[ Page 3433 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills.

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 43). Hon. Mr. Wolfe.

Introduction and first reading –– 3433

Oral Questions.

Dumping of radioactive wastes. Mr. Mitchell –– 3433

Mr. Lauk –– 3434

Constitutional negotiations. Mr. Macdonald –– 3434

Mr. Barrett –– 3435

Committee of Supply Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm)

On vote 162: minister's office –– 3435

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Lockstead

Appendix –– 3461

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Among the guests in our galleries today are four who are particularly welcome as far as the Curtis family is concerned. They are relatives from Merced, California. In the Speaker's gallery we have June and Tom Boffman and their daughters Natasha and Kelly. They were here last year for a very quick look at greater Victoria and they are back, I am happy to say, for a longer stay this summer. Would the House welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have two introductions that I am pleased to make today. First of all I would like to ask all members of our House to welcome a member of Parliament from Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Bruce Skeggs is a Member of Parliament in Victoria, Australia, and is here with Mrs. Skeggs. I would like all the members to welcome them heartily.

Every year the very fine organization, the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in British Columbia, have an exchange program with the province of Quebec where students from British Columbia and Quebec spend two weeks in each others' home provinces. In the House today are two representatives from that exchange program. We have our British Columbia representative, Pat Boeker of Delta, who has just spent two weeks with the Goulin family. Robert Goulin is here, the exchange partner from Quebec, to spend two weeks with us. They are sitting in the gallery today and we welcome them both.

MR. HALL: I'd like the House to welcome visitors to the gallery today — representatives of the B.C. Government Employees Union: Mr. Norm Richards, Mr. John Fryer, Mr. John Eldridge, Ms. Dianne Wood and Mr. S.J. Burton. I'd like the House to welcome those hard-working government employees.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have visiting with me today — and we have the pleasure of having in the House directly behind me — some friends and constituents: Ina Watson from New Westminster and Martha MacKenzie from my own constituency of Surrey. Also with them is a family from Ireland, Fred and Ina Logan and their daughters Katrina and Armanda. I would ask the House to extend them a welcome.

MR. KEMPF: With us in the gallery this afternoon from the district of Terrace is Mr. Ron Burnett, alderman for the district; Mr. Loyd Scott; Mr. Jim Muir; and Mr. Denis Marleau. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

In the gallery with us this afternoon is Mr. Sam Chow from that great city of Prince George, and I would ask the House to make him welcome as well.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome one of my constituents, the newly elected president of the lower island NDP, Dennis David.

Introduction of Bills

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DUMPING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I have an oral question to the Minister of Environment. What steps has the minister taken to determine the location and environmental impact of radioactive waste dumped into the ocean by the Defence Research Establishment and the University of British Columbia? What is the location? Is it 3 miles, 12 miles or 200 miles out from the coast?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the responsibility for radioactive wastes rests entirely in the hands of the federal government, but I have had my staff inquire with the federal Department of the Environment to determine what locations and what subsequent follow-up.... I think that the matter is almost of historic proportions, and I think it's now 15 or 18 years ago that this happened. It has only recently come to the fore. I'm endeavouring to get some answers back and bring them to the member.

MR. MITCHELL: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We all know the lifespan of the radioactive material, and it's not 18 years — that's just a drop in the bucket. Can the minister assure the House that radioactive wastes are not still being dumped into the water off the B.C. coast?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't give that assurance. That's the responsibility of the federal government, and it's an area wherein they have jurisdiction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Do you have a question as well?

MR. HOWARD: It's no concern of yours.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I suspect that the matter ceased some years ago, but I don't have a confirmation on that. Perhaps the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will be able to give you the answer — he seems to be anxious to interrupt.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that he does represent British Columbia, and I think it's imperative that he fight for the people of British Columbia and locate where the waste is being dumped. Will he make that assurance to the House that he will locate it and bring to the attention of the federal government that we don't want any more radioactive waste dumped into our waters?

[ Page 3434 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure how the member expects that I would personally locate the radioactive isotopes that were dumped some time ago. As I said to the member earlier, we are making some inquiries with the federal government. I am concerned, as I am sure all people are in this province. The matter happened a great deal of time ago and has only recently become public knowledge. Until such time as I get some information back from Ottawa I am a little bit powerless to act on the matter.

MR. LAUK: On a supplementary to the minister, can the minister inform the House at what date he will receive the information from the federal government to assure this House that our coastline is safe from radioactivity?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Why not? Why has the minister responsible for the environment not received that assurance from the federal government?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss to be able to answer that question. I asked the federal government a question. I can hardly dictate to the federal Minister of the Environment at what time he replies to my inquiries. Perhaps you have some method of making Ottawa respond to the ring of the phone or something; I haven't.

MR. LAUK: The minister requested a method. You pick up the phone, you dial the number and you demand the assurances of the federal minister. Has the minister now decided to undertake to this House that he will do so immediately with the federal minister and provide that information to the Legislature?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will get back to the Legislature, as I told the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) earlier, at the earliest occasion on which I have this information.

CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier relating to the constitutional talks that are now going on where the province of British Columbia — we find occasionally from the newspapers — wants fisheries, railways, harbours and various things; we don't know on what terms. Instead of working from a hidden agenda and playing those cards close to your own vest, when are you going to take the Legislature of the province of British Columbia into your confidence with respect to B.C.'s position, to add some strength to it — I'm not debating the merits of these points — and when are you going to take the people into your confidence, instead of carrying on closet constitutional negotiations?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The government of British Columbia has taken the people of British Columbia into what he says is our confidence, which we say is their business. In fact, we are attempting to propose ways not only to strengthen the country but to defend our province in areas where resource revenues or resources could be attacked — sometimes with willing accomplices who have offered politically to give away natural gas and petroleum rights to the government of Canada. That offer was made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and supported by his party. It has made it difficult for us, at times, to defend the heritage of the people of this province when there are those who would assume power who have not only been willing to give it away but have offered publicly on television at energy conferences to give away the resource revenues and resources that belong to the heritage of the people of British Columbia. We are not daunted that there are those who would give away what we would preserve and protect. We are fighting to protect and to build, both at the same time.

Our position papers on the constitution were made public in 1978. Amended positions have been added to that; any good series of ideas can be improved. I'm pleased to see the other provinces now supporting proposals that British Columbia put forward at that time when we stood alone in our concern for representation by the regions in this country. Some scoffed — some from the other side. Those other areas have been made public. Just yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) made public to all British Columbians, through the media, at a press conference, British Columbia's position on the 12 issues being discussed by the ten provincial governments and the federal government at this time.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm not going to reply except to say that the Premier was guilty of a deliberate twisted half truth when he talked about our being ready to give away the resources. He knows it. You're not going to build a new Canada by going around lying about things of that kind, Mr. Premier. That's what you're doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: My question to the Premier is: has he made any decision to bring to the Legislature these matters currently under discussion?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The proposals that British Columbia has put forth have been available to this Legislature, and I've tried to encourage discussion of them in the Legislature during my estimates not only this year but in other years. Obviously they have not caught the interest of the official opposition, because try as we might to have a discussion on a high plane, it has been difficult to attract their attention to the problems facing this country and the proposals that British Columbia has put forth. There's been ample opportunity during those periods, not just this year but in other years, for the new-found interest — for the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) to show his concern about how this country can work, not only for the people of British Columbia but for all Canadians.

Our interest is not new-found, Mr. Speaker. The interest of this government has caught our attention and our efforts for the last four and a half years. I had hoped that during that period we would have had some support for those who would also attempt to be government in this province, but we have not had that support. And I think the record and public opportunities — such as the Pépin-Robarts task force, and the presentations made there — amply represent who's concerned about this country and this province, and who has been willing to put their proposals before the people.

But I agree with the second member for Vancouver East

[ Page 3435 ]

that we need broader circulation of our proposals. So I will take it as his suggestion, and this government will go on an active campaign to inform every British Columbian by any means, whether through the media or through town hall meetings, and to involve the broad base of British Columbians in the discussions directly, because obviously this government isn't getting any support from the New Democratic Party of this province on these proposals.

MR. BARRETT: I'm pleased that the Premier referred to his estimates again. Would the Premier please inform us when he intends to answer questions 40 through 62, standing on the order paper all these weeks from his estimates, still ignored, still unanswered by that Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to assist you in your task of calling the Leader of the Opposition, once more, out of order on an improper question. But let me say that the frivolous politicking that takes place on that side will be dealt with in the political arena. The serious questions of government will always be dealt with in this Legislature.

MR. MACDONALD: I have a supplementary question to the Premier. I note your remarks, Mr. Premier, that we're not interested. The last conference I attended was at Queen's University. I was also at the one at York University. I am fairly up to date on these things and so are my colleagues. I regret that you haven't decided to bring these matters to the Legislature to bring strength to B.C.'s position and to have a good position on a non-partisan basis and take politics out of this thing, as you've been injecting it. I'm asking you whether you are willing to consider any kind of bi-partisan consultation in respect to the renewal of Confederation and the very important business that faces this nation of Canada, and to include some of the opposition in these deliberations in order to safeguard and protect the position of the people of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver East asks if we will develop bipartisan proposals. No. We'll develop non-partisan proposals for the people of British Columbia. The first injection of partisan politics that I've heard in this debate has now been introduced by the second member for Vancouver East, who says he wants some sort of partisanship in the proposals for how this country can be run. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that the work we have done has not just involved Social Crediters. It has involved British Columbians: those who have been willing to donate their time and consult with people from all walks of life and from the universities in developing British Columbia's position. We didn't ask them whether they were Liberals or New Democrats, as the second member for Vancouver East would suggest. We said: "Help us to develop proposals." Those proposals were put forward over two years ago. They were made available not only to the conference, but were also shared with all Canadians.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yelled across "twiddle," he is saying what their party has said over and over again these last two years when their concern was in evidence. We have shared those proposals, but we have also shared their development with the British Columbian and Canadian community. They were not developed in isolation. They were not developed in a single partisan way, nor were they developed, as the second member for Vancouver East said, as a matter for political, partisan trade-offs. He wants bipartisan proposals for this country. I say that our proposals are, and will continue to be non-partisan proposals, no matter what the New Democratic Party says.

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, I would like to make a correction in relation to the Premier's remarks about what I said. I did not propose that this should be a politically partisan thing. That was twisting my words, Mr. Premier. I do urge this House to develop a British Columbia position on a non-partisan basis and involve the people in those deliberations.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 162: minister's office, $165,465.

MR. BARBER: The theme of yesterday's debate was the wilful neglect by Social Credit in the whole field of conflict-of-interest law. I have a series of questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in regard to the Chilliwack situation. When was the minister first advised, by whom and in what form, of the allegations made concerning bylaws, expropriation, the wrongful payment for land, the overpayment for certain land as appraised by the city appraiser and the allegation of a filing of a false statement with the land registry office?

Perhaps the minister didn't hear the questions. Apparently not. I will ask them again. When was the minister first advised, by whom and in what form, of the problems in the township of Chilliwack concerning the allegations that land was expropriated which was not required, that far more money was paid for that land than the city appraiser said it was worth, that a false statement was allegedly filed with the land registry office in regard to one key parcel of land, and — one further question which I wish to add now — that the mayor of the municipality wrongfully informed the person in advance of the availability of certain lands which were going to be sold by the municipality?

My questions to the minister are: when was he first made aware of these several allegations, by whom was he made aware of them and in what form?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This whole matter was certainly referred to the RCMP some time ago. I think the request initially came from the municipality, that it be investigated by them in order to answer some of those charges — founded or unfounded, whichever they might be — that were being made.

I should point out to the member, however, that sometimes in the process of acquiring lands for public purposes, the price paid may be more than what the assessed price happens to be or what the value of the land would be on the open market at a given time. I point out to the member that there is a good example in the community represented by me

[ Page 3436 ]

and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), where the NDP government purchased large portions of land — the former Attorney-General would be aware of that — in South Surrey for values which were greater in 1974 than they are even today. These things do happen. It may have been that at the time the government of the day found that the lands were more important to them than the price which had to be paid, and this is certainly a consideration that must be looked at by the council or the government of the day.

I will get you the dates, but we were advised early on as to questions that were being raised in the community. The inspector certainly did an investigative process at the time, as was requested of him; but at the same time the RCMP were also asked to enter, and when they do we leave it in their capable hands.

MR. BARBER: I believe the minister has inadvertently misinformed the House. In fact, the request to call the RCMP did not come from the township of Chilliwack; it came from my own office. It was dated October 30, 1979. It was the result of material that I received in my office October 24, 1979, and it was replied to in a favourable way by the then Attorney-General, Mr. Gardom, on November 22, 1979. It was, in fact, the request of the official opposition and not your government or that township which saw the RCMP called.

My questions were: when, by whom and in what form were you advised of the several allegations — and I'll refer to others in a moment — which have been made concerning the adventures of a few people in Chilliwack who have been engaged in, to say the least, rather unusual bylaw rewriting and expropriation procedures?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I too received a copy of the letter which was referred to by the hon. first member for Victoria. I received a copy of that letter and that letter was apparently referred to the RCMP. At the time, I considered the contents of the letter and felt that there was really little more than allegations there — no substantive material in the letter — and at the time I certainly did not feel that I could, on the basis of that letter, approach the RCMP.

I wish to point out to the member — because obviously he could well have more questions on similar topics — that I start out with the premise that the people involved in municipal government are basically honest. I don't go around asking for police investigations on the basis of some allegation made by someone who may find that because of some action by a municipal council he didn't get all he was seeking or the municipal council beat him to a particular project. I don't ask the RCMP to move in and start investigating every municipally elected person. I have faith in municipal people. However, when there's something brought to my attention which is substantially substantive, then naturally I proceed. "Substantially substantive" — that's a good term right there and you might keep that in mind.

MR. BARBER: It may be a good term, but it's bad English.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly we'll get the dates. My staff will be getting that information, and I will report it to the House as soon as it comes down here.

MR. BARBER: It's perfectly clear that the case made by the official opposition in regard to the wilful neglect of this administration is confirmed by the minister's own comments. It was not simply a letter which we received; it was also a well-publicized investigation carried on by the Vancouver Sun, in which documents were referred to, statements were made and arguments were put forward which appeared to meet the test of validity and the test of proper inquiry as well. To the credit of the then Attorney-General, Mr. Gardom, he agreed on November 22, 1979, to call the RCMP. It is to the shame of this minister that he continued to wilfully neglect an area where not simply one letter and one reporter, but for months previous — as he should have known — people in local government — who are, by and large, tremendously honest and honourable — were raising with us, as I'm sure they were raising with you, the same concerns, criticisms and questions.

Maybe the minister doesn't answer his mail, attend these meetings or return these phone calls, but we answer our mail, attend those meetings and return those phone calls, and we were aware for months prior to the RCMP being called in that something was going on out there, that questions of an important nature were being raised. They were most certainly not being raised by one solitary crank who wrote a letter. They were being raised by responsible people in responsible positions who have subsequently, like ourselves, been interviewed by the RCMP and have given to the RCMP such evidence as they had, which they think, appropriately, should be brought to bear on the case. Where was the minister during that whole time? Apparently he was content to remain asleep at that switch and not make any inquiries, regardless of all the information which was becoming privately available through lots of honourable, honest people in local government, who were also concerned with the activities of, it would appear, only one or two persons in that district.

I've a few other questions. When was the minister first made aware that Chilliwack council rezoned part of an alderman's property at Meadowbrook as commercial-residential for the purposes of development and allowed thereby, while he was an alderman, the sale of $2.8 million worth of land and a building to a public educational institute? Did the minister consider the possibility that that might constitute conflict of interest? When was the minister aware that the same alderman, he himself being the chairman of the zoning bylaw committee, saw the rezoning of his property on Hocking Avenue, thus allowing a sale of $125,000 worth of land to an iron fabricating plant? Did it occur to the minister to inquire whether or not, just maybe, that too might be a conflict of interest? When was the minister made aware that the same alderman managed to persuade council to meet the totally unusual request of a developer for rezoning — totally outside the ambit of the ordinary procedures of council, I am advised — to sell land, and make a considerable profit at it, to a company called Canadian Tire? When was the minister made aware that, over the objections stated and known of the planner of that municipality, the same alderman managed to obtain relaxed zoning restrictions in the CS-1 — which is the commercial zone in that municipality — in which, lo and behold, the same alderman owns a number of properties? Did it occur to the minister to inquire whether or not just maybe that might constitute a conflict of interest on the part of that individual?

