[ Page 4989 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Meeting with B.C. school trustees. Mr. Lauk –– 4989

Natural gas pricing agreement. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4989

Delisle report on provincial court system, Mr. Leggatt –– 4990

Mr. Lauk –– 4990

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Lauk –– 4991

PCBs in B.C. hospitals. Ms. Sanford –– 4991

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills committee report.

Mr. Strachan –– 4991

Oral Questions

Abbotsford veterinary laboratory. Hon. Mr. Hewitt replies –– 4992

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4992

Mr. Lorimer

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Segarty

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

On the amendment to vote 156 –– 5010

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Division on the amendment

On vote 157: general administration –– 5012

Mr. Barber

On the amendment to vote 157 –– 5012

Mr. Barber

Division on the amendment

On vote 158: grants, contributions and subsidies –– 5012

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Mrs. Dailly

On vote 159: Revenue Sharing Fund –– 5013

Mr. Barber

On vote 160: central ministry services –– 5013

Mr. Barber

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada

(Bill PR 401). Mr. Ree.

Introduction and first reading –– 5014

Appendix –– 5014

MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would like the House to welcome a delegation from the B.C. School Trustees Association who are in the gallery. Mr. Gary Begin and 15 trustees are here today meeting with caucus.

MR. LAUK: The NDP caucus met today with the executive of the British Columbia School Trustees Association. I would ask the House to welcome the following persons from that association, who represent the local governments for education throughout the province: Mr. Gary Begin, president; Mrs. Helen Casher, vice-president; Mrs. Joy Leach, director from Nanaimo; Mrs. Moyreen McKechnie, director from Armstrong-Spallumcheen; Mrs. Rubymay Parrott, immediate past-president and national president. Also present from the East Kootenay branch are Mr. Ronald Dale; from the northern interior, Mr. Edwin Olson; from the Okanagan, Mrs. Marjorie Showler; from the south coast, Mrs. Betty A. Shore; from Vancouver Island, Mrs. Joan Gillatt; and from West Kootenay, Mrs. Marian G. Dyer.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to introduce an old friend who is in the gallery, who is also a teacher. Since we're introducing people who are in education, I want to introduce Mr. Ed Harrington. He has made a tremendous contribution to the culture of our local community in local production. Mr. Harrington is in the audience.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is a constituent of Vancouver South, Mr. Jan Mohammed. Mr. Mohammed has had a most interesting career, and for a number of years he served as Deputy Minister of Tourism in Kenya.

MR. STUPICH: Later today there will be a group of students from Nanaimo Senior Secondary School. I would ask the House to welcome them in advance.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery is the president of the Victoria Bar Association, who is a constituent of mine: the distinguished barrister, Mr. Donald Farquhar.

Oral Questions

MEETING WITH B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Did the minister agree to arrange a meeting with the British Columbia School Trustees Association and the Social Credit caucus at 1 p.m. today?

HON. MR. SMITH: Those arrangements are the responsibility of the caucus. But regretfully a meeting that was arranged didn't take place. There was a breakdown of communication. It's my great regret that I wasn't able to be here for a 1 p.m. meeting. I was at the University of British Columbia faculty of education, at a prearranged meeting. I'm hopeful that I will be able to meet with some of the members of this delegation following question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Matters pertaining to caucus are not really subject to this House.

MR. LAUK: Did the Minister of Education himself arrange to meet with the executive of the B.C. School Trustees Association at caucus? Was that meeting arranged as early as March, according to the minister's calendar?

NATURAL GAS PRICING AGREEMENT

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, in his responsibility for the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. Has the corporation made any pricing agreement with Ocelot Industries of Calgary, with respect to the costs of natural gas feedstock for that company's proposed methanol plant in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker,

MR. D'ARCY: In February of this year, Mr. Alan Brownlee, a vice-president of Ocelot, testified before the Utilities Commission that there was, in his words, a secret agreement with the B.C. Petroleum Corporation regarding pricing, but he refused to provide details. How many other secret pricing natural gas feedstock agreements exist with petrochemical firms in British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There isn't even one.

MR. DARCY: If that is the case, will the minister state or table, as he wishes, the pricing agreement that exists with Ocelot Industries?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is not in order.

MR. D'ARCY: In order to satisfy the requirements of the House, I'll be somewhat more wordy, but it will be essentially the same question. Has the minister decided to table or maKe public the secret agreement referred to by Mr. Brownlee of Ocelot Industries, thereby fulfilling the minister's own commitment to public disclosure that he made when he put forth his energy policy statement during the spring of last year?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't have any secret agreements. I'm not aware of anyone using those terms at any time. If there's something sensitive about any agreement that Mr. Brownlee has, I'll talk to him. I don't have any problems with that. You've never asked the question before; nobody has ever asked that question of me before. It doesn't bother me. If you want to do it in my estimates or if you want some kind of a document tabled — which I don't believe there is at the present time — I'll be happy to do that. I'll take it as notice and get back to you.

MR. D'ARCY: Has the minister decided to make public any special price agreement that he or the Utilities Commission may have made with Ocelot Industries of Calgary with respect to natural gas feedstock for a methanol plant in British Columbia?

[ Page 4990 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You've repeated that question. It would serve no point in answering it again, but I will say to the member that following the publication of the provincial energy policy some time ago it was decided that it was necessary for us to establish a formula by which we could arrive at the pricing of feedstock for natural gas. It's been the policy of this government, Mr. Speaker, that we won't give our natural gas away for industrial purposes or for any other purpose. It will only be subsidized for the domestic consumers in this province. We arrived at a formula by which we could ensure that would happen. We went through negotiations with Ocelot under the terms of that formula. It's very complicated, Mr. Speaker, but basically what it does is it takes the export price on one hand and the domestic price on the other, then looks at the job benefits, the downstream benefits, the construction and capital cost benefits to the province for these kinds of developments and arrives at a figure somewhere in between. That's what was done with Ocelot. I'd be glad to make that public. Out of courtesy I would like to contact Ocelot first. It's the first I have heard of any problems, but I'll be happy to do that.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister positively confirm that his government has offered natural gas to Ocelot and other consortiums within the industry at a lower price than other B.C. industries must pay for natural gas?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That's absolutely false, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it's the other way around. I don't know why the member wasn't listening when I answered the question, but I said that feedstock for primarily export purposes would not be sold at the domestic price — which is the price which is paid by other industries in this province — and that a formula has been developed by which full value will be obtained by the government for its natural gas.

DELISLE REPORT ON
PROVINCIAL COURT SYSTEM

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney- General. It's now reported that the Attorney-General has in his hands a study into the provincial court system, which study includes considerable comment around the role of provincial court judges. Could the Attorney-General advise the House whether he has decided to make that report public?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member's understanding of the matter to which he refers is inaccurate. I have no study in my hands; none was anticipated to be in my hands; and the press reports of last weekend which touched upon this matter, while substantially correct, did contain some inaccuracies.

I think that because of the exposure this matter has been given, members should be aware of precisely what took place. Seven years ago on April 1 very significant changes took place in the handling of criminal justice matters in this province. There was the full development of the sheriff service, witness management, the establishment of a Crown counsel system and a change completed from the use of lay judges to judges who were legally trained.

Over those seven years, certain elements of the criminal justice system have assumed responsibilities, and questions were raised as to whether those areas of responsibility were appropriate. As a consequence, the executive committee of the ministry — at the assistant deputy minister's level — decided that a study should be undertaken which would involve all disciplines in the criminal justice system: police, court services, Crown counsel, finance and administration, corrections and, as advisers, the judiciary as well. That group identified three areas they wished to have considered. One was documentation flow and preparation in the system, the second was witness management, and the third was trial coordination.

A team of persons from the ministry was directed to do the field work to provide statistics upon which some decisions could be made as to what should be done. It is that report from the field-work group that has been referred to in the press. It never reached the assistant deputy minister steering committee level, but was produced and distributed to the members of that group. As a consequence of what was said in that report, the matters of witness management and documentation and documentation flow have been resolved. The question of trial coordination still remains outstanding and is being considered between the ministry and the judiciary.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, it's the question of trial coordination that concerns us, particularly in view of the criticisms of the minister's department inherent in Mr. Justice Seaton's report. The concern is the independence of the judiciary. Can the minister confirm that jurisdiction over setting trial dates will remain absolutely and completely with provincial court judges, and that no administrative official at a lower level is going to interfere with the prerogatives of provincial court judges in terms of setting trial dates in a manner that is fair to the participants in any particular trial?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is my view and that of the senior officials in the ministry that the matter of setting trial dates must remain with the judiciary. However, in the matter of coordination they may require some administrative assistance. We're happy to provide that kind of assistance because the setting of trials involves not only the judiciary initially, and not only the defence bar, but the processes of Crown counsel, the way in which they are structured, and the availability of police witnesses and other witnesses as well. In the matter of trial coordination, we wish to be certain that the judiciary, in setting trial dates, is aware of the other components of the system. There's no question that the operation of the courts must remain with them.

MR. LAUK: Pursuant again to the Seaton report, court of appeal judge Mr. Justice Seaton made several recommendations about separating the administration of justice under the Attorney-General from the provincial court so that no interference — or even apparent interference — could take place. In a recent case Chief Judge Goulet has recently investigated an alleged breach of the Provincial Court Act by Darrell Jones, a Vancouver provincial court administrative judge. Were there any representations by the Deputy Attorney-General to the chief court judge on this matter, to the Attorney-General's knowledge?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is no. That is a matter which rests solely within the jurisdiction of the chief judge.

[ Page 4991 ]

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General assure the House that no such representations were made by the Deputy Attorney-General?

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. LAUK: With respect to the dismissal of one Bruce Donald, did the Attorney-General receive any representation from his Deputy Attorney-General about what action should be taken?

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

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. On March 25, the minister gave an undertaking to conduct an inquiry into which hospitals use electrical equipment containing PCBs, and he also undertook to bring that information back to the House. The minister also indicated that he believed that when a member brings a question to this House, it is a matter of some urgency. It is now 11 days since that question was posed and we have not yet had an answer from the minister, and I'm wondering if the minister is in a position now to report to the House the results of that inquiry that he agreed to conduct as a matter of urgency.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions are brought to the House at the discretion of a minister according to the rules.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I trust the member, in using the language "conduct an inquiry," appreciates that what I said was that we would investigate and inquire into where such materials may be. The original question by the member was how many hospitals may have transformers, and we responded to that. To the best of the information provided to us to this date, the only transformers which have been located in hospital settings are those referred to at VGH, Vancouver General Hospital.

The federal Ministry of the Environment has advised representatives of the provincial Ministry of Health that there are a number of hospitals which have other equipment called capacitors which contain small quantities of PCBs. It was suggested to us that we're looking at an extremely different situation from transformers to capacitors, but representatives within the ministry are following through on information provided to them as to what hospitals may have capacitors with some quantity of PCB. In addition they are requesting assistance from the fire officials as to which, if any, of these capacitors might pose a hazard in the event of a fire. The initial response was that we're dealing with an entirely different situation as to hazard to public health in the event of a fire involving a transformer with a large quantity of PCB or a capacitor with a relatively small amount. That investigation, and the inquiry collecting that information, is still continuing. The report has not been presented to me yet. The concern which we initially responded to is not as grave as if we had been dealing with a large abundance of transformers containing a large quantity of PCBs.

MR. LAUK: Under standing order 42, I wish to correct a statement made by the minister who just answered a question.

MR. SPEAKER: The only corrections that are anticipated under the standing order which the member has cited are corrections which need to be made as a result of a material part of a speech which the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) may have made and had misquoted. If that is the case, then please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that is the case. The question that was originally asked of the minister was to do with electrical equipment, not transformers. The minister indicated that we only asked him a question on transformers. "Electrical equipment" includes capacitors as well as transformers, and I wouldn't want the House to misunderstand that we....

MR. SPEAKER: Did that question originate with the first member for Vancouver Centre?

MR. LAUK: It could well have, Mr. Speaker. However, it originated with the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

MR. PASSARELL: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you please state the matter briefly.

MR. PASSARELL: I have received a message from the Alaska State Legislature which indicates a motion has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature. The issue is the Stikine-Iskut dam project in my riding. The Alaska Legislature has put a motion requesting direct personal involvement of President Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State Alexander Haig. They are upset over the statements made and the lack of information given to them by the Premier of this province in his attempt to sell this project to our Alaskan neighbours. The Alaskans feel they are victims of an attempted snow job by the Premier of this province. We want to tell Governor Hammond that that massive hydro-dam complex on the Stikine-Iskut.... Mr. Speaker, I have a motion regarding this.

MR. SPEAKER: If the member would also include the text of his statement with the motion, it would help a great deal.

MR. PASSARELL: The motion that is in your hands now, Mr. Speaker, is that the House do now adjourn to debate Alaska state joint resolution No. 19 and its serious implications for British Columbia–Alaska relations.

MR. SPEAKER: I will reserve decision, without prejudice to the hon. member regarding his priority in addressing the question. Perhaps I'll even come back with a decision later today.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented a committee report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The standing orders have been complied with relating to the petition for leave to introduce a private bill intituled An Act Respecting the Montreal Trust

[ Page 4992 ]

Company and the Montreal Trust Company of Canada, except for late filing. With respect thereto, the petitioner has paid double fees in accordance with standing order 98 (3). The committee recommends the petitioner be allowed to proceed with the said bill.

"All of which is respectfully submitted, W.B. Strachan, Chairman."

ABBOTSFORD VETERINARY LABORATORY

HON. MR. HEWITT: I ask leave to respond to a question asked me in question period last week. I'd like to respond now, rather than take time in question period.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked about selenium testing and the problems with testing in our veterinary laboratory, and the time delays. With respect to the selenium testing, we are unfortunately a victim of our own efficiency, in that we are primarily responsible for identifying the problem — i.e. selenium-deficient soils in many areas of the province — as well as identifying several problems in selenium-deficient livestock. We are now being literally swamped with specimens to assist veterinarians and livestock owners in diagnosing these resultant problems.

