1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1347 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

(Bill 81). Hon. Mr. Stupich Introduction and first reading — 1347

Oral Questions

Reduction of stumpage rates to forest industry.

Mr. Fraser — 1348

Snow pack in mid — Fraser. Hon. R. A. Williams — 1348

Funds for Orpheum Theatre. Mr. Gardom — 1348

Forest Service helicopter contracts. Mr. Chabot — 1348

ICBC contract with R.V. Adams. Mr. McGeer — 1348

Possible increase on beer prices. Mr. Curtis — 1349

Vancouver Island Coach Lines negotiations. Mr. McClelland — 1349

ICBC gross revenue to March 1. Mr. Morrison — 1350

Amendments to the Natural Products Marketing Act.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1350

Signing of proposed DREE agreement. Mr. Phillips — 1350

Assistance to Newfoundland. Mr. Wallace — 1351

Newspaper report on Premier's language. Mr. McGeer — 1351

ICBC first-year budget. Mr. Curtis — 1351

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 9). Second

reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1352

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1352

Mr. Gardom — 1353

Mr. Gibson — 1355

Mr. McClelland — 1356

Mr. Smith — 1360

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1362

Mrs. Jordan — 1365

Mr. Wallace — 1369

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1371

Division on second reading — 1375

Committee of Supply: Department of Consumer Services

estimates On vote 37.

Mrs. Jordan — 1376

Hon. Ms. Young — 1377

Mr. Phillips — 1380

Ms. Brown — 1381

Hon. Ms. Young — 1382

TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

gives me a great deal of pleasure to draw the House's attention

today to the presence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and

Jean Chretien, and his parliamentary secretary, who is also the

MP from Kamloops, Mr. Len Marchand...Oh, Kamloops-Cariboo.

I'm sorry, Mr. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). I'd like the

House to welcome them. I'd also like to explain that they have

a meeting with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on the Indian

lands question at 2 p.m. this afternoon, so they're going to

have to leave fairly quickly.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to

welcome the Hon. Jean Chretien and Len Marchand. They are both

here on a very important mission and I wish them every success

this afternoon. I am pleased to learn that the Minister is

arranging to meet with Mr. Chretien, I hope this evening, and I

look forward to them getting together. I am very, very pleased

that Mr. Chretien is here in British Columbia, and we welcome

him very, very much.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you. Ca me fait

beaucoup de plaisir cet aprs-midi de m'unir avec le premier

ministre et le merribre du parti liberal de vous souhaiter

bienvenu 'a la province de la Colombie Britannique; Mons.

Chretien at Mons. Marchand. Bonne chance Na was discours.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

think there was one minor grammatical error in the statement

made by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). (Laughter.)

Nevertheless, we join in the very warm welcome to the two

federal Members today.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you will be

very pleased to know that we have in the gallery today a fine

couple — citizens of British Columbia — Mr. and Mrs. John

Oswald of Burnaby. They are extremely interested in the

political situation in British Columbia today, and they are

very interested in the debate that will take place this

afternoon. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

too would like to welcome the federal Members, particularly my

federal Member, Len Marchand.

I'd ask the House to be on their very best behaviour today

because we have two groups of students from Yale-Lillooet. One

group is from Lillooet, led by their teacher, Mr. Carswell; and

the other group is from Hope, led by Mr. Don Olds. So I'm

asking you to be on your good behaviour; and I'm going to try

to be on my best behaviour because my mother-in-law is in the

gallery. I ask you to welcome them.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to

welcome in particular Len Marchand; he's a long-time buddy of

mine from when we went through agriculture at UBC. The only

thing I haven't been able to figure out is how he ended up

being a Liberal.

I would like at this time, however, to welcome a group of

students from Richmond with their teachers, Mr. Shaw and Mr.

Vath, from R.C. Palmer Junior Secondary. It's a group of grade

nine students, Mr. Speaker, and some of them are my former

pupils. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, about 3 o'clock this afternoon we'll be entertaining —

I don't know if that's the right word — in the galleries a

class, Humanities 11, from the Eric Hamber School in Vancouver–Little Mountain riding, accompanied by their

teachers, Miss Heffernan and Mr. Roxborough-Smith. I would ask

the House to give them a warm welcome now for when they

enter.

Introduction of bills.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Products Industry

Improvement Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 81 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, my

question to the.... Oh, the Minister of Transportation and

Communication (Hon. Mr. Strachan) isn't here.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps you could save it.

[ Page 1348 ]

REDUCTION OF STUMPAGE

RATES TO FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, the other day — last

Thursday — I asked the Minister of Lands and Forests if he

would consider reducing the stumpage in view of the high cost

of transportation of lumber products to market. He took the

question as notice. I wonder if he has any answers today.

SNOW PACK IN MID-FRASER

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I have no comment in that regard. But there was

another question that was asked earlier with respect to the snow pack

in the mid-Fraser region — I think from the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis). Yes, it is, as the bulletin indicates, above

average. It is comparable to the 1972 situation....

MR. FRASER: It's still snowing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it is premature to really say what

the results might be at this stage, depending upon the melt and

the weather in the period to come.

FUNDS FOR ORPHEUM THEATRE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I gather that today the

curtain will be falling on the Orpheum Theatre unless the City

of Vancouver can come up with the necessary funds. I ask the

Minister of Finance whether or not the provincial government

will be making a contribution.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Until the question is dealt with

later, there are really no supplementals available.

FOREST SERVICE HELICOPTER CONTRACTS

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. Does the Forest Service, when awarding

contracts for helicopter hire for photographic and timber

cruising purposes, give preference to B.C.-licensed

operators?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

ICBC CONTRACT WITH R.V. ADAMS

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Transport and Communications.

With respect to the contract which is being continued for one

Robert V. Adams, of the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia, why was this contract left in force until April 19,

1975? Can one take it that this is a general basis of

settlement for all fired executives of government Crown

corporations?

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

of all, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, we believe in the sanctity of contracts,

and it was the circumstances under which the individual was hired and the circumstances

that led up to his separation.

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister. Do all senior executives,

then, have buy-out clauses in their contracts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. GARDOM: Even on the contract in question?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll take that as notice, if you don't

mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: Are other senior executives of the ICBC

privileged to have contracts with comparable lengths of tenure

to Mr. Adams?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I think there is one, or perhaps two

others. These were the original executives hired by ICBC, and

they were leaving substantial jobs with other corporations. In

order to get people of that experience it was necessary to give

those initial top executives a contract.

MR. McGEER: If this Robert V. Adams takes another post, does

that terminate his contract?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that doesn't terminate his contract

because we still have his contract to live up to.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. GARDOM: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, we have gone pretty far on this subject. Do you want

to keep going all question period on it?

[ Page

1349 ]

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to ask the Minister: are there

grounds for the dismissal of Mr. Adams?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'm asking the Minister.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): A point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: What's the point of order?

MR. CUMMINGS: According to Beauchesne , or whatever

you want to call him, (Laughter) these are all legal questions

asked by a learned lawyer.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state the point of

order?

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, I feel these questions are out of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: On what grounds?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If anybody gives me a good explanation, I will

consider it. In the meantime I am allowing the question.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Since you are

allowing the question, perhaps we could get an answer. Are

there grounds for the dismissal of Mr. Adams?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is one employee; how far do you want

to stretch? This is one employee out of some 1,600.

MR. GARDOM: Yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I think it's obvious, Mr. Member,

that if an individual is no longer working for the company,

there has been a parting of the ways....

MR. GARDOM: Are there grounds for dismissal? That's the

question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a difference of opinion between Mr.

Adams and the corporation.

MR. GARDOM: There are not grounds for dismissal, then?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Oho! Featherbedding!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: In view of the experience you have had with

contracts and the price to the province, will it be your policy

not to issue any more contracts for executives in the future in

ICBC?

MR. SPEAKER: That is going a little far.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I explained to the House, these were

the first executives that were hired by the corporation to help

set it up.

MR. BENNETT: I asked about future policy.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It hasn't been necessary since the very

beginning of the corporation, and I don't expect it will be

necessary in the future. It hasn't been necessary since, and we

now have 1,600 employees. I think it's 1,600....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Asking about future policy is a

question of argument rather than fact, which we are discussing.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — please get on to

another subject. I'm sorry, I had recognized the Member for

Saanich and the Islands and then supplementals intervened.

POSSIBLE INCREASE ON BEER PRICES

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Attorney-General:

does the Minister foresee any early increase in the price to

the consumer of draft or bottled beer in the Province of

British Columbia?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): If you mean are

there requests out there on the part of the industry for an

increase, the answer is yes. As to whether I contemplated such

an increase, the answer is no.

VANCOUVER ISLAND

COACH LINES NEGOTIATIONS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Would the Minister advise the House at what

state negotiations are with the Vancouver Island Coach Lines at

this time?

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

proceeding. I expect they will be finalized in a month or

two.

[ Page 1350 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand

there may have been a request for interest on the negotiated

price. Has that request been made and is the government

considering it?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

ICBC GROSS REVENUE TO MARCH 1

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I

would like to ask him if he could tell the House how much gross

revenue has been received in ICBC up to March I from auto

premiums, and secondly, from all other insurance premiums. What

is the gross revenue from both of those?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got the March 1 figure; I have

the March 15 figure with me.

MR. MORRISON: I'll accept that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Total...let me see here...be sure I

have the right figure — applications, claims, accounts

receivable....

MR. MORRISON: Would the Hon. Member like to file it as a

return?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. I've got it here. No, that can't

be right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you waiting for the bell?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Wait just a minute. I'll answer it in a

minute for you.

MR. SPEAKER: In the meantime, could we hold that

question?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Here it is here. (Laughter.) Total

premiums: $155,499,000 as of March 15.

MR. MORRISON: Now, is that auto?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's auto. Yes.

MR. MORRISON: All right. How about the others?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The general insurance premium income to

March 15: $2,230,000.

MR. MORRISON: A supplemental. I would like to ask the Minister if he

could also tell us what percentage of the insurance, other than auto, has been

laid off... what percentage of the risk has been laid off to other insurance

companies outside the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure with me. It's

not on this report.

MR. MORRISON: Would you take it as notice?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, all right.

AMENDMENTS TO THE NATURAL

PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Can I ask the Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, whether the amendments that he

promised on February 27, the amendments to the Natural

Products Marketing Act, will be in the House soon so that

we can discuss them prior to passing the estimates of the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young)?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Soon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, can I just say it was

promised earlier. Now, I wonder whether the Minister could

indicate with more precision when "soon" will be?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't know, Mr. Speaker. They are in the

mill, going through the Attorney-General's Department, but they

have a lot of other legislation before them and there is no

particular priority on this piece of legislation.

SIGNING OF PROPOSED DREE AGREEMENT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

address a question to the Hon. Minister of economic

development. In view of the stated policy of this government to

get as many federal dollars in British Columbia as possible,

how soon will an agreement with the Department of Regional

Economic Expansion be signed to get some of that federal money

from that department here in British Columbia?

