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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3653 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Municipal Affairs estimates

On vote 178.

Mr. Wallace — 3653

On vote 180. Mr. McClelland — 3659

On vote 183. Mr. Curtis — 3662

On vote 185. Mr. Curtis — 3662

On vote 186. Mr. Curtis — 3664

Department of Highways estimates

On vote 93. Mr. Fraser — 3665

On vote 94. Mr. Fraser — 3665

On vote 95. Mr.Chabot — 3666

On vote 96. Mr. McClelland — 3666

On vote 97. Mr.Chabot — 3667

On vote 98. Mr. McClelland — 3668

On vote 100. Mr. Fraser — 3668

On vote 101. Mr. Phillips — 3668

Department of Human Resources estimates

On vote 109. Mr. McClelland —

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

chair.

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just wanted to ask a quick

question. It might not be in the Minister's capacity to answer

it, but we talked earlier about the development of the Inner

Harbour properties and the apparently over-lapping

responsibilities of different Ministers in the overall plan. I

notice that the city aldermen are very upset over the proposal

that the old Imperial Oil service station at the corner of

Government St. and Wharf St. may be used by this government as

an outlet for a fast-food service store.

I gather that the city sold the property to the CIDC and, in

so doing, the City of Victoria has lost control or feels it has

lost control....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) paid the money for it.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is looking very edgy on this subject.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The government paid the money for

it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Yes, but you had an agreement

on these deals, you know that. You had an agreement that you

wouldn't go in and do that thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You prefer Gasoline Alley, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, the point I'm trying to return to is....

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister is leaving the chair.

Apparently there isn't only overlapping responsibilities; maybe there are some

slight differences of opinion as to how this property in the Inner Harbour is

to be developed.

I gather the understanding of the city aldermen was that the

most appropriate agency through which this key site on the

total property could be developed would be through the CIDC.

They had no idea that the corner area there might be used for

something such as a food outlet. It is quite clear from the

comments of Alderman Mike Young that he is very uneasy that

they have gone into a deal with CIDC in good faith hoping that

the lot would be an integrated part of the overall Inner

Harbour development. Now they find that the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) appears to have other ideas as to how

that site would be developed.

Someone interjected a moment ago that the understanding

according to this morning's report was that Mike Young said the

property was sold to CIDC on the understanding that the

commission would only develop the property through consultation

with the city. From statements by the Liberal leader yesterday,

it is obvious that the city aldermen feel they are not being

consulted to the degree that they want or that they feel they

are entitled to. I wonder if this latest part of the total

picture is as it appears to be, and that the use to which that

site might be put by government would be very much against the

wishes of the aldermen and mayor of the City of Victoria.

Perhaps the Minister could respond to this.

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

sorry, Mr. Member, but I cannot answer your questions. I don't

have the answers. I was not, in any way, a part of the

agreement reached between the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) and the city. I don't know what the terms of the

agreement were on the purchase of this particular site.

The prospects of what will be placed on that site are

likewise unknown to me except for what I read in the papers —

that it was a sandwich spread or something of that sort. I

would suggest that you could possibly canvass this in question

period when the people who are responsible for this could

answer.

I might say that if the city feels it is having problems

with some department of government I would be more than happy

to hear from them and look the matter up myself.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Minister's candour. We can't

expect an answer from a Minister who is not responsible for

this particular lot but I wonder if the Minister could tell us

on a wider front to what degree there is a committee of cabinet

on the Inner Harbour project. It does seem that quite often we

raise part of the total picture in the House either in question

period or in estimates. It seems as though one Minister is

doing a bit here and another Minister is doing something else

in another part of the total

[ Page 3654 ]

project. We get the impression on this side of the House

that there is a lack of overall co-ordination for total

planning.

My personal impression is that the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) seems to be

the leader, if there is a team or committee of Ministers trying

to handle the total project. Could you tell us, Mr. Minister,

if in fact there is an ongoing, co-ordinated committee of

cabinet dealing with the Inner Harbour project?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There is a committee of cabinet of which I

am a member which does look into matters that do come up.

However, it hasn't been that active, I must say, in the last

few months.

Yes, it has met. It met at the period of the Reid era, but

not since — at least I haven't met with the committee since,

myself. The committee may have met in my absence.

MR. WALLACE: Could you just tell us, Mr. Minister, which

members of cabinet are on the committee and how many?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There are the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley), the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) and myself.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Member for

Oak Bay has touched on the specific and then referred to the

wider question, and it actually goes back to a point which has

been raised on many occasions in the life of this government

thus far and was canvassed as recently as yesterday. In general

terms over all the province.

I asked yesterday, in the debate on his estimates, how the

Minister viewed his responsibility as the Minister of Municipal

Affairs for the Province of British Columbia. Putting it again,

is it pretty well a fixed, mechanical kind of portfolio, as he

sees it, or is it an aggressive portfolio that will

co-ordinate, initiate and involve other departments of

government and other Ministers when the rights of citizens at

the local level are threatened — this is maybe a strong word

-but are certainly being interfered with?

I think this is fundamental to the discussion of this Minister's salary vote.

We have a municipal structure in British Columbia, and depending upon the performance

of the individuals who serve on a council as mayor and aldermen and regional

district directors, but particularly at the city or municipal level, if that

performance is considered by the majority of residents to be unsatisfactory,

then the individuals in elected office are tossed out. But what obviously concerns

a number of us on this side of the House is the continuing undermining and erosion

of the authority given not to a mayor and council, but given to municipalities

at the local level, given to citizens who are at once citizens of the Province

of British Columbia, but also citizens, taxpayers and tenants in a particular

community.

We have the situation not only in Victoria, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Minister, but also, of course, at the

Jericho site in the City of Vancouver, where the mayor of

Vancouver and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — who is not in the House at the

moment — appear locked in very serious combat as to who has the

authority to do what.

This is the fundamental issue, and I trust the Minister will

continue to be candid with the committee this morning. We are

uneasy with regard to the interference — I think there is no

other term for it — by Ministers other than this Minister in

the authority which has been given and which has been

historically held at the local level in cities and

municipalities.

If this Minister is not seeking out in cabinet and in

committees of cabinet to halt that undermining and erosion,

then it will continue as long as this government is in office.

That's the very basic and fundamental issue that is before us

today, whether it deals with the specific raised by the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) — the causeway Esso site, the former

service station site — or Jericho, the Reid Centre, the list

goes on very well, as the Minister knows.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I said yesterday that I considered the

mechanics of the department as an ongoing thing which grinds on

and on and on, and basically a mechanical operation.

I did say yesterday that I considered that the major chore

of the department was to make life in the modern city and in

the towns a little more enjoyable for living than it has been

in the past, and to continue that process in years to come.

The question of powers to the municipalities. In the two or

three years in which amendments have been brought in,

amendments have been aimed at allowing the municipalities, the

towns and the villages, more powers to look after their own

affairs, and this process will continue.

The question of interference with municipalities; I won't

accept that. When you consider, as an example, what happened in

the previous administration when there suddenly was an

announcement in the paper that there was going to be a

55-storey bottle built in the centre of Vancouver, with no

consultation whatever with the city, and that sort of thing

.... Now this doesn't happen under this administration.

We're building, in place of that, a building in which

there's been total consultation with the municipality involved

and so on.

[ Page 3655 ]

The fact that some aldermen complain about action of

government doesn't necessarily say it's so, and that's true in

this administration and the previous administration and so on.

They have their own points to make and they try to make them.

They may be valid points, or they may not be valid. It's a

question of what the complaints are and whether there is in

fact any truth to the complaint. The complaints are made

whether they're valid or invalid. Certainly I've said, and I've

always said, to every municipality and at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention that if any municipality feels that

some department of government is overstepping the mark and

interfering with the local areas, they should let me know and

I'll take the matter up. I don't know of any except the case in

Vancouver in which the mayor is objecting to some property that

is owned by the province, and he wanted it for a city purpose.

But he has not come to me in regard to this for any

discussion.

MR. CURTIS: You're intending to meet with the officials

now?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll meet with any of them any time at

all, and I always have.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, it

wasn't too long ago that the Minister said how proud he was

that the transit system was losing $18 million a year. Just

today there was an announcement in the morning press that the

Minister was going to go into the business of assembling buses

here in British Columbia on the old Dominion Bridge property in

Burnaby which has abandoned British Columbia because it

couldn't make money. My question is: how much pride can British

Columbia afford, and could he give us some indication of how

much this bus assembly plant is likely to lose?