For the information of the member, we have seen specimens increase from 37,700 in 1977 up to 75,300 in 1980, and other specimens in toxicology are running from 587 up to 1,309. We have appointed a technician under our temporary assistance program, effective April 1, 1981. We are at this moment attempting to hire three new staff members under temporary assistance to assist in this problem.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

MR. LORIMER: There are two or three matters that I would like to discuss further in regard to the question of transit. The minister has stated many times that the transit formula is better than anywhere else in the country. Of course, that's like comparing apples and oranges, because it's impossible to compare formulas in isolation. The question arises as to service and to other transfers of funds from the provincial government to municipalities as to the amount of benefits received by the residents in any municipality. I'm not going to deal any further with that point, except to say that in 1975-76 — certainly in the major areas of the province — the government paid 100 percent of operating and capital costs, or their Crown agencies paid it for them, so that the provincial revenues basically paid for the total amount of transit.

Since this government came to power in 1975, the rates have been substantially increased and the growth of transit has stopped. They created the Urban Transit Authority, which in fact has very limited authority, and without the approval of the minister or the cabinet can do very little on its own. But what is now going on is the increase of sharing of 25 percent to the municipalities. That's a direct gain of 25 percent of the cost of transit to the province; they've gained 25 percent of funds, which were formerly paid by the government itself, but now it's the local taxpayers that are picking up that 25 percent. They're paying that extra money without getting the benefit of improved transit and without getting the benefit of better service — and they're paying more in the way of transportation costs through the fare box.

We offered the regional district a 2 percent levy on the school tax base for operating costs. The minister at that time was the chairman of the transportation committee of the regional district, and they would have no part of that. The cost to the regional district on that base was substantially better than what a 75-25 percent split amounts to. I might also state that during that period the question of new services going in and the question of the municipalities being requested to pick up the cost of shelters and bays for the buses to pull into, which was generally agreed to by the regional district, and certainly by most of the municipalities....

But I might point out that the municipality of Surrey, of which the minister was the mayor at the time, did not pick up those costs, and as a result the bays and shelters by and large were not built — not during that period at least. So since 1975 the public — not so much in the greater Victoria area, because there have been some increases, but generally speaking in the greater Vancouver area — the local taxpayers are paying 25 percent instead of zero, and they've got less and poorer service as a result of the operations of the transit systems by the provincial government.

One other point I would like to make is that I noticed the minister has been a little careless in some of his statements. For instance, he stated that in the construction of the ALRT everything could be built within Canada, with the exception of about 3 percent of the costs — I think that was his figure. I knew that this was incorrect; I did some checking, and I'm advised that at least 50 percent of the building costs for these particular vehicles will be outside Canada, because the technology for the computer, braking and electrical systems is not local. I'm very doubtful whether that technology will be transferred to Canada in order that they can compete with those that do have that technology.

The other matter, of course, is that unless there is a chance of building a number of these vehicles, it will not be profitable or even reasonable to start construction unless there is a possible sale of such vehicles not only in British Columbia but in other parts of North America. It's true enough that the cost of building the cement work and the work of constructing the lines will be local costs. The machinery, by and large, will not be of local content. One of the major arguments for the use of ALRT is that it is a local operation and will be built in Canada. If proceeded with, the regular conventional rail transit could be well built within British Columbia.

The other matter that I'd like to raise with the minister is the question of the custom transit. I'm hoping the minister will discuss this. A lot of transit has been transferred from the jurisdiction of Human Resources, and I want to have the assurance from the minister that there will likewise be a transfer of funds in order that the UTA can carry out a proper service for this custom transit. I think it's a proper move that the transit for all people should be brought under one umbrella. It's of little benefit to transfer it out of Human Resources, who have looked after it for many years, to another organization unless there is some guarantee that the funds will follow the service. As the minister well knows, the service has to be steamed up and beefed up considerably in

[ Page 4993 ]

order to give a proper service for those people using this custom service. Maybe when I get an answer from the minister on that point, we might know what's going on with Human Resources.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, firstly, it is always a little bit disturbing to hear from the opposition the so-called slogan "Buy Canadian," except when it's not their idea. Certainly it's our intent to purchase Canadian at every opportunity. Our buying the ALRT is a good example of that. The 3 percent figure that I quoted in the House last week is the figure that was given to me by UTDC and UTA. That figure was arrived at during negotiations for the pending contract. In effect, contrary to the 50 percent import and 50 percent Canadian which was quoted by the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), it's only 3 percent that cannot be manufactured in Canada. The balance is Canadian. Again, that certainly is a tremendous argument in support of purchasing ALRT.

I don't know why there are constantly various quarters, both the opposition and others, although I'm suspecting that possibly the others include some members of the opposition indirectly, always wanting to come out against ALRT. They're holding forth conventional rapid transit as a more Canadian system, when practically the whole of it is import. Despite the fact that trips have been taken overseas and various systems have been looked at by any number of bodies, in Canada we now have a system which is superior to all other systems anywhere. The only thing that is still lacking, perhaps, is an actual application other than the trial which has been conducted in Ontario over the last five years.

If we are not prepared to buy the system as Canadians — given all of this experience and the fact that the Ontario government is backing it with a money-back guarantee — how can we expect other people in the world to buy Canadian? Let's buy Canadian. Let's show the world that we're not afraid to purchase our own products. I can't get that message across strongly enough to the opposition. Firstly, I can't believe that the NDP won't support the purchase of Canadian materials. Secondly, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon says: "The transit-sharing formula that we had in place was much better than what you have today." I would remind the hon. member that there was little formula in place, except that in every small community they pay 50 percent of the total deficit up to two mills. There is no small community that I'm aware of that hasn't seen a reduction in costs since the introduction of our formula for transit-deficit financing, which is the most generous anywhere in North America, I would dare say. Hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I'm certain that must indicate that the government at the time, the previous NDP administration, was not providing the necessary amount or the same amount of financial assistance to those communities as is being provided by this government.

Obviously the member for Burnaby-Willingdon may refer to Vancouver-Victoria and argue that the whole of it was operated by B.C. Hydro prior to the regional districts becoming involved and having to pick up 25 percent of their share of the deficit. Again, that came about at the request of the regional districts. They wanted to be the decision-makers with respect to planning for transit, in any case, because it affected the development of their regions. They actually got what they asked for, much in the way they asked for it. So once more, there is some criticism from the opposition. Obviously they didn't have the facts quite correct or they didn't wish to present them correctly here today in the House. I hope that I have now at least corrected for the record the wrong information given just a little while ago.

The Ministry of Human Resources purchases the bus passes from the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the Capital Regional District at a cost of $60 per pass; in turn, they are provided to seniors and the handicapped for $10 per pass. So there is a considerable subsidy. Of course you are aware that the program has been expanded tremendously. During the time of the NDP administration the pass program was limited to only the people of greater Victoria and greater Vancouver. We, as government, said we should treat all people in the province equally, not discriminate between one area and the next. In other communities throughout the province there are many very deserving seniors who ought to have the same opportunity. It has been provided for them. I think that should certainly be a credit to the government.

With respect to custom transit service, the hon. member mentioned that perhaps it could be more up to individual groups or areas to provide the service, since we have changed the program from what it was during the NDP years. The program has been improved upon enormously. Any groups which have been involved in the provision of custom transit will certainly qualify that particular statement and will stand behind what I say now. Initially it was mostly a matter of some areas having it and others not. It very often required that an organization seek funds from a variety of sources. The application of the program, or the provision of a service to a handicapped person, varied not only from region to region but also from one place in the region to another place in the region.

The custom transit-service formula provides equal treatment to all areas. Only 10 percent is required from the fare box. Previously it was a mish-mash. They were charged differently depending on where they were in the region, or from region to region. Twenty-five percent is a direct grant from the Ministry of Human Resources to the deficit of the custom transit service. The remaining 65 percent is shared 75-25, with the province picking up 75 percent of the cost. Once more, I doubt if there is as good a program anywhere in the world, let alone North America and Canada. This program for the handicapped has been written up....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I heard the statement made, "the free world." It's not so much the free world; it's the semi-free world. There are socialist countries in western Europe where the program isn't nearly as good as what we have here today.

MR. LORIMER: Well, I think the argument could go on forever as to dollars and cents or what is best or not best, so I don't intend to continue that.

However, when you're talking about Canadian construction, what I'm saying is that there should be far more Canadian construction on a proven system built in British Columbia — almost total construction in British Columbia on a conventional system. The fact that you have a system which was invented in Canada, which may or may not work, and that you think you might be able to get some funds from the federal government, which you may or may not get, doesn't make this particular system one of Canadian construction. It's not Canadian construction. That's what I'm

[ Page 4994 ]

trying to get across. But I know the minister is intent on proceeding on that line; so be it. I want to say that I've given him fair warning that this could be a very expensive experiment in transit.

One last thing I should say is that by setting up the Urban Transit Authority, and the regional districts assuming they have some jurisdiction which they don't have in transit and so on, what has developed has been a great number of duplications of.work through the ministry, the Urban Transit Authority and the regional districts duplicating studies and plans. The number of people now employed in the whole area of transit has multiplied tremendously. And what have we done? We've gone backward in transit; we haven't gone forward. So we have all those extra expenses and a minus production. I think the minister must take a look at transit and decide that now is the time transit should come off the ground. You should get moving on transit. The whole area of Vancouver — mainly the lower mainland of Vancouver — is where the transit problems are really very serious. I know there has been some work done in the Victoria area, and undoubtedly more work is needed. But certainly there's been nothing done in the Vancouver area, and that's where the crunch is at the present time.

MRS. WALLACE: I want to change the subject slightly, but the minister's remarks that he had evened out the availability or approach towards transit and passes and so on indicates to me that first you have to have a transit system before that's going to apply. Unfortunately, so many of the areas just don't have transit systems. I know the Urban Transit Authority is supposed to be reviewing this, but certainly in the area I represent, which is of a very rural sort of nature, it's very slow in coming because of the costs involved, the extra taxes that have to be affixed and the kind of costs that are involved. I would urge the minister to have a look at perhaps making the system a little more flexible so there is an opportunity for smaller areas to operate within an overall district without making it the compulsory sort of things that take place once you form an Urban Transit Authority. For example, I'm thinking of the incidence where Lake Cowichan was getting a subsidy from the provincial government, and, because at this point in time the overall regional district cannot undertake a transit system, they're reviewing this and looking at the possibilities. But that subsidy has gone to Lake Cowichan and the bus service has deteriorated accordingly. That's the kind of situation that could develop in the more populated areas, if, in fact, it could be done on a smaller basis.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

However, what I rose to speak about was something quite different. I wanted to talk about the situation which has occurred with the Cowichan Valley Regional District relative to the heritage designation act. There have been some changes in legislation — I know I can't talk about legislation — which have resulted in the fact that while that regional district had letters patent allowing them to designate heritage sites, with the changes in legislation they are no longer able to continue in that manner. This has been going on since 1977. In fact, they got their letters patent in 1976, and in 1977 there were some revisions to legislation which have left them hanging in limbo, at least according to the rather narrow interpretation of the act that this minister is putting in place, whereby, because they are a regional board and not a municipality, village or city council, they are not able to hold this power or to designate heritage sites. They have their advisory committee in place, and everything was going very nicely. This has now ground to a halt. I've had some correspondence with the minister, and he has assured me that he would take some action. I'm wondering whether or not he can assure the House that he is going to move on this, either by order-in-Council or by just a little different interpretation of the act, a little broader interpretation that will allow the Cowichan Valley Regional District to continue with its heritage designation program.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In order to provide the authority for heritage designation to a regional district, we would need a change in legislation. That legislation comes under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). Perhaps you may want to raise that question then.

With respect to communities not having a transit system available to them, yes, there are many communities without transit. I agree that there are areas that are so rural that they obviously couldn't support any type of transit. This is a matter for local application. If a community feels that it has reached a point where it wishes to establish a transit system...none has yet been denied once having made that decision. That is a local decision.

One final question. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon might have had the answer, although possibly one of the speakers from the opposition immediately following could give the information. Otherwise, I'll have to look it up. The budget now provides for approximately $92,675,000 toward public transit services in British Columbia. I'm just wondering, if you have the figure, how does that compare to 1975?

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank the minister and his staff for their helpful cooperation over the past year in my riding. I'd like to particularly thank them for the work they have done in the community of Elkford. As a result of their efforts, Elkford will be one of the best-planned instant towns in the province of British Columbia.

For a few minutes today I'd like to touch on the problem of industrial property tax-sharing in the Elk valley. As you're aware, Mr. Chairman, there are currently five coal-mines operating in the Elk valley. There is tremendous pressure on all the communities in the Elk valley to provide services to the people who work in the resource industry. Elkford has 45 percent of the total resource workforce, Sparwood has 33 percent and Fernie has 22 percent. All communities are within 20 miles of each other, with Sparwood in the centre. While all communities must and want to provide services to the people who work in the resource industry, and to the residents of the community, only two communities in the Elk valley have an industrial tax base. Sparwood has British Columbia Coal; Elkford has Fording Coal.

Fernie has no industrial tax base whatsoever, even though they have 22 percent of the employees who work in the resource living in their community. Ferne has many worn-out sewer and water facilities. There is growing pressure on the community to provide recreational facilities. There is more need for cooperation among all three municipalities in the Elk valley. We must provide the opportunity for Fernie to have an industrial tax base. This can be accomplished by

[ Page 4995 ]

expanding the Fernie municipal boundaries to take in the Shell mine just north of Sparwood. Elkford's boundary should be expanded to take in B.C. Coal's Greenhills operation. Sparwood should be expanded to take in Byron Creek Collieries.

I'm wondering whether the minister would have any objection to those boundary expansions. Perhaps down through the years there will be more room for cooperation among the three municipalities and, if we can start on some sort of cooperative basis among the three municipalities, there will be the desire on the part of the three to form a district municipality in the Elk valley. I'd like the minister to comment briefly on those items.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, we have been looking at the possibilities for providing a more equitable approach to the sharing of revenues among all of the municipalities in the Elk valley or affected by the Elk valley development, especially since many of the people choose to work in one area which could be within a particular municipal jurisdiction, but they live in an entirely different area. We've had numerous discussions on that particular point. There are a variety of approaches that could be used in order to bring about a more equitable sharing of the resource revenues. The last proposal, as I understand it, is one whereby there could be some agreement reached within the whole of the regional district or among the various partners affected by this. It would not require legislation and would, in effect, see the boundaries of one perhaps include a particular mine-site which would give them sufficient revenues — perhaps not on a computer-calculated basis, but sufficient revenues — to make it all a little more fair. Yes, we are anxiously awaiting word from the Elk valley in that respect and we would be prepared to proceed on it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief questions of the minister.

