[ Page 3499 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Jury Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 72) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 3499

Pesticide Control Act (Bill 46) Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 3499

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 71) Hon. Mr. McGeer.

Introduction and first reading –– 3499

Fair Share of Property Tax Payment Act (Bill M213) Mr. Barber.

Introduction and first reading –– 3499

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates.

On vote 195. Mr. Skelly –– 3515

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3499 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3515

Mr. Barber –– 3503 Mr. Macdonald 35'. -1

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3508 Mr. Lea –– 3516

Mr. Skelly –– 3509 Mr. Macdonald –– 3517

Mr. Cocke –– 3511 Mr. Barber –– 3517

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3511 Mr. Lea –– 3518

Mr. Skelly –– 3511 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3519

Mr. Macdonald –– 3513 Mr. Barrett –– 3520

Mr. Skelly –– 3514 Mr. Kahl 3–– 3524

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3514

Presenting reports

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry annual report, January 1 to

December 31,1976. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3526

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you some very fine people in the gallery this morning: my wife Sheila, my son Gregory, and my wife's aunt and uncle, Etta and Frank McGee from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

JURY AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant -Governor: a bill intituled Jury Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 72 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.

PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pesticide Control Act.

Bill 46 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.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 71 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. i

FAIR SHARE OF PROPERTY

TAX PAYMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill M 213, Fair Share of Property Tax Payment Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day c for second reading at the next sitting of the House' after today.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I rise I to ask leave of the House. to call Motion 13, standing r in my name on the order paper.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That motion will be called in due course, but in the interim it would seem to me that the opposition would be more interested doing the people's business by passing supply and considering legislation.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, request for leave is not a subject for comment by the Attorney-General. I would expect you to call him to order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wanted to know when it was going to come on.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I asked for leave, not for a political cheap shot.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Political cheap shot! You have a facetious motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: You're afraid to debate it; that's what it is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We said it's going to be debated in due course.

MR. BARRETT: You're disgracing the Speaker by not calling it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a facetious motion, 11-considered and badly drawn.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the hon. members please restrain themselves.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 195: minister's office, $147,856 - continued.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Chairman, due to time constraints last night I did not have an opportunity to make any response following first debate on this particular vote.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

[ Page 3500 ]

caused a heavy run on no-doze tablets in drugstores nearby. He also, I note, emptied the galleries, including the press gallery, over the period from about 9 o'clock to adjournment at I I o'clock.

I can tell him, Mr. Chairman, through you, that I lost no sleep over the scathing and vicious attack that was obviously based essentially on newspaper articles and, to a certain extent, hearsay.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Zilch research.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not sure if Zilch is still in there, but I know someone else who's leaving from that particular party's research office. Perhaps we'll hear about that at some time. Nevertheless I think it is important, Mr. Chairman - the hyperbole of last evening and the selective recall notwithstanding - to point out just a few parts of the lengthy statements made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , who is apparently the chief critic of this ministry for the official opposition. Not only was he in some difficulty in terms of research, but he was in fact incorrect. I don't say he was deliberately misleading the committee, but he was incorrect in terms of the information which he presented to the committee and which he at least felt was relevant to the debate. I have the Hansard Blues for last evening and will deal with the various points to the best of my ability as they occurred.

We see that after he set the stage, Mr. Chairman, he indicated that this particular minister has demonstrated several failures and has not acted in a number of areas. He went into one detail, and I think that members of the committee will be interested because it really sets the tone for the balance of the evening, when one reflects on it. This is not an arguable matter; this is a fact. The hon. second member for Victoria, early on in his comments, said: "The first instance that came to our attention is in regard to the Assessment Authority, for which the minister is responsible." That's wrong; that's not correct. He refers here to the minister as being "this minister" - presumably the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

He also said in the same paragraph: for which the minister is responsible, at least as its leader in the House" - that is also wrong - "and as its one-time chairman." I have never been the chairman of the Assessment Authority - then, now, or at any time since it was established. So the member unfortunately was wrong.

The particular Act to which he referred has never been under this Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing or the former Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but from the beginning was under the Ministry of Finance. If you would care to recall, Mr. Chairman, as members will, I'm sure, the Act establishing the

Assessment Authority of British Columbia was passed in the 1974 session when the socialists were in power. The former Premier, as Minister of Finance, introduced that particular legislation.

1 find it also strange, Mr. Chairman, that the member who led off the discussion last evening can claim in any way that I was not involved in having the amount granted to the Assessment Authority being increased from $1.4 million to $4.2 million. 1 don't think we're infringing upon legislation, since it is a statute, but I have to identify section 16 of the Assessment Authority Act, which outlines how the grant is arrived at. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, by applying that section this year, last year and in previous years from the time of its introduction, we would have had a grant of $1.1 million. Realizing that this would place a very unfair burden on local taxpayers, my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , was able to increase the grant to $4.2 million for 1977.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You had your turn and undoubtedly you'll have some others, Mr. Member, so just relax. Cool it.

Undoubtedly the member used this example, as we see from Hansard, in an attempt to point out that this cabinet is in dispute, that 1 can't smile at the Minister of Finance whom I've called publicly "Dr. No." We have just a terrific relationship. Occasionally he says yes. 1 think that's what a Minister of Finance is really all about, Mr. Chairman; he can't always say yes. But 1 want to assure this committee that 1 have the highest regard for that Minister of Finance, for his responsibility and for his willingness always to listen to both sides of a story.

Consultation - yes; co-operation - yes; dealing fairly and squarely, one minister to another - yes. Maybe they did not in that government which was defeated in 1975, but in this government, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is no.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is no?

Nonetheless, it was part of a thread which the member was trying to weave into something, but he kept dropping the stitch. He indicated that I was powerless, that I was locked in battle with the Minister of Finance. Well, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities didn't think so. Mayor Duke of Lumby wrote on March 11 a brief letter, Mr. Chairman. 1 think it should be read into the record since so much was made last night of lack of co-ordination, lack of consultation.

Interjections.

[ Page 3501 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: 1 wouldn't have you as my social worker if you were the last one in British Columbia.

Just to clear this one up, I will quote from the letter of the president of the UBCM addressed to me.

---I was delighted to hear of the announcement by the Hon. Evan Wolfe of the reinstatement of the provincial grant to the

Assessment Authority.---

This is the closing paragraph; it's a two-paragraph letter:

"I would like to thank you for your support in this matter, which is another example that reason and fairness can prevail with co-operation and communication between our two levels of government."

If the committee wishes that letter to be tabled when the committee rises, I'll be happy to do so. It's a letter from the president of the UBCM in March of this year after we discussed among ourselves and after 1 consulted with the Minister of Finance and other ministers involved, and it was found possible to increase the grant to the Assessment Authority.

But 1 repeat: 1 wasn't the chairman of the Assessment Authority. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Why couldn't you do it before the budget came down?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, 1 don't think that member, as a member of opposition, can , possibly know what goes on in cabinet. If he does, then there's something seriously wrong somewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. CURTIS: He does not know of the co-ordination and consultation which takes place between cabinet members, so a large part of his statement last night is based on hopeful guessing, or whatever it may be,

He dealt with the McMath report briefly and he indicated that there was another cabinet fight. "The problem is the report was killed."

MR. BARBER: The research stages that were left were killed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The hon. second member for Victoria again saw some sort of disagreement, but it was a cabinet decision. 1 participated in that decision and 1 think that the McMath commission terminated when it should. 1 said so at the time and 1 say so again today. The hon. member is wrong in that assumption as well. He is wrong again in his review of this particular ministry.

Then he got a little stronger in this particular line of debate. Later in the evening he said: "This minister has repeatedly and spectacularly failed to consult with appropriate authorities." Mr. Chairman, 1 have spoken already about consultation. 1 believe that with a change of government, no earlier full-scale meeting between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs - the Ministry of Housing, as it was at that time - and the executive of the UBCM could have taken place than was the case in mid-January of 1976. On January 14,1976, approximately three weeks after the government was formed, the first full-scale, all-day consultation with the UBCM took place.

You will understand, Mr. Chairman, that the very nature of this ministry requires that a great deal of consultation with UBCM - the table officers, the president, the executive director and the full executive, on occasions - must take place. That's really one of our main contacts with local government in British Columbia. I think that it's very safe to say that at no previous time in the history of British Columbia has there been such regular, consistent and co-operative consultation between this ministry and the Union of B.C. Municipalities. They are here all the time, as they should be, and we have had a number of meetings which have lasted for many hours.

MR. BARBER: Because they're attacking your policies - the development permits.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wishful thinking, Mr. Member.

Mr. Chairman, 1 could go through a lengthy list, but I think it's best to summarize by challenging the hon. second member for Victoria, when he takes his place in the debate again, to name one instance - just one....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh. oh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you in pain?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you're making sounds. Mind you, that's like your speeches.

MR. BARBER: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like the member to indicate one regional district or one municipality in the province of British Columbia since the beginning of 1976 where, subject to adjusting times in terms of convenience for one party or the other, 1 have refused to meet with a delegation or to receive a delegation, a mayor, an alderman, members of councils, members of regional districts, or refused to consult with them not just in my office but in terms of extensive travel in British Columbia.

[ Page 3502 ]

Kamloops, Williams Lake, the Peace River-Liard Regional District, Sidney, Whistler, Kitimat, Kelowna, Vancouver, the mayor of Vancouver, Tahsis, Port Alice, Keremeos, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the district of Langley, the township of Langley, Port Coquitlam, the city of Coquitlam, the Capital Regional District, Coquitlam again, Williams Lake, Central Saanich, Port Hardy, 100 Mile House, North Vancouver city, North Vancouver district.

Mr. Chairman, if this is tedious I'm sorry, but I was accused last night of lack of consultation. These are documented meetings taking place between elected representatives of communities and regional districts in British Columbia from January of 1976, to date. In fact, last week alone, I met not just to say: "Hello. How are you? Good-bye, " I met formally and officially with staff representatives, with representatives of two regional districts and two municipalities.

So, Mr. Member, criticize if you will. But don't accuse me of lack of consultation with the people at the local and regional district level in this province, because it just ain't so, Mr. Member. It just is not so.

MR. BARBER: Tell that to the seven regions involved in the Islands Trust.

HON. MR. CURTIS: If I have to bore the committee for a few more minutes, White Rock, the Capital Regional District again, Port McNeill, Alert Bay, Port Alice, Oak Bay, Mission, Kelowna once more, the full UBCM, Prince George, Saanich once more, Kamloops, Merritt, Chase, North Vancouver once more, the Saanich Peninsula communities again, Nanaimo, Surrey, representatives of the council of Hope, Revelstoke, Kimberley, Cranbrook, Sidney once more, North Saanich, West Vancouver, and so it goes, from the time of early January, 1976, until as recently as just two or three days ago.

So, Mr. Member, you were wrong again - wrong again. Your research was not very complete.

MR. BARBER: But the conclusions were perfectly accurate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now then, we turn to the Islands Trust. Here it's very touchy, I realize, because there is an amendment bill before the House. I don't think I am going to give you any difficulty because on two occasions in debating the bill, and again last night, the second member for Victoria, with his selective recall, pointed out that there was a walk-out of island trustees from a meeting just several weeks ago. Well, what kind of a walk-out was it? Three trustees out of 29. That's a really big split.

MR. BARBER: Were all 29 at the meeting?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that's okay. I don't mind that. But, you see, he didn't bother to tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, that just one week later -eight days later, perhaps - there was another meeting where all trustees were in attendance and where the difficulties of the previous meeting were resolved to the satisfaction of most, if not everyone.

MR. BARBER: Did the walk-out occur or not?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now selective recall I don't think is fair in debate, Mr. Chairman. If you're going to cite one meeting, cite the second meeting as well.

I've been accused of not consulting with the Islands Trust, Mr. Chairman, and of a failure to consult, in any sensitive or thoughtful way, with representatives of the trust and with the islanders themselves.

