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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3573 ]

CONTENTS

Department of Municipal Affairs estimates On vote 178. — 3573

The House met at 10 a.m.

CLERK: Hon. Members, in the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, the

Deputy Speaker has taken the chair.

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.

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

appears to be awake, Mr. Chairman, which is an accomplishment

in itself.

Because of a bill which is presently before the House

dealing with amendments to the Municipal Act, I think it's

going to be a little difficult to get into some of the points

which could be covered otherwise. I don't believe that I am

transgressing the rule regarding debate on the amendments to

the Municipal Act by asking if this morning the Minister would

just spend a few minutes with the committee to reassure us, to

set at rest some doubts which, certainly, I hold, and which I

believe are held by other Members on this side of the House,

regarding the degree of co-ordination which exists between the

Department of Municipal Affairs and such other departments or

agencies as the Land Commission, the Department of Housing, the

Energy Commission, the B.C. Development Corp., Department of

Highways, and the land branch insofar as initiatives in land

assembly are concerned.

In other words, I wonder if the Minister would indicate to

the committee if he sees the role of the Department of

Municipal Affairs, under his guidance, as one which is

primarily concerned with offering assistance to municipalities

in the narrow sense, on strictly municipal matters regarding

the Act and

interpretation of the Act, or if he recognizes that

with the growth of government over the past number of years a

number of agencies and departments make decisions, seek

information and implement policies which, in fact, directly

affect cities, district municipalities, towns and villages in

the province. What is the input from his department? I could

carry on a little later after the Minister, if he chooses,

responds to that question and comment.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I see

the department as a basic liaison between all departments of government and

any particular municipality. The day-to-day business of approval of bylaws and

that sort of thing has to carry on in its normal course, but I don't see that

as the major function of the department at all.

The question of co-ordination between departments, the

question of co-ordination between commissions, municipalities

and the department, I believe it is improving. We are working

at it, at any rate, to try and get more consultation before

things do happen. It's certainly not perfect; I do believe that

it is improving, but I will accept the suggestion that we still

have a fair distance to go to get it where it should be. There

are a lot of things that do go on that you don't find about

until after it's happened. All I'd say is that we're working at

it and trying to improve it.

MR. CURTIS: Okay, that is understandable as far as it

goes.

I think it's a matter of public record, Mr. Chairman, that

soon after his appointment to this portfolio, in the fall of

1972, the Minister said — and I have to paraphrase — but, in

effect, his message to the municipalities of British Columbia

was that if you have a problem with another department of

government, or if you seek information or answers or guidance

from another department or agency — the Land Commission wasn't

established at that point — whether it be B.C. Hydro or any

department of government, do so through my office and we will

assist you.

Now he can correct me if I am mistaken but I think he also

implied that we will send someone with you as you go to see

these other people in order to keep this degree of

co-ordination in effect.

If I am wrong about how the Minister interpreted his

position or task in the fall of 1972, then would he tell me? If

so, has he managed to follow through on that suggestion or

guide that was given to the municipalities of the province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Basically I think the function of the

department is to assist the municipalities in their dealings

with other departments of government. As you say, I did state

that I would do all I can to assist them in dealing with other

departments. I don't actually walk with them from one

department to another, but if they do not get satisfaction in

one department I generally hear back and suggest that they

notify me so I can check it out here. But when they are in

Victoria I certainly don't go around with them, hand in hand,

to the departments. I don't do that.

MR. CURTIS: Would someone take them, though?

HON. MR. LORIMER: On occasion. Generally what happens is

that a council will come down from the interior or somewhere

and want to see four or five departments in one or two days. We

try to

[ Page 3574 ]

arrange a satisfactory time to see them all. Sometimes the

MLAs for the particular constituency will do this themselves,

but by and large it is done through our department. We line up

meetings — some joint meetings and so on — so the work of the

municipality can be done in one trip and maybe in one or two

days so they can get down, have a full two days and get back

home.

MR. CURTIS: Yesterday, when we were discussing the estimates

of the Department of Highways with that Minister, there was

considerable discussion relating to the approving officer or

the approving function that still rests with that department.

The Minister was here for that discussion, I believe. I wonder

if we could hear his attitude this morning with respect to

leaving that approving authority in the Department of Highways.

How would he respond to the transfer of that authority to his

department or to some other department?

It seemed to me, reviewing Hansard this morning, that the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was quite sympathetic to

the comments that were made about the approving officer and the

merits of examining the transfer of that function out of the

Highways department to elsewhere.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't believe there are any conflicts

between the Minister of Highways and myself regarding the

approval system. Historically it has been in the Department of

Highways because the Department of Highways has people in the

field throughout the province,

whereas in our department we

have a very limited number of people in the field.

I believe that eventually the approving function should be

within Municipal Affairs because it is basically a neutral

department where the interests of a variety of matters can be

looked at. Basically the Highways department is concerned with

the question of pressures on highways and looks only at one

aspect of the whole planning function. I agree that it should

be in Municipal Affairs, but I can't foresee it in the

immediate future. We do not have the personnel to handle it.

The delays that people complain about now would be much greater

until we have trained people in the field. I think it is not

too far down the road, but I think it is still a few years

away.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a brief question to the Minister.

I was questioning the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) regarding an unusual

situation which has developed in the community of Burns Lake where the government

is in the process of establish ing a state-owned forest industry — Babine Forest

Products. There was an unusual grant or subsidy, call it what you may, given

to that community of approximately $350,000. That is over and beyond the on-site

and off-site servicing of these state-owned lots, state-owned trailer parks

and state-owned homes which are being established in that community. This is

a most unusual precedent that has been established.

As I was questioning the Minister of Housing he informed me

that there was no grant given from his department; it was given

by the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I seem

to be bounced on and on down the road. When I questioned the

Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams) about this unusual

precedent which was established in that community, he suggested

that they will be looking after the interests of other

municipalities relative to systems for water systems. Then he

suggested that this would be done under the Department of

Municipal Affairs.

Now I can't relate to you just what kind of assistance this

is on a per capita basis, but it is substantial, I must admit.

I'm wondering what kind of proposal the Minister has to give

the kind of equal treatment which should exist from government

vis-à-vis junior government in relation to what took

place in Burns Lake.

In fact, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

suggested to me that there is a possibility — I believe you

were nodding your head at the time as well — that legislation

will be introduced or some form of proposal will take place

that will ensure that other municipalities will get financial

assistance for water systems, that this will not only pertain

to communities that have state-owned forest industries

underway. I'm wondering whether there will be legislation this

session, legislation this fall, or what kind of assistance and

what means do you propose to utilize to ensure there is fair

treatment for municipalities in this province?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, as you mentioned, any funds spent in

Burns Lake were not sent from our department. As I understand

it, this was done as a water programme through the water rights

branch, basically. Bill 110 does give provision for water

assistance to all municipalities in the province. There is no

question but that there will be equal treatment for all

municipalities in this province.

Mind you, some municipalities do have the basic services

already established and in place. The costs over the past few

years have mounted steadily and rapidly. Some areas do require

those facilities to be put in place either to replace worn out

utilities or new ones completely. I think we have to look at

these actual facts of life. Some municipalities require more

funds than others just to keep the standard of living at

basically the same level.

I would say the smaller communities, places like Golden and

some of those areas, maybe need more in their share in

assisting them in those programmes than I would say the larger

cities, who probably have

[ Page 3575 ]

their facilities in place and don't require the assistance

that some of the other communities do.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I just have a few observations to

make here.

The Minister has not too controversial a department, and I

am like the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis): I

think there is controversy in some of the bills and in a

goof-up bill you have. So there will be some remarks made at

that time.

The municipalities, it seems, this year....

HON. MR. LORIMER: Is that singular?

MR. FRASER: No, plural. There are quite a few wrinkles in

that.

The taxes are up all over the province, and everybody in the

municipalities is finding that out right about now, if they

haven't already found out through their tax notices. I think

they still have the usual difficulties acknowledging the fact

that they did get extra assistance this year. I'm quite

concerned that in a lot of municipalities the taxpayers aren't

getting what they are paying for, but more on that later.

