[ Page 3207 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 2) Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading –– 3207

Swan Valley Foods Limited Debenture Purchase Act. Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 3207

Oral questions

Honesty of public servants. Mr. Lauk –– 3207

Use of government aircraft by cabinet ministers. Mr. Wallace –– 3209

Investigation of BCR operations. Mr. King –– 3209

Construction of Boundary Community School. Mr. Cocke –– 3210

Government assistance to humane trap experiment. Hon. Mr. Bawlf replies –– 3210

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 100. On vote 10 1.

Mrs. Wallace –– 3213 Mr. Levi –– 3213

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3213 Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3213

Captain Cook Bi-centennial Commemoration Act (Bill 45) . Committee stage.

On section 2. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3217

Mr. Levi –– 3213 Mrs. Jordan –– 3217

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3213 Mrs. Dailly –– 3218

Mrs. Dailly –– 3214 Mr. Lauk –– 3218

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3215 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3219

Mr. Skelly –– 3215 On section 7.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3215 Mr. Levi –– 3219

Mr. Lauk –– 3215 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3219

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3216 On section 9.

On amendment to section 3. Mrs, Dailly –– 3219

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3216 Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3220

Mr. Skelly –– 3217 Mr. Skelly –– 3220

On section 3 as amended. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3220

Mr. Skelly –– 3217 Report and third reading –– 3221

Plant Protection Act (Bill 37) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 3221

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer Affairs estimates.

On vote 212. Mr. Kahl –– 3232

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3221 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3232

Mr. Levi –– 3223 Mr. Lauk –– 3232

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3228 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3233

Mr. Wallace –– 3229 Mr. Barnes –– 3234

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3230 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3235

Mr. Wallace –– 3231 Mr. Barnes –– 3236

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3232 Mr. Lauk –– 3239

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 3241

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to introductions and the further business of this House, there's a comment and an observation that I'd like to make.

First of all I'd like to say that it has been the custom and practice of this House for many, many years to permit the introduction of guests by Hon. members. I wish to see that practice continued; however, I would point out that it would seem to me that when the introduction of guests involves comment on bills or motions that are before the House, it far exceeds the introduction of the persons you wish to have recognized.

It would seem that that is then engaging in political debate to an extent that I feel exceeds the customs of this Legislative Assembly. It has been my observation that in recent weeks this has been becoming a practice by all of the members of the House, and one which I think you should resist from continuing.

May I suggest to all of the Hon. members that they resist the temptation to engage in any form of political debate at a time when they are introducing a guest to the members of the assembly, and that we restrict ourselves to a simple introduction of the guests that may be present on any given day.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two guests from Vancouver East, Mr. and Mrs. Ruby, who are in the gallery, and I would like to add my personal welcome to Canon Hilary Butler, an outstanding British Columbian.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in the House today to observe the happenings are three people I would like to introduce and have the House welcome: Mr. and Mrs. Cliff Oswald from North Burnaby, and my wife, Jean.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three people as well: Ray Hance, Dan Smith and Gerry Nettel, representing the Pacific Association of Communication- in Indian Friendship Centres.

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT..~CT, 1977

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill M-21 0, Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2) , 1 q77, 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.

SWAN VALLEY FOODS LIMITED

DEBENTURE PURCHASE ACT

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Swan Valley Foods Limited Debenture Purchase Act.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just make one short observation, hon. members? There is a slight difference in the procedure that we follow in this House with respect to those bills that are on the order paper and those which may come in by message from His Honour or the Administrator. If it's a bill from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor or the Administrator, it's a matter of asking leave of the House to introduce the bill. If it's a bill that is on the order paper, it's a matter of introduction of the bill "standing in my name on the order paper." I think we should continue that practice. There's no need to ask leave for a bill that's already on the order paper.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, before going into the oral question period I wonder if you, sit, have prepared a decision on the question of privilege that was raised by my colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have not that decision as yet, lion, member.

MR. KING: May we expect that decision today, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure of that. I have a fair amount of work to do on the research that's involved in that particular question, Hon. member.

MR. KING: I hope you certainly give it your top priority, Mr. Speaker.

Oral questions.

HONESTY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): This question is to the Hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. Could the minister inform the House of any reason that he has to doubt the honesty and veracity of one Mr. Ernest Gilliatt of the federal Ministry of Transport and/or Mr. Fraine, the

[ Page 3208 ]

chairman of the board of the British Columbia Railway?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are stating a hypothetical question.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. If the Hon. member is prepared to rephrase the question in a manner which does not inject his own opinion in stating the question, then it would be in order.

A point of order by the Hon. Premier.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, on the point of order which the Speaker has raised, 1 wish to respond to it.

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. Premier on a point of order.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, just to clarify question period, perhaps you could clarify for the members opposite who have difficulty phrasing questions that they're to relate to the minister's responsibilities.

The Point of order that I rise on is that for some time now you've shown great latitude in the question period. I'd like some instruction to the House as to allowable questions and how they relate to ministerial responsibility.

MR. SPEAKER: 1 suggest to the Hon. member for Vancouver Centre that he rephrase his question if he wishes to ask it in a manner which is acceptable and in keeping with the rules of this House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked in Westminster and Ottawa on several occasions. It's a standard question.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: If 1 may finish, Mr. Speaker, I'm contesting, with great respect, Mr. Speaker's view of this question. The question is a standard question. If a minister who is involved with these people who are involved either as Crown civil servants, federal or provincial, has anything to reveal to the House, quite often this question is asked. Notice is given or the question is answered - one way or the other. 1 submit, Mr. Speaker, it's a very proper question indeed.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, hon. member, may 1 answer that the question must have something to do with the ministerial responsibility of the minister?

MR. LAUK: It does.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be connected with his department.

MR. LAUK: It is.

MR. SPEAKER: And it must not be hypothetical or state its own solution.

MR. LAUK: It's not hypothetical.

MR , SPEAKER: All I'm suggesting is that you rephrase your question in a manner that is in keeping with our rules.

MR. LAUK: I've taken the question out of the House of Commons in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. It's asked quite often in that form. Over the years, that's the question that's been allowed. You see, as far as the minister's responsibilities are concerned, Mr. Fraine is chairman of the BCR, and Mr. Gilliatt negotiated on the part of the federal government at the official level, with respect to the government of British Columbia, part of the northwest rail agreement. Both are related to the announcement made by the hon. minister on April 5, so it's under the purview of his office.

What I ask is: can the minister inform the House of any reason he has to doubt the honesty and veracity of Mr. Ernest Gilliatt of the federal Ministry of Transport and Mr. Fraine, the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Railway?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, in stating a question in that manner you're imputing a decision or a motive on behalf of , the minister which is improper. The hon. member is learned in the law; I would suggest that he state the question in a manner which complies with our rules.

MR. LAUK: All right, I'll rephrase it. Has the minister had any occasion to form the opinion . . . or has the minister any reason to doubt the honesty and veracity of Mr. Ernest Gilliatt and Mr. Fraine in terms of their public service? How's that?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the honesty of either of those public servants.

MR. LAUK: Supplementary to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House if he has any reason to doubt the honesty and veracity. . . ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now the hon. member is departing from the supplemental part of a

[ Page 3209 ]

question which is to the same minister. If you have a separate question to ask, state it as a separate question, HON. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: can the Premier inform the House of any reason that he has to doubt the honesty and veracity of Mr. Ernest Gilliatt of the federal Ministry of Transport and/or Mr. Fraine, the chairman of the BCR board, in their capacity as public servants?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the one member that he mentioned, but as far as Mr. Fraine, I have no reason to doubt.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

BY CABINET MINISTERS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy: with regard to the minister's written answer regarding the use of government aircraft by ministers during the 1976 calendar year and the costs involved, can the minister tell the House how the cost figures are arrived at? For example, the listed cost of a flight from Victoria to Kamloops is $42. To what degree does this include depreciation, waiting time and the number of passengers on the aircraft? How is the figure of $42 arrived at?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll have to take that question as notice and answer the hon. member later.

INVESTIGATION OF BCR OPERATIONS

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Yesterday two more construction companies launched court cases against British Columbia Rail charging fraud. We also had the strange case of the reluctant witness, Mr. Mac Norris. The McKenzie commission is hearing almost daily testimony of the scandalous decisions made on the Dease Lake line involving the former Social Credit directors of the railway and its manager, Mr. Joe Broadbent, The question is, Mr. Speaker: will the Premier, on behalf of the government, agree to pay Mr. Broadbent's legal expenses so that he can testify before the McKenzie commission, or does the government wish to ensure that Mr. Broadbent's testimony is covered up and suppressed like that of Mr. Norris?

MR. SPEAKER: My suggestion to 'all of the members of the House in posing questions is that they stick to questions and don't use it as a device to impute motive on behalf of other hon. members of the House. If it's going to be a question period, it should be devoted to that. There's ample opportunity in this arena for political debate, hon. member.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll rephrase the question; I accept your wise counsel. I felt that these were matters of fact, but I'll simply rephrase the question and ask the simple question: is the government prepared to stand behind Mr. Broadbent's legal expenses if he is called to testify at the McKenzie Commission?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter of testimony is one of civic responsibility. As such, no person should have to have counsel; that's a matter of choice. But it's a civic responsibility - if they're subpoenaed to appear, then it's a legal responsibility to give testimony.

MR. KING: A supplementary: I'm not quite sure I understood the Premier. I think I heard him say - I hope it's not true - that they should not require counsel. That amazes me, Mr. Speaker. Am I correct in interpreting the Premier's remarks to mean that the government will not guarantee Mr. Broadbent's legal expenses if he's called to testify? Is that the correct interpretation?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll make it clear one more time. People who are called upon -to testify are not being charged with anything. As such, they have a civic responsibility if they wish to offer testimony at any court case. If they are subpoenaed, they have a legal responsibility. However, during many court cases citizens feel the obligation to give testimony -either voluntarily or sometimes that testimony is sought. As such, they are not on trial and as such, they are not on the defensive, and as such, I cannot understand the reason for the member's question. The next thing he'll probably be asking the House is whether, as a former director, we're going to pay for counsel for him.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, no. I have no need for the Premier's assistance in any way, shape or form. But the Premier is apparently blissfully unaware that Mr. Broadbent is involved in a case where fraud is the charge. I repeat the question: will he or will he not guarantee the legal expenses of the former operating vice-president of the British Columbia Railway?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again, if any of the former directors or management of the railway feel they wish to give testimony then they're free to give testimony. If the commission subpoenas him, then I'm not sure of the question of the obligation of the commission. However, I would point out to that member that he's leaving the impression in this House and on the record that Mr. Broadbent has been charged with something. I hope he'll stand up and retract that because that's the impression I got - that

[ Page 3210 ]

Mr. Broadbent was under some sort of charge. If the member is making a charge, then I would appreciate it if he would elaborate. As far as I understand it, there has been no charge made against Mr. Broadbent.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: He was a former public servant of the province of British Columbia with the Department of Transport and he was also with the B.C. Railway in an executive capacity.

I know of no charge made against Mr. Broadbent at all. I hope the member won't leave that accusation or that implication before this House.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not familiar with the charges against B.C. Railway by two contractors in which not only the railway is named, but also former directors of the railway. I believe that Mr. Broadbent's name is mentioned in that suit. This is in no way to make any judgment with respect to the outcome of those charges. That is up to the courts. But, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Broadbent had asked, during the NDP government's term of office, that his legal expenses be borne by the government if he were called to testify. Has he made a similar request to the current government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) mentioned the word "charges" in reference to the civil action brought which charges fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of not only the railway, but also other people.

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and others, had counsel before the royal commission on the Grizzly Valley scandal. I wonder if, having that precedent in mind, the Premier would reconsider and allow some financial allowance to Mr. Broadbent so he could properly prepare himself for an interview by the McKenzie commission.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected on this, and I'll report to the House, but it is my understanding that the Hon. Mr. Phillips' counsel was his personal counsel not paid for by the government.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. But you said that you.... I misunderstood.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Get your facts right.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry. I misunderstood the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to apologize. I thought he said that no one needed counsel before these commissions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's personal choice.

CONSTRUCTION AT

BOUNDARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Can the minister explain to the House his cancelling the construction at the Boundary Community School in North Vancouver yesterday when the work was to start today?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): This is the first I've heard of this. I'll have to take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: There's a school freeze on!

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO

HUMANE TRAP EXPERIMENT

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I would like to provide answers to questions asked in the question period yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) . She asked the question, with reference to a B.C. resident whom she regarded as one of Canada's top humane trap inventors, why my ministry is not supporting this man in terms of his research. She later provided me with the name Mr. Gabry. I would like to point out to the House that Mr. Gabry received $5,900 in funds from the province, with the funds being administered by the Association for the Protection of Fur-Bearing Animals. His first invention is not yet ready for testing but it was funded by that means. He has a second invention for which we, with the co-operation of the federal-provincial committee on humane trapping, have provided steel foil. Furthermore, we are providing assistance for the patenting of these devices.

In that question, Mr. Speaker, she also referred to an earlier question in which she referred to this ministry providing assistance to a United States company. That company, as I had mentioned, did not receive any funds from this ministry. I would just like to clarify further: the' University of British Columbia, which undertook this experiment, did not receive funds from the province of British Columbia either. I may have left the impression to that effect yesterday and I would wish to correct that.

The experiment is being conducted strictly with the liaison of my ministry. It's an experiment that is not concerned with testing traps made by that company but is, rather, testing the physiological effects on animals of being trapped. It is being

[ Page 3211 ]

conducted under the standards on the use of animals in laboratories established by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. As such, it is subject to severe sanctions by the scientific community if it is not properly conducted. That member's reference to animals suffering for up to 24 hours is entirely erroneous. The maximum period of stress which they're being subjected to is from 3 to 4 minutes, and in those circumstances it is being done under anaesthetic and close control. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we had a very good example today of filibustering the question period.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'll let you get through with the Clerk in your conversation there so that you can pay particular attention to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation did not take that question as notice yesterday. He is quite free to stand up in this House and give an explanation after or before question period, and we would give him leave. He took no question as notice yesterday, yet he got up and he and the Premier together gave another display of a filibuster during question period. 1 don't think it's quite right.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before 1 recognize anyone else, may 1 draw to your attention the fact that if you were watching, you would have noticed that the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation was on his feet right at the conclusion of question period, which meant that he was allowed to give his statement in the period which would have been beyond the question period in any event. So those members occupying the question period today did in fact occupy the question period for almost the entire 15 minutes, with the exception of a few seconds.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Whose rules are those?

MR. SPEAKER: You've asked for an explanation, hon. members; I'm giving it to you.

HON. MR. BAWLF: 1 would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, to the House that 1 did in fact....

MR. LEA: On a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister on a point of order?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: That's all I wanted to know.