The Minister is also a director of the B.C. Hydro which, for

the first time in many years, is going to the open market to

borrow because we can't generate internal capital funds. This

is happening at a time when we're in between massive projects

and where one might expect that there would be a breathing

space in the requirements to borrow. Yet we're told today that

we already have the highest-paid linemen in the world and

there's going to be a 30 per cent wage increase there. Equal

pay will undoubtedly be demanded by the B.C. Rail.

We are in a money-losing situation with the B.C. Rail so

that we're requested to vote emergency funds in the Legislature

to cover those losses. We've got to go to the open market to

borrow for the B.C. Hydro because their expenses are so high

that they can no longer generate their own capital.

The Minister is proud of the transit losses of $18 million.

There's an announcement today that the proposed B.C. refinery

may lose $50 million in a year.

I'd like to know what we might be facing in the way of

losses if we go into the bus assembly business. Can the

Minister give us some idea of what the additional bill might be

for that venture into capitalism?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, there are a number of questions here — statements made, at least — which I doubt are very valid.

However, they're backed up by the newspaper reports, so they

must be true. (Laughter.) Anyway, I might point out that I

didn't say I was proud of losing $17 million, Mr. Member,

although that's basically the way it came out in the paper.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I said I was proud of the service and I

was proud of a government that would allow a deficit operation

to give services to people. That's basically....

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would like to make money in transit. But

there's no way in this day and age to make money in

transit.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, I'll tell you, a few years ago — two

or three years ago — there was no bus service. That's why we

had to put the sign "Bus" on the side so the people would know

what it was. (Laughter.) Under your administration they didn't

know.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, that's not true and I agree it's not

true. Some of them had seen them when they visited

Vancouver.

MR. WALLACE: You're in good form this morning, Jim.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The question of construction of buses: we

intend to check first with Volvo as to prices and so on before

we make a decision to proceed with the construction of

vehicles.

If, in fact, it appears that there are no financial benefits

by doing so, construction will not proceed in the building of

vehicles. I don't expect that there will be any losses involved

in the construction. I would anticipate that if construction of

vehicles can be basically at a level with what can be purchased

from abroad, then it would be beneficial to proceed with a

construction programme due to the fact that it would

[ Page 3656 ]

increase secondary industry and there would be a number of

jobs created.

So indirectly there would be benefits that might not show up

in a direct operation. In addition to that, we would be in a

position to obtain our vehicles when required and we would be

able to produce a vehicle which we believe is better than the

vehicles we have at the present time by using the Volvo

model.

MR. McGEER: Would they be diesels?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There would be diesels, articulated and

eventually electric.

MR. WALLACE: I'll follow up quickly on that and save time

from the question period. I did ask the Minister whether it was

just tradition or whether we have a deal with the federal

government to provide free transportation to federal employees

on the bus service. Has he had a chance to research that? It

seems to me that if we're facing deficits of $18 million and we

can't come up with the continuation of the cheap passes on the

Sooke run, I just don't see why we should be providing free bus

transit service to federal employees.

I gather from people who have lived a lot longer in Canada

than I have that there is some kind of air of tradition about

this practice. But I think that it's an aspect of tradition

that's causing the taxpayers quite a few pennies in British

Columbia. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate on the

practice.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm advised that it's a lump sum payment

from the federal government to B.C. Hydro. It changes from time

to time. I haven't got the figure of how much it is this year,

but I'll get that for you. It's updated periodically. It's a

guess based on what happened in the past; they know how many

riders they had. I don't know if it's increased or recalculated

every year or not, but I'll get that information for you. It is

a lump sum payment from the federal government to Hydro.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just ask quickly if this is...? Perhaps it was

a good idea in the past, but it seems that we're trying to do things more effectively

and efficiently. I wonder if the Minister could just say whether as provincial

government policy it seems reasonable to continue this rather inaccurate and

haphazard way, or should not the federal government pay precisely for the service

it's receiving? After all, we all know in this House that provincial and federal

cost-sharing in areas like health care is certainly measured very carefully

on a per capita basis. There are all kinds of formulas and complicated bureaucratic

procedures before the federal government comes across with a nickel on some

of these other programmes, particularly in the health field. I just wonder if perhaps the provincial government

through this Minister might change the ground rules.

Maybe it's time that the federal employees paid for their

bus transportation and then they through their union negotiate

with the federal government as their employer to reimburse them

if that's to be a fringe benefit. But I really don't see why

the chance exists that all of the taxpayers in B.C. are

subsidizing the federal government on transportation of their

employees by bus service. Would the Minister care to

comment?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, that's a reasonable suggestion. We

haven't done it up till now, but I will undertake to certainly

take a look to see whether the idea is a practical idea.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This only applies to the postmen in

uniform during certain hours of the day. It doesn't apply to

any other federal employees.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I think all of the

Hon. Members should have a vote of thanks to Mrs. Lorimer, who

is sitting in the gallery today, for getting Mr. Lorimer here

on time. He's awake; he's in very good humour. Our thanks to

the distaff side of the family.

HON. MR. LORIMER: She wants to make sure she gets her

money.

MR. GARDOM: She wants which?

HON. MR. LORIMER: She wants to make sure she gets her vote.

(Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I would say in your household she'll always get

her vote.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I want to talk a little bit about the Crown

corporations and the Crown emanations as to whether or not they

are becoming better corporate citizens in the Province of

British Columbia. I think there has been some improvement but

certainly not to the extent that is required. The

municipalities and the cities are still being short-changed

from a tax point of view by these Crown corporations and Crown

emanations — for example: Hydro, B.C. Rail and the LCB.

I would like to hear from the Hon. Minister as to exactly

what the policy is of his department and of the government of

the other emanations of the Crown. To what extent are they

being good corporate

[ Page 3657 ]

citizens and paying their way in the municipalities and in

the cities?

I would like to give you a specific example how the City of

Vancouver is shortchanged by approximately $655,000 per year by

three Crown emanations alone — Hydro, B.C. Rail and the Liquor

Control Board. Now if B.C. Hydro properties were fully taxable

during the 1975 year, there would be a payment of $634,200.

But the provincial grant, Mr. Minister, is $495,100,

according to my figures. So there is a short-change of

$139,100, first of all, dealing with property taxes that

otherwise would have been payable had Hydro been anything but

Hydro.

Secondly, Mr. Minister, if Hydro was paying hospital

purposes property tax, which it does not, that would amount to

$49,700. Dealing with the general purposes property taxes on

equipment in city streets, this amounts in this year, 1975, to

a saving of $154,160 to Hydro; also, it is not paying business

tax, that's $220,000. So we find for Hydro alone it's not

paying its way in the City of Vancouver to the extent of

$139,100, $49,700, $154,160 and $220,000.

Now let's look at B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail in 1975, if it was a

taxpaying corporate citizen, which it is not at all, in the

City of Vancouver alone it would have paid school purposes

taxes of $13,400, general purposes tax of $12,500, hospital

purposes taxes of $300 and business taxes of $6,000. A total of

$32,200. So B.C. Rail is short changing the City of Vancouver

$32,200.

The Liquor Control Board also does not pay business tax, and

it is short changing the city to the extent of approximately

$60,000. So the figures I've mentioned this morning — $139,100,

which it would have paid if properties were fully taxable; the

hospital purposes property tax of $49,700, which it doesn't

pay; the general purposes tax for equipment in city streets,

resulting in a saving to Hydro of $154,160; business tax,

$220,000; B.C. Rail, $32,200 in all the taxes I listed, there

are four there; Liquor Control Board, $60,000 — represent a net

loss in 1975 to the City of Vancouver of approximately

$655,000.

Now those figures can be extended into Victoria, into New

Westminster and into Nanaimo. They can be extended and applied

to different degrees in all of the cities and in all of the

municipalities of this province. But the one illustration, the

largest city in this province, is short changed to the extent

of $655,000, outside of the grants they are receiving. I think

it's high time that the government effectively came to grips

with this problem and announced categorically what its policy

is going to be so the cities and the municipalities will

know.

The only illustrations I've been able to give you are

dealing with the City of Vancouver. Unfortunately, I don't have

the information for the other cities and the other

municipalities.

Unfortunately, I don't have specifics for the other Crown

emanations and the other Crown corporations. But I think it's a

serious matter when we can find that had Hydro been anything

but Hydro, had LCB been anything but LCB, and had B.C. Rail

been anything but B.C. Rail, the city would have profited to

the extent of $655,000 more. Perhaps the word profit is an

inappropriate word; it would have received its just returns,

which it does need in order to function and to operate.