I'd like to deal for a minute with the transit services

division that comes under this Minister, Mr. Chairman. I'd like

to know how many buses you have in the system, which is mainly

in the lower mainland, Victoria, Vancouver and so on, and what

it costs to operate them. I don't know what is the latest you

have, but apparently you have just made a statement that they

have had a loss of $21 million. I don't know what year that

referred to. The last I heard was $17 million. I think that was

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974. So I would ask the

Minister when he is replying what.... He is quoted as saying,

I believe, that there has been a loss of $21 million in the

transit division of the Hydro operations. What does that mean —

to the end of December, 1974, or the end of March, 1975, for

the total fiscal year? I'm not too clear.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we over here don't

deny the fact that there will have to be an operating loss. I

think there has been some improvement in the transit service.

But what I am really leading up to is that I'd like the

Minister to consider some compensating effect for everything

north of Hope in the Province of British Columbia. I think that

these people are getting an extra subsidy that is not going to

the people in the interior and the north of the province, for

the simple reason that there are very few transit operations in

the interior and the north.

While I am on that subject, I would like to know how many communities you are

subsidizing on transit beyond, say, Hope and the Fraser Valley throughout the

whole province.

I am aware of the fact that the City of Prince George has

just had a plebiscite and they want to opt in. But I don't

think there are very many actually in it in the interior —

probably only Kamloops and Kelowna, if they are in. That's the

point I'm trying to make.

The other thing is that this Minister, Mr. Chairman, is a

director of B.C. Hydro. While we've whopped that pretty good, I

recall that when we were dealing with a B.C. Hydro borrowing

power increase, I raised the inadequacy of grants from the

rural electrification assistance programme. It's been $3

million for some time. The Premier replied to me that he would

see that it was put on the next board of directors' meeting for

discussion. As this Minister is a member of the board of

directors of Hydro I'd like to know if that really has been

scheduled, because this $3 million is totally inadequate in

view of the inflation that's happened over the years. I believe

that $3 million vote has been the same now for four or five

years, and really in effect it's only worth about $1 million

today. Because of this, rural electrification is almost coming

to a standstill in the rural areas of the province. I'd like to

know just where that is at.

The reason I tie that into transit is that rural

electrification is being subsidized out of the public Treasury.

I know this is not this Minister's department; it comes out of

Finance, but as a member of the board of directors of Hydro he

should be hollering at the Finance department to increase this

allocation in line particularly with the fact of the $21

million that he says the lower mainland transit system is

getting. I think there should be some relativity there. I'm not

suggesting it be the same, because we're dealing with a lot

more citizens, but where one area of the province is getting a

$21 million subsidy and three-quarters of the geographical area

of the province is getting $3 million, there seems to be some

inequity there of some kind.

I was happy, Mr. Chairman, to hear this Minister say that

he'd like to see the highway approvals taken away and put in

his department. I can assure you now that his department has

nothing whatsoever to do with approvals of land use in the

rural area, because Municipal Affairs send plans from the

regional districts and municipalities and so on to the Highways

department with their approval on them and they're killed when

they get to the Highways department. They definitely have the

final and last say on subdivision approvals. As the Minister

said, all they think about is how many more vehicles are going

to go on the highways. We need more space to live and we should

dispersing the population of the province better then we have,

and here we have the Highways policy really against this

happening under the set-up that is there. They have absolute,

full control and they veto more than they approve over a period

[ Page 3576 ]

time. In fact I would say that of every 10 that go to the

Highways department for approval nine of them are rejected

because they don't like the access they're applying for; the

highways approving officer doesn't like the access they're

applying for based on the fact that it will put more vehicles

on the road. I think the Highways department should take a

different look and decide to upgrade the highways to look after

this increased traffic. That would be the reply. I wish the

Minister would exert some more pressure within cabinet to

really have more to say than you have now on approving

subdivisions in relation to the Highways department.

The last item. Again, this is not his department, but it

affects every municipality, and I refer to the assessment

authority levy this year throughout the province on

municipalities and the rural areas of 1.17 mills to operate

that assessment authority. I don't know whether the Minister

has analyzed this or not, but it appears that some

municipalities have had their assessment costs tripled through

this blanket levy. In other words they have their own

assessment departments. The assessment authority has taken this

completely over and levied the 1.17 mills. I'd like to ask the

Minister in closing if his department has had any time to

analyse this. I understand the City of Vancouver have had

hundreds of thousands of dollars increase for them. I am aware

of several interior municipalities that have been increased

substantially. I'd like to know just overall if it has been a

benefit to the municipalities of the province or an increased

liability.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, the amount of the transit

deficit is for the fiscal year 74/75. The deficit for 75/76

will be larger than last year as there are more services given

out into the more rural areas.

Areas which have received services outside of the

metropolitan areas in 1974 were Kitimat, Nanaimo, Nelson and

Powell River. In 1975 there will be Port Alberni, Prince

Rupert, Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Kitimat, Nanaimo,

Nelson and Powell River. So there is a substantial increase

between '74 and '75. Those areas will not make money; there's

no financial gain in the transit system. Where the profits are

made, if there are any to be made, is in the charters and in

express, but in local areas there isn't that much express and

there may be some charter service.

With regard to rural electrification, the question will be

coming before the Hydro board meeting at the next meeting.

Although work has been continuing on rural electrification, I'm

in agreement with you that the amount spent on that aspect may

be low.

Assessments, as you know, are not within my frame of reference. I do have complaints

from the cities — quite a number of them — that the costs to them appear to be

greater than they were before. I have no way of arguing with that assumption.

I'm told that the amount paid by the provincial government is also greater.

Presumably the function itself is costing more as inflation takes hold. As you

know, the assessment authority was set up in consultation and by request of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities in conjunction with a committee report — I

think you were a member as well as myself. I don't know what to say in regard

to the costs. They do seem to be higher than was anticipated and we hope that

something can be done. I have advised the authority that we are getting complaints

from the municipalities. We are looking into the matter, but I can't promise

any end result.

Of course, one other problem is that the municipalities do

look at what they have figured out the cost to be and what it's

costing them now, but on the other side of the ledger some of

them may be not analyzing the rents that are being paid to the

municipality for the use of the space or, if space is not being

used, the fact that the municipality has this extra space for

other services. I don't know if that's true in all cases or

not, but I think it does apply in some areas so that the

additional costs may not be as great as some of the

municipalities think, but I do believe that the costs are

greater.

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

start off this morning by mentioning a problem which is of

increasing importance to the City of Victoria, and which is

essentially under this Minister's department, namely the

problem that comes up with the 15-mill freeze on provincial

government grants to the city in lieu of taxes, In the old days

it may have made sense, Mr. Minister; I am sure you realize

that. It may have made sense when the mill rate was lower and

therefore the gap would be less between 15 mills and whatever

the mill rate of the city might be. But the mill rate has gone

up very, very substantially. The margin has increased

enormously, and a 15-mill rate for provincial property, or I

should say grant in lieu of tax, simply has become totally

inadequate.

Now this is a problem throughout the province. The Minister

is fully aware of this. It's a problem in every community where

there happens to be provincial buildings or provincial land,

but in the City of Victoria it has become a problem of

absolutely crushing and critical importance. The City of

Victoria has within its boundaries 106 properties listed as

belonging to the provincial government — 106 properties. The

provincial assessed value of the land is $2,778,000 and the

assessed value of the improvements is $22,838,560. Now since

that date for which I gave those figures, which is December 31,

the province has purchased more properties, some of which are

vacant, and in addition the province has announced the

construction of a new complex which will be somewhat under S20

million and will be 2.5 million feet of office space in the

downtown area,

[ Page 3577 ]

virtually doubling the office space in the Victoria

area.

Now for the City of Victoria this is one of those offers you

can't refuse. It's going to be a very attractive building. They

have been involved to a certain extent, and I congratulate the

Minister for his efforts along this line, in some discussions

on the building that there will be and on the plan of it, but

in terms of the tax rate it's an absolute disaster for the

citizens of Victoria, Why? Because while they can't afford to turn down an

attractive complex of this nature, they can hardly afford to

have it within the city boundaries when they only get, at the

present, one-third of the money they would otherwise

receive.

