British Columbia Hansard — Monday, April 2, 1973 — Afternoon Sitting (30th Parliament, 2nd Session)
30p 02s 730402p
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1973
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page
2003 ]
CONTENTS
Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings
An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act (Bill
No. 159).
Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003
An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill No.
162).
Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 2003
An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act (Bill No. 161).
Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction
and first reading — 2003
An Act to Amend the College Pension Act (Bill No. 160).
Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction
and first reading — 2003
Development Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No.
102).
Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 2003
Statement Agreement between Province of British Columbia and British Columbia
Cellulose Limited.
Hon. Mr. Williams — 2004
Mr. Smith — 2004
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2005
Mr. Wallace — 2005
Routine proceedings
Oral Questions
Participation of Ventures West Capital in
Ocean Falls operation.
Mr. Phillips — 2005
Bridge link between Saltspring and Vancouver Islands.
Mr. Curtis —
Mincome questionnaires.
Mr. Williams — 2006
Discussions between Hon. Mr. Williams and federal officials re dyking and wetlands.
Mr. McClelland — 2006
Policy on telephone companies and cablevision.
Mr. D. A. Anderson —
Importation of turkey hatching eggs.
Mr. Wallace — 2007
Police confiscation of classical works from bookstands.
Mr.
Williams
Committee of supply: Department of Municipal Affairs
Hon. Mr. Lorimer —
Mr. Fraser — 2007
Mr. McClelland — 2012
Mr. Curtis — 2013
Mrs. Jordan — 2013
Mr. Williams — 2018
Mr. Chabot — 2019
Mr. Smith — 2020
Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2021
Division on Minister's salary — 2023
Mr. Brousson — 2023
Estimates.
Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2028
Mr. Lauk — 2028
Mr. Curtis — 2030
Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2032
Mr. McClelland — 2034
Mr. Wallace — 2036
Mr. Fraser — 2036
Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2037
Mr. Williams — 2037
Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2039
Mr. McGeer — 2039
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.
MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure
to introduce to the House 20 good people from the riding of Vancouver Centre
— community workers from that area. Their leader this afternoon is Ms. Pat Colford.
Could you welcome them here today?
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.
HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, we
have in the galleries today a group of students from the
Chemanus High School and I would ask the House to welcome
them.
Introduction of bills.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary.
HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present a message from His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE CIVIL SERVICE
SUPERANNUATION ACT
MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits
herewith a bill intituled
An Act to Amend the Civil Service
Superannuation Act and recommends the same to the
Legislative Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.
Bill No. 159 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be
placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
second message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL
SUPERANNUATION ACT
MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits
herewith a bill intituled
An Act to Amend the Municipal
Superannuation Act and recommends the same to the Legislative
Assembly, Government House, March 30, 1973.
Bill No. 162 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders
of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
third message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
TEACHERS' PENSION ACT
MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits
herewith a bill intituled
An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension
Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,
Government House, March 30, 1973.
Bill No. 161 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be
placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next
sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a
fourth message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
AN ACT TO AMEND
THE COLLEGE PENSION ACT
MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits
herewith a bill intituled
An Act to Amend the College Pension
Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,
Government House, March 30, 1973.
Bill No. 160 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.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present a message from His Honour the
Lieutenant-Governor.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
MR., SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith amendments to Bill No. 102 intituled Development
Corporation of British Columbia Act enclosed herewith and
recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government
House, March 30, 1973.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that
the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be
referred to the Committee of the House having in charge the
said bill.
[ Page 2004 ]
Leave granted.
HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said
message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to
the Committee of the House having in charge the said bill.
Motion approved.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water
Resources.
HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):
Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to read a statement of urgent public importance.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce
that at 1:15 p.m. today an agreement was signed between
representatives of the British Columbia Government, the
Celanese Corporation, Columbia Cellulose Company Limited,
Columbia Pulp Sales Limited, Canadian Cellulose Company Limited
and Celgar Limited. The agreement, which is between British
Columbia Cellulose Limited, a proposed Crown corporation, and
the above companies, will give the province of British Columbia
a 79 per cent interest in Canadian Cellulose Company Limited,
the principle operating subsidiary of Columbia Cellulose.
Under the agreement, Mr. Speaker, the Province of British
Columbia is paying nothing for a 79 per cent interest in an
industrial complex with assets having a replacement value in
excess of $200 million. The remaining 21 per cent common shares
of Canadian Cellulose would be distributed to Columbia
Cellulose's more than 8,000 public shareholders. Thus, under
this agreement, the powerless minority within the present
corporation structure of these companies would be assured of
their position in relation to the assets of the company.
AN HON. MEMBER: Something new indeed.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This action by the Government ensures the
position of the minority shareholders which would have been in
jeopardy had the proposed sale of the southern operations gone
ahead. If, for example, the company's Castlegar operation,
Celgar, had been sold to Weyerhaeuser Canada Limited last
August, these shareholders would not have been able to recover
any of their original investment which was some $25
million.
Under the agreement, the preferred shareholders will receive $1.80 per share
and accrued dividend arrearages and will receive two common shares of Canadian
Cellulose for one preferred share of Columbia Cellulose. The estimated cost
of this $1,488,600 dividend payment will be born by Celanese, the parent company.
The terms of the agreement do not provide any payment to be
made, either to Celanese or Columbia Cellulose. However, the
government will assume the guarantee obligations with respect
to the first mortgage bonds of Canadian Cellulose and the bank
debt of certain other subsidiaries. This long-term debt is
listed at $78 million.
Under the terms of the agreement, Celanese will release
Canadian Cellulose from it's $73 million to the parent company,
Celanese, which will improve the overall financial position of
the company considerably.
Some of the benefits accruing to the government immediately
are the repatriation of 9.1 million acres of land in tree farm
licensed areas. Mr. Speaker, that is the repatriation of a land
area equal to 1½ times the State of Switzerland.
The firm employs 3,000 people in its mill and logging
operations. An additional 600 people work for logging
contractors dealing with Colcel. This move on the part of the
Government ensures that the jobs of these people will be
maintained, including the 500 employees of the sulphite mill at
Prince Rupert.
It is with some pride, Mr. Speaker, that I report this to
this House. The province has had an excellent negotiating team,
who have experienced good cooperation from both Celanese and
Colcel officials. The Government sees this agreement as only
one step in a series of interrelated programmes that will
ensure a great economic future for northern British
Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask leave of the House to leave
with the House signed copies of the agreement.
AN HON. MEMBER: Have you some extra copies?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have only this copy of the agreement.
The statement to the House will be made available
forthwith.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've listened with interest to the statement of the Minister
of Lands, Forests and Water Resources this afternoon.
Certainly, we will want to look very closely at the agreement
between the Province of British Columbia and the Columbia
Cellulose Corporation.
In first respect, it would seem that we now
[ Page 2005 ]
collectively in the Province of British Columbia have 79 per
cent of a corporation which, by any test or standard you wish
to use, has been an unprofitable corporation for many years. It
has lost money on every operation but the one in the Castlegar
area.
At this time, I think that we will reserve our opinion as to
just whether this was a good deal for the people of British
Columbia, not only in terms of the jobs that are there but also
in terms of the commitment of long-term capital that may and
will be required to bail out a financially inept company. Let
nobody in this province be deceived, Mr. Speaker. The money
that is going to be used to bail out a financially unsuccessful
operation belongs to everyone in this province. As trustees and
stewards for that money, be careful how you use the assets and
facilities of the province.
See that what you do, in effect, will be profitable in the
long run to the people of British Columbia. Don't just put us
into a situation where we will be paying off forever for a
defunct corporation.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria. I hope
each Member will try not to get into a too controversial debate
on the issue. It's merely to state the position, if you wish to
do so.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thanks, Mr. Speaker. First,
I'd like to thank the Minister for making this announcement in
the House, a practice which we do appreciate on the Opposition
side.
Second, I'd like to congratulate him. The last time he
announced a deal, it cost $1 million. Apparently, this time it
cost nothing at all. But looked at a little closer, there are
other costs which he didn't specify.
At this time, we would simply like to point out that there
are many questions left unanswered, which undoubtedly the
Minister will want to comment upon later — for example, the
expectations of cost. Perhaps the expectations of losses are
more appropriate in this case. We'd like to know what there is
in the way of road and railroad construction that will be
required to turn this from a non-profitable to a profitable
operation. This type of thing is something which we think is
particularly important. We'd like to know something more about
the mortgages — the $78 million which came out later on in the
Minister's statement as possibly being a fairly major charge to
the taxpayers of the province. Minister, we'd simply like to
thank him for his courtesy in bringing it before the House.
Also we wish to state that in a thing as complex as this, we'd
like to have a full scale debate in the House at some later
date, when we've had a chance to examine the documents.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's too complicated a problem
to comment on with sudden brief information. I would like to back up the suggestion
of the former speaker that arrangements be made for a full scale debate.
It's obvious that we're dealing with very large sums of
money. We're dealing with a company which has, I think, lost
large sums of money six out of the last seven years. The public
of British Columbia must indeed be somewhat concerned to think
that the Government is apparently repetitively going into
ventures which have a proven record of losing money.
Since this is the taxpayers' money that is going into these
ventures, as of the start of this Government, I think it only
proper that some attempt be made in this House to have a full
scale debate before this session is over.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water
Resources.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would just advise the House, Mr.
Speaker, that a bill will be before the House with respect to
this agreement.
Oral questions.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.
PARTICIPATION OF VENTURES WEST CAPITAL
IN OCEAN FALLS OPERATION
MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd
like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and
Water Resources. The question is this: are Ventures West
Capital Limited going to become partners in the Ocean Falls
operation?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No discussions have been held with
Ventures West in that regard.
MR. PHILLIPS: By that I take it that they have not been
approached. Would you tell me from where the capital is coming
to operate Ocean Falls Limited after the purchase is made — the
$2 million that will be required to run the operation?
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A bill will be presented in this House
this evening, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the
Islands.
BRIDGE LINK BETWEEN
SALTSPRING AND VANCOUVER ISLANDS
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to
the Minister of Highways: is his
[ Page 2006 ]
department examining, in any detail at all, a possible
bridge link between the western side of Saltspring Island and
Vancouver Island in the vicinity of Crofton?
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The answer is a very definite, precise, incontrovertible
"no".
MR. CURTIS: Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe
Sound.
MINCOME QUESTIONNAIRES
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
a question to the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social
Improvement: I know that this matter has been raised in this
question period before, but Members are receiving continuing
inquiries concerning the questionnaire for Mincome. May I ask
the Minister to what extent the distribution of the
questionnaire has produced replies sufficient for this purpose?
That's question one.
Secondly, can the Minister clearly state that the failure to
answer the questionnaire will not in any way interfere with a
recipient's right to continued Mincome assistance?
HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.
Speaker, I don't think I have very much more to add, other than that we've now
had almost 70,000 of these applications back. As I said the other day, we'll
wait to see what happens. It's going to take us about two to three months to
assess the information.