HON. MR. BAWLF: On a point of order, I would like to point out that I indeed take these questions as notice. That is a matter of fact recorded in the Blues, Mr. Speaker. I felt it was absolutely necessary to answer the totally erroneous charges laid by that member yesterday in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. During he course of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation's answer, the Premier looked over to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) and said the word "untruthful, " obviously referring to the member for Burnaby North.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you denying that? The Premier said "untruthful." I don't know whether the Premier knows the member for Burnaby North, but we on this side of the House and most people in this province know that that kind of a charge levelled at her is totally and completely unfounded. I would ask that the Premier unqualifiedly withdraw those words in reference to the hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm getting a little tired of that member trying to put words in my mouth. Last year they attributed statements to me that were never in the Blues - statements that they must have made up. Twice last year they attributed statements to me that were never in the Blues. I feel they're abusing the House by attempting to turn attention to statements they make in this House that have to be refuted the next day by the minister - extravagant statements that get headlines in the paper. Then they are proven wrong by the minister. Yesterday we had extravagant statements made in this House. Today the minister has proven they were totally irresponsible, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Referring to the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre's point of order, I heard no such statement or interjection to which you have referred. Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby North could inform the House as to whether there was any suggestion along the lines referred to by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I did not

[ Page 3212 ]

hear the Premier's word "untruthful, " but I do wish to ask for a retraction of something else which he stated earlier. That is the assumption that everything his minister said regarding this particular question is true and has foundation and that every point I made has no foundation or truth, I'd like a retraction so I will have an opportunity on Monday to point out that the Premier is incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me, hon. members, that we become involved in endless harangues in this House regarding what has been said and what has not been said. I'd suggest to all hon. members that they look closely at the Blues if, in fact, they're not sure of what has been said. If there's reason for a statement to be retracted, then that statement should appear in the Blues, hon. member. Certainly a request can be made upon that basis for a retraction. So many interjections take place in this House from time to time that it's impossible for all of the members or even for the Speaker or the Chairman to hear all of them.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order to ask that the Premier withdraw the word lie used in cross comment from his seat towards the member for Burnaby North - the word "untruthful." It's of little importance to me whether or not anyone else heard it other than me and the Premier. The fact is that that was the word he used. My statement as an hon. member must be accepted by the Chair unless denied by the Premier, at which time we can settle the matter before a committee. I wish it withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre has attributed to the Premier a statement that was supposedly thrown across the floor, where he accused the hon. member for Burnaby North of being untruthful. If that in fact was the statement made in this House, even as an aside or whatever, it is the type that the other hon. members can take reasonable offence to. If it was made, I'd suggest it be withdrawn.

I repeat that if that was a statement that was made toward the hon. member for Burnaby North, it should be withdrawn.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, during the exchange I wasn't even looking at the member for Burnaby North; I was watching the minister read his statement. Although the member for Burnaby North is one of the members that is worthwhile looking at on the other side of the House, I made no statements in her direction during the exchange.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sexist remark!

MR. LAUK: Mr Speaker, this is the third time I have risen to ask the Premier to withdraw the statement "untruthful."

MR. SPEAKER: Your suggestion, hon. member was that a statement was attributed to the Premier and aimed at the member for Burnaby North, as I recall. Is that correct?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to relate it in detail, the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation was giving his answer. The Premier stated: "Wrong again, Untruthful. Wrong. Untruthful." That's what the Premier stated. I heard him. It was related to the minister's response to the member for Burnaby North. Now that's clear to me what he meant. The first minister of this province should stand, withdraw, sit down, and let's proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: It was far clearer to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, because I would hate the silly actions of that member to get out of hand and delay the House, at no time was I looking or directing remarks to the member for Burnaby North.

As I mentioned twice last year, that member appears to have quite an imagination in this House as to what he hears. He attributes remarks many times that are not made.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He only says this to get it in the record, Mr. Speaker. lie is abusing this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement by the hon. Premier in explanation must be accepted by all of the members of the House. I think it's now time that we proceeded with the business of the House, unless the hon. member has a further point of order.

MR. LAUK: I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in his remarks he referred to me as "that silly member."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's flattery. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: The Premier stated that I attributed remarks to people that are not made and have done so on several occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: True, true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you allow the hon. member to make his point of order?

[ Page 3213 ]

MR. LAUK: I would ask the hon. Premier to withdraw those remarks. Again, I demand that he withdraw the statement "untruthful" which was clearly.... Why is my microphone turned off? Is it turned off? ... which was clearly directed to the member for Burnaby North.

MR. SPEAKER: There was no suggestion, hon. member, that remarks were made to the member for Burnaby North. As a matter of fact, I think the Premier's statement certainly counteracted that suggestion of yours. It must stand as such.

If the hon. member is personally offended by something the Premier has said, then I would ask the hon. Premier to withdraw those remarks.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I withdraw the remarks where I called the member silly, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

Vote 98: specialist and regulatory services, $3,962, 022 - approved.

Vote 99: Milk Board, $176,148 - approved.

On vote 100: building occupancy charges, $2,291, 521.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat) I have a routine question, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister can give me some idea what this amount of money covers - the number of square feet, where, et cetera.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, the building occupancy charges cover the rental and maintenance of the buildings that are occupied by the ministry and throughout the province - the various offices that we either own or lease.

MRS. WALLACE: Can the minister give me a rough estimate, at least, of the amount of square feet that are covered in that amount?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Chairman, I can't give you that figure. I can get that information for you. I can give you the locations of those offices. We'll give that to you, Madam Member.

Vote 100 approved.

On vote 101: computer and consulting charges, $221,000.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Could the minister tell the House if he has any idea what amount of money was used last year for computer and consulting services?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr Chairman, the approximate figure was $155,000.

Vote 101 approved.

The House resumed; Mr Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that with the kind assistance of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) we now have leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

CAPTAIN COOK BI-CENTENNIAL

COMMEMORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell us if anyone has been appointed and is working at the moment on this particular project?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry): We have formed a Captain Cook Bicentennial Committee, to which there are members of the executive council and several members from the community appointed. As we go further on into the arrangements for the Captain Cook Bicentennial we will be adding several members from the communities involved and several people who will have specific reference to the events.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell the House if Mr. Sweeney is actually hired at the moment? His appointment was announced.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, Mr. Ed Sweeney has been placed as the executive director with reference and responsibilities to the Captain Cook Bicentennial Committee. In terms of his payment,

[ Page 3214 ]

there was an amount available under the Provincial Secretary's vote for Captain Cook celebrations and special celebrations, and Mr. Sweeney is being paid under that vote.

MR. LEVI: How much is Mr. Sweeney being paid?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As administrative officer 2 he is paid $1,704 per month.

MRS. DAILLY: This section is very important, of course, to the whole bill because we have here a c I a u s e w h i c h s p e C i f i c s t h a t t h e Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint the committee. We understand, of course, as this bill is brought in by the Provincial Secretary, that I presume most of the appointments will be made by the Provincial Secretary.

To date, we've been told about Mr. Ed Sweeney. The hon. Provincial Secretary stated that a few others have been appointed. I think that the House would be most interested in knowing who they are and on what basis the Provincial Secretary is making her selections.

I'll tell you what our concern is over this section. There's nothing wrong, of course, with the section. We realize that other bills for commemorative purposes have pretty well followed this bill in other years. But frankly, Mr. Chairman, if we follow the history of the Provincial Secretary since she assumed office and if we look at the number of appointments and the appointments that she has made, it is quite clear that this minister does exercise a great amount of political patronage in her appointments.

I think, as a matter of fact, we could spend a considerable time going through the political patronage appointments by this whole government. But in this bill and in this section which we're dealing with, our concern is that this committee is going to have, as will be pointed out later in other clauses, so much power to hand out, shall we say, plums - if necessary and if they see fit - to certain sectors of our society for distribution of material, et cetera. This comes up later, Mr. Chairman, and I'll bring that up again.

We think that the Provincial Secretary owes it to the people of the province and to the opposition, which is now speaking on their behalf, to tell us how she's going to make these selections. We are hoping that they're going to be made in a very unbiased way - that people will be appointed not simply because of their political stripe or because they happen to have been a supporter or a worker for the Provincial Secretary or her party during the last election. So I do think the Provincial Secretary should explain to the House what method she's using to appoint these people.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to say that I do not take kindly to another member of this House casting aspersions against my career in public life and my career in this House - just in this government - in terms of political appointments. I have been in a place of responsibility, where I am called on to take a responsibility for appointments for the government and on behalf of the government. As such, I'll take that responsibility as the time goes on.

But let me say that the Captain Cook temporary committee was put in place on a voluntary basis without pay. Mr. Sweeney is not part of the committee but is hired as an executive director of the committee that will be in place after this Act is enacted; he is the only paid person. He is not, as such, a part of the committee, but a servant of the committee. That part of it is quite clear.

The other people who have served on a voluntary basis for the committee are members of the cabinet and a member of the Legislature: the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) , with his expertise and his knowledge of native Indian affairs; the hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) , because of his reference to very many items of interest, not only in the capital city area but with his ministry; the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , because we feel that it has a very great import in terms of the education of the students; the Deputy Minister of Travel; the Deputy Provincial Secretary; the archivist, Mr. Turner; and from the community we have sought only four people, including Admiral Collier, who was in charge of the Pacific Command until last Friday.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member who has just been on her feet would like to say that that is a political appointment, I'd like her to explain that one to Admiral Collier.

This gives me an opportunity at this time to say how very appreciative we have been of Admiral Collier's service to this House and to the government in assisting us in getting together the invitation to the tall ships which will be coming to British Columbia because of this event.

The purpose of the bill and of this particular clause in the bill is that it does enable us to reach out into the community and, as happened in the centenaries of the past in British Columbia celebrations, we will have the voluntary involvement of many communities in British Columbia. We already have had a very keen interest for the Captain Cook Bicentennial voiced from several communities. We've been pleased to respond to these and we expect that, as this bill is accepted by the Legislature - and hopefully that will be so - and is brought into law by the Lieutenant -Governor, the interest will then really begin, and even more interest will be shown by the communities and there will be other committees formed.

[ Page 3215 ]

1 would expect, too, that committees would be formed from the communities themselves in a voluntary manner and it will come to Pass that all over this province there will be Captain Cook voluntary committees working on this particular project on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a further question to the hon. Provincial Secretary. We now have specifically two names -- Mr. Sweeney and the last one you mentioned ~ - but we notice here that it just says "a committee." I wonder if you could tell us how many. When are we going to receive the names of the other members of the committee?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The numbers, Mr. Chairman, will be as many as we need to do the job. None of them will be paid; they will all be voluntary, as I said before. Mr. Sweeney, I emphasize, is not a member of the committee as such but serves the committee in an administrative capacity to keep a liaison between the different communities, between the communities and the government, and between the government and other governments which we will be, of course, involving as time goes on in the programme. The number will not be specified because as we go along we will have to enlarge the committee as the responsibilities increase.

MRS. DAILLY: Then am I to understand that you yourself are not making the specific appointments, but are taking recommendations from other ministers?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: As chairman of the pro tem committee, I have been seeking the advice of all on the committee and I am at the direction of that committee.

MR. SKELLY: I understand that Dan Campbell from the Premier's office has been to Gold River to talk to the Moutcha Indian band about their participation in the bicentennial celebrations. I'm wondering if there's some duplication here: there is a member of the Legislative Assembly on the temporary committee, yet the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and the present intergovernmental relations expert in the Premier's office is doing the actual negotiations and discussions with the Indians. What has Dan Campbell done to date and what agreements have been arrived at between the Moutcha Indians and the committee?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Prior to the member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) being on the committee, Intergovernmental Affairs was called on, through Mr. Dan Campbell. Mr. Charlie McKay, who is associated with our Indian Advisory Commission, also accompanied Mr. Campbell, and on our behalf - that is, on behalf of the committee - he responded to concerns from Gold River and the Gold River council who wished further information on the bicentennial. I think they had a very constructive meeting, and in the report that they gave back to the committee we were quite pleased with the co-operation which seems to be expressed from both the people they met at Friendly Cove as well as those from the Gold River council.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if any representatives from the Moutcha band or from Indians in the area will serve on the Captain Cook Bicentennial Committee - or will it be people from outside the Nootka Sound area?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: They would serve on a subcommittee which the main committee would form in all of these areas, and they will have a subcommittee which will be reporting to, working with and at times meeting with the committee.

MR. SKELLY: Do I understand then, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Atlin will be appointed to the provincial committee when it is set up under this legislation? If so, will he be reimbursed for travel expenses and that type of thing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We would be , i-y pleased to have the member from Atlin continue on that committee. Although he has only attended the one meeting - the last meeting we had - and has been a recent addition to the committee, we would like to have his expertise in the future. I would hope that he would remain on the committee. The Act makes provision for reimbursement.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister rose and took umbrage at the possibility that someone may cast aspersions upon her public life and her political career. I just want to assure the hon. minister that nothing could be further from our minds. It's perfectly normal practice for you to appoint a man who was your former campaign manager to be in charge of conventions in this province at a healthy salary out of the public purse. Isn't that normal practice for the Social Credit government? We're not casting aspersions on the hon. minister. I don't blame her for taking great umbrage at our vicious attacks. After all, these people have to work somewhere,

1, too, would like to suggest that this Act is a good Act, MR. Chairman. I look through this lady minister's Tourism British Columbia magazine and there's a poem here written by John Tisdalle called "Good Business' . I'm telling you, I really think this committee should unanimously vote that this poem be submitted for the Governor-General's Award next

[ Page 3216 ]

year.

I'll give you one line that is just fantastic.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That would be too positive for you to vote for.

MR. LAUK: William Shakespeare better look to his laurels, Mr. Chairman. It says:

I'd never keep a boy or clerk
With mental toothache at his work.

Now how about that, Mr. Chairman, eh? I mean, that's class! Was that Plul, or John Tisdalle, or Mr. Sweeney, or any of the other jobs for the boy Socreds that the Provincial Secretary has hired over the past 18 months of her term of office?

MR. SKELLY: Just following up on the comments from the member for Vancouver Centre, I understand that Ed Sweeney was a Social Credit candidate in the provincial election. At a salary of $1,704 a month, I don't imagine that he's being paid on the basis of need.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I think in all fairness to the gentleman who has just been mentioned, Mr Ed Sweeney, I would like to make a statement. I made it before, when Mr. Sweeney was appointed, and I'll make it again. Yes, Mr. Sweeney was a candidate in an election campaign and I believe he has been a candidate for more than one party in an election campaign, not just a Social Credit candidate.

I think, too, that it should be noted that Mr. Sweeney also served the province of British Columbia and his own city as an alderman for many years. He has been a public servant and he has served his province and his city well, whatever his political stripe.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I don't really think that "so what?" is quite a statement to be made, Mr Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Socred.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I really believe that Socreds Liberals, and even NDP, who have served their province well should be recognized in this House, and certainly no one should know better than the members who sit in this House, Mr Chairman. The 55 members who have offered their names for public service and have successfully been elected to this House should surely understand, more than anybody else, what one has to give up in terms of serving, and their personal lives, and the effort they have given.

Mr. Sweeney is no exception as a public servant who has given up very much of his personal life in order to serve his province and his city well, and I'd like to pay tribute to that. I'm very delighted that we have him to serve the province of British Columbia once again.

MRS. DAILLY: Following that statement of the Provincial Secretary that regardless of your political stripe you can serve your province, may I say we will not look forward greatly to the announcement of the names and expect to see people of all political stripes on this committee. I can assure you that we intend to watch that most carefully, particularly as the Provincial Secretary herself has stated that she believes they can do service.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Chairman, that was a nice speech. I probably know Ed Sweeney better than she does. He's a nice fellow, he's sacrificed a great deal, and he's a good politician - we all know that -but for goodness' sake, when you're running a porkbarrel, just have the guts to get up and admit it. Every appointment that minister has made is porkbarrel. They are Socred appointees, every one of them using public funds. It's absolute....

MR. SKELLY: Don't use the word.

MR. LAUK: Is that parliamentary? It's not entirely forthright to pretend otherwise, to pretend that she, in her duties as minister under section 2 of this Act, or any other, is acting on a non-partisan and unbiased basis to help out poor old politicians who have sacrificed so much for the good of the province. Why don't we talk about the deputy minister, Mr. Prittie, who was guillotined from this government? Everybody in this province said he was the best Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and that party guillotined him because he was once an NDP MP.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Imagine that!