Now school costs, hospital costs and what-have-you are the

same — no difference whether you have a provincial government

building or whether you have a private building. Policing is

the same; water is the same; sewerage is the same. All these

things are the same and they hit the City of Victoria very

hard; they hit it in the neck.

In the Victoria area we now lose some hundreds of thousands

of dollars from the provincial government's failure to provide

the full tax rate. Very shortly, this figure will reach $2

million to $3 million in lost tax revenue. I speak for my

constituents when I say that we're not a wealthy community. We

have an enormous number of people on fixed incomes, the highest

percentage of people who are elderly and on old age pensions of

probably any community in the country. The only possible

exception might be Oak Bay, but I doubt it. I think that Oak

Bay and ourselves have this enormous number of people who are

senior citizens on fixed incomes. Oak Bay certainly does not

have our problem of the government loading us with these new

gifts, these great new provincial buildings which in turn are a

constant hemorrhage on the financial health of the City of

Victoria, and which in turn must be put on the backs of those

senior citizens who are resident here.

The situation, Mr. Minister, as I mentioned, has become

worse, not better, since this government took over. It is not

something that you can blandly blame on the previous

administration. Sure, the system was set up by the previous

administration. The system was set up by them, and it was a bad

system. But because of the increasing mill rate, and the fixed

level of the provincial one, the gap is widening. As the

federal government did some years ago after similar outcry,

it's time that the provincial government faced up to the fact

that provincial buildings should pay their way. We now get more

money from the federal....

I wonder whether the Member from.... Would you mind just

toning it down just a little? You're fairly close to me and you

make a lot of noise.

I wonder whether if the Minister is aware of the fact that

at the present time grants in lieu from the federal government

are greater than those from the provincial in the capital city

of the Province of British Columbia. They don't have as much,

as far as I can see, in the way of installations here, yet they

pay more. There just seems to be no earthly reason for that at

all, Mr. Minister. I do feel that you should, as Minister of

Municipal Affairs, look into this situation which, of all

cities in the province, is far the worst in the City of

Victoria.

I would point out that you've been in touch with the mayor

on this, and you've been in touch with the council. Because of

the emergency situation they face, the council has had to set

up a special committee of Alderman Mike Young, the city manager

and the City Comptroller, Mr. Sheldrake. They are having

another look at this because of the enormous tax burden which

you are shafting onto the ordinary citizens of our

community.

I can only urge the Minister at this time to come up with

something a little more concrete than the normal noises of

sympathy which he is so good at making. Now I know this is a

sympathetic Minister, and I realize that lie does understand

the problem, but it's something more than just a few words of

kindness that we need. It's action. The Minister's concern

really isn't going to do very much for the city. The Minister's

action might, and it sure is time we had a little action in

this area. Mr. Chairman, perhaps as a first point, the Minister

would look at that.

I'd just like to read into the record a letter of a little

over a year ago to me from the Mayor of Victoria, Peter Pollen.

It's a letter about this matter which, I believe, I've not read

to the Minister before, but the situation's unchanged — I

shouldn't say it's unchanged, it's worse than it was at that

time. I'm surprised that over a year later I have to again

bring it to his attention, The second paragraph of the mayor's

letter to me, dated April 2, 1974:

"I would point out, however, there is a very serious

question confronting the City of Victoria, that is the question

of the 15 mill tax paid by the provincial government. The

answer to this problem, of course, is that the provincial

government should follow the practice currently followed by the

federal government, which is to pay a grant in lieu of full

taxes. The growing presence of the provincial government within

the City of Victoria constitutes a continuing erosion of our

tax base from the normal, approximately, 48 mill level to the

15 mill level granted by the government."

The mayor is right. It's just a continual erosion of the tax

base. If it was simply money that was not received, and that

was all there was to it, fine, but it's actually money that's

not received which must be

[ Page 3578 ]

made up elsewhere. The way to make it up elsewhere, because

of the way our federal-provincial-municipal structure is

constituted, is by an increased burden upon the backs of the

local taxpayers.

So I urge the Minister to get up and give me some concrete

information, better than what he gave last year, about the

problem of the capital city and the refusal of the provincial

government to pay its fair share. It is a major municipal

problem and should be the major concern of this Minister.

The second point I would like to ask the Minister about is

the province's role in the development of the capital city. The

provincial authorities have made some statements — sometimes

they come from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley);

sometimes they come from the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst);

sometimes they come from the Premier. Essentially it is a

municipal matter, and I would like to know from this Minister

what is going to happen in the way of the province setting up a

provincially constituted agency in this area to handle either

just the legislative precinct or all provincially owned

property in the greater Victoria area.

We now have land that was formerly Marathon land that was

owned by other principals on the harbour, provincial government

property stretching throughout James Bay, provincial government

property in a minimum of 106 other sites in town. Are you

setting up some sort of authority to take care of this? If so,

what is the connection with civic authorities? I believe the

civic authorities have the best planning unit of any in the

area. It is better than the regional board and the provincial

government's planning authority for the area, to my mind.

Certainly, they should be fully involved. We live here and we

have some idea, expressed through our aldermen, as to what we

want. For the provincial government to ignore this, as they

have done, and to have such a poor record, as they have, of

cooperation with the civic authorities, is most disappointing

for me as the provincial Member.

I would like to read you an excerpt from the Planning

Institute of British Columbia. It is a press release of

February 7, 1974, in which they talk about this problem. They

talk about Provincial Secretary Ernie Hall, who is another

involved in this area. We have more Ministers involved, with

more little empires and less co-ordination, than you can shake

a stick at.

"The recent news reports of Provincial Secretary

Hall's remarks on new controls of development in the province's capital

are both puzzling and disturbing."

This is from the Planning Institute of British Columbia who

claim that provincial talk of controls on development are

"puzzling and disturbing."

"There appears to be recognition that local development

controls have been inadequate in the past, and we can agree with this. However,

the problem is not limited to Victoria, and a thorough revision of the philosophy

and content of the Municipal Act is the most logical and immediate method of

overcoming the basic deficiencies.

"We understand that the government is perturbed about

so-called high-rises adjacent to the Legislature and are

considering special legislation to place additional authority

in a provincially constituted agency. We wonder if this is

either necessary or desirable. Most local governments in

British Columbia have faced their development problems

reasonably well within the constraints of the prevailing

attitudes of society, very limited legislation, few programmes

of financial assistance and a poor record of cooperation in

the development actions of the provincial government. The

latter has been a particular problem in Victoria where the

province is, in effect, the largest developer of all.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

"Community attitudes have changed dramatically in recent

years and Victoria's response to these changes has been

remarkably rapid and pioneering in many respects. Policies in

the process of implementation include termination of the

high-rise development close to the Legislature.

"Perhaps Mr. Hall is not familiar with the city's work. It

must therefore be particularly galling for Victoria's aldermen

to hear of a new system being considered that implies distrust

of their ability to pursue particular development

objectives."

I am quoting, Mr. Minister, from the Planning Institute of

British Columbia, which is headquartered in Vancouver. The

Minister knows it and shakes his head in agreement with me

because he knows they are a responsible body. They are talking

about this city; it is not about their own city. They are

perfectly clear in pointing out that we do not need to have a

provincial authority set up in this area which is outside of

the municipal structure. What we need is for the province to

face up to its responsibilities to the municipality, not the

province to go out and set things up on their own. I wonder if

the Minister would like to consider that.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, that this is also important with

respect to the Marathon holdings and the Princess Marguerite.

Once again I would like to quote from a paragraph of a letter

signed by Mayor Peter Pollen, dated April 9, 1975, and

addressed to the Hon. David Barrett.

[ Page 3579 ]

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"Re: provincial acquisition of Marathon holdings and the

Princess Marguerite:

"The Victoria City Council was very pleased to hear of the

province's decision to acquire Marathon holdings, the federal

lands in the Inner Harbour and the Princess Marguerite. We

congratulate you most sincerely for making this decision.