I participated in a full meeting in March of this year - a full meeting, with the general trustees and the local trustees - following introduction of a bill which is now before this House, full consultation going on for as long as the committee wished. Now, Mr. Chairman, I've indicated several instances where the member is wrong, is incorrect - not deliberately, I'm sure, but incorrect - in what he has cited to this committee as he opened the debate on these estimates.

Well, then he went into the housing side of the ministry and he spoke about "an exodus from this province of some of the best minds and talents and skills we ever had, " and he made this statement several times through the next several minutes of the discussion last evening.

Well, he's wrong. He hasn't done his homework. He hasn't researched. He's working on old figures. He's working on stale information, because while it's very early, we see in the first three months of this calendar year, 1977, a reversal, Mr. Chairman - are you phoning for sandwiches? - of the outflow from British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: He's phoning for the no-doze.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, we saw through 1975 and 1976 a net outflow of families from British Columbia. I wasn't happy about that; I don't think any British Columbian would be too happy about that. We saw that there were more people leaving than coming in, and indeed I referred to that in some earlier remarks. But now on the basis, not of guessing, not of how we feel or what I think I should say this morning, but from family-allowance statistics, we see the trend is reversing. Why is it reversing? Because they are over there, the socialists are in opposition, and we've returned to a government which is attracting people to British Columbia. So let's have the facts - not what you want to say, or what you

[ Page 3503 ]

think should be said, Mr. Member, but the facts. The people are coming back to British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you don't look at the stats.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You weren't listening, Mr. Member. 1 said that on the basis of family allowance statistics for the first three months of 1977, the trend is reversing. We have more people coming in than are leaving. Now those are stats.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch on a couple of other things. We have legislation now for shelter assistance for the elderly renter. The bill has been given royal assent. In debate, perhaps because he was short of material, the second member for Victoria referred to the real authors of the programme: the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , and the present Deputy Minister of Housing in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's not good enough to say: "We were about to do it. We were going to do it. We thought we'd like to do it, but we didn't get around to it." As 1 said in that debate, without reflecting on it to any great extent, we did it. This government saw the need, saw the first development of something in the Ministry of Housing and brought it through cabinet discussion, through caucus discussion, finally put legislation together and introduced it on the floor of this House to assist thousands of senior citizens of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: Just like you did Sea-Bus all by yourself too, eh?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, we'll talk about Sea-Bus. We'll talk about Sea-Bus a little later, Mr. Member, so just hang on. No sweat; no problem.

Here 1 really think the Chairman last night perhaps permitted some latitude which should not have been given. I would like the Hon. second member for Victoria, before he comes in this House to comment on my estimates or before he comes in this House to debate legislation, to research the legislation which is before us, because he spent considerable time last evening criticizing this ministry for what he identifies as a flaw when in fact it's in legislation which is now moving through committee stage in this House. Read the bill. Wrong again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: 1 read everything you say and everything you've written.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong again!

I'll have some comments later on co-operative housing, but it also indicates, 1 think, incomplete and inaccurate studying and research by the second member in his lead-off remarks as critic for the official opposition.

Mr. Chairman, there are another one or two which could be touched on. He spoke about the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia and the need, perhaps, for some review of that agency. He indicated that the interest rates which are available to municipal issues in the United States are treated in a preferential manner to those of Canada.

MR. BARBER: Sometimes by some authorities they have preferential treatment. Quote it properly.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened last night, Mr. Member, and I think, through you, Mr. Chairman, that you would listen today.

He said there may be something wrong with the MFA, with its expertise, with its talent and with the people who work for it. Well, there's no organization which cannot be improved. But the basic flaw in that particular statement last night was that municipal bond issues in the United States are tax-free. They're tax-free; of course they get a preferential rate. They're not tax-free in Canada.

MR. BARBER: They should be.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They should be? That's bailing out. Wrong again. They're not tax-free so of course they are going to be preferential in the United States over Canada. They're going to have to pay a little more. I thank the member for again indicating his lack of research or perhaps his lack of research assistance - I don't know which it was.

Mr. Chairman, there will be an opportunity later, I think, to deal with more items, but the whole thrust last night was to point out errors in this ministry from December, 1975, until the present date. I don't mind that when it's based on fact, not fiction.

MR. BARBER: For a member who's suffering from no-doze withdrawal, that's not bad. For a minister who said he didn't lose any sleep, I wonder when he found the time to write the speech.

I appreciate what the minister said about the Municipal Assessment Authority, I apologize if I falsely gave the impression that he was the chairman of it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: At least get the title right!

MR. BARBER: If the minister would listen for a moment I will tell him that I apologize for having misnamed that authority. I was referring, of course, to the Municipal Finance Authority, of which the minister indeed was at one time the chairman. The Assessment Authority, indeed, is the property of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) .

That was the argument that I was making last night, Mr. Chairman. Had he succeeded in cabinet,

[ Page 3504 ]

the budget that came down would not have had to be amended later because of the pressure they received from the UBCM. The whole point of my argument about this minister's lack of influence in his own cabinet is that he lost to the Minister of Finance. Now one does not ordinarily lose to that particular Minister of Finance, because we all know what the man's like. The idea of losing to that particular minister is an astonishing event. The fact is that had the minister succeeded in cabinet, they would not have to have done an about-face several weeks after the budget came down. Again I apologize for misnaming the minister's position. He most certainly was not the chairman of the Assessment Authority but of the Finance Authority.

If he had succeeded they would not have had to reinstate the $3.1 million that was cut; if he had succeeded that would have been in there all along. The point is he failed. The point is that only municipal government with its pressure and its influence over the Minister of Finance managed to beg it back in. The logic is obvious and the conclusion is inescapable: if he had succeeded, it would have been no issue. He failed, it became an issue and those who fought the issue won. The minister obviously tried to fight in cabinet and lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, Charlie.

MR. BARBER: I'm disappointed to hear that the minister believes that the McMath report should have been stopped when it was. I was told that that was not his position, that indeed to his credit he had argued that the remaining stages of research that were to have been undertaken should have been allowed to continue. That's what I was told. If I'm wrong I regret that and I regret that the minister should have taken such a position. I had hoped that indeed he was on the side of further research to further document the material that had come before the commission.

The minister omitted altogether his losses to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when indeed in two years we see that 11 additional mills have been added to the school tax, thus rebuking all of his promises about property tax in B.C.

The minister omitted altogether the argument that he has lost consistently to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , because indeed municipal councils have had to make up the difference when the Minister of Human Resources has cut back on social services. The minister didn't talk about that at all. Thirty-five social service agencies have their hand out now at the city of Vancouver because this minister has failed to protect municipal government in the province from the onslaught of the Minister of Human Resources. No municipal government should be forced to pick up that difference. All of them are being forced to pick up those differences because their alleged defender in cabinet has failed against the attacks of the Minister of Human Resources.

Finally, the Islands Trust, which was the fifth example I gave of the minister's lack of influence in his own cabinet.... The minister surely will not deny that just a few weeks ago the Premier repudiated his own position in the House and indicated that second reading would be adjourned until after the June 21 meeting with the regional districts.

Not only has the minister failed to consult on any important matters of legislation in advance with the authorities affected but he apparently even failed to consult with the Premier, who repudiated and rebuked him that night on the floor of the House.

The minister seems to think, Mr. Chairman, that a lot of travel means a lot of consultation. The minister seems to think that as long as he gets around the province enough by car, plane, boat or however he does it, then he's engaged in consultation. Well, consultation is not simply a Cook's tour of municipal governments. Consultation does not simply mean that you show up on someone's doorstep, put your hat down for a few minutes and say: "I'm here. Let's talk." Consultation is more than just a Cook's tour of municipal government that says: "By the way, how are you feeling today?"

What the minister has spectacularly and enduringly failed to do, in advance of the profound changes in municipal, housing or transit legislation that he has announced, is to take anyone into his confidence at all, save in his own little office. Because what we've seen is that this minister, once bringing forward a bill like Bill 42, has had further to entertain amendments because it was criticized heavily. I'm referring, of course, to the develop men t-p permit section of that particular bill. Had he consulted in advance, there would be no such criticism because the bill itself would be enormously more satisfactory. The fact that the minister on those several occasions has failed to consult, although he may have traveled a great deal, tells us that he has simply omitted altogether the opportunities for advice and later for consent that he should be taking.

The other examples I gave included the Islands Trust, the, Mount Stephen housing proposal in Victoria and transit. The minister didn't talk about any of those.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes. We may have to give that a subtitle when it comes up.

Now the minister failed to speak to a number of issues which we raised last night. That may be because he does not think them important - that's fair enough. It may be because they embarrass him -that's probably accurate enough. What we

[ Page 3505 ]

demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, I think, was that the minister cut the senior' citizens. housing construction budgets from $10 million to $4 million and offered them free campsites instead. That will come back to haunt him for a long time. He tried to get away with a weirdo deal involving the Mount Stephen lands in Victoria. Because we found out in advance, we were able to stop a deal whereby the province had picked up for $200,000 land that they later proposed to sell for $600,000. We discovered the advertisement in an obscure legal journal published in Vancouver called the Journal of Commerce. After our having discovered that, the minister was forced to back down.

The chaos into which the Islands Trust has been thrown is now a matter of public record. There was indeed a walkout. To their credit and not the minister's, they've been able to patch up some of their differences; to their credit and not the minister's, they continue to operate. It's increasingly obvious, though, that the Islands Trust is in conflict with regional districts and in conflict with the minister and indeed has been unable to pursue the previously happy and successful course that it was pursuing under the previous administration.

The minister did not reply to my readings from the past of his remarks about the secret police force in the province of British Columbia. I was hoping that he might repudiate his own remarks.

Apparently he's not going to. He seemed to indicate in those days that a secret police force was being created. That was never true and it isn't true now. It seems to be something much believed by some members of their government; it's certainly not believed by any member of the public.

When speaking the minister indicated that he would speak about Sea-Bus. He didn't do so and I would like the minister, if he's not going to withdraw his secret police remarks, at least to get up and credit the real authors of that programme - the people who worked and fought and struggled and imagined and hoped and dreamed a bit to bring forward a new form of transportation in this province. Let me name them again: Jim Lorimer, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs; and Vic Parker, the former head of the transit bureau. Under the Dave Barrett administration those people created Sea-Bus; under this administration that minister is content to take all the credit and to share none at all with its real authors. I wish you'd nail them a bit.

We indicated as well, Mr. Chairman, that there were at least eight instances of neglect of duty. I'd like briefly to go through them again and hope that the minister might care to respond. He indicated that he might a little later on.

The minister has had in his hands a mess in the field of mobile homes that in our view does not reach solution within his bill, although the minister obviously feels differently, and we'll debate the bill when it comes.

The minister has led an attack on co-operative housing. The minister has cut funding for the United Housing Foundation. The minister has shown no leadership, no interest and no commitment whatever in the field of co-op housing. Neither has his government. Indeed, philosophically, this government is entirely opposed to the co-operative housing movement.

The minister has done nothing whatever to honour his promise to pay the province's fair share in property taxes to municipal government in British Columbia. So this morning, having realized just last night that he would indeed fail to honour that promise, 1 introduced a private member's bill. I'm confident that this minister will support the bill because the language of it is drawn from his own statements in this House and because the language of it is drawn from advertisements published in the Victoria Times in November and December, 1975, by my colleague from Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) . The title literally is taken from Socred campaign literature. So I know that at least this Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) will support the bill, because it's their own bill. It's their own language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can't discuss the bill now, Mr. Member; the bill will have to be discussed when it's brought up for debate in the House.

MR. BARBER: Which I hope will be very soon and which 1 am sure will ensure its passage when it comes along.

1 asked the minister if he was not willing to consider an inquiry at the earliest possible opportunity into the conflicts presently going within the community of Saltspring. 1 advise the House that in our view the fact that this conflict should have been riding and bubbling for so long and the fact that the minister has failed for so long to do anything is further evidence of neglect of duty on his part.