I'm not prepared at this time to say, what will happen about
people who do not send them back. I'm just hoping that we'll
get the cooperation which we're getting up to now. In two
weeks we've had 70,000 back. I gave each Member a copy of the
Press release which explains, in some detail, why we need to do
this. I'm quite prepared to wait and assist people if they need
some assistance in terms of answering those questions.
Certainly, the amount we've got back indicates that
three-quarters of the senior citizens of this province
understand what we're asking and they're sending it back.
MR. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker: is the purpose
of the questionnaire such that 100 per cent inquiry will be
required before the arrangements between the provincial
government and the federal government can be concluded?
HON. MR. LEVI: When I was down there in February, we asked the federal
government if they would agree to our doing a 10 per
cent example. Their reply was a categorical, "No, you have to means test 110,000
people." We're complying with this.
I must say that I thought they might have come back and
said, "Test half of them." But they didn't; they insisted that
we test everybody. We are subject to their legislation. We have
to do it.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.
DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN HON. MR. WILLIAMS
AND FEDERAL OFFICIALS RE DYKING AND
WETLANDS
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to
the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: would the
Minister be prepared to give the House any information about
his meeting with federal officials on Saturday? I'm
particularly concerned with the discussions concerning the Mud
Bay and Surrey dyking districts and the possibility of the
wetlands problem in that area.
HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might say that it was agreed with the
Hon. Minister of the Environment that another meeting on that
particular problem should take place within the next two weeks.
I hope we can settle the question at that time.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.
POLICY ON TELEPHONE COMPANIES
AND CABLEVISION
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister
of Public Works: may I ask him first whether his recent
statement concerning telephone companies and cablevision is a
definitive statement, or whether we can expect another policy
statement in this House in the near future?
HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): There will be
another policy statement later, not necessarily in the
House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask then, Mr. Speaker, what in the
mind of the Minister constitutes excess profits in operations
of this nature? These were words used in the statement which I
find difficulty in interpreting.
HON. MR. HARTLEY: Of course, a statement of that nature is
always comparative. I think we compare profits with
investment.
[ Page 2007 ]
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.
IMPORTATION OF
TURKEY HATCHING EGGS
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the
Minister of Agriculture regarding the situation of turkey
hatcheries in the province? I understand that we're back on the
old problem of imports. I've been contacted today to ask why,
when we have 36,000 surplus turkey hatching eggs on March 22,
we've imported another 30,000 from the United States.
HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,
I'll have to take that as notice.
MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe
Sound.
POLICE CONFISCATION OF
CLASSICAL WORKS FROM BOOKSTANDS
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I've a question for the Hon.
Attorney General: would the Attorney General indicate whether
his department is making any investigations into the actions of
the Victoria police in removing from the bookstands certain
copies of classical works which had been available for sale in
this province? It seems to me that the works of Miss or Ms. or
maybe it's Madam Hollander have been removed, and this action
seems to follow upon the actions taken in the City of Toronto.
Is this to be allowed to continue?
HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll have to make enquiries. I don't
know anything about the action. I don't know anything about
steps that have been taken in the City of Victoria in that
respect. I'll make enquiries.
Orders of the day.
House in committee of supply; Ms. Young in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
On vote 176: Minister's office, $67,700.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.
AN HON. MEMBER: You don't want the money, eh?
(Laughter).
HON. MR. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Ms. Chairman,
I anticipate the two questions that might be asked,
so I thought I'd answer them ahead of time. (Laughter).
I would like to make two brief announcements before we get
on with the show. I would like to state that at the present
time under the Trustee Act , loans or mortgages are limited to
75 per cent of the assessed values. By regulation, this will be
changed so that 75 per cent limitation will be removed. Now
this gives certainly limited advantages to people buying a home
in that, at the present time on their 75 per cent limitation,
they frequently have to go into second mortgages for financing
the balances at a substantially increased interest rate. It may
be a small measure, but I think it will help a certain number
of people in the purchase of their homes.
The second matter I would like to bring up is regarding the
increased grants to regional districts, as shows up in the
estimates. The increase on the administrative grant to each
regional district will be increased from $5,000 per district to
$7,000, which is an increase of 40 per cent. The environmental
management grant will be increased from 15 cents per capita to
20 cents per capita, an increase of a third.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.
MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
first of all would like to say to the Minister on his recent
announcement that that is some help to the regional districts.
It's certainly not enough, but it's going along in the right
direction.
In the Province of British Columbia we have at the present
time 144 municipalities, give or take one or two. They break
down as follows: 31 cities; 39 districts; 14 towns; 60
villages. Over and above that we have the 28 regional
districts, so we have 170-odd different jurisdictions in the
province. In these jurisdictions there's 1,000-odd local people
elected at the local level to look after the affairs of the
citizens in the municipalities, as well as in the rural areas
under the regional districts. I would like to say for them that
the majority of these people are very dedicated citizens and do
an excellent job on behalf of their individual communities or
regional districts. They are the grassroot representatives and
certainly deserve all the support that can be given them by the
province, because they do operate under the Municipal Act and
they are guided by that Act.
I have had some experience in that line — I served 20
consecutive years on one of the councils in this province.
Certainly it is the grassroot level and you get a lot of hard
knocks there, but my experience was that you certainly found
out all the facts and it's a great experience.
I said there were 144 different jurisdictions,
municipal-wise, in the province. All of these are under the
Municipal Act except one, and I refer to the wonderful City of
Vancouver, the largest city in the
[ Page 2008 ]
Province of British Columbia. They have operated since 1886
under the Vancouver Charter, which was given them by this
Legislature.
I think, Madam Chairman, to the Minister, that the time has
come when we should take a look and see why they should have a
separate charter and why they shouldn't be brought under the
Municipal Act. I think that at the time that this was granted
there was good reason to grant this to them, but I feel the
reasons for them operating separately now have vanished, the
reason being that the Municipal Act has been completely
upgraded through the years and now pretty well gives the same
privileges as the Vancouver Charter.
In some cases it even gives more jurisdictional privileges.
I think that this Legislature should consider eliminating the
Vancouver Charter and bringing it under the Municipal Act . Then
we would have one Act covering all the municipalities in this
province.
I said that we have, in most cases, good councils and I
think they've had good and bad in the City of Vancouver. But I
think it would be of great assistance to the citizens of
Vancouver if their elected officials had to operate under the
same Act as the rest of the municipalities in this province. I
think it would broaden their scope immensely. I have never
thought that the past councils of the City of Vancouver were
broad enough. They didn't understand the overall problems, and
I blame it on the fact that they operated under the Vancouver
Charter and didn't need to concern themselves with the problems
of other municipalities.
The other thing is that they are continually appealing here
to this Legislature through the private bills committee for
amendments to their charter. It has to be handled this way in
the procedure we have in this House. But if they were under the
Municipal Act this would again eliminate this procedure, and
they would no doubt get what they wanted through going through
the amendments to the Municipal Act .
Madam Chairman, I don't think any municipality should have
special privileges, if they have them — as I say, I doubt that
they have. The Minister's large area of Burnaby operates under
the Municipal Act. The capital city that we're in, Victoria, is
under the Municipal Act . I can't see why Vancouver any longer
has to have a separate charter.
I would just like to comment for a moment. I know there's
been a criticism about regionalization of the province. It is
dying down, but I would like to remind the House, Madam
Chairman, that this Legislature brought in the regional
districts of British Columbia in 1965, carving the province up
into 28 regional districts.
I would remind the critics that I have heard from the Government side, particularly
out in the hustings, that that vote passed here 55 to nothing. So I would say
that there was unanimity there and I was very surprised to hear that a statement
was made that this was thrust on the Province of British Columbia by the then
government. It was certainly dealt with in this Legislature and voted on in
a very democratic function.
I would like to review a few of the problems I see of the
municipalities in British Columbia. One of their great problems
is their financial situation. They are in good financial shape,
but their sources of revenue are far too limited for the amount
of duties that they have to perform. I think that we have to
look at getting them a better base of financing, sources of
funds.
I would just mention one item, Madam Chairman; I don't think
that they should be picking up 15 per cent of welfare costs. I
don't think municipalities were ever meant to help finance this
kind of service. I hope that. later on I will be talking under
the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement about
this. I think that we municipal people who are interested in
the municipalities should see that this is reduced and
eventually eliminated.
They have plenty of problems in the municipalities as it is
without having to worry about what are basically senior
government's problems, and by that I refer to the provincial
and federal governments. As you well know, the welfare costs
are quite heavy. On these smaller municipalities, towns and
small cities, in some cases it is 20 per cent; it takes 20 per
cent of their general mill rate to just look after the cost of
welfare.
I would also say, Madam Chairman, that this year the budget
is out and we know what the per capita grants are. There was
not a great advance in assistance for the municipalities under
the per capita grants….
MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, that is under a piece of
legislation on the order paper,
An Act to Amend the
Municipalities Act. Therefore I believe it is out of order to
discuss it at this time.
MR. FRASER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just referred to it
as a source of revenue that certainly should be higher than it
is. I feel that what is happening now in municipalities, Madam
Chairman, this year because of their inadequacies — of course
they are affected by inflation, and so on — but it appears that
this year taxes generally throughout the province in all the
municipalities are going to advance at least 10 per cent.
Even with inflation this is a pretty heavy bite on the
individual homeowner or business, whatever the case may be. The
financial squeeze they are in is just getting that much more
difficult. I'm afraid that we have to set up committees or
something to study how we are going to get permanent relief for
the
[ Page 2009 ]
municipalities or there are going to be a lot of
difficulties.
Madam Chairman, as the Minister said today when we started
here that there would be several things on the show, I would
now like to deal with the subject of boundary extensions and
amalgamations. I would like to say that they're a real problem
and they still remain a real problem. I refer to the general
boundary extension amalgamations throughout the province.
Under the present situation boundary extension can only be
made by a vote requiring a 60 per cent majority of the citizens
in the annexed area to agree to it. I don't think that there is
too much wrong with that, but I am very critical of some
municipalities. They decide that they want their boundaries
extended and they run a legal ad that the Department of
Municipal Affairs writes out for them, and they sit back and
don't do anything to sell this boundary extension.
Certainly it's going to increase the taxes of the people
affected, but I really don't think that these people, Madam
Chairman, where the boundary extension took place, or was
proposed to take place, are that concerned about their taxes
increasing if the municipal councils involved would get off
their butts and explain to these people what they are going to
get for their money. In a lot of cases this doesn't happen and
of course the boundary extension vote goes down in flames and
is defeated. So the fringe area development continues without
too much supervision, although I might say that in the last two
or three years the regional districts, the greater part of
them, are getting hold of the situation and bringing some sort
of controls over the fringe areas. But it isn't enough.