"The press release, or perhaps more euphemistically the fact

sheet dealing with the purchase, has been reviewed by council

and we are gravely concerned, notwithstanding your personal

assurances, that no reference whatsoever has been made to the

city's position with respect to the development of this

property, Although the possibility of the removal of the Black

Ball ferry to the Marguerite docks was mentioned, no other

suggestion of cooperation was outlined.

"We now have four agencies, perhaps even five, including the

federal government, working in the Inner Harbour apparently for

their own partisan aggrandizement — the City of Victoria

Capital Improvement District Commission, Department of Public

Works, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. 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. May I extend to you the

utmost and unqualified support of the city in the establishment

of this instrumentality."

Well, that's the offer from the mayor. I'd like to know from

the Minister, since April 9 when this offer was made, what has

been done to get together with the other governments and

authorities to work out some cooperative arrangements for

planning and development of the harbour. I think it's most

important that this be done. I think the mayor's offer should

be acted upon. The letter was addressed to the Premier, not to

this Minister, but, clearly, as municipal Minister he should be

involved and have the primary responsibility. Indeed I think

that he should have, because of the attitude of this Minister.

He has been sympathetic in the past; I think he's the type of

person the city could work with quite well. I hope that he will

indeed be given the authority and can indicate to us today that

he is taking steps himself to make sure that the cooperation

that Mayor Pollen talks about comes to pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds

too far, I would call his attention to Bill 127 on the order

paper which deals with some of these areas. I would ask him to

realize that he may debate these matters under Bill 127.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking forward to

debating them under this Bill 127, but I'm also interested in

having the Minister of Municipal Affairs say a word or two

because Bill 127 is under the authority of the Minister of

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

very point I'm trying to make to you — which apparently you

haven't quite grasped yet, but the Minister has — is that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources should get his

grubby hands off the property in the Inner Harbour and allow

this Minister, the Municipal Affairs Minister, to take on

primary responsibility for provincial government co-ordination

with the City of Victoria.

I have no reason, Mr. Chairman, to doubt that your caution

is well meant. I certainly will not discuss this bill which the

explanatory notes indicate is to amend the Department of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources Act to enable the Minister to

incorporate a company to carry out ferry and shipping services,

Crown land planning, development and management, and

incorporate some subsidiary companies as may be necessary in

other jurisdictions to operate a ferry and shipping

service.

Now you have indicated, by your statement on that bill,

something which I didn't realize — that perhaps under that

omnibus bill, that awesome, sweeping powers bill, the little

power that's left to this poor Minister of Municipal Affairs

may indeed be greatly eroded. I didn't think so, but you've

indicated that that may be the case, and in which case I'm

disappointed because I like this Minister. I would think he

should have more opportunity in the municipal field, and not

have that grasping Minister who sits next to him move outwards

and take over the municipal relationship with Victoria which

should be under this particular Minister.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) is trying to suggest something about the Inner

Harbour in Victoria. He can speak later in this debate at any

time he likes.

Mr. Chairman, the second point is the question of

amalgamation. On July 10, I believe — it's either 10th or 9th,

about that time — there was an

article which had the headline:

"Municipal Status May Come Within Year, Says Lorimer." Well,

the year's getting on; we have less than a month to go. I

wonder what his plans are for Colwood, Langford and View Royal.

These areas are not organized as a municipality, and as the

deadline is fast approaching, it's time the Minister came up

with information on what his plans are for Colwood, Langford

and View Royal.

A year ago the Minister had a meeting with representatives

of the seven greater Victoria municipalities and the regional

board of directors

[ Page 3580 ]

representing those unorganized communities. He told a press

conference after the meeting that the directors of the capital

regional board agreed to take definite steps towards

cooperation of Colwood, Langford and View Royal. At the same

time he expressed his disappointment that the municipal

officials were opposed to any form of amalgamation of two or

more of the seven municipalities, namely Victoria, Saanich, Oak

Bay, Esquimalt, Central Saanich, North Saanich and Sidney.

Now there are two distinct questions here. One is that area

which was the subject of the headline in the Daily Colonist .

The other was the question of the seven existing municipalities

being brought together. Now he made these statements a year

ago. He put a year's deadline on this. He talked about a

possible referendum or possible government decree, laying down

the amalgamation as happened elsewhere in the province. He's

indicated there would be the promise of financial assistance as

an incentive towards amalgamation. All these things were

brought out by the Minister at that time and yet nothing really

seems to have happened.

Perhaps he will report not only on what the situation is,

but what his attitude is, because apparently his attitude is

going to be particularly important.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister would like my opinion? I'll

be happy to consult with him in his office right after this,

because I have some excellent material for him on this matter.

I appreciate the Minister offering. That's the type of generous

response to the opposition this Minister shows.

I remember once, Mr. Chairman, if I can digress here for a

moment, when the Minister was trying to figure out some system

of busing, and he said on the air: "You know, I am having a

meeting with the mayor of Vancouver and a few other people and

I sure hope they've got some ideas, because I don't have very

many myself." That's the type of candid, honest approach which

we appreciate in this Minister. That's why we far prefer to

have him dealing with the municipalities, in particular the

municipality of Victoria, than the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) because he is open to

other people's opinions and ideas. I genuinely wish to

congratulate him for this outward-looking, expansive view that

he has, because it really is encouraging as an MLA for the

Minister to ask opposition Members for their views.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll tell him what I think of

amalgamation!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll be in his office at 12 o'clock, if that suits

the Minister. We'll go over this in some detail.

Now the question of bus service has come up. B.C. Hydro has

lost a packet of money, I believe $17 million, on bus services.

We have the new Fastbus painted all those pretty colours — none

of that old Socred green and all that stuff.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It's alive!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's alive, the Minister said. Excellent.

They're nice, clean, new buses purchased without tender from

Flyer Industries and other places, but the fact of the matter

is we now have a bus service which is simply costing us more

and more and more money.

I hope the Minister will get up and give some clear figures

on what is the increase in use of the buses. We have this

province owning everything from double-decker buses here in

Victoria, right through to express services up-island. The next

thing I expect them to take over is the Tally-Ho horse-drawn

carriages. He's taken over pretty well everything else.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Member says they have already got one

part of the horse, but when they take over those two-horse

power vehicles that plod the streets of Victoria with

non-polluting — or at least bio-degradable — exhaust, well

upholstered in leather, I'll be interested.

But before then, could he tell me how much there has been in

the way of an increase in use of the buses? Can he tell me

whether we are in a position to predict a break-even point for

transit in the future? Can he tell me whether we are in a

position to look forward to where the bus utilization, the

number of passengers per bus during rush hours and outside of

rush hours, is considered to be an adequate one? At the current

time it is totally inadequate. The Minister and I both know

this from travelling on the bus, from being one of three or four

or five people on the bus.

Are we moving up? Are we slowly changing public attitudes

towards public transit? Are we getting to a situation where it

is not just a question of enormously increasing the number of

buses and the deficit, and only taking a dozen or two dozen or

three dozen cars off the road when you are leaving thousands of

cars on the road? Are we getting to a position where we can see

public transit being a genuine factor in decreasing congestion,

a genuine factor in reducing the use of non-renewable fuel

resources, a genuine factor in reducing the requirements for

bridges, roads, parking and other things?

Now the Minister is most interested in this. He's taken a

keen personal interest, and public transit, and

[ Page 3581 ]

I am sure he knows this, was a major factor in many of his

speeches prior to election. He knows something about it and he

is interested in it, but at the present time we seem to have

the worst of everything. We are neither taking enough people

out of the cars on the road, nor are we creating a system which

is economical. We are getting large numbers of buses, even

larger numbers of cars, and vast deficits. So the Minister

should be able to let us know what is going to happen in the

near future.

As I have a minute or two more, Mr. Chairman, I wonder

whether the Minister could indicate also what plans are for

bike paths, because that is another area where you can take

people out of their cars and not only give them an opportunity

for cutting down on congestion, but give them an opportunity

for more exercise. What steps is he taking to encourage bike

paths in Vancouver, Victoria or in any other city?