The second point I'd like to mention to the Minister is

something which is the consuming, constant, consistent and, I

should probably say, ever-mounting problem of cities and

municipalities in this decade — the complete dollar shortage.

I'd say it's an impending crisis, if not becoming a crisis.

There is no question of a doubt that it's being compounded

unmercifully and will be compounded unmercifully over into the

next decade.

There's no question of a doubt, Mr. Minister, that man

hides, and the more he hides the more he complicates, the more

he compounds his needs and his very requirements to exist, and

the more difficult it becomes for him to provide for those

needs and for those specific requirements. Hence the more

involved, the more complicated and the more compounded become

his problems, and these vary in direct proportion as

urbanization increases. It's on a terrifying rate of increase

and we don't even have to look without our own borders to find

that out. We'll find that at least eight out of 10 people will

be living in cities in this country within the next 10 to 20

years. They are needing and demanding more services, and, I'd

say, with less and less money being made available for them to

pay for it. The signs are everywhere, Mr. Minister. You can

witness the decay of the cities in the United States. New York

is in an economic morass, and their only hope there seems to

cut services. Well, I'd say cutting fat is fine, but cutting

services, surely, in the long run pretty well all that could

ever produce is debit.

Witness Canadian immigration, the newcomers. Where are they

coming to in Canada? Indeed, where are they coming to in this

province? They're flocking to the urban centres, and there

hasn't been a government in this country that, in my view, has

effectively come to grips with the problem.

I somewhat agree with the mayor of Vancouver when he was

talking about the Canadian Department of Urban Affairs. He sort

of implied that it is an extension of the Peter Principle. I

would say that at least it establishes a level and focus of

concern from the federal level. I would say the same thing

about your ministry, Mr. Minister. To an extent, I think it is

an extension of the Peter Principle, but it at feast

establishes a level and a focus of concern from the provincial

scene.

But where are these foci picking up the nettle? Or

[ Page 3658 ]

are they just looking at it? It seems to me that they are

just looking at it.

Reality always seems to be something out there in the cities

and municipalities that the two levels of senior government

look at, sort of observe it, but they ignore it. I think the

concept is completely wrong. The cities and municipalities are

not creatures of the senior levels of government; they have got

to be considered as partners. The philosophy should not be one

of masters and hand maidens at all; the concept should be

something that will make the thing work and rely on the

philosophy of partnership as opposed to the one of sort of

master and servant.

We have got to go ahead. We have got to end the competing

services. We have got to end the duplication of expense. I

think we have got to recognize once and for all that if we are

not able to make the city system work, it will ruin

contemporary democracy. I think H.G. Wells was pointing down

the correct track when he spoke of rats in the street and a

sort of megalo-urbania. People are being savaged by the

pull-backs and the disruption and the cessation of public

service in the municipalities and in the cities.

To me, public service means what it says. It means service

of, by, and for the public to enable the public to exist. It is

the very lifeline and lifeblood of the existence of the general

public. The public service has got to function in order to

enable society to survive.

It is questionable as to whether we are on that track now at

all, All of the evidence, unfortunately, points to the fact

that we are moving away from that concept. The more we move

away from that concept, the more we are moving straight to

chaos, in my view. Make no mistake of that. I would very much

like to hear the attitude of the Minister as to whether or not

he feels compulsory arbitration should be a condition and a

term of employment and service in the public sector.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: You've got these fellows awake this morning,

too. That is an accomplishment. Compulsory arbitration has worked extremely effectively with

the teachers and the trustees. That is a concept, Mr. Minister,

that has really got to come into play.

I ask you these three questions: one dealing with the fact as to whether or

not the Crown corporations and Crown emanations are paying their way, which

they do not seem to be. Why are they not doing it? What do you propose for the

future? Secondly, do you not feel that there has to be a greater participation

between the senior levels of government and the municipalities and the cities?

Once again, I advocate that there should be an ongoing committee or tribunal,

call it what you will, of the three levels right through this country to constantly

determine solutions to these problems that are not diminishing but increasing.

We are pushing right into a crisis situation.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I just wanted to ask the Hon. Member who

just finished speaking, if, when he was talking about the Peter

Principle, he was referring to the department or to me. I

thought I should check that out.

With regard to taxation, we did deal with it quite fully

yesterday. I won't argue with what he said about that. I agree

with him and I always have. The report from the taxation

committee will undoubtedly deal with this. There are some

problems involved; it is not an easy problem. As an example, on

the hydro issue, if the dam in the Hudson-Hope area were

taxable straight to Hudson-Hope, obviously, there would be no

tax paid on Hudson-Hope at all. Whether or not that tax for a

power site should be spread throughout the province, or

designated for that one community in which it happens to be

physically located, is a question that I think needs a

substantial amount of study. That is just one example from a

variety of others.

Your question on urbanization and the problems on that are

very real and interesting subject. I think the whole question

revolves around a number of things including immigration,

transportation, job opportunities, recreation and so on.

In regard to the discussion between the three levels of

government at one time, we have attended, I think, two

tri-level conferences. Basically, really nothing has been

accomplished.

MR. GARDOM: That's bad, isn't it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: They are not very good. At the local area,

where we have had trilevel conferences dealing with specific

subjects, such as the livable region project in Vancouver, and

the Kamloops relocation of trackage, the tri-level process has

been of some value.

MR. GARDOM: My seat-mate, who's out of his seat, is a little

more vocal this morning. In fact he's more vocal today than

he's been in the last two weeks.

But, Mr. Minister, you mentioned you had a couple of

conferences and not too much came out of them. This is a

national problem. It's a national problem, it's a provincial

problem and it's going to become a question of urban crisis if

the thing is not properly attended to.

If you're not receiving the proper response from the federal

government, I'd commend you to do everything you can to see

that you do receive it. If you're not receiving effective

response from people

[ Page 3659 ]

who are in similar positions as you are in other provinces,

I'd commend. you to become the leader in the thing and just try

to get it moving. Until such time as a new philosophy is

adopted in this country to cities and to municipalities, we're

just pointing in a path downwards. That is really not the way

to go on the basis of North American experience and on the

basis of European experience as to what is happening to cities

in the world today.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The problem, I think, is that the

tri-level conference basically is dealing with cash and dollars

and distribution of wealth in the country. We have the

Municipal Affairs Ministers meeting, and it should be the First

Ministers and the Ministers of Finance probably as well,

because the major subject is dollars.

MR. GARDOM: That's the one constant that they have. The one

problem that every municipality and every city has in this

country is money. You've put your finger right on it.

Vote 178 approved.

Vote 179: general administration, $698,462 — approved.

On vote 180: transit services division, $725,930.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just a couple of things that I'd like to

raise in vote 180. This has to do, first of all, with a letter

from the director of the bureau of transit services, Mr.

Parker, to Langley city some time ago regarding a park-and-ride

proposal in the Langley city area. Mr. Parker indicated his

interest and said — this was his letter two years ago, December,

1973 — that the plan would be pursued and when the manpower and

vehicles to meet the expected response were available the plan

would be furthered.

There have as well been a number of requests from many

segments of society in Langley about the hours of service at

the bus depot there. It's a well-recognized need to have better

service at that depot, upgraded service all the way around. I'm

sure that the Minister has probably had some complaints about

the operation of that depot as well.

I'd like his comments on that. I'd like the Minister's comments on the interference

by the transit services bureau, which has seriously impaired the plans for a

town centre in the Newton area. Because the transit services bureau went in

and paid $217,146.60 for a one-acre site — as much as five times the going rate

for property in that area — it forced all of the land values up in the surrounding

area where the Municipality of Surrey was planning a town centre. It's suggested

by planners in Surrey that the government paid at least $120,000 too much for

that one acre.

Now the municipality is forced to either abandon its plans

or to pay prices which are well beyond the reach of the Surrey

taxpayers in firming up that town centre area. They're left, of

course, with the property that they've already bought in the

area. The transit services bureau has forced Surrey into a very

embarrassing situation in this regard.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I find it incredible — the Member's not

in the House at the moment, but I find it incredible — that the

leading fighter for the private enterprise system in British

Columbia, the leader of the Conservative Party yesterday in

this House came out in favour of the government getting into

the bus-building business, After so many talks in this House

about the government getting out of business, I really couldn't

understand the stance he took. However, I don't think that the

government should be in the bus-building business at all —

particularly given the experience, Mr. Chairman, that we've

seen in Manitoba with Flyer Industries.

