vice-president of the Terrace and District

Labour Council. Mr. Ruston is also vice-chairman of the

Skeenaview Hospital for Senior Men.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

there is a delegation in Victoria today from the Peace River

area — I'm not sure just how many made it, four or five

busloads. It's an opportunity for those who are in the

galleries today to see democracy in action, and an opportunity

for them to present their particular point of view with respect

to agricultural policy. I'd ask the House to welcome those

present.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Members of the House to welcome two people from Reading,

Berkshire, England — Bill and Bertha Scrace. They're here with

people from Delta — Nellie and Joy Sheaves.

Oral questions.

GOVERNMENT LEASING

OF BURNABY OFFICE BUILDING

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

the Minister of Public Works. Can the Minister confirm to the

House that his department has leased, effective July 1, 1974, a

two-story office building of approximately 12,000 square feet

located at 3876 Norland in Burnaby?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I will take

that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: While taking it as notice, could the Minister

advise the House, when he brings the matter back before us, why

this building, at a monthly rental of $4,500, has stood empty

since July 1, 1974, till it was personally inspected April 16?

Would the Minister explain at that time why we've expended

$40,000 in rent on premises which have yet to be used, and if

he is prepared at the same time to bring answers to other

questions he's taken as notice on other empty buildings the

taxpayers are paying for in this province?

GRANT FOR STRATA BODY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Housing,

Mr. Speaker. On April 9, in answer to a question of mine about

the B.C. Association of Strata Corporations, the Minister

indicated that $18,000 was to be given by way of grants, and it

was given in June of last year. My supplementary to him was:

has the office for which the grant has been given yet been

established? I wonder whether in the last two weeks he's been

able to find this out.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'm

still gathering some information on that; but I have been

following it up actively.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has

followed it up and as I have tried to find out myself, I wonder

at the same time whether he could find out whether there have

been any audited expenditures of this $18,000 and, in

particular, the expenditure on the office itself, and could he

confirm whether Mr. Jean-Pierre Dehm who is head of the B.C.

Association of Strata Corporations and who operates the

association from his own business premises, as far as I can

determine, was an NDP candidate in the federal election at the

time the grant was given?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll try to look back

as to what time it was made and from when it was requested.

[ Page 1532 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You told me when it was made last

time.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I know that Mr. Dehm was an NDP

candidate, but I do not believe that he is at this time the

president of the organization. I believe that the business

which he is operating is completely separated and that is,

perhaps, the reason why he is no longer on the executive — he

has gone into a related business.

HEALTH HAZARD OF SEPTIC

TANK USE ON SHUSWAP LAKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Health a question regarding the Celista Motel on

Shuswap Lake, where local citizens obtained an injunction to

halt the use of the septic tank field and where subsequently,

in March, 1975, Judge Lamperson stated that he had intended to

grant a permanent restraining order; but due to government

regulations under order-in-council 278 such a restraining order

would be meaningless. Could I ask the Minister in the light of

these circumstances whether order-in-council 278 was passed to

accommodate the situation then in existence for the sewage

disposal at the Celista Motel on Shuswap Lake?

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

particular area has caused us a great deal of concern. I

personally became involved in it from the standpoint of taking

a look at what I might do to accommodate the situation up

there. There was a tremendous argument about the

interpretation

of the health rules at the time with regard to the septic tank

that the Member is referring to, which was a septic tank built

by a motel along the shores of the lake. The residents in the

area could not deal with the zoning of this particular motel;

so they decided that they would try to stop the construction of

the motel by using the Health Act.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder, Hon. Member, if this is really that

urgent a question for question period.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, it is for the people of Shuswap Lake.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there more behind it than is so far

revealed?

HON. MR. COCKE: . Well, Mr. Speaker, all the residents in the area naturally

were up in arms because the motel went ahead. Then they took it to court. But

the court's

interpretation of the Health Act was as difficult as ours. Therefore,

not to accommodate that situation but to accommodate the situation across the

province so that people can correctly interpret the meaning of the Health Act

in this area, we brought in a regulation which would give courts clear direction

in the whole question.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary; I'll be very brief. Is it not

a fact, regardless of the motives imputed by either side, that

the citizens are still concerned about pollution of their

drinking water? And to what extent, regardless of all these

other features, will the Minister undertake to investigate what

they believe to be a real danger to their health?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, well, from that standpoint we looked at

it, and my department indicates that no, there is no great

concern over the matter of health. There is a possibility of a

major flood some day. But even then I don't really think the

situation warrants that kind of concern. There is a great deal

of concern, however, with practically every lake in the

province, when you're thinking in terms of residential areas

with septic tanks too close to the water, and so on.

BODY SHOP APPRENTICESHIP

TRAINING IN PRINCE GEORGE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications

with regard to the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. Would

the Minister advise if the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia

is building a body shop in Prince George, the purpose of which

is to have an apprenticeship training centre for a vocational

programme in the body building business?

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

hope so, but I will check exactly where it is right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

same Minister. Would the Minister advise if the province is

planning more of these centres throughout the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is already public information this it

is the objective of the corporation to have a number of body

shops for two reasons. One is the one you mentioned, and the

other to give a check factor in body costs in various areas of

the province.

FUNDS FOR CAREERS '75

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation regarding the Careers '75

student summer employment programme.

[ Page 1533 ]

On February 21 the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) said

that it is the intention of this government to continue the

investment in the youth of our province this summer by

committing considerable additional funds to this programme.

Could the Minister of Recreation and Conservation indicate

whether there has been an increase in the allocation of funds

to his department?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

No, there has been a slight decrease, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: A slight decrease from what figure to what

figure, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RADFORD: In 1974 the Department of Recreation and

Conservation was granted $3.7 million to the Careers '75

programme. This year the allotment was $2.4 million.

MR. CHABOT: Just one short supplementary. In view of the

fact that this is approximately a 50 per cent decrease, would

the Minister be inclined to refute that this is a job-security

budget?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, I think it still remains a

job-security budget, Mr. Member. If you take a look at my

department, which we will be discussing during the estimates, I

can show you how many more jobs were brought into being,

especially through the community recreation facilities

programme. Approximately 3,000 jobs were brought into the

province due to the construction of these facilities.

DELTA STRATA-TITLE PROPERTY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Housing. Last week the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) asked a question with

regard to some problems with strata-titled homes in Delta which

have been involved with Sahara Developments. I wonder if the

Minister could tell us whether or not when those strata-title

properties were sold the Housing department was able to recover

some of its investment or any of its investment in the second

mortgages that were held by the Housing department on those

units, some 31 of them.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I'm having the whole matter

looked into, and I will take that as notice and try and respond

to that as well.

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question for the Premier,

Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could advise the House whether there have

been any developments in the process and timing of electoral redistribution

for the province.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Member, I hope that we are in

a position to announce some progress in that regard within the

next two months.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

Premier could guarantee the House that there will be a form of

public consultation in this process.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No question, Mr. Member. What we hope to

do is name a group and then have them go throughout the

province and have the communities involved. Then the report

will come back to the House.

B.C. FERRY FARES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Transport and Communications: has the Minister's department

taken any steps to introduce peak-load pricing — that is, a

cheaper rate at the quieter times and a higher rate for peak

periods of travel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is no.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. Regardless of that question,

has any decision been taken recently by the Minister's

department to increase ferry fares generally?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is no.

DISPATCH OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): A question to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Could he advise the House who

makes the decisions as to where each of the government aircraft

will go? Is there a dispatcher or a dispatch office?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is not the question you told me you

were going to ask me out in the corridor. However, that is by

the way.

Yes, there is a dispatcher.

MR. MORRISON: A supplemental, then. Who has the final

authority as to advising the dispatcher where aircraft will go

and how they will be used?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there is an administrative officer

at the airport, and he makes the decision. If there is any

question, then it goes to the Associate Deputy Minister.

[ Page 1534 ]

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT INSURANCE

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister earlier a

question concerning insurance on government aircraft, which he

took as notice. He said that he had the information and would

aircraft that had been used by the federal government, and he

took that question as notice. I wonder if he has the answer for

it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With regard to your first question

regarding insurance on the government aircraft: yes, the

insurance is carried on government aircraft by the Continental

Insurance Co., a member of the Associated Aviation

Underwriters. The brokers are Reid, Shaw, Osler of Vancouver.

You didn't ask for this, but the annual premium is $34,253.

MR. MORRISON: Will you file that with the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it is on the record of

Hansard .

MR. MORRISON: I want the copy of it.

NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): How many aircraft does the

province now own and operate — to the Minister of Transport and

Communications.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it is nine.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): What? Nine!

MR. BENNETT: How many jets?

FEDERAL USE OF

B.C. GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, he hasn't answered my second

question yet — about the use of the B.C. government aircraft by

the federal government, the Department of Environment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have it here somewhere. I'll try and

get it for you before....

SALE OF B.C. TEL SHARES

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Premier regarding the 200,391

common shares of B.C. Tel held in pension funds. Has the

government recently sold, does it have for sale or does it plan

on offering for sale any or all of these shares?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question is: have we sold any of the

B.C. Telephone shares? No.

MR. CHABOT: Do you have any for sale?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. CHABOT: Are you contemplating selling?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

SALARY INCREASES FOR MEDICAL OFFICERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Health: now that the

medical technicians' salary ranges are from $1,395 to $1,632

per month, while a medical officer — the supervisory person —

receives $1,299 to $1,561, below the salary ranges of those

that he supervises, may I ask what steps he is taking to make

sure that interim salary increases are implemented to make sure

that supervisory personnel are at least paid as much as the

people they supervise?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, that question is being

negotiated and considered at the present time. I don't think

it's the way that the Member suggested, but certainly there are

some anomalies out there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are my figures wrong?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

On vote 178: Minister's office, $76,172.

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

that the vote doesn't pass too quickly, I want to say two or

three things. (Laughter.) I won't go into any detail. I gave an

exhaustive and exhausting talk on the question of municipal

affairs during the budget debate. I suggest that if you have

any questions, and I doubt that you have, you have your

opportunity now. I'll try and answer them and fill in the blank

spots as we go along.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I'm

just trying to sort through that wealth of information which

the 'Minister provided in his opening remarks. (Laughter.) I

didn't expect him to take this long, but with the help of my

colleagues on

[ Page 1535 ]

this side of the House, we can get through some of that

detail — it is pretty monumental.

We're debating an expenditure of about $100 million —

$100,416,000 — under this Minister's vote for the current

fiscal year. Again, without belaboring the point, it would

appear, according to the

schedule which is in effect now —

imposed arbitrarily by the government — that we'll have to

dispense with this afternoon. I wouldn't rule out the

possibility of a little longer time being taken, but that's

certainly the way it looks at the moment.

