[ Page 3527 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Alleged interference with ICBC claims by MLA. Mr. Cocke –– 3527

Suicides in jails. Mr. Wallace –– 3528

Legislation regarding rent increases. Mr. Barnes –– 3529

Breakouts from Oakalla. Mr. Gibson –– 3529

Loan to Queen Charlotte Fisheries. Mr. Lea –– 3529

Government policy on disclosure legislation. Mrs. Dailly –– 3530

Doman Industries' negotiations with Environment and Land Use secretariat. Mrs.

Wallace –– 3530

Matter of Privilege

Interference with Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Gibson –– 3530

Statement

Functions of Dianne Hartwick. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3531

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates

On vote 195. Mr. Strongman –– 3540

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3532 Mr. Nicolson –– 3540

Mr. Lauk –– 3533 Mrs. Jordan –– 3543

Mr. Gibson –– 3533 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3545

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3533 Mr. Nicolson –– 3547

Mr. Wallace –– 3534 Mr. Wallace –– 3548

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3535 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3549

Mrs. Dailly –– 3536 Mr. Mussallem –– 3552

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3537 Mr. Lea –– 3553

Mr. Wallace –– 3538 Ms. Sanford –– 3554

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3539 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3555

Mr. Gibson –– 3539 Mrs. Wallace –– 3556

Statement

Alleged breach of Constitution Act By MLAs. Mr. Macdonald –– 3558

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just prior to recognizing anyone else, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a telegram I received at my office this morning. It is signed by W.A.C. Bennett and May Bennett and it reads as follows:

SPEAKER OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, VICTORIA, B.C. MAY AND I GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR SPLENDID MESSAGE ON OUR 50TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY WHICH IS TODAY. WILL YOU KINDLY EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE WHO KINDLY SENT US MESSAGES REPRESENTING ALL PARTIES? OUR BEST WISHES TO ALL. W.A.C. AND MAY BENNETT.

It's also my privilege to introduce to the House this afternoon a number of special guests. Seated on the floor of the House are members of the Malaysian assembly, the Sabha, who are visiting British Columbia for a few days. The leader of the delegation is Hon. Lim Guan Sing, Minister of Communications and Works. He is accompanied by: Hon. Frederick Tan, Deputy Speaker; Hon. Francis Yap, Clerk of the Sabha and Secretary; Hon. Matthew Gonzaga, assemblyman; Hon. Albert Chew Ay Nyuk, assemblyman; and Hon. Paul Baklin, Assistant Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

From the great United States, our neighbours to the south, and from the state of Alabama comes Robert L. Ellis, senator.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have the great distinction to introduce from my constituency Mayor Mike Latta, Alderman Dianne Kerr, Alderman Claude Richmond, Mr. Keith Fetton and Mr. Dave Cavazzi. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like the House to join me this afternoon in welcoming two guests from my constituency: Ms. Penny Haywood and Mr. Paul Murphy.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In the gallery with us today are two ardent supporters of mine from the constituency of Omineca: my good wife, Shirley, and her mother, Mrs. Frances Sayers. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): M. I'Orateur, ca me fait plaisir cet après-midi d'introduire M. et Mine. Marcel Vicente de Vichy, France, et leurs fils et belle-soeur, M. et Mine Jean-Claude Vicente de Victoria. Nous voulons les souhaiter bienvenu a notre province et a Fassemblee provinciale.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce and ask the members to welcome a very well-known and respected British Columbian. Tommy Tompkins is a conservationist, film-maker and a goodwill ambassador for our province. I'm pleased and proud to have him with us today and I would ask the members to welcome Mr. Tommy Tompkins.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to introduce to the House four good people from Ontario who have been hiking in Strathcona Park and will leave tomorrow for the West Coast Trail. They are Bob and Jane Couchman, their daughter, Barbara, and their son, Stephen, who, I understand, is a budding politician. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Shirley Woods of the Saanich and the Islands constituency and a guest from England, Miss Mona Middleton. Would the House make them welcome, please?

Oral questions.

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE

WITH ICBC CLAIMS BY MLA

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Has the Minister of Education conducted a review concerning ICBC with respect to the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) meddling in ICBC claims which would provide funds to a finance company which is managed by a friend of the member for Coquitlam?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, although I categorically reject the allegation of the member for New Westminster that the member for Coquitlam was doing any meddling of any kind.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in light of that statement, I wonder if the minister is interested in the strange situation that occurs in a similar pressure put on ICBC around a claim for Surrey Dodge, a claim that was close to a year late in being made and after that party became the ruling party. Surrey Dodge was run by the member for Coquitlam, as I understand.

[ Page 3528 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The member for Coquitlam at that time was not connected with Surrey Dodge in any way. The reason why the claim was permitted was, as with all claims that were incurred during that disgraceful strike that took place when this government was in charge of ICBC, that all of those claims were given consideration because it was not possible for people at that particular time to file in the normal manner. This claim was treated as all others were during that unfortunate period.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister would be interested in knowing that 1....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's the question?

MR. COCKE: Question?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. COCKE: I'll ask the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you will.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the question when 1 give the preamble. Maybe the minister would be interested in knowing and interested in seeing some of the documentation of each of those claims having been turned down by ICBC.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. member!

MR. COCKE: Will the minister comment on that

- each of the claims?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, before answering that question, may I give a preamble? 1 would be quite happy to table with the House the results of the ICBC investigation, including the analysis of the claims files. 1 haven't seen the claims files myself, Mr. Speaker, for the obvious reason that it would be improper for me or for any MLA to be scrutinizing the details of the claims, though it would be quite proper for senior officials of the corporation to do so.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'm willing to defer, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a supplementary to the Minister of Education, one of the claims was improperly paid out, evidently, to a claimant upon whose behalf the MLA for Coquitlam sought redress with ICBC. It was improperly paid, an action was taken and a judgment by ICBC was received against the claimant for the amount. The story has it that because of the intervention of the member for Coquitlam, ICBC officials were instructed by Mr. Bortnick not to proceed to collect the judgment against the claimant. Has the minister any comment on that?

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Vancouver Centre is wrong again in his facts and in his allegation. But if any of the members request it I would be quite pleased to table with the House the details of the investigation of ICBC into all of these claims. I have them here, Mr. Speaker, and if the members opposite would like them to be tabled with the House, they'll be tabled with the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. minister table such documents. Does the minister have in that pile of documents the memorandum from the ICBC legal department describing Mr. Kerster's activities?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I might add that it was a memo that was incorrectly written by the legal department of ICBC without evidence ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: ... but it's in here and the explanations are given.

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

MR. BARNES: In all respect to the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , is it not customary to recognize at least two of the opposition MLAs in view of the numbers? There's a caucus of one in the Liberals and a caucus of one in the Conservatives. We can't even get two questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. There's no fixed rule. The hon. member for Oak Bay yielded to three supplemental questions. I think he now has a right to speak.

SUICIDES IN JAILS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General with regard to jail facilities and the supervision of potentially suicidal prisoners, with specific regard to the jail in Courtenay where a disturbed teenager hanged herself in March and a young French-Canadian male hanged himself last Friday: has the minister taken any steps to implement general measures in all jails in an attempt to prevent this apparently regular incidence of suicide, through such means as using preventative measures and television monitors?

[ Page 3529 ]

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): In response to the question of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, it is a detailed response you wish. I'd like to take the question as notice and furnish you with the details.

LEGISLATION REGARDING

RENT INCREASES

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some three months ago, about last April, an announcement was made that rents would be allowed to rise only to 7 per cent - that's down 3.6 per cent from the previous annual maximum allowable. I believe that new legislation was to be effective May 1. Since that time we find that the rentalsman's office, tenants and landlords are in a quandary about what to do. Are tenants to pay 7 per cent of 10.6 per cent until the legislation is in? What is to happen as far as landlords are concerned? Are they to give rebates after the legislation becomes effective? Could you explain to the House whether the new legislation will be retroactive with a protective clause to guarantee people who do pay beyond the 7 per cent a rebate when the legislation comes in, if it ever does?

MR. SPEAKER: It would appear there were several questions all wrapped up.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't know that I kept track of them all, Mr. Speaker. The legislation which gives power to the cabinet to change the amount of allowable increases is before this House now and will be debated, presumably, in due course.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister is not giving the House any information whatsoever, because at the present time people are in a quandary as to what to do. I'm asking the minister: does he intend to ensure, when the legislation is debated, that there will be changes? The legislation, Bill 5 1, does not now include a solution to the problem as to how people will be rebated if they pay beyond 7 per cent. I think he should give us some indication as to what's happening right now.

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the proper time, hon. member, for that to be part of the debate would be in second reading of the bill and in committee stage.

BREAKOUTS FROM OAKALLA

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as being responsible for Oakalla. On January 20, the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) said in this House:

It's indeed unfortunate we've had so many breakouts from that institution in the past few weeks, and the Attorney-General has assured me that he's instructed the officials to take the necessary steps which will eliminate this problem.

Mr. Speaker, in the Vancouver Province of July 7, we find that there were a number of breakouts in the following years: in 1971 and 1972, there were 11 each year; in 1973, 12; in 1974, 6; in 1975 there were 20; in 1976, 35; and in the first six months of this year there were 21, which would indicate an annual rate of even higher this year. I would ask the At to rney -General what these necessary steps are that have been taken and how he explains this escalation.

MR. WALLACE: Don't say it's inflation!

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay, I won't say it's inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I do have some particulars on it, but the figures don't quite jibe with the ones that I've received so I'd like to have the figures checked out and respond to your question tomorrow or the next day. But measures have been taken.

MR. GIBSON: You will say what they are, eh?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Certainly.

LOAN TO QUEEN

CHARLOTTE FISHERIES

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development. Could the minister tell the House why he felt it would be a good investment to put $2 million worth of taxpayers' money - $1 million provincial, $1 million federal - into Queen Charlotte Fisheries in Richmond?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, the member, if he's done his homework, knows that this was an offer of money which was to be repaid.

MR. LEA: The question is: why did the minister feel it would be a good loan then? Why did he feel that the money should go to Queen Charlotte Fisheries, whether it was a loan or a grant?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this is a matter of policy. If he reads the legislation by which the Development Corporation was established, he knows full well that all of the rules and regulations under which the Development Corporation operates are laid out in that legislation. It was felt by the board of directors naturally that this offer fit within those guidelines.

[ Page 3530 ]

MR. LEA: I tend to agree with the minister. I think that's true.

My next question is: If it was felt by the directors of the BCDC that it would be a good loan to make to keep that industry thriving, why did the government withdraw its offer when $1 million wasn't forthcoming from the federal? Why did they not loan $2 million out of BCDC?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there certainly are many guidelines made in terms of offering loans, as the member full well knows if he knows anything about the loan business. The decisions surrounding that loan were made by the board of directors and they were certainly made for very good reasons, I'd be most happy to get further details for the member.

MR. LEA: As I understand it, the minister at this time doesn't know why the BCDC board of directors made the decision they did. You went to Ottawa without those-reasons. Is he going to answer that or did he not understand it?

MR. SPEAKER: It seemed more of a statement than a question, Hon. member.

MR. LEA: The question is : Did the minister know when he went to Ottawa what the reasons were that the BCDC board of directors was recommending that a loan be given? Did he go to Ottawa without that knowledge?

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON

DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary: on September 6,1974, the chairman of the public service submitted a partial list of public servants lie considered should make disclosures under the disclosure Act. Additions to this list, including employees of Crown corporations and executive assistants, were later made and added to the list. In December, 1975, the final order-in-council was prepared and it was in the hands of the Deputy Provincial Secretary when we left office. My question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary is: does the minister not think that it is essential that such disclosures as are called for in the disclosure legislation must be made in the public interest?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. member for Burnaby North, I would agree with the philosophy of disclosure, but I would like to take the details of the question and take that as a mater of.... Answering would be a matter of government policy, which I don't think I should give during the question period.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES' NEGOTIATIONS WITH

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE SECRETARIAT

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and it relates to Cowichan Bay. I wonder whether or not the minister is aware that during the negotiations between Doman Industries, when they were establishing themselves on Cowichan Bay, and the ELUC secretariat, at no time did Doman Industries advise the secretariat of the contract that Doman held with the Rooke and Rodenbush company.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what the question was. The member mentioned, if I'm correct, that Doman Industries was negotiating with the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat. If that was part of the statement, I'm not aware of any such negotiations.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the privileges of members of this Legislature. The statement of facts is as follows.

MR. SPEAKER: State the question, Hon. member.

MR. GIBSON: Bill 65, Mr. Speaker, was introduced in this assembly on June 22. It provides for the abolition of the Vancouver Resources Board. Since the introduction of Bill 65, the government has had some meetings with the VRB to discuss the bill. There has been no debate in the Legislature.

Today the VRB received a letter dated July 6 from the Deputy Minister of Human Resources. That letter advised the Resources Board that henceforth certain restrictions would be put on their activities pending passage of the bill, such as specific approval of the deputy minister being required for payments of $5,000 or over, any matters requiring approval of the board, and legal services. The latter condition could prevent the board from using legal avenues of redress open to them. It is my opinion that this action by the deputy takes passage of Bill 65 by this Legislature for granted and is, therefore, a contempt of the Legislature, either by the deputy or by the minister if the deputy was acting under instructions.

At the end of last week a Mr. Tetlock of the Ministry of Public Works was measuring space in the VRB offices under the assumption of a provincial takeover. Mr. Tetlock was acting under a memorandum of instruction. The ultimate author of that memorandum is, in my opinion, in contempt of the Legislature for the reasons enumerated above, and the Speaker should take steps to obtain the memorandum of instruction for further verification.

Last week the Ministry of Human Resources sent a

[ Page 3531 ]

Mr. Merrier and a Mr. McBeth over to examine the file systems of the VRB in preparation for integration. This is further evidence of how the executive branch is holding the Legislature in contempt by taking passage of Bill 65 as a fait accompli.

The activities enumerated seek to make effective by executive action what the Legislature has not yet provided for - and may never provide - by legislative action. Therefore it is in contempt of the Legislature. The contempt is compounded by the fact that the government has the management of the business of the House and, were these urgent steps required, could easily have called the legislation for debate at any time after June 22.

1 consider the above a clear contempt of the Legislative Assembly and ask you to so rule. In the event that you do so rule, I will have a motion ready proposing further investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will certainly take under advisement the matter which has been raised by the Hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano and report back to the House.

But I would say for the benefit of all of the members of the House, and as has been stated by previous Speakers, not only in this House but in other jurisdictions, it is sometimes beneficial but not necessary that the member who proposes the matter of privilege indicates at the same time the motion that lie is prepared to move if in fact the matter of privilege is found to be in order.

There seems to be some confusion in the minds of the members of the House, not only on the matter of privilege, but as to the circumstances which would follow. It's probably as good a time as any to discuss it.