The latest report, while that company was operating at full

tilt, was that the Government of Manitoba was pouring something

like $1 million a month into that operation — $1 million a

month down the drain. That's never been a successful operation,

Mr. Chairman. I don't know what the status is now, whether it's

closed down or opened up again. But I think that all we have to

do is just take a look at the Manitoba experience and get out

of the bus-building idea altogether as quickly as possible.

I'd like to ask the Minister how many of the buses that were

bought from Western Flyer have been received by this

government, the latest batch. Did we pay any money in advance

to Western Flyer? What kind of servicing warranties do we have

for the buses we already have that have come from Western

Flyer? Are we having any difficulties?

Particularly, have we given any money in advance of

receiving buses from that company, and what is the condition of

Western Flyer at the moment, and are we going to be able to

have delivery of any of the orders that we've made? .

HON. MR. LORIMER: The park-and-ride proposition is still on

the books. It hasn't been purchased as yet, the area for the

park-and-ride, but it's still part of the programme.

The improved transit services to Langley will take place at

the time of the new transit systems in Surrey. At the present

time Surrey only has the Fast bus; it doesn't have the feeder

buses at the moment. When those come in, then the proper

service will then be extended to Langley.

The Newton town centre: I think the information you've

received is not quite correct on that. The area which was

purchased for the site was designated to the transit bureau by

the mayor and council of

[ Page 3660 ]

Surrey. As a matter of fact, they went on a tour with me and

said: "This is where we want you to buy," We try to

cooperate with the municipalities in putting our facilities

where they want them.

Now that was the price of the property. We don't pay

anything more than we have to pay, but I agree that we could

have gone a few blocks down the road and got cheaper property.

But we were trying to cooperate with the municipality, giving

a service where they wanted to build their town centre, and we

did pay more than we could have got away with. The reason for

having it there was at the special request of the mayor and

council of Surrey. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should have

gone where the price was right and had them change their

planning for their town centre, but we try to go along with the

municipalities and set up our transit centres where the

municipalities want them.

We're dealing right now with White Rock and trying to assist

them as well in the same sort of thing.

As to Western Flyer, no buses have arrived that were under

the last order. No money has been paid. The money will be paid

when the buses arrive. The warranty from Flyer was our standard

warranty, the same as any of the other companies. We've

ordered, I think, 50 trolleys that will be coming in the early

fall, we understand — those are the electric buses.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The diesels — by the end of the year, we

hope.

As you probably know, there was a labour dispute in the

area. It was suggested we would have these vehicles by the end

of last year. The strike went on until probably March, and now

it looks like they will arrive about a year later.

MR. McCLELLAND: A brief follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

Is the Minister saying that the government will pay any

price at all, regardless of whether it's out of line, whether

it's five times too much? The indications are that that

property in that area was selling for $30,000 to $40,000 per

acre. Now you paid $217,000 for an acre lot in that town

centre. You know, it could have been expropriated. Perhaps it

could have been negotiated to go somewhere else. Maybe if you

had told Surrey....

The Minister stands up, Mr. Chairman, and says they like to

cooperate with the municipalities. Nobody ever told Surrey

that the transit service bureau was going to go in there and

take $217,000 for that property. If someone has gone to Surrey

and said that, then Surrey would have said "No way,"

because you already cost them thousands and thousands of

dollars extra in....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: But what's the difference if it's a

negotiated price if it's five times too much?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll answer that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Now you just can't say, "We'll negotiate a

price," and a guy comes along and says: "I want $217,000

for one acre."

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'll answer that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Now the other thing is that I'd just

like to ask whether there's an agreement or a contingency plan

for servicing of Western Flyer buses if Western Flyer should go

out of business. It seems to be a fairly distinct possibility

that that might happen.

Secondly, has the Minister had any complaints from people

within the service — drivers, passengers or otherwise — about

the operation of the Flyer buses? Are they all as good as the

other buses we've received from other sources?

HON. MR. LORIMER: First of all, the question of the Newton

town centre. Surrey knew what the value of that property was,

what the price was. We had two separate valuators to give us

the value of the land. The information you have received is

false, and the price paid was a fair price for the property

according to the independent valuations we received. You can

say that everything is too high. I don't accept your statement

and I don't accept that figure, with the two valuators that we

have had on that property giving us value on which we paid a

figure less than the valuation.

As for the warranties — as I mentioned, the warranties are

for one year on transit vehicles, both General Motors and

Flyers, so if they go out of business, the warranty is finished

for the vehicles we have received. That one-year period is up

so they are not on warranty anymore. We haven't had any

complaints in regard to the Flyer vehicles we have. In some

cases, as far as riding is concerned, they are probably more

comfortable riding than the General Motors. In other ways they

are not as good as General Motors, so it depends on your

choice. In some areas of activity they are better; in some they are not as good as General Motors.

MR. CURTIS: This total vote, that is vote 180, transit

services division, is up significantly for this fiscal year

over last. Rounding off the figures,

whereas the amount

budgeted last year was about $140,000, we see now that it is

nearly $726,000. This isn't to pay bus drivers and trolley

operators, this is really just to run the operation, run the

bureau. I'm disturbed by the point raised by the Member for

Langley (Mr.

[ Page 3661 ]

McClelland). One wonders exactly how carefully the public

money is being spent in this division, whether the Minister is

pleased or not with the increase in buses and bus service.

One of the major contributing factors to the increase in

vote 180 is the allocation of $132,000 for consultants. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, this Minister, as with other

Ministers of this government, is very fond of consultants. We

see that word and large amounts of money scattered throughout

the estimates book. In this Minister's case alone: $132,000 for

consultants for transit services; $25,000 consultants' fees set

aside in the Islands Trust vote, 185; and in the planning

service division, vote 186, $65,000 for consultants. That's a

grand total of $222,000 for outside consultant service in this

Minister's series of votes, almost $0.25 million in one fiscal

year.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us about this item —

this is code 032 in vote 180. What are these consultants to do?

With the increase in staff, with the addition of more qualified

people to the department, surely a figure of that size is

worthy of comment.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Regarding the increase in the budgetary

items, last year at this time of year the programme was just

getting underway, basically. We had, I think, three employees

at that time in the transit operation. The amount spent here is

no greater than it was last year because we obtained money

through warrants last year to carry on the programme. The

amount in this vote is about the same or maybe less, even, than

what we had last year on the programme.

MR. CURTIS: Was that about three-quarters of a million last

year?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes. So there is no difference in costs.

We have kept the figures down.

MR. CURTIS: Do you anticipate having to get more money by

warrant for this year, over and above the $725,930?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, I don't expect to. There may be

possibilities for capital expenditures, but a lot depends on

when certain things become ready to move, But I would

anticipate it would be the following year that there may be

more capital expenditure required. But it is possible that it

might be at the end of this year.

As far as staff is concerned, we operate this bureau with five people. We have

five permanent staff running the transit service for the total province. Now

if you feel that is loose money spending.... They are doing a terrific job,

and we have people we call in from time to time to assist. These people are

placed under "consultants," and that's the basic reason why you find consultants

in here.

Now a number of the projects in transit planning are very

complicated operations, and some of our consultants come in

from Toronto for a period of maybe a week, then go back. Then

they come in periodically throughout the year, maybe once a

month.

MR. CURTIS: Commendable as it may be that the Minister

operates this bureau with the same staff as last year, he

indicated that there is a possibility he may have to seek

special warrant during this fiscal year. I again emphasize that

there is a $132,000 consultant item, and under temporary

assistance we see another $55,752. Whether there are five

permanent people or seven or 1, the increase in the total vote is somewhat unsettling.

What about the temporary assistants? Who are these people,

and why would they be needed?

HON. MR. LORIMER: These are apparently research assistants.

They are basically on full time but they are not under the

public service category as permanent employees.

MR. CURTIS: Researching what? Traffic demands? Patterns?

What might be provided? Interviewing the public or this kind of

thing? Could you elaborate on this just a bit?