A couple of comments in lead-off. We have here a friendly

and pleasant Minister, well-liked, I think, by a number of

people. We call him the Rip Van Winkle of the cabinet; his

seat has a sign marked "Sleepy Hollow." There he goes again, as

a matter of fact. Although he doesn't follow the Washington

Irving example to the letter — that is, he hasn't slept for a

long number of years — he seems to get his sleep in fairly

short naps. I've travelled with him.... Have I put you to

sleep already, Mr. Minister? I've travelled with him, as a

number of Members of the House have, and I can vouch for the

fact that he has an extraordinary ability to catnap, sometimes

in the most unexpected places. Here in this House he dozes from

time to time; in hearings in committee meetings, in aircraft,

in small power boats, waiting for transportation of one kind or

another — you name it, Mr. Chairman, and he's slept in it.

He's pleasant, he's easy going, he's affable; but while he

relaxes, dozes and smiles pleasantly, the problems facing

municipalities in this province grow worse on a day-by-day

basis. Crises mount, the dollars squeeze tightens, and local

government continues to look to him in vain for solutions which

are needed respecting their problems.

In my view one of the most serious situations facing local

government — I would include in the list the question of

financing, works and services, which is serious enough — but

one of the most serious also relates to what I consider to be

the most dangerous lack of consultation and co-ordination

between provincial government departments, agencies and

municipalities.

Decisions are made by such departments as Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

Housing, Highways, Human Resources and Public Works, to name just a few, in

apparently isolated compartments and in isolation. It seems to me the Minister,

on his present approach at least, is failing local government by not insisting

that consultation take place, by not giving his department a higher profile

in the cabinet and in the operations of government and making certain that his

departmental people and he himself become directly involved in improving that

level of co-ordination. After all, Mr. Chairman, we are all working for the

same people, the citizens of this province, whether they live in municipalities,

large or small, in Vancouver city or the smallest village, or in regional districts.

I think they deserve the closest possible co-ordination of our respective efforts

on their behalf. There are a couple of examples I would like to present to you

and to the Minister as an indication of where the things have gone wrong. There

was an editorial in the Victoria Times a week ago today, Monday, April 14, headed:

"Pull Aside The Curtain."

"'I'll Do It My Way' seems to be the provincial government's

theme song in land use planning these days as municipalities

find themselves frozen out of project preparations by a senior

government apparently determined to ignore local municipal

expertise and experience.

"The quixotic progress of the inner harbour toward

redevelopment" — outlined just a few days ago in the Victoria

Times — "is only one example. Across the water the

municipality of North Vancouver city provides another. Together

they are ample evidence of the province's 'Father Knows Best'

attitude when it comes to planning."

Then the editorial goes on to point out:

"Last year, the government bought 27 acres of waterfront in

North Vancouver to be used as a multimedia transit terminal,

bringing buses, rail transit and ferries into one

interconnected package. It has commissioned a Vancouver

consulting firm to draw up a development plan for the terminal,

but the City of North Vancouver, whose future development and

population growth could be drastically altered by whatever the

province decides to do, hasn't heard a word from Victoria about

the plan.

"'It's almost unbelievable but we have heard nothing at all

in writing. We've never heard from a senior B.C. official,'

said North Vancouver mayor, Tom Reid.

"Municipalities don't elect provincial governments, and the

B.C. administration may feel safe in ignoring the

municipalities' anguish. But the frustrations filter down to

the people who get to vote for both. When it comes to local

matters the government would do well, at the very least, to

keep municipalities informed of their plans."

Other speakers for the opposition may want to touch in

greater detail on the North Vancouver situation, but I think

the Minister will have read the Province mid-week report

for Wednesday, April 9, with the headline: "Government

Waterfront Plan Baffles North Van." And again, there is a

reference to Mayor Reid:

"The city has received no written communication about what

the province plans for the area. Anything city hall knows

[ Page 1536 ]

derived primarily from sketchy, speculative reports in the

newspapers."

And the headline on the second page of the same report, page 14, is: "Waterfront

Plan Keeps North Van Guessing."

It isn't good enough. Some of the responsibility has to be

placed in front of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It isn't

just the North Shore, as the Victoria Times editorial

indicated. In downtown Victoria we have a similar situation.

Perhaps it is more serious in total implication because it

involves the heart, the focal point of the capital region of

British Columbia. The Minister must know that there are at

least five agencies actively pursuing various plans, each

apparently going its own sweet way.

Concerning the property which could be described as lying

around the harbour edge — that is, from the former CPR-Marathon

property, in front of the Empress Hotel, and then along Wharf

Street all the way to the Johnson Street Bridge — again, as I

said, the heart of the capital city of British Columbia, I

think the decisions are being made in isolation. The agencies

include the federal government, the provincial Department of

Public Works, the provincial Department of Lands, the Capital

Improvement District Commission and the City of Victoria, at

least. I understand that the mayor of Victoria has been assured

personally by the Premier, who is not in his seat, on at least

four or five occasions that there would be: "the closest

possible cooperation between the province and the city

regarding redevelopment of the area." But there is very little

evidence of that cooperation to date.

Again, in the Victoria Times on April 14, is the

heading "Pollen Seeks B.C. Assurance."

"Victoria mayor, Peter Pollen, has asked Premier Barrett for

an assurance that the development of publicly owned lands in

the Inner Harbour will be carried out in a spirit of

cooperation between the provincial government and the

city.

"In a letter to the Premier last week Pollen congratulated

the government on its recent purchase of the Marathon Realty

property along Belleville's waterfront, together with the

Princess Marguerite, but he expressed concern that the press

release announcing the purchase made no mention of the city's

position with respect to development of this property, despite

earlier oral assurances of cooperation from Premier

Barrett."

There's one quote in that

article from the mayor of the City

of Victoria: "Surely in the name of intelligence and in the

spirit of cooperation, and, above all, in the interests of our

total community, some co-ordination must be undertaken."

It seems to me again that the Department of Municipal Affairs is at fault here,

or perhaps in default, for not making certain that Public Works and Lands, Forests

and Water Resources sit down with the City of Victoria, and with the City of

North Vancouver in the North Shore situation, to discuss how best to cooperate

and reach a consensus.

In other areas where local government encounters frustration

with the province, I think it is this Minister who should serve

the function of co-ordinator. His department must be strong

enough now and in the future to pull other departments and

agencies together and to insist in cabinet and insist in the

total government structure that municipalities are kept

informed and involved when senior government decisions are

being made.

I'd like to come back to this general topic in a few

minutes, but there are a couple of specific issues which the

Minister may care to comment on later this afternoon — first,

the legislative committee study of the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Unless the Minister can correct me when he takes his place in

the debate, we have a sorry story of delay on the part of this

Minister and the government following that committee tour of

early summer, 1974. It was to be a concentrated crash course in

studying the Charlottes. It was a visit which cost a

considerable amount of public money, a visit which was eagerly

anticipated by islanders. It prompted feverish island activity

in terms of preparation of briefs and suggestions. But most

importantly, and perhaps most disappointingly now a number of

months later, it was a visit which led the Queen Charlotte

residents to expect that something was about to be done in

terms of water supply, sewage disposal, possible restructuring

of regional government — that is, the regional district of

Skeena-Queen Charlottes — incorporation of one or two

communities and facing up to a host of other problems.

Expectations were raised and nothing appears to have taken

place since. I'd be interested to learn if I am incorrect on

that point. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the municipal

affairs committee of last year has yet to meet in a review even

to prepare a draft of what it heard and saw in the

Charlottes.

So are the Queen Charlotte Islands residents disenchanted?

Well, I think it might be helpful to the committee to hear just

a few lines from the Queen Charlotte Islands Observer

for March 20 of this year. It will give you an idea of how they

feel. This somewhat irreverent newspaper must prove a source of

embarrassment to the Minister and also to the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), who is also not in his seat, who

represents the Queen Charlottes in this House. Here's the quote — it's from page 4 of the Observer :

"Our Municipal Affairs Minister is not only a seasoned

member of the cabinet but a seasonable one. He makes his announcements

concerning local government for the islands" —

[ Page 1537 ]

that is, the Queen Charlottes — "each spring. The last one

came in the spring of 1974, and the next one he has forecast

for the spring of 1975. This could become the annual event of

the year. Juan Perez better look out. After all, he only

sighted the place; Jim Lorimer commutes.

"No one knows for sure whether MLA Carl Liden, the chairman

of the committee, will receive the degree for window-dressing,

but one feels sure that he will feature prominently in academic

exercises this spring, and rumours that the Swifty,

unincorporated, tours manager will be called upon to submit a

report on last year's feature tour are foundering.

"The dilemma facing Mr. Lorimer is not whether to create a

separate regional district of the Queen Charlotte Islands, but

whether to make the centralizing decision — dear to the hearts

of the healthy and resourceful members of cabinet — to change

the name of the present regional district and move the regional

board headquarters to Port Clements. But decisions like that

aren't hard to make; it's announcing them. And, having done

that, what does it leave a fellow to announce next spring?

"Alternatives indeed there are. We could secede under the

Island Mistrust Act, go multinational with our TFLs, or

register ourselves as an underdeveloped country and apply for a

provincial grant from Mr. Barrett. But no one has yet found

fault with regional chairman P.J. Lester's recommendation on

local autonomy for the islands. Just how does one act on

them?"

This committee went to the Queen Charlottes for a detailed

study almost — and I exaggerate slightly — one year ago in June

or July of last year. Some of us have done our homework on that

committee as a result of the tour, contrary to what the Premier

so tiresomely says in this House.

On August 21 of last year, I did a nine-page

summary of my

views with respect to what we saw and heard and approaches

which could be taken. Again, I have to emphasize, however, that

to the very best of my knowledge — and I've not missed any

committee meetings — there have been no attempts to prepare

even a draft report on the basis of that expensive,

time-consuming and well-publicized tour of the Charlottes.

This Minister owes the Queen Charlotte Islands a definite, precise and straightforward

outline of what he proposes to do and how soon he proposes to do it. Speaking

of islands, I would like to move a little further south for a moment to the

Islands Trust which was established last year. At $236,000 for its first full

year of operation, that is, I think, an unreasonably large amount. Concern is

already developing in the islands within the trust area that the trust has not

yet come to grips with the frustration which has been in position in the islands

for a good number of years. They ask the question: how is the trust to blend

in with other jurisdictions? How is it to work with regional districts, with

the provincial government, with Crown corporations, or is it yet another pigeonhole

into which Gulf Islands problems can be poked?

