[ Page 3559 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Alleged interference with ICBC claim by MLA. Mr. Macdonald –– 3559

Revival of British Columbia Government News. Mr. Gibson –– 3560

Use of government aircraft by cabinet ministers. Mr. Wallace –– 3560

Functions of programmes co-ordinator. Mrs. Dailly –– 3560

Development report on systems corporation. Mr. Levi –– 3561

Doman Industries' negotiations with Environment and Land Use Committee.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 3561

Investigation into Pacific North Coast Native Co-op. Mr. Wallace –– 3562

Dismantling of Vancouver Resource Board. Ms. Brown –– 3562

Matters of privilege

Public accounts committee; agenda motion. Mr. Gibson –– 3564

Public accounts committee; motion to strike Hansard report from the record. Mr.

King –– 3565

Routine proceedings

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

On vote 195. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3587

Mr. Barber –– 3566 Mr. Lea –– 3588

Mr. Gibson –– 3567 Mr. Barber –– 3589

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3571 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3589

Mrs. Wallace –– 3574 Mr. Lockstead –– 3589

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3574 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3590

Mrs. Wallace –– 3575 Mr. Nicolson –– 3590

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3578 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3591

Ms. Brown –– 3580 Mr. Gibson –– 3591

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3584 Mr. Levi –– 3591

Mr. Nicolson –– 3587 Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3592

Matter of privilege

Interference with Vancouver Resources Board. Mr. Speaker rules –– 3592

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'm pleased to introduce to the House two very special people who are visiting in the gallery today from Vancouver. I know the members will want to extend a very warm welcome to my father and mother, Robbie and Cathryn Bawlf.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I have the honour of introducing to the House today a couple of friends of mine, also from Vancouver. I had the privilege of serving with one of them on the Alcohol and Drug Commission until a little while ago. They are Dr. and Mrs. John Dick. Dr. Dick is presently the director of medical services for the Workers' Compensation Board. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to make two introductions today. The first is to welcome to the House Mrs. Helena Powell-Peters, who was the first provincial president of the women's auxiliary of the British Columbia Social Credit League.

Mr. Speaker, also in the House today is a delegation from one of the very great hospitals in British Columbia. This hospital is in my and the Finance minister's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain. Representing that great hospital, St. Vincent's, is the administrator, Sister McDonald, Sister Kergoat, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Greerson, and Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Livingstone, who are representatives of the hospital board. They have held a meeting this morning with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, just a quick welcome to the female side of my family. Accompanying my wife today are my two daughters, Julia and Debra.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): It is my great pleasure to have with us in the gallery this afternoon a group of people from my constituency of Omineca: John and Mary-Jo Mackie, their sons, Timothy and Stephen, and accompanying them, Mrs. Mackie's mother, Catherine Donnelly. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a gentleman who occasionally observes our debate, although to my knowledge he's not been here for some time. I believe he's known to greater Victoria members and observers very well. I refer to Mr. Tom L. Christie who for many years was the secretary-treasurer of the Greater Victoria School Board and then latterly an alderman of the city of Victoria, now retired. Would the House welcome him?

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we engage in the question period this afternoon, I think that perhaps it would be well if I took a few minutes of our time before we start to refresh the memories of all of the members of the House as to what question period is supposed to be all about.

You will recall that some months ago I prepared a report on the question period. The report was based upon a good deal of research and upon the authorities that we have to guide us in this Legislature. I'd like to refresh the memories of all of the members because I believe it's opportune.

Question period in this House, of course, is without notice, so that the questions that are posed come without any notice to the Speaker or to the person to whom the question is directed.

Questions without notice must be urgent and important, and I would like to stress that - urgent and important. Supplementary questions may be allowed by permission of MT. Speaker. No debate shall be allowed during questions.

The decision of Mr. Speaker shall be final on allowing or disallowing any questions. There's a good number of rules that guide us as to whether a question is in order or out of order. I'm not going to repeat those this afternoon, but I would also like to refer to Sir Erskine May's 16th edition, page 363, making the following observations about oral questions and supplementary questions:

"An answer should be confined to the points contained in the question, with such explanation only as renders the question intelligible, though a certain latitude is permitted to ministers of the Crown. Supplementary questions, without debate or comment, may, within due limits, be addressed to them, which are necessary for the elucidation of the answers that they have given."

I would be most happy if all of the members of the House would be guided by that advice when we participate in the oral questions.

ALLEGED INTERFERENCE

WITH ICBC CLAIM BY MLA

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I have

[ Page 3560 ]

a very orderly, urgent and important question to the Premier of the province, in the absence of the other ministers. In view of the breach of ICBC regulations by Surrey Dodge Limited in its claim against ICBC -in particular regulation 9.57, which provides a limitation period of one year from the date the damage occurred for action to be taken against the corporation - why was the Surrey Dodge Limited claim paid when it was statute-barred, and is it general policy that ICBC will pay claims that are statute-barred?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible for ICBC.

MR. MACDONALD: Or is it special treatment for Social Credit car dealers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is exactly the type of rhetoric that we do not need in question period, hon. member.

REVIVAL OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): The Premier's press secretary is reported in B.C. Today as saying that British Columbia Government News is going to be revived by next September. I would like to ask the Premier if opposition members will get space in this taxpayer-supported newspaper.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Government News that has been published in this province through two previous governments has been subject to a pause, but it will be reinstituted as government information that belongs to the people of B.C.

MR. GIBSON: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier is the publisher of this newspaper, I would ask him if it is publishing policy that when it comes to the opposition no news is good news.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not the publisher, but I assure the member that the same high standards carried on by the previous government will be adhered to.

USE OF GOVERNMENT

AIRCRAFT BY CABINET MINISTERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Today's silence in question period is deafening, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications a question regarding the figures that he has provided in answer to a written question with respect to the cost of providing government air transportation to cabinet ministers. Specifically, my question refers to an example such as the cost quoted from Victoria to Kamloops of $42 for a one-way flight. Since this matter has been raised, other people in the airline business have stated that the realistic cost must be many times the figures quoted by the minister. 1 wonder if he has had a chance to review the details in his answer to my written question and would care to clarify the costs of such flights as are quoted in that answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jetlag Jack!

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, 1 am endeavouring to get that information. As soon as it is available 1 will make it available to the hon. member.

FUNCTIONS OF

PROGRAMMES CO-ORDINATOR

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources. We note that the minister has a programmes co-ordinator at $22,500 instead of an executive assistant at $19,500. Could he explain why he needs this position when the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has informed us that her executive assistant is now working in your department as a programme co-ordinator? She is doing other duties but she is mainly programme co-ordinator.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Did you know she was there?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, there is a wrong assumption there. The programmes co-ordinator is not instead of the executive assistant. It is a saving to the people of British Columbia to have this particular person carry out a number of functions.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister only answered my preamble. The specific question was: why do you find it necessary to have a programmes co-ordinator in your department when the Provincial Secretary apparently has sent her executive assistant to your department to do that job?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Big sister!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Provincial Secretary's executive assistant, who has been seconded to the Ministry of Human Resources, Mr.

[ Page 3561 ]

Speaker, is carrying out a number of other functions within the department.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It has been most difficult, Mr. Speaker, to find out the functions of this executive assistant. Could the hon. minister please specify for the House exactly what the functions of Dianne Hartwick are in your department?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Knowing that the questioner would want me to be as accurate as possible, I'll take the question as notice.

DEVELOPMENT REPORT

ON SYSTEMS CORPORATION

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver Burrard): I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In respect to....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: The laughter comes because we're asking a question of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Human Resources said he is saving the people money. He pays an executive assistant $19,500 and then pays him another $3,000. Is that saving money? Is that Social Credit economics?

MR. SPEAKER: State your question please, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: The question is: with respect to the development of the proposed Systems Corporation, did Mr. Bill McMinn, the consultant from Woods Gordon, submit a written report?

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: Did the minister or any government official discuss the report with the people in the computer and data processing industry?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, considerable discussion went on with the industry and staff members and otherwise in developing the information in the report.

MR. LEVI: With respect, I didn't ask that, Mr. Speaker. I asked: did you discuss the report that was submitted - not the formulation of the report - with the industry?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable discussion with the industry on the intentions of the report as exemplified in the Systems Corporation bill which is before the House now. I think that is pretty well indicative of the discussion or the intentions that arise out of the study.

MR. LEVI: Then I must take it that they didn't see the report and there was no discussion. That's my information from the industry, Mr. Speaker. But is the minister now prepared to table the report in the House - the report which was done for the taxpayers and paid for by their own money?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, not at the present time.

MR. LEVI: On a further supplementary: in view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's not prepared to table the report, is he prepared to answer Question 95 on the order paper before we get into the debate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll be tabling the answer to the question which you're referring to today.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES' NEGOTIATIONS

WITH ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

COMMITTEE

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked a question about Doman Industries and Rooke and Rodenbush. I've had the opportunity of reading the question as it appears in the Blues. If I may just recap for the moment, the question was whether Doman Industries had advised members of the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, while they were having discussions about Doman Industries locating its mill at Cowichan Bay, of a contract they held with Rooke and Rodenbush, who are more commonly known as Island Shake and Shingle.

The member who was with the secretariat at that time advises me that during the negotiations which took place in January, 1975, this matter was not brought to their attention by Doman Industries. This is January 29,1975. However, in October, 1974, Island Shake and Shingle Company - or Rooke and Rodenbush, as it's referred to otherwise - did advise the secretariat that indeed they had an interest in the subject land. Island Shake and Shingle advised the secretariat they held the lease with option to purchase. This lease was signed with Slegg Acceptance Corporation, which was the owner of the property at that time. Subsequently, Doman acquired the property from Slegg Acceptance Corporation.

It was either presumed, assumed or incorrectly interpreted by someone along the line that when

[ Page 3562 ]

Doman purchased the Slegg Acceptance Corporation, the options or other contracts were somehow nullified. The lawyers for Island Shake and Shingle advise that indeed part of the conditions of the purchase by Doman was the continuation of that lease.

Answering specifically to the question, Doman did not advise the member of the secretariat at that time; conversely, they were not asked at the time. The contract, which apparently was in effect in October, 1974, was continued under the new terms of the purchase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Assuming that the minister said "yes, " could he tell me whether or not he agrees or whether or not he believes that the contract that Doman signed with Rooke and Rodenbush is in conflict with the contract signed between Doman and ELUC?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is irregular in that you are now asking the hon. Minister of the Environment to state a legal opinion, which is unnecessary and out of order in question period.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a further supplemental.

MR. SPEAKER: I've indicated to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat that the question was irregular unless stated in another form.

MRS. WALLACE: May I have a further supplemental in another form?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to listen to a supplemental, hon. member, provided it's an in-order question.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister spoke of the legal firm. Is he aware that the same legal firm represents both Island Shake and Shingle and Doman Industries?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, not only am I not aware-, I really have no interest. Private corporations have every right in the world to hire such legal counsel as they feel is best suited to their purposes. If they have more than one client, it's not surprising.

MRS. WALLACE: On a further supplemental, Mr. Speaker: has the Environment and Land Use Committee received a formal application from Rooke and Rodenbush asking that they allow their establishment on the south arm of the Cowichan Bay? Has the committee received a formal application?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why they would make an application to the Environment and Land Use Committee and I certainly don't know under what Act they would make an application. The application Island Shake and Shingle would make would be to the local government responsible for the zoning of that property. I understand they have asked for building permits.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he doesn't understand why they would make an application. Does the minister not agree then that the Environment and Land Use Committee did have an interest in the carrying out of the concept as was originally laid down - that there would be no further development on that south arm - and, in fact, did carry out a watching brief at those hearings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please confine it to a supplemental question?

MRS. WALLACE: Does the Environment and Land Use Committee have an interest in the protection of that south arm? If not, why did they keep a watching brief on the hearings in the municipal case?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, we have an interest in that south arm.

INVESTIGATION INTO PACIFIC

NORTH COAST NATIVE CO-OP

MR. WALLACE: This question is to the Minister of Finance: can the minister tell the House if his ministry is presently conducting an investigation into the financial affairs of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative in order to assist the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who is responsible under the agreement under order-in-council 689 of February 26,1976, for the administration of that management agreement?

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, come on!

DISMANTLING OF

VANCOUVER RESOURCES BOARD

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): This

[ Page 3563 ]

question is for the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker: did the minister authorize the beginning of the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I understand this particular question was raised in the House yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I would like to take this opportunity, if I may, to answer both questions. Section 3 of Bill 65 amends the Community Resources Boards Act by inserting: "An agreement entered into or liability assumed by the Vancouver Resources Board on or after June 22,1977, is unenforceable unless approved in writing by the director."

MS. BROWN: That's not law!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The director referred to is the director of community resources named in the Community Resources Boards Act, who is also the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and has certain powers under the Act.

A discussion between the board of directors of the Vancouver Resources Board, their regional manager and the Minister of Human Resources, his deputy minister and associate deputy minister regarding Bill 65 was held on June 22,1977. Among other things, the board expressed concern about the possibility of a retroactive clause in Bill 65, in that the credibility of the board in making contracts and incurring liabilities could be questioned as a result of the presentation of Bill 65 in the Legislature.

It was suggested that the counter signature of the director of community resources might be required in advance to deal with this problem in an interim manner should Bill 65 eventually be passed in its present form. Subsequently the Vancouver Resources Board, through its regional manager, took action by submitting for counter signature of the director of community resources the collective agreement negotiated with their employees and a number of property leases agreements. These were submitted at the discretion of the board, with the name and title of the director already typed on the signature page of each document.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't do that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On July 6 the director of community resources wrote the board, setting out guidelines for the use of the board in determining which items, if any, they in their discretion would submit for counter signature. The last sentence of this letter states: "Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions relating to this matter."

On July 11, Mr. David Schreck, regional manager of the Vancouver Resources Board, telephoned the director of community resources to question the use of the word "pending" in the first sentence of his letter of July 6. The director of community resources verbally agreed with his suggested amendment, which was to delete. the word "pending" and to insert: "should Bill 65 be proclaimed in its present form." On the same day as it was agreed, the director of community resources sent to Mr. Schreck written confirmation.

With regard to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's (Mr. Gibson) reference to staff examining the file systems, this is a process of integrating pay systems in the lower mainland. It involves the Ministry of Human Resources and the Vancouver Resources Board, and it has been an ongoing process for several months prior to the introduction of Bill 65, with the full co-operation of the Vancouver Resources Board and its staff.

Mr. Bill McBeth, welfare administrator for the municipality of Surrey, was seconded at the request of the ministry to work with the Vancouver Resources Board and lower mainland offices under the direction of the comptroller of the Ministry of Human Resources and the Vancouver Resources Board comptroller. This secondment terminated on June 30, and as of July J, Mr. McBeth was employed by the Vancouver Resources Board for this purpose at the request of the ministry.

This process of systems integration was proceeding prior to the introduction of Bill 65 and would continue regardless of whether or not Bill 65 was enacted.

With regard to the North Vancouver-Capilano member's reference to Mr. Tetlock, this arose because of the Vancouver Resources Board's decision to submit property leases for the counter signature of the director of community resources. The government agency for the lease of the property is the B.C. Buildings Corporation. These leases were referred to the B.C. Buildings Corporation for an option, since the director of community resources was not in a position to sign an agreement that would become binding on government without such consultation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. If I may cite what you cited to us earlier - May 16th edition, page 363 - the answer of the minister should be confined to points contained in the question and enlarged upon only to make it intelligible.

