[ Page 8651 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement relative to erroneous statements made by member.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8651

Mr. Stupich –– 8652

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

WCB boards of review backlog. Ms. Sanford –– 8653

Transport of farm workers. Ms. Sanford –– 8654

New employment initiatives. Mr. Hanson –– 8654

Travel assurance fund. Mr. Levi –– 8655

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill 403). Second reading,

(Mr. Ree)

Mr. Ree –– 8655

Mr. Levi –– 8656

An Act To Amend The Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill 403). Committee stage.

(Mr. Ree)

Third reading –– 8656

Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 51). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8656

Mr. Lorimer –– 8657

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8658

Mr. Macdonald –– 8658

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8659

Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 59). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8660

Mr. Macdonald –– 8660

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8660

Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 59). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 5 –– 8661

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading –– 8661

Water Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 61). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8661

Mr. Skelly –– 8661

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8661

Water Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 61). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Third reading –– 8661

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 60: minister's office (continued) –– 8661

Mr. Levi

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hanson

On the amendment to vote 60 –– 8675

Division

On the amendment to vote 61: ministry operations –– 8675

Division

Appendix –– 8676

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the members' gallery this afternoon are some visitors from Port Alberni. Enjoying some of the sights of Victoria are Neil and Carol Nixon and their three children, Jason, Kevin and Kristin. I would ask the House to join me in making them welcome.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: May we have the introductions first? There are other members, I'm sure, who have introductions. I certainly have one.

We have a director here today from the Fraser-Cheam regional district, electoral area E. He doesn't come here very often, hon. members, so make Gordon Stapley welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Leave is not required for a ministerial statement.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a point of privilege; you told him you would recognize him when introductions were through.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, which member has first call on the floor is determined according to which member is recognized by the Chair. The first member for Vancouver Centre did rise. The first member for Vancouver Centre did defer. The first member for Vancouver Centre did say he was rising on a matter of privilege. Standing order 26 reads: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." I recognize the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a point of privilege in order to make a correction and an apology. Yesterday in the House I made statements concerning the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. I made the statements in good faith, based on information I had received privately. I am now advised and persuaded by senior officials of the bank that these statements were not correct. I wish to totally withdraw any statements which I made to this House in reference to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Not only do I unreservedly apologize for those statements, but I wish to advise the House that those statements were factually in error. I also sincerely apologize to the shareholders and depositors of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It is a statement that should not have been made.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has no motion that he wishes to move?

The Minister of Finance has a ministerial statement.

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE:
ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS BY MEMBER

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that which has just occurred, I wish to make a statement as Minister of Finance on a matter which is of grave concern to all members of this side of the House and which is of concern to many people in British Columbia — in fact, to many in our nation. Again, notwithstanding the statement which the member has made as a point of privilege, the fact remains and the record will continue to show that the damage has been done. Yesterday afternoon, in the course of second reading debate of Supply Act (No. 2), 1982, the member who has just taken his seat made comments relative to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It is essential, Mr. Speaker, to quote the relevant portion of draft Hansard for Wednesday, July 7, 1982. The key portion of the statement made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is as follows:

By October it will be fully revealed that one major Canadian chartered bank will be in virtual receivership, if not actual receivership. Again, it has to do with very grave outstanding oil and gas loans. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has shareholders' equity of about $2.4 billion...

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. There is a point of order. The member wishes to interrupt the ministerial statement.

MR. BARRETT: Statements withdrawn from Hansard are accepted on the face of that withdrawal by practice of this House. To open debate on withdrawn statements is not the practice of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules regarding ministerial statements have been capsulized for us in a recent report on parliamentary practice in British Columbia; the author is well known to us. I'll cite pages 45 to 48, and if member wish to review the practice and procedure regarding ministerial statements, they could refresh their memories there: "A ministerial statement is the prerogative of a minister."

The contents and relevancy of a ministerial statement are provided for here. I would ask the Minister of Finance to be guided by that practice,

HON. MR. CURTIS: To continue the quote, which remains as a record of the debates of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia for yesterday:

...has an outstanding loan to Dome Petroleum of $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion. Dome Petroleum has outstanding loans with other banks. It's not paying interest. It's the most outstanding, debtor. There are others, particularly with the Bank of Commerce. They' re not paying interest. The interest is accumulating. That's called the capitalization of interest. The most dangerous attack on the economy one can conceive of is the capitalization of interest. The silly high interest rates are breaking everybody, and they'll eventually break one of the most powerful chartered banks in the country.