I think when we get to a density — I'm referring to the
immediate fringe area — I think criteria should be laid down
that when these fringe areas get to a certain density of
population that a vote be taken and then they be brought into
the adjoining municipality.
On amalgamations: this is a far different situation than
boundary expansion, and I refer to amalgamations of two or more
municipalities. When this happens, the present Municipal Act ,
Madam Chairman, provides that where three or more
municipalities are to go into an amalgamation, an overall vote
is to be taken and a 50 per cent majority is acceptable.
In other words, the Act was amended a few years ago, two or
three years ago, to allow this and I can't see anything wrong
with this approach at all.
I might say that I am certainly very much opposed to the forced amalgamations
that have come up, Madam Chairman, in the community of Kamloops and Carlysle
with these provisions in the Act for amalgamation. I can't see a necessity for
it and why these people can't be given their just vote on the subject. Again,
the municipalities concerned should get out and sell
what they have to offer.
In dealing with the community of Kamloops, Madam Chairman:
they had an amalgamation there on a vote situation only about
five years ago, when the town of North Kamloops was absorbed by
the City of Kamloops. At that time the City of Kamloops advised
North Kamloops that their taxes would certainly stay where they
were. Well, they have gone way up and this, of course, is the
concern in that area. They have, in other words, a factual
background to go by and that's why they are concerned up there
at the present time.
When we're talking about amalgamations and so on, I'm not
one of those that believes that four municipalities
amalgamating to become one large area is necessarily a good
thing. It might look efficient, but believe me you sure get one
big bureaucracy when you attempt these things.
I think there are other ways rather than by forced
amalgamation. In other words, work out arrangements for sewer
and water and so on. But I also firmly believe, on forced
amalgamations of any community — whether it be with a rural
fringe area or all municipalities — that you will have a bad
feeling in the administration for years where this takes place.
This bad feeling, of course, will continue with the new, larger
concept and certainly to the detriment of the citizens and the
community at large. I can't see that this is going to solve
anything unless these people vote, which they are entitled to
do.
After all, they are the citizens who are paying the bill and
I can't see why the provincial government or the municipalities
involved are so afraid of a vote.
I refer particularly to Kelowna. I would say in that case
there — I know that I can't discuss too much about Kamloops,
but I certainly can about Kelowna — and those people there are
very upset. They have approached the Minister and given him a
brief and asked a lot of questions and, as I understand it, are
still waiting for answers.
In the meantime, Madam Chairman, the Minister has not
answered these things but he is trying to rush them into forced
amalgamation with their rural areas. For the life of me I can't
understand why all the rush. I don't think things are all that
bad in Kamloops or Kelowna that another six months or so to
analyse these problems and get some of these answers isn't
going to be to the benefit of the provincial government and,
more important, the citizens of that area.
I have a copy of the brief here from a few things that they
want to know, and certainly they are logical questions. Why the
Minister hasn't answered them I don't know, but no doubt he'll
tell us. When you are going into something like this surely the
government should be able to answer some of these concerns
before…they want to know what is going to happen in the
future with highways.
[ Page 2010 ]
They have asked you on that — and I understand you have not
replied. They want the provincial government to pay for
maintenance of all roads, streets, bridges, culverts, drainage,
signing, control of access permits and all other duties
currently carried out by — the Department of Highways over a
period of five years.
After five years the new city will assume financial
responsibility to a maximum cost of 5 mills, any excess cost to
be shared 20 per cent by the new city and 80 per cent by the
provincial government. The provincial government is to pay for
the cost of comprehensive community plan and base maps, the
cost of which is estimated at approximately $150,000.
The provincial government is to construct all roads in the
city in accordance with the provincial government grid road
plan as prepared by the Department of Highways during the 1971
- 1972 year.
I think this one is the worst one of all, as they want to
know about the cost of policing the new large area. This is
what their brief says on policing:
"The staff sergeant in charge of the Kelowna detachment of
the RCMP has advised the incorporation advisory committee that
the detachment will have to be increased substantially to
provide adequate police service to the new city area. The
national average is one member of the police to 650 residents.
It is estimated that the population, based on recent
statistics, of the new city will be approximately 40,000
people. The incorporation advisory committee is advised that a
total staff of 60 RCMP were required in the detachment. It is
therefore the consensus of the committee that the provincial
government should be responsible for all police costs within
the new municipality from the date of incorporation.
"As an alternative, it is suggested that the provincial
government provide and pay for an annual grant to the new city
towards the cost of policing in the amount of $1 million."
These are questions, Madam Chairman, that these people would
like answered before they are forced into this situation the
Government is proposing for them now.
I might say for the benefit of the House, Madam Chairman,
that it is only cities that in our Province of British Columbia
pay towards the cost of policing. In a town or a village or a
rural area the charge is picked up entirely by the province.
Here we have a rural area being forced upon a municipality —
and I am talking policewise and justice — and of course there
is no revenue to offset it. They are going to have to pick up
the added cost by the taxpayers of the new area.
These are small things that are very important to these
people, and to go back, Madam Chairman, I can't understand why
the Minister is in such a hurry.
It might be, as some have said, that these things should
have been done long ago. But it wasn't the wish of those people
to have it done. I believe they should be able to, under the
Municipal Act , look after their own destiny. It might be well
and good for big government in Victoria to say we know what is
best for you, but it is not very palatable at the local
level.
If things are so good or they are so desperate, I still go
back to the question: why can't they vote on it, the local
people that are affected!
I would like to remind the House, Madam Chairman, that this
has been a subject of a lot of discussion in this Legislature.
I refer to the problems of boundary extension and amalgamations
all over this province. It further surprises me that this
Minister was a member of the municipal matters committee for
the last three years, as well as I was, and we have talked with
the Union of B.C. Municipalities about this problem. We have
received their briefs and we definitely were studying the
problem, trying to come up with an answer. The Minister was
well aware of their opinions on it and nowhere, in any of the
advice we got from this responsible body, did they ever suggest
that we have a forced boundary extension, or amalgamation take
place.
I also cannot understand where the present Minister was when
he lets other government departments issue directives to
municipalities. I think any directives to all municipal
councils should come from the municipal office. I refer to the
current land freeze that is in existence in this province. Who
do they get a directive from, Madam Chairman, about the land
freeze and how to handle it? They got their directive from the
Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). Every municipal
council and every regional district in this province got their
directive on how to handle that. Maybe this is all right, but I
don't agree with this at all.
They want their direction from the Department of Municipal
Affairs and not from the Department of Agriculture or any other
department of government. I cannot understand why this
directive — certainly it was needed, badly needed — but it
should have been channeled through the Minister of Municipal
Affairs or his department officials. I can assure you the
people out there in the municipal councils don't know what is
going on when they get bulletins from different government
departments on things that have a very vital effect on their
departments.
You can see that I am not very happy with the performance of
the present Minister and his performance since he has been
Minister — six months or so. Based on his performance as
Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am afraid I will have to give
him a new title; I think he should be called the Minister of
"Shot-gun Marriages," in view of what he has directed
and done in the last while.
[ Page 2011 ]
I would now like to go into a few more things this Minister
has done with his different jurisdictions and remind you, Madam
Chairman, that this is the Minister that ordered 90 buses for
the B.C. transit authority with no tender call whatsoever.
The tender call system has been in effect in this province
for 20-odd years and I think it worked effectively and
efficiently. To say that he couldn't get the buses in time if
he had gone through all the red tape of tender call, I can't
buy. This little effort, according to a very well established
bus manufacturer, has cost the Province of British Columbia
half-a-million dollars. Wells Wayne and Company was a well
known company to me when I used to be in this business. They
are a reputable manufacturer in Canada, and they said they
could deliver the buses at $5,000 or less per bus than the
company this Government awarded the tender to.
It seems that this Government avoided the tender call in
this case so they could get their friends in Manitoba from
sinking right out of sight with their deficit in their bus
programme there. I believe Western Flyer is the name of the
company.
Really, to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia
half-a-million dollars unnecessarily…I think the Minister
deserves a real rebuke for that.
The other item I'll just mention briefly is on low-cost
housing. I'll never understand — I guess I'm pretty stupid,
Madam Chairman, I'll admit to that — I'll never understand how
you can pay $82,000 an acre for land bank land and then say it
is for low-cost housing. Believe me, $82,000 an acre is
certainly ridiculous.
In the short six months that this gentleman has been
Minister it is hard to believe what has taken place. While
other Ministers of the Crown haven't really done anything,
anything this Minister has done is all bad. The Minister of
Municipal Affairs in both his capacity as Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Minister of Commercial Transport has failed
miserably, even after a first review of his department, in
taking into consideration the normal courtesies extended to a
new Minister.
He is guilty of bringing into British Columbia on a massive
scale the practice of awarding contracts without tenders
called. This practice which, amongst other things, finally
ruined the coalition government and which, after Social Credit
came to power, was abolished — we thought for ever. Now, in
handling financial deals with Crown-owned corporations in
Manitoba, we find the Minister indulging in this long ago
discredited practice.
Whatever his reasons, among which is the idea no one else could deliver buses
on time, one can find no single reason for condoning this practice at all, His
handling of the transit situation in Vancouver is completely irresponsible.
Not only has he offered the Greater Vancouver Regional District much less than
was proposed by the previous government, he has methodically set out
to add to the taxation burden on the property owner in the Greater Vancouver
Regional district.
If one takes a 2 mill levy in the Greater Vancouver Regional
District, the Minister is asking that regional district to
provide each and every year for rapid transit over $6 million
to the taxpayer. The previous government not only had an
operating sharing formula but a capital sharing formula which
would have given the Greater Vancouver Regional District the
best region transit subsidy anywhere in Canada.
How can we expect, Madam Chairman, the recommendations that
the Minister made to cabinet which would permit such an
arrangement be placed before the Greater Vancouver Regional
District, when one considers what they said in the election
about greater aid to municipalities, and specifically far more
provincial input by the province into rapid transit. The $6
million that the property tax alone would generate would be far
greater than the current deficit.
I would remind you, Madam Chairman, that when the NDP
campaigned last year they said "better deal for the cities."
How can they justify this promise now in light of what has
actually taken place, with taxes rising on the individual
homeowner, costs increasing to municipalities and now not even
a decent deal that the greater Vancouver area had for the very
urgent need for help in rapid transit?
As Minister of Commercial Transport, the Minister has been
party to the snow job perpetrated by the Premier in going to
Washington with the prospects of thousands of cars transporting
crude oil from Alaska and still he admitted in the House that
he had no recommendations to offer the Government what they
could carry on the way back.
The Minister is a lawyer, and yet he acted completely
illegally in ordering amalgamation of the Kamloops area and the
Kelowna area and has been unable, since in this House, to offer
any democratic procedures for resolving the issue. Surely,
Madam Chairman, legislation is put on the books of this
province for Ministers to follow. That's what their oath of
office is all about.