It's the Speaker's duty to determine if, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege is involved. If that were to be so found, then it's up to the member asking about the matter of privilege to move his motion. The precedence that it gets there is that the motion can then be moved without notice and would be, of course, debated at that particular time. If the motion were to be found in order, it would be found either for or against by the members of the House, not by the Speaker. So the Speaker's duty is to determine if there is a case of privilege. The rest is for the House to decide. It has to be prima facie case of privilege, as the member understands. The rest of the matter is for the House to decide. If no motion is attached to the question of privilege, it doesn't mean that it cannot be moved, but it would be unusual to then move it without notice. But it would be something that could be moved in any event, if the Speaker found that the matter of privilege did in fact exist.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to file with the House documents to which I shall refer in Committee of Supply debate on my estimates.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: I ask leave to file documents requested of me during question period today.

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) I ask leave to call and debate Motion 13 standing in that member's name in the order paper.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It will be called, b- not today.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There's no debate and the Hon. members know that I observed a number of noes.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to respond to a question which was asked of me in the last sitting of the House in the oral question period.

Leave granted.

FUNCTIONS OF DIANNE.HARTWICK

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question of the function of Dianne Hartwick, who is the executive assistant to the Provincial Secretary, was asked during the last question period.

I would just like to quote, first of all, the fact that in January, 1977, as the result of many requests and solely as a convenience to the public, the office of the Deputy Provincial Secretary published the first quarterly supplement to The British Columbia Gazette.

Among the names of officials listed were those of executive assistants to ministries. It's important to note that, contrary to the statement made in the Legislature by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , there is no statutory requirement to publish any order-in-council appointment in The British Columbia Gazette. The Victoria and Vancouver press reports, which I will quote from in just a moment, announced the appointment of Dianne Hartwick as executive assistant and they noted clearly that she would be employed on special duties within the Ministry of Human Resources.

I'd like to quote also from a news release from my office at that time, a copy of which I hold and would

[ Page 3532 ]

be pleased to file with the House, wherein it states: "Dianne Hartwick has been appointed executive assistant to Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy with special duties and special services co-ordination in the Department of Human Resources. It goes on to tell about Miss Hartwick's special education.

"Her initial assignment with the Department of Human Resources will be a review of preschool services and other school board services for handicapped children. It will also require intensive work with associations.---

This is quoted again in The Vancouver Sun and The Province of that week, where it says: "Miss Hartwick will have special duties and special services co-ordination with the Department of Human Resources."

Again in another area of another newspaper: "She will be working closely with associations concerned with handicapped, including the blind, the deaf and victims of cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis and other handicaps.---

Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware that there's anything illegal about an executive assistant being employed on duties which also have an association with other ministries. 1 suggest that the question, which really did concentrate on the fact that she was not listed in The Gazette, does not have any precedence for a statutory requirement that she should be listed in The Gazette. It is true she was not. That could be a human error; 1 do not check The Gazette myself, personally.

Orders of the day.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

continued.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A few moments ago I filed with the Clerk certain documents relating to a matter which was raised last week. On Friday last, in Committee of Supply, members of the committee asked for certain material and papers relating to the 1976 joint committee on housing, a committee whose membership comprised three members of this Legislature, representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1 was unable to respond at that time because not all the papers and other material were readily available. 1 now have the necessary documentation and, as 1 indicate, I've just filed it with the House so that members of the committee will be able to understand the background which, regretfully, is highly embarrassing to me.

The key document setting out the intent of my ministry is a memo from the Deputy Minister of Housing, Mr. Larry Bell, to Mr. George Gray, Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing, and dated October 8,1976. This is one of the documents which has been filed but I would like to read it to the committee; it is relatively brief. The date again is October 8,1976, from Mr. Bell to Mr. Gray, and it's headed: "Joint housing committee expenses."

"I have been instructed by the minister to ensure that no expenses related directly to the MLAs on this committee are to be passed for payment from departmental funds. It is the intention of the government to seek alternate sources in order to compensate the MLAs for these expenses.

"I realize that in a number of instances charges for room and transportation, including that of the MLAs, have been charged directly to the department. In these instances you are to make prompt payment in order to keep these bills current. However, I would like you to maintain a strict accounting and to submit to the minister, after the committee has completed its work, an accounting of all funds to be reimbursed to the department."

That's signed by L.I. Bell, Deputy Minister of Housing, with a copy to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that date?

HON. MR. CURTIS: October 8,1976.

On November 25,1976, Mr. Gray responded with a memo to me detailing the expenses, which has also been filed with the Clerk of the House. I don't have a copy to read but in effect, as members who are interested will see, Mr. Gray simply seeks from me further instructions.

Mr. Chairman, this memo was not acted upon in my office, for which I accept full blame and responsibility. None of the three MLAs concerned were made aware of this memo, through oversight. They have not been billed for any expenses incurred and were not asked to repay anything. The reason again - and I think it bears repeating, Mr. Chairman - is simple: the key memo was not processed through my office.

It is my intention to move immediately on this memo by providing for the first time a statement of expenses to the MLAs. I might say that I apologize to them for the embarrassment that this incident has caused. I also apologize to the committee debating my estimates.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that no blame should be attached to the officials in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for not advising the MLAs in question because under the Constitution Act,

[ Page 3533 ]

as I read it - section 25 - it was quite proper for their expenses to be paid. I think it's important to read into the record section 25 of the Constitution Act:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act, in the case of any board or any royal or other commission the members or commissioners of which receive no remuneration for their services, but are paid, in whole or in part, the expenses incurred by them in traveling or otherwise in the discharge of their official duties, the fact that any person who is a member or commissioner of the board or commission has been paid or is entitled to be paid any expenses so incurred by him does not make ineligible that person to election as a member of the Legislative Assembly, nor disqualify him to sit and vote in the Legislative Assembly."

No blame should be attached to any of the MLAs, in my view. The fact that their expenses need not be paid, should not be paid, was a political decision. It was taken last October, as Mr. Bell's memo on my instruction clearly indicates. The intention of that political decision was to discourage any practice that might develop of using MLAs unnecessarily for government tasks in order to supplement the full-time MLA stipend.

I think you can appreciate, Mr. Chairman, my dismay to find that the spirit of this intent had not only failed to be carried out but that I myself was responsible for that failure.

Members of the committee have also asked, Mr. Chairman, for the transcripts which were taken by Hansard of the various hearings of the joint committee on housing, the same committee which operated commencing in July of 1976, with interruptions, through into the early fall.

. An undertaking was given by the chairman of the committee - and the chairman was selected by the members of the committee, not appointed by me; I think that should be pointed out - that the transcript would remain strictly private and confidential within the confines of the committee and the minister's office. I understand that this was done in order to permit free-ranging discussion of the problems relative to delivery of housing, road blocks and red tape, whether at the municipal, regional district or provincial level.

The transcripts taken by Hansard will be filed with the House as soon as clearance from those who appeared and received that undertaking has been obtained. I trust that you, Mr. Chairman, will understand that having given this undertaking to at least some of those who appeared before the committee, we are now obliged to contact them and to seek their release from that undertaking.

MR. LEA: You're not obliged but it's courteous.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Prince Rupert interjects that it's courteous. We do want to contact them. As soon as that is complete, the transcripts of the committee's hearings will be filed with the House.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, it shouldn't be necessary to congratulate a minister for a full disclosure to the committee, but I do so in any event and thank him for that disclosure. The opposition has not had an opportunity to peruse the documents filed. On the surface, we react to the minister's comments as being strained, to say the very least, with respect to the indiscretion and the breach of the Constitution Act. We say only that section 25 virtually does not apply and couldn't possibly be interpreted to apply to the situation involving sitting members. In any event, the opposition will reply in full at a later time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, like other members, I want to study this statement, but I woi.~er if could ask the minister three specific questions:

1) Who authorized the use of Hansard by the study group?

2) Who gave the commitment, if it was any single person, or was it given by numerous people on numerous occasions? If so, who originated the basic policy that the transcripts would remain confidential?

3) Could the minister describe to the House what formal document, if any, established the Bawlf report study group as an operating entity?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we started out using a tape recorder in the first sessions of the hearings of the committee. We started out with a standard tape recorder and stenographic help later to transcribe the tapes into written form. That proved very time-consuming and we had some difficulty inasmuch as it was not professionally done. Some words were missed and we were not satisfied that we were getting an accurate transcript of all the points that were made with approximately 12 persons and those who were making submissions in various rooms. It was at that point that I sought use of Hansard, and we communicated with the office of the Speaker. Authority for use of Hansard was given by Mr. Speaker.

The second question by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano regarded the undertaking given by the chairman. I think I said in my statement -certainly that was my intent - that the undertaking appears to have been given at certain hearings, not at all of them. I can only assume - I have no knowledge - that that was the consensus of the committee or, on the other hand, the view of the chairman who was elected by the joint committee, by members of the UBCM and the MLAs involved.

[ Page 3534 ]

The third question involved the formal setting up of the committee.

MR. GIBSON: Yes. What was the documentation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that was discussed within my ministry and I reached decisions as to two things, essentially. First, I thought there were three members of the government side of the House who would be able to assist in a study of this kind and who happily responded to that request for assistance. Then I also wrote to the president of the UBCM - if it was not a formal request, I communicated with him and I believe I wrote to him after first discussing it - and asked if he would name representatives from UBCM. I believe that I also said that it need not necessarily be members of the executive, but members such as mayors and aldermen who are associated with UBCM along with one or two officials of the UBCM staff. Therefore the municipal representatives on the joint committee, if you wish, were selected in one way or another by the UBCM, not by this office.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to further briefly clarify then, the committee, if I understand it, was set up basically in quite an informal way. There was a letter to the head of the UBCM and that letter contained perhaps terms of reference or the general idea of the committee. There was no specific enabling official act of the government such as an order-in-council or anything like that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it was, if you wish, a ministerial assignment or ministerial commission. I indicated on Friday, when you were not present, that within three weeks of formation of the new government I met all day with the UBCM executive in Victoria and reviewed a number of things, as you would expect a new minister to do in a new government. Flowing out of that January 14 meeting was a decision that among the things which we would like to examine through the course of 1976 were the allegations, founded or unfounded, that there were delays in construction of housing.

I think it is also important to reflect back on the situation in 1976 rather than the present situation in terms of housing shortage and to attempt on a joint basis with UBCM and with representatives of the province, both the ministry and others, to determine if in fact the allegations were founded or unfounded and what could be done to resolve some of the difficulties which were coming to our attention when we were in opposition and indeed were the subject of fairly widespread discussion and debate. So it was one of several decisions flowing out of that all-day meeting with the UBCM executive.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I chose to stay out of the debate on Friday simply because the minister assured us he would be coming back to the House with a report. I very much appreciate the minister's frankness today. I would like to hope that he influences his cabinet colleagues with this kind of response. I've been in this House a few years and witnessed the most incredible waste of time while the opposition members battle for days on end to drag information out of a minister when, in point of fact, frank and simple statements such as this minister has given us not only inspire some measure of confidence in the legislative process but, if nothing else, saves us all a whole lot of time. I appreciate that.

I had meant to make a few comments about this issue following the Friday sitting for the simple reason that I think the issue points out the dangers of so-called in-house studies or commissions or inquiries or whatever you want to call it. Later on, Mr. Chairman, I want to get on to the issue of some of the inquiries that the minister has been required to undertake in relation to conflict of interest in various municipalities around the province. But at the moment I would just like to say that I find it a very ominous note that on something as crucial as an inquiry into the possible impact of speculation on land prices and housing - such a sensitive, important issue - the minister would, first of all, make it an in-house inquiry....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not totally - UBCM.

MR. WALLACE: Not totally, but certainly it does not involve members of the opposition parties. It's not a completely in-house committee, as the minister quite rightly corrects me, since members of UBCM were involved.

Nevertheless it was an inquiry on a matter of crucial concern to everybody in B.C., and they apparently feel that it was necessary when requested to give an undertaking that evidence presented would be secret and confidential. I say that, Mr. Chairman, in what I hope will be taken by the minister to be an objective way for this reason: I can't think of one issue that inflames the public more than the image -correct or otherwise - that one of the main reasons that housing is so expensive is that developers find it possible to make a fast buck, to use a slang phrase, and consequently add unreasonable amounts to the cost of housing. I'm not saying that is true, I'm saying that is certainly an image which many members of the public believe to be true.

If the minister holds some form of inquiry relating very much to that sensitive issue and agrees that in order for developers, for example, to help his committee they must be guaranteed that what they say will be kept secret, I think this just adds to the problem of trying in a convincing way to get to the

[ Page 3535 ]

absolute truth of the situation and to convince the public that in fact all the true influences bearing on the price of land and therefore the price of housing have been determined.

Mr. Chairman, I would say with the greatest of respect that some of the public response to the report of the committee, which essentially said that land speculation did not appreciably play a large part in the cost of housing, has been doubting in regard to the conclusion drawn by this committee.

I would suggest two things. First of all, we have all kinds of standing committees of this Legislature doing nothing. We have eight standing committees of the Legislature, Mr. Chairman, and, as always, the public accounts committee and the standing orders and private bills committee function during the sitting of the Legislature. The only other committee that is out and around when the House is not sitting is the very important agriculture committee. But we have five other standing committees which comprise representation from members of the opposition parties who could well have undertaken openly and in public the kind of study which the minister felt was necessary - and I think it was - and was an advisable kind of issue to try and dig into in some detail.

So I'm just saying that on one hand we have doubts being expressed by no less than the Premier that we're not all really full-time MLAs and we're not earning our $24,000 a year, and on the other hand we have at least five standing committees which have been constituted but which have been charged with no responsibilities.

Secondly, we have the modified type of inquiry, or what is essentially a ministerial inquiry, not only being carried out without the participation of members of the opposition but where an undertaking has been given to those who choose to appear before the hearings that their evidence or their comments -if "evidence" is too strong a word - will be confidential and secret.

While the minister at that time may have felt that this was advisable, I think subsequent events have suggested that this kind of inquiry is fraught with some real pitfalls. I don't say that just because the minister happened to overlook a memo and get into administrative difficulties per se. I'm even more concerned about the image of secrecy on an issue which, in my opinion, should be wide open if it's important enough - and I agree it's important enough - that there should be some kind of inquiry into the very heart of this question as to how much speculation on land prices leads to high costs of housing. On an issue that important - and it is important, and important enough to justify any kind of government inquiry - surely it would follow, in my view, that that kind of inquiry should be wide open to the public and that any evidence that's presented should not only be available to the public at the time it's Presented but that transcripts and reports and all the other kinds of written documentation of that evidence should be widely available.