That is the end of the quote from pages 501-1 and 501-2 of Hansard Blues for yesterday. lam given to understand, and if I heard him correctly a few moments ago, the statements made by the hon. member were made without prior inquiry on his part of any senior officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. but rather were based on a source which he did not identify. It would appear that he chose to make this

[ Page 8652 ]

forecast in the complete absence of any frank discussion with top officials of the CIBC.

Mr. Speaker, immediately upon arriving in my office today I met with and received telephone calls from local and regional officers of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Later this morning I spoke with an individual who works directly with Russell E. Harrison, the chairman and chief executive officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It should be observed that Mr. Harrison was in meetings in Ottawa, and I did not wish to disturb him, knowing that I would have an opportunity to speak with him later this afternoon, British Columbia time. I've also received a Telex from Mr. Harrison's office which reads as follows:

STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. GARY LAUK, AN NDP MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATURE, IN REGARD TO BASIC FINANCIAL POSITION OF CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO OUR ATTENTION. MR. LAUK'S STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION AND REFLECT THE TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE CANADIAN BANKING SYSTEM IN GENERAL AND THE POSITION OF THE COMMERCE IN PARTICULAR. THEY REPRESENT A HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE ACT BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SPECIFICALLY, MR. LAUK IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IN HIS COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THE STATUS OF DOME PETROLEUM'S LOAN WITH THE BANK AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OUR ULTIMATE CAPITAL STRENGTH. DOME'S LOANS TO THE COMMERCE ARE CURRENT AS OF THIS DATE AND ARE LARGELY SECURED BY GOOD ASSETS. MORE GENERALLY, AS REPORTED IN OUR STATEMENT FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE CURRENT BANK YEAR, THE COMMERCE HAS MADE PROVISION FOR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED LOAN LOSSES, AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED IN CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, AND AFTER SUCH PROVISION REPORTED SIX MONTHS' NET EARNINGS OF $113 MILLION. THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER IN ANY SUGGESTION THAT LOANS TO DOME PETROLEUM OR INDEED TO ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS COULD RESULT IN LOSSES WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE THE BASIC CAPITAL STRENGTH OF THE BANK.

That is the end of the Telex, which was not only sent to me, Mr. Speaker, but, I believe, to most branch managers of the bank in British Columbia, if not to all branch or senior managers across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the statements made by the member yesterday have caused a wave of alarm, anguish and concern on the part of thousands of British Columbians and other Canadians. A number of our Social Credit constituency offices today reported a rash of telephone calls and inquiries based on news reports of the member's comments. I also understand that many branches of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce — not only in British Columbia, but elsewhere — have experienced a heavy volume of personal visits, calls and expressions of serious concern and alarm. I also note, parenthetically, that CIBC shares trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange have suffered a marked decline in value. That aspect of the situation is not as troubling to me and to this government as the dramatic repercussions that the member's statements have had on individuals who deal with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. I refer to small business people and to individual depositors, particularly the elderly, for whom that member and members of the NDP claim to have exclusive concern in this Legislature. While there's no sign that the CIBC is experiencing withdrawals of savings, term deposits and so on, there can be no doubt that the statements made by the member have caused a dramatic increase in expressions of worry, and that this level of concern has also been recorded with other major chartered banks right across this country.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that the statements were made in the first place. What is even more distressing is that the Leader of the Opposition waited until some time this morning, in meeting with members of the Legislative press gallery, to indicate that he disagreed with the opinions expressed by his caucus colleague. Surely the Leader of the Opposition, who served as Premier of this province and Minister of Finance between 1972 and 1975, should have known that incautious statements would have this effect.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister knows that within the scope of a ministerial statement, those things which are a matter of fact can and should be stated. However, any matters which are argumentative are not in order in a ministerial statement.