HON. MR. LORIMER: They do check the passenger acceptance of

routes. They have questionnaires. They check the facilities and

usages of depots or transfer points and make recommendations as

to improvements. They take counts. A lot of their work is on

questioning passengers to determine why they are using this

particular ride and to find out if they are going to work or

going shopping or whatever, and whether or not different

routage might be of more benefit. They do a variety of

different things, but that is part of it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a brief question about

the increase in salary votes. I recognize that people must be

doing a great job. They certainly have some handsome increases

in salary: the Associate Deputy Minister has an $8,400 increase

in one year; the assistant to the director has a $10,000

increase in one year. I was just looking back on some of the

other votes and comparing that to a Deputy Minister of Health

who works in a department that is spending $700 million and is

listed with a $3,000 increase. The Deputy Minister of Hospital

Insurance has a $4,000 increase.

When this government is preaching restraint around the

marketplace it seems strange that we should see this kind of

increase. At a time when

[ Page 3662 ]

inflation is hitting this country and creating an additional

tax burden on those people — particularly those with fixed

incomes — it seems strange that we should see the government

leading the way and fanning those fires of inflation with those

kinds of spiralling increases in one year. I don't know how we

can tell labour in any segment to restrain themselves and not

ask for heavy wage increases this year when we are the worst

offender ourselves. If we don't take the lead then we can't, in

all honesty, say anything to labour about 30, 40 or 60 per cent

increases when we are giving increases of $10,000 over a

$21,000 salary in one year. I just don't understand it, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think a very brief explanation is that

the salaries had previously been all over the lot. We tried to

standardize salaries for work done. It is not my opinion that

employees should be subsidizing pensioners, I think they should

get their assistance through other means than subsidizing

through the employees.

Vote 180 approved.

Vote 181: metropolitan transit subsidy, $2,000,000 —

approved.

Vote 182, Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act, $600,000 —

approved.

On vote 183: grants and subsidies, $6,193,000.

MR. CURTIS: A question with regard to code 034 in this vote.

This is the municipal restructuring grants in the amount of

$3,616,000. Would the Minister outline for us, please, with

respect to each of the cities which have been restructured

(which, in itself, sounds like a 1984 word), Kamloops, Kelowna,

Prince George, and Nanaimo...? Is Kamloops fully paid up or

is there some money in here for the City of Kamloops? How much

then for the City of Kelowna? How much again for the City of

Prince George and Nanaimo? Could we have that breakdown please,

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, even if it takes just a few

moments of consultation?

HON. MR. LORIMER: None of the cities have been paid in full

at the present time. In the cases of Kamloops and Kelowna it

was an ongoing project of paying for highways, streets, and so

on until the city extended. It may be a great number of years

until those things are finalized. Basically everything has been

done except for the highway programme — the continuation of the

administration of policing and that sort of thing.

In the case of Prince George and Nanaimo, there was a different formula used

in which there was basically cash paid and the city was allowed to do what they

wanted to do. There was a continuation for a period of three years for policing

and highways. So the figure here is basically for the Prince George and Nanaimo

payments, which will be paid over a period of two, years. It will be in again

next year for those two communities.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister, through you

, for that information. Therefore the Minister is saying that

the vote under this item in the 1976-77 fiscal year would be

approximately the same — that's his anticipation?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, unless there are other

amalgamations.

MR. CURTIS: Well, yes — dealing with these four.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, I would anticipate that.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Has any of the four cities concerned

here — that is, Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George and Nanaimo —

indicated since the restructuring took place or, in the case of

the last two, since the vote was approved that there is less

money forthcoming than they expected or anticipated as a result

of negotiations with you? Can the Minister tell the committee

that in each case the municipalities are fully satisfied with

the amount that has been budgeted or paid?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't think there have been any

complaints about the amount being paid. There are complaints

about inflation having eaten into the amounts — there's a valid

complaint on that score. I think that's the only complaint that

they have on it.

MR. CURTIS: I'd suggest to the Minister then that there

should be a COLA clause for any future amalgamations or

restructuring, perhaps.

HON. MR. LORIMER: We're looking at this. I think they have a

good argument.

Vote 183 approved.

Vote 184: grants in aid of local government and homeowner

subsidies, $82,900,000 — approved.

On vote 185: Islands Trust, $236,552.

MR. CURTIS: I just want to make a couple of observations.

The amount is surprisingly high for the first full year of the

operation of the Islands Trust. I know of a number of people

who live in the islands in my constituency which fall within

the Islands Trust

[ Page 3663 ]

who were similarly surprised to find that in its first year

of operation something in the order of just over a quarter of a

million dollars would be budgeted by the Islands Trust for 12

months' operation. I refer again to the consultants' fees of

$25,000. I wonder if the Minister would indicate, please, how

often the general trustees are meeting, approximately. Is it

weekly? Are they here for three or four days a month? Are they

travelling for another several days a month or whatever it may

be? Will the Minister suggest that perhaps in the following

fiscal year this amount could be trimmed somewhat? I'm not

asking for government policy, but from zero to $236,000 in one

fell swoop is quite surprising.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I am surprised that the Member for some of

the islands would suggest that this amount is too large. I

thought the opposition would be saying it is too small an

amount to look after the great amount of research work and

effort that has to go into those islands to get the trust

basically off the ground and to get the certain studies that

have to be done. I certainly can't promise that there will be

an increase or a cut next year in this particular budget. As

far as the directors are concerned, I think basically —

although I could stand to be corrected — they did meet once a

week. I don't know if that's still what they're doing or not. I

believe that is correct, though — basically once a week. Not

every week but basically once a week.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm subject to correction, but I'm

reasonably sure of my facts — the amount for the Islands Trust

for this fiscal year is approximately half of the total amount

of money budgeted by all regional districts in the province for

their planning function. That perhaps puts this quarter of a

million dollars in some kind of perspective.

The other point I would like to discuss briefly with the

Minister is to, if I may, caution him with regard to what I

sense to be a developing conflict or at least sensitivity

between the trustees on some islands — locally elected trustees

- and regional district directors. This kind of conflict and

rather tense situation in some instances does not bode well for

the function of the trust nor for the operation of the regional

district. In his very persuasive way, perhaps the Minister

could introduce his personality into this situation when he

becomes aware of it. I'm sure he is aware of it now.

In some respects it is inevitable. The islands had a regional district director

representing one island or several islands. Suddenly a new agency is created

and minor hostilities are developing. That, I suggest again, is not good for

the islands, it's not good for the trust, it's not good for the regional district.

I emphasize that I don't suggest it is widespread or that there are fisticuffs

in various community halls on the islands, but these people — particularly the

local trustees and regional district directors — must be able to communicate

and exchange ideas and keep each other informed. I hope the Minister will agree

with that observation.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, it is a real problem — the

animosities that could arise between directors and local

trustees and general trustees. We're watching very closely. I

agree that it would be a bad situation if that were to arise in

any serious proportion.

All local trustees and general trustees did have a two-day

seminar in Victoria about two weeks ago. Out of the 26 local

trustees, 25 were able to attend and the morale of that group

is very, very high and they had a very good two-day meeting in

Victoria.

MR. CURTIS: I was aware of the seminar which was arranged and took

place in, Victoria, Were regional district directors who represent islands

invited? If not, perhaps this would have been an opportunity to cover the very

point that I canvassed with the Minister just a moment ago.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I can't answer that. I don't know, but

there were regional district chairmen present. The capital

regional chairman for one was there, I know. There was another

one that I saw there from Sechelt. So I know these two chairmen

of regional districts were there and I believe they were

invited, but I couldn't answer that for sure.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): MT. Chairman,

I can recognize that the Minister may not know precisely how

often the public trustees meet, but I would be anxious to know

the extent to which and the regularity with which the trustees

report to the Minister as to the progress that they're making.

Maybe the quarter of a million dollars is not enough money,

maybe it's too much but it will only. depend upon the

efficiency with which the trustees are doing their work.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether there's any

specific progress being made with regard to the resolution of

the differing problems which affect the different islands.

That's what they were established to do, and I think that we'd

be entitled to know to what extent the Minister is aware of the

progress. Is the 10-acre freeze coming off? What kind of an

attack is being made on that particular problem? How about the

establishment of community plans for the islands? If this trust

is to work at all, it surely must be showing some results

now.

[ Page 3664 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I might say that I've had a

number of meetings with the chairman quite frequently —

probably twice a month I see her. I have set meetings less

frequently than that, but I do see her quite frequently on an

informal basis. Of course, they are meeting on technical

matters with the department at regular intervals.

I'd like for the information of the House to mention that

there has been a grant given to the Islands Trust by the Nature

Conservancy for work in identifying areas for preservation, for

artifacts and that sort of thing on the islands. The Nature

Conservancy is an organization headquartered in Ontario which

does this type of work throughout Canada. They have given a

grant of $40,000 to the trust for this sort of development

work.