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

With respect to DREE, we are still in negotiations with them as to the kind

of specific assistance they will be affording the regional areas of British

Columbia. Yesterday we had an opportunity to discuss with other industry Ministers

in the four western provinces, and they are still in the same kind of negotiations.

The major impact in regional areas in this province will be provincial and not

federal.

[ Page 1351 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question. I understand that

the holdup is on behalf of the provincial government. Could you

tell me what the holdup is, and why you are not signing?

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't know where you would get that kind of

understanding, Mr. Member. I don't think there is a holdup on

the part of the provincial government. We want to be satisfied

that we get the best possible deal for the people of British

Columbia.

ASSISTANCE TO NEWFOUNDLAND

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the

fact that Premier Moores has finalized his meetings with Brinco

and has said that he expects a decision by Thursday, and in

light of the Premier's comments on March 11, would the Premier

tell the House if in fact he has in any way been in contact

with the Newfoundland government and made any commitment

towards assistance either technical or financial?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of this

government to help all our brother and sister provinces. That

policy includes Conservative governments such as Premier

Moores' of Newfoundland. He is a kindred spirit of mine in many

ways. You can interpret that answer any way you want.

NEWSPAPER REPORT

ON PREMIER'S LANGUAGE

MR. McGEER: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In

Friday's Toronto Globe and Mail certain quotations were

attributed to the Premier regarding a foul-mouthed attack on a

woman reporter. I would like to ask the Premier whether the

quotations attributed to him in that story were substantially

correct.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't read the Toronto Globe and

Mail , Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It's against the rules to refer to newspaper

articles — you know Beauchesne in that

section — aside

from a question of urgency.

ICBC FIRST-YEAR BUDGET

MR. CURTIS: In answer to a written question yesterday, No.

34, the Minister of Transport and Communications indicated that

the ICBC board of directors has yet to approve its budget for

the first year of operation for the automobile insurance plan.

Could the Minister indicate when that first year's budget is

likely to be approved?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just as soon as we can get the time to

have a meeting to devote the length of time necessary to

approve of that budget.

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker, briefly: does the

Minister then expect to request any further special warrants to

cover ICBC operation before the budget is approved?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, not with $155 million in cash income.

I doubt that we'll need any special warrants between now and

the time the budget is approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move the House proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

MUNICIPALITIES AID

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

continued

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

ask leave of the House to have the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) continue on and allow the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) to speak when he

arrives.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, did the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) already speak on this bill?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The answer is no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, it's the same speech anyway. But

I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing that

Member give short speeches.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I take it that leave is granted. The Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is not

in his seat and he adjourned the debate. With leave of the

House he could take it up later. I call upon the Hon. Member

for South Peace River on the second reading of

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1974.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Liberals don't come to the House any

more.

[ Page 1352 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the principle of

this bill, but like many speakers prior to myself, we feel that

the amount of $2 is too little. This government collects in the

Province of British Columbia approximately $1,000 for every

individual in the province — $ 1,000. And they give back to

those who are inside municipal boundaries only $34. The costs

of municipal government are probably increasing faster than the

expenses of the provincial government. In my estimation, it is

the provincial government that seems to be leading the way with

inflation. It is not the municipal government. Municipal

governments are the ones that are caught in the squeeze play

and the provincial governments are not doing justice by

them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a copy of a

letter which I recently received from the mayor of Prince

George. The reason I read this into the record is because it is

typical of the plight of all cities, towns and villages in the

northern part of our province.

I was home myself over the weekend in my home city of Dawson

Creek, and this winter there has been a fantastically high snow

level. The streets in our city were by no means in what I would

call safe-driving condition — were not in good condition for

safe driving. The reason was that the budget for snow removal

has long since been used up.

But as I say, Mayor Harold A. Moffat, the mayor of the City

of Prince George, states it very well in his letter which I

will read into the record:

"Dear Sir:

On reviewing our per capita costs on snow removal, it caused

me to consider the extra heavy level of one levy that one bears to combat the

elements. It costs every man, woman and child in our city $8 each for snow removal.

This amount is under attack as being too minimal a service, and does not take

into account the run-off costs of unfreezing storm drains and street or lane

flooding problems."

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many people in Prince George?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"The latter at least costs us another $2 per person. In our

city each man, woman and child subsidizes our transit system by

$2, which is $2 more than paid by Vancouver and Victoria. When

you add to this the extra to bury mains eight feet in the

ground, the lower level of productivity personnel due to

climatic conditions, and the further depreciation of equipment

in this climate, the costs mount to a point that a heavier

burden of taxation is created, or amenities are sacrificed that

are needed more by people so burdened.

"There's the added burden to the individual or business of a

higher consumption of energy, whether it be gas, electricity,

oil, gasoline. Added to this is the physical effort northerners

have to exert in their day-to-day lives, which become

burdensome to many individuals. All these conditions make it

most difficult to attract or hold the needed people to the

area.

"At the same time, we receive the same per capita grant as

those cities that have a lesser burden. I hereby petition your

support for an increase in the per capita grant, based on a

formula of snow costs, gas rates and gasoline prices."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is typical of all cities and towns

and villages in the northern part of our province. As I have

said in this House many, many times, any person who lives and

works in the north country and combats the elements should

receive more and special attention because of those very

facts.

People who live in the north country and do combat the

elements, whether it's the mud in the summertime or the snow in

the wintertime, should receive special attention because it is

the development of that north country that has made the rest of

the province such an economically viable unit. It is the

development of the north country that has had so much to do

with increasing the revenue from taxation in this province.

Mr. Speaker, no longer can northern communities continue

under the heavy burdens of the elements without some special

attention. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the municipalities in all

of the north who have, particularly in the winter time.... In

the summer they have special problems due to climatic

conditions; they have indeed, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister

of Finance recognizes that.

I'd like to speak, even if his own backbenchers won't get up

and speak for their communities in the north country. I would

like to put in this plea for some special attention. This

winter particularly there has been an exceptionally high snow

level in all of the north country. Thank you very much.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I thank the

House for extending me a few moments leave.

MR. SPEAKER: I may say to the Hon. Members before you start:

there's no provision requiring leave. You don't have to

continue the debate after having adjourned it. You can pick it

up at any time while second reading is still on, regardless of

whether you adjourned it.

[ Page 1353 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, but I gather that leave was

extended, Mr. Speaker, and I would thank the House for

that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue some of the comments I

was making last night with respect to the extent to which aid

is granted by the Government of British Columbia to its

municipalities, and to return to the plight of the small

communities within the Province of British Columbia.

As I indicated yesterday, the need for services for those

small communities is as great and as expensive as it is for

those larger municipalities whose populations and whose

assessment levels permit those local governments to raise the

funds for capital projects and to support the capital projects

with operating revenues in order that the services may be

provided to the people in each of the communities.

I think it's somewhat less than equitable for the

government, in the years of rising revenues such as we have

today, to grant such minimal aid as is contained in this

particular legislation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it

will be almost conceivable that a person could vote against

this particular legislation this year because of the minimal

aid which is being extended at a time when growing government

revenues, ever-increasing surpluses, are available to the

provincial government, and therefore the means of which relief

can be given are equally available.

Not only in the question of per capita grants, but in the

extent to which the government of this province is prepared to

lend, the great power of its guarantee with respect to the

bonded indebtedness of individual municipalities is another way

in which municipalities could be enabled to provide the

services which they so desperately require.

In my constituency one community — and I think of the

municipality of Squamish — is being given the opportunity by

this government to take a principal role in secondary

industrial development, through expansions of the British

Columbia Rail facilities in Squamish. But in order to have that

role properly carried out, it was necessary that the population

of a municipality be expanded, new subdivisions created, new

services in the sense of water and sewers, new schools,

expanded schools — all the burden of which falls upon that

local community.

A $2 per capita increase in financial aid will prove of

insignificant value in the resolution of those problems which

that community is willingly undertaking at the behest of the

provincial government.

Squamish is one of those communities which looks forward to

proper growth of its area, which looks forward to the

opportunity of providing a pleasant and meaningful place to

live, for people to work, to raise their families and to

prosper. They have welcomed the opportunity which this

government has afforded to them in this regard.

Why then, Mr. Speaker, does the government at this

particular time not come forward in the fullest measure with

the aid which the government can give to the resolution of the

problems which this kind of growth creates?

The same applies in the municipalities of Delta, Surrey,

Richmond — all these expanding groups, expanding communities,

for which the government expects to fulfill responsibilities

for the benefit of the whole of the province.

I would like the Hon. Premier to indicate if he could in the

closing of this debate what ways he sees for the government,

beyond the per capita limits of this particular legislation, to

enable those municipalities to better contribute to the

well-being of their own citizens, and through that to the

growth, prosperity and well-being of the province.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Speaker,

perhaps the most startling aspect of this debate has been the

very deafening silence on the part of the government Members

who represent municipalities and those urban ridings.

From that great town of Vancouver we find two cabinet

Ministers from Vancouver East. We find one cabinet Minister and

a backbencher from Vancouver–Little Mountain. We find one

cabinet Minister and the Whip from Vancouver Centre, and we

find one cabinet Minister and a lady Member from

Vancouver-Burrard; so we find...

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll speak.

MR. GARDOM: ...five cabinet Ministers and three backbenchers

from the City of Vancouver — a total of eight. The whispering

eight from Vancouver town! Meanwhile we find this government

coming just like the beadle in Oliver Twist...poor little

Oliver coming up with his cup wanting a little bit more soup;

and you're giving him the tiniest cup and the thinnest and

smallest offering of weak gruel that could be available.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vancouver has a $2 million surplus.

MR. GARDOM: Now it pays to take a look at exactly the

differences between provincial revenues and municipal revenues.

It's an odd thing for me to find the Premier getting nervous

about this, because what I'm going to say now is somewhat the

same kind of thing that we used to hear from him when he was a

man of great nobility and purpose and drive, before he became

the leader of the NDP and when he was a backbencher sitting in

that corner where the Member for South Peace River now

sits.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order.

[ Page 1354 ]

MR. GARDOM: Boy, has there ever been a change in

personality.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, there certainly has.

MR. GARDOM: But, Mr. Speaker, take a look, say, from only

1970 to the present time. In 1970 the per capita grant was $30

and the provincial revenues at that time were $1,165 million.

In 1972 the provincial revenues increased 48 per cent and went

up to $1,722 million; and all that was done for the

municipalities then was two bucks — just two bucks, a 6.5 per

cent increase.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. GARDOM: And you're two-bucking them again today. You're

two-bucking the municipalities, Mr. Minister of Finance in the

Province of British Columbia, almost to the point of financial

extinction. From 1970 to 1974 there has been a 13 per cent

increase in the per capita grant and that's all. But, Mr.