1 talked about transit, and the minister did not talk about transit, in the city of Victoria. We've seen no leadership, no results, only the promise of a bill and only talk about transit in greater Vancouver. Even in that case, Mr. Chairman, the transit committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, unless the minister has evidence to the contrary, continues to this day to scratch its head in bewilderment and wonder just what the minister has in store for them. There's been no consultation of any importance over it at all. They don't know what's coming down the tube and neither do we. Hopefully the minister does, and hopefully he might be willing to take, without revealing the actual detail of legislation, at least the GVRD transportation committee into his confidence. Hopefully he will

[ Page 3506 ]

soon take regional government in greater Victoria into his confidence as well - GVRD in Vancouver, CRD here.

Our argument, Mr. Chairman, is that the neglect of duty is on two fronts. The neglect of duty is his failure to consult with transit authorities in greater Victoria or greater Vancouver because, at least as they've informed me, none of them know what's coming down, none of them know what to expect, none of them have been consulted in any important or serious way.

I I indicated that the minister is unfortunately suffering as the minister and as a member of that coalition cabinet for the fact that earlier this year there were endless allegations of scandal and conflict of interest which are now being investigated. I asked the minister last night if he would be willing to table whatever reports he's received to date. The minister has not answered that question. I hope he will. If not, I'll keep asking it.

We indicated that the Quesnel Green proposal was a model version originally intended to be occupied by the Norman Bethune Co-op. It has indeed been a commercial flop. Of the 282 units, as of a month ago - the latest date on which I have information - only 17 had been sold. Our point of view is that the decision to convert what was to have been a co-operative into a condominium on a market where we already have too many condominia, in a market where already that entire aspect of it is completely soft and there's no demand, is economically very foolish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This was covered last night.

MR. BARBER: That's right. What I'm asking now is whether or not the minister in his reply to our own remarks last night might care to answer a few of these questions. He did not do so in his first remarks this morning. In our view, Quesnel Green is an example of maladministration of a very serious order - for example, of a decision that cannot be justified economically or socially, a decision that's gone all wrong.

The final thing that we put in regard to our concerns about the minister's neglect of duty is his utter failure to exercise any wit or imagination whatever in the description of new forms of urban government and urban possibility in this province. The minister has displayed an absolute failure of imagination. He has displayed an absolute boredom with the exciting, hopeful, promising possibilities that local government might come to encompass in this province. I've never heard him speak with any imagination or conviction or vigour or boldness about any of those subjects. I hope he does; maybe he'll do it today and I'll be glad for it. He hasn't done it at all, and the failure of vision of that magnitude, in our view, Mr. Chairman, is a very substantial failure indeed. Hopefully the minister will reply to some of those remarks.

When we were ending last night, 1 was putting forward a proposal for a royal commission on local government, and I'd like to conclude my remarks by finishing that. 1 mentioned last night that it seemed to us that it should have at least five principal terms of reference. 1 hope the minister might care to comment on them.

The first would be to examine the role of local government in the context of the Canadian constitution, which is under considerable duress at the moment and a subject of much change. It seems that that would be a reasonable thing for such a royal commission to do.

Secondly, there should be an examination of federal-provincial cost-sharing for purposes of local government, specifically transit, again within the framework of constitutional change as it's now occurring in our country and within the framework of desirable change as such a commission might determine it.

Thirdly, 1 was proposing that the royal commission on local government might be prepared to look at new forms of local administration. Those new forms might include metropolitan, regional, amalgamated and neighbourhood government, and other new forms and experiments that are now being carried on in jurisdictions throughout the western world. It seems to me none of us should be afraid to take a look at those things. None of us should be afraid to be challenged and tested a bit, and to ask whether or not some of these new forms might not be a little bit more appropriate than some of the old forms which we've previously inherited.

Fourthly, 1 asked the minister if he would consider asking the royal commission to examine the whole question of property taxation as it relates to services and to forms and substance other than property itself. In particular I ask the minister to take a look at relief from all school taxes and relief from taxes for police, sheriff, cultural and other public services that are not directly related to property. The minister and the present Premier have on many occasions indicated that the property tax as a source of revenue for those services is simply obsolete.

Later, if the minister wishes, I'd be happy to read into the record one of the statements made by the present Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition in which he specifically said: "The property tax is obsolete as a source of revenue for those services." We agree with him. It seems to me that the fourth term of reference for such a proposed royal commission on local government would be an examination of the whole field of property taxation, with a view, in effect, to abolishing it for its present purposes. It seems to many people, evidently including that government, Mr. Chairman, that it

[ Page 3507 ]

served its purpose and that other forms have to be found.

Fifth and finally, the minister has frequently said that had he the opportunity, the resources and the staff, he would rewrite the Municipal Act. It's a cumbersome, slothful, awkward mess of an Act with almost 900 sections and it's a very difficult thing to administer. It seems to me that the final, logical and rational thing this proposed royal commission on local government might do would be to draft a model Municipal Act. On the basis of its studies, its research, its documentation, its analysis and its conclusions, it would go on to draft for the people of British Columbia a model Municipal Act which might answer some of the questions and deal in some of the debate. It seems to me that would be a very reasonable and scientifically logical thing for such a royal commission to do. It would certainly be something of vast interest to the public.

That was the third proposal that I had put to the minister. The first was in regard to the terms of reference of the Municipal Finance Authority, suggesting that indeed there might be improvements and grounds for improvement there - the second being the royal commission. The third I think the minister could undertake right away. I'm sure that to some small extent members of his own staff and that of the deputy minister on their own initiative presently do these things. But I'm aware, as the minister certainly is - indeed, he's the one who first told me - the staff level of the Department of Municipal Affairs is really very small. The staffing level of this department compared with many others in Canada is really very, very low indeed. I'm not referring to the quality, I'm referring to the numbers. There may be good reasons for keeping the staff at such a low level. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I doubt it. It seems to me that one of the problems faced by this ministry is not simply the delay, which I gather has been reduced from an average of four months to perhaps two months now in processing bylaws.... I congratulate the minister for that and I'm aware of it....

HON. MR. CURTIS: About 12 months to two months; with Lorimer it took a year or longer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Very true, as well. He used to put them in a drawer and forget about them.

MR. BARBER: That's not what I was informed by a couple of your own civil servants, Mr. Minister. However, I'm content to take your word for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Victoria has the floor. Let's not interrupt him. Would the member please continue to address the Chair?

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I would urge the minister to consider is the creation of management assistance teams within his department. The purpose of this proposed management assistance team would be to travel especially to those smaller rural municipalities, villages and councils throughout British Columbia, bearing with them and incorporating in themselves a body of financial and administrative and personal expertise which on the spot, through training and workshops and advice in the present, could provide to smaller local government throughout British Columbia expertise that they just don't have available right now.

Specifically, this proposed management assistance team traveling to these spots could be involved in creating a kind of cost efficiency, which in many of these municipal councils simply doesn't exist, by pointing out to them superior management and budgeting procedures. A management assistance team could engage in the experiment with some municipal councils if they wished to try it. It's now being engaged in in many other jurisdictions. I'm referring to zero-based budgeting.

Zero-based budgeting makes a lot of sense for some small jurisdictions; it makes a lot of sense for certain kinds of public enterprise. It makes sense and it's something that could be experimented with. A management assistance team with the ability to travel, incorporating in itself the experience and the ability and the expertise along these functions, could assist many municipal governments in creating the kind of economy and efficiency of operation which at the moment they don't have because they don't have the skills and resources inherently in them.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.)

It seems to me that this could be a kind of traveling resource group, Mr. Chairman, traveling at invitation to municipal and local government on a smaller scale in this province, and that it could provide a very great deal' of important practical assistance to them. They could provide advice and consultation regarding personnel matters, regarding finance matters and regarding taxation that at the moment is only available by phone, by correspondence, and sometimes not at all because the work load is too heavy. This kind of personal human touch is often required in order to show people at this level of local government of which I'm speaking how to become a little more efficient; how to run an operation a little more economically; how to engage a little more sensitively where personnel problems arise; how to learn about the new forms of administration and management, including, among others, this interesting device called zero-based budgeting.

[ Page 3508 ]

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that this would be a very worthwhile exercise. It's hardly a very political one; I don't think there would be political objection taken to it. The minister acknowledges that his own department, compared with other departments of a similar nature in other provinces, is somewhat understaffed, and that's regrettable. Maybe it will get more staff in next year's budget but at the moment it doesn't have them. Lacking them, there are delays; lacking them, the kinds of skills and competence and training that some local officials should have and some local management should have as well just aren't there.

I've heard those complaints when I've met with local municipal councils in my travel; I'm sure the minister has heard a great deal more of them because he's traveled a great more. A management assistance team within that department with the ability to travel and to bring its expertise, its criticisms and its help to bear could be of enormous practical assistance to small local government throughout the province.

Those are the three specific, positive proposals that we would put to this minister's attention regarding Municipal Finance Authority, a proposed royal commission on local government and, hopefully within the very near future, a traveling management assistance team to assist small local government throughout British Columbia to do its job a little better. I'd appreciate the minister's comments on those and on the other matters raised earlier.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member did mention last night his proposal with respect to a royal commission on local government. Well, we're proposing that in part but it will not be a royal commission. That's not my recommendation; I don't believe that is what is required. It is known that we propose, a little later this year, to strike a review committee with respect to regional district government.

I think that's reasonable 10 or 11 years after they were formed. We're looking now at draft terms of reference. I'm considering with the ministry those individuals who might be willing to serve and might be suitable to serve in terms of background and interest in the subject. It's very complex. So that's really a part of what would happen in a royal commission context.

In addition, we have set a date for October - the precise date escapes me, but it is set for October -for a provincial tri-level discussion. The members of both sides of the House will know the tri-level has been spoken of by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the various provincial organizations, UBCM, the Alberta organization, and so on across the country, with respect to saying: "let's get together" at the federal level, the provincial level and municipal association level.

Last August at the meeting of the 10 ministers of municipal affairs, with observers from the territories, we discussed the advisability of a national tri-level conference. I was a freshman member of that ministerial meeting, as you will know, but I participated as fully as I felt necessary. It was certainly, if not the unanimous decision, near-unanimous - in fact I think it was unanimous -that there was no point in a national tri-level at this particular moment, but rather that, say, in the Maritimes, the four provinces might get together for a tri-level discussion. In Ontario and Quebec a similar conference could be held. Indeed, we've received material and watched very carefully Alberta's experience in a tri-level discussion earlier this year. I think it was in March, possibly early April.

We propose and have firmly booked with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and with the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs in the national government a provincial tri-level in October. We will commence working up the agenda items a little later on in the next few weeks.

So I don't contemplate a royal commission as such, but you will see that we are in continuing discussions nationally, provincially and with local government. With the regional district committee of review, or whatever term is finally assigned to it, we are in fact conducting something which would produce, I believe, more effectively than a royal commission.

In my opening remarks last night, I indicated that at the staff level, the numbers of personnel in the Municipal Affairs section of the ministry is low. I think as we discuss it in committee today, it should be recognized very clearly that we have received -indeed we have received very promptly - request approval from Treasury Board with respect to increasing that staff level. The numbers are reflected in the estimates which are available to this member and to all members of the committee. So we see, after a good number of years of no increase for one reason or another or relatively little increase in staff but a tremendous increase in workload demands, that we are moving up to a more acceptable level. The calibre of individuals in both sections of the ministry is, in my view, second to none.

I worry, however, about the health of some of the people who have been, up to this point at least, carrying a very heavy workload. They deserve more assistance and indeed they are getting more assistance. The hiring mechanism is in process right now.

The member spoke about what he termed "management assistance teams."