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

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name to delete section 3 (b) and substitute the following: " (b) enter into agreements or arrangements with the government of Canada, a province, state, or country, or with any person, association, or organization for the purpose of planning, administering, or celebrating the commemoration."

[ Page 3217 ]

On the amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the government of Canada, or any organizations in the area such as the Talasis Company, or private organizations have indicated possible support for the Captain Cook Bicentennial. If so, what form will that support take?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , may I say that we already have had some negotiations with the government of Canada. We will have in the future more negotiations with people such as the Tahsis Company. For instance, I believe it was the Gold River council that suggested in their meeting with the native Indians at Friendly Cove and with our representatives that day that some contributions would be made by private firms to their particular project. That was raised by the community itself. We would want to have an opportunity to accept or to negotiate that.

There are very many people involved in the whole history, as you know, of Captain Cook, including states such as Hawaii, where they have a Captain Cook Bicentennial celebration. We have already been in touch with the committee chairman in that state, hoping that some of the things that they are learning there in terms of putting it together will be helpful to us so we can share.

We are having, as you have learned earlier, a race between Hawaii and the province of British Columbia. We would want to have some connection and have the ability through this Act to negotiate.

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. SKELLY: I'm concerned that money that will be spent and projects that will be developed for the Captain Cook Bicentennial will place an undue emphasis on the centres of Vancouver and Victoria rather than on the Nootka Sound area where the major contact took place between Captain Cook and British Columbia.

The minister just mentioned the idea of a race from Honolulu to British Columbia. She didn't mention the termination point of that race. I understand they have a race every two years between Seattle and Nootka Sound, and I'm wondering if that race between Hawaii and British Columbia will terminate in the Nootka Sound area. As representative for that area, I would like to see the major emphasis of the Captain Cook Bicentennial celebrations in the Nootka Sound area where the contact took place in the first place back in 177 8.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for the suggestion and I want him to know that we are trying to really get all of the province involved, not just the coastal communities. Certainly I'll take that advice and pass it on to the committee. I'm not aware of where the destination point is at this point in time. Sorry.

MR. SKELLY: I would urge the minister, by the way, that the destination for the Honolulu race be Nootka Sound.

Concerning the projects consistent with the purpose of this Act which can be approved under section 3 (e) , I'm wondering if the temporary committee has come up with any ideas about consistent projects.

In the Nootka Sound area there is a lack of tourist and camping facilities. Although the NDP when they were in office upgraded the road, for example, between Gold River and Tahsis in order to give access to that area, there still is a lack of tourist facilities, camping facilities and marine facilities in that area. I'm wondering if those are considered projects consistent with the Act. I understand that the parks branch has sent Mr. Fairhurst, the parks planning officer for the area, up there and he has taken a look at several park proposals. Will money be going into that area for tourist accommodation, for development of parks, and for transportation such ~~q highway improvements?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: All suggestions would be considered by the committee. Suggestions such as a longhouse, for instance, are being considered, and park sites and campsites and so on. I don't think I can promise, in advance of the committee's deliberations, any large capital expenditures for such things, but I think they would all be within the spirit of the Act dependent on moneys available. I would just say that they would certainly be considered, and I agree with the lack of tourist facilities as you have suggested.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't intend to speak for long except to compliment the minister on the bill and our own government on the idea. I think it's a splendid event to look forward to and I believe it will capture the spirit of the people in the province. I believe they are ready to undertake something that's positive and something that also is exciting and entertaining.

In reference to the current debate on the Captain Cook Bicentennial race, with all Vancouver Island's capabilities to handle the tourist industry, not every citizen of British Columbia and every tourist would be able to come to the Island to view that race nor to participate in it. I wondered if in keeping with the spirit on a province-wide basis the committee might consider holding mini-Captain Cook races

[ Page 3218 ]

simultaneously in various parts of the province. I would suggest offhand that Francois Lake, Okanagan Lake....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is saying: "Sail to Vernon?" I think it sounds like a great idea. We wanted a canal for a long time.

Christina Lake, possibly, in the Kootenays.... This would involve as much as possible most regions of the province on that particular day and in that particular project of excitement. I pose it to you, Mr. Chairman, for the minister's consideration.

MRS. DAILLY: Section 3 (c) says: "The committee has the power to employ persons for the purpose of this Act." Will the people who are going to be needed to assist the committee be hired through the Public Service Commission?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, these probably would all be short-term people and would be hired in consultation with the Public Service Commission.

MR. LAUK: It's awfully nice to see you in good form, Mr. Chairman.

I want to follow up the member for Burnaby North's question on the public service. Does "consultation with the public service" mean that the minister or the committee will ask the Public Service Commission what its recommendations would be, or will there be a short list of people with the proper qualifications? Will there be advertisements posted for the various people who might be required from time to time - that kind of thing?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In consultation with my deputy, we anticipate very few people would really be hired. It would be perhaps a secretary, or two or three secretaries, depending on the job at the time.

With reference to the member for North Okanagan, we are seeking out community participation. It may well be that we would need secretarial service at the time to canvass all communities. That would be a short-term thing, perhaps. Yes, they will be all done in conjunction with the Public Service Commission. It may not be that they would have to be advertised because they are short-term and the Public Service Commission, as you know, always has a pool of people whom they can call on on a temporary or short-term basis.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the subject of some discussion in this House during question period was the idea of a film on Captain Cook. This comes under section 3 - projects or whatever. What concerns this side of the House is that we know so little about this film and we hear so many rumours about it. The minister, perhaps, can settle those rumours for us.

Who are the writers of this screenplay, or whatever it is - the story, the dialogue or narrative and so on -for the film, if there's going to be one used? Where do these writers or writer... ?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I can answer it in a hurry because it's been scrapped.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it's been scrapped?

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the member for Vancouver Centre, the pro tern committee has decided not to go ahead with the film. They considered it for some time and decided that they would not. It would be a major undertaking for anyone to do and get it around to all of North America, as the plan. We had a discussion on it and we decided that it was not practical in the time frame allowed.

If there is a film at all to be made - and we have not addressed ourselves to this as yet - it would be a very small effort which would go into schools. That has yet to be negotiated with the Ministry of Education. There's no final plan on that. It has been suggested as a much tinier kind of production, certainly nothing like what was envisioned to go across the country in terms of television production and so on. The one you are suggesting has been scrapped.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm very disappointed to hear that, Mr Chairman.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You blew it!

MR. LAUK: Well, perhaps the Minister of Labour can indicate to me how I in any way assisted.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: 1 don't understand that. Mr. Chairman, the cross-comment is puzzling me. 1 find that very puzzling. In some way they're trying to blame me for the fact that the Provincial Secretary and the committee will not proceed with the film. Are you in any way blaming me for that? Are you blaming the member for Burnaby North?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Oh, come on!

[ Page 3219 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps we can address ourselves to the amendment.

MR. LAUK: I know that the Provincial Secretary really is the person in charge of this government and 1 accept her word on this matter. I'll disregard the frivolous comments of the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chairman, 1 think the film was a good idea and it is too bad that the Provincial Secretary is pulling back on it. That's most unfortunate. If there is going to be a small film, 1 have a piece of advice - and I know the Provincial Secretary always likes to hear advice. That advice is that we don't have a picture of you and the Premier at the end of it thanking everybody for coming.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We'll put you in it.

MR. LAUK: It's not because we don't like you.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You'd like to be in it.

MR. LAUK: It is because there are certain skeptics and cynics out there who might interpret that as being a crass political move using taxpayers' money. Now I'm not one of those uncharitable types who would make any such suggestion because both you and the Premier are such beautiful people that we like to see you all the time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Wasn't that called a racist remark earlier in the day?

MR. LAUK: But in our schools and exposed to our young loved ones, we're a little bit apprehensive about how their political futures might go. It would certainly be no place for that kind of thing at public expense.

Is there any possibility for this film to be revived in any way, other than the small one? 1 think a feature film of Captain Cook was a great idea. It doesn't have to come out during the year.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, there is no way.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. LEVI: This section, Mr. Chairman, deals with all of the emblems that are usually sold during this time. We've just witnessed the Silver Jubilee in England and the enormous amount of money that is being spent.

What exactly are the arrangements with respect to all of these emblems and souvenirs as to who gets the contract? Is this done by public tender? Is this something that the committee does? I understand from this section that this is the Captain Cook Bicentennial commemoration. That really means that the government is taking onto itself some kind of special copyright. Presumably, any company using that has to abide by the Act. I'm just wondering how this takes place. How do people get those kinds of contracts?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm advised that during the past celebrations - and we would follow the same format because it was successful - there was an emblem adopted and the committee in charge would put out to tender. It would be a bid process. In consultation with my deputy who, as you know, probably has more expertise in this field than anybody in the province, I understand that there would be some things that would come before us that would be unique. It would just be a simple matter of making sure that there was quality control. If it was an unusual idea and there were not 10 people with the same idea, then the committee would be in a position of placing approval on a particular idea.

At any rate, we would guard against anyone being excluded from having an opportunity to sell their wares. The whole idea of this clause - and it is one that is in all of this kind of legislation - is quality control which excludes people from taking advantage of a situation by putting things on the market which would perhaps take advantage of the buyer who would be in the province at that time or the local person who would be attending those events. I think it is a safeguard and I can assure you that the bid process would be recognized at all times.

MR. LEVI: When the minister refers to the general emblem and then mentions all sorts of other things, presumably the government will be buying a great deal of this material to give out, I suppose, to school children and that kind of thing. That's usually the way it goes, I understand - a fair amount of this stuff is purchased. Does the tendering apply to that, too?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It would go by tender -just by the purchasing process.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

On section 9.

MRS. DAILLY: This is the section which allows for the payment of the money. Could the Provincial Secretary tell us - naturally she can't give us a complete detailed figure until the whole event is over, but I'm sure she must have some idea - the amount of money which she expects to be used for this celebration?

[ Page 3220 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We anticipate that the total cost will not exceed $1.6 million. We're aiming to keep it below that figure.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you for the figure. 1 find $1.6 million somewhat astounding, but of course 1 haven't been involved personally in these kinds of celebrations at the beginning of the committee stage before. 1 wonder if we can have some breakdown of where this whole celebration is going to cost approximately $1.6 million of the taxpayers' money. That is not in any way belittling the idea of the whole project. But $1.6 million does seem to be a rather astoundingly large figure.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: For an example, Mr. Chairman, some of the assistance to bring the tall ships to British Columbia is $150,000. That's one event.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member was observant during the centennial celebrations in the province, an example of the cost of the centenary celebration was between $2 million and $3 million. It created a lot of employment for a lot of people. All of that money was expended in grants to communities which, in turn, initiated employment and so on in those different communities. It would enhance projects in communities and that's what the centenary grants did in past years and that's what some of the moneys would be expended for under this grant or under this system.

MRS. DAILLY: Just one final question on this: Can we assume then that the majority of this money would be spent on grants to communities? Is that where the bulk of the... ? Because you just mentioned today $150,000 for the tall ships and 1 know there would be expenses for committee members.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: About a third of that.

MRS. DAILLY: About one-third would be spent for grants and the other two-thirds then would be spent on what? In expenses and the tall ships? How else would it be broken down?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: 1 have to say, Mr. Chairman, that 1 can't give you a specific breakdown, because until this bill passes, we do not really have an opportunity to give you an exact amount of money. 1 say that I'd like to keep it under the $1.6 million. An amount of money for an expenditure for educational material for schools, for instance, has been budgeted, and it has come in so far at around $80,000. Now that's one of the projects that would be approved by the committee.

Now if the committee thinks that that kind of thing into the schools - the history of Captain Cook - would not be one that they would approve, then $80,000 would not get spent. But we're guiding ourselves to be below the $1.6 million and all approved expenditures would have the budgetary restrictions on them. A budget will be brought down before any expenditures are made.

MR. SKELLY: I'm wondering if the Provincial Secretary has any idea of how it will be broken down by area. How much money or what proportion of the funds would be made available to provide things of lasting benefit in the Nootka Sound-Kyuquot Sound area? During the centennial, a lot of small communities were able to take advantage of grants under the various centennial committee finance structures and were able to produce projects of lasting value in those communities. As 1 pointed out before, there is at the present time inadequate service in the area for tourists or for people coming into the area. I'm wondering what proportion of funds would be spent in the area where Captain Cook visited in the first place.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The committee has considered a per capita allocation for communities; 1 think that's above that, though. There would be a special grant to the particular historic area which the member for Alberni has just noted; that has also been considered.

MR. SKELLY: An amount?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No. 1 would say that there have some amounts suggested, but 1 would prefer that we would wait until those negotiations are over. It would be over and above the grants to the communities around that area, as a special grant.

MR. SKELLY: 1 would hope so.

I'm also wondering, Mr. Chairman, what co-ordination is taking place between the minister's ministry or the temporary committee and other ministries in order to co-ordinate the development of services that will be required in that area as a result of an influx of tourists that we can anticipate from the bicentennial celebrations. Will there be highway and park funds made available? If so, what type of funds can we expect from other departments?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the committee itself are members of the executive council who have reference to many departments. There is the total co-ordination and the total communication between ministries, as there always is. This is no different than any other area of responsibility. We have a total responsibility for co-ordinating activities between the ministries for

[ Page 3221 ]

every event.

MR. SKELLY: Well, the basis of my concern, Mr. Chairman, is the establishment of Pacific Rim National Park in the Tofino-Ucluelet area. That park was established without any real forethought or co-ordination as to what might happen when the tremendous influx of tourists developed as a result of the creation of that park. In some years, we say almost a quarter of a million people come to the west coast of Vancouver Island. There were inadequate tourist facilities, and basic infrastructure problems such as sewage, water supplies motels, campsites and that type of thing.

Most of these things should have been planned well in advance and there should have been greater co-operation between the various departments of government and the federal government. There wasn't that co-ordination, and as a result we've had some tremendous problems in Tofino and Ucluelet. I'm wondering what we can expect in terms of funds and services in places - highways, parks, that kind of thing. 1 know you're talking in general terms about co-ordination, but 1 would like to see something concrete that would be of lasting benefit to the area.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

Title approved.

Preamble approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 45; Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 45, Captain Cook Bi-Centennial Commemoration Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

PLANT PROTECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Plant Protection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CONSUMER

AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

On vote 212: minister's office, $108,644.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I would like to take this opportunity to make one or two brief remarks about my ministry, particularly because, as this House will know, it is a new ministry, created October 29 last. I will try to touch on what we're attempting to do in most of the departments before answering the questions of the hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, in October of last year when the ministry was reorganized the number of employees under the ministry increased from 98 to 2,800. 1 think it only fair to point out that at that moment in time the new ministry was totally without any sort of superstructure. A great deal is owed by the people, and this House, of course, to those who helped put the new ministry together, particularly those members of my immediate staff who worked long hours six or seven nights a week in order to keep the ministry going and also reorganize it to the point where it is now.

Since that time I am very privileged to have taken on as my deputy minister someone who I think is known to most members of the House, Mr. Tex Enemark, who is a British Columbia-born gentleman from Prince George. In later months we have added Mr. Keith Saddlemyer as Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Affairs and Mr. Perry Anglin, who has just started as Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer

[ Page 3222 ]

Affairs. I would also say that we have taken on in recent weeks a new director of legal services and a new public co-ordinator in my office.

I would like to pay tribute to all of these people, because the reorganization of this ministry, much less taking care of its day-to-day needs, was indeed an enormous task. I am very deeply in their debt.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to just touch upon some of the departments of the ministry. I will not touch upon all of them. I'm sure that some of them are perhaps of little interest to the House in that they are very quietly running themselves - such departments as trust companies and things of that nature. But some have a little higher profile and are ones that require a little more active supervision and generally, perhaps, are a little more in the news.