The trust has to co-ordinate, as I have asked the Minister

to co-ordinate at the larger level on the provincial basis. The

trust has to work with and for the islanders and ensure that

government and its agencies again, Mr. Chairman, the same point

- will consult and listen before action is taken which may well

be detrimental to the islands.

Last year during debate on the Islands Trust Act, Bill 112, I pleaded unsuccessfully with the Minister to accept an

amendment which would have made certain that the trust had

muscle, not muscle against individuals but muscle in dealing

with government and Crown corporations. We didn't have to wait

long to see the wisdom in that suggestion. Here is a brief

quote from the Gulf Islands Driftwood on Saltspring,

April 16. This is a story dealing with a meeting attended by

one of the Saltspring Island local trustees, Mike Larmour. When

he was asked whether the trust is doing a job, Larmour

suggested that a little more muscle would help in some

directions. Here is the key quote. I remind the Minister of the

attempt to put forward this amendment last year. I remind him

also of his rejection of it. Larmour said:

" 'If we come up against B.C. Hydro or the ferries or the Department of Highways, can we impose our will?'

" 'The people see the trust as a watchdog role,' said

one of the participants in the meeting. 'If the trust has no power, the

community would lose confidence.' "

Mr. Chairman, I believe another area of failure on the part

of this Minister relates to provincial payment of property tax.

I know that other Members will want to speak on this as well.

Again, Hansard for April 30 a year ago indicates lengthy

debate in this Minister's estimates about the rip-off which the

provincial government continues to carry out against other

property owners. Probably nowhere in B.C. is the situation more

serious than in the City of Victoria. But it is by no means

purely a Victoria problem; it has existed for many years. It is

increasing, however, in its impact because of the increased

activity of this government in terms of new Crown corporations,

property acquisitions and related activities.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) will be able to talk

about such communities as Quesnel and Prince George along the

B.C. Rail line who also feel the effects of this revenue loss,

revenue which is denied to them unilaterally by the provincial

government's

[ Page 1538 ]

decision-making process which says, no, we are not going to

pay full share of local property taxes.

A number of Members will have seen an

article in the

Victorian , Friday, April 11, which quotes a Victoria

alderman, Mr. Bawlf, saying: "It's tough on Victoria. The

provincial government forces our taxes up." The fact of the

matter remains that the provincial government — this government

and the previous government — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is again distressed

because perhaps we are hitting home....

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Ha!

MR. CURTIS: The provincial government and some of its Crown

corporations are subsidized by the rest of us.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has

frequently referred to the Plunkett report of about five years

ago. Tom Plunkett is recognized across Canada as a

well-informed and totally objective expert on

provincial-municipal fiscal relationships. I would urge this

Minister and Members of the government party to read that

report again to see how local taxpayers have been shortchanged

and continue to be shortchanged by this kind of thing — that is,

the failure to pay full taxes on provincially owned land and

also in the sharing of responsibility and revenues.

I suggest that the most constructive move this Minister

could make now, having been in office for just over two and a

half years, is to convene a full-scale

municipal/regional/provincial conference, but not just between

his department and the UBCM. He would have to have

representation from the UBCM, admittedly, but also from key

government departments, including the Department of Finance, to

sit down for three or five or 10 or 15 days, if necessary, and

sort through the complex maze of sharing programmes, allocation

of funds and functions, duplication of efforts and the needs of

the municipalities.

In making his reply to this suggestion, I hope the Minister

will not refer solely to the establishment of the taxation

commission which is inquiring into the property tax. In my

view, that group is dealing with relatively limited terms of

reference. To repeat, it is in the total area of provincial,

municipal, regional programmes, responsibilities and ability to

pay that a study should be undertaken forthwith and with the

decision-makers and those who advise them, senior departmental

people in the provincial government, taking a full and active

part in the review.

I'd like to take some time on the per capita grant, but I

think I'll put that to one side in the hope that I may be on my

feet again in dealing with these estimates.

The assessment authority is not the responsibility of this

Minister. The bill creating the authority was introduced by the

Minister of Finance. Again, this Minister must know that the

decision by the authority to levy 1.17 mills for the cost of

operation this year has created strong negative reaction from

many municipal people. But that won't begin to compare with the

protest which will come from rural areas when provincial

property tax notices are sent out this spring. Some of this

criticism is going to find its way to the desk of the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, because they will relate property tax

with the Municipal Affairs function.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us, as far as he knows as a

member of the cabinet, why the cost of assessing is up so

dramatically under this new arrangement. I think that he should

also make, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, the strongest

possible representation to Treasury Board to secure an increase

in the capital grant of $1.5 million and the operating grant of

one-tenth of a million all assessed property. That is dealt

with in

section 16 of the assessment authority Act. Clearly the

assessment authority is going to cost the taxpayers of the

province far more than was originally expected, and there are

going to be some very distressing shockwaves around the

province within the next few weeks and months.

When he stood today, or perhaps even prior to that when the

sitting commenced this afternoon, I was hoping that we might

finally hear from the Premier or the Minister of Municipal

Affairs with respect to the sharing of natural gas revenue.

This absence of cold, hard information must be driving

municipalities crazy right now. They must be literally climbing

the wall as they wait in vain, day by day by day, for some word

from the province as to how the money is going to be shared and

what the dollar amount is going to be for 1975.

Municipal councils and their treasury people are sitting

down this week and next and the following week, setting their

budgets for 1975, and that isn't done in five minutes; and it

isn't done properly with last-minute information rushed in from

the provincial government. Every day which passes without this

information makes it far more awkward and critical for councils

attempting to work out their budgets, because if they have the

information now, they will be able to authorize programmes

which have perhaps been put on the shelf. If they don't have

the information, they are working with a patch over one eye, in

effect, unable to see the total picture for the 1975 operating

year. I'm sorry that so many days have passed since the Premier

returned from Ottawa after the energy conference, with still no

clear-cut, definite information with respect to the amount of

dollars to be shared with municipalities and the method of

sharing.

[ Page 1539 ]

So in

summary, for this portion of my comments at least —

and I'm pleased that the Minister has stayed with me

throughout, Mr. Chairman — it seems that the relationship

between provincial governments, including regional districts,

grows more complex each month, particularly with the intrusion

of other departments...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Green light, Mr. Member.

MR. CURTIS: ...into an area which should primarily be the

responsibility of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities

concerned. A higher profile, Mr. Minister, for you and for your

departmental people is what is urgently needed if the line of

communication is not going to be broken completely and take a

long time to repair.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I might point out that the

Member did point out that two or three of the government

Members were not in their seats. I would like to point out that

at this stage only three of the Social Credit opposition are in

their seats at the present time and throughout the speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister speak

to the vote, please?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Now four.

The first item discussed was the question of lack of

consultation. I would point out that our department has always

acted as a liaison with councils coming in from out of the

Victoria area to visit the government. When we're advised of it — and we normally are when a delegation comes — we do line up

the appointments with the Ministers they want to speak to so

that they can wrap up their business in one or two days. We

have offered that service to them and in most cases have

carried it out, where we have known that they were coming.

The question of land purchases in the CPR or in the Victoria

area and in North Vancouver, and so on, with the criticism that

there was a lack of consultation with the municipalities

involved.... I would point out that the question in the

Victoria example of the purchase of the land around the harbour

from CPR was under active discussion with Mayor Pollen and the

council in Victoria for some time before the actual

acquisition. They have been assured that in the planning and

developing of the area they will have full participation, will

have knowledge of the projects and will have input into the

development of that particular area.

In North Vancouver, Mayor Reid was advised well before the time of acquisition

of land in that particular area. The site referred to was on all plans from

the Greater Vancouver Regional District as a ferry site. We advised him of our

interest in the site for future development for the ferry system. He then proceeded

to apply to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for a rezoning of the area

— because it was contrary to the plan — for a different development that had

been applied for by a local developer in North Vancouver.

His cries that he was not aware are just not true. He may

want to continue saying that, but I will state that he was

aware of the overall plans long before we became government,

and he is aware of our desire after having become government. I

think that his statements — if those statements that you read

are accurately quoted from him and not a misprint in the paper — are not true.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I know — that's right. A lot of people do

read newspapers. Even the Hon. Member believed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believed it, too.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not me. I never believed it. I didn't

believe the statement he was quoted as saying.

I'll be the first to admit that different departments have

done things in municipalities — projects — in which

consultation hasn't been what it might have been. Those things

happen; it's regrettable. I won't defend that. I don't agree

with that procedure. I think things happen sometimes in error.

That sort of thing is an error. Any activity by government in a

municipality should be well discussed beforehand. I won't argue

that point at all.

But, in general terms, I suggest that we have attempted to

have consultation ahead of time. There are just two examples I

would like to refer to. In the land preservation Act, the Union

of B.C. Municipalities executive...this matter was discussed

fully with them. They made representations, changes were made

and that sort of thing. In the assumption of the costs of the

administration of justice, the Union of B.C. Municipalities was

kept advised completely through that period. Their requests

will be met for phasing in those areas which lost money as a

result of takeover of the administration of justice. There are

a few areas that have lost money as a result. We agreed with

the Union of B.C. Municipalities that those losses will be

phased in over a period of five years, and that undertaking

will be kept.

MR. CURTIS: You are reaffirming what you said last year.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's correct, yes.

The Queen Charlotte Islands. That has received very active

consideration and is still receiving active consideration. As a

matter of fact, this morning we met with the band leaders and

representatives of the

[ Page 1540 ]

Haida band on this very problem as to what participation

they might consider they would be prepared to enter into in

dealing with those particular islands.

We have to recognize the fact that in the Queen Charlottes

probably 35 to 50 per cent of the residents are either status

Indians or non-status Indians, so any development in that area

would have to include the native people, if possible, if they

are prepared to come in. We are seeing what their suggestions

would be and what they would think — if any type of political

situation which they felt comfortable in involving themselves

could be brought about. We had a long discussion this morning.

They will be taking home certain suggestions and will advise us

in due course of what they hope for.

These things cannot be done overnight. I admit that it is a

year since we were up, or close to it — 10 months ago. But as

you are aware, the regional district did have studies made of

the water and sewerage problems, and the end results of those

studies did not come in until late last fall.

We hope that some activity will take place there this year;

we certainly hope so. I will recommend that a referendum be

taken on the islands as to what they want for the future — or a

proposal, at least, for them to decide whether they are

interested or not interested.

I think the Islands Trust has been well received. The areas

that have been put under the 10-acre freeze will be taken out

as soon as their community plans are finalized. There are a

number that have been taken out because the community plans

have been approved.