Another point would be the Highland district. Mr. Minister,

I've questioned on that district time after time and have

received no real decision. Are you planning your 30,000-person

development in the Highland area? Are you planning to continue

that original proposal to make the Highland area the new growth

centre for subdivisions, probably either condominium or

apartment or high-rise, in the greater Victoria area? Is the

Highland area, which is now virtually unpopulated — only two or

three thousand people — to become a new city of 30,000?

I'm running short of time, but that's something I'll leave

with the Minister. What is happening with the Highland area?

People there don't know what is going to happen in the future.

They don't know what to do to develop their land. There's a

10-acre freeze on at the present time. They're simply left in

limbo and the Minister knows that a home is probably the major

investment of any citizen. They just don't know whether to make

improvements or whether they should sell out and turn it over

to some other use. So I wonder whether the Minister would go

into that.

Mr. Chairman, another quick point, as the green light is on,

and that is the money paid to the municipalities out of this

so-called gas revenue. When are we going to get that fiction

wiped out and when are we going to get revenues to the

municipalities not based upon the fluctuating returns of a

non-renewable resource? When are we going to have fixed

expenditures of the municipalities met by fixed amounts of

money according to a decent formula based upon regular revenue

instead of fluctuating revenue? When are we going to switch

this gas revenue to the regular general revenue of the province

as it should be and when are the municipalities going to get a

chunk of the standard taxes raised within their communities

such as income tax, such as liquor profits, such as gasoline

tax? There's no way, Mr. Chairman, that the gas revenues to the

municipalities make any sense at all, in light of the fact that

this is a fluctuating revenue which will inevitably go down in the

future and the expenditures of the municipalities are

essentially fixed and steady from year to year, steadily

increasing from year to year.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, first of all on the taxation

question, you understand that's not within my terms of

reference but I will make a few remarks on it. Regarding the

15-mill grant, you've never heard me speak in support of that

proposition. I would say that parts of the McMath terms of

reference deal specifically with this subject. We will

undoubtedly have a report back from that commission in the near

future.

On the question of development of land in Victoria, from our

department's point of view we have no more authority or control

in Victoria than we have in any other municipality. Any

provincial activity in Victoria is basically through other

departments and not through Municipal Affairs. It's true that

the City of Victoria doesn't get its full share of taxes due to

the grant representing basically 15 mills, but you might be

surprised to know that probably Victoria's not the worst-hit

city in that connection. I think you'll find that Burnaby, for

one, probably loses more financial support than Victoria. There

is far more acreage of government-owned land in that area than

here — likewise in Coquitlam.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Including improvements?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Not improvements, no. In land acreage,

which is basically where your problem is. One of the problems

is extension of services where there are no consumers. You have

areas like Oakalla, the Woodlands, Essondale and those areas.

It's a very expensive operation for a municipality. But I've

never defended this proposition and I expect that we will get a

recommendation from the commission.

As far as lack of cooperation with the City of Victoria in

development of provincial lands, I don't think that's accurate.

I know a number of people make statements at different times.

However, I think that there has been substantial cooperation

and I've had no problems with the mayor of Victoria or the

council in any of my dealings. I think we've been able to

resolve any problems that existed quite amiably. I don't know

of any specific instance where there has in fact not been

cooperation. I may be incorrect on that; I don't really know.

I know there have been a number of stories in the newspapers

about complaints and so on of that kind, but I don't think that

too many of the complaints have been valid.

As far as the letter from the mayor to the Premier, I'm not

aware of that matter but I'll meet with the mayor any time he

wants to discuss any of these problems that seem to be

bothering the city.

[ Page 3582 ]

Amalgamation. I did have a meeting with the mayors of all

seven communities in the greater Victoria area, together with

the regional district representatives of Colwood, Langford and

View Royal, with reference to a possible political realignment

of the communities to take into consideration the changes that

have developed over the last 50 years, and to recognize the

fact that things have turned around and that possibly they

should be looking at a new alignment. I might say that the

reception was not that warm — the city fathers were quite happy

the way things were. So, basically, I dropped the matter until

they decide on their own, or the people decide for them, that

they want to have a realignment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No legislation like Kamloops or

Kelowna?

AN HON. MEMBER: You got burned there.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, there was no burning there, As a

matter of fact, it was necessary and it was done. Certainly, in

the Victoria area I don't think it is necessary. If people want

to live in their small communities, then that's their choice.

In certain areas the time had run by and the choices weren't

available, that's in the case of Kamloops and Kelowna.

As far as Colwood, Langford and View Royal are concerned,

the committee has been set up and is working towards

determining what is necessary, what could be done, what the

likely cost would be and what the changes in the taxation would

be for the individuals residing in those areas. Public meetings

will be held shortly so that the public can....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: One month, two months, three months, four

months?

HON. MR. LORIMER: About six weeks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Six weeks. Thank you.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as the transit breaking point, I

don't think there is a break-even point. I don't think there's

any profit in transit. You may get the odd line that shows a

profit, and we have a number in Vancouver that show a profit,

but when you start expanding and go farther into the smaller

communities, the costs involved there are going to more than

offset any profit that might be made.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The deficits are going to go up

increasingly.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would say that the deficits will keep increasing,

due to the fact that the costs are increasing. In an urban transit situation,

you have peak period two times a day and a smaller peak period at noon, so you're

paying your drivers for an eight-hour day, or whatever, and it's very, very

difficult to have an efficient, complete usage of your drivers and your vehicles

in relation to the total number of people you have to carry in a day. The total

number is basically peaked in two periods of the day; it's not an even flow.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You then expect the total deficit as well

as the per passenger deficit to continue increasing?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The total deficit certainly, but the

passenger, no, I don't think that would necessarily increase. I

don't think it should.

You asked what increases there have been. In the new Gordon

Head service there is an increase of 17 per cent over last

year. General increase in the province is about 11 per cent. In

Coquitlam it's moved from 10 rides per capita to 45 per capita,

that's in a year — 45 rides per year for every individual in

that community. In North Vancouver it's basically the same as

in Coquitlam. So there's certainly a greater number of people

using the transit system. It's a very successful operation —

more and more people are leaving their cars at home. But it's

an expensive operation. There's no use trying to fool ourselves

that it's a money maker, because it isn't. Where the money is

made is in your express, if you have an inter-city

operation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But at least they're going on the

buses.

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

The Highlands. We're basically not doing very many studies

in the Highlands. There's a study by the regional district

taking place, and the Department of Housing is cooperating

with the regional district on the study. We are informed of

what's going on, but we are not initiating any particular

studies in the area. Any plans at the present time, I would

say, are just in the study sector — no definite plans at all

for the Highland area.

The revenue from natural gas — that is an area in which we are the first in Canada to share natural resource revenue with

the municipalities of the province. You may say it's a

non-renewable resource, and that's true, but that's a start.

When you run out of natural gas, if you want to go down the

road that far, obviously, there will be some other system,

whatever government is there at the time, to look after making

sure that the municipalities get the necessary revenues for

their operation.

This is a first step. The municipalities, I might say, are

very, very happy about the sharing of this revenue. Next year,

of course, the revenue will be for

[ Page 3583 ]

a period of a total year rather than for just a few months

as it will be this year. So next year the revenues will be

substantially greater, I would expect.

MR. WALLACE: I am certainly pleased that the Minister has

agreed that municipal residents should choose their own destiny

as far as amalgamation is concerned. I welcome his statement

that if the people in the communities in the greater Victoria

area choose not to amalgamate he will not consider imposing any

kind of situation on them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): That's not

what he said.

MR. WALLACE: I think that is what he said, or words to that

effect. If I am mistaken....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Maybe I had better ask the question again.

Would the Minister then consider that in his mind there might

be a situation which would make amalgamation necessary, or

would the Minister agree that in the greater Victoria area the

residents should be left to make their own decision in regard

to amalgamation? I certainly get the strong feeling in my

riding that we don't believe that bigger is better or that by

having a bigger organization — whether police, fire, or other

services — we are not convinced that Oak Bay would be any

better off by becoming part of a much larger unit. At least,

most of the people who take the trouble to talk to me on the

subject give me this clear impression.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Amalgamation if necessary, but not

necessarily amalgamation.

MR. WALLACE: There we go; that's what we had on conscription

away back when.