Madam Chairman, at this point I am quite incensed about a
remark the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) made in reply
to me through a talk that I made about this forced amalgamation
of Kamloops and Kelowna. He said at that time that. I was
inciting civil disobedience in this province. I want to tell
you since then this matter has gone to court and I would wonder
who is inciting civil disobedience. What I said in this House
has now been vindicated by the Supreme Court of British
Columbia.
If they need legislation to carry out their policy, they
should come back to the Legislature in the normal way and get
it. The high-riding tactics of the
[ Page 2012 ]
Minister opposite are typical of everything that this
Government has done to date — power-gone-mad in their first few
months in office.
Madam Chairman, this Minister is party to a cabinet which
brought in Bill 42 which completely emasculates the powers of
the municipalities of this province. How the Minister
representing the idea that local government has a part to play
in the decision making process affecting land use in British
Columbia could be party to such a statute is hard to believe.
Maybe I can't refer to Bill 42, but it certainly is
interrelated with local government. Why the Minister didn't get…Obviously he didn't worry about what effect it had, or it
wouldn't have come out in its original draft form the way it
did.
To sit silent while the municipalities and regional
districts in this province are shackled by the formation of a
faceless five-man commission is reason enough to vote no
confidence….
MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member. I am sorry. That piece of
legislation is still on the order papers and therefore it's out
of order to discuss it at this time.
MR. FRASER: Thank you. I was only trying to discuss it in
relation to how it affects local governments, Madam
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I know from having been the president of the
Union of British Columbia Municipalities, our municipal leaders
go elsewhere in Canada. The story we hear outside the province
is far different from the story that some of the Members
opposite and others have created about the myth of the British
Columbia municipalities, that they were driven into the dust by
the former government. Nothing could be further from the truth,
Mr. Chairman. Everywhere across this country the municipalities
of British Columbia were envied. The legislation which they had
was there for all to copy. Regional districts were born in
British Columbia and imported to Ontario. The joint legislative
committee of Ontario in coming to British Columbia, expressed
the view that British Columbia's municipal legislation was
second to none in Canada and they wanted to adopt many of its
measures in Ontario.
The municipal finance authority, that conference right
across North America, was held as a tremendous new direction in
the work of municipal financing. And yet the Minister opposite
has let all this go up in smoke.
HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Who wrote that?
MR. FRASER: Mr. Minister, in view of all the performances of this Minister,
I now move amendment to this motion. It reads as follows: "that
the salary of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, included in vote No.
176, be reduced by $1 thereby decreasing vote No. 176 to $67,699."
I would just say in speaking to this amendment that I have
outlined several reasons why this Minister's salary should be
reduced by $1; that's certainly not a lot to affect his
personal life but it certainly shows our side — that we don't
think he's performed properly. I've outlined the different
reasons where he hasn't performed properly. Thank you.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for
Langley.
MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Madam Chairman, speaking to
the amendment, if we only had to give one instance of
non-responsibility in that department, we could hark back to
the order of buses from Manitoba when we knew and were told
right from the beginning by local people in our own midst that
a company called Wells Wayne could have provided these buses
for up to $5,000 a bus less — even on 30 buses that would have
been a saving of $150,000 to the provincial Treasury.
That company wasn't even allowed the chance to have a look
at specifications. There's a possibility if they had had that
opportunity they may have saved even more than $5,000 a bus.
The people who are agents for that firm in Surrey, British
Columbia have said, though, that just guessing, from looking at
the type of buses that are in operation in other transit
systems and the type of buses that they've provided in places
like Montreal and other areas, the same size buses with air
conditioning, air ride, automatic transmission and the same
kind of engine in them, they could have saved at least
$5,000.
By going to purchasing these buses without any kind of
tender, what we've effectively done in British Columbia is
taken the first step back to patronage government. That in
itself is reason enough for the reduction of this salary.
I would just relate, Madam Chairman, that when these buses
were up for grabs, the local representative of Wells Wayne
Company called the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his report
was that the Minister didn't even answer his telephone call. As
a matter of fact not only was there no tender on these buses,
the Minister was quoted in the newspaper as saying he didn't
want to horse around with tenders. He has said this in the
House before, which surprised all of us I am sure, because we
didn't know that tendering for public business was considered
"horsing around."
General Motors, as a matter of fact, Madam Chairman, didn't
even get a letter. There was such an urgency, I guess, to get
these buses ordered without tender — they received a telephone
call giving them a purchase order, which is an unusual way to
[ Page 2013 ]
provincial government business.
Madam Chairman, the other comment I'd like to make has to do
with rapid transit. Rather than moving ahead it would seem to
me in the matter of rapid transit, particularly in the greater
Vancouver area, we seem to be moving backwards.
For instance, the offer by this government made to the
Greater Vancouver Regional District was a whole lot less than
the government was prepared to pay to the Greater Vancouver
Regional District before — a lower offer than what was made by
the previous government. Certainly the Greater Vancouver
Regional District is up in arms at that offer. In fact their
comment was that they "laughed and laughed" when they heard the
offer from the provincial government. They've unanimously
rejected that suggestion that they share the transit deficits
first of all by placing a 2 mill tax on the property and then
sharing up to 50 per cent in the losses thereafter.
Just briefly, a quote from the Vancouver Regional District
itself, Madam Chairman, in which the district directors say
they were adamant that transit losses should not be financed by
a property tax. We can't help but go along with that, because
we're paying enough out of property taxes now that we can't
afford. The directors endorsed a motion that the GVRD
transportation committee continue talks with the government,
discussing other possible sources of revenue for financing
losses, but specifically excluding the property tax.
The formula, as I've mentioned, Madam Chairman, calls for
the GVRD to share 50-50 with the government all transit deficits. It was suggested that this
could be accomplished through a 2 mill levy on property. The
proposal is financially worse than that agreed to by the
previous provincial government which had agreed to pick up the
entire deficit for the first year of provincial cost-sharing,
estimated at $2.3 million, and then split additional losses
over that amount.
Another comment I'd like to make, Madam Chairman, has to. do
once again with the possibility of picking up land bank land
throughout the province for low-cost housing or for whatever.
We don't really care what it's for.
The Minister has gone hat-in-hand to the municipalities,
giving a blanket letter asking the municipalities, first of
all, do they have any land they want to get rid of at fire-sale
prices, I suppose? And if they don't have any land, would they
look around their municipality and find out if anybody wants to
get rid of some of their land and sell it to the
government?
It would seem to me that that's an open invitation for the government to step
in and pay those same kinds of prices for land that they paid in Victoria. Once
again, in answer to a question some time ago, the Minister has confirmed in
this House that the government is buying land on a
per-unit basis. It would seem to me that that per-unit cost is going in regardless
of what the land is actually worth. If the municipality can come up with a high
enough per-unit cost, the government pays it. I imagine that the price goes
on to the consumer in the end result.
Mr. Chairman, since we've now told the Greater Vancouver
Regional District that they're not going to get as good a deal
as they got before with regard to rapid transit, I would like
to know if we are going to develop a transit programme at all.
Are we working within the guidelines developed by the Greater
Vancouver day, I do not know whether the Minister recognizes
that domestic water usage is less than agricultural water usage
and what he proposes to do about it.
MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I think you're straying from the
point, that is to reduce the vote by $1.
MR. McCLELLAND: Madam Chairman, I'm attempting to show some
of the reasons why that vote should be reduced. One of those
reasons is the lack of action on the transit problems in the
greater Vancouver region. Those problems are vitally important
and must be developed as quickly as possible. I've said before,
Madam Chairman, that rather than developing a programme, we
seem to be moving backwards.
I'll save my other questions for later, Madam Chairman, with
regard to transit. There are some other questions I'd like to
ask but I'll save them as well because I don't want to stray,
Madam Chairman. I fully support the amendment.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the
Islands.
MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Madam Chairman,
this party will not support the amendment. Twenty-five cents,
we might have, but not $1. (Laughter).
I'm going to quickly stray from speaking to the amendment. I
hope that we'll be able to make some objective and constructive
criticisms after the amendment has been dealt with. It is the
feeling of the Progressive Conservative Party that the
amendment is frivolous and we cannot support it.
MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Madam Chairman, I find
the comments, in speaking to this amendment, of the Hon. Member
for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) remarkable. This
Member is a previous mayor of a municipality, charged with the
responsibility of defending not only the needs of the
[ Page 2014 ]
people of a municipality but the democratic rights of the
people of a municipality. That he would equate the democratic
rights of the people of British Columbia with 75 cents is
utterly astonishing.
The Member has also held an honourable position in the Union
of British Columbia Municipalities and on the Municipal
Financing Authority in British Columbia. Again, Madam Chairman,
I find it astonishing that he could be so little concerned
about the responsibilities that he previously held and that he
would condone the actions of this Minister.
I suppose the price of being a Conservative in bed with the
NDP is 25 cents. (Laughter). That, Madam Chairman, equates the
quality of the bed partners.
MS. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order, Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: In speaking to the amendment before the House,
Madam Chairman….
HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): In Ottawa we're in bed with the
Liberals; here we're in bed with the Tories.
HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Their
leader's wearing a red flower today.
MRS. JORDAN: He's wearing the red flower, Madam Chairman,
whether he knows it or not, because he should be bleeding for
the democratic rights of the people of this province as they're
being trampled by this Minister.
In speaking to the amendment, I must suggest that I will
support the amendment. I must speak on behalf of the people not
only in British Columbia but in the riding I represent. Never
before in the history have people's rights been so blatantly
abused as they have under this Minister's direction in relation
to these people.
Madam Chairman, some time last fall the Minister of
Municipal Affairs announced that there would be a compulsory
expansion of the city limits of the City of Kelowna, "to create
a new and exciting Kelowna," he said. He indicated at
that time that there would be no vote and that the people would
not have an opportunity to have a say in this.
Very shortly after his statement, the following points were brought to the
Minister's attention, not only by the people themselves but by their elected
representatives in their various fire districts, irrigation districts, community
associations and service clubs, which are the backbone of any unorganized area:
(1) They would like to study fully what this amalgamation would mean, to know
the consequences in both benefits and costs to the individual people; and
(2) After these benefits had been clearly studied and explained,
they would like the opportunity to vote on whether or not there should be such
an enlarged city as he projected for Kelowna.
Following this, Madam Chairman, that Minister sat on the
television — rather like a blimp, I must say. When he was
questioned about his reaction to these requests by the people
in a democracy, he smiled in what could only be charitably
described as a smug manner and said, "I'm quite confident that
this is what the people want."
I would suggest, Madam Chairman, that had he been confident,
he would have shown himself a man of responsibility and
democratic ideas and proven his confidence by suggesting that
when the studies had been done, there would be a democratic
vote.
Madam Chairman, we suggest that this Minister has been
getting incorrect direction from party supporters in this
region. We suggest that not only is it wrong to be getting
direction from party supporters, but it is wrong that he should
be adhering so closely to it and that it is so obviously
against the wishes of the people.