I might announce — I don't know whether it is common

knowledge or not — that the Nature Conservancy of Canada, in

which Mr. Haig-Brown is a director, is preparing to help

finance a study on the islands for archaeological

identification and as a start is taking an active interest in

the Gulf Islands area. We welcome that cooperation and

assistance.

Natural gas revenues. There has been a meeting called for

Friday of this week in the Premier's office, with the executive

of the UBCM to discuss this question. Hopefully they will come

up with an agreed system of distribution.

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

start off by saying what a pleasure it is to have this Minister

before us giving his usual calm, rather cool approach to the

problems. He adopts this even at times when the House is quite

animated — he sits there, sometimes resting his eyes, sometimes

just looking quiet and inscrutable. It is a most effective

technique.

I would also like to congratulate him on the fact that his Minister's office

has not grown enormously in the last year. It has a $5,000 increase, or less

than that, which, compared to some of his colleagues, puts this man as a very

modest spender. I feel that his desire to keep expenses exactly at the same

level as last year, despite inflation, shows that other Ministers could do the

same if they chose to, instead of rapidly inflating their expense accounts and

travel allowances. So I would like to start off by congratulating him for not

giving us further examples of waste at the top, which we see with so many of

his colleagues.

I might point out, though, as I look at the overall

departmental budget, that he has done some rather curious

things. General administration is quite out of hand with what

looks like a 40 per cent increase there, with only an increase

of five in the number of people. It seems very, very high, and

when you realize he's got a salary contingency vote of over

$0.5 million, you wonder why there has to be that enormous

increase in general administration.

Equally startling is the fact that the planning services

division goes from $240,564 to $320,184 — an enormous increase.

Yet exactly the same number of people are being employed as

previously. Mr. Minister, please remember that the excuse that

you will be paying a few people more doesn't really make sense

because you do have that enormous increase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that we are dealing with vote 178, and these matters would seem

to be relative to votes 179 and 180.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask you to

restrict yourself to being the Chairman? The only opportunity

we have for an overall look at the Minister's department is

when we are on the Minister's vote.

Okay, I talked about the totals for this department, the

estimates for 1974-75 are $81,850,272; estimates for 1975-76

are $100,416,000. Now surely, the only place for an overall

look at all these votes together, the whole Minister's

department, is on the Minister's vote. Now surely that makes

sense. Don't keep interrupting speakers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member well knows that

the responsibility of the Chair is to enforce the rules.

Standing order 61(2) requires strict relevance to the matter

under consideration, which is vote 178.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, without being

disrespectful, may I suggest that in enforcing the rules you

must use a little common sense? If we cannot take an overall

Ministerial budget of $100,416,000 and make some comment about

the components as preliminary to dealing with his strict

[ Page

1541 ]

office vote, you're making this whole business of estimates

even more of a farce than the government has already done with

its absurd rules which it forced down our throats over the

entire opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon...?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Just sit back and relax and you'll find

we are dealing with the Department of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, and that includes his vote, and it's under his vote

that we deal with the totals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon.

Member to relate his remarks to vote 178.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, my God! Well, Mr. Chairman, this

Minister is responsible for each one of these votes; does that

relate it? The total happens to be $100,416,000. Now please

don't stir up trouble where none exists. I've started off by

congratulating the Minister in his approach, pointing out the

fact that he's done some good things like restricting his

expenses, unlike that Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) whom we're going to have to go after for

that. I've pointed out that it's only under the Minister's

office, the Minister's vote, that we can deal with the

department as a whole. I trust that an apology, Mr. Chairman,

will be forthcoming.

Now having discussed the overall vote and the areas where

this Minister has not really restricted the budget as he should

have — in particular with respect to the extra costs of

administration and the extra costs of a planning services

division — may I deal with a number of specific points? Mr.

Chairman, just sit back and relax — they are all on Municipal

Affairs, and if you don't get involved, the thing will go

quicker than otherwise.

First, the specific questions dealing with my local area of greater Victoria.

I wonder whether the Minister could comment to me exactly what plans he has

for the Highlands district. We've heard that the Minister wants to put up housing

for 35,000 people in that area. We've heard that B.C. Hydro is putting two new

cable systems across it — two new sets of hydro lines across the area. We don't

know precisely where they're going. We really do not know what the government

proposals are with respect to the Highlands area. As the Minister knows and

I know, there are relatively few people there now — just a few hundred. If 35,000

are to move into the area, you have an enormous change in the density of population

and the complexity of the problems they are now facing, The Highlands area is

one of the least-discovered recreational areas close to Victoria. It has a number

of lakes which are absolutely superb, excellent natural

lakes for fishing and swimming and things of that nature. If we

bring 35,000 people, we can probably kiss goodbye to the

Highlands as we know them now. We've heard statements from

government people from time to time, yet we've never had any

authoritative statement of decision as to what the government

plans for that area.

My first and specific question to the Minister would be to

tell us what he intends for that particular area. Will Pike

Lake, for instance, be the site of the hydro substation? Will

you have new hydro lines crossing that area and, if so, where

will they be?

I understand there's a firm of architectural planning

consultants — Irwin, Beinhaker and Associates of Vancouver —

which has looked at the area and made a report. Will the

Minister make that report public? I do not know of any copies

being published at the present time and, surely, if there is a

master plan, the Minister should make it public so that the

citizens of the area, in particular the residents of the

Highlands district, can have their say as to whether or not

that plan makes sense to the people living there. The rest of

us in the greater Victoria area would be most interested. So

perhaps first, a statement of general policy; and second — I'm

sure it's acceptable and that you'll be amenable to this — a

statement as to the date that you will make that report

public, preferably later on today. Really and truly, Mr.

Minister, all these reports that the government has done, which

are kept locked away, do no good to anyone. So I trust that

that will be forthcoming.

I'd like to say a quick word on another local problem which

you've referred to but you haven't really, I'm afraid dealt

with at all: this question of local consultation. Now we have a

freeze on the Reid property site — and the Minister knows all

about that, as does every other person who has been in Victoria

for the last few years. At the present time, as far as I can

tell as a local Member, there is no co-ordination between your

government and the city as to what's going to happen to that

Reid property.

Obviously, what happens on one side of the harbour has

enormous effect on what happens on the other. If you are to put

the former Marathon property — the CPR property — and the

Princess Marguerite in the hands of one committee, surely it

must be co-ordinated with the Reid centre — or the former Reid

Centre, the Reid site — and, indeed, the city-controlled

property elsewhere in the harbour.

I appreciate the Minister's defence of what has taken place

so far but it's unconvincing, Mr. Minister, as a local

politician responsible for this particular area. There is not

the contact with the city that you talk of; we have too many

authorities working independently on the Inner Harbour and

elsewhere in Victoria, Let us adopt a more realistic and

conciliatory approach with respect to the City of

[ Page 1542 ]

Victoria.

The mayor of Victoria, Mr. Pollen, has talked of the need to

co-ordinate development. He has sent a letter to the Premier

which was made public. I would like the Minister's statement as

to the government's proposals for following up that request of

the mayor of Victoria. Let's stop the practice of the last

three years and, indeed, of the previous 20 as well, which has

been to ignore the local inhabitants, to ignore their elected

representatives and to come down with provincial decisions as

to what will happen in Victoria. Let's get together with the

city and let's plan on a co-ordinated basis.

The third point I would like to raise, Mr. Minister, is that

of urban transportation. The Minister has been engagingly frank

in his statements regarding Fast buses, urban transportation

and rapid transit. He has said that he has tried to think of

something and he hasn't always thought he has succeeded. If

anybody else has a bright idea, let him come forward. I

remember his statement last summer in which — and let me be

perfectly frank, Mr. Chairman — that Minister was right on. He

said that he had worried about this for a little over a year

and he hadn't come up with anything. If the mayor of Vancouver

and other people could, he would be delighted to hear it. Well,

that's a good approach — as I said, part of that modest

approach is very becoming.

Nobody has a solution to rapid transit; nobody has an

instant solution to the difficulties facing our urban centres.

However, the Minister is spending a large amount of money in

this area. More is probably needed. To leave the situation as

it currently is.... You certainly have new bus services, new

buses, new routes, different scheduling — a different approach

in those respects. Not to come up with any overall policy

decisions with respect to rapid transit, in particular for

Vancouver, is not dealing with the problem at all, Mr.

Minister. We are picking away at the edges of the urban

transportation problem.

What is your objective? Are you hoping to have the downtown

Vancouver core without private vehicles? I don't know what your

objectives are. Are you working towards a rapid transit system

on rail, either underground or above ground?

Those of us who visited Expo cannot but remember the fact that at Expo eight

years ago you had a system without any private automobiles whatsoever. It handled

enormous numbers of people; probably the number of people per acre at Expo exceeded

that of two or three Canadian cities. You had enormous numbers of people being

handled by rapid transit systems. You had trains running right through pavilions.

The U.S. pavilion had a train going right through it, and it seemed to work.

Why is it that we manage to work out rapid transit at Expo and why is it that

we fail so dismally in our cities? Surely the problem is not totally dissimilar.

Expo had vast numbers of people in a relatively concentrated area which, although

concentrated, is the size of many Canadian cities. Why is it we could manage

it eight years ago in Expo under those special conditions and we have failed

in city after city across Canada since then? Why is it that Vancouver and Victoria

and other cities in B.C. are increasingly strangled in traffic? Yet we know

that technology can provide us with answers and, indeed, has done so in the

past in certain examples. I am not talking towards any Utopian situation; I

am simply referring to something we all remember well, the Expo fair, a situation

where rapid transit succeeded.

There was a play, Mr. Chairman, which had as one of its

scenes a great scene of a truck delivering a box of chocolates

in New York. Because this truck stopped in a street to deliver

a box of chocolates, everything froze for blocks around. And

that's much the situation we have in city after city in Canada

and in the States at the present time. We just don't have a

system which works.

Perhaps the Minister will say a little more than he did

about his objectives in rapid transit and where things are

going. Clearly the money being put aside for it, totally

unchanged from last year, is going to be inadequate. I say

totally unchanged and I am talking about the metropolitan

transit subsidy. I think the Minister owes it to this House and

to the City of Vancouver in particular to give us proper

direction as to where things are going.

Mr. Minister, the previous speaker trod lightly on the

question of the per capita grant and finances. I would like to

say a few more words about it. The per capita grant which the

municipalities receive is relatively little at the present

time. On a comparative basis, if we compare it with 1969, the

per capita grant was $25, which represented 30.9 per cent of

the per capita income tax in the province; today the per capita

grant is up but it represents only 20.6 per cent of the per

capita income tax of the province.