When did the minister first learn that the same alderman ordered an expensive addition to provincial government

[ Page 3437 ]

roadwork? He managed to persuade the Ministry of Transportation and Highways of the apparent need for same in a turning lane being built in front of his own property and, by the way, property owned by another alderman on the same council who appears to be one of his friends.

Was the minister at any point advised that all of these decisions had been made, that all of those bylaws had been passed and that all of those rules had been imposed, which appear to suggest, to say the least, the possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of that alderman? Now the minister will get up and say: "I make the presumption of innocence. As far as I am concerned, everyone in local government is honest." Wonderful; I agree with him. Now forget the silly rhetoric that does not reply to the serious question and instead give a serious reply. When were you advised of these charges, this information and these matters of public record? What did you do about it, if anything?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the member again said "allegations," and "certainly there is the possibility," and so forth. He is making reference to an elected person in the municipality of Chilliwack. I did not come in here with a file today to throw mud at anyone who has been subject to allegations. The matter is under investigation by the RCMP. Certainly if the RCMP can't properly look into the subject before us, then no one else can. I certainly did not come in here with a file to throw mud or to make it appear as if someone is guilty before they have been so judged.

MR. BARBER: Before they can be found guilty and judged guilty they have to be charged. Before there is a charge there has to be evidence. To make all of that happen there has to be an authority who cares enough to call for an inquiry that is serious and comprehensive. What's clear again is the wilful neglect of this minister who ignores all of the information provided privately, who chose to do nothing about a letter sent to his personal attention, and who ignored, as well, the results of an investigative report by the Vancouver Sun.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I can take a lot of rhetoric and a lot of abuse coming across the floor, whether it's directed at me or someone in local government elsewhere. That's fine, but I would ask the member to withdraw "wilful neglect."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is most unparliamentary, hon. member. The Chair will ask the first member for Victoria to withdraw the term "wilful neglect" used against another hon. member of this House.

MR. BARBER: The Chair was asleep yesterday, I suspect. I used the term 20 times if I used it once. I've used it earlier today. I am not imputing a false motive; I am describing behaviour. The behaviour is that of neglect — clear, patent, simple neglect. There is nothing unparliamentary about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have imputed "wilful" neglect. That does impute a false motive against an hon. member. I would ask, in proper parliamentary tradition, that you withdraw the term "wilful neglect."

MR. BARBER: It was wilful neglect. It was incompetent neglect. It was unnecessary neglect. If the language is unparliamentary, I withdraw the language.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, will the member withdraw?

MR. BARBER: Of course. Now I will describe the behaviour. I withdraw the term "wilful neglect.'' I describe, instead, a pattern — a clear, distinct, obvious and self-evident pattern by this minister's answers this afternoon and all day yesterday. This government, for its own political reasons, refuses to take seriously the whole problem of conflict of interest and refuses to act when evidence is drawn to its attention.

If the official opposition had not asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) to call the RCMP, would the police have ever been called? We suspect not, because if it was up to that incompetent minister. unwilling to be serious about the problem of conflict of interest, the Attorney-General would never have heard a thing about it. Fortunately the official opposition at least cares about the problem and is concerned enough to remove the solitary one or two rotten apples from the honest barrel of persons in local government.

The minister's neglect is a matter of public record in the case of Chilliwack. He knew and he did not act. He was advised and he did nothing. He heard the material and he chose to achieve precisely zero to protect the public interest of the people in Chilliwack. That the minister is an incompetent is a matter of public record. Look what he did when he was Minister of Human Resources. Today he admits....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, could I have your attention for a moment? Perhaps I just might cite the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice and read the following to all hon. members: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate." The Chair is asked to promptly interfere where "abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder" is used. The Chair is also asked to interfere when there is an "accusation of misrepresentation." Those are found on pages 458 and 459 of Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition. If all members would be reminded that parliamentary language is a courtesy and feature of this House, then debate might proceed smoothly.

MR. BARBER: Ordinarily I never raise my voice in this place, but today it makes me damned angry to realize that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been in the hands of someone who deliberately refused to act — that language is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman — when he was presented with a body of evidence that clearly persuaded the RCMP and the Attorney-General to act. I wonder why it wasn't enough to persuade him to act. If the RCMP and the Attorney-General found sufficient evidence to inquire, what more does it take to persuade the Minister of Municipal Affairs to do his sworn duty, which is to uphold the requirements of the Municipal Act and to diligently and aggressively inquire into any serious charge that the act has been breached?

What has he done? Well, he's currently looking through his notes to find a record of anything he did, in order to defend his indefensible position.

[ Page 3438 ]

The fact remains that he knew and we knew for months, prior to October of last year, what appeared to be going on in Chilliwack. We were aware of those allegations and their source, and we were aware of the apparent conflict of interest on the part of a then developer alderman, who is no longer an alderman, who seemed to be able to obtain from that township a series of decisions which appeared to be tremendously profitable for him and his developer pals.

I will not mention the fact that the alderman in question was the fiscal agent for the Social Credit MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). That would be unseemly. I will not observe to the House the connections between that alderman, those developers and the Social Credit MLA. If I did, the minister might ask me to withdraw.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, no. I give a guy credit for not being stupid enough to be connected with you.

MR. BARBER: You get that position, do you? You understand that point? Good. Why didn't you understand the rest of the points? The RCMP did. The Attorney-General did. But you did not, Mr. Minister.

Now let me continue. It's clearly established from this debate that the minister in fact ordered no investigation of any serious sort, did not support the request of the Attorney-General to call the RCMP, and presumably has done nothing whatever since to find out whether or not the public interest has been served in Chilliwack.

So let me ask another body of questions. This is to do with Langley. Perhaps the minister will change files.

At what point was the minister advised of the possibility of breaches of the Municipal Act on the part of certain persons involved in the administration of the city of Langley, not to be confused with the township of Langley? At what point was the minister made aware that allegations of a serious order, apparently substantiated by persons of serious reputation, had been made in order to favour a company called GL Construction, president George Levesque, in that particular municipality?

At what point was the minister made aware, and by whom and in what form, that the RCMP, once again to their credit, having also received the same information from the same apparently legitimate sources, were persuaded of their own initiative to call in the commercial crime section and to begin yet another investigation into apparently serious and apparently founded allegations of conflict of interest and apparent breaches of the Municipal Act? At what point was the minister advised that there was sufficient evidence to persuade the RCMP, once again, to enter into this particular situation, and to pursue a criminal investigation through the commercial crime section with a view to the possibility that the law had been breached? At what point was the minister advised, and by whom and in what form...?

Is the minister listening?

When did you learn that the RCMP, Mr. Minister — the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — had evidently received sufficient information to cause them to launch an inquiry and at the moment, in fact, to continue with that inquiry, into a number of very serious allegations made by persons concerned with good government in Langley, as I trust the minister is also concerned with good government in Langley?

At what point did he receive the published statement of a realtor whose licence and reputation is on the line by virtue of the charges he has made and the information he has obtained about peculiar dealings in the city of Langley — a realtor who has a great deal to lose by going public, but who nonetheless went public anyway with information which he may have been, at that time, uniquely privy to, and for which he felt sufficiently responsible that he would draw it to the attention of the government, the official opposition and — I'm informed — the RCMP? At what point did the minister receive that information, from whom did he receive it, in what form was it and what did he do with that information once he was made privy to the apparently serious and well-documented charges that have recently been made public and are currently the subject of an RCMP inquiry?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The first member for Victoria, in his debate in the last two days, has been striking at the very roots of the justice system of this country. Unfounded charges and counter-charges, without basis in fact, based on supposition and innuendo, prevail in this House. He is attacking government and municipal officials, all and sundry, which it is his right to do, but it shows very poor faith in the business climate of British Columbia. We have hundreds of thousands of land transactions here every year. Certainly one or two, a dozen, 17 or 100 may be suspect — not suspect in fact but suspect in imagination. A great many times when the facts are out they are not as they were supposed to be.

I am amazed that the member for Victoria plays so fast and loose with the names of public officials, crying very loud and long that there are 17 investigations going on by the RCMP at this time. That's supposed to be a big number. What is wrong with that number? If the RCMP thinks there is something wrong it is their duty to investigate, and as for the fact that there are 17, more power to the justice system of this province. They suspect; there's a possibility and they're going in there.

But where he strikes at the roots of the justice system is when he suggests that everyone should be charged immediately and carelessly. According to our system of law a person must be guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. I know the socialists would change that. I know that under a socialist system there's one boss; I know that's true. That is not the case among you socialists here. No, you believe in the democratic system that we have, but that is the road on which you embark. That is the socialist system. I'm not saying it's the system of your party; you haven't got that power yet nor can you have it under the British North America Act, but that is the socialist system. I do not declare you as part of that, but I say that is the system — one individual. Thank goodness that in our system of government, protected by our acts and laws, no one is found guilty unless they are judged guilty.

I could bring out today many scandals which would appear to be scandals on the part of the NDP, but I think they're better forgotten because I do not have facts to substantiate them. I read the press; I hear from people, but I don't bring these out like the member for Victoria. But I'm going to bring out something here that's substantiated with facts. I do so not with pleasure, but because I must. You'll say to me: "Why dig this all up? The NDP have not been in office now for four years." But I must do it; it's only a short time, and wrongdoing is wrongdoing, whether it was four years ago or today. I brought this up in the House before and I was amazed at the silence from that side. It died because no one took it up, but I bring it up again.

[ Page 3439 ]

MR. BARBER: Maybe that's because it wasn't real.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The hon. member may laugh. That's a great way to disarm a speaker — and snickering. But when he hears the substance of this charge let us not hear any more laughs and snickering. When I bring to you the fact that a certain adviser to the then Minister of Housing, Mr. Nicolson, an adviser who was vice-president of Community Builders, made a profit of $3 million on a piece of land at Pitt Meadows — $3 million, not $300,000 — would you think that is substantial? Would you consider that...?

MR. BARBER: Gordon Gibson knows that question.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Oh, it doesn't matter. You'll notice, Mr. Chairman, that again the socialist system can't do wrong. Let me tell you that Community Builders, the vice-president of which is Mr. Al Khoeli, adviser to Mr. Nicolson, Minister of Housing during the NDP government regime, owned property in Pitt Meadows — about 60 acres — in which they had invested less than $200,000. During 1974 Community Builders processed a development plan through council under a land-use contract even to the level of public hearing. Community Builders at that time had a binding contract with the provincial government. Listen to this now; I want you to hear this; this is important. Al Khoeli, vice-president of that company and adviser to Mr. Nicolson, had a binding agreement with the government that if he chose not to go ahead with it — after doing all this through the public hearing, through land-use contract — they had to buy the property from him. Now if that isn't a conflict of interest, tell me what it is.

HON. MR. FRASER: I didn't catch all that. Would you say all that over again?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I think I should, because it's important, because it's a flagrant conflict of interest. Here is a government that is so simon-pure, charging everybody loose and sundry, putting a cloud over almost every public official in British Columbia, putting a cloud over most municipalities on the lower mainland — that they were fast and loose in dealing with land. Of course, there must be some land transactions in which hundreds of thousands.... But that's where the police come in. But here we have a government, an NDP government, that is involved with land dealing, that said in effect to Mr. all Khoeli: "If you decide not to go ahead with this, don't worry, we'll buy it from you at a big, fat profit." Land they had invested less than $200,000 in they sold to the government not for $1 million, not for $2 million, but for $3.6 million — the adviser to Mr. Lorne Nicolson, the then Minister of Housing.

Is that a conflict of interest? No, of course not. That is a socialist non-conflict of interest. But I'm telling you, it’s regrettable that such things can take place. There were 60 acres involved. The government subsequently bought those 60 acres for that sum: $3.6 million. They cost Mr. Al Khoeli, adviser to Mr. Nicolson and vice-president of Community Builders, $200,000. Was there ever a charge laid? No, there was no charge laid.

I'll tell you more. I'll get the newspapers of the day. I could tell you about deals in Mission; I could deal you about deals in Coquitlam. But do I tell you? No, because they serve no purpose except to put a cloud over public officials in this country.

I'm telling you this, Mr. Chairman. That party should be ashamed, because I think we in British Columbia have the finest public officials anywhere in Canada, or for that matter in North America — the finest, honourable people. For them to cast a cloud — the second day of cloud-mongering — over officials of this department, over municipal councils, and to continue to do so, I think, is shameful. Is there nothing more constructive for the minister's estimates? Certainly, if you want to throw little clouds around, do it. But get it over with; don't continue day after day, hour after hour. Five times you've spoken on this subject: dark work, dark deeds in a dark corner in the back room.

I don't believe there is any such thing. But I believe that in a society such as ours, there is always something that can go wrong. Nothing is perfect, except that NDP; they think they're perfect. I don’t criticize them for what they think, but socialism has a peculiar taint to it: "Everybody else is wrong but us."

Mr. Chairman, listen to this. When any individual who is an adviser to the NDP government, any individual who is adviser to the Minister of Housing, can have a contract with that minister which says,"If I don't develop my land, you'll buy it from me, Mr. Minister," how can he lose? I can bring the contracts and table them on this table — long, well written, legal contracts — if you ask for it. Then tell me what you would answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think we should have them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I can get them and I will get them. If you want me to, I will.

But we must get this; this is important. When this man stands in his place — a man whom I would like to have respect for — and castigates and lambastes all public officials one after the other, sing-songs back and forth, starts over again, plays his violin up and down.... We have discovered something, we the puritans of British Columbia, we the ones that do no wrong. We know that we're right and we know that every public official.... We don't know which public officials are crooks, but we know most of them are." That's what he's saying. Now if he can say that in this House and get away with it, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it's an utter disgrace, and I've had enough of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe I heard a very unparliamentary term. Will the member withdraw it?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Tell me the word, Mr. Chairman; I just don't remember it. If anything I said was unparliamentary, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, is was a reference to another hon. member.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If anything I said was unparliamentary, I withdraw it immediately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM: But I'm telling you that it's hard to maintain one's cool under the attack that they have been making on this ministry and on the public officials of this province. It's hard to maintain one's cool, Mr. Chairman, and if I have said anything unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

[ Page 3440 ]

But I say again, it is an utter disgrace that an adviser to the minister can make a profit of $3 million by the turn of a hand, by an iron-bound contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the minister?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Nicolson, the Minister of Housing in the NDP government. It's the same one.

I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, I'll go over it again. Is it necessary to do so? I am tired of seeing our public officials lambasted. I'm calling on that member to stop that line of attack; I'm calling on him to get on to something constructive. There is lots in these estimates to be discussed. But this line of attack that everybody is crooked, that the public officials are not doing their duty, it's high time that was stopped.

It's disgusting that any member would stand in this House and make such attacks. Public officials have no way of replying; municipalities have no place on this floor. He wants more police investigations. He says there are 17 and there should be more. I am telling you that a sad day has befallen British Columbia. With the hundreds of thousands of land deals going on every year, there must be some mistakes done. The courts are there. Thank God for a justice system that does not allow the kind of thing he suggested. There is one thing the justice system does demand: that any individual that is charged is proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Would he have it any other way? Would he want the judge to listen to him and say: "Well, the first member for Victoria said you were a crook, sir, and I find you a crook and I hereby sentence you forthwith"? Is that the way you want the law? That is what he is saying. I say to you that that is wrong, Mr. Chairman.

He knows what is wrong. He knows all these things. He is a soothsayer with a crystal ball. Those are all the facts he's got. If there is anything wrong, I would tell the minister. The minister, I believe, would be the first to bring it to the light of day. But you can't bring anything to the light of day from innuendos and suspicion. You have to have hard facts. I have hard facts here. What do you want to say about that? That is what I call an unconscionable profit — $3 million on an investment of $200,000. Disgusting! That is not unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, but I stand in my place and say thank God we have a system of government such that although they've placed innuendos and placed a cloud over officials, the system of government demands that a person shall be proven guilty.

We just had it a while ago in a drug case where the government spent $14 million defending people who were obviously, but not obviously enough, crooks. It was defending them because they had no money — to prove their guilt or innocence. That is our system of government. They were charged, but we say they are guilty. Everyone that knows about it says: "Oh, they are guilty. Of course they are guilty. They are in the drug trade." But the justice system does not say that. It says: "You prove them guilty, Mr. RCMP. Prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt or we will turn them loose. We don't care what it costs you." That is the way it should be. The justice system is right. Fortunately we have a justice system that will stand against them, but we have no system that will remove the cloud from over the heads of our public officials.