My question was: did the minister authorize the dismantling of the Vancouver Resources Board despite the fact that Bill 65 has not yet been passed? He is not answering my question and he is far beyond being intelligible.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the hon. member's point of order, the hon. minister gained the floor

[ Page 3564 ]

approximately 15 seconds before the end of the question period, so I am informed by the Clerks-at-the-Table. I could have cut him off at the end of 15 seconds or not recognized the minister at all, but it would have been customary to allow the minister to continue to make his statement even though it exceeded the question period, since it was obvious that in the last 15 seconds allowed to us of the question period the minister would not complete a matter which he is now addressing yourself to. It could have been by leave of the House on a statement, or on a ministerial statement without leave.

MS. BROWN: That's right, Mr. Speaker, but it was during the question period, he did not respond to my question, the answer to my question would have taken less than 15 seconds, and he needed only to say "yes." That was the answer to my question and it would have taken quite a bit less than 15 seconds. Now if we're going to obey Sir Erskine May's 16th edition, page 363, about what the questions are to do, we have to obey the terms of what the answers are to be, too.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that we'll try to guide all members of the House equally, hon. member.

Would the hon. minister, if it's to be continued, very quickly wrap up his comments?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's much more to the answer but I will save it should the question arise again.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not sure if this is a point of order or a question of privilege, but it arises out of a committee action taken this morning,

I want to make it clear at this point that I am not appealing a chairman's ruling from that committee, which under our rules I can't do, but I want to ask the Speaker to ascertain whether or not an action taken by the committee is within the powers conferred on the committee by the House.

Under the authority of standing order 9, it's Mr. Speaker's responsibility to decide questions of order as they affect standing orders to the Legislature itself, whether related to the work of the committee or not.

This morning the public accounts committee approved a motion by Mr. Bawlf that the Chair, upon receipt of a certificate regarding the summoning of a witness contact the committee for the purpose of determining, by way of an agenda, the time or times which would be set aside for such hearing and such agenda to be arrived at by the consensus of the whole committee under motion. It is my contention that this action is in conflict with standing order 72 (l) , which reads:

"No witness shall be summoned to attend before any committee of the House save at the instance of the Chairman or a certificate shall first have been filed with the chairman of such committee, by some member thereof, stating that the evidence to be obtained from such witness is, in his opinion, material and important."

The clear intent of this section is that the chairman has the general management of the business of the committee. Certainly it is competent in a committee majority to decide on business on any particular, but to make a general requirement in respect to every particular is to reduce the chairman's function to that of a secretary, which was never the intent of the standing order. This is particularly important in the public accounts committee, where a chairman is selected from among the opposition parties in order that there can be no suspicion that the government would use its control of the committee to attempt to hide or suppress any matter which the public accounts committee should investigate.

The power to set every agenda item, purportedly conferred by this motion, is also the power to exclude any agenda item and is therefore subversive of the work of the committee under standing order 72 (l) . The standing order refers to witnesses being summoned. If witnesses are to be summoned by the chairman, that summons must have attached to it not only a name but a date. Without a date, it has no effect. What the offending motion does is to remove control of date from the opposition chairman, thereby rendering empty the standing order powers conferred and required, and emasculating the ability of the public accounts committee to defend the public interest against the government of the day,

I would therefore ask Your Honour to take this question under advisement and rule on the point of order raised.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to your statement, which would be difficult to define as to whether it is a point of order or privilege, I'm inclined to point out two things to the hon. member.

First of all, regarding matters such as this which have to do with the operation of the committee, as I recall, from a previous Speaker's decisions.... I believe it was Speaker Murray who indicated that matters coming before the committee are settled in the committee and do not become a matter for a decision of the House or the Speaker. The committee is competent in settling the matters that come before the committee on the basis that we settle all matters in this Legislature: by the standing orders and the rules that are available. The same rules that apply to this House apply to the standing committees of the House. If, on occasion, they have to refer to the Speaker or to the Clerks of the House for

[ Page 3565 ]

clarification, that is quote often done. I do not see at the moment, hon. member, where the matter you have raised is something in which the Speaker should become even involved, but I'm prepared to take a look at it on the basis that there may be something there or you may have stated something that concerns the House as a whole, although my original inclination is toward the fact that matters raised in committee are dealt with by the members of the committee.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke- Slocan): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: the point is that action taken by resolution in the public accounts committee has offended the authority of the Speaker of the House. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 129, particularly sections I and 8, with respect to the custody and authority for the Hansard recording equipment.

Mr. Speaker, this morning in the public accounts committee a resolution was moved by the member for Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster) , seconded and approved, that the previous public accounts committee minutes and verbatim reporting through the Hansard equipment of a meeting which was conducted on June 29 be destroyed; that is, that the official record of Hansard and the minutes that were distributed be destroyed. This, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, offends standing order 129 which proffers to the Speaker of the House....

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver South on a point of order.

MR. KING: I haven't finished my point of privilege yet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm listening right now, hon. member, to a matter raised, presumed to be a matter of privilege, by the Hon. member I or Revelstoke-Slocan. If the hon. member fur Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) has a point of order, I'll listen to it following this.

MR. KING: There was a debate as to the authority of the committee to meet on June 28. Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest and submit to you that that is not the issue here. The issue and the question of privilege is whether or not a standing committee of this House has the authority to destroy public records, setting a precedent in this House and, I submit, rewriting history and impinging on the authority of Mr. Speaker. That is the question and I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you address yourself to that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm quite prepared to address myself to points of privilege, hon. member, without becoming involved in taking as part of that responsibility argumentative debate that may have been issued or given in support of the question of privilege.

I've heard from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) with respect to the meeting of the committee and I've listened closely to what you have had to say, Hon. member. I certainly will look at the matters which you have raised to see if, in effect, there is any matter which the Speaker himself should be concerned with, or whether, in fact, it is a matter for the committee to decide.

MR. KING: There's one further point, Mr. Speaker, to assist you in examining....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Proceed, hon. member, if you have something further that you feel is of substance and should be considered.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I view it as an extremely grave matter. This is a matter of public records that are proposed to be destroyed. I suggest that it might assist Mr. Speaker in examining this matter if communication was developed with the chairman of the Senate investigating committee that viewed the I 8-minute gap in Mr. Nixon's tapes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a matter of not engaging in debate or presenting argumentative points of view when stating either a question of privilege or a point of order.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Revelstoke- Slocan is going to make a statement, then lie should have his facts correct. As the secretary of that committee, the motion was not to destroy any tapes. The word "destroy" was not even mentioned and I shall provide you with a copy of the minutes if you wish.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. Provincial Secretary, who has called a Committee of Supply. Now is there some other matter which can be raised other than Committee of Supply at this time?

Interjections.

[ Page 3566 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for

Revelstoke- Slocan on a point of order.

MR. KING: On a point of order: I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in the matter of privilege I raised, the motion provided for the destruction of all records of that previous committee meeting. Therefore, I think it should be studied.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a matter of debate at this particular moment. We've heard both your point of view, hon. member, and that of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

Does the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard have a point of order?

MS. BROWN: No, it is not a point of order. I was on my feet before the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was on her feet.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, hon. member, unless it's a point of order, I have recognized the Provincial Secretary as House Leader.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet. I wanted to ask leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry. What am I to do about the fact that you are unable to see me, Mr. Speaker? I was on my feet before the hon. Provincial Secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Secretary was recognized. If she cares to yield to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard on the basis of a matter which is not knowledgeable to the Chair, I'd be prepared to listen to it.

MS. BROWN: I was on my feet!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm speaking rght now, hon. member for New Westminster, to the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I'm up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed on a point of order, then, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the practice of this House is to call on the Clerk who announces Committee of Supply, before you go to the House Leader. This is absolutely something new in this House. The Clerk always announces Committee of Supply. As far as we're concerned we're not even over to the House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Could I reply to the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) ? Hon. member, at this stage of the proceedings, it would be proper if you were on your feet on a point of order, a point of privilege or in perhaps some manner to ask leave to make a statement. I have no idea at this point what your desire is, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Are you interested in my desires, Mr. Speaker? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to listen, hon. member, to which one of the three alternatives you are on your feet about at the present time.

MS. BROWN: I am on my feet to ask leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: For what reason, hon. member -to make a statement?

MS. BROWN: I ask leave of the House for the hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) to table that long and tedious reply of his. You cut him off and he was unable to give it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's an incorrect matter for a member to ask leave on behalf of any other hon. member of the House.

MS. BROWN: I ask leave of the House on my own behalf for that reply to be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, that's an incorrect procedure, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , I would ask that the House Leader consider calling Motion 13.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

continued.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My opening remarks today will be brief. Five months ago the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) first raised questions about the

[ Page 3567 ]

curious operations of the Bawlf committee. He started asking about Hansard reports and who should pay for it. He started asking about travel expenses and out-of-pocket expenses and who should pay for them. For five months my colleague from Alberni pursued these matters in various forms before the House.

On Thursday night last, at the start of the minister's estimates, 1, as critic for our opposition, raised the matter. On Friday morning, my colleague from Alberni, assisted by my colleague from Vancouver East, by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , raised the matter as well. The minister declined throughout to provide any of the information we wished.

It appears that over the weekend he had a change of heart. It appears to us he may have realized that we ourselves had the information all along. Be that as it may, the minister did, in an abrupt about-face on Monday, agree to table the vouchers, to table the financial statement, to obtain for us the Hansard for which the taxpayers have already paid, and made an apology. As the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out shortly before recess last night, Mr. Chairman, the minister's apology does not erase the fact that by virtue of these admittedly wrongful payments, in our view, three members of this House have already forfeited their seats. This is, to say the least, maladministration on his part.

Mr. Chairman, the conventional remedies for this kind of maladministration are usually centred around motions of non-confidence in which an opposition traditionally moves to reduce a minister's salary by $1. The traditional remedies for maladministration and incompetence involve that kind of motion, as I understand it. In our view, these conventional remedies simply do not apply in this case. The matter is too grave. The convention is not adequate; the tradition is not substantial enough.

This is a very grave matter indeed, Mr. Chairman. Three members may have forfeited their seats by virtue of the maladministration and incompetence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Accordingly, I do not propose to move a motion which in its nature is, at least as we see it, Mr. Chairman, simply not substantial enough to deal with this particular problem.

In our view it's now up to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to pursue the contravention of the Constitution Act. It will shortly be up to the courts to determine the eligibility, if any, of those three MLAs to hold their seats. In our view, it's for the Attorney-General to pursue and for the courts to decide. Accordingly, the official opposition does not intend again during these estimates to raise the matter, Mr. Chairman. We're hopeful that the Attorney -General and the courts will shortly decide what the evidence has already persuaded us is obviously the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I might observe just before the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano begins that any allegation against any member in this House is not the subject of debate, either in committee or in this House, unless first of all a substantive motion appears on the order paper.

MR. GIBSON: I'll be dealing with the general circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Bawlf committee a little later. But leaving that aside, I want to start out with some general words of congratulations for the minister. Speaking as an MLA with respect to my own constituency, relations with him and his ministry have been co-operative and consultative. I think he has worked at that.

I think he has worked hard on getting money out of Ottawa, which is something that any provincial minister tries to do.

I think he has brought in some good legislation. The Revenue Sharing Act, for example - which we are to debate in greater substance later on - is a good one and the SAFER legislation was good.

HON. MR. CURTIS: However....

MR. GIBSON: I'll get there; don't rush me. I'm going through the good things now.

The minister took rapid action in a conflict-of-interest case which I brought to his attention, and it was rapid and proper action, I thought. He has answered questions frankly in this debate. I'll have a few criticisms, as the minister is expecting, later on.

First of all, let me say something nice, too, about the Municipal Affairs and Housing spokesman for the official opposition (Mr. Barber) . I think that the hon. second member for Victoria has done a very good job. As these estimates have been moving through the House, I have studied his statements in this debate. He's had some good, constructive ideas.

There is much good on both sides, in other words, Mr. Chairman, and one of the difficulties of the place is the two solitudes and the difficulties of bringing those good things together. The second member for Victoria, I fear, will in due course learn what the problems of good ideas are, and that's that your policy clothes get stolen pretty quickly if you articulate them too clearly. It is frustrating but nevertheless a good thing to do.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You haven't had that experience, have you?

MR. GIBSON: Oh, now Evan, you may have taken one or two little ideas, and God knows you need

[ Page 3568 ]

them.

The idea of a royal commission into Municipal Affairs generally, I think, was a good idea, Mr. Chairman, particularly in respect of the subjects that it was suggested should be studied. The management assistance team, I thought, was a first-rate idea. The minister in one of his responses indicated that there is such an embryonic unit that is going around the province. I hope that it will be beefed up along the lines suggested by the second member for Victoria.

Now in the debate so far there have been some issues raised which I would like to comment on at this time. The first is the constitutional position of local governments in British Columbia and in Canada. One of the reasons that I have been calling for a constitutional conference of persons elected for that job rather than existing provincial and federal governments is that I think that's the only way we're really going to get a constitutional recognition of the role of local government.

As you know, at the moment local governments are completely creatures of the provincial governments. The provincial governments, by and large - I won't particularly speak about British Columbia - like to keep it that way. They've never been enthusiastic about the so-called tri-level conferences, though I was encouraged to see that the minister will be attending one this coming fall.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Convening one.

MR. GIBSON: Convening one. But provincial governments generally have always been a little touchy about the idea of any kind of direct contact between the central government and local governments, and even twitchier when it came to a specific constitutional establishment of and safeguard for local governments. They'Ve always been very reluctant, for example, to apportion sources of general revenue to local governments. So I commend again the present government in its move forward in the matter of the Revenue Sharing Act.

To me the idea of a commission of some kind, whether royal or not, to examine this question of the constitutional place of local government is a worthy one. What should be examined are such things as the form of local government. By that I mean the appropriate size, the appropriate powers and the appropriate levels of government.

We've seen experiments in this country that run from metropolitan government of a slightly weaker kind in Toronto, to metropolitan government of a much weaker kind in British Columbia - for example, the BCRD or the Capital Regional District. All of these should be studied and compared with the others to see what their merits are insofar as the conditions obtained in British Columbia go because, obviously, the conditions and needs of each province differ.

Another thing that should be examined in that constitutional picture, Mr. Chairman, is the place of the neighbourhood in the constitutional scheme of things. To me, the neighbourhood is a basic unit of organization of our society. That is why 1 came to support so much the concept of community resource boards - 1 could see how neighbourhood activity was c o m i n g f o r w a r d t h r o u g h t h i s neighbourhood-structured institution. I think that we should consider the constitution of our country providing a place for neighbourhoods. Their maximum size should perhaps be specified in order that they don't get so large that they become a meaningless level of government to people, but remain genuine neighbourhood institutions. Within that constitutional restriction, leave it up to the provincial governments to draw the actual boundaries of the neighbourhoods, but within a maximum size. Then give those neighbourhoods definitely defined powers so that they are not purely creatures of the provincial government, but rather become creatures of the electors they serve. In other words, to me, local units of government need to be responsible more to their own people and less to Victoria.