In other words, if we had simply allowed the percentage

figure for income tax to be used as the guide against which you

judge your per capita grant, the per capita grant would now be

$48 per person and not the present $34. I wonder whether the

Minister would indicate to us what steps he intends to

take.

I asked him a question, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier was

still in Ottawa and came out with that announcement that the

funds for the municipalities would be made available regardless

of the increase in the price of natural gas — the first time

that he had divorced these two obviously separate questions.

The Minister said it would be inappropriate at that time to

announce when the municipalities would be told how much more

they would be getting but he would be doing it in due course.

Well, some days have gone by. The Minister still hasn't

indicated to this House or to

[ Page 1543 ]

the municipalities concerned how much they're going to get.

If they don't know how much they're going to get, they simply

cannot plan their budgets properly as they are required by law

to do and as they must do in the next week or two. No time, Mr.

Minister, would be better than today to indicate to the

municipalities how much more they're going to get.

The per capita grant is inadequate; the other sources of

revenue the municipalities get are inadequate as well to handle

the expenses they have. The Premier has made it perfectly clear

that they're going to get an increase regardless of what

happens to natural gas. Therefore, surely the time has come to

tell them what it is so they can budget properly. Budgeting at

the last minute isn't good budgeting, and budgeting at the last

minute will lead to budgets just as phony as this provincial

government budget was last year. We don't want that to happen.

They have to be able to budget accurately in the full knowledge

of what they are going to get from the provincial

government.

While I'm on the subject of the per capita grant and

municipal needs, I should point out that the amount of money

given to the municipalities comes from the provincial

government or from the municipal tax base, namely real

property. If the government wants to accept the principle of

tax-sharing with the municipalities, I urge this Minister to

make the tax-sharing something done on either income tax,

gasoline tax, receipts from liquor sales or something more

stable than the return overseas on a certain natural product

such as gas, which is in any event a depleting natural resource

and, obviously, in the future will be unable to provide revenue

at all. Surely the municipalities should share tax revenues in

a way in which they can judge and anticipate and with which

they can budget properly. The present system simply is

extremely difficult to function properly because the present

system just has the government announcing at the very last

minute what the per capital grant increases will be.

So the government should make it perfectly clear to the

municipalities whether there will be revenue-sharing in the

future and on what basis. Revenue from foreign sales of gas

just doesn't seem to be a sensible thing to base

revenue-sharing on. I wonder if the Minister would indicate to

us whether we're going to get it shared on the basis of the

overall government receipts, whether it's going to be shared on

the basis of income tax receipts, whether it's going to be

shared on the basis of gasoline tax or liquor returns or

anything of that nature. Surely there must be some indication

of where the money will be coming from and what will be shared

so that they can budget properly.

Municipal expenditures could, of course, be met by increasing government intervention

and increasing provincial government takeovers of certain municipal services.

But I know that this Minister does not approve of greater centralization in

this regard and he wants to make sure that the municipalities remain strong.

For them to remain strong, to assess local needs and spend money accordingly,

they must have an adequate source of revenue.

The final point I'd like to mention is the new Assessment

Authority. The Minister is aware — we are all aware because

we've all received representations — of the decline in morale

among assessors due to the uncertainty that now faces so many

of them. Some are out of a job; others don't know they will be.

The municipalities feel that they're saddled with extra costs

which they were not expecting. I wonder whether the Minister

would indicate to us what precisely the future policy will be

with respect to this new Assessment Authority. Extra costs are

very substantial, and the Minister knows it. If the extra costs

result, as they do, from direct provincial government action,

surely the Ministers in the provincial government should be

willing to pick up the tab for what they themselves have

done.

In addition, I wonder whether he could assure those

assessors, who are now in doubt as to their future employment,

what the government policy is. Are you trying to cut down on

the total number? Are you simply trying to retire people early?

Are you trying for retraining? What is happening in that

area?

Mr. Chairman, I will be speaking on other votes, if we ever

get to them, in due course.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You refer to increases in certain sections

of the budget, and I might point out one or two things.

Printing and publications are up. They're not actually up in

amount of cost; they're up in the budget. We had printing and

publications last year as well, but we stole from other votes

to pay for it. It is the actual cost in the budget now. There

was no provision for printing before. For example, on the

question of preparing a plan and so on on the Whistler

question, preparing that sort of thing costs money and there

was nothing in the budget for it. That is why you'll see that

this year there is a provision for that in the budget.

Basically, the difference is in salaries. We had to send

people to the technical planning committees meeting throughout

the province. They are driving or going by air or whatever to

those meetings, generally once a month, at a cost substantially

increased over last year's. We could cut down on the number of

times they go, but, as the requirement is under the Municipal

Act, it seemed that we should at least have our people present

at those meetings.

The question of the Highlands district is, as you know, in

the hands of the Department of Housing. I cannot honestly say

what the latest plans are as far as that area is concerned.

Certainly, as far as I was concerned, there was some worry

about the expense

[ Page 1544 ]

of servicing in that area and the question of whether or not

there could be fill-in in the Colwood-Langford area. The

reports to which you refer are those of the Department of

Housing, not of my department. I do not have them to table

them.

You bring up the question of transit and what we would like

and the question of stopping vehicles from going into the

centre of Vancouver. In the City of Vancouver, other than all

other cities in the province, the city owns their own streets.

The province has no jurisdiction over the streets in Vancouver.

Any plan to block certain sections from automobile use would

have to be city decisions. We could do it in Victoria. We would

have the power to do it in Victoria or other areas in the

province, but not in the City of Vancouver. That is probably

where the greatest need for such possible action would take

place. If that is done, it would have to be a decision by the

City of Vancouver.

I personally like rail as an answer for transit problems in

congested areas. The capital costs are substantial in the

initial stages, but the operations are cheaper than the bus

system. The initial costs are much higher. The districts and

cities at the present time, to put it mildly, are not sold on

light rail if any part of it is going to be using city streets.

There has to be a selling question I think, before they will go

100 per cent gung ho for a light rail answer.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): There would be

street separations?

HON. MR. LORIMER: In some places there would be grade

separations, but in other areas it would be on a street

alignment. It would end up as a variety of separations beside

streets and on the streets.

One of the problems is that, unlike many of our cities,

Vancouver — and that is the area I presume we are basically

talking about at the moment, the greater Vancouver area — is

very spread out. From the university out to Langley is 40

miles, I suppose. With a similar population in older

communities and communities in Europe where they have more

sophisticated services, we might be looking at a distance of 10

to 15 miles for the same population.

The initial capital costs of putting the service in are

substantial, but it has to be done. In my opinion, it can only

be done piece-by-piece. It is not feasible to do the whole

thing at one time. The cost would be far too great. Although I

would like to see it done, obviously, with the present budget,

certainly I would be unable to even look at that.

I certainly think there is a requirement for some underground services in parts

of Vancouver, maybe parts of New Westminster, within the next few years. Planning

is going ahead on this but the actual digging won't be starting this year, You

referred to the per capita grants, and the calculations of what the percentage

of the capital grant is now, what the increase has been in the last two years

and the increase in budgets, and so on. Well, it's very misleading to just use

the per capita grant. What you have to look at if you want to compare those

figures is transfer of funds from the province to the municipality, or the services

supplied to municipalities by provincial funds.

The per capita grant is only one item to consider. I've said

before, and I repeat again, that in my opinion the per capita

grant is not an equitable way of distributing wealth. It's

unfair and it prejudices, in my opinion, areas such as the

northern areas, the eastern provincial areas where there's a

great amount of snow, and cities in which there is a great

amount of rock which makes the cost of installation of sewers

and waterlines very expensive. A per capita grant just looks at

the number of people and pays X number of dollars. Servicing

may be very cheap in that particular city, or it may be very

expensive, but on the per capita grant it isn't recognized as

such.

If you go through the per capita and the changes that have

been made since we have been government.... In 1972, the per

capita grant was $30. If you add the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund to municipal projects, we come to a total

figure of $22 million. If you want to transfer that to per

capita, it's $ 12.10.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): That wasn't all spent in

municipalities. Don't give us that stuff.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, this is the amount that was spent in

municipalities. If you want to go to the total amount, you're

up to $37 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR LORIMER: So you're talking about $22 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Twenty-two million was spent on municipal

projects in municipalities.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It hurts, doesn't it?

MR. FRASER: It hurts you.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The net saving to municipalities resulting

from the province assuming the administration of welfare, where

those costs have been assumed, is $5 million or another total

per

[ Page 1545 ]

capita of $2.75.

MR. GIBSON: That's all in Vancouver.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, it isn't just in Vancouver. There are

about eight cities throughout the province in which the

administration of welfare has been taken over by the province.

It hasn't been done in North Vancouver or Burnaby....

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Or Surrey.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Or Surrey. The per capita increase is $4.

The per capita grant adjustment payments to be made this year

are $6.7 million or $3.68 per capita; Sewerage Facilities

Assistance Act, $5.615 million or $3.09 per capita; grants paid

to municipalities on restructuring; $3 million or almost $2 per

capita, and so on. It comes to an additional amount of $41.41

per capita from $30. It's over double what it was — the

transfer of funds to municipalities that took place in 1972. So

it's fine to take a figure of just a per capita and work it

over because you'll get a different balance, but the benefit to

municipalities is the amount of money or services that they

receive, not just the per capita grant. That's only one leg of

the total. In my opinion, the per capita grant should not be

increased, and servicing and other transfers are what is

required.

I've stated, too, that we will be meeting with the Union of

B.C. Municipalities' executive on Friday next.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I'm not suggesting that it all be tied

up in special programmes. I'm not suggesting that. I'd say

there's a better system of transferring funds than per capita,

though, in addition to special projects, because what has

happened is the province has developed in different ways in

different areas. In the new areas now — in a number of cases,

the growing areas — in many cases you're going to have water

and sewage systems,

whereas the older communities have their

water and sewage systems in place and probably all paid for.

The cost to the new areas that have to put those systems in is

very, very expensive, much more expensive than it was for the

older communities. Maybe there's an argument there, but, in any

event, some communities have their services in place basically;

other communities don't, and those other communities are having

a tough time trying to get those services that other

communities have had for years and taken for granted.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What kind of a system

are you going to use to determine this?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The sharing formulas of the natural

resources will be discussed, as I say, with the UBCM executive

on Friday. We will take in what they suggest; we will make a

suggestion to them. If there's not agreement, then we will come

back and produce at that meeting, I hope, other formulas for....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I haven't got a final answer to give to

the Legislature. I can say that the amount we expect for

distribution will be $20 million, so there will be no....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I beg your pardon.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members wait

until the Minister is finished?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'd answer that but I'm not allowed to.