Well, since he feels that there's been relatively little innovation, I think one innovation which will interest him, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that. in the housing section of the ministry, which was a separate

[ Page 3509 ]

ministry, of course, we examined the regional offices - Kelowna, Prince George, Vancouver, Cranbrook and so on. We will be assigning Municipal Affairs people to the same regional offices. That is a start, inasmuch as those individuals will have a smaller area for which to be accountable. They can move from community to community a little more easily or, indeed, the community representatives can get to them a little more easily. That is coming along quite nicely. So you will have a regional office of not just the Housing section of the ministry but both sections of the ministry - Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I would not want - and I don't think the member was doing it in any way to suggest this, Mr. Chairman - to leave the impression abroad that there is no staff movement into various sectors of the province. There is. There should be more. That is probably the point on which we agree. I've indicated to the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the assistant deputy ministers that as soon as we have these additional individuals in place and trained and experienced in the section, then I hope we can step up the amount of visiting - not to walk in and say "Hello, how is everything? I'd like to shake hands with the accountant. Good-bye, " but to visit and discuss problems. But it should not be suggested that that kind of consultation is not taking place now. It is; it simply needs to be stepped up. Mr. Woodward, Mr. Taylor, in particular, and Mr. Long also, and others in the ministry are frequently on the road. They are frequently out to meet with a particular regional district or a particular municipality, both at the political and senior staff levels, to go through some problem, to make some recommendations or to sort out a difficulty which is causing concern in that area. What we want to do is increase that activity.

A man for whom I have a great deal of respect -the deputy before the deputy five times removed, perhaps - Mr. Bracewell, in simpler, easier times, was on the road often, for a great deal of the year, visiting with local government jurisdictions. There were no regional districts at that time. He was reviewing not just the accounts but reviewing procedures and offering management -advice and assistance. It's a more complex world now, but whether we go for something that is precisely called, as the member suggested, a "management assistance team, " or simply step up the work, as I have already indicated to my staff that I want to do. It will be taking place.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the member for Victoria raised yesterday and which the minister hasn't responded to was the Bawlf committee report. The minister mentioned in his response that he was establishing a review committee of regional districts. We are quite concerned on this side of the House about the way the Bawlf committee was established. I realize it came out of the meeting on January 14 that the minister mentioned, between himself and the Union of B.C. Municipalities executive. Later on, in April of that year, he wrote to Muni Evers, who was, I believe, chairman of UBCM at that time. He said the advisory committee would be made up of certain employees of his ministry and members of the Legislative Assembly. He didn't say at that time that there would be strictly government backbenchers on , that committee. Rather, he mentioned members of the Legislative Assembly. I think the implication of his letter to Mayor Muni Evers was that it would be a kind of legislative committee rather than a secret committee of the Social Credit caucus and the government.

We're kind of concerned about the way that committees have been structured since the Social Credit government came to office. There have been a lot of problems relating to the agricultural committee and the pettiness of the government in refusing to allow....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

MR. SKELLY: The minister struck the Bawlf committee, Mr. Chairman. That's exactly what we're dealing with here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's fine, but not the agricultural committee, thank you.

MR. SKELLY: We're kind of concerned about the way these committees are struck. I'm using the agricultural committee as an example of the pettiness of the government in refusing to allow two elected opposition members of this House to sit on that agricultural committee. That's not the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing but it is representative of an attitude on the part of this government.

I feel that the way the Bawlf committee was structured represents a serious breach of the rights of this House and the way the committee was represented to the municipalities in the province concerned about housing was misleading to those groups. Possibly it was not intentional but it did mislead those groups, Many people who were approached by that committee and who made presentations to that committee in good faith felt that they were actually addressing a legislative committee.

In fact, I received, phone calls in my office saying that a committee was meeting in Prince George or a committee was meeting in Vernon: "Why are there no members from the NDP or the Liberals or the Conservatives on that committee? Hansard is there, It's chaired by a member of the Legislative Assembly.

[ Page 3510 ]

Why are there no opposition members on the committee? We're presenting our briefs and our information to one side of the political spectrum." Many of them were concerned about that. They felt that the information they had to present was worthwhile and valuable enough to present to all members of the House and to the public.

There are quite a few things we're concerned about regarding the conduct of the Bawlf committee. The first thing is that it only included government backbenchers. It permitted those government backbenchers to hire consultants through the minister's budget; I'm not sure if they did hire consultants or not. The minister offered on February 23 of this year to table some of the financial information relative to the Bawlf committee, but to date he's refused to table any of that information.

He has refused to table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee. They made use of Hansard staff, Mr. Chairman - staff that's traditionally been assigned to the House and has worked for the Legislative Assembly rather than for government. They made use of Hansard staff and yet the Hansard that was prepared as a result of the Bawlf committee meetings throughout the province - well, in fact, in restricted areas throughout the province because not all municipalities, not all regional districts and not all sectors of the public were allowed to make representations to that Bawlf committee - has not been tabled.

Despite the fact that Hansard was used, we have been denied access to the transcripts of the proceedings of that committee and to the background papers which went into the Bawlf report. In fact because they probably didn't go into the Bawlf report at all, our understanding is that after the release of the Bawlf report, many of the people who were on the committee and many of the people who had presented briefs and background papers to that committee in good faith were not represented in the report. In fact, the views that appear to have been represented in the report were the ones that were stated by the minister way back in January 15 when he first stated that he would set up the joint committee.

In the city of Vernon they were unaware that the meetings were to be held in secret and that the press and the public were not to be invited, so they released their brief to the press. The press was even under the impression it was a legislative committee, rather than a secret committee of government backbenchers and representatives of the UBCM.

None of the meetings were open to the public, and that was a government decision not to open the meetings to the public. A letter that was sent to one of the municipal officers stated that these hearings will not be open to the general public. Only a restricted number of regional districts and municipalities were allowed or invited to present briefs. As far as I'm aware, none of the communities in the riding of Alberni and the regional districts represented in Alberni constituency - there are three of them - were invited or even aware of the operation of the committee.

So we're very concerned about the way this committee was struck and the fact that the minister refuses to table the transcripts and the financial information. Many of the members who were on the Bawlf committee have since dissociated themselves from the 27-page report that came out. Most of them feel that the recommendations and the small amount of information contained in that report do not represent the information that was submitted to the committee. In fact they were the opinions of the now Minister of Recreation and Conservation, rather than representing the background material that was provided to the committee.

In fact the only people in the province who seem to be happy with the results of the report are the minister himself, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and the real estate industry, which, I expect, provided the report and the Minister of Recreation and Conservation was simply a ghost writer.

I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is he willing to table today the Hansard transcripts of the proceedings of the Bawlf committee in Prince George, Vernon and Vancouver, I believe. Is he willing to table the background papers and will he table information as to the financing of that committee? After all, the Liberal leader in this House, Mr. Chairman, tabled a bill yesterday in which he said that a sign should be placed in all government offices saying: "It's not Socred money that's being spent here; it's taxpayers' money." Taxpayers' money paid for the Bawlf committee report and we would like to know where that money went, who were paid expenses on the Bawlf committee, and how much the Hansard cost. Hansard is a servant of the Legislative Assembly. What was the cost of Hansard to go into that abortive little report that came out of the Bawlf committee, and just what were the expenses and the breakdown of expenses for that committee?

The minister previously said that he would take under advisement the tabling of the transcripts. Is he embarrassed to table the transcripts? Is there something in the transcript's that would conflict with the results that came out in the Bawlf report? Is he embarrassed to give the members of the Legislative Assembly an opportunity to make those comparisons? Is he embarrassed about the cost of the Bawlf committee and the breakdown of expenses?

I'm asking the minister, Mr. Chairman: is he willing to table those transcripts now, after five months of requesting? Is he willing to table the financial statements, after five months of requesting

[ Page 3511 ]

by members of this Legislative Assembly?

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, what the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has been outlining is probably one of the grossest misappropriations of power that I've ever seen in the course of my period - from 1969 to the present time - in the House.

Never has there been a parliamentary committee struck that has been a one-sided affair. As a matter of fact, it's quite unconstitutional, and I think the Minister of Housing must realize that. Even were it constitutional, even were it within the rights of a governing party to put together a committee of one side, one thought, one feeling, directed by one particular opinion, to travel this province on behalf of the Legislature, certainly it's got to be misguided thinking, to say the least. Now I recognize that group was new to government, but they have shown their total lack of aptitude for what they're doing.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the House deserves an explanation right now for having put together a committee traveling this province and, not only that, using the Hansard process as part of their organization.

I just can't imagine anybody having access to Hansard except the Legislature, and the Legislature by direction of the House. Certainly there was no direction of the House for a committee to be struck - a one-sided committee - to be staffed by Hansard, to travel this province over, finally to produce a report, and to call it a legislative committee as they moved about. I think this has to be explained right now in such detail as to satisfy both the taxpayers of this province and the whole parliamentary process. Mr. Chairman, what has happened, in the view of anyone who has ever thought about the parliamentary process, has been something that we find quite unacceptable.

Let the minister reply.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is correct that the hon. member for Alberni has spoken about this before, and I will attempt to answer his questions. As for the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , however - and I acknowledge his many years in this House - I really think that he perhaps just sort of seagulled onto the question a bit. There was at no time - publicly, informally, formally, in writing - any suggestion that this was a parliamentary committee or a legislative committee. I make no comment on the opposition's comments with regard to the agriculture committee. That's a committee of the House.

I suppose the member for Alberni will recall and admit that it was identified, from the first time I announced it, as a joint housing committee or a joint committee on housing - jointly between this ministry and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, with the assistance of MLAs who I felt would be of use to this particular task-force approach, It was a ministerial task-force. It was a joint committee with, as is well known now and was known then, the group selecting the present Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) - the hon. first member for Victoria, as he was then - as its chairman.

I did not appoint the chairman of the committee. The present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , the member for Boundary-Similkameen, was the other nominee, and the third was the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) . Also on the committee were the now president of the UBCM - he was first vice-president at that particular time, as I recall - the executive director of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Housing, two or three staff assistants, and there was a second assistant from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

MR. COCKE: Who paid for it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The government paid for it in terms of the UBCM expenses and the out-of-pocket expenses of the MLAs involved. There were no per diems.

AN HON. MEMBER: What authority?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Under vote 145040113001, and that will be available, I assume in public accounts in the next year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The out-of-pocket expenses, Mr. Chairman, were essentially to the locale or to services which were used in the carrying out of the duties of that committee - the hotel in which the committee was located and so on. No per diems were paid at all, as I indicated.

I felt that the committee served an extremely useful purpose in working with the UBCM to identify if in fact there was a roadblock of any kind in the delivery of housing in British Columbia. If we take that conversation a little further, then we would be straying into debate on a bill which is presently before the House. But I'm satisfied the committee was well structured. It was - and I emphasize again -never suggested to be a legislative committee or a parliamentary committee. I think that will satisfy the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , although he seems exercised about something.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to thank the minister for answering all the questions but the questions that

[ Page 3512 ]

were asked, and those were: are you willing to table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee? It's unfair to deprive members of this Legislative Assembly whose services were used to support that committee, regardless of who paid for those services, access to information that supposedly went into the Bawlf committee report.

Letters have come to us from various municipalities that submitted briefs to the Bawlf committee that have criticized the contents of the Bawlf committee report - the city of Kelowna, for example, I I pages. The Vancouver Sun on November 9,1976, said the report was nothing, it was garbage, and that it was a waste of taxpayers' money to send this committee around the province. City Magazine, back in March of this year:

"Another interesting note of comparison is that the Bawlf report, on which the new Socred housing policy is to be based, is a mere 27 pages in length, contains no factual data, and was written by a Social Credit MLA. The NDP report, on the other hand"

- referring to the report entitled "The Comprehensive Social Housing Policy for British Columbia" -

"ran to 450 pages, contained enormous quantities of factual information based on numerous support studies and, unlike the Social Credit report, was prepared by a group of housing experts."