Vote 185 approved.

On vote 186: planning service division, $448,684.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the travelling expense is up

considerably to $25,000, and I note again the figure to which I

referred earlier — $65,000 for consultants under code 032 in

this vote. Now the Minister could help the committee somewhat

by once again indicating what these consultants are for. This

is a fairly well staffed division of the department. Precisely

what are these people likely to do in this fiscal year?

HON. MR. LORIMER: There are two main reasons for the

increase in travelling expense. One is that each regional

district has a monthly meeting of the technical planning

committee. In which is legislation under the Municipal Affairs

department.

We have found that Municipal Affairs representatives were

not attending these meetings. That obviously had to be changed.

Now we have representatives at every meeting of the technical

planning committees of the regional districts. That is one

reason for the increase; it is the major reason. However, under

the new Public Service Commission contract, there is now an

overtime payment requirement, and if some people have to leave

Victoria to go to the interior, the cost of sending someone

there is substantially greater now than it was a year ago.

The consultants are basically the special project ones such

as the people we had to hire in Whistler to look after a number

of technical problems that arose there — the slides, snow and

things of that sort. These are special projects people who are

not regularly with the department.

MR. CURTIS: Did the Minister and his senior people explore the availability

of experts in other government departments with respect to the kind of research

to which he has referred? I would think that in Lands, Forests and Water Resources,

and in Highways, perhaps that kind of expertise might have been found. The Minister

nods his head.

I would again like to be reassured that, before this kind of

money is spent, a careful search is made within the total

provincial government structure to find out if the very kind of

expert knowledge and background which you seek is not available

elsewhere. If it is, then this could, of course, be a transfer

payment, I appreciate. But I assume these are outside

consultants.

HON. MR. LORIMER: For example, on the Whistler thing, that

was basically an operation of the Environment and Land Use

Committee. There were a number of departments working there so

we had the availability of expertise through all the

departments, but we had no one in those departments who could

do the work that had to be done.

I would like to point out that there are planners in this

salary vote. I think there are 12 listed. In actual fact it is

very, very difficult to obtain planners. We can't get them. At

the present time we have only eight, we don't have the 12. We

require 12 but we can't get them. It is not a question of just

going down the street and picking someone up. They have to be

well trained and they are just not available.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to ask one

question of the Minister in view of his answer five minutes

ago. Do you find a staff shortage in your head office in

Victoria when so many of them are going to technical planning

committee meetings at time and a half? Does that cause a

shortage here?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, we are short of staff. Our senior

staff are working very long hours. They are probably working

harder than they should be. But this is a department in which

almost everyone is highly qualified, and they are just not

easily recruited. There is no question that we are short of

staff and that we do have difficulties in a number of the areas

in which we have responsibility.

Vote 186 approved.

Vote 187: Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, $6,000,000 —

approved.

Vote 188: salary contingencies, $537,200 — approved.

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 93:Minister's office, $138,690 —

[ Page 3665 ]

continued.

MR. FRASER: Everything has really speeded up here. Mr.

Chairman, to the point that the staff of Municipal Affairs

hasn't had time to get out, or the Highways staff get in. I

know that the Minister needs his staff as well.

I've asked the Minister two or three times about the great

amount of shouldering going on on our main highways. The one

that I am aware of is Highway 97, north from Cache Creek to

Prince George, a distance of 300 miles. I want to congratulate

the department for this programme of shouldering, It went on

last year and it is continuing this year. This is really a

safety measure. It puts a larger shoulder on the road, and the

motorist certainly has a better chance if he gets in a tight

situation when you add about 10 feet of flat surface to the

existing paved surface.

The question that I have been trying to get answered is that

I'm not sure how many miles of this

section of really main road

are involved, but I think 40 or 50 miles of shouldering will

have been completed, what with what was done last year and what

is in progress at the present. If it quits raining and snowing

in the interior, it will hopefully, finish in July or

August.

But what I would like to know from the Minister is whether

it is the intention of the department to go ahead and call

hot-mix contracts to cover the main service to the road where

the shouldering has taken place. That's what I would like to

have an answer on.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I thank the Member for

paying tribute to the department for doing the shouldering. We

see it as a safety factor and it should be done. As we can we

will be filling in between the new shouldering, and there will

be a contract called for paving this fall on the stretch of

road you've mentioned north of 100 Mile House.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I think that's the answer. I want

a little clarification. You mean by that that you'll be

repaving the main surface of the road where the shouldering has

taken place?

HON. MR. LEA: There will be a contract called this fall

north of 100 Mile House in that area.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the

Minister.

MR. WALLACE: Briefly, could the Minister tell us the latest developments

in his investigation of the Gellatly Road issue? I have followed the reports

in the press very closely and there seems to be conflicting evidence. I wonder

if the House could find out what the Minister has concluded at this stage of

his investigation as to the facts and the events that took place in relation

to the relocation of Gellatly Road.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I also have followed the press

reports. As I've said in the House to the Hon. Leader of the

Liberal Party, I will be doing a fuller investigation so that

the House will be fully aware of what has happened, what the

situation is — and also, of course, the public at large. What I

will be doing is looking for someone who will be beyond

criticism to look into the situation and report back to me, and

then I'll be reporting to the House. So until that report is

in, I will have no further comment on that situation.

Vote 93 approved.

On vote 94: general administration, $8,995,360.

MR. FRASER: The general administration of the Department of

Highways: I have continuing problems with property settlements

not settled. Has the Minister any information of how many are

outstanding, how old they are and when they expect to improve

them?

It is my impression, as a Member from one riding, that there

must be a lot and they must go back five, six or seven years.

Has anybody got a report on the claims? I think this is the

proper place to put it;

HON. MR. LEA: There aren't that many that could be

considered outstanding, but there are some that go back as far

as 7 to 10 years. Those are few and far between. There are

probably about four or five in the province.

Mainly it's up to date. Oftentimes when people are told that

they do have some options after negotiations haven't been

successful, and if their option is to go for arbitration, but

if the price that is decided on by that arbitration board is

less than offered by the department they will have to pick up

their own legal costs, become a bit hesitant at that point; but

mainly they go rather smoothly. If we can negotiate, then they

go to arbitration. Some people, very few, decide not to do

either and rather they'd prefer to spend their time over the

years trying to renegotiate, renegotiate and renegotiate. I try

to advise them that probably their best course of action would

be to go to arbitration and settle it that way.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the

Minister.

There's another item in this vote that's had a drastic

increase. I'd like to know what it's all about — even the

original. I'm referring to a

section in 94 where $860,000 was

budgeted last year for temporary assistance and this year it

has gone to $3

[ Page 3666 ]

million. What is this money for and why the big

increase?

HON. MR. LEA: On that, as I mentioned earlier in the House,

over the years there hasn't really been within the department

management by objectives, and we haven't really been able to

keep a good eye on how the money's being spent. For instance,

in your riding is the road being graded when it should be? To

try to keep track so that we do have some better idea, this

will be part of the reorganization within the department to

bring in a management maintenance programme to do the very

thing that Members have been asking for.

MR. FRASER: I would just give the Minister an observation

I've had — I think it's just recently put in — that everybody

in the department seems to be concentrating on the management

seminar, and all the graders and loaders have stopped working

while they work it out.

HON. MR. LEA: I doubt that very much. I doubt that, but I

should say that there was some apprehension at some levels

within the department when we first proposed this plan to them.

But having looked over the plans of — the management maintenance

programme, I think a lot of their fears have disappeared and

they're accepting it quite readily now and can see that it's

going to be of benefit not only to management but to the people

working on the job.

Vote 94 approved.

On vote 95: roads, bridges, ferries, wharves and tunnels —

maintenance and operation, repairs, snow and ice removal, $105

million.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, there is a

tremendous increase here, an increase of almost $40

million.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) says it is

not enough. I was wondering if the Minister would care to

elaborate on the reason for the tremendous increase of $40

million. You know, that is almost as much as ICBC lost last

year. Would the Minister care to comment?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, within the department we are running into

the same kind of escalation of costs as in private industry, and we are doing

the same job. I mentioned earlier in my estimates the substantial increases

are coming in on bids. There are increasing amounts on jobs. I have called low

bidders in and asked them to explain why it's be en so high. They've explained

that to my satisfaction — that they are passing on the cost of petroleum products,

rubber, steel, grader blades and that sort of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: To 60 per cent?

HON. MR. LEA: Of course, there's also the higher cost of

wages. It's a true figure representing the higher cost of doing

the maintenance from the provincial roads.