The trade practices branch, which of course was formerly under Consumer Services, has regional offices in four cities - Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George and Kamloops. I might say, just for the interest of the members opposite and particularly for the member opposite who has been, I believe, termed the opposition critic and to whom I am also indebted for a great deal of legislation, that these offices have handled over 10,000 complaints between January, 1976, and June, 1977. During that time they rebated to consumers nearly $800,000, which was more than double the amount in 1975. We've introduced a computerized system to process consumer complaint cases more efficiently and to identify problems more quickly.

We have, in 1976 and 1977 to date, received eight assurances of voluntary compliance. For any in the House who are not familiar with that term, this is a settlement document that we often take from a supplier in lieu of carrying the matter through the court. I will, I'm sure, with a little spurring from the side opposite, deal with assurances of voluntary compliance because, quite frankly, I'm not satisfied to date that they have been doing the job that they were originally intended to do. We have made four injunction applications in 1976, one in 1977; we took nine substitute actions in 1976, one so far in 1977; there was one prosecution and one class action, both in 1976.

Now dealing with the community programmes branch, the grants in 1976 were to 16 community groups, and the total was $340,471. In addition, this particular branch put out the general advertising guidelines for advertisers which was published and distributed in 1976.

One particular branch that I am very proud of indeed is the debtor assistance branch. In 1976 it returned over $1 million to creditors - an increase of 77 per cent over 1975. 1 make this point because it's not so significant that the creditors received this money as it is that those people who owed the money maintained their self-respect, paid back their debts and knew that they had done so, kept their families together, and faced their responsibilities. 1 don't know how you assess the social value of that, Mr. Chairman, but 1 think it's very significant indeed. Now since January 1977 - and bearing in mind it was $1 million in 1976 - $690,700 has already been dispersed. So you can see that much improvement is already taking place in that area.

On the companies branch, Mr. Chairman, I'll just say this: 12,000 new companies were incorporated in 19761y this branch.

1 might add here that it was mentioned to me when 1 took over the new ministry that much of the corporate side would really not cause us much trouble because they ran themselves. 1 think that it's safe to say that because Attorneys-General over the last 25 or 30 years have been so weighted down with other problems, this statement may have appeared to be true, but in fact was not. For all those many years, not only the companies branch but many others had been crying for reform within their own ranks. The companies branch, through at least two registrars and perhaps three, had been asking over and over again why we were renting space at $10.75 a square foot to store files when there was a microfilm process that would do it for us. I'm happy to say we're well on our way to establishing a microfilm process and putting in some of the reforms that hitherto had gone undone.

If 1 may move over to a perhaps somewhat more controversial area of my ministry, Mr. Chairman -liquor control and licensing. I imagine that has attracted some attention from the members of the House. 1 think perhaps that the most significant thing we have done in this particular area is to establish a new type of licence, namely the hotel pub, which is analogous to the neighbourhood pub. The basic difference is that 25 more seats are allowed - in other words, 125 seats.

Now 1 raise this because the first one opened last week in Sooke - the Sooke River Hotel. 1 was privileged to visit that and 1 can tell you that it really is a marvellous establishment to see. 1 don't mean to push that particular hotel, but to see the concept actually at work is truly gratifying to those of us who had faith in it.

MR. WALLACE: Did you get a free beer?

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 got a free beer, you bet. I admit it; it's in Hansard.

Now 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that 1 should also point out that there are over 100 hotels that have applied for this particular licence. By and large, that will replace in that hotel the beer parlour, and in many cases the cocktail lounge as well. That isn't always true; there are some who will have more than one licence within their confines. Basically what is

[ Page 3223 ]

going to happen is that the beer parlour is going to disappear and the new licence will take over.

There is one other thing that 1 would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, under this particular heading. For years and years the regulations concerning licensing and control were in the brain of one man, passed on to his successor, never to be disclosed to anybody except under the severest cross-examination. The Premier and the good Lord giving me the time, 1 intend to see that all of these regulations and directives are codified into orders-in-council so that anyone who has an interest in licensing and control will know what the law is. 1 might say also that it is absolutely necessary, of course - it was under the previous government and administrations before that - to grant unto the general manager a certain discretion. We intend to publish the guidelines by which he exercises those discretions so that people will know what they're getting into.

Now in terms of liquor distribution 1 would like to advise the members of the House that we are bringing in new controls, new computerized thrusts for greater efficiency in what is a half-a-billion dollar industry. We have, as members of this House know, I'm sure, a new wine policy which has reduced the cost of both the imported and domestic to the consumer. 1 think that has gone a long way to be very supportive of the local wine and grape industry.

I'm sure that such things as the rent review commission and Rentalsman need no explaining by me to members of this House and I'm sure that they have their questions organized.

1 would like to pay a great deal of tribute to the credit union movement, which also falls within my ministry, and advise that they have now achieved assets of about $2 billion. One of the areas that was running itself was this particular branch of the ministry. Yet with $2 billion in assets, we had a total of two inspectors in the field. 1 want the House to know that that has been radically changed and improved, and we are now in a position to be able to adequately inspect - and I'm sorry to split the infinitive - to inspect adequately the trust. companies.

MR. LEVI: You're a radical.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm a radical - a split infinitive . . . to adequately look after this particular problem, with great support from the credit union movement itself which 1 had the privilege to address last week at their convention.

So, Mr. Chairman, with those brief remarks on my new ministry, with the fervent prayer that members opposite will recognize that it has taken quite a while to get the ministry organized, and that you'll bear with me if 1 seek advice and consolation from my support staff, 1 will leave it open to you. Thank you.

MR. LEVI: You'd better get your staff a little closer to you then.

I'd like to say that what has happened to the new ministry is a good thing. I think that the government had made a decision to bring a number of related areas into one department and, presumably, we will now get a great deal more focus on the problems that sometimes arise. I think the House knows that the minister is responsible for a range of areas, some of which he has explained. He's responsible for the Mortgage Brokers Act, about which I'll have something to say later on, and he's also responsible for the stock exchange, about which I'm going to have something to say very shortly.

I was just a little disappointed about the one move that I think was perhaps a backward step That was when they removed from the riding of Vancouver-Burrard the storefront office which was in Kingsgate Mall. It was very popular; it was very useful in terms of the consumer complaints.

Also, the office that was downtown in the West End which related to debt counselling has now been consolidated into 411 Dunsmuir. It's not all that accessible; it's not local; it doesn't have that kind of community thrust which is something that you need to have in dealing with consumer protection. Going into 411 Dunsmuir is not always the easiest thing in the world for people. You have to go to the top floor; there are a lot of other offices in there. It doesn't have the same kind of feeling that existed before. I think it's a very unfortunate step not to have kept those two offices on. Certainly for my colleague and in Vancouver-Burrard, that was an extremely useful operation and certainly gave whatever government was in power a good visibility and a very useful one.

The minister made mention of the new liquor regulations and talked about some of the new hotel pubs. That's a good move. One thing he didn't mention is the kind of power that he appears to have taken unto himself to make some decisions which I would predict are going to get him into an awful lot of hot water. This is really in relation to personally deciding on some of the liquor licence issues. Now he mentioned before the individual who had in his head most of the running of the Liquor Control Board, the late Colonel McGugan. Only Colonel McGugan could run the operation the way he ran it, out of the club, and riding on the ferry, and making little notes on pieces of paper. I think the minister may have overstepped the mark a little bit here. I think that he's going to be subject to incredible pressure from all sorts of people in respect to liquor licences.

He has made, in respect to other pieces of legislation, an appeal system, for instance, to the financial and corporate commission. Now I would have thought that that might have been a place to put that providing there are some plans afoot to broaden that commission, because, as the minister knows, Mr.

[ Page 3224 ]

Chairman, there is one piece of legislation already passed which is going to have reference to appeals. That's from the travel agents. Then it is mooted that the motor dealers will go there. I would hope that that commission will be broadened. I notice that the former deputy minister, the man who did such an excellent job in setting up the original Consumer Services department, Bill Neilson, has been appointed to that. I would hope that that heralds, in some way, an expansion of that committee because they have a lot of work to do in terms of the stock market. They may get a lot of work under the Motor Dealers Licensing Act, and they may get even more in respect to the travel agents thing because we've already had some problems in respect to the travel agency business. Anyway, that's not new, but there is the whole question of making the Act work. It's a good Act that was brought in, even with some of the amendments, and hopefully it will) protect the public.

Just to repeat, Mr. Chairman, there is a problem I very much foresee for the minister in respect to being a one-man appeal board - being the personification of Colonel McGugan. That's going to cause him a lot of trouble. I think there's going to be a lot of trouble there, Mr. Chairman.

I now want to turn to the stock market. I've spent the last several months visiting down on Howe Street and talking to people on the board and people who are into business. I want to avoid making any one-liners about this thing. Having spent quite a bit of time there, I have come to the conclusion that what we really need down there - or rather what we need in relation to the Vancouver Stock Exchange - is an inquiry.

Now I understand that the minister has announced a capital market study, but that really isn't going to get at some of the problems on both sides of the question. There are problems down there in terms of the administration of the stock exchange, there are problems in terms of protection of shareholders -particularly small shareholders -- and there are the problems of the people who are trying to start companies.

Now one of the constant remarks that was made to me by various people connected with the business is that the office is over in Victoria and all of the action is in Vancouver. I think, on reflection, that's a very good observation. Obviously to have the main functioning offices in Victoria for the stock exchange where people have to go back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria is an expensive proposition anyway. The recent proclaiming of the section related to the statements of material fact is presumably going to bring more people over because - the minister indicates no - there are questions of alterations to statements of material fact. There is the question that they've agreed they might be able to release the statements of material fact for approval within 10 days.

Now hopefully that might happen; nevertheless, there are always problems. I met with a group of lawyers who are involved in this and they've indicated that when you make a trip to Victoria on behalf of your client, or if you're taking your client with you, it's about a $400 shot. There's the lawyer's fee, there's the $50-odd round-trip on the plane, and you're sometimes here for half an hour or three quarters of an hour to settle some point. That's an expense.

Now I know there might be some surprise from the other side that the NDP has finally started to look into the stock exchange not only from some of the negative sides, but also from the angle that if it's there and it's going to work, then it has to work to the advantage of everybody, including the people who are trying to raise the capital and develop the money. I understand that the new associate deputy minister, Mr. Saddlemyer, will be involved in looking at statements of material fact. I've been looking at some of them and I think you have to have a lawyer to help you go through them.

It's a very difficult proposition and I would hope that when they get into this question of statements of material fact maybe the ministry might seriously think about drawing up some kind of booklet in plain, everyday language which would give some indication of what these things are all about. Merrill Lynch, for instance, puts out a booklet on how to read an annual report. It's about 30 pages and it goes into some good explanations on how you might read this. I think it is important that people have some understanding of how they might read a statement of material fact. Not too many people know how to read a prospectus. I'm still in the learning process in respect to this. It's complicated, and particularly in what's going on down there.

I said earlier that there's a need for an inquiry because I think that the industry itself appears to be suffering from a morale problem - mostly of their own making, frankly. I've always abhorred the idea of a government having to go into any segment of our society and starting to regulate it simply because the particular segment of our society is not prepared to regulate itself. Now they've indicated in the past that they have been prepared, but they haven't really done much of a job. They've also suffered from some very serious problems.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange is a speculative market; it deals primarily with junior stocks. The amount of movement on major stocks on that market is negligible; most of the action goes through the Toronto Stock Exchange. So we have probably to some extent lured out some people who have become persona non grata in places like Montreal and Toronto, and they're out here. Some of them aren't even out there. They tend to use the telephone and

[ Page 3225 ]

the mail and they're still operating.

Now all of this tends to be a put-down to the stock exchange. In my party I don't think we've spent 10 minutes discussing the value of the stock market. When you take a look at it over the last few months, I don't know whether we might have wasted our time had we spent 10 minutes, because there is the issue of what goes on down there in terms of raising money.

Now let me say this: if it's part of the financial community, if it's put into operation, fine, let it operate. But there are some very serious questions that I think we have to ask in relation to what is going on down there.

I wrote to the superintendent of brokers last November. I asked him if he could tell me what kind of money is raised down there. What are we talking about when we talk about raising money on the stock exchange? I'd like to read, for the interest of the House, the reply that I got from Mr. Owen, who went to some trouble to check it out. He wrote me on November 2:

"With respect to your letter of October 20, with respect to the information re your request, it so happens that we conducted a survey of our own using information contained in the Vancouver Stock Exchange Review, a publication available to the public, for the period January 1,1975, to July 31,197 5.

"We also wished to determine the disposition of money raised through the exchange by way of underwritings. We found the following: total statements and material facts processed by the Vancouver Stock Exchange composed of underwritings . . . "

and that was in that January through July period, " . . . 65; agency offerings 90; secondary and primary, 16 - for a total of 171. Total proceeds: underwritings, excluding options, $4.3 million; agencies, on the basis of all shares sold at minimum price, $7.8 million - for a total of $12 million."

I also asked him if he could tell me how this money was spent and where it goes. Well, we didn't deal with how it was spent, but we did deal with where it went.

"Area of spending disposition: British Columbia and the Yukon, 23 per cent, for $2.8 million; the rest of Canada, 21 per cent, for $2.5 million; U.S.A., 24 per cent, for $2.9 million; Mexico, 3 per cent, the world, 2 per cent, and liabilities not allocated, 18 per cent industrials."

They were looking at $12 million, of which 23 per cent, some $2.8 million, was in British Columbia.

Now if we look on the basis of what's been going on there for the last couple of years, in 1975 they raised some $50 million. In 1976 they raised $30

million. One thing I can't remember at the moment is whether I'm talking about calendar years or.... I'm talking about calendar years, because their latest report has only just come out.

Now if you look at the percentages . and I think the minister in his release actually used figures which were lower than the 23 per cent. I think he indicated in the release he made sometime in April that it was about 18 per cent - the money that stayed in British Columbia.

What we don't know, of course, from those amounts of money that have been listed here is just how much of it goes into the ground, how much is administration, how much goes to the liquor store. We really don't know any of that. Certainly it should be done. If it is not done by the stock exchange, it's got to be done by somebody, so that there is a better understanding of what happens to the money that is raised.

I met with Mr. Scott and some of the governors twice, and I made the observation the first time, and I repeated it the second time, that I thought their public relations were absolutely awful. In fact I had a much better adjective preceding the "awful." They were, and they are still.

I reminded them twice that if you go in here and you want to get the annual report you can get one for November, 1975, but nothing else. Then we discovered that down in the basement of the library we are in receipt every day in this House of all of the statements of material facts and the amendments to those statements.

But generally speaking, their public relations are not good. Consequently, when you have a show like the CBC, they get extremely defensive. Then they get defensive because the minister sets out to try and straighten them out and then there's all this business about "we're not consulted" and that kind of thing. Well, frankly, I don't think it's a question of consultation any more. This question has been around a number of years. The former Attorney-General - the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) - has raised it and dealt with it, but nothing really happens. Well, I would hope that something is going to happen.

Frankly, I would very much like to see an inquiry, not an inquiry in terms of a royal commission but the type of inquiry that might be dealt with by a House committee. The reason I say that is that you want to be able to get people to come to this committee who somehow don't feel that they have to go to a committee armed with a lawyer and somehow they have got to be able to make that kind of cross-examination. Rather, it would be an inquiry hearing from people in the province, a lot of whom are small shareholders - the people who, from time to time, get very badly ripped off. Give them an opportunity to make some kind of presentation. At

[ Page 3226 ]

the same time, the industry would make its presentation.