Minister of Finance, your provincial revenues from 1970 have

increased from $1,165 million to $2,177 million. They have gone

up 90 per cent and you have put up the per capita grants 13 per

cent, and you've the gall to say that's fair. And all of these

Members from the municipal ridings and the urban ridings are

sitting like quiet little mice. What kind of power do you have

over these people?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down and I'll speak.

MR. GARDOM: Are they afraid of you or something or

other?

No, go on out in the hall and give a speech there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come on, Garde. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: Thanks very much. We both went through that

exercise once about four or five years ago and we're aware of

the consequences of it.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to make some five specific

recommendations, but I'm going to carry on with the dealings

with the city and specifically with the City of Vancouver,

because it's being ripped off by this government to the extent

at the present time of at least $500,000 a year by the

government not making its Crown corporations and its government

agencies taxable within the city. I'm going to give you some

specifics. I've mentioned these before and I'm going to

continue to mention these specifics, Mr. Speaker, until there's

action for the City of Vancouver.

Now take a look at B.C. Hydro. When it was B.C. Electric this situation did

not exist, but now it doesn't pay hospital purposes property tax; and that is

costing the City of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker — which you're concerned about too

because you come from the neighbouring riding — $35,000 a year. B.C. Electric

would have paid that, Mr. Speaker. Isn't this startling to you? You're nodding

in acquiescence, and I admire your judgment. You've put your hat on again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Do you realize that's going to be in

Hansard ?

MR. GARDOM: That's good. I'm happy for that. I'm glad

to see that we've got at least the Speaker With us in this one

point. It is a breakthrough, Mr. Speaker. It's the start of a

marvelous breakthrough. You're the first person in the New

Democratic Party to appreciate the fact of what is happening to

the cities and how they are being Scrooged by this Minister of

Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! You must not draw the Speaker

into a debate. That will not help you win your argument

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you inviting him to the secret

meetings?

MR. GARDOM: Eh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you inviting him to the secret

meetings too?

MR. GARDOM: This is a secret meeting, isn't it? It seems to

be. This is the way you seem to be conducting them.

MR. SPEAKER: You keep talking the way you are, it will be....

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, Hydro does not pay the general

purposes tax on its equipment in the city streets, and that

would amount to $143,000 in one year alone. It doesn't pay

business tax; that would amount to $220,000. Everybody's got to

pay their taxes in July, but Hydro doesn't have to pay its

until the end of November, and there would be a loss there to

the City of Vancouver of $33,000.

B.C. Railroad: $24,300 worth of taxes it doesn't pay to the

City of Vancouver. The Liquor Control Board: it doesn't pay

business tax, and one of the most enormous businesses that we

have, and there's a loss to the City of Vancouver of around

$60,000.

The Insurance Corporation of B.C. is not going to pay

business tax, Mr. Speaker. That again would be a loss to the

City of Vancouver of tax revenues of $30,000.

That totals $0.5 million, Mr. Speaker, and the city should

be entitled to taxes, or the city should be

[ Page

1355 ]

entitled to grants to the extent of taxes and in lieu of

taxes. And it is not getting that at all. It is receiving very,

very shameful treatment from this government.

Now, one aspect that is a continuous difficulty and problem

and is of concern to all Canadian people is the never ending

competition between the three levels of government for tax

dollars.

I would say, as I have said before in this House, that we

have to have a commission, a permanent commission established,

comprised of representatives from the municipal side, and city

side, comprised of representatives from provincial and federal

sides who would fact-find, consider the competing taxation

problems, and sit continuously. This should be one that would

be established via the concerns and co-operation of the three

levels of government in the country, and sit right across the country and never stop.

Because if we are doing anything, Mr. Speaker, we are

compounding the tax jungle instead of trying to find ways to

cure it.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would advocate, in order to make a

more easily and readily available supply of money for municipal

needs, that 100 per cent of municipal borrowings have got to be

guaranteed by the provincial government.

Thirdly, in order to furnish income tax relief to

individuals, and more than that, in order to make a supply of

money available, see that an individual would receive income

tax relief for any interest that they would receive from

municipal bonds. This would greatly encourage the private

sector to become involved in municipal financing. It would

certainly turn over a tremendous source of money. It's been

tried; it's been tested, and it has proved to be eminently

successful in the United States. And for the life of me I

cannot see why we cannot follow such a programme in this

province.

As I've said, we have got to ensure not just in the City of

Vancouver, which I wish to illustrate with the specifics that I

have done, here, showing how this one city, this third largest

city in Canada, is not illegally but improperly deprived of

$0.5 million revenue which it should have if the government was

paying taxes or give grants to the extent of taxes. It should

be doing that for all of the municipalities and all of the

cities in B.C.

The federal government, Mr. Speaker, is a far better

neighbour to the municipalities and to the cities than is the

provincial government. Make no mistake of that.

Lastly, when we're talking about per capita grants, there is no reason that

I know why they cannot be extended to Indian reserves which would be capable

of achieving municipal status within the provisions of the federal Indian Act.

I'm not suggesting that they would have to incorporate and become municipalities

within the laws of this province, but for those bands that can qualify, and

they are by far the majority of the bands in B.C. Unfortunately I haven't got

at my fingertips the exact number of self-governing Indian bands, but I would

estimate that there would be about 103, and they should all be entitled to apply

for the municipal grant.

I'll tell you the reason why: we have got to equip the

Indian community to cope. We've got to get them into the

position whereby they can exist and compete with the mores, the

standards of living and the systems of society that we have

today. By not providing this kind of assistance we are doing

one thing: we are engendering and preserving the reserve

system. I think that if there is any decision that has been

reached over the past 10 years in Canada, both by the Canadian

people and by the Indian people, that is that the fetters of

the reserve system is something that has got to go.

Fine, maintain Indian land for Indian people, but the

reserve system per se, which has just done little more than

provide a very miserable sense of pseudo-security, is a bad

thing, an improper thing and should be dispensed with as soon

as possible. By nourishing the development of the Indian

community, and this is one way to do it, we can help to destroy

that very system.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

am glad that my colleague, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) mentioned the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia and the question as to whether

or not this corporation pays grants to municipalities.

The British Columbia Railroad, of course, in my own riding,

in my own district municipality, I have already mentioned that

there is $120,000 a year not paid there, and the Premier and

Minister of Finance has agreed to take that into consideration

for next year's budget.

I mentioned as well that there is a dispute between the

District of North Vancouver and the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia at the moment, as to the payment of grants.

Section 11 of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Act says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

provide for the payment of grants. But the district

municipality of North Vancouver, like many municipalities, is

concerned about the real intentions of this government toward

municipalities, and would like to have further assurance as to

the payment of grants in lieu of taxes by the Insurance

Corporation before they authorize the construction of two

claims centres, a construction which is very important to the

people of the North Shore.

Since there is a continuation of something like, by their

estimates, $30,000 a year in tax revenue required, the

executive council, could, by the issue of a simple minute

amending the current minute they've issued which guarantees tax

payments for 1974,

[ Page 1356 ]

guarantee this as a policy into the future, as a policy of

the government, and that would resolve the dispute right

there.

I bring that to the Premier's attention. I know that the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

has it under advisement at the moment. I hope that a quick and

amicable solution can be reached to this, because there is no

need for the dispute.

The provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for the increase of

some $2 per capita in annual grants to municipalities, is, I

think, a disgrace. I don't think any other word can be applied

to it. The statistics have been cited by Members: an increase

of a little over 6 per cent with inflation running at 10 per

cent, with the provincial budget up 25 per cent.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) put

it very well yesterday when he was describing how unconditional

grants to municipalities would have escalated had they gone up,

as the Union of B.C. Municipalities has proposed, at the same

rate as the provincial budget. And instead of an increase of $2

to $34, that grant would now — starting from a base in the

early '70s — would now be over $50.

I suggest to the Premier that this legislation is inadequate

because it should not provide for a fixed amount of this kind.

It should provide for indexing to provincial revenues, as a

government of the same political faith in Manitoba provided

last year. That is the proper way to approach the municipal

grants.

Where is the need for growing expenditures in our province,

Mr. Speaker? Is it at the local level? We talk about growth,

and the real crisis, certainly in the lower mainland of British

Columbia and in much of British Columbia, is growth. Growth

costs municipalities money, and that is why they are afraid of

it; they have to provide new services for people.

The revenues are not at the local level; they are at the

provincial level. So, that is why I suggest that this

legislation, rather than providing for a fixed amount, should

provide a guaranteed pass-through of some of those burgeoning

provincial revenues to the local governments where the needs

are growing at the same rate as the provincial resources.

On top of this.... You know, the provincial government

speaks of the other favours being done for municipalities this

year — the removal of the cost of the administration of

justice, and the removal of a percentage of the welfare costs.

I would point out to the Minister of Finance that this applies

only to certain cities in the province. To small towns and

villages this provides no relief at all.

They're going to sock it to the large cities in another way

and have another 2 mills put on properties for payment of

transportation costs. That's going to come down directly to the

local taxpayer again and go far beyond this additional $2,

which didn't even take care of inflation in the first

place.

To me, this bill is just not good enough. It has been

described earlier on in the debate as half a loaf by one

Member; another Member called it just a slice; another Member

called it a crumb. Any way you look at it, it's a crummy bill.

That's right, Mr. Member. Anyway you look at it, it's an insult

to the municipalities, to the local level of government and to

the concept that local needs are best met under the

responsibility of local councils and that they should have the

income revenues to look after those local needs.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I would expect that the

Premier will be answering some of these questions when he

closes debate on the bill. But I have some specific questions I

want to ask him and some specific comments to make about what's

happening in municipalities in British Columbia.

Certainly I can't help but agree with the other speakers who

have said this bill is totally inadequate. Two dollars per

capita to the municipalities in face of the kind of situation

they're facing today is simply not good enough; it has to be

better than that, particularly with the shifting

responsibilities being placed on municipalities in today's

society.

No longer is it true that municipalities are being asked

just to provide services to property. That line of demarcation

between services to property and services to people is becoming

increasingly more fuzzy. The municipalities are being asked,

and rightfully so, to take on more of the kinds of

responsibilities that many years ago they would never have

expected they would have to take.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has

referred to the report — an excellent report incidentally —

done by the Union of B.C. Municipalities (Report on Municipal

Taxation and Financial Matters, 1973) at the request of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). One of the

pertinent points that that report makes is that the Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer). One of the pertinent points that that

report makes is that the property taxpayer cannot be expected

to continue to bear these increasing responsibilities on his

own. Somehow or other the government of the province has got to

recognize that they've got to make the climate attractive

enough so that the person who pays the biggest part of the load

in municipal financing, the property taxpayer, is given some

real relief and not just token relief.