Some of the material contained in the Bawlf report totally conflicts with studies that have been done by Central Mortgage and Housing, referring to material... This is a quote from the Bawlf report: "No evidence was found, however, to suggest that any private companies or conglomerates controlled enough land in any market to do so." - that is, to cause speculative increases in land costs.

"One can only conclude that the authors of the Bawlf report chose to look not too carefully for such evidence. The Dennis and Fish report, 1971, undertaken by CMHC, concluded that six development corporations control enough land to meet 85 per cent of Vancouver's housing needs over the next 10 years. The Spurr report, 1976, also done by the CMHC, shows that nine large corporations control about 5,500 acres of land in the Vancouver area. Also another study by GVRD suggested that land ownership is highly concentrated."

The report is a lightweight; it's garbage. I suspect that the report was written by the minister before the committee was even struck, because in the minister's own comments on January 15 to the press he stated some of the conclusions of the Bawlf report.

"Curtis specifically cited as problems neighbourhood antagonism, the slowness of municipal governments to act, the maze of red tape development proposals have to pass through, and the number of council members needed to approve rezoning applications."

All of those things appeared as recommendations in the Bawlf report. That was in January of 1976, and the report supposedly was written in October of 1976.

To say that nobody was misled about the fact that it was a private committee of government and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the title of the brief submitted by the city of Vernon in September of 1976 was "A Brief to the Legislative Committee on Housing Meeting in Vernon." To say that nobody was misled, that it was not a legislative committee.... I've got phone calls from all over the province asking why no other members of the Legislative Assembly, other than government back-bench members, were in attendance at these committee hearings. People were definitely misled into believing that that committee was a legislative committee of this House.

The minister has stated that members of this House have been reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses. It was a secret committee. When you wrote to Muni Evers back in April of 1976, you didn't say that there would be three government members on that committee. You said, "three members of the legislative committee" - and that's a quote from your own letter of April 6,1976. You misled the people in the UBCM ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member!

MR. SKELLY: ... whether intentionally or not, into believing that it was a legislative committee which they would be dealing with, not a private committee of government backbenchers who already had their minds ideologically made up about the state of housing development in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the statement that the hon. minister misled the people is not acceptable in this parliament.

MR. SKELLY: The Speaker said yesterday that it was okay if it wasn't deliberate and I'm not sure that it was deliberate in this case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs obviously has a copy of the transcripts of the Bawlf report; he undertook and took it as notice to table the transcripts in the House. But he hasn't answered that question yet: is he willing to table the transcripts of the Bawlf committee immediately? He has those transcripts; they are available. He took it as notice back on February 23 of this year, yet he hasn't taken any action yet. The people of this province paid for the committee and paid for the Hansard. Hansard is a servant of this House and the members of this House have the right of access to those transcripts because

[ Page 3513 ]

they were paid under a vote passed by members of this House and the taxpayers of this province have the right of access to that material.

The minister mentioned that members of the Legislative Assembly in this House received reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses on that committee. He's aware of the vote number so he must be aware of the amounts, and yet he refuses to table that, the cost of Hansard, or other costs incurred by the committee, in the House. I'm asking the minister again: will he table the Bawlf committee transcripts and will he table the breakdown of the finances of the committee?

You obviously have the votes at hand. You have the information at hand. Are you too embarrassed to table the transcripts? Is there something embarrassing in there? Is there a conflict between the report that finally came out of the Bawlf committee and the material submitted by those who presented briefs in good faith to that committee, thinking that it was a legislative committee? Is there some conflict? Is there something in there to embarrass you? Why are you unwilling to table those transcripts? Is there something embarrassing in the cost of that committee? So I'm asking the minister those two questions, about the transcripts and the breakdown of costs.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, we've heard now, after many months of the minister hedging on the answer, that members of the Legislative Assembly, picked by the government, received their out-of-pocket expenses from the public funds of the province of British Columbia. The question arises as to the political morality of that kind of a committee, and there are obviously very grave questions about that. It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is the beginning of political tyranny when a government majority can expend the taxpayers' money to run a group of their own political supporters around the province. It's contrary to all parliamentary traditions as to what a committee should be; it should be an all-party committee. If it's just a committee of the Social Credit caucus, which it was, in fact, even though it was paid by public funds....

AN HON. MEMBER: They should have paid for it.

MR. MACDONALD: They should have paid for it, as the NDP would have to pay if they sent their members around the province of B.C. But the other question that arises is whether, under the Constitution Act, this kind of invasion of the norms of political morality is forbidden by law in this province. What protection, if any, does the taxpayer have against a government picking out members of this assembly and giving them their expenses? Now this is not a case where members can receive expenses under section 73 (a) . Mr. Chairman, you received some expenses under 73 (a) , and so did 1. That's provided for when you attend an official parliamentary body or something of that kind and you're so designated.

AN HON. MEMBER: By cabinet.

MR. MACDONALD: But that isn't the case which we're talking about at the present time. What has happened, in my opinion, falls squarely under the prohibition contained in section 24 of the Constitution Act. I would like to read that section:

"No person holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, any contract or agreement with Her Majesty or with any public officer or department with respect to the public service of the province, or under which any public money of the province is to be paid for any service or work, is eligible as a member of the Legislative Assembly, nor shall he sit or vote therein."

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it wasn't to be paid for work or service. But was it any contract or agreement with Her Majesty? Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is an agreement if I go up to stay at the Inn of the North in Prince George under an arrangement that somebody will pay for my hotel and my breakfast. That is an agreement made with Her Majesty under which public money is to be expended, whether or not I have dinner that night. I would say that if I had that kind of agreement with Her Majesty I would have forfeited my seat in the Legislative Assembly. That is where we are at at the present time. What was it - three MLAs received these expenses? They were all Social Credit MLAs, needless to say, because if there was ever a political government it's that government over there appointing that kind of committee with no representation by all of the members of the Legislature at all.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

There is a grave question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not those members have not forfeited their right to sit and vote in this Legislative Assembly. Certainly our forefathers, in section 24, were seeking to guard against just this kind of abuse of power through the passage of section 24 of the Constitution Act. It isn't only a matter of law, it's a matter of common sense that if a government has that power to

[ Page 3514 ]

use the taxpayers' money to send its people around the province then you have tyranny.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a serious point. If someone has another case it should be brought to the attention of the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair has permitted reference to this, but if it is to be a debate then I think the member knows that any allegation such as this needs to be made by substantive motion and debated at that time.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the moment what we are saying is that this was the minister who in his capacity as minister set on foot and appointed this unlawful committee involving the expenditure of public funds. So we are dealing with the minister. If there has ever been a case where ministerial responsibility for the conduct of his office has to be brought home to the individual, this is it. The minister has to answer as to whether or not he believes in a constitutional government as laid down in the statutes of the province of B.C.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has refused to answer those two questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I'm listening to the debate. I'm listening to your questions and making note of them.

MR. SKELLY: Do you intend to answer them? I'll defer to you if you wish.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You go ahead.

MR. SKELLY: There has been another question brought up, Mr. Chairman, and that is the fact that three members of the Legislative Assembly received payment out of the public funds of this province, which is prohibited under section 24 of the Constitution Act. They are prohibited from receiving funds other than those allocated by the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is the same matter that I just referred to with the former Attorney -General (Mr. Macdonald) . If there is to be a charge or any allegation, that needs to be made by substantive motion. I think the member is aware of that. If not, he could perhaps confer with the first member for Vancouver East and he would explain.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, MR. Chairman, what we're debating now is the conduct of this minister in his office. He is the one who appointed this committee and that is what we are debating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: True. However, under standing orders, if there is a breach of constitutional law, that kind of an allegation must be made by substantive motion. I think all the members are aware of that.

MR. MACDONALD: "Must be made"? It can surely be discussed. If we want to bring it to that point we can do that too, but surely we can discuss it. Now's the time.

MR. SKELLY: The minister has made note of the questions and I believe he intends to answer them, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that it might be helpful to the member who has shown such an interest in this to table the submissions which were made by the various individuals. I'll come back to that in a moment.

He has gone to some pains this morning to point out that.... I think he said people from all over the province called him saying that this was a legislative committee and asking why others were not represented on that committee. How many? Was it two? Was it 2,000? Was it 20,000?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What's the difference?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was not aware of any confusion, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, on the part of anyone involved in making submissions to this committee as to whether it was a legislative committee or - what I said it was - a joint committee on housing or a ministerial task force. In their comments, I think that the members opposite have, while they made brief reference to the fact, overlooked the fact that I certainly identified very early on - as indeed did the UBCM, as indeed had agencies prior to the change of government in 1975, and some of that material was read back to me earlier - whether there was concern in British Columbia about the delivery of housing. Therefore I moved as quickly as possible with a meeting on January 14 with the full UBCM executive, or certainly virtually everyone on the UBCM executive, to say: "Let's find out if there is a difficulty with the delivery of housing in British Columbia. Let's find out if there are roadblocks, if there are some municipalities and regional districts which are deliberately blocking growth or refusing to accept growth."

Now I make no apology, Mr. Chairman, for moving quickly, and I make no apology whatever for turning to the UBCM and saying: "Let's look at this

[ Page 3515 ]

on a joint basis." Let's examine this not just from the ministry's point of view, because we may have some built-in biases. But if the problem perhaps exists with local government, then let us involve local government in that review. Let's bring UBCM into the review and let them ask questions. I don't mean just the president of the UBCM, who perhaps could attend some meetings and not others, but UBCM staff, the executive director, and one of their assistants.

That was the challenge. If we look back to that particular period of late 1975, that was the challenge and that was a very major debate in British Columbia. I did get calls about that and I did receive mail about that: "What's wrong with local government? Why will it not assist us in what we're attempting to do in providing shelter for our citizens, whether newly married, middle-aged or senior?"

So the joint committee on housing was given a specific assignment. The joint committee on housing report was completed and filed and was reviewed. I think that when read with a number of other - and there's a tendency on the part of the official opposition to overlook this fact, Mr. Chairman -documents, reports and studies, because it was not read in isolation.... I certainly reject the suggestion by the Hon. member for Alberni that somehow the report was really written almost before the work started. I reject that out of hand and would appreciate him indicating that he really knows that isn't the case. He knows that isn't the case. I reject it and I assure him that is not the case.

When we read the Bawlf report with all the other material over the last few years on the delivery of housing in British Columbia ...

MR. SKELLY: It looks like the Socred platform.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ... we begin to understand what the problem' is, what the problem was, and we took corrective action. That again leads us into the bill presently before the Legislature.

I would be quite happy - I can't guarantee to do it today because, frankly, we would have to locate the material, but I would be quite happy, at the earliest possible time, within a matter of days, Mr. Chairman, to table the submissions to the Bawlf joint housing committee.

MR. SKELLY: And the transcripts - the Hansard transcripts.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, we'll see about that.

MR. SKELLY: In any committee, when a submission is made, there's obviously some discussion back and forth, questioning the facts and the substance of the submissions made to the committee.

Why is the minister unwilling to table the transcripts? The transcripts were made up by Hansard, a service to this Legislative Assembly. Granted, the minister purchased that service, as well as the services of some MLAs, but Hansard is a service of the Legislative Assembly of this province. Members who are going to be discussing a bill.... As you said, you don't want to get into that, but you did refer the conclusions of the Bawlf report to that bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With other material.

MR. SKELLY: With other material. Members of the Legislative Assembly who are going to be discussing that bill will not have access to the transcripts of the Bawlf committee, and , much of what went into the bill arose out of the report of the Bawlf committee. Now the minister says that I should state that the report wasn't written beforehand or admit it, but there is an unusual similarity between the statements made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on January 15 and the conclusions that finally came out of the Bawlf report. In fact there's an unusual similarity between the Bawlf report, the position of the real estate association in British Columbia, HUDAC, and Social Credit policy in the last provincial election, so whether or not the report was written in its final form, there are some obvious similarities between the ideology of the present government and what finally came out of the Bawlf report.

