[ Page 2715 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings Mobile Home Act (Bill 34) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2715 Mr. Lockstead –– 2718

Mr. Cocke –– 2716 Mr. Stupich –– 2719

Mr. Rogers –– 2717 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2719

Mr. Levi 2717 Second reading 2720

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2718

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 25) Committee stage

On section 1. On section 1.

Mr. Barber –– 2720 Mr. Gibson –– 2721

Division on a motion that the Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2722

committee rise and report progress Mr. Stupich –– 2723

–– 2721 Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2724

Greenbelt Act (Bill 29) Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2725 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2727

Mr. Stupich –– 2725 Division on second reading –– 2728

Mr. Gibson –– 2727

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act (Bill

24) Committee stage

On section 1. Mr. Barber –– 2732

Mr. Barber –– 2728 Mr. Gibson –– 2734

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2729 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2734

Mr. Barber –– 2729 Ms. Sanford –– 2734

On the amendment to section 1. Mr.Cocke –– 2734

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2729 Mr. Levi –– 2735

Mr. Barber –– 2729 Mrs. Wallace –– 2736

Mr. Cocke –– 2730 Mr. Gibson –– 2736

Ms. Sanford –– 2730 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2737

Mr. Levi –– 2730 Mr. Lauk –– 2737

Mr. Lea –– 2731 Mr. Levi –– 2738

Mr. Gibson –– 2732 Division on the amendment –– 2738

Statistics Act (Bill 32) Hon. Mr. Phillips.

Introduction and first reading –– 2738

Tabling documents

Vital statistics branch 103rd report. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2739

Medical Services Commission financial statements. Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2739

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that we proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

MOBILE HOME ACT

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Almost 25 per cent of all mobile homes in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are located in British Columbia, and recent experience - that is, over the last two or three years - suggests that possibly 20 per cent of all housing starts in the province has been provided by way of mobile homes. We recognize the importance of and the problems connected with this particular style of living, the mobile home. In February last year an ad hoc committee of deputy ministers, with the Deputy Minister of Housing as chairman ' was set up to find solutions to at least some of the problems. Then, Mr. Speaker, last November I appointed a committee with representatives from mobile-home park operators, mobile-home owners and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, as well as two senior persons in the ministry, with the specific objective of creating a model mobile-home park bylaw for possible use by municipalities and regional districts. The committee elected Mrs. Helen Nichols of Kelowna as chairman and I know that they are well on their way to completing that particular assignment. Another minister, the hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , some time ago issued new regulations permitting the transportation of 14-foot-wide mobile homes in British Columbia. That, in fact, started in January of this year, and these wider units, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, are now being manufactured in our province.

Then, to show recognition of the importance of mobile homes as housing, the hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) announced in the budget speech for this year changes in the Social Services Tax Act regulations, which generally treat mobile homes insofar as the tax is concerned in the same way as conventional stick-built homes are dealt with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at this session we are introducing an important first in Canada: the Mobile Home Act. I want to emphasize that this legislation, however, deals with more than just the registration of mobile homes, which was dealt with by the media when the bill was introduced some weeks ago. It's difficult legislation, and certainly a great deal of work has gone into it. I think that the House should know that there were formal consultations leading up to the drafting of the bill, particularly headed by the Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing, Mr. Chatterton, with organizations which included the Municipal Officers Association, the Federal Business Development Bank legal department, Mobile Home Owners Association, Mobile Home Operators Association, the Appraisal Institute, the Assessors Association of British Columbia and the Real Estate Association of British Columbia, in order to go over all the ramifications of proposed legislation and the complications and difficulties which we knew were to be found ahead of us as this was put into final form. So it was difficult legislation and the ministry has been working on it for many months.

Among other things it had to resolve an apparent conflict between personal property and real property. Much other legislation is involved and a number of ministries are affected. I want to express my thanks and appreciation to my colleagues for the valuable help extended by their ministries as we put it together.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, there was no precedent in Canada; we did, however, have an opportunity, through the ministry, to study similar legislation in Oregon and Washington. When introducing this bill I made available a summary listing the main provisions of the proposed legislation. I'd like now to simply cover briefly the principles or the highlights of the bill. First, Mr. Speaker, it does provide for compulsory registration of all mobile homes, with certain exemptions, and it allows for registration of all transactions such as transfers, liens and security interests, plus others. In effect, it performs a service with respect to mobile homes very similar to the service rendered historically by the land registry office with respect to the more normal real estate transactions.

One important feature is that it will prevent tax losses to municipalities and to the province - losses through acquisition grants and sales taxes, altogether estimated to be running perhaps to $750,000 per year.

This measure can also be an instrument for controlling minimum standards of mobile homes in British Columbia and it will permit the regulation and control of agencies dealing in mobile homes. Mobile home agents and dealers will have to be licensed under the Real Estate Act under special provisions and will also have to be bonded.

We believe that this legislation will benefit the mobile-home manufacturing industry, the mobile-home park operators, as well as municipalities and regional districts, for reasons which I mentioned

[ Page 2716 ]

a few moments ago. Also, because loans on mobile homes can be adequately secured, it will benefit the various institutions financing mobile homes as well -most importantly - as the mobile-home owner.

Indeed, at one time or another and in one form or another, all of these groups have asked for this sort of legislation. There may be, admittedly, some objections from mobile-home dealers and agents, but we believe that in the long run they also will benefit.

The relationship between landlord and tenant, Mr. Speaker, is often a difficult one, but more often in mobile-home parks where the tenant is also an owner.

While a shortage of pads for mobile homes continues we won't be able to eliminate all the abuses, but at least this legislation will make it illegal for a mobile-home park operator - that is, a landlord, in that sense - to take more than half-a-month's rent as a deposit from a prospective tenant, and the landlord will not be able to unreasonably withhold approval for an assignment of the lease, even if it is on a month-to-month basis.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill 34, and other measures which I've mentioned this evening, in addition to other steps such as amendments to the Strata Titles Act to permit subdivision of land and the availability of the AHOP financing to assist lower-income owners to acquire mobile homes, all these things, we believe, will have a far-reaching effect on the production of this type of housing and the mobile-home manufacturing industry in British Columbia.

It is self-evident, Mr. Speaker, that mobile homes have become, and will continue to be, an important segment of the total housing inventory available to, and sought by, the citizens of British Columbia. This bill represents a combined effort by this ministry, and other ministries in this government, to establish basic guidelines and certain requirements which have been sought in the industry and among consumers for some considerable time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good bill and I move second reading.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks it's a good bill, and that's to be expected from the minister. In this case, I rather agree that there are a lot of good aspects about the bill. He didn't expect that from me!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): We expected you to leave!

MR. COCKE: The Premier, now that he's here -and I hope he stays here for a few minutes - has dodged out of this House more than any other person, and there are people here who have been here for years. When you were in opposition you spent half your time with running shoes on! What a sport! All of a sudden, you have become a great, responsible. . . .

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Listen, don't be too upset! The fact of the matter is that you're in trouble and you know it. Keep on doing it.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Goodbye, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: "Goodbye, Dennis!" You Socreds have tried that for years. Even with the Liberals you can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems - and we certainly understand the problem of the government with the shortage of pads in the province, and so on - is difficulty in protecting the tenant. I suspect that more teeth could have been put in the bill. The minister indicates that it would be illegal to cancel a tenant's right to the pad with the exchange of ownership of the mobile home. I find it very difficult, in reading the bill, to perceive that that's going to be foolproof. In the Surrey area, and in the Valley area particularly, that has been one of the grave concerns of people. Old folks particularly, who have had a mobile home, let's say, as their retirement step, have been confronted, when they've asked to sell or when they've been forced to sell their mobile home by virtue of the fact that they can no longer live in that setting, with a landlord who says: "Okay, move it off the pad. If you're going to sell it, the guy who buys it can't move in. You've got to move it." There is no place to move it, so they lose terribly on their investment because it makes it a very unattractive sale for the prospective purchaser. That prospective purchaser can go to a dealer and the dealer can guarantee him a place to park his mobile home. However, in the past he hasn't been able to guarantee him any kind of tenure beyond his own tenure as a renter.

I do hope that it is as the minister says - that they're going to be able to clear that situation -because that is really the most sinful aspect of any area. Let's face facts - it's the most sinful aspect of a problem that has a great many sins.

We have to, I think, not only do the kind of thing that's done in this Mobile Home Act, but we have to go beyond that. We have to see to it that there are enough pads made available, one way or the other. If the government is depending on private enterprise and they don't come up with the number of pads that are available, then my suggestion is that they're going to have to make a lot more space available, serviced, for the use of mobile-home owners.

If, as the minister indicates, 20 per cent of the housing starts....

[ Page 2717 ]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I agree with that. If it's anywhere in that area, if those are to be the ongoing kinds of statistics that we're to enjoy, then it's incumbent upon someone to see to it that there is available real estate to take care of this need. It isn't simple, and I think it's kind of a good way, maybe, to phase down in housing for those people who feel that that's the lifestyle that they would enjoy and for those other who feel that they cannot afford the high cost of normal housing. Therefore government's responsibility is to meet those needs.

I, for one, feel that the minister has paid particular attention to his area. He's one of few over there who's actually doing that kind of thing, and I appreciate the fact that he's really trying. My suggestion is, Mr. Speaker, that we all have to co-operate in every way so we can to see to it that the mobile-home owner is not going to suffer the way he has in the past. The fact that now he has tied it in with the real estate business, I think, really makes it a lot tougher. It's going to mean that they're going to have to conform to much higher standards than has been the case in selling mobile homes in the past, and that's particularly enjoyable to those of us who feel that there's something that should be happening in this area.

Controlling the standards, again, is something that is long overdue. We've seen far too many people ripped off in this area not to have great concern,

I hope that the minister, in consultation and in co-operation with other areas of government such as consumer affairs, will see to it that even tougher rules are brought in to make the mobile-home dealers and the mobile-home pad operators come up to even higher standards.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to be supporting this bill. We hope that as time goes by and as the bill shows what weaknesses it might have, there will be amendments put forward in sessions to come that will even tighten it up more.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for this first step in this area.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting Bill 34, the Mobile Home Act, but I am somewhat disappointed in that the minister totally neglected Bill M 201, which would incorporate the floating homes of the province under the same regulations as we now are going to afford to the mobile homes. Some people's lifestyles dictate that they would like to live on a home with wheels underneath it; other people's lifestyles dictate that they would like to live on a home with floats underneath it. I think that we should recognize that those people who want to live on floating homes -and there are a growing number of them throughout the province - should also be recognized and treated in the same way as those in mobile homes. So perhaps the minister, at some time in the future, might consider an amendment which would recognize the efforts of Bill M 201,

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): As has been indicated, we are going to support it, but I do have some questions for the minister and maybe when he closes the debate he would comment.