(Laughter.)

As far as the assessments — that is, you understand, under

the Department of Finance — I've certainly never heard of any

assessors being laid off as a result of this. I would expect

that the assessors would be hired by the new authority.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, a few questions to the Minister. I

think we should have a few questions when $ 100 million of

taxpayers' money is involved — $100,416,000 as a matter of fact.

It's very kind of you, Mr. Chairman, to give us three hours to

talk about spending $100 million.

Getting to the Minister's department.... I'm not sure

whether this is the proper place, but I think it was brought up

by the prior speaker that we pretty well have to cover each

department under Municipal Affairs, or any department, because

we don't get the time to go into the individual

departments.

I have one question at the administrative level for the

Minister. I'd like to know why he has a Deputy Minister and two

Associate Deputy Ministers, one with a salary of $28,000 — I

refer to the Associate Deputy Minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would ask him, if we're going to be getting into

the details of any particular vote other than the one under

consideration, that we wait until that point.

MR. SMITH: We may never get there, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 1546 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It is the responsibility of the Chair

to enforce the rules, not to receive opinions from the floor.

Would the Hon. Members be quiet for a moment? I would ask the

Hon. Member to relate his remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister in a general sense. This is

permissible.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I knew you were going

to be a little touchy and sensitive on this subject. I'm very

sorry for that. I will just finish this question...other than

policy matters.

The Deputy Minister has a certain salary, but one Associate

Deputy Minister is at $28,000, and another is at $36,000. I'd

like to know what the difference is. Surely it can't be

political because I think they have equal responsibility. Why

haven't they got equal pay? That is my first question to the

Minister.

The next item is: in the Province of British Columbia we

have approximately 150 municipalities, more or less — I don't

want to get into an argument about it. They are all governed by

the Municipal Act, but we have one municipality that isn't. I

refer to the City of Vancouver, which operates under the

Vancouver Charter. I have never known, since I've been a Member

of this Legislature, why we have to have two separate pieces of

legislation to govern municipalities. I think it's completely

ridiculous.

My question, really, is: is this Minister or this government

considering putting them all under one Act where they belong? I

think it would do the City of Vancouver a lot of good to be

governed under the Municipal Act; it would really increase

their performance as a municipal government, in my opinion.

This House has asked for amendments to the charter, and so

on, separate from amending the Municipal Act. I really think

the Municipal Act is far superior to the Vancouver Charter. My

question on that is: are you considering in any way eliminating

the Vancouver Charter and putting the City of Vancouver under

the Municipal Act, where, in my opinion, they should have been

a long time ago and certainly should be now? It would be to the

benefit of all the people of British Columbia and, more

specifically, the citizens of the City of Vancouver.

I would also like to hear the Minister's opinion on the fact

that we have one person in British Columbia in charge of all

the zoning of this province. He isn't a member of a municipal

council, a regional district or the Municipal Affairs

department. I like to call this gentleman the zoning tsar of

British Columbia. I refer to the chief planning officer of the

Department of Highways.

think it is absolutely ridiculous that municipal councils and regional districts

throughout the whole province draft bylaws as they see it at the local level

for the betterment of their community and hopefully the total province. One

man, not in the Municipal Affairs department, can nullify all their thinking

and planning, as well as the Municipal Affairs department.

It is absolutely ridiculous. My question on this is: is

there any consideration by the Minister to take hold of all the

zoning and planning in this province, where it properly

belongs, in his department, or is he going to continue to let

the Highways department, through its chief planning officer,

have the final say on every bylaw that is submitted in this

province, whether it be by a municipal council, a regional

district or even suggestions from your own department? After

you've approved a bylaw coming from a municipal council or

regional district, it goes down to this zoning tsar and he

kills it. Mr. Chairman, do you know why he kills it? Because it

is going to put extra strain on the highways of this province.

I suggest that the Highways department's job is to look after

the stress and strain of the Highways department, build

adequate roads, and not be the zoning and planning tsars in

this province as they are today.

I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, about the increase in property

taxation throughout British Columbia that we are all going to

know in a very sad form within 30 days. Most all of us have

homes or businesses and so on. I refer to all the citizens. We

are going to get our tax notices whether we live in a

municipality or whether we live in the unorganized areas of the

province.

There is an indication, Mr. Chairman, that property taxes

are going to advance at least 25 per cent, and I'm talking net.

That is far beyond the rate of inflation, and I blame it solely

on inadequate support by the provincial government to the

municipal level.

I was interested in the last short discussion on the extra

$20 million that apparently is going to be kicked into the

bucket to help, but it still is going to show a considerable

increase in property taxation in British Columbia. I say to

this Minister that the Minister of Finance has conned him out

and got the municipalities in this position. It is obvious that

he has no doubt asked the Minister of Finance for additional

support to per capita grants and other financial forms, and has

been given the backhand. He didn't win out in that and

consequently the property taxes are going up all over this

province.

I believe the Minister feels that this extra $20 million

will help, and certainly it will help. We are all interested to

know how the pie is going to be carved up.

I was in the interior on the weekend in a small village and

they have already calculated their share on

[ Page

1547 ]

the basis of the rumours they hear from this government. In

this village municipality in the interior, the mayor advised me

on the weekend that their large share of the huge gas increases

that the Premier got from Ottawa will bring his municipality of

2,000 people the grand sum of $560.

Mr. Chairman, I say shame on this government for conning the

people into thinking they are going to get a lot of help. The

municipalities are faced with inflation rates in wages alone of

20 per cent; the fuel has gone up that amount or more because

of increased cost and increased taxation put on them by this

government. Then they come around with a handout of that size.

There is no doubt in my mind why the taxpayers of this

province, whether it be commercial taxation or residential

taxation or any other type, will advance to the degree it is

going to advance this year.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What village is this? What city?

I'd like to know.

MR. FRASER: I'd certainly give it to you if I thought it

would help them.

Two other things I have here, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister.

The autonomy of regional districts concerns me, and again I

think it goes back a great deal to this zoning tsar in the

Highways department. I'm sure the Minister knows about it.

Really, in effect, dealing with the autonomy of the regional

districts, they were originally set up by this Legislature in,

I believe, 1965 — by the unanimous vote of this Legislature, I

might say, The province was divided into regional districts and

it ended up being divided into 28 regional districts. That is

the problem. Their primary function was zoning and

planning.

I agree that some regional districts haven't done their

homework, but a lot have. They are being frustrated at every

turn by the different government departments. After they have

done their planning it gets vetoed here by the Environment and

Land Use Committee, the Land Commission, the Highways

department — you name it.

Believe me, I don't think we are going to have regional

directors in this province if we can't clarify more their

positions of authority for zoning and planning. Quite frankly,

Mr. Minister, they have really little to say in the overall

function of zoning and planning — which includes subdividing

and so on and so forth. I would like to hear from the Minister — and I

have reason to believe that the Minister agrees with me — what he is

going to do to further beef up the authority of

regional districts.

I was surprised the other day when this Minister announced in the House that

there is going to be a bill before this House — I can talk about it because

the bill hasn't come in yet — to increase the mill rate ceilings in British

Columbia. There have been for years for general purposes, as far as I know,

three levels: a 30-mill maximum for villages, 40 mills for towns and 50 mills

for cities and districts. The Minister has already announced in this House that

there will be an amendment coming to let them advance further, which means further

property tax increases. I would like to ask the Minister, although maybe it's

unfair with a bill coming in, how far he is going to advance these maximums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would draw to the attention of the

Hon. Member that in committee stage matters of legislation are

out of order.

MR. FRASER: In effect, really, this will allow the

municipalities to further increase, and it might not be

necessary.

There is one last point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, where

I am sure this Minister has failed completely with the Minister

of Finance. I was a member of a municipal committee that

travelled during two different years. No matter what the

subject the Legislature said we were supposed to handle, the

question came up again and again from municipalities on the

amount of tax the provincial government pays to

municipalities.

For your information, Mr. Chairman, by law they only pay 15

mills to a municipality. I am referring to the general mill

rate. This year the general mill rate in this province that

everybody else has to pay is going to be about 45 mills. That

means that the taxpayers of this province, the property

taxpayers, are subsidizing the provincial government properties

by 30 mills. It's completely out of hand. I would like to know

what steps, if any, are going to be taken to have these

provincial properties pay the going rate in the municipalities

in which they belong.

It is far more important, not only because of the

discrepancy in the mill rate that the province pays to

municipalities as compared to a homeowner, with this government

going into every avenue of business it can think of.... Are

they going to pay the 15 mills for all the chicken factories,

the pulp mills, the sawmills? We've lost track of all they have

got. I am referring to those within municipal boundaries; are

the Crown corporations paying 15 mills? Are they going to pay

the going rate, or are they going to just go for a free ride

and then we will find out they've had net profits of millions

of dollars? We continually are told: "Look at all the money

they've made." You know, it's comparing apples with

oranges.

I'd like to hear from the Minister what he plans to do about

getting the provincial government to pay its proper share of

the taxation on the property it owns to the municipalities

involved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: You did mention the different pay scales

of the senior members of my

[ Page 1548 ]

department. They are all doing exceptionally good jobs, and

they all have different responsibilities.

The department is basically set up into two areas. One deals

with the administration and the financial sections of the

department. The Deputy Minister has general overview of this.

Vic Parker, the Associate Deputy, is looking over the areas of

transit and the planning sections of the department and has

basic jurisdiction over those two sectors. The third member,

Chris Woodward, is assisting the Deputy Minister in the

operations of the finance and administrative sections, plus the

reorganization that he takes under his own wing.

That's the reason. There is, in my opinion, a little

difference in responsibility of a number of people within the

department who are answerable to the different people. I want

to assure you there is no political question involved here. All

three are very able administrators, and I'm very happy with the

service they have supplied to me.

The question of the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act.

I agree with you 100 per cent and there's no need for two

separate statutes. However, no one in the municipal field has

requested a change and the people in Vancouver object to the

change. I don't think it's hurting anything to have the two

Acts. I don't feel it would be of any great benefit to the

province one way or the other to tell the City of Vancouver

that they no longer have a charter. I personally believe

likewise that the Municipal Act is somewhat ahead of the

Vancouver Charter. There have been no requests from any groups

within Vancouver that they want a change; there have been no

requests. But there has been the opposite from the council in

Vancouver as I've asked them what they thought of the

proposition.