First of all, rural transportation. I was going to leave this for a moment but people are talking about it at the moment. The minister doesn't have to answer this — he's already answered this — but I do want to go on the record as saving that in communities outside of the municipality of Powell River.... There is a population north and south of approximately 5,000 people on each side of town and no type of public transportation system at all. I think the minister, in my view, should seriously consider some kind of financial assistance to extend the transportation system to those areas. There are a lot of good reasons. The population is there to pretty well warrant a couple of buses a day anyway. We're attempting to encourage people to not use their automobiles and all of these things, so I think this could be seriously looked at by the minister. I've heard the minister's answer to this question here earlier in debate.

What I really wanted to ask him, and what I got on my feet for is.... Approximately two years ago, the minister undertook a study of the regional district setup in the province, and I wonder what the status of that study is. We haven't heard anything about it in some time. I've seen no press release out of the minister's office in regard to that study. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a thing — or any action — that the government may be contemplating on that particular study.

The question which was posed to me some four weeks ago when I was visiting the Central Coast Regional District which is in my riding — Bella Coola, Ocean Falls and related smaller communities.... One of the questions posed to me was: "Are the minister and the ministry going to wipe us out literally in terms of the regional district?" One of the recommendations within that study was that the Central Coast Regional District be abolished and that all the functions relating to that regional district be transferred back to the provincial government in Victoria. It's a concern to people living there. I thought — just the fact that the study mightn't....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's your stand? What's your position?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister asks me just for the record what my position is. Leave that regional district in place. That's what the people there want. Now I know it's an unwieldy regional district, and it's extremely expensive. They don't meet often. It's extremely expensive for people within that regional district to even meet because of the horrendous transportation problems, which were compounded by the policies of this government — but that's another story; we'll get onto that when discussing transportation — but the fact is that a charter flight from Bella Bella to Bella Coola, where most meetings are held, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 to $275. They have a very low tax base. Every year I have to go through this chicken-dance with the ministry or the minister so that that regional district, which has a very low tax base, can get the full grants that some other regional districts get. I haven't done that this year — to be fair — so far. Perhaps that time of the year hasn't rolled around yet. They may have received the full grant. I'm not sure, but I'm sure I'll be hearing from the regional district if they have not.

I don't want the minister to forget my primary question. Is the minister still considering wiping out a whole regional district within my riding? I know the minister would like to wipe out my whole riding if he could, but I don't think that's about to happen.

I have a relatively small item to discuss, but I suppose it is important to the people living on Savary Island, which happens to come under the purview of the Islands Trust. There are severe problems there, which I'm sure the minister is aware of. That particular island was subdivided some 80 years ago or less into 50-foot lots. There's very little water on the island, and yet there are people still developing lots. Now I think there are only at this point in time some 23 full-time residents living on Savary, but I met with the medical health officer, the regional board people and certainly with some of the residents. What they're requesting is simply that a freeze be put on any further construction or development on that island for the time being, not only because of the lack of water but because there is a severe problem there with waste and garbage disposal and sewage. I don't know if that's possible. I've written to the ministry. I haven't received a reply yet, but that's all right because the problem only came to my attention about a month ago. The request from the residents on the island is that until we have complete planning in that area, a freeze be placed on further development on that island.

When I talk about the 23 — I think it is — full-time residents of the island, I should tell you that there are approximately — I'm just guessing here — between 250 and 300 summer homes on the island already. As I said, in the summer the sewage disposal is a real problem. The medical

[ Page 4996 ]

health officer for the district agrees with the recommendation that all construction within that area be halted until a full assessment can be done on that very severe problem. I know it's a smaller type of item, but I did want to bring it to the minister's attention. There is correspondence before the ministry somewhere. I'm sure I'll get a reply, as will the regional district and Islands Trust in due course.

Last but not least, some time ago the minister brought forward the proposed planning act for British Columbia. There's no legislation before the House dealing with the planning act, so I'm sure we must be able to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is no, hon. member. It would involve legislation.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that there is no legislation before the House now dealing with the proposed planning act of the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our standing orders state, hon. member, that the necessity for legislation is out of order as well. Whether or not that legislation is before the House is irrelevant in this case. If you are discussing the necessity for legislation, it cannot be discussed in committee.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the minister that regarding this act, which I won't discuss.... I've discussed this act with many people throughout my riding's municipalities and regional districts. They're very disturbed over some aspects. I would suspect that the minister is having a severe problem in cabinet over this particular matter as he wants to usurp the authority of Highways and everybody else in the cabinet. He wants to be the leader of the Social Credit Party very soon. Getting back to this act that we can't discuss....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, if you could get back to the administrative affairs of the minister, the committee would appreciate it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, my colleague suggests I talk about the White Paper. Can I talk about that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The operative restriction in Committee of Supply is that the necessity for legislation or matters involving legislation cannot be discussed.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In terms of this legislation which I won't discuss, I just want the minister to tell me if he's going to receive further input from the various regional districts, municipalities or from people around this province. I personally am very dissatisfied with some of the proposals put forward in that particular act, which I won't discuss. Possibly the minister, in not discussing the act, will answer my question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Certainly we're always prepared to receive suggestions, input and proposals from any source, and especially from a source which is in disagreement with some of the proposals put forth. So, hon. member for Mackenzie, I'm surprised we haven't heard from you. We would receive your suggestions. Any one individual or group from Mackenzie is welcome to write to this minister. If there's one thing about this minister and this ministry, it's that we are really open, available and we want to help people and receive their suggestions.

With respect to Savary Island, again, if the regional district wishes to deal with the matter by way of a building regulatory bylaw, they can do so. Obviously there are many areas where you can only build on a lot providing you can show that there's potable water supply, that you can install a septic system and that there is sufficient percolation for that. Once more, there is a solution, hon. member, and you may wish to take it to your board.

That brings me to the question of whether we ought to have a regional board in the area of Mackenzie. The central coast certainly is, as you've said, a very difficult area for the regional district to service. I met with them for a whole day and we discussed it all. I agree that they have their problems. Contrary to what you said, they do receive all their grants. Their grants in some way, however, do not possibly go as far as they could in other areas, because even for a committee meeting or any type of meeting there's a considerable cost in that it requires a fair bit of travel.

We've received a number of recommendations from the initial regional district review. We subsequently did a further study for ourselves and met with regional people to discuss that report and other alternatives. I think that on the basis of the input that has been received, there may be some boundary changes in some areas in order to make the whole thing a little more workable. Certainly I don't believe there's any longer much thought about eliminating whole regional districts. There will be changes, however. These are certainly in response to and from suggestions made by regional district directors — especially rural area directors. There will be changes. Those changes will be dealt with in our review of the Municipal Act. They'll be forthcoming in the future.

The final question you asked was if there possibly couldn't be some financial assistance to the areas outside of Powell River if they wish to participate in transit. Yes, we would be very glad to have them included as a part of one system, including Powell River. That seems to make sense. We would share the deficit 75 percent.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I appreciate the answers from the minister, Mr. Chairman; I just want to correct one statement. In terms of the grants — I'm just going from memory; it was the planning grant, just for the record — that regional district.... There is only one other in the whole province, as I recall, that up until this year did not receive its full share of that particular grant, some $50,000 a year. Perhaps of that $30,000-a-year grant they were receiving 80 percent; they may have received the full grant this year. Every year prior to that I would have to go cap in hand on behalf of the regional district to the ministry, and after a lot of fooling around, they finally got the full grant. So that was the point, but perhaps the minister wasn't the minister at that time; it may have been a different minister. But as the minister assured me that they're going to receive the full grant, that's all I wanted to hear.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In response to that, Mr. Chairman, I think that the reference here is to the planning grant, which has a maximum amount, and we can share up to that. But the regional district is required to put up a portion of the moneys, so that they don't simply come in asking for

[ Page 4997 ]

grants whether they need them or not. There is a requirement that they contribute a portion. Now if the regional district didn't see fit or didn't feel it necessary to contribute the share required for them to go the maximum $15,000, then they wouldn't get that grant.

MR. HANSON: I would like to begin my remarks with reference to a couple of comments which that minister made in the House last week, and I think he should be held to account for those remarks. Just to set it in context for you, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about the double-billing provisions, and the bill opposing double billing. This minister made a passing reference at that time to possibly a need to look at the question of deterrent fees in the health-care field — in other words, abusers. This particular minister has an obsession with abuse. When he was Minister of Human Resources, he was obsessed with people abusing the system there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again we are on the administrative responsibilities of the minister. I think all members will agree that last week we digressed on certain occasions from the matters at hand, but I hope that this week — we're starting a new week — we can determine afresh that we're going to follow our standing orders. With that I would ask the member to continue on the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. HANSON: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. It's just the first opportunity that I have had to comment on those regressive comments that he made in this chamber. I will leave it saying this: if he ever wishes to proceed in cabinet recommending deterrent fees, if he thinks he's seen a fight....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, there's a bill before this House, Mr. Chairman, dealing with that matter. That member cannot relate the matter which he's discussing in any way to the administrative responsibilities of the minister, and I hope that you'll bring him very strongly to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I must stress that we are on the administrative responsibilities — and only the responsibilities — of the minister; nor may we discuss matters involving legislation or the need for legislation. The member continues.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I will take guidance from your remarks. I'm going to move on to the Urban Transit Authority, which, as you know, is a brain-child of this particular government, the purpose and the stated objectives of which — in their words — were to streamline the transit system, put it down into local control, and so on. But I don't think anyone was fooled at the time and, as we see the effect that the UTA is having on transit — certainly in my own constituency of Victoria — I think we have in microcosm the philosophy of the Social Credit government, which is that.... When individuals in our society pay taxes, they expect services for those taxes, but this government sees those tax dollars as a fund to try to guarantee their re-election through investing in monumental projects, particularly in Vancouver at this time.

Let us just look for a second at the operation, the way the UTA is structured in terms of its finances. As most British Columbians know, when transit was handled by B.C. Hydro, their more profitable operations of selling electricity and power offset costs of moving people in the transit system. That's really the way it should have been structured, but what we had here was a brain-child to put onto the local taxpayer, the local citizenry, the cost of a transit system. They did this in the following way. Rather than have the cost of buses and other capital expenditures paid out of general revenue, the costs are paid for by the actual user, with a small subsidy from the province. In other words, when taxes are collected, they go into general revenue to provide services for the public, like bus services. Then what we have here is a double taxation, because when the citizen gets on the bus, his tax dollars are only paying a small portion of that service, and the rest of it has to be paid for by that box or the regional district.

In the Capital Regional District they've put the bus fares up. Who did they put them up for? For children, for seniors and a small amount for the regular fare — the average individual who doesn't fall into those categories. Now the Socred formula is a serious departure from any sort of social conscience, Mr. Chairman. To a senior citizen of my constituency the bus or transit system isn't a frill. It is a lifeline. It is the way to avoid being shut in; it is a way to visit friends in hospital, to do shopping, to get out of a small apartment and to move in the mainstream of our community. From your side of the House we hear comments like: "Oh, it's only an additional 15 cents: it’s only 30 cents now." There is an absolute failure to recognize that a senior citizen in many other jurisdictions rides for free. In San Francisco, for example, senior citizens ride the bus for 5 cents, because there's recognition that they are no longer in their peak earning years and that pensions are being rapidly eroded by inflation.

Here we are witness to increasing the user fee for senior citizens to ride on a bus. Is there anything that is more symbolic of a heartless government than that? Again, it's the abuser thing; it's the deterrent thing. I don't think most of the public realize quite yet — they are coming to realize it very quickly — how this government has abrogated its responsibility in financing the transit system. As new buses are purchased and the transit lines are extended, who pays? The people getting on the bus: the children, the seniors and the captive people that don't want to fight their way into Vancouver or downtown Victoria in their own cars, but wish to ride a bus in an efficient system.

So there you take out of general revenue an obligation which really should be under provincial jurisdiction, providing a service. and you dump it at the local level, making local government people the meat in the sandwich. The Capital Regional District has to take the brunt for raising fares.

The minister nods off; he is feigning sleep. This is the concern of this government, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to providing services to people.

Not only has the government removed itself from the capital expenditure of providing a decent transit system, but over the next five years their contribution will get smaller every year. I believe it starts in the first year at something like 48.5 percent, and it drops at the end of of five years to 43 percent. With high inflation, with a system we want expanded and with increased capital costs, the provincial government's portion gets smaller and smaller until they want to get out entirely and put the responsibility and the burden at the local level. What else do they do? They do it with school

[ Page 4998 ]

costs and in other ways, but here we have transit, which is this minister's responsibility, and have we heard him say that he's willing to pay his fair share? Not at all.

I have some specific comments regarding the PCL bus system on Vancouver Island. Sometime at the end of last year I met with a number of the drivers, who pointed out to me some of the inequities within the PCL system the way it is presently developed on Vancouver Island. For example, there is only one express bus from Victoria to Campbell River each day, whereas leaving Vancouver and going to Chilliwack there are ten express buses every day. Granted there's an increased population over there, but even if that's prorated there's no comparison.

The Vancouver Island buses leaving Victoria that are not express buses make all the stops all the way. I think if you were to take a general view of those buses, they're older vehicles, and my information is that most of them don't have washrooms. In other words, there could be up to a three-hour run with no washroom facilities at all. Maybe this has been corrected since my meeting with these drivers in the late fall, but I doubt it. I'd like the minister, if he will, to give me an outline of what representation he will be making to them, as the minister responsible for PCL, in terms of upgrading their system here on Vancouver Island.

I'd also like some comment regarding the fare structure. Broken down into a number of parts, the Port Hardy–Campbell River section is $15, Campbell River to Nanaimo is $6.50 and Nanaimo to Victoria $5.30, for a total of $27.10. Do you know you can take a bus from Vancouver to Calgary for $36? In other words, there's no comparability in terms of the distance covered. It costs $27.10 to go from Victoria to Port Hardy, but $36 to go to Calgary. Again, my meeting was in the fall of this year, so perhaps some of these costs have been changed again; but I'd like the minister's comment on them, if I may. I'm going to take my seat and ask the minister to respond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm pleased that I now have the opportunity of giving the House the figures with respect to transit — the moneys that are being provided by this government as opposed to what was being provided in 1975. Possibly all hon. members would like to make a note of this, although it will be recorded in Hansard, so you can refer back to it later. But for the information of the first and second members for Victoria (Mr. Barber and Mr. Hanson), the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) — the four members of the opposition left in the House — the budget now provides $92,675,000-plus for transit services in British Columbia.