I would just ask, in closing my comments on this particular issue, Mr. Chairman, if I can assume from the minister's statement - namely, that he is contacting those who gave evidence - that if they choose they do not have to have their statements made public. I take it from the minister's comment, but I would like confirmation, that he will respect their request and selectively make available to the members of the opposition some of the evidence that was presented to the committee. Or will the minister be willing to discuss with those persons the conflict which has arisen within this committee seeking that evidence, and try to ensure that all the comments that were put before the minister's inquiry will be made available not only to the members of the House but also to the public?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the last first because I will not be a party to editing transcripts of hearings. We are contacting individuals who made submissions and then spoke to their submissions. I wasn't with the committee; I think perhaps this committee may wish to understand that. I did not travel with the committee or commission. I simply saw that it was underway and heard from time to time that it was taking longer than was originally expected because of the response. We are contacting those who made submissions and made their comments, indicating that we will be tabling this material. As the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who is not in his seat, observed, that's the courteous thing to do. Otherwise the transcripts would have been tabled at 2 o'clock or 2:15 this afternoon.

So it will be a complete transcript, but again I point out the difficulty that we experienced with the initial recording, which was not done by professional staff. It is difficult to hear certain statements which were made. There are some indecipherable parts of the transcript. We also have available to us the actual prepared submissions, which were in 10 copies or 12 copies or whatever it might be, from the individuals or groups appearing.

I would like to point out to the member that we were really examining the approval process. As I indicated in my earlier comments today, that was the thing which had disturbed me most in the last year or two prior to that time - , the approval process, whether at the municipal, provincial or regional district level. There are examples, at the provincial level even, where it takes too long to get a yes or a no. I'm not saying by approval process that every application for rezoning, or every application for construction, should be automatically and blindly assented to. But there are instances - and we've

[ Page 3536 ]

examined those quite carefully within the ministry -where, having passed the municipal or regional district hurdle, it still takes too long to get any kind of an answer out of the various people who have some responsibility or another. I'm acting on that to the best of my ability by identifying it for other ministries within government.

So we were essentially looking at - and we assigned essentially to the committee - the approval process, which the member will know, Mr. Chairman, in itself limits the supply of land. There's no question about it. With respect to open debate on the approval process, the whole mechanism of municipal, regional district and provincial activity regarding land, I would think that Bill 42 - and I'm not going to discuss the bill, Mr. Chairman, but simply refer to it - presently before the House and containing amendments to the Municipal Act, will provide an ample opportunity for free-ranging debate on what's right and what's wrong with the approval process and supply of housing with the relationship between municipalities, regional districts and provincial approval agencies. That, presumably, will be called sometime in the future.

I hope I have answered the member's questions, particularly with respect to the actual transcript of the hearings conducted by this joint committee in the course of a part of last year.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite clear on the question of the transcripts. The minister quite rightly assures us that he won't edit them. But if at one hearing a certain person refuses to have his or her comment made public and available to this House, does the minister mean that the total transcript for that hearing will be withheld, or will it simply be a matter of deleting all the comments made by that particular person who refuses to have the statements made public?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I expect that we will be able to point out to those who made their submissions the importance of releasing all the transcripts. The question of someone refusing is hypothetical. I will not be a party to editing in any way, shape or form. Really, I think for this afternoon that is all I can say.

I believe that the various groups, representatives of municipalities and others who participated will accede, inasmuch as it was the chairman who indicated that the submissions were confidential. I don't know in the transcripts that anyone said: "I want to be assured that this information will be kept strictly confidential." I can't deal with a hypothetical, Mr. Member.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the area of housing, which comes under this minister's jurisdiction. I remember when this minister's estimates were up a year ago, I expressed very great concern over this minister and his government's philosophy on housing, Mr. Chairman. At that time I expressed my concern primarily on the fact that we on this side of the House feel very strongly that this government's philosophy on housing is actually denying access to proper shelter to citizens of this province.

As the year has passed and as I watch what has happened in the large municipality of Burnaby, of which I represent part, I frankly have to accuse this minister, because of his policies, of denying access to shelter for hundreds of citizens in the lower mainland area.

I particularly want to go over again the two major housing projects in Burnaby which come under his jurisdiction. What has happened there? Again, I'm not going to go into detail over Quesnel Green, which the minister is fully aware of and which the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought up on Friday. But I do want to say that it is most distressing to go through Quesnel Green and find all of these empty units when, as a matter of fact, there are people on a waiting list who would like to get in on co-op housing. Because of this government's intransigent philosophy, where they don't seem to endorse the co-op housing concept, we no longer can expand co-op housing in Quesnel Green. Yet the people of the area want co-op housing. Because this minister has denied the expansion of co-op housing, particularly in this area, those units remain empty. They are empty at a time when people wish and desperately need good shelter, and when people are on a waiting list. I want to reiterate to the minister -through you, Mr. Chairman - for co-op housing. Yet this minister refuses to make any changes in this area. If you just walk through, it is a very tragic scene to see all these empty units because of this minister's philosophy.

If we move across the MacInnes Place housing development, what do we find there? A very similar situation, although this wasn't a matter of the co-op philosophy; this is a matter of this government believing that people must own their homes and that there must be something obviously wrong with renting. Under the former Minister of Housing, under the NDP government, Maclnnis Place was to have a great number of units for rental accommodation. I believe it was 214 units. I know the former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) will want to continue on this subject when I finish, Mr. Chairman. So we had 214 units in MacInnes Place. When this government came in, one of their first moves was to say that they were going to limit the number of rental accommodations. The only answer we had from the minister was that he believed in having a mix.

What has happened because of this policy of the minister responsible for housing in this province

[ Page 3537 ]

under the Social Credit government? We have 214 units in MacInnes Place. Of the 54 which were allowed to stay as rental - only 54 to my knowledge out of the 214 - there are presently 49 which have been rented. So that certainly points out that they are moving very close to full occupancy for rental accommodation. But then, under this minister, the rest were to be sold. That left 160 units, Mr. Chairman.

1 visited the place on Saturday. When you go through the place it is like a little deserted area-1 there are only one-half of those units sold. Yet when you look at the ones that are for rent, it is quite obvious that people, because of the financial situation they find themselves in because of this government's overall economic policies, find the rental situation more palatable financially. Yet this government is not allowing them to rent.

So, Mr. Chairman, once again 1 would like to hear the rationale from the Minister of Housing for the way he is handling housing in the municipality of Burnaby, where the people need shelter and yet because of his policies are being denied it. I hope the minister will answer to this House for these policies and perhaps be able to give some encouragement to the many people who want housing in Burnaby. Perhaps this intransigent stand that you are taking on your philosophy on housing will be changed, and you will put people first when it comes to housing and not some stubborn policy that you seem to be committed to.

HON. MR. CURTIS: 1 thank the member for her straightforward remarks. 1 was accused in committee on Friday - Thursday night or Friday; I'm sorry, 1 don't recall precisely which session - of having some ideological hangup with respect to co-ops. That is not correct. 1 think that I've had several meetings with individuals and groups involved in co-ops or interested in co-ops and I absolutely refute the suggestion that this minister or this government is turned off or is on a programme of discouraging co-operative housing. In fact, earlier this year, on January 24, we announced that operating subsidies to co-operative housing societies no longer require repayment.

1 think that if we're going to analyse the situation, we should do so as objectively as possible. The operating subsidies were set up to help societies with operating costs during the initial years. The intention was to phase out assistance as members' income rose over the following seven or eight years. It was originally intended that the operating subsidy would be repayable. As 1 say, we made a policy decision that that repayment is no longer required and that was certainly welcomed by various co-operative groups throughout the province.

1 suppose it has nothing to do - or very little to do - with my estimates, Mr. Chairman, except 1 might also point out that I'm a member of a credit union and that is a co-op in the full sense of the word, as far as 1 am concerned.

With respect to Quesnel Green, we've had repeated claims by that particular co-op that it can fill the empty units. Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that we have offered these units to the co-op. We wrote to all members of the co-op, where we had addresses. Now 1 don't pretend that we reached every single person, but where we had an address or had some means of contacting the member, we wrote to them. We asked them to visit the project and to choose a unit. We asked the executive of the co-op to provide us with an up-to-date listing of its membership so that we could ensure that every member received information on the project. I'm informed that we received no response to that particular request from the co-op executive.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

So then we sent a number of brochures to the co-op executive, asking them to distribute the brochures to their members who might be interested. We offered an additional supply of brochures if they were required. The fact of the matter is that those individual members who genuinely wished to purchase a unit have done so, there or in some of our other projects.

What we're dealing with here in this particular project, Quesnel Green, in my view - and 1 don't expect the member who raised the matter to agree with it, but I'm expressing my view - is that we have an attempt by a small group of organizers to provide themselves with the job of managing a housing project which is worth something in the neighbourhood of $10 million. Well, we're not prepared to surrender that responsibility to a small group of individuals. They pressed their case in court during a period of time when we were receiving a large number of purchase inquiries. By the time we had cleared all legal impediments through the courts, Mr. Chairman, the co-op chose to withdraw its case once we'd completed the preliminary hearings.

Those units were, and still are, available to members of this particular co-op - to any of them who wish to purchase. They can go to the sales office or communicate directly with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

In summary, therefore, Mr. Chairman, we offered the same units for the same payments to the persons with the same incomes. They had the same opportunity through a condominium council to manage the affairs of this project. What we did was offer fee-simple ownership of their unit and a share on a co-operative basis of the common property as

[ Page 3538 ]

legislated and regulated under the Strata Titles Act. Mr. Chairman, it was our judgment, notwithstanding our concern about this particular project - and it's been a difficult one; it's been a very complex one and I think it was for the former minister - that co-operatives in general, in order to function effectively, need to be relatively small in scale. They should not be 280 or 300 units; 40 or 50 is much more effective and satisfactory.

I simply want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that I met as recently as a few weeks ago - but it was by no means the first meeting - with the Columbia Housing Advisory Board and discussed a number of policy matters relating to co-operative housing. As a result, we've undertaken to review a proposal to reinstate a share-purchase subsidy income for low-income owners. Some members will know, Mr. Chairman, that this was a federal-provincial programme, but it was cancelled - at least federally - by Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.

So I make no apology. I re-state this government's interest in working with and willingness to work with smaller co-op groups as part of the total spectrum of providing housing in British Columbia both today and for years to come. If I can judge from comments made by Shirley Schmidt of Columbia Housing, she had doubts at first and she was concerned at first -that is, during the first few months of the new government - but she now understands that we see that as one important part of a series of options open with respect to housing. Again, I think that the cancellation of the repayment requirement for the operating subsidy speaks more eloquently than I can with regard to co-ops in British Columbia.

When we have firm, solid interest by a group anywhere in British Columbia with respect to co-op housing, we will do all we can to assist, but the term "co-op" is not so magical that we're going to drop everything and say yes, regardless of the size, the complexity or the magnitude of the project. I caution the committee on that particular, point, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick follow-up. The minister is still begging the question. I'm not sure if he could perhaps answer very specifically. Would it be correct to say, then, that you are in favour of further co-op housing in Quesnel Green but you want to maintain it in small units? This is the question that I would like answered because I don't think his answer was clear.

I don't believe the minister referred at all to what is happening at MacInnes Place. I'm asking him if he will reconsider more units there for rental.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, like other members of the opposition, I have had a little more time to study the documents which the minister tabled after question period. I'd like to ask two questions.

First of all, regarding the memo from Mr. Bell to Mr. Gray, I would just like to quote the second sentence, which states: "It is the intention of the government to seek alternate sources in order to compensate the MLAs for these expenses." Could the minister give us some idea what he had in mind when he instructed his deputy to pass on this information to the assistant deputy? What alternate sources of funding for the expenses could he refer to, other than those within his statutory powers as minister?

Secondly, I have to assume, regardless of the source of the money, that the minister felt he had the right, somehow or other, to pay these members of the Legislature for the expenses incurred. I notice the minister quoted the Constitution Act, section 25, and I would like to quote the first sentence from that: "Not withstanding anything in this Act, in the case of any board, or any royal, or other, commission, the members or commissioners . . ." et cetera.

I notice from the news release of the minister dated November 2,1976, the subject is described as a "joint committee on housing." I have the original announcement of the inquiry in The Vancouver Sun of June 30. It describes it as a "special municipal housing advisory committee." I just wish clarification, Mr. Chairman. It seems as though the terminology employed by the minister and his department, both within his news release of November 2, and within the reporting of the press, quite clearly describes the vehicle being used to carry out the inquiry as a committee, whereas the Constitution Act clearly refers to "any board, or any royal, or other, commission."

It seems quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that this was neither a board, nor a royal commission, nor any other commission. It was, in fact, a joint committee on housing. As the minister himself pointed out earlier this afternoon, it was not simply an in-house committee of members of his ministry but was composed of a combination of MLAs, UBCM people, and officials from the minister's department. I would have to say that 1, like the minister - although I'm not any lawyer - think it's very clear in section 25 of the Constitution Act that that section could not reasonably be interpreted as applying to MLAs who undertake duties on behalf of the minister in such a role as members of a joint committee on housing.

My questions are really twofold. First of all, could the minister please explain in the memo of October 8, from Mr. Bell to Mr. Gray, the alternate sources of funding for MLA expenses on this committee?

Secondly, has the minister sought a legal interpretation of section 25 of the Constitution Act in relation to the terminology which the minister himself uses in his news release of November 2,1976?

[ Page 3539 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just following along, in a sense, I suppose this isn't the minister's problem. It's more a problem of the three members who accepted reimbursements detailed in the memorandum that the minister tabled in the House, but it's through the minister that we have to ask these questions.

The matter turns on whether or not this Bawlf report study group was in fact a commission or simply a committee. If it was a commission, it appears to be protected by section 25 of the Constitution Act. If it was merely a committee, I would say it was not.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we can go to other legislation of this province to understand what a commission is. Commissions are provided for under the Public Inquiries Act, chapter 315, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960. Commissions are referred to here in section 3 as to how they're appointed:

"Whenever the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it expedient to cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter relating to the election of any member of the Legislative Assembly, past or present, or into and concerning any matter concerned with the good government of the province or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof including all matters, municipal. . ~ " It goes on to list a number of other things that commissions may look at.

" . . . the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by commission intituled in the matter of this Act and issued under the Great Seal, appoint commissioners or a sole commissioner to inquire into such matters."

Mr. Chairman, that's how commissions become appointed in this province. They're appointed under the Great Sea].

We have the minister telling us earlier on today that no formal document was issued in respect of the Bawlf committee. It was simply an exchange of letters with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and others. There was no order-in-council passed in particular, and there was no commission issued under the Great Seal. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this was not a commission and therefore the members concerned were not protected by section 25 of the Constitution Act. That being the case, I would just ask the minister what action he next intends to take.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I made the fullest possible statement at the commencement of committee today. I really am not in a position to make further comment this afternoon. I understand, on the basis of my inquiries, that "commission" has a much broader application than the hon. leader of the

Liberal Party has cited this afternoon. He has touched on a few, but 1 suppose that really becomes a question for someone other than me to answer as to what a commission is - small "c" or capital "C". It certainly wasn't a royal commission. We never suggested that it would be, should be or could be. It was a commission, an assignment, a request, a delegation to do certain things - in this case to work with representatives of the UBCM and to deliver a report with respect to the delivery of housing.

So 1 suppose, Mr. Member - and you've had more experience in these matters than 1 - you and 1 could debate for the rest of the afternoon what is or is not a commission. But 1 believe that my opening statement this afternoon indicated my position as clearly as 1 possibly could.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) touched on something similar with respect to section 25 of the Constitution Act. 1 believe I've answered that.

Alternate sources of funds - again I refer the member to my opening statement. Clearly there were at least two or three options open to us, one of which would have been caucus funds. As is the case with any large group in a Legislature, each member contributes towards a caucus fund and that is one possible source. Another source, of course, would have been to simply go back to the members and indicate that there was absolutely no assistance. But the joint group meeting got down to such things as meeting from 8: 30 in the morning until well into the evening with very few breaks and food was sent in without attempting to decide whether a member of this House was permitted to have a sandwich or not and a member of the UBCM was permitted to have a sandwich or not.

So some of the expenses which are dealt with on the documentation that 1 filed were for the group -all of those who were involved, whether ministerial staff, UBCM, elected people, staff or the MLAs. Some of the expenses are, therefore, relatively difficult to isolate, inasmuch as 1 know that on a couple of occasions it was said: "We're not going to be out of here today. Can we have some more coffee?" It was often something as simple as that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the member for North Vancouver-Capilano continues, 1 might just caution you that the line of questioning prior to the minister's reply was once again getting back to the area where we were discussing this motion of last week which, as you know, must be made as a substantive motion if it's ~going to....

MR. GIBSON: Which motion is that, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was made.

[ Page 3540 ]

MR , CHAIRMAN: A motion wasn't made, but in dealing with the question of finances for the repayment of funds for these three members, the Chairman at the time ruled that if the debate was to be continued it would be by a substantive motion. So I must just ask you to keep your discussion to vote 195.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of this word "commission, " which the minister has used in his discussion. I'm just trying to be helpful now in suggesting that it seems to me that were it contemplated that this was a commission within the meaning of the Constitution Act, then at some point in the documentation or press releases surrounding the establishment or the reporting of the Bawlf committee, the word "commission" should have been used in conjunction with it. I'm wondering if the minister could bring to the committee any such documentation that does indeed refer to that body as a commission as distinct from a committee.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): I would like to change the subject slightly. Some 10 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I arrived in British Columbia. Shortly after arriving here, one of the first articles I happened to read in one of the Vancouver papers had to do with rapid transit and the possibility that rapid transit might soon be seen in the lower mainland. Since that time I would think that, without exaggeration, every 18 months or so there has been a new study on the feasibility, the possibility and the hope that rapid transit might soon become a reality. I think we've heard of bus lines, used rail lines, tunnels, new bridges - and combinations of all four that I've just mentioned. But until now - and certainly I haven't seen anything yet either - we just haven't seen anything that really makes up a start to rapid transit. In fact, I think I could say that scarcely a month goes by that there isn't some mention of rapid transit in the paper, and over the last 10 years I think that that is far short of an exaggeration.

What I'm trying to say to the minister today is that the city of Vancouver and the people in the lower mainland don't want any more studies; they want some action. They want to see rapid transit start. They don't want to see any more politicians. They don't want to see any feasibility studies. They would just like to have some action. I think I speak not only for people who supported our party but for people who supported the opposition parties in our desire to have something happen, and I believe that leadership should come from this government and this ministry.

Vancouver, in my estimation, if we don't start soon, is going to choke to death. It's not only the people who are moving in and out of the city, going to work in the morning and going home in the evening; it's also the commerce that takes place. As soon as you have huge numbers of automobiles flowing in and out of a city, trucks and heavy vehicles tend to slow down and the costs are incalculable. I believe that we have to start doing something and doing it now.

In the late '40s I happened to be living in Toronto. At that time, that city started construction on a rapid transit line that has been expanded continuously ever since. But to me the interesting point that comes out of that particular city is that in 1945-46, when the planning was done and the first shovels were put into the~ ground, Toronto city wasn't much larger than Vancouver is right now. In 1963, Montreal began construction on its subway and now we have the city of Edmonton about to begin construction on a subway or a rapid transit system for a city something half the size of Vancouver.

So here we have the third-largest city in Canada and 40 per cent of our provincial population living within the confines of the lower mainland, and rapid transit has still not really started.

There are more studies. Not long ago the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) , the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , a number of other MLAs and myself met with members of the GVRD. They showed us a most impressive slide presentation and a most impressive series of charts on what rapid transit may or may not be. But when we asked them the question: "When are you going to start?" they weren't really too sure; they were still working on it.

I don't believe GVRD is the agency that should be looking at rapid transit. They can look at it but I don't think they are going to be the people who are going to give the thrust to that particular mode of transport. First of all, I believe they have a conflict of interest. I think our provincial government has to take the lead, has to set the tone and has to force people to begin thinking in terms of reality. That is not just planning it but putting it into effect.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that your department in the very near future make sure that all of the agencies that are involved in rapid transit stop planning and start digging.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I defer to the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, first of all, to the minister, I've given an undertaking to the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) that I would take note of the minister's response to her questions about MacInnes Place. I also believe she asked for some clarification as to whether or not the minister was announcing an invitation for some type of co-operative initiative to

[ Page 3541 ]

take place as a solution to Quesnel Green.

Mr. Chairman, I should say that the other day I noted that I had not remarked upon a comment made by the minister during his opening remarks which, I suppose, were to some extent made for myself and as a tribute to two fine members of his department, Mr. Marcoux and Mr. George Gray, both of whom have had some health difficulties. I certainly valued their service greatly, and I also knew Mr. Gray through the church which we both attend and the Boy Scout group committee. I hold both of them in very high admiration.

I was interested today to note that the minister referred to Mr. Gray as the assistant deputy minister. I note that last year there was no vote for such a position as assistant deputy minister either in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the Ministry of Housing. I note that this year that is also no such vote. I would like to know from the minister when this position was created and when the appointment took place and under what authority.

I'd also like to talk a little bit about Maclimes Place and about the new housing assistance programme. Mr. Chairman, last year we passed a piece of legislation. It was supposed to do away with the old homeowner assistance Act which had been created by the previous Social Credit government and survived through the New Democratic government, the supposed enemies of free enterprise and private ownership. It was wiped out by this new Social Credit government.

In its place they passed an Act - a "trust me" Act. It said: "Trust me. We'll make up the regulations and it'll be a big surprise, but you'll like it." Naturally, I think probably all three opposition parties went along with the spirit of the Act and the intent of the Act -which was, after all, to give assistance to persons purchasing a home, particularly for the first time. We went along with it, but we didn't know what the regulations were to be. We cautioned the minister to be careful not to make it a complete giveaway; there should be some recovery.

A case has come to my attention of a person who has sold his property back to the Housing Corporation at MacInnes Place, I believe it is. This person made a down payment of approximately $1,300. He received a $1,000 grant, I guess, as a first-time homeowner purchase assistance or something, and somehow qualified for further assistance in his payments. He decided to move out, and that could have been because of the adverse publicity surrounding MacInnes Place. There were condensation problems experienced there, problems which I think could have been avoided had there been a total thrust to fill it with rentals as was originally intended. I must say, Mr. Chairman, in passing, that the Bethune prototype of 24 units has, to my knowledge, experienced no condensation problems. It is built on entirely the same plan and it was built by the same contractor, Mr. Frank Stanzel, I believe.

But of course the Bethune co-op was fully occupied almost immediately and probably didn't experience condensation problems which are associated with electrical heating to the extent that British Columbia Hydro issues a brochure, as does one of the nation-wide members of the building community, on standards and ways and means of avoiding condensation.

I might also say that we also heard a very fine speech by, I think, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) the other day on standards, safety, building codes, CSA and the whole thing. I took note of it and very much enjoyed it. But that's just en passant.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's just what? Say it again.

MR. NICOLSON: That's the only two French words I know, so I thought I'd work it in there somewhere after hearing from the Minister of Labour. It's a chess term, actually.

Mr. Chairman, this individual made a down payment in excess of $1,300 under the subsidy programme. We did receive some assistance because his income qualified him for it. On resale, not only did the Crown recapture the amount of subsidy that might have come out of any capital gain - and there was no capital gain; I believe it was sold back for some reason at the same amount - but he had to pay back the full amount of subsidy lie had received to the extent that lie received back only some $500. So he had originally made a down payment of $1,300.

These were the things that were not spelled out in the legislation. These were the policies which have been set by regulation, and I would like the minister to explain to us what the policy was. Is this possible? The person who might have saved up and might not be too well off.... Maybe saving up the $1,300 down payment was quite an effort and now that same person has to go back to $500-odd if they want to get into home ownership. This is what this government has been promoting - the idea of home ownership. They've been saying that anything else is second best.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not so.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, by their actions they've been saying that - or by their inaction.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to use this opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister for the first time.... I could have done this by letter or something but it came to my attention rather recently. As a consequence of the government purchasing the assets of Notre Dame University there

[ Page 3542 ]

is, among those assets, an apartment complex called the Mary Ann Apartments. I couldn't tell the minister how many units there are but I would say it would be in the neighbourhood of 50 units. It is a fairly large project. It is under a CMHC mortgage at, I believe, something like a 5 or 6 per cent rate of interest and was built by Notre Dame University and is one of their assets.

At present, there are about five families living in it so it is very much unoccupied. I don't think that the Ministry of Education is really too well equipped to deal with such an asset and I would urge the minister to contact his colleague and initiate some study as to whether or not it could be managed either temporarily or permanently by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

I would urge that this apartment be made available. At present, there are some rather clumsy attempts being made to have persons leave the premises, and of course there are no just means for eviction. I very quickly informed the residents of the Mary Ann Apartments that they did have the protection of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It seems very unlikely that the landlord could invoke the section whereby the landlord himself wanted to take occupancy or a member of his family. That would seem to be rather unlikely, considering the landlord in this particular case.

So I would ask the minister to look into that. It's a fairly sound, fairly reasonable building. Actually it would also provide a very good prototype for the use of hilly terrain. It's terraced up this hillside. It's a three-story walk-up but in all it must be about six stories high because it takes several steps up the hillside. It's a very interesting project and somewhat dated in its appearance but I think it could perform a very useful function.

I would caution that one would try to occupy this with a cross-section of socio-economic groups that would reflect the neighbourhood and the community in which it is situated. I would hope it would not become limited to any one group by virtue of making it just strictly at market rent or that it necessarily all be subsidized, but a combination. Such was my philosophy as Minister of Housing.

I would also strongly suggest that the community be approached before anything was actually implemented.

I'd like to talk about senior citizens' housing. I mentioned this briefly the other night. We have the SAFER bill before us. I'll just say that that's good; I look forward to that debate. But putting that aside, I would submit that it is not sufficient to start taking away from one area to bring out another new programme. We certainly made the decision when we were government that we would make use of section 43 of the National Housing Act.

It was a thing that the previous government had not taken advantage of because section 43 involves taking on some debt, but debt against a fixed asset. We took a different approach to that and we found ways and means whereby the holder of this debt could perhaps even have conformed with the old W.A.C. Bennett government philosophy. We took on section 43 as an alternative way of providing housing for senior citizens. We also used section 40 of the National Housing Act to provide housing. But we continued and indeed increased the budget for sponsored senior citizens' housing under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, which dovetails with section 15 of the National Housing Act. We increased that budget from $2 million to $10 million in the first year. In other words, we took a programme that was introduced by the former Social Credit government, by Wes Black, who was also the member for Nelson-Creston at one time, and we didn't say that we were ideologically hung up about service clubs and other people, that this was some sort of charity and that it was a better way just to have public housing. We said that where service clubs were sponsoring groups, where societies were willing to come together and form a catalyst about which to create senior citizens' housing, we would allow this to happen.

And look what happened. We had a tremendous amount of senior citizens' housing built in this province, not just in the cities, not just in the larger communities such as Kelowna, but we even reached down into communities like McBride and Chase and Salmo. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but it also provided an area for the people of all the community about which seniors could get together. It was a magnet or a drawing point, and the recreation halls that were set aside by CMHC and the Department of Housing in their joint planning of these ventures are normally open in this province to seniors, particularly when they are in small communities the size even of Revelstoke and certainly in Salmo and in McBride.

We had three different types of programmes at least. With this new legislation I say we should have four, but we shouldn't have four at the expense of the others. These other programmes are very good and there's no replacing them. It's nice to talk about people staying where they are, and that's good. It will work out very well, I suppose, for my mother when she chooses to retire. But there are people in certain parts of this province like senior citizens in my riding who live in real basement suites of apartments. They're not pleasant suites; they're almost windowless; they're airless. I'm not going to reflect on the fine work of our fire marshals in our local areas, because they do do a very fine job. They don't turf senior citizens out in the street, though, in order to rectify what they consider to be a fire hazard. I would say that there are people living in hazardous conditions.

[ Page 3543 ]

In Nelson we are thrice blessed - or even more, I guess - with senior citizens' housing accommodation. We have two Kiwanis Villas, we have the Blue Top Motel and we also have the personal-care home, Jubilee Manor. But even in a community like Nelson, which has a fair amount of this, I can see these conditions. These are certainly not conditions where money is the only thing. We do need better housing for people.

I would stress to the minister that I don't find a great deal of dissatisfaction from senior citizens who are living in a Lions Manor, in a Kiwanis Villa, in a Sunset Manor or in some such place put up by the Dawson Creek Housing Society or whatever group gets together. There is not a great deal of dissatisfaction; nor, I was surprised to find as a neophyte, was there a great deal of dissatisfaction with the senior citizens who live in the highrises in downtown Vancouver under section 40, which is pure government housing. It's under the B.C. Housing Management Commission, a real heavy-sounding thing. But these people have a high degree of satisfaction, as best as I could determine. I have friends and relatives who live in some of these various projects. They certainly find it a very desirable form of housing.

So I note with great regret the decrease here. The minister in his opening remarks did not say how much section 40 senior citizens' housing was completed last year, how much has been initiated or what agreements were signed during 1976. Which agreements were signed under sections 40 and 43? What initiatives were taken under section 15 with Central Mortgage and Housing? If those of us who get around in Victoria look once in a while, what do we see? Fort and Foul Bay - is this a project to be ashamed of? I would say there probably is one shortcoming in that. It's something which I wasn't able to do something about, but I would urge this minister to do something about it. If British Columbia is going to put up one-third of the capital in these senior citizens' projects under section 15 -and I hope it continues to; I hope that this drop in this budget is only for one year - then British Columbians, I think, have a right to one full bedroom for each citizen, and that's going to cost a lot of money. I know that those units cost a lot of money, but I think that as an investment, if we're going to build more of this, we should get away from those bachelor units. There should be full one-bedroom units.

It could be that at Fort and Foul Bay -cosmetically, from the exterior, it is fantastic -perhaps senior citizens living inside should be consulted in terms of the trade-offs that they see, not what the municipality and the residents of Oak Bay see as being fitting for a community. I think that senior citizens should be involved in a very major way in consultation for setting guidelines here in this province. We should put on some real pressure because we pay one-third of the capital cost. The federal government only gives a 10 per cent grant and the rest is a repayable loan. So we're giving three times as much in grants and more - and the federal government comes up with a repayable loan. I would urge the minister to take that initiative. That's a direction that I would have been pursuing, but with what success we don't know.

Also, in terms of senior citizens' housing, there was a project that took a long time to get"underway and that was the Oppenheimer project in the downtown east side. I guess it was called "housing for the hard to house, " to some extent, But it was found to be quite successful. In speaking with people who were involved in it, I know there are real management problems, but the problems were manageable.

I would like to know what initiatives are being taken in this area. What is being done in that downtown east side in order to continue to upgrade the quality of housing for people - with the idea of not wrenching them from their neighbourhoods but improving the housing opportunities in the downtown cast side? This does a tremendous amount toward neighbourhood improvement and in the city of Vancouver it also, of course, helps the whole image of the place. It's hard to say just how much it does for the people; I would think it does a great deal. I don't know if the minister has visited that project. It took me some time to get around to it but I did and I would highly recommend it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I see that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is back. So perhaps the minister could answer her questions and some of mine.

MRS, P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't intend to take up much time in this debate but I had one or two things I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. I'd also like to quite agree with the member for Nelson-Creston. I won't repeat what he said but I do feel a review with the CMHC people or the federal government and a review of our own policy in relation to the size of bachelor suites for senior citizens is long overdue.

Quite frankly, if you've been in them, you'll find that in many instances there's not room to swing a cat, let along to put your furniture. Many of these senior citizens move in at a late time in their life and the move itself is a very wrenching experience. But they also find that they have to part with much of their furniture and in the bachelor suites, mostly all of their furniture.

They tend to have come through an era when overstuffed furniture was very much the trend of the day and also very comfortable and they find they simply cannot put a chair, a TV and a studio couch of

[ Page 3544 ]

that nature in these apartments without having to move their chairs and TVs at night when they wish to retire. Often they don't have the funds to give away or sell their old furniture for what they could get and buy new, streamlined, modern furniture. So I'd urge the minister to have a review made. A few more square feet in terms of each apartment really wouldn't add that greatly to the cost but it certainly would add to the convenience and comfort of those senior citizens who live in these bachelor suites.

I'd like to again bring to the minister's attention, and I think this is about the seventh year of asking, what I believe is a need....

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Amen! No, just one year to you, Mr. Minister. I must say that I believe this government had done much in keeping with its policy of trying to make affordable housing available to senior citizens in terms of their own homes; by increasing the homeowners' grant with the commitment to remove all school taxes as soon as possible from their homes; in terms of those who want to rent apartments with which they're familiar; and the SAFER programme to help by making more available to these people health care in their home.

But I believe that there is another step we could take, and that is to have a home repair assistance programme for seniors. I recognize that this is not, perhaps, the easiest thing to administer but I think it could be worked out. We must recognize that many senior citizens today have lived in their own homes for a long period of time. Many of them are small and many of them are quite old - speaking of the homes. Frequently the difference between staying in their home with our increased programming and the matter of having to move lies in repairs such as plumbing repairs, wiring repairs, step repairs and roof repairs.

I feel that if we could even start with a grant of $1,000 once in a lifetime to a senior citizen who had lived in their home for a period of time - perhaps five years - to be administered through the ministry's housing offices which are throughout the province, it would be of great help. Frequently senior citizens go for an appraisal on what a repair might be and get it from two or three different companies. They're all about the same, They really haven't had the business expertise - or perhaps they are not about as much now as they used to be - to be in a position to adjudicate the equity and validity of those estimates that come in.

If it were known that the government had such a programme, I believe people who were called in for an estimate for repairs for senior citizens and who knew it would be appraised by government would be inclined to give the very best possible time of year for the repair as well as the best possible price. This request and appraisal could be forwarded to the regional offices where we have people in place now who are very conversant with construction values and repair values. I would suggest it would be no great burden on them just to assess this estimate and also have the authority through their offices and through your office, Mr. Minister, to approve that assessment. They could then release a slip which was completed by the contractor doing the job when the job was completed and then submit it to the Ministry of Housing for payment. There may be other ways in which such a programme could be operated effectively and at a minimum cost so that any money that went into the programme would in fact go to the home repairs of these citizens rather than a bureaucracy. This seems one of the logical approaches that we might take.

I close off that statement with saying again for the seventh time of asking and the second time for this minister.... 1 realize that he can't do everything and the government can't do everything but 1 do feel that this is a programme which could be one step further in the desire of this government to help seniors stay in their own home.

The other matter that I'd like to bring to the House's attention, Mr. Chairman, is the matter of senior citizen recreation centres. This falls partly under this minister's responsibilities as well as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) but because the actual financing is generally done through Housing and CMHC in terms of the loans that the federal government makes available, I'd like to bring it up here.

We have a number of senior-citizen recreation centres throughout the province. Some of them are working very well; in others, I think there's a lack. I'm not sure anybody can quite put a finger on this lack. Some feel it's transportation in the metropolitan areas where senior citizens are afraid to go out at night and can't afford commercial transportation; others feel that many of the people who need this service have a problem initially in motivating themselves to get out, in having the natural ability to make new friends and also joining in a group activity which really requires a fair amount of initiative on their part. 1 believe we have to recognize that loneliness in senior citizens today is still the most crucial problem that society is faced with, and the problem the senior citizens have the most problem coming to grips with.

Many of the smaller senior-citizen centres tend to become overcrowded because where they are working effectively they are increasing their membership with those who want to take part in the activities. But once again, in medium-sized communities such as Kelowria or Vernon, I think perhaps Nelson, and some of the communities on the Island where we don't have a proper transportation system,

[ Page 3545 ]

transportation becomes a major problem for citizens in order that they can take part in this. 1 don't intend to address myself to the transportation problem because I know the minister has this under advisement.

'We are also faced with this matter of loneliness. How many of these centres do we have? How can they work most effectively? What is the senior's real need from a centre? 1 would urge the minister to set up a small committee within his department including senior citizens from around the province - not just representation from any provincial body's executive, but some of those who live in the more remote areas like Pouce Coupe or the Island - to sit down and express in their own way what they feel is the need for senior citizen recreational centres, how varied this need is in terms of population as opposed to lack of population, and how we might best design them for their use. One wonders if we shouldn't be, and they wouldn't be, looking at the possibility in medium-sized communities of one centre which would become the focus of their activities with satellite centres around the area.

I'd like to use the area 1 represent as the best example. We have a centre in Vernon that is much overused, and now there is a request for two more centres. It is obvious that we can't continue to equip all these centres and that they can run effectively. It might be wise to consider your core centre and offer assistance for equipping that with equipment that could be used by all the satellite groups. That would likely be where they would hold major joint undertakings and functions, but the satellite areas -in our area, for example, in the northern part of the community in Swan Lake, Okanagan Landing, Coldstream and Lumby - would develop their own satellite centres. They might be in church halls; they might be in older homes; they might be in some government building. When they carried on certain activities, such as pottery, we wouldn't expect to assist them all to have kilns; in fact, they could utilize the facilities of the core.

1 believe the senior citizens, Mr. Chairman, can come up with a lot of ideas on their own as to how we might make more effective use of the moneys available for these centres and yet more ably meet their needs. Again, 1 think we have to recognize that some funding should be available for some assistance for people to work on this whole problem of how you get the lonely senior citizen involved. 1 think we have reached those who are easy to reach. The challenge now is in reaching those who need the help and companionship but who are not so easy to reach.

I would also make a last plea ... and 1 realize our government can't do everything. 1 would hope that together, co-operatively, with the federal government, the provincial government could consider a financing programme to assist with the funding of basic equipment for these centres, such as kilns and weaving machines, in order that those working in the centre and those who might be in a developed satellite programme have the equipment they need in order to carry out their recreational pursuits.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, just before I allow you to continue, I would like to remind all members that if there are members who can be spared from the house from time to time during this afternoon's sitting, the Sabha delegation from Malaysia are meeting in the Ned DeBeck lounge and would like to meet the members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of points which have been made by members on both sides of the House that 1 wish to respond to. 1 suppose one in particular which I did not have an opportunity to speak about on Thursday evening was the excellent suggestion made by the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) . The fact that he is in the chair is neither here nor there at this point, 1 suppose.

He suggested a spec sheet for homes in much the same fashion as we now have for automobiles, motor homes and other major-ticket items. 1 think it is a good suggestion. I think it is one which should be pursued not only within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but also within the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. You will know, Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure members of the committee will, that we have established a ministerial task force involving Consumer and Corporate Affairs and this ministry to start looking at a universal home warranty.

HUDAC, the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, already have their home warranty programme in effect. 1 think in the greater Vancouver area alone they must be approaching 500 to 600 individual warranties.

We want to examine very carefully the ramifications in terms of costs and any other problems which may occur with respect to a home warranty. So the two ministries are working closely on that. It may well be that the sort of spec sheet as to what is under this wall-to-wall carpet, what is behind this particular panel, what is the wiring, et cetera.... It would make a great deal of sense to examine that most carefully. Possibly, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion made is one which can be acted on in the relatively near future.

The former Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) , the member for Nelson-Creston, spoke about a number of matters, Mr. Chairman. Earlier on in his comments he asked about Mr. Gray's position and indicated that he was unable to find any reference to assistant deputy minister in the estimates.

There was an order-in-council. Mr. Gray would be

[ Page 3546 ]

shown in this year's estimates as a PM5, which the member who asked the question would be most familiar with. As far as 1 can tell from the Xerox which is available to me this afternoon, it appears that it's order-in-council 2178 of July last year, and it ordered that the position of Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing, Policy Administration, be designated, and that George Gray be appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing effective July 15,1976, at the salary range approved for programme manager 5. So that's the reference there. 1 believe there have been similar orders with respect to others who are known ministerially as assistant deputy ministers. It is a departmental title, and certainly in the case of Mr. Gray, the public service approved the usage of that title.

Then the member moved into a lengthy discussion with respect to senior citizens' housing. I cannot pretend that 1 have visited every single project, whether under construction, complete or in the inventory for quite some time. The member and the committee will know, Mr. Chairman, that we have in all forms - not just for senior citizens - whether it is land which will be developed eventually or a completed project which is still on our inventory, some 400 projects through this ministry of one kind or another, with a value of approximately half a billion dollars. A number of those are senior citizens' projects.

1 have attempted from January of 1976 until as recently as just a few days ago to visit all our projects when 1 happen to be in a community or in a particular section of the province. 1 concentrated last year especially on those facilities that are under the management of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. Most of them are in Vancouver, and then next in number in size in Victoria. 1 have seen one or two in other parts of the province.

The number of facilities to be visited is really quite significant, but 1 hope that I've made reasonably good progress. 1 shall continue through the course of this year to familiarize myself directly with those buildings or those proposed building sites - whatever it may be - where the ministry would have some involvement, whether alone, with a non-profit organization, partnership with the national government, or a three-way partnership between national government, province and non-profit society.

1 think that it would be helpful to restate some statistics with respect to senior citizens' housing now. T h e r e a r e c u r r e n t 1 y about 2,500 community-sponsored senior-citizen units either approved or under construction. This represents about a 25 per cent increase of all those constructed since the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act was established. All of these projects have been approved by this ministry and by this government - 2,500 units under construction or approved for construction at the present time.

It was the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) who spoke about this first the other evening. He should be aware, and I think that the member who raised the matter today, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , will be aware, that the capital budget is not the determining factor in terms of the number of senior-citizen units approved. That member could confirm that under section 44 of the National Housing Act, the province has some options open to it. It can choose between a combination of grants and ongoing subsidies.

Then we moved into SAFER. We said quite deliberately that while we were introducing shelter aid for the elderly renter, now officially law in British Columbia, we wanted to just mark time for a short while to assess the impact of the SAFER programme and to see what sort of response we would have. Once that initial review has been completed, then we will continue with the construction of senior-citizen facilities, albeit to a lesser extent in terms of dollars for this year. Nonetheless, we will continue through the balance of the 1977-78 fiscal year. You can, I hope, have confidence in me with respect to the submission I will make to Treasury Board for the next fiscal year.

We said also at that time that there would be particular emphasis, Mr. Chairman, on the facilities in the smaller communities, as did the Hon. member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) , although she was referring to recreational centres in terms of senior citizens' facilities. But we recognize that, and as recently as last week there was Treasury Board and cabinet approval for our one-third share of a major senior citizen facility in Armstrong, the provincial share capital being $166,000. So that project hopefully will be getting underway as soon as final working drawings are complete and other details taken care of.

There is adequate provision in the budget for his year under vote 199 for the provincial share of subsidies administered through BCHMC, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

I just want to say that the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, which has been in place now through three governments in one form or another, has to date produced about 10,000 units. We're now processing an estimated 27,000 eligible applications for SAFER, a programme which the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was critical of while at the same time, curiously enough, attempting to take credit for. I had difficulty with that one the other night. We have, I think, the genesis of an idea which is going to prove very, very acceptable to people in British Columbia who are of senior-citizen age or are rapidly approaching that point.

This government intends to move ahead on two

[ Page 3547 ]

fronts. In the smaller communities where there is a proven need, where there is no significant alternate accommodation i.e., there isn't much rental accommodation we will approve to the limit of dollars available and to the best of our ability the construction of the kind of senior-citizen facility that we've come to understand and recognize as being valuable in British Columbia. In the larger centres, where there is alternate accommodation, where vacancy rates are increasing, where there is a choice for the senior citizen, then 1 think we will be approving fewer senior-citizen projects.

We dealt in debate - in a very good debate, as 1 recall - earlier this year with the problem of the subsidy in the standard senior-citizen facility, which is just escalating right out of sight. So whether it is $10 million or $20 million or, indeed, $30 million in this vote, if we stay only with the construction of senior-citizen facilities, the elderly-housing projects which we have known, we're not going to be able to assist the numbers of people who deserve assistance, who are entitled to assistance and who are now applying for assistance under the shelder aid for the elderly renter programme.

But, again, 1 assure the member and any other member who has minor concern or who is more concerned about it, Mr. Chairman, we are not abandoning the assistance programme for construction of senior citizens' facilities. Rather we are changing the emphasis and we are adding a very important aspect - i.e., to assist those people who want to stay in their present accommodation to stay there.

1 agree with the member, Mr. Chairman, that there is a camaraderie; there is a feeling of friendship in some of these senior-citizen facilities, particularly in the smaller ones. It's not to the same extent in the large ones, and yet I've also met people who are very lonely, because they have been, of necessity, moved from one particular neighbourhood where they may have spent 20 or 30 or 40 years. The member knows that. They've been moved from that neighbourhood because of available accommodation in a senior citizens' project in a foreign neighbourhood - foreign to them, that is.

I've talked with these people. 1 don't just go and cut the ribbon, shake two hands and say: "See you around." Neither did the former minister. You want to get in to see some of the people who are living there, who've just moved in or have been in for several weeks. You want to sit down, maybe shut the door with them and discuss with them how they feel about it. 1 think the minister has a responsibility to do this. I've done it and I'm sure that former ministers with the responsibility for housing have done it. You want to avoid the kind of stupidity that occasionally is evident in spite of the best architectural and professional advice in the world -

and I saw one just a few months ago in the lower mainland - where if you are confined to a wheelchair you can't reach the door. That sort of thing is absurd - absolutely absurd. The architectural fees - I suppose the architects will be on my back for this one - in that project were major; they were significant. But an elderly citizen in a wheelchair cannot reach the door. He or she has to struggle to reach a call button to get the manager to come down and let them in.

Anyway, we're moving on the two fronts. One is shelter aid for the elderly renter where that person is in satisfactory accommodation. On the other hand, where there is not satisfactory accommodation or where there is an extreme shortage - the smaller communities - okay, we'll continue with the senior citizens' construction programme and do our very best in that regard.

The hon. member made reference to the Maryann Apartments. I can't comment today. I'd like to do one of two things: if you want to speak about it again, then of course that's your option; alternatively, you may wish to speak with me at another time, or wish to give me some background information. [just don't have any response for you this afternoon, but I could get it if you wish to pursue it in committee debate.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: Repayment on that mortgage?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Repayment on the mortgage, and the whole question you raised.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I just don't have the information, so if the member would choose to participate in the debate now, then okay. That's fine. I'll hear more and we'll attempt to answer his inquiry.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister answered quite a list of questions which I posed. To refresh his memory, I referred to a case of a person who purchased a unit at Maclnnes Place. He paid in the neighbourhood of $1,300 as a down payment. I believe he also got a $1,000 grant, but that's really immaterial. That had to be paid back when he decided to sell back, and that's pretty consistent.

The point was that he got back only 500-and-some-odd dollars. I'm wondering if the policy in recovering subsidy is to go beyond recouping any windfall that might have occurred in terms of recovering subsidies, even if it goes on to the point where it cuts into the person's original down payment. This person had originally paid $1,300, lived there for a few months, for some reason or

[ Page 3548 ]

other sold it - I believe the B.C. Housing Corporation purchased it back from him; more or less cancelled the agreement - and he ended up with only 500-and-some-odd dollars. That was a loss of approximately $800 after having lived there for just a few months, or maybe a year. It couldn't have been much longer, it wasn't completed that long ago.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is also eager to get into the debate.

Mention was made of rapid transit in the Vancouver area. I'm very interested to get some specific statements from the minister because I've been reading the files and the clippings and there's quite an element of contradiction in this whole subject. The minister is reported as favouring the use of the CPR line to Coquitlam while the Greater Vancouver Regional District wants to press on with light rapid transit to New Westminster using the B.C. Hydro Central Park line. I'm very interested in following up on the comments of the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) , because I think he put his finger on one aspect. That's the innumerable and interminable number of studies that seem to be going on. I would like to find out, Mr. Chairman, just where these studies are at and what, if anything, is really being achieved.

The minister is reported, back in February of this year, as disagreeing with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Vancouver city council who want the first priority to be the Vancouver to Burnaby and New Westminster line. The minister, as I stated a moment ago, prefers to emphasize the commuter train service to Coquitlam. I particularly want to know whether this choice relates to the practical difficulty of dealing with B.C. Hydro, because I understand the light-rail transit that could be used to Burnaby and New Westminster would depend on the use of B.C. Hydro's Central Park right-of-way.

Back in March, this minister released a real blast at B.C. Hydro. Let me just quote very quickly Barbara Mclintock in The Province of March 21:

"He described Hydro's attitude toward his ministry's transit services division as vengeful negative and vindictive." There are several other comments which are not as relevant as the next one.

"Mr. Curtis said Hydro has adopted an attitude of revenge-se eking. 'It produces a constant tale of the problems of transit service, much of it exaggerated and all of it done in a spirit of vindictiveness.' Mr. Curtis said that the animosity between Hydro and the transit services division apparently grew up in the days of the NDP, and went on to say that he had hoped that lie could overcome-that animosity. "He said his ministry has done all it can to develop close consultation links with Hydro but it seems to be of no avail. 'During the meetings, Hydro officials appeared to be reasonable, ' Mr. Curtis said, ~but then Hydro seems to go back into its Vancouver tower and forget who's in charge.' He said Hydro tends to dislike transit because it's a money-loser. 'However, ' said Curtis, 'the government always reimburses Hydro for its transit losses so this should not be of much monumental concern to it.' "

Now 1 don't want to take the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to go on and on about the minister's statement. He obviously doesn't get along with Hydro and their attitude to the transit services and maybe there's legitimate area of disagreement there. But what I think the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) was trying to refer to was that the people in Vancouver are not really concerned about who's fighting with whom or what study is being done or not being done. All they know is that rapid transit has been talked about for 10 years and there appears to be practically nothing that's tangible or visible being done to create a much-needed rapid transit system.

Back in the middle of March, Mr. Harry Lyon, who is the manager of research and development of B.C. Hydro, said that Hydro was going to conduct a full feasibility study into light rapid transit. Just about the same time or a little later - April 2 - a report by Nate Smith in The Province states that the minister the last week of March told city council that the government would provide money this year for a large-scale study of light rapid transit.

So here we appear to have Hydro embarking on a study and we appear to have the minister encouraging a study, but the minister and Hydro can't seem to get along at all when it comes to the matter of transit services in the greater Vancouver area. 1 think it's a very legitimate question in this committee to find out what studies are being done or are about to be done. Of course, the minister has stated that there will be a new transit authority. GVRD and Vancouver city council have expressed some real reservations about whether that new authority will solve anything if there isn't to be a more harmonious input to the minister's planning prior to the introduction of this new transit authority. Mayor Don MacDonald of White Rock is quoted, for example, on the same date as the promise of a study by the minister. He says: 'Ye perceive a rather bleak outlook for all of us if an urban transit authority is constituted the way it has been suggested, "

1 should say that leads to another question, Mr. Chairman. At that same time, the minister is reported as having told Vancouver city council in a private meeting that a financing formula would be put forward where the province would pay all capital costs of transit and local governments would pay half

[ Page 3549 ]

of operating deficits.

I would like to know from the minister if that statement of late March this year is valid or if it has been altered in any way - namely, that the government will pay all capital costs and local government pay half of operating deficit. If that is the situation that is to be proposed, and if the elected officials serving on the GVRD have expressed some real reservations about that particular thrust by the minister, can he tell us just where the negotiations are at between his transit services division, the GVRD and Vancouver city council?

Furthermore, can the minister tell us how many studies are either going on or are about to be embarked upon and under what circumstances and agreement on financing these studies will be carried out? When we read that the minister favours the line to Coquitlam as a first priority and GVRD wants at least at the same time to consider of equal priority the need to use the Central Park line, and when we know that there may well be some overriding central authority set up, the whole area of rapid transit seems to be in a state of supreme confusion, if you read the clippings and try to follow the rationale and the opinions expressed by these differing conflicting groups, all of whom, including the minister, have every legitimate right to be concerned about finding the best apparent answer to rapid transit.

Mr. Chairman, let's not get so carried away by what appears to be very desirable, like rapid transit, without just quickly quoting and reading into the record what's happened in San Francisco. They went all gung-ho for the most modern up-to-date rapid transit you could create under the name of BART -Bay Area Rapid Transit. I just want to read very quickly from a professor of city planning, Mr. Melvin Webber, of Berkeley, California. He says:

"BART was supposed to have enjoyed an $11 million operating surplus in '7 6 and instead it ran a $40 million deficit. Operating costs are 475 per cent of those forecast. High capital costs are 150 per cent of those forecast and that is compounded by low patronage, which is about 50 per cent of the patronage that was expected. The result is that the average cost per journey on BART is twice as high as the bus and 50 per cent greater than a standard automobile."

AN HON. MEMBER: It carries the wrong people, too.

MR. WALLACE: So while I don't want to sound negative, because I do agree that we should surely be able to pool all the brains and expertise we have to get rapid transit developed in the city of Vancouver -I'm not disputing at all that that is a goal we must seek - I think that if the minister is trying, as he appears to be, to find the particular appropriate kind of service that will best serve Vancouver, then he must have our strongest support because the people in the San Francisco area must be wondering what happened to their marvellous dream about rapid transit. If, as we all know, the main goal of rapid transit is to get people out of their motor vehicles, if it costs you 50 per cent more to travel on the BART system than it does in your car, it would seem reasonably certain that the BART trains are traveling relatively empty except at rush hour.

So I wonder if the minister could try to clear up two particular questions. Has he reached such an impasse with B.C. Hydro in this whole area that he's just waiting until he creates the new transit authority? If so, is he not concerned that these comments by GVRD and Vancouver city council might well get a potentially very expensive programme off to a bad start? It would appear that despite Hydro's knifing of the minister's efforts on Sea-Bus, it has succeeded in getting off to a good start - despite the comments that the minister made about Hydro being very negative and the fact that the minister made it quite plain that he had complained several times to the B.C. Hydro chairman, Robert Bonner, but apparently not with much success.

So to sum it all up very quickly, Mr. Chairman, light rapid transit is a great idea and very necessary, but it can also be extremely costly and misdirected, as shown by the San Francisco experience. When you look at all these pitfalls to start with and then you read the history of planning in the last year or two and see the dissension and the disagreement, even if it's a legitimate difference of opinion between the minister's transit division and GVRD and Hydro, it's little wonder that many people are extremely concerned and pessimistic about the progress, if any, that's being made towards that day when there will be some visible, usable, successful rapid transit system in the Vancouver area.

Perhaps the minister would care to clarify some of the doubts that I think are in the minds of many people in the province.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I neglected earlier to acknowledge the remarks of the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in any detail. I referred briefly to her comment, which was associated with another member's statement.

The home repair assistance programme, which she has espoused for quite some time, is certainly very worthy of consideration - home repair assistance for the elderly. There are NIP and LIP capabilities, I think, for that kind of programme. But we'll examine it further in the ministry and determine if there's anything that we can do. I really have no other

[ Page 3550 ]

observation except to say that this is her second time of asking me and 1 would like to request my staff to really get into it quite fully in the course of the next few months.

The senior citizen recreational centres, which work very well in a number of senior citizens' facilities.... The members will know, Mr. Chairman, that there is a floor space ratio for recreation that relates to the number of units. Above that it is in effect a community responsibility with recreation grants from another ministry of government provincially. The major problem has been the very high operating costs, and we don't see an easy answer to that. Providing the space as a facility is built and putting in the basic furniture, tables, television, which are usually contributed by a community group and so on - that part is of no great difficulty. It is the operating costs which certainly skyrocket the costs to government or governments, where there is more than one level involved.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , who is not in his place at the present time, spoke again about MacInnes Place, and with regard to a party which had bought out or had indicated a willingness to be bought out, for whatever reason we can only speculate. We guaranteed, Mr. Chairman, that there would be equity - net of damages. Now some who left, I'm informed, lived free until the interest adjustment date, so that presented a further complication. This was under a section 40 agreement with C~. Again, while he's not there, if the member for Nelson-Creston would care to give me the name of the individual party concerned, we'll examine that one and see if any injustice or any oversight has taken place. I'd be quite happy to assist him in that regard.

As for transit, 1 would preface my remarks, Mr. Chairman, by saying I'm not an expert in transit. 1 think though that too often we use the term light rapid transit where really that isn't necessarily what is being referred to or indicated. Light rail is one form of moving people; then there is commuter rail, and we're familiar with that in a number of cities; and then there is the more conventional bus system -trolley, diesel or whatever it may be. Of course, we have a rather unique one of our own now in British Columbia, and that is Sea-Bus.

Mr. Chairman, 1 was quoted correctly earlier this year. 1 was very unhappy with British Columbia Hydro. Ms. McLintock filed her story in just about the same way 1 made my statements to her. So there is no argument at all. At that particular time after many weeks and months of attempting to work closely with Hydro, 1 was getting very frustrated and very annoyed.

MR. WALLACE: Is that why she got promoted?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, probably not, Mr. Member. But I have a fairly short fuse at times, and the member for Oak Bay will understand that because he also has a short fuse. You will just take a certain amount of this sort of thing and eventually - boom! That's what happened to me that particular week. I was at the point where I felt: okay, let's get this one out in the open; let's discuss it. I have to identify for anyone who's interested the fact that then - past tense - we were just not getting the kind of co-operation from B.C. Hydro which we felt we should.

It has changed very much for the better, particularly with respect to Sea-Bus, where integration between the marine component and the buses at both sides - the north and south shore terminals - has been really excellent.

I noted last Friday that there's a Hydro transit supervisor at the North Shore terminal overseeing the ticket machines. He's informed that traffic is moving slowly on one of the east-west routes on the North Shore and has communication with the Sea-Bus operators. It's meshed together very, very well.

I might say, incidentally, that we are going to be carrying our one-millionth passenger on the Sea-Bus, within a very few weeks on the basis of present usage. The public response is well above all sorts of expectations.

I give credit to the former government. I don't mind, Mr. Chairman. The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) two or three times last week said: "You won't give us any credit. We started it." Well, okay, I give credit. The idea was first conceived by the former government. This government had a good long look at it and decided to proceed to implement and to put the service into operation. I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to that - not cancelling something because it was somebody else's programme or turning our back on it. I think we have an obligation as governments change to take that which is underway, that which is good, that which is beneficial, because it is public money.

MR. WALLACE: I'm not sure Vander Zalm's done that with VRB, but you're done it with Sea-Bus.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that's another vote and another debate, Mr. Member.

Anyway, let's say this: at the senior management level, certainly as far as I am concerned, there's been a marked change for the better in the relationship with British Columbia Hydro. Now B.C. Hydro, the minister who is responsible for Hydro here, people in my ministry, and myself recognize that there's still a problem because we're balkanized. There's a little responsibility in this corner and there's a little responsibility in another corner, Mr. Chairman, and

[ Page 3551 ]

it's difficult to bring all these pieces together. With the best of will, the best of intentions, you're still going to have somebody making a decision on the left hand which is contrary somewhat to a decision on the right hand. Now the member will say: "Well, why don't you fix it?"

MR. WALLACE: That's my next question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That question speaks directly to the need for legislation, and 1 would think that if 1 tried to speak about that this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, you'd rule me out of order.

But this government has made some statements with respect to the moving of people by public conveyance, by transit - whether buses, rail, whatever. There will be a statement.

I'm not an ardent supporter of BART. 1 haven't ridden the system in the Bay area of California. It's heavy rail; it is not light rapid transit. 1 suppose the technology is most impressive. 1 was impressed as a layman when 1 saw it, but 1 would not like to be involved in paying the bills. There's a great difference between heavy rail and light rail. 1 also saw with alarm.... 1 used to spend a great deal of time as a teenager in the Bay area. 1 enjoyed it very much and got to know a number of neighbourhoods: San Lorenzo, San Leandro, down to San Jose.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no, that came a little later.

1 knew these neighbourhoods which were relatively quiet off MacArthur Boulevard. They're relatively quiet. Now you have a great noisy swath of a multi-million dollar operation cutting through neighbourhoods. The first night you think, good Lord, there are earthquakes or earth tremors or whatever it might be. So a lot can be learned from BART - the technology, the cost, many things which were done. 1 trust that anyone who has wandered in here from California is not offended, but we can learn a lot of the mistakes made by BART.

Mr. Chairman, if we started tomorrow morning to introduce commuter rail using existing track between Vancouver and the Coquitlam area - and a little further, the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) would hope.... We're two years away. If all the approvals, Treasury Board and everything else, had fallen into place, we're two years away.

Now with respect to light rail - some form of rapid transit between downtown Vancouver and New Westminster - we're a good number of years away. Again, if it was started tomorrow - no more studies, just do all the design work, place orders for your equipment and put it all together - the initial planning would stretch well into 1979.

Part of the problem is that the right-of-way is not available from point A to point B. There are interruptions. I'm subject to correction but I believe it's around Nanaimo Street where you start picking up the light rail, the B.C. Hydro rail right-of-way. I think it's around Nanaimo. But from Nanaimo in, there are gaps and very major impediments.

So it's for that reason, really, Mr. Member - and to the hon. member for Vancouver South who spoke about it last week - that I've said: "Look, if we're going to get into rail transit, then clearly we should address ourselves first to that which can be achieved in a relatively short time" - if you want to look at two years as being relatively short.

There is a similarity, I think, between the potential for a commuter service from downtown Vancouver to the Coquitlams and what has worked so very well under the name GO in the greater Toronto area. I think GO is terrific, Mr. Chairman. I think it is an excellent system. It is running with very large passenger volumes and clearly filling a need and, despite how the freeways look, keeping a lot of people off the freeways east and west from downtown Toronto.

So there is a similarity there, whereas I'm afraid that if we were to say tomorrow, "let's start on LRT to New Westminster, " we would still be fooling around in the back room with something which is far more readily attainable, and that is commuter rail -morning in and evening out. It's not going to be a 19-hour or 20-hour or 24-hour-a-day operation initially. But we have some numbers on it. We have some idea of the cost. We had contact with Canadian Pacific and they've indicated to us their willingness to work with us, not in another study but in achieving that desire. But all of that, I think, must come after we rationalize this very diverse responsibility for transit - some of it is in Hydro, some of it is in this ministry, some of it is in Crown-owned companies, and so on. That is just not acceptable. I don't want any more studies except actual design work to determine what should be introduced and when.

MR. WALLACE: Will that begin this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm hopeful, Mr. Member, but I can't give you a commitment. I'm hopeful.

The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , Mr. Chairman, spoke about the confusion when he reads his transit file and I don't blame him for being confused. I'm confused, too, when I read my newspaper file with respect to transit because you do have a variety of opinions given. You'll have one group make a submission and, frankly, Mr. Member, a few days later we will have individuals who participated in the joint submission call the ministry and say: "We just didn't want to make any trouble there but we dissociate ourselves from what was

[ Page 3552 ]

said at the meeting."

It's very difficult to sort out. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has observations and some very strong feelings. The city of Vancouver has recently made observations and has strong feelings. We saw one major task and that was to proceed with what is now known as Sea-Bus, the Burrard Inlet ferry system. I can't overstate the amount of time and detail that was involved in putting that system into operation, some of it involving me, but a great deal of it involving Mr. Taylor of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Long, Mr. Woodward, and others, all of whom had a part to play along with the transit division of the ministry.

MR. WALLACE: What about the cost proposal here? Is that valid?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The cost proposal.... I'm sorry, MR. Chairman, I'll have to let the member raise that on his feet.

MR. WALLACE: Just very quickly on that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's answers but there was this report that the minister had said privately to the city of Vancouver that the provincial government would finance the capital cost of transit and local governments will pay half of the operating deficit. Is this an understanding which the minister had privately with the city or was it simply put on the table for negotiation or discussion? It's a fairly significant statement which was reported in The Province on April 2. 1 think it is important, regardless of which route we use, or which vehicle, or all the difficulties that the minister mentions about the acquisition of right-of-way. This is a very fundamental proposal, if it is valid and if it has been offered to the city of Vancouver. Perhaps we should all know whether it is a valid proposal going ahead or if it is just something that is on the table for discussion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the cost-sharing proposal, capital and operating, which was discussed with the city of Vancouver, was a recital of those formulae which are in place in the small-city programme - in Kitimat, Prince George, Kamloops and so on - and was indicated as one possibility. The city of Vancouver has since made a submission. There are three sources of revenue, obviously: fare box, provincial assistance of one kind or another, and local regional district assistance. I really cannot leave this - others may want to speak, I realize - particular subject, Mr. Chairman, without stressing the urgent, very desperate need for federal assistance in transit in our metropolitan areas right across the country.

MR. WALLACE: They've welshed on us. The '74 election promise is gone.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, yes. The member is correct. There were promises of significant dollars for transit in the major centres across the country. That money shrank and shrank and shrank to virtually nothing and that's to be regretted. That's not the case in other countries; it's not the case in the United States; it's not the case in European countries where you see a significant federal or national government contribution. We now have whispers or hints of yet another programme of assistance. I hope this one doesn't evaporate, because no government -provincial, regional, municipal - should be expected to totally fund the kind of transit systems that we need. That's just not acceptable. It means that our programme will of necessity take much longer than would otherwise be the case.

So I speak to anyone who might be interested, Mr. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) , through you, Mr. Chairman. As we make the representations perhaps others may care to make representations. We need multimillions of dollars across this country for transit. We're frightening ourselves with respect to the gasoline shortage, the increased cost of gasoline, the difficulty in moving in our congested cities. Now let's see some money to back it up.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I was very pleased to hear the minister's remarks regarding transit ...

MR. WALLACE: I thought you might like that, George!

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... but he has not gone far enough. I would like to bring to his attention something which I'm sure he already knows - the unique structure of the Fraser Valley, the unique structure of an area in which a river passes in the middle thereof. It's unique in this way that it lends itself particularly to rail transit. The day is here. We must endeavour to get the automobiles and the buses off our highways wherever possible.

MR. WALLACE: That will put you out of business, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's all right; I don't mind. Get the buses off the highways because the unique nature of the Fraser Valley.... Our population is right in the valley from Mission to Vancouver; the population is along the shore of the river. The railway runs along the river on both sides - now that's unique. BART doesn't have such a situation. BART has millions more people, but we have the minimum number in this metropolitan area to take care of a reasonable system.

[ Page 3553 ]

We had a meeting at one time a number of years ago with a Mr. Kelly of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in which he stated that until we had a million people in the area, rail transit was not feasible - a million and a quarter would be better. Today, Mr. Chairman, we have the million and a quarter, and I would like to suggest to the minister that to commence this experiment from Coquitlam to Vancouver does not even suggest an answer because this area is well supplied and laced with transit. But the Fraser Valley has practically no transit except for the odd and mediocre bus that runs occasionally.

Now we must get our thinking away from the fact that the cities need everything. The cities, I agree, are there; they have a purpose. They have a lot of people. But the cities are there because the hinterland is around them, and we must facilitate the movement of the people in and out of the city. Buses are not the answer, automobiles are not the answer, but rail transit is.

It is difficult, Mr. Chairman, when you have a situation in large cities as in the San Francisco-Oakland area. The situation is compounded because there's such a vast area and a large circumference. Nowhere you put the line can be the right place. But, Mr. Chairman, you could not make a mistake in the Fraser Valley. There's only one place for it: along both sides of the river. I'll surprise you by saying this: the railway is already there.

Now what are we waiting.for? We're waiting for the minister to make a decision. Now lie's made it. I congratulate him - a very forthright, a very practical minister. But to start at Coquitlam would defeat the purpose that we ask for today because we would lock it in to an area that is already, as I said, laced with transit. If we leave it at that, we would say, it would be in competition with itself.

The minister could lay this on to Mission on one side of the river and perhaps to Chilliwack on the other. Both of these places are served with rail today, and it is essential that no experiment begin until it is properly made. It will prove nothing, Mr. Chairman, unless we are able to make this feasible for the people in the Fraser Valley. Important as it is, it is so easily and practically possible.

Each of these towns could have feeder buses at practically no cost, at the cost of the user, bringing them into the railway. In every place, in every area, they are within five miles of the railway. What a natural situation! What a beautiful experiment! It costs nothing to try; it only needs a few of these light-rail Budd cars - call them what you will. But you know, Mr. Chairman, what I speak of. The minister is well aware of this. For the minister who made a success of Sea-Bus, I ask him to put another star in his crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks to Jim Lorimer.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Jim Lorimer. Yes, he was given an accolade today. I add mine to his, but it took that minister to make it work and I congratulate him for it.

Another star in his crown is to put the rail transit to Mission on one side, at least under experiment. If you want to go further, to Chilliwack, that's another matter, but the railway line - the CP Railway - runs right on course, right on the Fraser River, right within two or three miles of all the residences, What a natural. What a necessity! Mr. Chairman, I hope we don't have to wait for this. We don't need a lot of experts around. We have too many of them now. What we need is practical people. That's what I like about the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's no expert.

MR. MUSSALLEM: He's a practical man. That's what commends the minister probably more than anything else: he is no expert, but he is a practical man. Mr. Chairman, you hear these laughing sounds. They're sounds of derision. I know what they are, Experts have their place. One day, years ago, I said in this House: "What would I say if I was told from the power above, 'Mussallem you've got one more prayer to make for the good of mankind and you should make it now'?" What would it be? I said in this House then: "If I had just one prayer to make, it would be this: may the Lord save us from the intelligentsia in high places."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: Your prayers were answered.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Strangely enough, I was copied by.... Who was it? It wasn't Alfred the Great, it was Cedric the Great of Prussia. He copies me. (Laughter.) I didn't know that he had but in the records, in some of his writings, you'll find these words: "If I wanted to punish a province, I would put them in charge of professors." I thought that was a very good thing for him to say, supporting what I have said. But today I come back and I see it again -this terrible mania we have for experts. This terrible mania we have for experts in these areas is not called for when we have the rail there, we have the people here, and now is the time it should be used.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister to consider it very seriously today,

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we all do in this society - in this House and out of this House - when we talk about public transportation is reduce it to one of those motherhood issues; we all agree. I've always had the feeling that a lot of people would like to put public

[ Page 3554 ]

transit in so that the freeways would be just a little clearer so the rest of us can drive our cars. That's what it's all about. You just can't build the facilities and expect people are going to use them unless they are swift, unless they are practical both in cost and in terms of efficiency, and unless you have some other incentives to get people out of their cars. You know, in San Francisco they tried a graduated system where if there are four people in a car it's a little cheaper to come across the bridge than it is with one. To show you how innovative people really are, they actually put mannequins in their cars so they could get through the toll bridge at a cheaper rate. They'll do anything to get out of getting out of that car, and that's one thing we have to understand.

First of all, I would like to suggest that the minister has a very hard task in front of him in terms of trying to solve urban transportation, because until transportation is one portfolio he doesn't stand the chance of a snowball in Hades. You cannot take transportation the way it presently is in government - this one or the last one or the one prior to that -and hope to solve the problem. It's impossible. With all of the best intentions between ministries and everything else, you can't do the job. No minister would be capable of doing it.

Look at the problems in the Greater Vancouver Regional District of dealing with 14 municipalities. They say that the Greater Vancouver Regional District speaks for them but it's not true. It just isn't true; they haven't handed over their jurisdiction to the Greater Vancouver Regional District. And when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) was the chairman of the transportation committee in the GVRD, he came to me and said: "How would you like to deal, Mr. Minister, with one central body in Vancouver in terms of transportation?" I'd say: "I love it; you go back and get every one of those municipalities to sign over those rights to the Greater Vancouver Regional District and come back." I never saw him again, at least not in that role; I see him in a different role today over in Victoria,

It's just absolute folly. There's no way at all you can solve transportation problems unless you take land use by the horns and decide what you're going to do there. To put in a fixed rail before you've got all of those things teed up so that you know where you want to invest money, what that money's going to do in terms of development in areas, and your land use is tied down....

I was over talking to Surrey a few years ago, and one of the aldermen in Surrey was complaining to me about the amount of traffic in the Deas tunnel. I said: "Where do you work at? How many occasions do you have to use the Deas tunnel?" "Oh, " he said, "I live in Surrey but I teach school in Vancouver." Obviously he's the problem, not the tunnel.

Until you can get industry and housing around that industry that people working in that industry can afford to buy, as long as you have people in West Vancouver going to Surrey to work, and people in Surrey going to Vancouver, and as long as you have no handle on land use and developments and transportation all tied together, there is no way in this whole wide world that this minister is going to be able to solve the problem with all of the good intentions in the world, and it's folly. It's absolute folly to keep going on the way we have been going on. There's no way that it can be solved. Highways and the ferries - all transportation - should be in one ministry. In my mind, after having worked in Highways, there's just no doubt about that - you cannot have it segregated into different ministries.

That minister over there, Mr. Chairman, cannot do his job. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) cannot do his job and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) cannot do his job. It's absolutely impossible for any one of those ministers to do his job properly so what we're really doing here today is debating what could be termed in reality absolute nonsense, because the minister just doesn't stand a chance. With the best intentions and the most capable staff in all three departments, it just doesn't work. Hydro thrown in for good measure with another part of transportation just can't work.

BART doesn't even move the right people around. All BART managed to do was to take the middle and upper middle class and move them out into suburbia. The people whom that transportation system was about to help or should have helped are not being helped. They're still using the old antiquated bus system that doesn't work. BART doesn't work. As a matter of fact, you'd have a hard time in any of the modern cities in the world finding a transportation system that does work. Hamburg's not bad.

But you're just not going to find the problems. Until you get land use in terms of residential, industry and commercial space you can't do it. Until that government or the next government puts transportation in one portfolio and tries to deal with it in a rational way in consultation with Economic Development and Housing, you're absolutely beat. I would urge the government to go about it a different way and have a Minister of Transport who's responsible for transportation, period. I just can't see any other way around it.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to take the minister to task this afternoon with respect to a rather stubborn, doctrinaire approach that he has used in a particular subdivision within my constituency which has been a detriment to the particular people who would like to move into the new subdivision at Port Hardy but have been unable to do so.

[ Page 3555 ]

Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Housing built a 140-lot trailer park in Port Hardy. Out of that 140 lots, 32 had been designated for lease lots. The original costs of this particular subdivision were very, very high and they were of concern to myself, the mayor of Port Hardy and the minister himself. At that time, the minister asked that a special study be done into the costs of the lots of the Cedar Heights subdivision up there and determined that nothing untoward had happened, but that in fact the costs of construction in Port Hardy were very, very high. These lots, Mr. Chairman, run in the range of $11,500 to $14,500. That's after adjustments were made to the original price.

But, Mr. Chairman, the minister refuses to allow any more of these lots to be leased. Thirty-two out of the original 140 were designated to be leased and they have been taken up. In addition to that there were another 15 released because there was a serious fire in Port Hardy. But the victims of the fire had taken only three or four of those lots that were made available. The other I I or so have not been claimed and the Ministry of Housing absolutely refuses to allow those lots to be leased by anybody else. So out of 140 lots, 32 have been leased and about another 20 sold, and I understand there may be an option on about another 15. But only one-third of them have been sold. People cannot afford to pay between $11,500 and $14,500 in four quarterly payments in one year in order to purchase one of those lots.

The council at Port Hardy has been most concerned about this and has repeatedly during the last year approached the Department of Housing and asked: "Please, would you make more lots available for lease?" But the attitude of the minister, Mr. Chairman, is a very stubborn one. He refuses to allow any more of those lots to be made available to people who need them. That's rather ironic in view of the fact that earlier this afternoon, in response to questions by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , he indicated that they were very flexible in their approach to housing.

But here we have a problem. The Port Hardy council has contacted that department at least 10 times in the last eight months. They made contacts earlier than that, and those lots he will not lease. His attitude is, Mr. Chairman, that the lots must be sold. But people in Port Hardy cannot afford to buy them and pay out that amount of money within one year.

I'm wondering how much interest the government is paying on those unoccupied lots. It took some time, almost a year, before the original 32 were actually leased. But they're now getting inquiries again at the Port Hardy municipal office for additional lots to be leased in that subdivision.

I fail to understand what rationale the minister or the department is using which says that you cannot lease any more lots.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would all hon. members perhaps proceed to their own chairs in the interest of order in the House? All members please proceed to their own chairs.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, to me this smacks of a high-handed attitude by the minister. It certainly is not serving the needs of the people at Port Hardy who need to lease lots for the purposes of locating a trailer. He has announced that all of the lots in the future will be sold and will not be leased, but where it's at cross-purposes....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: "Ah, good, " says the member down there. "Good!" Well, what about people who want to lease lots? What about a flexible approach by this Department of Housing in order to give people the kind of accommodation that they need and want?

What do you mean, "good!"? Why don't you give them some options so people, if they wish to lease lots, are allowed to lease them?

MR. SKELLY: He's not interested in freedom.

MS. SANFORD: No way! It's a very doctrinaire, stubborn approach taken by that minister and I'm afraid that it's detrimental to the people in my riding. I'd be very interested to hear the minister's comments on this particular problem.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the statements made by the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , that is not correct. I'm not saying she is misleading the committee. I'm simply saying that we have not refused to lease-, we do not now refuse to lease. We're quite prepared to lease, recognizing the high turnover of individuals - not necessarily the units, but individuals in a community such as Port Hardy where someone is in for a year or two or whatever it might be. We have said that where they cannot get financing.... Assuming that someone wants to buy but they cannot get financial clearance from a bank or a credit union, either of which are acceptable, we will lease. Maybe it's just a breakdown in communication.

I know, Mr. Chairman. I sat in Courtenay several weeks ago because a delegation from Port Hardy was to come down and they ran'into very rough weather in Port Hardy. Their float plane couldn't take off and they were unable to get out of Port Hardy to come down and meet with me in Courtenay. We were going to go into that whole question at that time to try and resolve some of these differences. The weather intervened and that happened there. They phoned and indicated that there was just no way they could safely get off the water in Port Hardy.

[ Page 3556 ]

Mr. Doug McColl, who is the area manager for the housing section of the ministry, has been there. He has spoken with members of council. If the member indicates that the problem still exists we'll ask one of two things. I can get to Port Hardy relatively soon; or, if there is a delegation coming to Victoria on other matters, which wants to discuss it, I will discuss it - the member is welcome; she knows that - or Mr. McColl could do some initial work to try and overcome this. But it is not a doctrinaire approach. It is not a "no, we will not lease" attitude. We will lease. But where someone wants to buy we'll assist them in that regard as well.

So I trust that is of some help to the member, Mr. Chairman. Maybe there is a problem that just needs to be resolved with four or five people sitting down and identifying the difficulties and finding out if there are all those difficulties.

I thank the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who spoke with enthusiasm, as he has previously, about the need to consider commuter service eastward to Mission. I won't say "Mission Impossible"; I was tempted. We're looking at that but initially our discussions are with Canadian Pacific and have been with Canadian Pacific to the Coquitlams. He understands that.

The member for Prince Rupert - quite properly, Mr. Chairman - pointed out the complexities of dealing with transit and highways in isolation. It's not for me to say, and I have no knowledge of it, that there is going to be a single ministry in charge of moving people. But I can say that we've taken one step forward in that respect, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and I are meeting now. We meet now to discuss the very kind of problem that you've identified.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, okay, we can perhaps hope that it may be a little more easily resolved.

Last week, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) , Mr. Chairman - and I apologize to him through you - spoke about the lack of transfer privilege between the western sector bus system in greater Victoria and B.C. Hydro. That's a case in point, you know; that's really a case in point. Someone will step back and look at a bus and say: "That's owned by the people of British Columbia." Then they say: "Over here is another bus owned by the people of British Columbia and I can't transfer. That's absurd!" It is absurd! Mr. Member for Esquimalt, we'll do whatever we can to resolve that as quickly as we can.

MS. SANFORD: I'm really pleased this afternoon to hear that the minister is not as doctrinaire as the people in Port Hardy think that he is, because I have been informed that they have phoned your department at least 10 times since January asking that more lots be made available for lease.

Secondly, they tried to get the 15 lots that you made available for fire victims allotted to other people who were seeking leased lots in Port Hardy. No way! They were turned down. The other thing that I should inform the minister of, Mr. Chairman, is that Ken Wright, who works for McColl, the regional director for that area, was in the community two days ago - or three days ago it would be now. At that time, he indicated that there was no way that they would be able to get any more lots made available for lease. So you can see why they're confused and why I'm confused. Now the clerk at the municipal office spoke to the minister directly on this on the day that his delegation was to appear in Courtenay. He explained what the situation was. I'm surprised that the minister at that time did not indicate to him that they could get these leased lots.

The other thing is that I would like to be able to inform the council at Port Hardy how quickly you can make more lots available in that Cedar Heights subdivision for lease purposes.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a few questions relative to Housing and quite a few relative to Municipal Affairs. I think I'll start with the Housing, and perhaps the minister would like to deal with those first.

I would just like to follow up on a more general theme relative to the cost of housing. In my particular area we are getting a great many so-called affordable houses which obviously are just not affordable. The vacancy rate -is extremely high in the Duncan area, and yet I wouldn't dare state that the housing situation has been solved by any manner or means. It is simply that those houses that are available are not affordable to the people who need the housing.

Now I think, Mr. Minister, that there have to be some alternative methods of approach. I know the minister is moving to make Crown land available for these, and I would urge the minister to continue that programme. But I would urge him and caution him to work very closely with the local municipal and city governments, because they are familiar first-hand with what the needs are in a given area. That's one method.

Co-operative housing has been mentioned many times here, Mr. Chairman, and I think that that is another method that will help reduce the cost of housing. Certainly leased land is another one.

I have a couple of clippings here: "556 Per Cent Hike in the Price of City Lots." That's in Victoria last year,

[ Page 3557 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: What's the date?

MRS. WALLACE: Victoria Times, May 28,1976, That was last year, as I said. At the same time, while those kinds of things were going on, those hikes in city lots, we find a note that Block Brothers reported a net profit of $1.27 million on 5.9 million shares. That's 25 per cent, practically, Mr. Chairman. That's where the cost of housing is reflecting, in part, an extreme out-of-balance. Leased land is perhaps one answer to that. Perhaps the government has to look at leasing their Crown land at some subsidized rental. Housing, to be meaningful, has to be affordable. We've talked very loosely about affordable housing, but I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in many instances that is not the case.

I have one very specific thing, and this is really the only part I have that relates to senior citizens' housing, We have a rather unusual situation in Ladysmith where we had a senior citizens' housing unit installed by one of the fraternities - the Lions Club, as a matter of fact. On April 22 the tenants of the Lions' housing unit in Ladysmith were told that the Lions had withdrawn from that unit and they were simply to make their payments of rent directly to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Ladysmith. Now this immediately raises the problem of who is responsible for maintenance. I wonder whether or not the minister is aware of that situation and what, if anything, the Department of Housing has undertaken to ensure that there will be maintenance services provided for that Lions' housing complex.

I have another couple of perhaps rather small but very meaningful items, especially to the people on the receiving end. The first I would like to mention is mobile-home sales. This has been mentioned previously in the debate this year, and it was mentioned at some length last year. We had some assurance that something would be done about this. There is certainly a very predominant tendency where a mobile home is located on a mobile-home site. In so many instances, these mobile-home sites are also trailer-sales oriented. There is almost a blackmail, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that the owner of that mobile home sells through the owners of the mobile-home park and they collect their 5 per cent. There's no way that person is allowed to sell to a relative, or somebody else, and they leave the trailer there. I would ask the minister to put some priority on that particular issue.

I've talked to the minister about this next problem and he has promised to look into this. We do have a situation with the homeowner grant where there is now provision for the person who has had a broken marriage and whose partner in that first marriage benefited from the homeowner grant. Now the spouse can benefit. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have filtered down. I know it's not in effect yet -

that is, I understand it's not invoked into law - but it's unfortunate for people to read the headlines that this is going to happen, write in and ask to benefit from this particular piece of legislation, and then simply be told they're not eligible. I know the minister is looking into this, but I just feel it is important enough to raise in the discussion of these estimates this afternoon.

Another point I want to talk about in the homeowner grant is relative to a person who purchases a home during the course of the year. Now that person, in purchasing the home, picks up a portion of the taxes for that year. It seems to me it would be only fair if they were able to claim a proportionate amount of the homeowner grant as well. I would ask the minister to take that under advisement and consider that particular thing.

The final point that I have on housing relates to interest when you purchase a home. Now I know this relates to the federal legislation, but I do think that this minister, through his good offices, could bring pressure on the federal authorities to remove a very grave hardship from a lot of people who are purchasing homes. This relates in many instances to our retired people.

You know, if you sell a home, Mr. Chairman, you are obliged to declare the interest on any mortgage or agreement for sale as part of your income for taxation purposes. But unfortunately, when you are buying a home, you do not have that same right. When you buy a home, you cannot claim the interest as part of your tax deduction. As I say, I realize this is a federal problem but I think this minister could do the citizens of British Columbia a great service if he would look into that particular aspect and see if we could not pressure the feds to change that particular piece of legislation so there would be an opportunity for a person to deduct that interest when they are purchasing a home, particularly if they have also sold a home and are declaring that as income.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I recognize the Chairman too; I saw him on television last night. (Laughter.) It doesn't mean I want to make a speech.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. MACDONALD: I ask leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3558 ]

ALLEGED BREACH OF

CONSTITUTION ACT BY MLAS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, information received in committee makes it imperative that the House be informed of grave matters affecting the right of three members of the assembly to sit and vote in its deliberations.

Since February of last year, the hon. member for Port Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has endeavoured through questions to secure information relating to the Bawlf committee. This information as it pertains to payment by the government of expenses of members sitting on this committee has now been made public and should be known to the House.

A memorandum of the minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) details expenses advanced to or for three members of the Legislature between September 20,1976, and November 16,1976, covering such items as hotel accommodations, transportation and miscellaneous. This information confirms that the three members of the Legislative Assembly have indeed received expense funds contrary to the provisions of the Constitution Act.

Out forefathers took care that public funds could not be expended for private or party expenses. They did this by the Constitution Act.

Section 23 of the Constitution Act provides that members of the Legislative Assembly in receipt of any fee, allowance or emolument, or profit of any kind or amount whatever from the province, are ineligible to sit as members of the assembly. This section makes an exception for expenses of cabinet ministers and for such matters as office space and services, provided that they are received by a member in common with and available to all other members of the Legislature. Clearly the expenses received as aforesaid were not within this exception.

Section 24 of the same Act provides that a member is ineligible to sit and vote in this assembly if party to any agreement with Her Majesty in connection with any expenditure of public money. To receive expenses other than allowed by law would be a breach of this section.

In his statement, the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing expressed regret to the committee, and further intimated that while the expenses were paid by his department they should have been, and have not been, repaid by any of the three members concerned. That the minister seeks repayment or reimbursement from some alternate source is a clear admission that the payments were not lawfully made within the provisions of the Constitution Act.

The minister further suggests that section 25 of that Act may cover the expenses referred to. If the minister believes this, he would not seek repayment from the three members. In fact, his own memorandum of October 8,1976, describes the Bawlf group as a committee. It was not "any board or royal or other commission" referred to in section 25. Boards and commissions are legal entities duly constituted under the statutes of the province and the members officially appointed by order-in-council. In no sense was the Bawlf committee a board or a commission of the government.

The cases are similar to the situation of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) who incurred personal expenses when attending the proceedings of the Royal Commission on Gasoline Price Structure, beginning in 1963. As payment of the hon. member for Skeena's expenses was barred by the Constitution Act, a special Act of the Legislature was assented to on April 13,1966, authorizing payment of expenses to him and providing that the receipt would not make him ineligible as a member of the Legislative Assembly. The expenses were thereupon paid.

The minister's expression of regret is commendable but cannot reinstate in good standing members who have been in breach of the Constitution Act. Neither can repayment to the government of expenses illegally made, when the matter is finally brought to light, erase disqualifications which have existed since the fall of 1976.

Mr. Speaker, it well appears that three members of this assembly are ineligible to sit and vote in its proceedings - namely, the Hon. Samuel Bawlf, the Hon. James Hewitt and Mr. George Kerster. A copy of this statement is being given forthwith to the Attorney-General for his attention and action.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.