I'd just like to refer to that report briefly in one area

with regard to specific municipal costs. It says:

"The significant factor still to be determined in any study

of municipal-provincial relationships is the ability of the

property owner to continue to pay these taxes. It matters

little whether his property has doubled in market value if he

doesn't wish to sell it. If he considers that to be his home,

then he has no intention to sell it."

[ Page 1357 ]

It doesn't matter what the market value of that home is,

what the inflationary aspect is; it's his home and he can't

continue to pay increasing taxes year after year.

"All that matters to him is whether he can stay in

possession of his property, to do which he must pay his

property taxes on time. Only one final criterion needs to be

examined: that of his income. Can he afford to pay his taxes?"

It's very significant, Mr. Speaker, as it's pointed out in

this report, in comparing the increase in earnings of 79 per

cent over the decade that property tax increased 125 per cent

in all municipalities except Vancouver which was 94 per cent.

Wages advanced 79 per cent but property taxes advanced 125 per

cent. It's clear that the spread is getting bigger and that the

property owner can't continue to pick up that increasing

spread.

The government has got to step in, as the government has

stepped in in many other jurisdictions. The previous speaker

mentioned Manitoba as a good example. Manitoba has now gone to

a per capita grant increase tied to the increasing revenues of

the province. That's the way it should be in British Columbia

as well. They have their homeowner grant and some other forms

of relief to their municipalities, but they also tie their

specific grants to the increasing fortunes, which takes into

account inflationary factors, of the provincial government.

I'm reminded, listening to the previous speaker, that when

the per capita grant was started in British Columbia, it was

$25. Four years later, considering the terrible effects of

inflation on municipal governments, it's only at $32. Not much

of an increase considering an average inflationary boost of

something like 12 per cent a year.

I think it's vitally important that the per capita increases

must be tied to the growth of the province, The municipalities

have every right to expect that they'll take

part in the

expansion of our economy, the same as everyone else has the

right to expect that from the provincial government.

The Premier in his opening statements can't remember whether

that was when he was talking about farms or not — went on about

how he's saving the lives of the farmers. Was it another bill?

Oh, you were up so many times yesterday I can't remember which

one it was.

Anyway, I know he was very happy about this bill and the

great help he was giving the municipalities. He went on at

length to tell us about all of the things he's doing for our

little municipalities. Well, I think what he should have been

telling us is what he's doing to our little municipalities, not

for the municipalities. I'll tell you, they're getting it in

the ear in a lot of cases.

I'd just like to point out what's happening in one municipality in British

Columbia, the municipality of Surrey. They're not too happy about this government.

The government has to remember that everything it does in relation to taxation

policies, in relation to revenue policies, all kinds of financial policies,

ultimately has a direct bearing on the municipalities. Because of that, it ultimately

has a direct bearing on the property owner who is the major source of revenue

for municipalities. So whatever the government does, it sooner or later reflects

itself in some kind of inter-reaction at the property-owner level.

Some of those provincial policies which are affecting Surrey

in the deliberations of their 1974 budget make me wonder

whether or not the government should in fact withdraw this bill

and add some more to it. School board advances in Surrey are

municipal financing costs pursuant to

section 198 of the

Public Schools Act. The provincial government requires

the municipality to pay the school board requisition in equal

monthly installments, commencing January 15 of each year,

notwithstanding the fact that tax levies haven't been collected

yet.

The municipality then is the school board's financing agency

at no cost to the school board. The net effect of advancing the

funds for eight months before collection and using school funds

collected for four months works out to be a net cost to the

municipality and a reduction on the temporary investment

earnings that the municipality could look forward to. The net

effect in Surrey for 1974 for this one item of school board

advances is a loss of $160,000.

Let's get to the $2 per capita grant. The local government

grant, as we know, was $32 per capita. When special levies,

import fees and school budget items are removed from the

provisional budget in Surrey, the current operating

expenditures from general revenues total $14,600,000 for 1973

and $ 17,500,000 for 1974 — an increase of approximately 20

per cent. That 20 per cent is made up of about 12 per cent

inflation. This government had better start to recognize that

that's a dangerous inflationary rate and it had better start

doing something to combat it. Twelve per cent inflation and 8

per cent normal growth.

I want to make it very clear, too, Mr. Speaker, that the

municipal governments have been pretty good housekeepers. Their

general government costs are not increasing anywhere nearly as

fast as is the general government cost to provincial

governments or the general government cost to federal

governments, which is increasing at staggering rates. The

municipalities, because they're closer to the people and

because they're apt to get kicked out more quickly if they make

too many mistakes, are pretty tight with their budgets when it

comes to looking after general government. Consequently, the

people

[ Page 1358 ]

at the local level are getting a heck of a lot better deal

than are the people at the provincial or federal level as it

concerns the cost of general government. An 8 per cent growth

in a municipality such as Surrey is pretty minimal.

Because the local government grant and other revenues didn't

increase by 20 per cent — the budget and costs have gone up 20

per cent but the grants and revenues haven't — the amount

required to be raised from general mill-rate taxation had to be

increased over 30 per cent. Once again, we must remind the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Municipal

Affairs Minister in their comments about mill rates coming down

in relation to increased assessments all over the province.

Those comments are utter nonsense because there's no way

mill rates are going to come down in this province. No way! In

Surrey we see the need for a raise of 30 per cent over 1973

based, I will admit, on the provisional budget. But I expect

that budget isn't going to be changed too much when it is

finally passed.

If we take that 30 per cent as compared to the 20 per cent

growth rate, inflationary and otherwise, and the government's

chintzy little two bucks, then we see there is a deficiency

applicable to the local government of a fairly substantial

amount of money. The local government grant is $32. Inflation

provision of 12 per cent of $3,155,000 comes to $378,000; the

growth provision at 8 per cent comes to $252,000 — which is a

total increase needed in Surrey just to keep up with inflation

and growth of $630,000 for 1974. What did they get for their

two bucks per capita? They are going to get $200,000. They need

$630,000. The 1974 deficiency in the local government grant

increase comes to $430,000. That's what they are short in that

one item alone. I've already told you about the $160,000 it's

going to cost them for the school board advances.

There is a little brighter picture with regard to law

enforcement in Surrey because there is a net reduction in the

municipal costs. We congratulate the government for some of the

moves it made in relation to taking over the administration of

justice as of April 1. Those moves are very welcome to all of

the municipalities throughout the province.

There's a reduction of costs there and a saving to the

municipality of about $ 100,000. The reduction in actual costs

is around $315,000, but you have to balance that off with

$215,000 which the municipality would have realized in police

fine revenue. The net saving there is $ 100,000.

In Burnaby they are going to have a net loss there because the fines they did

take in in Burnaby as a normal course were more than the money they are saving

because the government is taking over the administration of justice. This whole

takeover of the administration throughout the province only amounts to $6 million

so it's no big deal. But there is a saving in Surrey of $100,000 on that one.

Voter enumeration, which is a direct charge initiated by

this government in changes to the Municipal Act, is a

charge which the municipalities never had to bear before. I

understand the Municipal Affairs Minister (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

has agreed to pick up some of the cost. But nevertheless, that

is still a new cost to the municipalities.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Some of them are 60 cents per capita, that's

right. And for Surrey the increased cost this year is

$23,000.

Bill 71 caused utter chaos in the municipalities,

particularly in relation to the need for extra staff both at

the assessment level and on the courts of revision — not extra

staff for the courts of revision but extra costs for meeting

halls. They couldn't hold the courts of revision in the normal

places because they just couldn't handle them in those areas,

with over 1,000 appeals in Surrey.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm not speaking about assessments, Mr.

Speaker, I'm talking about the costs to local governments;

that's what this bill is about. Bill 71 caused a direct

increase in costs to the local government in Surrey of some

$50,000. I am not talking about assessments: If you want me to

talk about assessments, I'll go get my file of letters.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I think it's quite appropriate to

mention costs that are involved in municipalities. To debate

the substance of the assessments is quite another matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I haven't debated the subject

of assessments.

MR. SPEAKER: I am only pointing out to you that it would not

be appropriate.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you. I've explained to you that the

effect of Bill 71 caused chaos in the municipalities and,

because of that chaos, it also cost them extra money. It is

estimated in Surrey that, because of the extra assessment staff

time allotted to the courts of revision, it will be $22,000

extra in Surrey. The abnormal amount of assessment staff time

allocated to the appeal board is $6,000. The estimated overtime

in the municipality related directly to Bill 71 is $15,000. The

data centre costs, which are going to be considerably more than

they ever have been before, will be about $7,000. Total:

$50,000 extra. That doesn't take into account the

[ Page 1359 ]

reduced assessment service level that's going to result

because they have had to pick up all this time in sorting out

Bill 71. Next year's assessments are going to be affected

because they haven't had the time to spend on their normal

duty, the time they should have been spending. So there's

another $50,000.

The welfare administration costs. Many people don't realize

the municipalities do pick up the administration costs of

welfare. The provincial government has assumed the

administration of welfare for several municipalities and has

asked them to make a levy of 60 cents per capita for them doing

that. Those municipalities were, of course, very happy to do it

because it was a pretty substantial saving for them. So far in

Surrey they haven't done that and they haven't indicated, at

least to the municipality, that they are going to do it in

1974. The total welfare administration costs in Surrey come to

$586,000, less the administration grants which Surrey receives

of $86,000. Net cost: $400,000 less 60 cents per capita

assessment, which makes a net excess cost to the municipality

of Surrey of $340,000 extra.

What else have you been doing to the municipality of Surrey

in your rush to help them out of their financial dilemma?

The welfare per capita payments have been reduced from 15

per cent to 10 per cent of total welfare payments. We welcome

that move too, Mr. Speaker; it's long overdue. I would only

suggest that the government should go a little further and

remove it completely from the municipal cost.

In 1973 municipalities all over B.C. were assessed $14.40

per year per capita for their 15 per cent share of welfare

payments. One of the hookers in this whole thing is that the

municipalities don't know yet whether that $14.40 levy will be

adequate to meet the municipal portion. The 1974 levy rate to

cover the 1974 10 per cent municipal share is not yet known. If

one assumes a 12 per cent increase in the $14.40 rate — and the

12 per cent is simply for inflationary provisions again — and a

reduction in the share by one-third, which is the 10 per cent

from 15 per cent, then the annual rate for 1974 will be $10.80

per capita for the nine months from April 1 to December 31.

This will result in a decrease of $3.60 per capita in the

annual rate for the last nine months. That's assuming all those

things are correct; the rate may be much more than that. We

don't know; nobody knows at this time. But assuming that, the

$3.60 per capita is a saving to Surrey of $270,000.

However, the municipality hasn't been able to reflect that in their 1974 budget

because they don't know if that's what they are going to get. Since municipalities

are much more responsible budgeters than our provincial governments or federal

governments, they don't dare put that amount into their budget because they

don't know whether or not they'll get it in fact. As a matter of fact, they

may not get even a part of that because that rate may not be decreased by that

much. They don't reflect that in their budget and they have to reflect that

increased mill rate to take care of that $270,000. Nevertheless, we expect it

will be a saving.