There's also $55 million in a fund specifically for the acquisition of capital in the first moves with respect to ALRT for greater Vancouver. So it's $92, 675,000. During the NDP year of 1975 it was $3,325,730 — and 11 cents, I believe. That's a difference — something like 3 percent of what we have today. How can you compare the program which is provided by this government with the program which was provided by the NDP?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask all members to bear in mind that only one member of the House can be speaking at a time. All members will have full and ample opportunity to take their place in debate.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Urban Transit Authority is not the local authority for Victoria or Vancouver; it deals with transit matters for the whole of the province. I continually need to remind the members opposite, especially those from Victoria, that there's more to British Columbia than Victoria and Vancouver. There are many other communities which are receiving a transit service now that they didn't get previously. To simply say the old system was much better.... We had a transit system in Victoria and a transit system in Vancouver, and everybody was charged in their electricity bill for whatever deficit those transit systems incurred. But that meant that people in Houston, Prince George, Fort St. John, Nelson, Trail and everywhere were paying for the transit services in Vancouver and Victoria. I remind the hon. second member for Victoria that there's more to British Columbia than the two urban or metropolitan areas. Why do you always forget that British Columbia goes beyond Victoria and Vancouver?

The final comment is with respect to the Capital Regional District's making decisions with respect to fares. Do you think that possibly those decisions should be made at the provincial level? Is that what you're suggesting? Are you arguing that possibly it's not better for the local people to determine routes and frequency of service and fares, as opposed to the province doing that sort of thing? We've decentralized; we've given those authorities to the local people. Now you're saying: "Ah, but the Capital Regional District hasn't got a social conscience." I would argue that with you. The chairman of the Urban Transit Authority is Mayor Tindall of Victoria, and the Capital Regional District certainly has some very difficult times in dealing with fares. It's no easy task, and to suggest they don't have a social conscience and they shouldn't be doing that is a gross injustice to those people. Many of them were politically involved at the local level while you were still sweeping the floor in a museum. So these people do have a long term of experience in servicing the public of this region.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the minister, whose record for misrepresenting the facts....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Having reviewed again the situation that we reviewed last week, I would ask all hon. members to remember what we may and may not say in committee, and again I would ask the member to withdraw the word "misrepresenting."

MR. BARBER: I withdraw the word, and I restate the argument that this minister, who knows better, who knows what the truth is, who knows perfectly well what the record was of transit administration from 1972 to 1975, and who knows perfectly well that it was financed by the transit division of B.C. Hydro at a considerably greater cost than $3 million per year, says a wrong thing when he tries to pretend — for whatever disgraceful political reasons he wishes to — that the first New Democratic administration of this province spent only $3 million on transit. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Secondly, the minister further offends the facts when he chooses to suggest that my colleague, who holds a graduate degree in Anthropology and who conducted archaeological studies for the Provincial Museum, should be dismissed — he thinks — on what he presumes to be the lowly grounds that he was, as the minister wrongly put it, sweeping the floors of

[ Page 4999 ]

the museum. Not only has he insulted people who have an honourable occupation in maintaining public buildings, but once again he completely fails to tell the truth — in this case about my colleague, the other member for Victoria. Why would the minister do that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, we cannot say one way what we cannot say another. I would have to ask that the member withdraw that statement "failed to tell the truth." Hon. members, there are many ways we can address situations and refer to circumstances and comments, but there are many ways we cannot. That is one. I would ask the member to withdraw and continue on with his debate. Would the member withdraw?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw it, and I tell the minister that we are sick and tired of having to stand up and correct the record every time he makes another erroneous statement about the record of public transit in this province, be it from 1972 to 1975, or any other period he cares to get wrong. I am personally offended that he uses such a — if I may say so, Mr. Chairman — completely sleazy argument in regard to the professional qualifications of a member of this Legislature, who would, I'm sure, if he were so inclined, be able to take a job in any museum sweeping floors, and that's a perfectly honourable occupation. It may or may not be known to the minister as such, but for him to say that he was busy doing his work while my colleague, he says, was sweeping floors — which happens not only to be wrong but disgusting — is a comment he shouldn't make; or at least if he does, let him restrict it to Social Credit Party meetings, where apparently that sort of stuff is commonplace.

Briefly in regard to the financing of transit, to correct the record once more, during 1972 to 1975 there was no Urban Transit Authority. Rather, transit was operated on two bases: the transit division of B.C. Hydro and the transit bureau of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I presume the $3 million figure the minister put forward is the transit bureau budget for that year. I don't have the estimates in front of me, but I presume that it was. If that's the case, then I presume as well that those expenditures were on the first ever aggressive, thoughtful and committed attempt to take transit outside the lower Vancouver Island area and the greater Vancouver metropolitan area into the rural communities of this province. Rural transit as a policy of government was commenced by the Barrett administration. It was pioneered by Mr. Lorimer, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's where it began. That's where it succeeded. For the minister to pretend that the only public expenditure in transit in 1972-75 — literally 1975, to use his phrase — was $3 million is completely ridiculous.

What was the budget of B.C. Hydro's transit division that year? Do you know, Mr. Minister? Are you telling us it was $3 million for all of transit in Victoria and Vancouver that year? Of course not. Even you wouldn't make such a preposterous claim. Or would you, if you thought you could get away with it? Because, you know, he tries to get away with a lot of things, Mr. Chairman, but we're not going to let him.

Let the record be clear. There were two sources of finance: one was Hydro and the other was Municipal Affairs. Let the minister tell the truth about the whole public expenditure for transit and not just that narrow part of it which he uses to wrongfully portray the government of British Columbia in the period 1972-75.

Let him also answer the charge of those who wonder whether or not the Premier of British Columbia meant it when he said that when transit was removed as an obligation from B.C. Hydro. Hydro ratepayers could expect to pay a lot less. I've read it into the record before and I'll do it again if it's necessary in order to correct this minister — whom we always have to correct when he says these utterly erroneous things, unsubstantiated in any way at all. The Premier made a public commitment that those persons — in Atlin, Omineca, North Peace, and all over the province — who had been subsidizing the costs of transit in the greater metropolitan areas of Vancouver and Victoria would therefore get a break, because it would be taken off the back of Hydro and therefore its subscribers.

Did the Premier keep his promise? No way. Hydro's budget, in the last year for which it was responsible for transit, was approximately $72.5 million. I don't know what the precise expenditure came down to, but that was the guess for that year. How many people in this province saw a prorated reduction in their transit bills, via what they pay for electricity or natural gas, of $72.5 million the year Hydro lost the transit business and UTA took over? I would tell you this, Mr. Chairman: no one did. The Premier never kept that commitment to the people of British Columbia. Once again the notorious record of Social Credit keeping its promises — in the field of transit or health care or anywhere — was shown up for what it really is.

Let the minister tell us what happened to the approximately $70 million, shall we say, that Hydro saved when it lost the burden of transit and lost the financial problems associated with it. Let the minister tell us why the Premier's promise wasn't kept. Let the minister tell us why just some days ago in this House we heard that Hydro re-invested — how much was it? — $5 million as its trade-off for having lifted from its financial burden $70 million for transit.

If Hydro spent $70 million for transit in the last year for which it had responsibility, which is now two fiscal years ago, are we to believe that two years earlier it only spent $3 million on transit? Of course not. I charge the minister has deliberately failed to tell the whole story. He knows that more than$3 million was spent on transit in 1975. It was spent in two ways: it was spent by the then policy of cross-subsidization within B.C. Hydro, an arm of the provincial government, and within the operations of the transit division in Victoria and Vancouver; it was further spent by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who created within his ministry a bureau of transit to establish transit in the rural communities of this province.

We are sick and tired of this minister and the ridiculous claims he makes of his own unproven success and the wrong things he says about the documented record of the New Democrat administration before him. We're also sick and tired of his personal slurs on the professional qualifications of people on this side of the House. May I say again, my colleague happens to hold a graduate degree in anthropology and was an esteemed and respected member of the staff of the Provincial Museum of Victoria. To sneeringly refer to him in that way — like that ex-welfare minister used to sneer at any person he didn't think belonged in his station in life — is simply disgraceful and even beyond what we would expect from that minister.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman. I'm amazed at what I've just heard from the first member for Victoria. That he

[ Page 5000 ]

would decry the slurs of the minister — and I've been listening to him here and didn't hear any slurs.... I would remind him that the remarks he just made were one long tirade of slurs. I'm amazed at this attitude within this House and I decry it very much. The first words the member for Victoria said referred to something about "that untruthful minister" and were brought to order by the Chair. It surprises me when I hear this, but what I've come to say to you is not that, but that you must come to court with clean hands. Your hands are not very clean when you stand by, the way you're doing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can address them on what they're doing in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps....

MR. MUSSALLEM: Please do not try to hobble the members of the government. We must say what has happened. I'm entitled to reflect on what they've done in this House. I wish to do it.

I wish to say now that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was totally wrong in his statement that they were the instigators of the system of public transport outside of the cities of Victoria and Vancouver. I will forgive him for being wrong. I don't think he would be deliberately untruthful, although I'm not saying whether he is or not. Perhaps he had not done his research. That was first done by the Bennett administration, of which I was a part at that time. The system was running in Maple Ridge and was expanding throughout the province. What the NDP did was simply to go on from there.

What they were good at was spending money like they were shovelling it out of the back of a truck. I will give you another example. They purchased 22 junked buses from Saskatchewan which are still a heap of junk, somewhere in Burnaby. Those are the irresponsible things that that government did. Certainly they tried, but whenever they came to something constructive, it was impossible. Transit was brought in by our present administration. I very well remember opening the transit system in Maple Ridge — two buses. Certainly it followed the NDP, but it was a continuation from the W.A.C. Bennett government. During that three and a half years in between, nothing was done except talk. Let's get that straight. Let me tell the first and second members for Victoria. Let's put this debate on a proper basis. Let us be honest with this House. Let us establish the facts. It came in with our government and it continues with our government. I'm not saying that you didn't do anything, but you're great at spending money. There are 22 junk buses in Burnaby today. I haven't researched it. I could, but it just came up now. I would have never spoken, but I can't stand the deficits being thrown across this House without regard for veracity and the facts that exist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before I recognize the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson), the records will show that during this debate we've spent an awful lot of time discussing past history. We are on vote 156, which has to do with the 1981-82 year.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, we weren't discussing history with the last speaker, Mr. Chairman. That was fiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I rise on a point of order, which is that it is necessary to go back into past history when past history is being attacked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My comment is that if all members in the committee could avoid it at this point, we could proceed with the 1981-82 estimates before us and the administrative actions.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, when I was pointing out to the minister that the unloading of the costs of transit onto local governments and citizenry was an act that abrogated a social conscience, he twisted that as if I was attacking some local government, which is not correct. My comment is that the Social Credit government has made local government the meat in the sandwich. They are having to find funds from a ridership that ordinarily should be carried out of general revenue as a service expected by taxpayers. These people believe in double taxation. You pay once in taxes and secondly you pay for the service later on, so that extra money can be reserved almost like a pseudo-election fund of monuments for their own re-election.

The minister made two other incorrect statements. He said that the members for Victoria don't care about the other parts of British Columbia, which is an absolute falsehood. When the people of my constituency pay their income taxes, their sales taxes and their liquor, cigarette and gasoline taxes, and so on — I'm relating this directly to the minister's estimates — they quite happily see money go towards highway construction, snow removal and other kinds of services all over this province. We have never objected to that. We have no snow here, but we're happy to pay for snow removal in the rest of the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to come to order, please.

MR. HANSON: The member for Kemano II — I wish he'd get on his feet occasionally in this House.

I'm trying to point out to the minister that his allegation that we don't care about what happens in other parts of the province is incorrect. We do care. But we want the services that are appropriate to our community. Those are public transit. We don't want tunnels or massive highway overpasses. We want a decent public transit system that the senior citizens, the children and the regular citizenry of this community can enjoy. We're happy to pay for snow removal. Give us a public transit system and a decent ferry system. Those are the things that we require for transit, not highways and snow removal. But as my colleague has pointed out over and over again, we're faced with a minister whose word in this House is always devious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to withdraw that one. That remark cannot be allowed.

MR. HANSON: I withdraw. His word is always challenged, because there's a lack of forthrightness. I'm not

[ Page 5001 ]

trying to get into a semantic argument with the Chair. What I want is transit for my own riding. I don't want to see the senior citizens and the children of Victoria having to carry the burden. That's what we have with the UTA formula. We have a provincial responsibility that reduces overtime and the burden falls on the local residents. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. second member for Victoria for getting back to the 1981-82 estimates.

MR. MITCHELL: I have to smile about that last episode. It's the way the minister deals with facts. I remember when I was a policeman in court. If I had used the same method to deal with facts before Judge Ostler, if I was lucky I would be serving my time at William Head for perjury instead of being here as a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you will have to withdraw that remark. That is quite unparliamentary. The hon. member will have to withdraw any imputations.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw. Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with four different items. I will deal with three first, then I'll ask the minister if he would comment on them before I get on to the fourth.

I think it's really important that if we're going to have any transit system in the Victoria area we're going to have to take into serious consideration and serious studies where we are going to go for rapid transit. The most logical method in the Victoria area, especially in the Western Community in my riding, is a serious study to be taken now on how they are going to utilize the CNR right-of-way that has been abandoned by the railway. At the present time this railway is lying there not being used. I was assured last year by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) that this government is in the final stage of negotiations on that particular railway. At the present time the railway is sitting there, the highway departments and private developers are developing subdivisions, shopping centres and east-west and north-south main highway grids in the area. There is proposed now in one particular area at least three level crossings within a quarter of a mile.

As the minister said earlier in his speech on the development of rapid transit in Burnaby, I feel that if you're going to have a rapid transit system, you cannot allow a continuation of level crossings across this particular area. This is the time now that this ministry, in conjunction with the Lands and Highways departments, should give serious consideration to and make serious studies of what type of rapid transit system we're going to have in the Western Community. We can't wait, Mr. Chairman, until we have numerous level crossings. We cannot wait to have an answer coming along that we're going to hang a railway from a bridge through some of the communities, as has been proposed in Burnaby. The Western Community is a new and growing area where new homes and subdivisions are going in each month, and I've been told by many homeowners out in that area that they want rapid transit, they need rapid transit, but they don't want to have an overhead line coming through that area three, four or ten years down the line because there are so many level crossings across the only and most logical route in that area, and that is the CNR right-of-way. I feel that this ministry and this government — or, the government that will be in after the next election — should make that a top priority in the transit field in the Western Community.