A number of calls came from throughout the province. We even had a submission before the NDP caucus. We all paid our expenses to go up to Vernon and the mayor of Vernon and council members appeared before caucus. He thought he was dealing with a legislative committee when he appeared before the Bawlf committee in Vernon in September, 1976. A number of people called and approached the NDP caucus to say they were under the mistaken impression - whether they were misled intentionally or not is a different story - that they had been dealing with a legislative committee.

I would also like to ask the minister to answer the second part of the question: is he willing to table now a breakdown of the expenses of the Bawlf committee? The public and the taxpayers of this province have a right to know how that money was spent. Since there is a question that some of the money may have been spent in violation of the Constitution Act, and may, in fact, disqualify three members of this House from holding their seats, we have a right to have that information before the House. Is the minister willing to table a breakdown of the expenses under the vote that he just quoted?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Alberni, who was in the last parliament,

[ Page 3516 ]

will recall that when I made similar requests for the tabling of costs, I was very curtly and very briefly told - and I hope I can do so more kindly today -that that information will eventually be available in public accounts, which is the correct procedure, I believe.

MR. SKELLY: The minister is saying that he is no different from any previous government, and curtly and impolitely we're being told that that information is going to be denied to the taxpayers of British Columbia, even though it may have some bearing on whether some members of this House have a right to hold their seats or not. We're going to have to wait for a full year before we can find out that information.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that answer amazes me. The member for Alberni has made the very succinct point that three members of this House may not be entitled to hold their seats and may be subject to fines for having sat and voted over the past year and a half.

The minister says: "I'll sit on the information as to whether they received taxpayers' money to pay for their dinners and their hotel." He'll sit on the actual information, eh? Until when? Well, there'll be another election by then, and you escape through the door - is that the point? And then you evade the question.

Apart from that, I think the minister must table this information with the House and with the committee, Mr. Chairman. This is what we're doing, isn't it? This is the committee to examine the estimates of this department. Financial information is being deliberately withheld by that minister.

I'd like to ask the minister again, because he didn't reply to what was said by the member for Alberni and myself. Forget for a minute the law and the constitution. What about the morality of a government designating and picking some of the members of this Legislative Assembly to receive expenses for trips around the province?

Does the minister agree with that or not?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what the minister seems to be missing on this point is not whether the Bawlf report was an important document with good recommendations or bad recommendations, not whether it was needed, not whether there wasn't information out in the public that should have been brought to the government's attention and should have been done through a committee. Those are not the points.

As a matter of fact, the last speech I heard like this was the resignation of President Nixon, where he said: "There were certain things that had to be done, and the manner in which they're done doesn't count because the main objective was all right and justifies the means."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there are very many people in this province who agree with that premise put forward by the minister. The fact of the matter is that if a government acts unlawfully, it isn't the amount of money that has been spent per se; it wasn't in the overall scheme of things that large an amount of money that was paid out for the Bawlf committee or to Hansard for their services. We're not talking about the amount of money or the need for immediacy in getting a report to the minister so he could bring in legislation in terms of housing. We're not talking about that.

We're talking about government appointing a committee and paying for that committee out of taxpayers' funds, which is prohibited by the constitution. Every government that has turned to tyranny has said that. It reminds me of the federal government when they brought in the War Measures Act and said: "We're going to take away a few of your civil liberties for a time so that we can preserve your civil liberties in the future." It doesn't wash. It is absolutely the wrong way to go.

There are a great many people out there whom this government and this Legislature expect to obey the law. We expect them - as a matter of fact we demand it - to obey the law. If they break the law, there are sanctions within the law to take care of that. People who break the law have sanctions taken against them in one form or another: jail terms, fines, reprimands, probation. No individual in our society should be expected to do more than the government in terms of morality and the law.

That is what this minister is saying, Mr. Chairman: there's one law for the people of this province and there's another law for the Social Credit Party and its government. I think that's wrong. The minister got up after hearing those charges of breaking constitutional law and said: "Look, there was a need to get information in. We had to have information so we could bring legislation in. There was a problem that hadn't been dealt with. We had to deal with it. So in order to deal with that problem, it's justified to break the law." I don't know how the minister can stand in his place and put forward that kind of proposition. He and his government feel that at certain times, because of the importance and the immediacy, they're willing to. break the constitutional law which governs all of the members of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think the member would like to be in order and I think I must remind you, as I have done other members of the House, that if there is this kind of an allegation, it needs to be made by substantive motion, not debated in Committee of Supply. It's not a matter that it can't be debated in this House, but it must be debated at

[ Page 3517 ]

the proper time, and on a substantive motion is the proper time.

MR. LEA: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that you can do it either way or both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I could cite the authorities, if the member wishes, but that's the practice.

MR. LEA: I'll take your word for it, Mr. Chairman. Those were the points that I wanted to point out to the minister - that there cannot be one set of rules for the people and another for government because when you do that the people lose respect for the law. Then you have anarchy.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have just another point on the refusal of the minister thus far to table the financial information as to what expenses in detail were received by members of this Legislative Assembly and when they were received.

There are other sections that I think the minister should address himself to in deciding whether or not this information should be withheld from the public of B.C. - sections 30 and 31 of the Constitution Act. The first one says: "Any person disqualified by the Act to be elected or sit or vote in the Legislative Assembly, remains under that disqualification." But then section 31 gives the penalty:

"If a person so -disqualified or declared incapable of sitting or voting in the Legislative Assembly sits or votes therein, he shall thereby forfeit the sum of $500 for each day on which he sits or votes. Such sum may be recovered from him by any person who sues for the same in any court of competent jurisdiction."

So the question as to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member is again transgressing....

MR. MACDONALD: What I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to persuade this minister that time is important, taxpayers' money is important, and that he ought to furnish to the committee the information that's being sought by members on this side of the House. He has no right to sit on it when the background of the situation is what we've been describing. He has no right whatever to sit on public information as to what expenses these three members received and when. When is important too, Mr. Chairman, in that $500 a day must be forfeited for each day you sit if disqualified. So when they received expenses and the amount they received are something the people of B.C. are entitled to know right away. This minister should not sandbag and stonewall, as the member for Prince Rupert said, like someone else who fell from grace like a meteor and made a million bucks on television, which the minister won't make. Don't follow that example. Don't sandbag this committee any further, Mr. Minister.

MR. BARBER. The appointment of the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , the then first member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) and the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) - the three members who we're discussing - was made by the minister. The minister agrees with that. They were at the service of the Crown in order to do work on behalf of the ministry jointly with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and some other persons. The minister has said that.

To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Chairman, the Bawlf committee never ever met in public, and on no single occasion was either any member of the press or the public allowed into its meetings. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

Well, if the minister would contradict it I would be pleased to hear so. But the chairman himself, during the course of the Bawlf committee's hearings, admitted that they met in private. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, various tenants' groups in the province of British Columbia who had applied to appear before the Bawlf committee are on record as saying they were denied such permission.

Further it appears that the numbers of people who appeared before the committee were entirely at the will of the committee chairman and their numbers typically included representatives from municipal and regional government and development interests. The coincidence of development interests being Socred interests in this province is well known.

So what do we see, Mr. Chairman? We see a Socred minister appointing three Socred backbenchers to meet with representatives of municipal and regional government and developers, who in this province are typically Socred. We see a committee which, to the best of our knowledge, met in private throughout. Is it any Wonder that we want the minister to table the transcripts for which Hansard, i.e. the taxpayers, paid dearly?

We could obtain, and in most instances have already obtained, the actual written submissions to the committee. We have those. The minister offers them to us. We tell him we already have most of them; we'd be happy for the rest. What we want is a record of the debate. What we want to know is who asked what questions along what lines of inquiry. What we want to know is thematically what was discussed.

What we do know is that three Socred backbenchers, appointed by a Socred minister to meet in private, held some meetings in private and produced a 27-page report which has become notorious. What we don't know is what was discussed

[ Page 3518 ]

in that committee. We could receive the documents that the minister is referring to. We mostly have. We'd like to receive the rest.

What we insist on, Mr. Chairman, is that the services of Hansard, which are ordinarily available to all of us, shall in this instance be made available to us as well. We want to know what was discussed. We want to know what arguments came forward and what debate was entertained. We want to know whether or not the actual discussions of the Bawlf committee are reflected in the Bawlf report. We want further to know whether or not those discussions are actually reflected in legislation which is now before this, House.

We already have largely what the minister has offered us. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, he has offered us nothing. What we want are the transcripts. We want the transcripts of a series of meetings which, to the best of our information, were held entirely in private.

We want transcripts of meetings, to which we feel we're entitled, in order to understand whether or not, in any competent and sensitive way, the results of those hearings are actually reflected in the report, and, further, that the results of those hearings are reflected in the legislation. We think we have a right to that material, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 195 pass? The second member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I have to predict it will not pass until we get that material.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're threatening the committee!

MR. BARBER: I was predicting. That seems to be one of the few powers that the opposition has, which is to predict when the debates will end. I predict this one will not end until this side of the House is satisfied that the private meetings which occurred, the private transcripts which now exist in some secret vault somewhere or other, become public and become available.

I'd like to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he himself has examined the provisions of sections 24, 30 and 31 of the Constitution Act. If so, when and by whom was that examination conducted? If so, would he care to tell this House the results of his inquiries into the application, if any, of sections 24, 30 and 31 of the Constitution Act as regards the composition of the Bawlf committee?

The minister has been put on notice. I'm observing as closely as I can the recommendation of the Chair. It is possible that three members of this Legislature may well have forfeited their seats by virtue of having been appointed by him.

What I should like to know is whether or not, prior to the appointment or at any time since, the minister has examined in any way at all sections 24, 30 and 31 of the Constitution Act.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I think this is really a matter that could be straightened out fairly easily. I don't think anybody wants those three members who sat on that committee to pay $500 fines or give up their seats or be forced to resign. 1 think all of this side of the House wants is the information, the records of Hansard, the complete list and papers of the submissions.

The government is very new. There was a minister who was very new. 1 don't imagine that every minister had read every clause of every Act. I think the minister should just table the material that we are asking for, and also probably the money that was paid to those members of the Legislature who acted on that committee could be paid back to the taxpayers. But as far as getting into fines and resigning seats, I think that's carrying it a bit too far, unless the minister fails to co-operate. If he fails to co-operate then it would indicate to me that he acted with foreknowledge and knew full well what he was doing and his government knew full well what they were doing, and that's entirely a different matter.

To act in innocence, 1 think, people should make retribution in a reasonable and acceptable way. 1 don't think this side of the House would be unreasonable in allowing the government to do that sort of thing, or agreeing with the government that that's the way it should go.

But for the minister to refuse, and still to this point to admit that possibly, because he was a neophyte and his government was new also, they made a simple mistake.... Nobody's asking for blood. All we're asking for is the information and to see that justice is done so that people, the taxpayers, can understand that there isn't one rule for government and one rule for people. That's the way it appears now. I find it very hard to believe, Mr. Chairman, that this minister really believes that that's the way it should be under his jurisdiction and his administration - that there should be one rule for government and one rule for people. We're really going down a very dangerous road. There are already enough things on government books, like the power of expropriation, that only government can exercise and has a need to. That has been a need that has been established in this Legislature and voted into law in this Legislature.

If the minister feels that there are committees that can only work with Social Credit backbenchers being on that committee, then bring it in this House and pass it into law. They can do that; they have more members. It wouldn't be proper, but they could do it and at least they would be dealing lawfully.

[ Page 3519 ]

But the minister, Mr. Chairman, clams up and says: "You did it too!" You did bad things so we'll do bad things. Mr. Lorimer did bad things so I'll do bad things, and it's all right." That's what the minister's saying. He's saying: "I think that the minister before me did bad things, so I'll do bad things. "

MR. BARRETT: Shame on you, Hugh!