While I have intervened, I would like to quote from Speaker Selwyn Lloyd of the House in Westminster on this very question: "There is nothing in itself disorderly in the communication to the House by a minister of the advice which he has received from any quarter. Whether it is prudent or desirable that he should do so is a matter upon which he must make up his mind in each particular case." Those are the guidelines for ministerial statements.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should have issued a statement immediately following the member's speech in order to reassure thousands of people in this province....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister is embarking on the same kind of remark that has just been ruled out of order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Each of us comes into this House knowing that we are fully responsible for the statements we make; whether the economy is healthy or in recession, we still have that responsibility. One does not cry "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. These are difficult times, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I would suggest that it is vital that public comment be considered and responsible, particularly regarding our financial institutions and the establishments and structures which serve the financial structure of this country.

The government of British Columbia, the Premier, my cabinet and caucus colleagues are aware of the deep anguish and concern which has occurred today as a result of that which happened in this House yesterday. They will remember today, July 8, as a day of fear, precipitated by the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. STUPICH: Yesterday the first member for Vancouver Centre did make an unfortunate statement; he acknowledged that. He apologized in every way he could; he did so

[ Page 8653 ]

publicly this morning to the media; he did so in the House. He did everything he could to withdraw from that unfortunate statement. His apology was complete in every way. It was an unfortunate statement, we all agree. The repetition of that statement today in the House did nothing to take anything away from the statement made yesterday. As unfortunate as it was yesterday, the repetition of it today and the emphasis given to that statement by the Minister of Finance far outweighs anything that could be said by a member of the opposition. It was a cheap political trick....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: ...to try to take advantage of what the member....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The same rules of relevancy that apply to the ministerial statement would also apply to the reply. Remarks which are factual can be made; argumentative remarks would not be in order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Certainly I can say that in my opinion it was a cheap, political trick to try to take advantage of what was an unfortunate statement yesterday.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is now continuing the same kind of debate that has just been ruled out of order. Would the member please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Everything said on this subject today by the Minister of Finance does nothing but make the situation worse from the point of view of the people to whom the member for Vancouver Centre tried to apologize — the depositors, the shareholders and everyone affected by the Bank of Commerce. To the extent that they have been hurt by that member's statement, they have been hurt even more today by the emphasis and importance given that statement by the Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance could at least have acknowledged the fact that the member for Vancouver Centre did apologize.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did acknowledge it.

MR. STUPICH: I was not aware.... I didn't notice that. If I'm wrong.... I'll check the Blues.

There's one thing of which I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker: while the Minister of Finance quoted officials from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce as to what they believed about the bank, I did not notice him saying that he personally and his government believe everything said yesterday to be wrong, and that he has complete faith in the Canadian Imperial Bank. I didn't hear it, and I waited for it.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the statement was heard and accepted. It had an intervention by the Chair to be sure it was in order. I recommend to the House that the reply be heard in the same manner.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many of my colleagues. Many of us are customers and depositors; some of them, including myself, are shareholders of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. We still are. We have made no attempt to withdraw any support from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. I was hoping the Minister of Finance would himself have said something like that. He has taken the statement that was made yesterday, which was a story on the back pages of two newspapers this morning, and built it into a headline issue today. It's a cheap, political trick to try to take advantage of an unfortunate statement.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is again embarking on disorderly debate.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said nothing at all today that would take away from the unfortunate statement made yesterday. At least the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) did everything he could to take away from what he himself described as a unfortunate statement that should not have been made.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That concludes the matter.

Oral Questions

WCB BOARDS OF REVIEW BACKLOG

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The backlog of some 3,000 appeals before WCB boards of review continues to grow. Has the minister decided on a date for completion of his review of the situation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I advised the House on a previous occasion that the appointment of additional people to the boards of review will not resolve the backlog problem. I'm aware that the appointments of a permanent member to take the place of one who has recently left and of a part-time member have not been made, but I hope those appointments will be made in the very near future. I recognize the backlog, and I appreciate the concern the member has expressed.

MS. SANFORD: The minister indicated in May that he had been interviewing applicants for that position. I fail to understand why those appointments have not been made. Two other members of boards of review, not chairmen, are going to be leaving at the end of July, which will make effectively only four boards of review, rather than six. Can

[ Page 8654 ]

the minister assure the House that those positions will be replaced without delay?

MR. SPEAKER: The preamble was long, but we will permit it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. As a matter of fact, I'm presently entertaining applications for the two vacancies expected to occur at the approximate time the member has made reference to.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, at the present rate of increase of the backlog of the boards of review, notwithstanding the appointments that he plans to make, the injured workers of this province will have to wait a full year — by Christmastime — to have their appeals heard. In view of the fact that he has not yet finished his review of the situation, and in view of the intolerable situation with respect to the time-lag involved for workers to have their appeals heard, will the minister reconsider and appoint more boards of review at this point?