In the other end of that particular line in conjunction with the E&N Railway there are plans being made that the bus terminal should be out north of Hillside on the Market Street area. I feel that if you're going to develop a proper transit depot, it should take in not only the buses but also be tied into the railways and the local urban transit system. I think the most logical spot, if you're going to go into Victoria, will be at the end of the E&N Railway in that area located north of Herald Street on Government Street, commonly known as "across from the brewery." It is the only area that is not highly developed; it is still open. There is still a collection of railway tracks where a bus line or a bus depot in that particular area could tie into the up-island buses and into the urban buses, and it could tie into the railway rights-of-way.

A second item I would like to discuss is that I was happy to read in the paper where the minister had announced to the capital region that he is going to make some serious studies of the flooding problem in the Bilston Creek area in Happy Valley. I'm not lucky like certain members who get all these notifications that the minister and such and such an MLA made an announcement: I find out what this government is doing by reading the paper. I find it very interesting in this particular program on Bilston Creek that they are talking about the Jackson report, which was made by the previous Social Credit government in 1961. That report has been on file or pigeon-holed ever since. There has not been one major program since that report came down in 1961, except in 1973-74, when the NDP MLA at that time, Jim Gorst, fought and had two culverts taken out of that particular creek and had bridges put in that did partially alleviate the flooding problem.

Now we have in the Western Community, as I said earlier on, a very fast-growing area. Bilston Creek is one of the flood problems. and that flood problem has been aggravated each month, as more subdivisions are developed up in the mountain areas, the trees are cut down, the blacktop is put in and the water comes down a little faster. Bilston Creek is one of the flood areas that must be faced by some authority — the government, either through the ministry or in conjunction with the capital region. But there is also the flood problem that is developed from the Kershaw Canal, which is a drainage area from Florence Lake in the Langford area through to Millstream. This is another area that must have some planning and some positive action.

There is a third flood area that is developing — and I brought it up with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — that was created by the inept planning of the previous Social Credit government when they allowed certain areas to be subdivided that were under water every two winters out of three. That is the Craigflower Creek area, commonly called Marler Drive. These are three major areas that have been flooded and are being flooded on a regular basis. There must be some coordinated action from the provincial government, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Environment and the Capital Regional District to face the problem that is developing in that area because of the increased housing, schools, industry and development. When I sit down I would like the minister to comment on the three issues — not just the one in Bilston Creek.

The third issue I would like some input on from the minister and his ministry is the actual results that come out of

[ Page 5002 ]

public hearings. Whenever there is a subdivision that goes in — when there's any planning to change the community settlement plan — there is a procedure that they go through. They start off with the application that comes from whoever is making the proposition for a new subdivision, and then it goes to the advisory planning board, to the technical planning board and then to the public hearing. Within the two of them, both before the advisory planning board and before the public hearing, there is a lot of public input. In the last two years that I've been elected, I've attempted to attend many of these particular public hearings. I've listened to the input from the people who are most closely affected by any changes — those who live right in the neighbourhood — and I have seen public hearing after public hearing where there's a 100 percent rejection by all those who attended, except maybe the original applicant, in not wanting a certain change, but because of the regional board members' personal preferences, the recommendation to change the community plan goes forward.

In one particular case, the minister did squash it after it had wandered its way through the capital regional bureaucracy and through various other groups. It did get to the minister, who saw fit to accept the local people's decision and stop it. There are so many of the same kind of public hearings that are held that I'm beginning to really wonder if there's any value in that particular method that we have in the Municipal Act. Is there a better way that the ministry can actually find out what the community wants? If there is a community plan, how much public input should go into it? Once the particular plan is brought in — and I know that none of them is carved in stone; in many cases the ink is hardly dry — the local regional district brings out a fancy community plan and a settlement plan, and all the other names it goes by, and then right away there's an application to change sections of it. I feel that if we're going to have a method of changing community plans or if we're going to have a method of public input to public hearings, there should be some credibility given to those public hearings, because so many people do attend in many cases. They do their research; they make their presentation. They take a stand and no one listens to them. I feel that if they're not going to be listened to, why go through the motions? And if they are going to be listened to, there must be some way of judging what particular interest or power those particular public hearings have.

On the three — the public hearings, transit for the CNR and the flooding area — I would ask for the minister's comments before I go on with my fourth one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's very little I can disagree with with respect to the comments made by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, except possibly with his introductory remarks. The reason I differ there is that I can only say that one should never be afraid to hear the truth; don't get upset.

But with regard to the matters before us now, I concur that we have unique problems in the Western Community. I think the member might agree that much of this stems from the fact that the area is developing so rapidly that it really ought to take on municipal status. Those people should be self-determining and shouldn't be looking to someone in Sidney, North Saanich or Oak Bay to make local decisions on their behalf when it comes to planning, zoning or subdivision. There are much better local decisions when you have an area which is developing as the Western Community is.

Similarly the question of Bilston Creek. What they're seeking is really a local government solution to a problem, and once more I certainly look forward to meeting with the chairman of the regional district and the other members involved, including the area directors. However, it comes back to the point that it's a problem that can best be resolved at the local level by local people making those decisions. The public hearing process is exactly the same thing again. I guess it's difficult for people to sit in on a public hearing when they're so far removed from the matter before them. Once more that points to the need for local government in the Western Community.

I appreciate the comments by the hon. member with respect to transit and his desire to see a system without a whole lot of level crossings. I particularly appreciate it since it's the first bit of honest support that's really come forth with respect to the ALRT proposal as an alternative to conventional light rapid transit for greater Vancouver. The same argument you make, hon. member, for the Western Community and Victoria as a capital region apply in Vancouver, and I'm pleased to hear it from you. Perhaps you can view it from another perspective, and that's certainly welcomed by me. We have made initial overtures to secure the rights-of-way held by CNR and others, and following your remarks I'll see that we expedite the process just a little bit more, because I deem it to be important too.

MR. MITCHELL: You made an announcement through the capital region that you were going to put forward some proposal on the flooding problem at Bilston Creek. I mentioned the three areas that have flooding problems in the Western Community. Does the ministry have any particular programs to work towards solving this particular problem?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Meetings with all the affected people and those representing the regional districts have been arranged for later this month. Following those meetings we're hoping to come forth with a recommendation.

MR. MITCHELL: The fourth issue I would like to bring up is not solely in my riding. It is a problem that first came to the previous government's attention back in 1974 when there were a lot of reports of the collapse of steel Quonset buildings throughout the province. These buildings are used as farm buildings, for storage, for machine shops and for airplane hangers. They're used throughout the province as low-cost steel buildings. Many of them were built by Aztec Steel Buildings in Ontario, also known as Wonder Steel. There was also one particular building built by Standard Steel Buildings in Western Canada.

Between 1974 and 1975 many reports were made to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs of these buildings collapsing. It was stated in their guarantees that these buildings had been designed to certain specifications and would stand certain snow loads. I believe the then Acting Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs sent a letter to all building inspectors, municipalities, villages and towns asking for some kind of report on what was happening to these buildings and how many of them had collapsed under snow. Over the last three or four years the ministry has had reports of 24 buildings collapsing because of the snow load — in Houston, Terrace, Delta, Prince George, Kitimat, Golden, Salmon Arm, Fernie, Whistler, Burns Lake, Peace River, Clearwater....

[ Page 5003 ]

These buildings are supposed to qualify under the National Building Code. It clearly states that any building, to come under its guarantee, must take the snow load of that particular district. You can't say that you qualify under the National Building Code if your specifications don't stand up to the code. These buildings were sold in British Columbia with those specifications.

Professional engineers did a study on these buildings. They checked the specifications and found that specifications attributed to the particular building being sold did not stand up to actual testing. The specifications, as recorded and given out to consumers, were inaccurate — I'm afraid I can’t use the word "false." The professional engineers hired Dr. R.F. Hooley, a professional engineer, who did special tests. He found that these particular buildings did not stand up to the specifications they were claimed to. They approached the present Minister of Municipal Affairs asking for some protection to the farm community of British Columbia where these buildings were built — they're not cheap buildings; they run anywhere from $8,000 to $80,000. They asked the minister for some direction or assistance either to stop the sale of these buildings or to insist that a building of that type, to be sold, stand up to the standards of the National Building Code and their own standards of withstanding snow.

I believe that when the minister rises he will say that before the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or any other regulatory body can give any assistance to the consumer there must be an amendment to B.C. regulation 140-73. I know you're going to rule me out of order because I'm referring to legislation that is needed, but the legislation that is in place today — I'm not sure whether I can talk about legislation that is in place — is not sufficient protection for the consumer.

Twenty-four buildings have been reported to have collapsed. According to the professional engineers, many other buildings are collapsing — are not standing up. The farmers and business people and the local municipalities and townships are having great financial loss. This ministry has not given the leadership. I believe that back in 1979 the present minister stated that he had requested an amendment or rewording of this section. As far as I know, no legislation has come forward to give protection to the owners out in the community. If we're going to be protected from the sale of buildings that do not stand up to claimed specifications and do not perform the services for which people buy them.... We all know that farm buildings have lower standards, but the 25 percent lower standard that comes under the National Building Code should not allow buildings of this type to collapse under snow.

I have asked the minister whether, when he answers. he would indicate to the House if there is any policy to bring in protection for the people, and to give some leadership on recording how many other buildings have collapsed and what action the government has taken or is prepared to take on this issue.

MR. NICOLSON: If the minister would like to respond to the last question, I would be glad to yield the floor.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The farm buildings have been sold in British Columbia since, I think it was, the late 1960s clear through until about 1976 or 1977, when the problem first appeared to be one that should be addressed. It was addressed immediately by the ministry. There is still, I believe — or there could be — a court case pending between the manufacturers of the building and the engineers. It may also involve the builders of the building, since there were charges that it was not the material so much as the way the buildings were constructed. I don't know all of the details, except to say that the building regulations now take care of this situation. We don't see any more of these being constructed in British Columbia.

We can't take responsibility for every building that collapses. When I say "we," I mean the taxpayers of British Columbia. Obviously, first the responsibility is on the purchaser, because it doesn't only involve the seller of the material; it involves the builder and the architect or the engineer. If any one of those three parties does something wrong. I guess there's the potential for disaster. Much, or really all, of the responsibility for assuring a reasonably safe building must lie with the purchaser and the engineers. This is where the difficulty came in. However, to the best of my knowledge it has been addressed. We're not getting any further complaints. That particular company is not marketing these buildings in this area.

MR. MITCHELL: I have just one short question. In a letter you did state: "It may be appropriate that my ministry become involved by way of clarification and updating of applicable legislation. In that regard, we have initiated a rewriting of B.C. regulation No. 140-73. We have referred a number of legal questions to counsel." Is there any possibility that this new rewording will be brought in? What is the result of the legal questions that you've referred to counsel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That involves legislation. However, perhaps the minister can answer the question and not discuss legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it involves a regulation. That regulation went forth, I believe, a year and two months ago or something like that. I'm guessing at the time, but about then.

MR. NICOLSON: Just for something totally different, I'd like to thank the minister on behalf of the people of the Fletcher Creek water improvement district for the assistance that he granted in helping out with rectification of what was a bit of a human problem and a bit of a physical problem and so on. Now back to business.

While we're on the topic of rural water improvement districts, I'd like to remind the minister once again that water improvement districts, which were formerly under the old water rights branch and which have been placed under the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the past couple of years, were, for one glorious year, granted some special financial assistance through the Ministry of Finance appropriation of surplus revenue in a special bill, which I think was in 1978. I think every member in this House voted unanimously for that bill. I'm sure that almost every rural member was scrambling for Mr. Speaker's attention in order to take some credit for having pushed for this for several years, and so on.

I would like the minister to once again look at the possibility of bringing in some type of assistance. Frankly, the people out there don't care whether it's through a special finance bill or through some new program. I know there are ARDA funds and various other programs. But I'm talking

[ Page 5004 ]

about the areas which are largely being served by a lot of volunteer labour. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) knows about this. He has several of these water improvement districts out in the Gulf Islands, and they've corresponded with the minister. I would like to ask the minister, now that things have sort of settled down in the department, if he has had time to really assess the valuable role that is being played by people who serve on the boards of water improvement districts, who provide a service where they might be serving 20, 80 or a few hundred people, and in some cases they are multimillion-dollar operations as in the Okanagan, in some parts of the Creston Valley and in other parts of rural areas all over the province. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

Another thing I would like the minister to comment on is his feeling concerning amalgamation. As he knows, we have had an amalgamation near Creston of an area called Alice Siding. There's been a great deal of controversy. I noticed in last Friday's paper that there was an article that said the minister originally blamed a couple of local regional district directors for not doing their job and that's why it happened; then he blamed a couple of people in his ministry — nobody was named. What happened was this, Mr. Chairman. A referendum was held. There were two separate ballot boxes. At least it was possible to distinguish what the vote was from within the area to be incorporated and from the existing boundaries of Creston. The people in Alice Siding voted overwhelmingly against amalgamation. But the bulk of the larger centre carried the day, and the amalgamation was declared to go ahead.

I would like to know what the minister feels about the role of the referendum in amalgamations. If the ministry really feels that an amalgamation should go ahead, maybe it should be done as my former colleague did when he created greater Brocklehurst. He just did it. Everybody knew where the blame, credit or whatever was to be placed. Greater Brocklehurst has gone on to become one of the largest municipalities in the province — sometimes referred to as Kamloops, Mr. Chairman.

This particular instance has created a great deal of hard feeling. There are arguments for and against the amalgamation, but I think the manner in which it was done was very unfortunate. I really would like to know what the minister's feelings are. I personally feel that when we were government we probably had amalgamations every way; we tried several different methods. It's my feeling that to have a referendum when you have a very large area means that the small area is so outweighted that it is a mockery. At the very least, you should have everything in one ballot box. I'm really quite against this thing. I think it's only paying lip-service to a democratic process. I would like the minister's thoughts on that as well.