There are some serious questions which I think need to be looked into when you look at this kind of inquiry. I was quite astounded to find, in talking with people on Howe Street, that the idea of underwriting really isn't underwriting anyway. Underwriting -which is a very nice name and sounds very official and makes you think that they are operating like they do in New York or somewhere - on Howe Street really amounts to the particular person who wants to float the stock and who has to guarantee all but about 15 per cent of the action. There is really no basic commitment by the underwriters in this kind of thing. That's not underwriting as far as I am concerned. There needs to be some look at that kind of operation.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

There is the mystique - to me - of shortselling and that kind of thing that goes on down there. Some people actually do this kind of thing. Shortselling is not illegal; it is a time-honoured practice. But very few people make an awful lot of money and an awful lot of people lose out on the basis of those kinds of investments. I don't know what you can do about that kind of thing except to make sure, if the stock exchange has taken the trouble to have what appears to be an extremely efficient monitoring device - I have heard from other sources, particularly the police, that they are not completely happy with the kind of action that that stock exchange takes -that quick action be taken when it needs to be taken. There seems to be some delay and there are some very obvious benchmarks which indicate problems. Somehow they don't move in quick enough.

I understand that in 1976 there was something like $50 million of fraud in the business community, mostly in stocks. About $2 million was recovered. The reason I raise this is because, in talking with some of the law enforcement people, they find there is a very serious deficiency in terms of the Criminal Code. I want to say to the minister that, for instance, with the protection within the Mortgage Brokers Act and the Securities Act, you can go in there and freeze things if there are problems. You freeze the funds. That is within those two Acts. But you can't do that under the Criminal Code; you don't have those kinds of powers. Consequently, cases go on and the money is still there. I asked them: "How long does it take to investigate one of these efforts?" They said: "Well, we usually are able to complete an investigation and move toward laying an information within about six months. But then the prosecution and the appeal and that whole process could take up to three years."

The average is certainly more than a year. In some cases, it's three years and, of course, if they are going to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, it might even be longer.

One of the areas where the public needs to be protected - and I appreciate that this is not a provincial function but it's certainly something, I think, that has to be recommended to the federal government in terms of some amendments to the Criminal Code - is where people have bought stock in a company and there are some elements of are investigation going on or there are serious question: of fraud or that kind of practice. There has got to be an option where they can freeze that. We can do this provincially in terms of those two sections of those Acts, but we can't do it federally. That is where most of the money is siphoned off because most of these people are operating the way they are going, and the only way you can get at them is to lay fraud charges. There is a need to do something about that kind of thing. Presumably the ministers can do something about that at their federal-provincial conferences.

I want to talk for a minute about the question of public governors in the stock exchange. That has been the subject of some discussion. I only want to refer -I'm not going to refer to the minister's recent inquiry - to the public governors vis-à-vis what kind of function they have. There was a very interesting article in The Globe and Mail business section on May 14. I'm sure the minister is aware of it. It dealt with the whole question of public governors. It dealt to some extent with the experiences in the Vancouver Stock Exchange and then talked about what goes on, particularly in Ontario.

I would like to say that it has been suggested by Dr Solandt, who was a public governor on the Toronto exchange for about five years but who is not now on the exchange, that obviously two public governors could not protect the public. He was making some reference to what was going on in British Columbia. I know that the minister has indicated that he would like to see six or seven public governors. I know from talking with people down on Howe Street that that literally scares them to death. They don't want six or seven.

I would hope that if the minister is talking about six or seven, he's talking about six or seven out of the number that presently exists rather than adding six or seven. I think there are 12 governors plus two public governors. I would hope that if you're going to talk about public governors, you're talking about a substantial representation. The representation is important. Certainly I agree with the ministry that you've got to have six or seven.

Where do you select them? You can always find out from other jurisdictions where they've gone to get their public governors. I'm sure that we have an adequate number of people in this province who could serve that role and serve it very well. The main thing is that they not be outnumbered too greatly. If

[ Page 3227 ]

we appoint six or seven and there are a total of 15 or 16 governors, I think then we could start feeling that these particular people have a role to play and they're not just going to be continually outnumbered. Then, of course, if you've only got two, you're not always sure that they can both be there.

There's a continuing discussion about public governors. Some people suggest they're not watchdogs for the public; they're there really to look at the operation, to assist in policy development. Frankly, that's not my perception of what a public governor should be. I think that if the government is going to appoint public governors, these public governors should be acting in some accord with the policies that the government has in terms of the investment community. Now I'm not suggesting that the government has to cross the I's and dot the i's on every piece of policy. But if you're going to have public governors, I think they have to be there to represent the public; they have to be there to have some concern about the small investor. If this thing is going to continue - and it's continued now for 70-odd years and I don't see that it's not going to continue - then the whole question of monitoring this situation is very important.

Part of the article deals with a bit of debate on what kind of money they're paid. Apparently if you're a public governor, you're paid $2,500 a year and you get $100 for a meeting. I know that the two public governors who were appointed by the previous government, one of whom will not be continuing to serve, played interesting roles in terms of drawing up some of the rules and regulations. Not all of them have come to fruition yet.

I might just read this to the minister because I see it confirms something I was saying: "The Vancouver Stock Exchange problems may be met more by government than public participation, but the province's Social Credit government is thinking of enacting regulations drawn up by the NDP that would require up to six of the Vancouver Stock Exchange's 14 board members to be non-brokers." I would hope that's what's going to happen in terms of the public representation. Certainly six out of 14 is an adequate kind of representation. We don't want to get into the business of tokenism; we want to be able to make this work. And I would think that it would be in the best interests for the board of, governors of the stock exchange to want to accept this. They have a long way to go to improve their image and this is going to help do that. Certainly they should be encouraged in every way.

I made some reference earlier to what I thought was their lousy PR. I suggested way back in November when I first met with a couple of them that they take the opportunity to come to Victoria to go see the Social Credit caucus, to come see the NDP caucus and the other people, and tell us what it is they're doing, to tell us what they're unhappy about and not simply stay over there in Howe Street. Every time the flak falls, they run into some kind of air-raid shelter that they've got over there and then pump out press releases which really don't do anybody any good. I would hope to see them improve their PR.

With this new minister, they're going to have a tough time; he's already got them rattled, and I think he's going to keep them rattled. If you're as serious as you say you are about this thing, then it's got to work in a much better fashion.

Am I under a time limit, Mr. Chairman? I've forgotten. Yes, I am.

I want to say something about some of the options that have come down from the corporate and financial services division on their weekly summary. The October 8th edition, 1976, actually had within it, what amounted, I think, to.... Well, it was the annual report of the corporate and financial services commission. It's headed by Mr. Getts, Mr. Harold Herbert, Mr. Tate and Mr. Burner. I understand one of them is not there.

I just want to read from their report:

"As in the preceding year, the bulk of the commission's work during the year under review arose out of decisions by the superintendent of brokers to suspend or cancel the registration of a registrant under ~The Securities Act. In a number of cases so arising, the commission has taken the opportunity to address broad questions of public policy concerning the organization and operation of the securities market of British Columbia and its administration and supervision.

"In our first annual report we expressed the view that our statutory role was to decide cases, not to utter homilies. We have sought in the area under review to continue to observe that distinction. It has nonetheless seemed to us, on occasion, desirable to attempt to contribute to public discussion of issues such as conflicts of interest and the mechanism of public financing by the means of primary distribution through the facilities of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, without at the same time, we hope, obscuring unnecessarily the fine lines between adjudication and homiletic. We have done this because we've been impressed on occasion by the lack of clarity' and precision of the law and administrative practice in some important areas of public policy affecting the securities market.

"It has been our hope that through our reasons we can assist in the process of refining policy and, where appropriate, legislation."

The members of this commission continue to make these observations when they're dealing with various cases. I think that the chairman, Mr. Getts -who, as I understand it, is one of Canada's experts in

[ Page 3228 ]

company law, certainly in this area - has made a number of statements regarding this. Here we have individuals who are dealing with this every day in terms of the problems.

The problems do not appear to be getting any less. So I would be interested in hearing the minister's observations, particularly around the question of inquiry. I don't think that the study on the capital markets quite meets the need for an inquiry into the stock exchange itself - not to make them uptight, but simply to have an explanation of what's going on down there.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm very indebted to the member for his questions. I'll try to answer them as best I can in the sequence they were asked.

Dealing with the storefront office in the member's constituency, the problem was simply that we ran out of space. We couldn't get any more space. I tend to agree with him that it was a very good location. It served a very useful purpose and it's a pity we couldn't have got more space; however, it's an ill wind that blows no good, because by consolidating this particular office with 411 Dunsmuir, we were able to consolidate the debt counselling under one roof, which has served a useful purpose.

As to the question of the stock market and the study and the member's suggestion of an inquiry, perhaps I might just give the member one or two of my own thoughts and try to develop them. Perhaps from those he can see where we're trying to go. The stock market in Vancouver either is or is not relevant to the raising of capital in British Columbia. I don't think that there's any way we can determine that without getting an extremely capable, well-trained, experienced person in this particular field to look at the whole question of capital markets. Now that was not an easy thing to find, Mr. Member, and I think you can appreciate why. In order to get that person we had to find somebody who knew the Vancouver

Stock Exchange intimately - knew how it ran, preferably had something to do with the running of it - but at this point in time was completely free of any involvement with it.

The one person who stood out - if I may say, like a sore thumb - was Mr. Allan Thompson, the gentleman whom we finally did settle upon. I can only go by memory in saying that Mr. Thompson was involved for many years with James Richardson and Sons in Vancouver. He moved subsequently with that company and became one of its highest officers in Winnipeg and now is, of course, completely divorced from the stock exchange - whether in Vancouver or elsewhere - and associated in Calgary. Now having said that, it seems to me that he is going to, with this study, not only determine whether or not the stock exchange in Vancouver is relevant in the raising of capital, but he must by definition at the same time determine whether or not the Vancouver Stock Exchange is administering itself or being run properly.

Now 1 quite agree that one cannot look at the situation in the Vancouver Stock Exchange from the outside in without wondering, and sometimes wondering out loud, just what the devil goes on. I've wondered this out loud and I've wondered it in the press and 1 think that may be t he reason that I've got some people over there nervous. But I'm satisfied, Mr. Member, that if we continue and allow Mr. Thompson to conduct his study, we will not only find out whether or not the stock market is relevant for the purposes of raising capital, but we'll also find out whether or not it is administering itself and being run properly.

Moving on to the point that the member made with the question of statements and material facts and the office in Victoria and so on, 1 want the member to know that we have advertised for two people to take on this task of investigating statements of material facts. They will be located in Vancouver. 1 want the member also to know that the general tendency in the field of securities, as well as, 1 hope, in companies, will be to move more and more key personnel into Vancouver, where the action is. 1 quite agree that that's a problem but the rumour the member may have heard - that most of my colleagues have heard from the Vancouver Stock Exchange, or members of it - that we're somehow going to continue to Yet these statements of material facts in Victoria, and the rumour that the reason that it's going to take so long is because somebody has refused to move to Vancouver, just are not so. We intend to do it over there.

Now one of the things 1 think that 1 ought to mention to the member which is in keeping with the overall philosophy of the government and this ministry in connection with the stock market is that we will be introducing in this House very shortly a commodity contracts Act. This will be the first in the country. We're very, very concerned that the people who want to invest money in stock markets and want to invest money in the economy of British Columbia do so. We don't want to unnecessarily impede them from doing so, but on the other hand we want to make very, very sure that the game is fair. 1 don't think that you'll ever achieve perfection in that regard. I think we've got a long way to go, but 1 think the initiatives that we have put into effect now will, in a very short space of time, go a long way toward ensuring fairness in this particular area of the marketplace.

Now dealing with the point that the member made with respect to deficiencies under the Criminal Code, 1 did not have the opportunity to both listen carefully to the member as well as read at the same time, so 1 only had a chance to take a quick glance at

[ Page 3229 ]

section 28 of the Securities Act. I would refer the member to that Act, which does provide to the superintendent of brokers very wide powers indeed in terms of freezing assets when he undertakes investigations.

Dealing with the question of public governors, I have stated publicly that I thought six or seven would be a good idea, based on the present 14. 1 might say that I have modified my thoughts somewhat on that. I think now that four will be sufficient, provided we maintain a very close look at the situation and be prepared to increase the number if it becomes apparent that that is necessary. The present private bill, which is before the appropriate committee and will come into the House, proposes to increase the number to four out of the present 14, but I do feel, Mr. Member, that it is essential that you and all members of the House understand one very, very serious difficulty with which any government will be faced, and that is finding a suitable person to act as a public governor.

It ties in very much with what I said about Mr. Thompson: it is necessary to find somebody who is very well versed in the workings of the stock market and knows the games that some people want to play, is intimate with the needs of the investment community and at the same time has no involvement. In going over the list of people presented not only from the Vancouver Stock Exchange but brought to my attention by my own department, I can assure the member that's it's a very difficult task to find four, much less six or seven, people who fit that sort of bill. However, I do agree with the member that that's an important principle.

While it may be somewhat irrelevant during my estimates to say this, I want the member to know that I feel the same way about benches of the Law Society. I think it's time that we had lay benchers dealing with matters of discipline. I don't think that it is so important that the lay members of the board of governors be there in terms of outnumbering or being equal in number or even close in number to the remaining members, but I think it's important that they're there to see that the public is made aware of what's going on and to report back to the public, To that extent I certainly agree with the member.

Mr. Member, I perhaps have not dealt with all of your points or have glossed over one or two of them, but in any event those are the notes that I had and I'll be pleased to expand on them.

MR. WALLACE: I just want to raise one or two points briefly. I particularly want to ask the minister what progress he's making as a result of the Gosse report on funeral and cemetery services. An excellent report was produced by Dr. Gosse last year.

I particularly would like to ask details about the local situation in Colwood. I know from contacts my offices had with the minister's office recently that he has already taken some action in terms of the Gosse report to set up a management consultant firm to enquire into the problems at Colwood. I understand there is some problem of jurisdiction as to who has responsibility in dealing with the two particular areas of land, one of which, I gather, was purchased by shareholders, many of whom have subsequently died. The question of who has jurisdiction over that area is in doubt.

At any rate, the essential problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there is some serious degree of neglect of parts at least of the cemetery. I've had personal phone calls and a call on an open-line show by a lady in my constituency who was very distressed at the degree of neglect and the apparent inability of anybody to get the situation rectified. I don't think that's quite fair to say that, because the minister's office has assured me that the consultant firm is looking into the matter to establish jurisdiction.

I just would like to, for the record, quote the very last part of Dr. Gosse's statement. On the very last page of recommendations lie says:

"There should be an immediate investigation by the Department of Consumer Services, either by legal staff or by the retention of a law firm, to determine whether or not it is possible for the Colwood Burial Park Cemetery Company to be activated by finding sufficient shareholders in order that corporate decisions can be made, and (a) if that is possible, to set in motion the necessary procedures to have the company re-activated; or (b) if it is not possible, to recommend what steps should b~, taken to place the Minister of Consumer Services in a position to directly arrange for the proper management and future maintenance of the cemetery."

In other words, the report very clearly recommends that some action be taken.

Before this gentleman became Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs - in fact before he was in this House - I could tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this subject came up with a distressing degree of regularity. This is by no means the first time that a Victoria-area MLA has raised the matter of neglect in the Colwood cemetery. It's a very distressing matter for relatives. Now that the minister has the report and he has some advice from consultants, could we hear what is happening and when we can expect some solution?

On an interim basis, Mr. Chairman, the report made it plain that at least some attempt should be made to cut the grass. Apparently some graves have collapsed and require being filled or in some way dealt with for obvious reasons.