MR. LEA: That's the whole line of rebuttal the minister is taking. "You were naughty and I'm naughty, so it's all fair." The fact of the matter is that this is a serious problem. It appears that the Constitution Act has been broken, and the minister refuses in any way to acknowledge that, to give a full explanation, or put the information on the table.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If this line of debate wants to be followed, it needs to be done under substantive motion. I've reminded the member before.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what we are dealing with here is a very, very serious thing. The minister has paid money out of the votes within his jurisdiction to pay for something. I don't think that we need to have a substantive motion to find out and to delve into and to ascertain why and how the minister spent money of a vote that was established and passed in this Legislature.

What authority did he have to spend that money? That's what we're talking about. There was no authority. In fact there was authority saying he could not spend that money. Yet he's done it and he offers no explanation. He stands up and takes a petulant little-boy attitude that "you were bad and I'm bad so all's fair, " instead of dealing with it as a Crown minister - dealing with a serious charge of maladministration in the spending of taxpayers' money with no authority. He stands up, and says that the end justifies the means and that this government, when it feels it is necessary, will break the Constitution Act to get its way. I find it deplorable. But it's even more deplorable that the minister only stands up and says: "Sure, I'm naughty, but so are you., ,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the only reference I made to the former government was not, "you were naughty, therefore I'm going to be naughty." That whole point of argument that was developed by the hon. member for Prince Rupert just slightly exaggerates. I was asked with respect to tabling certain financial information. It's my understanding, and it was my understanding as a member of opposition in the former government, that when a member asks for that information, he is automatically referred to the public accounts for the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Did I table the thing on the helicopter which Chabot asked for? I tabled it right away and I didn't have to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That reference is the only one I made to the committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have helped the committee with respect to this matter as much as I can this morning in terms of why there was a need for a review of housing delivery in British Columbia in early 1976; how we approached the Union of B.C. Municipalities and Mayor Muni Evers, the president at the time, and some of his inner executive members; and how we sought not only the assistance of the UBCM, but the active, objective involvement of UBCM in reviewing the delivery of housing and road blocks - assumed or potential - in local government, both municipalities and regional districts throughout the province. It was very encouraging, as far as I'm concerned, to have prompt and early response from the UBCM to this particular problem.

I examined, first of all, the possibility of doing it on an in-house basis - that is, assigning it to deputy ministers or assistant deputy ministers and one or two research officers and asking them to write a report. Frankly, I thought that that was not what was required. We wanted to move out in partnership with the parliament of local government in British Columbia and with the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, to determine where there were problems, if in fact there were problems, and what possible solutions could be considered. So we must view it in that light, I think. I certainly believe that the joint committee report on housing was not the total answer and the members opposite in the last few minutes have consistently overlooked the fact -although one did admit that there certainly was no suggestion that the report was written before the committee was struck, and I appreciate that acknowledgement - that we had available to us, along with the joint committee report, a wide variety of material by Central Mortgage and Housing, by the federal government, by various institutes, from other nations and other province~, all of which was reviewed and taken into account as we developed new housing initiatives in British Columbia. Some of them are already in place and others will be in place in due course.

[ Page 3520 ]

I think it's most unfortunate that in seeking information in committee under this salary vote, reference has been made by some of the members of the official opposition to the fact that the interests of this government are automatically the interests of "developers" in British Columbia. Quite apart from that very unfortunate reference and attempt to connect, I think it is something which reflects most unfortunately on the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the members of the executive and the senior staff of UBCM, who participated fully in the joint committee on housing. I've repeatedly said, and I think the members who have been participating in the debate today know, that as far as this ministry is concerned there are some developers, some development attitudes and some development pressures in British Columbia which I reject, which I cannot countenance and which I will not support in any way, shape or form. That's one of the reasons that we have had some success in a number of areas, particularly with our Crown land programme and related activities.

So if you're concerned about an issue, Mr. Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BARRETT: I haven't said anything yet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you seem concerned. Maybe you're just concerned about lunch, I don't know.

Those members of the opposition, including probably the Leader of the Opposition, who have expressed concern about this particular activity must not overlook the fact that some of their statements have reflected most unfortunately and unfairly on others who do not sit in this House and who are not involved in the capital P politics of the province of British Columbia. I feel that has done them a disservice today.

MR. BARRETT: First of all, I want to appreciate the minister's statement. I think that there are occasions when people who are not present in this chamber may feel offence at what's said. Far be it for me to recall some of the anti-labour statements made by certain Social Credit members, and the trade-union leaders who were attacked haven't had the chance to respond in this House.

I've heard the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) attack the oil companies. We all know they need our sympathy. The member for Omineca attacks them and they don't have a chance to speak except through the cabinet in terms of policy favourable for the oil companies.

But I think when one runs off with the motherhood flag, as the minister has done, by saying, "Oh, tsk, tsk, when you insult me, you're insulting people who I have to meet every day. . . ." That's not true, Mr. Chairman. He's the minister, he has to meet people every day, and we're not insulting those people. The fact that they have to meet the minister may be an insult to them. We don't have to interpret that; we don't ask the minister to interpret that. But what we're getting, Mr. Chairman, is a bunch of cotton batting.

Now I want to ask the minister some specific questions. This is the first time I've spoken on this vote. I'm not attacking anybody, not even the minister yet. You applauded too soon. I like the minister. I don't like his politics. I didn't like them when they were Conservative, I didn't like them when they were Liberal, I don't like them when they're Social Credit. He's burned all the bridges. In terms of , politics, you've gone the whole field and you're not welcome in our party. But I still like you.

Mr. Chairman, he's a movie buff. So am 1. We enjoy that one common pastime. I'll tell you, he's a good judge of movies. Terrific. When it comes to thrillers and Hollywood, we share that passion, the minister and I. We meet each other, openly without secret, in lobbies - of movies. So if there are any rumours circulating about that, I want to scotch them right now. We both pay our own way.

Every time I've seen him, he's with his wife and every time he sees me, I'm with my wife. I know exactly what's going through his mind as it does through mine. When he sees my wife, he says: "How could a sweet thing like that go with old Barrett?" I think about his wife: "How could a sweet thing like her go with old Hugh?" (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps you could discuss that at a lobby of a theatre. Now to vote 195.

MR. BARRETT: I have to do this by way of preface to get you to understand exactly what the minister has just said. What he said in this House today is: "When you attack me, you are criticizing the mayors, the councils, the executive of the UBCM." They didn't criticize them. That's a bad smokescreen; it's Hollywood-It's a class D movie. It doesn't even have an X rating to save it. Your performance was poor today. Thank goodness it's Friday - TGIF. The press is snoozing, the House is not full and maybe it'll just drift away. But I want to ask you some real questions.

Take your pencil calmly, smile a little bit, chew the gum and get ready.

(1) What expenses were paid for the hon. member for Coquitlam, the first member for Victoria and the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen? That's No. 1. Got it down? That's good.

(2) What constitutional authority did the minister address himself to allow those expenses to be paid?

(3) Is there any precedent for a joint committee of

[ Page 3521 ]

this nature to be interpreted somehow, other than by allusion, as being a House committee of this particular parliament? That's a good one.

(4) Would the minister undertake to table with this House, with permission from the committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, as we report back to the Speaker to do it correctly, all memos, all correspondence and all interdepartmental instructions related to (a) setting up this committee~ (b) the membership of the committee; and (c) who should pay for the membership of the committee, including the MLAs?

(5) Having told this House today that expenses were paid.... Is that correct? I understand you said that expenses were paid. You used the phrase "out-of-pocket expenses." Would the minister tell us whether or not the normal forms for out-of-pocket expenses were used and if he attached his signature to those expenses?

5 (b) If he did not sign those expense sheets, who did?; and 5 (c) what authorization did that person have?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of waiting for public accounts. There is a serious charge here. You people when you were in opposition threw every charge in the book at us but I do not recall -correct me if I'm wrong - a single charge by the official opposition when you were in that capacity either as a Conservative or a Social Credit that we had paid MLAs' expenses without specific constitutional authority to do so. There is tremendous scope in the Constitution to do this properly.

I would advise the minister to go back to the very thorough letter from the hon. Provincial Secretary related to this same subject matter of December 7,1976, 35 years after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbour. It was the 35th anniversary of Pearl Harbour and we got this letter. Mind you, we didn't ask 35 years ago; she was very prompt.

MR. MACDONALD: The letter is still a pearl.

MR. BARRETT: The letter is still a pearl - that's right.

There has never been a charge where expenses to MLAs were paid outside of constitutional authority, except in my time in this House I remember a former Minister of Highways who, although he claimed to have ethereal contracts beyond this world, was in the practical matter of transportation forced to use airlines. On one occasion he billed twice for the same airline. That let to his demise.

AN HON. MEMBER: Temporarily..

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it temporarily grounded him. He went to a conference of Christian truck drivers and the former Liberal member for Point Grey got up and said: "You got paid by the government to go there and you charged them too." That's initiative, as the former Liberal Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) would say.

Mr. Chairman, it would be very helpful to me if the Chair would provide a score sheet of what parties these fellows came from so that when I make references I don't get them mixed up. I know who the pure Socreds are; they are still on the back bench. I know that. They are never going to make it to the cabinet.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): You don't even know who the member for Omineca is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, HON. members. The hon. member will help me to keep order in the House by maintaining his debate to vote 195.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Omineca is the fellow sitting in the back row back there. I want to correct him. I know who he is and so does the Premier; that's why he's not in the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, I've asked five questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Seven.

MR. BARRETT: No, there are five with two supplements. There is a supplement to questions four and five. If you want them as separate questions I'll get the Blues and rephrase them. But why don't you answer them? Do you want me to repeat them or can you answer them now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do as you wish.

MR. BARRETT: Would you like to answer them now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're on your feet; you do as you wish.

MR. BARRETT: I'll sit down if you want to answer. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, no! Mr. Chairman, he's playing little gameys! Mr. Chairman, he is trying to get me to yield the floor so that he can remain silent and hope that a backbencher will rescue him.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Gee whillikers, Mr. Chairman, that's playing parliamentary dirty tricks! Thank goodness there are no school children here in the chamber today, because they would get the

[ Page 3522 ]

impression that somehow - oh, some school children nodded, whoops! - the minister would play cheap little politics to get me off the floor to protect him from answering these questions in committee, Mr. Chairman, which I've asked in the sequence of one to five, with supplements with four and five, with (a) and (b) to the supplements of four and five.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Never.

MR. BARRETT: Never. He almost did it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you did.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I didn't.

MR. BARRETT: You're embarrassed! You've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar. You sanctimonious - through you, Mr. Chairman -member of the cabinet who used to be in the opposition and screamed about spending public money, you've been caught authorizing public money with no authority. That's what you've been doing. You've been caught with this charge also of sending out a message that there's a joint committee as if it was a parliamentary committee. It was not a parliamentary committee, and you should know better than that.

A parliamentary committee is made up of the official opposition, the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have already seen this government deliberately deny access to a committee to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) when it comes to the agriculture committee. I can understand why they wouldn't allow the Liberals or Tories on the agriculture committees, Mr. Chairman. That's the last guy you get good advice from.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 195, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the reason they didn't allow the leaders of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, under this vote, on those committees is they've already got Liberals and Conservatives in cabinet on those committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 195.

MR. BARRETT: You're right, Mr. Chairman -vote 195. Question one....

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): It's strange they don't think a doctor knows anything about farming.

MR. BARRETT: A doctor who knows anything about farming? They've got more fertilizer experts on that committee....

Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a series of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: I can't proceed. Somebody's bothering the minister. I want to have his complete attention, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I can understand why you wanted to know how come you didn't get in on this little bit of gravy on the side there. You want to know how to get in on a committee and get your expenses paid with no authorization.

"Ugh, " says the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . I don't blame him.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've got a cold.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you've got a bad cold. You've got a heavy virus.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Health is sick.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's not fair.

MR. WALLACE: Go get a checkup.