Thirdly, it's maybe a little more appropriate under the Attorney-General's estimates, but police costs do place an unusual burden on certain municipalities and cities. The city of Nelson, having its own police force, is providing very good police services, particularly since the inception of the police academy and all of the integrated services in the province. But what is happening with the task force recommendations? How are they being reflected in terms of assistance to remove what is an unfair burden on certain municipalities such as Saanich, Nelson, Matsqui and a few others in the province that are on a different basis? I would like the minister's comments on those three items.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Improvement districts are, I suppose, in some ways a form of government. They are groups of people deciding to get together to collectively provide a service which they couldn't provide otherwise individually. It varies all the way from a hose in the ground serving two or three or four homes to perhaps some fairly major services provided in the larger improvement districts. We don't get too many complaints from improvement districts, and possibly that's because they function most like government was initially intended to function. People agree among themselves through their elected members on the board as to what level of service they want, or perhaps better still, can afford.

I'm always very worried about government becoming involved in the functions of an improvement district. If we come in with the odd grant program, it could well be that suddenly the improvement districts will immediately begin to develop some dependence on that grant program and in the process lose their independence. What happens then too is that they begin to plan for something which is possibly even beyond their needs. They begin to argue as governments so often do: why not do it today because it'll cost more tomorrow, or why not construct an 8-inch main or a 12-inch main, even though a 4-inch main will do, because one day we'll need 10 or 12 or 14 inches? So I just see that if we get too involved in the affairs of improvement districts, we will possibly destroy what may still be the best to form of government, or the closest to what government was initially in tended to be. I see it as a danger.

I recognize, however, that obviously improvement districts do progress, and they possibly go beyond what the normal or initial intention was, in that they then go from providing water to the provision of sewers, fire protection or sidewalks — you name it — in which case perhaps senior government programs do come into play. Possibly that's the time for them to initially take on the status of a specified area, and following from that, the status of a municipality. I think that is the healthiest progression. However, maybe I don't practise entirely what I preach in this particular instance, because there is $1 million in the budget again, which is the first time since 1976 and possibly only the second time in a good many years. We've not devised any means of applying it or determining how it is to be applied, but you now know my fears, and I'd welcome any suggestions from anyone as to what the best approach might be with respect to those moneys.

The second point was Alice Siding in Creston. I agree that the Hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who was then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was a very courageous fellow when he tackled those particular problems. Actually I admire that sort of courage, and I don't even think that in retrospect too many could disagree with some of things that were done in that regard, because they were obviously needed. Maybe people might argue at the way it was done, as you're now arguing at the way it was done when it comes to Alice Siding, Creston — and some people there certainly argue it. We did have a vote and the vote was one involving the town of Creston as well as the area of Alice Siding. It wasn't an amalgamation really; it was a restructuring, because we took in an area which was unincorporated.

For all intents and purposes the people in Alice Siding were really like a part of Creston, and they were getting all of the benefits of Creston even to the point where Creston was proposing to provide for the upgrading of the airport. The

[ Page 5005 ]

people of Alice Siding said: "We don't need an airport if you want to upgrade the airport." At least I heard that argument. When I say people, perhaps I'm saying it in too broad a sense. "We don't want the airport, Creston. Why don't you get involved? Leave us out of it." The counter argument is of course that if a child or anyone is hurt, and they need an air ambulance, then you don't ask the question: "Are you from Alice Siding or are you from Creston?"

Much of the area was developing as a part of Creston, except that Creston had no control over its development. The area was required for Creston to expand into, because on the one side of Creston are mountains and on the other side is an agricultural land reserve. This was the natural area for growth. So I think that what was done with respect to Alice Siding was the right thing to do. As I said, some people would argue that there might be another approach to getting at it, but in their vote the people of Creston did not object. The people of Alice Siding did object, because they thought they could continue getting the benefits from Creston possibly without having to pay for some of those benefits, and that's a natural inclination.

The police task force is still at work in my ministry, but actually it's more in the Ministry of the Attorney-General. We're simply providing them with information.

MR. NICOLSON: To follow up on the minister's invitation for suggestions, I will give this some rather careful thought and convey my suggestions to the minister in some detail. Just for starters, I would suggest that, in many instances, it's necessary to take over a run-down utility. How does a water utility become run down? It usually becomes run down by a combination of things. Maybe the owner lets maintenance go down a little bit, and some people take it into their heads not to pay because they feel they're not getting the service; then the owner lets things run down a little bit more, and then people don't pay because the service isn't up to scratch; then anarchy almost develops. I'm not saying where the fault lies or where it begins, but it is a chicken-and-egg problem. Then finally maybe the regional district comes in or a group of people band together in a water improvement district and take over one of these run-down systems, and they're faced with real remedial problems. I would suggest that that would be one area that could be prioritized. I don't think it's a problem in terms of water districts going too far ahead. I think most water districts are having to catch up. For instance, I think there are more and more pressures to put in chlorination — something I myself am not crazy about in my water district; I don't want to see chlorination come in. But if land use increases up above, and watersheds are interfered with, and various sorts of things take place, we are going to have to do this.

In the Creston area, for instance, where they have many long-standing water-improvement districts — and I'm sure this would be the same in parts of the Okanagan — which are permeated for irrigation purposes, the pressure to try to also provide water supply for domestic use is putting a strain on the system, so it can supply really neither. Yet there is a lot of water, if it can be harnessed properly. But to do it in a coordinated way, as the Creston area seems interested in doing, is going to mean the cooperation of long-standing separate water improvement districts getting together. At least they have banded together as the Greater Creston Water Improvement Districts Association. The Lister water improvement district, the Canyon water improvement district, the Erickson water improvement district, the East Arrow Creek, the town of Creston, and so on and so forth are all looking at rationalizing their systems, yet are not asking government to do everything for them, or saying, "We want to turn this over to the regional district," or "Do this or that." These people are still involved and they still run their own affairs, but I do think they will need assistance. I think that this is a story which is repeated all over the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I think that the million dollars — and I'm glad to see that there's a million dollars — will have to be spent very carefully. I think the need is far, far greater than that. Without getting into systems where they're building a 10- or 12-inch main, where a 4-inch will do.... Long before we ever reach that stage, I think a lot more money could be spent very wisely. It would make for better utilization of some of our agricultural lands, it will make for better utilization of some of our residential land and allow even people in rural areas to live closer together in a bit more rationalized and planned sort of a way. I'm glad to see that once again there's something there. It's not nearly enough, Mr. Minister, but I will pass on my suggestions, and I'm sure other rural members from both sides of the House will be doing the same.

MR. PASSARELL: Right at the onset I'd like to thank the minister for forwarding letters that he sends to Stewart regarding the capital gains to the municipality and how much your ministry is sending into Stewart. I appreciate receiving copies of that correspondence, and I certainly hope he will continue to do that.

There are four short questions I have to direct to the minister. The first one concerns the Atlin Planning Commission that your ministry helped develop during the last year. It's the only duly elected organization in the community of Atlin, and one of the problems that is seeming to develop over this is the decisions of the APC in regard to a local group which is self-appointed the Atlin Board of Trade. Why is the Atlin Board of Trade able to convince the government to continue wasting money on this white elephant airport that people in the community of Atlin don't want? The Atlin Planning Commission has contacted your ministry stating their objections as the only duly elected group in the community. The land in question could be used for housing, and the Atlin Planning Commission is asking that the project be stopped and the airport moved out of town.

The second question is in regard to defining boundaries. The Atlin Planning Commission is asking that the boundaries of the community be expanded to include the Placer Development area of town. Why isn't the Atlin Planning Commission's objection to including the Placer Development lease included in the municipal aspect of what the Atlin Planning Commission is attempting to do in setting guidelines for a boundary around the community? It appears that the ministry has stated you can form your boundaries, but leave the aspect of Placer Development off. I was just bringing that to the minister's attention, and maybe he call give me an answer as to why.

When it was set up, part of the Atlin Planning Commission's guidelines was to develop community planning on a local level instead of having different self-appointed clubs in the community give information to the ministry. What developments do you foresee in beefing up the strength of the

[ Page 5006 ]

Atlin Planning Commission as the only duly elected committee in the community of Atlin?

The fourth question is about the foreshore development in the municipality of Stewart. Your ministry has done a vast amount of work on this aspect of foreshore, and I was wondering what the minister can report to the House regarding the foreshore development in Stewart.

The last aspect from the budget itself was that municipal government homeowners' grants have increased slightly from $21 million to $22 million. It's far too low. In unorganized territory the homeowners' grants for areas like the Atlin constituency have increased from $3.2 million to $3.4 million which is much too low.

I would enjoy hearing the comments of the minister regarding the Atlin Planning Commission and its recommendations to the ministry.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess it's about a year ago that I had the pleasure of visiting Atlin with my deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister. We spent the best part of a day in Atlin, and we met with a group that deemed themselves to be the duly elected group for Atlin: the board of trustees for the fire district. As a matter of fact, they didn't all that much welcome our coming, because they felt that our coming meant that somehow there might be some other form of local government established in the area, and they would just as soon plod on the way they were without government per se at the local level, because, as you are aware, they don't have a regional district. We had a fine visit, but they were the board of trustees, and, as I said, they deemed themselves to be the elected people for the area.

We've since established an advisory planning commission, and the the advisory planning commission really is just that — it's an advisory group. They will be recommending to us on such matters as the airport — should it be or shouldn't it be, and if so, what type of airport and whom should it serve and what area. Similarly, they'll probably be making recommendation with respect to boundaries for the whole of the planning area, and possibly as well they'll make some recommendations with respect to where industrial development should take place, or what type. They are an advisory group and we've not heard from them as yet when we do, certainly that advice will be considered, and I imagine it will be made up of input from the local board of trade and from any number of other community groups or associations.

With respect to the homeowner-grant moneys in my budget, only 10 percent is provided for in my budget; the balance of it is found in the budget for the Ministry of Education, so you must multiply that by ten.

The other question was to do with the foreshore in Stewart. I'm sorry, I don't have the answer to that yet; I'll see if I can find it.

MR. PASSARELL Mr. Chairman, just to go over that quickly: Mr. Minister, did you say "the board of trustees," or do you mean the Atlin Board of Trade? There is a difference in those two terms.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Trustees.

MR. PASSARELL: The Atlin board of fire trustees. I've never heard of that organization making statements for the community. I think it is the Atlin Board of Trade, Mr. Minister. But back to the question regarding the APC community development. They have contacted your ministry and you wrote back to me regarding the boundaries; you stated in a letter about two weeks ago that you would look into the case. So just to clear the record on that, there has been communication among your office, the APC and myself. I appreciate your comments regarding the other questions that I have asked you.

In conclusion, Mr. Minister, I would certainly hope that you would take the development aspect from the Atlin Planning Commission rather than self-appointed clubs in the community of Atlin.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have a very small point that affects Burnaby and probably Surrey too. It has to do with parking for apartment blocks — maybe the Minister could respond to it. I have been speaking with one of the Burnaby councillors, and apparently the phenomenon is that because there is an extra charge by the apartment developers for underground parking, most of the tenants prefer to park on the streets rather than use the underground parking or the parking that comes with the building. The resulting congestion in the downtown area is such a problem that what Burnaby council would like to do is have the power to make one parking space mandatory with every apartment when the developer applies for the permit, so that the developer should know that along with the apartment goes one parking space without any additional rent. They're under the impression that there needs to be an amendment to the legislation in order for them to do this. They've asked me to raise this issue with you and to tell you that this really is the cause of a lot of traffic congestion in some areas of Burnaby where there are a lot of highrises, stores, office buildings and other things at the same time. They really would appreciate an amendment to that particular piece of legislation, so that they can get on with making it a mandatory requirement.

The other point I want to touch on very quickly is to ask the minister to give me some statistics, again dealing with the International Year of the Disabled. According to their brief which they presented to the government, they figured out that 5 percent of public service employees should be disabled. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me how many disabled people are actually in the employ of his ministry and whether it comes anywhere near the percentage which they have presented as their goal.

As far as the accessibility of buildings under his jurisdiction is concerned, have they all achieved their accessibility goal, and if not, what is the deadline? When can we expect that all of the public buildings he has responsibility for will be accessible to people in wheelchairs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, yes, we certainly have taken some very worthwhile strides in assuring access for the handicapped, and I showed the hon. members last week — I don't have it with me now — a copy of the new part 10 regulations of the building code, which require that buildings be made accessible to the handicapped. That's a new amendment that went into effect. Similarly, we're promoting access for the handicapped through the downtown revitalization program, in that we say if there is a provision to make an area more accessible we would consider that for a full grant when it comes to making application for assistance. I'm sure there will be a fairly favourable response to that.

I can't tell you how accessible the buildings are that we occupy. As far as I know, the one we're in, being a fairly new

[ Page 5007 ]

building, is totally accessible in that it's on a level with the street; you can get into the elevator and get up and down and wherever you wish to go reasonably easily. I appreciate the point that you're making, and I say it's a good one.

I have some difficulty, however, with your first point. First of all, no one can construct an underground parking space for free. Obviously, there is a cost. If you make it mandatory that spaces be provided, it's great for the person who has a car, because instead of paying for it separately he'll pay for it in his rent; it's great for the person who has two cars, because he'll use not only his own spot but also the spot for the person who doesn't have a car. The problem is that a senior citizen or handicapped person or someone of lesser means who doesn't have a car — certainly not two cars — in his rent will also be paying for a parking space, because it's part of the overall cost of the building. So in effect, while it may be popular for the municipal councils — and perhaps from their perspective the right thing — it probably means just another degree of hardship on some of the people in the apartment who don't have that mode of transportation for themselves but end up paying for it anyway. It provides a greater benefit for the more affluent, perhaps — especially if they have more than one car — at the expense of those who don't have a car.