Thirdly, I have a more general question on the same subject. The report points out that there is no

[ Page 3230 ]

regulation of the funeral industry in British Columbia. Qualifications and licensing are not required. In fact anybody can go into the funeral business without any requirement to document capacity or ability or whatever. The report put forward the proposal that there should be a regulatory body. I wonder if the minister could give us some outline as to whether that is "in the works" - if that's not too much of a slang phrase - or whether the minister feels the situation by and large seems to work well enough that we don't need yet one more arm of government. I feel that the report makes it clear that we do need some regulation. I would be interested in the minister's comments.

Another area that I would quickly like to mention - and I'm sure the minister gets more than his share of correspondence on this - deals with the subject of rent control. I shall try to respect the rules of this House and ask the kind of questions I want to ask without impinging on the bill before the House. it still remains a subject about which we as MLAs receive numerous letters.

I wonder if the minister is in any position to say whether or not the basic commitment given at the last election still pertains. I have all kinds of clippings here from the last election which say: "Social Credit Will Not Abolish Rent Controls." It's only a little over 18 months since we had the election and there is one repetitive theme from letters that I receive, particularly from senior citizens. They are now very concerned by some of the hints that have been made public by ministers and others in the government that the day may not be too far off when rent controls will be removed completely.

I might say that in the meantime the publicity which has been given to government proposals has not been well articulated and not well publicized, nor has the fact that we have not dealt with something which was to be retroactive to May 1. To say the least, this is very distressing to senior citizens who read it in the press - which I know to be accurate, but which is confusing for the reason I have mentioned. We're talking about something as though it has happened when in point of fact it has not taken place. When it does take place it will be retroactive to a certain date. When you try to explain all that to a constituent in a letter, the constituent wonders whether he's crazy or his MLA's crazy. Also, it takes up a lot of our time.

I would appreciate any kind of clarification the minister could give in this particular debate in regard to government policy in general about rent control and in specific terms to the senior citizens of this province who are still receiving notices that their rent is being increased by 10.6 per cent. This confuses them since there has been a certain amount of Publicity assuring them that it's another figure, which I won't mention out of respect for Mr. Chairman, who I don't think is listening anyway.

The very times, Mr. Chairman, when I try to get away with a little bit of finesse in this House I usually get nailed. It's obvious that today I could have been all over the ballpark and I'm not sure that it would have mattered. No disrespect to the Chair.

The other important issue - at least I think it's very important - that I'd like the minister to give us a progress report on is the whole question of invasion of privacy, particularly in regard to the subject about which the minister himself has expressed concern, namely the ability of large retailing chain stores to sell the names and addresses of individuals for a fee. Now this was raised, I think, by the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . At the time, the minister was in this House, I recall, and he publicly expressed doubt as to whether he could effectively deal with this kind of problem. I think it was also suggested that since the T. Eaton Co. had gone out of the catalogue business, perhaps the situation would resolve itself.

But I am more interested in the general principle that if I or a corporation or a store obtain names and addresses for one particular reason, let us say, does that give them the right to peddle these names and addresses to anyone else, private, public or otherwise - or political, for that matter? Should these names and addresses be allowed by law to be sold for a price? Then I'm landed with the reception of various types of mail, which I might not be in the least bit interested in, or which might clutter up my doorstep when I'm on holiday, indicating to everybody and his brother that I'm out of town and maybe the house is ripe for burglary. That's just an example of the kinds of problems which arise these days with the distribution of more and more advertising and circular type of mail.

The minister, and I have a clipping here, said back in March of this year that he's considering legislation, but that customer pressure would perhaps be the best way to deal with what is, in a sense, invasion of privacy by Eaton's. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date with the particular steps that he has taken, or is intending to take, either by legislation or otherwise.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am indebted to the member for Oak Bay for his questions. Dealing first of all with the Gosse report, I'm sure, Mr. Member, that you were not questioning the competence of the hon. member next to you any more than he would question your competence when you're dealing with the funeral industry.

MR. WALLACE: No, I just hope he doesn't have me for a customer!

HON. MR. MAIR: Not for a long time, I'm sure.

Mr. Member, the Gosse report is now at the point

[ Page 3231 ]

where we have appointed - or are in the process of appointing - a draftsman to draft appropriate legislation. That makes it very difficult for me to expand too much on where we are going as it's a matter of policy yet to be decided by the government.

But we certainly have taken the Gosse report extremely seriously. I might say that we were very much handicapped by Dr. Gosse accepting an appointment as the dean of the University of Saskatchewan law school because the person ideal to draft legislation, of course, would have been Dr. Gosse himself.

In any event, it is very much on the front burner in our department and I hope that before this time next year we will be able to have something much more concrete for the House to look at in this regard.

Dealing with the Colwood cemetery-Hagel companies bit, I don't think that I am that bad a lawyer, Mr. Member, but I can tell you that I have to reread that whole mess every time somebody asks me a question, because it is the most complicated, convoluted set of circumstances that anybody could imagine. The ownership of land is in doubt; the ownership of companies is in doubt. The whole question is a matter of extraordinary complication, and I think that the very doubt expressed by Dr. Gosse's remarks, which you quoted to the committee a moment ago, indicates the extent of that problem. Now having said that, I want you to know that I'm scheduled to go to the social services committee of cabinet on July 12, if my memory serves me correctly, with the solution that my ministry thinks will take care of the problem. I don't think that the member would expect me at this point to say any more than just that we have got what we hope is going to be a solution.

It's going to require, of course, expenditure of government funds. Quite frankly, however, I can't think of a sum of money that would be too high to finally solve this mess, because it's something that has gone on, as you said, before I was a member of the House. It's gone on since I was in law school, I think. I very much hope to be able to say to this member before too much longer that that matter is under control. It's going to require a great deal of co-operation between a number of people. However, let's say this: we are very much on top of it. Not only do I hear from your constituency, hon. member, I hear from my colleague from Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and his constituents on a regular basis, and I'm sick to death of it and I want to put an end to it.

Rent control - the best way I can answer this is to say that to a large extent rent controls in certain areas are abolishing themselves. They become, to that extent, cosmetic only. I think that in your particular area you will have noticed that some landlords are now advertising two-year, no-rent-raise contracts and: "We'll pay your moving expenses." In one instance which I've cited to the press on a couple of occasions: "We'll pay your dues at the Racquet Club."

Of course, when you get into that level you have no rent control. Taking it from that level and going to the other extreme, I don't think we'll ever see the day when rent controls on low-rental accommodation -that is, for senior citizens or other disadvantaged people who are less fortunate financially - will completely disappear. I don't think that the free market that I can see today will be able to take care of the situation. I could be wrong. I would very much hope as a free-enterpriser that that day will come. All the indications seem to be that that day is not going to come, and so I think that you can assure your senior citizen constituents and other people in low-rental housing that there is no immediate danger of any rent controls being taken off.

Between those two areas, the government has yet to make a decision on this. I can only give you what I as a minister think ought to take place. A de-control programme on a gradual basis, graduating downward in price and also taking into consideration different areas, ought to be undertaken by the government as soon as possible.

In saying that, I would remind members of the House that every province in Canada, I believe, has rent controls of one form or another, and every government in Canada wants to get out of them. Particularly to the members of the opposition I would say that in talking over this matter with the Premiers of both Saskatchewan and Manitoba, they want out just as much as we do. I think the important question you raised is whether or not people who are seriously disadvantaged and are in the low income levels are going to be affected. I cannot see that happening.

In terms of invasion of privacy, Mr. Member, I don't foresee any legislation at this stage of the game. I stand by everything I've said with respect to Eaton's. I think it was an appalling display. I mean no harm to Eaton's or to anybody else but I certainly think that any customer who chose to take out his disaffection in terms of lack of trade with such a person would be well justified in doing so.

I think, however, that you first of all run into a very serious question of the constitution - whether or not you are passing criminal legislation and so on - if you want to deal with it effectively. Secondly, I think that in order to accomplish this particular end, however important it is, you would have to create a new bureaucracy, the disadvantages of which would far outweigh any advantages you would gain. So I think this is one area where the public reaction itself is the best safeguard that we have to prevent the reoccurrence of this sort of situation.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like a quick clarification of the minister's answer about rent

[ Page 3232 ]

control. When I said that some hints had been given publicly that changes were to be expected, I should have quoted from the Victoria Times on June I when the minister was reported as saying there would be areas where it would be considered for either removal or phase-out of controls before this year's end.

Could I be very clear on the question I was asking? Does the minister mean there will be certain areas of the province, whether it be Vancouver or Surrey or Prince George or wherever, which will be designated as having a certain ceiling perhaps? Again, it's very difficult to debate this and ask the questions without getting into trouble with Mr. Chairman, but what I'm really trying to avoid using is the phrase "prescribed amounts." The minister's statement of June I in the Victoria Times, together with his comment today, still leaves me uncertain.

Can senior citizens assume that, depending on where they live in this province, there will be differing levels by which rent may be controlled or there may be no rent control at all if the vacancy rate for rental units rises above a certain point? Am I understanding this as the minister's explanation?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the minister that perhaps it would be better to direct the debate through the Chair? It's very comfortable now, but if the tone gets accusatory it must be directed through the Chair.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Through you to the member, I think that it is important, first of all, that we recognize that the percentage that has been hitherto held to be a ceiling in fact has become a floor in most cases. This is the problem. It is very easy to get rhetorical about it and say, "we should have this or that sort of a ceiling, " but it just hasn't worked that way.

To answer your question directly, with this injunction I cannot tell you right now what the government policy could be but only what I think it ought to be. I don't foresee any de-control in the types of housing that you are concerned with because I don't see the vacancy rate getting sufficient to allow that kind of de-control without hurting the very people who couldn't afford the results of it.

MR. WALLACE: Anywhere?

HON. MR. MAIR: Anywhere. No, but I certainly see that there would be a distinction between certain areas in any de-control programme. I don't think there is any question about it because the vacancy rate is bound to vary from area to area. To do it on a blanket basis would be to work a great injustice on some.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I thank the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for waking me up this afternoon. The Colwood Burial Park is in my constituency and I had intended to say a word or two about it.

I just want to get this very clear, because many of my constituents are concerned about this, Mr. Minister: did I understand you correctly to say that on July 12 you will have a solution to the problem?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Esquimalt, no, I did not say that. I said that I am going to the social services committee of cabinet with what my ministry thinks is a reasonable solution to the problem. That, unfortunately, even if my cabinet colleagues agree with me, need not be the end of the matter because I can tell you that the solution, as the member for Esquimalt well knows, is not one capable of easy resolution. But I think that we have made this much progress: we have now got a proposed solution which I am hopeful my colleagues will agree with me should be proceeded with. Thereafter it's a question of bringing it to resolution, but I don't know what more I can say than that.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it was raised in the early part of the minister's comments, but there is some considerable concern in the downtown east-side area of the constituency of Vancouver Centre with respect to the lack of protection, both in rent control and under the Landlord and Tenant Act, to those people who live in hotels and rooming houses that rent by the week and by the month. Several letters have been exchanged between myself and other people in the community and yourself, Mr. Minister, and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . The letters that I have received in reply from the Minister of Human Resources, I can state regrettably, are most unsatisfactory. The explanation there seems to be truly an excuse rather than trying to address the problem forthrightly and have it resolved.

If the statute will not admit of any solution, then the statute should be amended and it should be amended as quickly as possible. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this problem is of such a serious nature that the government should have attended to it long before now. There were amendments made by the previous administration to the Landlord and Tenant Act. I think it's section 3 where certain rooms that are in rooming houses and hotels that are rented by people who use them as their permanent residences can be designated and thereby come under the protection of both rent review and the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Now these people are suffering eviction without cause. They are having their rents fluctuate without a review by the structure that was set up under the

[ Page 3233 ]

provincial government and they are costing the taxpayer a lot of money. It's very simple; a person who rents these accommodations can be evicted without notice for various reasons. Their rent is quite often paid by the Ministry of Human Resources. Let's say they've paid for a month or two weeks in advance and they're evicted after three or four days. That's what happens in many cases. They go back to Human Resources and they have to get another accommodation and Human Resources does not collect back the money from the landlords of these hotels and rooming houses. I think that if you check with the Ministry of Human Resources you'll find that's happening. I know that's under the purview of the Minister of Human Resources, but the legislation is under the minister's jurisdiction, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr~ Rogers in the chair.]

Now surely, after all of this discussion and exchange of letters and complaints going back and forth, some solution can be found. Either we increase the staff of the rentalsman to have these places designated and properly policed, or we change the legislation to designate whole areas as coming under the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I never did understand, either under the previous administration or under this administration, why the whole area can't be under the protection. These are not tourist hotels. Clearly 99 per cent of the people who stay in these hotels are not transients. We like to think, and accept the mythology, that the people in the downtown east side are transients. Not at all; it's one of the most stable communities in terms of permanence of residency of anywhere in the city. There are 2,000 people on social assistance who are affected, and there are considerably more - about 2,000 or 3,000 more - who are not on social assistance and who also require this protection.

The United Church, the Downtown East Side Residence Association, St. James Church, and all of the institutions and organizations in that area have been of one mind from the very beginning with respect to the protection for those people under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Review Commission jurisdiction. I'd think that because of that tremendous support and the one mind of the entire community with respect to it, the government should act. I don't think it's going to affect the tourist trade and it's not going to hamper freedom of trade in the hotel industry by coming to grips with that problem in a particular area of the city. They're not going to go away, Mr. Chairman. These people are going to be there, as they have lived for many years. They're just going to continue to suffer without government action.

Now the last letter that I received from the Minister of Human Resources, as I say, was most unsatisfactory. It talked about the SAFER legislation being of some assistance to them. It's clear that SAFER can be of assistance to some people as tenants in the province, but I think that even if it applied - and 1 understand it does apply to people in the downtown east side - it's not going to help them in terms of their high rents.

Landlords and hotel owners, it seems, take up the slack. Whether there's an increase in social assistance, in whatever form it takes - SAFER, or an increase in direct assistance - the landlords manage to increase the rents in a short period of time. That money ends up in their pockets and does not greatly advantage the tenants in this situation. So that's not going to be of significant help to these people.

Secondly, the Minister of Human Resources in his letter to me indicated that the rentalsman's staff is not sufficient to carry out this kind of investigation. Well, 1 answer that on two grounds: one is that the staff should be supplemented and increased, and greater reliance on the very good and excellent voluntary associations in that area should be made by the rentalsman.

Secondly, if increasing staff is not sufficient to properly . designate these areas to come under the protection of the legislation I've mentioned, then the legislation should be changed and it should be changed in this session. We cannot allow these people to be at the whim and fancy of landlords when the rest of the province have the protection of this good legislation. It seems to me that it is discriminatory and most unfair to say that a person who rents an apartment in the west end of Vancouver Centre comes under the protection and that the person who rents a room or housekeeping room in the east side does not. That's a discrimination that 1 know the minister does not support, but it seems to me that he would be tacitly supporting that if he took no action in this regard.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to say that 1 share the concern of the first member for Vancouver Centre very much. The same consideration troubles me, however, that troubled my predecessor in this government and his predecessor in the member's government.

If 1 thought that by implementing the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act that are there to be implemented 1 could cure the problem, 1 would. 1 think that if the member could come forward with some amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act which would enable me to cure the problem, 1 would be very happy to recommend them to the government. But the more 1 look at it and the more my staff look at it - not only just the rentalsman's staff, but also other members of my staff - it appears that it's a problem that must be solved by Housing and Human Resources, and that any solution that 1

[ Page 3234 ]

come up with is simply going to be a cosmetic one of short duration which is probably going to cause more problems in the long run than it's going to cure.