MR. CHABOT: Do you intend spending it all?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes.

Vote 95 approved.

On vote 96: roads, bridges and ferries — capital

construction, $140,000,000.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to bring up a couple of problems

which are recurring in my constituency with regard to road

construction and reconstruction. I'd like to ask for the

Minister's comments on some of the problems we're experiencing

in the Langley constituency.

First of all, I refer to letters written earlier this year

to the Minister's department from the City of Langley with

regard to a secondary highway, reference No. 256B, which is

200th Street in Langley, a street that's serving the,

Brookswood area particularly, and probably the most rapidly

growing urbanized area of British Columbia. The road that is

now as a secondary highway is completely inadequate to handle

the kind of traffic that is being generated in that area.

The City of Langley has asked for secondary highway

assistance for this year to reconstruct a part of that road,

the part that is within the city limits. A recent letter from

your department said that approvals may come early in June.

HON. MR. LEA: It's in, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: It's in there for this year? Good. Thank you

very much.

Next, and moving east. Perhaps this is the wrong vote, but I

will make mention of this and it has to do with directional

signs. Coming off the freeway on the Bellingham Highway, there

are no signs on either end, either from the border on that

highway or from the freeway, indicating that Aldergrove is

anywhere around there. I wonder if the Minister would consider

signs at both ends, both directions, regarding the location of

the community of Aldergrove.

Secondly, there is to open this week in the

[ Page 3667 ]

Aldergrove area a new tourist information bureau operated by

the Aldergrove and District Chamber of Commerce. I wonder

whether or not the Minister would consider signs indicating

that there is a tourist information bureau, as has been done in

other areas — "Information 1 mile ahead" or something like

that.

I have another problem, but I'll wait until the correct vote

for the other problem regarding signs, Mr. Chairman.

There is still a serious problem in Clearbrook at the

freeway exit. I've raised this matter with the department on a

number of occasions and so far we really haven't had much of an

answer with regard to the on-ramp at the Clearbrook exit. There

is an off-ramp there, but there is no on-ramp. It is very

confusing for tourists who come off to Clearbrook, then come

back on the same road and find out they can't find the freeway

and can't get back on the freeway.

HON. MR. LEA: They can't go across the other side and get

on?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, there is no ramp there. There is no

on-ramp there. The on-ramp is a mile or so to the east. I've

heard of tourists from the States who have been wandering

around Clearbrook for several months trying to get back on the

freeway. It is very confusing — and there aren't very many

restaurants in Clearbrook either. There are reports of people

who have starved to death trying to get back on the freeway.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the most serious problem yet, I guess, is the

bypass for Langley city to relieve the congestion within city

streets by the traffic which is generated by the provincial

highways. I know that the Minister has met with the people in

the area, and I am grateful for that. I know that the concern

has always been that the city take some initiative in

establishing better internal traffic patterns to look after

their own traffic.

I believe that is happening, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the Minister. The city is taking some action in establishing

that internal flow of traffic and improving it all the time,

but nothing can really be done until a bypass is built around

the city. I am not talking now about an extension of the No. 10

Highway, which I understand is in the works and there is some

planning being done on that. It has to be a real bypass which

will take that traffic away from the one street that goes

through the city, and that is the No. I Highway, the Fraser

Highway.

That is probably the most important problem within the whole

constituency, and it is one that has to be solved pretty soon

or the city is going to choke in its own traffic. That is

already beginning to happen. Mr. Chairman, just with these

comments, I would like to get the Minister's response.

I see some work going on on No. 10 Highway up the hill just

east of Cloverdale. I have asked the Minister on a number of

occasions whether or not we could have a passing lane on that

hill. I know it's very difficult to construct. I notice some

work going on there now. The Minister did indicate before that

the property was being negotiated and I wonder whether or not

that work is being done by the Highways department or whether

that project is underway or going to be underway. When can we

expect that passing lane on that hill?

HON. MR. LEA: On the passing lane such as in Cloverdale, we

don't have that information here but we'll get it to you.

On the bypass at Langley, I agree — like many other

communities Langley is choking within its own traffic

situation. The policy that we're putting forward to communities

like Langley is that we will get out technical people with

their expertise to work with the community. We are doing that

in Langley. The two technical committees are working — Langley's

and the department's — to try and come up with some solution

not only dealing with that but a more comprehensive good

system. As far as I know that's going along well.

Ramps at Clearbrook and the matter of a person starving to

death — it must be a person who doesn't like eggs. (Laughter.)

I'll ask the engineering department to take a look at that.

I've run into that problem in other places. We'll look at that

particular one.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Highways department owns enough property

to put a ramp there.

HON. MR. LEA: In regard to signs, we've noted the areas that

you have pointed out that you feel should be looked at — we'll

look at those. We have been also working with the chambers of

commerce and the city councils in regard to tourist information

and that whole area. The tourist industry under the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), too. Hopefully we can get

better signs.

Vote 96 approved.

On vote 97: vehicle damage claims, $100,000.

MR. CHABOT: This is one of the few votes where there is a

decrease in expenditure — a decrease of 25 per cent, which is

substantial in view of the fact that we'll be coming to a vote

later on where there is an allocation of new equipment of $11

million. I'm sure that the Department of Highways is not

running short of equipment. Could the Minister tell me why

there is this tremendous decrease in view of the fact that new

equipment is being purchased? Is it because there is a

[ Page 3668 ]

possibility the equipment will be idle to a substantial

degree this year by 25 per cent over last year?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this vehicle damage claim vote

isn't only for the Department of Highways; it's for government

and handled through my department. Last year it was budgeted at

$125,000. Because of the kind of money we had to spend on that

last year, we feel we can lower it.

It's for those things that aren't covered. For instance, a

non-moving vehicle might be digging a ditch and strikes

something — a power pole or this sort of thing — and is

damaged. So it's those kind of things that aren't covered that

come out of this vote. I'd say that the reason it's down is

because government employees are probably doing their job well

and carefully.

Vote 97 approved.

On vote 98: highway signs, signals, traffic control, et

cetera, $1,900,930.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just one quick request of the

Minister, and that's in the same area that I was talking about

that passing lane — on that hill on No. 10 Highway. At the

crest of the hill there is an independent school there —

Shannon Heights Christian School. There have been a number of

collisions in that area and near-collisions with parents

attempting to drop their children off at school, particularly

turning into the school rather than out of the school, I was

wondering whether or not that school could not be treated the

same as schools in the public school system and a caution sign — "20 miles per hour when children on highway" or something

like that — put at both ends of Shannon Heights School. I think

it would serve to at least warn motorists that there will be

children at the school and that there will be congested traffic

during school hours.

HON. MR. LEA: There is no difference in the manner we treat

independent schools and those within the public schools system

as far as safety for children is concerned. The Shannon Heights

School — I'll have the highway safety engineer check into that

and see whether it's warranted. If it's warranted in terms of

safety, we make the money available.

MR. CHABOT: One brief question. It's been brought to my attention recently

while in Canal Flats.... I am advised by the trustees of the improvement district

that they have been attempting for about five years to get when I call a left-hand

turn, but it's probably called an acceleration and deceleration lane, and a

direct turnoff into the community at the northern end of the community. They

asked me to bring it to your attention. At the moment the community is reached

by a frontage road — narrow, blind and unsafe on one corner because of timber

as you approach from the north and turn into the community. It's an unsafe community

as far as I'm concerned, and I think that it would improve the situation tremendously.

It's not a costly project to reach the main street into

Canal Flats from Highway 95. It would involve a culvert and a

little bit of fill, probably about three feet of fill. That's

about all it would involve for a distance of, oh, 10 or 15

feet. So they've been asking for this and I think it's a

reasonable request and I think it's one that should be granted.

It gives much better, safer access to that community and they

feel justified in asking for this. I was wondering if we could

expect any action this coming year on this little minor

request.

HON. MR. LEA: If the highway safety engineer concurs with

the Hon. Member, we'll do it this year.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you.

Vote 98 approved.

Vote 99: grants and subsidies, $30,820 — approved.

On vote 100: purchase of new equipment, $11,000,000.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just make the observation that

I'm very happy to see the increase here. But I ask for a

breakdown of the equipment purchased, types of equipment. I'd

really like to have that for the $8 million of last year. I'd

like to see what was purchased.

HON. MR. LEA: As soon as we're out of here I'll have the

comptroller run a photocopy of it and give it to you right

outside here.