We hear a lot in this country about decentralization and we have a great enthusiasm on behalf of the provincial government for bringing power from Ottawa to the provinces, but a marked lack of enthusiasm to constitutionally transferring power from Victoria to the local units of government.

That commission could examine questions of this kind. It could examine questions of the proper distribution of revenue. I'll be making a suggestion on that later. It could examine questions of the type that local governments should be in. We have three basic types, 1 guess, on this continent. One is what you might call the British or parliamentary type of local government. They went some distance in that direction with Unicity in Winnipeg and then I think they got a little twitchy and backed off. You have what you might call the U.S. type - the separation of powers with the mayor and the executive on one hand and the council or the legislative arm on the other. Then you have the sort of managerial type, which we're more used to in British Columbia, where you have a strong public service and a council meeting almost as a town forum to see how things are going. Which of these is best, 1 have no idea, but a commission could look at it and say: "Are there some experiments and new directions we should be taking in our province?"

The other constitutional question that was raised in the debate was raised by the minister when he spoke about federal payments for rapid transit, or transit generally, in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the federal government made some promises, as 1 recall. 1 don't recall precisely what they were, but 1

[ Page 3569 ]

know they made some promises in this direction in the last federal election. That's a very important fact. Promises should be honoured.

I want to draw to the minister's and the committee's attention the question of the propriety of that kind of expenditure. Every time we get federal funds coming into a particular area of provincial responsibility, we have a distortion of provincial priorities. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, I guess that is why individual departments seek them. It's always easier for a department to go to cabinet and say: "Could we please have some money for this programme or this project because we've got some federal money to go with it so you're getting a bargain?" Departments can use this device of federal funds to advance their own objectives, but that in itself is a distortion of the allocation of provincial spending priorities. At the same time, we have the Premier calling for restraint on federal government expenditures. You can't have restraint and yet go on increasing programmes of this kind.

Also important is the question of British Columbia's advantage. You know, Mr. Chairman British Columbia's advantage is the least possible federal transfer of funds around the country. I'll tell you why: it's because we tend to be a "have" province which pays for federal programmes more than we receive from federal programmes. Federal programmes are typically given out on the basis of need or on the basis of population and paid for on the basis of revenue. We happen to be a high-revenue province and, in terms of population, will do no better than anybody else; in terms of need, we might perhaps do worse than other provinces. I'm not sure about federal transfer programmes in this area.

To go beyond that, there is the question of jurisdiction and the use of the federal spending power. The minister will recall that in the Victoria Charter conference this was one of the main questions. The federal government agreed to some restrictions on spending power because, as it stands now, if the federal government can spend money for any object under the sun, they can almost change the Constitution by the operation of the Treasury Board in Ottawa.

I had the pleasure of attending the conference called Destiny Canada at York University, sponsored by the Ontario government, a couple of weeks ago. The heaviest single complaint I heard at that conference was the way in which the federal spending power can be used to undermine the language of the Constitution. Indeed, I heard some very articulate Quebeckers in our workshop say that the Constitution as it stands is just fine, if only it would be followed. Their greatest single complaint was this use of the federal spending power.

Then I go on to point out the ghastly example of the use of the federal spending power in terms of this energy insulation programme, where just because some federal bucks are coming into a province we are being asked to change provincial policy. It may not be change, since we happen to have a 55 mile per hour speed limit, but that was put on as a tag in this federal energy programme. The question of the sales tax off insulation materials is a provincial decision, and yet here we see the federal spending power being used to try and force that. Finally, we have the generally wasteful effect of 50-cent dollars; I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but it's just a fact of life that people look after 50-cent dollars less well than they look after 100-cent dollars of their own money. '-, '

With all of that background, I'm just putting a philosophical case to the minister: how hard does lie really want to push for more federal action n this area? I'm not particularly expecting him to answer it, 1 just want to put the philosophical case to him.

Another issue was raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) . That was the relation of property taxes to services to property, and the use of general taxes to services for the general good. This has been a long-standing debate in municipal financing. Education is one of the most obvious areas where taxes are levied on property for services in general to society. It's true of police, where some police protection certainly is protection for property but much is for the general order of society. It's true in respect to cultural questions and so on. 1 would like to ask the minister if he could either direct me to, if it exists - or have one done, if it does not exist - a study which would go down the range of municipal expenditures in this province and say: "Roughly this much is services to property, and roughly this much is services to people."

I've got an idea, Mr. Chairman, that taking into account education and all, property taxes could be two-thirds less than they are now if taxation on property related specifically and only to services to property. I'm not trying to say one should get something for nothing, or have a perpetual-motion machine here. Naturally, if you reduce taxes on property by two-thirds, you have to raise those taxes somewhere else - that's the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) problem. 1 wonder if we wouldn't have more economically efficient and equitable society if we related those things more directly.

Mr. Chairman, that kind of reduction should reduce the price of property by reducing the built-in costs of holding in over time. There's another argument that that kind of change would make the holding of property easier - make it easier to hold out for a higher price - but I'm inclined to think that you could meet that argument by moving more to a site-value tax system and less to an assessed system, which would have the effect of raising the relative amount paid for raw land and meeting that holding-time argument. It would mean some

[ Page 3570 ]

fundamental reform. It would mean some general revenue sources, beyond what is now contemplated in the government's legislation, being given to local governments. It might be entirely too radical a thing to consider in British Columbia right now. My submission, Mr. Chairman, is simply that it should be studied. I think there are some merits in this idea which deserve at least a discussion paper, which the ministry might put out.

Mr. Chairman, the minister was suggesting earlier that there had to be a catch in all this, and I do want to make one criticism at this point. It relates to the way in which the Bawlf committee was structured. I don't know whose bright idea it was - it may be that we should not be blaming this minister; I don't know - but the committee was set up under his announcement, it did report to him, and so I'm afraid he has to carry the can for it. I'll leave aside the merits of the Bawlf report for now, and talk about the process.

The process, as all hon. members know, is one by which certain housing and land-use questions were to be studied by a committee consisting of some officials of municipalities, some officials of the ministry, and three private members of this Legislature, all of whom were government members. This was a committee to study an important question of public policy in this province, and persons of only one political persuasion and one general approach were represented. This committee was given funds to travel around, to hear representations, to do research - I assume - and finally, to write a report which must have had some influence on the government. All of this process took place without the input of opposition politicians, who sometimes have different approaches to these questions and who, in some of the hearings, might have asked questions of those making their briefs and presentations which would have elicited different points of view from those which were, in the final analysis, persuasive in writing the report.

Now it's not as if alternate machinery which would have answered these objections did not exist. This House, as you know, has a Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing that would have been a perfect vehicle to have studied these questions. I haven't studied the membership of that committee but I assume that if there was anybody in particular from among the members of the House that the government wanted on it, they could have switched that around. So there's, no real problem there. The vehicle existed; all that was needed was a reference to that committee. Instead, Mr. Chairman, this Legislature was insulted and offended and subverted by the entrusting of a matter to a committee that was not a committee of officials and not a committee of experts - were that the case I would have no objection - but to a committee which was in part a committee of private members of this House, solely of the government's side and none of them of the opposition's side. To me that is a thing that is terribly wrong.

Now of course the use of a House committee, I grant you at once, sir, would have been inconvenient perhaps, time-consuming certainly. But it would have been public, which this was not. It would have been democratic, which this was not. That to me is a very grave defect. Every member who had anything to do with that or endorsed it should be ashamed of himself.

I'd like to know from the minister: was the idea taken to the executive council? If so, was it approved? Was it discussed in the caucus or did the minister act on his own? I want to know just who was involved in this because I think it's that bad and it's that important. It's a very serious affair. I fear it will have sad consequences for three members of this House. I hope that every member of the executive council tries in matters of this kind in the future to work with this House instead of against it. I want to tell the minister that this side of the House has something to contribute in ideas to the government of this province.

I believe and I think it a very sad thing in this case that that process was not used - not only not used but subverted by using only government members in the study.

I'll move on to happier things now. I want to congratulate everybody who had anything to do with the Sea-Bus operation. That most definitely includes the former minister, Mr. Lorimer, who was - I don't know what - the father or the midwife, or whatever it was, of the idea; and officials who had been associated with it; I guess Vic Parker; and, surely, Charlie Spratt who has done a wonderful job in bringing it along to where it is now.

But I also want to compliment the present minister because I have reason to believe it took a lot of courage and a certain amount of sticking out of the minister's neck to get it to where it is now. I have reason to believe that thing might well have been shot down. I'm also sure that were it not for the fact that the thing is a success, which it is, the minister would be the recipient of a lot of abuse. So if there would have been a down side, let's give the up side where it's due. I give him great credit for fighting that thing through and great credit for the way it's operating now.

The minister might care to give a more detailed report, but my understanding is that traffic on that system is running at least twice what was projected, despite all the gloomy predictions and the bad press that it got in the first few days of its operation. That bad press was entirely unjustified, in my opinion, because they were comparing trips that weren't the natural routes that would be taken by people who

[ Page 3571 ]

would ride that Sea-Bus.

I would raise three specific questions on that area. The first one relates to whether the minister would care to give the House a report on the wash problems, the swell or the wave action that the Sea-Bus has been causing, and measures which might be taken to alleviate that,

Secondly, I would just at this time mention the continuing concern that some of us in this House have to get bicycles aboard those two vessels.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you ride your bike to work?

MR. GIBSON: I don't have it over here. Besides, I just live a block away. So I'd like to ask if he has anything to report to the House on bicycles.

Then the third question I would like to ask - or perhaps it's more in the nature of a representation -that's associated with Sea-Bus is our great need in North Vancouver for a public waterfront park on some of that property that was taken by the government for the purposes of establishing the Sea-Bus operation.

Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago there was a parade - a happy march from city hall down to what used to be the Ocean Cement property, just west of the terminal, an area of some acres with several hundred feet of waterfrontage.

On that occasion speeches were made and a dogwood was planted. It is my understanding that dogwoods are protected by provincial law, so I hope that that tree will be there for many years as the centre of the park. It's just a little tree now; I guess it's a couple of inches through. When it gets big enough, I hope the minister will be there one day to put a plaque on it and dedicate that as the first tree in this new park. I know that in the interim the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) will give that dogwood her protection.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): A dog-proof dogwood.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the council and the people and all of the organizations of North Vancouver are universally behind this.

I want to tell you a little bit about the situation. North Vancouver provides all of the industrial land on the North Shore waterfront for jobs. The area between the Lions Gate Bridge and the Second Narrows Bridge is 99.9 per cent dedicated to employment-creating industry. That's good and it's important and it has to be somewhere. We in North Vancouver are glad to have it. But just give us a little bit of public park for access to the waterfront.

When we were down there on the day of the march, it was almost a strange thing to be on the waterfront in North Vancouver and to see what the view is, because it's a view you don't normally see. Somehow you have to get through the property of Neptune Bulk Terminals or Vancouver Wharves or Burrard Dry Dock or Seaspan or whatever it may be to try to get a view of the city from the waterfront, or just to see the water coming up against the shore. This area that's now owned by the provincial government is an area that can be used, not for just a little bit of an access but for a substantial waterfront park.

I'd like to plead with the minister, and more particularly with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . Mr. Minister, please don't think of selling this land to use it to balance the books on the Sea-Bus project. The Sea-Bus project is a thing that is worthy in itself, but don't try and sell this land off to try to recoup some of that $45 million. I know there'll be a temptation to do that, but you have to think in terms of the development of this province. I want to tell you that any development that is not put on that land that should be park will go somewhere else. So you'll still have the development, you'll have the taxes somewhere in the province, and the people in North Vancouver will have their park where it's needed. We can't move that land that should be the park, but the potential industry that might locate there and which you could sell it off to can move somewhere else. So please take the big provincial look at that because it's the development of the province that's important, not your balancing the books on this particular project.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Is this your riding again?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, this is my riding, Mr. Minister. As a matter of fact, I'll send you a study that's been done by an economist at Simon Fraser University and which shows, quite apart from all other things, that

t's a good financial deal to make that into a park. I'll send that to you for your study. I know you'll be interested.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Do you want my address?

MR. GIBSON: Aren't you still in the building? Have they changed the locks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: One minute.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a very cogent point because I come to my final statement, which is that I have other points but I will sit down now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was about to defer to the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat

Mrs. Wallace) , but if she prefers to speak later, fair

[ Page 3572 ]

enough.

The leader of the Liberal Party, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano has given the committee some thoughtful points this afternoon - some positive and some negative - and 1 thank him for all of them. He elaborated on remarks made earlier with respect to some sort of a commission to look at local government. 1 did answer that, 1 believe, quite fully the other day when referring to the review of regional district government, which 1 intend to put into position just as soon as possible - in a matter of weeks. I can't be more specific than that; it depends on finding the individuals who are available and setting up terms of reference.

However, we have an opportunity there, 1 think, to really look at other aspects of local and regional government, not just at regional districts as they presently sit and as they have been in existence for some 10 or 11 years now.

The member went on to speak about the advisability of accepting federal funds. I have to have no qualms whatever, Mr. Member. 1 must tell you that if there is financial assistance from the national government with respect to this ministry, 1 don't think we'll keep our fingers crossed behind our back as we hold our hands to receive the cheque and shake hands. If there is a clear understanding between the federal government and the provincial government in the case - I can only speak of this ministry - as to what our priorities are, then 1 think that the difficulties which the member foresees, or at least identifies, will not materialize.

There can be, 1 admit, a distortion of provincial priorities if the national government acts in isolation. But 1 would submit to the member, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of the national government it is up to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Andre Ouellet, and myself provincially to ensure that we are communicating and that we do understand what provincial priorities have been set out and to make sure that the national assistance does not run counter or contrary to those priorities.

We get a little concerned at times, not so much with respect to money which may be transferred and cheques which may be forthcoming, but with some of the initiatives in MSUA, or the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. One is an increasing interest in land-use initiatives and land-use control. Senior representatives of this ministry have been involved in a number of discussions with Ottawa people and we have reason to be just a little troubled about some of the unilateral activities which are being considered or which, in fact, have been started. Again, as 1 say, if that is the case - if Ottawa announces a programme and initiates it with no opportunity for the province to comment on it, to suggest alteration, or to agree or disagree with it - then that has some difficulties. We're still a new government.

Sea-Bus, which I'll speak about a little later on, Mr. Chairman, was underway at the time of the change of government and we decided to proceed with it. I'm very happy that we did, but I do think that when a province, in the case of transit or in the case of some other activity, has identified what it would like to do, it's up to the province then to do a good selling job - there's nothing wrong with a good sales job, communication, documentation - with the national government and then say: "Please join with us and assist us in this particular project."

I think there's great opportunity, for example, Mr. Chairman, for the national government to assist in some innovative projects, not just in terms of transit, but in terms of alternate forms of human waste disposal and industrial waste disposal. The CANWEL project out of CMHC, with which the member is familiar, I'm sure, is one which I've discussed with Mr. Teron of Central Mortgage and Housing, and which I've discussed also with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and with others within that ministry. I've discussed it both in Ottawa and in Victoria this year and I keep reminding them of our interest in and our willingness to assist there.

I frankly feel that that is the opportunity for the national government to look at each province's priorities. If it happens in British Columbia, because we have one of the largest cities in the country, that we feel and can document that transit is an area which requires federal assistance, well, I think that should be very clearly understood and well received by the national government. Some other province may identify yet another priority or series of priorities.