MR. SPEAKER: If the question is, has the minister made any appointments, the question is in order. If the question is, will he make appointments, it is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned before that the appointment of further boards will not really address the problem of the backlog of appeals. The member knows that one additional panel was appointed and the number of appeals did not diminish at all. As a matter of fact, they seemed to increase, and there was quite an increase over the last year. I have entertained submissions and suggestions from both labour and management, and there is a divergence of opinion in that regard. I'm still of the belief that the only way to handle the backlog problem is to amend the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act and place the boards of review under a structure parallel to that of the Labour Relations Board.

MS. SANFORD: The backlog, Mr. Speaker, increased because those chairmen were not reappointed by the minister, and the backlog continues to increase. But I have another question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The statement is out of order; I think the member knows. The question, please.

TRANSPORT OF FARM WORKERS

MS. SANFORD: In view of the alarming accident involving 31 farmworkers packed into a contractor's van which serves as transport to the work site, has the minister decided to develop health and safety regulations regarding the transport of farm workers?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I agree, that was a most unfortunate accident which occurred and it brought to light a problem which must be addressed. I think the House would be interested in knowing — the information has been passed to me, and I'm still attempting to secure further information in this regard — that the driver of that particular vehicle, whether it was the owner or an operator, was licensed in 1981.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. minister, but the answer must not be beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, it's rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, because of what it involved. When a farm labour contractor is licensed under the Ministry of Labour pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, notification of that licence is communicated to the Workers' Compensation Board. The Workers' Compensation Board, pursuant to section 28 under the Industrial Health and Safety Regulations, has a number of regulations with respect to the transportation of workers under the heading "Crew Cars and Crummies." My problem is that this particular vehicle was not licensed, and we had no knowledge whatsoever that this transportation of employees was occurring. The difficulty I have is how to find somebody who is doing something in contravention of the law — and I'm sure that we all have those difficulties from time to time — but I'm certainly looking at it and I'm most concerned.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this situation has been in effect for many years. The situation has occurred time and time again. The minister is aware that farm workers injured in such accidents and in the workplace are still not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Has the minister finally decided to correct these injustices immediately — not next year but immediately?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, farm-labour contractors do pay assessments to the WCB right now. They are in fact covered by the provisions of the WCB. If the member is referring to those who labour in the fields, that is a matter of hearings at the present time. The Workers' Compensation Board and the Federation of Agriculture are working together to seriously consider the implementation of WCB coverage next year, and a great deal of work has been done. We have made considerable progress in that regard over the last several months.

NEW EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In front of the Legislature this afternoon unemployed teachers, health-care workers, workers in the service industries and workers in the forest industry are coming to hear the minister speak. Has the minister decided to announce new employment initiatives to these workers when he speaks to them on the lawn of the Legislature this afternoon?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That question is out of order, and you know it's out of order.

MR. HANSON: Has he decided to announce new employment initiatives?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Any decision that has been made is subject to question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This request that I speak to a group today.... This is the first I've heard that I was speaking. I do recall receiving a circular letter, as a matter of fact, which has made the rounds. If the member who asked

[ Page 8655 ]

the question is concerned, perhaps they should be contacting him as their MLA — while he is still elected. The same is true for all MLAs in this House who are approached from time to time by people who are unemployed in their various constituencies.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: How the minister handles the correspondence that comes into his office requesting him to speak is his own business. My question is: does he have some hope that this afternoon he can offer these unemployed workers some employment initiatives?

MS, SANFORD: The office of the Minister of Labour informed the organizers of this march and demonstration yesterday that the minister might not be able to address them because they felt that the Labour estimates might be under discussion. Now that it appears the Labour estimates are not going to be under discussion, has the minister decided to address the group?

TRAVEL ASSURANCE FUND

MR. LEVI: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his capacity as being responsible for the Travel Assurance Fund. On August 15, 1980, the minister tabled the report of the Travel Assurance Board, and at that time the board had approved 215 claims, totalling $102,000. I've been asked by a number of people in the travel industry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The preamble has gone beyond the one-sentence limit already. May I have the question?