There is something the municipalities can do. They can ban overnight parking in front of the apartment. They can have a limit as to the hours of parking. These are the sorts of things they can do. If we want to do what the Burnaby council would like to have us do — similarly the Surrey council and others — then we have to look to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for a change in legislation.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I don't understand why the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.... Maybe the minister would explain that to me, and maybe I should clarify myself. I'm not asking the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to make it mandatory. I'm asking that the act be amended in such a way that the municipalities have the option if they decide that it's in their best interests to do that. I'm asking that the municipalities make this decision and that the act be amended to give them that option.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are beginning to discuss the need for legislation or changes in legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, on one of his rather frequent visits to Nanaimo the minister said that he would take under consideration or advisement or something or other this problem of transportation to Protection Island. I'm wondering whether he has anything to offer on that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Protection Island, being a part of the city of Nanaimo, could be included under their agreement with the Urban Transit Authority for service. I was in Nanaimo only a few weeks back, as the member mentioned. It's one of my more favourite visiting spots. I usually get a fairly good reception there, too. They're a wonderful group of people. The matter of Protection Island came up again, and I did quiz the aldermen who were present at the meeting. Apparently it's still a matter for discussion. They're still continuing their meetings with the Urban Transit Authority to determine how it can best be included as a service area within the city.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to take a moment or two, if I might, Mr. Chairman, to express the pleasure we had over the winter in having the minister visit Kitimat to participate in the opening of the Tamitik arena there, and in his expressions and recognition, as he voiced them there, that he was pleased to visit a part of the province that produces the wealth that provides the services of government. That was very much appreciated. I also want to express appreciation, as has been expressed to the minister privately by others, for the hearing that he gave to the concerned parents there with respect to the drainage ditch in Kitimat. That was the cause of a rather tragic event that the minister knows about. Those parents were very pleased to have had that meeting and subsequently to have had a favourable response to their concerns about dealing with that drainage ditch. I hope, as I'm sure the minister does too, that whatever changes are made to it will prevent any recurrence of the tragic thing that happened earlier.

I'd like also to advance to the minister something I'm sure he's familiar with himself and is concerned about. The Downtown Revitalization Fund is perhaps the reference point that one could make in this regard. When the Downtown Revitalization Fund was established last year, there was concern expressed by some of the smaller communities that they might be disadvantaged by reason of the fact that larger municipalities with engineering and planning departments, etc., might already have ideas on their books about downtown revitalization that they could immediately drag out of the files and flock in as applications for assistance under that Downtown Revitalization Fund. I know the orientation of the fund, was supposed to be to give a larger or priority consideration to smaller municipalities vis-à-vis the large urban centres so that they wouldn't be disadvantaged by not having projects on the books and waiting for something to happen. If there are other items of a similar nature that are going to be within the purview of the ministry sometime in the future, that's the thing that must be given consideration — in other words. to provide the smaller or more rural oriented municipalities with a bit of discrimination in their favour vis-à-vis the disadvantage that they would feel by larger municipalities being all ready to go and thus take advantage of and get first consideration about any fund. I want to pass that on to the minister. I know he agrees with the thoughts that I'm putting forward about it. He may even want to supplement and endorse them and say: "Blessed good idea. That's what we have done, and that's what we're going to do."

MR. BARBER: Last year the major burden of the argument of the official opposition was this government's woeful neglect in the field of conflict-of-interest law. What we pointed out at this time was that such law was clearly available by way of precedent, experience and illustration in many other jurisdictions. I spoke at length that year on the subject and heard from the minister a dismally inadequate reply. However, obviously someone got to him, and shortly thereafter he created a committee to examine conflict-of-interest law. I was pleased to submit to that committee virtually our entire file on the subject and, indeed, the report prepared for me by a graduate student at the University of Victoria school of law, which formed the basis of our research into the material. I wonder if the minister could bring the committee up to date on the progress of the welcome, overdue and most valuable committee looking into conflict-of-interest law in the province of B.C.

[ Page 5008 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, conflict-of-interest legislation is a matter for the Attorney-General, but we do have some reference to it in the Municipal Act as it pertains to the conduct of council members in their voting on various issues which may be in conflict with their position as elected representatives. That is being considered now by the Municipal Act review committee. Their recommendation will be back to us prior to September of this year and will be a matter of discussion with the UBCM during their conference in September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. members, we are starting to stray into the area of proposed legislation. I would ask the first member for Victoria to continue, bearing those restrictions of our debate in mind.

MR. BARBER: The municipality of Prince George at the moment feels poorly served by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That's absolutely correct. I'm not discussing the necessity to rewrite the Municipal Act, but rather the current administrative actions of the ministry itself. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the municipality of Prince George has been the unhappy victim of an appeal to the courts in regard to the validity of a zoning bylaw.

What I wonder is, without going into the details of the matter that was before the courts nor of the learned advice now being offered by the otherwise silent Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if the minister could inform us what steps administratively his ministry has taken to ensure the problem that was faced by the municipality of Prince George and that may be faced now, or in the very near future by the Cariboo regional district and by the township of Terrace and others who are also considering major zoning bylaws.... I'm in particular concern to ask whether or not the minister has taken any administrative action to overcome the apparent dilemma in law, which is the issue that was before the courts, of notification, or in this instance the all legation of failure of notification thus invalidating a whole zoning bylaw?

As the minister would know, if it were necessary to send registered letters to every person in Prince George, it would cost something like $110,000. That has apparently been the only option open to the city of Prince George. The court quashed Prince George's bylaw. Of course, further legal steps have been taken. I'm not interested in asking the minister's opinion of the court case, but rather asking him what administrative steps have been taken, if any, within the ministry to make sure that the problem faced by Prince George will not be faced nor has been faced by other municipalities around the province. The strictest interpretation of the requirement of notice seems, in this instance, to have been unfair. Prince George sent out some 55,000 notices. But one person alleges that she, in this instance, did not receive the notice. The courts, on that basis, narrowly and literally held that, therefore, notification was not received, and the whole bylaw was thrown out. I wonder if the minister could comment on what can be done administratively, not necessarily by changing the law, to ensure that this doesn't happen to any other city as it happened to Prince George.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again we're on a very fine point of possible legislation and it possibly could be touched on by the minister very briefly. I would hate to see us get into a discourse on an area that really could best be covered in another situation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Very briefly, I can't comment on the court proceedings, nor about the fact that there's an appeal now. Of course the outcome of the appeal could change it all. But it will require a legislative change. It cannot be dealt with administratively; only legislatively.

MR. BARBER: Again, specifically I didn't ask you to comment on the court case. It's just not fair here. I wonder if the minister is giving an undertaking to the committee that there will be a legislative change which will ensure that no other city, as well as Prince George, will be in the unhappy position of having to deal with this matter in the courts, when it could be dealt with administratively instead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question involves one specifically of legislation, hon. members.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not canvassing the need for legislation. I'm asking if I heard the minister correctly and he has given the committee an undertaking that there will be an amendment to the Municipal Act. That's a very different question, and I believe within order. Has he given such an undertaking? That's all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. member, we're on a very fine line. The minister may or may not wish to respond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If it helps, Mr. Chairman, I'm very sympathetic to the Prince George case. As it can only be dealt with legislatively, I think it's fair to say that we're sitting on something right now to pull out very quickly, when and if required.

MR. BARBER: I'm glad to hear that. As the minister may be aware, the mayor fel' that he got the brush-off from the minister when he phoned some weeks ago. That was the mayor's opinion. He thought you gave him the brush-off. But I'm glad that you've come around to his point of view.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The "brush-off." That's a phrase we use. The mayor of Prince George felt that you gave him the brush off. However, that's a separate matter.

I'd like now if I may, to discuss the problem that the mayor of Kamloops has, as does the municipality of Kamloops, which is alleged by the government for the purposes of revenue-sharing to have lost some 7,000 persons. At least that appears to be the nature of the dispute. Kamloops alleges that because of the failure of the province and the municipality to reconcile two contrary opinions as to the net population of that area, it will lose something like $300,000 to $500,000. The government, it is alleged, uses family allowance receipts, birth and death registry and several other vital statistics, and says that there are 60,237 people. The city starts with the last federal census, consults housing starts and B.C. Hydro statistics and comes up with 67,000. That's a disparity of slightly less than 7,000. That is a possible disparity of anywhere from $300,000 to half a million. I wonder if the minister could tell us what administrative steps have been taken to reassure the city of Kamloops that in fact an authentic census is available, and those accurate figures are being used to determine, in this case, specifically the per capita grant part of the revenue-sharing formula in British Columbia.

[ Page 5009 ]

I would observe, for instance, that surely one of the most up-to-date and accurate sources is the Assessment Authority itself. There is probably no more accurate central registry of property ownership thus indicating, usually in an accurate way, membership in a family, ownership of a home and the number of persons in a given area than that which the Assessment Authority provides. It seems to me that's one of the other options open. There may be legitimate differences of opinion as to how you canvass the given population of a specific area, but I wonder if the minister could tell us what new steps have been taken to review the population of Kamloops and to reassure the people of Kamloops that they're being given a fair shake and that a proper head count has been taken.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That particular topic is raised by a number of communities. As a matter of fact, with respect to Kamloops I had a very forceful delegation, because the man, in the person of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), wouldn't leave my office until he had an answer. He was coming at me with these same problems that were presented to him by the Kamloops council. We have it from any number of communities. As a matter of fact, if we were to take all the figures given us by the various municipalities as to what they assume their numbers to be, we would have more people in British Columbia than they have in Ontario. So we do have some difficulty there.

However, a few years ago we made a change in the revenue-sharing program — it's only a year ago now — whereby we would update the figures annually as opposed to staying with the Canada census figures, which do not allow for a review except every five years. The municipalities welcomed that very much, and in consultation with them I think we agreed upon a reasonably good method of determining the population for any municipality or local government jurisdiction in the province. That was to use the statistics branch of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. They use the Assessment Authority's information, family allowance information, B.C. Hydro and B.C. Telephone information, and they come back with what we believe to be a reasonably accurate figure; but it doesn't always agree with what the municipality thinks it ought to be. Perhaps we'll know a little better how it's working. because, of course, the Canadian government is again taking a census this June and July and those figures will be available later this year.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his reply. It's a difficult matter. It's not a partisan issue, but it is an issue of the best and most recently available scientific techniques that allow both sides to feel that a fair count has been taken. It's currently an issue in the United States, where a number of cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, are taking the federal government to court because of the block grants they receive there. I wouldn't like to see that same sort of dispute occur here, where municipalities take the province to court because of a failure to agree upon or reconcile different means of counting heads for the purposes of revenue-sharing.

I wonder if the minister could advise me whether or not he has made a decision in favour of the proposed northern terminal for public transportation in the city of Victoria?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could advise with what authority Mr. Ken Smith informed the city of Victoria that the minister had made a decision, and that his answer on that occasion was allegedly yes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Has the minister taken any steps to inform in writing or by direct communication the mayor of Victoria of his decision, which at the moment is no decision pro or con the proposed northern terminal? As of very recently the city of Victoria was under the impression that you had decided on the northern terminal and that Mr. Smith, a public employee, was speaking with authority. Have you taken any steps to correct that false impression apparently left, I presume inadvertently, by a public employee in the minds of the members of city council in Victoria?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There's no further action being taken. We've asked them to hold. The PCL board has had a difficult time of it. For a year and a half they've known they've got to move out of their depot next to the Empress, and they've contacted council, the board of trade and any other group that wanted to listen to see if they possibly had any alternative sites to offer. No one's come forth with a good site. The only recommendation that came back that I'm aware of was from the city council, in which they said: "Try not to do anything for a while, and whatever you do, don't have it in the southern part of the city." That's the only reasonably helpful recommendation we have. I don't know how long we can hold it up.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to remind the minister that the three New Democrat members for Victoria — three out of five in the greater area — strongly support an integrated urban transportation centre.

We strongly oppose any attempt to fragment or split off any of the modern urban transportation functions. Clearly in the long run it is advantageous to the public, the tourist industry and to the general economies of construction to put all of those services under one roof. On behalf of the three New Democrat members for greater Victoria, we urge you to make a decision in favour of a modern, progressive package that brings under one function the several currently separate functions of public transit by creating that hub to allow an opportunity to establish a genuinely competent metropolitan transport function in Greater Victoria. I think if you do that, you'll find a great deal of public support in this city for it, and we'd be happy to give it credit at that time.

This is my last question on this matter — whether or not he has heard from the 11 members of a delegation from the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, who seem to have had a rather unhappy meeting with the Premier and the Minister of Energy. One Don Lidstone, who may be known to the minister, is currently in private practice and is very able lawyer. He was the minister's executive assistant. He reports that he had "never been treated like that" by anyone, much less by the Premier and Minister of Energy. Apparently these municipal representatives had the nerve to challenge the received wisdom of our stubborn Premier and equally stubborn Minister of Energy. I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs has, since this unfortunate and insulting meeting with municipal officials, heard anything from them

[ Page 5010 ]

and, in particular, whether or not they have requested that he accompany them at future meetings to protect them from the bad manners of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're dealing with the administrative responsibility of the minister and that, the hon. member I'm sure is well aware, doesn't fall within the purview of this minister.

MR. BARBER: Well, what does fall within the purview is the ability of local government to feel that they are properly protected and defended by — so to speak — their minister and in this particular instance to feel that they are protected from their Premier, who evidently treated them very badly, curtly and rudely. So it is on that basis that I ask the minister whether or not he has received any request, formal or informal, from local government on Vancouver Island to protect them from the bad manners of the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who apparently heard their arguments very disrespectfully, if at all, questioning the rationale behind the granting of the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline to B.C. Hydro. I ask the minister if he has received such requests from local government — yes or no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to answer yes or no. I'm sure the member is well aware that even by stretching imagination to the greatest degree, it would be difficult to find that within the administrative responsibility of the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I did not get such a request from the group. Certainly wherever possible I do try to accompany municipal delegations if they have a matter of broader interest with other ministries. In that particular instance, as I understand it, it was my first day in the estimates, so I couldn't attend; I had to be here for the estimates. But I did invite some of the delegates to meet with me afterwards and that meeting took place.

MR. BARBER: We now get to the question of expenditures. Vote 156 would reflect that the minister proposes to spend somewhat more this year than he did last year. He proposes to do this in a year of restraint — or at least intended restraint. He proposes to spend more of the public's money on travel and office expense than we believe he's entitled to. He proposes to do this when his own previous Minister of Finance once argued that provincial expenditure should be tied to provincial revenue and should never be allowed to go above that. The figure most frequently tossed out was 5 percent.

This Minister of Municipal Affairs brings an estimate into the House, vote 156, which we've been debating, lo, these many hours and days. He wants to raise his office vote from $165,000 to $186,000.

I have a small chart, Mr. Chairman. This is a chart which I would like to display to the committee. It is the proposed New Democrat spending cuts. It's a very, very simple illustration. Here's the red ink of Social Credit overexpenditures, the red ink of government waste, the red ink of government fat, the red ink of government misappropriation. We would argue that it's not justified by the economic circumstances of the province. I will leave it here as a reminder. It may even be a permanent reminder.

On previous votes we observed that the Ministry of Forests would have been cut by $12 million, had the government accepted our spending proposals, in this case a spending cut. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the committee rejected the New Democrat proposal to trim $12 million worth of waste and fat and unnecessary public expenditure. The committee then went on to reject another New Democrat proposal to trim waste and fat by $458,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are currently on one ministry — the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — and any other reference is not in order. I think we follow the member's....