When you read the bill I get the impression, right off the bat, that it really is more of a consumer protection bill. It really deals to a large extent with the relationship between the people who purchase these vehicles, the standards that are required - in fact, the bill is complete with reference to the Conditional Sales Act, the Bills of Sale Act, and it makes reference to the Real Estate Act. I'm curious as to why this was not really put within the purview of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) , who is dealing with this kind of thing on a day-to-day basis.

I can understand there are parts of the bill which are very appropriately under the minister's department, but it seems to me that they are going to be involved in a great deal of consumer protection issues here and it could very well be that there will be some duplications. After all, most of the legislation referred to within the content of the bill is covered by what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs deals with.

The other question, which I think is a general one which has happened with several pieces of legislation that we've had before us in the past, is that the government is again being forced to go into the private sector and to the business area to regulate something which apparently the people in the field are incapable of regulating. We've had and will have before this House a number of other bills which will regulate various business sectors and it seems that we are now setting out on a path of getting involved in a regulatory way in the business community.

Now we've had some very earnest debates in this House in the past. I can recall when the previous government was in office this was one of the big accusations - that the government insists on regulating what is going to happen in the business sector. Well ' we've had three or four examples and this is another one. I'm not really saying this so much for the minister's benefit, but rather for other people who are in the business sector. Surely there must be some realization with business people in this community that if they keep allowing all sorts of practices to go on which are obviously against the best interests not only of the business sector, but also of the consumer, then sooner or later the government is going to have to step in. I'm just wondering whether there isn't some other kind of remedial

[ Page 2718 ]

measure that we can take rather than constantly having to go into the business of regulating people.

Some time ago in the Globe and Mail there was reference made that in Canada, Canadian citizens in one way or another are subject to some 14,000 different regulations, rules and statutes whether they're provincial or federal, and this only adds to that kind of thing. We've constantly had complaints from the general population and from people who are interested in so-called civil liberties that the government must only come in at the last resort.

Now I appreciate that in this field there have been some very serious abuses, but again it always concerns me that these business groups allow these kinds of things that are going on without any ability at all to police themselves. And here we are now in this particular bill regulating in some detail what will go on in this particular industry.

It is an important industry. Probably for the first time, I think, it generally will be known to the public that 20 per cent of the housing starts in this province actually are related to the manufacturing, sale and occupancy of mobile homes. It's certainly a very interesting fact to me.

So perhaps when the minister is summing up, he might comment on why he feels he has to get into the consumer protection business and whether he has any views on the business of regulating sectors of our community rather than trying some other mechanism, meeting with these people and informing them of the kinds of standards that are required without resorting to legislation, and seeing, in fact, if people are prepared to understand what it is they're required to give in terms of the consumers and not have the government legislate.

Without getting too political, because it's a nice, quiet Tuesday evening, this is the government that represented itself very strongly as being very interested in freedoms and the lack of intervention in the economy, particularly in the lives of people. This is a perfect example of where the government has got itself well into the business community in terms of regulation.

However, the minister is doing a good job. I agree with my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) . He has indicated that he has met with the various people in the area concerned with mobile homes. I did understand him to say that there was a group studying the model Act. Is that something you said earlier? The Mobile Home Park Fee Act....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Model bylaw.

MR. LEVI: The model bylaw. I see. That is something that will be coming down later on.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: He's the very model of a model minister dealing with model bylaws for model homes.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on the two matters that I've raised because I think we do, in this House, have to have some very serious concern about the continuing practice that this government has of legislating certain standards of behaviour which might be accomplished in some other way. Another way is that the government could set out some standards as a matter of suggestion to the various groups that are involved and then give them a certain amount of time to shape up or to ship out.

But that's the only concern I have in respect to this bill - the interference of the government, and that the minister appears to be well into the Consumer and Corporate Affairs area. Most of this bill might well have been under the control of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. First of all I would like to compliment the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on bringing this bill forward.

As an individual who has been involved in the world of finance for a number of years, I can assure you that the registry for mobile homes will be greatly appreciated by the consumer. In many cases the consumer, of course, in purchasing the mobile home has been faced in the past, as the minister has said, with sales tax, but also with the fact that the mobile home has always been considered a chattel. Thereby they were subject to a chattel mortgage which meant to the lender that he could only give a short term of financing and had to charge an applicable higher interest rate than it if was a land mortgage.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the minister that I am sure there are many perspective buyers of mobile homes in this province who would greatly appreciate the opportunity to get a longer term on the financing of the mobile home and to get a lower interest rate because of this registry. I would compliment the minister on bringing this bill forward.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I will be very brief. But I do have a concern, Mr. Speaker, that has been just brought to my attention less than two weeks ago, a situation that exists in my riding, and, I was surprised to learn, that exists in other parts of the province as well. I just wondered if the minister was aware of this problem. Some mobile park operators, I understand, will, in fact, not let a trailer be sold in that mobile park unless they receive a pretty good percentage of the sale price. I would like to know if this Act does cover that situation. I have read the Act carefully and in my view it doesn't really spell out that this situation is covered in this Act. But perhaps I have missed it, Mr. Minister, and perhaps you could

[ Page 2719 ]

enlighten me on that.

Secondly, I don't have any concrete evidence as yet about the situation I just described. It appeared to me to be illegal but I do expect to have some concrete information on this matter within the week. I will make sure that you receive copies of that information. In my view, it is a serious situation and I would appreciate your comments on this matter.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I don't know very much about the subject, but I do have a copy of a letter....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, that's why I'm asking. I'm looking for information, Mr. Premier.

I do have a letter from a constituent of mine. A copy of it went to the minister. It spoke of a brief coming from the mobile home industry, but unfortunately the brief was not enclosed with the copy of the letter that I have. I don't know what the concerns are of the people who are writing this letter. As I say, I have not had an opportunity to see the brief. I believe the minister has a copy of the brief and I would like to have him comment on some of the aspects of their concern, whatever they are.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Shall I start all over again?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It was a letter from, I think, NorthBend Homes, enclosing a brief. But the brief didn't come to me; the brief went to you. I got a copy of the letter. I don't know what their concerns are so I'm just at a loss. I did write to them asking for more information. My letter was gone out but there isn't time for a reply. I wonder if the minister would comment on that brief.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The comments of the various members are interesting and are appreciated. Clearly, as I indicated in opening second reading, a great deal of staff effort and co-operation on the part of a number of individuals has gone into the preparation of this bill, Of course, it will have to be amended from time to time in years to come as experience dictates. I think that's understood with this kind of legislation, particularly when it is breaking new ground.

I'm happy to hear that the official opposition intends to support it.

The question of the perspective purchaser having difficulty finding space was referred to. We recognize that. I indicated that there is a shortage of pads. I think we are on the way, Mr. Speaker, to overcoming that difficulty. We see encouraging signs.

I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to caution some members. Perhaps it really wasn't intended, to paraphrase one statement that was made in the brief debate this evening, for those who cannot afford the high cost of other kinds of housing. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is recognized, I'm sure, that many individuals live in mobile homes by choice. That really has developed over the last few years: individuals who perhaps are tired of the standard single-family detached home, with front and back garden to worry about; individuals whose families have grown up. The parents want to relax, they want to have a little more leisure time. They don't want to be tied down to a major piece of property. They want some mobility, not that it goes with the mobile home in that sense. They want to be able to leave it for longer periods of time and in the park they have that degree of protection and watchfulness on the part of their neighbours which is not always available in a neighbourhood.

There is a very interesting lifestyle in the mobile-home park. I think that it cannot help but increase in years to come, As we indicated in our exchange tonight, 20 per cent now of all housing starts are, in fact, in the mobile-home field. I have the feeling, and there is every indication, that that is going to increase gradually over the next few years.

We're not alone in being concerned about regulating certain aspects of the industry and of this particular type of housing, A few days ago, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I met with members of a federal task force - CMHC, the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and others from Ottawa - who clearly indicated that these questions are a -matter of national concern. What success has the mobile home recorded so far? What are its difficulties? What are the problems immediately ahead? I think we came to an agreement that one of the problems is the image of the older mobile home, because many improvements have been made in both the product - that is, the home itself, the unit - and the setting in which it is located. That task force, under the aegis of the Hon. Andre Ouellet, has been asked to travel the country and to report back to the federal minister as soon as possible.

So we're not the only government concerned about the need for regulation and the need for improving the mobile-home situation in this country. I don't think this government need apologize for introducing legislation when legislation is clearly required. I make no apology for this particular bill.

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) needled me, quite properly, about floating homes and, yes, that's also a developing lifestyle but, regrettably, I cannot discuss it in the context of this bill. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand the difficulty in which I find myself

[ Page 2720 ]

placed on that particular point. There may be a Floating Home Act at some time. I really don't want to enter into conjecture on that point.

As for the reference to consumer protection, yes, there are many elements of the bill which relate to consumer protection but, nonetheless, it is a bill which was initiated in this ministry but also in conjunction with other ministries, as I explained earlier. We're indebted to the other ministries for that co-operation.

Clearly the intent of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be no entrance fee requirement. This was referred to by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) . Oh, they're pointing at each other. Now I'm confused. But the point was raised. I can't guarantee the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to cover this point in every instance, but that is the intent of the bill. If we find that difficulties arise in that particular regard, then that would lead to the amendments to which I referred earlier in subsequent sessions. It's sufficient, I think, for now that the bill has been looked at and drafted and considered very, very carefully, and we believe that it's in the best possible condition for presentation to the House at this time.

I thank the members for their comments. There will be an opportunity to get into some more detail in committee study. I move that the question now be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Mobile Home Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 25.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): This is one of the most powerful sections of the bill, and as I'm sure the Chairman is familiar with it, he may permit a modest amount of latitude in discussion of the principle of the bill because herewith, in this particular section, we see the new authorities granted under the Islands Trust Amendment Act spelled out in very clear language.

I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very surprised this bill has been brought forward tonight, for a number of reasons. I am surprised that it was brought forward because members of this opposition advised the minister, when the bill first came to our attention, that this was his first serious political mistake. We advised him that it would get him into conflict with regional districts, and it has done so. We advised him that it would cause conflict within the Islands Trust, and it has done so.

The hon. Liberal leader moved a hoist and it was refused. The foolishness of that refusal is borne out by the fact that we have this bill here tonight and, indeed, seven regional districts are tonight being insulted because of the most remarkable and most stupid political timing. Let me continue, Mr. Chairman. They ignored the warnings of the political trouble in which they would find themselves. They refused a hoist and it was predicted all around that they would get into conflict, the like of which, it was clear, the minister had not anticipated.

The first conflict came on May 20, Mr. Chairman, when at a meeting of the Islands Trust, the trustees themselves brought forward a report to their committee on procedures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that in committee we are debating the bill section by section. Indeed, the principle of the bill has already been debated and that question has been settled and, except for a casual reference, we do not question the question that has already been settled.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would commend to you, however, section 1, if I might, particularly under (h) (ii) - the specific authorities newly granted to the trust - and I think you will see that it does bear closely on what I'm saying. I will not be very long in any case.

One of the authorities, of course, of this particular trust presumably has been to set its own internal bylaws in terms of procedure and definition of conduct within meetings of the trust itself, Accordingly, anticipating the passage of this bill and anticipating amendments to it, the trust itself began a series of meetings which concluded on May 20 of this year with a report brought down by its committee on procedures. I'm sure the minister has a copy of that report. It was debated at the May 28 meeting of the trust and at that time, because of the failure of the appointed trustees to deal sensitively and appropriately with the elected trustees, five of them walked out. Five elected trustees left the room in anger and despair. Five of them walked out because they had realized what we had predicted, Mr. Chairman, which is that this particular section, among others, is simply not workable.

However, the second argument I wish to make as well is that simply offending elected members of the Islands Trust appears not to satisfy the appetite of

[ Page 2721 ]

this particular minister; he has offended seven regional districts. I am amazed that this is here tonight, Mr. Chairman, because those seven districts have an appointment at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, with the Premier to discuss these very amendments. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that those seven regional districts were given to understand that this would not be coming forward and that their voices would be heard prior to this House looking at this bill again. If such was not the case why did the Premier bother to meet with them in the first place? They held a meeting - the seven regional districts, that is, Mr. Chairman - with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to discuss the whole bill and got nowhere. They then told him that they were going to be meeting with the Premier and the Premier, responsibly enough, agreed to meet with them. The first meeting was postponed and now it's set for Tuesday at 4 o'clock, June 21. Tonight we have the bill. So what's the point of the meeting, Mr. Chairman? Why are we discussing this or any other section tonight? They have offended the elected trustees and five of them walked out of a meeting on May 28. They have offended seven regional districts who are now expected to appear at a meeting in the Premier's office on June 21 for God knows what purpose, because tonight we are debating the bill, contrary to the assurances which, I understand, they have received from this government that their opinions would be taken under consideration.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Let's hear it from the Premier!

MR. BARBER: We cannot support this or any other section of the Islands Trust amendment, Mr. Chairman, until we hear from that minister or that Premier about an apparent hoax. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier said he would go to Squamish and meet with the people concerned about Railwest. He never showed up. Now it appears he's agreed to meet with the seven regional districts concerned about this amendment and has cleverly managed to time the meeting and this debate so that the meeting occurs after the debate is concluded tonight. It's an insult, it's contempt, it's stupid and we wonder why they're doing it, Neither this or any other section point by point, Mr. Chairman, is acceptable to us because what we predicted has come true: they are in conflict with the elected trustees; they are in conflict with seven regional districts. Those regional districts have tonight been insulted by the fact that the meeting they had expected would take place on June 21 has now been made pointless by the more obvious fact that we are debating the bill tonight.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We would be delighted - thank you Madam Member - to accept an adjournment, and I wonder if the committee might rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 25

Mr. Barber requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I think seven regional districts tonight have learned what it is like to be a citizen of Squamish when the Premier promises to meet with them before doing what they did to Railwest. Tonight they've done it to seven regional districts.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if I might take this opportunity of welcoming to the House the chairman of one of those seven regional districts. He has an appointment with the Premier to discuss the bill we're discussing tonight on Tuesday, June 21, at 4 o'clock, His name is Jim Campbell and I ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, we are graced this evening in the committee with the presence of the Premier. I'd just like to ask the Premier if he would be prepared to tell us and tell the representatives of the regional districts in the galleries tonight what he's going to talk to them about on June 21. They have made a meeting to discuss this bill and yet it appears that tonight the government is going to try and ram this bill through without the meeting between the Premier and the regional districts having taken place.

I want the Premier to stand up in this House and tell us that that is good faith, according to Social Credit; that that is the way that Social Credit chooses

[ Page 2722 ]

to do business with the people of this province. "We'll make a deal to consult you within a week or two weeks or a month down the road, and in the meantime we're going to pass the very legislation that you're concerned about."

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Talk about arrogance!

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): We'll speak about how you got hung!

MR. GIBSON: As I say, we're fortunate to have the Premier in the House to answer that question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: He'll take it as notice.

MR. GIBSON: So I'll sit down and give him the chance to stand up and I assume we'll get an answer. And if he's not prepared to give this House an answer, I hope he will at least be sufficiently respectful of the chairmen of the regional districts in this province who, I think, have some influence over the voters in their area, and pay some respect at least to the electoral power of the people in this province to say, yes, nothing is going to be done until this meeting that was promised has taken place.

MR. BARRETT: Try to jog yourself out of this one!

MR. GIBSON: Not a word! Not a word!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I've only been in the Legislature since 1972....

AN HON. MEMBER: In three different parties!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again, Mr. Member. Whether you're standing or sitting you're usually wrong.

Mr. Chairman, we're accused tonight of ramming through this legislation, ramming through this particular bill. Mr. Chairman... ~

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a meeting June 21!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I sat quietly, Mr. Member, and listened. Perhaps you'd like to do the same.

This was introduced in this House on February 25 of this year, with second reading on April 6. The opposition tells us on this bill and on others and, indeed, on our legislative programme that we're wasting time. Then, on the other hand, they accuse us of haste. I don't know what they really want. What do they want, Mr. Chairman?

I consider that February 25 introduction, publication of the bill, April 6 for second reading, full debate, and now tonight, June 14, we're into committee discussion.

Mr. Chairman, a few regional district directors are unhappy with this bill, but not many islanders at all. How confused is that official opposition, Mr. Chairman? Do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? I didn't really want to have to refer....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, chirp, chirp, charp, charp.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I received a lot of telephone calls and letters about this bill, most of them positive. Some were negative, but most were positive. One of them....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I don't have to turn to my family for support. I have support in the constituency, Mr. Member, and you'd better get back north and find out if you have.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): He hasn't been there for a while.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, again, remember that key date, would you, February 25, when the bill was introduced? I got a phone message on March 3 at 11:45 a.m. Apparently - and -have to say that because I cannot confirm that it was actually that person - the name of the caller, which I will touch on in just a moment, is very significant. The message was: "Your amendment to the Islands Trust is an excellent idea and I am totally supportive of it." Now who do you think sent that message? Who do you think sent that message?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your mother.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. It was the New Democratic Party candidate in Saanich and the Islands in the last general election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now what's going on on that side of the House? What's going on over there? You can't agree on this; you can't agree on that; we're going too fast; we're going too slow; we should be in the House; we should be out of the House. What the

[ Page 2723 ]

hell is going on over there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I withdraw the remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: Red baiter!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I could remind hon. members that we are on section I of Bill 25, and we're in committee. The principle of the bill is hardly up for debate at this particular moment. I have been listening patiently to debate on both sides of the House and we have not yet arrived at the debate on section 1.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, in discussing section 1, which really is the principle of the bill, the minister was in order when he said that it was introduced on February 25 and that should be time enough for the opposition to consider its position with respect to section 1.

In detailing the history of it, the minister left out discussions that he has had with the regional district representatives about this bill - representations that they made about their concerns about section 1, and their hope that there could be changes made in section I that would bring this bill into line with what they are trying to do, what they have been doing, with the regional districts.

He left out of his report the fact that the regional districts were not satisfied with the impression they made on the minister in discussing section I and possible amendments to that. He left out of his presentation of the case the fact that the regional districts then approached the Premier and asked the Premier if they might have a hearing with him on a discussion of section 1 and possible amendments to section I of this bill

He left out of his report the fact that the Premier would, indeed, meet with one representative from each of the seven affected regional districts and would discuss section I and possible amendments to it, and anything else to do with this particular legislation,

I had a phone call on June 7 from a constituent of mine who is a member of the regional district council in the Nanaimo Regional District. I was asked by this regional district representative, who lives on Gabriola Island: "What about this meeting we had been promised with the Premier to discuss section I and possible amendments to it?" This member was concerned that there might be discussion of this bill in the Legislature in advance of that meeting. Now I assured that person that the Premier would, under no circumstances, allow that kind of discussion to take place in the House until after he had had that meeting, I felt quite safe in reassuring that member.

Now the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) have used some fairly strong language in describing the position of the Premier. I think there's another possibility, another explanation, and I think it's simply that there's been a breakdown in communication between the Premier and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) in this respect. The Premier didn't have a chance to consult with the House Leader and didn't tell the House Leader that this particular bill should be held up.

Now we gave the House the opportunity to move adjournment of this until after the Premier has had that meeting. The Premier has not said anything to this point on the question. His silence disturbs me because it makes it look as though perhaps the second member for Victoria, and the other members who have referred to this, are correct in using some of the language they did with respect to the Premier. But I would still like to believe that the Premier would want to hold up discussion of this until he has at least given the seven delegates from the seven regional districts some opportunity to meet with him in his office and discuss this legislation.

It is not too late, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to make that gesture and to show the House that he was promising, in good faith, to meet with these representatives to discuss section I and possible amendments to it. Mr. Chairman, it still isn't too late for the Premier to do that. It still isn't too late for the Premier to stand up and say he wasn't lying to these people when he said he would meet with them. But, Mr. Chairman, by his silence - if he remains silent all evening on this - certainly he is admitting by that silence that he was, indeed, lying to these regional district representatives when he agreed to meet with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member for Coquitlam, on a point of order.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Chairman, I think that under the standing rules of this House, when one hon. member accuses another hon. member of lying, he should, on the basis of fact - no fact at all....

MR. KING: What rule?

MR. KERSTER: I think it's standing order 53.

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing order 53?

MR. KERSTER: Look it up yourself. You've been here longer than I have. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that I would ask that member to withdraw

[ Page 2724 ]

unequivocally.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member for Nanaimo please withdraw the statement which indeed suggested that the Premier was lying?

MR. STUPICH: I really didn't intend that suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I want the Premier to stand up and give us the explanation. I do withdraw the offending word unequivocally. I- do withdraw it unequivocally pending the discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, my office makes appointments with any responsible government official - in fact, any citizen of the province - on any issue without determining in advance the position we'll take or whether their position will affect legislation to be brought before the House.

But I don't want to see the good humour which has affected the House break down in acrimonious debate. I'm quite willing to accept an adjournment until the regional district has met in my office. I Want to assure you that all British Columbians have access to make appointments. However, it would indeed be unusual should I agree in advance with anyone who had an opinion contrary to the government, although from the number of times the opposition has walked out and not made the case on behalf of people who oppose certain bills such as the independent schools Act, I feel that the people may have to take their case, Mr. Chairman, directly to the Premier. I'm willing to listen because they make a very poor case even when they're in the House and I'm willing to accept an adjournment.

I move adjournment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the Premier was going to move adjournment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I moved adjournment of the bill.

MR. STUPICH: You are moving adjournment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have a difficulty, HON. members, because just a few moments ago we had the motion that the committee rise and report progress, so we're going to have to do something which is a little bit unusual in committee. We're going to have to ask leave.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Saved again!

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano on a point of order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you have any report from the Chairman, because as you recall, when you left the House.... It would be usual to receive a report from the Chairman before proceeding on to any other business. I would just ask Your Honour what you've heard from Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He hasn't seen him!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm waiting patiently for the Chairman to report what took place in my absence.

MR. GIBSON: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, he had to leave the chair. He can't come back because he left the chair,

The normal procedure I think, Mr. Speaker, is that we would resume at the regular hour of the next session.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chairman, when the motion was put that the Chairman do now leave the chair and carried, left the chair without reporting to me that the motion had been put. I've since been informed that it was carried.

Now if it is the desire of the House, I'll have the Chairman come back in and report that circumstance to me and we'll move to the next order of business. But unless it's the will of the House that you formally wish him to report that the motion was carried duly on the floor of the House, we can and we will move to the next order of business.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I've got two on their feet. Is it a point of order? I have to listen to a point of order, hon. minister, if that's. . . . I have a point of order which I must listen to first, hon. minister.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): No, I just wanted to go on to the next order of

[ Page 2725 ]

business, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in consideration for your decision, it would seem appropriate that someone ask leave of the House to have the Chairman report to the Speaker so that normal procedure could be followed, and I so ask leave of the House for the Chairman to report to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to satisfy all members of the House, is it agreed that the Chairman report to the Speaker the motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARRETT: Agreed? No? There is a no over there. He said no! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll put the question one more time. One moment please. Shall leave be granted for the Chairman to report to the Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a motion that the Chairman do leave the chair, the motion carried and, indeed, I left the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker,

GREENBELT ACT

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): It was adjourned by Revelstoke-Slocan,

MR. SPEAKER: You are correct, hon. member, the second reading was adjourned by the HON. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , who could resume his place if he wished to, but it is not necessary as long as someone else stands and wishes to continue the debate.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): It's been a long time since we discussed this piece of legislation, and I think perhaps it would be in order to review just briefly some of the things that have been brought into debate previously. It was some two and a half months ago, and I think we have to put it in perspective as to just where we were at. When the minister introduced the bill, he indicated that it had been changed. The introduction of this bill, which would replace the existing legislation, the Greenbelt Protection Fund Act, allowed him greater scope, a greater amount of freedom, and it also allowed for funding.

I have some very grave concerns about this bill because I think that the format of the bill leaves such a terrific scope that we really don't know where we're going. The Greenbelt Protection Fund Act did have some very specific stipulations. For one thing it defined very specifically what greenbelt land was, and this particular Act doesn't do that.

While the minister talks very glibly about the things that this Act will do, it is not specified in the Act that it will do those things - that it will take into consideration the various things that are involved, such as protecting river estuaries. There is no specific mention of riverbank land. There is no mention that it is intended to include recreational facilities, trails, passes and this type of thing.

There is no mention of farmland or using the greenbelt land for farm purposes in this Act. In fact, there is no definition of what greenbelt land is or how it is to be used or administered. It simply gives unto the minister and the cabinet in short terms the right to put land into a reserve without any specific stipulations or any form of protection or control or degree of precaution involved.

I feel that the Act is very hazardous as far as the protection of any farmland is concerned and certainly land in the agricultural land reserve. 11 realize that there is an amendment on the order paper which may or may not be called, which may or may not be passed, which would give precedence to the Land Commission Act. But until such time as that amendment is in this Act, there is no protection for the ALR land at all. Land can be placed in the greenbelt reserve under this Act and then it can be taken out Once out, it has gone out of the ALR.

For that reason I am completely opposed to this bill. I think that the Green Belt Protection Fund Act is a much better piece of legislation and it should remain in place. The minister has indicated that the present legislation is too binding because it grants land in perpetuity into the greenbelt reserve. Perhaps that is binding, but a minor amendment in that direction would resolve the problem. I would much prefer to see the present legislation left in place and this piece of legislation defeated.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in considering the legislation before us now I think we have to give some thought to the background of the original greenbelt legislation. The idea of zoning land or of some protection of certain land - the kind of land included in the definition talked about by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) - was not a new one with the NDP administration in 1972. There had long been some consideration given in some circles to

[ Page 2726 ]

the need for society to do something about zoning land outside of land within municipal boundaries.

As a member of the opposition for some six years between 1963 and 1969 I raised this matter annually in the House and was always assured by the Minister of Agriculture - and there were a couple of them during that period - that this was of prime concern to the government. They were very anxious to do something to effect protection for certain undeveloped lands, if you like - certainly undeveloped from the point of view of building shopping centres or houses or industry on them. There was a government awareness of the need to protect this kind of land, to preserve greenbelts in certain areas of the province. There was an awareness of the need to do that. I was reassured by two different Ministers of Agriculture as I raised this matter during that period when I was an opposition member between 1963 and 1969.

I know that the Department of Agriculture was also very concerned about this. When I arrived in my office as Minister of Agriculture in 1972, I was shown all kinds of material that the Department of Agriculture had been working on with this kind of legislation in mind - the idea of preserving greenbelts, in particular around the largest and the most rapidly growing communities. There was a real need to do this. There was an awareness of it within the department; there was an awareness within government.

On one occasion the then Minister of Agriculture, the present member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , did go to cabinet with a proposal that the government actually act to bring in something - something that finally came before the House in the form of the greenbelt Act, It wasn't quite the proposal that was taken to cabinet by the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Shelford, but a proposal that was considered by cabinet. Cabinet walked away from the political danger of bringing in legislation that would truly protect farmland or, indeed, any kind of greenbelt land around cities. They set up an Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet to bring in some legislation and that committee came forward with the greenbelt Act legislation. It' was a beginning, although a very modest beginning, when it was introduced in the House originally. It was a beginning that had protection for certain kinds of land in perpetuity. It was a beginning that did provide for some funds.

I've had some opportunity to review Hansard and to see in that the optimism with which some government members viewed this new legislation and the protection that this particular legislation was going to afford to not only the greenbelt areas around the cities.... Cities like Vancouver and Victoria were mentioned in the Hansard reporting. It was an incomplete reporting of the day, but there was reporting of second reading. Nevertheless, there was some hope in the Hansard speeches of the day that there would be protection not only for the lands around these cities, but for the cities themselves. If cities were allowed to go on expanding, then the cities would destroy themselves if they expanded on all of the land available around them.

This greenbelt legislation that was presented in 1972 that did include with it some funding, that did include a proposal that government would go out and buy land that should be protected and should not be developed any further than it was developed, was supported by the then Premier, W.A.C. Bennett. It was supported by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of the time, Mr. Williston. It was supported by the present Provincial Secretary, then a Minister Without Portfolio.

All of them spoke in glowing terms about this great legislation that was going to protect greenbelt land around communities in perpetuity. Twenty-five million dollars was a very modest beginning that was, I think, agreed to by everyone at that time. But nevertheless, it was a beginning. In fact, it didn't work that way.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that some land was purchased in 1972 after that legislation was passed, but it really wasn't the kind of land that protected the land around those communities or that protected those communities. Nevertheless, the legislation is now being repealed by the bill before us. As the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has pointed out, it is not only being repealed but being changed dramatically, leaving out the protection in perpetuity, leaving it up to cabinet to decide what areas are going to be protected, leaving out of the legislation completely any definition as to what kind of land is in the minds of the government when they talk about setting up the greenbelts.

Will it be with reference to the cities concerned or will they not? What kind of land will the minister. . . ? The minister has a lot of authority in this. It's up to him to decide whether or not this particular parcel of land should be purchased or accepted.

I recall, too, in reading some of the Hansard reports of those days, the Premier of that day, I believe, saying that there were people in our community who had land on the outskirts of some of the major cities and who wanted to see this land protected. They were prepared to either donate this land to the Crown or to sell it to them and get back only modest payments that would look after them for the rest of their lives. Yet it would be the Crown that would benefit and it would be the people who would benefit from the protection in perpetuity that would be provided for in this greenbelt legislation introduced in 1972.

The legislation before us now is not permanent. The legislation before us now allows this minister

[ Page 2727 ]

who has, by his own admission, little knowledge of the environment.... He couldn't understand why he became the minister responsible for it. Yet this is the minister who is going to make the decisions as to whether or not certain parcels of land should be protected. That certainly concerns us, but we can't expect the present minister to be there forever, and that is not a prime concern.

I am concerned that it does take out the protection in perpetuity. I am concerned that it leaves entirely open to the cabinet, to the minister or to someone someday to decide what the definition shall be. Unless there is some reassurance about this definition; unless there is some reassurance that the government doesn't intend to use this simply as a handy receptacle, a very temporary receptacle, to take land from one area, put it into greenbelt and then take it out very quickly and very easily afterwards; unless the minister can give us some assurance in winding up and closing second reading on this, then certainly I'll have no option other than to oppose this bill in second reading.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I've looked at this Act and there are a couple of things I'd like to draw to the attention of the House, The last clause of this Act repeals the Green Belt Protection Fund. I took the precaution of looking up the Green Belt Protection Fund Act and it starts out with this phrase: "The purpose of this Act is to encourage the establishment and preservation in perpetuity of areas of lands commonly known as greenbelts throughout the province." I would underline for the House those words "in perpetuity."

I would then draw to the attention of the House a section of this instant bill which says the following: "The minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, may dispose of greenbelt land in accordance with the Land Act." '

I put that to you, Mr. Speaker, as a study in contrasts. The existing Act, which we are being asked to repeal, protects greenbelt areas in perpetuity. The new Act provides for the disposition of greenbelt areas upon the stroke of the pen of the cabinet. That, of itself, is to me sufficient reason to oppose this bill.

I had the pleasure for some time of working for the national parks branch. The greatest protection that was in that Act in setting up the national parks was that any deletion had to be done by parliament -not by the cabinet, but by parliament. This is a magnificent protection for those areas which are set aside, so that they cannot be simply and easily done for the benefit of whatever may be the latest pet scheme of the latest government of the day. I'm not speaking in particular of this government, but whoever the government of the day may be. Reference should be had to the Legislature to delete any protected lands from that status.

The existing Green Belt Protection Fund Act wasn't perfect. It was found possible under that Act to acquire the Princess Marguerite, for example, which was one of the most curious floating greenbelts that we've ever seen in these parts. It needs some amendment, there is no question about that. But the fact of the matter remains that the existing Act does give protection in perpetuity, rather than disposition at the stroke of the pen. On that simple principle, Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose this bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, reference was made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) that a possibility exists in this bill to remove land from an agricultural land reserve, and I think one of the other members made reference to that as well.

The member acknowledged that the Land Commission Act certainly covers land within an agricultural land reserve and made reference to the possibility of an amendment being passed. I might mention that the Land Commission Act allows for any land or all land in an agricultural land reserve to be removed by a simple order of cabinet. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has authority under the Land Commission Act to remove all the land from the agricultural land reserve without consultation on their own, as it is worded. There is no intent in the Greenbelt Act, responding to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , to have this Act act as a receptacle to move one type of land into a greenbelt and then from greenbelt into obscurity, or into some form of classification that it is not at this time. I can assure him that this is indeed not the intent of the Act.

One of the problems with definitions when it comes to defining "greenbelt" is that you have an incredible list of definitions if you attempt to list them all. By not having a narrow definition or specific list of definitions, your scope, of course, is unlimited as to what greenbelt lands may be. Greenbelt lands need not necessarily be areas of grass, shrubbery, trees or waterways, Indeed, a greenbelt area as defined by this Act could be an area of particular beauty that may be in an arid section of the country but may have significant beauty to be preserved under greenbelt legislation.

Specifically, some members have discussed wild rivers, estuaries and various other environmentally sensitive areas. They too could be classified as a greenbelt area and could be brought into the greenbelt bank of land as permitted under this Act.

I appreciate the arguments put forward by some members. I suppose a great deal of it depends on the motives of any government sitting in office at any one time. I might remind the members that the government in office could amend such Acts as they see fit anyway. The Legislature is supreme in these matters and can modify the Acts as it desires, So the

[ Page 2728 ]

Acts do not necessarily sit on the books forever; they can be modified.

I can assure the member for Nanaimo that the intent of the bill is precisely as outlined, and that is to preserve greenbelt lands, to identify greenbelt lands and to acquire them as seen fit and also, with a modification of the financings, that the funds, in effect, could be unlimited. There is no other motive beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I assure you.

I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Bill 29, Greenbelt Act, read a second time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 14

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 29, Greenbelt Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

SHELTER AID FOR

ELDERLY RENTERS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Rogers in the chair,

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: Permit me to extend my congratulations to the real authors of this bill: Mr. Lorne Nicolson and Mr. Larry Bell. As the minister is well aware and as this House should be well aware, this bill, in form roughly similar to the material we have tonight, was in the hands of a committee of our cabinet prior to the last election. At that time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill had a somewhat different acronym - it lacked the final letter, the "W'. Thankfully the acronym has been changed.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: No, but I've seen the documents. On behalf of our caucus. . . . (Laughter.) Thank you, Mr. Liberal Leader; you got the joke.

On behalf of our caucus I wish to recognize the very particular and personal contribution of the Deputy Minister of Housing, Mr. Larry Bell, and the former Minister of Housing, Mr. Lorne Nicolson, the real authors of the bulk of this legislation as we have it before us. I wish to thank them both again for changing the acronym and adding the final R - most helpful in selling it to the public.

Mr. Chairman, one of the omissions in section I that concerns the official opposition a great deal is the omission of any consideration to mobile-home dwellers. I have received phone calls and correspondence in my capacity as critic for municipal affairs, housing and transit on our side of the Legislature. I have received phone calls from senior citizens who are otherwise eligible to receive assistance under the SAFER programme who, because they live in mobile homes, will be denied that assistance. That denial is contained in the failure of section 1, which we're now debating, to make any reference whatever to mobile homes.

We just heard several minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, the minister telling us at some length about his concern for mobile-home dwellers. We congratulated him for it when we voted for an earlier bill. It seems to me that were the minister wholly concerned with mobile-home owners - and in particular with senior citizens who are now living in mobile homes, and there are thousands of them in this province - there would be in section 1, the interpretation section, a statement to include mobile homes. I'm concerned about the failure of the minister to include such a statement.

I can see, Mr. Chairman, no logic whatever to the exclusion of senior citizens who happen to live in mobile homes from the provisions of this Act. I can understand no rationale for such exclusion. I can find no good reason whatever. One can only conclude that this was an inadvertent omission. The minister has told us that his government - and we congratulate them for it - feels no prejudice whatever to those of our citizens who live in mobile homes. They're not viewed as gypsies and they're not viewed as bandits who move by night; they are respectable citizens who live in mobile homes and do so in a very respectable and commendable way.

I have received too many calls from senior citizens

[ Page 2729 ]

to overlook the fact that section I contains no reference whatever to those of them who live in mobile homes. Now I'm prepared to move an amendment to include the words "mobile homes" where such may appropriately appear in the interpretation section of this. But prior to doing so, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate hearing from the minister as to whether or not he himself might be willing to offer such an amendment. If so, obviously it has a far greater chance of passing. If not, I'll move my amendment shortly. I wonder if the minister might now tell us whether or not the government is prepared tonight to include mobile-home dwellers under the provisions of this Act, and specifically to amend section I to include the phrase "mobile home" after the statements "that building" and so on as it appears in this section. If not I'll move it myself,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has been referred to is not necessary, in our view. The eligibility committee, with which the members will be familiar, and the regulations which will cover the activities of the shelter aid for the elderly renters programme will ensure that those seniors who do rent a mobile home will be in fact eligible. It should not be overlooked that many senior citizens in mobile homes are owners, and therefore they receive or are eligible for and claim the home acquisition grant. But if I understand the hon. member's reference, it is to those who rent, They will certainly qualify as would any other senior citizen or elderly tenant under the provisions of this bill.

MR. BARBER: I'm pleased to have the assurance. Those in our caucus who examined these bills from a legal point of view tell us that at the moment there is no specific provision within it to allocate funds to persons who rent mobile homes. Again, if you'll take my word for it - and perhaps you've received similar letters and correspondence and phone calls - there are seniors indeed who are presently renting mobile homes, perhaps on their way to purchasing them, perhaps leasing to purchase but not presently eligible as owners for the homeowner grant or any other, who are not technically covered by this. If the minister is happy with it and wishes to stand by his statement that they will be eligible, then I'm sure he will not object, Mr. Chairman, to the following amendment which I do make: to insert the words "mobile homes" so that the eligibility committee and the people of this province understand fully that they are in fact qualified under this Act for assistance.

So if I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to Bill 24, intituled Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, to amend section 1, line 5, by adding the words "or mobile home" after the words "where an applicant leases a building" and after the words "that building" so that line 5 will completely read: "Where an applicant leases a building or mobile home, that building or mobile home, " et cetera. The significance of it I'm sure is very clear and very straightforward. I hope very much that the minister will accept it. Accordingly I move that amendment at this time, Mr. Chairman.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): It's out of order.

MR. BARBER: Why? The minister just assured us that they were eligible. If it's already covered, we're asking that the language be made clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Perhaps we could have the Clerks check the amendment to see whether or not it is in order.

The amendment appears to be in order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government will not accept the amendment. A great deal of thought has gone into the bill that is before the House now, and the word "building" in the interpretation of the first section is perfectly satisfactory. I offer the assurance to the hon. member. His legal advice, in my view, and with respect, is not as good as that which was available to the government in preparing this legislation. I thank him for his effort.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the minister's personal assurance that mobile homes will qualify. The problem is that governments change, and so do ministers, and personal assurances don't outlast the person. We want it in the legislation. We want it in the law. It appears nowhere in the interpretation. The only words that appear are the words "building, " or "that building, " and indeed it may well be challenged by some bureaucrats and some later ministers without the good intentions of this minister, and mobile-home renters may find themselves out in the cold.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that you have already ruled that this amendment is in order.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: He has ruled it is in order, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , and while appreciating the minister's personal commitment and personal interpretation, surely he will allow that later ministers and later governments might not make the same interpretation, and later eligibility committees might not either. Accordingly, I would very much ask the minister to reconsider. It is, in effect, two words - "mobile homes." The amendment is in order, it's consistent with government policy, and I don't

[ Page 2730 ]

understand why the minister should object if he appreciates that the rule of law in this case, again according to our legal interpretation, does not claim that "buildings" means "mobile home&"

The rule of politics in this province also means that a personal assurance from a given minister of the day may well not hold in days hence. We would very much like the phrase "mobile homes" in the amendment, and I don't understand what reasonable objection this government could have to it. I do appreciate the personal assurances of the minister. I'm just worried about other ministers down the road who might not be as generous or as respectful to mobile-home renters.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given certain assurances that mobile homes are included. I don't think there's any reason, Mr. Chairman, why the minister couldn't be a little more definitive in his bill to see to it that, in law, mobile homes are included.

You know, MR. Chairman, we listened to the minister a short while ago giving a real message in this House about his concern for mobile-home dwellers. We listened to him discuss a bill which we felt was a real step forward in this province, a bill that indicated that mobile-home dwellers would get a better shake than they've ever had before. We agreed with that, MT. Chairman. We agreed that that is the kind of direction that should be established by a progressive minister. As a matter of fact, at the time I indicated that the minister had done a credible job. Now we're not tearing or slashing this bill apart, other than to say that there is a body of opinion out there that feels the mobile-home dweller is not, in fact, in the position....

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Is it a building? I wouldn't think so.

MR. COCKE: I don't know.

MR. MACDONALD: It must be a building. Is a mobile home a building?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor. All members are able to participate in the debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the question is: is it a building? There are many, many varieties of opinions within the legal profession. If that's the case, then why has the government concern over making the bill definitive, over saying to the people out there: "Yes, you're covered, Yes, this applies to you."? MR. Chairman, now at the hour of 10:06, or whatever it is, is not a time for arrogance. It's not a time for people to become entrenched just because of advice from bureaucracy, or wherever one gets advice. Mr. Chairman, let the minister stand up tonight and show he has real concern for those people he was discussing earlier this evening in this particular area by indicating definitively. All he has to do is add the words "mobile homes, " Mr. Chairman, and we'll be quite satisfied. We'll be quite satisfied with section I under those circumstances.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): You know, the mobile home owners in this province for many years have felt that they are second-class citizens, and here we have some debate tonight as to whether or not the word "building" might, in fact, include the particular homes which they have chosen to live in. In an earlier speech tonight, the minister indicated the large percentage of people in this province who do live in mobile homes; there are a substantial number of them. I don't understand what legal advice the minister has had that would say "no" to including the words "mobile home." It simply clarifies that mobile homes are indeed covered. Now the minister has said: "Yes, they are covered; they will be covered in the regulations." But why not clarify it in the bill? You mentioned that the legal advice that you had received was better than the legal advice that we had received. But what, . . ?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, we'll put our lawyers up against yours any old time, as my colleague says. (Laughter.) But what legal point disturbs the minister by including the words "mobile home?" What legality is there that says: "No, you should not include mobile homes in this definition"? Why not? It seems to me that all we're attempting to do here is to assure these people, who already feel that they've been treated as second-class citizens for all these years, that they are being considered and that they will be included and no matter what government or what minister is there, they will be the recipients of this particular renters' grant. I would really appreciate hearing from the minister what the legal hangup is by including the words "mobile home."

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we're in danger tonight of suckering the minister for the second time if we are not careful, and I don't mean suckering in terms of help either. He has actually stated that the definition "building" is going to be satisfactory. Well, I would remind the minister that no doubt he was in receipt today of a Counsellors' Report, which is a newsletter that is sent out by the senior counsellors of the province. It's the June edition. It arrived today for most of the members and it says in it: "Shelter Aid For The Elderly Renters." Very large print.

"When SAFER forms hit the mail soon,

[ Page 2731 ]

senior counsellors must be prepared to help the elderly renters who qualify to fill in their forms. Not since the renters' grant form was put in with the income tax return has there been anything like what will happen when the SAFER forms hit the mails. The demand for your help" - in reference to the senior counsellors - "will be great, so it might be a good idea to start to figure out how you'll handle the rush. That could be within six weeks after the provincial Legislature approves and the Lieutenant-Governor proclaims the SAFER Act as law. Starting with the month of July, if there are no hitches, SAFER will be paid directly to the provincial Minister of Housing."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if the Chair can just interrupt you for a moment. We are on the amendment....

MR. LEVI: Yes, and I'm on the amendment too, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have been listening to your debate and your debate would probably be better canvassed under the bill itself rather than under the amendment, which just deals with the mobile-home section.

MR. LEVI: No, allow me to complete my argument. I appreciate your agitation, but allow me to complete my argument.

We are dealing here. . . . Don't get so twitchy, Mr. Minister; take a pill and keep quiet. We are dealing here with senior citizens. In the last three months they have gone through one of the most horrendous experiences with the misunderstanding of the kind of legislation that that government is capable of, even when it doesn't introduce legislation, with its rotten approach to what it did with the Pharmacare programme. It took months for the senior citizens to settle down about what exactly was going to happen to them about Pharmacare. Today we witness the Minister of Human Resources (HON. Mr. Vander Zalm) unable to talk about the very programme which he was supposed to be responsible for. You are dealing with senior citizens. They have sufficient anxieties created by that government to be sufficiently anxious about whether in fact they are going to know that people in mobile homes are going to qualify for the SAFER programme, and it's absolutely ridiculous.

The minister is now telling us that his legal advice is.... Well, it's not a question of legal advice. We're dealing with human beings; to heck with the legal advice. It's simply a matter of explaining to people. Now it may very well be that in anticipation of the legislation, the minister has got the forms printed up.

Well, if he hasn't got the forms printed up, would he indicate to the House that he's going to have alongside the word "building" - hopefully - an asterisk, that will explain at the bottom that this includes people in mobile homes? Or is it too late? Are we facing an issue where the forms are already printed up? But it's ludicrous to hide behind the idea that you've got some better legal advice. You're offering a service to senior citizens - an exceptionally good service and worthwhile. But there is no point in suggesting that because you've got legal advice that somehow you can't go one step further to assist people.

This is the whole import of this Counsellors' Report that's gone out. They're warning the senior counsellors, because we know that every time we introduce a programme for senior citizens, many of them, because of their age and because of the fact that they are not used to getting this kind of help, get concerned. You've not in any way assured this side of the House that your definition of "building" is somehow going to seep through to the senior citizens and that those who are living in mobile homes are going to be satisfied that they know that they can qualify.

You are going to get an inordinately large amount of mail once this thing filters through, and then you're going to have to go through that whole red-tape thing. Surely you can do it now by just adding those two words that have been suggested by my colleague from Victoria and be reasonable about it. It's got nothing to do with the kind of legal advice you have. Understand the senior citizens and the kinds of situations that they are in and do something without worrying about the legal advice.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Obviously the minister's word on this is good enough for this side of the House, but it isn't us that that word has to carry with, Every piece of legislation that passes within this Legislature should also be able to stand the test of courts. I wouldn't want to have to go into a courtroom and say: "Well, I realize it doesn't say that in the legislation but, gosh, gee, the minister said it was okay." How far would you get with that kind of argument? Not very far at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might appear as a witness.

MR. LEA: Yes, he may appear as a witness and say: "I intended to do that. That was my intent when I brought the legislation in." But I don't think the court could rule on that. They would have to rule on what it says in words on the paper in the legislation. I think the minister knows that.

But getting away from legal arguments for a moment, the minister himself, I'm sure, and his word,

[ Page 2732 ]

I'm sure, not only would be taken in this House but outside this House. But as another member pointed out, he may not be the minister either in this government or the next. So that's not the point. The point is that it should be in legislation so that everyone can understand fully and definitely what it says.

Even besides that, these members over there who are cabinet ministers, Mr. Chairman, have also said other things to the people of this province - not when they were ministers, but when they were members of this Legislature traveling throughout this province during the last election campaign. They assured the people many times over that taxes wouldn't go up, and they have. Wouldn't the people in this province like to have it in legislation today to hold the Social Credit to their promise that sales and income taxes wouldn't go up? They had their word. They had their word but it didn't happen. They also had their word that they wouldn't tamper with Pharmacare. They also had their word that they wouldn't change the Land Commission Act or the greenbelt Act. They had their word on a number of issues in this province, and that word has been broken.

So it appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that this word or these words "mobile home" should be placed, as it suggests in this amendment, within the legislation itself, Because it isn't a case. The people of this province should not have to take the word of government. The word of government should be legislation itself; that's what it should be.

Mr. Chairman, the minister knows that, because I know that the minister, when he was mayor of one of the larger municipalities of this province, had to deal with the old Social Credit government, and I know that many times he wished that he had more than their word. He told me that himself, Mr. Chairman, that he had an awful time with the old Social Credit government, or at least some of the ministers, He wished that he had had more than their word, like on the Blanshard Street extension. Don't you wish that you had more than their word on that, Mr. Minister? Even though they assured you that they were going to take a direct line of action, they didn't do it, and what recourse did you have? None, MR. Chairman; no recourse whatsoever,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, really, this could be quite well canvassed under the bill itself, but we are under an amendment,

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about whether this amendment should be included in the legislation, The minister has asked us to accept his word that we don't need it. That's what he's asked for, Mr. Chairman, The only thing is that by the minister's own statement to me, and private conversations before, he had the word of other Social Credit ministers with regard to problems within the municipality that he was mayor of at the time, and the word wasn't kept.

So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if there is one minister in the House who knows that you can't take the word of anybody in government. . . . If they are Social Credit, you have to have it in black and white and in legislation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the minister by the nod of his head if he would be prepared to change the word "building" to the word "structure."

MR. LEVI: Gordon, that's $300 worth of legal advice.

MR. GIBSON: I won't even send him a bill for that, Mr. Member. Ifs just a helpful little suggestion that would seem to fall in with, . . ~

The minister's shaking his head - I can't believe that.

Mr. Chairman, I'm confused now. I'm a bit thick when it comes to matters of law, I confess, but I want the minister to explain something to me. He means the word "building" to include mobile homes, but he can't say that. There's a legal reason the minister has told us for why he cannot say that a building includes mobile homes, I don't understand that.

I've looked through this Act carefully. I don't see the word "building" anywhere else other than in this f first section, so it shouldn't have anything consequential to do with other sections. I'd just like the minister to explain to me what the difficulty is that prevents him from putting down in black and white that "building" includes mobile homes. I'd like to ask him about structure too, but that's a separate question. Could he just explain what is the legal reason? What is the impediment here that has taken up so much time of this committee? If he could just explain it, we're all reasonable people and we'd like to hear it,

AN HON. MEMBER: He's had two month&

MR. LEA: How about if we leave it as "mobile building"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I'll defer.

MR. BARBER: Well, I thank the second member for Victoria very much for briefly yielding his place to me, because I sat down in the expectation that the minister would tell us why he can't elaborate that

[ Page 2733 ]

word "building" to express his clear intent, and his intent, he tells us, is that it should include mobile homes.

MR. LAUK: What about a houseboat?

MR. GIBSON: I was going to ask that, Mr. Member. There are two other categories of things I'm interested in. Does it include a hotel room that is in a hotel but is in fact used for a residence? Does "building" include that? Does it include a houseboat - a sort of floating building? It may or may not be subdivided. It may be held by tenants in common.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about a tree house?

MR. GIBSON: It might even from time to time have a fishing line over the side.

MR. LAUK: A grass hut?

MR. GIBSON: This is a serious question, Mr. Chairman. Would a houseboat be counted as a building? If it was, would it matter if it moved?

MR. BARBER: Perhaps I could assist, Mr. Chairman,

I have in front of me the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. As the minister earlier suggested, that Act presently applies to mobile-home owners and dwellers. I'd like to refer, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to the interpretation section of that Act, as I read it here. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that nowhere in here does it refer to mobile homes either. I wonder how the minister is able to justify within this Act the delivery of public funds to mobile homes, les perfectly clear from this reading and from the most important questions raised by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) that the minister simply, if I may suggest it, hasn't done his homework on this particular section.

If I may read from the definitions here from the Act to which the minister referred as being somehow applicable to mobile homes - I'm glad it is, and I don't read it in the law that it is:

" 'Eligible apartment residence' means a suite that is (a) in a building, owner of which is a corporation, and (b) occupied with his household as his ordinary residence by a person who owns capital stock in the corporation equivalent in value to the capital value of the suite, and who (i) does not apply during the current year for a provincial homeowner grant as the owner of an eligible residence or under subsection 2 of section 7 and (ii) has not been such an occupant of a suite taken into account in determining the amount of a provincial homeowner grant already applied for by the owner of an owner-occupied apartment building."

Nowhere in this first section of interpretation, Mr. Chairman, do we see any reference whatever to mobile homes. Let me continue, because this is the Act to which the minister has referred as being somehow definitive of mobile homes which in turn can be included under the broader definition of buildings.

"Eligible residence, " as we find it in the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act, is referred to as:

41a parcel of land shown as a separate taxable parcel on a taxation roll for the current year prepared under the Taxation Act, or on a real property tax roll for the current year prepared by the collector of a municipality, and that has as improvements situate thereon a building or buildings assessed and taxed in the current year as an improvement or improvements, and in whole or in part occupied by the owner and his household.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, it takes a great deal of imagination and latitude to presume that somehow this definition can be applied to mobile-home owners or renters.

If I may go on to the largest definition, though -that of "owner" - again under the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act to which the minister has earlier referred:

" 'Owner' means:

(a) with respect to an eligible residence or an owner-occupied apartment building situate within and taxable by a municipality, an owner is defined in the Municipal Act; or

(b) with respect to an eligible residence or an owner-occupied apartment building situated within unorganized territory, (i) an owner is defined in section 2 of the Taxation Act, or (ii) a purchaser or tenant from whom taxes are recoverable under subsection 2 of section 26, of the Taxation Act, or (iii) a lawful occupier of Crown land assessed and taxed in respect of an eligible residence under subsection 3 of section 26 of the Taxation Act."

Or, continuing with the earlier definition (a) , (b) and now (c) , "the committee or the attorney of an owner, as defined in clause (a) or (b) , fully authorized by power of attorney to act as such for the purposes of this Act."

It goes on at further length far more technically and just as obviously pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that nowhere do we find within the provincial homeowner grant any definition of eligible apartment residents, eligible residents, owners or, as I'll get to next, owner-occupied apartment buildings. It simply doesn't add up to the conclusion which the minister has apparently drawn. We can find no strength whatever for the legal interpretation that he's

[ Page 2734 ]

received to indicate that within this Act or the one for which I've proposed this amendment we have a satisfactory definition of residence or building or structure that includes a mobile home.

I'll conclude by reading, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the definition of "owner-occupied apartment building" in the provincial homeowner grant:

"A parcel of land (a) the owner of which is a corporation with a memorandum of association which stipulates that any building or buildings owned or operated by the corporation shall be owned and operated exclusively for the benefit of shareholders in the corporation who are occupants of the building or buildings; and (b) that is shown as a separate taxable parcel on a taxable roll for the current year prepared under the Taxation Act or on a real property tax roll for the current year prepared by the collector of the municipality; and finally (c) that has as improvements situate thereon a building or buildings in which there is an eligible apartment residence."

Nowhere here either do we see any justification for the interpretation that the minister has offered tonight. Neither in this Act nor the one which we're presently debating and whose amendment we're presently offering do we see any justification whatever for the minister's reading of the word "building" as somehow meaning mobile home or anything other than the strictest and most narrow definition which is offered in the Act tonight and this other Act from which I've quoted.

Accordingly, I wonder if the minister would care to table in this House, or promise to table in this House at some future time, in writing the definition which has been offered by the legal advisers to his department. I wonder if the minister would be so good as to give to this House in writing the opinion of his solicitor which justifies from this or some other Act an interpretation of the word "building" to include mobile home. Because frankly, Mr. Chairman, we just can't afford it. We just don't see it here.

I take the word of this minister, but the minister may change. I take the word of the minister that the eligibility committee interprets it his way, but that committee may change. I take the word of the people that it's just possible that governments may change. It's nice to have his personal assurance, but it's better to have it in law.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this question of what "building" means and ask the very serious question: what about a hotel room? Many elderly citizens in our society, to whom this bill is meant to apply, reside in hotel rooms. That's their ordinary residence.

Now the wording here states in section l (ii): "Where an applicant leases" - underline the word

"leases" - "a separate portion of a building." Very often, Mr. Chairman, these tenancy arrangements are not anything of the kind that would normally be described by the word "lease." They're simply on a month-to-month or even week-to-week continuing arrangement, As I see it here from the language of this section, people in that kind of accommodation might be foreclosed from applying for assistance under this Act, So I'd ask the minister if he could give some assurance in that regard.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd look to you for guidance. I feel that I cannot answer the question posed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) under the amendment which is presently before us, which indeed deals with mobile homes. I Would be happy to do so as soon as we're free of that particular restriction.

MS. SANFORD: There have been several members in the House tonight who have asked again and again of the minister to explain to us what the legal problem is with including the words "mobile home." The minister has not given any explanation whatsoever except to say that his legal advice is better than ours, and that's not acceptable over here. Now if the minister were to get up and explain to us exactly why the words "mobile home" cannot be included legally, then perhaps we can be persuaded to withdraw the amendment. If the minister is not able to give that explanation, then perhaps the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who is himself a lawyer and has the legal expertise presumably to explain to the House why this amendment cannot be accepted. . ~ .

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister owes the House an explanation as to why this simple amendment cannot be accepted on a legal basis. I again appeal to the minister to explain to the House why he cannot include it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, for years in this House - and I was opposition before - amendments were just not acceptable by the then government,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member, Perhaps if the other members of the House could wait their turn to enter this debate we could hear the hon. member for New Westminster, who has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, the amendments were not acceptable. For some reason or another it was felt that somehow the government had the right to have their say, that the opposition had its right to debate, but beyond that, no rights whatsoever. That was all changed in 1972 and there were a number of amendments accepted between

[ Page 2735 ]

1972 and 1975 for a number of bills,

Mr. Chairman, that was a healthy situation. It gave an opportunity for people to present some thoughtful suggestions, and under those circumstances those thoughtful suggestions, sometimes, were by far in the best interests of those out there that we all represent.

There are a group of people in our society that we all represent, one way or another - those people living in mobile homes - for whom the minister felt terribly concerned a short while ago. It's not going to in any way upset this bill. It's not going to in any way reduce the impact of the bill. It's going to assure a segment of our population that their rights will be protected under this piece of legislation.

Need we say more than that? Can anybody stand up in the House and indicate any way this bill is going to be impaired with this amendment? If it is, then can the amendment be corrected, but still ensure that those people living in mobile homes are going to get the kind of consideration that this bill is mooted to present?

Mr. Chairman, let the minister stand now and indicate to us some valid reason why our particular amendment is not acceptable. If that is the case then I would suggest that we are prepared to listen. But under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, we really are frustrated, having dealt with this for longer than it took us to deal with the other bill affecting mobile-home owners. There's no reason for that,

Why doesn't the government put its head together? It would make a marvellous point. (Laughter) I thought you'd like that.

Let them do that and let them come out looking like people who are terribly concerned for people who are out there, particularly in the Health minister's riding, where there are a lot of mobile-home owners, mobile-home renters, et cetera, He's showing no concern.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They love this bill.

MR. COCKE: Oh, they love this bill? He doesn't really understand.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, but my people do.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, his people do - his people! - "Let my people go" - the king of Langley,

Mr. Chairman, let the minister stand now and indicate a good reason why this amendment is not acceptable.

MR. LEVI: I notice that my colleague from North Vancouver has a much bigger book than I have (laughter) , which disturbs me somewhat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the whole thing,

Norm!

MR. LEVI: I now read from Hezakiah. (Laughter.)

What I'd like the minister to do is to listen carefully to two definitions. Perhaps he can explain to me, because in his Act, in this particular section, we do not have a definition of "building." If you look at the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, the closest we get to a definition of "building" is "buildings." It says here: "Buildings means buildings, structures or work and facilities and amenities related thereto."

Now if you go to the Home Purchase Assistance Act, and you look at the definition of mobile home. . . . There is a definition there. It reads: ". . . means a self-contained dwelling unit designed to be mobile and to be used as a permanent place of residence as prescribed by the regulations."

Mr. Minister, while we have your assurance that "buildings" does in fact mean mobile homes.... Unfortunately I'm not a lawyer, so I'm going to allow myself all sorts of legal licence. I' would think that you'd have one heck of a time going into court and saying: "In the Legislature I assured everybody that 'buildings' should read 'mobile homes.' " Then they go to the two statutes here and you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

You know, I'm really a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman, because I think what we're seeing here is a rigidity on the part of the minister which really is very difficult to understand. The least we could get is a definition from the minister on what he means by buildings.

Now I have gone through the various Acts and I can't find anything closer than what comes in the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act.

Now I might ask him, as a matter of information, Mr. Chairman: where did the drafters of this particular Act get the word "buildings" from, and where is it defined? I think that's a fair question because every day in this Legislature we deal with legislation and with definitions. It's very important. Definitions have taken hours and days of debate in this House. Why, everybody remembers the incredible debates we had on the Land Commission Act in 1973 with definitions of what "expropriation" meant. We had people suggesting that it meant not only expropriating your land, but also expropriating your gold wedding ring, or even the gold out of your teeth. That actually took place in this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: Who said that?

MR. LEVI: Well, he's over there, but I forget who it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. . . .

[ Page 2736 ]

MR. LEVI: Oh! That's the mnemonic device I need, Mr. Chairman. It was the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could get back to the amendment, hon. member,

MR. LEVI: Would the minister inform the House where the word "building" comes from in the Act, and would he give us some reference so that we could look for a description of what it says in this particular section under " (i) where an applicant leases a building, that building ... "?

What does that mean? Where does that come from? Has it got some reference to something else? I don't think the minister is going to be in the position of standing on his legs and making his own definitions when two definitions.... In the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act, "buildings" are defined, and in the Home Purchase Assistance Act "mobile homes" are defined. I don't see how he can possibly get away with suggesting that "buildings" in the Act we have before us today implies mobile homes.

MR. COCKE: And why did they include them there?

MR. LEVI: Yes, exactly. You know, the minister may be getting a little twitchy. I find that the twitchiness comes from his rigidity. It's very unfortunate, but I think he would be doing everybody a great service - but most particularly the senior citizens - if he would simply include the amendment or suggest another kind of an amendment, Have an amendment in which the word "building" is defined, If you want to do that, get up and offer us an amendment, You'll get full co-operation on this side of the House. Would you please define for us, or let us know, Mr. Minister, just exactly where this word "building" came from in your section? To what can we relate it?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm really having some confusion with this. I’m surprised at this minister. He's usually very co-operative. I 'just can't quite understand his reluctance. I would like, for his information, just to read from a couple of Acts. One I'm referring to is the Mobile Home Tax Act which gives a very similar definition of a mobile home to that just read from another Act by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , but it goes on, in section 2, to say: "Subject to sections 3 and 4, a mobile home situated within a mobile-home park, whether or not the mobile home falls within the definition of an improvement under the Municipal

Act So then I looked at the Municipal Act, Mr. Minister, and in the terms of reference of the Municipal Act it describes an improvement. It says that under the Municipal Act an improvement is all buildings and fixtures.

Yet in the Mobile Home Tax Act, it talks about mobile homes as to whether or not they are an improvement under the Municipal Act. Now I am really confused, MT. Minister. Under the Municipal Act it says an improvement is a building, and yet under the Mobile Home Tax Act is says that a mobile home is not necessarily an improvement on the Municipal Act. I'm confused, Mr. Minister.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would want to supplement modestly the insight brought by the hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) and the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) as to the distinction between the phrases "mobile home" and "building."

Now we gave second reading today to a bill titled the Mobile Home Act in which "mobile home" is defined to mean: "Any structure" - and that's another reason for using the word "structure, " just en passant - "whether ordinarily equipped with wheels or not that is designed, constructed or manufactured to be moved from one place to another by being towed or carried, " and to provide accommodation of one kind or another. That is: ". . , designed, constructed, or manufactured to be moved from one place to another."

Now I have sought one reference - Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd edition ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Unabridged.

MR. GIBSON: ... unabridged.

There are a number of things, but.... Well, one is, of course, the verb form, but as to the noun: "It is that which is built specifically as now generally used, a fabric or edifice framed or constructed, designed to stand more or less permanently."

AN HON. MEMBER: A mobile home.

MR. GIBSON: No, no, no. That's a building; it's a building, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, no. I just read out to you what, 'mobile home" means under the statute of British Columbia. It's something that's constructed to be moved.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor. Perhaps the others would respect that.

[ Page 2737 ]

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: and covering a space of land for use as a dwelling, storehouse, factory, shelter for beasts or some other useful purpose." "Building" in this sense does not include a more "wall, fence, monument, hoarding or similar structure, though designed for permanent use where it stands, nor a steamboat, ship or other vessel of navigation . .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: .. . which perhaps throws some light on the houseboat question. I'm not certain.

But it does seem to me that a mobile home which is designed under Bill 34 is something that is designed to be moved. It is distinct from a building, which is something that is designed not to be moved. Therefore, for greater certainly, those words should be added to this section.

MR. WALLACE: Where's Peter Hyndman now that you need him, Hugh?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to this lengthy discussion. I indicated earlier that we have looked at this most carefully with staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Obviously not.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that happens to be incorrect. I think you're wrong again.

We want the greatest possible latitude in this bill in order to offer assistance, under the programme, to our senior citizens in British Columbia. I'm satisfied on the basis of discussions which I've had in the past that the interpretation section, the first section, will permit us to extend SAFER benefits to those citizens who are renting a mobile home. I offered that assistance earlier, but it wasn't something which I decided this evening, Mr. Chairman; it was in fact a matter which has been discussed in the past very carefully. We want to have the programme available to as many as possible rather than to narrow it.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if we add that which is proposed in this amendment - "mobile home" -then perhaps another member may think of yet another particular type of unit or facility which should perhaps be added. We go on and on. We want a very wide degree of latitude in this particular section to help the people of British Columbia 65 and over. The amendment is not acceptable to the government, Mr. Chairman.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): I think that the minister has failed to see the very precise points that have been raised, particularly by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . When a court is interpreting this statute.... Let's give an example of what may occur and what has occurred in other jurisdictions with respect to the interpretation of statutes, when another administration, another minister, another committee makes a decision that mobile homes are not included. If the interpretation of the statute is referred to a court, what does the court do? It looks at the statutes providing similar definitions that have been passed by the same Legislature. As was very precisely pointed out, two definitions in two other statutes passed by this Legislature are mutually exclusive as far as mobile homes are concerned. Therefore the court will say that if the Legislature intended to include mobile homes they would have included it, and did not intend the definition of "building" to be as broad as it was. I think that that much is clear.

You say that you've looked at it very carefully, but obviously not carefully enough, because you can drive a coach and four through that definition contained in your statute. I see Webster's has left, but Webster's clearly indicates that "building" means a permanent structure, not something that's intended to be moved. S6 if the court looks at the statutes or at the ordinary definition provided by recognized dictionaries, it will arrive at the conclusion that mobile homes are not included, whether the minister intended otherwise or not. It's not open for the court to look at Hansard to see what was intended by the Legislature. It can only look at the statute itself. It cannot look at Hansard.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My friend the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is contradicting again - this great barrister over there. You'd have to get someone to lead him by the hand to the courthouse. He's never seen it.

They're not entitled, Mr. Chairman, to look at Hansard. Only in particular and special circumstances can they refer to Hansard debates. This one would not be one of them.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That's right, but this would not be one of them. I didn't want to confuse the issue for you.

They particularly will not take the statements of this minister with respect to the inclusion of mobile homes as being definitive in interpreting this statute when the plain words and the meaning of the statute are clear. The plain words and meaning that the hon. Liberal leader brought forward with that mighty tome.... Mighty tome, was it? (Laughter.) I'm sorry; that's nine minutes to go.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister is being

[ Page 2738 ]

intransigent, so uncharacteristically. He should demonstrate to the world - even his constituency -that he's a man of magnanimity and great understanding who wishes to do his best for those people who live in mobile homes, with or without wheels.

MR. LEVI: I'd like to call the minister's attention to a legal definition. We have found a legal definition of "building" here. It was made in the Manitoba courts and there's a further definition also on buildings. But I'd like to just read it to the minister. It says:

"The word 'building' has been defined as, in law, anything corrected by art and fixed upon or in the soil composed of different pieces connected together and designed for permanent use in the position in which it was so fixed. Thus a pole fixed in the earth is not a building, but a fence or a wall is. It has been judicially determined that the word 'building' necessarily embraces the foundation upon which the superstructure rests, and that it is fallacious to assume that the foundation walls of a structure are not part of the structure itself. That is too fine a distinction to attempt to draw the line between substructure and superstructure."

Now the minister is really insisting that he knows better than the Manitoba courts just what this definition is. I think that he's got himself into a legal minefield, and he ought to get himself out of it. I don't mind providing the flail tank to blow up the mines so that he comes out again, but he's in a legal minefield.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that your legal advice is not correct. You and I can argue that because neither of us are lawyers. You are saying it is and I'm telling you that it is not. Your definition is not correct and you cannot interpret to this House the definition which, according to the legal definition which was in the courts in Manitoba in 1923, defines a building particularly in relation to anything "erected and fixed upon or in the soil." Now there is no way that you can construe that a mobile home is like that.

That was one of the arguments that used to go on with mobile homes. People got pads and they had to jack up the car; then they put bricks underneath it and suddenly it became a house. You know very well, Mr. Minister, that you can't go on like that. It's just not acceptable. You can't come in here and tell us that you have the right definition. You do not; you are completely wrong.

On the basis of being wrong you are going to confuse a large number of senior citizens in this province, and that, after all, is what we have to concern ourselves with in this Legislature. The legislation has to be clear and it has to be specific. We can't have the Minister of Housing defining for us what he thinks a building is. He might even put it in writing.

So I would refer him.... I can't even pronounce some of these names but I'm quite prepared to refer him to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 4th edition, and to Encyclopaedia of Words and Phrases: Legal Maxims, Canada, 2nd edition. These are two very impressive looking books. I'm sure that our lawyer members are familiar with them. They are both published by Sweet and Maxwell. They both contain definitions which have been pronounced on by the courts.

In case you have trouble with one of the cases, you might be interested in the case in 1919 of Regina vs. Levi, if that has any significance. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Who won?

MR. LEVI: Levi won, as a matter of fact!

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 14

NAYS - 24

Mr. Barber requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Introduction of bills.

STATISTICS ACT

Hon. Mr. Phillips presents a message from His

[ Page 2739 ]

Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statistics Act.

Bill 32 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.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented the 103rd report of the Vital Statistics Branch for the year 1974.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a report for the Medical Services Commission of British Columbia, financial statements for the year ended March 31,1976.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:06 p.m.