The Hon. member has a way of laughing on a most serious matter. I am a little disgusted with him that he would do this on a charge of this nature. I am surprised that instead of looking at this matter seriously — and it is very serious — he would continue with the process that he obviously intends to do. I call on him in honour now to stop this stupid line of questioning and get on with the business of the House.

MR. BARBER: Is that the best the new Socred research office can do? Twelve million dollars to defend three defendants in a drug trial? Do you really believe that? Is that what your research office told you happened? I like you personally, but the quality of your research is abysmal.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Never mind the quality.

MR. BARBER: Never mind the quality?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor on vote 162.

MR. BARBER: Regardless of the inept remarks of the member for Dewdney, who does not understand the role of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the interpretation of the Municipal Act, the legal requirements of the inspector of municipalities to examine the possibilities that the Municipal Act has been breached, and regardless of all the other utterly incompetent and illogical and totally meandering, goofy comments from the esteemed member for Dewdney....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I find "inept," "goofy," and many other items quite unparliamentary.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw them all. Regardless of the immensely persuasive arguments of the member for Dewdney, the question still remains. What did the Minister of Municipal Affairs know and when did he learn it, in regard to the now published allegations — published as recently as June 4, 1980, in the Vancouver Sun — naming all these names, referring to all these documents and now, apparently, one of the reasons why the RCMP has been persuaded to investigate the seemingly serious allegations made about abuse of the law, about conflict of interest, about the possibility of malfeasance?

Let me say it for the fifth time. The New Democratic Party believes that persons in local government in British Columbia are, by and large, immensely honest, honourable, good and fair. It is therefore on behalf of all those honest people that we ask the minister and the party famous for Lettergate, thousand-dollar bills, Gracie's finger and all the rest of it to tell us how serious that administration has been in dealing with the seemingly legitimate interests and concerns of the Attorney-General, the RCMP, and realtors who put their names to telegrams, and thus risk their reputations if they should be proven wrong, because they are so persuaded that something has gone wrong in this particular municipality. None of these people would publish any of that material under their own names if they did not believe it was correct and worthy of investigation. No charge will ever be laid if it is proven to the satisfaction of the RCMP and the Crown attorney that there is no merit to it. If any member of this House wants to stake his seat on the outcome of charges that may or may not be laid in Chilliwack or Langley, let him do so. But in the meantime what we ask is whether or not this minister was advised prior to the start of the RCMP investiga-

[ Page 3441 ]

tion into these charges circulating around Langley. If so, when was he advised? What was the content of that advice? What did he do about it?

It is simply not good enough or responsible enough or, to say the least, competent enough to simply assume that the police will of their own accord always act in these instances. We tried to demonstrate yesterday that there are areas of conflict of interest that cannot be and are not being described in the Criminal Code. We tried to demonstrate also that the current provisions of the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act as well do not deal with that whole grey area of conflict of interest. We further tried to demonstrate that the provisions of the Municipal Act regarding conflict of interest are grossly inadequate to deal with the job. Having attempted to demonstrate those three things, we now ask the minister what he did when, I presume, he received the same information we received from the same sources who signed their names, who are realtors and business people in that community, and who publicly have gone on record as saying that this must be investigated, because by their standards and according to the tests and measures they've made of that information, something is wrong that may be a breach of the law, provincial or federal. That's what we're asking. When did he find it out? Who told him? What was he told? What action did he take to follow up these apparently legitimate inquiries? They were sufficiently legitimate that the RCMP have now seen fit to do their duty and are inquiring into the matter.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Frankly, when we're dealing with so many items in such an important budget in government, I can't understand that we have to continually spend all our time talking about the honesty or dishonesty or the allegations that have been made about locally elected people. Again I want to repeat this because I think it's important. I am even terribly disappointed in the critic for the opposition, that somehow he must follow this typically socialist attitude of: "You don't trust anybody." Frankly, I don't hold to that philosophy at all. I believe that people in local government are basically honest.

MR. BARBER: We agree. Now what did you do when you received the evidence?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not run away at every turn and call for the police to come down upon a council or on a member who serves on a municipal council. We're continually hearing from the socialists that somehow people are not honest, except they who are the holier-than-thou group. They think that because they are socialists they are honest. There are more non-socialists in British Columbia than there are socialists. Is he suggesting that they are not honest? I get fed up with this old socialist crap line that is continually thrown out here and everywhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the Chair finds that word unparliamentary. Will the member withdraw the word?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I withdraw the word.

Mr. Chairman, again we give the member some explanation of the process. Certainly as the Ministry of Municipal Affairs we regularly receive letters from people in the community or from members who are seeking municipal office that say: "I'm standing for municipal office because all those guys who are there now are perhaps not doing it as well as I might do it, or possibly they're doing something that isn't quite as honest as I feel it ought to be, although I have no evidence. It's just a feeling I have; that's why I stand for office." We get letters from these people saying that there's something wrong with this alderman or with the actions of a councillor in this particular instance, or ''There's a waterline going down a street, and we know that Charlie Smith's mother has a property on that street someplace. Should the waterline go by that property, it will benefit Charlie Smith's mother. And when Charlie Smith's mother passes away, Charlie will inherit the property, and therefore there's a conflict of interest. " We get this regularly, Mr. Member. We do get this sort of thing.

I could — and if I were a socialist I probably would — run off at every such letter and say: "RCMP, get in there and have an investigation. Clamp down on that bunch. There's something wrong. They're dishonest." If I were a socialist I'd probably have to have a police force a lot bigger than what we have now. I could do that: I could call for an investigation and I could call for the RCMP to come down following the receipt of every letter. Fortunately, Mr. Member, that is not the process in British Columbia, and heaven forbid it should ever be. We still live in a beautiful province. I guess the reason I run for office and why I'm standing here today is because I want to keep this province beautiful. I don't want ever to have my children or their children faced with the attitude that has been thrown at me for the last six hours by that socialist first member for Victoria. I don't want that sort of thing to prevail in beautiful British Columbia.

MR. LEA: I bet you don't.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, definitely not. That's why I'm standing here today, and I'll stand in this place again and again if it means that this way we keep this province sane, free and sensible.

Again, following up on the process, we do get these letters and very often we'll ask the inspector of municipalities to investigate the matter. The inspector has a lot of competent people within the ministry, and he will select two or three of these competent people. They in turn will go to that municipal council, interview the people involved with whatever allegations, speak to local people or whomever they should speak to, and gather all the bylaws, information, and minutes of the meetings. They'll have all of that material, and if following their review of the material it still appears as if it's little more than a whole lot of charges with no real substantive evidence of wrongdoing — perhaps a matter of judgment or possibly a matter of opinion, but no substantive indication of wrongdoing — then certainly they will report this to me.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If, on the other hand, an investigation by the RCMP is required, then any member in that community, or certainly the inspector, could bring it to the attention of the Attorney-General's ministry, which in turn could alert the RCMP and require that an investigation be made. Very often — fortunately, it hasn't happened too often, in our province — the RCMP could, even during the process of an investigation, decide that they wished to become involved themselves. That could cause a bit of an awkward situation for us in that

[ Page 3442 ]

particular instance, because, as was the case in Surrey when a former mayor was accused of wrongdoing and investigations had been called for, an investigation was commenced by my ministry, and while the investigation was in process it was discovered that the RCMP was also becoming involved and doing its own investigation, and it did so most effectively. But you cannot continue an effective RCMP investigation if suddenly some member in the opposition, a member in government or even a member of the ministry staff gets up and says: "We've had this investigation. Here's all the material." What does that really do to the people who might come forth and provide all the necessary material and evidence for the RCMP investigation?

The responsible thing for us to do, then, is simply to advise the Attorney-General's ministry and then, through our ministry, not do things that would make it more difficult for the RCMP to do the thorough job that we have come to expect from our respected RCMP force.

I think the RCMP can do a marvellous job. I'm very pleased if they're there to receive complaints and to follow through on them, and they do. I've very often seen the RCMP involved in situations where perhaps one might question why they are, but they will investigate if they're asked to do so.

In the case of Langley, we were advised very early on....

MR. BARBER: When?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very early on.

MR. BARBER: This year? Last year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very early on. Immediately after the matter was brought forth we were informed of it. Certainly I've had considerable correspondence from some community people. Mr. Parish, whose name was mentioned here, was certainly one of those, and we followed through forthwith. We did our job responsibly, as we'll continue to do it. Through a debate in the House, where we have all of the protections — where we can say anything we wish and never be taken to task, never be made to answer in a court of law.... I refuse to use this House, my position or anything else to somehow, in one way or another, place guilt — be it by association or simply innuendo — upon any member of that Langley city council. If the RCMP can find the necessary evidence which would allow it to go to a court of law, and if that member, a member, or whatever was then found guilty, I would ask that he be dealt with as the law should deal with such people. Until that evidence is there I have to assume that those people are innocent. I feel a little awkward right now that those people on that particular municipal council are somehow now.... For the record again, I apologize that somehow there's some shadow being placed upon these people, who are good community people, family people who've served on that council for a good while. I refuse to participate in that sort of innuendo, slur and slander.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver—Capilano asks leave for an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. REE: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Nip Harris from North Vancouver who are in the gallery this afternoon. They are visiting Victoria and the sunny weather. Would you please welcome them.

MS. BROWN: I, too, would like to ask the House for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, seated in our gallery this afternoon is a young graduate doctor from the University of British Columbia who is just visiting us, Dr. Perry. I wonder if the House would join with me in bidding him welcome and wishing him lots of good fortune as he sets out on the rocky road of medical practice.

MR. LORIMER: Unlike the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) — who I am sorry has left — I'm neither angry about this debate nor am I exercised by it. I want to assure the House of this before I proceed.

I want, first of all, to say how pleased I am to see some of my co-workers in the municipal field of the province in the back row there, and I want to wish them well. I realize that the chores in the municipal field are not up front, but in very arduous and very lengthy hours spent by those dedicated people who work in the department.

I'm sorry to see that the minister had no more luck than I did in dealing with Treasury Board and getting more staff. I am sorry the Premier is out because I would have put in a word for the minister. That is one area in which there has to be a great amount of expertise exercised, and a shortage of staff makes things much more difficult.

The approvals and so on of bylaws and what not may well have shortcuts that can be taken in that area. That might allow for less work for that particular department. I think some of that work is probably not necessary. Maybe that's one way of trying to cut down on staff.

I don't intend to deal with the conflict-of-interest questions. My colleague has done this very effectively, except for one or two things. The minister made some statements yesterday which I would like to correct. He said that the New Democratic Party government did nothing with reference to the conflict-of-interest problems facing this province. I would point out that the disclosure bill was passed during that period, although it didn't resolve the problems of conflict of interest, as we see today. It was a step to curb some of the problems.

There was also the White commission, which made certain recommendations. It's very true that no action was taken on the recommendations apart from the fact that a committee was struck within the department to look into the conflict-of-interest matters and to recommend legislation to add to the act to give the Minister of Municipal Affairs the ability to take remedial action. That area needs more strengthening.

The study was carried out, but the final reports were not returned before the election. However, I would say that it was very apparent to me and to the government that what was needed was legislative change, and very difficult legislative changes are required. I'm sure that if we had still been in power there would have been legislation dealing with conflict of interest years ago.

He made one other reference to the terrible section dealing with allowing municipalities to carry out commercial ventures and so on, and to incorporate corporations for this purpose.

In my opinion that was good legislation then and it is

[ Page 3443 ]

now. If there are abuses of this legislation then action should very well be taken. The abuses of this section, I would suggest, have been very few, and cases of abuse are well known. But there are many cities and municipalities throughout the province that are taking advantage of this bill. I would recommend to the minister — he's suggested that he's going to change this piece of legislation — that he not throw out the baby with the bath water. He can straighten it out — that's fine. I believe the legislation is still a valid piece of legislation and is very valuable to a great number of communities in this province.

The complaints on this legislation, by and large, are from the promoters who want to take advantage of the purchase of properties. The municipalities are now doing it in their own name and are able to obtain lands for their own purposes at a much more reasonable rate than going through developers. I suggest to the minister that that be looked at with caution.

I intend to spend a little time on the question of transit. I wish to discuss the government's dismal record and failure in this field. To do so it is necessary to give a thumb-nail sketch of the history of transit in this province. As most of us know who are old enough to know, the B.C. Electric Company operated the transit systems in the larger centres of this province. Other areas were looked after by either private carriers or the municipalities themselves.

During the heyday of the B.C. Electric operations there were some 700 vehicles in their fleets in this province. When you consider the population in the late forties, the transit system in this province and certainly in the cities of Victoria and Vancouver was as good or better than almost any community in North America.

In the 1950s it was felt by B.C. Electric, and later by B.C. Hydro in the sixties, that the rail systems and so on were no longer required. They weren't concerned at that time about the possible disruption of the oil supplies and the lack of need of the electric vehicle. The inter-urbans became solely freight lines. Some trolley buses were acquired and the rails of the city streets were removed.

It was not only in this province that transit declined. Transit declined throughout North America due to the fact that after the war there were more and more automobiles purchased and it was felt at that time that the need to carry on that height of a transit system was not required. That, of course, was a very expensive mistake.

The decline carried on during the sixties, up until the early seventies. The number of vehicles in the fleets in 1972 was between 300 and 350. As a result of the decline in transit, a number of the early and able planners in the transit field in B.C. Hydro departed from there to areas where transit was still alive. As a result, the expertise in the transit field in this province was not at a very high level. As a matter of fact, the person put in part of transit by B.C. Hydro was an expert in the gas field. He was in the gas division of B.C. Hydro and was moved over into the transit area, basically for the sole purpose of seeing that the system was reduced in services and costs. The decline carried on. The morale of the people there became very low. It was really only due to the hard work of the lower echelon of the transit systems and the drivers that the system remained quite good in comparison with other areas. The equipment was getting old but the buses were basically running on time and serving the cities of Vancouver and Victoria.

The equipment in the Hydro fleet was getting older, as was mentioned, and it was inadequate. The cleaning bays were inadequate and the service was reduced. The only thing that increased during that period was the fares. It was apparent to many, including the New Democratic Party government, that the only solution in the long term for the mass movement of people in an urban centre was by the use of the transit systems. As a result, the Bureau of Transit Services was established. The Bureau of Transit Services consisted of about 12 people, including everybody. That group looked after the marketing and planning in the whole province of British Columbia.

Now we look at what is there. We have the staff at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs looking into the planning and operation of transit. We have the Urban Transit Authority with a large staff looking into planning and marketing. We have the Capital Regional District and the Greater Vancouver Regional District, all with staff aimed at the transit area. I would give a rough guess that we probably have close to 100 people looking after the needs, development and planning of transit in this province. It is top-heavy with those who are trying to do a job in planning, but the Urban Transit Authority is faced with a government that is committed to the automobile, with little desire to spend money on transit. Bridges and freeways are much more the answer to the movement of people as far as this government is concerned.

During the three years of the New Democratic Party government the transit stocks were increased — they increased to around 800 vehicles — the SeaBus was developed, negotiations for a commuter train service from Haney to Vancouver were in progress with the CPR, and negotiations with Volvo of Sweden for the building of Volvo vehicles under licence in Vancouver were well underway. The Dominion Bridge property on Boundary was purchased for the purpose of the construction of these vehicles. Those were in the halcyon days of transit in this province. Since that time, anyone who uses a transit system knows that the decline has set in and transit has hit the skids. The catalogue of vehicles has been reduced by at least 100 in the last five years; old age has taken care of others. No dedication or commitment to transit is shown by this minister or his government.

In my opinion, the Urban Transit Authority was created as an agency to take the blame for the shortcomings and inactivity of this government. The minister, who often makes announcements — some true, some false, some fanciful — stated in February. I believe, that a number of vehicles were being ordered by the Urban Transit Authority. He said that for the first time in ten years trolley coaches were ordered. This, of course, was not true. Trolley coaches were bought, I think in 1974, and trolley coaches were on tender at the time of the election of 1975, but those tenders were cancelled by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs,

I understand that there was a possibility and probability that 56 vehicles would be purchased through the Urban Transit Authority. but my information is that no order has been placed. If I'm incorrect in my understanding, I hope the minister will table a copy of the order in this House. The announcements were made some four months ago and still no orders have been placed. The Urban Transit Authority, I understand, is looking into the possibility of purchasing 150 trolley vehicles. That's a very good move, and I hope it goes ahead. I'm also advised that this is a very iffy proposition. No orders have been placed as yet, and whether or not orders will be placed is somewhat doubtful. Maybe the minister could explain that. He's had a number of announcements about

[ Page 3444 ]

these things, but nothing at all has been produced. Even if the orders were made today there would be no vehicles on the street for two years. It would be 1982 before those vehicles were delivered.

This is a great history of accomplishment: five years of government and fewer buses on the street; buses sold, more buses being taken off the routes because of old age — a very, very sad situation in this province. The province was moving forward in transit, moving forward for three years at a rapid rate. It was the envy of all the cities in North America who came up to study the transit programs in Vancouver. People from Los Angeles, senators from California and others came to see what was going on in the transit field in this province. During that period of three years probably an average of 180 vehicles were purchased each year. Since that time, under the five years of Social Credit, many vehicles have been sold, and probably an average of 15 vehicles a year have been purchased; 15 vehicles as against 180. Not only have they not improved transit, but they have almost given it a death blow. It'll take any government considerable years just to catch up to the situation that existed in 1975-76. This minister and this administration do a lot of talking about a monorail and about light rapid transit, and while he is talking — if you will pardon the expression — transit is going down the tube.

There was a report made by the U.S. Department of Transportation, published in November 1976. It's called "Increase in Transit Ridership: the Experience of Seven Cities." This deals with the period from 1970 to 1975 inclusive. One of the cities chosen to be reported on because of its transit activity was Vancouver. The other cities were all in the United States. They evaluated their respective percentage increases in ridership on transit vehicles between 1971 and 1975. It showed that in Vancouver for those years there was an increase of 57 percent in the ridership of transit vehicles. That's a very high increase. The annual ridership in 1971 in the city of Vancouver was 87.6 million. In 1975 it was 137 million.

In answer to a question on the order paper, the minister was kind enough to give his reply dealing with ridership. Ridership in 1979 was 95,108,000, which is a decline of.... The number in 1976 was 96 million, as against the figures for 1975 in this report of 137 million. Whether or not these figures are based on the same criteria I'm not absolutely certain, because there seems to be a substantial decline there. But taking the figure as given by the minister for 1976, the number of passengers carried in the Greater Vancouver Regional District was 96 million, and in 1979 there were 95 million. That is a decline in those four years of a million passengers.

When you consider the rapid increase in population in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, these figures are self-evident as to what has happened in transit in the years since Social Credit became the government. So we haven't caught up to our passenger service as of 1976 — and in 1975 it was even greater. The reason for this is, of course, that service was cut and a rate increase was put into effect, which naturally reduced the ridership of the transit system.

The other area of transit that we deal with is the buses that operate on the ferry service. There are not enough MCIs to look after the movement of passengers who want to take the ferries from Vancouver to Nanaimo or Swartz Bay. As a result, it is necessary to hire private vehicles of one sort or another to carry the passengers on that service. The vehicles that could have looked after this service have been sold. A number of them have been sold to U.S. competitors, and to private companies who are now carrying out the service which should be carried out by Pacific Coach Lines.

A number of tourist services were sold by this minister's predecessor. Those tourist services should have been kept. It's the only area in the transit field that makes money and helps to finance the costs of an urban transit system.

Another area which should be looked at is the question of the express services. That's where the money is made for the company, rather than on the passengers. It would seem to me to be money well spent to advertise so that people know there is a first-class express service carried by these vehicles. Certainly the express isn't at full capacity and there's room there, in my opinion, to look into the advertising in order to help finance other services in the transit field.

I wanted to spend some time on the program that we had set up for the manufacturing, under licence, of the Volvo vehicle in the area of Boundary Road. The advantages of this project were twofold — or more. One of the advantages, of course, was the fact that it would create secondary industry and create a number of jobs for a number of people. One advantage of a bus manufacturing plant is the fact that a number of the component parts can be manufactured in other communities within the province. This would allow a regular payroll for the construction of these vehicles. As an example, it might be possible to manufacture the seats for the vehicles in Ashcroft. This would give Ashcroft a steady payroll for the community. This could be of great benefit in the smaller communities.

It wasn't suggested that there would be any great saving in price. However, there would be a vehicle here which would be able to produce buses and would know ahead of time to produce the buses in order to have a steady flow of buses coming in. In other words, it would avoid the two-year wait for deliveries and so on.

Also, Volvo was interested in having this plant produce vehicles for export to the United States. It would have been a plant that supplied the Volvo vehicles throughout North America. It was a great program and I was very sorry to see it cut out by this minister's predecessor. The property and buildings are still there and I would recommend to the minister that he reconsider the idea of manufacturing vehicles on site within British Columbia.

There are three recommendations I'd like to put forward to the minister. The first recommendation is the immediate start of a light rail system from Vancouver to Surrey using the Central Park system and the Pattullo Bridge. I think from the time of the start of the construction until it's open for service it could well be up to five years. I think it's time to start it now. It was time to start it five years ago, but it should be started now.

Consideration could well be given to the use of lanes from the area of Cedar Cottage to the area roughly on the Main Street alignment, to downtown Vancouver. Consideration should be given to the use of lanes and the blocking of streets at that lane intersection when the vehicles are passing through. I think it's the most economic way of constructing that particular line.

The second recommendation I make to the minister is that he should build up the bus and trolley fleets in order to create a proper grid system to feed the rail lines. It would probably require about 1,000 vehicles for this purpose, to have feeders to feed the rapid rail system.

The third matter that I would like to recommend at this

[ Page 3445 ]

time is the commencing of a commuter service on the CPR tracks from Vancouver to Haney and later to Mission. The federal government supplied vehicles for this purpose to both Toronto and Montreal and I'm sure they will supply vehicles free of charge to British Columbia as well. Negotiations were well on their way with the CPR in 1975 and they are quite prepared to cooperate with the government — or at least they were at that time — to proceed with this particular system. This system, of course, is the cheapest of all in getting people in to and out of Vancouver during rush periods. At that time they were prepared to put in two trains in the morning and two going the other direction in the afternoon. The number of vehicles that would be removed from the highways in that area would be very extreme, to say the least.

You'd find that if these proposals were carried out more bridges, freeways and roads in the urban centres of our province would not be required.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised section 19(4) of the Municipal Act with respect to municipalities getting into the business. I should point out to the member that back in 1976 we did, in fact, introduce a change which would require the approval of the inspector of municipalities before they could proceed with such a venture. So certainly that is an improvement, I grant you, and we're looking at it.

With respect to transit, I think we can be very proud of what is taking place — and certainly with respect to light rapid transit particularly. I think there are great things in store, and I'm very optimistic about the future and the very near future.

We certainly are aware, as I'm sure the hon. member with his experience in the ministry should also be aware, that you do not go out and buy X number of buses annually; it is a cyclical thing. I admit that certainly during 1974 and 1975 there were a large number of vehicles purchased, and again we've recently approved a similar large purchase of vehicles. In January of this year we approved the acquisition of 30-foot diesels — 6; 35-foot diesels — 16; 40-foot diesels — 34; and 40-foot trolleys — 220, for a total of 278 vehicles. I'm just advised now that the diesel buses will begin to be delivered this fall. So it's moving along very well, and I think we can be proud of the system.

In changing times such as we find now, where there is a greater demand or there is a greater appreciation developing for transit, it's hard to meet all of those expectations that are out there. I think we're all aware as well that especially in the last several years, because of the energy crunch, there has been a growing awareness of the need for transit in the fast urban-growth areas. We have opened up because we developed a very favourable financing formula for municipalities. There has been a tremendous acceptance of the program and we've taken on and provided transit to a very large number of smaller communities that previously didn't have this service at all.

We are very close to making some firm decisions with respect to light rapid transit in the two metropolitan areas. Of course, initially you must make a decision on the greater Vancouver area, where the pressure is greatest. I have arranged for meetings with the GVRD as they've requested. I'm meeting all of the time limits they've set forth and I think we can probably satisfy those regional and local people who get all of the pressure all of the time because they're very close to the source. They are people who perhaps only a few years ago gave little thought to a bus going by, even if it only had a couple of passengers, and are suddenly very conscious and want the buses on a regular basis whether they use them or not. You know, there is that expectation, and it's a growing expectation. I'm not saying it's wrong; I think it's good. I think we can move and should move very quickly in developing an A1 transit system, and we will.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I'm pleased to hear the minister announce that he is going to have delivery of the vehicles this fall and that there are others that are going to be ordered. As mentioned earlier, my advice has been that there have been no orders made up to this time. Maybe the minister could confirm this and table a copy of the orders that were made with reference to the buses that are to be delivered in the fall. I'm in complete agreement with the minister when he says that the costs in transit are quite extensive. They are very, very expensive. In considering the costs in transit, you must consider the costs of the alternatives. In my opinion, the cost of the alternatives far outweigh the costs of any transit system, not only the cost of the material in building highways and building bridges but the social cost of the destruction of neighbourhoods. These all end up as dollar bills in the long run and it also represents a number of social problems that a transit system may well avoid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 162 pass? On vote 162, the hon. first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: It won’t pass for some time yet, Mr. Chairman.

The government proposes to bring in a planning act which will have a significant impact on the ability, or lack of it, of local government — either regional or municipal — to do its business. When Ontario introduced a similar act some time ago, they did so in a very wise way. They introduced it initially as a White Paper. they circulated the White Paper to local government and to the general public; they circulated it to people in neighbourhood groups and people in developers' groups. For a year the White Paper, instituting a planning act, was given to the people of Ontario for their consideration. I wonder if the minister will accept the proposal from the official opposition that when the planning act is introduced this year, it will be introduced for first reading only, and may be debated for a significant period of time by all those persons concerned with local government around the province.

The minister may tell us that he has been consulting with UBCM, and we know he has. He may tell us as well that he's been consulting with developers, specifically HUDAC, and we know he has. We have been indirectly privy to some of that material. The minister may tell us that drafts have been circulated. We know; we have seen some of them. But the minister, I hope, will tell us most importantly that he is prepared, when the final draft comes down, to simply proceed to first reading only and to do what the government of Ontario so wisely did a few years ago and allow that bill to be seen, used and debated as a White Paper. Then it came back a year later and as the result of the consideration, reflection and criticism, was in its second-year form far more persuasive, apt and useful to local government and to this Legislature than it would have been had it all been pushed through in one

[ Page 3446 ]

sitting. We make that as a positive proposal to government, one made to the government of Ontario and accepted, to the credit of that government; the which White Paper formula was adopted to the considerable success of the bill itself. I ask the minister if he will accept this proposal from the official opposition here. If so, he will certainly have our unanimous support for that particular process.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly it has been our belief that we should provide the widest coverage to a piece of legislation that will affect all British Columbians. There have been a good number of requests already from regional and municipal people, on the basis of their also being involved in the process and having the opportunity of reviewing legislation. As I've written to them, I think their suggestion is worthy of consideration, and I appreciate that comment.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition would be happy to give credit where it is due, when the planning act comes down and the minister informs us that he proposes not to proceed with it at this session except in the form of a White Paper, and thereby tables a bill and proceeds to first reading only. That would give that commitment. We would welcome it and we would give you credit for it, because that would be a sensible way to proceed with this bill. We only regret that the government has declined to take the opposition into the process of drafting the bill. There is no reason why you couldn't. There is no reason why our critics couldn't be invited to your office to examine the drafts of the bill. There is no reason why the municipal affairs and housing committee of this Legislature could not also be invited to share with the government in the responsibility for the draft of it.

It is a bit of an insult that developers in HUDAC have more access to this government's legislative program than do members of the Legislature itself. It is a bit of an insult that developers in their own organization have more access to the legislative process in this bill than do properly elected and delegated persons who sit on the floor of this House. One of the ways to remedy that insult is to guarantee that the bill will be simply tabled this session and then studied in a worthwhile and intelligent way by all persons interested in the next year. Hoping, however, that that is what the minister has hinted.... Does he nod his head? He doesn't nod his head, he smiles. Maybe that is what it can be taken to mean. Then we look forward to that.

I would like to change the subject to the question of the Whistler resort act. I have the bylaws of the Whistler Resort Association. Unannounced, they were approved by the minister and by the current Premier on July 3 of this year. Unannounced, some curious features appear in the bylaws of the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act and in the Whistler Resort Association itself. I have a number of questions about them. I wonder if the minister has that material at hand.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. BARBER: Shall I wait until you get it? I can change the subject.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Proceed with it and we'll know what to get.

MR. BARBER: Well, it might be easier if you followed through with me, page by page. That would probably be the quickest way to do it. I have some queries about the bylaws, and if they're not at hand I am happy to change the subject for a minute while you go and get the bylaws. They were order-in-council 1450, approved July 3.

I want to talk about transit in my own riding for a minute. I want to join, as strongly as I can, with those in the Capital Regional District, with Mayor Tindall of Victoria, with former mayor Mike Young of Victoria, and with all the others, including most especially my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who ask and implore and insist that the E&N Railway be used as the heart of the first light-rail rapid transit system in greater Victoria.

Four years ago and again two years ago, I stood up and made the same proposal. None of us can claim authorship; it's been around for years. Nonetheless, the proposal remains simply this: leasing the right-of-way and the rolling equipment from the CPR, which is the parent owner of the E&N Railway, to create, initially in the western sector, a commuter service in the morning and evening here in greater Victoria. It is a very simple proposition which would see one or two park-and-ride locations in Sooke, Colwood, Langford and Metchosin so that commuters can drive their cars there, because they can't get there any other way. A park-and-ride connection with the E&N Railway would bring them as rapidly as possible into downtown Victoria to a new terminal which the city, as you know, is proposing for several different locations.

Currently the location of the terminal on Esquimalt Road is adequate for the purpose with — at the moment, that terminal still being where it is — a feeder bus taking people from the current E&N terminal, across the bridge, down Johnson Street and into the heart of town. That system of two or three trains in the morning would be matched, of course, by two or three trains in the evening that would return the commuters to the same park-and-ride locations in Colwood, Langford, Sooke and Metchosin. It is, fortunately, not necessary for us to build new track in order to exploit the rail potential of the Western Community in greater Victoria. My colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, Mr. Mitchell, has argued many times at the CRD and other places that it is a happy event that we don't need to spend another nickel to extend rail another foot in order to create here and use here the first LRT system in greater Victoria.

It's a tragic fact that up until 1926 we had operating railways on the Saanich Peninsula. In fact at one time, prior to the First World War, we had three operating railways taking commuters from Sidney, Brentwood and the present Lochside Drive area, well north of Mt. Douglas, into the heart of Victoria. Stupidly, people allowed those three railways to be abandoned. What would we give today to have even one of them available for light rapid transit on the Saanich Peninsula? We'd give millions to buy the right-of-way, and we would give millions more to build the rail, but we can't do either because, unfortunately, those options are now foreclosed. The rights-of-way no longer consistently exist on any of those stretches. The last right-of-way in any shape at all is the CNR right-of-way, and it basically exists at the moment only from the comer of McKenzie and Quadra, at the site of the old winery.

It might be useful to consider the possibility of an experimental LRT run — again, with park-and-ride — from Quadra and McKenzie to downtown. The problem with that, of course, is the way in which the CNR currently traverses the

[ Page 3447 ]

Gorge waterway, just north of British Columbia Forest Products, at Gorge and Jutland. So it may well be that for practical reasons it wouldn't be possible to pursue it except with a feeder bus, and the cost of that may be too much.

Nonetheless, today I ask the minister's opinion of the likelihood that we could see introduced as the skeleton of an LRT system in Victoria a morning-and-evening-only commuter system — to start it off rationally, prudently and cautiously, to test the market, to make sure that there are riders from the Colwood, Langford, Sooke and Metchosin district to greater Victoria. It seems to us that that's the cheapest possible way to do it.

Let me conclude by restating it. To accept this proposal means that you don't have to build another foot of rail — it already exists; it means the possibility of leasing track or running rights from the CPR, E&N and Via Rail — the current managers of the system; it means obtaining by lease — not necessarily by purchase; you don't have to waste all that money on buying new capital stock — running equipment for a morning and evening commuter service in and out. It does mean the assembly of land or the lease of land for park-and-ride purposes at the Western Community end; that's the only initial capital cost necessary. Clearly, without park-and-ride for the train service in the Western Community, it likely will not succeed. The concomitant bus service in the Western Community is so deficient at the moment, the distances so great and the operating losses so heavy, that to do it any other way likely could not be justified. However, park-and-ride, tieing people to the E&N system, seems to make a lot of sense, and it is well within the economic purview of a successful operation.

I would observe as well that per capita it may well prove far cheaper to institute rail service in greater Victoria than in greater Vancouver. Again, the reason is that, happily, we're able to exploit existing rail service and existing rail facilities in the Western Community. Unfortunately for the people of Vancouver, they're going to have to build a heck of a lot of it at, of course, enormous expense. That's not to say we don't support the expense; of course we do. We propose that some of the money come from the ludicrous Annacis Island fund, but that's a separate issue.

The particular proposal I make to the minister, and would welcome his opinion on, is the proposal made by many of us over a long period of time, Does he see merit in the possibility of using the E&N, with park-and-ride on a morning and evening commuter service to start it out, as the heart of LRT, at least in the western community of the Capital Regional District?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the interest which has been expressed by many people in Victoria with regard to the establishment of light rail and the opportunities that exist. We have the existing rights-of-way. I agree with the hon. member when he says that we're very fortunate in Victoria to have those rights-of-way available to us now. Certainly the ownership or the use of them is a matter of negotiation — some we're aware of but we don't foresee difficulty.

However, one of the problems is that in order for light rail to be reasonably competitive, you require a ridership of approximately 9,000 per hour. When you consider that the whole population of Colwood-Langford is approximately 30,000, including every man, woman and child, travelling or otherwise, then I think it's easy to understand that it would not, on the basis of numbers, be economic at this time. If however, economies aside, we found that there was considerable social or other benefit to the people now, we could proceed or certainly look to proceeding in any case.

Again, I think the member outlined it very well — there are now some problems in the system. In order for the people to use such a system, we would have to establish park-and-ride. Some people would have to take their cars — the type of development in the area is fairly sparse — from their homes to a park-and-ride or to the train, then travel to Esquimalt and take a bus from there to downtown Victoria, and from there walk or take a taxi to wherever they're going. So I don't believe even getting the people there in short order on that basis fits the picture right now. We've had meetings With all of those concerned in Victoria as well. regarding the establishment of an integrated transit centre. We realize there's a need to consider the future needs, and to assure that when we do see the establishment of a transit centre it will provide for light rail, buses and all else. I think that's about all the information I can provide you with right now.

MR. MUSSALLEM: With respect to light rail transit, it's imperative that the minister give consideration to utilizing the CPR system from Mission to Vancouver to institute and establish the viability of light rail transit for the lower mainland. There are many schemes being suggested and many ideas being put forth, but all of these require extensive money, millions of dollars on rights-of-way and systems to be provided to make them operational, whereas the CPR tracks are in place where they could not have been designed better for the purpose intended. Had we wished to go out and design a rail system to serve the lower mainland and the north side of the Fraser River it couldn't be in a better place.

Rather than experiment in various areas I think it's essential that the government know whether rapid light rail transit will work or not. I made a speech in this House a little while ago on the same subject, but I again appeal to the minister that he give immediate consideration to this very vital aspect and establish an experiment. It's been suggested by the first member for Victoria not to purchase, but to lease and try a system. Because sometime we've got to find out whether or not it will work. It's all very well to put up elaborate systems, but the people must use those systems.

The day is approaching rapidly when transit will be a very great part of our lives. We must know which works better — buses or rail. I don't thing there's any question that rail is the best system, because rail is economical. You can haul more people for the same cost, whereas every time a bus gets filled it has to be replaced with another bus driver and another bus. It's easy to add cars onto a rail system. The Fraser Valley is growing rapidly, and in the foreseeable future in the area from Mission to Vancouver we'll have a million people. This system would be ready for this project. Regardless of that, we know the fixed number of people, we know the number of people that commute, and we'll be able to find out in that way whether the light rail system will be utilized by the public or not. I appeal to the minister not to forget, but to take this as a priority and use these rail lines which are ideally suited for light rail transit between Mission and Vancouver.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday morning we had a meeting with representatives of all of those communi-

[ Page 3448 ]

ties in the Dewdney-Alouette Regional District and the Central Fraser Valley Regional District. When I say all representatives, actually there were representatives there on behalf of each of those regional districts. We had the mayor from Hope, a representative from Chilliwack and the mayor from Mission. The mayor from Maple Ridge unfortunately didn't make it; he had trouble with his car on the way. We also had representatives from Langley, city and district, to discuss transit for the valley. The whole question of light rail or the use of perhaps a commuter train, along the north side of the Fraser especially, was discussed. I've asked the people that were there to go back to their respective councils and regional districts to discuss it further and to bring back any suggestions, recommendations or questions regarding that to the ministry. I might mention to the hon. member for Dewdney that his name came up several times — honourably, of course. They're aware of your dedication and commitment to providing good transit in those areas.

MR. BARBER: And to providing good chocolates for the members of the opposition, George. That's a private joke, Mr. Chairman.

The government, I think, would be well advised not to simply look at the cost of leasing equipment or the cost of leasing rail, and compute on that basis the necessary ridership to justify, per head, all of those costs. There are social costs, and there are other forms of tax burden that have to be examined as well. The minister may not be aware of it, but the Department of National Defence runs its own rapid transit service from one side of Esquimalt harbour to the other. I'm aware of it because my father works there. He's been a tool-maker at the dockyard since 1946. I've seen and I've been on what's called the Blue Boat Service. That's the service that takes employees of the dockyard in the morning from the western side of Esquimalt Harbour to their shops and in the afternoon takes them back from the shops to the other side of the harbour. Why does the Department of National Defence do this through the system of small boats? They are painted blue, and it's called the "blue-boat system. " They do it simply because the highway system is grossly inadequate and they find it cheaper to run boats back and forth across Esquimalt Harbour than to justify the expense of using the highway system in the absence of a transit system. When the Department of National Defence finds it necessary to run its own transit system on the base because the public transit system through highways and buses is so inadequate, then you have to ask as well what the additional costs are. I don't know that it's good enough simply to say that in order to lease this equipment and that track for these purposes — morning and evening commuter runs on the E&N — it will cost, therefore, these dollars and you have to have 9,000 commuters to justify it.

The minister should also inquire into the cost of building and widening the Trans-Canada Highway from the Thetis Lake overpass down to Town and Country, for instance. There was a tremendous cost involved in widening the highway, and I must congratulate the minister. As a highway widening project it was done very well. It was done extremely well and the Minister of Highways deserves a lot of credit for that. Recently shrubbery and trees have been added, and it looks good. I congratulate the government for that. But if you've tried to take that road yourself at commuter hours in the morning and afternoon, you will discover what was predicted three years ago. As soon as those highways are built they fill up, and as soon as the bridges are built they fill up. That's how it works with automobile transit. It's well known to American engineers in this continent.

Similarly, apart from the blue-boat service and the widening of the Trans-Canada Highway, the only other road that exists and is used in any reasonable way is the Old Island Highway, which some people refer to as Esquimalt Road. Those are the only two commuter links by auto that are available to the people of the Western Community. The Old Island Highway, for reasons of geography and geology both, cannot be widened at many points. It would cost too much. You'd have to blast into mountainsides. It's just impossible, especially at the Colwood end. So in a lot of ways for a lot of reasons that road cannot be widened. The Trans-Canada has been widened at vast expense and still we have problems upon problems faced by commuters in the morning from the Western Community.

So when the minister calculates the cost per head and thereby has to justify or cannot justify the public investment in light rapid transit service from Esquimalt, he also surely, I would hope, would take into account all of the other social costs of doing what we continue to do, which is to use a highway system that has probably reached the point of no return.

I would say for the third and final time that if the Department of National Defence is reduced to running a rapid transit service on water for its own employees because the current on-land system is so inadequate, then maybe there's a further case which thereby can be made for significant investment in light rapid transit on rail. However, enough of that for the moment.

Has the minister got the Whistler bylaws at hand? On July 3 of this year, unannounced, these bylaws became law. There are a number of features of it which inspire questions. I refer to page 10 of the bylaws themselves, part 6(l)(b). This is in the section entitled "Votes of Members. " The minister will recall a major debate in this House two years ago about the Whistler Resort Association and the entitlement of persons and corporations to vote. section 6 (l) (b) reads: "Notwithstanding anything in these bylaws to the contrary, no member of the resort association shall be entitled to vote at a general or extraordinary general meeting if an assessment levied against him pursuant to these bylaws is in arrears."

I wonder if the minister might tell us precisely what that means. I take it that if an assessment levied against a commercial, retail or a hotel enterprise, as described in other parts of the bylaws, is in arrears, the man simply is not entitled to vote until he pays up. What I want to know is what "in arrears" means. Does the guy have a day, month, 90 days or what to pay, and if there is a dispute about the assessment, is he automatically disfranchised because of the dispute or is there a provision somewhere here — because I can't find it — that would allow him continuingly to be able to vote regardless of how long it takes to settle the question of arrears and a proper assessment? That's not spoken about in this set of bylaws, or if it is, I just couldn't find it. I read it two times and I read it as well in our research office. Could the minister tell us what "in arrears" means, what length of time is anticipated there, what grace period, if any, will be offered, and what procedure there is for settling a dispute about a just or unjust claim for payment? Because that doesn't appear in the bylaws.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, "arrears" means just exactly what it says. They have their annual meetings at which they determine how they might

[ Page 3449 ]

allocate their capital resources for their forthcoming program. Obviously if a person has not paid the dues which they have previously agreed at another annual meeting to pay, then they're in no position to participate now in allocating the funds for a future year when they have not paid their dues for the previous year. That is in fairness to the majority of the members of this organization. There is no set procedure. There is no definition for arrears, but it is common sense.

MR. BARBER: It may be common sense to the minister, because he knows what was in the mind of the legislative drafter. It is not necessarily common sense to us, because we haven't been told that. I take it from the minister's suggestion that a person has a year to pay up and they are only disentitled if....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It could be a year or it may not be a year.

MR. BARBER: But it is important to know, if there is a grace period, what it is. The minister has said, really quite clearly, that if they haven't paid over the previous year then they are not, at that annual general meeting, entitled to vote. Therefore there is a grace period of one year. Is that correct?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That is basically correct. Certainly they have their annual meetings, at which time these decisions are made. The dues are determined then. They have a vote on the amount of it and it is expected that payment be provided in the normal course of business procedures. Certainly one might say a year but it probably wouldn't be quite a year.

MR. BARBER: I gather there is a grace period, in effect, of a year.

Can the minister tell us now what procedure exists in the bylaws — I can't find it — for the amiable settlement of a dispute about a charge? For instance, I think of it in this way. There are some people at Whistler — according to the plans I have seen — who propose to build what would be conjointly a residential, retail and hotel facility. In the bylaws, the association here has the power to institute three separate assessments for those three separate purposes. That presumes three discrete functions on the part of the entrepreneur. However, it may be that a given building might incorporate all three functions. It may therefore be that there will be a dispute about a legitimate assessment. I cannot find in these bylaws any case made which allows for the possibility, which is real and apparent, that someone may build a building that doesn't fit in the current assessment base of the Whistler Resort Association. If that is the case — there are all sorts of wonderful buildings that can be built that have several different purposes and not just the single purposes described in the bylaws — what procedure is there for the amiable and fair settlement of a dispute about the assessment level? I can't find it in the bylaws.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Because the procedure is not specifically in the bylaws, as the member properly points out, it is a question of negotiation at the meeting and if certainly then there is a dispute.... It must be remembered again that these are people joined together in a community. It is not likely that a majority of them would willingly or knowingly or wantingly impose an unfair burden on any one of their number. However, as again the member points out, it could conceivably occur, especially in an area where one might have to determine as to whether that belongs with commercial or residential or whatever. In such cases it would have to be a matter of common law and such a dispute would be settled by the courts.

MR. BARBER: I don't find in the bylaws any specific reference to any court, but I presume what the minister is saying is that if the association is not able by its own authority to settle disputes, then they presumably will not be impeded by these bylaws in referring the dispute to the courts. Is that correct? The minister says that is correct.

I hope, as well. that there are not unnecessary disputes about the assessments. but in any new field of enterprise like Whistler, where all sorts of people come into the field, some of whom may never have been in the business before and are naive, it may well be that there will be disputes. I hope they don't end up in the courts, but it may be as well that additional bylaws could help remedy that situation by providing pre-court options for the settlement of disputes. For instance, I would suggest that it might be possible that the bylaws could include a provision for an impartial referee and one advocate from each side, sitting as a three-person tribunal to examine and recommend these disputes to the whole of the association. It may be that some system like that would save a heck of a lot of money in court costs, a heck of an unnecessary burden on the court system, and indeed come up with a decision at least equally fair.

I want to talk as well about section 6(4), which appears on page 11. This is a curious section. You don't often see it in the bylaws of societies and I'm not quite certain why it's in. It reads:

"A member of unsound mind entitled to attend and vote, in respect of whom an order has made by any court having jurisdiction, may vote, whether on a show of hands or on a poll by his committee, curator bonis or other person in the nature of a committee or curator bonis appointed by that court, and any such committee, curator bonis or other person may appoint a proxy holder."

I wonder if the minister can tell us why this section is necessary. The Mental Health Act in fact — at least I thought so — makes all necessary reference to this question of an incompetent person still being able to have exercised for her or him voting and other rights. I wonder if the minister could tell us why it is particularly necessary here. Is there some problem with the air at Whistler that people presume something is going to happen to them? I haven't seen this previously in any comparable legislation. The Mental Health Act already provides for these things. I wonder why it is necessary to provide for it here as well. I think the section is simply redundant.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I must agree with the member that perhaps this section is not completely necessary, although it's not unusual to find this in the bylaws of an association or society. It's not committee, it's comité. It's the appointee of the court, and it's comité.

MR. BARBER: The word I have here is "committee." Perhaps I have an erroneous copy, but it's the one your own Mr. Whelen sent to me. I presume it's correct. I think Mr. Whelen simply gave me a Xerox of the actual orders.

[ Page 3450 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Okay, it's not. I'll correct it myself. I hope that doesn't change the lawful standing of the word.

Let me refer now, if I may, to page 14. This falls within section 7, entitled "Directors." The structure of the Whistler Resort Association, as we find it in the bylaws, allows the Whistler land company to appoint one director; it allows the Whistler operator, which is the operator of the principal ski facility at Whistler, to appoint one director; and it allows the Blackcomb operator to appoint one director.

There is a curious provision here which I don't understand. I don't necessarily object to it; it's just that I wonder how it was arrived at. As far as I can tell, the figure 10 percent in regard to assessments levied against it for two consecutive years has been established as the minimum requirement below which, if the assessment should fall, the companies in question would lose their entitlement to a director's position. I wonder if the minister could tell us why that particular structure was chosen? If it is the case that the government chooses to allow the land company.... The land company is wholly owned by the municipality of Whistler and is therefore a public enterprise and, I'm sure, a commendable one. Let's hear it for civic socialism.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Oh, the minister doesn't agree. Well, he's done it anyway. Whether or not he agrees with it, civic socialism has succeeded in Whistler.

If it's also the intention of the government to allow the private operators at Whistler and Blackcomb who run the ski facilities to have one director's position, why, then, should that principle be varied on the basis of falling below the apparent floor of a 10 percent assessment in two consecutive years? I don't understand why that notion has been introduced, because it appears quite inconsistent with the other principle introduced elsewhere in the bylaws. That's what I'm asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 162 pass?

MR. BARBER: Not so quick, Mr. Chairman. The minister clearly is in consultation and should be given a moment. I'm sure Don has the answer; I'd like the answer too.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The answer is yes. Yes to what?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The intent in the drafting of these bylaws, of course, was to provide fair representation to all of the people involved in the whole of the Whistler community. The three developers mentioned here are obviously large developers who have a considerable investment at stake in the success of that community and who obviously are substantial contributors towards the success of that community. For that reason they have each been given the opportunity for representation. That strengthens the community; it strengthens the board and it gives them a fair voice according to the investment they've made in the Whistler community. However, if their investment drops below 10 percent — and I suppose that's a bit of an arbitrary figure; it could similarly have been 5 or 15 — they should not then have this standing which gives them the directorship that they've been granted otherwise. In other words, they would be at that time no different than each of those who are represented on the board.

MR. BARBER: The minister uses the word "investment." Is he referring to the capital investment of the developers? Is that the investment the minister is referring to?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's the amount of assessment or their dues based on that assessment.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. The minister didn't use the word "assessment" once; he used the word "investment." Now the assessment is not related at all to the capital investment of the three corporations. It's a totally separate issue. So that's why I still don't quite understand the minister's answer. I appreciate that he was inadvertently using the wrong word, and he meant to say "assessment" instead of "investment" — fair enough. The word "assessment" here relates, does it not, to the decision taken either quarterly or annually by the members of the Whistler Resort Association as to who shall pay for what under the terms of the functions outlined in the bylaws?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's correct.

MR. BARBER: The minister says that's correct. Chiefly, that includes international advertising, arrangements for accommodation on a joint basis, and joint billing so that people can in effect have a credit card when they enter Whistler Village, and can charge to their hotel room expenses for the ski lift and for buying toques, drinks, and all the rest of it. They do that sort of thing, for instance, through the Ralston Purina Co. at Keystone, Colorado, and they do it very successfully. They have one billing system, and they operate the system jointly. It's all owned by one developer, but nonetheless all the shops in the village have one billing system, and it makes perfectly good sense. I don't dispute any of that.

What I'm inquiring about, though, is why the principle that these corporations should be represented on the board is tied to the separate principle of assessments. I agree the 10 percent figure is arbitrary. It could be 8 or 12 or anything; I'm not questioning that. But why is it related to assessments at all? I don't understand that. You set one structure for one purpose and then you introduce a completely unrelated principle in regard to assessments. I don't see the connection between the two.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know how to make this any clearer, really. Because of their larger assessment they have this representation on the board. It's as simple as that.

MR. BARBER: The minister, knowing his own rationale, may find that easy to follow, but frankly I don't. It seems to me they are two separate questions and should be dealt with in a separate way.

The board of the Whistler Resort Association will comprise seven persons: four elected at large and three appointed. The three appointed are one each from the Whistler operator, the Blackcomb operator, and the Whistler Land Co. The new structure of seven persons will operate on that basis.

[ Page 3451 ]

I refer to page 15, 7(4)(a) which names the initial directors of the resort association other than those who are appointed by Whistler Land, Whistler operator, and Blackcomb operator. I don't know if there's simply an error here, or if the government has another intention in mind, but in a seven-person system where you've allowed three others each to appoint one delegate, you have named instead only three people yourself. Now that appears to leave a vacancy of a fourth position. Is this an error, or do you intend at a later date to fill the position? If so, could you tell us when that will be done? Otherwise, we end up with, inadvertently it would appear, a six-member board rather than a seven-member board, which is contrary to the expressed aims of your own bylaws. As well as querying you about that, could you inform us who Russell J. Shepard, R.H. Drew Meredith, and Peter J. Gregory are, and what their qualifications are to hold these appointments?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not sure just whether I get the member. Perhaps he could give an explanation. There are seven members: four elected at large plus three. There are three listed here, four to elect, and that makes seven.

MR. BARBER: No, the minister misunderstood. There are three appointed directors in the sense that they are automatically on the board because they represent either the Whistler operator, the Blackcomb operator or Whistler land development company. Okay, there are three there. Now that leaves four to be selected by the meeting. You have chosen to start the operations of the association by appointing the non-Whistler operator, non-Blackcomb operator and non–Whistler land company directors. Presumably each of them — there are three — will appoint their director. That's three. You have here appointed three. That's six. That leaves one vacancy. The vacancy occurs in your ranks and not in theirs. It occurs on the list that you may appoint and not that they may appoint. What I am asking is whether it is the government's intention to leave that position vacant and to run a seven-man board with only six. Do you intend to fill it at a later date, and if so, with whom? Or was it an inadvertent error, and you intend shortly to correct it? Because you've only appointed three where you have the power to appoint four.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: These three will act until the first annual meeting, at which time there will be four elected.

MR. BARBER: That's fair enough. Who are Shepard, Meredith and Gregory, and what are their qualifications to hold these appointed offices?

I'm just asking what the qualifications are of these three people. I don't recognize them as aldermen at Whistler....

AN HON. MEMBER: Non-socialists.

MR. BARBER: Well, that may be one welcome qualification; I don't know. Maybe they're non-Irish, as well — even more welcome, perhaps, to some. But that's hardly the point. What I'm asking is their real qualifications; not what are they not, but what are they, period? What are the qualifications of Shepard, Meredith and Gregory to hold these jobs? They're important jobs; they're necessary jobs. They are jobs that require some skill, some experience and some background. What are their qualifications? Who are they? I don't recognize any of their names from any of the material that I've seen so far.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased with the comments just made by the hon. member. He doesn 't recognize them and I don't recognize them. That obviously means that we can definitely say they are not political appointees in any way, shape or form. These are the names that were brought forth by Whistler and I don't intend to investigate. I trust that Whistler certainly....

MR. BARBER: Whistler council?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Whistler council.

MR. BARBER: I take it they have been recommended by the Whistler council and were not in an), fashion looked into by the minister. That's an interesting way to appoint people.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Why not simply give them the power to appoint, period? It's curious. However, we will shortly find out who they are.

On page 16, subsection (d), again a figure appears which I can't find a rational basis for. If it is simply arbitrary, so be it. Fourteen percent is the figure. It says, in advance of its appearance:

"Notwithstanding anything in this bylaw, 7.4 to the contrary, if those members of the resort association who each own a residential resort lot are together assessed in respect of their residential resort lots pursuant to these bylaws a sum equal to 14 percent or more of the total function costs as that term is defined in bylaw 20.1(a), they shall be entitled at each and every annual general meeting thereafter to elect one director, and the number of at-large directors to be elected at such annual general meeting shall be reduced by one provided...."

What is the point of this? As far as I can tell, as assessment increase in one field — in this case residential resort — they will be reflected in an increased number of directors who may represent those persons. That will be further reflected in a decreased number of at-large directors. Is that the principle here? It is a somewhat unusual principle. I don't necessarily object to it, but I would like to understand it.

If that is the principle, why is it restricted to, say. residential resort lots? Why, for instance, are the interests of the lodging owners or the commercial owners not represented in the same way? Or why, if those other interests should also be represented, should you not simply increase the total number of directors in order that they can each have their say according to their total numbers in the community? When the province of British Columbia grows, so does the total number of members of this Legislature. We don't simply keep on reducing the number of MLAs to the original 12 or whatever it was in 1868. Accordingly, it's a curious principle that the government appears here to be tying assessments to representativeness, and the number of representatives, in this case, to a 14 percent or more figure.

[ Page 3452 ]

I wonder if the minister could tell us where the 14 percent figure came from, what, if anything, it represents other than an arbitrary choice, and what principle it is here that the government is trying to enunciate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly the purpose here in part is to assure that not too great a burden falls on the residential community, and instead to ascertain that there is a fair contribution by the commercial community.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to introduce guests?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have visiting us today a number of people from the village of Lillooet. They are Mayor Arnold Malm, Aldermen Mac Godo, Baker and Sanghera, and clerk-administrator Stuart Stern. I ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I join in the welcome of the Minister of Forests to the people from that council. As well, I am happy to see a couple of them here today with whom I've had a chance to meet before privately. As Municipal Affairs critic, I very much appreciate their advice, direction and criticism. I'm glad they're here.

The minister has just enunciated a principle that seems to me unnecessarily complicated. If what the minister says is that he wishes to protect the financial interests of the residential lot owners at Whistler, I don't understand why such a tremendously complicated procedure has to be in place. You are tying assessments to the number of directors and when you increase one number of directors you decrease it from another portfolio. It seems to me that whenever you try to reduce the ability of any interest group to be represented in any issue, you create conflict. I don't understand why the potential conflict that will be created here, if you take away directors from the commercial operators or the lodging operators, should be invited. I don't understand why it is necessary to create and welcome that conflict. They will raise, to say the least, bloody murder if they feel they are losing directors from the board of the Whistler Resort Association.

If in fact what you want to do is not necessarily or capriciously adjust the voting balance among the directors, but you want to protect the financial interests of the residential lot owners, that's fair. I don't argue with that. I don't challenge that. I don't criticize that. But I would point out to you that the way you are proposing to do it is very complicated. You could do it quite simply and differently as follows. You could simply name the maximum assessment level that may be levied against any residential lot owner.

You could make it one of the terms of the bylaw and terms of the agreement for membership in Whistler Resort, and if — as almost a constitutional matter — the resort association some years down the road chose to vary that, then you could require that they apply to cabinet for permission to do so. Thereby you are ignoring all the potential conflict over representativeness and numbers of directors on the board and simultaneously protecting the financial position of the residential lot owners. In effect you are making it one of the articles of the constitution, which may not be varied except under special circumstances, in this case an appeal to cabinet.

I make that as yet another positive proposal from the official opposition. Wouldn't that be an easier way to do what you want to do and wouldn't that avoid a lot of the clear potential for conflict here? If the government wants to protect the financial interests of the residential lot owner, we agree. We would just point out that there is a heck of lot simpler method of doing that than the tremendously complicated provisions of section 7(4)(d) — the roughly 15 lines of it — and all the other provisions that appear elsewhere in the bylaws to make up for the matter. I wonder if the minister might not consider that as a positive proposal as a means of guaranteeing respect for the financial interests and investment of the residential lot owners. I think it is a lot easier way to do what you say you want to do. Would you consider that as an alternative means?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't doubt that there might be an easier way. Certainly when I initially received these bylaws from the resort municipality of Whistler I too found that they were rather comprehensive and possibly somewhat complicated in areas, but they have had good legal advice on these. This was their way of developing what they deemed to be a fair approach to providing the type of administration they wanted for their community. Hopefully they will get a copy of the debate that has taken place here with respect to the bylaws. If, following that, they feel that there might be a way of simplifying what has been done here, then I am sure they would take that advice, although I would caution too, of course, that sometimes we want the legal people to find a simple way whereas other times the simple way gets them into all sorts of trouble. I am just hoping that they have had good legal advice on this, and I feel quite confident that they did.

MR. BARBER: I hope they had good legal advice too, but lawyers sometimes err. Everyone remembers Seaboard Insurance, for instance. Lawyers sometimes make spectacular mistakes, with all respect, Don. It just strikes me that this is a lawyer's dream of unnecessary and pointless complication which could be settled by we lay people in a far simpler and precise way.

Page 17, (e). "The resort association may, by special resolution, remove any director — other than a director appointed by Whistler land, the Blackcomb operator or the Whistler operator — before the expiration of the period of his office and may, by an ordinary resolution, appoint another person in his stead."

Ordinarily when these provisions to remove someone from office appear there has to be some statement of cause. The term "for cause" doesn't even appear in here, nor can I find anywhere else in the bylaws the conditions which would have to be met or breached — depending on how you look at it — that could justify the removal by special resolution of a director of the resort association. Clearly there is another possibility for contention here. Clearly this is suggestive of the likelihood that someone may, in some way or another, so misbehave that they're not entitled to sit any longer. Later on in the 38 pages of these bylaws it does include a provision for disclosure, which is a good thing. It is not tough enough, but we will get to that in a minute. Nonetheless, there is some mention made elsewhere in the bylaws about the requirements of Whistler directors to be upfront about their own investments. However, nowhere here do we see, in this section (e), any statement of "for cause" and no requirement

[ Page 3453 ]

to show or demonstrate, with cause, why a person should be removed. I wonder if the minister could tell us what those causes might be, if any, and why there is no mention whatever of them here in this section. Leaving it simply blank like this leaves it open to arbitrary, capricious and sometimes simply personal motives. I think there should be a statement of cause here and of course I do relate it to the debate we have had for the last two days on conflict of interest. If that is one of the causes, then in our judgment it should be named as a cause. At the moment nothing is named here and I have to point out the obvious as well.

The minister has said that because of the possibility that these bylaws might be disputed and because there is no referee mechanism for pre-court settlement of the dispute, then it is possible that some of these disputes will go to court. It seems to be most likely that one of the disputes that would certainly go to court was an attempt by the board to remove one of its own directors from office when the board cannot refer in its own bylaws to a section on cause for removal. I think you are unnecessarily handicapping and restricting the perhaps welcome ability of the board to remove one of its own members by not giving them any definition of cause. Because there is no definition of cause you will remove from their legal defence in court the ability to explain why it was they did what they did, because you will deny to the Whistler Resort Association any reference in law to a justification in law by show of cause for removal from office. I think you may, by omission of that, be significantly handicapping their ability to defend their decision in court if it should go to court in the first place. Could you explain why there is no such reference here?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the member knows, it takes three-quarters of the directors to pass such a resolution. But again, I'm sure that the association, for good reasons, sought precedence in the B.C. statutes. In referring to the Societies Act, they found section 31, which similarly states that a director may be removed from office by special resolution and another director may be elected, or by ordinary resolution appointed, to serve during the balance of the term. Once more there's no reference to cause in the Societies Act. I'm sure they, for good reason, used this as a basis.

MR. BARBER: The problem with that explanation is that when you look at the order-in-council itself you find that the Whistler Resort Association has been specifically exempted from section 31 of the Societies Act. In other parts of that act there are — I work from memory — references to cause. I don't have the act at hand, but working from memory, alone my clear recollection is that there are other statements of cause and probable cause for removal in the Societies Act. In any case, they are specifically exempt from section 31 of the Societies Act.

Let me go on to a couple of other things, and then I want to change the topic.

Part 9 is the section which requires the disclosure of interest on the part of a director of the Whistler Resort Association. There are some interesting new provisions here, and even though they're not tough enough, we welcome them. I would simply observe to the minister that if these new and tougher standards are good enough for the Whistler Resort Association, they are surely good enough for every municipality in the province. If these new tough standards in part 9 — at page 19 in your copy — require them to declare their interest, and list in line 2 any numbers of ways in which a person may be qualified or disqualified from holding office, I wonder why it is that the same principle cannot or should not be applied to municipal governments in the province. Page 19 includes by far the most comprehensive statement yet on conflict of interest — one that we would welcome even though it's not yet tough enough. Nonetheless. It's there and better than nothing.

Let me refer to part 12, page 23. section 12 (2). The fourth line says: "The other officers need not be directors." I wonder why this principle is at hand here. In most societies, automatically, officers are composed of directors who have been chosen by the members in advance. Here, however, the officers named are president, secretary, chairman of the board and managing director, of which only the president or the managing director need be a director. The secretary here may not necessarily be a director. Does the minister envisage that the secretary will be simply a paid position which will not have voting rights on the board? There's no reference here to that. Or is it intended that other persons, who need not be elected in the first place, also have some function as officers of the society? If so, there is no statement of the intent, and there is no clear evidence of the meaning. Sections 12 (1) and (2) do not answer those questions. Why is it necessary that the other officers need not be directors, for instance? Surely it's a level of implicit accountability — that they have to be appointed by a responsible body or elected at an annual meeting. If they don't have to be appointed or elected in an accountable way, perhaps the case could be made that they shouldn't be officers at all. It seems to me they're more accountable to the extent that they are more directly required to report to the people who chose them.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, it says here the officers need not be directors.

I've a few more questions. Part 19 describes the assessments payable by the Blackcomb operator on Whistler land. It requires that the Whistler operator and the Blackcomb operator shall pay the lesser of $100,000 or $25,000 plus the product of 25 cents and the greater of the number of day-skier visits at Whistler or at Blackcomb. Basically this is an assessment of 25 cents a head on each of the day skiers at Whistler or Blackcomb, on top of which is $25,000. If that comes to less than $100,000, that's what they pay. If it comes to more than $100,000, they only pay $100,000. Is that the principle here? I believe we read it correctly. I wonder if the minister could inform us on what basis those figures were calculated, and what estimate has been made for the first year's operating at cost of the Whistler Resort Association. Is it going to be $300.000 in the first year — $100,000 from Whistler, $100,000 from Blackcomb, another $100.000 or $150,000 from the land company itself? What projections have been made for these costs, and what reflection do we find in them, in this assessment base of $100,000 each from the Blackcomb and the Whistler operators?

Further, in the first fiscal year the Whistler land company is required to pay $250,000: in 1981 they are required to pay $200,000; in 1982 they are required to pay $150,000. I wonder if the minister might also tell us on what basis this figure was calculated. Does it reflect the likely operating expenses of the Whistler Resort Association? In the instance of the first year, in which it is a quarter of a million dollars,

[ Page 3454 ]

does it in fact reflect the ability of the Whistler land company to pay? Where do they get that money? It's a considerable sum; it's certainly more than the private operators are expected to pay. I wonder if the minister could tell us what those figures represent and reflect.

I would ask the same questions in regard to the figures that appear on page 34, which makes mention of the sums of $55,000 and $70,000. Could he tell us what those figures represent and, again, why it was necessary to put them into bylaws at this stage? Would it not perhaps have been just as useful to put them into a contractual agreement among the three operators, if that was their commitment each to the other in the first year of operation? If it's in the bylaws now, it may well mean that it has to be changed later. That seems like a curious procedure. Perhaps there's another and simpler way via contract.

Those are the final questions I have in regard to the Whistler Resort Association. Then I have some questions on a number of other topics.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I refer the member to page 2 of Bill 34, Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979, where there's a section covering oppressive acts; that, I think, provides for an earlier question with respect to the for-cause matters he raised.

The figures he has referred to were requested of us by the resort municipality of Whistler; we accepted those figures. We do not approve the budgets for the resort association. Those figures were requested of us and did not appear unreasonable; we have approved them on that basis.

The officers need not be directors; I think that is very democratic I think it gives others an opportunity to become officers of the association — those who are not necessarily directors. It widens their scope. I think that's all I can say there.

MRS. DAILLY: I have two quick little questions for the minister. It is a change of subject; it has to do with the property tax notices which went out at the usual time to all property owners in this province. Everyone, of course, agreed it was a considerable shock as usual. I wasn't shocked just at the fact that the taxes had gone up, which we have perhaps come to expect, but because for the first time in the history of this province, since property tax notices have gone out, we find that they have been used by the Social Credit government for straight political purposes.

I'm referring to the fact that in our notices, which were received by everyone who owns property in the province, was a statement which I know the minister is well aware of. I'm going to paraphrase it. The statement referred to the fact that the taxes were at the level they were at, in whatever municipality or city referred to, because of the greatness of the provincial government — those were not the words used, but it was the implication — in giving so many grants to the municipalities; that it was only because of the provincial government that those taxes were kept down at a certain level.

My two questions to the minister are these. Did you order that, Mr. Minister? If you, your Premier or your cabinet did, how can you, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, possibly allow straight political propaganda to go out on the tax sheets of this province?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) says: "Shame!" He thinks this is really a ridiculous statement, I suppose. But I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it was; I don't think there was anything ridiculous about it. I think it was straight political propaganda. Never before have those sheets been used for this.

Will you tell us whether you ordered it? Would you tell us whether the municipalities were ordered to put this on? In what form was this information given to them? I would like to know also how you can possibly rationalize your role as Minister of Municipal Affairs, whose duty is to uphold the autonomy of local districts, with your being part of a government that literally orders, in one form or another, a municipality to state a straight political message on the assessment sheet.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd be very pleased to answer that, Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps all people in government are a little bit guilty sometimes of not bringing forth as much news as they should until the news is very good. I'll admit that, and I certainly think, perhaps in fairness, it should be said that it wasn't until fairly recently, because of our new revenue-sharing program, that we had news as good as we are able to put forth now. So it's a little easier to bring forth good news — I'll grant you that, I'll admit to it, and I have no shame in this. I'm very proud of the fact that we have revenue-sharing in British Columbia — and I'm not proud only as a member of this government; I'm proud as a British Columbian that we've enjoyed such prosperity and progress that we've been able to do this.

Yes, I did order the statement, and that's to follow a further belief that I firmly hold. I think all people everywhere in British Columbia have a right to know what local government is doing with their taxes, and I think they can only know this when they know fully.... I'm very pleased with the sort of nodding of the head that I'm getting from the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) ; he agrees that people can do this only when they know where all of their revenue is derived from, where they're getting it from, how it's coming to them. Revenue-sharing is a program that, according to the formula, can increase or decrease — naturally depending on the prosperity of the province as well. If, in fact, the percentage for the municipality of Burnaby, which might have been 24, 28 or 30 percent, varies next year up or down, this will be honestly and fairly reported on that notice. Maybe it's political, as the member mentioned, in that we're letting people know. Politics is people, and I'm proud that we're letting the people know. I think the people deserve to know.

MRS. DAILLY: I know my colleague from Vancouver East wishes to comment on this too. But really, the response from the minister and the fact that he sees nothing wrong with what he did — and none of your members think there is anything wrong with it — shows me that it's time this government got out of office.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I got a personal letter from the minister when through sheer inadvertence I forgot to claim my homeowner's grant last year. I thought to

[ Page 3455 ]

myself: shall I apply for the $485, and if I do and get a cheque from the minister, will I be guilty under the Constitution Act and lose my seat? But I did apply, and I got a letter, and in the course of the letter the minister resorted to the most threadbare politics and misrepresentation to me. At first I believed every word he said. He said: "You can now apply, even though you missed the January I deadline, because the coalition of car dealers and millionaires and political turncoats" — I'm just trying to remember what you said; I think that's what you said — "has a great big heart that you wouldn't believe existed from their actions. But there it is, and we're sending you this cheque because of the legislation we passed."

Now all I'm asking is, if you're going to resort to blatant politics in the conduct of your office, will you please put a P. S. on the letter and say that the program enabling people to get their refund, even if they missed January 1, was begun by "Tiger" Lorimer, who used to hold that post. That is all I want. Make your political propaganda, Lord knows you need it; Lord knows that threadbare coalition needs all the political help it can get; but for heaven's sake, just in a P.S. at the bottom of the letter, say: "Nevertheless, what happened to you, which is so good, was begun by the tiger of the NDP, former Municipal Affairs Minister Lorimer." Then I don't mind how much you misrepresent it. Just give us a little credit.

But the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) is quite right. You are using your office, Mr. Minister, to make politics, and people are kind of laughing up their sleeves at this kind of.... You misrepresented me until I found the true facts. Stop that blatant politicking. What's wrong? Have you got nothing good to say to the people in terms of what you're doing? Do you have to resort to misrepresentation and pulling the wool over my eyes? That's what you did in your letter. If I hadn't known you better, I wouldn't have checked it out and found that Lorimer was really responsible. But I know political propaganda, and so do the people. They know that this — as the Premier called it — non-partisan group is resorting to every political trick in the book, and the people are kind of laughing a little bit up their sleeves. They're on to you. So no more of those letters, unless you give credit where it belongs.

MR. BARBER: What hypocrisy and cant heard opposite! Imagine what would have happened if the New Democrat administration had required municipal governments to insert an advertisement for the New Democrat government praising the revenue-sharing scheme which was introduced, for the first time in the history of this province, by the Barrett government. I am referring, of course, to natural gas revenue-sharing. The first revenue-sharing program ever in B.C. was introduced by the NDP. Can you imagine the screams of the Socreds had our government been so tyrannical and self-interested as to require on the tax notices that credit be given to the Barrett administration? What hypocrisy and cant from that coalition opposite!

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, hon. member. I wonder if the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing would come to order. The minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I was a little upset....

MR. BARBER: What point of order now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Will you sit down first?

MR. BARBER: Do you have anything to say, second?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognized the minister on a point of order. Will he please state his point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Standing orders are that members should tell the truth, Mr. Chairman, and he fails to tell us about the $29 refund on properties and the bungling and incompetence of the former government between 1972 and 1975, where people were supposed to be charged a minimum $1 tax and were refunded $29.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order. I will ask the minister to take his seat. The debate continues on vote 162 and the Chair recognizes the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: As usual, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing misleads the House. There was no point of order just then, as I suspected there would be no point of order, and you had no right to rise at all.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will come to order. I will have to ask the first member for Victoria to withdraw the statement that the member misled the House.

MR. BARBER: He did mislead the House. There was no point of order. He referred to nothing. He made a political speech. That is why I was suspicious.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw. Will the hon. member please withdraw in a parliamentary fashion. The Chair ruled the minister did not have a point of order but I will have to ask you to withdraw the language whereby you stated the minister misled the House. Will the member withdraw?

MR. BARBER: I apologize. The minister did not mislead the House. He simply misinformed the House. He had no point of order at all and the Chair correctly recognized that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I wish you'd have that bumbling member for Victoria withdraw without conditions, Mr. Chairman, as I always do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will, hon. member, as soon as you withdraw the word "bumbling." That is a personal slight and is unparliamentary. Will the minister withdraw the word "bumbling"?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes. I withdraw it, if it offends the jackal over there.

[ Page 3456 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the first member for Victoria. I'm sure the first member for Victoria will withdraw any imputation that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing deliberately misled the House.

MR. BARBER: I certainly do. I simply observed that he had no authentic point of order at all and was up to his usual tricks of seizing the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've never done that.

MR. BARBER: That is perfectly correct; I never have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair will decide points of order and the Chair will preserve decorum and order in the House. All members are reminded that we are on vote 162, the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

MR. BARBER: I rise on behalf of the Fort St. John and District Chamber of Commerce, to ask questions of the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

MR. BARBER: What? Is this a point of order?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am on a point of order, sir. I note on this occasion that the first member for Victoria has taken his seat. However, on a number of occasions when a member has risen on a point of order and the Chair has ruled on the point of order, that member in particular and some other members have not taken their seats. I seek the Chair's guidance. I believe that only one member may stand at any given time and I think one can become very casual with respect to the Chair and one's rising on a point of order. Would you concur?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well taken, Hon. minister.

MR. BARBER: That was a wonderful point of order, Hugh.

On behalf of the Fort St. John and District Chamber of Commerce, I wonder whether or not the minister could tell us what decision he has made in regard to proposed street improvements in the amount of $7 million to $8 million in that particular city. The position of the city and of the chamber of commerce, which was communicated to our office, is that the current regulations appear to restrict the city's ability to take care of this problem to the annual expenditure of some $1 million.

I was up at Fort St. John recently, and it's perfectly clear that the city is undergoing rapid growth at the moment. It's one of the most rapidly growing areas of the province, and it may well be that the conventional borrowing restrictions are not appropriate for a city or any urban area growing as rapidly as this one is. It's my information that they have made a number of representations — as has, I expect, the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) — on the subject. What I'm asking is whether or not the minister has decided to amend or waive policy in order to allow the city of Fort St. John to make the street and road requirements that they propose in order to allow themselves to meet the demands of growth here. The most recent correspondence I refer to is that of July 4, 1980, of which the minister, I expect, received a copy, and which was mailed originally to Mr. Brummet, the MLA for the district. I was pleased to receive a copy from the chamber of commerce.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not your friends, Charlie, so don't worry about it.

MR. BARBER: You want to make a bet? They are a heck of a lot better friends of ours than they are of yours.

I have, as well, other matters that I'd like to raise concerning policy as it relates to other communities in British Columbia. I ask the minister whether or not he has chosen to reply favourably to the alleged problem associated with the backup of sewage at 335 Billiter Avenue in Princeton. The request was drawn to his attention, and to that of Mr. Waterland, by Gerard D'Angelo of 2246 Sifton Avenue, Kamloops, on June 26, 1980. I wonder whether or not the minister, again, has been prepared to accept the proposal to award compensation for the loss as a result of a sewer backup in that particular community.

I ask, as well, on behalf of the mayor of Golden, Mr. Zazuluk, who has also communicated with our office — as do many people these days in order to get action on these matters — in regard to correspondence which he initiated with the federal administration, again on June 6 of this year — in this case, correspondence directed to the Hon. Paul Cosgrove, minister of Canada for Mortgage Canada and for the federal housing programs. In particular, Mayor Zazuluk has raised the question of the apparent withdrawal of conventional federal support for neighbourhood water and sewer projects.

Mayor Zazuluk has raised an important issue, which others have raised as well. I'd like to know what the provincial Crown's position is in regard to the federal contribution for water and sewage programs. It's obviously been a problem in the community of Golden and clearly is going to be a problem elsewhere additionally.

I have a few other matters of the same sort that I'd like to raise at the moment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The Killamey-Champlain Citizens for Action Association in Vancouver wrote to the minister on April 24 of this year requesting an amendment to section 73 (a) of the Vancouver Charter. That amendment would provide that persons not enumerated on the Vancouver voters' list could vote on election day in any case and have their votes counted providing they swore an affidavit saying that they met all of the eligibility requirements. In fact, this is currently the practice in every other municipality of British Columbia under section 80 of the Municipal Act. That being the case, I wonder if the minister is prepared to entertain the proposal of the Killamey-Champlain Citizens for Action Association and amend 73(a) of the Vancouver Charter to bring it into conformity with the Municipal Act requirements as they provide elsewhere for registration in effect on election day itself.

I would observe as well that the Kensington Citizens' Neighbourhood Improvement Planning Committee made the same request of the minister on April 29 of this year. I wonder if you could tell us what your general policy reply has been.

I want to raise another matter. This one is in the constituency of Saanich. It concerns an airfield being built at Village Bay on Mayne Island. The Islands Trust is opposed

[ Page 3457 ]

to this airfield going ahead. They're opposed for economic and environmental reasons. They wrote to us on May 9 of this year and it is my information — I stand to be corrected — that they have yet to receive a reply from the minister, to whom they wrote at the very same time, I gather. They have raised the issue that the airport is not required or welcome on Mayne Island. It is not affordable and it is not environmentally desirable. I confess I'm not up to date on the minister's last reply, if any, to it, but to the best of my knowledge there is not yet an appreciation from him as to whether or not, in his opinion, the airfield should be built on Mayne Island. If there is, I'm happy to hear it, but we don't have correspondence on that one.

I'd like to raise a question on behalf of concerned citizens in Lac la Hache, who originally made an argument to the Cariboo Regional District board and later on to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The concern expressed by these residents who live at the lakeside — McKinley Drive at Lac la Hache — is the problem with the pumping systems on the Lac la Hache sewer project. According to these people — it appears to be supported by the engineering information provided, and material obtained as well, I gather, by the Cariboo Regional District — the pumps in question have for the last two years been consistently failing on four out of the five sites where they're located. Apparently when the last pump broke down it cost $750 to dig it out, ship it Vancouver and reinstall it. According to the concerned citizens of Lac la Hache, the reason is that a faulty system was installed in the first place, that it was approved in a way that never should have been approved, and that the basic requirements for the efficiency of the system have never been met. Therefore they argue that as taxpayers they have been required to pay for a system which simply cannot work because of the basically flawed engineering design of it. It may be that they have a case here, and it may be as well that certain of the bylaw requirements that should have been met by the regional district were inadvertently not met through a faulty engineering design for the system. I wonder whether or not the minister has received advice from either the regional district or independent engineering authorities as to whether or not the complaints of the residents of Lac la Hache are legitimate and should properly be addressed.

I also have questions on behalf of certain landowners in the rural area of Osoyoos who are concerned about proposed village expansion. They wrote to you on or about March 18 of this year, and they are concerned about the inclusion of farmland within municipal boundaries for fear that, thus included, it may then later on be subdivided. They're concerned about the possibility of an encroachment on the ALR through the process of municipal boundary expansion in Osoyoos, and they ask the minister's opinion, as do we, generally in a policy area, not simply related to Osoyoos. but also related to the whole question of municipal boundary expansion.

I have several other matters. While I'm examining our research material for the next question I'll yield to my colleague, the tremendously successful member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead).

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I do have a number of questions to pose to the minister, but I want to confine my questioning, since the first member for Victoria is going through a list of questions.

This deals with Gambier Island, which is in my riding, by the way. There seems to be some confusion with some people who seem to think that Gambier Island lies in the constituency of West Vancouver–Howe Sound. The fact is that the island is within my riding.

A mining exploration is currently taking place on Gambier Island. The Islands Trust has requested of the minister that the organization be supported by the government and the ministry in opposition to the proposed mine on that small and fragile island. I want to make it clear that the members of my caucus and I are not opposed to mining ventures, but the fact is that they are not making Gulf Islands anymore. We don't know that a mine will be developed on that particular island because right now it is simply exploration work. I would like to receive the assurances of the minister that he will support the submissions of the Islands Trust in terms of the proposed mining venture on Gambier Island in every way possible.

Mining exploration on that island should be stopped now. If at some future date the developers decide that there is the ore value on that particular property to support a mine, the mine would go ahead, particularly in view of the reputation of your colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). We know what his reputation is in these areas, so we know that a mine would go ahead. That mining exploration should stop now. I think it is your duty, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to support the Islands Trust and its submissions to you.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, may I add my own support to that of my colleague from Mackenzie. Mining on the Gulf Islands is simply not appropriate. They are rare and special places, and once desecrated by mining or any other major enterprise are ruined for all time. The notion of mining on Gambier Island is simply ludicrous and should be stopped instantly, The company that proposes to continue to do the exploring should be told not to waste another dollar because this administration will not permit mining in the Gulf Islands. A very clear statement would help in a very clear way right now to end that.

I have a few other matters that I am raising on behalf of various people in the province who have communicated with my office.

Section 54 of the Municipal Act does not make any provision for shut-in voters who are laid up in hospital. It does, however, allow municipalities to pass bylaws setting up mobile polls. These bylaws must specifically outline the locations to be visited, and therefore would not be of any use to voters felled by a sudden sickness. In any case, it is unlikely that such polls would visit individual homes.

I wonder if the minister might contemplate an amendment to section 54 which would allow, in every practical way, persons who are shut in on municipal election days to have their vote cast and counted. I have many seniors in my riding. As the minister well knows, senior citizens vote on election days in far greater numbers, proportionally, than do persons of lesser age. In my own riding it's a major event. They get dressed up and they look great. They show up early at the polls and it is a major act of citizenship on their parts. Every time seniors vote you know dammed well that they've done it in a serious way. In my riding, and I expect in a lot of other ridings in the province, many seniors who are shut-ins are effectively denied a vote because of the inadequate provisions of section 54 of the Municipal Act.

I ask on behalf of all of them whether or not the minister would be prepared during the current rewrite of the act to

[ Page 3458 ]

make far more practical arrangements for persons who are shut in to be visited on election day — to call, perhaps a day or two in advance, and to arrange that a mobile poll come and take their ballot, and have it cast and counted in a proper way. They should not be disfranchised simply because they are elderly and ill. It's not their fault that they have fallen ill; it should not be their liability that they are denied a vote. Unfortunately there are a lot of shut-ins who are denied votes, most certainly in the city of Victoria, I regret to say. Notwithstanding, section 54 simply doesn't help.

The minister may refer to section 46 for proxy voting. However, proxy voting has many limitations, including that the returning officer requires a proxy certificate to be obtained by 10 p.m. of the previous Friday in advance of the polling day, and it may not always be practical for persons to do that, especially if they should suddenly fall ill.

I wonder what the minister's opinions are in regard to the ward system in the city of Vancouver. As the minister will be aware, the ward system was adopted by a tiny, tiny majority in a plebiscite held in the city of Vancouver last year. I wonder if the minister could tell us what his own policy is in regard to the introduction of a ward system, and what level of popular support should be required. If 50 percent plus 1 is not adequate — and apparently it's not in Vancouver — what level is adequate? I'd be pleased to hear the minister's opinion.

There's another issue that I'd like to raise on behalf of the owners of floating homes in British Columbia who are concerned about taxes and, as well, that there is a discrepancy and unfairness built into the current tax situation. They refer to B.C. regulation 276-79, which amended the Mobile Home Tax Act, and was filed on June 11, 1979. They do currently receive the homeowner grant and that is a good thing. Like 99-year lease holders, they are entitled and they pay taxes. But their argument is that they are not assessed and therefore are not taxed in a fair way.

, The minister, I believed, received from the city manager of Vancouver, on November 16, 1979 — the same date I received it — a major statement in regard to the matter. It provides as well for the city of Vancouver enacting the requirement to meet the conditions of certain permits and licences for determining whether or not floating homes comply. It is a very complicated issue and I don't have time to go into it today in some detail. Nonetheless, I am sure the minister is concerned with the problem involved in principle here with the apparently inequitable procedures for taxing floating homes. I wonder if he could tell us whether or not he is prepared to consider new policy on the matter.

I have several other questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Well, at least I bring things up for my riding. I don't know why you don't bother. But we'll tell the people of Fort St. John who raised the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: I cannot find a reply to correspondence directed to the inspector of municipalities dated December 14, 1979, in regard to alleged voting irregularities in the community of Salmo. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he received a reply, and if so, what it was.

The city of Vancouver, through its planning commission, has recently concluded what they call their goals program and recently published a major document in regard to goals for Vancouver for up until the turn of the century, basically. The Goals for Vancouver program is an attempt to enunciate some specific details for the city of Vancouver within the framework of the livable region plan — an admirable plan that's been adopted and hopefully will be implemented. The city of Vancouver was able to do that because they have the financial resources to carry out such a study and to engage in the public discourse and debate necessary in order to put it together. Hilda Symonds and the others responsible for that work deserve a great deal of credit for an extremely thoughtful, aggressive and well-intended proposal. The city of Vancouver could do it because they could afford to do it. Other communities would like to do it, but cannot afford the level of public consultation and the level of detailed and scientific research which went into the Goals for Vancouver program.

What I'm asking the minister is whether or not he is prepared to upgrade the planning grant — the usual, if I recall, $30,000 a year given to every municipality in the province — in order to allow them either to increase the level of public participation in the official community plan process or to carry out the excellent work that we see first here in the Vancouver model enunciated for local government in British Columbia. Thirty thousand dollars a year for planning is simply not adequate in those municipalities. Regardless, in any case, of the proportionate level of population, it's vital and worthwhile that local government be encouraged to follow the clear intent and good will of the People of Vancouver through the Goals for Vancouver program. They can't do that without financial support from the province. They can't do that without adequate support from this government. Precisely because they can't, they won't, and because they don't, we see a far less able lev, el of public participation in the whole field of community planning in other jurisdictions in local government in B.C. I ask whether or not the minister is prepared to upgrade the level of financial support available to local communities in order to carry out for themselves the same excellent study that Vancouver has done through its Goals for Vancouver program.

I want to raise another matter on behalf of people concerned in Ashcroft and other communities about the impact of major mining developments on their housing stock and housing needs. I've had an opportunity to meet with local government in the Ashcroft and the Clinton area. I'd like to read, if I may, briefly from a letter sent by Mayor Ward Bishop of the village of Ashcroft. He's concerned about a broad matter of provincial policy. He's concerned about the impact of major new economic development, be it mining or any other, on extant communities, where they are expected to pick up the costs and burdens of the additional housing, sewage, roads and services, and where they cannot, however, necessarily derive any real benefit from, in this case, the mining enterprise proposed.

I refer in part to the mayor's letter. He's talking, of course, about the communities in the Highland Valley, and it's an important policy area, because legitimately these communities have competing and, in this instance, conflicting economic interests at stake. The mayor says:

"The real issue at stake is the effect of population impact on all municipalities affected by the expansion of mining development in the Highland Valley. Our stand is, and always has been, that the provincial government and the TNRD must carefully study this

[ Page 3459 ]

population impact as it affects surrounding municipalities, and that a fair and equitable formula for sharing the tax benefits resulting from the Highland Valley mining developments must be arrived at. The issue, therefore, is population impact, not dictatorial direction of population by any level of government.

Referring to a correspondent of his:

"You are absolutely correct when you state the obvious: the people will settle where they want to. The approximate percentage split of present Lornex Mine employees is: Kamloops, 20 percent; Merritt, 15 percent; Ashcroft, 10 percent; the remaining 55 percent living in Logan Lake or in unorganized areas. We anticipate that these percentages will no doubt hold true for the influx of new mine employees for future Highland Valley developments. The issue is, once again" — and the mayor underlines this in his letter — "the effect of population impact on surrounding municipalities rather than the current smokescreen issue of dictatorial population direction by government. The ability of municipalities, large and small, to absorb the impact of population expansion due to Highland Valley developments is the question we must address ourselves to.

"The taxpayer in our municipalities must not only bear the burden of providing existing services, but he must also help to absorb the increased capital and operational costs incurred through population growth caused by a mining industry located outside his municipal borders and therefore exempt from municipal tax assessment. The time has come, we say, when the provincial government and the TNRD" — the regional district in the area — "must take a close look at this situation and correct the inequities that have been allowed to exist for far too long already."

I think that the mayor of Ashcroft has a reasonable point. He and the other councils in the area are expected to assume the capital burdens of providing for additional growth when new and welcome industry — in this case, mining — in the Highland Valley goes ahead. But the municipality is not given the opportunity to keep up with that capital cost, because they cannot take direct tax benefit from the particular — in this case, mining — industry. Now the minister will say: "Well, we have housing grants, and one by one the municipalities, as they have to have housing come on, will receive cash grants from the provincial government. I'm aware of that, but so is the mayor and so are other people in local government there, and they are all saying that those particular cash grants in regard to the massive impact of a Highland Valley mine expansion are totally inadequate and might as well be irrelevant, because they don't pay for anything like all of the other costs, including, of course, the inevitable and predicted costs of expansion of recreational facilities and school facilities, which inevitably accompany this kind of industrial development.

So I ask the minister for his policy and whether or not he can provide any direction to the people of Ashcroft and the other communities and whether or not he's prepared to create any special form of relief for communities that are expected to bear a disproportionate burden of the human cost of new enterprise and at the moment are not given an adequate share of the tax resource in order to meet it.

The final question I want to raise at this stage is on behalf of the people of Williams Lake. The mayor of Williams Lake, Mr. Mason, wrote as recently as July 7 of this year, concerned desperately about policing costs. I've received correspondence from many mayors concerned about the issue of how to pay for the RCMP, how to meet the provincial standards of RCMP police coverage, and how to do it on a tax budget that's totally inadequate for the purpose.

The minister knows that four years ago — 1976 — the then Attorney-General first met with the UBCM to discuss the issue of policing costs. Two years ago the UBCM — again I'm working from memory — passed a body of resolutions which two years later they are still negotiating with the province. I don't know a single reputable person active in UBCM councils who supports the current shared arrangement for the costing and the provision of police services in B.C. In fact, many of them, like the extremely articulate mayor of Williams Lake, have made case after case and argument after argument to the provincial government about why the current situation must not be allowed to continue. It requires of them a tax assessment that they simply cannot sustain.

I refer in particular to Williams Lake. It is a municipality of 6,500 persons. It is expected to pay a major share from its own resources for policing, the structure for which revolves around the fact that they have 6,500 people in the municipality. However, Williams Lake is in the position of having a municipality provide police services to an effective policing community of 12,000, because the total population that must of necessity be served by the police in Williams Lake is 12,000 strong. The actual number of persons in the municipality is only 6,500. So it is fairly clear, at least to the mayor of Williams Lake, that because of municipal boundaries, the catchment area for police work, and the requirements for good police work, he is in effect paying for police coverage for 12,000 people from the taxable incomes of 6,500. It is just not possible for him to do that, and it's not possible for a lot of other councils to do that. The mayor of Williams Lake has corresponded repeatedly with the province, as have other mayors, on the same issue.

The final question I have today is whether or not the minister is prepared to enunciate, either now in this chamber or at UBCM in September. a new cost-sharing formula for policing in British Columbia. The minister shakes his head. I hope that means he is prepared to announce it, because he knows what we know: the current formula is not adequate, equitable, fair or a guarantor of a proper level of police coverage for all the communities of B.C. that do not have their own police forces. Of course, those communities are the vast majority.

I conclude at this stage by asking all those questions on behalf of all those groups, but will certainly in days to come, in other ways as well. have more questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the conduct of his department.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have just recently — only July 4, I believe it was, and perhaps after that — heard from Fort St. John with respect to their request for additional borrowing authority. That is being looked into. It is within our powers to grant this, and I don't see too much problem with it.

We did have a problem with sewer backup in Prince George. There are administrators from there coming tomorrow to meet with staff. That meeting was arranged a week or so ago.

MR. BARBER: I was referring to Princeton.

[ Page 3460 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We have not heard from Princeton.

Golden has expressed concern about the community services grant. We certainly concur with them and would encourage all municipalities that have benefited from this program to write to the federal government to determine whether in fact they will continue the program. We are now attempting to negotiate the third year of the program. We have no indication yet as to whether they will proceed or not. It is of concern to all provinces.

Vancouver has not requested a charter amendment with respect to the voting procedures. I have pointed out to some of the groups that wrote in that in fact we found the voting procedures provided for in the Municipal Act to be very fair and workable. We would commend these to Vancouver, but Vancouver has not requested a change. I understand the Vancouver council has gone on record as being opposed to a change providing for a ward system, Again, unless the request comes from Vancouver we're not about to impose a change in their charter.

MR. BARBER: What about shut-in voters?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is a matter that can be provided for in the Municipal Act. As I understand it, the Municipal Act Review Committee has considered this favourably, along the lines that you've suggested.

MR. BARBER: Good.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They are in concurrence with it.

Mayne Island airport. This is not a matter for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. As a matter of fact, there was a 1974 Supreme Court of B.C. decision re West Ganges Holdings, where it was held that this is only a matter for the federal authorities. We cannot rule on it. Similarly there was a Supreme Court of Canada decision called the Johannessen case, which once more determined that neither local government nor the provincial government has any authority in that. It's something that could be granted by the federal government without our involvement.

Lac la Hache. The staff are reviewing the request. The regional district did not meet the engineering criteria, but it's being looked at.

The Osoyoos boundary extension. We've had a request for the extension of the boundaries. It goes to a vote, it's properly advertised, and depending upon what the vote is, we will make a decision with regard to the extension.

The floating homes. This, I think, should be a matter discussed with the Ministry of Finance, because that taxation legislation is within that jurisdiction.

The Goals for Vancouver program. We contributed a very large sum of money to that particular program.

MR. BARBER: Will you do the same for other municipalities?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not sure that I agree with it all. I'm not sure that there will be a tremendous benefit to Vancouver unless they act upon it. I'm not sure that we need to spend $100,000, or whatever the amount is, to gather this sort of information. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about preparing a similar program for other municipalities.

Williams Lake and the policing problem. Yes, the mayor of Williams Lake has been to see me on several occasions. We've had a number of discussions. It's not only Williams Lake; there are other communities. But certainly Williams Lake may be held forth as a really good example, and I concur that it's not equitable. Hopefully there will be a solution forthcoming, as the Ministry of the Attorney-General is reviewing all of the information which was gathered during the earlier review by the commission which was working on it several years back.

MR. BARBER: There were two other issues. Firstly, there is the question raised by the mayor of Ashcroft in regard to provincial policy concerning the impact on the tax base and on the human and housing requirements of communities that are extremely affected by a major enterprise like mining in the Highland Valley but do not have the ability to tax in order to provide those new amenities for that enterprise itself. Secondly, on behalf of my colleague from Mackenzie and myself, what is your position in regard to mining on Gambier? The two issues are Ashcroft and Gambier.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to Ashcroft, we concur that there is a problem. We discussed it with the regional district and I've met with the individual communities. We are developing a proposal now which would make for a more equitable tax sharing.

There has been no application for a mine on Gambier Island. They are exploring. You can't stop them from exploring. They are exploring in my own community of Surrey. I would suggest....

MS. BROWN: Of course you can stop them from exploring.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I suppose you could stop people from exploring anywhere. I don't think it is the wish of British Columbians that we stop exploring for minerals in British Columbia. There is no application....

MS. BROWN: Not on the Gulf Islands.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You'll have an opportunity to question the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) on this as well.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled an answer to a question on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 3461 ]

APPENDIX

68 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following questions:

1. For 1980-81, what will be the cash value of the 13.5 personal income tax points and 1 point of corporate income tax transferred to the Province in respect of Established Programs Financing?

2. For the amounts listed in answer to No. 1. what portion is attributable to compensation for: (a) Hospital Insurance; (b) Medicare; (c) Post-secondary Education; and (d) Other (please specify)?

3. Which portion of the 13.5 points of personal income tax and 1 point of corporate income tax referred to in No. 1 is attributable to compensation for: (a) Hospital Insurance; (b) Medicare. (c) Post-secondary Education., and (d) Other (please specify)?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"1. The estimated 1980-81 value of the tax transfer portion of the Established Programs Financing package is as follows:

"2. and 3. No portion of the tax transfer component of the EPF arrangement is attributable to any specific program. Funds raised through this part of EPF are indistinguishable from any other personal or corporate income taxes raised by the Province.

"Although the tax points were given in compensation for Federal cost sharing for specific programs, under the current arrangements there is no legal obligation to spend the funds on those programs, notwithstanding provincial compliance with certain national conditions.

"It should be noted that one tax point and the escalated 1975-76 value of a tax point were given to the provinces in partial compensation for the termination of the old revenue guarantee. The Federal Government calculates this transfer as part of the EPF arrangements but actually it should be subtracted from the value of cash and tax points to arrive at the true value of the package in respect of the established programs. The estimated amount to be subtracted in 1980-81 is $70.5 million."