At any rate, I think it should be very clear, from Oak Bay's

point of view, that we are not interested in amalgamation

unless there can be greater and proven evidence of the degree

to which the residents of Oak Bay would benefit. After all,

that is surely the basic reason that anyone would want to

change boundaries or otherwise.

I was interested in the Minister's response to the Liberal

leader's question on the development of the City of Victoria.

He pointed out that he has no more control over Victoria than

any other municipality. This is correct, but I wonder if the

Minister has any plans to amend the Municipal Act to in fact

bring about a greater authority to control development in

municipalities.

The letter from the Planning Institute of British Columbia, from which the

Liberal leader quoted, was very interesting. They recommend that maybe it isn't

just the capital city that might benefit from a greater

measure of centralized control in developing their facilities,

land, transportation corridors, and so on. This letter from the

planning institute suggested that the Minister should amend the

Municipal Act. I'm sure the Minister received a copy of that

letter. It would be interesting to know if that is the

direction in which he wants to move.

I really just wanted to speak very quickly and briefly about

the bus system. I don't think this government is at all

consistent in what it is doing in relation to buses. We surely

have the most ridiculous example right here in the lower

mainland where we have this government taking away the licence

from a private bus operator because the bus operator was

providing an inadequate service and it was a line that was

losing money. The government held a hearing and took away the

licence.

At about the same time, the Member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Gorst), in the area involved, said that the government would

continue the present level of bus services and bus fares. I am

particularly talking about Colwood, Langford, Metchosin and

Happy Valley. The residents of that area were gratified that

bus service would be maintained and that it would be at least

as good in terms of frequency and fares. But what do we

discover? We discover that the Metchosin and Happy Valley

residents lined up to wait for the bus on the first day the

government took over and the bus never arrived.

MR. CURTIS: They were bused right down the garden path.

MR. WALLACE: They sure were. The interesting thing was that

it was the Metchosin and Happy Valley residents who created the

fuss in the first place because the privately operated bus

system was inadequate. The government said they would take away

the licence and see that the residents get the same or better

bus service at the same fares. This has been a complete breach

of faith by this government. They have maintained the line that

doesn't lose money — the Langford-Colwood — and they have

stopped altogether the Metchosin-Happy Valley line.

There is a statement here from Vic Parker that is quoted in

the Times of June 2. He says: "We looked at the Happy Valley,

Metchosin, Rocky Point district and found it would be a loss to

run." So they just don't run any buses out there. I thought the

philosophy....

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's not true, you know.

MR. WALLACE: It is what is stated here. This is June 2. Has the bus started to Metchosin since June 2?

[ Page 3584 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: I think it was off for three days. There's

regular service there.

MR. WALLACE: Well, okay, it was only off for three days. But

this was the statement made by the director of transit, and

that was the very reason that the private operator wasn't doing

a very good job and wasn't happy to persist — because he was

losing money. I thought the government was prepared, as it

appears to be, to the tune of $17 million a year to provide bus

service. If the people need the bus service and it loses money,

that is part of the responsibility of the provincial

government.

The other point about which I think the Minister is not

being consistent is that he talks about incentives to get

people out of their car and on the buses. That very incentive

also existed on this line that there were bus passes which were

cheaper than the unit rate per journey. The Minister has

discontinued the use of these passes — which he's already

answered partially in question period — but I would think that

the whole question of bus passes should be looked at on a

province-wide basis.

I don't think anybody over there is really listening to what

I'm saying. They're all having a great tête à tête.

HON. MR. LORIMER: We're trying to get your answer.

MR. WALLACE: Pardon me?

HON. MR. LORIMER: We're trying to get your answer.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon. And the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is

interested.

I'm not being, I don't think, unfairly critical, because the

Minister has pointed out that you can't have passes on one

route exclusively which gives a tremendous financial advantage

in that area — when what do we do in other parts of the

province?

My point is that if we're really trying to get people out of

their cars and onto the buses, surely some financial incentive

has to be a very worthwhile direction to go. If the bus pass

situation on the Sooke run appeared to be attractive and

useful, could the Minister tell us how quickly we can

anticipate a general policy of bus passes, presumably on a

30-day-a-month basis, which would make it attractive for more

people to travel back and forth to work on the buses?

I just wonder if that point is near, because I keep getting letters and phone

calls about this controversial situation in the Metchosin–Happy Valley region.

They feel that they've been duped. They were told that the system under the

private operator would be continued by the government, and this is not being

done. Now if the Minister can tell us that within a month or whatever it will

be reinstituted, I'm sure they will be very happy about that.

The other aspect of buses: I wonder if the Minister can tell

us if decisions are being made to manufacture our own buses in

British Columbia. There was some publicity given at the time

that the former Dominion Bridge Co. premises were purchased in

Burnaby, and the Minister made the statement that it was

thought that we might manufacture buses under a licence

arrangement from Volvo. I understand that it was stated that

some decision was to be made in May of this year. I wonder if

the Minister can tell us whether, in fact, he plans to proceed

with the actual manufacturing of buses here. I understand that

it was to provide about 250 jobs, which in itself would be a

very important aspect of the plan. I gather that there was some

contact made with two other countries — one I think was West

Germany and the other was Yugoslavia — with regard to

arrangements to manufacture buses in Burnaby.

The Minister made the statement some months ago that those

businesses which benefited most from the introduction of new

bus services would perhaps have a special tax applied to them.

At the time this seemed to invoke quite a bit of concern in

business communities. The obvious question is: how do you ever

measure specifically and accurately the kind of benefits that

certain businesses might derive from the introduction of a new

bus run? But it is a novel idea and I wonder if the Minister is

still pursuing it, or did he buckle under to the kind of

criticisms that were pretty rampant at the time?

The other point on the bus service: I wonder if the Minister

is keeping the kind of records where he can determine a point

at which a loss does not justify a line being maintained. He

mentioned in question period the other day to me that

inevitably between peak periods you have empty buses with one

or two passengers. But I wonder what degree of detailed

monitoring is done on the service so that if one line is

clearly inordinately expensive and losing so much money that it

just doesn't make sense to continue it.... How accurate are

the records and how well is that kind of service monitored to

make the decision as to the point it just is not financially

sensible to keep the line going?

Just two other points before I sit down. I'm very interested

that things have been so silent in relation to this municipal

taxation commission which was set up and the members named at

the end of February, as I recall.

The House knows well the problems we got into with deciding

to go the 100 per cent assessment route and so on. Because the

problems were difficult, this commission was set up. There has

been so little heard from that commission that I am just

wondering what

[ Page

3585 ]

happened to it. I have the clipping here of all the people

who were nominated and the chairman, Mr. McMath. There just

seems to have been a tremendous lack of activity; maybe there

hasn't, but certainly there has been little publicity. I wonder

if the Minister could tell us what the commission is doing. As

far as I know, there have not yet been any public hearings or

meetings, or public hearings planned.

Earlier on this year, the Minister was asked if the report

would be tabled in the House. He said that it would be a report

to government. I wonder if cabinet or the Minister has made up

his mind that this commission report is of such importance,

with such far reaching ramifications, that we should be assured

of nothing less than that it will be tabled in the House so all

the Members will have full access to that.

The last question I have is the point that was also raised

in question period — that the Minister had a real concern about

certain people running for council office. He was concerned

enough that he wondered if legislation might be necessary to

preclude people involved in the real estate business from

serving on councils. The Minister made the other statement at

that point that when you start with one group of people who

might be very clearly identified with property, where do you

draw the line? Other people are perhaps less directly involved

but might stand to gain by inside information through their

role as aldermen.

At the time, this quite rightly caused quite a bit of outcry

from many aldermen. The Minister admitted that there were few

of any complaints he investigated that had proven to be sound

in their content. But it is a very disturbing thought that the

system is perhaps not working as well as we all would like to

believe with respect to complete and total integrity of

aldermen on councils. With the Minister's statement, it

certainly makes us in the opposition wonder if legislation is

being prepared. If so, who is being consulted to determine

which groups of people and which professions or occupations are

the ones that the Minister will initially consider should be

excluded from holding municipal office? It is a difficult

question, but is the Minister, in fact, still planning to bring

in legislation with this kind of restrictive effect and, if so,

who is he consulting with at the present time to determine the

precise terms of the amendment?