What about ambulance subsidies? Well, we are going to take

over the ambulance service sometime, but at the present time

the provincial government doesn't do that. If ambulance service

is deemed to be a provincial responsibility, then the ambulance

subsidy budget provision from the municipality should be

nothing. But it isn't nothing; it's $29,000 in Surrey.

What about prisoner costs? The Attorney-General has said the

administration of justice is a provincial responsibility. Then

why shouldn't prisoner costs be a provincial responsibility?

The budget for prisoner costs in Surrey, if we are to take the

Attorney-General at his word, should be nothing. But it isn't;

it's $65,000 a year.

What about Autoplan, or whatever it is called? What about

the fleet insurance costs for municipal vehicles? Quite an

increase, in Surrey anyway: 1973 costs for insurance for the

municipality was $25,000. Under the bold new Autoplan: $64,000 — almost double.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost double.

MR. McCLELLAND: Almost double; it's up $21,000. That's under

Autoplan, Mr. Speaker. The municipal finance authority debt

reserve: it's now a requirement that all municipal debenture

financing must be done through the municipal finance

authorities. One of the requirements is that a debt reserve

equal to one-half of the annual debt charges must be

established for all debentures issued through the authority.

The amount is approximately equal to 6 per cent of the issue

amount.

The expressed object of this reserve is to provide better

insurance that the debt installments will be met and therefore

allow the authority to issue its debentures at a lower rate of

interest.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Surrey doesn't think that the MFA debt reserve doesn't have

any effect on the interest rate obtained by the MFA. Funds

required to be set aside are substantial and do have an effect

on Surrey's rate structures. At the end of 1973 Surrey's debt

reserve is approximately $400,000, which means that there will

have to be certain increases in the 1974 budget to make up for

these reserves.

Six per cent of $6,600,000, sewer construction costs —

$400,000; 6 per cent of $4,450,000 water construction water

rates — $260,000; and debentures,

[ Page 1360 ]

making an increase in the general mill rate, an overall

increase, necessary, Mr. Speaker, and that set a net cost to

Surrey of $120,000.

We're grateful — and the Minister of Finance mentioned this

yesterday. I must say, for all of the communities which are

represented in my constituency, "thank you" to the provincial

government for the Community Recreational Facilities Fund. That

was a fine piece of legislation and it's one which has been

well received in our community and well used in our community,

and will be used more in the future, and there will be a pretty

substantial saving to the municipality of Surrey because of its

use of that Community Recreational Facilities Fund grant.

It's expected in 1974.... Perhaps I shouldn't be mentioning

these figures because some of the backbenchers who haven't had

any grants from that fund yet might get mad at us for having a

number of grants in Surrey; but I want to give credit where

credit is due. I don't know whether you've had any in your area

yet, Mr. Speaker. That's good, I'm glad to hear that. But we'll

be getting about $283,000 there for grant funds applied to

parklands, $40,000 for museum buildings, and $167,000 for a

pool in White Rock.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I thought we were terrible.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm thanking you, Mr. Minister. I must thank

you for it because it's a total of almost $500,000 —

$490,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've been a half-hour kicking us around

and then you admit we've given you $500,000.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Well, wait until I get my adding

machine out because I want to tell you what you've done to

Surrey...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...with the crumbs that you've given them —

with $500,000 here and a $2 per capita grant increase there.

I've just given you an example here of $1.5 million extra

direct cost to the municipality's taxpayers in Surrey and I've

given you the example of about a total of $600,000 in savings.

That means, in anybody's language, and on any adding machine

that you care to use, a net deficit, Mr. Speaker, of about

$900,000 to the community of Surrey — a net deficit and that's

a shame, and that's a disaster.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to vote against this

bill?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we'd like to offer a few

solutions about what we can do with this whole situation of

municipal financing, because what you're doing, Mr. Speaker, is

holding the municipalities' heads under water, and if you don't

let go they're going to drown. Now you've got to face that

fact. You've got to face the fact that these inflationary

factors are with us. They're not going to go away. Two bucks

per capita is a total disaster.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to vote against the

bill?

MR. McCLELLAND: Two bucks per capita!

First of all, we cannot do anything to help the

municipalities out until we take a totally new approach to the

budgeting for municipalities and provinces. We've got, first of

all, as I mentioned earlier, to tie that per capita grant to

the increasing fortunes of the provincial government.

The provincial government must embrace the idea of revenue

sharing on other levels with the municipal governments. It's

time, for instance, that the provincial government took a look

at sharing some of those gasoline taxes and road-user taxes

with the municipal governments, because they have to keep up

their share of the roads in their municipalities as well.

It's probably time too that the provincial government

started looking at sharing some of the revenue that it gets out

of its Liquor Control Board stores with the local

governments.

The provincial government has to put an end to the

competitive system which now exists between the province and

the municipalities in terms of revenues available and areas of

responsibility and the right and responsibility to spend

revenue.

It's time, in other words, that the provincial government

stops treating the municipalities like they're badly used

foster children and starts treating them like partners in

government — and a heck of a lot more responsive partner than

provincial government is to the needs of its people.

In short, Mr. Chairman, budgets have to be designed to serve

people, both as taxpayers and as recipients of service.

Certainly budgets must stop reflecting the philosophy of

centralized government and the father-figure government that we

now have. You've got to start treating municipalities like

adults. Two bucks per capita is an absolute sham and you should

hide your head in shame, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you going to vote against this

bill?

MR. McCLELLAND: Hide your head in shame.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You know,

[ Page 1361 ]

the Hon. Premier, when introducing the bill and speaking to

it in second reading, seemed to be very proud of the fact that

they were increasing the per capita grants to the

municipalities by $2 in the current year. At one time or

another, he indicated across the floor of the House to the rest

of us that certain municipalities are sitting on pretty fat

surpluses — in surplus accounts.

He said not too long ago something about one municipality

with a $2 million surplus. Well, I would like to ask the

Premier: what's wrong with a municipality having a surplus,

particularly when this Premier and Minister of Finance operates

the Government of British Columbia on exactly the same

basis?

He has continually underestimated his revenue and

overestimated his expenditure to the tune last year of several

hundred million dollars. If it's fair for the provincial

government to Scrooge away money that should be available to

people for benefits in the province so they can be used for pet

projects, then it should be fair for municipalities to have a

fair level of reserves behind them for a rainy day fund.

I'd like to suggest to the Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that there is not a municipality in British Columbia

that can hold a candle to the Minister of Finance when it comes

to underestimating the actual revenue that he will receive and

overestimating the expenditures. No one in British Columbia can

beat his record.

I think that when we discuss this bill, which is entirely

inadequate.... It's been said by the other speakers from this

side of the House: it's a pittance in relation to what problems

the municipalities have to face today — a pittance. Certainly

it's a pittance when you compare the amount of money

percentage-wise that you will give the municipalities and

compare that to the anticipated increase of revenue in the

provincial government's budget for the current year.

It certainly has a very definitive ring to it that suggests

the municipalities are not being well treated by this socialist

administration who says that they're all for people in the

Province of British Columbia. I think that we should take a

number of factors into consideration, and that perhaps it's

time in British Columbia for an overall review of the method

whereby we pay grants to municipalities.

I think we could really view the whole system with respect

to changes because as you travel around the province it becomes

increasingly apparent that the problems and solutions in one

municipality are not the same problems and solutions for

another municipality.

We find, for instance, great influxes of people who require people services

in one particular area or one municipality as compared to another with a pattern

of fairly static growth. We find municipalities in the Province of British Columbia

which, because of the fact that they have been established for many, many years,

have paid off a great deal of the capital indebtedness of their water and sewer

systems in years past, so that's not an impost upon the people who live there.

We find the reverse of that true in many other

municipalities, as the Hon. Speaker well knows, even in his own

constituency. I would suggest he has municipalities which in

the last five years have doubled and tripled the amount of

indebtedness of the municipality for water and sewer extension

projects alone — let alone control of pollution or whatever

else they may have been faced with. They had to do that as a

result of people moving into new areas.

I think it's entirely inequitable and unfair to use a

straight across-the-board level system of providing per capita

grants for municipalities in the province. I think we have to

take into consideration not only inflation, which hits us all

on a comparable level, but we have to take into consideration

whether the community is urban or rural in its make-up. We

certainly have to take into consideration the per capita

indebtedness of each individual municipality when we compare

one to the other. And, as has been mentioned by other Members

speaking in this debate, we have to take into consideration the

special climatic conditions that vary and change from one

municipality to the other, particularly the manner in which

climatic conditions affect the costs of installing such things

as water and sewer, and the costs of maintaining roads and

building new roads.

I'm sure the Speaker will agree with me when I suggest to

him that the cost of road construction in the northern part of

British Columbia is 250 to 400 per cent higher than comparable

road construction on Vancouver Island, for instance, or on the

lower mainland because of climatic conditions. It's just a fact

of life that you have to live with where you have 10 feet of

frost in some places, at least 8 feet in the winter, and the

tremendous problems that that causes each and every spring

with the big thaws — where a road base disintegrates and our

pavement collapses. Certainly these are conditions that are

different from one part of the province to another.

Every new community, regardless of where it's located, is

immediately faced with the expansion of people services. They

have to provide schools, hospitals, many community recreational

facilities. Certainly I agree with the other Members that the

Act which was brought in for providing capital funds for

community recreational facilities is a good Act and it's helped

many communities, including my own in Fort St. John, to a great

extent.

But the reason it was required was because of a growth

pattern in communities such as Fort St. John, for instance,

which is much higher than the provincial average. In terms of

the history of that community,

[ Page 1362 ]

as many others, it's a relatively young community in British

Columbia, particularly when you compare it to, say, New

Westminster which has a history that goes back over 100 years.

There's just no comparison.

So we do have, in my opinion, very diverse conditions in the

Province of British Columbia. I think it would be fair, in

looking at the matter of grants to municipalities, to use an

adjustable formula, one that would take into consideration a

number of factors. They could be rated, I presume, according to

a scale of pluses and minuses, or whatever you desire to

use.

I'm sure that any statistician could work out a proper means

of applying, through a scale, demerit points or plus points, or

whatever, to the extent that you could determine what should be

the average grant for municipalities throughout the Province of

British Columbia, and then take into consideration the

exceptional circumstances that the municipalities were faced

with at the particular given time.

It's hoped that over a period of years the growth pattern of

municipalities will change — they'll level off and stabilize.

Then many municipalities, which today are in great need of

financial assistance from the province, five years from now

will show a completely different picture.

Perhaps we should look, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, at the type of formula we use to arrive at grants for

school districts in the Province of British Columbia, which is

on a variable basis according to the amount of revenue that's

available to them from the total assessment of the area.