I feel fortified in those comments by the previous Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) of the previous government, who obviously felt that he could not bring in the proposed changes that the member has suggested today.

I don't have any answers. I wish I did. It's a very thorny problem. I have been very pleased to receive copies of the correspondence from the member for Vancouver Centre. I have asked my department to investigate it to see if there is anything we can do to alleviate the situation, and I am satisfied as a result of what they have told me and my own investigations that left alone I can't do it. But I will give this undertaking to the member opposite. I think the problem is of sufficient seriousness that I will get together immediately - when I say "immediately, " I mean within the next couple of weeks, as soon as the opportunity arises - with both of my colleagues, the Human Resources and Housing ministers, to see if we can't come up with some joint solution. If we are unable to do so, I am sure there will be ample opportunity for the member opposite to take me to task for not being able to do so, or to give me some suggested solutions of his own.

However, dealing strictly from my own portfolio's point of view, I cannot see that there is anything that 1 could do that would be anything other than cosmetic and of a very short-term benefit.

MR. BARNES: I'm quite pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and also to renew an old acquaintance back on the greens of Quilchena, was it? Yes.

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. minister is, I think, a very dedicated, hard-working minister who is sincere in his efforts, and he certainly is forthright. However, Mr. Chairman, I just want to go back a way in the session, and remind the Hon. minister of a few requests that I used to make across the floor, and letters that have been written to his ministry and himself asking to be included in any of the investigations respecting the housing situation and any changes that might be contemplated as far as landlord and tenant affairs are concerned.

I must say I was disappointed, because at no time did the minister indicate his interest in involving the community in any decision-making. I know you had a special cabinet committee at one time investigating the prospect of either removing rent controls or changing the allowable amount over the year. I think we've gotten ourselves into a bit of a jam because of a lack of consultation with the community groups. I'm thinking of some of the tenants' organizations, such as the Grandview-Wood lands tenants group and a very new one in the West End.

I know that on several occasions you were written - not only yourself but the Hon. Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and I think at one time the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) as well -asking to get some response on briefs that included many of the concerns mentioned earlier by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . They included boarding and rooming facilities in hotels. There are many in the core of the downtown area that had not and are not being really considered as residences but are put in the category of being transient, where people are known to have lived for the past 20 years or so. As far as they're concerned, they consider that their home.

So these are the kinds of discrepancies. I don't think it's good enough to just say the former Attorney-General had a problem as well, because he was experimenting with these things. I think although it was provided that the Minister of Human Resources could designate, at some point in time, these facilities for a control, that was during the time of the Rent Stabilization Act or whatever it was called. It was Bill 75 at the time; it was the first bill dealing with rent control and did not have the advantage of experience. As you know, there were plans to change that to something more comprehensive.

So the thing that I'm suggesting is that there are briefs on file - I'm sure that they were submitted to you, Mr. Minister - that were not responded to, which quite clearly explained the arguments and concerns. People who rely on the use of rental accommodation justifiably want some protection and some feed-in, some feedback, some communication with the minister. That's not to suggest that you would buy everything that was being suggested, but you would listen.

It's been known that there are many problems with the rentalsman's office, for instance. It's a bit bureaucratic; it's removed from the people generally. That's not to suggest that the rentalsman isn't attempting to do a good job. It doesn't mean that he's not sincere; it's just that he's not accessible. lie can't be everywhere.

The tenant problem is one that prevails all over the province. It exists everywhere, not just in downtown Vancouver. Certainly there are many people who give up on the possibility of having their case heard and having someone available to listen to their specific complaints. One example I can think of, for instance, is when you contract, say, on a rental accommodation for cablevision, parking and other facilities that go along with it. Whether it be a swimming pool or whatever, the landlord can deviate from that commitment. In fact the Rent Review Commission quite often will even approve of these changes.

[ Page 3235 ]

I'm thinking of the contracts with the cablevision, for instance. In one case 1 think Premier Cablevision applied to the CRTC for a change in its rate structure to reflect its costs, even though there was an agreement between landlord and tenant at a certain cost which was to be included in the annual rent increase and not to be reflected by any other additional costs. Just the same as the AIB would say the figure is 8 per cent or 6 per cent - there can be no exceptions. But in the particular case of cablevision, the CRTC, in co-operating with the Rent Review Commission, allowed Premier to make these changes. They were charges in addition to the annual increase, which is another example of how the tenants' rights are not protected, because that was a violation of the contract between the tenant and the landlord. I'd like to know if you are aware of that problem and if you could comment on it.

The one aspect that disturbs me the most, Mr. Minister, is the method which you've made reference to yourself in talking about the prospect of changes. You should realize that there are others involved who are concerned and who care and who are not playing politics but who want to see a good service not just for the tenants but for the landlord and for the community, who want to make sure that the whole question of providing accommodation for people is done as equitably and as fairly as possible.

Some suggestions have been coming around about rent control being removed. There was a headline last April: "Possibly Rent Controls Will Be Removed." And we wonder where that idea comes from. Who said so and based on what facts? Who has been .consulted? On the one hand we have letters flying into the ministry seeking opportunity for consultation to make recommendations - and no comments.

1 made inquiries in the question period last February, talking about rent controls, and 1 asked the minister if he would indicate what groups he was discussing his proposed changes with. You say, Mr. Minister: 'Well, it's a matter of policy that rent controls will be removed." Incidentally, that is contrary to what you were campaigning on in the last election because you said you wouldn't touch rent controls.

MR. LEA: You wouldn't put up taxes either.

MR. BARNES: But in any event you suggested that it was a matter of policy, and more or less regarded my question as frivolous and rather meaningless. I was rather disappointed because 1 seemed to feel that you thought 1 was trying to just play politics rather than be sincerely concerned about the tenants.

1 know there is a bill on the order paper to change the present maximum allowable increase for rents and that I would be out of order if I were to discuss that matter, but certainly you know as well as I know that there is an example of why there should be consultation and why we should discuss these matters on a non-partisan basis, if you will, in the interest of the community and those people who are most affected. At the present time we have a very serious problem in the community, and I'm hoping you will call that bill for debate at the first opportunity so that we'll have a chance to raise it.

Now if the minister would care to comment first of all on some of the questions that I've raised before I go into any of the other points, I would be glad to give you an opportunity to do so.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, I too am very glad to recall the happy days we spent on the Quilchena golf club. I remember very well the sight of that hon. member walking through the bunker on the 18th green pulling his cart and bag up onto the green to the horror of the greens committee. But first of all I'd like very much, Mr. Member, to deal with the suggestion you have made.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: If you don't want to hear it, Mr. Member, I won't bother. I'll move on to something else.

MR. BARNES: These guys are disturbing me.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, if they disturb you I assure you they don't disturb me.

I want to discuss one particular thing with you, Mr. Member, and that's the suggestion that I have not consulted with tenants' groups. When the B.C. tenants' council was over here about a week or 10 days ago, I met with them, Mr. Yorke and all of the representatives in one of the rooms nearby here for that purpose. They made the same suggestion. I challenged them to give me one piece of evidence that I had not met with anybody who had wanted to meet with me. They couldn't do so. Now it may be that some of my predecessors were guilty of that; I don't know. I leave that for you or somebody else. But to the best of my recollection and the best of the evidence I have in front of me, I've answered all the letters that I've received on the subject and met with everybody who wanted to meet with me.

Now I think you must also understand that in terms of consultation there is a rent commission and these gentlemen under Mr. Patterson, a very able civil servant, are constantly in touch with all groups -landlords and tenants. The consultative process, of course, goes in that manner as well it should. I'm sure the members opposite who were in cabinet until 1975 would agree that if they did not have the help of

[ Page 3236 ]

senior civil servants in matters of this sort, government simply couldn't be possible.

Now dealing with the question of the rentalsman's office, I'm supportive of the rentalsman's office; I'm supportive of the rentalsman himself. I think he does an excellent job. You haven't given me any specifics that I can deal with, so I can only say in general terms that I think that in a very difficult area - an area of constant confrontation, aggravation and irritation -the rentalsman's office by and large does a good job. Obviously they must have times when they don't do as good a job as they could, where they make mistakes where they perhaps add to the irritations, but I think on balance they do a good job and I think they ought to be commended.

On the question of cablevision I would like to, if I may, Mr. Member, take that sort of question on notice because the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised that in a question to me about four or five months ago. I did come back with an answer and it's in Hansard. I can either dig that out for you or I can provide you privately with the answer to the cablevision question. We went into the matter with some care, received the ruling from the rent commission on that matter, and I did give it, as I say, to the member for Oak Bay in the House in an answer to a question. I frankly don't remember precisely what it was, but I can, if that's satisfactory to you, Mr. Member, dig that out and see that you get it.

The question of rent controls - I don't know whether the committee wants me to go through that again. I think, Mr. Member, I answered that question in response to a question from the member for Oak Bay, covering the whole problem of rent control and de-control and what programmes the government is considering at this time. May I just repeat that all governments in Canada, to my knowledge, have some form of rent control and all governments are trying to get out of it, including the governments that are NDP. The precise method we use to accomplish this and to what extent we go, of course, is a matter of policy which will have to be formed and will be brought to the attention of the House in due course.

I want to assure the House once again that it is not the intention of this government to put people who are disadvantaged, by reason of their age or financial ability, in any worse position by reason of rent de-control. But on the other hand, we must encourage rental starts where they can be encouraged by reason of a decent vacancy rate.

Dealing once again with the problem that you have raised and which the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) raised, I don't want to re-answer the question to you. But let me say that the problem in that area, as the first member for Vancouver Centre - being almost my age and a native of Vancouver like myself - well knows, has been there since the beginning of time, or as long as there has been that area. The fact that we have not come up with answers to it in the last 18 months is not really all that devastating when you consider that nobody else has. I think the important thing is that we recognize that there is a problem. I'm grateful - and I'm sincere about this - to the first member for Vancouver Centre for raising these issues with us. I want you to know that I will try the best I can to see that my colleagues and I come up with the best solutions available. Whether they're sufficient or not remains to be seen, but we will do our best.

MR. BARNES: To follow up, you indicated that you had had some indication of a problem with the cablevision some several months ago from the member for Oak Bay. I must make one correction: it was Vancouver Cablevision which I was talking about, not Premier. At least that's the particular information that have.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think it's the same problem, though. I think it's occurred in several different areas.

MR. BARNES: I think that the thing we should do at this point, Mr. Chairman, is just review an example of the problem with the cablevision thing and the contract that tenants have with landlords. This particular notice came from the Harley House, which is in my riding of Vancouver Centre down on Nelson Street. It was a notice to all tenants about the increase in bulk cablevision rates. It says:

"In December the CRTC approved an application by Vancouver Cablevision for an immediate increase of 75 cents per month on the bulk rate. This was intended to be passed through to tenants as a surcharge on January 1,1977, but we have been able to negotiate a delay to February 15,1977."

So at this point the tenants are being made to feel they are being given a deal of some two months before the landlord breaks the contract. That's what this in fact is saying.

"However, this surcharge will be added to the cable rate effective March 1,1977. The new rate charged to the tenant is $1.25 per month instead of 50 cents charged previously.

"It will be of interest to you to know that the individual cable rate, when not handled through the landlord, is $5.75 per month. So this subsidy is still significant. The Rent Review Commission has approved this increase as a pass-through to tenants' surcharge."

Well, first they indicate they are going to give the tenant a deal by negotiating an arrangement whereby the surcharge will not be effective until March 1, and then they suggest that the alternative to this deal that they are providing for them is to buy individually for $5.75 instead of the $2.50, if they wanted to do it

[ Page 3237 ]

outside the bulk rate.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The tenants shouldn't be exposed to this type of blackmail, because they had a contract. This is the point I'm making. They already had a contract. Why were they not consulted? Why should the CRTC be in a position to negotiate with the Vancouver Cablevision or anyone else and why should the Rent Review Commission be approving it? This is the thing that I find rather perplexing.

Here is a letter written to the Minister of Justice by Mr. Harry Williams, who is one of the tenants who had this problem. He wrote the letter in February, 1977, to Mr. Basford. He says:

"I received your reply to my letter addressed to the Anti-Inflation Board, October 27,1976. Thank you for your immediate response. Enclosed are photocopies of responses from the Anti-Inflation Board regional office and the Rent Review Commission. It may be of interest to know that we did not receive a reply from the rentalsman's office.

"Anti-Inflation Board letter, October 29,1976, attached. 'Profits are to be held to 9.5 per cent while wages are held to 8 per cent. The AIB is certainly doing its job well: the poor get poorer, the rich get richer. It is unbelievable that the AIB is not concerned about the high residential rental increase solely because of the Landlord and Tenant Act, the reason being that the Landlord and Tenant Act regarding the maximum ceiling, if you wish, of 10.6 per cent residential rental increase came into effect on November 30,1974, whereas the AIB came into effect on October 14,1975.

"Again the question arises: is AIB so naive as to believe an 8 per cent increase in wages covers the 10.6 per cent rent increase, which was established almost a year before the AIB, and also covers gasoline prices, which are expected to rise further because of the energy conservation programme? Are the prices going to rise so much that transportation to and from work becomes impossible for the working man? Is this expense tax deductible? If not, why not? Perhaps the AIB goal is to discourage a person from working.

"Rent Review Commission letter, November 4,1976 attached. Since my last letter the so-called cablevision surcharge will be increased by 125 per cent. See attached notice. CRTC approved this huge increase and, being a government body, is exempt from AIB regulations. Is the government really God or is it trying to break the people down? A number of apartment houses do not charge this fee to their tenants. Is it mandatory?

Again, he is trying to get the Rent Review Commission to explain how the contract works.

"When the 10.6 per cent ceiling on rent increases was established, please explain what it i s s u p p o s e d t o c o v e r . T h e not ic e-of-rent-increase form states at the bottom that rent for unit includes hot water, water charges, heat, cablevision, elevator, garbage collection, municipal taxes, swimming pool.

"A further response clarifying these points would be appreciated."

H e is still waiting, apparently, for some clarification on what was supposed to be a contract. I would think that that problem still exists today. You say that three or four months ago, Mr. Minister, you had some representations made to you by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) . You didn't have any difficulty whatsoever in making an announcement that you were going to lower the maximum increase on rents - which, incidentally, hasn't happened, and I don't know how it ever will. I won't get into that, because there's a bill on the order paper.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of urgency as far as people are concerned out there who are paying this money. Are they going to get it back? How are they going to get it back? Have their contracts been violated? Has there been a breach of contract on the part of landlords who have been surcharging these people erroneously? What are you going to do about it? You said three or four months ago you had representation. Why is it taking so long? Is this not a matter of urgency? I would feel that you would have been quite anxious to go and find out what's going to happen. Chances are nothing is going to happen. Now if I'm wrong, you point that out to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing is going to happen in what respect?

MR. BARNES: That nothing will happen. In other words, another three or four months will go by, we'll have an election and we'll have more promises and those people will just be out of pocket. This is why I say the rentalsman's office is not really all that encouraging to the people who need it. They have written letters, made phone calls, even camped out in front of the office, but they have no answers to these problems. I'm sure that if you were to canvass the renters you'd find that many of them just throw up their hands and say: "Oh, well, if we got to pay, we got to, pay. If we don't pay they'll kick us out." The rentalsman isn't helping this situation, nor is the Rent Review Commission when it operates really behind the backs of the people and helps to breach contracts. When you, as a minister, get a representation and say,

[ Page 3238 ]

"Well, I have got to go back and check Hansard and see what I said, " I think it is a pretty serious situation.