HON. MR. LORIMER: With regard to the question of amalgamation in the

greater Victoria area, what I have said is that I feel if the existing municipalities

wish to live separate and apart, that's their decision. It appears to me that

basically each municipality in this area is providing the necessary recreational

and educational facilities, and so on, for that community. In other words, one

isn't really living off the taxpayers of another municipality. That might have

been the case a few years back, but I think at the present time most of the

areas do provide the needed services for that particular community. As such,

I don't see that there is any provincial interest in doing anything further.

I think where there is a case of one municipality or area

living off another municipality, then action has to be taken,

in my opinion.

The Colwood, Langford and View Royal area is a different

kettle of fish. Here is a city, in fact, that is completely

urbanized but is still an unorganized territory. In my opinion,

action should have been taken here many, many years ago. It

hasn't been, and it gets more difficult as years go by. That is

the reason that we are having a study done now — to determine

what action is necessary in this particular urban area.

On the question of the planning report and the question of

decentralization, I think we have attempted to decentralize as

much as possible in Municipal Affairs. We have given a number

of decision-making powers to local councils under the Municipal

Act. Most of our amendments have been aimed at decentralizing

rather than centralizing. We may be going in the wrong

direction; maybe it should be a reverse process. But I think

that the public at large prefer a decentralized operation to

allow their local people to make more decisions.

Now I admit that when a decision is made at a local level, I

get a number of letters suggesting that they not be empowered

to do so. It depends on what the decisions are in the local

areas as to what should be done. I think, generally speaking,

we have gone into a decentralization direction.

I want to explain the question about licences being taken

away from transit operators. I might assure the Member that

the Metchosin–Happy Valley–Sooke-Colwood transit run was one of

the last in the province we wanted to have any part of because

it is a difficult area to service and it is an obvious loser.

What we say is this: most of the companies that operate transit

services have a charter service to help to finance the loser.

The chartered service is the winner. They get the charter

service, then use the money-maker to help finance the loser.

What has been happening lately is that applications have been

made to discontinue the transit operation but hang on to the

charter service. The situation now is that, by and large, if

the transit service is dropped, the commission also cancels the

charter service. That's basically what the situation is.

In the Metchosin run we only had a few day's notice to re-do

this service. There were two or three days that the service to

Metchosin didn't operate. But I might point out to you that the

previous operator had no set

schedule of operation. He might

come by at 8 o'clock in the morning one day, 10 the next and 2

the next. Maybe the next day he didn't go.

[ Page 3586 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's right. That was the service we were

trying to look at, so we had to do a basic planning service,

obtain vehicles, which are not easily come by, and put in the

service within a very short time. We didn't do it for three or

four days, which is when they had no service.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The question of rates in Sooke is a very difficult problem,

and we are still studying that one. When you are running a

provincial service it is very difficult to set aside one area

and say: "Well, we'll give special privileges to this

particular area, but it doesn't apply anywhere else in the

province." I don't think we can do it. Now I agree that was a

service they did have; they did have, basically, half-rates for

regular users. I don't think we can do that without doing it

throughout the province.

MR. WALLACE: Are you planning other areas for passenger

passes?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, we are hoping to get the whole

province under passes. That is under consideration, and has

been under consideration for some time.

The manufacturing of vehicles — we're proceeding on that.

We've had further consultations and discussions with the Volvo

company. They have sent their experts over to examine our

buildings at the Dominion Bridge plant. We are told that with a

few modifications it will be one of the best areas for

construction of vehicles anywhere in the world.

We are now awaiting a complete breakdown of the dollar cost

and a licence with Volvo, and we hope to have that almost any

day now, at least by the end of the month, we hope. At that

time we can assess whether or not we should be proceeding into

transit construction.

MR. WALLACE: So the decision to build has not yet been

made.

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, it has not yet been made because we

haven't had a financial breakdown as to whether.... We don't

worry too much about a profit-maker, but we certainly want to

be able to compete equitably, because there will be a number of

indirect benefits.

The question of benefiting areas paying for transit. I like

the idea myself; I think they should. The mechanics of working

it out are not that simple, and there are no changes

contemplated immediately.

Monitoring services. Those services are monitored regularly — probably not

as regularly as they should be, but throughout the year they are monitored.

During the summer we get summer students under employment, and we do a much

more in-depth monitoring during the summer period.

Conflict of interest — certainly legislation is required on

that. It is not an easy thing to legislate.

I think anyone who runs for office.... During this strike

with the municipalities at the moment, on which your total time

is spent on dealing with land, I think you should decide

whether you're in the land business or whether you are an

alderman. I think that decision has to be made by the

individual. How you legislate is another question. I don't know

how you legislate.

MR. WALLACE: But are you going to legislate?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm certainly studying it. There's no

proposal for this particular term for legislation, but I'm

working at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the taxation commission?

HON. MR. LORIMER: The taxation commission — I attended their

first meeting, which would be about two months ago, just to

thank them for allowing their names to stand. I was there for

about 10 minutes....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Did they thank you for

picking up their cheques?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I met them and I don't intend to attend

any other meetings. It's an independent commission and is

meeting regularly. They have had no public meetings yet, but I

understand that they intend to start probably before the end of

summer.

MR. WALLACE: Any projected date for their report?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, they told me that they would advise me

in due course of a date when they hoped that they might be able

to get the report.

Now this commission is under the Department of Finance, as

you know. I can't answer for them about tabling the report, but

I have no doubt that the report will be tabled. It will be a

public report and I have no doubt that it will be tabled, but I

cannot speak for the Department of Finance.

I think that was your question.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have a few matters to raise.

Interjection.

[ Page 3587 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have not been informed of any commitment

whatsoever.

MRS. JORDAN: May I respectfully suggest that you consult

with the previous Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no rule that binds the Chair. I

recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I've been here all morning, Mr. Chairman — on the point of order. Two Members of the official opposition

have spoken, followed by the Member of the Liberal Party,

followed by the Member of the Conservative Party; and I think

the independents still have some rights in this House.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, maybe in a few moments. I never

speak at length, as you all know.

I want to compliment the Minister on the reasonable way in

which he is responding to the questions posed to him today.

He's a dynamic Minister, and if it weren't contrary to the

rules of the committee, I'm sure that there would be a motion

to increase the size of his vote. But, Mr. Minister, our hands

are tied by the rules of this House.

HON. MR. LORIMER: A pity.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A pity, that's right.

I was going also to ask some questions about the committee

dealing with tax. I think that the difficulty being experienced

with regard to this committee characterizes the problem that

local governments are facing in British Columbia today.

First of all, the committee was announced by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Now he tells us that the committee is under

the responsibility of the Department of Finance, so he doesn't

have any control over it. When the committee had its first

meeting, the Minister went to the committee and thanked them

for allowing their names to be put forward and take a role in

this committee. But, Mr. Minister, what you should have done

was to have gone to that committee and as well as thinking them

you should have explained in detail to them how important and

how urgent the work was that they were being asked to

undertake.

As widespread as the problems are for the municipalities, it is unfortunate

that those problems are characterized by financial burdens and the conflict

that that creates for the municipalities between themselves and their taxpayers

and between themselves and the provincial government. This is the task that

is being given to this committee — in some major way to assist in unraveling

part of this problem. I would have thought that the Minister would have pointed

this out to that committee and said: "We know it's a difficult task, but we

wish you to bend every effort to provide us with a report at the earliest possible

moment."

MR. CURTIS: The year is half over now.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) well knows, and the

Minister knows, that a similar study — broader but similar study — was carried out in the Province of Ontario that took five

years. After the five years was spent, they finally produced

the first legislation evolving from the report, and after it

was introduced they had to cancel it all because it was a

catastrophe. We're looking at a five-to-seven-year task that

these men may be embarked upon. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman,

the municipalities can't wait that long for a resolution of

some of the problems — I'm not saying they can resolve them all

- which are facing municipalities today.