Instead of using that, we should look at grants to

municipalities on the basis of the actual services that they

have to provide, the costs of those services on a unit basis

for each member of the population, and the fact that many of

these services will be comparatively new and have a very high

repayment

schedule in front of the taxpayers of that given

community at this particular time.

Many of our municipalities have borrowed to the maximum

allowed under the Municipal Act because of the fact that

they've had to provide extremely costly services in the last

few years at high rates, and do it immediately, not delay for

four or five or 10 years until the money was available to them.

They've had to absorb high interest rates and extremely high

costs of installation and services.

I would think this is the direction that we should move in

the Province of British Columbia. To use a variable and an

adjustable municipal grant, and provide the dollars to those in

the greatest need, always remembering that that is a changing

picture from year to year. The municipality which may be in

great need today will not be in that same position a few years

down the road.

The programme would have to be understood to municipal officials that it worked

on that basis so they would not rest on their laurels and suggest that because

they received a per capita grant of X number of dollars this year that that

should remain at that particular level in perpetuity. It should vary according

to the actual repayment

schedule and the type of services that the municipality

has to render in order to give a fair and equitable living base and standard

of services to every citizen in the Province of British Columbia, irrespective

of where they live and regardless of whether they decide to move from one municipality

to an other.

I think this would be a worthwhile objective, Mr. Speaker.

It would certainly, in my opinion, help solve a number of the

problems that we are continually faced with in the north,

particularly north-central B.C. also, respecting people to

provide services.

There is a great shortage of skilled labour, as you well

know, in many areas of the province; they're unavailable. Yet

we have those same skilled people in surplus in some areas of

the Province of British Columbia. Perhaps if we could provide

all the facilities to the communities on an equal and equitable

basis, we would not have the problem of people, through climate

and a desire to live in the southern part of the province,

refusing to take positions, well-paid positions as a matter of

fact, in many communities that are open and available in the

Province of British Columbia today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the bill that we

have has been discussed at some length. The purpose of it is to

increase the per capita grant from $32 to $34.

I can't help remembering the headlines, the editorials and

the other comments made some years ago when it went up by $3 by

a former Premier, who was roundly denounced in the editorial

pages in particular for cheapness and niggardliness. Yet here

we have a $2 bill before us today.

It's important that the Premier and Minister of Finance pay

attention in particular to the breakdown of a single

municipality's expenses as was outlined by the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland). He went through the memorandum of the

municipal manager in that Municipality of Surrey and I think

did a pretty good job of showing in specifics how the cost has

increased to the one municipality growing very quickly.

I'd like to make a few comments of my own and then give some

indication to you, Mr. Speaker, of the comments we have

received from other mayors, other town clerks and municipal

clerks in other parts of the province. But first a word on

Victoria.

Here we have a large amount of provincial buildings and

provincial property. The rate of payment is, of course, 15

mills. That's most unfortunate because it's about a third of

the regular tax rate, it's about a third of the amount

received

[ Page 1363 ]

from the federal government for similar installations in the

area. It's quite inadequate. At the present time there is a

garbage bill owing from the provincial government of some

$7,000. Really, I think the provincial government should be

paying the full mill rate in communities where they have land.

That is not just Victoria, of course; every other one as well.

It seems silly to exempt certain buildings, certain grounds,

certain lands from the regular tax rate which we are charging

everyone else.

Uniformity is an important principle of taxation. The

provincial government making exceptions for itself violates a

very important principle of this taxation. In Victoria, where

you have the federal government having accepted this (they have

large holdings in this area as well) and where you have the

provincial government failing to pay their full share, you have

a pretty classic case of a very difficult situation for the

municipal authorities.

The other specific case I'd like to refer to is Kamloops.

Not so long ago but over a couple of years ago, the Department

of Highways approved a new subdivision near Kamloops, and the

Department of Highways built roads. Unfortunately, they

apparently did not do a very good job. The grading was wrong;

the land has been flooded from time to time ever since. There

is clearly a fairly expensive proposition of rebuilding. The

municipal authorities previously did not have to take in this

particular area and have responsibility for it. They didn't

because it was outside the municipality of Kamloops.

However, by forced amalgamation, by the shotgun marriage of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, this area was included. The

problem suddenly becomes, according to the Municipal Affairs

department, a civic problem even though it was caused entirely

by the foolishness of the Department of Highways and even

though the municipality itself has no real financial ability to

do the reconstruction necessary, to install the storm sewers

and the other things that would change this from an area which

is flooded frequently to an area in which the people who live

there could remain in a normal, comfortable way I think they

should be expected to have.

You have had forced amalgamation; you've had the Highways department's mistake.

Then, with all this problem, you throw it upon the municipality. The municipality

only gets an extra $2 per head and they simply don't have the finances to deal

with the problem created by the provincial government and which has been thrown

into their laps by the provincial government. It's a combination of mistakes

of this government and its predecessor which simply puts the City of Kamloops

in an impossible situation. They don't have the money from the provincial government

and they cannot deal with this particular problem in any way the residents would

like or, indeed, as it should be dealt with. It's a bit similar to the Oak Hills

case of two years ago. But in this case of Dufferin the problem continues and

we've had no additional moneys from the province or, as in the Oak Hills case,

from the federal government.

The problem has been caused by the provincial government's

forced amalgamation. I do believe that under the circumstances,

it's germane to this debate. There is no money available under

the provisions of this bill for municipalities such as Kamloops

to take on the responsibilities which the citizens expect.

I hope the problem will be taken up by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. Certainly, when we're discussing the costs

municipalities have to bear, I think it should be borne in mind

that there are often sudden and unexpected costs. Without

granting the municipalities an adequate financial base, the

province simply makes it impossible for them to proceed in a

sensible and normal manner. They spend their time, instead,

lobbying Victoria for extra funds, for extra money and for

special programmes. A great deal of the time of municipal as

well as provincial civil servants is taken up in arguing with

one another about dollars instead of getting on with the job of

dealing with the problems of people.

I said I was going to mention a few letters from mayors.

I've received a lot on this specific bill. Here's one from a

mayor in the lower mainland.

"We would like to have seen the per capita grant increase

more than by $2, which is a little over 6 per cent. The per

capita grant has not kept pace either with inflation or this

particular municipality's increasing responsibilities over the

past several years.

"It is a particularly unsatisfactory method of financing, as

in any one year a particular programme can be established with

the funds then at hand only to find out that in following years

the funding you have relied on in earlier years is no longer

adequate to pay for the particular programme undertaken in the

first place, i.e. If we set up a programme, then the least we

should expect is that our funding source keep pace with the

costs involved."

Surely that's a reasonable request.

"Needless to say, any deficiency in the per capita grant is

made up by increasing property taxes."

Another paragraph perhaps would be of interest.

"Another matter of concern which has been brought to the

attention of the government on several occasions is the fact

that the per capita grant is based on five-year census figures.

The last census in 1971 is presently the base year and this

will not be increased until 1976.

"In the case of this municipality, and indeed in several

other areas, this means we are penalized by our growth and the

fact that we

[ Page 1364 ]

are making provision for new housing."

Here's a municipality which is trying hard to meet the housing needs of the

citizens of the province; they are trying to do something about it. Of course,

all they find is that they get penalized to an even greater degree because of

the fact that they're acting responsibly.

"On the other hand, jurisdictions such as New Westminster

where growth is minimal are, in effect, being treated more

favourably. It would seem to me a fairly straightforward

administrative matter to arrive at revised population figures

annually.

"Related to the above is also the fact that municipalities

such as ours, again as compared to areas such as New

Westminster, have a greater strain placed upon their revenue

sources, especially the property tax, because of the fact they

are experiencing rapid growth. If the intention of the

government Is to promote and encourage the development of new

housing, one of the aims should be to assist those

municipalities faced with the problem of coping with

growth.

"With our municipality experiencing growth of approximately

7 per cent per annum, it is realized by the government what

effect this additional 7,000 plus persons have upon the need

for amenities in the community, not to mention the need to

rebuild roads, improve intersections, resolve drainage problems

and a myriad of other matters being compounded by such growth.

There should be a recognition of this growth factor in

computing the grants made to municipalities on an individual

basis."

That gives a pretty good indication of the problems

this government is causing and, where the problems have existed

before, making worse. The fact is that growth communities need

help and this per capita formula does nothing about it.

Here's a letter from another mayor:

"We, as most councils are, are concerned that a higher per

capita grant should be made available to help municipalities

maintain a high quality of service to their residents."

Another mayor, dated February 27:

"I would just like to say that our troubles have derived

from the policies of this department. I do believe the $2

additional on the per capita grant was an insult to the

municipalities.

"I also believe that it is unfair to us that the government

continues increasing the homeowners grant instead of increasing

aid to the municipalities. People still do not consider this

gift from the government as part of taxation.

"I would also like to express my views on assessments. It

is absolutely necessary that they simplify this procedure and leave it up to

the municipalities to work this out because this is our only form of revenue."

Another mayor:

"I firmly believe that the regional districts should receive

for the residents of the unorganized territories the same per

capita grant, namely $34, as is paid to the municipalities.

With adequate sources of revenue, the regional districts could

undoubtedly accomplish a bit more than they have done to

date."

Another mayor, Mr. Speaker, a separate letter again:

"I think it should be considered an instrument for sharing

provincial revenues with the municipalities. And it should be

directly linked into some sort of municipal revenue such as the

income tax. It could be linked into provincial revenue,

generally, as an alternative." In other words, take the per

capita grant out of the dollar figure and into a percentage

basis.

"In the long run, municipalities must reduce their reliance

on property taxes and this can only be done by having a share

of some appropriate tax base such as income tax."

A mayor from an Island city saying:

"My only comments on the proposed budget would be that the

general administration increases are too high, and the per

capita grant is far too low. On the later item, surely in this

inflationary time the government will recognize the need for

municipalities more realistically."

A mayor of another Interior

city wrote to me as follows:

"Expanding populations and economics and inflationary costs

readily increase senior government revenues through income

taxes and sales taxes while causing increasing problems to

municipalities."

We've certainly seen that in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

"Therefore, per capita grants to municipalities should be

tied to income tax revenues received by the provincial

government. The grant to municipal governments for local

services to provincial government buildings and property should

be changed so that the provincial government buildings and

property pay the same taxes based on the same assessment values

as private property."

Mr. Speaker, these quotes from these mayors, written to me

from all parts of the province, are a pretty clear indication

of the general unhappiness of the municipalities with the

provisions of Bill 9.

The fact that the provincial government is not paying its fair share of taxation

is an additional bone of contention, particularly for the capital city, and

[ Page

1365 ]

that again is not dealt with properly in this bill.

Finally, when you have problems such as that which came to

the people of Kamloops, you realize that the provincial

government is not simply meeting its responsibilities to the

municipalities, as they should.