MR. BARRETT: You're in a jam. Mr. Chairman, just to give the minister a little time to think about this, maybe we should end up the committee for today. If you don't want to answer it today, maybe we should just pack it up for the day. There have been serious charges made here that members of this Legislature have received expense money - admitted today by the minister - for appearing on a joint committee that was not formulated by this House by motion, by intention, by deed, by debate, or by action. A committee that was not authorized by this House had on it three elected members of this House who, by the minister's own admission, received funds for participating in this committee. To my humble, limited knowledge, I cannot find any legal right that the minister had to give these MLAs any money to serve on a committee that was not a creature of this House.

Is it regal whim, Mr. Chairman? Did he read his oath of office that the Queen said that you can do anything you want? Not at all. Her Majesty did not, through the Lieutenant-Governor, advise the minister that he had the authority to go around the Constitution Act, Her Majesty reviews the ministers frequently, and changes them on occasion, but the

[ Page 3523 ]

restrictions for each minister are always the same from Her Majesty.

MR. MACDONALD: He thinks he's Queen Mab.

MR. BARRETT: Queen Mab?

Do you remember the sanctimonious, hypocritical debate that you used to go on in this House about delinquents in the Empress Hotel? Do you remember that one, Mr. Minister of Health? That was good for some dandy votes, wasn't it? Do you remember when you ran around saying that my colleague, Mr. Levi, had put delinquents in the Empress?

That was great hotline stuff, wasn't it? No facts, but a lot of fun, wasn't it? Yes, that's what he did, Mr. Chairman; he went around saying that Levi had put delinquents in the Empress Hotel. Remember that gag, Bob? Good for votes, wasn't it? Ha, ha, ha.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 195, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, here's a case where it's not a fib, not a game, not a political story - just simply a matter of fact. That minister has admitted today that he allowed expenditures to flow from his pen in violation of the Constitution Act. To stand up here and say wait for public accounts to find proof of what is already admitted to be wrong is nonsense, absolute nonsense. We need to know now under what authority he allowed this expenditure of public funds for MLAs through a committee that was not authorized by this House.

How much money was spent? Did he sign the approving vouchers, and how much did it cover - air fare, bacon and eggs, or what? My good friend, the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) reminded everybody that it's taxpayers' money. There is a form, there is a method and there are laws in this country governing the expenditure, the handling and the use of taxpayers' money.

It appears by everything that is in front of us, including the minister's own evidence, that he has broken the law. Do you know that? Do you realize that? Does the minister realize that? Would he feign as a defence ignorance of the law? This is not a movie; this is real life. Now would you care to answer those questions?

In the armed services of. Her Majesty, Mr. Chairman, there is a charge that is used as a method to get around someone who is avoiding discipline or responsibility. That charge is called "dumb insolence." That charge of dumb insolence is used in military terms, Mr. Chairman, when someone is being asked questions that they might find embarrassing related to their specific duties in a structure of administrative and legal responsibility. To avoid answering those questions, the military charges dumb insolence. I've given the minister ample opportunity to indicate to this House whether or not he wants to answer those serious charges. I have, and I'm getting dumb insolence as a response, Mr. Chairman.

Would the minister indicate to this House whether or not he cares to respond to very serious charges that he has no constitutional authority to authorize those expenditures, or to leave the impression in any way that that committee was a duly constituted committee of this House? You owe an apology for that. It was not an all-party committee authorized by this House. It had no legal authority from this House.

Now I ask the minister: will he reply to those questions? Would you care to answer?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I would like to know if you wish to answer. You just nod your head.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we can only recognize one member at a time. While the Leader of the Opposition has the floor, we can't get an answer.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, I would, through the practice of this House, ask the following question to the minister: would the minister care to reply through the Chair to my questions now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to sit down?

MR. BARRETT: I will take my seat. You asked me if I'm going to sit down. Yes, I will take my seat if you are prepared to reply to those questions. Oh, you're not prepared to reply. Well, you see.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't direct the committee.

MR. BARRETT: Now the poor school kids are going to get confused again. What has just taken place across the floor, Mr. Chairman, is that I gave the minister an opportunity to answer my questions, and all he said is: "Are you going to sit down?" He didn't say: "Yes, I'll answer your questions, " like most ministers to Her Majesty would. Therefore I am charging again: dumb insolence.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No? It's a charge that I feel is appropriate. Very serious charges have been made against you that you had no authority to spend this money. You had no authority or right to designate that committee in any way that it was a committee of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member. I must remind the hon. member that to ask the questions

[ Page 3524 ]

that the member asks is totally in order. However, to lay a charge, it must be done through substantive motion. I think the member knows this.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, no. If I lay a charge through substantive motion - which is my choice, thank you very much - then it will sit on the order paper. Then what will happen, Mr. Chairman? It's my guess - I don't want to second-guess the government - but they would meet in caucus and, when the motion is on the order paper, they wouldn't call it.

I think that's what happened, Mr. Chairman. I know that that happened in the past. Even when we were in government there were some motions we didn't call, except in an instance when a certain member accused a former minister of not telling the truth. We had a committee hearing on that immediately. In the case of my good friend, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , when he was attacked about unauthorized expenditures on a helicopter, he tabled the information immediately and it was in committee. But mind you, he did it this way, Mr. Chairman. He asked permission of the Chairman to ask the Speaker if he could table the documents which he referred to in the committee. Is that right, Mr. Member? That's right.

MR. LEA: In fact, I just verbally gave the figures and then filed them.

MR. BARRETT: Right. Thank you very much. So you see, I can get answers from one side of the House. How come I can't get them from the other side of the House?

Mr. Chairman, I accuse the minister of deliberately refusing to answer these questions because he has no answer. He is guilty, in the practice of his office, of expending public funds with no authority from this House or by law. He is guilty of allowing these funds to have been spent on elected MLAs who had no authority to legally accept these funds. I refer you, Mr. Chairman, to chapter 24 of the Constitution Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The charge which the member is seeking to make must be made by substantive motion. We can't allow this kind of an allegation in committee except by substantive motion. I recognize the member's predicament in that the motion may be called or may not be called at the wish of the government. However, the Chair's hands are tied. We must obtain to the rules, and if a charge is to be made it must be made by substantive motion.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct, and I will take your advice. I will not make the charge in committee. Now it's my option to do something else with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are quite right.

But I am asking these questions and the questions are in order. The reason I'm asking the questions, Mr. Chairman, is because I'm considering some action under section 24 of the Constitution Act. I'd like to read it to the minister so he'll understand why I'm asking the question. Here is the section which I'm referring to - section 24.

"No person holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, any contract or agreement with Her Majesty or with any public officer or department, with respect to public service to the province or under which any public money of the province is to be paid for any service or work, is eligible to be a member of the Legislative Assembly, nor shall he sit or vote in the same."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I earlier made the charge which, as you have correctly pointed out, I should not make in committee. I earlier made the charge that these MLAs received money that they had no constitutional authority to receive. But since I'm not permitted to do that in committee I will not repeat that charge again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But, through you, Mr. Chairman, that minister down there has a chance to stand up in front of the citizens of this province, his colleagues and some of the press and explain to us who authorized the expense of the money for that joint committee and for those three MLAs. Why did he leave the impression that that joint committee was a House committee? Did he sign their expense vouchers himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute.

MR. BARRETT: One minute? I have some time coming because of the unfortunate interruptions between myself and the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member has to accept the responsibility for being out of order and the time that it takes.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I accept all of your rulings, and I accept the fact that you've ruled that every one of my questions is in order. I now ask the minister to get up and answer my questions.

MR. L. KAHL (Esquimalt): I have a couple of questions to the minister....

MR. LEA: I bet you don't change the subject.

[ Page 3525 ]

MR. KAHL: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for recognizing me. I have a number of things which I would like to talk about this afternoon. The first thing I would like to talk to the minister about is a horrendous mistake that was made by the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KAHL: It was a terrible disaster in my constituency, but not unheard of in the previous administration. It was made when the NDP socialists were in office and it was made by one member of Housing at that time. It was the purchase of some huge tracts of land in my constituency for a supposed development of housing - roughly, some 1,900 acres.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): You mean the Casa Loma group.

MR. KAHL: No, not the Casa Loma group; that was another disaster of his. The 1,900-odd acres in the Highlands groups - that was property that was purchased against the wishes of many of the citizens in the area. The property in the Highlands and my constituency has, for a great deal of time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Even though it's a bit unusual for a former minister to be going through his estimates, I would wonder whether we could get leave of the House to have the member for Esquimalt question the former minister on the administration that he took care of a few years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, on your point of order, leave cannot be requested or granted in committee. However, the Chairman will try to be sure that the vote is being discussed. Vote 195 is the....

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We cannot interrupt one point of order to ask another point of order. I think the member for Nelson-Creston knows that.

MR. KAHL: I'm still making my speech, Mr. Chairman, I haven't got started yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I can understand that when we have new members in the House, they may not have recognized the standing order which says: "On a point of order, he who has the floor shall relinquish the floor by taking his seat." So I ask the member for Esquimalt to please be seated.

MR. KAHL: Oh, thank you. There was no one else on his feet here, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Esquimalt please take his seat? On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I'd be pleased to answer these questions if I could perhaps have one of my former associate deputy ministers, Mr. Chatterton and a couple of staff come down to accompany me here in the House. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, hon. member. I must remind the hon. member for Nelson-Creston that it is a gross offence to obtain the floor by a point of order which is not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I've never seen you do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KAHL: I thought for a moment he was going to say he could answer the questions if he could have his old job back. But I can assure him that the members in my constituency wouldn't give him that job back, particularly those people in the Highlands area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 195, hon. member.

MR. KAHL: Yes, thank you very much, Talking through you; Mr. Chairman, to the minister responsible for housing and the large tract of land that was purchased in the Highlands area for supposed housing, it was purchased against the wishes of a great number of people in the area. The Highlands has remained a rural area with large tracts of land. Some people who have lived there for many years own upwards of 2,000 acres. The community in general prefers the area to stay that way. My questions to the minister are:

1) 1 would like to know why the area that was purchased by the previous administration wasn't developed for the purpose that was intended at that time.

2) 1 would also like to know why the previous administration abandoned that particular tract of land and tried to cover up their mistake by purchasing, without any community involvement, an additional 27S acres in my constituency.

[ Page 3526 ]

MR. LEA: You have six minutes left to filibuster.

MR. KAHL: That again was done without the wishes of the people in my community, and I have a number of letters and concerns expressed to me by ratepayers groups about those two purchases.

MR. LEA: You make the speech; I'll watch the clock for you.

MR. KAHL: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to talk very briefly about transportation in the western sector. This has been of concern to me for some time, and I would like to ask a number of questions of the minister.

MR. LEA: You have four and a half minutes!

MR. KAHL: It has been indicated to the ministry that university students who travel from my constituency to the university area do not have the privilege of transferring from one public transit company to the other in the downtown area. I don't feel that that's quite fair. I feel that if the companies are both owned by the province, then certainly these students who are on limited funds and attending university should be able to do that.

MR. LEA: They should own their own buses; that's free enterprise.

MR. KAHL: Well, Mr. Member over there who says they should own their own buses, after you were finished buying all the buses in the province of British Columbia, there weren't too many left to own. As a matter of fact, I believe that you put quite a few of the private enterprise people out of business, particularly one group in my constituency which ran quite a successful business until you started meddling in the transportation business to the extent that you did. 1, also understand that members of your party and the government of the day made a trip to Saskatchewan and purchased 150 old buses that you were going to use for repairs. They're still at the junk....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 195, hon. member.

MR. KAHL: Vote 195, yes. I'm talking about transportation and some of the things that were done by the previous administration.

I would like to know, Mr. Minister, if there is a possibility of this happening - the transfers being allowed from one transportation company to the other.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents the annual report of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry, January 1 to December 31,1976.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at I p.m.