MR. BARBER: I'm getting to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member more quickly get to it?

MR. BARBER: Oh, Mr. Chairman, come on now; the work-up is as much fun as the result.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not in order, though, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: We propose today to reduce further public waste, to cut further the misspending by Social Credit, for largely political purposes, of the public's money. What we're doing here is keeping a record of Socred red ink, and it may go up day after day, as we propose cut after cut in unwanted, unnecessary and unwelcome government expenditures. We propose, in fact, a total reduction in the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the amount of $368,308, money which minimally and conservatively can clearly be designated as political, unnecessary and — in this year of restraint championed by the New Democratic Party unnecessary and unaffordable.

I therefore move that vote 156, the office vote of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, be reduced by the sum of $6,850; and I trust the committee, if it is at all as cost-conscious as is the New Democratic Party, will vote in favour of this reduction.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I have some very capable help in my office. They've been there for a number of years. They're all constituents in this area that the first and second members for Victoria represent. All they're going to get is their normal increases, which amount to $14,365 for the whole of the office. If the first member for Victoria wishes to deny those people the increase which is normally granted them and all government employees, I think perhaps he should at least have the courage to go to them first-hand and say: "It's moved by me as a member of the New Democratic Party that no longer will you in the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs receive any increase in your salary." It's one thing to do it here and to throw it out and say: "We're going to take something off." It's another thing to face the people affected and say: "That's where it's coming from."

The first part of the increase — and I have it all broken down — was $14,365. Another part of the increase is $2,000 for travel. It was suggested by all of the members that at every

[ Page 5011 ]

opportunity and as often as possible we ought to meet with municipal councils and mayors, and visit the constituencies like Skeena, Nanaimo and everywhere, and speak and meet with municipal representatives. If the first member for Victoria feels that we're visiting and meeting too often with the mayors and municipal councils, I would ask that he tell them at the UBCM convention that in his opinion the Minister of Municipal Affairs shouldn't be meeting as often with the municipalities as he is now.

There is also an amount of $4,850 which is increased office costs. From past experience, we purchased most of our products, wares and needs right here in Victoria from the various suppliers. Perhaps he's right. Maybe we could go to Washington state, Oregon, California or wherever else and purchase it there a little cheaper, but I think we have some obligation to make those acquisitions right here in Victoria from the suppliers that are available to do it. If the first member for Victoria feels that we ought to cut back and not acquire these wares here, which naturally have the increases that we face every year, then certainly he should tell to the suppliers right here in Victoria that he's asking the minister to go elsewhere to make his purchases.

MR. BARBER: If the minister had said a word that was related to my proposed amendment it would be necessary, I suppose, to reply. But the minister as usual — twisting in the political winds — totally ignored the proposals we've made for reducing unnecessary Socred expenditures. The minister referred to expenditures of $14,000, $2,000 and $4,000, which comes to $20,000. He would have people believe that by listing those figures, that's what we propose to be cut. He's wrong. The amendment is to cut by $6,850 — not $20,000. I specifically said that it is related to the issue of travel and office expense. It is not related to salaries. Any attempt to twist, twist, twist the constructive proposals of this opposition to save money for the people is doomed to failure.

We propose to reduce $6,850. Vote 156 — what does that relate to? Two items only: travel expense, which is up $2,000 this year, and we say: "Forget it, hold the line, keep it at $12,000"; and office expenses, which have gone from $9,650 to $14,500, and we say once again in a time of caution and restraint, keep it to last year's amount. We haven't taken it all away. We don't deny the minister the right to travel around the province to speak to Social Credit gatherings by night and mayors by day. We don't say he shouldn't do any of that, we just say that he should stick to last year's budget, last year's figure and last year's expense. That's all there is to it. We haven't cut anyone's civil service salary, nor would we propose to. We're cutting the minister's waste and we're telling him to keep this year's travel budget to what it was last year. We're telling him to keep this year's office expense to what it was last year, as well. It's very simple, in the name of restraint championed by the New Democratic Party in this year of a wasteful, extravagant and reckless Social Credit administration.

I trust the amendment to reduce the vote — not by $20,000, as the minister twistingly would have had us believe, but by $6,850 — will be quickly passed by the committee.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I must vote against this amendment because it completely contradicts the request that the NDP members have made here over these, lo, last several days, as the expression was used. They're contradicting their own principles. For several days we listened to them asking for more and more and more from Municipal Affairs, and now they're saying: "but do it with less money." I speak against it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the first member for Victoria, might I just read from Beauchesne regarding exhibits: "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964 the display of competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and milk powder have been ruled out of order." I cite that as a reference for the member's interest.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I confess I did not hear the Speaker make a similar reference when the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) brought logs into the House with which to illustrate one bill and when the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) brought in charts and maps and displayed them at the end. The Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) used to bring things in. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) brings in buttons. I'm sure this is in perfectly good order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, yes, I did bring a chart. It's permissible to bring a chart, but when you're through with it you put it away. You don't leave it on your desk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An interesting point of order.

MR. BARBER: When I'm through with my chart, I too will put it away, as did you yours. I planted my log in the backyard, but unfortunately it did not grow.

We propose to reduce vote 156 by $6,850. To repeat, for the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), it has nothing to do with salaries. It does not punitively reduce the minister from $12,000 last year to nothing this year. It simply keeps him at $12,000 this year, where he was last year. Restraint, that's all. Similarly, it does not reduce from $9,650 last year the money for office expenses. It simply keeps it at $9,650. That's New Democrat spending restraint. If this government were not so reckless and wasteful with the public's funds, they would vote for our amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just for the record, I'm also going to prepare myself a chart which I'll park and leave on the desk. It will show where a certain government came in with a $500 million surplus and left with a $261 million deficit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind all hon. members that we are presently discussing an amendment to vote 156.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to the suggestion by the Minister of Municipal Affairs about some chart about funds and debt, I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that if you are in the Chair you will permit him to display such a chart in this House. It will give us another opportunity to show how false that chart is and how false that debt was — how manufactured that $261 million was. We'd just love to be able to look at that one again. Bring it in, Bill.

[ Page 5012 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the chart that the minister will bring in will include Swan Valley Foods.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 156 approved.

On vote 157: general administration, $3,426,275.

MR. BARBER: Once again the New Democratic Party has discerned ways in which to save the taxpayers money. Specifically, we propose reductions in travel, office expenses and moneys spent under vote 157 for furniture and advertising. Let me reiterate, Mr. Chairman, this is not related to the issue of public service salaries. It's not related to anything of the sort. It is, however, related to the total unwillingness of Social Credit to be fiscally responsible and prudent in a year of high costs and even higher taxes. Referring again to my chart just briefly, I would observe that we propose to save during the entirety of these estimates $368,308. Unfortunately, the government declined to reduce its overexpenditures by $6,850 in the previous vote. That unfortunately reduces it to $362,000. I hope the government will allow us to reduce spending by $362,000. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that vote 157 be reduced by $34,446 and trust the committee will support the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, the amounts under travel expenses and office furniture which were referred to by the first member for Victoria are a part of our attempt to decentralize through the provision of four regional planning officers. They will be working out of the various regions. Naturally, they will also be required to travel here, and they must be provided with certain office amenities as well, so there seems to be a further contradiction in the argument put forth by the hon. member. On the one hand they want decentralization; on the other hand now he's moving to cut back on that very thing he asked for only an hour ago.

MR. BARBER: We're not asking that the government cut back on decentralization, We're asking that they cut back on unnecessary expenditures on travel, office furniture and advertising. If you want to save money, take our advice and cut this vote by $34,446, and you will compromise to no extent whatever the efficiency and the efficacy of the work of the employees of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. If you want to waste money, continue wasting it on potted plants for the offices of people in Victoria. It's not necessary. It's not required. You shouldn't do it, and you should take the advice of the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Wolfe — not the current minister, Mr. Curtis — and keep your expenditures to within a fixed percentage of your actual income. This does no such thing, and therefore the amendment should pass.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 157 approved.

On vote 158: grants, contributions and subsidies, $69,080,000.

MR. NICOLSON: Earlier the minister said about a million dollars was set aside for water improvement districts. Would this be under the item titled general grants, which has gone up from $400,000 to $2,280,000? Where is the million dollars, Mr. Minister? Or would this be the capital programs improvement districts — at the bottom? Thank you, I have my answer.

MR. BARBER: So that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will not be entitled to misconstrue the excellent proposals of the New Democratic Party, let me observe that we propose no

[ Page 5013 ]

reduction in vote 158, which consists of grants, contributions and subsidies to local government. This is not a political pork-barrel for Social Credit, and therefore we are not cutting it.

MRS. DAILLY: The point I want to make is to do with municipalities and grants. I want to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if we can have his guarantee for this coming tax year that he will not take it upon himself to direct the municipalities of B.C. as to what they should put on their tax notices.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The answer is no.

MRS. DAILLY: I would then like to ask the minister to explain to this Legislature why he thinks he has the authority and the right to dictate to local governments what they put on their tax notices.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the people of the province, whether they're municipal taxpayers or taxpayers wherever, have every right to know not only how the money is spent but where the money is coming from. It's only when they know and when it's told to them very clearly that you can have the accountability those people are deserving of.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't believe there was one municipal politician who did not resent the dictatorial attitude of that minister. May I say that throughout his whole estimates we've had evidence that this minister does not believe in local government. He believes in running the province and the local governments on his own. This is complete evidence of it, when you tell us that you are again going to dictate to the local politicians.

Vote 158 approved.

On vote 159: Revenue Sharing Fund, $213,800,000.

MR. BARBER: Once again, I wish it observed and put in the record that the New Democratic Party is not proposing a cut in vote 159. This is the Revenue Sharing Fund of the province of British Columbia. It is not a Socred pork-barrel. It does support local government. Therefore we will support it unamended.

Vote 159 approved.

On vote 160: central ministry services, $596,514.

MR. BARBER: Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of vote 160. In this vote, which we propose to reduce by $76,262, we discover that travel expenses are up 192 percent. We discover that office expenses are up 133 percent. We discover that advertising under vote 160 is up 266 percent.

Again, referring to my chart here I would observe that if we are to make significant cuts in provincial spending — as I said, the New Democratic proposal is to cut $368,000 worth of Socred red ink from this year's budget — we have to start somewhere. You know the Socreds talk tough on the hutstings, but they vote soft in the Legislature. The vote soft; they got big; they vote red ink. They vote money in this case that we do not think can be justified, especially in a year of restraint, especially in a year when it is necessary to set a good example for the people of British Columbia.

May I observe again, Mr. Chairman, that in vote 160, which we propose to reduce by $76,262, we discover that travel is up 192 percent. There is no excuse for that in a year of restraint. We discover that office expenses are up 133 percent. There is no excuse for this in a year of restraint. We discover as well that advertising expenses have gone up 266 percent. Now the minister may try to tell us with a straight face that these are all necessary in order to follow the challenge of Mr. Heal to bring the voters of B.C. into line and make them understand the benefits of Social Credit.

MR. NICOLSON: And bring them to heel.

MR. BARBER: Apparently that's necessary to bring them to heel, as my colleague reports, but we're not sure it is. We're not sure that this is the best way to set an example for the people of British Columbia. The cuts that we propose to make via the amendment, which I shall move in just a moment, are cuts which restrict the government this year to what they spent last year. Mr. Chairman. We don't propose to reduce travel, office or advertising expenses to zero. Last year the committee voted for those particular expenses, and we did so on purpose. We did so in favour of them, and we do not propose to repudiate the position that this committee took last year. What we ask the government to do is hold the line. What the government should do is hold the line to last year's expenditures. If they were prudent and cautious, if they were careful with the people's money, they would do this. But no, they do something quite different instead. Have the central ministry's services of the province of British Columbia, as provided for in vote 160, expanded so fantastically in the last year that they can justify a travel increase of 192 percent, an office expense increase of 133 percent and an advertising increase of 266 percent in one year?

This is the government that used to say they were prepared to hold the line on the public service. This is the government that said they were prepared to hold the line and make sure that the public service did not expand radically or dramatically. Well, either they've done that and these expenses are totally unjustified, or they haven't done that, and these expenses can only be justified in the light of the ridiculous and unnecessary increase in public service spending. We don't know which it is, but we do know what the Socred strategy is. As usual, they propose to overstate expenditures and understate revenues. We suspect that we've found them doing it again. That's why — prudently, cautiously, conservatively and with respect for the need of the people of British Columbia to be reassured by this committee that we are not wasting their money — we ask the government to hold the line. I see the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) agrees; I'm glad. I know he'll vote for this amendment. We ask him to hold the line and make sure that moneys are not spent unnecessarily.

So that the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not twist the remarks of the opposition, let me repeat that the amendment we propose — and which I will very shortly move — is not related to public service salaries and it is not related to pension benefits. It's not related to any of those things; it's related strictly to travel, office expenses and advertising, which, respectively, are up 192 percent, 133 percent and an astonishing 266 percent. No ministry of government should be so wildly out of control in its spending and so recklessly careless in its public expenditures as to justify this. Therefore, shortly before adjournment, on behalf of the official

[ Page 5014 ]

opposition, I hereby move that this committee reduce vote 160 by the necessary and desirable and prudent and fiscally responsible sum of $76,262.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Before the motion of adjournment, I recognize the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT RESPECTING
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY AND
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA

On a motion by Mr. Ree, Bill PR401, An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Appendix

ERRATUM

The answer to question 19 as given in the Votes of Thursday, April 2, was incorrect. The corrected answer is as follows:

"1. Total anticipated cost: Direct, $646,956,000; overhead, $76,343,000; interest, $99, =849,000; totalling, $823,148,000. The above direct costs are inflated to the in-service date.

"2. Breakdown of the direct costs is: Background studies, $4,780,000; engineering works, $18,354,000; construction expenditures, $623,822,000; totalling, $646,956,000. The forecast overhead and interest figures are not prepared in a manner which would allow a split in the above segments.

"3. Costs as at February 28, 1981, are: Direct—background studies, $4,086,000; engineering works, $4,272,000; construction expenditures, $57,532,000. Overhead, $7,202,000; interest, $4,405,000; totalling, $77,497,000. The request asked for costs as at March 9, 1981, but Hydro's monthly accounting cycle allows them to report costs only to February 28th."