The setting of the taxes. I have read reports in which some

of the cities say their taxes are going to go up 25 per cent.

I've also read reports of other communities whose tax increases

vary in accordance with circumstances in those particular

communities. As I've mentioned earlier, the assistance granted

by the province to the municipalities throughout the province

has doubled in the last two and a half years. The cities do

decide what projects they want to proceed with; they set their

own budgets. In some cases, the servicing requirements may be a

little higher than in other communities. The ones where

servicing is higher will undoubtedly be having a budget showing

an increase in taxes.

You mentioned the village in your riding that said they

would only get $350. You can go back to them and guarantee them

at least four times that amount for openers. I think you will

find the towns and villages in this province will be very, very

happy, as well as the municipalities and the cities.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the zoning tsar?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I was hoping I could answer that

before the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was here. There

is a problem in the approving officer being in the Department

of Highways. I think that is in the wrong idea for approval for

planning in the province, and I don't hesitate to repeat that.

However, from practical points of view, I believe the

Department of Municipal Affairs is one of the "neutral"

departments in government in that they, at least, should be

looking at all aspects of government involvement in

municipalities. In my opinion, this duty should be within that

department. However, we have no one in the field to look after

these applications. To send someone from Victoria up to the

locations to make a recommendation or a study of that

particular subdivision I think would be a disservice at this

time to the residents involved because I can see delay after

delay after delay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Increasing of national limits of borrowing

or of mill rates. It was set a great number of years ago, as

you know. A number of the municipalities have been at their

maximum for some time. I don't for a minute think that that

necessarily increases taxes. What I do think is that it allows

the municipalities, if the need is there, to increase.

Basically, I am sure that the council people of most

municipalities are responsible local citizens of the community.

If they feel that the community wants to have extra services in

which they require further mill rates, they will have the

option to carry this out within certain limits which will come

in with legislation.

As far as taxation of government lands, Crown lands and

Crown corporations, that is one of the areas of the terms of

reference for the taxation commission. I would anticipate

changes will be made when the report is filed.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): In discussing municipal affairs,

we would like to start off by taking a very general position

that we are concerned that municipal government is becoming

less and less recognized as a specific third level of

government. The means by which this is happening is a very ad

hoc method of altering the financing of municipalities and the

continuing erosion of financial autonomy in various ways by

other levels of government — regional and provincial levels in

particular. Although there has been a great deal of discussion

already about financing, I think inevitably this is the topic

that any responsible opposition Member has to tackle.

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair.]

[ Page 1549 ]

The Minister has made a clear statement that the per capita

grant is not a satisfactory vehicle or method of assisting the

municipalities. So my first question is very simply this: in

recognition of that admission, when are we to be given the

opportunity to participate in discussion about methods other

than the per capita grant? The per capita grant, as the

Minister himself has said, and I think as the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has stated in his budget speech,

does not reflect growth or the many other factors and costs.

Certainly it has been stated by many speakers in this House

that it would make much more sense, if this government really

believes in the municipalities as being a legitimate and valid

third level of government, that the municipal income should be

more closely allied and tied in some way to provincial

revenues.

In my inquiries I discover that already in Quebec provincial

revenues are related to the sales tax. In Manitoba there is a

connection to the personal income tax. We would not be breaking

any new ground if we were to move in this province towards

giving the municipalities some predictable, consistent method

of financing other than the rather ad hoc use of a per capita

grant which this year is static and in previous years has been

juggled by a certain amount.

Whether the Minister likes it or not, I think the figures

should be quoted to show the increasing disparity between the

per capita grant and provincial revenue over recent years. I

might say in passing, Mr. Chairman, that I wonder why the

latest available figures, in many respects, are 1972 figures.

It is my understanding that the municipalities have to submit

figures by the spring of the year. I am wondering why we can't

at least have 1973 figures available.

At any rate, as far as one can determine in regard to

provincial revenue, between 1970-71 and 1975-76 provincial

revenue per capita rose by 138 per cent; provincial revenue per

capita from personal, corporation, capital, succession and gift

taxes rose by 179 per cent; provincial revenue per capita from

sales and fuel taxes rose by 124 per cent. In that same time

the provincial per capita grant rose by 13 per cent.

The Minister made mention earlier on about transfer of funds

in other ways to the municipalities. With respect, I think it

is fair to say that while municipalities might or might not

choose to use funds through the Community Recreational

Facilities Fund Act, this is hardly to be looked upon in the

same light as a direct per capita grant to the municipality

inasmuch as that money is made available to various

organizations to create recreational facilities. It can hardly

be construed as being exactly similar to a per capita grant

used for the maintenance of day-to-day operations of the

services in the municipalities.

I think the Minister also referred earlier to the reduction of the social assistance

participation by the municipalities from 15 to 10 per cent. But there again,

if one looks at some of the figures, Mr. Chairman, when this was announced after

the spring budget last year in 1974, the per capita charge back to the municipalities

was reduced from $1.20 per month to 85 cents per month, but I gather this was

only done for April, May and June. Then, in anticipation of greater expenditures

by the Department of Human Resources, it was increased again to $1.10 per capita.

Maybe the Minister would care to either confirm or correct that statement I've

made. At least my information is that the charge back to the municipalities

worked out to $12.45 on behalf of every municipal resident. That is one-third

of the per capita grant.

When the Minister talks about reducing the percentage of

social assistance paid by the municipality, at least the

figures now available suggest that one-third of the per capita

grant is used to pay for social assistance, a very substantial

fraction of the money derived from the per capita grant.

Looking at the potential for future figures it looks as though

during the next year it will be in the order of $15 per

municipal resident for social assistance.

When the Minister reacted back in January to the provisional

budgets brought forward by the municipalities, he mentioned

that the municipalities had been wailing for a long time about

rising costs and inadequate financial support. In fact he said

that much of the wailing that went along with the release of

their budgets occurs every year and has done so for the last

100 years. I suppose in fairness, Mr. Chairman, we could say

that neither municipalities nor individuals like to face the

potential of ever-increasing budgetary costs of whatever level.

But I hope that doesn't mean that the Minister is being

indifferent to some legitimate problems in many of the

municipalities.

I certainly have to talk for Oak Bay where we're in the

middle of a strike which has gone on — I'm not sure of the

exact number of weeks — for 12 or 13 weeks or something of this

order. I have to draw the Minister's attention to the kind of

demands that are faced by the mayor and council in Oak Bay. For

the inside employees there will be a payroll increase of 26.89

per cent and for the outside employees a payroll increase of

49.6 per cent. These are the figures on which the employees of

the municipality have dug in their heels and are showing very

little sign of coming down from. The Minister said a minute ago

that he had heard that some municipalities would face an

increase of 25 per cent in costs, and it certainly is that kind

of figure for Oak Bay. It's right on. Although we often hear

many frivolous comments made in this House about the affluent

constituency of Oak Bay, let me tell the Minister and everybody

who has ears to listen that there are many senior citizens on

fixed incomes in Oak Bay who are not the least bit amused by

the kind of costs which

[ Page 1550 ]

face them if this kind of settlement or even something close

to these kinds of figures prove to be the final settlement.

I would like the Minister to be more specific in suggesting

that, as he has done publicly and as he has done in this House,

there's to be little or no relief for this kind of tax

situation in Oak Bay or in whatever other ridings it looks like

being 25 per cent. I won't belabour the point over the $20

million additional money from natural gas revenue. Every Member

of the opposition who has spoken has referred to it, and

rightly so. I think it's a ridiculous situation that the

municipalities, who now have 19 working days in which to

arrange their budgets and get to the third reading of their

bylaws, are still left hanging in limbo, wondering how much it

will be. Even more so than that, they have had statements that

it will not just be an across-the-board increase of the per

capital grant for everybody, that there is some hope that a

better method of distributing whatever sum of money is

available, that some better method will be utilized.

This kind of uncertainty and, as I say, this ad hoc approach

to financial assistance is something which I feel is really

quite unreasonable and unjustified. If the Minister of Finance

is as reasonably confident, as he appears to be, that $20

million is a minimum figure, I think if he had guaranteed the

municipalities that minimum figure this at least would have

given them some more dependable and more predictable formula by

which they could work out their budgets. Too often this

government seems to take the attitude that as long as they're

about to give the municipalities some money under some formula

or other, that's good enough for them. This is the point I

tried to make at the start: although the municipalities are

viewed as a specific third level of government with their own

jurisdiction and their own responsibilities, it seems that this

government treats them just like you treat a poor relation.

We'll throw them a few crumbs when it suits us, in the manner

that suits us, and by the amount that suits us.

The Minister may feel that that, is harsh criticism. But I

do feel that in this particular instance where a commitment in

principle has been made to pass on revenue from a provincial

source of approximately the following amount, to have the

municipalities hanging in limbo with, as I say, 19 working days

left to complete their plans and their budgets doesn't show the

kind of respect between levels of government that I think is

reasonable. I don't think that if the federal government

treated the provincial government in a similar way in regard to

some of the moneys to be made available, this provincial

government would be very happy about that.

The other factor which I think the Minister chooses to overlook in terms of

the amount by which provincial costs have risen is really proved when you look

at some of the figures that have been worked out by the municipalities for the

basic materials and costs. Gasoline for municipal vehicles has gone up by 25

to 40 per cent, apart from the 2 cents per gallon which the government has just

added to the tax bill. The contract prices for curbs, gutters and asphalt have

increased by approximately 50 per cent; sand and gravel, 20 per cent, and water

pipe approximately 30 to 40 per cent. As I stated a moment ago, the wage demands,

particularly in the specific example of the greater Victoria area in Oak Bay,

suggest that the costs will at least increase by 25 per cent this year. Maybe

the Minister has the figures and the formula to tell us, if that $20 million

is made available, for example, to Oak Bay in a similar manner to other municipalities,

what reducing effect that will have on the proposed 25 per cent increase.

We would agree very much with the comments of the former

speaker about grants in lieu of taxes. It seems only right to

us that provincial buildings should pay either the equal amount

of grant or should be assured that the municipality doesn't

suffer as a result of having provincial buildings, the

buildings occupied by Crown corporations in that

municipality.

Furthermore, not too many municipalities have a university

located in their midst, but we happen to have that in Oak Bay.

It's our feeling that universities that are located within the

boundaries of a municipality and receive services from the

municipality should also pay grants equal to the full value of

the tax that would otherwise be paid. I wonder if the Minister

would care to.... Perhaps he would give the same answer he

gave a moment ago: we should leave that to the committee that's

presently studying assessments and taxation.