When the Minister stated that he would not hold a vote, he
then proceeded to announce that an advisory committee would be
formed — not a committee elected by the people of this area,
Madam Chairman, but one appointed by the Minister. Instead of
then giving them the opportunity to go to the people, he
outlined a proposed boundary extension. At that time it was
clearly understood that this boundary extension could be
subject to change at the discretion of the people as they filed
their views before this advisory committee.
Has the Minister responded to this? Not in any way. The
people have been inundated with statement after mis-statement.
They now feel in a position that not only are their rights
being violated, but the Minister himself has no comprehension
of the complexities that he's creating or the services that are
going to be given, nor is he paying any attention to the wishes
of the people in the area.
Madam Chairman, within the district that he proposes to
annex, there are no less than four irrigation districts, all
undertaken and supported by the local people. There has been no
discussion on what is to be the future of these irrigation
districts. There has been no discussion as to what costs are
going to be returned to the people who have supported these
districts, nor whether their democratic roles in organizing
their own irrigation districts are going to be honoured.
The costs in these irrigation districts vary from place to
place. In the District of Ellison there are two small
irrigation districts, one paying approximately $12 an acre for
water and another one paying approximately $15 an acre for
water. These people formed these districts; they built the
services; they need it for their agriculture; and they have a
good
[ Page 2015 ]
price on it through good planning and frugal management.
Adjacent to them there is an irrigation district charging as
much as $27 an acre.
This acreage price for water varies. The Minister, to this
date, has stated nothing about this. These development
districts were predicated on so much subdivision or domestic
water usage and so much agricultural water usage. To this day,
I do not know whether the Minister recognizes that domestic
water usage less than agricultural water usage and what he
proposes to do about it.
In the boundary extension, in the extremes which the
Minister has accepted, there are people today without water.
This is a justifiable situation. When the ARDA programme was
brought in, it was made very clear that the farmer had the
right to designate his land as either dry land or wet land and
he paid accordingly. We now have a position where houses will
be on dry land for which the only water available is from the
ARDA programme irrigation districts. These people will be taxed
on a municipal basis rather than a provincial agricultural or
rural basis.
Yet to date, there is no way that the Minister can provide
them with water unless he violates the original ARDA agreement
with the farmers. The Minister has stated nothing about this
and these people are concerned and they're deeply disturbed
that they have had no answers from him. They're willing to
honour the original agreement. They understood it but they feel
that the Minister has not. They wonder what the future will be
in relation to contracts between municipalities and their
various involved bodies and this Government of British
Columbia.
Madam Chairman, I would like to refer specifically to Zone A
of the regional district of Central Okanagan, which includes
the areas of Ellison and Winfield, and McKinley Landing, an
area, Madam Chairman, of 129.6 square miles, 82,944 acres, most
of which is usable agricultural land. Madam Chairman, Zone A is
15½ times larger than the present City of Kelowna. This area
is being forced to a large degree into the new City of Kelowna
by this Minister.
When this amalgamation talk first started, a member of the
department, Mr. Woodward, announced at a public meeting held
that the areas of Winfield, Okanagan Centre, and Oyama —
including Ellison and McKinley Landing — should form their own
municipality and that this would be required in the future. I
spoke about this to the Minister and asked him if he understood
the complexities of this request. To his credit, he said
"No."
At that time I extended to him an invitation to visit in this area when the
session is over. I asked him at that time if he would leave Zone A out of the
enlarged boundaries of the City of Kelowna; that I could give him, on behalf
of the people in that area, a commitment that they would form their own citizens'
committee and examine thoroughly over the next two or three years the pros and
cons and problems and benefits of forming a municipality.
This would have been a valuable input by the people; it
would have been valuable information to the department, and it
would have precluded the disastrous situation that we have now — and the anger of these people.
What disturbs these people — and the Minister at this time
seemed to feel that this was a reasonable request — was that
they now find a large portion of Zone A in the extended
boundaries of the City of Kelowna — including Indian reserve
land, over which the province has no jurisdiction and which is
not required to comply with any municipal regulations at this
time — as well as the major tax base for what might well be the
new community of Winfield-Okanagan Centre, and that is the
industrial park.
Madam Chairman, that industrial park didn't come from Heaven
or appear by a miracle. It was developed through the
cooperation of the chamber of commerce and the provincial and
federal governments and the people of the area in their desire
to form a tax base.
If this area is taken into the new Municipality of Kelowna,
the major tax base of any new development in the way of a
municipal avenue in that area is gone.
It's all very well to talk about "grants in lieu" to the
regional district. But you cannot change the boundaries of a
city willy-nilly. It would be far better for the boundaries to
be along the old boundaries of the fire district, as was
previously proposed by the Minister, and let the future take
its course as it's examined.
The Minister claims that it has to be included — most of Zone
A and in the industrial site and the Indian Affairs lands of
Winfield — because this was the recommendation of the advisory
committee to him and his department. Madam Chairman, I publicly
dispute that statement, on behalf of these people, in this
chamber — which in itself is a serious charge against this
Minister.
These people have not had any representation on the advisory
committee. When they did make representation it was supported
by the committee, but rejected by the Minister's contact in the
area and they are not being allowed a free vote. When they
found out that they had been included, last week, they find
that there is no opportunity to appeal because the census
figures are already being made up.
Madam Chairman, what an incredible situation for the
Province of British Columbia to have a Minister who would so
sideswipe the issues and the democratic rights of the people of
this area without any concrete evidence that the advice he's
getting is within the wishes of these people and that he is
adhering to the Municipal Act and the democratic rights.
[ Page 2016 ]
When the people found that the Minister would not listen to
them — and it came out in the Kelowna Courier on February 22 —
it says: "Area Wants Out of New Kelowna. Directors of Central
Okanagan Regional District have supported the right of
Winfield-Oyama-Okanagan Centre Director John McCoubry to ask
that his area be left out of plans for the new City of Kelowna
to be born May 1. The directors" — and I repeat, Madam
Chairman, because this is contrary to what the Minister is
advising in public — "The directors of Central Okanagan
Regional District have supported the right of
Winfield-Oyama-Okanagan Centre Director John McCoubry to ask
that his area be left out of plans for the new City of Kelowna
to be born May l."
Mr. McCoubry, for your information, Madam Chairman, is a
duly elected regional district director since the inception of
regional districts. He has the confidence of the people and is
their spokesman.
I would read on: "Mr. McCoubry said people in his area were
definitely against their area coming into the city. He said the
incorporation advisory committee had exceeded terms of
reference in considering the Winfield area." And that statement
was made on the basis of the Minister's original outline of
where the boundaries for the new Kelowna should be.
[Mr. Dent in the Chair]
"On the committee are directors of the regional areas
concerned and members of city council. Those are the regional
areas that were included in the Minister's original boundary
and the present City of Kelowna. Since Mr. McCoubry is not on
the committee, he said the only place he could get support was
at the regional district meeting."
At that meeting, Madam Chairman, it was suggested to Mr.
McCoubry that he make a public statement on behalf of the
people of Zone A to the advisory committee. This motion
supporting Mr. McCoubry was endorsed by all directors at that
meeting except the mayor of the City of Kelowna. That was
February 22, 1973, at a time when I assume the census lists
were not being made up — at least I would certainly hope were
not being made up.
On February 25, 1973, I have the submission made by Mr.
McCoubry to the advisory committee, and I'll read it for your
information, Mr. Chairman:
"To incorporation advisory committee from Mr. John M. McCoubry, Director of Zone A Regional District
of Central Okanagan, Oyama, Okanagan Centre and Winfield:
"As much concern is being expressed by many residents of Zone A about the suggested inclusion of that
area, or any portion thereof, within the proposed boundaries of
the new City of Kelowna, I felt it to be my responsibility to
submit an objection on their behalf.
"The boundaries as first proposed by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, The Hon. James Lorimer did not include Zone
A. The members of the advisory committee are all representative
of the various areas that will be included in the city. It is
felt that it would be outside of the committee's terms of
reference to consider any extension beyond the original
proposal.
"A representative of the Municipal Affairs department, Mr.
C. Woodward, stated, at a meeting held to consider the
suggested inclusion of Zone A, that to do so would create a
city that would be very unwieldy. Those are the statements made
by the Minister's representative in the negotiations for the
expansion of the City of Kelowna."
I'll repeat, Mr. Chairman, "that to do so" — that is,
include Zone A — "would create a city that would be very
unwieldy." And I go on quoting:
"The distance from Okanagan Bridge to the north boundary
would be over 25 miles. In Zone A there are 129.6 square miles,
82,944 acres, most of the usable land being agricultural. Zone
A is 15½ times larger than the present City of Kelowna.
"Mr. Woodward also stated that he could foresee Zone A
forming a separate municipality in the future. There has been a
suggestion that only the industrial
section be taken into the
new boundaries. If this were done it would remove for all time
the formation of a municipality in this area."
Since that time, Mr. Chairman, representatives have been
down to see the Minister, to explain the situation — he has
consistently refused to listen. His statement at this time for
including Zone A is that it is "recommended by the advisory
committee."
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is not so. I have talked
to the advisory committee — if the Minister would like their
names, I'll give them to him — and they said that in their
presentation to both he and his department they recommended
that if Zone A was to be included there were certain conditions
and benefits to these people which must be met. These
conditions have not been met; nor is it even possible for them
to be met. Yet the Minister says that the committee recommended
it to him — they say, Mr. Speaker, that they did not. They made
it very clear to the Minister that if they recommended it with
these conditions, they would not recommend it unless the
conditions were met.
So we had the people on February 22, 1973, going to their
regional district, which was their avenue of appeal. The silent
Members in this House might do well not to smile. Their one
avenue of appeal was the regional district, and this granted
them the right to speak to the committee and supported them. As
their next avenue of appeal, their regional district
[ Page 2017 ]
representative presented a brief to the committee, and
that's been denied.
At no time has the Minister or any member of his staff
entered into any dialogue of a public nature with the people of
this area to be affected or with their representative. Mr.
Chairman, these people deeply resent this, and this type of
action by a Minister of this Government cannot be
condoned. We see the actions of this Minister of Municipal Affairs, on
the matter of this boundary expansion and amalgamation, as
being totally irresponsible and against the obvious displeasure
of the people who are affected. Direct orders on amalgamation
are being pushed ahead without any inkling as to what the
letters patent for the new corporation will be. The Minister
has asked these people to accept his dictum without knowing any
of the rules of the game, any of the benefits, or any of the
costs.
There is no known provision, Mr. Chairman, in the
legislation of this province for provision for tax differential
between highly serviced and unserviced areas of the newly
proposed municipal corporation. The people want to know about
this, Mr. Chairman. The Minister sits silent in his chair, his
department does not listen to the people, and then they have
the nerve to say, "Trust us, we know what the people want."