Earlier today the Minister of Finance said, "Well, if you

don't like it, vote against it." That's precisely what I intend

to do. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is right for

Members of this assembly to vote for a bill which they know to

be totally inadequate simply because it is a minor change in

the right direction. Were it two cents, I'm sure we'd hear the

same comments from the Minister of Finance and Premier (Hon.

Mr. Barrett), "Vote for it because it's a step in the right

direction."

But we know it doesn't deal with the problem. We know it

doesn't get to the root of the problems facing municipalities.

It does not give them the financial base that will allow them

to increase the housing for the citizens of British Columbia,

most of whom live in municipalities. It does not give them the

opportunity of dealing with the tremendous number of problems

which they face in municipal government.

I realize that in voting against it, we're going to have one

of those great speeches from the Premier and Minister of

Finance about how he's going to have to tell people we voted

against $2 more for the municipalities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't say anything till I see how you

vote.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'll see how we vote.

But on the other hand, we think it's pretty important for

the municipalities to be properly financed. And if this

business of the provincial government getting a substantial

increase in the revenues, thanks to an increased tax base, and

at the same time giving less than the inflationary rate to the

municipalities, is obviously wrong and therefore we have no

choice but to vote against it.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I thought it

was sort of interesting listening to the hon. leader of the

Liberal Party in essence say, "Don't bother nursing the

patient, we'll wait till the doctor comes," and in the

meantime the patient dies. Strangle your municipalities until

you can feed them, and let them starve to death in the

meantime. However, that is their choice and it certainly is

fairly consistent of the policy that we get out of Ottawa,

isn't it, Mr. Minister of Finance?

Mr. Minister of Finance, speaking of inconsistencies, I would like to draw

to your attention that your own policy in relation to this bill is terribly

inconsistent. You've mentioned that municipalities are the children of the provincial

government, and they are indeed.

But you of all people should know, Mr. Minister, that

children have a habit of growing up. This is what is happening

to our municipalities in British Columbia; they are growing up

in terms of the responsibilities they have to assume for the

people they represent. They are growing up in terms of the fact

that the people they represent look to them more now than ever

before for the meeting of their needs and for the

implementation of their policies as a community.

I feel that your attitude is very inconsistent, and as a

social worker you should be very well aware of this, Mr.

Premier and Minister of Finance. You probably have a few

children in your own home who are growing up, and you're

finding you are having to dig a little deeper into your pocket — not that it's such a problem now, I might add. But you're

having to dig deeper into your pocket, even though they are

making a greater effort, in helping them achieve the

independence that is only right and proper in a family. In

fact, you should be digging into your pocket more for these

children, the municipalities, who are growing up in a right and

proper manner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This bill is not my home budget; this is

municipal budgets. I have enough trouble at home....

MRS. JORDAN: I bet you Shirley would be on the floor of this

House debating it. (Laughter.) This is what I am trying to

point out, Mr. Minister of Finance, if you're practising the

same policy at home as you are in this chamber, then you're in

real trouble.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't run the budget at home.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to

address the Chair, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, many Members have dwelt on the

municipality aspect, I would like to talk in terms of the

villages of this province.

We have over 60 villages in the Province of British Columbia

which have essentially the same costs and the same

responsibilities in their role as do the municipalities, and in

turn does the provincial government. These little

municipalities, which average in population anywhere from about

500 to 6,000 in total, and have an average of 2,000 people,

have to meet new costs imposed by the demands of the

advancement of society, and by some of the demands advanced by

the former administration and your administration.

Garbage for example; Nakusp, Slocan, Lumby,

[ Page 1366 ]

Pouce Coupe, they are now all having to go into

pollution-control factors. They are having to establish land

fills. They are having to face these costs, Mr. Minister.

They're having to look at sewers, and this increased cost.

They've having to levy upon their people their share of costs

for senior citizen housing, and new recreational costs.

They not only have to meet the demands that the senior

government and various government agencies are imposing on

them, they also have to meet the demands of their people in

terms of having the same equitable type of living in the

villages as they have in the municipalities and in the

metropolitan area. They have to provide the same amenities.

One of the great thrusts of this government is to encourage

people to go to the outlying areas — to the smaller villages

and municipalities — to find work, to help balance the

population in this province. And those people are going to

demand these services, therefore, you have a responsibility to

see that these elected officials in these smaller areas can

meet that obligation.

I should point out to you, Mr. Minister of Finance, that in

trying to meet these commitments and demands, the people in the

villages don't have the same opportunity in terms of consistent

work. So often there's not the variety of jobs available. Very

often this is seasonal work if it's based on the forest

industry — this is frequently seasonal, as you know, Mr.

Speaker, in your area and in many of the areas that you

represent. There is not the variety of industries which in turn

means that there is not the balance of service industries which

generally feed on the industries themselves.

There is the tourist industry which is largely a part of

their income, and that's purely seasonal. Therefore, there's

not the general revenue to draw from the people in terms of

business taxes and business licences and the balance that

industry should be paying in a tax picture.

Conversely, Mr. Premier, they're in a position where your

government is going to compete with them and put them in a less

fortunate position or a less privileged position to compete in

the future for developing new and desirable industries in their

area, and attracting them to their area. You as the government

are setting up industrial sites in key areas of the province.

And you are going to be able to offer advantages to industries

that there's no way the people in these smaller villages and

smaller municipalities can offer.

So, you're imposing a multitude of hardships on them in

terms of overall action of the part of your government, let

alone the direct imposition of costs to them which have been

outlined by other Members. Then, of course, the point that

we're debating — this niggardly and Scrooge-like penny-pinching

attitude to their capital grants.

When you examine these figures, Mr. Minister of Finance, and

we listen to what you say, it's quite obvious that you haven't

done your homework, through you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

do it for you, and perhaps if you'd listen, you'd realize the

plight these people find themselves in.

I'd like to quote from the municipal statistics, including

regional districts, for the year ended December 31, 1972,

issued by your own department, the Department of Municipal

Affairs. I'll point out to you some of the problems these

people face. Your grant of $2 per capita isn't even keeping

pace with inflation for them.

In the Village of Tofino, their legislative costs last year were

$1,864 and their general administration was $8,820. When you look at

theirpopulation, which is 461, and you multiply

that by two, which is the grant you're awarding them on a per

capita basis, their big increase from Big Daddy government is

$920. That's around six per cent of their overall costs last

year.

Mr. Premier, that doesn't keep pace with inflation. These

people are in negotiations at this time with their municipal

employees. They're not going to settle for five or six per

cent; they're going to go for 10 or 14 per cent plus fringe

benefits. Ucluelet. Their legislative costs last year were

$2,554 and their administration was $12,320. They have a

population of 1,018. Do you know what your grant is to them

this year when you multiply that population by two? Hold your

seat; it's $420. Big deal is right!

Let's look at some other villages in the northern part of

the province. Burns Lake. Their administrative cost last year

was $16,469 and their legislative cost was $4,973. Their

population is 1,259 and their big grant is $2,500.

Fort St. James. Their total costs were well in excess of

$40,000 last year and their grant is $3,400 based on the

population of 1,483. Don't you feel a little bit uncomfortable,

Mr. Speaker? I do. I think the municipal people in this area

feel very uncomfortable and the taxpayers are very worried.

Fraser Lake. Their general administration and legislative

costs last year were nearly $32,000 and their grant, based on a

population of 1,292, was $2,700.

Poor old Vanderhoof! That hard-working community. Their

combined legislative and administrative costs were nearly

$45,000. What is their grant? Based on their population of

1,653 people doubled, it's $3,600.

How about the Kootenays? You should pay attention to the

Kootenays, Mr. Minister of Finance, because, as the Speaker

knows, they're feeling very isolated by your government.

They're wanting to leave and these are the figures they'll take

to Alberta. Kaslo will say: "Do you realize, Mr. Premier of

Alberta, that our combined legislative and

[ Page 1367 ]

administrative costs last year were in the neighbourhood of

over $13,000 and do you know what that great big well-paid

Minister of Finance in British Columbia is giving us with his

generous per capita grant this year? $1,520."

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the per capita grant in

Alberta?

MRS. JORDAN: This is 1974 and this is British Columbia. You

are responsible and these are your children, as you so much

like to call them. I'll bet you they get a better bet in

Alberta as opposed to what they get from your government.

Alberta isn't sticking their fingers into their private lives

and their bedrooms, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Let's look at Slocan. Their combined legislative and

administrative costs were over $12,000 last year and they have

a population of 346 people. I wonder if the Premier has ever

been to Slocan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I have been to Slocan.

MRS. JORDAN: You know how hard these people work, how

difficult it is to find a job, and how completely impossible it

is for those village councilors to generate any more cash off

the backs of their people. The next time you go, will you

remember what your grant to them this year is, based on this

formula we're debating? $750.

Silverton. Their per capita grant is $500. What can you do

with $500 by way of service to people in an area like

Silverton? It practically costs you $500 to get from one house

to another because of the distances. What industry is there

there? What service industries? What tourist attractions? How

are these people going to generate more income for their

village council to provide their recreational facilities and

their garbage? They have to comply with the pollution control

standards.

Let's look at some more of these villages on the Island.

Cumberland. Their combined general and administrative costs are

nearly $34,000; their population is 1,718. They're going to get

$3,600. They have a lot of drainage problems in that area ;

it's a high rainfall area. This is the responsibility of their

village council. What are they going to be able to do?

Gold River. Their general administrative costs are $38,053

and their legislative costs are $4,500. They have a population

of 1,896 people. Their big grant is $3,500. Aren't you

embarrassed, Mr. Speaker? I am; I'm embarrassed for the

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll answer it right now.

MRS. JORDAN: Will you stand up and increase the per capita

grant this year to $5? If you'll stand up and increase it to $5

here and now, I'll sit down.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: It sure is. Thank you, Mr. Member, I appreciate

that help. Stand up, Mr. Minister of Finance, and increase the

per capita grant right now. Will you do it? I'll challenge

you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll suffer. Carry on.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll even leave the chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm trying to make it as tempting as I

can. But I am pleased that the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, is listening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I listen to everything.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope he is listening with not a compassionate

heart, because this isn't a matter of compassion. It's a matter

of clear economics which is the responsibility of this

Minister.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I listen to everything. I'm a

masochist.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, we had better not go into your

personality; we're liable to get into a conflict.

Sayward. Their combined legislative and administrative costs

are over $13,000 and their population is 465. They get $940

based on this formula we're debating.

Tahsis. Their administrative costs are over $46,000 and they

have a small population of 1,351. They get $4,000. Poor old

Zeballos has a combined administrative and legislative cost of

$8,000. What is their per capita grant with their population of

186 people? $520 — from a government that has over a 25 per

cent budgetary list in this year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many people do they have in that

town?

MRS. JORDAN: In the 1971 census they had 186.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And what's 186 times 34?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Minister, I'm debating the bill; I'm not

getting into a personal argument with you.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Hon....