MR. FRASER: Thanks very much. And you'll have him run a

photocopy of that other message I want as well, eh?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, we'll be looking into that right now.

Vote 100 approved.

On vote 101: salary contingencies, $7,834,200.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, this

salary contingencies looks a little high

[ Page 3669 ]

in relation to the rest of the salaries. I understand, Mr.

Chairman, that there's a lot of money in here for day-labour

vote. I was just wondering if there's any possibility of

increasing the day-labour vote in that great constituency which

I have the honour to represent. As I said the other day,

$350,000 is not even enough to keep up with.... It won't even

maintain the roads, let alone build any additions that have to

be made.

I'm just wondering if I could plead with the Minister of

Highways for just a few more dollars so those poor pioneers who

opened up that great country wouldn't have to run over those

potholes and, when they need an extension somewhere, new roads

required, if we couldn't have just a little more money for day

labour in that great constituency.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, that wouldn't be under this

vote. The day labour is done out of capital money and the wages

paid there would be wages paid to independent people not

working directly for the department but renting their equipment

and that sort of thing. But salary contingency would be for

people hired directly by the department as employees.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe you could hire a few more people,

then, to work in that area out of this vote. This isn't really

for increases in wages, is it? Isn't it for hiring extra

people?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, as the Member knows, in the department

there are all sorts of unusual situations that happen during

the year that we can't really plan for. So we have to have

money in there in case these situations arise — for instance,

winter snow removal and this sort of thing that we can't plan

for.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about unusual situations where road

deterioration or an unforeseen situation arises? That's what

I'm talking about. I've got a whole file of unusual situations.

Could I bring them to you and get you to loosen a little of

that $7,834,000 to help out those poor people who are trying to

feed this hungry world...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pioneers!

MR. PHILLIPS: Pioneers, who opened up that great country,

pioneers who are trying to feed the hungry world, keep the food

production up, opening up new land, putting up with all kinds

of hardship — the same type of hardships that the great pioneers

suffered who came to this country originally, opened up this

great land of ours so that we can enjoy the good life we can

live today. There are still people doing that kind of thing —

putting up with those hardships, bucking the elements, bucking

the snow, bucking the mud.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bucking?

MR. PHILLIPS: Bucking the potholes. They need a little help

out of this great society that you have, out of all this money

that you have. They need just a little help, Mr. Minister, just

a little help with their roads.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I warn that Member that

I'm going to show that speech all over his riding. But I'd like

to see your unusual file.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you.

Vote 101 approved.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, we

will move now and just make a start on the Minister of Human

Resources and then we'll carry on with his estimates tomorrow

morning. So I'd like to call vote 109.

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 109: Minister's Office, $116,576 — continued.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are a few comments I'd

like to make regarding the administration by the Minister of

his department. We had some dialogue when his estimates began.

I don't remember when that was. It seems like a long, long time

ago. It was about juveniles and the facilities needed to handle

particularly that small percentage of juveniles who are

considered to be hard core. There have been some reports

recently that the government has, if not taken a second look,

at least said it is recognizing at least that there is a

problem now, and that there will be some facilities built.

I would like to refer the Minister to a task force on

juvenile delinquency done in Surrey which, I suppose, is in

many ways a typical municipality with regard to the kind of

municipal jurisdictions that are rapidly urbanizing. Those are

the areas where the problem seems to be most acute. It is

interesting that there was a follow-up study done in which the

people in Surrey found that while only about 10 per cent of the

youth in Surrey are involved in church programmes, in Matsqui

50 to 60 per cent of the youths there attend church regularly.

They also found that Matsqui has the lowest delinquency rate in

British Columbia. You can draw your own conclusions from that,

but I would say that those are pretty significant figures.

The task force report presented to the Surrey council had

some pretty alarming statistics in it. For

[ Page 3670 ]

instance, in 1974 there were a total of 1,325 juvenile

offences recorded by Surrey police. This doesn't include

traffic offences. But there were 1,325 juvenile offences

compared to only 1,935 adult offences, so 40 per cent of the

offences in the municipality are attributed to juvenile

offences. Theft-oriented offences accounted for the majority —

break, enter and theft, and theft of motor vehicles. The

category of "other Criminal Code" had a greater number of

offences than theft of motor vehicles, but it includes things

like creating a disturbance, willful damage and things like

these. Of that 1,325, slightly over 80 per cent of those

offences, 1,068, were theft related.

That poses a pretty important problem for a municipality, and certainly imposes

some kind of an additional cost, not only because of the direct relationship

of the juvenile to the crime, but an additional cost to the consumer, I'm sure,

in relation to higher retail costs because of the required protection from shoplifting,

and increased insurance rates against theft of vehicles, and certainly with

regard to willful damage. Insurance rates in Surrey, I can assure the Minister,

have shot up dramatically in the last little while. I know of one merchant in

Surrey who has now been vandalized I times in the past 12 months — and seriously

vandalized. This is in the heart of Whalley where the major problem seems to

be.

This task force report goes on to say that, of course,

statistics do not give the whole picture. For instance, one

could not assume that crimes of violence and physical abuse are

not prevalent on the basis of these statistics. Many assaults

do take place, sometimes as a retaliatory measure by another

criminally oriented individual. Certainly, if retaliation is

the case, most recipients would not report it. It is safe to

assume that physical violence is much more in existence than is

evident from these statistics. That too, Mr. Chairman, must

bode some concern for all of us in society.

I won't take up too much time with this report, but I

believe it is an important report and the first of its kind,

that I know of, done at the request of a municipality which is

concerned with its own problems. I will read about two more

paragraphs from it.

This paragraph probably points out more than any other argument I could make

or that anyone else could make regarding the need for some kind of increased

facilities. It refers to a juvenile held in custody at Surrey police cells for

16 days. This was a 16-year-old boy who was charged with multiple offences of

breaking and entering, theft and auto theft at Surrey and other lower mainland

points. He was held in police custody on the authority of the family court judge.

Attempts were made to have the boy put into the custody of the juvenile detention

home in Vancouver. However, officials in charge of that facility refused to

accept this boy as he had been there previously on several occasions, had escaped

each time and was beyond the control of personnel. This boy was also sent to

the House of Concord in Langley. He escaped from there as well, and that facility

refused to accept him any further. Failing the ability of these facilities to

control the boy, he was held in the Surrey police cells until finally he was

raised to adult court, convicted and escorted to Haney Correctional Institute

where he is still in custody. At least, he was at the time of this report which

was in February.

We must recognize that there are young people in that

position who have to have some kind of structured facility in

which they can be kept. I've said this before, but the practice

of sending those young people back into the community that

spawned their problems in the first place is really abhorrent

to me for the reason that they have already shown that they

can't cope with the community environment from which they came.

If we just send them back, then we are compounding their

problems as well, it seems to me.

The final paragraph I wish to read from this report

says:

"It may seem encouraging that only about 2 per cent of the

total student population between 13 and 18 was involved in

delinquent behaviour. But before we comfort ourselves, it must

be remembered that this report indicates only the offenders

that were apprehended and subsequently dealt with by various

agencies. There were many more offences committed of which the

police were never aware."

It refers to an

article dated September, 1973, in the

magazine Psychology Today , entitled "The Juvenile Delinquent

Nobody Knows." Haney and Gould, the authors, state that as a

result of a study in 1961, they found that only 3 per cent of

the delinquencies committed were actually detected.

"Another factor that should cause us not to be comforted is

the incredible amount of destruction and turmoil that has been

supposedly caused by this very small minority of declared

juvenile delinquents. The situation demands that society pull

together all the resources at its disposal to stem the rise in

delinquent behaviour."

It might be well to read the final sentence too:

"The task force has a mandate to make recommendations to

this end. Unless very clear and specific recommendations are

made with a view to consistent and thorough implementation in

the context of the reality of the situation outlined above, the

task force will be just another one of many."

I think that we can go a little further by saying that if

government at this level doesn't pay attention

[ Page 3671 ]

to the recommendations, comments and observations that are

made by task forces such as this, done at the instigation of a

municipality, then it sure will be only one of many, many task

force studies which have been shoved under the carpet and lay

there forever. I believe that it's very important that we do

pay attention to these task forces. We may not agree with

everything that's contained in the information or the

recommendations, but if we don't give them at least the

courtesy of considering their proposals and, if merited,

implementing some of them, then it's a complete waste of

society's time and money in everybody's opinion, I'm sure.

The House resumed; Mr. Dent in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada