[ Page 2741 ]

CONTENTS

Routine ]proceedings

Klondike National Historic Park Act (Bill 48) Hon. Mr. Bawlf.

Introduction and first reading –– 2741

Oral questions

Coastal ferry service. Mr. Lea –– 2742

Funding for 3-H Handicapped Society, Mr. Wallace –– 2744

Alleged age discrimination in Travel Industry ministry. MR. Gibson –– 2744

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act (Bill 24) Committee stage.

On section 1. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2753

Mr. Barber –– 2745 MR. Barber –– 2753

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2745 Mr. Gibson –– 2755

Mr. Wallace –– 2746 On section 3.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2747 Mr. Gibson –– 2755

Ms. Sanford –– 2747 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2755

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2748 Mr. Barber –– 2755

Mrs. Wallace –– 2748 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2756

Mr. Cocke –– 2748 Mr. Levi –– 2756

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2749 On section 4.

Mr. Levi –– 2749 Mr. Gibson –– 2756

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2750 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2756

On section 2. On section 8.

Mr. King –– 2750 Mr. Gibson –– 2757

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2750 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2757

Mr. Wallace –– 2752

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 1) (Bill 7) .

Division on third reading –– 2757

Greenbelt Act (Bill 29) Committee stage.

On section 1. On section 2.

Mr. Stupich –– 2758 Mr. Stupich –– 2764

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2758 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2765

Mr. Levi –– 2758 Mr. Barrett –– 2765

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2758 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2765

Mr. Stupich –– 2758 Mr. Stupich –– 2765

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2759 Mr. Cocke –– 2765

Mr. Lea –– 2759 Division on section 2 –– 2766

Mr. Lauk –– 2759 On section 3.

Ms. Sanford –– 2760 Mr. Stupich –– 2766

Mr. Lea p2761 HON. Mr. Nielsen –– 2766

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2761 Mrs. Wallace –– 2768

Mrs. Wallace –– 2762 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2768

Hon. MR. Nielsen –– 2762 On section 5.

Mr. King –– 2762 Mr. Stupich –– 2768

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2762 Ms. Sanford –– 2769

Mr. Lea –– 2762 Mr. Levi –– 2769

Mr. Levi –– 2763 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2769

Mrs. Wallace –– 2763 Mr. King –– 2770

Mr. Levi –– 2764 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2771

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2764 Mrs. Wallace –– 2771

Division on section I –– 2764 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2772

Mr. Stupich –– 2772

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a group of students from Cumberland Junior Secondary School, accompanied by their teachers, Ken Melnyk, and Bob Reilly. I would like the House to join me in making them welcome.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a good friend and constituent from Richmond, Mr. Bill Wright, who's in the gallery today.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery is a good friend of mine and a hard constituency worker. I'd like the assembly to welcome Malcolm Mitchell.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) , I'd like to introduce to the House the Women United for Non-Exploitive New Age: Muriel Gough-Azmier, Jan Love well, Francis Wilcox and Merna Bevin. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, in Victoria today, and present here at 3 o'clock, will be a group of students - 25 in all - and Sister Eileen Potler from the Precious Blood School in Cloverdale, a Catholic school. I would ask the House to make them welcome now.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to announce that a young lady who is a friend of my children, and also a resident in Point Grey, is attending the assembly with a group of students from her school. I'd like the assembly to make welcome Brenda Bradshaw.

Introduction of bills.

KLONDIKE NATIONAL

HISTORIC PARK ACT

Hon. Mr. Bawlf presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Klondike National Historic Park Act.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would grant leave to delay question period until later this afternoon when more ministers are available to answer questions. If the House would be so good as to do that, because the opposition

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm not being facetious, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) There are no ministers here to answer questions and those who are here don't know anything anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre withdraw that implication against the ministers of the House and members of this assembly?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: I challenge the Minister of Mines to an IQ test. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I've asked the hon. member to withdraw the implication.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I mean no offence. But I did ask seriously, and I am seriously asking, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask the House for leave to suspend the ordinary order of business and delay question period until later.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter of the Speaker asking the House for leave. It's a matter that the....

MR. LAUK: I ask leave.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: There are several noes, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Division! (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: There's no division, as the hon. member knows.

Oral questions.

COASTAL FERRY SERVICE

[ Page 2742 ]

COASTAL FERRY SERVICE

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport: has the government, either in conjunction with the federal government or on its own, decided what course of action will be taken to solve the freight problems that British Columbians are facing on the north and central coast? This is in terms of marine freight.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be involved in carrying freight, this is a matter which is attracting the. attention of the directors of the corporation. It's front and centre with them and it's a problem which they recognize, particularly in the very small communities. But where large vessels will be operating, freight will only be carried in the manner that it's carried on B.C. Ferries across the Strait of Georgia - namely, in vehicles which are driven on and driven off the ferries.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, will the government ensure that coastal communities such as Queen Charlotte Islands, Port Simpson, Stewart, Kincolith, et cetera, will receive marine-freight and passenger service that is commensurate with the service that they were getting prior to the cutoff of the $8 million subsidy to Northland? Will the government ensure us that these communities that I've mentioned will receive marine-freight and passenger service before putting a ferry service and docking facilities into Kitimat?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that by this fall there will be a far better service in place than has been the case heretofore on this coast.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't seem to understand the question. Will the minister ensure us that the communities that have no service at all now, or an inadequate service - or at least they should have a service commensurate with the service they were getting prior to the Northland cutoff - will receive a commensurate service before a ferry goes into Kitimat or docking facilities are built at Kitimat?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll repeat what I said, perhaps in somewhat different words. The service will be better - considerably better - than that supplied by Northland Navigation to all the communities which Northland Navigation served in recent years.

MR. LEA: A supplemental: I understand from the minister's answer that he knows what is going to happen and that the policy has already been decided.

Would he tell me what kind of service those communities will be getting which will be better than Northland had?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, these matters, at least in their detail, are matters which concern the new directors of the Ferry Corporation. They are directors appointed from various areas on the coast and they are vitally concerned with the improvement in service, particularly in their own areas. They must have a voice in the solution of those transportation problems, so I don't presume to state here in any detail what the answers will be. But I know that the directors will be bringing in recommendations which will be most effective.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental: how can the minister assure me that the service will be better when he admits now he doesn't know what the service will be? The minister has said that he doesn't know what kind of service this is going to be but it's going to be better. Would the minister please explain that to me?

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Could the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications notify this House when the Queen of Surrey will be placed on a route between Tsawwassen and the central and north coast?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The earliest date, Mr. Speaker, could be the spring of 1979, the main reason being that the Queen of Surrey does not have any overnight accommodation and it would have to be used on daytime runs. That's the principal limitation. The main reason why it's not used on runs in the Strait of Georgia is that it's very heavy on fuel, it doesn't have the carriage capacity of vessels designed for that service and it's really a day cruiser to be used on long runs. The upcoast service, which I'm suggesting it might serve, is the only one to which it could be applied properly.

MR. LEA: According to the agreement that was signed with Canada a few weeks ago in regard to $8 million being passed on for coastal subsidies in terms of marine services, does that agreement now mean that the province of British Columbia has assumed its jurisdiction over freight that was, previous to that, assumed by the federal government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in a general way, the agreement says that the province takes over responsibility for ferry operations on this coast. Basically, the ferry operations which will be carried on by the new corporation will be people-oriented but will also be of the character which we know well here in this area - namely, vehicles as well as people.

[ Page 2743 ]

This includes vehicles capable of carrying freight.

MR. LEA: I have a supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister then tell me why the word "freight" is in the agreement and why the agreement states that the province will now assume the responsibility for those areas which the federal government had previously accepted responsibility for - Northland, specifically? The agreement says that. Does the minister agree that I am interpreting that agreement correctly?

MR. SPEAKER: May I draw to the attention of the member who has asked the supplemental question and of the minister that it is out of order to ask a minister for a solution to a legal proposition or give an interpretation of a statute or a minister's own powers.

MR. LEA: I will put it another way then, Mr. Speaker. Has the province assumed the responsibility for those communities and their freight service that had previously been under the jurisdiction of the federal government and serviced by Northland Freight?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member is endeavouring to insist on a black or white, yes or no answer. He knows full well that private enterprise has carried most - 90 per cent plus - of all the freight moving up and down this coast. There is no intention on the part of the government to undertake those operations. In many instances, that freight is moved to communities which will be served in the future, in part at least, by B.C. Ferries. There is no intention on the part of the government to carry freight which can be better carried by the private sector.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, putting aside all the freight that is carried by private enterprise and dealing exclusively with all the freight that was carried formally under subsidy by the federal government, does the agreement now assume that the provincial government will be responsible for all the freight that before was the responsibility of the federal government? Yes or no?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The B.C. Ferry Corporation either through its own vessels or through vessels under charter will be calling at all of the communities served previously by subsidized operations which were essentially in the private sector but subsidized in part by the federal government - but only in part.

MR. BARRETT: As a supplementary, then, if we deal with....

Interjection,

MR. BARRETT: You had trouble yesterday carrying his ball; now you're moving in on him.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please proceed with his question?

MR. BARRETT: I can't. I'm being interrupted by a vicious attack from the minister - an unladylike attack, I might say. Not even a Rhodes scholar!

The point I want clarified and understood is that all the freight that was carried by private enterprise before the minister says will be carried by private enterprise now. All the freight that the federal government responsibility was related to a subsidy of that freight.... Is that now being assumed? If it isn't, who is going to carry that freight? Who is going to carry the freight that the provincial government will not carry that was formerly subsidized by the federal government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take one last run at it. We'll have a more effective operation on this coast under B.C. Ferries ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. DAVIS: ... and it will be carrying far more people and more freight than the federally subsidized operation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I've allowed you to devote a number of supplementals to the question. I have now recognized the hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: If there's time we can come back to the same subject matter.

MR. LEA: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order, hon. member?

MR. LEA: My point of order is that this question has not fully been canvassed by the members, in our judgment, which is the only judgment that counts, because we are representing people that have no freight service, no passenger service - it has been cut off - no medical service, no service of any kind, and they're not going to listen any darned thing that.... We've asked enough supplementals. They need service

[ Page 2744 ]

on the coast. That minister and that government are not serving those people, and we're not going to be cut off for those reasons.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the next time you rise to a point of order, please make it a point of order.

The hon. member for Oak Bay.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker - a supplementary.... (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He doesn't even know where he comes from.

MR. LAUK: At least I know where I'm going.

FUNDING FOR 3-H

HANDICAPPED SOCIETY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources with regard to the 3-H handicapped society which operates a sales shop on Arbutus and Fourth in Vancouver where handicrafts are made , by , handicapped persons who are homebound, who are not able to leave the home: since the minister is concerned that handicapped persons should be employed where possible, and since the community workshops which he is planning will be of no help to homebound handicapped persons, will the minister tell the House why the Ministry of Human Resources, has discontinued funding for the 3-H handicapped society?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, rather than take this as notice I'll try to come up with some of the figures, They'll be estimates or guesstimates at best. I'll make them up.

However, the funding was not discontinued by the Ministry of Human Resources. It was actually dealt with through the Vancouver Resources Board.

The programme certainly has a lot of merit and is being viewed by the department with the hopes that we might institute it otherwise. But the problem with the 3-H group was that the grant they were given for operating the centre was, I believe, something like two or three times the amount of their total sales. So in effect the accountability factor was such that the Vancouver Resources Board advised against it. I understand the local advisory group advised against it, and the Vancouver Resources Board discontinued it. That's my understanding of it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if the minister's stating that the grant was two to three times the value of their services, whether this project is then being evaluated as to whether it makes a profit or loss financially. Surely what we're talking about is the productive employability of handicapped people in their home. Whether or not they're making money is quite beside the point.

Can I ask the minister if, in fact, his answer states that they're no longer being funded because the project isn't making a profit?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Ask the resources board.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It was the opinion, I would assume, of those who had the difficult job of deciding whether they received continued funding that we could spend the moneys better than to have them go into a mortgage which, I believe, is where a good part of the funds were being spent. The purpose of the funds for that type of programme is hopefully, as much as possible, to directly assist the handicapped, not the organization that's attempting to help the handicapped. The help must go to the handicapped.

ALLEGED AGE DISCRIMINATION

IN TRAVEL INDUSTRY MINISTRY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Travel Industry. The Deputy Minister of Travel Industry, in the early part of May, wrote a letter suggesting that Mike Heppell, formerly of the Vancouver Island Publicity Bureau, should step down in favour of "a younger, more aggressive man." Could I ask if the minister sanctioned that letter?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): Mr. Speaker, I know negotiations have gone between the upper and lower Vancouver Island organizations. I would have to get the letter which you are speaking of. I do know that there was an allegation, I think in the newspaper, that the deputy minister had used some wording in his letter that said "young." This is not true because I checked that myself.

As you know, the regional co-ordinators are funded 60 per cent by government, 40 per cent by the private sector. It is a combination - a joint employee, if you like - of the two organizations. The two organizations have met and it was decided that there would be a replacement made for Vancouver Island to address the tourist organization of Vancouver Island to the weighty problems they have before them and to help promote tourism for Vancouver Island. At the present time, I believe they have advertised and are looking jointly through the applications which have been put before them, but I'll get you a copy of the letter as well.

MR. GIBSON: You'll table a copy?

[ Page 2745 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, I will.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, you said that I would have an opportunity later on to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport (HON. Mr. Davis) .

MR. SPEAKER: I presume you'll take your opportunity tomorrow.

Orders of the day.

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

Leave granted.

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

SHELTER AID FOR

ELDERLY RENTERS ACT

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

On section 1.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I gather that a couple of my colleagues may shortly be making further suggestions to redefine "buildings" so as to include mobile, floating and other structures which the minister decided last night should not be included in section 1.

I'm concerned about another matter at this time, Mr. Chairman. I'm concerned about the fact that the minister, through his appointees, will be able to determine the extent to which, if any, annual increases are granted under the SAFER programme to senior tenants in the province of British Columbia. We have nowhere within this Act, nowhere within interpretations as we see them in section 1, any provision whatever for guaranteed annual increases to senior citizens. The minister has made no commitment in anything that I've seen in writing, and there's certainly nothing within the bill that assures the seniors within this province that there will be an annual cost-of-living or other increase granted to them under this programme.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very serious omission. Once again we're in the position of having to rely on the word of the minister rather than on the word of law to ensure that reasonable annual increases shall be granted under this programme. Once again, we're happy to take the word of this minister but we'd prefer to take the word of the law if it guaranteed it.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that it's only reasonable that for the duration of rent controls in this province the annual base increase permitted under this section should be at least equivalent to the annual rent increase permitted under the Landlord and Tenant Act. It seems to us only fair that if every year senior tenants in this province are expected to come up with an extra 7 per cent on top of the rent they already pay then so, logically and similarly, should they be receiving an extra 7 per cent under the provisions of the SAFER programme, if not more. Indeed, it may seem, Mr. Chairman, reasonable to include that 7 per cent, or whatever is allowable under the Landlord and Tenant Act, plus an additional increase for cost of living, which might take into account utilities and other charges for which some tenants are also responsible.

We think it's a very serious omission, Mr. Chairman. It holds in jeopardy the incomes and the position of many of these senior citizens. Accordingly, I move an amendment in my name to Bill 24, intituled Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, to amend as follows section 1, line 12, to add after the words "prescribed manner" the following: "with any such aid being increased to correspond with any increases that may take place in the present percentage rental increase amount provided for in section 27 (2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act." I so move this proposed amendment to the bill, which I know Jim will support. Please!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, in reviewing the proposed amendment, it appears that it would be an impost on the Crown, and it appears further that this is strictly the right and responsibility of the Treasury Board, and certainly the cabinet. As a result, the amendment appears to be out of order.

MR. BARBER: I regret but I respect your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister would care to reply to the principle suggested in the proposed amendment that he guarantee annually that the amount permitted under the Landlord and Tenant Act through what are commonly known as rent controls shall be annually provided in addition to the base amount which the minister intends to provide this year under the SAFER programme for senior citizens in this province.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It is an historic fact that we deal with budgets on an annual basis. I cannot tell that member, or any other member, or indeed anyone else in British Columbia, what amount will be available under shelter aid for elderly renters in the fiscal year 1978-79. But I can say, Mr. Chairman, that a measure

[ Page 2746 ]

which has been given such careful consideration by this government, and which is a programme for people, is in here to stay and obviously - naturally -will be refined and increased as the years go by.

I would point out that many years ago the homeowner grant when it was first introduced was $28 a year; for seniors, it's now $430. Now I don't want this committee to relate a similar increase on a percentage basis to SAFER but, Mr. Chairman, the programme is here to stay. As we have the experience through the balance of this year, as we prepare our estimates for the new fiscal year through the fall and early winter, we will, in this ministry in our representations to Treasury Board, ask for such dollars as we consider important to the programme, but more importantly to the people who are going to receive this programme.

Last night, Mr. Chairman, the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) paid tribute to my deputy minister, Mr. Bell, for this particular piece of legislation, and that tribute is well deserved. But he also paid tribute to the former minister. Mr. Chairman, we can say: "We intended to. We wanted to. We were going to. We thought we should." They did not; this government did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think I should caution the committee that the line of debate that has been permitted by this question sponsored by a proposed amendment is hardly in order under this section, which is the interpretation section. However, the answer was permitted, as was the question.

I must remind you that in committee, particularly when we are discussing sections of the bill, the scope of debate is narrower than it is when we're discussing the principle of the bill in second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could advise me, then. In the interpretation section, we have for the first time in the bill a definition of shelter aid. What I'm trying to raise, of course, is the question by which annually the measure of that shelter aid shall be increased. What I'm trying to determine is what measurements the government shall make of the annual increases to be permitted under the Act. What I suggested, of course, was that it be tied at least in part to the annual amount permitted under rent controls. What I further suggested was that it be tied to the cost-of-living increases faced by senior citizens whose incomes are fixed, and thanks to the virtues of inflation are, in fact, diminishing.

If the Chairman advises under section 3, I would be willing to do so but I should like to ensure that one way or another, this question of how the government intents to annually determine the increases under this programme shall be made known to us. At the moment we have no such knowledge, either from the minister's statements or most certainly from this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to conclude that matter, in the interpretation section, in the definition of shelter aid, which rightly appears for the first time on our statutes, shelter aid means financial assistance. The scope or amount or means or methods of payment would have to be discussed under another section. I'm sure the member would be able to discover that section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the term "shelter aid, " particularly in relation to remarks he already made on second reading, emphasizing that the shelter aid is a design to subsidize people and not bricks and mortar, which is a very commendable approach. He did mention that, and I quote from Hansard of March 18, page 2064: "I think it is important and there is a change in direction in this province with respect to assisting our seniors."

Later on, the minister went on to say that the shelter aid for elderly renters programme will reduce the need to construct senior citizens projects, again, "subsidizing individuals rather than bricks, mortar, stone and steel." Subsequent to that date, Mr. Chairman, there was a seminar held in Vancouver in May, when Mr. Tony Lloyd, the co-ordinator of social housing for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, said that CMHC was going into a period of planned inactivity because of the provincial government's shelter aid for elderly renters. He said: "CMHC is willing to provide money to build senior citizens homes, but we now find the province is unwilling to subsidize the operating losses of these homes which originally were to be split 50-50 between federal and provincial governments."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is this intended to be in the interpretation section, hon. member?

MR. WALLACE: Yes. I'm trying to find out if shelter aid as defined in the interpretation section is being provided at the expense of, or at the sacrifice of, other senior citizens who desperately need some of the kinds of facilities which the minister has stated the government is less interested in constructing. It would seem that by taking the literal interpretation of shelter aid that it can only follow that those senior citizens who are no longer self-sufficient in their own residential unit appear to be unlikely to have access to the facilities they need. In other words, both by the definition and by the minister's earlier comments in debate about a change of direction, it would suggest that the shelter aid as defined in this bill and provided later on under the terms of the eligibility committee and section 3 as well, runs the risk of being provided at the expense of other senior citizens

[ Page 2747 ]

who equally need certain types of, not only facilities, but financial aid in being able to live in these facilities. I'm quoting Mr. Tony Lloyd because he particularly said that there are now enough ordinary apartments available for older people, but more housing with nursing care is needed. I'm really just asking whether the restrictive definition of shelter aid and the change of direction already mentioned mean that, while the recipients of shelter aid are certainly going to benefit, is it going to be at the expense of that other group of senior citizens which I've described?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no, because the money is actually being freed up, if you will, from our programme as it has been in existence for other activities undertaken by CMHC, such as care homes, group homes and so on. I think, Mr. Chairman, that while the hon. member for Oak Bay referred to remarks in Hansard, correctly as I recall them, we really have to get this thing back into perspective, because this year we are providing units under the existing elderly citizens subsidized housing programme, where organizations - the Royal Canadian Legion Service Clubs, church organizations and so on - showed some initiative and then federal and provincial dollars came into play. We have 2,500 senior citizens units committed or under construction or in one stage or another of completion. That's the most ever in the history of the province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. That does not include the accommodation which will be of interest to, and available to, our senior citizens through the assisted rental programme, the conventional ARP scheme. An example is the very large one which is presently under construction at Burrard and Pacific in Vancouver, the Daon Development project, which has a senior citizen component and has rental accommodation in very large quantity.

There are, in addition, six projects underway in some smaller communities of British Columbia. We have just this week recommended for approval a cost overrun - an understandable and justifiable cost overrun - in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) . The building came in at a higher price.

But the perspective which I believe is important is okay, in spite of the numbers we have been able to help in recent years through the construction programme - the subsidizing of bricks and mortar and steel; 2,500 units in one stage or another of completion now - that isn't enough. Surely that's one of the reasons why this programme deserves -not on a partisan basis - the wholehearted support of every member of this House.

We estimated that 23,500 seniors would be eligible. Now I admit that in the other figure, Mr. Member, I was speaking about units - 2,500 units.

We estimated that 23,500 individuals would be eligible under shelter aid for the elderly renter. We mailed out some 230,000 cards approximately - in that neighbourhood. We have back now 33,100 completed cards, and they continue to come in at a very good rate. We see that the projections are just about right on. So the idea is to assist more people than we, or any government, could through a continuation of the construction programme. But again I emphasize to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that we are not abandoning the construction programme. My estimates reflect a $4 million figure there, where we will be able to approve programmes in partnership with others, but particularly in smaller communities. Again, if I may say so, the desire expressed by the majority of our seniors was to stay where they are.

Mr. Lloyd's comments, in my view, were unfortunate, and I would have been more concerned if they had been made by a very senior official of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in British Columbia. They were not. He was speaking at a seminar. I only have the press reports, and I don't know if they were completely accurate or not. Assuming that they are, then he overlooks the fact that at a time of major change in a programme, from bricks and mortar to subsidizing individuals, yes, there is going to be a bit of a waiting period. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about a project which is of interest in their community. We're in a holding pattern on those projects, but I would like it to be as short as possible. That's one of the reasons I would like this particular bill to pass third reading as soon as possible, as soon as is convenient to the members - so that we can get on with it and so that we can then accurately know how many people are to receive the assistance, get the cheques in the mail as soon after July 1 as possible, and then pick up on those construction programmes which are appropriate after SAFER is well underway.

I thank the member for the interesting questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member for Cowichan-Malahat begins, I need to remind the committee again that those questions just allowed under section I ought perhaps better to have been debated under subsequent sections - perhaps even 3 or 4 would be a better suggestion.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I will defer to the member for Comox.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, last night when we were discussing section 1 of this bill, we spent a good deal of time trying to determine what kind of structures would be eligible for assistance under this bill under the word "building." Yes, I know, Mr. Chairman, we have dealt with this.

[ Page 2748 ]

As you recall, we tried to put in the words , 'mobile home" and it was not accepted. One of the reasons the minister gave at that time for not wanting to accept that amendment to add the words "mobile home" was that he wanted to give the greatest possible latitude to the government in this bill in order to offer assistance under the programme to the senior citizens.

My question to the minister relates to the kind of building that will actually be covered under this bill. One question was posed last night to the minister, which he did not have an opportunity to answer, by the hon. leader of the Liberals (Mr. Gibson) . That was in relation to people, particularly in the Vancouver area, who rent a hotel room, I know there is a fairly large number of senior citizens who have to rent a hotel room but they are, in fact, renting. My question is: would they be covered under this word "building"?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MS. SANFORD: My next question relates to other kinds of structures. For instance, there are some people who live on houseboats in this province. Would they be covered?

Secondly, within my own constituency, Mr. Chairman, I happen to know of some senior citizens who are living on fishboats that are no longer used. Now sometimes they move around; it's not as permanent as a houseboat is. It's an actual fishboat. Would that be covered under the word "building" in this particular section I of this particular Act?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Comox, I'm sorry I didn't touch on the question asked last night about hotel rooms. Yes, clearly an elderly person occupying a hotel room will qualify, subject to the other criteria which are clearly stated - that was the intention from the outset -providing that is that person's ordinary residence. That will have to be determined by the eligibility committee.

I should also point out that the eligibility committee is not something new to this bill. Eligibility committees have been in use in housing activities in this government for quite some time.

Floating homes: the same would apply. Yes, if it is rented and if it is their ordinary residence where they live most of the time, if it is determined to be their ordinary residence, the answer is yes, they would also qualify.

Fishboats: I'm not too sure about fishboats.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, if you want to get into the debate - I know you're frustrated;

you're no longer the Attorney-General - you'll have a chance.

Fishboats I'm not too sure of because they do have more mobility. We might want to check the condition of the diesel, of the engine. I don't have that answer at this point in committee discussion.

MRS. WALLACE: My remarks are much along the same line. I expressed my concern and confusion last night relative to this very matter on the interpretation of "buildings." It seemed to me that there was much very solid evidence presented here during the course of debate that indicated that houseboats, floating homes, this type of thing would not be included under the terminology of "building."

Because of my very sincere desire.... I'm sure it is also the desire of the minister. I find some difficulty in understanding his reluctance in accepting an amendment to the word "building." I can only assume that that reluctance was, as he said, because the proposed amendment last night was too confining. I did some checking this morning with my own regional district and found the terminology which they use to resolve this very thing when they are considering the home unit to avoid any possible exclusion of any eligible resident. They use the term "residential unit." This seemed to me to be a very good term. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 24, section 1, lines 6, 7 and 8.

In line 6, where the word "building" occurs, strike out "building" and change to "residential unit." And strike out the last "or." And further delete item (ii) , lines 7 and 8, because that is no longer required. It would then read, Mr. Chairman:

" . . . the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the administration of this Act; 'residence'

means,

" (i) where an applicant leases a residential unit, that residential unit that is situated in the province and is rented by the applicant as a separate household unit for the purpose of providing his ordinary residence."

I would propose that amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I've looked at the bill carefully and find that probably the only place in the bill that I can ask a question is under the minister's responsibility. The minister is not designated yet by order-in-council, but he is carrying the responsibility of the bill. I presume that the minister took the responsibility, at the time the SAFER survey cards were sent out by a public

[ Page 2749 ]

relations firm, for them being sent out.

The criticism was - whether it was justified or not - that it looked far too much like junk mail and that many of the old-timers just automatically threw them out. I'm just asking the minister what responsibility he will take to see that all of those out there are given an opportunity to take advantage of this rather good measure, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we worked with a professional firm; it's correct. It's not a public relations firm but an advertising firm. I was very concerned about the style of the mailing piece - that it not look like junk mail. Great thought went into the fact that there could be peel-off stickers. We wanted to make it as easy as possible, as straightforward as possible.

The experience suggests that really a large number of people who will be eligible have read it. If I can draw on experience that reached my office, one person in an apartment building might not understand it, but quickly the question is asked by Mrs. Jones to Mrs. Smith: "Did you get something to do with shelter aid?" So we're receiving inquiries -not many now, but we are receiving inquiries - and we're dealing with those.

There will be subsequent advertising after we are further along in the passage of the bill. There will be advertising to, I think, as fully as possible ensure that everyone who could in any way qualify for the assistance is aware of it. We also have clearly stated and designed the retroactivity. So if we discover someone as late as November or December of this year, Mr. Member, through you Mr. Chairman, who didn't apply, we will process the application at that time and forward a cheque.

We will and intend to do everything possible, but I am satisfied that on the first mailing the word has been pretty well spread around. We missed some, sure.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the minister's response. Not everyone lives in apartments, of course. I can think in terms of little old ladies and little old gentlemen who live in dwellings, possibly in the country or possibly in the city, but with very little contact. Those are the type of people whom I am concerned about. I'm pleased to hear that the minister's going to do an ad campaign.

I do think that we should certainly see to it that all of the senior citizens' councils and all of the groups that have the influence of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , who does work in this area, should be apprised and should be spreading the word around.

I'm really impressed with the fact that the minister indicated that he expected 23,500 replies. Actually his first statement was 23,800, but that's fine; we'll let you go with that 300 difference. Now that you have 33,100, you're doing a good job, but we must, I think, all of us see to it that nobody is denied the opportunity to participate in a plan that I think is rather well thought of.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, you've allowed some latitude. The member's point is very well taken. The Volunteer Senior Citizen Counsellors Reporter, Vol. 1, No. 8, June 1977, indicates that: "Greater Vancouver counsellors had 90 minutes face-to-face with Doug Osmond and Sheila Frost of the ministry, who received a hand when it was all over." Of course we want to communicate and indeed we have communicated with a number of organizations and counselling agencies. If you have any suggestions as to someone we may have missed we'd welcome those suggestions.

There are over 50 of us in this chamber. We all send out newsletters., I hope also that avenue will be used so that we can spread the word in our own constituencies, because we don't want to miss anyone who is eligible in this programme, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEVI: I'm just going to be just a minute - to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , who is giving me the high sign here.

We started last night with what appeared to be a somewhat rigid definition about "building, " and the minister overnight, or sometime during the morning, has become more flexible. We've now got floating homes in there. I didn't get the impression at all when we started off in the debate yesterday that that was in there - the floating homes.

The fishboat one is an issue. I'm sure the minister has traveled around. I know people who live on fishboats.

I want to ask you one other question, though. There are people who, for one reason or another, live in abandoned railroad cars. There are people who do that. So you've got a whole range of unusual and somewhat anomalous situations in respect to residencies.

Again, Mr. Minister, it is the question of informing people about these anomalous situations. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this is going.... Now it may happen as a result of this debate. I think it is important that in further communications there be some opportunity for people to understand that if they live in unusual residential situations in terms of accommodation, then they should be given some kind of understanding that they can in fact apply for this. That's, I think, mostly what we've been trying to get at in most of this very strained debate under this section

[ Page 2750 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if we made a list of 100 varying forms of rental accommodation, someone, quite understandably and predictably, in this chamber would come up with No. 101.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like a tent.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Like a tent. If it is rented and if the other criteria apply, we will do all that we can to offer SAFER assistance to that individual - if it is rented. That's one of the first.

Mr. Chairman, the members of the official opposition might like to tell us how they managed to reach everyone with the former provision, the elderly renters tax assistance. Let us have your secret. Maybe you missed a few.

I think that through this debate; through individual members, regardless of where they sit on the floor of the house; through the advertising; and through everything we can possibly employ, if they rent and if they qualify in terms of the rent paid and the income received, we want to assist.

MR. LEVI: You asked a question about how we reached a number of people. Well, I'll tell you that when the Mincome programme came in, we made use of the B.C. Medical Plan list. Frankly, to our horror, we discovered about 5,000 or 6,000 people in varying ages above 65, who were living in this province and who had been in this province for many, many years - 30 or 40 years - who were in receipt of absolutely nothing. They were not aware of how to apply for the old-age pension or any of that kind of thing. Then we had to make use of a number of things: the postmaster and the B.C. Medical Plan forms. What usually happens in these kinds of situations is that you start to find more people than you have anticipated. There are people who are beyond the usual mechanisms of what goes on.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have listened with immense interest to the minister's explanation of section I and his stated desire, Mr. Chairman, to keep the terms of reference as flexible and as broad as possible in determining who would qualify for assistance under this programme.

When we come to section 2, after having listened to the minister's comments, I become very alarmed when we see that in clause 4 of section 2 the final authority for adjudication of who qualifies for financial benefits under this programmes falls to the political adjudication of the minister. I think it is an absolutely shocking and scandalous provision, Mr.

Chairman, for a minister of the Crown to take unto himself the absolute and arbitrary and final responsibility for determining to whom financial benefits shall flow. We have the spectre before this chamber of the kind of porkbarrel favouritism that has no place in the statute law of this province. I am not suggesting that it is the intent of this minister, but that is not the question. The law should not provide a mechanism for such manipulation by anyone, whether it be the current minister or someone who may hold that office in the future. If it is not the intent, why provide for such an eventuality in the law? It is faulty; it is deceptive; in concept it is reprehensible.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I trust that the minister will assure this House that an oversight has been perpetrated in the drafting of this bill and that he is prepared to introduce an amendment which will, after the selection committee deals with applications and finds a problem, refer the final appeal to some quasi-judicial, independent agency, out of the realm of politics, so that there can be no question in the minds of any citizens that, had he been a member of the Social Credit Party, he may well have qualified for the favourable discretion of the minister. I don't want to see this minister put in that position, Mr. Chairman. He has operated quite well, thus far. I would hate to see his boyish image tarnished by even the thought of that kind of political favouritism and that partisanship in this province.

If the minister agrees, all he has to do is be less rigid than he has been so far, and indicate that he recognizes the problem, both in law and certainly in political concepts, and remedies this very reprehensible provision. I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, and I asked his colleague and legal friend, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , what would be the effect in this province if, after the Labour Relations Board had adjudicated an issue of certification between two competing unions, the Minister of Labour took unto himself the final authority to either veto or overrule the Labour Relations Board. It would never be accepted. It is a dangerous principle and absolutely wrong!

I suggest that it's far more repugnant and threatening when it comes to financial recompense and benefits to citizens of this province to have any political office holding final adjudication. I don't think the minister intends that that should be the provision of this statute, and I ask him to show his regard for the law. I ask him to show is statesmanship. I ask him to show respect for appearance of the law, the impartiality of the law in this province, by introducing an amendment of his own initiative to remedy this apparent flaw which this House cannot accept, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the hon.

[ Page 2751 ]

member for Revelstoke-Slocan is in effect recycling the observations he made in second reading; he was concerned then.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "Recycling" is not a facetious comment. He's restating - does that make you feel happier? Touchy? Mr. Chairman, I think that it's best explained by pointing out a couple of things. First of all, under section 2 (4) it is the eligibility committee which triggers the action; it may refer a question of eligibility to the minister. The minister is not given the authority to direct the eligibility committee to refer certain questions - every 15th, or those which come from a particular area or whatever.

We can't discuss it yet but I would simply draw the member's attention to section 9 which, while dealing in general terms with regulations also, insists that regulations respecting appeals from the decision of the eligibility committee will be handled at that level. The pattern of eligibility committees, as I mentioned before, Mr. Chairman, is not new; it's not unique to this legislation. I would suspect - indeed I'm quite sure that it is correct to say - that from time to time those very unusual cases, the fishboat or whatever it might be or other matters in matters relating to housing, were referred by the eligibility committee to my predecessor, the Minister of Housing in the New Democratic Party government (Mr. Nicolson) .

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You take your place, Mr. Member, if you want to jump up and waste time on this. You take your place. I'm sure you will.

I think that this is straightforward, and there is the provision with respect to appeals in section 9.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't know who is advising the minister regarding the drafting of statutes or who is advising him on law, but I want to advise him that without question regulations which may be promulgated after this statute becomes law can in no way affect the statutory provisions of the Act. So section 9 allowing for regulations to be promulgated later on in no way modifies the provisions of section 2. That is part and parcel of the statute and may not be affected and modified by regulation. So I would suggest to the minister - I certainly am not a lawyer - that that is very self-evident.

Mr. Chairman, the minister misses the point. He himself has declared that there is a wide variety of circumstances under which questions can arise regarding eligibility of buildings, be they houseboats, be they hotel rooms, be they fishboats, even old railcars. A whole variety of circumstances have arisen in debate in this House. Now unquestionably out in the real life of our community many other pales and nuances will arise as to just whether or not the residence falls within the intent and the definition of this statute.

So by the minister's own admission we can expect, certainly at the early stages, a great deal of internal consideration - indeed, internal litigation, I suppose - in developing precisely the guidelines for eligibility. And while I certainly endorse the development of the eligibility committee, I suggest that they are going to need policy direction to maintain consistent policy.

It sounds reasonable then that they will be obliged on numerous occasions to appeal to the minister for a final decision. That's going to be the inescapable sequence of events. We then have in this province a situation where citizens of this province will be obliged to await the political adjudication of a political office, which will determine their eligibility for financial assistance. It's completely improper, completely imprudent, and it's offering the spectre and the opportunity for political favouritism. In dispensing law in an impartial way, it's an old tenet of British jurisprudence that the law must not only be fair, but it must seem to be fair and impartial. How can that principle obtain under the current circumstances? It cannot, Mr. Chairman.

There will be a wide variety of questions; there will be a wide variety of disputes. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that if I were in that minister's place, there is no way that I would want to take that obligation onto myself as a politician, because one would be accused. If you found against the applicant you would be accused of political consideration. I say to the minister that for self-protection, as well as out of respect for the image of the law, he should divest himself of this responsibility. It's absolutely and completely improper.

He suggests that the eligibility committee is a good thing. I have no arguments with that; it's very fine. But if there is to be an appeal and a final decision then that should be at arm's length from the department and from the minister's office. After all, the eligibility committee will be appointed by the minister under the authority and auspices of his political office. Perhaps it will be internal staff from the minister's department under his control and influence. There must be an appeal at arm's length from that process to assure citizens in this province that they are getting fair, equal and impartial measures of justice when it comes to financial benefits.

Senior citizens certainly don't want to be placed in the position where they feel that if they are an activist in the community in a senior citizens' group that is currently criticizing the government for some other matter, they may be punished by a strict adjudication of benefits under this programme. These

[ Page 2752 ]

kinds of things can happen. I'm not suggesting they would but I say there should be no way that that kind of scenario could be established.

AN HON. MEMBER: It rings a bell, doesn't it?

MR. KING: It's not good enough for the minister and some of his backbenchers to sit there and protest, Mr. Chairman. I consider them honourable people and innocent people. If they want to establish that as a firm fact beyond debate, then let them amend this statute so that there is no opportunity whatsoever for those kinds of rather odious considerations to enter into what is otherwise a good programme.

So I appeal very sincerely to the minister to respect what is common sense and common justice, and amend this section of the bill.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just have two or three short questions. The first one was to have been in relation to the eligibility committee comprised of three persons. It's a very vague definition: " . . . comprised of three persons." There is no categorization of where the persons might be selected from, how the minister chooses them or what their terms of reference are. Would the appointment be purely at the pleasure of the minister or are there terms of reference which would help us to understand section 2 a little bit better than we now do?

The minister made a comment a moment ago that these committees are not new at all and that the Ministry of Housing has used them in the past. Perhaps he could outline very briefly how they are set up at the present time - those that already exist for purposes other than the purpose under this bill.

It does seem to me that while perhaps I wouldn't support it in as strong terms as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , I think he has a valid argument. Unless we know the manner and appeal mechanisms by which the eligibility committee will be set up - unless we know a little more of the detail - it does seem as though a person could on occasions be unfairly treated and not have an adequate means of protesting the fact that they've been declared ineligible when they happen to believe that they are eligible.

The second point that I wanted to raise was brought to my attention by a citizen when I was traveling on the B.C. ferries. I'm sure members know how often the B.C. ferry system seems to serve as something more than just getting you from one side of the strait to the other. I'm sure the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) , who is looking very interested, finds it's a great vehicle, if I could use the pun, for questioning politicians.

I was accosted by a gentleman who pointed out his mother has an income of around $565 a month, which is the maximum under which the qualification would apply, and it is all derived either from pension or income-bearing assets. Apparently ~there is nothing in the bill which takes into account the fact that persons might well choose and sometimes do choose to have non-income-bearing deposits and to draw upon the capital in these deposits in order to minimize what appears to be their annual income. I'd like to ask the minister, in this question of how eligibility will be decided: When the person completes the eligibility application, first of all, will there be a specific question asking the applicant whether or not they actually have non-interest-bearing assets? If so, will these declared assets be taken into account in determining whether or not, in fact, the person has a monthly income in excess of $565?

I realize that in a programme like this you can't possibly cover all the permutations and combinations that a person can choose to use in determining income. I gather from statements the minister had made at the time that the bill was tabled in the House, that it was meant to be based on the ability of the renter to pay and the fairness or otherwise of the rent in relation to that monthly income. I think that makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand, it seems possible that citizens with a substantial income above the maximum could place their assets into forms of deposits which don't bear interest and therefore are not taken into consideration when their monthly income is calculated. Or at least that is the way it could appear in this bill.

Since the bill under section 2 doesn't really go into much detail - it merely says whether or not an applicant is entitled to receive shelter aid - I would like to know in more detail how that eligibility is to be decided, particularly in relation to asking the applicant whether they have financial assets which are not bearing interest and which would not be included in the calculation of their monthly income.

Lastly, I recognize the logistics involved in this question, but how often is the senior citizen to be asked to state their financial status? Presumably the financial status - in other words, the monthly income - of an individual senior citizen can change for a whole variety of reasons. I assume that there will have to be some periodic review in which each senior citizen in receipt of rent assistance as a result of the initial application will have to resubmit or be asked at regular intervals whether their income situation and their rent situation are the same as they were when the assistance was provided X months or years previously. Since both income and rent can change quite frequently.... We all know how mobile citizens are nowadays. Although the minister points out that many people want to stay in their accommodation as long as possible, we all know that many factors compel them to move. I just wonder how often the monthly income and the rent will be reviewed once the programme gets underway.

[ Page 2753 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the eligibility committee - I've got to find a new name for that, if for no other reason than it is a tough one to say, as you indicate - in place now for the home purchase assistance programme in British Columbia comprises the three senior officials in the ministry other than the deputy minister. The deputy minister is not a member of the eligibility committee. I think we would probably follow the same practice in connection with SAFER. Whether it is these three or two of the present three we really haven't decided yet, but it will be in-house. That really is, I think, the best way in which to administer it, inasmuch as they're familiar with the programme, they're familiar with the intent of the legislation and they're familiar with all the other programmes which may or may not have some involvement.

I have to answer it, Mr. Chairman, in a tentative manner. We do not plan to consider capital, but in one other application of an assistance programme 7 per cent of capital was considered fair. That will be dealt with in regulations.

After the programme gets rolling, the income will be reviewed annually. Recipients will be asked to report their income once every year, which we think is fair, and in terms of the rent they pay, to notify the ministry 30 days after there's any change in their rent - up, down, change of location, whatever it may be. That again is in draft form in regulations at this point, but I feel it is a worthwhile topic to discuss this afternoon in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just a quick follow-up to clarify the minister's answer about capital. I got the impression from the minister's answer that at the moment there is no intention to take capital into account, but I didn't get the feeling that that is a final decision. I'm not trying to waffle or to get the minister to waffle. I'm just saying that since the basic purpose of this bill is to provide for the senior citizen in paying a reasonable rent where such need exists, surely we have to be rather careful that we don't leave loopholes for people who, in fact, are fairly comfortably off and who, if they derived interest from all their assets, would have a very comfortable income. I personally feel that legislation has to be careful that no such loophole exists for that kind of abuse.

I wonder if the minister cares at all to mention whether he would review the issue I've raised - not with any sense of giving this House a commitment, but is there not some reason in the light of the point that I've raised to review the need to have applicants declare capital and have that capital, if it is not bearing interest, calculated on some such basis as a 7 per cent value in terms of interest?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon.

member for Oak Bay, I can't give a commitment because we will want to monitor it very carefully. It's very rare now with provincial rental housing, and it will be covered in the regulations. If we sense abuses, then the regulations will have to be altered. I suppose I'm not straying into section 7, where there is clearly a penalty for a calculated offence against the bill. We need a few months of experience with this very major change in assistance to individuals in British Columbia. The regulations will give us the flexibility we need to make sure the programme is working well and working to the advantage of those who genuinely deserve the assistance.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised to hear the minister admit that a programme which in 15 days will be serving some 23,500 people still has no eligibility committee that he can name. He can't give us the names of the individuals, he can't give us the numbers of members and, indeed, this afternoon he is unable to provide the regulations.

The programme begins in 15 days, according to the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Payments begin in 15 days.

MR. BARBER: But the programme begins after the payments commence? What kind of a programme is that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You haven't read the bill!

MR. BARBER: I've read the bill very carefully. I understand your immense concern with retroactivity.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's incredible!

MR. BARBER: I understand the minister's concern with the need for retroactivity.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Let's remember we are in committee on section 2.

MR. BARBER: The minister who hopes this begins on July I has no eligibility committee.

Section 2 provides for no appeal whatever of decisions of the eligibility committee except to the minister himself. One has to pose the inevitable question: if it were another minister, Mr. Chairman, would he be satisfied with such an appeal procedure? If the minister, at some time down the road, were the famous P.A. Gaglardi, would he think it adequate that the appeals of potentially 23,500 people should be handled fairly in the court of the mind of a man like P.A. Gaglardi? Of course not! He wouldn't approve of that for a minute.

[ Page 2754 ]

Section 2, at the moment, provides no appeal whatsoever, looking at subsection 4, reading as follows: "The eligibility committee may refer a question of eligibility for shelter aid to the minister, and the decision of the minister is final."

It should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that the decision of that minister, whoever he or she may be, is also made in private without any statement to the public as to the reasons for it and without any statement to the public as to whether or not those reasons were just and fair.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, most unjust and unfair that in the hands of a minister, behind closed doors, in the privacy of his own mind with no accounting to the public whatever, the fate of those - estimated by the minister - 23,500 people should be at stake. If even 10 per cent of them appealed, thinking it unfair, that seems to us unreasonable.

Is there precedent, Mr. Chairman? You bet there is! My colleague, the House leader of our party (Mr. King) , suggested that there may be elderly citizens in this province who, angry about government policy, concerned about government directions, no matter what the government of the day may be, would hesitate to express their anger as free citizens for fear that they might lose their benefits under this programme. They've read the bill, they've discovered that there is an eligibility committee, and they've discovered further that the only appeal of decision taken by that committee is to the minister himself, and that decision itself is made in private.

There's a parallel, Mr. Chairman. There are other citizens in our province who have been subject to the same kind of abuse. I'm referring, of course, to welfare recipients under the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . There's a group in Victoria which, at the moment, is the subject of considerable attack from that minister because, in his view, they've had the nerve to act as advocates for welfare recipients. The group I mention is, of course, the Community Action Group. I know personally of welfare recipients....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 2 of Bill 24.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Stick to the section.

MR. BARBER: I know personally of welfare recipients who feel that it's been impossible for them to speak their minds for fear that the benefits they receive under the so-called GAIN programme will be cut off by that infamous minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If you want to debate welfare I'll debate welfare with you anytime, despite your limited knowledge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: The parallel is simple, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can show the lack of brains you have very quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARBER: The parallel is simple and obvious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I just remind the hon. member that it is when we wander from the text that we encounter some of the repercussions that you're experiencing just now. Perhaps I could remind you to stick very much more closely to the context of section 2.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Referring specifically to subsection 4, which talks about an appeal procedure, I would like to point out that even under that Minister of Human Resources there's an appeal procedure more fair than the one we find in this Act. It allows the department to name a representative, the client to name a representative, and the two of them to name a third, impartial chairperson who shall assess questions of fairness in regard to applications for social assistance in British Columbia. Here it's all in the hands of the minister.

I know of welfare recipients who, in fear, have had to keep their mouths shut for fear of being cut off by that Minister of Human Resources. I know of one agency, the Community Action Group, which is being cut off by that same minister for those same reasons. What I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is that here in this Act where there should be a provision for the department, for the applicant, and for the two of them together to name a third party to create a three-person assessment committee, the minister has deliberately chosen not to take that route. He, in fact, prefers to keep all of those decisions in his own hands. So I ask the minister: would he consider amending this section to remove that power from his own capable hands and, instead, give the power of appeal to an impartial three-person committee composed of representatives of the applicant, the department, and their mutual choice as chairperson? Would he think that more fair?

Let me remind him, Mr. Chairman, that it's just possible, at some time down the road, that some other minister may have this power. It's just possible that that particular member may not approve of who that minister may be. Who knows? It may even be one of us. Surely he wouldn't approve of that, even for a moment. If he doesn't approve of it down the road, maybe he shouldn't approve of it today. Perhaps that three-person committee that I've suggested, which works well within the Ministry of Human Resources, might work just as well here as the

[ Page 2755 ]

final court of appeal. Perhaps it's only fair that the minister himself not be the court.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like a point of information here. Section 2 notes that the eligibility committee, subject to this Act and the regulations, shall determine "the amount of the shelter aid the applicant is entitled to receive." Now should the exact amount of the payments be discussed here or under the regulation section, section 8? I'm willing to raise it in either place. Is this section as good as any? It would be better to discuss it under section 8, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think so.

MR. GIBSON: I don't mind.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, even though we haven't reached the regulation section, this, I think, is the right place to ask the following question: how much is this programme going to cost the province, and how much will be saved through cancellation of the renter's tax credit? My understanding, from some newspaper quotations attributed to the minister.... I think he suggested that the cost of the programme for three-quarters of a fiscal year would come to $6 million. That would imply that for a full year it's $8 million. I'd just like to confirm that.

He also noted, apparently in the same press conference - and this is reported in The Province of March 10 - that deducting the renters tax credit, the $80 portion, for one-quarter of the year would save the government $2 million. Once again, multiplying that out I take it that the government is going to save $8 million on one programme and expend $8 million on the other. But that's all mathematics I've done from the newspapers. I'd like to ask the minister if that is more or less correct.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we estimate the gross annual cost of the programme will be $12 million, approximately. I realize the hon. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) didn't deal with it, but the previous speaker, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , did. I want to pay tribute to the staff for putting this whole thing together under terrific pressure from before the time the bill came to the House and since. A lot of individuals with whom I work in the ministry, such as the deputy, the assistant deputies and others - Mr. Evans, who is in the House this afternoon, from the ministry - have worked extremely hard on the programme with great enthusiasm, and their projections so far have been really right on.

On the basis of the studies that we've done, we've sampled a group in Vancouver to determine how the senior citizen will feel about the application form which will be sent out. This was a test run with a relatively small group, and some changes will be made as a result of that experience. The material that has been returned has indicated that it's clearly understood by most people. The dollars, as I say, gross $12 million. In my estimates you'll note $4 million now for this fiscal year for senior citizens' facilities, construction - that is the conventional programme; and, yes, about $2 million may be saved from the other programme which is being phased out.

MR. GIBSON: That's $2 million saved for a quarter of the year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, total for the year - for a year.

MR. GIBSON: But it's only being phased out January 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's correct, but a full year's saving would be $2 million. So it's roughly a trade-off except - and again as I indicated to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) earlier this afternoon, Mr. Chairman - we must bear in mind the fact that we are going to be assisting so many more people, It's a taking of essentially the same amount of money, for this year at any rate, and assisting many more people than could be accommodated in the traditional senior citizens' facilities, the projects which have been built over a good number of years. So it's not just how much money, but how many people can be assisted with that particular amount of money.

MR. LEVI: Could I ask the minister: is this a cost-shared programme with the federal government, and, if it is, on what ratio is it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that question likely could be asked under the next section. The question should likely be asked under section 4.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to ask now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, questions about the yardsticks this government will use in order to assess annually the increases permitted under this programme. Presumably you're looking at cost of living; presumably you're looking at inflation; presumably you're looking at increases in utilities and other specific amounts that are the responsibility of tenants in this province. Can you tell us precisely which of those, if any, and which others you will be looking at and how you will be applying those yardsticks to

[ Page 2756 ]

make your determination of annual increases allowable under this programme?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I believe I dealt with that when it was previously raised. It's repetitive. We expect the programme to grow and to be enriched. Incidentally, the earlier question - is it a programme that is shared with the federal government? - the answer is no. We've put it in here in case at some time it may be. But this is a British Columbia programme for British Columbians and we should all be proud of it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Well, if I were the minister I wouldn't be proud of that answer. What you've said is that you are not prepared to tell us how you will determine the annual increases of this programme. You simply say that it will grow and become richer. Well, why will it become richer - because of need or because of your own political purposes prior to an election to increase the programme?

Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me very much that this minister is unwilling or unable to tell us on what basis they will award annual increases. Is it possible, as we've seen so often in this province, that those increases, in fact, will be made all the more visible just before an election, or will there be an annual, scientifically determined programme of appropriate increase separate from any political considerations? All the minister seems to be able to say, Mr. Chairman, is: "Well, it will grow and get richer because we're going to grow and we're going to get richer too." How nice, how convenient and how political. How totally unsatisfactory it is to this opposition, Mr. Chairman, that he can give no other basis for measuring the performance of this programme than to say: "Watch us. It will grow. It will get richer, and it will get better." That's a very poor yardstick indeed. It's a very obvious statement of political interest rather than programmatic interest in the scientific and rational growth of this programme and its funding to meet the actual needs of seniors as they increase from year to year. I hope the minister might try again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the apparent cynicism of the second member for Victoria is distressing. I'm very sorry about it because it really says more than I can say in reply. If-this government had wanted to make political capital out of this programme, then obviously it would not be before the House at this time. It's a programme which is needed and a programme which will obviously be refined and improved with each passing year. The member must know. It appears from other statements he's made today that he hasn't really studied the bill, I regret that, since he's the critic. He was on holidays, I guess~

Mr. Chairman, clearly the 1978-79 allocation for this programme will be made in a submission to Treasury Board and it will be decided by the government at the appropriate time.

I can't predict - nor, presumably, could the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) - what moneys will be allocated for any programme for the next fiscal year, We're dealing with this fiscal year. Now the member must know that; the member must understand that. If he doesn't, perhaps one of the more senior members of the official opposition would help him on it.

MR. LEVI: We have to counter that violent attack on my colleague. I think we are entitled to be a little cynical, Mr. Minister. You can stand there and in a rather prim fashion...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

He can stand there, Mr. Chairman, in his rather prim fashion and say how great they are, but we get very cynical when we are reminded that in your estimates, construction of homes for senior citizens last year had a budget of $10 million and this year has a budget of $4 million. Of course, we're entitled to be cynical.

This isn't a situation where you can come in here and tell us that everything you're doing is adding good onto good. You took $6 million away from senior citizen housing. That's what happened, Mr. Chairman, and we're entitled to be cynical.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has been able to ascertain whether or not SAFER payments will be considered income for the purpose of the calculation of federal guaranteed income supplements.

As the minister knows, as of about the beginning of this year the GAIN for single seniors aged over 65 was made up as follows: the federal OAS, payable as a right, $141; the federal GIS, an income-tested programme, $99; and the provincial portion of GAIN, about $39.

I would ask the minister first of all, with respect to GIS and with respect to GAIN: will the extra payments made under the SAFER programme Act reduce payments otherwise receivable under GIS and under GAIN?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer in both instances is no. We have entered into negotiations and

[ Page 2757 ]

discussions with Ottawa concerning GIS and that has been satisfied. I might just point out also, Mr. Chairman, that two other provinces are looking at similar legislation now and I'm sure they will build in what is found in section 4 here. Ontario is looking at this very closely and I am informed that Alberta is as well. But I know that Ontario is further ahead in their consideration. The answer to both questions is no.

MR. GIBSON: So just briefly, for greater clarity, Mr. Chairman: anyone in receipt of GIS now can be certain that it will not be reduced only by reason of their receiving SAFER payments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Right.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved,

On section 8.

MR. GIBSON: This, I gather, is where we are supposed to discuss the numbers that define SAFER payments that will, in due course, be made available. Of course, there are no numbers in this bill and nothing having to do with the income percentage figure of, I think it is, 30 per cent or the percentage of the difference figure of, I think it is, 75 per cent or, in particular, the income ceiling figure of $200.

It's this last figure which I am most concerned about. I know that here, in a sense, I'm going over ground that has been discussed on earlier sections. I'm very concerned that on an analogous programme, namely GAIN, there is no entitlement as a matter of right to increases by the operation of a rise in the cost of living. I'd ask the minister if he just couldn't tell us in principle that the regulations to be promulgated under section 8 will, at least, contain that protection so that the House can pass this programme, secure in the knowledge that benefits of the programme guaranteed will not be eroded by the operation of inflation in years to come.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first part of the question from the hon. Liberal leader, also in here is the money which permitted us to get the programme started - staff on stream - in advance of royal assent and passage of the estimates, So that's part of this. The answer to the question relating to the erosion of benefits under the programme up to the maximum applicable is that it will work, up to the maximum.

MR. GIBSON: But over that, the $200 cap should be indexed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's your suggestion.

I can't really discuss this afternoon all the detail in regulations which are in draft form. But you will know, Mr. Chairman, that they are to be presented to my cabinet colleagues, and hopefully they will be acceptable. Problems may be found with some of them and changes may be made. So it's really beyond my capability today to say: "Yes, we will do this; yes, we will do that." That's a subject for regulations and I think the member knows that.

MR. GIBSON: Would the minister be kind enough to convey to his colleagues that representation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Happily.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; MR. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977 (No. 1)

Bill 7 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 38

NAYS - 3

[ Page 2758 ]

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 29.

GREENBELT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, just looking at the very first definition in section 1, it says Crown land means "such ungranted Crown land. . . ." Then it goes on and says at the end of that paragraph: ". . . and includes any right, title, estate or interest of the Crown in land." Well, there are lawyers in the House, and I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that the Crown really has the right of eminent domain over all land in the province. Is' it intended in this definition that the words "Crown land" will mean any land within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia? Certainly if you forget to pay your taxes for three years your land belongs to the Crown, I just wondered if that is what is intended in this definition - that it will include all lands within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite sure if I received that question from the member. He asked if it means all lands within the province; presumably that is Crown or public land, The first sentence in section I says: " 'Crown land' means such ungranted Crown or public land or Crown domain as is within the province. . . ." I rather think that answers your question. I'm sorry if I've missed some nuance that you're offering.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister just didn't read quite far enough. At the end of that paragraph, it says "and includes." This is not "or, " but this is "and." In addition to the part that the minister read, it "includes any right, title, estate or interest of the Crown in land, " which would seem to me to make it all-encompassing. Is this government considering designating all land in the province as potential Crown land?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the intent. I'm advised by members of the ministry, including some of our legal people, that indeed the Crown in several circumstances in the province shares title of certain lands. There are some lands in the province which are in a shared position. I'm presuming that this is to cover such situations.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, in the Act that's being repealed, the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, 1976, the first section reads - and I want to relate it to the greenbelt land definition in section 1: "The purpose of this Act is to encourage the establishment and preservation in perpetuity of areas of lands commonly known as greenbelts" - in perpetuity. Now in the greenbelt land here, the definition in the Act is "considered by the minister to be suitable for preservation as greenbelt land under this Act and is reserved or required for purposes under section 2." Now perhaps the minister would tell the House what happened to the principle of perpetuity. If that's being omitted from the other Act into this one, can we presume that at some stage it could be possible that land would be taken out of the Greenbelt Act?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer to the question, Mr. Chairman, is yes, at some stage it could be. In fact that is within the context of the bill; that provision is within the bill.

MR. LEVI: Well, having got that from the minister, what particular situation would arise where land would go out of the greenbelt? In the previous Act that was a very fixed principle. Now under what circumstances is there a change, Mr. Chairman, that may arise that they take land out of the greenbelt? That's what I would be interested in knowing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The circumstances which could arise would have to be where it is for a higher use which has been identified by the Crown - a higher use for public benefit identified, and therefore a portion of the land or the land itself could be removed from the greenbelt register.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This debate might better take place under section 5, I've just been reminded.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, reference has already been made to the definition that was in the previous legislation and the almost lack of definition here, because it said that the definition of greenbelt land is land that is greenbelt land, which really tells us nothing about it. We have departed from the definition. The minister, in speaking about this last night, said that that leaves the door wider open to include more lands. Now the previous definition did say: ". . and any other such land as might be considered greenbelt land, " So I don't see that it does leave it wider open.

But I'd welcome some comments from this minister as to just what he feels should be called greenbelt land. How would he interpret this subsection (1) , I guess it is, of section I? I'm thinking of the Hansard reports that were referred to yesterday evening of the speeches given by the former

[ Page 2759 ]

Premier - not the immediately preceding one but the one before that - in talking about the necessity of protecting green spaces, in particular, around communities. Is that the kind of thing that this minister has in mind, or does he have something quite different? I'd like to hear a little bit from him on what he has in mind when he talks about designating land as greenbelt land because it is greenbelt land.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to offer some thoughts on possible definitions that could fall into the category of greenbelt land but without restricting those definitions. As I mentioned previously, it's my belief that if you attempt to define it too closely, you may indeed be restricting yourselves as to what greenbelt land is. I could offer some definitions of perhaps what land would be considered as greenbelt and those would be fairly standard definitions: such land that is considered to be of particular beauty; land that is suitable for use as an ecological reserve, for outdoor recreation, or for studies of the environment or natural history or, perhaps, studies of natural resources from an educational point of view; a strip of land that may be in the proximity of highways or an industrial or urban area that requires some type of a buffer zone; waterfront property or perhaps wild rivers, riverside property. Then, I suppose, we could add to that - as the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) suggested - "or other such suitable lands, " which covers pretty well everything else.

I think one of the purposes also, rather than what I've mentioned previously, is that, indeed, the other definitions usually fall back on that type of all-encompassing definition - other such lands as may be designated or identified. I think that perhaps this bill simply eliminates some of those preliminary examples and offers that all-encompassing statement - lands which are identified as such as greenbelt land. Those examples are indeed just that. They are examples of what would be considered greenbelt land but they are certainly not the complete list. There could be other categories of land that could be considered greenbelt. I mentioned last evening we could be discussing perhaps some and portions of the province that may be identified as more properly preserved for ecological studies in a desert climate or such other areas of scenic beauty that may be identified and kept in the greenbelt category even though the colour may not be green.

MR. LEA: On section 1, I would like to go back to what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) brought up: the last sentence of section I - ". . . and includes any right, title, estate or interest of the Crown in land" - and the interpretation in section I of Crown land. That is really pretty loose, because the Crown has the right to one-twentieth or one-fifth of all privately owned land in this province without compensation. They have that right. One-twentieth of any land that any citizen of this province owns is really only in trust, holding it for the Crown, although it's in your name and you pay taxes to the Crown for the use of that land. But by right the province has its right to take one-twentieth of any privately owned land without compensation to the person who has that land in his or her name. So this is really pretty loose. It means that the government could go in under this Act and take one-twentieth of your land for greenbelt without compensation. I'm not saying the government will do it, but it should be clear. I can't see why the government would do it but I think the law should be more explicit than that.

MR. LAUK: It's difficult to read the definitions section without referring to other sections that are coming up. In the British parliamentary system the Crown has an extensive power it can exercise if the Legislature wishes to grant it. Statutes like this, which are completely open-ended, can lead to abuse. Now we have the definition of greenbelt land broad and imprecise, to the extent where any area or any piece of land in the province can be declared or reserved as greenbelt.

We have the old problem of acquiring land. Remember how the definition of "acquire" was so widely discussed? Now here is section 2, but that's opening and broadening the powers of this minister. Now we don't mind that you have this much power, but to whom do you answer after we give it to you? How do we question your judgment with respect to whether this is properly greenbelt land or, indeed, whether it's good public policy that this land be reserved as greenbelt land? Who is to question your actions or some other minister's actions empowered under this - I am speaking in the genre - and who is to say whether or not some future minister or this minister, non compos because of some unfortunate happening, declares land to be greenbelt or reserves it or acquires and expropriates land for greenbelt purposes for some prejudicial reason? Maybe it's the land of some person he doesn't like, and if he takes it out of circulation he causes great loss to that person, Where is the appeal?

There is no protection of abusive power in this Act. Why isn't there some sort of a tribunal or committee that can review the decisions? Why should it be pure ministerial raw power over greenbelt land? That's not democratic.

I must say that characterizes this government. We've got a clear statement of their attitude towards the democratic system from the Government Reorganization Act. They have no respect for the Legislature, nor do they refer anything to the Legislature.

If the Greenbelt Act, Bill 29, were introduced by

[ Page 2760 ]

the NDP administration, the hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) would be very eloquent, indeed, . . .

MR. LEA: He's be on the stage at Ladner with Butler.

MR. LAUK: He would be very eloquent, indeed, touring the province, I might say, and calling upon the good people of this province to protect the democratic institutions of this province from being attacked by this socialist horde.

But this Act comes by on a sleepy summer afternoon. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , that once great freedom fighter, protector of the democratic system, sits back, having gained a pound or two, I might say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we go back to section 1, please, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's nice of you to be here today.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. I think, Mr. Chairman, the point should be made that there is no appeal procedure within this statute. What amuses me is that no one seems to care.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, I've been saying an appeal procedure. No one seems to care.

MR. LEA: Not over there.

MR. LAUK: No. You know, it's a joke, but people who own land in this province are in danger of a minister abusing his power under this Act. This is vast power.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's a sweeping power. That's quite right. It's broad, swooping and sweeping power. No, the Statistics Act is swooping; this is sweeping. It's really quite offensive, Mr. Chairman, that this definition of Crown land is so terribly broad....

MR. LEA: .. . that includes everybody's land.

MR. LAUK: It includes every piece of land, every square inch of land, in this province. Sure it does. It says: ". . . and includes any right, title, estate, or interest of the Crown in land." That's all the land. Sure it is.

MR. LEA: What does it leave out?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Why didn't you put the bill through for them, Allan? Why didn't you put the bill through the House for them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Whose bill is this anyway -yours or theirs?

MR. LAUK: Bill's not in the House right now. He'll be back. He's out for coffee, thinking of better days.

Mr. Chairman, I do wish the minister would introduce some sort of amendment that would allow a protective section in here, an appeal procedure where someone could appeal his decision about greenbelt land to some independent tribunal, because it could get quite serious if the minister one day read a book on the environment and ran around the province declaring everything greenbelt. Contrarily, as he is empowered to do under section 5, he could read Ayn Rand and run around the province taking everything out of the greenbelt and disposing of it. There's no appeal to his decision, Mr. Chairman. He becomes a land czar in a democratic system. Even a worse situation is that he might start taking the advice of his executive assistant.

MR. LEA: Bill Vander Zalm did.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up for just a moment on this appeal procedure that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is mentioning. I see some dangers here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The matter of appeal is not rightly debated under section 1, which is the interpretation section. Indeed, perhaps the matter of appeal, which is not mentioned in the bill, should rightly have been debated in second reading. Therefore the debate, as I've listened to it up until now, has not really been in order. I have allowed it just briefly, but if we're about to go into an in-depth debate it is out of order.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, section I does say that the minister can deem suitable for preservation for greenbelt purposes under the definition, and nowhere in the bill - I mean, at no time - are we ever going to get to the section which talks about the appeal procedure. There just isn't

[ Page 2761 ]

any

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: .. . so because this section allows him to designate, then I would assume....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is why this kind of debate rightfully belongs in second reading, during the principle of the bill. It is out of order in committee.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, I see some dangers here in terms of the preservation of land under this section 1 and, here again, we run into the difficulty because there are various sections and they all sort of run together. Because the other Act is going to be repealed, which had designated land in perpetuity, and because in another section the minister has the ability to remove land from greenbelt, I have some concern about people who, in the past, had donated their land for greenbelt purposes and are now in danger of having their donations taken out of greenbelt. Surely these people should have some kind of appeal procedure where they can say: "Look, Mr. Minister, the other Act has now been done away with. We do not wish to have the land that we kindly donated taken out of greenbelt."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The section under which we are now debating does not refer to any appeal, as I see it. Therefore your debate, although perhaps well founded, is not in order at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could advise me. Would this be better discussed under section 12 or under section 5? It applies to both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. member would take a few moments and review the bill and make that decision for herself.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think we could hurry this up a bit if we could get some help from the minister in interpretation of section 1. I'd like to start again in the last sentence: "and includes any right." I would like the minister to explain what "and includes any right" means. Then I would like the minister to explain: "and includes any title, " and what that means; "and includes any estate, " and what that means; "or interests of the Crown land itself." Because as I read it, the first one, "right, " means that the Crown can go in and take one-twentieth or one-fifth of anybody's property without compensation for the Greenbelt Act. Technically it does mean that.

But I would like the minister to break it down: and includes any right" - what does that mean? and includes any title" - what does that mean? and includes any estate" - what does that mean? I would like an interpretation on each one of those points.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I can only refer to the previous question - in fact, almost the same question - and the explanation I offered. That is the explanation that has been offered to us from our legal adviser.

MR. LEA: ".. . and includes any right." How have the legal beagles told the minister to explain that to us? If the minister doesn't understand what it means, if he's going to have to keep running back and saying: "Oh, by the way, what did you say that meant again. . . .?" The minister should be able to tell us what the legal people told him. What does "and any right" mean?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You just answered it -exactly the same. You're asking the same question.

MR. LEA: I'm asking the same question. What I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to get the minister to answer it. What does "and includes any right" mean? He says the legal people say it's okay. What did they say? What does it mean?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have previously answered that.

MR. LEA: You didn't answer it. What does it mean? For a minister to bring a bill into this House which he doesn't understand is not the proper thing to do. If the minister doesn't understand it, how can the people of the province understand it? If the minister can't explain to us what it means, then let's stand it aside until he goes back to his department and he can come in tomorrow or the next day and tell us what it means. Has the minister read the Act? Maybe that's a better question. He says the lawyers told him that it's all right.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You weren't listening.

MR. LEA: I was listening.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You were not.

MR. LEA: Okay, you be the smart one; I'll be the dumb one. You run through it again. Keep going through it until I can understand.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You have been all your life. Why change it?

[ Page 2762 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section I pass?

MR. LEA: No, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister going to tell us what it means? That's a simple enough question. 19 the minister going to explain to us what that section in his own Act that he's putting through the House for the people of the province means?

He's got a note. Maybe I should hold up for a second.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes. When he was on the hotline he had an answer for everything because he could shut them off.

"And includes any right" - what does that mean in this Act? Can't the minister tell us that?

Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous. If a minister can't tell us what a section of the bill that he is putting through the House means, then where are we?

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to hold the House up. This is the last time I'm going to ask. Does the minister know what it means or doesn't he know what it means?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I refer the member for Prince Rupert to my earlier answer as to what interpretation was provided by our legal counsel. If you weren't here to listen to it, I'm sorry.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to approach this in a slightly different way. Perhaps we can get an answer from the minister that will be more meaningful. About this time of year I get a letter in the mail from the Crown, along with other residents of British Columbia, and it's my tax assessment. It says that I must pay X number of dollars to the Crown prior to a given date or I'm going to have to forfeit penalties of 5 per cent or 10 per cent and so on.

I would suggest to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that that indicates that the Crown has an interest in my land, because if I didn't pay that tax, the Crown is going to take action. This particular clause in the Act indicates that the Crown has the right to act on any land in which it has interest. I would ask the minister to advise me if this includes the land owned by residents of this province for which they receive tax notices from the Crown.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The answer, in my understanding from our legal advisers, is no. That is not what is meant by interest.

The situation you are describing, of course, could result in delinquency of taxes and perhaps action taken by a local government or by the Crow. But, no, that is not the interpretation.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that if taxes are not paid on an annual basis, foreclosure by the Crown or by the relevant municipal agency could follow after three years.

I wonder if the language used in this section is intended to infer that the Crown has an interest in the event that a citizen landowner fails to meet his tax obligation in any one year. Would that be a criterion for the Crown having an interest?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I just answered her. Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. KING: The minister indicated that in the event that the Crown or the municipal agency had a right to foreclose, that would be an interest. But when is that interest developed? Is it developed in the first year of non-payment of taxes? Is it the second year of non-payment of taxes? Or is it only after the third year? These things are very important.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again, to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the answer would be the same as to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace): no, that would not be what is meant by "interest."

MS. SANFORD: How do you define "interest"? What's the legal definition?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The lands could, of course, revert to the Crown for delinquent taxes, whether it 'be Crown or provincial or at a local level. That land could, therefore, become Crown land. The Crown then would have an interest in the land.

MR. LEA: The law says that the Crown has an interest in one-twentieth of all privately held land. If the Crown wants it, they get it for no compensation. It means they have an interest in it. That's what it says here: "an interest of the Crown in land." It means that they do technically have an interest in the land.

I don't think anyone on this side of the House is going to say that it would be used in that way. I think that everyone would also agree that it should be perfectly clear as to what it means, and it isn't. Technically, the minister could, Mr. Chairman, use that to go in and say: "We have an interest in all land." Not that he probably would, but he could. And if he could, then it should be clarified so that it can't happen.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) shakes his head, but he's been on enough cases in expropriation to know that what I'm saying is true. In his own riding, Mr. Chairman, in the land up on the Upper Levels, there was a big argument about one-twentieth of that land belonging to the Crown. The Minister of Labour knows what I'm talking

[ Page 2763 ]

about. They could - I'm not saying they would -because the Crown does have an interest in all privately held land because of that.

I just think that that should be changed so that it is clear as to what the Crown can do with people's private land.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the Minister of Labour to help his colleague.

In reference to this particular problem I would like to be able to quote something that the Minister of Labour said some years ago in a debate in this House when the greenbelt legislation was brought in. He had the same perplexing feeling, Mr. Chairman, about what was happening as my colleague from Prince Rupert.

In February, 1972, he started out by saying: "If I had any doubt at the beginning of the debate on how I would vote on second reading of this bill, I assure you it was dispelled by the remarks by the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests."

But he later on went on to say - and this is to deal with what the issue is here:

What we have from the minister, who, I gather, has given us additional responsibility, is a statement that there are particular parcels of land which would be preserved for all time. This indicates quite clearly that what is to happen is the casual, incomplete, hodge-podge accumulation of parcels of land. You'll never build a greenbelt that way. You will never restore in those areas close to our major centres the impact of the non-policies which have been practised. by this government over the years.

He further went on to say:

What we should have from the minister is a clear statement of the policy of his government: that they were going to do things directed solely to the creation of greenbelts, the return to parks or agricultural use of land which, over the years, have been properly devoted to other uses, either urban, residential or industrial.

That was a good statement by the minister when he was a backbencher and a member of the Liberal Party. We're trying to get a clear statement from this minister and we're having a terrible time. Surely it might be in order, Mr. Chairman, if we maybe recessed so the two of them could get together. First, they need the opportunity to give him a definition -something which we were not able to get out from him - secondly, to give him some advice on how to pilot the bill, because he's having a terrible time. How can we stay here and expect that we're just going to take the minister's word that this is what he's been advised of? We had a similar problem with the previous bill which went on for almost three hours because we couldn't get the minister to understand what the point was.

MRS. WALLACE: I'd just like to move away from that for the moment and go on to the words "suitability" and "acquired" which appear in this particular section. I would like a further explanation from the minister as to what the word "suitability" means. We've been going through this in various facets of debate on other bills and in other areas, and I am concerned about the usage of that term "suitability." It seems to relate to economic pressures in the mind of this black-ink government. For the minister's information it is in section 1 (i) .

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Suitable?

MRS. WALLACE: Suitable, yes. What do you mean by "suitable?" Just what do you consider to be suitable? I can think of a particular specific example. I know the minister is very familiar with the case in point, and that is the Cowichan and Koksilah River estuaries. Certainly if there was ever a case for preservation of an area under greenbelt or any other legislation, the case is very strong there because those estuaries are in danger of being completely despoiled by industry. Yet this ministry and divisions of this minister's responsibility are sitting back and are in fact apparently promoting further economic development of that particular estuary. Again it seems that the economic factor weighs very heavily as to whether or not a particular piece of land or a particular area is suitable for greenbelt.

The minister spoke about higher requirements or higher purposes. You know, you could go on with that until you had wiped out every river estuary in this province, because certainly river estuaries are probably the most economic places for industry and for harbours and for such things. But if we wipe out all our river estuaries, we are certainly wiping out an overall economic viability in this province. That word "suitable" is so open to such a variety of interpretations that I would wonder whether or not the minister is prepared to talk about "suitable" and just what context he considers that word to have. What does he mean when he talks about higher demand or higher need?

He goes on in subclause (ii) of the section to talk about "acquired." This goes right back to the concerns on this side of the House relative to the interests in Crown land or whether or not this includes private land. How do you acquire those lands? Is it the intent to purchase them or is it the intent to simply expropriate them?

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.]

This bill is an example of the type of thinking that seems to be predominant in this cabinet. It's the type of thinking that wants to take out of the Legislature or away from any democratic type of control the decision-making processes of government and to place

[ Page 2764 ]

them, just as in the last bill that we passed, in the hands of one minister with no appeal, no consultory provisions, nothing except the minister's discretion, absolute and total. This is very abhorrent to me and to the people on this side of the House. We don't like that kind of dictatorial legislation. This is an outstanding example of that same direction that this cabinet seems to perpetually take in its legislation. It's a poorly drafted bill; it's loose, it's sloppy, it doesn't say really much of anything except give the minister those awesome, sweeping powers that were mentioned a few minutes ago in jest. But I'm in deadly earnest when I say that it does give awesome, sweeping powers to that minister over the most vital resource that this province has - its land.

MR. LEVI: We have the highly perceptive new Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Chairman. Pay attention to the minister; he's having a bad time here.

MS. SANFORD: He got some advice, though.

MR. LEVI: Has he got some advice? Does the minister want to get up?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you have something intelligent to say? Go ahead.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I do, but if the minister's not prepared to do anything, I think that what we should do is adjourn. So maybe I'll just sit down....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Is that the intelligent thing you wanted to say, or do you have something else?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, this minister hasn't offered us one intelligent statement all afternoon. All he's done is to come up with a series of definitions which do not appear in the bill. You would have thought that he would have learned something from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in his debate - that he shouldn't try and define for himself and for the House something that's not in writing, and here we've got it all over again. Now let's see whether the minister is prepared to give us an explanation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, in responding to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , I offered him previously some areas we felt would be regarded as greenbelt without limiting the interpretation. Perhaps we should have gone to the previous Green Belt Protection Fund Act, which is referred to by members today, and lifted the definition of "greenbelt" from that Act brought in by your government ...

MR. LEVI: Bring an amendment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ... the definition being: "the establishment, preservation and perpetuity of areas of lands commonly known as greenbelts" -commonly known as greenbelts! End of interpretation; end of definition. Perhaps that should have been the definition you would have preferred, Mr. Member - "lands commonly known as greenbelts, " rather than "land that is considered by the minister to be suitable for preservation as greenbelt land under this Act." Perhaps your lawyers, when they drafted your bill, used better language. Perhaps "commonly known as greenbelts" is a better definition than "land that is considered by the minister to be suitable for preservation as greenbelt." In the previous Act, commonly known by whom as greenbelts? If you prefer that interpretation, perhaps you might wish to make an amendment to the Act.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 21

NAYS - 18

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

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit surprised at the wording in section 2. I can understand this minister bringing in this particular bill, but previously, when the NDP were in office and the Social Credit were the official opposition, they were very much concerned about using the word "acquire" in this loose manner in which it is used in section 2. They read into that word all possibilities of acquiring land, including that of expropriation.

In response to their arguments and their pleas we did, at that time, agree in one particular piece of legislation before the House to include the words "other than by expropriation." I I'm wondering whether this administration now would consider

[ Page 2765 ]

including the same words in there so that the public will be satisfied that the government has no intention of using this legislation to expropriate land for greenbelt purposes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate the member for Nanaimo's opportunity, perhaps, of getting back, but there is no need for that, because the Interpretation Act is quite clear. "Acquire" does not allow for expropriation with that reference and I can certainly advise him that it is not our intent to expropriate or we would have included those terms in the acquisition. The Interpretation Act, if you're not quite familiar with it or it's not with you, says: "means to obtain by any method and includes accept, receive, purchase, be vested with, lease, take possession, control or occupation of, and agree to do any of these things, but does not include expropriation."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very good. He didn't know that.

MR. BARRETT: It's not that we don't believe that the minister had this information, but during our experience there were irresponsible hotliners . . ~

HON. MR. 'NIELSEN: Oho! We had an irresponsible government!

MR. BARRETT ... going around this province saying things about this very wording. And I don't want to see hotliners being irresponsible or maybe even playing politics by not amending this section.

The charge of hypocrisy might be made against hotliners who use this kind of example for political purposes. I know that might happen. So to protect this government from hotliners who might give misinformation, I would hope the minister would amend this section to avoid the criticism, perhaps on himself.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for that, because the people of the province of British Columbia recognize that the change of government also brought with it a responsible government which they need not fear.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you fraud. How's your IQ?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As to the integrity and the quality of hotliners, I understand that the people of the province are pleased that certain defeated politicians did not choose that profession. However, they welcome others to it with open arms.

There is no need for that interpretation. The people of the province can appreciate and understand and trust the meaning of that section of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Like they do in Richmond at the Lions' home. They want you at the Lions' home.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why did you foul up that system?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate what the minister said. I used the same arguments myself in debate in the House. However, I was persuaded that while there was no absolute legal need for it, there certainly was a political need for it to reassure the people in the province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We don't play politics.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is dealing with a situation now in telling us how this present coalition government intends to use this legislation. But there is nothing to protect the people of the province against the possibility that this coalition government might be replaced by a Social Credit government one day. We certainly don't know what they would or would not do in reading this legislation.

Once again, I would like to urge the minister to accept the political reasons for changing this to include the words that we did agree to include in the same circumstances in legislation before the House, and ask him to include the words "other than by expropriation."

MR. KING: Jim's looking wistful. He's wishing the Socreds were back!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just so that we are definitive on Bill 42, there were certain whirling dervishes in this House ...

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Name names!

MR. BARRETT: There goes one right now!

MR. COCKE: That's right! See you, Jim!

. . . who continued on debating that very section. The Interpretation Act, Mr. Chairman, was as clear then as it is now. That was brought to the attention of the House time after time, hour after hour. They used this, Mr. Chairman, in the most irresponsible way - that little opposition in those days. They convinced many people, by their devious methods, that the Interpretation Act didn't necessarily hold in this case. Mr. Chairman, it's interesting now that the minister says suddenly things have changed. But you know, what got me to my feet was when he started talking in terms of a responsible government.

I can't say that the people of the province are impressed with the responsible attitude of this government. Autocratic? Yes. Mr. Chairman, a disciplined dictatorship is a better description of what

[ Page 2766 ]

we have for a government at the present time.

So, Mr. Chairman, I have no reason for trust and no reason for confidence in that minister. I particularly have no reason for confidence because from time to time I heard his lusty pronouncements over station CJOR when he was a hotliner.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Did you believe them?

MR. COCKE: Just the same kind of inflammatory, irresponsible statements that the Minister of Economic Development was making in those days, hour by hour in this House. Then hour by hour by hour his words were picked up by the friends on the hotline. So, Mr. Chairman, let's see them show a little responsibility now and amend this bill just like we amended Bill 42, just to make sure that the people understand that they're not going to take away their watches, et cetera.

MR. BARRETT: We're not going to let you expropriate people's property.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 21

NAYS - 18

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

On section 3.

MR. STUPICH: I have several questions about section 3, Mr. Chairman. In providing for a register, section 3 doesn't say whether or not this register is going to be available to the members of the Legislature or to the members of the general public or just exactly what the availability of this register will be. Will it be accessible to the public at large?

I notice in the beginning of this section we have the word "may" with respect to the information which may be included in this register. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that leaves open the possibility that there will be absolutely no information in that register with respect to some parcels of land. It would seem to be entirely permissive, and in the case of some acquisitions there needn't even be the legal description of the land. I'm not just sure what would be there in that case, but it does say that this register "may" include the legal description of the land and a number of other things. I'm wondering why the word "shall" was not used in this paragraph.

With respect to the name of the owner of the fee simple if "other than Crown, " I'm wondering what possibilities there are in view of section 2. What possible situations could there be where the land would be "other than Crown land"? If we look at section 2 we see that the Crown is going to acquire land for greenbelt purposes. Now we're looking in section 3 and we're saying that the land may be "other than Crown land." In talking about putting land into greenbelt, section 2 makes no reference to the possibility of having "other than Crown land" in greenbelt. There would seem to be no possibilities in sections I or 2 so far ... any consideration given to the possibility of land "other than Crown land" being in greenbelt. Yet we're saying here....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The estate or interest in land held by the Crown and the method of acquisition. . . . Is that subsection (c) ? "The estate or interest. . . ." I'm reading subsection (b) . "The name of the owner. . . ." This is the information that may be included: "the name of the owner of the fee simple if other than Crown." Now I could read subsection (c) but shouldn't subsection (b) stand on its own?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Okay. Subsection (c) of 2 seems to me to provide for ways in which the Crown will acquire Crown land. Perhaps I'm missing something I'd like to hear from the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to the member from Nanaimo, in the previous section of the Act, it says: "the minister may acquire land" and the information "may include the name of the owner of the fee simple if other than the Crown." You'll note that in the Act it does allow for acceptance of gifts or acquisition of property other than by way of purchase. It's possible the Crown could designate property as "greenbelt" but need not necessarily be the title owner. I'm sorry, I really don't understand what the involvement there is.

I'd like to just respond to other questions, though. The register certainly would be available to public

[ Page 2767 ]

scrutiny and certainly available to all members of this House through the Ministry of Environment in the Lands section. We would be most willing to make any information available on greenbelt property.

On the question of "may include" rather than "shall include, " I'm advised by our legal people that the items as outlined in (a) to (e) may simply not be available. Therefore we chose to say the record "may include" the following items rather than "shall include." If we had "shall, " in some instances it would not be possible and advised.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard to understand a situation where this kind of information wouldn't be available; where the Crown would be acquiring land and not know the legal description of it; where the Crown would acquire land and not know the name of the owner. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but as I read it it says "the name of the owner." Well, the owner is the Crown once it's in greenbelt, not the previous owner. It doesn't say where you got the land.

Surely here we are talking about the land that is in greenbelt. It's a register of land that is greenbelt land, a register of land that by virtue of section 2 is owned by the Crown, as I read it. If it said "the previous owner" then I would read subsection 3 a little differently. But it doesn't say "the previous owner;" it says "the owner." I can't see any situation where the owner could be other than Crown in this register of greenbelt land unless it is proposed that land that is privately owned will be designated as greenbelt land. I wonder if that is what the government has in mind.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The previous section of the Act does allow for the provincial Crown to enter into agreements with other agencies with reference to that, and it is quite possible the Crown provincial may be a partner, may share title. Indeed, if that were the situation, there would be other owners other than the Crown. Or a lessee of land; we could lease land. We could lease land which would be therefore owned by another and we could be leasing that land as greenbelt property.

MR. STUPICH: The minister did anticipate one of my questions, because one of the things I was wondering was whether "acquisition" could also mean leasing. So in some circumstances, then, it's possible that the Crown would lease land from a private owner and designate that land as greenbelt land. So we are talking about the possibility of including privately owned land and designating it as greenbelt. That's possible under this legislation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of the Act, yes, we could identify an area of land that we would like to see as greenbelt, and if it were impossible to make an agreement with the owner, perhaps we could make arrangements whereby, the owner would lease the land to the Crown for those purposes.

MR. STUPICH: It seems to me we're getting in deeper and deeper here now. The minister says that if it were possible to make arrangements with a private owner of land to lease it from him, then it could be designated as greenbelt land.

Now it's possible for the Crown to do many things. The Crown has the legal authority to do anything, The Crown could make a one-sided agreement with the owner of land. The Crown has on many occasions, in effect, expropriated land, but you have said that we don't include the power of expropriation. You are now saying that the Crown could lease land - presumably under conditions that are suitable to the Crown - and could designate that land as greenbelt land. So in effect the Crown, under this legislation, would have the authority to move in on any privately owned land and designate that land as greenbelt land, and from then on use could be made of that land other than use that was approved by the cabinet, and no change in that designation could be made without cabinet consideration and cabinet approval.

Now I'm not arguing that that shouldn't happen. I'm asking if that is what the government has in mind with respect to this greenbelt legislation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate the member for Nanaimo's very generous interpretation of what it could mean, but I assure you that that is not what it is intended to mean. When you asked if it could be leased, the reason I said yes is because within the interpretation of "acquired, " lease is included. So therefore, yes, we could lease, as we could purchase, take possession, control or occupy, as outlined in the Interpretation Act.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to hold this up any longer on my own. It would appear I'm the only one particularly interested in this aspect of it, But I do say that the authority given the government under the Land Commission Act was nowhere near the authority that is apparently given the government under this Greenbelt Act before us now, because the government, as I read this, and I think the minister agrees, could enter into a lease agreement - and the government certainly has the authority to do that under its own terms and conditions - with the private owner of land, and that land from then on would be greenbelt land at the option of the cabinet in control at that particular time.

Now under the Land Commission Act we had no

[ Page 2768 ]

authority to do anything such as that.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm still not satisfied with the minister's answer relative to the "may" versus "shall." He said that maybe they wouldn't know some of the answers, that they wouldn't have the information. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has gone through and indicated the ridiculousness of that ever occurring. Surely if the minister is going to purchase or lease land from some person or some body, the Crown would know from whom they leased or purchased that land.

I just feel that I cannot give support to this section of the Act as long as it is simply permissive, because if this register is going to be meaningful at all, then it must be a complete and total register.

I would ask the minister to reconsider his thinking on this item and to introduce an amendment which would change the word "may" to "shall."

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would like to respond first to the last comments made by the member for Nanaimo with regard to leasing and agreements. I didn't hear his entire argument. Should a lease arrangement be entered into, it would have to be by agreement with the owner of the land; it would have to be with mutual consent. Otherwise it would be a form of expropriation - leasing simply because it is within the interpretation.

As for the other semantic argument about "shall" or "may, " there could be instances where indeed we're going to record information in a register and we see the name of the owner of the fee simple is other than the Crown.... It could be the Crown; it would be somewhat redundant and a bit silly. Also "shall include" - we are limiting ourselves to what would be included.

There are instances where perhaps some of this information may not be in precise form, such as the date of entry in the register. Are we going to be in violation of the Act if someone simply did not put that in? The difference - I fail to see any importance - may include, and we advise what we would like to include. . I In fact, there may be more information included rather than "shall." I assure you that if we're going to keep a register, we are going to attempt to have maximum information in the register.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is where we are really departing from the original legislation that was introduced by the then Premier W.A.C. Bennett in 1912 that provided that greenbelt land, once designated, would be so designated in perpetuity. If I could recall to the House just very briefly some of the arguments used by the then Premier, he went on to suggest that in some circumstances people might wish to donate land for the Crown, and in so donating would know they were donating land that was going to be available to the public generally in perpetuity.

In other instances people might make deals with the government which would be of particular financial advantage to the government, and some of those deals were made. I know of some cases where lands were donated. There was one in the Nanaimo area where greenbelt land was donated. The donor knew that he was donating land that was going to be in perpetuity available to the general public for the use of the general public.

I know of other instances where people sold land at very reduced prices. In selling it at those reduced prices, they knew they were in effect making at least a partial gift to the people of the province. They felt that the province in which they had lived and worked and prospered was a province to which they wanted to make that kind of a gift.

The legislation before us now takes away the idea of perpetuity. The legislation before us now says that the cabinet may, at any time it so chooses, look at some of these lands that were donated in the past, that were acquired in the past, which were either gifted or partially gifted to the Crown, and may take even those lands.

Because some 10 years have gone by.... Well, not 10 years. The legislation was first introduced in 1972, so it's less than five years. Yet in a period of less than five years, land which was sometimes donated to the government for the use of the people in perpetuity.... This legislation before us would give the cabinet the authority to take that land out of the greenbelt reserve, as the minister said earlier in debating section I - it really shouldn't have come up then - "for a higher use." Mr. Chairman, I question just what the higher use is. What is a higher use than for greenbelt purposes?

The legislation before us now is stressing the importance of having land for greenbelt purposes. I would think that that is the highest use of all. Certainly with land that the cabinet is looking at with a view to acquiring for greenbelt purposes, they're doing it because they think that is the highest and best use for that land.

The minister told us some of the circumstances in which he thinks land should be designated as greenbelt land. As I listened to those circumstances, it seemed to me that in every instance about which he talked the land was being so designated -whether it was land or waterways - because it was being put to its highest and best use for the people of

[ Page 2769 ]

the province.

I'm most concerned at the idea that people who have in all good faith made gifts to the people of the province. . . . Now with this legislation before them, they see the possibility that this government - in the same way that it has sold B.C. Ferries, in the same way that it has sold other assets of the people of the province - may want to sell these assets in order to make one year look particularly good in its financial statements. That could be one of the reasons that they would want to convert it to what they would call a higher use.

But it's breaking faith, Mr. Chairman, with the people who made substantial gifts to the people of the province. I am most concerned. I would urge the minister to withdraw section 5.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up on the line taken by the member for Nanaimo and point out to the minister that we in this Legislature have on many occasions recognized the generous gift given by people for greenbelt purposes by including their names in the Speech from the Throne. We have considered their gifts that important and that valuable to the province.

Here in this section we allow one minister or the cabinet to be able to remove from greenbelt designation land which had been donated in perpetuity. Some people wish to make that contribution to the province, but I am wondering how many people in the future, with this section 5 in place, will be willing to donate their land for greenbelt purposes if in fact it is possible to have that taken away and used for some other purpose.

I don't think we're going to have, in the future, the kind of donations of land for greenbelt purposes that we've had in the past. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) spoke earlier about greenbelt areas and the importance of estuaries and how much she would like to see an estuary within her constituency designated for greenbelt purposes, But all you have to look at, Mr. Chairman, is what has happened to other estuaries in this province under that minister. In the Oyster River, for instance, not only did he agree to allow a private company to proceed with the development of their own marina for their own purposes by allowing dredging right in the estuary mouth area, but he's also allowing a huge breakwater . . .

HON. MR. NIELSEN: A hundred feet long.

MS. SANFORD: ... to be put in place out there. So if people are willing, or have been willing in the past, to donate land to this province for greenbelt purposes, they should certainly have second thoughts at this stage with that minister in charge.

Just looking at the attitude that has been taken to environmental matters generally in this province, they should be concerned about donating land for greenbelt purposes. I would agree with the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) that this section certainly must be deleted.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the previous speakers have gone over very carefully the distinction between this Act and the Act it seeks to repeal. We haven't had a clear statement from the minister in respect to what happens under this section with the disposal of greenbelt land. I think we should be very candid with him that we on this side feel that this is the escape hatch, that all of the remainder of the bill is simply a series of window dressings. When you talk, for instance, as you have about a registry and this kind of thing, many of these things are met under the Land Act. There's nothing new in that in terms of land. You've gone to some trouble to explain what it is you would require in order to register this land, but that's already available under the Land Act, except that we're now dealing, Mr. Chairman, with the Greenbelt Act. But under this section, it is our feeling that somehow land which has been designated greenbelt land, as of today and in perpetuity, is no longer in perpetuity and this land could, in fact, be taken out of the greenbelt area for what the minister characterizes as higher purposes.

Now if the minister is prepared to stand up and say to us that the higher purposes which he is talking about involve only the public domain in terms of the government and the people, and not the private sector, then I personally might be a little easier about it. So I would ask him, when he talks about higher purposes for which this land is going to be taken out, if we are dealing specifically with the welfare of the people of the province in terms of what is necessary for them and not, in fact, making it possible to turn this land over, for instance, to private developers. Because this is what concerns us. Now can we have a commitment from the minister that this is, in fact, what he means by "higher purposes" or whatever the phrase was that he used before.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, higher purposes, as defined today, may not necessarily be those which would be seen in the future. Certainly, I agree with the other member that river estuaries, as an example, is a very high purpose. Not all greenbelt areas would be precisely the same. Some, I'm sure, would have much more outstanding value to the general society than others, even though they may all be classified, as your former Act said: "commonly known as greenbelt."

The higher purposes to which I referred would be for the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned what has happened to estuaries and I thought for a

[ Page 2770 ]

moment that she was speaking of Tilbury Island in the Fraser estuary, but I'm glad you mentioned the Oyster River instead. I'm very familiar with the Tilbury situation.

To the member, I'm sorry that I can't control your suspicions. It's as I've outlined it to you and you can offer your own interpretation.

MR. LEVI: I want to correct the minister, who keeps making reference to "your bill." I would remind the minister that if he looks at the Green Belt Protection Fund Act, the phrase "commonly known as greenbelt throughout the province" is a phrase that appears in the 1972 Act, which was brought in by the previous Social Credit government. It was not brought in by the NDP. It's a phrase that was first introduced there. I don't know where they got it from.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why didn't you change it, then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Oh, now we're going to argue the other way. Well, I think that what we need from the minister.... Mr. Chairman, I must go back over this. I did ask him this and he very pointedly didn't answer: when you talk about a "higher purpose, " are you prepared to give this House a commitment that any land that is taken out of the greenbelt will not go to the private sector? You've talked about estuaries and that's good. But what we need from you is a commitment that that's the kind of purpose it will be used for and it will not find its way, on the basis of some kind of bid system, into the private sector for some kind of development. That's the thing which we are concerned about and we need some assurance from you that this is not going to happen, because it has been suggested by people that this is a mechanism for getting certain lands out of the greenbelt and into the - if you like - private domain.

Now dealing specifically, Mr. Minister, are you prepared to tell us that this land will only be used for public purposes? Mr. Chairman, it is an important distinction. Can you tell us that it is not, and it will never find its way into the private sector? That's important, because as far as we're concerned that is the crux of the whole issue. It's bad enough that there is no perpetuity thing involved, but we are worried that now that that has been removed, the way is open to remove the land. We're just worried where it's going. If it's going for general good purposes, fine, but not to the private sector. Now can you give us some assurance about that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I can offer the member that, as I said, the intent would be for the general public good. Now it's possible that a portion of a piece of property could go to a private person which would be in the general public good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hah!

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of course, I appreciate that the man who giggles here doesn't believe in the private ownership of land, perhaps.

MR. LEVI: Oh! We'll deal with that next time around.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: But on occasion private ownership of land has benefited society. As I outlined for you, the intent would be for the general public good.

MR. LEVI: I just have one other thing. Let me give the minister, Mr. Chairman, an example; perhaps he could answer it. Given that this legislation passes, would it be possible for this Greenbelt Act to remove from the ALR a piece of property... ? Could you by using this Act decide that you need to designate a piece of land which is presently in the ALR into the greenbelt as covered by this Act because you need it for that particular... ? Is it possible to do that in the bounds of this new legislation - to remove land from the ALR and make it greenbelt land?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have two points to the member. You could make it greenbelt land, but of course it would still be subject to the agricultural land reserve boundaries. It could still be greenbelt land. Yes, it could be greenbelt land but would still be within the agricultural land reserve.

Secondly, there is no need for such a mechanism because the Land Commission Act provides that mechanism in section 9 (l) , whereby all the land can be taken out by way of order-in-council.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of this minister. He presumes to interpret what the position of the opposition is, yet he is totally incapable of even explaining his own legislation and policy.

I want to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that if he would spend more time answering questions intelligently in this chamber rather than attempting t o define what the opposition believes in philosophically with respect to the ownership of land, he would be doing much better. He is not on the hotline now, Mr. Chairman. Such arrogance may have served him well there where he could push the button and turn off citizens who complained. He does not have that at his fingertips in this chamber.

[ Page 2771 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to section 5.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister how he squares the right contained in section 5 to tamper with the conditions of land bequeathed to the province by private citizens with the contempt-of-contract philosophy which we have heard so much about from that government over there. They are the people, Mr. Chairman, who pass themselves off as the defenders of private rights, and yet in a situation where a public-spirited citizen of this province has left land, through a conditional arrangement, to the Crown, in perpetuity, this minister is now taking unto himself the right to decide whether a higher priority should not be placed upon that land and it should be perhaps put to a different use.

I say that that is contempt of the contract and the condition on which that land was accepted by the Crown from the private landowner. Worse than contempt of contract, Mr. Chairman, it's a callous contempt for the last will and testament of deceased citizens who worked hard all their lives in this province, protected land for wildlife preservation and so on, and then bequested it to the government on the condition that it would be maintained in perpetuity for the use under which the government accepted it. Now this minister, who suggests that he doesn't even know what the environment is all about, who observes that he thinks that that is something new, is taking unto himself the arbitrary right to place a higher use on this land which was accepted by the Crown in perpetuity for a specific use.

What arrogance! What contempt! What short shrift for public-spirited citizens in this province who had concern that land be left for green space, for preservation of fish and wildlife sanctuaries, and so on.

I want to say that it displays a contempt for the terms of conditional agreements which were made by those people who left land in perpetuity for specific purposes and those terms upon which the government accepted it. This displays a completely callous, completely shallow disregard for the terms of those agreements on which that land was accepted; contempt for deceased public-spirited citizens; contempt of contract; contempt of agreement between this government and private citizens.

I don't trust that minister, Mr. Chairman. I don't trust him intellectually to protect the best public interest of this province. Certainly I don't trust him when he displays the kind of arrogance that he has in this House. I think that the spirit under which greenbelt land and other land was accepted by the Crown must be preserved. That can only be done by maintaining the clause "securing perpetuity." It cannot be done by providing the discretion, particularly to this minister, to change all those terms and conditions and to show his contempt and disregard for the basis upon which the land was obtained in the first instance. I would like the minister's intelligent and serious response to that concern, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am advised by our legal counsel that, indeed, the concerns outlined by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) would be part of the conditions of acquisition and therefore must be retained if disposed of. In the words of the legal counsel, "you cannot dispose of that which you do not have." If you have land with conditions, you can only dispose of that which you have. The conditions are part of the acquisition. The conditions must be part of the disposal. If land were accepted in perpetuity, you could only dispose of that as greenbelt land in perpetuity, according to the legal interpretation of what that precisely means. That means that if you acquire land or were to buy land from a neighbour and a third party had an easement over your land, when you disposed of that you would still have an easement over your land. The condition remains with it, even if it is disposed.

Our legal council advise that that which you are concerned about is covered by the conditions of acquisition.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has attempted to assure us that the "in perpetuity" is inviolate by this change, but I still have some concern because, again, it is open to interpretation. There is nothing here to protect that in so many words and, specifically, to protect those lands which have already been gifted or acquired with that understanding. It's something that should be included very firmly and very definitely with no ifs, ands or buts, or no questions arising.

I share my colleague's mistrust of this particular ministry in relation to the environment. For that very reason, I am concerned about agricultural land. As this Act now reads it does not take precedence over the Land Commission Act and, until such time as an amendment is introduced and passed, that is not the case. This House has no assurance, at this point in time, that that amendment will be included.

As it stands now, it would be a very simple matter for any land to be taken into the Greenbelt Act -ALR land - and then taken out and removed from the reserve.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's too complicated.

MRS. WALLACE: It's not complicated. It's a very simple matter to do that, Mr. Minister, and as the Act now stands, without an amendment, this section 5 provides that kind of right to the minister.

[ Page 2772 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Land Commission Act allows you to do it now.

MRS. WALLACE: This is the sleeper. This is what this piece of legislation is really all about. Unless the minister is prepared to withdraw this section.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What section?

MRS. WALLACE: Section 5 - the one we're discussing. Unless he is prepared to withdraw this section, there is no way this side of the House can support this legislation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have just one quick comment. The circuitous route you suggested to get land out of the ALR would be much too cumbersome. Section 9 (l) of the Land Commission Act simply states now that the government could take every acre of land out of every ALR in the province by a simple order-in-council. Now why would you want to go through a long procedure of transferring to greenbelt?

As I mentioned earlier to one of the other members, the land could be transferred to greenbelt and it would still remain within the ALR.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, and through the minister to legal counsel, I would like to discuss some very specific situations.

I'd like to discuss one in the Nanaimo area where a Mr. William Morrell turned over to the government some 300 acres of land. He turned it over in the anticipation that it would be a nature conservancy and that it would be available to Malaspina College for their use. That was in his mind. There was no legal agreement between Mr. Morrell and the Crown that it would be that way in perpetuity.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He didn't sell it - not Mr. Morrell. In this case it was a gift. He didn't feel that he had to have a specific agreement with the government saying his land would be retained in perpetuity as a nature conservancy. He knew it was greenbelt land and he knew that the greenbelt land would be greenbelt land in perpetuity, so he didn't need a specific agreement saying that his land would be held in perpetuity for that purpose

Mr. Chairman, I will deal with a second situation, this one in the riding represented by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Curtis) . The Ruckle family turned over to the Crown - and in this case there was a sale, at something like 10 per cent of the market value of the land - land that has become a park. The Ruckle family did get an agreement providing for payment over a period of 10

years, I believe, with no interest. It was almost a gift at that price at the time. The Ruckle family did not get any agreement from the Crown that that 1,200 acres would, in perpetuity, be retained for park purposes, or any other purpose. They knew they were giving this land to the Crown in line with the greenbelt Act which, very carefully spelled out by the former Premier of the province, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett, said that people, in making these arrangements with the Crown, knew that they would be doing it in perpetuity, not because of any particular written agreement that that individual or individuals had with the Crown, but in line with the legislation that was on the books at that time, and still is on the books, and could still be on the books if the minister would agree to withdraw this section before us now.

There was another situation, and I can't recall the name now - there were several of them. There was one up in the Kootenays where, again, a family made a gift of land to the Crown. They gave it so that it could be designated as greenbelt land. It's in the greenbelt. They didn't insist that there be some agreement that it be kept that way in perpetuity because they knew what the legislation was. They had been assured that the legislation was on the books. The government is not standing by a written contract with that individual, but standing by legislation that was introduced by W.A.C. Bennett and approved by the House unanimously. It is legislation that stayed on the books during the regime of the NDP government. During that period, a number of people came forth and, in the terms and in the spirit of the legislation introduced by W.A.C. Bennett, did give, or almost give, substantial areas of land to the Crown so that it would be available to the people of the province in perpetuity.

Now it's quite conceivable that the minister - the cabinet - might consider that a portion, a small portion even, of that Morrell property in Nanaimo could be put to better use if it were used for housing and it might be very reasonable, but that was certainly not what Mr. Morrell had in mind when he turned that land over to the Crown. If he had had any reason to suspect at the time that some of that land might be developed for housing purposes, he might very well have developed that portion himself; he was in the housing construction business. Or he might have sold that separately. Or, if he had suspected that some future government might change that legislation, Mr. Chairman, he might even have asked for some specific agreement that, with respect to that property, it would be protected in perpetuity. But there was no need for him to anticipate the need for having that kind of an agreement, any more than there was any need for the Ruckle family to insist that no future government would sell for some presumably "higher use" land that they were in effect almost giving to the government, any more than there

[ Page 2773 ]

was any need for the people in the Kootenays who were donating their land to the Crown to feel that they had to get a specific agreement with respect to their land that it would be that way in perpetuity.

Mr. Chairman, they had the protection by the legislation sitting on the books. I can see some reason, perhaps, for governments looking back at something that was done 100 years before like the E & N land grant. That land was given in perpetuity. But that's a long time ago and I can see some reasons for governments of today wanting to change the E & N land grant, because the land that was given away then was worth relatively nothing or it wouldn't have been given away so easily. But you change this kind of legislation within the short period of five years and say that now that we have this land given to us, or almost given to us, the ground rules have changed.

We've got it now, we're going to change the ground rules so that we can dispose of this land at any price that we want to, for any purpose that we want to, wherever and whenever we want to. Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister again to withdraw this section.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 25 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

MR. KING: Would the House Leader tell us what the order of business will be tomorrow?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The matter will be advised to the Whips in the morning, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.