Really, the thing that's bothering me the most I can't talk about. The thing that I would really like to talk about is that bill that you've got here. I believe you must have put that bill on there to make sure we couldn't talk about it. That's a very clever move on your part. I would love to debate the bill. You call that bill, I'll tell you, and we'll get down to it, because that's one bill that's causing a lot of trouble in this province. There's a lot of people out there who don't know what to do. They don't know what the law is. May I is long since gone by.

On the other hand, as I said. before, I don't think the minister is consciously or deliberately trying to be unfair. I think the problem simply is that he hasn't the orientation or the input he needs so that he could make a fair judgment. I'm sure he would if we could just get him to spend a little time with us.

You've been suggesting that you will be bringing in changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act that will make it more equitable for management, for apartment operators and owners, because it may have been a little unweighted in the past on the side of the tenants. Well, that may or may not be, but rather than make a prejudicial statement I would again suggest that we should have consultation. We should be sitting down and having group discussions with the people who are affected. I know a fair-minded minister like you wouldn't have any objections to doing that if you were convinced that it would yield any benefits.

Certainly I feel that the people who are working every day as volunteers - most of them - in the tenants' organizations are very disappointed in your ministry, at least in this one area. They don't feel that you are listening, but you are making lots of statements suggesting that rent increases may be lowered without consultation - no figure in mind based on any of the economies in terms of the realities of cost, just an arbitrary figure that you drew out of a hat- I don't know where you got it from -suggesting that you're going to balance up the Landlord and Tenant Act so that apartment owners will begin to get a fair shake; suggesting that....

lnterjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, that's what was stated. You can claim that you're not going to do that, but the suggestion that has been reported in the press is that the legislation has tended to favour tenants more than the other side and you want to make it more even. All I'm suggesting is that you may be right, but by avoiding the people who are working in the field, who are spending hours working as community service groups trying to listen to people's complaints, who are trying to defend their rights, who are trying to act as advocates on behalf of people who are locked into some of those places without any representation or opportunity to be heard, you are going to have difficulties forever.

Could you answer one other question before I sit down? What is your view on the rent review triumvirate? That is a kind of three-part representative review commission where there is a tenant representative, the landlord, and someone in a neutral position - perhaps from the government -who would be in a position to advise the rentalsman's office or the Rent Review Commission. In fact, it might be so localized, Mr. Chairman, as to be separate units throughout the community that would deal with the real economies involved in what the rent should be.

Rather than say, '~we're going to remove rent controls altogether, " they say, "we'll leave it up to the factors involved." In one community maybe you have a point. You suggested that in some districts you may want to remove rent controls. I don't know where they are, but you will be talking about that. That's your suggestion. But that suggestion should be based on the economies, should be based on the cost factors, and should be based on the realities of which people are going to be affected and whether it's going to be in a low-income area - that is, people who are paying rents of $350 or less. Right now I think the low-income level would be $400 or $500 a month.

What could happen is there might be a backlash, Mr. Chairman. You could have a serious backlash if you removed rent controls thinking that just because you have an abundance of luxury apartments vacant - say, $500 a month or more - the crunch has subsided and the market is stable enough to protect itself from collapse. I don't think it would be an accurate guide rule just because there are a large number of luxury suites available. When you take that into account with the total number, you're going to get a true picture of where the needs are, Mr. Chairman. I think many people are afraid of that. What you may do is encourage more people to convert to more luxury apartments.

That is one of the things I'm suggesting. Why make a definite decision? Why not just allow some flexibility through consultation? It may be that those very people you have been afraid of will suggest to you the very same thing you're talking about.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm not afraid of anybody, Em.

MR. BARNES: Yeah, I guess you're not afraid of them but you have avoided them.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh no!

MR. BARNES: Yes, you have. Do you want me to

[ Page 3239 ]

read one of your letters? I've got a letter here that you wrote to Mrs. Margaret Dewees over at the Grandview tenants' association. You deferred her letter. I talked to her personally at the time I got this to ask her if you ever did reply. She wrote you back and you said: "Well, if you ever need any further consultation, be sure and get me. But remember, I'm busy."

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh! No!

MR. BARNES: You said: "Remember, I'm very busy in my office and the session is on."

HON. MR. MAIR: I talked with her last week!

MR. BARNES: You just forget. You dictate these letters so fast.

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

MR. BARNES: I can appreciate that you are busy, and I think you probably didn't mean that to put her off. But you did say on January 27,1977: "At this point in time it is very difficult for me to get away from the Legislature since we are now in session, as you know. However, if you feel there are matters that ought to be personally discussed with me, please do not hesitate to call." She has called on many occasions.

HON. MR. MAIR: Not me.

MR. BARNES: Well, I don't know; she said she had. I've got a brief here that she says she also sent to you which should have given you the benefit of a lot of work by that organization before you made your decision to do a number of things that you have done. This is what I'm saying. You may be right, but at least have the benefit of knowing that there is no one out there who can claim they didn't get a chance to talk with you, because this is where the problem is.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll take another series, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wish the minister to withdraw the suggestion that he and I are about the same age!

HON. MR. MAIR: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I'm much younger than he is.

MR. LAUK: With respect to the question I raised, I appreciate that the minister will take some action, at least, to continue the dialogue and that the door isn't shut. The problem that I'm faced with is that I don't see what the problem is. I didn't see the problem with my colleagues in the previous administration and I don't see the problem now. Maybe I'm a little slow, but it seems to me that when hotels and rooming houses are substantially used for permanent residences, there shouldn't be a problem. The Act should automatically apply. If it is a situation where you have a rentalsman's officer make a determination on the spot, pursuant to each and every complaint from that area, you could do it that way. It seems to me a little bit.... I'll wait until your deputy consults with you because I'm providing this ingenious solution.

The rentalsman officer receives a complaint. I'd like to deal with the whole rentalsman's office in a moment. They receive a complaint and that officer investigates by contacting the landlord, the neighbours of the tenant and the tenant, depending upon the complaint. They deal with the correspondence or whatever - the leases or other material that he or she can make a determination on. One of the determinations that that officer can be empowered to make is whether or not this is a permanent residence and whether it should come under the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act, subject to the usual course of appeals that is available. There is a problem with that in terms of staff, and it's cumbersome and so on. They are already working very hard. When it comes to this kind of discrimination and when one considers in a sensitive way the suffering that is going on on the part of these tenants, that seems to me to be a very commendable solution.

A second solution could be this: designate the entire hotel and the onus would be on the owner or operator of the hotel or rooming house to go before the rentalsman and prove, after serving all of the tenants in that hotel with notice, that in fact this is a hotel and that they rent by the day to tourist traffic and to transients - in a nomierogatory sense - who may from time to time wish to rent a room. That seems to me to be a commendable solution.

First of all, I doubt very much if you'd receive any appeals, because in this area as everyone who is familiar with it well knows, this situation has prevailed for many years. I don't think it's a problem for people with the particular lifestyle of living in rooming houses or hotels. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for these people as tenants, these hotels would be empty. There is no question about that in my mind. It's not a question of competition because there really is no competition. At least two-thirds and perhaps more of the tenants in these hotels and rooming houses are on social assistance and it is a relatively fixed amount that the landlord knows full well he will be able to collect from the tenant. So it's not a question of competition either.

I think those are two solutions that can be provided - one requiring an amendment and another

[ Page 3240 ]

perhaps not. It's not enough for us to throw up our hands and say it's going to be difficult. No, in our administration we knew the job wouldn't be easy and we knew that there were sonic special problems involved. But providing a nondiscriminatory, just system for all British Columbians who are tenants, although no job for the faint-hearted, should be enthusiastically pursued by any administration. 1 think that those are two possible solutions.

Dealing briefly with the rentalsman's office, it seems to me that when any administration or any legislature passes an Act to protect landlords and tenants or to bring in a good management basis between the parties, one has to look carefully at the relative social and economic positions of one as opposed to the other. 1 was disturbed at the minister's statement that perhaps the pendulum has leaned a little bit too much in favour of the landlord, and 1 suppose the minister would like to explain that.

HON. MR. MAIR: It's on tape.

MR. LAUK: Not having heard the tape, 1 understand it lasted for 18 minutes. But the minister did make the statement and it was unfortunate that he did, probably not because of what he had in mind, but because of the unfortunate publicity it got in my riding. It was very unfortunate because now most of those tenants there won't vote Social Credit, you see, and I'm very disturbed about that. I've done my best to try and quell the rumours and discourage any thought that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be in any way prejudiced against tenants. Now 1 haven't breathed a word of it.

HON. MR. MAIR: 1 even got a letter of complaint from Herb Capozzi.

MR. LAUK: I've said several things about it. Yes, 1 wouldn't doubt it; he's one of the landlords. 1 would think, Mr. Chairman, that that's an unfortunate statement.

But I'd like to discuss the roles of landlords and tenants. Certainly there are tenants who are disruptive, cause damage, disrupt other tenants, don't pay their rent, and who, through faults of their own, are delinquent in many respects. They cause constant, 24-hour headaches to landlords and their servants.

It seems to me, though, that there's a situation that is sort of undercover by the nature of the status and the economic power of a tenant vis-à-vis a landlord. What 1 have found in the West End and other areas of the city of Vancouver is that a great many tenants are simply not aware of the protections available to them under the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Rent Review Commission; that's a very important point. It's not for us to tell the rentalsman to get out there and advertise; he hasn't got the budget or the staff. But it may be appropriate for the government, through this ministry, to conveniently supply -- and by requirement through regulation - an information bulletin or brochure, in a simple step-by-step basis, to tenants who move into these tenancies, particularly in the city of Vancouver.

Security deposits are still being paid. Security deposits are still being withheld for illegal and improper reasons under the current legislation. These are constant examples that are raised to my colleague and I every day. Illegal rent increases are being paid. They're illegal in the sense that they are not within the 10.6 per cent range. Extra charges that were specifically prohibited under the legislation - for garbage collection, carpets, swimming pool, sauna, billiard room or whatever -- are still there. Landlords are still manoeuvring around the legislation and in fact, disobeying it. All right. You could certainly say that the majority of them are not, but a sufficient number of them are, causing great concern to my colleague, the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) , and me. We receive complaints on a constant and daily basis.

Now what's the problem? Unlike the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) suggestion, when you have two MLAs in a constituency the size and nature of Vancouver Centre I don't think you can realistically expect my colleague and I to attend to our duties in the Legislature and other important duties as MLAs, and become rentals officers in our riding as well. It's totally impossible. We have files and files of letters. We encourage them to go to the rentalsman. Our secretaries in the ridings are trying to deal with the problems. We just can't cope with that problem. These people are unaware of the simple steps available under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the help and assistance they can receive from the rentalsman. Once an officer receives a complaint, then I'm satisfied that officer is carrying it out. This is another point I wish to make.

DERA and other organizations are making complaints, specifically about the rentalsman. Now some of them, I think, are valid. A great many of them are based on a misunderstanding - that is, they take examples of the lack of enforcement of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the rent review legislation and so on, and say that's the fault of the Crown agency in charge. In fact, it's the fault of lack of information on the part of tenants and landlords. If they had sufficient information, these complaints could be brought in a precise way to the rentalsman's office.

I would encourage the minister to produce a brochure, not necessarily with his picture and "Smile" button, but if that's the only way to get him to produce one, well, I won't object. I'll table one in the House and make a minor complaint only, I

[ Page 3241 ]

promise. With the amount of press we're getting lately there's no worry about that. But it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that would be very helpful to tenants and landlords, but specifically to tenants.

The last point I wish to make is that when tenants have seen a breach in the Landlord and Tenant Act, either through improper withholding of security damage deposits, improper raising of rent over a period of time, and so on, and they have prosecuted, they have even gone to court, they have not been able to enforce their rights.

One of the other problems of the Landlord and Tenant Act is that really, substantially, if they feel that there's been a breach in the tenancy agreement, either by operation of law or separate agreement, the Act says simply - and it seems to be something concerning judges who deal with these matters - that the tenancy agreement can be considered to be at an end. Well, that may suit the landlord very well indeed, but it's certainly not helpful for a tenant in the West End, where the vacancy rate is not high for affordable accommodation for middle-income groups. It's not very high at all. It's practically nil. But in terms of their rights, they should have some avenue to enforce their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act or a tenancy agreement without having to treat the agreement as being at an end and vacate the premises. That is just a way for the landlord to breach the Act and to force the tenants to vacate, having that as a motivation from the very beginning.

That's a loophole in the Act that should be plugged. I don't think judges also are treating seriously enough the protection for the tenants under that Act. If they were, I think that the rentalsman would have less to do. If judges could create a precedent in a number of these areas to protect tenants, the rentalsman's office would be a little bit quieter than it is today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer at least some of the questions in the time available for us before the adjournment.

Dealing with the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the question of cablevision, I can, if you want, go through the rather complicated procedure that went to the Rent Review Commission and caused the problem. I'm going on memory and, as I say, if the member would do me the courtesy, I would prefer to provide him with a written answer which I already have in my office. I'd be delighted to do that. I'll table it in the House. If you want me to try and exhaust my memory on it, I'll do it now.

MR. BARNES: Well, I'd like to get both.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll table it in the House, if you like.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to get your opinion.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well ' in my opinion it's a loophole because the landlord was able to go to the Rent Review Commission and get this as a cost pass-through, then pass it on to the tenant, and the tenant was left with a remedy against the landlord in court, which he found to be a rather hollow remedy because he was suing for a minor amount of money and didn't have the money to do it. You know, that obviously is very troublesome.

As a matter of fact 1 remember it very well because that eminent writer of letters, Mr. M.P.B. Wrixon, had a personal visitation in my office about the subject.

I d like to deal also with the question of amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act. We intend to bring a number in, of course, in this session of the House, hopefully, and we will deal with the question of the essential services and these pass-through situations that have caused problems.

On the statement that both members of Vancouver Centre attributed to me considering the weighting of the Act, I'm now, 1 think, gradually learning that on slow news days you don't see newsmen, because that's when an eminent member of the media came in and asked me about it. What 1 said is that the Act prior to the new Act coming in in 1974 or 1975 - the Act that the NDP brought in -was obviously loaded very heavily in favour of the landlord, not by reason so much of the sections of the Act but because the tenant had to go to court and that was a very complicated, expensive procedure, and it in effect made it a landlords' Act. I said also in connection with at least two areas that I can think of - that is the area that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) raised a moment ago -the question of non-payment of rent and being generally a bad tenant doing damage, 1 think to that extent the Act is now tending in favour of the tenant. 1 think that those things ought to be cleared up and 1 think under those circumstances it would be a very well-balanced Act indeed.

In connection with the whole question of rent de-control, it's very, very difficult to debate these things in the abstract. I've told you that the government is going to come forward with a policy, and when it comes forward it will be debated in the House, I'm sure, in one way or another. To debate it now without knowing what it is is very difficult.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and not proper.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you, My. Chairman. 1 quite agree.

1 think 1 can very quickly deal with the first member for Vancouver Centre's last points. The two solutions that he has advised me about concerning the

[ Page 3242 ]

East End of Vancouver I will take under very careful advisement. I mean that very seriously. I'll look at it very carefully and I'll ask my staff to look at it.

In terms of the information brochure, I want you to know, Mr. Member and members of the committee, that we did indeed plan such a brochure. Unfortunately, there are so many changes in legislation planned at this point, we have postponed any thought of that until the new legislation, hopefully, is through the House.

I think that the committee ought to know that we are now in the process of drawing up terms of reference for a management consultant to look into the whole question of the running of the rentalsman's office and the Rent Review Commission. I hope to be able to give the House and the committee more information on that in due course.

The question of tenants not being able to enforce a breach: this is indeed a loophole in the Act, as the member has properly pointed out. I'm instructed by my staff that we have already got proposed legislation ready to take care of that particular loophole.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.