[ Page 1368 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Do you consider $520 on their budget sufficient

to even meet the cost of legislation, Mr. Speaker? No way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Premier

not to make comments from his chair, please, while the Hon.

Member is speaking.

MRS. JORDAN: Unless they're right. This next set of figures

will interest you, Mr. Speaker, because you're from the north.

I'm sorry that their MLA in the Fraser–Fort George area (Mr.

Nunweiler) isn't here fighting for his constituency because

I've had calls from them. I'm sure other Hon. Members have had

calls from them and they're very concerned about the

penny-pinching attitude of this government towards their

needs.

In that village, McBride had legislative expenses of $5,819

and general administrative expenses of $15,086. The grant will

be $1,320 for the Village of McBride.

South Fort George has a great deal of expense in terms of

crowded living and some drainage problems, garbage problems and

pollution problems. Their combined expenses were over $24,000

last year. What is their grant based on 1,282 people?

$2,800.

Mr. Speaker, you can hardly furnish a bathroom in a home for

that price, let alone meet the commitments of a village council

to the pollution control measures by way of sewage disposal in

these areas. Now, what sort of a realistic comparison has the

Minister of Finance been making?

In Valemount they have $1,400 cost in legislative expenses

and $11,598 in general administration. They had 693 people, and

their grant, based on this formula of $2 per capita, is

$1,600.

Mr. Speaker, I'm relating these figures because I think it

is very important that these small areas, which haven't had an

opportunity to jump on the plane and come and try and lobby the

Minister of Finance, have the opportunity to have their story

told in this Legislature. I'm sure you will appreciate the time

I'm taking and why it is so essential.

I'd like to talk about one area in the Okanagan, as an

example, and that's a community in my own riding. Lumby is a

little community of people who have limited industrial

opportunity. They generally only have part-time work, because

it is basically a forest area; they have very limited tourist

opportunities, because it is seasonal and they don't have many

lakes right by; they are limited in the number of service

industries that they can accommodate because of their proximity

to the City of Vernon.

Yet it might interest you, Mr. Speaker, to know that these people have the

largest percentage area in their community for recreation, based on the size

of their community, of any village and any municipality in British Columbia.

Those people have done it and paid for most of it themselves.

They don't have an opportunity to expand or extract any more

money from their taxpayers. Their legislative costs last year

were $2,800 and their general administrative costs were

$18,235. Their population, Mr. Speaker, is 940 people, and what

is their grant? — $1,880, based on this formula.

Yet this village has been ordered by the Pollution Control

Board to go into sanitary landfill. They are ordered by this

government to develop a sewage system, and they want to develop

some recreational programmes. They want to beautify their city.

They want to provide the same amenities that all the rest of

the people have in the other areas.

When you read these figures and take into consideration the

cost of inflation, and you listen to what the Premier says, it

just simply doesn't add up. The Premier is shortchanging these

villages. He's not only shortchanging them, he's absolutely, as

one Member said, drowning them. And while he's drowning them,

and while their heads are under water, his head is in the

clouds. There is just no way that these villages can keep pace

with the costs that they are facing now, apart from the

inflation for the rest of the year, on this per capita

grant.

The Premier knows full well that in some of the

municipalities he has forced what some people call shotgun

marriages. They are illogical relationships, because you have

farm communities within these forced marriages. What's happened

to these people who were forced into the city limits of the

big, new City of Kelowna, for example? Their assessments have

all gone up, Mr. Speaker.

British Columbia is one of the highest cost-of-production

areas for food in Canada. Our agricultural people are having a

desperate time because of the inflationary factors over the

last few months, let alone the problems they faced before. Now

on top of this, while the Premier and Minister of Finance is

running around the province saying, "Oh, we'll save

agriculture," he's taxing them out of existence. One

farm a day, and all the Minister can offer them is a breakdown

in negotiations and a tax deferment policy.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this $2 per capita grant, the great gift

from this over-inflated budget that the Minister of Finance is

piloting through this House at this time, is not only, through

his policies, putting the farmers out of business, but it has,

as everyone has said, forced municipalities to increase their

avenues of revenue.

This has a direct effect on families, but it has an even

more direct and disastrous effect on single people. I speak

particularly of widows and single parents who often have the

problem of estate taxes, which should be removed between

husband and wife. They have to pay those, they are faced with

the

[ Page 1369 ]

problem of inflation in their everyday purchasing, and they

are being forced out of their homes by taxation through the

inflationary demands and many avenues which have been forced on

them by this government over and above what is happening in

Canada, and now this type of measly, piddly little capital

grant which doesn't even equate itself with inflation.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance,

who is a social worker, would be very concerned about these

people in our society. What about the widows? What about the

widows who, through your policy of double taxation, are now

being forced out of their homes by municipal taxation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member return

to the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier can't

ride on his over 25 per cent inflated budget, the revenues of

which came 80 per cent off the backs of the working people of

this province, and then turn around and give the municipalities

a sum that is far below inflationary factors, and then say to

them that they must look to new avenues to raise funds. With

the state of inflation and the state of income tax, there is no

way that the people of British Columbia at this time can afford

to pay any more taxes.

I would like to leave that thought with the Minister of

Finance. There is no way that you can tax the average person of

this province any more than you have done in your current

budget, which is, in fact, hitting them with the worst tax of

all — the tax of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, in summing up I would like to state very

clearly that from the start of this debate our party has said

that the per capita grant is no longer a modern tool to solve

the problems of municipal financing. In the present Act the $2

crumb is not even, in our opinion, responsive in the least to

the following facts: the 10 per cent plus inflation which is in

British Columbia today; the 28 per cent increase in the

provincial budget which is in British Columbia today; and the

26 per cent plus increase projected in the provincial revenues

at this time.

We say emphatically that there must be a new look, Mr.

Speaker, at the type of financing for municipalities. Our party

has, throughout this debate and during the budget debate and at

all other opportunities inside and out of this House, after

much study called for (1) fall budgeting sessions with the

Minister of Finance and the provincial government with all

local governments, and (2) a firm formula of revenue-sharing

from the growth of the revenues of the province with the

municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, we will not vote against this bill in principle during second

reading, because we do not want to be a part of any move which will not increase

municipal revenues at this time. We say that it is small — it is too small.

We say it is an embarrassment to this Minister of Finance, as he sits on his

fat gold chips. It is just a small part of what it should be.

However, Mr. Speaker, we wish to advise you that we will

offer amendments in committee so that the people who struggle

now with the municipal revenue problems will understand that

there is, in fact, in British Columbia a better way to go in

this finance thing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm sure that the subject was

gone into yesterday, and I've listened this afternoon and I'll

try not to be repetitive. But I do feel that I must make some

remarks, although I've read Hansard and my colleague

from Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has certainly made

our position very plain yesterday.

I must say it is nice to be back in sunny B.C. after a

couple of days in the blizzards of Ottawa. Two days of it and

you have a cold.

MRS. JORDAN: It's all that streaking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Take two aspirins and call the Provincial

Secretary. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, I'll try to be brief. I think we all

acknowledge that we're certainly living in an urbanized society

where more and more people are crowding into municipalities.

While this in itself is undesirable, we could look at the

concept of perhaps creating new towns as they've done in the

United Kingdom to try and minimize the urbanization and the

proliferation of ever-increasing municipalities and cities. It

appears that we're not on that track in British Columbia and

therefore we have to deal with the situation as best we can. We

are living in that kind of urbanized era and I think we should

be very sensitive to the fact that some of these areas are

growing extremely rapidly and that they require basic municipal

services and have to be able to finance them.

I think the basic underlying feeling that we have in this

party is that more and more money which the municipality raises

or receives in provincial grants is redirected away from these

basic municipal functions.

The increase that we're talking about in the per capita

grant is about 6 per cent. We all know that right off the bat

inflation is increasing at an average of 10 per cent or more.

Surely this kind of taxation should be similar to all taxation.

It should be based on the ability to pay, and the taxpayers in

the municipalities are finding it less and less easy to pay

taxes. I have to speak very clearly for the municipality of Oak

Bay, where we have many senior

[ Page 1370 ]

citizens on fixed incomes who are not in any position to

negotiate any increase in their income other than what is

decided by central governments in the form of old age pension

and so on.

I think I have just to repeat, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Finance, that our criticism of this grant as being too small

is a further specific example of our general criticism of the

whole budget. We felt that this was a government which was

reputedly dedicated to people and the interests particularly of

little people, or people on relatively low or poor incomes. We

just don't feel that this very small $2 increase based on the

$32 per capita grant represents any real demonstration of

serious appreciation of the problems of the little people

financially.

The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) quoted

the Plunkett report yesterday. It's quite clear in the decade

that was studied there that even although the wage-earning

section of society increased by 79 per cent, the property tax

went up by 125 per cent. We just feel very strongly on this

side of the House that particularly elderly people in the

municipalities on a fixed income are not receiving the help

that should be available through a much greater increase in the

per capita grant.

I have to come back to education. We talked about it in the

budget and I have to come back to the fact that we think your

sense of priorities is wrong. With the large surpluses

available and the fact that we have two new forms of taxation —

or at least an increase in existing forms and resource-based

industries — the enormous surplus which this government will

have by the end of the financial year beginning April 1, 1974,

really makes this $2 increase seem really pretty miserable and

cheap.

I don't accept the argument that after we all go home,

school boards are going to come to the Premier, the Minister of

Finance and the Minister of Education and start wheeling and

dealing to try and get more money for education. I think the

whole financing of education should be put on a much more

realistic basis and certainly follow the rules and not have a

certain amount of the information presented at budget time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I'd ask the Hon. Member to

return to the principle of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: I'm on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that the municipalities have no control over the

cost of education. It goes up and up and up. The only way they

can get back is to get either increase in the tax to the

taxpayer or appeal for an increased per capita grant. That's

the only income the municipality gets. I'm very much on the

bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you're not.

MR. WALLACE: Or, as the Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis) says, they redirect the money they do get away

from the basic municipal purposes for which municipalities

exist — provision of water services and sewers and street

lights and so on. I would say that you cannot sensibly talk

about this bill unless you talk about the costs of

education.

I have the provisional budget for District 61, Greater

Victoria District, and I presume it will not be approved as it

was received. The Minister had said on the provisional budgets

that they had to be reduced. In District 61 we are looking at

something of the order of 25 per cent in the figures that I see

for the budget. I presume it will be less than that, but it's a

great deal more than the miserable 6 per cent that's going to

be provided in this grant.

Now, I acknowledge also that moves are being made which

somewhat reduce the financial impact on the municipalities. The

first step has been made with the $30 to $40 grant this year. I

don't mean that the only help the municipalities are getting is

the 6 per cent, $2 per capita increase. Nevertheless, all this

whole area — in particular education — is beyond the control of

the municipalities. I think that this kind of treatment of a

miserable $2 reflec