There is no guarantee of the kind of urban service which
residents in newly incorporated areas will obtain. There is no
definite timetable for the delivery of urban services.
I submit, in examining that regional district, that there is
no way this Minister, or this Government, or the people
themselves can provide the services that they should rightfully
have if they are to be in a municipality. There is not enough
money in the whole budget of British Columbia to provide that
type of service and to provide it for any other municipality of
the province that should incorporate.
We would hope that the Minister is not going to enter into
preferential treatment for the new City of Kamloops and the new
City of Kelowna that he would not be prepared to offer to other
municipalities, should they choose to incorporate and
amalgamate. We've had enough of six months of this Government's
preferred treatment for preferred people.
There is no real statement about the tax levies which will
apply in newly incorporated areas in British Columbia or within
the area about which I specifically spoke.
There's been a total disregard by this Minister and, I regret to say, his staff
for the first principle of local government, which is self-determination. The
Minister is clearly, Mr. Chairman, flying in the face of a great public outcry
— from a public who are deeply affected, who are deeply concerned, who have
not been informed, who have no course of appeal, and who feel themselves nothing
short of under the heel of a man who has become drunk
with power.
The Minister is showing fright, they feel, by sending in
officials. If he's so confident in his proposal, if he has the
answers that the people want, why doesn't this Minister go up
there today and answer their questions? Meet them eyeball to
eyeball, Mr. Minister, and say, "I believe we have a good
proposal. Here it is — now have a vote." Have some confidence,
Mr. Minister, in the democratic process, and have some faith,
Mr. Minister, in the common sense of people, which is certainly
outshining this Minister's common sense at this time.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: Well, I realize government has problems, but I
didn't know this Government's problem was so great it had to
send the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to deal with the
Minister of Municipal Affairs' problems.
Mr. Chairman, this Minister should get out of that chair as
soon as his estimates are over. After he's made a statement
that he will return the right to a vote and the right to public
information he should go up and meet these people face to face
on their home ground. As the Member for North Okanagan, I find
this whole calendar of events, connected by this forced play,
to be totally unacceptable — not only to these people directly,
but an unacceptable action by this Government, and an
unacceptable practice in the Province of British Columbia, or
in Canada. This Government keeps crying that we should trust
them. Every day that we sit in this Legislature we see more and
more proof of why they should not be trusted. This session is
making a mockery of that plea, and it's making a mockery of the
democratic process and a mockery of the rights of the
individuals in British Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, I don't trust them. In light of the
conflicting statements that are consistently being made, in
light of this Minister's excuses for why this part of Zone A is
going to be taken in, in light of the fact that the people from
the Ellison area, which is all agricultural, with no interest
of any of the people in there to subdivide…In spite of this
knowledge and the fact that these people have come down here
and spoken to the Minister's department, and spoken to the
Minister, they are completely ignored and forced into a
municipality. How ridiculous can you be?
Mr. Chairman, I speak on behalf of these people. It has
never been my policy to condemn a department of government, but
I have no alternative, in light of the actions of this Minister
and. this department, but to stand here today and condemn their
actions, as this Minister has been responsible for them. In
doing so, I fully support this amendment. I feel this
Minister's actions warrant nothing but the highest contempt of
this Legislature and the people of British
[ Page 2018 ]
Columbia.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the
amendment? I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe
Sound.
MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. We have many questions to pose to the Minister
about his performance to date and about the task that faces him
with regard to municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to support this motion. As a
matter of fact, I'm rather surprised that the official
Opposition has brought this motion forward at this time. When I
was first elected to this assembly, I was a member of municipal
government. Indeed, it was my concern as to the direction that
the then government was proceeding and the impact that they
were having on the municipal governments in this province which
encouraged me to seek election to this Legislature.
To find that the official Opposition has moved to reduce the
Minister's salary after six or seven or eight months in office,
is not only frivolous, as the Member for Saanich and the
Islands (Mr. Curtis) has said, but I suggest is also vexatious.
Indeed, to think that any Minister or any government could undo
the, 20 years of inactivity, so far as local government is
concerned, from the previous government is ludicrous. I would
think that this official Opposition, knowing so well what has
gone on in the past, would say to any Minister that took on the
job of Municipal Affairs that his salary should be increased by
a dollar.
Has the official Opposition, Mr. Chairman, forgotten what
happened at Dufferin? Is this what they call the democratic
approach to local government administration in the Province of
British Columbia, the way Dufferin was established, where we
had the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the previous
government (Mr. D. Campbell) putting before a committee of this
House a question as to how the establishment of new local
governments in British Columbia should be carried out?
Immediately following upon making that request to the select
standing committee, we suddenly found that Dufferin was
established. We know the tragedy that that has been.
The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) talks about changing boundaries
willy-nilly. How many of the Members who have sat in this House for the past
decade will recall how convenient it was for the previous government to change
the boundaries of municipalities so as to reach out and take in industrial manufacturing
plants, all for the purposes of improving the assessment base of the local government,
and therefore taking off the shoulders of the provincial government the financial
responsibilities which it would otherwise have to bear?
Then, having done this, they placed burdens upon municipal governments in this
province such as are not witnessed in any of the other provinces of Canada.
Year after year after year, local governments and the
representatives of the municipalities came to the previous
government with positive suggestions to improve the lot of
local government and of the taxpayers in those regions, and
year after year after year they were refused any change at all
by the previous government.
Questions were raised about the direction in which we are
going with regard to public transit, and we'll have some
questions to pose to the Minister at the proper time on this
matter — questions which the Minister must answer. But when I
think of the treatment that the previous government and the
previous Minister gave to urban municipalities in desperate
need for improvement of the public transit system, of the
attitudes expressed by the Crown corporation to this problem —
obviously under the fiscal control of the previous
administration — it makes one wonder how this motion could have
been brought forward at this time.
Well I recall, Mr. Chairman, when communities within my
constituency came to this government asking assistance for such
necessary work as waterworks and sewers, and were refused
assistance. In fact, one time they were promised assistance and
it was withdrawn.
For them to criticize the conduct of the Minister today is
truly incompetent.
Yes, we've got a long way to go, and the Minister has got a
long way to go. He'll have to work very hard if we're to make
any real progress with local government to help remove some of
the burdens which the people feel as a result of the tasks
which those local governments had to perform. But the task, Mr.
Chairman, upon which this Minister is set, is made much longer
and much harder by reason of what has gone before and what has
been left undone by the previous government — Members who
supported it. being in the Opposition today, including a number
who proposed this very motion.
I remember before that Member was in this House, actions
taken by the previous administration which caused that Member
and other mayors of municipalities to come down to Victoria —
special trip — opposing what the government of the day was then
going to do. And yet I don't recall that when he was sitting in
the Government benches he made criticisms of the way in which
the then Minister of Municipal Affairs was carrying on his
affairs. Not one of the Members of the Opposition in those
days moved to reduce the salary of that Minister.
So based upon balance, Mr. Chairman, there is no basis upon
which anyone can reasonably and logically support this
motion.
[ Page 2019 ]
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia
River.
MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment and I want to say that I don't take very seriously
all the statements made by the Member for West Vancouver-Howe
Sound (Mr. Williams), having myself served on a municipal
government probably as long as he has. This is the Opposition
responsible for the introduction of local government at the
unincorporated level which today is strongly supported
throughout the Province of British Columbia.
I don't think that that Government over there has the kind
of good relationship which the former Minister and the former
government experienced with the Union of British Columbia
Municipalities. This Government has failed to keep up the
percentage of per capita grants to the municipalities as
previously granted by the former government. When one looks at
the attempts to assist municipalities in financing, one has to
look at the Municipal Finance Authority as a step forward for
municipalities.
When one looks at the financial position of municipalities
in British Columbia, one can readily see that the
municipalities in this province are better off than any
municipality in all of this country. For the Member for West
Vancouver-Howe Sound to say that the former government did not
look after or assist the municipalities with their problems is
sheer irresponsibility as far as I am concerned.
Now the one point that justifies my support of this
amendment really is the obsession the Minister has relative to
the acquisition of land. In one particular instance here in the
City of Victoria — and I have a clipping giving the full
details of the purchase of land carried out by the Minister in
that department….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. CHABOT: No, I've never read this clipping before, Mr.
Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). It doesn't say $82,000
in this clipping. I've never read this clipping in the House
before at any time. It's from the Victoria Times of December
29, 1972 — but it does come to $82,000 an acre eventually. It
says here:
"Victoria city council agreed Thursday to sell 4.3 acres
of municipal property on McCaskill Street, in Victoria West to the provincial
government as a housing land bank.
"The original price offered by the B.C. government was $275,000,
based on a total development of 55 units and unit cost of $5,000.
"But council
was told that provincial authorities had agreed to the higher density
envisaged for the site by council's planning department, and as a result
the offer had been increased to $350,000 on the basis of 70 units.
"City manager Bill Hooson said the provincial government
aims to stockpile land" — you know, stockpile it like
cordwood — "for all forms of residential development and not
simply for subsidized rental or low-cost housing.
"The intention was to avoid the type of institutional
development as provided in the Rose-Blanshard complex, he
said.
"Under the sale agreement, the city will have a say in
setting development standards and also the right to buy back
the land if no construction has started by January 1974."
I want to assure you that the City of Victoria will not be
buying back the land if there's no development taking place
prior to January 1974. At those prices they'll let the
provincial government keep the land.
"The province will pay taxes equivalent to 15 mills until
development when normal taxes will come into effect."
You'd better believe they won't take the land back from the
city, because they made a tremendous deal and the disposition
of that land at $82,000 an acre, plus the interest they'll get
on an annual basis until construction takes place at the
equivalent rate of 15 mills per year.
Now if the Government really is concerned about the
construction of low-cost housing, I think there are sufficient
examples in the Vancouver and Victoria area to indicate to them
I am sure that high-density, low-cost housing construction
should be a thing of the past. When they pay this type of money
for land in Victoria, all they are doing is establishing high
density ghettos for low-cost housing — a most disgraceful
approach to low-cost housing. I think the experiences should
justify new guidelines for low-cost housing.
The Minister has indicated really that there will be a mix
of subsidization in these housing complexes and non-subsidized
residential tenants. I wonder what kind of programme he's going
to initiate to attract those people who don't need
subsidization into government low-cost housing complexes. He's
indicated there's going to be a mix.
I'll tell you, there won't be much of a mix in those kinds
of high-density complexes you're considering establishing, Mr.
Minister, through you Mr. Chairman. I suggested to the
Minister, the last time I spoke on this subject, that he should
consider the subsidization of rent rather than these
high-density complexes. I thought this would be a much better
way because you would scatter, the people throughout the
community, you would decentralize this type of housing. It's
not necessary, really, for anyone to know, in any particular
complex or unit,
[ Page 2020 ]
that these people really are getting some form of
subsidization from the government. Then there wouldn't be the
stigma on these people of low income that comes from the
low-cost housing ghettos. But no doubt it's because of your
socialist philosophy you won't go for this type of programme.