There's little doubt, as far as we're concerned in our part

of the world, that we either have to have more financial help

in Oak Bay or we will be reducing service — one or the other.

If the per capita grant isn't the answer, maybe the Minister

will tell us what the alternative is.

I may have missed earlier in the debate whether the Minister

gave a statement as to what date we are finally going to know

this magic figure — this magic amount — and the date by which.... I heard the Minister say he was meeting with UBCM on

Friday. Can we assume that that's the date he's chosen finally

to let us know what the decision will be?

There are one or two other points I wonder if the Minister

would care to comment on. This government changed a very basic

principle in legislation when it determined that a person

living in one municipality but paying taxes on property in

another municipality could not have any vote in that

municipality. I realize that the principle involved was to move

towards residence as a qualification for voting, but I always

felt — I believe it's traditional — that where one is obligated

to pay taxes, there should be some measure by which the

taxpayer has a voice in the spending of

[ Page

1551 ]

these tax moneys.

If I might just take another example in the other direction,

we have the absolutely incredible situation now in municipal

law that on the other hand I can live in Oak Bay but can run

for office in North Saanich if I want — or Duncan or anywhere

else. There seems the incredible contradiction here that a

resident in one area can seek office and be elected in another

municipality; yet in that other municipality he might own

property and pay taxes but he doesn't have a vote. I don't know

whether this contradiction arose by accident or whether it was

intended, but the very obvious disparity in the electoral

rights and the capacity to hold office is strange, to say the

least. I wonder if the Minister would care to tell us whether

the government will reconsider allowing one vote to a person

who owns property in a municipality, regardless of his or her

place of residence.

The Minister touched upon assessment. I would like to ask

the Minister, in light of a statement that was released the

other day that financing for the new authority will involve a

1.17 mill levy to B.C. taxpayers to cover some of the costs of

assessment, to tell us what sum of money that 1.17 is expected

to bring in and how that total sum of money compares to the sum

that was involved in paying the costs past year. The 1.17, I

understand, is to be on every piece of property in the

province, organized or unorganized.

There is another question I would like to ask. Last year I

believe $300,000 was set aside to help municipalities with the

cost of enumeration. As I recall, this $300,000 was anticipated

to cover about half of the total costs. I wonder if the

Minister could give us information as to how far the $300,000

went.

The last point I would like to raise also particularly

affects Oak Bay. In relation to

section 714(

a) of the Municipal

Act, which allows councils to designate heritage buildings, we

have in Oak Bay what is called Todd House, at 2564 Heron

Street. In this particular instance the owner of this property

has found that as a result of its designation he has suffered

in a variety of ways, not the least of which is an invasion of

his privacy with people walking up and taking pictures of his

home at every hour of the day and night during the tourist

season, and people knocking on the door and wishing to see

inside the house. These are some of the specific personal

problems that follow designation of Todd House. But beyond

that, because of these difficulties, he wants to sell the

house. Of course, because of the designation as a heritage

building there is immediately a great restriction in the number

of potential buyers.

All in all, Mr. Chairman, this matter, however well motivated, of designating

heritage buildings can act either to the advantage of the owner or the disadvantage.

But as far as this particular example is concerned, being the residence in which

the owner lives, it has certainly brought about some serious nuisance value

to his daily living, particularly in the tourist months in Victoria and the

difficulty involved in reselling the building, not to mention the restriction

placed on what he can do with his own building.

I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on the

validity of the argument that in such cases there should surely

be some way in which the provincial government would assist the

municipality in paying compensation or some form of financial

remuneration to the owner of such a building. I would like to

make it plain: I think we are referring specifically to a

non-revenue-producing building. It is quite obvious that if the

heritage designation to a commercial or revenue-producing

building in fact adds to the value of the building and adds to

the revenue-producing capacity of the building, then that is a

separate effect of the designation. I think that is less urgent

a matter to discuss than the case of an individual with such a

home as Todd House, which produces no revenue and in fact only

produces rising costs, as in any other residential home these

days in a municipality, This particular situation has been taken up with the council

in Oak Bay, but of course the council in Oak Bay, however it

might feel about the validity of the argument, doesn't have

money to be paying compensation in this way. It seems that when

in individual's property is unilaterally affected by

legislation of some substantial moment, when someone designates

your home as a heritage building, you no longer have the

freedom and flexibility to do with your home as you choose.

We know that this concept of preserving old buildings and

preserving our history is a very sound and admirable one, but

should it be done at financial penalty to the individual

concerned? I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on

this.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think part of your remarks have been

discussed in Hansard earlier. I think in the initial

part you were discussing the sharing programme of the natural

gas resources and the delay in notifying. The sharing of the

resource is the first case of its kind in Canada where a

municipality has shared in the natural resources of the

province, and it is a step in that direction. There has been in

other provinces some limited sharing in some items, but I think

this is a first in dealing with natural resources. That has

been a demand in the tri-level conferences by municipalities,

and all are meeting for some sharing programmes so that the

municipalities would have some knowledge of exactly what they

are getting. They would go up and down as the economy went up

and down.

Now I'm not suggesting this is a total answer to what the

municipalities want. I am saying that it is a

[ Page 1552 ]

very historic step in that direction.

As far as not being able to tell the Legislature how the

formula, it is my opinion, and we have had suggestions before

from Members who have spoken, that we should have consultation

with the municipalities. I am going to have consultation with

the UBCM to make sure that they are in agreement with what we

are doing before we can announce anything. We want to know what

they want and whether they are in agreement with what we think

should be done.

This formula, we hope, when it is arrived at, will be

completely satisfactory to the municipalities as well as to the

provincial government. I am hopeful that we can come to some

decision on Friday, but if they are absolutely opposed to what

we suggest and we are opposed to what they suggest, then we are

going to have to get together and pound out what we are going

to do. I hope we are going to announce it on Friday but I can't

promise that.

Interjections

HON. MR. LORIMER: $20 million.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Can we get a

personal guarantee on that?

MR. FRASER: A certified cheque.

MR. WALLACE: Could it be more than the $20 million?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Is that a third of

nothing.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It's a third of nothing, yes.

(Laughter.)

You know, I am not suggesting that municipalities are

rolling in wealth. But one of the problems is that people are

now making more and more demands on the local governments for

more and more services. That is the same, I suppose, throughout

the world — that people's expectations and their demands now are

much greater than they were even 10 or 20 years ago. It keeps

increasing each year, I suggest. As a result, the

municipalities are caught up with not just doing what they had

planned in the past for their programmes, but they have had

this and that added to it and as a result their costs are

mounting. In addition to that they are caught in the inflation

squeeze, the same as everyone else. The result has been that

their costs have gone out of sight.

I think we have done a reasonable job this year in trying to answer some of

their problems with the grants that have been given and will be given this year.

But I'm not here to suggest the municipalities have too much money. I am certain

that that is not true.

As far as where they spend their money is concerned, that is

strictly a local budget. They set their budgets. The local

community decides where they are going to spend that particular

dollar and so on and so forth. It is up to them to strike their

own budget.

If the residents in the area feel that the municipalities

are spending too much money, it is up to them to worry about

that at election time. But I think most municipalities are

acting in a very reasonable way, trying to satisfy the demands

of their people, yet taking a close look at costs. It is a very

difficult thing to balance something that is not

balanceable.

The one-person-one-vote is, in my opinion, the way to go.

It's the way the province operates in elections; it is the way

the federal government operates in elections; it is the way

many municipalities operate in the rest of Canada. I think it

is the retrograde position to say that if you own property you

have the right to vote, and if you don't, you don't have the

vote.

MR. WALLACE: I didn't say that. Everybody should have a

vote.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Previously, people had votes in a variety

of municipalities, and could vote wherever they owned property — had a special privilege of being able to vote. I think that

is wrong. Another matter in which this was made impossible is

that we are hopeful there will be a unified voters list of

municipal and provincial voters. We hope that will come about

after the enumeration for the next provincial election at which

time they will have a strong case for an overall enumeration,

and an enumeration that will probably be better done than a lot

of the municipalities would do due to the fact that people

leave the municipality and so on. On a provincial base, you

should catch everybody whether they are at home or away.

AN HON. MEMBER: When's the election?

HON. MR. LORIMER: It won't be this week.

The question of living in one city and running in another, I

think, could be handled provincially or federally. You have the

mayor of Victoria as an example; he lives in Oak Bay. I don't

see anything wrong with that. If he has the interests of

Victoria at heart, why shouldn't he be the mayor of Victoria?

If someone from Dawson Creek can be elected in Victoria, why

shouldn't he be elected in Victoria? I don't think we should

curb these people from moving around. If they can get elected,

the people of that community obviously want that person. I

don't think that is a problem. It may be in some cases,

but,

[ Page 1553 ]

generally speaking, I don't think it is a real problem. You

asked about the enumeration costs. We have paid out $321,000. 1

think we budgeted for $300,000. That represented approximately

50 per cent. In some municipalities, it was a little higher; in

some, a little lower, but basically 50 per cent of the cost of

the local enumeration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, there are some that wouldn't be

correct, but I am told the general figure is around 50 per

cent, on an average.

MR. CURTIS: You said last year that you were going to try to

wangle more.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I did. I wangled $21,000.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: What about the 1.17 levy for assessment?

HON. MR. LORIMER: That comes under the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and I don't have the

answer. If I had the answer I'd give it to you, but I don't

know about it because I just read the paper myself. I don't

know why that is. I would think the start-up money would be

part of it, but it seems pretty substantial to me. I can't

answer that question as I don't know. Mind you, I think on

balance the municipalities are talking, as I understand, about

what the total cost is to them and what it was last year. But

in some cases rentals of the assessment area, the floor space

and so on, will be a direct payment to that municipality. The

fact that their assessors will no longer be on the payroll but

on the payroll of the Assessment Authority.... I think there

are a number of items which haven't been listed in the

newspaper

article that have to be considered. I am not

suggesting that would take up the total difference, but I am

suggesting that it might have some effect if all the figures

were put into the paper.

As far as heritage buildings are concerned, municipalities may designate, if

they so wish, any heritage building and if they wish to purchase it they can

do so. A house that is used as a residence can be sold as a residence, I presume,

without any great depreciation in value and so on. In the question of a building

designated as a rental building or commercial building, there might be, I would

suggest, continuation of the rentals and I wouldn't think there would be that

much loss. The municipalities can pay them if they have the funds available

and they are buying land all over, as you know, for parks and so on, and they

would class heritage buildings in the same situation as a park, I presume. Also,

if the place is of provincial interest — a heritage provincial building — the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) has funds available for certain purchases.

So that is about all I can ans