I agree with the member to the extent that if Ottawa and Victoria in this case, or Ottawa and Edmonton, or whatever, are not communicating and don't understand what one is working on and what one level of government believes to be urgent, then there could be a distortion of priorities.

We attempt to do that in our relationships with the local governments of British Columbia, because again, I think that provincial assistance, if handed out without consultation and without understanding, could distort priorities in a given community, and we will be debating a bill later. That's why we speak to such an extent in this government about unconditional grants. The days of very heavy emphasis on conditional grants, I trust, are over. There will be some conditional grants - agreed -with respect to sewer programmes, water programmes and so on. But you will see - and you have seen already, I trust, Mr. Member - an increasing emphasis on unconditional grants. Because what is a priority in Prince George, or in Fort Nelson, Terrace, Prince Rupert, or Dawson Creek, may not be a priority in Duncan, Esquimalt, Saanich, Port Moody or Keremeos. It's as simple as that. So there will always

[ Page 3573 ]

be this element on some conditional grants; but there will be greater emphasis on unconditional assistance, r and that's the way it should be. i

With respect to the Sea-Bus operation - the Burrard Inlet ferry system - I paid tribute yesterday to all who have been involved with it: the former i government for coming up with the idea and putting it into operation. Yes, I had some nervous weeks before the introduction of Sea-Bus. One cannot help but be a little nervous about a system which is quite i expensive in terms of capital and where a commitment has been made. All the projections, all the market studies and all the research that we had indicated that that the programme would be successful. But there is always the possibility that that research and that market information are not accurate.

Well, Mr. Chairman, it turns out that the Burrard Inlet ferry system which 1, along with the hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , had the pleasure of showing to the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, just a few days ago, is, thus far at any rate, an outstanding success. I think this is due not only to the way in which the vessels were constructed here in greater Victoria and the way in which the terminals were designed, but to the way in which we decided to identify and publicize the system and to find the best possible people to operate it - Mr. Spratt and all his assistants and individuals in the transit services division, and Mr. Taylor, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has also had a lot of the responsibility in Victoria - reporting to Mr. Long and to me.

The numbers are most encouraging. On July 8, Mr. Chairman, we carried a total of 17,203 passengers on the system. On July 9 we had 17,314 and on July 10 we had 16,849. On July 11, I'm informed, we were around the 12,000 passengers mark. It's pretty well even: the flow is good in both directions. That's also something we were curious about: would individuals go in by other means such as a car, with friends, by bus or whatever? There is a good mix between the north-south and south-north routes. We've carried, up to the end of the operation for July 11, Mr. Chairman, 376,546 passengers on Sea-Bus. When I see Gary Bannerman, Mr. Chairman, for whom I have a great deal of respect - I consider him a good broadcaster and a good investigator - I'm going to ask him.... I forget really what his commitment was but it's either humble pie or a hat which he has indicated he would cat.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Both.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Both? Well, a humble pie with a hat on it - I don't know. Nonetheless, I'm sure he is impressed with the figures too.

We look forward to increased patronage of the Sea-Bus system. It's innovative and it was for this reason 1 spoke of it yesterday, Mr. Member. It is innovative and 1 think it is deserving of federal assistance. 1 make that point, as I made it in Ottawa, as 1 made it to my colleagues in Victoria, as I've made t to the Hon. Andre Quellet and, indeed, as time permitted, as 1 made it to the Prime Minister the other day. We have an indication of some assistance from Ottawa, but there is nothing like it in the world; t is unique. 1 believe that the national government should recognize that fact.

Regarding the wash problem, 1 had an opportunity on Friday to do two things, Mr. Chairman: to meet with senior management of the Burrard Inlet ferry system and then to walk on some of the floats, including one in the vicinity of the Seven Seas restaurant and the marina, to generally and leisurely observe the situation as occurs every few minutes when a Sea-Bus vessel arrives. The departure doesn't seem to be creating the difficulties. We have not, as of this moment, to the best of my knowledge, received any claim for specific damage. 1 think the system is, to a certain extent, being unfairly blamed for all the wash problems. We are now regular and predictable., it's every few minutes. Those problems or those reasons for complaint which occurred earlier have been transferred somewhat to the Sea-Bus system. We are operating apparently to the complete satisfaction of the Harbours Board.

The system has already imposed, and we have imposed through management, our own slow zones for the north side and south side. Therefore, only for about one-third of the crossing between the two terminals is the vessel operating at its full cruising speed or its normal speed. So the slowdown occurs both at the south side of Burrard Inlet and at the north side.

I must say that I'm not a boater. 1 enjoy getting out on small boats and doing a little fishing. 1 don't own a boat nor have 1, in fact, had the opportunity to own a boat of any kind. But 1 must say, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I doubt whether some of the floats on the North Shore in particular would stand up to the kind of formal inspection which would come as a result of the filing of a specific complaint or request for damage. I've seen some hazardous floats and some elderly floats in other harbours of British Columbia; these fit into a category all their own. Not all of them do - let me make that clear - but a number of them would simply not stand up to that kind of critical professional inspection.

Bicycles - the member knows my position very well. We discussed it again last Friday. 1 discussed it with system people last Friday. 1 am most hopeful that we can carry bicycles on some sailings of the system in the course of the day. I don't think that could happen in the rush-hour periods. The

[ Page 3574 ]

commitment 1 gave this member privately and publicly earlier, Mr. Chairman, still stands. As we experiment with the system and as we see patterns develop - because it's only been operating since June 17; that's what is so exciting about those numbers -then we will examine ways in which we can carry bicycles at certain times. An alternative -- and it is only an alternative - could be bicycle racks at either terminal with a provision for locking. We will also examine that.

Mr. Chairman, the member has shown interest in the North Vancouver terminal area - that is, the land which was acquired in the course of preparing for this system. 1 again give him the commitment that we are going to look at that extremely carefully. On my two most recent visits, I've become more convinced than ever before that there is need for open space -agreed. There's no question about that. It's a desirable adjunct to the ferry terminal and an attractive site for visitors who are arriving or departing on the system, as well as North Vancouver residents and West Vancouver residents who want to come down and see the harbour and see the activity which takes place and view the skyline.

What 1 do not want to do - and this indeed has been the subject of discussion with people in this ministry and discussion with some of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman - is make any rush decision, because while 1 am convinced that there should be some open space, I'm also very convinced that we 'should take our time. It is not unsightly now; once the last few construction shacks have been removed, it is not unsightly. Let's leave it for a while; let's think about it; let's examine all the possibilities.

It's very much like moving into a new home, particularly if it's your first new home. You don't want to put the lawn in within the next week and put all the shrubs in. You want to take some time. Sure, you'll put up with a little bit of untidiness, a little bit of dust in the summer and little bit of mud in the winter, but you'll have an opportunity to see how you think your home should be landscaped. Well, the analogy may not be acceptable to all members, but 1 feel it is.

1 want some open space. There may be an opportunity for some people-oriented activities there of one kind or another. I'm not going to suggest to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , nor has the Minister of Finance directed me or requested me, to recoup multimillions of dollars from the North Shore terminal, but 1 don't think that all of it should be a park.

1 think we have a number of options there. We want to work with the city of North Vancouver, as we have done so far. We want to work with our own people or probably even discuss it with you. What's wrong with occasionally discussing it with you? We don't promise to accept every suggestion. But my view at this point in time is: let's give the operation several months; let's not rush it. The land is going to be there for quite a while. Let's see how it works out and what various components and what different things can be put in to make that an attractive, alive, vibrant, and very exciting North Shore terminal for a system which, as I indicated yesterday, is projected to carry five million passengers in its first year.

I simply have to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the member does a lot of research and if he has taken the time to research the interest that I showed in the Gorge shoreline here when I was in another office -that was when I was mayor of Saanich.... So many people over the years had thrown up their hands and said: "Well, nothing can be done. It's too expensive. You can't do anything." My idea was: "Let's do it a little at a time. Let's take our time." Some of the results are there to be seen now if one wishes to drive along Gorge Road in Saanich municipality.

So I understand the desire for waterfront shoreline beautification and I think that we can be looked to, Mr. Chairman, to do our very best with that property. But we're not going to make any hasty decisions.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, with your kind indulgence and the indulgence of the committee I would very much like to introduce three constituents of mine who have come to visit us in the committee today: Mr. Angus MacDonald, Mrs. Olga MacDonald and their son, Rory. I would ask the committee to make them welcome. Thank you.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): One of the difficulties with speaking in estimates just prior to adjournment on any given day is that either the minister loses his notes or forgets his answer. I'm wondering if the minister is prepared at this point of time to reply to my questions relative to housing that I raised just prior to adjournment last night.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I have the notes; I did not lose them from last evening. We appeared to run out of time. The member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke about affordable housing in her constituency and the high vacancy rate in rental accommodation. Indeed, we've talked about this before in debate on legislation which has been before this session of the House.

The high vacancy rate was predicted. We see it particularly high in some communities; we see it increasing in a number of communities. But I would remind the member that, again, on the basis of family allowance statistics, we notice a very encouraging turnaround for the first three months of this calendar year in terms of increased inflow to British Columbia. That's contrary to the earlier situation, where through a part of 1975 and 1976, we actually had a

[ Page 3575 ]

net outflow. As far as I'm able to determine at any rate, family allowance payments' information is very reliable in that respect.

Now we really haven't talked about the Crown land programme a great deal in this debate since last Thursday evening. Clearly the Crown land inventory which was made available to every member for his or her particular constituency - which is not yet fully complete for greater Vancouver and greater Victoria but is complete for all other parts of the province - is the keystone to this government's commitment to providing reasonably priced land for housing for British Columbians present and future.

As I recall the member's comments, I think you expressed concern that perhaps we might be doing this in isolation without communicating with the municipality or the regional district. Fundamental to I the programme is consultation with, in the case of local government, the municipality, the city, the district or a regional district. Without that kind of consultation and without working in partnership with that jurisdiction, municipal or regional, the programme would be in very difficult waters because i we would be operating on a centralized basis from

Victoria. The point is well made and that's the way in which we've designed the programme. Therefore I can reassure the member on that particular point.

The member, Mr. Chairman, also yesterday spoke about Bel-aire Villa in Ladysmith. Perhaps you referred to it as Ladysmith Lions. I have it identified as Bel-aire Villa. You were concerned about maintenance. There is provision in the arrangement with CMHC that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation would assume maintenance in a circumstance such as this. That, to my knowledge, is being done or is about to be done, but clearly that provision is made and is in place.

The member also spoke about the homeowner grant in mid-year, is that correct - the question of sharing the homeowner grant when a home property is sold through the course of the taxation year? Well,

I can't give a legal opinion, Mr. Chairman. As I recall, having bought one home and sold another from time to time, this is all taken care of in the statement of adjustments when the property is finally conveyed from family A to family B. The homeowner grant percentage, if it's five-twelfths or seven-twelfths or whatever, is accommodated in that statement of adjustments. That's my clear understanding. I must confess that I did not check it overnight, but that's t how I've seen it operate and that is what I believe is the practice.

I think those were the questions raised by the hon. t member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have just a couple of comments. The one area you didn't t cover was relative to the mobile-home sales and the almost command performance on the part of the lot owner to collect a commission in the case of a sale. Also, perhaps because it is federal jurisdiction, you didn't touch on the interest payments on the purchase of a home being deductible from income tax. I had asked whether or not you'd be prepared to use your good offices to look into that.

The high vacancy rate, which we talked about, you indicated was on a rental basis. I think a lot of that in my area is on the houses offered for sale. They're just not moving on the market. That was really what I was talking about - the sale, rather than the rental. They're not moving because of their high prices.

I would hope, too, Mr. Minister, that in your discussions with the local governments you offer the option of lease as well as purchase of those Crown ands to people wishing to start homes. Certainly this was a point that was raised and there seemed to be some disparity in the information that the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) had relative to the information which you provided on the floor. I would strongly add my support to the lease concept, f so desired, by people wishing to get a piece of Crown land for housing purposes.

In your earlier remarks today, Mr. Minister, you talked about a review of the regional district concept. Perhaps that's long overdue, or perhaps it is due, but I would urge you not to forget in any reviewing of the regional district concept the plight of the unorganized area in the event that regional districts are disbanded. As a resident of an unorganized area, the regional district is my only in to local government. I wouldn't like to go back to having no say in the local affairs or at the local level. Certainly this was one of the things that was part and parcel of the first foundings of the regional district concept. While there may be many things wrong with the regional district concept as it is actually working out - there may be difficulties and overlapping - at the same time, there is that area which I would not like to see excluded again from any participation in local government.

Another area that you mentioned earlier today had to do with unconditional grants being made. That's a fine concept, but I would almost ask that you to a little further and make those grants conditional on some of the things you were talking about, like the environmentally oriented programmes of sewage disposal, the reusable things, the energy-creating things, those kinds of programmes hat are innovative in that particular area and in other areas. There's municipal transport. For example, in lie small areas - you know, Duncan - there is no transport.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to this minister that here is an example that's working very well in the Nanaimo area where the school buses are being used to provide local transport in their off-hour periods -during the middle of the day and after the school

[ Page 3576 ]

day. There's a facility that is available and not being used. I think this is not the first time I've raised this with this minister, but I would ask the minister to have a look at that concept for the small urban areas such as Duncan - a line from, say, Duncan to Lake Cowichan. Those kinds of municipal transport systems would be very valuable and could be done, and are being done, in the Nanaimo area by use of the school buses and the school bus drivers. It's a facility that can be provided at a minimal cost for a small area. Certainly Duncan is one example where we do need some form of transport, particularly for our elderly citizens.

I wanted to deal just a bit with some of the matters relative to the municipal responsibilities of this minister. Just in case all the nice things that are being said about him make him just a little more assured of his position, I feel that I have to point out some of the things that are being said by the representatives of the Vancouver Island municipal association. The executive secretary of that association has indicated that their group, the UBCM, is somewhat nonplussed and unhappy with the minister's performance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who is that?

MRS. WALLACE: This is the executive secretary of the UBCM - Jeff McKelvey, by name.

But then there's another gentleman, the mayor of Duncan and now the chairman of the regional district. Now that particular gentleman is no particular political friend of mine. He's much more a political friend of the minister. But do you know what that particular mayor has said, Mr. Chairman? He is saying that it's imperative that the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities begin systematic lobbying on the present provincial administration. He said: "The present government have ignored Island municipalities and they have adopted policies that have seriously hurt." And then he goes on to say: "I even have to say that we're finding this government far worse than the previous administration."

Now that's really something coming from a man.... I'm not quite sure of his political affiliation; it depends on whether it's provincial or federal. But either way he's with you, politically. And yet these are the things he's saying about the services lie's receiving from your particular ministry and from you as a minister.

MR. WALLACE: He's a federal Tory.

MRS. WALLACE: A federal Tory and a provincial Socred, right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lot of them around.

MRS. WALLACE: One of the things that this group is concerned about is the fact that the minister went to them and asked them to expedite sending in their resolutions. Now they're saying they really haven't heard anything from you. The policies you're bringing in are not reflecting any of the things they asked for.

These may be minor in some ways. One of the things that come to mind is the re-establishment of the community disparity fund, and a very minor one - loan authorization bylaws. They are asking that you change the Act to have printed on those petitions the names of the petitioners because it's very often difficult to read the signatures. A very minor thing, Mr. Minister, and yet something that's bothering these people out there at the local level.

Some of the other things that are concerning the residents of my area in connection with the municipal government is whether or not municipal governments are actually acting in the best public interest.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Those municipal governments are subject to a great deal of pressure, and sometimes that pressure is for a personal or private interest rather than for the general public interest. The suggestion is that perhaps the provincial level needs to exert some form of pressure or some form of incentive or guarantees that the best public interest will be served - something to keep things from going ahead too rapidly without assuring that the best public interest is served, something to assure that when surveys are held and indications are received from members of the community relative to, say, planning in a given community, the finds of those surveys are adhered to rather than being bent or adopted to fit any particular pressure of any particular private group or industry or whatever that wishes to have some immediate development approved or some change made in a proposed zoning because it does not adhere to what they particularly like to do relative to a personal or group profit picture.

I think that at the provincial level there is a need to ensure that there are safeguards established to protect that municipal government from those kind of pressures, and to ensure that when public surveys are taken and public opinion is available and made known, that any plans or results coming out of such hearings do become in effect facts and not just regarded as what happens in the zoning in a given municipality.

Another point is to do with the office of the inspector of municipalities. I understand that the only reason the inspector becomes involved is if there is an illegality. Now that's a very vague term. You have to know the person or group is guilty before you check in, it would seem to me.

[ Page 3577 ]

Now there are alternative examples of where there is a more of an audit carried on. This is done in business generally through sort of an inspection service. For example, I can think of banking systems where there is a regular routine audit inspection carried on that doesn't wait until there is an illegality there but rather establishes a check on this. It's done in corporations; it's done in insurance companies, trust companies, law societies - many examples where this is done. And yet as I understand the interpretation of the duties of the inspector of municipalities, he can only be called in in the case that there is an illegality.

I think that there has to be also some assurance that when a decision is made relative to the status of a particular area in a particular municipality or in a village or wherever, there is some degree of security of tenure that's going to be maintained and that's not changed. I know there are provisions for public hearings and all this kind of thing but sometimes those are not really relevant to the situation. Well, in-filling, for example, where you have a certain density sort of agreed as being the density, or lots will be a certain size, and then suddenly you find that there are three or four times as many people coming into an area.... Again, the pressures are on the local government for cost purposes, and I think this is something the provincial government should have a good look at to ensure that there is some degree of assurance to people going into areas that the zoning will not be changed, or the density changed, or those kinds of changes made without public hearing and good public input and assurance that is in the best interests of the entire area.

Another question is the interpretation of bylaws. Very often in a municipality, and I think this happens probably in the smaller area more regularly, a bylaw is very loosely interpreted or loosely enforced. As a result of that, we find such things as a decrease in parking spaces. You're supposed to have so many parking spaces for a given enterprise and there are less than that. There's not as much recreation or open ground allowed as was supposed to be according to the bylaws. Safety areas aren't as explicit or as firm as they are set out in the bylaws. This results in great confusion.

What is the ultimate? People could be asked to remove buildings. Your whole investment is in jeopardy, really, when you're into that kind of thin.-, if suddenly those bylaws were enforced to the letter of the law or even to the intent of the letter, You would find that all kinds of buildings and places are there illegally; all kinds of things are there illegally. There is assurance, no protection, no security as far as the residents are concerned or as far as the councillors are concerned. They're left wondering. Could some guidelines be set out - something more firm from the provincial level to ensure that those kind of concerns would not arise with local residents?

I'm very interested to see that in one of your votes, vote 197 - and I'm turning to a different subject - you have some $34 million, I think it is, for revenue sharing. This was something that was previously done by authority of legislation. I now understand it's been going under your vote and next year it will again be going back to legislation. This is another point that I have raised before, and it's a point that I will raise again, Mr. Chairman.

This revenue sharing, as I understand it, is to share with local governments the returns, basically, from our natural resources and from our provincial sales tax. I would suggest that there is a form of local government that is probably more basically entitled to share particularly in our natural resources than any other one government. It was the first government that was ever here in B.C. or in North America, and that is our native Indian band councils. I would urge upon the minister to include this distribution of revenue from the sales tax, which our native Indian people pay and contribute to very greatly, and from the natural resources of this province, to which they surely entitled to at least a share, I would urge the minister to include native Indian band councils in that revenue-sharing programme.

The last thing that I wish to talk about.... Before I'm ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to read a brief excerpt from a letter the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) sent me relative to assessments. He says that "the present classification of land as farm is determined under the municipal Act in municipalities. " Then he goes on to say that "under both Acts the assessor must look to the use of land rather than to the owner, " and then lie goes on in more detail. So what I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is that in fact this business of assessors is related to this minister and particularly in relation to farmland. I think I can use the term "fiasco" relative to the assessment of farmland.

When this first came to my attention, there was a great deal of misunderstanding in this regard. I approached the authorities here in Victoria, who assured me that if the farmland classification had been that way over the past several years, there would be no change. However, this is not what happened, Mr. Chairman. The assessors seemed to take it upon themselves to make a great many changes this year, both in the Cowichan area and in the Nanaimo area, and they both had different criteria.

I realize the present Act leaves it pretty well wide open. The one talked about the number of animal units you had. The other assessor talked about the percentage of acres you had cleared, neither of which really relates too greatly to whether or not that operation is a farm operation. But those people -many of them older citizens, pensioners and old-time residents - found themselves in the position of going

[ Page 3578 ]

before the board of variance and being turned down and then making arrangements to go before a board of appeal. Those boards of appeal never happened, Mr. Chairman. They were simply told that all this was in error, that the Act which the assessors had been acting under was not yet law and therefore they couldn't act under it and that it was all a mistake.

Now I've had several cases of this come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, and I'm surprised that this good, businesslike administration would allow such a miscarriage of justice to occur. In the end it was fine, but I suggest to you that there was a great deal of suffering and mental anguish on the part of those old-time residents - senior citizens, in many cases -who were very concerned about the fact that they were going to have to part with their home that they'd lived in many years because they simply could not afford to pay the taxes that they would have had to pay had the assessment been changed from the farmland category.

This was a very unfortunate situation, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's one that that minister is going to have to take full responsibility for because his staff were involved in coming to those kinds of decisions. Probably he doesn't have to take full responsibility - he has to share a little with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) - but the fact is that this happened under this administration and it was wrong, wrong, wrong to put those people through that kind of mental anguish, Mr. Chairman. I certainly hope that before another year comes around we don't have a repeat of that kind of performance.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I know that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has a meeting in 10 minutes, if the minister wants to respond, because I'm going to be more than 10 minutes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for Cowichan-Malahat for her further observations. In a couple of instances, Mr. Chairman, I look to you, as she has dealt with matters that are obviously of concern to members of this committee and to members of the House - to her and to myself as a minister - but are, unfortunately, the subject of legislation presently before the House. The mobile-home question indicated before is in Bill 34, and there will be an opportunity for very full and free debate on that issue. I think the point to which she has referred is covered in that particular bill.

It's the same to a certain extent - not totally, but to a certain extent - with respect to revenue sharing, which is Bill 58 before the House. Therefore I don't think I can get into detail.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat spoke on a subject which interests me a great deal, and that is revenue sharing with those on Indian lands - our native Indians. Section 1 0 (a) of the Municipal Act, as the member will know, outlines the method used to incorporate as a municipality if the citizens in that community wish to do so. What we speak of in revenue sharing here is revenue sharing with local government, whether it's a village or the city of Vancouver, whether it's very new or one which has been in position for a long time. I believe the member has filed an amendment that appears on the order paper with respect to that, but the programme is revenue sharing with local government.

These are not necessarily in the order in which they were delivered, Mr. Chairman, but reference was made to an external audit or something like a bank inspection. Under sections 308 through 310 of the Municipal Act, municipalities are required to have an external audit and any irregularities or any problems must be reported then to the inspector of municipalities.

The question of control of local government, or public inquiries, or reviews of local government was also raised by that member, Mr. Chairman. I suppose section 728 of the Municipal Act is one which has been read recently by a number of people in and near this House. I don't read it as saying that we have to assume a council or a member of staff in a municipality is guilty before we can act. Indeed, the first subsection of section 728 simply indicates:

"Whenever the inspector of municipalities deems it expedient to cause inquiry to make into or concerning any matter connected with any municipality, or the conduct or any part of the business of the municipality, or whenever any complaint is made to the inspector of municipalities"

- et cetera, et cetera, et cetera -

"an inquiry may be ordered."

That has been in position for quite some time and it is not necessary for a council or staff to be indicted before the matter is reviewed by the inspector of municipalities or one of his staff.

I think it would be appropriate at this point to correct a statement which I'm sure was not made deliberately the other night by the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , but which indicated perhaps a misunderstanding of some of the history of local government in the province. To paraphrase that member, Mr. Chairman, the suggestion was that "during the time the NDP was in government in British Columbia, there were no inquiries or no official inquiries or no rash of complaints such as we have experienced recently." The member, who is not in his seat at the moment, then went on to weave somehow a thread between this government and those individuals in local government who may - and I emphasize the point -have violated their office as an elected person or as an appointed official of a municipality.

Well, we see that there were at least four unofficial investigations in the period from 1972 to 1975, and one official public inquiry. So I'm sure the member,

[ Page 3579 ]

who is not here at the moment, did not want to mislead the House, but the fact is that there appear to be these rashes of complaints with respect to local government on a fairly regular basis, and we have some now. In some instances, merely the reporting of one will produce two or three more.

I've instructed the inspector of municipalities, who really needs no instruction from me, inasmuch as he has a section of the Act to follow.... But I've simply underscored the fact that any and all complaints which come to him are to be pursued very carefully and very thoroughly, and then a determination is to be made as to whether an official inquiry is required or is not required. I don't think any member of this House would expect that we call for an inquiry every time someone complains about a decision in local government, because indeed, whether it's this government or the previous government or governments before that, there is ample information in the files of Municipal Affairs to show that a number of complaints are made when a decision is taken in open council but is not a satisfactory decision with respect to a particular individual or group of individuals. We get complaints about that, and that has been a long-standing aspect of the inspector of municipalities' office.

Council votes to rezone a particular piece of property or to do whatever it believes should be done in the interests of the municipality. Some people are going to be pleased with it; others will be displeased and therefore the complaints come forward. I do say, however, that when we are presented not with hearsay, not with, "I think this happened - could you check it?; I can't give you my name" - that sort of anonymous tip - but with information which suggests strongly or otherwise that the inspector of municipalities, which is a statutory position, should investigate it, then it will be investigated and has been investigated in a number of instances so far this year.

We already have one inquiry which has been completed, the results of which - and I refer to the Matsqui inquiry - we expect within a day or two or just a few more. The hon. second member for Victoria spoke about that the other night. I have not attempted to communicate with the individual, Col. Hood, who was appointed to conduct the inquiry. The information is that he was held up in some of the information relative to his investigation and that the report will be here within a matter of days. It will be released just as soon as possible after it has been received. So we expect it imminently.

I would think that Col. Hood, a former alderman of the city of Victoria and a former member of the UBCM executive, may find it possible not only to comment on the specifics of the case but also to give us some general observations relative to local government and to conflict of interest - whether it be elected individuals in a municipality, regional district or staff. We will have to await the report to find out if, in fact, he has gone that far.

I'm s sorry to hear the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) reiterate statements which have been made by, I think, one other member of the official opposition, Mr. Chairman. I take the statements as being their interpretation of what's going on. If there is lack of communication between the Union of B.C. Municipalities and its area chapters or associations and my office or myself, then I'm not aware of it. I think we were looking at this the other day, I believe that I had nine separate meetings last year with either the full executive of UBCM or a portion thereof or the president and his staff, and I think so far this year we've had eight. Now if there is lack of communication, then perhaps I was , ted my time not too long ago - last year, admittedly -sitting with the Assistant Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs on a Saturday morning and afternoon here in greater Victoria meeting with delegations from various municipalities. I believe the hon. member did say the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities and the UBCM. Is that correct?

If Mr. McKelvey, who is the executive director of UBCM, has indicated to that member or any other member that there is dissatisfaction with respect to my accessibility or the way in which we, the ministry, respond to requests for assistance and for consultation, then that's a matter which I suppose will have to be resolved between MT. McKelvey and myself. I know that I respond to every request to the best of my ability, again with the one caution that if someone wishes to meet with me on July 12, 1 might have to phone back and say: "No. We can't make it on the 12th. Could we make it a week later or two days earlier?" - or whatever the case may be,

This is what I find so annoying about the charge which is made by the opposition. Having been on that side of the fence, as it were, as a member of the executive and later president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, I understand how important it is to have consultation. So if you or any member want to indicate clear cases where this ministry or I or my office have said, "No, we're not interested, " or "We can't see you - forget it, we don't want to talk to you, " then fair enough, let me have that information. The member shakes her head....

MRS. WALLACE: It's a lack of action they're complaining about.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that's slightly different. You see, I was accused the other night of lack of communication. When I took my oath of office, Mr. Chairman, I didn't say that I would automatically agree to every request made of me by local government. You can't have it both ways.

There are resolutions presented at the area

[ Page 3580 ]

association conferences. Each year they have at least one meeting to deal with resolutions, and then the Union of B.C. Municipalities spends a significant part of three days debating its resolutions, as does any other large organization. We don't guarantee to accept all or most resolutions which are endorsed on the floor of that assembly. That's not what we're here for, but we do sit down and discuss, to the best of our understanding, and attempt to analyse the reasons behind each request and get into the fullest possible detail with the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. So perhaps the member would care to expand on that later. I can't and don't guarantee that every time a municipality or a regional district asks for something, whether it is endorsed by the UBCM or not endorsed by the UBCM, it shall be granted.

There was an interesting point that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) has raised twice. I didn't respond at an earlier time, That concerns using the good offices of this ministry with respect to deducting income tax and deducting interest paid on mortgages. We're informed that would cost about $500 million annually nationally, and there is a very strong body of opinion which suggests that it would tend to help those of us who are already in a home-ownership situation and not those who are trying to purchase.

One of the thrusts of activity in this government, of course, has been to assist individuals who want to buy. I think one of the great tragedies of the last 15 to 20 years has been the difficulty which young people face in getting their first home and getting into an ownership situation. We didn't know how lucky we were, those of us who did it in the late '50s or the very early '60s. We really didn't know how lucky we were with the 10 per cent down on a $13,000 or $14,000 house. You perhaps did it, Madam Member. Principal, interest and tax payment of $80 or $85 was just great. At the time it seemed high, but hindsight is fantastic and very helpful. That is why we have our programmes, Mr. Chairman, and the member knows about them.

Whenever or wherever this ministry, in dealing with the federal government and in making representations to my cabinet colleagues, can assist young people to get into a home-ownership situation for the first time, if that is what they want, we will do so. I think we have already made significant progress in that regard, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in the price of land and the price of houses compared with the period 12 or 15 or 20 years ago.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in May of this year one of the councillors from the Vancouver city council issued a report card on the government. At that time he gave the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a C-plus, which actually was not a bad grade because the government overall got a C-minus. Of course, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) got an E, which I think he earned.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of helping the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing improve his grade and to see if he can bring it up to a B, because Alderman Harcourt says he is going to be doing this again in another year, I wondered if I could deal specifically with three of the points raised at that time which accounted for his losing some marks.

The first one was to agree on a regional transit authority and a proper financing formula covering both capital and operating costs by the end of June, 1977. 1 think we've lost the deadline for that one.

The second was that he should come up with a satisfactory programme to provide sufficient family housing in Vancouver. I'm going to deal with that one in greater detail.

The third was to go to bat for Vancouver and other cities with the Minister of Finance, Evan Wolfe, and the Premier to carry out the government's policies of working with and financially assisting municipalities.

I want to deal first of all specifically with the second point, and that is the satisfactory programme to provide sufficient family housing in Vancouver. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the financial pages of The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province will learn that for $98,000 in the city of Vancouver anyone can purchase the ultimate in exclusive and enduring privacy. That comes along with a sunshine ceiling. Or, for someone who would rather have gracious living that comes with a Jacuzzi whirlpool bath tub, a wet bar, a gas fireplace, sauna, sundecks, closed-circuit television, landscaped garden, whatever.... Who has $145,000 to pay for that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you?

MS. BROWN: No, I can't afford it. But certainly, Mr. Chairman, anybody who needs housing that they can afford or housing that they have to depend on the B.C. Housing Management Commission to produce for them finds that it's a horse of a different colour. On April 30 of this year, the waiting list in the greater Vancouver area for B.C. housing went as follows: seniors, singles - 4,498 people on the waiting list; seniors in wheelchairs - 21; seniors, couples - 921; for a grand total of 5,488 seniors in the greater Vancouver area who are on the waiting list to get into B.C. housing.

Under families, waiting for one bedroom are 433 people; waiting for two bedrooms are 1,478; waiting for three bedrooms are 627. For a four-bedroom unit there were 97 waiting and for a five-bedroom unit there were 23. The total is 2,668 people.

If you add your seniors with the families, Mr.

[ Page 3581 ]

Chairman, there was a grand total of 8,156 people in the greater Vancouver area who were on the waiting list for B.C. housing. Again I specify that these are people who could not avail themselves of the ultimate e in exclusive and enduring privacy or take advantage c of the gracious living which would have been available to them if they could have afforded to pay the $98,000 or the $145,000, as the case may be.

This brings me to the question of the minister's statements in the press on May 30 to the effect that t the housing crisis in B.C. appears to be over. This was in the Vancouver Province and also in one of the Victoria newspapers, where it says: "The Minister of Housing says that the housing crisis in most parts of British Columbia is over. He was speaking to the annual convention of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce meeting here."

It is probably true that the needs of people with large incomes are being met, but in terms of affordable housing for people who are on fixed income or on limited income, the housing crisis is certainly very much alive and well. If the minister is to improve his grades with the Vancouver city council, and certainly with the people in Vancouver, he's going to have to come up with a programme to t provide sufficient, satisfactory family housing in the Vancouver area. I would like the minister to make some comments about that.

Mr. Chairman, since I'm talking about the B.C. Housing Management Commission, I'm wondering whether the minister will be able to explain to me why it is on the application form for the B.C. Housing Management Commission that it is necessary to list not just once, but twice, the phone number not only of the landlord where the person is presently moving from, but also of the landlord before that. Why does it have to go back twice? The form says that they would like the present landlord's phone number and the reason for leaving, and then it goes back and says they also want the previous landlord's phone number and the previous reason for leaving. Why is it necessary to go that far back in terms of filling out that form? Maybe the minister would be able to explain that to us, too.

The other thing I'm wondering is whether anyone has brought to the minister's attention the fact that the ARP programme really doesn't help people on fixed incomes. It certainly doesn't help anyone in receipt of GAIN and it doesn't help the senior citizens who are in receipt of Mincome. There are a number of reasons for this. Just in case no one has gone into detail on this with the minister, maybe I could bring it to his attention.

It says here that the cheapest bachelor units that can be built under the ARP programme would have to rent in the first year for $240 a month - that's the bachelor unit. The one-bedroom unit in the Daon development in the West End would be renting for

$325 a month. A single person in receipt of welfare, Mr. Chairman, who would have received his or her $1 5-a-month increase after July 1, and who would be eligible for the maximum $40 rent subsidy, would some up with a total income of $210 a month. This would mean that if every single cent they received went into paying rent, they would still be $30 short of being able to afford a bachelor unit that was built under this ARP programme. 1 don't know whether his was brought to the minister's attention or-not.

Certainly pensioners, even if they used an entire monthly cheque, would find that they would come up $35 a month short in terms of availing themselves of the bachelor unit. The one-bedroom unit - the $325 unit - is totally out of the question.

We discovered it is possible, in some parts of Vancouver where you are not under the ARP, to rent a unit for $192 a month in an older building. But certainly once it gets built under the ARP, the minimum is $240 for your bachelor and $325 for your one-bedroom. In fact, what we have discovered in the Grandyiew-Woodlands neighbourhood is that developers are moving in and demolishing older homes which had inexpensive units in them - units hat people in receipt of GAIN and senior citizens were able to afford - and replacing these with units under ARP which neither of these groups can afford.

We also discovered that of the 600 ARP units being built in the Grandview-Woodlands area, only 25 of these were two-bedroom units. Most of them in fact, were bachelor units. Since many senior citizens prefer to have at least a one-bedroom unit, their need was certainly not going to be met.

The need in Vancouver - according to The Downtown Eastside, which deals with a number of these people - is for the very type of family housing which is being demolished rather than for the type of housing which is. being built. It is for older homes with larger rooms and more rooms in them that rent at a much lower rate than it is possible to build under the ARP. In fact, we are finding that people are being evicted from these older homes and they are being demolished to build units which certainly none of them can afford.

1 would like the minister to make some kind of comment about the fact that the ARP programme is really much more benefit to the developer than it is to the people in receipt of GAIN or senior citizens, and that in fact the developer benefits more if the units remain vacant than if the developer tries to rent them to one of these two groups.

There is another group of people, Mr. Chairman, that 1 want to ask the minister about in terms of their very special needs. I'm talking about the single-parent families. Primarily I'm talking about those families headed by women.

1 want to cheek, first of all, with the minister in terms of his reading material. Does the minister

[ Page 3582 ]

receive any of the publications that are put out by the Canadian Council on Social Development -things like Housing Needs of One-Paren t Families, the whole thing on the poverty report on children, Poor Kids - this kind of information? If he isn't receiving them, I think it should be required reading for him. Who is it in the minister's department who advises him on the needs of single-parent housing, on the needs primarily of poor women who are in receipt or in need of accommodation?

When we look at these groups of people who are in need of housing, certain things keep cropping up. The first thing that they have to deal with is the outright discrimination by landlords who refuse to rent or, in some instances, the difficulty in purchasing. But I'll talk about that another time.

In many instances children are not allowed in some of those units. Now I know we've tried to get the landlord-and-tenant legislation changed so that it would not be possible for a landlord to discriminate against a family on the basis that they have children. There is some question about the right of people to decide whom they rent their houses to and so forth and so on. We have not been able to do this. This is the major complaint that single-parent families come up with. Landlords are absolutely clear about not wanting to rent to a single-parent family that has children. That is the first thing.

Secondly, they don't want to rent to a single parent in the first place, especially if that single parent happens to be a woman. The reason that they give is, of course, because they are poor, they are a very poor risk. One never knows from one month to the other whether they will be able to afford to pay the rent on their accommodation.

The other thing that the women talk about is the poor quality of the units that they are forced to rent. Again, this is all tied in with their poverty - the poor quality of the units, the crowded living conditions and the lack of residential security.

There is an excellent sourcebook called Women in Need which is published by the Canadian Council on Social Development, which I think the Minister of Housing should avail himself of. It points out some really interesting things to us. It said that to find adequate housing at a fixed price that a woman can afford is virtually impossible for a low-income person under the existing market conditions. If you use the arbitrary figure of spending 25 per cent of your income on rent, a woman would have to be earning in the vicinity of $12,816 a year income to be able to pay about $267 a month in rent, which is, one says, adequate.

The reality of the situation is that 59 per cent of single women or female heads of families in this country earn a lot less than that. Right here in British Columbia, if we use as an example the women who work for us as our constituency secretaries, they certainly would not be eligible because their income is in the vicinity of $8,500 a year. A number of those women are the heads of families. Despite all the appeals that have been made on their behalf no attempt has been made to raise their income. In fact, in the greater Vancouver area, with an income of $8,500 a year a single parent searching for accommodation would be hard-pressed indeed to find any such thing.

Again, if I can remind the minister, the problem is not the people who can afford to pay $98,000 or $124,000. I'm talking specifically about the 59 per cent of single women or female heads of families who are making below the poverty line, or pretty close to it, and the kind of accommodation that is not available for them.

The other thing that it brought out again - and this specifically deals with the Vancouver situation, Mr. Chairman - is that the housing has to be provided for by the public sector, by the federal and provincial and municipal governments working together, or by the provincial government alone as the case may be.

The statistics for Vancouver are really horrendous. In Vancouver, in between 44 per cent and 52 per cent of the families living in public housing, the head of that family is a woman. This is the statistic that came up, which brings me again to my original question: who is there in your department who is advising you on the specific needs of the single-parent family, and in particular on the needs, certainly, of the women?

The other thing that came out is that the largest part of the population on the waiting list for public housing is women. It talks about your senior-citizen population as well as your single-parent population -those who are the heads of family as a result of separation, divorce or widowhood, as the case may be. So what we're talking about is that in providing public housing, the constituency to which you are addressing yourself is more than 50 per cent female. I want to know what kind of advice you are getting and who is giving it. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to have an essay from the minister about all people being the same and talk about persons. I've heard that one, okay?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't prejudge!

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not prejudging; I'm just suggesting that I'm not interested in a speech about all people being persons, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing is, Mr. Chairman, that this particular study which was done by the Vancouver ~YWCA, the Department of Human Resources, the Status of Women and Central Mortgage and Housing, has a number of very, very important recommendations in it. It is recommended, it says first of all, that children should be considered persons

[ Page 3583 ]

under the B.C. human rights legislation. I know this has to do with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , but in terms of housing it is certainly something that the Minister of Housing should take into account, because if children were in fact considered as persons under the humans rights legislation then the whole area of landlords being able to discriminate against families because they have children would be eliminated.

The other recommendation is that there needs to be a wide variety of accommodation provided by the public sector as well as the private sector for the one-parent family. It raises an interesting question as to whether the Ministry of Housing is not the ministry that should be involved itself in the original costs of building transition houses. Now this is something that's never been suggested before. Usually it's the Minister of Human Resources or the Attorney-General who have been approached and told there is this need for transition houses. But this recommendation made by the Y said that in fact the original cost for the house - not the ongoing expense but maybe the original building of the transition house and various group homes and crisis-centre homes of this nature - should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Housing.

Now when the Minister of Housing is building public housing and taking into account the fact that more than 50 per cent of the people in the public-housing units are single-parent families and are female-headed, single-parent families.... Including that in the whole development of that area, it certainly makes sense to have part of it set aside for the kind of crisis situation that transition houses meet. In fact, it might turn out to be a lot less expensive than having a community group go to the Minister of Human Resources or to the Attorney-General, as the case may be, and say: "'We need funding to purchase a transition house." It is something that could be taken into account in the same way that you take into account the child-care facilities. You include some day-care facilities in some of your buildings. Maybe some of your units should be set aside for this kind of crisis need.

The other recommendation which I think the minister could probably take very seriously is the one that says: "Although the private sector should be encouraged to provide accommodation for one-parent families, the provincial government should monitor the type and quantity of housing that comes on to the market and be prepared to fill the gap." I think that is certainly a first way of starting. Because I know you do monitor; there isn't any question about it. Having monitored, you can immediately see where the need is, move right in immediately and do something about that.

The final recommendation made was that single-parent housing, when it is built, should be integrated into the surrounding community. The whole business of the public housing models of the past should not be acceptable at this time.

I know that in the Victoria area you have a very good example of this, and you'll probably tell me more about it because I can't find my notes. But I know that one of the better single-parent family units was developed in Victoria here and is still in existence. Bishop Cridge - is that the one? It had 29 garden apartments and so forth and so on. But I notice that a number of those people were interviewed and they also came up with some recommendations that would probably be of great benefit to you.

The other recommendation was that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the provincial government should enter into cost-sharing agreements in the development of these houses in terms of developing your child-care facilities in the units too. You can probably tell me whether this has actually started to happen. I know the private sector, Daon Development in particular, has been doing this in a number of their units, but I'm not quite sure whether you have taken this into account.

There was a very interesting conference held in the United States recently on women and housing. They have issued a text called Give Us Shelter, which I would be very happy to share with you. It deals with the problems of the single woman or single-parent woman has in terms of purchasing a home and the whole problem with securing credit and securing mortgages, which is still as true here today in British Columbia as it is anywhere else. There still is a problem in terms of your credit rating if you are a single-parent woman or if you are a single woman, regardless of your profession or what your income may be. There still is.

One of the recommendations that was made by that council to HUD in the United States was that, first of all, a handbook on women's rights in housing be published. Would you make some notes of these recommendations because I'm hoping that you will....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you going to send them over?

MS. BROWN: Oh, you're going to borrow my....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Sure, I return everything.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Anyway, the first one is that a handbook on women's rights in housing be published. That, I think, is really crucial because women are continually writing or phoning or saying: "I'm running into these kinds of problems in terms of purchasing a house. I

[ Page 3584 ]

need advice. Where do I get it?" Sure you can run around and put material together for them or refer them to the Status of Women or whatever, but if your department, with all of the resources and research resources at your disposal, took it upon itself to put together a handbook of this nature, it would be extremely useful to them.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

It also talked about a handbook that would outline the whole mortgage and credit thing in terms of discrimination and telling the women how to go about filing a complaint in the event that they run into the kind of mortgage and credit discrimination that they were running into. Also collecting the data on women's housing needs which you probably haven't isolated out yet but which I think probably is a very good reason and something that you should do. Most of the people you deal with and work with are women.

The whole area of design is something again that your department has to.... I went to the opening of one of the senior citizens' units in my riding. A number of the units are really very well designed and I'm very pleased with them. But one or two of the units were obviously designed by people who had never ever had to be a senior citizen in their life. I don't know how you go about taking advantage of that kind of experience.

At this particular place where I went to the opening, we were getting the grand tour. Afterwards, the women tenants kept pulling me in and saying: "Look at this kitchen. It obviously was designed by a man because they have nothing to put in their cupboards." It's true. You don't have to be a senior citizen to know that you need more than just half a cupboard or two half-cupboards or three half-cupboards as the case may be.

So what I'm really talking about in terms of your design of these units is: are you getting any input at all from people who eventually have to live in these units? The whole business of the size of the kitchen and the number of cupboards in it became so serious that a number of the people in the units - and you probably know the particular house I'm talking about - found that they had to go and add cupboards. If they could afford to get one of these kitchen firms to come in and hang additional cupboards for them at additional cost, they were told they were free to do that, and a number of families had to do that. That was a major concern with them.

I will share this material I have with you, but that was one of the complaints that came out at the conference. The other complaint was the locating of these units in the centre of a community. In fact, access to schools, access to health-care facilities, access to shopping, access to transportation - these are the kinds of things that surely have to be taken into account when you are designing these kinds of units.

This is why I cannot understand why the constituency of Vancouver-Burrard, which is perfect in every way in terms of access to all of these facilities, is having so much difficulty getting you to increase the amount of public housing which you should be building in that area.

Most of it is within walking distance of Kitsilano Beach. Certainly it's within walking distance of all of your public transportation, with Fourth Avenue, Granville, Broadway - all of these streets. It's within walking distance of a number of elementary schools. It's true there's only one senior secondary school there. Vancouver General Hospital - all of these facilities are there. Yet we find that there is a cutback in the number of public-housing units which are being developed in that particular constituency at this time rather than an increase.

What is happening to the constituency is that its whole personality is changing. Through ARP and other programmes, all of the affordable housing is being torn down and it's being replaced by the high-priced condominiums and townhouses which give you all of the exclusiveness that you need and all of the gracious living, but not to the people who cannot afford it, not to the senior citizens, not to the young families of which you spoke, and certainly not to the single-parent families. It certainly doesn't meet the needs of the women who are the wage earners in their particular family unit.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are the three broad areas I wanted to cover, and one small constituency area -False Creek. I have nothing but good things to say about False Creek, except for the controversy which is now developing about the waterfront walk. It has been brought to my attention that in fact the area which is being debated for use of private development is actually owned by the provincial government. In order for this particular developer to build his unit that overhangs the water, and interferes with the free access....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your times has expired, Hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Time! Can't I finish my sentence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the committee would like to hear the end of the sentence - that is, if it's a proper sentence, Hon. member. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: If the minister would reassure us that the developer would not be able to overhang the public walk area, it would give us some comfort.

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

[ Page 3585 ]

member has made a number of useful observations with respect to her constituency, and also those matters which are obviously of concern to her and have been of concern in previous estimates debate. I don't know that I will be able to respond to everything she has raised today.

Starting with the last problem first, Mr. Chairman: the problem with respect to False Creek is a matter in the Ministry of the Environment, lands branch. If no one from that ministry is aware of your comments today, I will certainly see that they are forwarded.

The member referred to a study called Give Us Shelter. I look forward to seeing that; I've not read it. Along with other members on both sides of the House, occasionally I find that there is more reading material, and you have to do a shuffle to find out which is worth reading and which is worth throwing out. That study to which she has referred today is, I think, the kind of thing I would like to see. To the best of my recollection, I have not read it.

We have a general concern, Mr. Chairman, about the decreasing population in the inner city in Vancouver, and to a lesser extent in Victoria - loss of population, high development costs, high development cost to governments in redeveloping, or new development taking place in the suburbs. I think some of the initiatives of this government are going to turn that around within the next little while. I feel more optimistic than I did a year ago.

We have as an example, Mr. Chairman, the conversion programme, which I think is very useful for those individuals rather than see a perfectly fine older home torn down and left in a great heap to be replaced by perhaps some kind of housing which is not needed.... The member has made a valid point; she may have overstated it a little.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I disagree.

The conversion loan programme is of terrific assistance, and we see a number of municipalities now putting their bylaws in order to insure that greater advantage can be taken of that programme. This is where the typical single-family dwelling Owned by, now, an older couple can be converted. You're familiar with the programme; it's one that has evolved within the last 12 to 15 months. The more people who are aware of it and the more who decide to take advantage of it, the happier we'll be. - .

Then the member started out with reference to Alderman Harcourt in Vancouver on his report card. She dwelt essentially on family housing in the inner city. I must differ with, her, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the result of the assisted rental programme because we see that that is providing the kind of accommodation about which she and others are concerned.

The summary from the central information centre of this ministry's placements to the end of June - in other words, it's very fresh information - shows a total of 13,527 units province-wide. Those that would be of most interest to that Hon. member are the 4,782 in our Vancouver office - not necessarily in Vancouver city but reported through our Vancouver office, Of those, 666 are bachelor, 2,275 are one-bedroom, 1,405 are two-bedroom, 425 are three-bedroom and 11 are four-bedroom. So there's a shift, as far as the industry is concerned, away from bachelor units. Again, it's a question of supply and demand. A large number of assisted-rental programme units are being constructed in Vancouver and in adjacent municipalities. The supply is now coming on stream. Incidentally, the figures that I quoted just now, to clarify, are applications received for projects, so they may be underway, just getting underway or still on paper, but applications received are being processed. We see an emphasis on the one- and two-bedroom units.

Mr. Chairman, I think the member will know - if she doesn't she will be pleased to know - that it is a requirement that 25 per cent of the units constructed under ARP be assigned to the B.C. Housing Management Commission for placement. So that's not an iffy kind of a thing; it's built right into the agreement. That, I think, is very important.

The waiting list of the B.C. Housing Management Commission is interesting right now because we see that the refusal rate is growing, and that's a good sign, Mr. Chairman. Before, our placement people in Vancouver - and the former minister (Mr. Nicolson) I think would know this too - would phone someone who had been waiting many months for accommodation. They'd phone and say: "We have a place for you." The next question would be: "How can we get to it and when's it available? We don't want to see it. We don't need to see it. You've got a vacancy for us - great, we'll take it."

Now they want to have a look and this, I think, is encouraging. They want to consider the neighbourhood. "Is it the one that we're in now? Is it one that we would enjoy? What about getting to the doctor? What about schools?" So we're constantly reviewing people on the waiting list, but I do say to the member and to the committee that the refusal rate is growing, and that's a good sign. They shouldn't take the first thing that is offered.

The member asked a couple of times in her statement, MR. Chairman, as to who advises this ministry with respect to housing for women. Essentially that was it. Well, I want to just point out that the chairman of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission is a woman appointed on my recommendation, Mary Kerr. I believe that Mrs. Kerr wishes to be known as "chairman." That's okay - if she wished to be known as "chairperson, " fair

[ Page 3586 ]

enough.

Mary Kerr, in my view, is doing an outstanding job. She. hasn't stood back from the families and individuals who occupy those projects. She gets involved. She meets with tenant groups. I've seen copies of letters she's written to someone who's suffered some particularly unfortunate mishap or loss - not that she can possibly write to every one of those thousands of people, but there's a heart and soul operating in that commission, and I think that's pretty great. I believed that she would serve the commission, and therefore the people in the projects and the people of British Columbia, in a very satisfactory manner. I haven't been disappointed. Indeed, she has carried out an excellent job.

Dick Bailey is the general manager, the second-in-command in the senior staff of BCHMC. Mrs. Kerr being chairman of the commission, second-in-command is Maureen Cochrane. As perhaps the member knows, she is not just a placement officer, but someone who has a complete and total feel for the individuals who are accommodated in our housing. Just a great person! What a fantastic resource we have there in people such as Mr. Bailey and Maureen Cochrane at the very senior level.

As for Bishop Cridge in Victoria, yes, Madam Member, it's a very good one. It was developed some years ago and I think the single-parent person located there is very satisfied and is receiving help from neighbours and self-help. It's working out extremely well. We would like to see more of that - we would like to see a great deal more of that.

As for the halfway houses, group homes, I can't really discuss that under this vote, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as it is my salary vote. The member has made a suggestion that perhaps a function should be transferred from one ministry to this. I've made note of the suggestion and can undertake to examine it with senior people. Beyond that, I don't think I can respond.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, there are just two suggestions he didn't respond to. The final one had to do with the plans for future social housing in the Vancouver area - how many units are on the drawing board and what kind of future plans you have.

The other thing you mentioned again was the high number of bachelor units that are being designed. I thought I had got it across that senior citizens really don't enjoy living in those bachelor units - they really don't. They like the idea of having a bedroom where they can close the door. A number of these people have said to me that they're not always feeling well and if they want to lie down, or whatever, and it's a hide-a-bed in the middle of the living room, there is this continual hassle. Actually, they shouldn't be doing this because those hide-a-beds are quite heavy to lift in and out. Is there any possibility of getting away from that bachelor model, that concept that if it is one person you don't need to have a bedroom - you can live in the same place where you eat and you cook and you do everything else? Let us have more one-bedrooms and two-bedrooms, as the case may be, and not quite so many bachelor units for the senior citizens.

You know, it may be possible that for family units this may not apply but, again, the single-parent families complain that if you have one child, you get one bedroom. What that means is that the child gets the bedroom and the parent - female or male, as the case may be - ends up having to sleep in the living room. It may be less expensive, but it's not a great way for a family to have to live. That is one of the recommendations brought down by this study done by the YWCA in terms of the crowded living conditions. I don't know who enjoys living in a bachelor unit, quite frankly. Maybe bachelors do, but certainly senior citizens don't enjoy living in them, and single-parent families find that one bedroom, where there are children involved, is just not enough.

But my major question had to do with the public 'housing plans for the greater Vancouver area: are there any units planned, and how many?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer the question specifically as to how many units are planned. We have a number of proposals now which are encouraging.

The bachelor unit, not totally, Madam Member, but largely, depends on design. I've seen some really good bachelor units recently. Mount Benson, in the constituency of Nanaimo - Mount Benson stage 3, 1 guess it is; the most recent one, for senior citizens -you're in it but you don't realize it's a bachelor unit. It has an alcove which is very nicely designed and there is a drape which closes off. I think that's David Spearing's design, I believe. It's an excellent architectural design. Others are unacceptable.

Mr. Member, would you mind putting your microphone down so I can see the member behind you?

MS. BROWN: Yes, we seem to be dodging behind each other's microphones. You look much better that way anyway.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Flattery will get the member nowhere.

There are some very poor examples of bachelor units, so design and then cost. The cost implications to do away with bachelor units completely are really staggering - not just for the provincial government, but for the federal government contribution as well. I guess it's up to us to encourage better design where bachelor units are necessary.

[ Page 3587 ]

Now with respect to single parent and child, we stand to be 'corrected. I've discussed it with the deputy minister, but we believe that certainly in placement in BCHMC, that's avoided at all costs. Now if the member has specifics which she wants to relate to me later, we'll pursue them. But knowing the people in BCHMC and understanding their appreciation of what is required by a single parent and a 12- or 13- or 15-year old youngster, I would be surprised, unless it was absolutely necessary, to know that it was a one-bedroom situation. But if you have examples, we'll pursue them.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I note in the annual report of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia the sale of Crown Lumber as the fully owned subsidiary of the corporation, which was formerly Dunhill Development Corporation. It says in the annual report that during the year Crown Lumber was sold for book value. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is very highly irregular. If the Crown were to start disposing of properties held by the corporation at book value, book value is, in many cases, about one-quarter of what actual current market value is. Book value usually refers to the original purchase price, and it's very.... Maybe from time to time these things are increased.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I might say, through the Chairman, for the benefit of Tinkerbell over there, that while I was a....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We refer to members only by their proper designation.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, yes. I don't know from whom that utterance came, Mr. Chairman, so....

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You didn't buy your Casa Loma at book value.

MR. NICOLSON: I can certainly note that profits while I was the director of this corporation were over $2 million each year, and they've slid under this present government to just over $1.5 million a year. ,

Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why this was sold, I would like to know to whom it was sold, and I would like to know if this is a mistake. It surely must be a mistake. Was it not in fact sold on the basis of an appraisal? Would the minister be willing to table that appraisal in this House? Because if not, Mr. Chairman, it is another shocking and absolutely irresponsible or really just flagrant display of incompetence of this administration and this government in their very headstrong determination to shed themselves of anything, I guess, that the NDP created. I was going to say that they had an aversion to Crown corporations, but that seems not to be the case. Indeed, they want to change the whole government into a Crown corporation so they can avoid having to come and answer at this Legislature.

I could go through, for the minister's benefit, the book value of some of the properties owned here by this corporation. The book value, as compared to what a current market appraisal value would be, would be considerably different. Indeed, some of those properties could be sold, even in today's rather slow housing market, for two and three times as much as they appear at book value in here. So I'd like to hear about that and I think that the people of British Columbia would certainly like to hear some elaboration upon it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, Crown Lumber, a subsidiary of what was then known as Dunhill Development Corporation and is now the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, was sold, and that's really the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. I saw no reason, nor did anyone associated with the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, nor did any of my colleagues, why we should be in the lumber sales business.

We sold it. It was a firm with a little bit of goodwill and a very small inventory.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Who did you sell it to?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't have that information readily available.

MR. LEA: Oh, I'll bet you do!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, call that member to order. You've had a good discussion this afternoon, and then a lot of political statements. This is not the place for political statements.

Anyway, the decision was made, Mr. Chairman, that we were going to gear down what was known as the Dunhill Development Corporation, and now is the Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

Reference was made to its reduced profit; that reflects its reduced activity. I still see a role for HCBC as a Crown corporation, Mr. Chairman, to become involved in certain activities relative to housing, to become involved particularly in innovative housing and to accept certain assignments from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - it might be as a

[ Page 3588 ]

project manager in some rather unique situation -but certainly not to be actively competing with the private sector as was the case.

That's what we campaigned on as a party and that's what we won on as a party. That's what happened in the case of HCBC. Crown Lumber was not a very brilliant star in the diadem of Crown assets at that particular time, if I may say so.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, to the contrary, I think that Crown Lumber was one of the examples of integrated management and one of the very important assets of Dunhill Development when it was interested in terms of having supply, in terms of getting the best margins of profit for the company, in purchasing materials. But it was certainly competitive, and other contractors found it desirable to contract with Crown Lumber.

Be that as it may, the minister might feel that the Crown does not want to be in that type of retailing business and they might not want to be competing with other people in the private sector. The point of this is that the statement in the annual report says that it was sold at book value. By being sold at book value, 1 take that to be that it was sold at the price it was originally acquired for. To whom was it sold? For how much money was it sold? To how many people was it offered? Was this just a quiet deal?

The minister said that this was done out of good will. 1 would like to know out of good will to whom.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You misunderstood. It had a little bit of goodwill. It wasn't sold out of good will. You misunderstood. It had some goodwill and some inventory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who felt good about it?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, 1 think it is very important that we realize that what the minister seems to be telling us here, and 1 hope he will correct me, is that the Crown sold this for the original purchase price without any reference to today's values, without appraisals. It was sold at the book value, which is a very arbitrary value. Certainly the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) would understand that as a management consultant; he knows the meaning. I'm sure the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) would know it. I'm sure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and others in this House would know that book value is an arbitrary value which is carried basically to defer the payment of capital gains taxes within companies. That certainly is one of the reasons it's carried along at that rate. People don't automatically go out and get reappraisals every year, which are also costly, on properties and assets. There are also depreciations and things. But this has more to do with income tax than it does with this sale.

What kind of appraisals were made and what kind of opportunity was given? Was there any advertising of this opportunity or did the government just go out and sell it, nudge a few friends and tell them that it was available, and when they found out there was a buyer, they let this go? This seems totally improper. The explanation in the annual report is wholly unacceptable, and it is just one more cloud hanging over this minister - one more. He reminds one of a character in a cartoon, "Lil Abner." This minister is carrying clouds over his head and this is totally unacceptable.

MR. Chairman, I can accept that the minister takes the position that this has to be disposed of. because it is an anathema to this government that there should be this little corporation which might in some way be competing with Color Your World or some other building supply companies selling paint or lumber or whatever. Mr. Chairman, that can be accepted, but the manner of disposal of this company, which I believe was wholly owned by the Crown.... It wasn't as if this was one of the original entanglements where it was a 50 per cent or a 40 per cent ownership position, a minority or maybe a majority ownership position where something was disposed of to one of the other partners. This, I believe, was wholly owned by the Crown.