Now the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

raised one. The question is whether or not the Government of

the Province of British Columbia and the Crown agencies are

going to pay taxes in the same way as everybody else. Now I can

admit that the committee should be studying the matter of those

properties which are exempted under our laws from the

responsibility to pay real property tax. But quite frankly, Mr.

Chairman, I don't seem to have any problem about this

particular class of property which is owned by the provincial

government or the Crown agencies.

I would think that this Minister, even though this committee

has not made its report and will study this matter, should be

able to indicate to the committee and to his cabinet colleagues

that the simplest way of resolving that particular problem is

to put an end to it and say that provincial government and

Crown agencies will pay to the municipalities the taxes in the

same way as any other taxpayer. They get the same services,

they get the same benefits, they cause the same problems as any

other taxpayer who owns property in the Province of British

Columbia. The historic justification for exempting the Crown

from taxes in this respect has long since passed.

The interference with and increasing burdens on the

operation of the provincial government offices in the City of

Victoria are the clearest example of why that historic

situation cannot be allowed to exist. If you take it to

extremes, the government could expand its facilities in the

City of Victoria and the environs to such an extent that it was

99 per cent of the whole city. Does that mean that it shouldn't

pay any taxes, that the water doesn't have to be collected,

water and sewer services provided.... . ? I know that the

Minister just wouldn't engage in such an exercise.

[ Page 3588 ]

I think that the Minister can make a positive step forward

and say: "We're going to be treated the same as any other

taxpayer."

Now if the committee comes down with recommendations which

might modify that in some respect, then that's a matter for the

committee to report upon and for the government to consider in

a matter of subsequent legislative change, but surely it would

be a positive step forward for this Minister to say: "From now

on, this government is going to pay its fair share of

taxes."

This, of course, creates another problem, and the committee

is also looking into this as well. It's the question as to the

extent to which any particular municipal area should be obliged

to share with surrounding municipal areas the tax revenues that

might obtain from the existence of particular developments

within that first municipal area. Now that the Minister's

already recognized the problem, I know he understands it and

this year he has taken a plainly hesitant but first step

towards the resolution of this problem. Now that also applies

with regard to this other matter of the government getting

involved in the payment of taxes. But obviously if the

government were to pay to the City of Victoria taxes on all of

the government lands and improvements, there is some

justification for those municipalities which surround Victoria

and provide the bedroom services, if you will, for the people

who work here, to have a share in that matter as well.

I don't want to transgress on the bill, but I disagree with

the suggestion that somehow the municipalities have to get

together and work this out. Some leadership has to be shown in

this respect by the government. The extension of these problems

throughout the length and breadth of the province is enough to

make one concerned about the direction in which we're going in

this province with regard to our inter-municipal relationships

and relationships between the municipalities and the provincial

government.

While we're talking about the matter of finance, let me

raise another matter which has already been discussed this

morning, and again by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson). We have a strange conflict between so many

departments of government when it comes to dealing with

municipalities — Lands, Forests and Water Resources in the

harbour, Municipal Affairs, Public Works, Finance. There seems

to be no way of drawing together the several intrusions that

the provincial government makes upon local government and

providing some easier method of resolving the conflicts that

result.

We've got a classic instance of this also before us in another bill. I won't

transgress upon that, but it has to do with the school tax removal grant, the

resources grant — legislation introduced by the Department of Finance, notified

to the municipalities by the Department of Municipal Affairs, and yet alleged

to be a grant which is under the control of the Department of Housing. Now when

the municipalities try to come to grips with this problem, it's the Housing

department's responsibility as far as the grant is concerned, so they go to

them, and they say: "Oh, no, you have to deal with the Department of Finance

— it's their legislation." Municipal Affairs is involved too. It seems to me

that the government has got to recognize that some of the things it is doing

are impeding rather than assisting municipalities in the resolution of their

problems.

There's also the problem as between municipalities, and

there are some classic cases, one between the city and district

of North Vancouver, whereby developments are taking place in

one municipality at or near its boundary with another, which

thrusts burdens upon the services of the adjoining

municipality, and which brings about development which is not

in accordance with zoning regulations of that second

municipality, yet they can't do anything about it. There's no

way of rationalizing this conflict of jurisdiction within

narrow geographical boundaries.

Again, you can go to extremes to understand a problem, but

it is quite clear that in one municipality you could have a

change in zoning which gives you all industrial along its

borders, right next to an area in another municipality which is

all residential. You could have an abattoir on one side of the

street and homes on the other. We don't have this sort of

inter-municipal system of cooperation, nor communication

either.

I would think that it would go a long way to resolving these

difficulties if the government, through the Department of

Municipal Affairs — let me make that clear, through the

Department of Municipal Affairs — would establish an

interdepartmental and inter-municipal committee. Not a

committee of politicians, but one of persons who are appointed

to serve a function which would enable them to break down some

of these arbitrary, unrealistic barriers that exist between

governmental departments and between municipalities and their

inter-relationship. I say we don't want politicians; it

shouldn't be elected people. It should be people who have had

some experience in provincial and municipal governmental

affairs. It should be designed, as I say, solely to break down

some of the barriers to this communication that should be

between these levels of government.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that arising out of the

functioning of such a group you would perhaps have the nucleus

of an organization which could bring about discussion between

the municipalities and the provincial government on the other

major issues which are interfering with the job of each of

those governments as they serve the local taxpayer.

[ Page 3589 ]

The easy one to come to mind is this question of finance.

How do we resolve the financing problems that exist? How do we

break down the situation where the municipalities always appear

to be saying gimme, gimme, gimme — where the provincial

government always appears to be saying that they can't have it,

but they will make some grants? That's the image the local

taxpayer has of these two levels of government — local

government always demanding more and more and more; the

provincial government always saying: "No you can't have it

unless we give it out in some kind of special grant which

serves our own purpose."

As an example: why should it be that the provincial

government would decide to take over all the costs of courts

and police services in a municipality without discussing this

with the municipalities? Maybe this was the last thing that the

municipalities wanted done; maybe it was the first, or maybe it

was the middle. The fact of the matter is: why wasn't there any

discussion between these two levels of government before such a

step was taken? Maybe there are other priorities for

provincial government assistance, other than the ones the

provincial government might choose. I think that without giving

up any of their authority, these two levels of government can

be brought together and can provide better communication and a

better resolution of some conflicts which are, as I said,

affecting the way in which these governments discharge their

responsibility and the consequences of that failure upon the

local taxpayer.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have commented on some of the points

raised by the Hon. Member. I would certainly point out that the

commission on taxation is very much aware of the problems

involved in the taxation field. As a matter of fact, one of the

members was a member on the Ontario commission. I am convinced

that there will not be a five- or seven-year wait before the

report is filed.

As far as the variety of interested groups dealing within

municipalities is concerned, I recognize the problem. I've

mentioned earlier that we have been trying to act as a liaison

between the municipalities and the interested groups.

I think we have performed some service and reduced the amount of conflict that

may have been there before. We are reorganizing and redirecting the planning

group in our department in recognition of co-ordinating the needs of the municipalities

with the provincial needs. I think our planning function will be much more effective

as we are able to develop a new direction in our planning services.

The question of taxation and development on the boundaries

of other communities is a real problem. It seems to happen

regularly throughout the province. I'm not convinced that the

answer is in sharing the tax from any new shopping centre, or

something of that sort, with the municipalities. I'm not sure

it's a feasible solution. I think you have to go totally or not

at all. If the municipalities do not agree among themselves on

a sharing proposal, I think it would be a mistake to try and

bring it in. If you were looking at the suggestion that

industrial taxation be shared throughout the province as a

policy, or something of that sort, I think you would have to go

the whole way. You couldn't just go part-way on that one. I

think it would have to be very seriously considered before any

action was taken along those lines.

In regard to the Attorney-General's department taking over

the function of court activities in the province, I would point

out that there were discussions. I attended some of the

meetings with the Union of B.C. Municipalities prior to the

matter being brought before this House. There were complete

discussions and, as a result, some of the sections of the bill

were subsequently drafted or re-drafted at the request of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again because I want the rest of

you to have a chance here.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada