[ Page 3737 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Provincial implementation of OAP supplement. Ms. Brown –– 3737

Government loan to Lewis Enterprises. Mr. Cocke –– 3737

Natural gas exports. Mr. D'Arcy –– 3737

BCHMC policy on separated couples. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 3738

Revenues of provincial treasury and fiscal restraint. Mr. Stupich –– 3738

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On vote 170: minister's office — 3739

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Hyndman

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Votes 170 to 172 inclusive approved –– 3747

On vote 173: government services –– 3747

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Vote 173 approved –– 3748

On vote 174: British Columbia lottery branch –– 3748

Ms. Brown

Votes 174 to 185 inclusive approved –– 3748

On vote 186: government information services –– 3749

Mrs. Dailly

Votes 186 to 188 inclusive approved –– 3749

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3749

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Macdonald

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mitchell

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 3762

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a young guest who is visiting me today from Tamworth, Ontario, Miss Kelly Dickeson.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF OAP SUPPLEMENT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources. The federal government recently approved a $35-a-month supplement to senior citizens. The minister as well as the Premier announced that that increase was going to be passed along to seniors. It was reported last week by the minister that this in fact was happening. Can the minister assure the House that the criteria for all means-tested programs have been adjusted in such a way as to ensure that each family receiving the supplement now has $35 more in their pockets as a result of the federally approved increase?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is a new question that the minister might take as notice at the same time. Would the minister check to find out whether a person receiving the supplement who is married to someone who is receiving a handicap pension is not finding that the $35 is being deducted from the handicap pension rather than from the seniors themselves — or can she respond to that now?

I have a question to the minister responsible for B.C. housing. Is the minister aware that the Premier has made a commitment to senior citizens that the $35-a-month increase from the federal government is to be passed on intact? Can he assure the House that this money is not being deducted through rent increases to people living under the B.C. Housing Management Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and bring an answer back to the member at the very earliest opportunity.

GOVERNMENT LOAN
TO LEWIS ENTERPRISES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. On May 1, 1980, the minister signed an order-in-council approving a loan of $1.4 million to Lewis Enterprises. Lewis Enterprises Ltd. owns the Waddling Dog Inn on the Pat Bay Highway. Can the minister tell the House whether this approval is related to the large Social Credit campaign signs on the grounds of the Waddling Dog Inn during the last election campaign?

Mr. Speaker, in 1979 an order-in-council approved a loan to the same company of $1.3 million. This loan was rescinded in May of this year when the amount was $1.4 million, and that amount was then approved. Did the hon. member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) make any representation to the minister about increasing the loan by the hundred-odd thousand dollars?

MR. HOWARD: "I don't remember."

MRS. WALLACE: "I don't recall."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in living memory that that minister has been struck dumb.

Mr. Speaker, was the loan increased as a special favour to Mr. Lewis because of his failure to satisfy the corporation that he had obtained working-capital financing from a chartered bank sufficient to carry on his business?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to me that my estimates just passed through the Legislature and I didn't hear one question about the British Columbia Development Corporation, not one question about the British Columbia Railway — not one question.

Mr. Speaker, we have, through the B.C. Development Corporation, based on sound business principles, made a loan to the Waddling Dog Inn to build a hotel at the location on the Pat Bay Highway. During construction there was a small overrun; if my memory recalls properly, it was less than 7 percent. That's why there was an additional loan made to that business corporation. I'd be most happy to supply the exact amount of the original loan and the percentage that the loan was increased by. Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you and the House that never at any time during the loan negotiations between that company and the British Columbia Development Corporation was I approached by the member for Saanich and the Islands. The loan was made on good business principles, is providing a service and is helping tourism on the Island.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister, not being blind, would have noticed that between 1972 and 1975, when the NDP were in power, there was a derogatory sign up virtually every week, changing from week to week. We wonder how much influence that had on this minister, who probably has 20-20 vision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There may have been a question there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the statement made by that member for New Westminster is slandering every hard-working director of the British Columbia Development Corporation, and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw nothing, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, according to our standing orders, I will deal with this at the conclusion of question period.

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. D'ARCY: To my friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: on July 24 I asked the

[ Page 3738 ]

minister if natural gas exports to the United States had declined in the calendar quarter ending June 30 and, if so, how much they had declined. On that day, 13 days ago, the minister took the question as notice. In the last two weeks has he had time to obtain that information for the public in British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question was taken as notice, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: I have a new question for the same minister. Last week the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) tabled his interim report for the same calendar quarter, ending June 30 of this year. In it he referred to revenues, some of which came from natural gas exports. Presumably he must have had some information on the amount of those exports in order to compile his revenue statement for the quarter which ended June 30, 1980. My question, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is: does the Minister of Finance know more about natural gas exports than the Minister of Energy, or does the Minister of Energy know the answer and is not telling the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I took that earlier question as notice. I'll undertake to give the answer as quickly as I can. The Minister of Finance and I have been in close contact, and will continue to be, about the finances in terms, of revenues from natural gas for this province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, then, to the Minister of Finance. On what basis did he compile his revenue statement, since it incorporated the revenue from natural gas export sales?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ouija board.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, not a Ouija board, like the former government, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has indicated that there is very close consultation not only between the two of us but between the senior people in both ministries. The quarterly report — a detailed but not an interim report; it's the report for the first three months of this fiscal year — was based on actual revenue receipts.

BCHMC POLICY ON SEPARATED COUPLES

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have checked my list of questions taken as notice, and I find that on July 15 the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked me the following question:

On April 15, 1980, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission passed a policy that basically says this: if a marriage breaks up while a couple is living within B.C. Housing Management Commission housing, neither spouse can apply for housing within the commission unless he has the written permission of the spouse whom he left.

In reply, I have requested and received clarification from the B.C. Housing Management Commission on their policy for placement in the housing units that they manage. It is the mandate of the BCHMC to offer housing to those applicants who can demonstrate a need, either because of deficient accommodation or because of their inability to pay market rent. Applicants are housed according to a priority based on housing and financial need.

Applicants are visited in their homes to determine a point score based on the present situation. The higher the point score, the greater the need and the higher priority given to housing the applicant. Assessment based on this method deals with the present situation. Therefore a partner wishing to separate but still living in the family home would be assessed on present family income and accommodation. In most cases this evaluation would result in a lower point score than where the breakup had occurred and the applicant was in temporary accommodation.

The intent of the commission's policy manual was to clarify this point by giving examples of actions that could lead to higher priority being accorded an applicant still living with his spouse. It was not the commission's intent to dictate what action the separating partner should pursue before or after leaving. The commission policy has unfortunately been misunderstood. Therefore the board of commissioners on July 22 undertook to review and revise the policy to ensure that all applicants are treated equally in relation to their housing needs.

REVENUES OF PROVINCIAL TREASURY
AND FISCAL RESTRAINT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Finance. The quarterly report issued on Thursday showed a revenue surplus of almost a quarter of a billion dollars. In view of this very good news for the people of British Columbia, has the minister decided to relax his crude instrument of restraint?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the discussion following the quarterly report I was able to, in response to questions, indicate that three ministries were exempt from the staff freeze to start with: the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Subsequent to that, and within approximately the last ten days, we have exempted the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services. Within the next few hours I will have a letter going to another colleague with yet another exemption. So some six or seven ministries have been exempted or are in the process of being exempted, and indeed this....

MR. LEA: And the rest will be by the end of the month.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to answer as fully as possible the question which I sensed was asked by the member for Nanaimo in good faith.

As other measures to effect economics in this fiscal year are delivered to me as Minister of Finance, the exemptions will continue.

MR. STUPICH: We've noted in the last few days that the Ministries of Education and Health have been advertising. We wonder whether or not they are included in the list of those ministries that have been exempted from the freeze.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, the freeze still applies there, I hope for as short a term as possible. But at the time of announcing the freeze in late June, I indicated that in those

[ Page 3739 ]

positions which were in process of being filled, where advertising had initially been planned for, where a vacancy had occurred, we would take that into consideration. In other words, we did not want to take such action whereby suddenly, once a panel had reviewed applicants for a particular position, they would just say: "I'm sorry, the rug has been pulled out from under us." We didn't want to operate that way, and we did not. I noticed the same advertisements, and I'm quite certain they would have been in process at the time of the decision to impose a freeze.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. Hon. members, during the question period a point of order was raised by the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips I ). I deferred that because points of order, as we know, should be taken at the conclusion of oral question period, not during it. At this time I ask the hon. member for New Westminster if he would withdraw as requested. I ask the member; I cannot insist.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I was asking the minister questions. I was aiming nothing at his department. His department does not, in any event, have membership in this Legislature. If anybody should withdraw, the minister should have withdrawn when he accused me of slandering. It's totally unacceptable behaviour, but that's to be expected from this minister. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter is concluded.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled an answer to question number 75 standing in his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

On vote 170: minister's office, $165,770.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have information in my file to the effect that on June 11, 1979, the minister promised to extend the extended health care plan benefits to some 6,000 superannuated civil servants soon. I wonder whether any progress has been made on that policy.

I have another question. There is a report about the minister in the Nanaimo Daily Free Press, July 23: "Wolfe said he will introduce an amendment to Bill 27, the bill amending the Pension (Municipal) Act, to bring the retirement provisions on municipal employees into line with the provisions which now apply to teachers and public service employees, which was requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities." I wonder whether it is the minister's intention to proceed with that announcement.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The first question, I believe, has to do with whether extended health care benefits would be accorded to retirees. I believe the answer to that question is yes, but I'm getting new information so I can answer more properly. I believe the answer is yes, that has been attended to. The amendment to the Pension (Municipal) Act, which I referred to in a statement some days ago, will be put forward in an amendment which I'm recommending to the House when we debate those bills.

The extension of the health care benefits question cannot be done until the amendments before the House on the Pension (Municipal) Act are debated. In other words, that will take place after those amendments to that bill are passed.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister could perhaps answer a question for me. I think it was in March of this year that you indicated your ministry had created a multicultural secretariat. Could you indicate whether or not a person has been hired as a director of that program?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer to that question specifically is no, but considerable review has been made of the general thrust of that program in terms of how it can best serve the various ethnic communities in terms of the total effort in terms of multiculturalism — not simply a direction to assist new immigrants but how best this ministry and the government can offer its services to the various ethnic communities. A search has taken place. No decision has been made on the person, but I think we're just doing sort of a rethink on the general approach to how that service can best be provided.

MR. BARNES: I should remind the House that it was April 1979, I believe, that the affable former Provincial Secretary held a multicultural conference called "Toward a Provincial Multicultural Policy." At that time the government had just brought a budget down — a budget which, incidentally, was not implemented or carried out because the election was called soon after in May. But I want to ask the Provincial Secretary, who inherited the problem really, the purpose of holding that particular conference just before the election if it was not just to win favour with the ethnic communities which were quite enthusiastically looking forward to the conference, in the hope of being able to express their concerns and try to learn something about the government's commitment to their future and to their settlement in this country, particularly the many people who were refugees from the Indo-Chinese countries, and others from Asia of East Indian extraction.

I understand that the government has done very little, really, about multiculturalism since that conference. A number of inquiries have been made to my office wondering why the government hasn't shown the same enthusiasm that it did in April 1979, before the election. What seems to be the holdup? Now I understand the minister hasn't even appointed the person who is going to head up the secretariat, after over a year. There seems to be some question about the government's commitment and the government's attitude, as far as multiculturalism is concerned in this province.

Mr. Chairman, a letter was sent to the Vancouver Home School Coordinating Committee, which is a committee of various ethnic organizations throughout the city: East Indian, Greek, Portuguese, Filipino, Chinese — which includes Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian — Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Italian, and so forth — people who represent a joint coalition of organizations committed to trying to influence the provincial government with respect to the needs of this

[ Page 3740 ]

diversity of recent Canadians who are having considerable difficulty adjusting in a society that quite often fails generally to meet their needs. Finding means of getting financial support for their programs is no easy task.

The letter that the secretary sent to this organization, basically, was to deny them a request for coordinators — that is, people from the ethnic community who understood the language and the various problems of settlement and becoming adjusted, and difficulties in their homes, schools and communities. They were flatly denied funds by your ministry to hire an additional ten coordinators. There are some 14 of them in the city of Vancouver right now, but they need at least twice that many to fulfil their needs. All they received from your ministry was a letter stating that you were sorry but that didn't come under your purview, and that you wished them good luck with their request seeking funds from some other source.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to quote from the minister's remarks in a recent news release dated March 7, 1980, in which he said that the main concern of that conference — this is back again to that conference toward a provincial multicultural policy — was about the government's attitude and not about funding. Most participants were concerned about the government's commitment to multiculturalism, a multiracial society, to the idea of the Canadian mosaic. They were concerned about the government's attitude with regard to them having equal opportunity and access to the socio-economic benefits that other Canadians are enjoying. So the minister said that he was pleased at this particular revelation coming out of the group, because funds generally could be found through a number of other sources, and that they really were pleased to know that the participants were concerned about the government's attitude.

I would just like to remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I think the government's attitude is questionable at this point. You will recall that it was only a few days ago when I sought support in reaffirming this government's commitment to the Canadian mosaic; this government's belief in the right of all people to live in harmony in this society regardless of race, creed, colour, national origin, political belief, religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other department; that all Canadians, under law, should be treated equally. Unfortunately, I was denied an opportunity, as you know, to move that motion which was an attempt to condemn the activities of an organization that was moving into this province called the KKK, the Klu Klux Klan; it was denied by that minister and all of his colleagues. I feel that the government's attitude, even on philosophic terms, is questionable.

It was clear that their intentions in April 1979 were politically motivated in an attempt to win favour from people who are sincerely hoping to gain the government's sincere interest in solving some of their problems. What other reason would there be, Mr. Chairman, for the minister's sending a letter back to these applicants, telling them that he wished them good luck and hoped that they could find the finances they need for the home school coordinators somewhere else? It was my understanding that the Refugee Settlement Fund was specifically for that purpose; that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) claimed to be working cooperatively to ensure that these funds are used to serve that purpose. But we have in an organization in Vancouver at least one case where funds and encouragement have not been forthcoming; in fact, it has been just the opposite — a very frustrating situation involving many futile attempts to get attention to their problems.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to elucidate in detail some of the problems that refugees and new immigrants have in this province, because those are well known. The point I wanted to make has been made, and that is that the Provincial Secretary has indicated that no one is in charge of this new secretariat for multiculturalism. It is just a paper organization as far as any real application is concerned, even though it has been well over a year since the conference, since those people were encouraged to believe in this government's future interest in their concerns, and they probably voted for the government. Now we find that they're just being frustrated.

I hope that the minister will answer that question, because I think that, if nothing else, you should indicate whether or not that applies to you or whether that applies to just your colleagues and not to you. There is a cloud over the government's head right now as far as multiculturalism is concerned in this province because of their denial to accept that motion that I attempted to move.

Mr. Speaker, the other question has to do with a grant log that's apparently being compiled by the lotteries administration office. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on the purpose of a log being compiled by area and by type of grant. There is only one copy, on non-photocopiable material. The idea there is that it does not quite self-destruct, but it can't be duplicated. That is curious to me, inasmuch as we have in the past, as independent MLAs, received notification whenever a grant was being approved in the different constituencies, and apparently that is no longer the practice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, it is.

MR. BARNES: Well, you can verify that for me. I certainly haven't been receiving them, although the information is available. I'm not suggesting that the information is not available upon request, but it is not automatically being provided, as had been the practice prior to January 1980.

This particular grant log that I refer to is a document about which I'm wondering if it's not being constructed for private political purposes. It seems to be concerning itself with getting information riding by riding, but it's not available. I have attempted on a number of occasions to get information by phone calls, writing letters and so forth, and I've received every bit of information but the information in this log that I happen to know exists from people within your ministry. They advise that it's available but that they're not free to discuss it or to indicate the purpose for which it is being compiled. It is my opinion that it must be for private political purposes and not for purposes of public consumption. Maybe it's going to be used for the next election — who knows.

A final question I would like to ask has to do with the initiative of the B.C. lottery program and its advertising program. Most of us are familiar with the electronic ads as well as the printed media ads in which it is suggested that if you buy a lottery ticket you're buying a share of your youngster's future and the future of youth as far as recreation, culture, sports and arts are concerned. The program as it is presently constructed is militating against a number of organizations' efforts to raise their own funds.

I'm thinking of one group in particular, the Burnaby Lakers hockey team, which happens to have hosted the

[ Page 3741 ]

Canadian national championships just a little while ago, an event endorsed by the Premier of the province. This picture was on the front page of their program, but there were no funds involved. In other words, not a dime from the government's lotteries was used for this amateur, volunteer program — young adults who were hosting a team from Fredericton, New Brunswick, in the national playdowns, which, incidentally, they happen to have won.

What I want the minister to explain to the House are the standards used to determine what amateurism is, who qualifies and who does not.

As it stood when this group hosted that national hockey championship, they ran the risk of losing about $50,000, because they held it at the Pacific Coliseum and weren't even able to secure their commitment by the government underwriting their loan. In other words, the government wasn't even prepared to underwrite the difference — the shortfall, as it were. They had to foot the whole bill themselves.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Who's that?

MR. BARNES: The Burnaby Lakers hockey team. They made several applications and wrote several letters. They were totally frustrated and could not get any assistance. This seems to be a problem. That is an amateur team of adults. Many of them have families. They work and put their extra hours into playing hockey. They're a credit to the province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's it for — equipment or operating expenses?

MR. BARNES: Just for hosting the team. It was a national playdown.

This is one of the things that the lotteries sports program is all about. They like to spend money when teams show excellence, show the ability to be winners. They aren't all that good with helping those who are.... Well, I shouldn't say 100 percent, because we have the B.C. Summer and Winter Games, in which we provide programs for youngsters. But the government has generally shown more interest in high-profile activities and high-profile individuals, because it gives them an opportunity to associate with something that is going to put them in a good light.

However, this hockey team tried hopelessly to get attention from the government. I would like you to clarify, for the benefit of those of us who are trying to explain the government's policy on making grants to amateur organizations that are in a championship category and are hosting teams from outside the province....

I've used most of the time that I intended to use, and the points are made. I would like to take my seat at this time and see if the minister is prepared to answer some of those questions before I continue.

MR. HYNDMAN: I will be brief this afternoon, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak in these estimates as a member of the government side, particularly because the topic I want to raise was, I think, briefly alluded to by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), and therefore the minister's response may be of interest and help to us both. The general topic I wish to address is that of the multicultural home-school workers in Vancouver. I believe my good friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre, used the term "coordinator," and he referred to 14 multi-cultural home-school workers. There have been 17 in the last year and they are called workers, not coordinators. It may be that we are talking about the same thing. In any event, I do want to address that topic.

A remarkable fact about the city of Vancouver that few British Columbians appreciate is that 43 percent of the school students of the city of Vancouver — that's nearly half — hold English as only a second tongue. That is, 43 percent of the school students in the city of Vancouver return from the classroom to homes in which English is not the primary language; it is the secondary language. That's a remarkable commentary on the cultural mosaic of Vancouver. I think it's a fact that has not been generally recognized by governments at all levels. It underscores the need for the multicultural home-school worker project and it outlines the very valuable work being done by the multicultural home-school workers.

If you could envisage a system in which nearly half the school pupils return home to a household in which English is not the primary tongue, and very often those families, have recently arrived from other lands, apart from the students' early problems in getting along at school with a new major language, new customs and new educational practices, that student additionally has a transitional problem at home. In returning from the school, perhaps more fluent in English than the parents at home, he has to explain and liaise with his parents about the rules and practices of school in a new country. For students, particularly younger children, this can often be difficult. Heaven forbid, even in the case of families where English is the only tongue and there has been a tradition of generations in Vancouver, we all know that students often have a difficult time liaising with parents between home and school in spite of that. If you superimpose recently landed families and the problem of culture and tongue, the problem is even greater. Therefore the very valuable function that the multicultural home-school workers do is to liaise between school and home to assist the student and the family in understanding the new educational process, in dealing with it and in making a smooth transition.

The regrettable fact is that although the federal government is responsible for immigration policy in this country, the federal government has not recently seen fit or been able to provide any financial assistance to a city like Vancouver to assist at this very basic, front-line level in the financing of such valuable work as that done by the multicultural homeschool workers. For example, I am told by the Vancouver School Board that in one of the schools in Vancouver there are no less than 37 different tongues represented through the school population. That's an unusual case, to be sure, but nonetheless it suggests the range of additional concerns that the teaching faculty must have, and again it underscores the need for multicultural home-school workers.

Through a group of ad hoc agencies, existing committees and some very public-spirited citizens, in the last couple of years there has developed a very informal committee of individuals representative of community and cultural groups. They have tried to pull together some funding to help in the provision of these multicultural home-school workers. It has been very ad hoc. They have been handicapped by a lack of permanent financial commitment from any level of government. They have had a shoe-string budget, year by year. In spite of that, in the school year just ended in the city of Vancouver this committee was able to see that 17 of these multicultural home-school workers were able to work in schools in the city of Vancouver. The need is great. The

[ Page 3742 ]

projection of the ad hoc committee and its spokesperson, Mrs. Beverly Mann, who has done a very fine job, sees a future need for as many as 26.

In the coming 1980-81 school year, the committee has been able, in working with the city of Vancouver council and the Vancouver School Board, to promote and come up with funding sufficient to secure only 12 of last year's 17 multicultural home-school worker positions. Therefore, to maintain last year's level of assistance of 17 positions, there is a shortfall of five. While this is primarily at first blush a responsibility of the Ministry of Education, given that Ottawa presently has not seen fit to add any financial assistance, the Ministry of Education in conjunction with the Vancouver School Board, through shared costs and formula grants, has come up with the result that 12 of the 7 positions can be maintained. As I say, there is still a shortfall of five.

I am hoping that the minister might be able to give us some further indication as to whether or not — even this year on a once only ad hoc basis — through the multicultural vote of his ministry, sufficient funding might be granted in this special circumstance to the Vancouver School Board to provide funds for the additional five positions. This, I think, would be a very tangible measure of support and contribution to multiculturalism in Vancouver. It would be of great assistance for this year. It would give support to Mrs. Mann and others on her committee and those like my good friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre and myself who are concerned and wish to help this group in finding permanent funding and an extra year's breathing space. I've had some very informal discussions, Mr. Chairman, with the minister and some of his officials, and if today the minister might be able to give us some further thought as to where these appeals might be in terms of reception, by his ministry that would be very helpful.

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I just underline that I think it's important that members from both sides of the House have spoken on this topic. The work of the multicultural home-school workers is valuable. They've done a good job. Mrs. Mann and her committee, I think, are making the maximum use of the limited resources available. It's a most worthy endeavour. If the minister's view was that perhaps for this year he could consider it, but probably on a once only basis because he was developing his longer program, I think that would be most satisfactory. It would give the program a year's breathing space.

So, Mr. Chairman, I too would be interested in the remarks of the minister on this very important topic to the city of Vancouver multiculturalism.

MR. BARNES: Just to clarify some of the points made by the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), I happen to have the 1980-81 projected requirements for home-school workers. You're correct; they are workers, not coordinators. I think Bev Mann is the coordinator for that particular organization. Just for the record, there are no West Indian workers; they require one half-time worker. The Greeks have one worker; they require two. That's an addition of one. The Portuguese have one and require two; that's an addition of one. The Filipinos have one and they require no additional workers. The East Indians have five and require one, for a total of six. The Chinese have five and require two more for a total of seven. In the Indo-Chinese category, the Vietnamese have one and require two. The Laotians have none and they require one half-time worker. The Cambodians have none and they require one half-time worker. The Italians have two full-time workers and a half-time worker and they require no additional workers. The Spanish have one half-time worker and they require one full-time worker. The Koreans have none and they require one half-time worker. The Japanese have none and they require one half-time worker. The total is 26 workers. The member for Vancouver South indicated that there were presently 17. There were. The school board of the city of Vancouver will pay for 12. They are down to 12 now. They need more than twice that many to get to 26. There are only 12, not 17, at the present time.

I just wanted to clarify that for the record. I hope that you will follow through on his suggestion that perhaps you could pick up the difference so that we could have a proper complement of workers in order to show your commitment and the government's attitude with respect to multiculturalism in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm happy this subject has been brought up because very recently the member for Vancouver South has been alerting me to the emergency that exists and the need to move on it very soon if assistance can be given. As both of the previous speakers have mentioned, there has been a cutback in the numbers of these home-school workers that have been provided. In certain areas of Vancouver particularly there is certainly a very great need for this service. I might say that the Immigrant Services Society of B.C. has already been funded by my ministry by way of a general grant of some $96,580 for the current fiscal year. It's through their cooperation with the school board and however the other funding comes about that has necessitated a cutback. So I thank the member for Vancouver South for explaining it once again because I know that this was a matter that had sort of fallen between the stools. One could say: "Well, it's not our responsibility. It's the responsibility of the national government, etc."

Suffice it to say that having reviewed it with the member and also, since it is basically an education matter, with the Minister of Education, in the interests of getting it resolved at this stage, in answer to the member's question, I have approved a grant. It is now being processed for the Vancouver School District, in support of this multicultural worker program, and is in the amount of $78,061. That is designed to cover the deficiency of the five people involved plus necessary expenses, I believe. I haven't the details in front of me, but in answer to the member's question and to prevent any further delay we have, after discussion, approved that grant. It's now being processed.

Mr. Chairman, a number of different areas have been covered, but I want to say, just in general terms on the multiculturalism program, that we are moving on the matter of the secretariat. I could ream off all kinds of concrete assistance now being offered to a variety of organizations through Cultural Services, the heritage conservation branch, and assistance to museums — just to get them all on the record — but suffice it to say today that it is estimated to add up to some $661,000, out of lotteries or ministerial funds of one kind or another, to organizations like the Affiliation of Multicultural Societies of B.C., the Multicultural Youth Action Association, and so on. So I won't take the time of the committee to ream off all those various financial supports that go forward. I'll only say that we do have under active consideration, and will be making announcements in the near

[ Page 3743 ]

future about not so much a secretariat as the method by which we want to approach this matter of assisting the various ethnic organizations in the province of British Columbia.

The meeting of last year you referred to was a start in this whole process. I've had a number of meetings with organizations, either at my invitation or theirs, who have come to me concerned over this. They're waiting to hear what the government wants to do about this. In my view, it's not so much a matter of funding as it is of providing an ear to them in terms of how we can assist. You will be hearing something in the near future on this subject.

You mentioned the Burnaby Lakers hockey team. Without going into that in great detail, we are offering assistance to the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association, which gets an annual grant in support of this kind of thing. I'm advised that their request for assistance, in terms of hosting a national championship, has now been responded to. Whether they've received it yet or not, I don't know; but we have approved — and I can announce now — a grant of $4,500 towards their activity in terms of that national event. If they haven't already been advised they will be in the next day or two.

MR. BARNES: What's your policy with respect to such organizations?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The policy — I can advise you later, Mr. Member — is support for hosting national events here, and also for out-of-province travel in terms of a variety of teams. There are minimums and maximums, and a percentage of the travel is involved.

MRS. DAILLY: I have two follow-up questions on what has just taken place in the debate, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we are pleased that the Burnaby Lakers are receiving some assistance. I think the second member for Vancouver Centre certainly did much to encourage that, and we are pleased that it has come through.

The other thing is on the matter that the second members for Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre (Messrs. Hyndman and Barnes) brought up on aiding immigrants who do not have English language training. I noticed the minister announced a grant. We are very pleased to hear that.

You also mentioned in passing the Immigrant Services Society of B.C., which I know you receive a lot of material from. I think you are aware of the fact that you did give them a grant, but their projected budget is $136,000 and I understand that they received $91,980. This means they are going to have a considerable shortfall. I must say that I feel the federal government should be contributing and assisting the province more in this area. In the meantime, this society is doing excellent work in helping the moms and tots program, as you know, and in trying to give orientation to Canadian customs, etc. With the impact of the refugee families in B.C., their load is getting heavier and heavier, yet their grant is not commensurate with that. So I'm just making a plea on behalf of the good work this society does — for a reconsideration, perhaps, as the year goes along, to assisting them further.

MR. LEVI: I spent three years tracking this minister with a Crown corporation, with not terribly much success. He's now the minister of a new ministry and he's got another Crown corporation that I've got to track — BCBC. He's been there nine months and I'm sure he's absolutely familiar with everything that goes on there.

I'd like him to tell us — if he'll share it with the House — what took place in respect to the Bowles report, which was announced by his predecessor in December 1978. At that time his predecessor was very concerned about a number of things that were happening in BCBC. Some of it was reacting to rumour; some was reacting to very specific concerns regarding contracts. The previous minister mentioned that the private-sector complaints came basically from small- and medium-sized firms in the business of providing goods and services for Crown corporations.

Now I'd like the minister to tell us — if he's aware of what's going on — two things. One is: what was the result of the study? Is he aware of the reorganization procedures that had to take place? Also, can he comment on the rent formula? That's the one that has given a great deal of concern to a number of ministries. This was one of the areas that Mr. Bowles was asked to look into; he was also asked to look into some other aspects of the ministry.

We have not had any information from the minister, mainly because this is the third Provincial Secretary in three years. I would like the minister to make some comment about the Bowles report; it would be even better if he would table it, but of course the government is not usually in the habit of tabling reports. It was a $25,000 report done by Mr. John Bowles, who is connected with Coopers and Lybrand. He was to do an overview of the department, specifically to look at BCBC and a number of other areas. I'd like the minister to make some response as to what his knowledge is with respect to the rental formula, the building costs that appeared in every ministry.

There is one other thing. The contribution from the B.C. Buildings Corporation is expected to be less this year — that is, the revenue accruing to the government will be less in the present fiscal year than it was in the last year. I see the minister has now moved into the Minister of Human Resources' seat. I presume he's going to respond, so I'll just sit down.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I have not received any report called the Bowles report. I understood the previous minister was studying certain matters within the Buildings Corporation and so on, but I have not received any report. I think there were some draft documents that were around, but I've not seen any formal report to use in my position.

I might say that there has been a lot of study made of the Buildings Corporation in its relationship to other ministries and of how it could improve its service; that would be the size of it. Through Treasury Board we have tried to streamline the procedure which exists between the Buildings Corporation and other ministries: how it documents leases, what it does to renew leases, what examination is made, and so on. In my view, continual improvement is being made in those procedures. I find that the officials and the board of directors are very responsive to commentary from ministries in terms of trying to improve how they function with ministries in providing their space.

You asked for a general summary of how rental charges are arrived at. I will have to get back to the member at a later time with the answer to that question. I think I must have provided that information to him on a previous occasion — when I was representing Finance — in terms of how they make up their gross rental factor. It would, include the market value for the facilities being rented and a factor for depreciation, cost of maintenance, etc., and a profit return on the

[ Page 3744 ]

rental factor. That is a factor which is developed by the Buildings Corporation. I don't have the exact figures in front of me.

MR. LEVI: I have this nagging sense of déja vu, Mr. Chairman. I used to have the same problem with the Systems Corporation. Now I'm having the same problem with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

The previous minister announced on December 29, 1978, that he'd ordered a full review of the B.C. Buildings Corporation for early 1979. He appropriated $25,000 to Coopers and Lybrand in Vancouver to undertake the study. This was no little event in terms of the B.C. Systems Corporation; it was an attempt to find out what was going on. Now the minister tells us that he's never heard of the study and he's never received the study. That creates some difficulty. In the reasons given by the minister, he laid out a number of very serious problems that ministers were having in terms of obtaining accommodation and problems with small- and medium-sized business people in respect to bidding. He talked about other concerns. He said: "But judging from some of the complaints, there's obvious room for improvement. I intend to see that those improvements are introduced as quickly as possible. In addition to the probe being conducted by Bowles" — he calls it a probe — "I intend to be doing my own looking, particularly at the board of directors." Okay, we've just had a Good Housekeeping stamp from the minister; he's got a good board of directors.

If the minister can't answer this today, then obviously he's going to have to get back to me later on. I want to know whether he would ask his deputy or talk to the B.C. Buildings Corporation about what happened to the Bowles report. Was it called off? My understanding is that it was not called off; it was completed. It would be worthwhile for this House to know what the recommendations were, because the previous minister was quite exercised about everything. That's a substantial corporation, with significant revenues — almost $200 million — and an obligation in terms of debentures with a possibility of going over $300 million.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I'd ask the minister to.... In fact, I'll write to him, because I don't think I'm going to get very much from him. I'd like to know what happened to the Bowles report.

He's talked about the rent formula. The one other question I asked him was why it is that in the estimates it's envisioned that the return to the Crown is going to be about $10 million less. Last year the budget was $30 million in terms of the return to the Crown. This year it's only envisioned as $20 million. Is there any specific reason for this? It's in the estimate book.

I hate to be so disruptive as to ask them questions they can't answer, but there you are, Mr. Chairman; that's the object of the exercise. But I'm going to sit down, because.... Oh, he's gone. I thought the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) wanted to have a go. I've had this problem with the minister when he was the Minister of Finance — déja vu all over again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to ask the minister. The first one is: has the minister decided to finally get to grips with the needs of the emergency services program? The ambulance service relies on BCDC to provide it with its headquarters. During the estimates of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) I showed a number of pictures around the House of the disgraceful accommodation that's been afforded the emergency services. I think this government should hang its head in shame for letting the ambulance service down the way they have. This service is highly visible and vitally needed. The morale is low, not only because of the fact that there's a shortage of staff but because there is just absolutely atrocious accommodation. There are a couple of areas in New Westminster where they're doing something at the moment but, generally speaking, I think that it's something that has to be looked at and has to be looked at right away.

My second question to the minister — and this of course is typical — is why it is that when the minister makes his recreation grants, which incidentally run very heavily in Socred ridings.... I realize that they've done a little bit about their lottery grants to even things out, but in the area of recreation grants, I notice that when it's a Socred riding, the announcement is made by the hon. minister, and then the member whose riding is affected.... For instance, here's one for a $4,433 grant to a small community in Prince George South. It's announced jointly by Bruce Strachan, MLA, and by the minister. There is another one for $6,900, and it's the same thing, with the same member. There is another one for $8,400, and it's the same thing, with the same member. And so on. It's quite a hype, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that this is a little bit of politics, but I suggest that it's playing it a bit too much. Now you notice here is a $66,000 grant in the Seymour constituency; that's made jointly. There's one for $55,000 in North Vancouver for a fitness circuit; that's made jointly by three MLAs, including the minister. There's another one for $173,000, and that's made jointly by two ministers — one in Richmond and one in Vancouver–Little Mountain. There's a whole slew more for Prince George.

During that same time period when I was keeping these, I found three or four in NDP ridings. That's all; just three or four. Those were in Powell River, Port Coquitlam, Esquimalt and Lasqueti Island. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should consider the question....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he should consider that it's the minister responsible who is providing the grant in his ministry, not the member for the area. I think that the minister should take a look at his way of doing business.

In his opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, the minister alluded to his new library board and so on and all of the great things they're doing. So far all we've heard from the library people is that they are quite dissatisfied with this government's lack of real, vital interest. I suggest to the minister that maybe he should once again talk to the Library Association of this province and find out the real needs — those that can be filled only by the government — to bring our libraries back up to where they should be; that is, an informative research and an informative recreation facility. Right now, Mr. Chairman, they're being let down.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in looking over estimates I'm rather puzzled by the very large miscellaneous expenditure for the Government Employee Relations Bureau: $8,690,000. It's itemized as a No. 90, which means "other expenditures" and includes all expenditures not

[ Page 3745 ]

otherwise classified, such as interest on deposits, supplementary personnel costs, superannuation, etc., transfers to special funds, loans and advances etc. In looking over this I cannot for the life of me figure what this is and why such a large amount could not be better described, it being about 85 percent of the total vote.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What's the vote number?

MR. NICOLSON: It's 178, GERB, and it's the last item. It's about $8.7 million. I hope that the minister can tell us what this huge amount is for. I imagine he can tell us that off the top of his head, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll get it for you.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like first of all to endorse the comments of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) regarding the way in which the government creates the illusion of patronage by explicitly and repeatedly using Socred MLAs to hand out government grants in Socred ridings and denying that same opportunity to New Democrat MLAs in their ridings. I think it would do the government a good turn, and the people as well, if the government changed that policy and returned to the policy enunciated by the New Democrat administration in '72 to '75. Let me illustrate for the benefit of the learned member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf).

I recall once in late '74 the practice taken to such an extent that the then second member for Victoria, David Anderson, a Liberal, was on the front page of the Victoria Times, portrayed handing out a Human Resources grant to a day-care centre in what is now my riding. Norman Levi, the then Minister of Human Resources, made it clear that there was no patronage in the handing out of his grants and, in fact, took that principle to such an extent that he regularly advised members on both sides of the House when grants were made from his ministry, and in this particular instance invited David Anderson, if he cared — as I believe he also invited Newell Morrison, who did not care at that instant to do it with him — to hand out a day-care grant in Victoria city. Clearly, a former government had the guts to deny the appearance of patronage and to invite opposition members to join in publicly making available these funds to the people of various ridings.

If it was good enough under that administration and if that was a sound enough principle that the then leader of the Liberal Party was persuaded it was a fair and reasonable way to make public funds publicly known to be available, then I can't see what logical objection this government would have. But if the government is not prepared to return to that sound practice where members of the Legislature, regardless of party, made available public moneys in a public way in their own ridings, then Social Credit will, as usual, stand condemned for the appearance — and no doubt the reality — of patronage in its grant practices. Let me remind you, there was more than one occasion, but I vividly remember that one, because I was darned proud of Levi for having the political courage to go to David Anderson and Newell Morrison and say: "Look, it's your riding. If you care to hand out the grants to this day-care centre, that drop-in centre or whatever, go ahead, because you are honourably and legitimately the member for Victoria." That was fair and good; that was a reasonable way for the government of the day to treat members on both sides of the House equitably and impartially. I commend it to the Provincial Secretary. I observe as well that it was a precedent set in the years 1972-75.

I've two other matters that I'd like to raise briefly. One, I am extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of genuine interest on the part of the Provincial Secretary in saving the Kettle Valley Railway. Brian Morris, Pat Capozzi and the members of the Kettle Valley Railway committee have worked remarkably hard under remarkably difficult conditions to try to save an important part of Canadian history. The minister will reply: "Well, we commissioned the TIDSA study." That's very good. I have the study. I'm pleased that they did that; I'm angry that they did no more. A study by itself simply gathers dust. A study that results in no action taken is a waste of time and a waste of the taxpayers' money. A study that did as little as this study did to animate the government to save this important stretch of Canadian railway history is a study which condemns the government for its own lack of action.

The minister, if he had the courage, could have used sections 4 and 7 of the Heritage Conservation Act to designate the Kettle Valley Railway as a heritage site. There is nothing whatever in that act which would refuse him the authority to do so. The minister could, if he wished, then set a figure for the value of the 30-year-old track, the 40-year-old ties and the gravel. He could have designated that figure to be the worth, upon the motion, of the Heritage Conservation Act, that would be paid to the CPR for its ancient investment in the track. If the minister had the courage to take on the CPR and the courage to designate, as he is empowered to do, we would today be possessed of the whole stretch of that track. The minister had no such courage, and instead was willing to simply repeat the ridiculous and unsubstantiated figures the CPR gave him as to what they thought their track was worth.

I heard the minister say publicly that it would cost $30 million to designate the track. That figure, is utterly without foundation; there isn't a shred of factual evidence to back it up. The only time that figure has ever appeared publicly was when the CPR made it appear, hocus-pocus, because the CPR, which is a darned tough negotiator and a darned hard bargainer, decided to hold this gutless government to ransom and say: "We have decided that our railway is worth $30 million." The government could just as easily have said it was worth 30 cents. It made as much or as little rational sense to take that position. The $30 million figure is not substantiated in the TIDSA report. It is not apparent in any of the engineering reports that went into it. I challenge the minister to tell us on what independent and impartial basis he came up with that figure. The only author of it, as far as we can tell, is the CPR itself, which, of course, holds out for a ridiculous price for ancient track, gravel and ties.

The value of the Kettle Valley Railway is threefold. First of all, it is an important part of the historical tradition of Canadian development through the rail system, and it should be saved for that reason. It was sufficiently important that the CBC used it as one of the principal sites for the filming of The National Dream, because the railway, in a short distance, contained as much various Canadian railway history as any other stretch they could find on any of the main systems in the country. It should be saved because it has unique and irreplaceable historical value.

Secondly, the railway, as a means eventually — 20 and 30 years from now — of transporting significant numbers of people into and around the Penticton area and up to Kelowna,

[ Page 3746 ]

is an investment that we should guard now so we don't have to pay for it again later. Twenty and thirty years from now the economics of such a rail line will justify the use of it for rapid transit which it surely will when gas costs $5 a gallon and people aren't going to be able to afford to drive as easily, readily and casually as they can now. Twenty and thirty years from now people will be pleased to give credit — if they could — to a government that had the guts to save that railway for transit purposes two and three decades down the road.

The third reason why the Kettle Valley Railway should be kept as is is, of course, because of the tourist potential. Once again the minister will say: "Well, we commissioned the TIDSA study." That's very good, and I congratulate them for doing that. The problem is they've done nothing with it. There is no point in simply maintaining the right-of-way on gravel for backpackers and hitch-hikers. That is an enormous loss and defeat when you could have so much more if you had the guts to take on the CPR and name a reasonable price for the ancient ties, track and gravel, and have the guts to set it aside so that we protect its heritage worth, so that we protect the option for its transit use in the future and so that we protect the tourist potential that exists truly and powerfully along the Kettle Valley Railway. For the government to say, "Well, we're going to buy the right-of-way," is for the government to admit that they lost. They lost vision, imagination and an important part of the Canadian heritage. For the government to say, "Well, we've got the right-of-way," is for the government to say: "Yeah, but we lost the trestles, we lost the track, and we lost the tourism potential." Keeping the right-of-way by itself is a nothing achievement.

What you could and should have done was to designate the railway and name a reasonable price to the CPR — maybe $30,000 would be the fair replacement value for that old track, those old ties and that old gravel. Having designated it and having paid a fair price — not the CPR's ridiculous $30 million price — and modest price for this old track, so old that they don't use it anymore and so old they plan to put it instead on prairie sidings where it will be used even less, one suspects, we then would have had the opportunity to save for the people of the Okanagan Valley the vast tourism potential of that remarkable stretch of rail, including the fabled Myra Canyon, and would have had as well the opportunity to use it complimentarily for transit 20 and 30 years from now when it will be economically viable to do so.

Because the minister has failed to use any guts or any imagination and to use all of the leverage of the bill, which Mr. Bawlf introduced and which was passed unanimously in the House, we can only say he stands condemned by the people of the Okanagan Valley for his inaction, for his carelessness and for his lack of vision. I predict that because of the patent failure of Social Credit to save the Kettle Valley Railway, they will lose hundreds upon hundreds of votes in the next general election. We know for a fact that the people up there are passionately committed to keeping that railway option open for the future. You have let them down, Mr. Minister. Most particularly, so has your Premier, the member for South Okanagan. Social Credit stands condemned for its lack of courage, imagination and will. Thanks to Social Credit, the Kettle Valley Railway, has been lost.

I wish to raise one more topic with the minister. That's another loss.

MS. BROWN: He could have named it after himself.

MR. BARBER: The Kettle Valley and Bennett Railway would have been acceptable to the opposition if that was the price we had to pay in order to keep it.

MS. BROWN: The Kettle Valley, Bennett and Wolfe.

MR. BARBER: The Kettle Valley, Bennett and Wolfe Railway, if necessary. We don't mind what the name is. We want to keep the railway.

However, the third and final thing I wish to discuss briefly is the fact that in the last year this province has still to define or articulate in a persuasive way any cultural policy whatsoever. I recall raising this last year with the former Provincial Secretary. It was reported widely in the papers as being the first time in living memory that anyone could recall a debate being led on the floor of this House in regard to a British Columbia cultural policy. Well, so be it.

The minister at the time pathetically pleaded the case that we should have no cultural policy in order to leave our options open. That was, in fact, a lamentable excuse for laziness, for lack of wit, and — again — for lack of imagination on the part of the current government.

We have a significant cultural heritage in British Columbia. It includes originally, of course, the native Indian people. It includes powerfully, of course, the west coast technology, the west coast arts and the west coast genius of North America. There most certainly is a west coast culture on this continent. It includes as well the tremendous heritage via the ethnic communities that we enjoy so luckily in this province.

The cultural enterprises of British Columbia are vast, differential and important. They are not simply good economically, but they are also very good economically. They are not simply good for the aesthetic and the spiritual health of the people, but they are also good for the aesthetic and the spiritual health of all of the people. Precisely because British Columbia has no cultural policy at all, this point being admitted last year by the Provincial Secretary, the following situation results. Arts groups — amateur, semi-professional and professional, performing and plastic, and all of the arts interests in the province — inevitably are faced with a vacuum, are faced with a kind of black hole that offers no direction, no contour, no symmetry, no point of view about the provincial interest in supporting arts, precisely because there are no guidelines, no criteria except in the most narrow and unhelpful way, except in the way that Mr. Fielding and his people are forced to attempt to administer a non-policy, and the lotteries branch is required to do the same. Arts groups are increasingly angry and are increasingly disfranchised from the important policy making process that they should be able to speak to and at and for in the province of British Columbia.

In other provinces there are commendable, respectable and honoured cultural policies. Ontario and Quebec especially enjoy a provincial cultural policy which recognizes, enhances, articulates and gives dimension to the cultural heritage and aspirations of their own people.

What do we have in British Columbia? No policy. No criteria except the narrowest. No challenge on the part of arts community people to help shape and share in the direction of cultural enterprise for all of the people.

Last year the Provincial Secretary said: "We have no cultural policy and that's how it should be." I hope this year

[ Page 3747 ]

the now Provincial Secretary is willing to say that he's reconsidered, and willing to argue in favour of the adoption of such a policy. It is needed for the guidance and for the assistance of legitimate cultural and arts groups of all sorts around the province. It is not good enough or reasonable to expect them to operate in the current vacuum and be happy about it. It does not serve their interests in the long or the short term either. Rather, all it does is persuade them to try and cosy up to government MLAs and get their grants through the back door, called "lobbying," because there is no front door called "policy" for them to go through.

We would prefer that a front door called "policy" be built. We would prefer that the people in the arts communities have a chance to build it. We would prefer to do away with the old and ridiculous system of lobbying through your MLA, because you've got nowhere else to go, there being no policy you can find to tell you how to get wherever it is you think you should be.

The lack of a cultural policy in British Columbia, defined, shaped and shared not just by this Legislature but by all of the persons interested in an arts policy here, is fundamentally damaging to the long-term interests of the appreciation and the growth of art and cultural activities in every way in this province. I urge the minister to reconsider. I urge him to ignore what his colleague said last year and tell us instead that this year he is prepared to debate, to shape publicly and to bring back to this House sometime soon the outline of a cultural policy for all of the people and which all of the people can respect. At the moment, the total lack of such a policy creates a total lack of respect on the part of the practitioners of the art and cultural life of British Columbia. There's no need for it, there's no justification for it, and there's no reason they or we should have to put up with that situation much longer. I urge the Provincial Secretary to reconsider.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Some matters are speeches and other matters are questions. I'd like to answer a question which related to vote 178 — Government Employee Relations Bureau — rather than deal with it under a separate vote. The member was asking for an explanation of "Other expenditures," which rose to $8,690,000. That vote covers "employee benefits" to "executive benefit plan" to ''management excluded," representing $5,900,000. In other words, it covers all excluded government employees classified under the executive position evaluation plan. That's 1,939 employees. In addition, there are the optional selection benefits which apply to the licensed professionals, which represents some $2,100,000, covering slightly over 1,000 employees. An additional amount is in there to cover similar benefit plans attributed to deputy ministers and to order-in-council employees. So that is the make-up of the employee benefit votes which fall under "Government Employee Relations Bureau."

MR. NICOLSON: I take it then that this, which is described as "Other expenditures," and is described under standard objectives of expenditure, is expenditures such as interest on deposit, supplementary personnel costs, transfers to special funds, loans and advances, etc., and that it is, in fact, some kind of a performance incentive plan for upper level management, and also for order-in-council employees. Might I ask, does each order-in-council employee have a specific amount over and above what we see — for instance, a position created in a certain ministerial office? Would that person have a specific amount allocated, and would that specific amount be achieved this year? Or does he only achieve that based on how well he performs?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, these are pre-designed percentages as an additional benefit attributed to all management excluded, and certain others. For instance, in the case of the executive benefit plan, it represents 10 percent of their salary; in terms of the optional selection of benefits attributed to licensed professionals, it's roughly 7 percent. So this has been established within the last five years as payment in lieu of other benefits which would normally be accorded to hourly employees and others, where they are paid overtime and so on.

MR. NICOLSON: You've mentioned two groups. What about order-in-council employees? Do they get an extra 10 percent or...?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Ten.

MR. NICOLSON: An extra 10 percent over and above the salary which is shown. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Ten, yes.

Vote 170 approved.

Vote 171: administration, $3,928,498 — approved.

Vote 172: heritage, culture, recreation and fitness, $23,375,403 — approved.

On vote 173: government services, $12,650,340.

MRS. DAILLY: In looking through the estimates, this is the vote where I see that the government public information vote has doubled this year. I have a very simple question to the minister. Would he first of tell us what is encompassed in this public information vote and why it has doubled this year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I am informed the major reason for that increase would be Transpo '86 and the expenses attributed to it, covering the current year.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, also under this vote at least I imagine it would be here — there was a program established by the NDP called Ask B.C., which became an inquiry office program in Vancouver. When Social Credit became government, they pretty well emasculated the program and, I think, brought it down to almost four or five employees, for whatever their own reasons may be. The idea of the program, of course, was to give the citizens of British Columbia an opportunity to phone and get some immediate answers. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the government's plans are now that this whole program has been whittled down to a staff of about four or five.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that is covered under vote 186, government information services. Is that what the member is referring to?

[ Page 3748 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I just asked for your guidance; I wasn't sure where it was covered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister suggests possibly vote 186. Does the minister prefer to pause a moment and comment further under vote 173?

I think we'll proceed, hon. members, reserving the right, if the minister prefers to comment in the context of vote 173, so to do. Would that be agreeable?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it is agreeable. I just have one more comment; I don't mind waiting for that vote, Mr. Chairman. I don't want this vote to pass without making once again the point that I consider.... The answer we're given is that public information, as listed here, is Transpo. That doesn't completely satisfy me. As far as I'm concerned, this is the vote where I consider that the taxpayers' money is being abused, because there's never a breakdown on how much government advertising is taking place under this government for their own political purposes.

I want to make a final point. Since Social Credit became government in this province, government advertising has tripled. That pretty well explains to us that the Social Credit government has made up its mind that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using taxpayers' money not just to propagate general policies of this government for information but to put forward before the people of B.C. the Social Credit Party line. I resent it, and many citizens of this province resent it.

MS. BROWN: I just want to ask the minister whether a department's propaganda would be funded by this vote and, if so, whether it would show up here rather than under the department's estimates.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What?

MS. BROWN: Propaganda from various departments, such as Human Resources. Would it be funded under this vote and, if so, would it show up here rather than as part of Human Resources?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's not under this vote.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Vote 173 approved.

On vote 174: British Columbia lottery branch, $10.

MS. BROWN: Well, Mr. Chairman, a number of things happened under this vote. Is this the vote that deals with the B.C. Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Just the administration of it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under what vote would I be able to put a question about the B.C. Lottery Fund?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the salary vote.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You already asked me.

MS. BROWN: Well, we'll do it retroactively then. I just want to use this opportunity to put in a plea for the Big Brothers of Burnaby. They've been negotiating with the minister for some time, rearranging their request, cutting and reshaping it to try and meet the criteria of the Lottery Fund, and they're not seeming to have very much success. Now I just want to remind the minister that they're doing a particularly good job in Burnaby; there is a backlog of young men needing Big Brothers. There is a shortage of Big Brothers, so they're branching out and trying to design programs that would involve a number of young people rather than just one-to-one. In order to do this, they need funding and they need accommodation.

Now I'm not quite sure what else they can do in terms of rewriting their request for funding to make themselves eligible, but I want to put in another plea for them to see whether the minister cannot find somehow under the Lottery Fund the money they need to get the house. That's what they need — the house out of which to run these programs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can say is that I'll certainly look into it. I recall a visit from the provincial organization some months ago dealing with their problem of funding their office which administers the whole province. I don't know if you're referring to a local Big Brothers organization or....

MS. BROWN: Burnaby. Mr. Hollander has been in to see you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll certainly have a look at it.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

.Vote 174 approved.

Vote 175: unemployment insurance and workers' compensation, $15,000,000 — approved.

Vote 176: Public Inquiries Act, $10 — approved.

Vote 177: Provincial Elections Act, $697,022 approved.

Vote 178: Government Employee Relations Bureau, $10,331,745 — approved.

Vote 179: Public Service Commission administration, $3,484,667 — approved.

Vote 180: salary and benefits, sundry employees, $730,000 — approved.

Vote 181: public service adjudication board, $291,954 — approved.

Vote 182: superannuation branch administration, $2,261,882 — approved.

Vote 183: public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $74,245,000 — approved.

Vote 184: Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $215,000 — approved.

Vote 185: employee benefits, $36,701,039 — approved.

[ Page 3749 ]

On vote 186: government information services, $548,016.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this is where I think perhaps the minister could answer me about what's going to happen to that provincial inquiry centre that used to be called Ask B.C.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I quite appreciate that that function has not been as active as it used to be and we are reviewing it. In terms of the present employees their position will be secure, as far as that goes. It's just a matter of how we're going to need this service in the future. That's about all I can say on it at this point.

Vote 186 approved.

Vote 187: building occupancy charges, $9,466,000 — approved.

Vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $1,600,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

On vote 155: minister's office, $148,047.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I thought for a moment I had my vote, and that everybody was relatively satisfied with the activities of my ministry in the last 12 months.

I want to just briefly touch upon some of the activities of my ministry and some of the plans we have for the forthcoming year. The ministry is now halfway through its second full year of operation. During 1979-80 the ministry laid the basic foundation to carry out the performance of its mandate to make Crown land available to the citizens of British Columbia. The major challenge the first year was to examine the new ministry's resources, programs and legislation as the impact upon the provision of Crown land. In meeting this challenge, the following accomplishments and initiatives resulted: the creation of the ministry's Lands, Parks and Housing Act together with major amendments to the Land Act; a reorganization of the ministry within existing staff levels; the establishment of a ministry enterprises vote, which includes the commercial operation of the downhill ski areas, Manning Park Lodge and the University Endowment Lands golf course; the establishment of a Crown land fund; a beneficiary study of Crown land leaseholders; the introduction of a Crown land disposal program; the establishment of a market unit and public information program; the development of a three-year parkland acquisition and facility development proposal; the establishment of a number of protocol agreements with the Ministry of Forests and the British Columbia Development Corporation, which defines responsibility boundaries; and the clearing of a land application backlog, with an achievement of 120-day turnaround time on applications.

Having laid this solid foundation during its first full year of operation, the ministry entered 1980-81 better able to provide the services and programs under its mandate to the citizens of British Columbia. In carrying out the mandate of this ministry the objectives for 1980-81 include the recent initiatives of providing $200 million available at low-interest rates for the construction of new homes. This very successful program led to the start of more than 4,500 housing units, of which nearly 2,500 are for rent. The program was very successful in maintaining housing starts during the period of peak interest rates. I want to thank the directors and staff of B.C. Central Credit Union for their tremendous administration of this program.

Speaking about housing, Vancouver has become the major centre for residential construction in this country, surpassing Edmonton and Calgary, which have dominated the construction scene for some time. Housing starts in urban areas in the province were up 61 percent in June over the same period last year. The continuation of this trend will result in a 24 percent overall increase in housing units constructed in 1980. The prediction for the rest of Canada is that there will be a 20 percent reduction on housing construction starts this year as compared to last year. Starts in Vancouver in June were 1,356 units, up 48 percent from June 1979. Single detached housing starts numbered 865 units, stronger than any other metropolitan area in Canada. On a year-to date basis, single-detached housing production in Vancouver equals production in Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton combined. In the first six months of 1980 Vancouver had 7,554 starts, 4,356 of which were single-detached housing units. In British Columbia the multiple-unit sector has shown particular strength. Some 1,068 units were started in June, compared with only 334 units last year — a rise of 220 percent. Victoria is also experiencing a similar surge. In June 290 units were started, up 308 percent over last June's figure of 71. Despite this tremendous growth in housing starts we're still experiencing problems with rental accommodation, caused essentially by interprovincial migration, which for May 1980, the last month that figures are available, surpassed the highest number in 20 years and was almost three times the monthly average. The interprovincial migration has been extremely active during the last ten months. We've had to find accommodation for people not only from other provinces but for 16,000 immigrants that have made British Columbia their home in the last few months. We're continuously examining ways and means of further accelerating housing starts in this province to meet the needs of our citizens.

The park and outdoor recreation division is proceeding with the first year of its planned three-year development program. The number of new park facilities to be provided under this development program includes 1,800 new campsites, 3,000 picnic sites, 2,500 kilometres of trails, and 19 group camping areas.

The senior citizens' housing program is able to support non-profit societies for the construction of more than 600 housing units for low-income senior citizens.

Through the Crown Land Fund the ministry is assisting local governments in financing the development of residential subdivisions and sewer and water servicing by committing $50 million.

Also under this fund the ministry is developing 580 rural residential lots, 225 recreational lots, 124 rural development parcels, plus agricultural parcels and a few commercial lots in a rural land development program.

The recently announced new policy in acquiring Crown land for agriculture has created a great deal of public interest. Many British Columbia citizens are interested in becoming farmers. In early September auctions are to take place in the Peace River and central interior regions.

Public information also has a high priority during 1980-

[ Page 3750 ]

1981. Crown land information packages are now available which better inform the public about the programs and services of the ministry.

In addition a provincial park map is being prepared to provide better information about British Columbia's park system to both residents and tourists. A highway sign and park information board program will be further implemented.

Better service has been made available to the public by maintaining a 120-day turnaround time on land applications. The great numbers of agricultural....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I was prepared to let it go without conversation. Do you want me to say any more?

AN HON. MEMBER: We'd love it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Okay. Thank you very much.

The great number of agricultural applications being received make maintaining this standard a greater challenge. Service to the public is also being increased by the ministry assuming the land commissioner function in district offices. Here I want to express my thanks to the government agents who have carried this role until this spring.

Through the Crown Land Fund the ministry will provide grants to local governments for the acquisition and development of community parks under the terms of the Park (Regional) Act.

Major land acquisitions have also been planned for 1980-1981: a continuation of the acquisition of the Sturgeon Bank, Ladner Marsh for habitat conservation, and land for Pacific Rim National Park, on a cost-sharing basis with the federal government.

These represent the major thrusts of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for 1980-1981. The required funding to meet these objectives will be derived from the Crown Land Fund.

With these few introductory remarks I'd now like to introduce my staff: my new deputy minister, John Johnston, who took over his new responsibilities on July 28, just about two weeks ago. I might say he was introduced not too long ago as assistant deputy minister for the Ministry of Forests. Now I'm introducing him as a deputy minister in my ministry. I'd like to also introduce Andrew Armitage, assistant deputy minister of my ministry, and Tom Lee, also assistant deputy minister.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, may I welcome Mr. Johnston to his second set of estimates this session, and congratulate him too on his recent appointment.

In beginning the discussion on these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that we have made a decision on this side of the House to divide the minister's department into three: lands, parks and housing, and to deal with each of those areas separately, and complete each of those areas before moving on to the next. This is just for the information of the House. Our plan at this point is to deal with housing first, then lands, and then parks. We will keep them separate and distinct.

I don't intend, Mr. Chairman, to be either lengthy or demagogic in my remarks this afternoon. I don't intend to get into a wrangle with the minister. I don't intend to yell and scream and vent my spleen the way I would like to about my concerns about housing. I want instead, very quietly, calmly and quickly, to state a few of our concerns about the ministry's programs and propose to the House a number of positive solutions that we believe would be useful.

Could the ministry, now that it has spent the last year dealing with Crown lands and very little else, turn its attention to what we perceive as a major problem in this province, the problem of housing?

When I say that, I know the minister will come back at me and say: "But look at the figures." He quoted one of them a little earlier. I believe it was a 61 percent increase in housing starts in June in urban areas of British Columbia. Those figures are valid and correct, and there's no point in arguing about them. The point that I would like to make, and the theme and basis for what I'm saying this afternoon, is that for most of us in this province housing isn't a problem, isn't a crisis. Nobody in this House, earning the kind of income we're earning, has to depend in any way on government programs to obtain housing; we can do quite well without any assistance. That applies pretty much to the majority of our citizens in this province. But there are a large number of people — the percentage is arguable, but I would say it's up to a third of the residents of this province, definitely 20 percent, probably in the high 20s — who absolutely do require government housing assistance in a variety of ways.

Through the course of this afternoon's comments I want to demonstrate to the minister that British Columbia's housing program, and initiatives to try to assist that sector of our society, don't match at all the records and performances of neighbouring provinces like Alberta. I won't mention Saskatchewan. The minister might accuse me of being partisan if I were to do that, so I don't intend to talk about Saskatchewan at all this afternoon. But I will talk about Alberta and Ontario, both provinces with fiscally conservative governments, similar in a general sense to the government we now have in British Columbia, yet, as I intend to demonstrate later, provinces with very extensive and very imaginative housing programs aimed at that sector of society that can't make it on its own — that sector of society that doesn't benefit from the free market solution to housing.

I think in any discussion of housing we have to acknowledge that housing is a basic human right. It is not something that comes and goes with the forces and vagaries of the marketplace. As a society, we must recognize that humans have a basic right to housing.

There has been a lot of discussion in B.C. by the minister, the Premier and others, suggesting that the federal government is to blame for the housing problem — that if it weren't for the big, bad feds in Ottawa we wouldn't have the kinds of problems we have. The capital cost allowance is one of the items mentioned, But, in fact, in most provinces in this country there aren't great housing crises, particularly in the low-income section of the community, as there is here in British Columbia. I know that the federal minister responsible for housing was quite surprised to learn of the needs here as compared to other parts of the country. The federal programs and policies obviously apply across the country, and if our housing crisis was the fault of the federal government then, presumably, the housing crisis would be a problem in other areas of the country that are experiencing relatively rapid growth; yet they don't have the same kinds of housing problems that we do here.

Let me deal first of all with rental accommodation. I

[ Page 3751 ]

won't bore the House or the minister with all the figures and facts that are available on the crisis in rental accommodation, particularly in the large cities, but I might say it's also true in the developing communities; it's certainly true in small communities in my riding, like Port Hardy and others. It's acutely and dramatically a problem in places like Vancouver, where the vacancy rate, which hopefully should be at 2 or 3 percent or somewhere in that order, is in fact often at 1/10 of 1 percent.

One of the problems is that the city of Vancouver has embarked on a dramatic and major housing initiative program.... I shouldn't use the words "housing initiative program," because you've taken that away for some other use, and I'll get to that later. They have initiated programs in the city of Vancouver that deal with, as much as is possible, some of the acute crises in that city. In fact, as the minister knows, they have done more to make land available and to generate low-income housing in the city of Vancouver than the province has, and I think that that, particularly when you think of the make-up of the city council in Vancouver, is a pretty good record.

The point I want to make in developing this argument this afternoon is that the ideology of the free market has become too much a problem in the minister's mind. Often the political debate in this province between you and us is that we are the dogmatists, the people who are hide-bound ideologues, people who can't develop different kinds of programs because we're caught up in a philosophy. In fact, particularly in housing, the facts are the opposite. What has happened is that the ideology of free enterprise so dominates the thinking, so contaminates the government, that there is no opportunity for thinking beyond the market system,

You have denied, in fact, that there are requirements from the public sector for assistance. That's particularly true in rental accommodation, and I think the city of Vancouver in its programs, particularly in terms of co-op housing and low-income housing, has demonstrated a far greater social conscience and a far greater awareness of the needs than has the government. I won't go into any more details about that. It would take far too long in terms of the variety of issues that I would like to talk about this afternoon.

I want to talk about the Housing Initiative Program, the program that was developed in the minister's absence — while he was in New Zealand and Australia, I believe — and announced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) together with the Premier, following some meetings, as a political gesture to get the government out from under the shadow of "dirty tricks." It was done while the minister was in the South Seas. I wonder why. Well, if not in the South Seas, at least he was Down Under. I wonder why it would be that the only major program that the government has initiated in housing since the election came about at a time when the minister was not even here. It strikes me and many others, and not only on this side of the House, as a bit strange. It strikes me that that, in fact, was not a housing program as such, but rather a political program designed to try to take some of the heat off the government at that particular time. It seemed like a good idea when a variant of that program was suggested by the IWA. The Premier grabbed at it and, as best as I can determine, the program was very hurriedly put together and announced. The minister didn't even have the benefit of making that announcement and getting all the glory for himself. I find that very strange, Mr. Minister.

Let me say that in principle we don't have any major objections to the concept of low-interest money for reasonably priced accommodation. In fact, we were proposing to do just that through the savings and trust legislation that was passed in this Legislature in June 1975, I believe. We were proposing, in fact, to provide money for housing at a lower rate of interest and in a much greater amount than in the minister's program — not the minister's program, but the government's program.

You talk about a $200 million program. In fact, it is probably an $8 million or $10 million or $12 million program.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some $30 million.

MR. GABELMANN: It's $30 million over three years, right. Well, we're close. I said $8 million or $10 million or $12 million. You say $30 million over three years; take my middle figure of $10 million and we're right on. It's annually a $10 million program. We've all got into the trap of calling it a $200 million program. It's not $200 million from the government; it's a $10 million cost to the government per year — $30 million for the overall program, agreed. There are 4,500 units, agreed — no quarrel about the number of units that have been or are being built under that program. I would argue that many of them would have been built anyway under different financing. One in particular which had federal financing — Hartshorne in Port Hardy — would have gone ahead anyway as would many others. The reason that that one would have gone ahead is that they had an arrangement with Utah Mines. Much of the housing in that unit was built for Utah Mines employees because they're trying to close down their bunkhouses, and the program was going to go ahead anyway. The developer decided that he could make a bit more profit if he bulldozed his foundations so as to no longer qualify under the federal program, but to qualify anew under the provincial program. It may be only 54 units out of the 4,500, but that's 1 percent — and that's the only one that I'm....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is he a right-to-work contractor? Is that what bothers you?

MR. GABELMANN: The minister asks me if he's a right-to-work contractor. Yes, he is.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Anyway, I won't make the point any further, but I'll use that as an illustration of the fact that maybe not all, but many of those 4,500 units would have gone up anyway under different financing arrangements.

The great travesty and tragedy about that program is the number of people who lined up at credit union office doors the morning of the announcement only to be told by credit union staff: "We don't know anything about the program. Please come back." So, in good faith, many of those people who had lined up early and were first in line came back several days later, as advised by their credit unions, only to discover that they were then way down on the list. Anyone that was very far down that list didn't qualify. If the minister wants some absolute proof and some very real indication of the need for this kind of relatively low — it's middle-income housing basically if it's for private housing, but it's on the

[ Page 3752 ]

low side nowadays.... If he wants any indication of the overwhelming need for this kind of program in an expanded form — in the way we had begun to develop it, frankly — he just has to look at the list of people who have been turned down for that program. There were thousands and thousands of British Columbians turned down because they were not in the first half-dozen or dozen, or whatever it was on the list of that local credit union.

I won't say more about it. I'm not criticizing the concept. I'm criticizing the fact that it was not a program that was well thought through. It hadn't been through the planning stages in any really detailed way.

One of the problems that governments have gotten into over the years in this country, particularly in housing, is that programs have been announced on their own, without thought to how they impact on other programs, without thought to what impact they will have later on not only on the economy but on other programs within all three levels of government. Unless the programs are really very carefully thought through and analyzed in relation to the others, they are often doomed to failure. This one hasn't failed in that sense because the idea is basically good. I'm glad that the minister borrowed that one from us, even though it was a few years late and was done in a way that wasn't nearly adequate — and probably entirely without his knowledge except for one or two trans-Pacific telephone calls.

Because the federal government has decided to try to carve up the pie between the provinces and the federal government as to who does what in various aspects of housing, there are some very considerable gaps left. For example, let me take handicapped housing, low-income housing, co-op housing and seniors' housing. As I understand it, the province has kept seniors' and handicapped housing and the federal government has kept low-income and co-op housing. Out of that deal the province did very well politically, as often happens in negotiations with Ottawa. The province got the two political winners, in a sense — seniors and handicapped — because politically you can't get into any trouble building housing for seniors and the handicapped; it's that kind of issue.

There is an equally great need — and a greater need in sheer numbers — for low-income public housing. I'm not talking about the old Skeena Terrace or Raymur Place; that's the image people have of public housing. I'm sure that none of us want to go back to those kinds of days in public housing. The great need in this province is for some low-income and co-op housing programs. The minister will say, "Well, we've turned that over to the federal government," and so you have. But in that turning over....

I want to quote from a letter that you sent to the manager and chairman of the national non-profit housing, Mr. Ron J. Cobis. It's a letter from your office dated July 7. Midway through the letter the minister says: "I have recently personally urged the Hon. Paul Cosgrove to enhance, for example, Ottawa's allocation to CMHC's British Columbia region for cooperative housing." Good. They should increase it. The need is here. What you don't mention is that that money doesn't include seniors or really low-income people in co-ops. There need to be specially developed programs for those categories of people. I won't go into all the details but that point is made throughout this material that I have from Mr. Cobis' office.

What I am saying to the minister is that, in taking handicapped and seniors' housing and leaving co-op and public housing, we're leaving a gap for the very low-income people who do not fit into the federal government's definition of incomes under co-op housing. And there is a very real need there. One of the areas of solution for the very low-income people, in my judgment, is in fact co-op housing, not just housing managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

I'm not being very specific at the moment but if the minister takes that general advice, if and when he decides to move in that direction, he might also think about changing the nature of the ownership of the public housing that is managed by BCHMC and converting it to co-op, so that the people who live there could in fact own it and eventually manage it themselves in a much greater way. That might fit very well into your own philosophy of getting the government out of people's lives. In that respect I would very much agree that there's a possibility for some cooperative ventures in that area. It's something that I wouldn't want you to do very quickly or without very much thought. I think it requires a great deal of planning and thought, but it is something that needs to be given some thought.

The 30-minute limit in these debates is a real problem. I've got a lot of things that I want to go through. I think what I'll do is talk about some positive things that government should think about doing.

Re-establish the B.C. Housing Corporation as an active agent, even though it has not finally disposed of all its assets. You're not going to do it, I know; but we will. You aren't; we are. There's another opportunity for the voters to make a decision about the relative merits of the two sides of this House. We want to establish — as every other province in the country has — an active housing corporation in this province, because people in housing corporations in other provinces tell me it can operate in a much more effective manner than can government departments in organizing housing programs and, in fact, in taking advantage of CMHC money on all of the cost-sharing programs.

For example, what could the housing corporation do? Well, it could do a number of things. It could assist in construction, maintenance and administration. Administration and maintenance are now, I appreciate, in BCHMC, but the housing corporation itself could do that as well as construction for those people in British Columbia that I talked about earlier: that 20 to 35 percent of society that is in very real need of some government assistance. It could undertake land assembly where that's appropriate. It could be involved in the servicing of the development for residential use. There would be power to develop non-profit and public housing right within the housing corporation. Take it out of the bureaucracy of the government and put it into a corporation where it would be a more effective and speedier process. Give it a budget, let it go to work and let it do something.

The second thing you could do is to establish a home mortgage corporation. Do it at the same time or do it one before the other; it doesn't matter. There we get back into HIP, but this could be done through a mortgage corporation that would provide money on a regular and sustaining basis and would not be this kind of one-shot deal that leads to happy people who have the fortunate timing to be ready to build when your programs get announced. It would be ready for people whenever they're ready to build, and wouldn't depend on the vagaries of announcements from the Premier. In doing that through a home mortgage corporation, one of the things you'd have to do, of course, is to persuade your

[ Page 3753 ]

colleagues to proclaim the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act so that we could, together with the credit unions, organize a proper financial system that would allow for the dispensing of mortgage money at a lower rate to British Columbians in need. The minister should be keen to go that route of a separate financial institution. The minister is one of the few old-fashioned Socreds in the government, one of the few long-time Socreds and one of those who, while he may not necessarily believe in A plus B.... Oh, he does.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's it come to? Come on, tell us.

MR. GABELMANN: X, the unknown. While he may not be that kind of Socred, he does believe, I think, in some of the things that his colleague the former Premier of Alberta, Rev. Aberhart, was responsible for. Aberhart had established institutions that had some of the aspects — some of them were a bit more wild — that are included in the savings and trust: some public provincial control over capital so that we can develop our own lives in this province in a way that's suited to our own needs. I'm sure the minister would agree with me that the big banking institutions run from Toronto and Montreal are not likely to be as keen to cater to our needs as a provincially, publicly controlled savings and trust might be, which could, among other things, establish as part of its operation the home mortgage corporation that I've talked about.

We could establish a provincial land corporation; that's another thing that could be done, something that should be given some thought. We could plan, develop, market, finance, manage and sell land now acquired and acquire more land that's appropriate for future development. It's not a terribly socialist idea. Prince George does it in one form. Calgary, Saskatoon and Regina have done it. Many cities and some provinces have done it. It's not particularly ideological; it's just another tool in the government's armoury of weapons to deal with the housing problems that exist.

I refer once again to non-profit. I'm a great believer in co-op housing as a solution for a certain section of our community. Not all of us want to live in a co-op house, not all of us want to live in a rental unit, not all of us want to live in a condominium, and not all of us want to live in a self-owned home on a 33-by-100-foot lot. We all have different requirements and needs. Many times those different needs are dictated by one's financial situation; in fact, almost always. For many people in this province co-op housing offers a unique, cheap way of — in a sense — owning their own home, which is what most people desire. It gives them that opportunity, but it allows them to do it at a cost well within most people's reach, and it allows for a kind of society to develop in a particular unit or unit of buildings where the co-op exists. What happens in those units is that there is a respect for one's own property, even though it's a collective property. As a result of that there is much better maintenance and a better standard and style of living in those units. I think that's demonstrated by any contrasting visits one might take to a co-op housing project on one hand and a typical free-market rental housing program on the other hand. The minister, I noted in the press the other day, was quite overwhelmed or surprised or pleased, or whatever words one might use, on his visit to a housing co-op project in Vancouver. Let me say as strongly as I can that the minister should find ways, even though you've turned that over to the federal government, of adding co-op housing into the provincial list of programs. It is something that is desired not by a majority but by a considerable number of people in our province, and it offers some very real benefits.

Mr. Chairman, if I can persuade one of my colleagues to act as an intervening speaker, I'll be back on my feet in a minute.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that we have these new estimates up from this minister, and I think he's the best Minister of Housing that this province has had since the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). Mind you, in spite of all the good works that he flimflams about, he's going to go down in history as the executioner of the B.C. Housing Corporation. Why did you kill that housing corporation? It was rich in land, rich in money, making profits, but it bore the stigma of having been created by the NDP, and you've got the orders from the Premier that all the works of the NDP had to be buried. I'm at a loss for words when I look across there and see all of the things — Panco killed, Swan Valley, the whole thing.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Marguerite scuttled, in a drydock, having her bottom scraped....

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the venerable member for Vancouver East.

In drawing my comments to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me raise one other issue and then make a concluding comment. I didn't get a chance in question period today because there was a lengthy reply from the minister on another question, which took up the time that I was hoping to use to ask the minister a question. What are you doing about student housing? You've got a crisis in student housing at all of the universities and all the campuses — SFU, UBC, BCIT, Pacific Vocational and UVic. What's happening? Has the minister had discussions with registrars at the institutions? Have you embarked on any programs? It's not unheard of for governments to embark on programs to assist in providing housing for students. We did it; other governments have done it; your government could. I don't believe the problem has ever been worse. The availability of suites or apartments or living accommodation of any kind, particularly in the Vancouver and Victoria areas, has never been worse, and many students are desperately worried about what they will be doing come September. So I trust we'll have some answers from the minister on those questions.

As I said earlier, I want to refer to housing programs in Alberta and in Ontario. I pick those two jurisdictions simply because they are Conservative governments and the minister can't be accusing me of picking Saskatchewan as the model. I must say Saskatchewan happens to have the best housing programs and policies in the country, but I'm going to compare what they do in Alberta and in Ontario to what we do here in B.C.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Everybody is moving out.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not true, as a matter of fact.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It used to be.

[ Page 3754 ]

MR. GABELMANN: It was only true during Ross Thatcher's days, and that's a fact.

Let me read a list of housing programs in Alberta: (1) Alberta Family Home Purchase Program; (2) Farm Home Lending, Program; (3) Mobile Home Lending Program; (4) Cooperative Housing Action Program; (5) Shell Housing Program. There are five home ownership programs for families in Alberta, none of which exist here in this province.

Let me give you eight programs under rental housing in Alberta, and then compare that to how many exist here in British Columbia: (1) Core Housing Incentive Program — what's the comparable B.C. program? (2) Modest Apartment Program; (3) Community Housing Program; (4) Senior Citizen Self-Contained Housing Program — we had a program called KIND earlier, and that's been just frittered away and not expanded; (5) Senior Citizen Lodge Program; (6) Municipal Non-Profit Program; (7) Nursing Home Finance Program; and (8) Unique Homes Assistance Program. That's a wide variety and an imaginative list.

Rural and remote programs. We had a rural and remote housing program here in B.C. It appears to be getting cut back, not expanded. What have they got in Alberta? Rural and Native Housing Program, Rural Mobile Home Program, Rural Home Assistance Program, Transitional Housing Program, Staff Housing Program. I won't even go into all the details of what all these programs are. The sheer fact of their existence in contrast to programs here in B.C. should be enough.

Home Repair Program, Alberta Pioneers Repair Program. What do we do here for our seniors who in many cases are no longer able to maintain their homes and, on the kind of income they have, can't afford to? Often the widowed member of the family is left to try to keep the house in good repair. What kinds of programs are available? Not much. Alberta has one.

Private land development programs. They have the Residential Land Development Program and the Mobile Home Park Development Program. This is in socialist Alberta, Mr. Minister.

Municipal assistance programs. They have the Revolving Trunk Servicing Program, the Land Assembly and Development Program, Alberta Industrial Land Program, Lodge Assistance Program, Neighbourhood Improvement Program, Community Services Program.

Then they have a couple of research and development programs. They have the Innovative Housing Grant Program. Perhaps, without getting into the details, we could start here in B.C. to talk about some innovative housing, particularly in the field of energy conservation. What kinds of grants are available for people who build energy-efficient houses? Has the minister even given that any thought? And they have a Housing Registry Program.

They have 30 programs in the province of Alberta, which has a fiscally conservative government.

Ontario. Let me just do a similar list of the Ontario programs: Assisted Housing — well, we have that too; Private Assisted Rental Program; Community Planning — well, that's partly housing; Community Renewal — we have a little bit in another ministry, but very little; Urban Development; Rent Supplement — we have a little bit of that; Public Housing Assistance — we have a little bit of that. The figures, in fact, I think, were 31 vacancies and about 3,100 and some odd applications in the B.C. Housing Management

Commission registry. There is a great need. They're doing it in Ontario. Public Housing Assistance; Municipal Housing; New Communities. They have a community planning wing. We do that in Municipal Affairs to a certain extent. Local Housing Authorities; Main Street Revitalization; Subdivisions — all in housing; Community Housing; Provincial and Municipal Non-Profit Housing; Ontario Land Corporation; and the Ontario Housing Corporation. The best two for last.

That's Ontario — blue, Conservative Ontario. Blue Ontario — blue British Columbia. Ontario can have an Ontario Land Corporation and an Ontario Housing Corporation. Are they socialist ideas? No, they're not at all. They're ideas that any contemporary government'would be including in its range of options and programs in an effort to try to bring some solutions to the problem of housing in this province.

Let me say again, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the problems don't exist for the minister and for me. They don't exist for most anybody in this Legislature, and they don't exist for a great many of the people who work in well-paid jobs in this province. We don't have a great need for government assistance in providing homes for us. But there are a great many people out there: people who don't have the kind of political clout that we might have; people who don't have the kind of access to government, access to the levers of power that we might have; people who don't vote as much, in a proportionate sense, as the rest of us; people who your government, Mr. Minister, has clearly decided to forget about, particularly with respect to housing, because you don't believe there are any votes to be gained by it. You're afraid that by going in those directions you will impair or colour your ideological commitment to a system, a way of providing housing, that works well for most of us, but does not work at all for many.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll be brief. I listened very attentively to what the member was saying, and some of his recommendations for housing. I did come to the conclusion that he studied very carefully the programs that we have here in British Columbia.

He has, outside of myself, probably the best knowledge of any other member of the House of the housing programs that are available in British Columbia. The member for Vancouver East got up very briefly and talked about the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. He talked about that great innovation, and he talked about the great ability of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) when he was the Minister of Housing. I'll never forget those dismal days in British Columbia between 1972 and 1975, when we had to attempt to secure information about the kind of expenditures on housing and to try to find out the manoeuvring that took place in the acquisition of Casa Loma.

I have the background here, but I'm not going to go into Casa Loma. All I want to say about Casa Loma is that at that time I remember saying that the minister, for that disgraceful purchase, should have been bronzed and placed in front of Casa Loma. I'll tell you, four or five years later that acquisition, for which something in the vicinity of $3.5 million was paid, is worth about $500,000 less than it was at that time. That's how effective it was for Dunhill and its successor, HCBC, between 1974 and 1978. It didn't initiate too much development. All it did was take off of the hands of the developers projects that wouldn't fly — projects which developers were having difficulty with.

[ Page 3755 ]

I just want to say that we have evidence of what will work in the provision of housing in British Columbia. I want to make some comparisons between HCBC and.... Of course, they say they'll revive HCBC because they have a philosophical hangup about a housing authority or corporation putting into place bricks and mortar and stuff like that. They have that kind of a hangup, but it doesn't work, because between 1974 and 1978 Dunhill and BCHC built 1,397 units of housing in British Columbia. Would you believe that in six months HIP — the Housing Initiative Program — has produced almost 4,600 units of housing, of which about 2,500 are rental accommodation? It goes to show you that a little program that is not difficult or bureaucratic and doesn't need great administration can deliver, whereas a bureaucratic housing authority or corporation just doesn't work. The evidence is there.

A lot of the programs that the member mentioned which are in place in other provinces.... Unfortunately I didn't have time to mark them down, but as they were going by I noted that some of those programs are in existence in British Columbia. Some of them are federal programs, federal initiatives, joint provincial-federal cost-sharing and NIP. I don't think you mentioned RAP, but that's another one. He talked about urban planning and, of course, that comes under Municipal Affairs. He talked about sewer and water assistance that is available to municipalities. We have a variety of those programs already in British Columbia, not only under the Ministry of Housing but under other ministries as well.

I just want to comment on the question of student housing that the member raised; he's raised it before, during the oral question period. If there is a shortfall in student accommodation, the initiative should hail from the institution of learning and not from the provincial government. CMHC has made low-interest loans available to the University of Victoria and BCIT in the past, and it should be a cooperative effort between CHMC and the learning institution to provide student housing. Our ministry is involved in the provision of social housing, senior citizens' housing and handicapped housing. We're involved with co-op housing to the extent that we attempt to make the land available, and that's a difficult proposition — making land available for co-op housing in the right location, say, in the city of Vancouver. That's a major problem we have. But we do have a variety of programs to encourage the private ownership of housing in British Columbia and to facilitate that ownership as well.

There was a need to disentangle the various joint programs that existed between the national government and the provincial government. We wanted to make sure that the areas of jurisdiction were clearly defined, so there wouldn't be any hassle in the funding of these programs.

At the moment, BCHMC administers slightly more than 17,000 units of social housing and senior citizens' housing in the province. As for the handicapped housing program, through BCHMC we have the funds to, hopefully, achieve the needs of the province. I anticipate having a meeting with the city of Vancouver, either this weekend or two weeks from now to discuss needs and the ability to provide housing for handicappeds in that city.

I want to say that I did visit the co-op housing — I wasn't familiar with co-op housing — and I was impressed with the type of housing that had been constructed in the Vancouver area and with the mix of incomes in those units.

The Home Purchase Assistance Act, which allows $1,000 for a first home, together with our first family home grant of $2,500, goes a long way to assist people in getting into co-op housing. It helps many other people as well to get into a home of their own.

We've recently made a major change in the availability of funds — that is, we have escalated the minimum purchase price from $56,000 to $70,000, to which the grants are applicable effective July 1. It will aid many more citizens in our province.

Last year the total amount of grants through the, Home Purchase Assistance Act was $12,605,000. With the escalation of the minimum price on housing, we anticipate expending about $15 million to assist people to own their own homes. We expect to deal with about 6,000 applications on the first family home and the first home grant.

On the Housing Initiative Program, it's really unfortunate that there wasn't more money available than $200 million; it was able to help only so many people. Needless to say, some applicants were turned down because there weren't sufficient funds. Had we had a billion dollars we, might have been able to expend that as well, but unfortunately we didn't have that kind of money. At least the program was started, it did help construct 4,600 housing units in the province, and it was a great boost to the economy as well. It was an excellent program, one which I would have no hesitation in endorsing again. It has proven results. It has proven that that's the right way to go, rather than through a housing authority that doesn't produce housing.

MS. BROWN: Of course the two are not mutually exclusive. It's quite possible to have the housing authority and the program as well. I can't understand why the minister seems to think that if you have one it's not possible to have the other. It seems to me that if housing is a basic need which you are trying to meet, then you use every option available to you and you create a number of additional options, if that's possible. So it's not necessary to shut the door on one just because you open another door.

I want to respond to the minister's statement about student housing. I'm wondering if the minister realizes who is penalized when there is no housing. The students from the interior and from the rural areas who come down to BCIT, Simon Fraser or UBC, when there is no accommodation for them, are the students who are being penalized. It's not simply a matter of not living within walking distance of the university — that's a penalty in itself — but it's having to deal with having to travel to the houses of learning, and, in addition, not being able to find affordable housing.

For example, at Simon Fraser in Burnaby, the president of the university certainly thought that there should be some provincial input. Mr. Pedersen came to the provincial government and asked for some assistance because there is a housing crisis in Burnaby, but he did not receive any. It says here that the provincial government did not make any assistance available to Simon Fraser. Now President Pedersen is turning to the federal government for housing funds. That's fair enough, but what is not fair is that the provincial government should totally dissociate itself from this situation.

What's happening at Simon Fraser now is that at the beginning of the school year in September there's going to be a tent city. They're going to be pitching tents on the campus at Simon Fraser to focus attention on the real crisis they're having there in terms of student housing. Again, the provincial government is saying this is something which should be negotiated between the university and the federal govern-

[ Page 3756 ]

ment. Totally dissociating itself from this is just not good enough. I would like the minister to reconsider. I cannot think of anything more inadequate than students trying to live in tents in our climate during the fall and winter when it rains so much of the time, and trying to attend university at the same time. That can't be a pleasant prospect for the students.

In addition British Columbia — I keep saying this over and over again.... We're not an underdeveloped country; we're not a destitute nation; we have no excuse for that. There's money to build all kinds of stadiums, tunnels, bridges and other kinds of monuments, but the students at Simon Fraser are going to be pitching tents on the lawn and living in those tents until some kind of negotiation with the federal government can be worked out and they can get on with the business of trying to develop some housing. It's not going to be enough even then. The provincial government has to rethink its position on this particular issue. At a time when we're facing a crisis in skilled people, BCIT is certainly the only educational institution that's trying to come to grips with that particular shortage, and at the same time it does not have the housing which is so crucial in terms of students coming from the interior and other rural areas so they can attend that institution. That's not good enough.

The main thing I want to talk about is the B.C. Housing Management Commission. What I said before was just a response to the minister's statement on student housing.

Housing really impinges on the kind of job that Human Resources is trying to do. A large number of the people who are recipients of assistance through Human Resources, either because they're handicapped, senior citizens or unable to work for one reason or another, find themselves needing, at the same time, subsidized housing. You would imagine that the two departments would work very closely with each other, and one would honour commitments made by the other. Instead we find that a commitment made by the Premier himself and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that the increase of $35 a month which the federal government gave to senior citizens would not be tampered with, that in fact the entire $35 would go directly to them, it wouldn't be considered as income and so the GAIN supplement would not be deducted, etc....

But B.C. Housing Management, which is administered by this particular minister, doesn't seem to be a part of that agreement at all. Because, in fact, we in the opposition have been flooded with phone calls — and we've received a number of letters — from people living in B.C. Housing Management housing, first of all to alert us to the fact that B.C. Housing Management decided not to put through its increases in rent — not to even calculate them until after July, because they wanted to see whether the $35 would come through, as was promised by the federal government. Then, once it was clear that the $35 was coming through, B.C. Housing Management Commission computed that as part of the person's income and their rent was increased accordingly. We find that a number of those seniors in B.C. Housing Management Commission housing were having $18 of the $35, more than 50 percent, going straight into a rent increase — this despite the fact that both the Premier and the Minister of Human Resources had given a very firm commitment that that $35 was going to be untouched, either through any means-tested program or any other kind of program.

Whether it's two people — as in one instance — and their increase was $27, or one person whose increase was $18, the increase was tampered with.

I want to read into the record, very quickly, a letter from one of my constituents. This letter was written to all of the federal MPs and to the Prime Minister, with a carbon copy to me. It was to bring to the attention of the government in Ottawa that any increase given to the pensioners is immediately appropriated by the B.C. provincial government through its creature, the B.C. Housing Management Commission, in the form of rent increases, which in some instances have resulted in an even lower purchasing power for the old people.

It goes on to tell how this particular person had an $18 increase, and when you realize that that $35, was supposed to deal with increases in utilities, food, transportation and everything else, this person is quite right when he says that, in fact, they end up with less money as a result of the $35 increase than if they hadn't received the increase at all.

So I want the minister to respond. Is he a part of the government? When the Premier makes a commitment, is his ministry supposed to honour it too, or are they separate and apart, not needing to pay any attention to that commitment?

I have a couple of other things — very quickly, Mr. Chairman. The tenant charge-back policy of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Is the minister aware of the tenant charge-back policy? Is he aware that this is one way that tenants are supposed to pay for damages or vandalism done to the buildings they live in, even if they're not responsible for the vandalism themselves? Using this tenant charge-back policy, they end up paying for it now. I got a copy of an unaudited summary operating statement for the year ending 1979 and found that, in fact, the vandalism costs to the B.C. Housing Management Commission were very low, almost non-existent. In any event, this tenant charge-back policy is still on the books, and I want some kind of response to that.

How do you explain that there is no independent appeal board for tenants who live in houses or in accommodation administered by the B.C. Housing Management Commission? Is the minister aware of this, and, if so, are there any plans afoot to put into place an independent appeal board? As it is now, the management is almost as powerful as B.C. Hydro. They make a decision and that's it. The tenants have no due process in law or anything by which to deal with it.

The other result, of course, of the policy of the management commission that families have to pay 25 percent of their income in rent is that a number of families from time to time find that they are paying higher rent for this form of housing than if they were living somewhere else. One case in particular was brought to my attention. It is of a family that had one child living at home who was earning some income — not on a full-time basis but, I guess, through a paper route or something. I'm not quite sure what the situation was. This was a 17-year-old, so he was still a child in school. He worked on weekends. The B.C. Housing Management Commission included his income and he had to pay 25 percent of that. So when all of it was added up, they were, in, fact, actually paying mote rent for the accommodation than if they had been living somewhere else.

The other thing I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, is: is the policy and procedure manual of the commission confidential? Is it secret, or is it possible to get a copy of it?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Of what?

MS. BROWN: It's the policy and procedures manual —

[ Page 3757 ]

you know, the rules. Every time you phone the B.C. Housing Management Commission, they read some rules to you over the telephone. Is that real or imagined, first of all? Is there such a thing? If it does exist, can anyone else read it, or is it just for their eyes? It would make their life a lot easier if I had a copy of that manual, because then I could read it rather than phoning and having them read it to me and then having to phone my constituents and tell them. The constituents could phone me, and I could read the manual to them. I wonder if the minister would consider sharing that top-secret manual with me.

Also, is there any kind of priority rating for people on welfare? Do they get preference in terms of accommodation? If so, is it actually in the policy?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

MS. BROWN: Okay. It is certainly something about which I have had some complaints that, in fact, this wasn't happening.

If the minister would answer those questions and send me a copy of the manual, I'd appreciate that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Everybody's saying aye here, so I'll be brief.

MS. BROWN: Don't be brief. Answer my questions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, okay. I'll talk about student housing first of all. When I answered the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), I talked about the availability of funds. CMHC isn't broke. I'm sure they have a low-interest loans they've made available to other institutes of higher learning. If there's a problem at Simon Fraser University, they should contact them. I have never been approached since I've been the minister in charge of housing by any university to assist in the provision of student accommodation. The universities must have some knowledge of the student enrolment that will flow from year to year, They should occupy themselves with that.

I think the only other way in which affordable rental accommodation could be provided is if the federal government saw the wisdom of the advice that I am trying to give them to reinstate the capital costs allowance. Then we would be able to put in affordable rental accommodation in this province. Needless to say, though, I don't think the federal government is about to do that. I've given them a mechanism if they don't have very much money. I've suggested the capital costs allowance, which conveys a certain benefit to investors. It's a tax shelter. I might say it is not completely funded by the federal government; 40 percent of the funding comes from the province.

I have suggested that if they have some problems with funding and they think it is wrong that the capital costs allowance should apply in Manitoba where they might have a 10 percent vacancy rate, they could use a 2 percent vacancy rate as the formula, Then they would only be helping those provinces that have an acute and serious rental accommodation shortage. However, they are not prepared to accept that, so it appears to me that the capital costs allowance will not be reinstated. It appears to me that we won't have any more low-cost rental accommodation in this province unless it is developed through our social housing program, BCHMC. I think that's regrettable.

The federal government feels rents should escalate until they reach such a point that it is attractive for people to invest in rental accommodation. I suggest that that is not the way to provide affordable rental accommodation in this province. Their attitude is that once that takes place, if there is a problem regarding affordable housing, the only place that people can go is to co-op housing. I think that we should be able to have a mix of regular affordable rental accommodation and co-op housing. The federal government's attitude is that you should either be in high-cost rental accommodation or a co-op housing project.

I suggest that the capital costs allowance would have made it attractive for people to invest because they are deferring payment of taxes to another day. They invest, not because it is attractive to invest in housing today but because it is attractive to defer their taxes to another day. We have experienced the capital costs allowance working in British Columbia, It has provided rental accommodation in this province. I guess the federal government isn't prepared to share that view with us.

MS. BROWN: How would universities use that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: If there is a need and a developer wants to provide rental accommodation.... It doesn't necessarily have to be on top of the university, I would hope. It could be adjacent to the university. I think that would be sufficient. I am sure that most of the students in this province who have needed rental accommodation have occupied buildings that have been built under the capital costs allowance program.

On the question the member raised about BCHMC, there is an annual review of the rental charge on July 1 every year. It is not abnormal; it comes each and every July 1. The formula is that the rent is 25 percent of gross income. If they did receive $35 additional income and they happened to have it before the review took place, that income is declared and therefore the rent would escalate — if they got an additional income of $35, probably by $8.75.

You talk about someone whose rent has escalated by $27 who only got $35 additional income. That's nonsense! They must have had additional income other than the $35 for their rent to increase by $27.

We have a maximum rent as well. They don't exceed the marketplace. For you to say that two incomes have generated a rent which is beyond what takes place in the private market is incorrect. It's just not correct.

The member has never approached me with any of these problems. She is giving them to me now and I am attempting to respond in as general a way as I can, contingent on the fact that she didn't provide me with any of the details. I am saying that the information conveyed to me doesn't appear to be accurate. Until such time as you can substantiate your facts, I have some difficulty in seeing whether a mistake has been made.

Now you talk about the management of BCHMC — if you or some of the tenants are having problems with the management, they can always appeal to the board of directors of the BCHMC.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, rather than trying to understand and to accommodate the concerns raised, the minister has just denied that they exist at all. It doesn't make sense to say that it is not possible to end up paying more rent when you're paying 25 percent of your income than if you were renting outside of B.C. Housing Management. I will

[ Page 3758 ]

get that information directly to the minister and I certainly hope that I'm not going to have to deal with his denials, but that in fact he will try to do something about the problems which I brought to him.

But he has not responded to the other issues which I raised: the business of whether the manual is a private document or whether it can be shared. Also, what about that tenant charge-back policy? Also, what about an independent board of appeal? If the board makes a decision against you, it doesn't make sense to go and appeal before the very board that's made the decision against you. Is the minister saying that he is not going to put into place an independent board of appeal?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Regarding the policy manual that is used by the management of BCHMC, if the member wants a copy, I'll send her a copy — no problem.

The next question concerned an independent board of appeal. I don't like bureaucracies establishing new bureaucracies, and it's never come to my attention that there are some major problems out there that would require this additional bureaucracy. If there are problems with management, people always have the right to go to the board of directors of BCHMC, and then, if they're unhappy with BCHMC, they can always come to a little sympathetic minister. I think that answers the questions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks later on in Lands, but I'd like to express to the minister a few of my concerns about my own constituency of Victoria regarding the housing situation which, as the minister probably knows from reading the newspaper, is as acute as it is anywhere in Canada. There is virtually no place to rent in Victoria, and house prices are rising at a rate where the average individual can no longer afford to buy them, if they could find them in the first place.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that if this minister were to walk down the streets of Victoria and walk up to people at random and say, "I'd like to introduce myself; I'm the Minister of Housing," they would be struck dumb in disbelief. The Minister of what? There is virtually no Ministry of Housing present in this province, and the minister knows it. There hasn't been one step other than that minuscule $10 million that went in for mortgage funds, which was just a drop in the bucket. The minister knows that too.

This government has done virtually nothing to assist people to own their own homes in this province in the years that they have been in power — far too long in my own lifetime, I'm afraid. It is a disgrace; it is disgusting.

I want also to talk about the same kind of thing that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) talked about. The student housing at the University of Victoria is acute. They estimate that they will be at least 1,000 units short this coming September. They brought these concerns to the minister of universities, science, communications, dishes, tunnels, etc., and he told them to go to the money market just like anybody else and borrow the money. Well, in actual fact, if they had to go on the money market and borrow money to build student accommodation, the students could not afford it, because then they'd have to charge rents of sufficient magnitude that they no longer could afford it. So that minister is not interested, and we have no Minister of Housing. So where are we? What we need is a provincial election instead.

I want to talk to the minister about the dismal performance of this government as it relates to the Glenshiel Hotel. Now if there is one individual housing issue that this minister could immediately act upon, it is the Glenshiel Hotel. Here we have an 80-suite, small, residential hotel. The policy of this government — after it was stopped and they were no longer going to knock it down but granted people tenure to live there the rest of their lives or until they moved — which was a policy that involved nailing the door shut as soon as a person vacated the building at a time when there is an absolute zero vacancy rate is about the most ridiculous, insensitive policy that any government could dream up. and probably ever has dreamed up.

I want to tell the minister that I went over to the Glenshiel Hotel last week. They have a small television viewing room that the old folks sit in in the evening. There is paint peeled off the ceiling; it's hanging down 18 inches off the ceiling. This is their recreation room. About eight months ago I drew to the government's attention the fact that the plaster was falling off the roof inside the hotel, and I went over to view that, and what they have managed to do is nail a piece of plywood at the head of the stairs.

Now these are people — some of them are blind, some of them are 85 years old, some of them have lived there for 14 years. The minister is going to stand on his feet and say: "I don't have full jurisdiction yet, because it's in transition." It's going to be taken over by the B.C. Housing Management Commission, and so it should be. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who had jurisdiction over it before, made as bad a job of the Glenshiel as he did of the ferry system; the only thing he can really handle is hot, mixed pavement. I'm asking you, as the minister responsible for housing, to do a job in a residential hotel in my riding, to provide 26 additional suites for senior citizens who have nowhere else to go. That particular residential hotel performs an important function in this riding of Victoria. It is basically a sound building; it needs some work; it needs about $200,000 of renovation work and plumbing work in addition to the money you've already allocated, which is $180,000. That's not a lot of money; it's not even much more money than the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has allocated for his welfare programs to engineering consultants for the tunnel work. I would like the minister to seriously take under advisement immediate action to undertake the necessary repairs of the Glenshiel Hotel; it should be done immediately.