You want to put everybody in the same size and same height type
of box.
MRS. JORDAN: Socialist straightjackets.
MR. CHABOT: That's socialist philosophy — everybody must be
equal. The homes must look alike. They must be on smaller lots
than what is generally the case in non-subsidized housing.
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MRS. JORDAN: What are you quacking about?
MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the Minister will tell us
what particular objective he has in attempting to acquire —
land in just about every municipality in British Columbia. He's
searching the entire province for land accumulation. This
tremendous obsession he has about land I'll never
understand.
Is it because you want to pay the equivalent of a 15 mill
tax rate on this land? Is it because you feel you haven't
treated the municipalities fairly on the per capita grants that
you're insistent upon buying land at almost any price and
paying the equivalent of 15 mills? Is that the reason, Mr.
Minister?
No, I think you need some new direction in your policies on
low-cost housing. Because the evidence you've given me today
and in the past is that the low-cost housing programme that you
have on the books and in the works is in a shambles. That's why
I'm supporting this amendment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace
River.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Taking my place in debating the amendment to the motion that
the Minister's salary be reduced by $1 I think that, even
though we've had only six months in which to observe his
actions, it can be truthfully be said that this Minister for
some reason has placed a cloud of doubt in the field of
municipal government.
They must wonder if they were elected at a local level to solve local problems,
hopefully with the cooperation of the Minister, or whether they've been elected
only to be used as puppets on a string. It is my impression that local government
should be allowed to control local matters, Mr. Minister, and
that where possible it is the position of the Minister of Municipal Affairs
to cooperate with these people who have been duly elected to local offices;
that you do not usurp the powers of local government; that instead you set broad
policies for the operation of your department, and that when matters of importance
are presented to you by duly elected members of local government, provided it
has a consensus of opinion within their area, you try to accommodate their requests.
It's obvious that in the situation in the Kamloops area you
really have had very little in the way of input from the
locally-elected people on those councils. The decisions that
you've made, in my estimation, are arbitrary, based more on NDP
philosophy and policy than on the requests and the desires of
local people. I won't cover that in any great detail because
some of the other Hon. Members speaking in this debate have
already mentioned the subject, Mr. Chairman.
Your attitude would tend to indicate that the
representatives on the regional level of government from
municipalities and duly elected municipal officers should be a
matter of appointment by some means other than we presently
use. What is more democratic than for the duly elected mayor
and members of council, after, having gone through an election
and becoming elected representatives, to hold a meeting and
decide amongst themselves who will represent their particular
council on the regional board? Is that not part of the
democratic process?
It seems that they can use this matter of representation at
every other level on every other committee on any other
organization in which they choose to join or have membership.
But at a very important level of regional government somehow
Victoria must control.
Certainly I think the previous government did more to return
control to the local level through municipalities and regional
government authorities than any other government in this
province has done.
There was a new concept, one which the people themselves
feel is required in the Province of British Columbia — one
which is working fairly satisfactorily, considering it was a
new concept when first introduced. Surely the Minister must
have concern for the areas of the province where we must be
concerned about additional facilities for people, particularly
community recreational facilities for better sewage and water
plants and all the type of facilities that a new community must
provide, sometimes in a very short period of time.
Well, the communities of Fort St. John and Taylor, working
jointly and cooperatively together, worked out a plan for the
sharing of some of the assessment from the industrial areas
that would have helped them provide better recreational
facilities. They didn't ask the provincial government to come
in with any great direct subsidy. All that they asked was
[ Page 2021 ]
that the Department of Municipal Affairs approve a plan
which they had worked out where the basic 10 mill levy would be
available to them to provide recreational facilities that they
were faced with building and supporting.
It wasn't a large request, but the revenue available would
have greatly offset the costs of providing these facilities for
a large segment of the population that lives outside of the
municipal areas. It may be that the Minister is going to
suggest that they should have increased their municipal
boundaries. But that is only a stopgap, temporary proposition,
because you increase the size of your municipal district and,
in an area as big as the Peace River country, you suddenly find
that a number of the people have just moved beyond the
boundaries again.
Most of those people are there as a result of the impact of
the petroleum industry. So what would be more fair than to have
the basic 10 mill levy available to the communities that
provide the services?
They had the plan all worked out, Mr. Minister. You know of
the plan; you know of the motions that have come from those
councils asking for the plan to be approved. The only answer I
understand that they have received somewhere, or somehow or
sometime in the past few months is that you "have something
better in mind."
Well, if you have something better in mind, perhaps it's
time that you told the two communities involved, because so far
they've got nothing. The revenue that they would have been able
to share this year obviously is still going into the provincial
Treasury through your basic mill rate and they get none of the
advantage of it. The small increase in per capita grants is not
going to be enough to offset that revenue. The small increase
in grants to regional districts will not, over a period of
time, offset that.
So it would seem that for a Minister who professes to be
concerned, the concern has not really manifested itself in some
of the newer communities, those that are growing rapidly in the
Province of British Columbia.
Those people who live in mobile homes have petitioned the
Minister concerning a more equitable way of arranging to pay
taxes and receive benefits. The mobile home associations in the
province have had some very good ideas. Yet we have seen no
action in that respect to take into consideration the
suggestions that they have made regarding both tax revenue and
services in the province.
The matter of acquisition of land for low-cost housing is
certainly one which we must evaluate in a critical matter. We
must also consider the action that was taken in respect to
amalgamation of communities without their consent. The
suggestion that the present method of appointing
representatives to the regional government by local municipal
authority is not correct — we take exception to this.
For a government which made a great deal of noise about
their concern about northern development….
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
MR. SMITH: Action? Yes, we saw some of that action today.
We'll have a chance to debate that in more detail when the bill
comes before the House, Mr. Minister.
The action that is taken, in many respects, is the type of
action that must be examined in the greatest of detail. I would
say that when that examination is complete, there will be a lot
to be desired on the part of the Government, and we'll have
very much to say about the action contemplated and taken this
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons we support the amendment to
reduce the Minister's salary.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yes, Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to make a few remarks regarding some of the
statements made. I might say that what they lacked in facts,
they made up in fervour.
It seems to me that the basic problem is that they can't
stand a Minister who is prepared to make a decision. It's a new
experience. For 20 years they've gone without anyone making
decisions. When decisions are made, they just don't understand
it.
Some of my decisions may not be correct. At least I have a
batting average of over 50 per cent. Really, I think that a
government that is elected or a Minister who is appointed has a
duty to make certain decisions, whether they're popular or
unpopular. I think it's absolutely necessary. When this
happens, I feel that the Minister must make decisions.
I want to mention that I appreciate the positions taken by
the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, who
at least appear to have some understanding of the problems
which I face. The Member for….
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
HON. MR. LORIMER: I wasn't appreciative of the criticism
levied by the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) regarding
the staff in the municipal offices. She can complain to me all
she wants about myself and my activities in this portfolio. But
in the future, I hope she will refrain from criticizing the
staff and vent all her efforts against myself.
First of all, I want to discuss the question of the
announcement which I made in December regarding the vote in
Kamloops and Kelowna — the non-vote, I should say — on the
amalgamation and
[ Page 2022 ]
extension of boundaries. At that time, I announced that
there would be legislation introduced in this session.
Legislation will be introduced in this session.
I think it was the Member for North Okanagan who said that
there was no local input into the whole question. I wish to
advise that immediately upon making the announcement, I
announced as well the formation of an advisory committee
created, in the Kelowna case, from representatives of the city
council and from representatives of the regional district, who
were involved in the original proposal which I made, the areas
covered by the original proposal of boundaries which I
made.
I advised this committee that if they had any suggestions in
regard to boundaries and other matters, we would certainly take
a serious look at them. At the time, we explained to them that
within the letters patent that would be produced the farmers
and the people who didn't have the services in the other areas
involved would receive protection in the letters patent from a
large tax increase — which they shouldn't have if the services
aren't provided for them. This was assured and will be
done.
Soon after the advisory committee met in Kelowna they
requested an extension of boundaries to the area to which the
Member for North Okanagan is objecting. I understand that the
one area that wasn't included was the particular area of
Winfield, although the suggested new boundary was to go to
Winfield. I suggested that the industrial area of Winfield be
included, due to the fact that it has an assessment of some $10 million. It seemed to me to be a substantial source of
revenue for that new city and a strong industrial base to carry
out the wishes of the people in the future in a large-growth
city.
The other areas involved were all recommended to me by the
local committee. It may be surprising to the people here that
there was a great unanimity between the advisory committee and
the municipal affairs department in regard to this proposed new
city. Although a number of people wrote objecting to the
proposition, a number of people also wrote in support.
Some three weeks ago, after the Member for South Okanagan
(Hon. Mr. Bennett) returned from a tour of the Pacific and
visited the area, there seemed to be an awful lot of questions
being asked by the regional district people and so on and so
forth. The problems that we did not experience until some three
weeks ago are now manifesting themselves in great numbers.
I'm not suggesting that the Member for South Okanagan had
any effect on this. I'm just mentioning it as an interesting
feature. But this is the case. It may be coincidental.
Let's talk for a moment about past incorporations. As we know, the Municipal
Act was amended periodically to allow for changes with reference to needs for
amalgamations and extensions of boundaries. There are a variety of sections
in the Municipal Act at this moment which deal with this matter. I believe that
the Municipal Affairs Committee met on it for two years. No action was taken
on their recommendations by the previous administration. I think the reason
was that it was impractical to actions as recommended at that time by the committee.
The question of my not answering letters written to me
wanting information from the advisory committee is quite
untrue. It's completely false. The questions that were being
read out by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) were answered
in the main some two weeks ago — there were some five pages of
questions. I explained to them that I would answer the
questions over which I had jurisdiction and could answer, and I
did so. I also obtained information from other departments and
answered almost all of their questions. There were one or two
that we didn't have complete information on at the time and I couldn't answer. All the rest of them were answered.
Another question about the amalgamations: in the past little enclaves of people
bordering on municipalities or cities were given a vote as to whether or not
there should be an incorporation.
The area that was primarily involved, of course, is the
neighbouring municipalities, but in those cases, those
municipalities are not given a vote. It is only that little
enclave of people asked to register and vote as to whether they
want to continue to live next door to the large city, with the
benefits of the city, but having the advantages of a cheaper
rate in taxation.
But, when we talk about votes, these are phony votes — some
of those votes. We must keep in mind that in all those areas,
or a great number of those areas, the region at all on prices
of land throughout the area, land banking is essential as a
first step outskirts asked whether they wanted to incorporate
or not. I think that pretty well covers the questions that were
raised with reference to the amalgamation.
The housing: the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)
discussed housing, talking about cheap housing or low-cost
housing. But, I would like to point out that the era of cheap
housing, the era of the low income ghettos is over in this
province. There's no such thing any more as cheap housing.
Housing will be standard. Housing will be good housing. In
those houses, there will be a complete mix of all income levels
in the areas involved. It will not be just subsidized housing,
as I mentioned earlier on a number of occasions. The whole
thrust in housing is completely changed. In order to have any
effect at all on prices of land throughout the area, land
banking is essential as a first step in order that lots can be
put on the market at a lower level than there is at the present
time.
He was questioning the values paid, I think, on the Victoria housing projects.
I might say that there's been nothing purchased that hasn't been pre-valued
[ Page
2023 ]
assessed as to values and so on. The one item that the Hon.
Member for Columbia River was discussing was the 4
point-some-odd acres in Victoria West. The valuation that we
had received from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation
evaluators was $465,000 — which we have in writing. The one from
the City of Victoria was $454,400. The price that we paid was
$350,000 — a reduction of over $100,000 from valuation. This
was done because Victoria, I suggest, has a conscience in
regard that they feel that subsidized housing is necessary and
were prepared to transfer this property over at a sum less than
the assessed value.
Now the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) mentioned
the fact that I wasn't cooperating…
Interjection by an Hon. Member.
HON. MR. LORIMER: …mentioned the lack of cooperation
between myself and representatives of the municipalities,
regional districts and so on. I might say that the impression I
received from those particular people in that I am convinced
that they have never received such good cooperation in their
lives. I have no hesitation in stating that fact.
The question of Taylor and Fort St. John areas: I discussed
their problem with them. I explained to them that I hoped I
could produce something a little better for them, and promised
to see them after the session was over in regard to their
problems. They went away completely happy. I don't think there
was anything further that could be done in that particular case
at that particular time.
Mobile homes — saying that there's no relief for mobile
homes: I've told them, and I've stated that there will be
legislation brought down regarding mobile homes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.
MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in closing the discussion here, I
am of course quite surprised that the Member for Saanich and
the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and also the Liberal Party may feel
that this amendment is frivolous. Particularly the Member for
Saanich and the Islands who is a respected municipal leader of
very long standing — apparently he agrees with forced
amalgamations. On that subject, I would also, on behalf of the
Member for South Okanagan (Hon. Mr. Bennett), thank you Mr.
Minister for congratulating him for getting things going in his
own riding. I know he is well able to look after himself, but
he appreciates that.
What we're concerned about here is not only these two, but
how many more, and what is your long term policy? Who's next on
the forced amalgamations? Is
Prince George next? Nanaimo next?
HON. MR. BARRETT: The Conservatives and the Social Credit.
(Laughter).
MR. FRASER: Burnaby with Vancouver, is that going to be
next? So these are the things that concern us and….
Interjections by some Hon. Members.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the
amendment that the salary of the Minister of Municipal Affairs,
included in vote 176, be reduced by one dollar thereby
decreasing vote 176 to $67,699?
Motion negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 9
Richter
Bennett
Chabot
Jordan
Smith
Fraser
Phillips
McClelland
Morrison
NAYS — 39
Hall
Macdonald
Barrett
Dailly
Strachan
Nimsick
Nunweiler
Nicolson
Brown
Radford
Sanford
D'Arcy
Cummings
Levi
Lorimer
Williams, R.A.
Cocke
King
Hartley
Skelly
Calder
Lauk
Lea
Gabelmann
Lockstead
Gorst
Young
Anderson, G.H.
Barnes
Rolston
Kelly
Webster
Steves
Wallace
Curtis
Lewis
Williams, L.A.
Brousson
McGeer
PAIRS
Stupich
Anderson, D.A.
Gardom
Liden
MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North
Vancouver-Capilano.
MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I can't help commenting, Mr. Chairman, that this is a
very pleasant, friendly Minister with whom we are dealing
today. I don't think we want to be too hard on him, but he was
laying claim a few minutes ago to making a lot of decisions.
Well, it is true, he did in the first week or so that he was in
office make three quick decisions that I am aware of. He did
something in
[ Page 2024 ]
Kamloops; he did something in Kelowna; and he bought 99
buses. But it really seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that having
done that in the first week or two, he hasn't done very much
since. I guess we're still waiting for the buses to come, and
it's a long wait.
I would like to perhaps, Mr. Chairman, suggest to the
Minister some other matters that he might like to make
decisions on, or consider for the future.
The first item I want to raise — I want to point out to you,
Mr. Chairman, very carefully to start with — it may sound as if
it's out of order when I start, but it's very definitely going
to be in order. I want to build the case a little bit to start
with, about the people about whom I wish to talk. I refer
specifically to the Squamish Indian band in North Vancouver.
They have a group of reservations there. To clarify the
situation, there are very definite problems that affect the
municipalities of the north shore, and the powers of the
municipalities and that sort of thing — as far as the Indian
bands are concerned.
To lay the background for this case, I want to say only
about the band that this is one of the most exceptionally well
organized, exceptionally progressive band, I think, in British
Columbia. It is one that I am very proud to represent in this
House. They have an excellent organization. To give you an idea
of the kind of organization they have, and to compare it if you
like with municipal organizations — they have actively
operating committees for economic development, for finance, for
education, for social welfare and for housing. In fact, in
terms of housing it was the Squamish band who broke new ground
in Canada and developed the first Central Mortgage and
Housing-financed project of its kind on any Indian reservation
in Canada — just last year. They have a recreational committee,
arts and crafts, and finally, they actually have their own
police organization on the reservation. I mention those points
only to emphasize the degree of initiative and responsibility
that this band has taken.
The problem I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, is that which
arises whenever commercially attractive areas on an Indian
reservation also adjoin or come within the boundaries of a
municipal area. These problems are becoming more and more
frequent, more and more serious.
To give you the specific example that comes to mind now, and really has created
this problem, of course I refer you to a case which goes back to April 22, 1970.
In the B.C. Court of Appeal this was the Corporation of Surrey v. Peace Arch
Enterprises and Surfside Recreations Ltd. The problem here was that these two
companies had made certain arrangements to construct certain works, do certain
commercial projects, on lands which were part of the Semiahmoo Indian reservation.
The Corporation of Surrey wished to make certain rulings with regard to these
works…the case went to court. To summarize the result of this, the judge's
ruling was: "My conclusion is that the exclusive legislative jurisdiction over
the land in question remains in the parliament of Canada, and that provincial
legislation, including municipal bylaws, which lays down rules as to how these
lands shall be used, is inapplicable."
Now that was the ruling of the judge in 1970. That ruling
has left a great many problems in its wake, Mr. Chairman.
To go specifically to the Squamish Indian reservation,
within the boundaries of my colleague from West Vancouver-Howe
Sound they have the Park Royal development; they have a new
building on the west bank of the Capilano River, the Salish
Towers. On the east bank of the Capilano River, within the
boundaries of my own riding, they have a large mobile home park
that has, over the years, had some controversy regarding it.
Finally, at the corner of Capilano Road and Marine Drive in
North Vancouver, within the boundaries partly of the District
of North Vancouver and partly in the District of West
Vancouver, they are proposing to build an apartment-hotel
complex which is very large in its scope.
Now in going on from here, Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize
what I said at the beginning. This is a very fine, responsible
band with a good deal of initiative and community
responsibility. They have this very valuable property within
their area, and they are looking for ways in which to develop
it. But, I have correspondence here, Mr. Chairman, which
indicates that going back to June 1972 — about nine months ago — the mayor of the District of North Vancouver wrote to the
Squamish Indian band referring to this proposed apartment-hotel
complex, which as I say is at the corner of Capilano Road and
Marine Drive, right in the heart of a very busy suburban area
within my riding. I am sure most of the Members know the area I
am talking about.
Just to quote very briefly from this letter:
"The council has now had an opportunity to consider your
proposal in detail, and I must now advise you that while the
municipality is prepared to cooperate in providing all
required services at standard district rates and fees, council
cannot agree to the following aspects of your proposal: 1. the
magnitude of the structure in this location. 2. Inadequate
parking provisions. 3. the inclusion of beer parlours in the
complex. 4. location of the towers close to Marine Drive."
He goes on at some length to the reasons for this. There was
no answer. And to amplify, Mr. Chairman, obviously what the
mayor is saying — the mayor and council — is that in terms of
the zoning requirements, of bylaws and other municipal
requirements of the District of North Vancouver, this proposal
simply does not meet those requirements, or come within those
regulations.
[ Page 2025 ]
Of course what developed over a period of time in this
particular case was that the mayor of North Vancouver, having
no response directly from the band, then wrote to the federal
Minister of Indian Affairs — with very little response there.
So finally we come down to November 1972, now four months ago —
I'm sorry, October 23, 1972 — when a special assistant to the
federal Minister of Indian Affairs says this to the mayor. "I
understand that the major objections raised in your letter have
now been overcome, and the leasing agreement and development
agreement will be concluded soon. We are most pleased about
this and hope that no further problems arise. Thank you for
your patience and cooperation in this matter."
Now, you would take it from that letter, Mr. Chairman, that
all of this has been worked out and the thing has been
satisfactorily arranged. But the fact is that the situation has
not changed in the slightest to this day from what it was last
June when this building wag going to contravene the bylaws, and
the zoning regulations and be opposed to the wishes of the
council of the District of North Vancouver.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member if he would relate
this to the administrative competence and responsibilities of
this department.
MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to do exactly that. I
want to point out that what we have here is a municipality that
is required by its responsibilities to the Province of British
Columbia to set up zoning and other municipal regulations. It's
being completely frustrated in doing the zoning and enforcing
its own regulations in this situation.
Because of this ruling which I read to you from the B.C.
Court of Appeal two years ago, they have no jurisdiction at all
over this. It means that the only way the District of North
Vancouver or the City of North Vancouver or West Vancouver —
all of which are involved in this low area — can enforce the
desires of the other people of that area is to negotiate
individually on each building, each project, whatever it may be
that the Indian band wishes in their wisdom and in their very
natural and responsible desire to improve their lot.
If I might read one quotation from an editorial of the
Vancouver Sun January 11 this year, it says:
"Indian land is beyond the zoning control of provincial
governments and municipalities. A development will be approved if it complies
with federal regulations and if it will bring a fair return to the band. The
final decision will rest with Mr. Chretien and to heck with community objections."
Now, that really summarizes the present situation, Mr. Chairman. I think this
is an absolutely untenable situation. Municipalities are completely dependent
on this individual — negotiation in each case. Now, this is
not an isolated case — the one that's happening in North Vancouver and
West Vancouver. It's duplicated in many parts of British Columbia. It's duplicated
in many parts….
MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.
Member that this would appear to be a matter of federal
jurisdiction and a matter of negotiation between the
municipality and the federal government, and therefore outside
of the administrative competence of the Department of Municipal
Affairs. I would therefore rule further comments on the matter
out of order.
MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Chairman, the negotiation that must take
place is between the municipality and the individual Indian
band. I am saying that the municipality, being a creature of
the