The minister should have taken this as an important enough step that he should be fully versed in not only why it was sold - lie told us it was sold because of their aversion to being this type of business.... But are we to take it that this book value was the same book value by which this was appraised when this was appraised by Mr. Corbin and his firm in terms of the original Crown acquisition? There was an appraised value then. Is that the book value? Is it the book value that has been carried in annual reports for several years without being upwardly revised, to my knowledge? Would it not have been more fitting to have some current, up-to-date appraisal of the assets and what was on hand in terms of lumber and nails and cash registers and what-have-you? To whom was it sold and how was it offered for sale?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any suspicions as -to any wrongdoing by the minister or the government in regard to the sale of Crown Lumber. I think it could be cleared up very easily by the minister telling us the method by which it was sold, to whom and for how much. Was it advertised? Was there an appraisal done? I think it would be ridiculous for us to jump to conclusions until the minister has a chance to explain.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Your partner did.

[ Page 3589 ]

MR. LEA: My partner did what?

HON. MR. CURTIS: He jumped to conclusions.

MR. LEA: Oh, no, I don't think he did. I think he's just bringing it to the committee's attention. I'm sure the minister has a reasonable explanation. He's told us why it warifed to be sold - because ideologically it didn't meet the approval of government. That's well and fine. But I think also, based on that, there should have been some economic consideration given as to whether it should have been sold or not.

So I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he ordered a review or an investigation to look into Crown Lumber - maybe not specifically, but Crown Lumber being incorporated into a review - to ascertain whether it should be sold, and whether it would be a good economic move for government to sell it at that particular time. Were there appraisals done? What was the method of selling? For how much and to whom was it sold?

MR. BARBER: If the minister would give us his undertaking that this evening or at the earliest possible opportunity he will table all the relevant legal and financial documents concerning the sale of Crown Lumber, then we would be happy to forego pursuit of this particular matter at this time. Hopefully we won't have to wait another five months regarding this matter. I presume we won't. If the minister would give us this undertaking, we'd be happy to change the topic on his assurance that the questions about the vendor, advertising.-, appraisal, the legal documents and all the rest of the questions that have been asked this afternoon will be answered by the minister at the earliest possible opportunity.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I must say that I bristle, as I frequently do, when in debate someone such as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) - who was unable to provide any information when lie was Minister of Housing on any subject - starts talking about clouds and making the kinds of statements which he made. I don't have all the information readily available.

The hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has asked if we will table the information at the earliest possible time. The answer is yes. That cannot be at 6 o'clock, but it will be at the earliest possible time.

The sale was advertised, I'm informed, and the decision was not a ministerial decision alone, but rather a decision by a board of directors of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, who have been charged with the responsibility of seeing that that particular Crown corporation functions in an effective and productive mariner. So I give the member and the committee that undertaking, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. LEA: I appreciate the minister's answer, Mr. Chairman. The earliest possible convenience before the end of this session, I would think.

MR. LEA: Of course.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Two days.

MR. LEA: Fine - thank you very much.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I have a number of questions I suppose I could ask this minister. Many of the questions I would have asked, Mr. Chairman, have already been asked, so I won't repeat old ground.

But like other rural MLAs, Mr. Chairman, I have in my riding more than one municipality. In fact, I have three municipalities and three regional districts, plus parts of two others. I understand that in this province there are 168 municipalities or regional districts that share in the resource revenue-sharing grants of $30,000 per year. But there is one regional district in this province, Mr. Chairman, that does not share in this grant and that regional district is the Central Coast Regional District, which last year and the year before received S2, 500. That particular regional district has all the functions that any other municipality or regional district has. They have to look after garbage, the airport, the campsite, recreation development, parks, communications media - the whole range of things that regional districts do.

It's one of the more unwieldy regional districts, Mr. Chairman, in that the communities are isolated from each other in that regional district of some 6,000 square miles, I believe it is. It's a huge, huge area but with only a population base of less than 8,000 people. So the fact is that here we have 167 regional districts in this province getting a resource revenue-sharing grant of $30,000 per year and one regional district that is only receiving $2,500 a year.

Now the minister and the department have been contacted on this matter on several occasions by the regional district itself and by myself on at least three occasions. I've had private conversations with the minister on at least one occasion, and with members of the, department, and the fact is that I have not received a satisfactory answer to this particular question. I understand the problems in that regional district. The Bella Bella area, which is one of the largest native Indian villages in British Columbia, is not subject to taxation in some forms, but they do have a member on the board.

Ocean Falls, because it is a Crown corporation, does not pay taxes in that area. I believe they should

[ Page 3590 ]

be paying a grant of some sort in lieu of taxes - I really do. But we've covered that ground in this House on numerous occasions.

So I'm hoping now, Mr. Chairman, that the minister will undertake this afternoon in this House to give the Central Coast Regional District and this House some indication and at least some satisfaction that he will increase the resource revenue sharing grant to that one regional district that does not share with all the other regional areas.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has identified a problem which we've been discussing recently. Actually we've discussed it on a number of occasions. We've discussed it very recently again, however, in the ministry. I have a Monday morning staff meeting to go over those points which are of concern and this one has come up on a couple of occasions. We spoke of it yesterday.

I see no reason at all why the one regional district which does not receive the full grant should.... Too many negatives here. That is the most direct statement I can make.

When you examine the functions of the Central Coast Regional District, you get the impression that it's really quite inactive. Now that may have been the case a couple of years ago, but as the minister indicated, Mr. Chairman, there are other responsibilities and a very limited base on which to draw.

Therefore, through the revenue-sharing programme for this fiscal year, we are in a position to allocate the full amount and it will be done.

I am pleased to make the announcement today on the basis of the member's inquiry. Funny, we were talking about it.

MR. NICOLSON: During his defence, the minister attacked the former Minister of Housing and said that he never provided information to the House. I'm not going to remind him that I tabled all of the contracts pertaining to the Casa Loma purchase. I'm not going to remind him of the fact that I used to make available to members in this House a complete progress report of all properties by location, cost of the acquisition and the progress of that acquisition to that date.

But I am going to bring to this minister's attention that last year, after his estimates, lie tabled in the House one copy of the annual report of the Ministry of Housing. To this date, members have not been supplied or given the courtesy of being given a copy of that. And here we are, Mr. Chairman, in the month of July, when normally one might expect that estimates would have been concluded by the end of March.... At least the optimistic hope of the minister would have been that estimates would have been concluded by that time. One would expect that the Legislature would have prorogued, perhaps, and that statutory requirements for the filing of annual reports would have been met, as was customary in the past government and governments previous to that -well before the month of July.

This minister has come in here for his estimates, he's asked us to debate his departmental estimates, and yet he has not yet tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

1 noted in the Clerks' office that neither of these reports has been tabled. It's true that lie has tabled the annual report of the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. It's just an example of how this minister is lacking competence to carry on this dual portfolio. Certainly if he was on top of things, such details, as bothersome as they might be to that minister, would be looked after. Yes, he's still fulfilling the letter of the law, Mr. Chairman. As long as the House doesn't prorogue, lie will have finished.

1 would commend to him the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . The Minister of Highways had a report on our desks at least the day that his estimates started, and one would have at least hoped that that would have been a source of motivation to this minister. Last year lie tabled a mimeographed addition in spite of the fact that all the factual material had been drafted, and, in fact, 1 believe it was almost ready to go to press. 1 know there was some difficulty because of change of government and there had to be a little bit of censorship take place in that annual report.

But he comes in here in the month of July. I would dare say if it were August or September or November, we still might not see the annual reports for this ministry, now the combined ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1 say it's shocking.

That minister gets a little bit petulant when we are critical, when we discover that an asset of the Crown has been sold at book value and that's all the notice that's given, when we find that he comes in here unprepared to give us details, to read us chapter and verse of the sale, to present to us what one would have anticipated would have been a very important question and one that that minister should be prepared to answer, to present to us the appraisals of some independent appraisers on this matter and to put up some kind of a defence better than to say that we can expect something in one or two days. For that minister to get up and say we didn't supply information is a little bit galling, but 1 won't take it as a personal affront, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: 1 won't take offence from the Minister of Forests, because I'm going to be talking to him about cedar salvage, and I'm going to keep him in good humour.

[ Page 3591 ]

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would take notice, and that cabinet ministers would take notice, i of the fact that those who had experience in the opposition used to make a very strong point.... I certainly took it seriously and I took it as a priority to have the annual report of my ministry ready before I entered into estimates. I think this one minister perhaps shouldn't be singled out, because there are others who have done it, but other ministers like the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) should be praised because his annual report was there. It certainly helps the work of this committee and it can help to keep us on some of the important aspects of the ministry if these reports are available.

Please, Mr. Minister, when you do table the r , report this year, send out copies and don't expect us to go to the Clerks' office and have to mimeograph some 100-odd pages in order to find the material. We do find it important material. We don't look on this statutory requirement under law lightly and I don't think those members in cabinet who served as members of the opposition take it lightly.

I would hope that they would also impress on some of the newer members of cabinet who haven't had experience in the opposition the importance of departmental reports and their importance to those estimates. Your job, Mr. Chairman, could, I think, be made much easier. I think that your efforts to maintain order in this House would be very much aided and abetted if these ministers.... This minister has had this experience and, I know, would have been very critical had anyone whom he was criticizing not brought in reports.

I would like to ask this minister why it is that here we are in the month of July.... It's not that you've just been minister for a few months; it's not that perhaps the annual report that was prepared for last year and ready to go to the printer probably had a political bias or content. But in spite of whatever. political bias or content the government of the day puts into these reports, there's a lot of important factual information. What has happened to those reports? Why are they not before us at this time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, some of the member for Nelson-Creston's points are well taken. In terms of lateness in getting out an annual report, he knows as well as I do that it's not always possible to get a report printed by the Queen's Printer as quickly as one would wish. We have the report in final form; it is with the Queen's Printer now and has been for several days or more - I'm not certain of the exact period of time. I would expect that it will be printed as quickly as possible.

I also would welcome early release of the annual report - the earlier the better, Mr. Member - not only for debate in estimates, . but for the understanding of those who have a particular interest n a given ministry. This year, the two sections of the ministry are combined in a single document and relate one to the other. The report will be available very soon and I'll be one of the first to welcome its arrival.

I also understand, Mr. Chairman, that last year copies - albeit Xerox copies - were mailed out. If the hon. member didn't receive one then that was an oversight.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have a very brief question at this point. It's a question I ask each year of the minister of the day: when is the replotting section of the Municipal Act likely to be the subject of intensive study by his ministry?

As the minister may recall, this is a subject of vigorous yearly representations by constituents -of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Wedley. I think there is a good deal of merit in the case they have been advancing. They had an unfortunate experience themselves with the current replotting section of the Act, which they describe as "giving a municipality wide discretionary and arbitrary power over the property of private owners with no legal protection of the common rights which belong to freehold property." They have been waging this fight for many years and I would be grateful if the minister could tell the committee the stage at which his ministry is in reviewing those admittedly very, very complicated sections of the Act and bringing forward something that might be considered more equitable in the near future.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member has again identified a shortcoming in legislation. I can't give an undertaking as to when the legislation will be presented in amended form , except to agree with him that it is somewhat archaic and has worked some hardship. We have made note of that.

MR. GIBSON: We can expect some amendments to this section in due course then?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In due course, yes. And due course means, hopefully, the next time amendments are presented to this House. It is very complex and very old, as the member knows.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister indicate whether, when he talks about an annual report, he is talking about a report that will go up to December 31 of the previous calendar year or he is talking about an annual report to the end of the previous fiscal year?

The reason I ask is that it seems that the practice which the previous government brought in was an attempt to bring in annual reports that would be as current as possible in terms of the estimates, so that the reports were made up until December 31 of the

[ Page 3592 ]

previous fiscal year.

That does put some pressure on the staff to bring the report in, and also to get it to the Queen's Printer, but I noticed that many of the reports that are coming down from the ministries of the government, Mr. Chairman, are reports that have gone back to the style of the previous fiscal year. Now there is no time problem there, surely. It really is a question of the minister or his staff priorizing it and making sure that it gets before the members. So what I'd like to ask the minister is: is he talking about his report ending with the fiscal year March, 1976, or is he talking about December, 1976?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the report, which will be tabled as soon as it is available - in a matter of days - will go to December 31,1976. That's the basis on which it was started - the calendar year. It's also, as the member would know, the municipal year. They don't operate on the April 1 to March 31 basis, so for the municipal side of the ministry, it out of necessity would have to be in the calendar year. It will be right up to last December 31.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I have approximately 106 more questions to ask the minister. In light of that, I would ask that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we adjourn for the supper hour, I would like to reply to a motion of privilege proposed by the Hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

Hon. members, on July 11 the Hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano read a statement which sets forth a number of actions which, in his view, presume the passage of Bill 65 and alleges that a breach of privilege had been committed thereby.

The first action is that of the Deputy Minister of Human Resources, by a letter dated July 6, advising that specific approval of the deputy minister would be required for payment of $5,000 or over, and in so doing taking for granted the passage of Bill 65.

The second action is that the Ministry of Public Works has measured space in the Vancouver Resources Board office, which the Hon. member suggests is under the assumption of a provincial takeover.

The third action is that there has been an examination of the file systems of the Vancouver Resources Board, which the Hon. member suggests is in preparation for integration. The Hon. member states his opinion that:

"The activities enumerated seek to make effective by executive action what the Legislature has not yet and may never provide for by legislative action, and it is therefore in contempt of the Legislature."

The Hon. member further expresses his opinion that the action of the deputy minister is a contempt of the Legislature or by the Minister of Human Resources if the deputy was acting under instruction. As the Hon. members know, it is the duty of the Speaker, as stated in May, 18th edition, page 226:

"Under usage when a complaint of breach of privilege is raised he has to decide whether a prima facie case has been made out which would justify such proceedings taking precedence over the other business of the House."

In reaching my conclusion on the matter raised, I have considered the following passage from May, 18th edition, page 132, under the heading "Acts or Conduct Constituting Breach of Privilege or Contempt":

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

The facts alleged do not, in my opinion, disclose any conduct tantamount to obstructing or impeding the House or any member in the discharge of his duties. I note that the Hon. member has made no such charge, but he complains of a contempt of the House arising from the enumerated actions.

Without going into the merits of the case, one can readily conclude that it would only be prudent if not incumbent upon a ministry of the government to take preparatory steps in contemplation of the passage of legislation. I cannot see that to do so would impede the House or any member thereof in the performance of their functions,

If the actions complained of were thought to be improper or unlawful per se, then, as stated in a ruling by Mr. Speaker Dowding in the Journals, 1975, page 209, it would be a case to take up by one of several means at hand: by, setting down a motion of privilege with notice; or instructing a committee; or by normal debate as the occasion presents itself within the rules during estimates or when a specified bill is called relating to this subject. I find that no prima facie case of breach of privilege has occurred which would justify the complaint taking precedence over the other business of the House.

[ Page 3593 ]

On one further point, Hon. members, on July 6 last, I took under advisement a matter of privilege raised by the Hon. Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) . I refer the Hon. members to the ruling I have just concluded, and in accordance with the authority therein cited I find that the matter complained of would not impede the Hon. minister in the discharge of his duties and rule that no prima facie case of privilege has been established which would require the ordinary business of the House to be set aside.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.