If he really wants to do something about housing, he should look also at the University of Victoria student program. I'm not asking him to do anything about all the other shortcomings and inadequacies in terms of housing in Victoria, because I know he's not going to do it, but those are two areas that wouldn't cost much money, where you could really do something, and I'd like him to do something about that.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to discuss an issue that's not under my jurisdiction like the Glenshiel Hotel. The member never raised the issue when the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways were up for discussion, when the Glenshiel was under his administrative responsibility. It's not under mine — it probably will be, but it's not at this time — and I'm not going to start entering into a discussion on something that's not contained within my estimates.

The member says that we do nothing for housing in British Columbia. We have allocated, through different programs, $91 million in the province at this time for hous-

[ Page 3759 ]

ing. We propose to allocate about $25 million for second mortgages, and this doesn't include the $200 million Housing Initiative Program that was so successful. If the member wants to call that doing nothing for housing, I guess he's entitled to his point of view, which I don't share.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd just like to bring two particular items to the attention of the minister. I feel in both these issues it is important that the minister and his ministry give some leadership in problems that are occurring in a developing community like my riding. That is the providing of senior citizen homes and apartments in the various areas. I feel that the minister can give the innovative leadership that is needed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have one going in your riding. I'm going to announce it pretty soon.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm really looking forward to when the minister is going to have an announcement for my riding. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting, and a lot of other people have too.

But before you give your announcement, I would like to suggest that the type of senior citizen housing you need in an area has to be innovative. What is adaptable for one particular area is not necessarily what is desired in another. I feel that in each community — in a municipality or in some of the rural communities — there should be a base where senior citizen homes and apartments are being developed. I feel that the ministry should plan that if you are going to have senior citizen housing, it should be adaptable and convenient to senior citizen recreation and shopping centres. I think areas in a community plan should be set aside — that the minister or the department can give the funds and necessary planning so that when their recreation facilities are built, there will be senior citizens' homes coming on stream. I also feel that the leadership should come from the ministry to approach some of the municipalities to restrict their zoning requirements for floor space for senior citizen homes.

There are a lot of apartments needed for bachelors — both male and female — where they don't need the amount of floor space that is required in some of the high-class zoning for general apartments. I feel that within any community or municipality where there are senior citizen facilities and recreation facilities, if they had apartments that were designed and rented solely for senior citizens, they would blend into the community. The parents and the older folks of each community would be able to move into an area where they have friends and relatives and children, so that they don't have to move out to the other side of town. They can develop a senior citizen complex in each particular community.

As I have spoken to the minister on other occasions, I would seriously ask him to join with me in adapting and providing senior citizens' mobile-home pads. I think it's important that when a senior citizen has decided to adopt the lifestyle of mobile-home living, that they are going to have some sort of security. When they have set down roots in their retirement age and planted their shrubs and built their greenhouses, they should know that that location they have chosen will be there for a few more years.

I ask the minister to support me in the battle I've been having with his colleague, the minister who's in charge of the rentalsman and the Residential Tenancy Act. There has to be a better sense of security for mobile-home living and people who have purchased mobile homes than those who have moved into an apartment.

I feel that the minister who is in charge of housing should adopt and accept all types of mobile-home living as one form of housing. It is as important to the economy and as important to the housing needs as apartments, condominiums, private homes, or the many other types of housing that people live in.

I feel that the whole field of the mobile home problem that is developing within the municipalities and urban areas and throughout British Columbia.... I've been receiving lots and lots of correspondence from all over the province showing that there is another need for a second royal commission similar to the Audain commission that was set up a few years ago to study some of the problems and bring in recommendations for the mobile home industry. I'm calling on the minister to give serious consideration to setting up another royal commission on mobile homes, to study not only the problems but also the type of parks, the variety of alternative living that the mobile home industry provides, and to listen to many of the organizations that have sprung up through the province representing people who live in mobile homes, to listen to some of the problems they have to face when they are trying to live within the tenancy or rental section of the economy, when really a mobile home cannot fit into a regular rental act; it has to have a different type of legislation.

I'm sitting down, Mr. Minister. I'm really looking forward to the announcement that you may have for our particular area.

HON. MR. CHABOT: If you would read some of our publications, you'd see that we recognize the importance of mobile homes in the province. There are 50,000 mobile homes that provide shelter for British Columbians at this time. They represent about 8 percent of what's deemed to be housing starts in the province, so they play a very important part. We recognize their importance and therefore make all grants that are available....

The home acquisition grants that are available to conventional homes are available to mobile homes as well. I think what you had better do, Mr. Member, is not try to convince me. You had better talk to your friends in the Capital Regional District and in the municipalities, if you have any in your riding, about the important role that mobile homes play in providing shelter for British Columbians.

Now on the question of senior citizens' housing, you have to recognize that the type of facility that is provided for a senior is substantially different from that of regular housing units. There are safety features that are built into these units that make them quite different from regular housing units. Now that the national government has finally come through with a few more dollars — the CMHC has come through with a few more dollars for the provision of senior citizens' housing units in the province — we'll be announcing in the near future the provision of 50 units of senior citizens' and personal care housing in the Colwood-Langford area. Hopefully, construction will be able to start later this year.

MR. MITCHELL: This is the section in which I feel the minister is in a very unique position. This is why I'm asking that he give some leadership throughout the province. It's not only for me, as the member in my particular area, to talk to my regional district or my municipality. I feel that if the minister and his whole ministry could come down with some recommendations of how the mobile home industry can be adapted, what type of regulations are needed, what type of planning within the various regional areas.... We're

[ Page 3760 ]

facing the same problem in each area. The same arguments and the same proposals are made in Vancouver and made in Victoria and made in Nanaimo and made in Prince George. I feel that if this type of leadership and these recommendations are brought in, and proposals are made by the minister to the various musicalities, we can coordinate the arguments and we can explain and fit within those arguments the need that is there for that type of living.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we have had several meetings with municipalities and we're attempting to change their views on mobile-home parks. Officials of my ministry have made presentations to the UBCM with slides and so forth to show what can take place, what kind of mobile-home parks can be developed. We have made available to municipalities a model bylaw that looks after mobile homes within a community. However, there's a need for other people to push municipalities, as well as regional districts, on the question of mobile home needs within the community. I guess I could pass an amendment to an act here that would make sure that they're not ignored within the municipalities, but I don't know whether the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would support that kind of amendment. I don't know. He'll have to convince me that his feelings are sufficiently strong before I will put that kind of amendment in. If the member gives me the nod, I'll give it some consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to throw a few more ideas out to the minister. This is one of the reasons why I seriously ask him to consider setting up another royal commission to study the problems and listen to the people who are living in mobile homes and bring in some of the needs of that particular industry.

One of the other things I would like to throw out to the minister, if he's really seriously considering recognizing that mobile homes are part of our economy.... At the present time, if you live in various water districts, you have a volunteer fire department. Mobile homes are taxed at a same rate of value as any other resident, and that money goes to support a volunteer fire department in that particular area. You pay taxation, but if you live in that particular mobile home, you are not allowed to vote on the volunteer fire departments. The only people who can vote for the election of a committee for a volunteer fire department are people who own homes. Those who are living in mobile homes are paying taxes based on the value of that home, but they are not allowed to vote in different improvement districts that look after the volunteer fire departments. I feel that there are many other items that keep cropping up as this industry grows, and this is why I'm asking that he take another look at it, study it and bring in these recommendations.

When he gets up to speak I would like a little broader explanation of the 50 units that are coming in the Colwood area. Are they going to be homes? Are they going to be mobile homes? What type of development does the minister have in mind?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind all members that debate in Committee of Supply does not really afford discussion of future legislation when we discuss the administrative actions of the department. I'll remind the minister of that too.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Talking about the senior citizens' housing project, it will be unit-constructed. It won't be mobile in nature; it'll be conventional construction. It will be a unit to look after personal-care patients and senior citizens. So it's a conventional senior citizens' housing project with the added facility for personal care. There are 50 units. I can't tell you the mix; I don't have it.

As for the other question that you raised regarding the fire department — as to who votes, who pays, what the insurance is — you'd better talk to your colleagues and your friends in the Capital Regional District.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has some good words for the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew regarding senior housing; I wonder if he has any good words for the residents of Cowichan-Malahat, because certainly we have had an application in.

HON. MR. CHABOT: For the community of Duncan, now that CMHC has given us additional funding, we're able to provide 26 units for Duncan.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm very pleased to hear that, because that was a matter that was turned down originally, and perhaps through some of the auspices of the people in Cowichan, we've been able to get a second look at that one.

There are two other items that I want to raise with the minister. One relates to the Premier's announced program of the 9.5 percent loan money which this minister fell heir to for the housing programs and which has been discussed earlier in these estimates. In the Duncan area in the Cowichan Valley there were sufficient funds for about 26 applicants, but there were more than 100 applications actually filed with the local credit union which was handling the funding for the government. The question that's been posed to me, and one which I have not been able to get an answer to, relates to the kind of criteria that were used in deciding which of the 26 applicants would be successful and which would be ruled out. Was it done on a first-come, first-served basis? And was that policed at all to ensure that it was a first-come, first-served basis? Because certainly there is a temptation for any financial institution, when it has to make that kind of decision, and it has applicants from members of that organization who perhaps have good-sized accounts with that financial institution. There could well be an indication that....

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful now.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm being very careful in my choice of words.

Was any policing done to ensure that no favouritism took place in that way? Was the need considered at all? Or was it simply a building program? Was the need for the housing considered?

The third question: were those loans made available to building companies, incorporations, small companies, large companies, whatever, or were they only to individuals to build their own homes? Were they available to companies who wanted to build rental units?

Those are the questions that I have regarding that particular program. I don't know if the minister wants to answer those before I go on the next item.

HON. MR CHABOT: Let's make them short and snappy. Yes, policing was never considered. We never deemed it necessary to police the B.C. credit union movement. They were responsible for the administration of the program. I

[ Page 3761 ]

think they did an excellent job. In my opening remarks today I thanked them for the tremendous job they did in allocating these funds — $200 million — for housing.

It was on a first-come, first-served basis. There was $75 million allocated for rental accommodation, and $125 million for single detached homes. The $75 million, of course, was on a first-come, first-served basis, and the single detached homes were as well. I guess the credit unions didn't took at the companies to see whether they were unionized contractors or right-to-work contractors, or non-associated contractors, or contractors of any colour, description, or any type. So the credit union, I'm sure, used the first-come, first-served principle.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister has partially answered my question on that one. Obviously these moneys were available to developers on an equal entitlement with individuals who wanted to build their own homes.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: One was rental and one was owner. You could own it and sell it; you didn't necessarily have to live in it. That's the point that I'm making. Apparently there was no discrimination between whether you were going to live in the house and needed the accommodation or were going to build it on a speculation basis for sale. I think that's what the minister has indicated.

The other item I want to deal with relates to rural and remote housing in Lake Cowichan. The minister has indicated to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) that he wished she had written to him. He certainly can't say that to me, because I have certainly written to the minister about this. I think I first wrote on October 24, 1979. I have a letter from the minister responding to that. I have one dated February 25, 1980, thanking me for bringing it to his attention and saying they are looking into the matter. I have another one of a more recent date. In all of them they are just looking into the matter.

In this particular instance I wish the minister would point out to the officials of CMHC that water will not run uphill. That's the problem. These houses are built in such a way and in such a manner that flooding is a real problem. We've had promises, surveys and lots of talk, but no action. We even had talk to the effect that these people had signed some kind of an agreement that said the drainage ditch at the back was their responsibility, absolving CMHC of it. The thing that really bothered me was that after having written and told me that, CMHC sent a notice out to the people involved, asking them to sign this thing to absolve them of responsibility for covering that ditch. Obviously a misleading piece of information was sent to me and then an attempt was made by CMHC to cover it up.

I'm trying not to be too critical of CMHC; I know from what they tell me that they've had some terrific cutbacks in staff. They are understaffed at both the management, on-site level and the secretarial level. It is very difficult to get any action or response.

I had a call this morning from one of the three residents involved to say that there's still no action. At this particular point in time there has been some backup of water some way, and the kitchen floor in one of those homes is flooded as of today. I just got this note this morning. This is the Erickson residence. I finally got each of these residents to write a letter to Mr. Roberts of CMHC outlining the things that were still outstanding. Those items related to — Mr. Hill's case — the fact that the basement floor requires levelling. There's a dish in the floor that fills up with water. It's not the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) dish: it's a different kind of a dish in that floor. There's no drain tile at the side of the carport and the drainage at the side of the lot has 12" culvert part of the way, but it's never been completed. Those were Mr. Hill's problems.

Mr. Olding's problems were, of course, the one where the tile was put in to run uphill with an open end right at the corner of the house, which meant that when the rains came the water washed right onto the house under the carport resulting in cracked cement, flooding and....

You have a very unruly House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're absolutely right, hon. member. I wonder if I could ask all hon. members to come to order.

MRS. WALLACE: To go on with Mr. Olding's problems, the drainpipe, as I say, was installed to run uphill with an open end right at the corner of the house, which allowed the water to undermine the carport with the result that the cement cracked. It washed the back step landing out almost entirely. There's an open drainage ditch at the back of the lot — the one that I spoke about earlier — that's covered the rest of the way, but it's not covered behind these two lots. It's a real hazard to families with young children.

Mrs. Erickson phoned me this morning to indicate that her kitchen floor is now flooded as a result of some backup of.... Apparently there was a power outage there last night and she seems to think these two are connected. I can't see quite how that would be, but obviously there's some problem there with the water because the kitchen floor is flooded. This is from a backup of the plumbing and because of the low area of this development, it is very difficult, I know. But there is a way to drain that water away by going under the railway track. I know that that's going to involve a little cooperation with the village and with the rail company, but it's not an insurmountable problem. This has been going on since September 1979 — nearly a year. These people are subjected to these kinds of inconveniences in a home under the rural and remote housing program that they had hoped was going to be a real pleasant experience to own. The minister keeps writing me letters assuring me that everything is in hand. Nothing is in hand because nothing is happening. Certainly the cutbacks in staff of CMHC have reduced the likelihood of this happening before the rainy season starts again another year.

Mr. Chairman, I dislike having to shout over the noise in this House and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 3762 ]

APPENDIX

75 Mr. Hall asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

During each of the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 to date—

1. How many persons have been appointed to positions in government service excluded from the bargaining unit, at salaries of more than $25,000 per annum, who attained their positions without the benefit of a Public Service competition?

2. If there have been any such appointees, what are their names, dates of appointment, positions held and in what ministries, and salaries received?

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"1.

"2.

[ Page 3763 ]

[ Page 3764 ]

[ Page 3765 ]

[ Page 3766 ]

"With reference to Part 2 of the question, names of further appointees, not included on this list, will be added."