MR. LEVI: I would like the minister to confirm to the House that the present fund is some $90,000, and there is a claim of $50,000 against it. What plans does the minister have to refuel the fund in order to allow it to carry out its purpose?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm happy to provide a current report on the status of the fund. I'm advised that the fund presently stands at approximately $100,000. Further, the outside estimate of potential claims against the fund at this time would be in the order of $50,000. Those are not proven claims; they are, shall we say, a cautious estimate on the upside. So the coverage is about two to one.

As the member may know, contributions to that fund come in regularly. They are made not by taxpayers but by members of the travel agency industry in British Columbia. On that two to one coverage basis, and given current economic times, we believe the fund to be in good condition. Mr. Rourke, the registrar, is carefully and regularly monitoring in the field.

MR. LEVI: Is the minister prepared to undertake to bring to the House a list of the claims that have been paid? One of the difficulties which the travel industry has is that they pay for the fund; they make the contributions, They are not aware of who is actually compensated. Is the minister prepared to bring to the House a list of all the claims that have been approved — which he must approve — and all the people who have been paid?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I would be happy to do that, if it is the case. which I doubt, that members of the travel industry who contribute to the fund do not have access to the results of the operation of the fund. The reason I suspect the member is in doubt — although I am happy to check it out — is that the travel agents are represented by three different nominees to the Travel Assurance Board; that board specifically approves and recommends the claims. I would therefore assume they are aware of the particulars through their representatives: but I will be happy to check that out. Should I find that there is no way that contributors are able in the normal course to obtain particulars regarding payments, I will be happy to provide the information to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to private bills.

Leave Granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 403, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to advise that this bill has been through the private bills committee. It has been considered by all sides of the House in that committee.

In this act the Vancouver Stock Exchange is seeking to amend the objects it has under its original act of 1907, in order to permit it to carry on business, not only as an exchange of equity securities but also to act as a marketplace for trading of other instruments — commodities, goods, produce, raw material, and rights relating thereto.

Mr. Speaker, the decision of the exchange to seek the amendment was prompted by the opportunity to participate with the Montreal exchange and the European Options Exchange of Amsterdam in the trading of gold options guaranteed by the European Gold Clearing Corporation, in which the Vancouver Stock Exchange has now obtained an equity position, as it has with the other two exchanges. In addition to the opportunity afforded to the exchange to join with these exchanges — that is, the Montreal exchange and the European Options Exchange of Amsterdam — in trading in gold options, the exchange also views its entry into the options trading market as a step towards broadening its product base, and thereby relieving it to some extent of its sole reliance on an equity market.

The exchange is also of the opinion that its partnership with the European Options Exchange will result in development of a better understanding of the B.C. financial marketplace in Europe, and probably lead, as a result, to a greater interest by European investors in the British Columbia market. Possibly this is part of the reason that in 1981 the Vancouver Stock Exchange experienced its greatest growth and greatest volume of trading. It had a trading volume of 1,574,000,000 shares. This was the largest volume of trading in Canada and the second-largest volume of shares traded in North America. At the same time the total value of these

[ Page 8656 ]

shares was $3,859,000,000, which was the second-highest dollar volume in Canada and the seventh in North America. I think this is an indication of the international recognition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, as is its opportunity to participate in international options trading, particularly in the gold-options field, which it intends to commence this month.

Mr. Speaker, having been a staff counsel with the Vancouver Stock Exchange for over five years, I feel that it is a great pleasure and an honour to have the opportunity of sponsoring this bill, and I now move second reading.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Hudson, the president of the stock exchange, and Mr. Irwin, and had a discussion about the principles of the bill and the application. It's our intention, of course, to support it. At some later date we presumably have to deal with legislation that will cover the options market. We've had some indication from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) that we may deal with a new Securities Act, which presumably will give us the kind of legal framework that we can operate in now that we're going into a much broader area of the stock market, particularly in the international gold-options market. We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment on options trading, I understand that the amendment we're putting through to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act at this time does not affect its position with respect to the Securities Act that has been filed and that we will be deliberating on later in this House. The Vancouver Stock Exchange under the present Securities Act and under the proposed new Securities Act still falls within the jurisdiction of the Securities Commission, or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and that will have no bearing here. Accordingly I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 403 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 403; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 403, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of this bill, which provides for the public transit arm of the province to be renamed British Columbia Transit. The reason for the change of name from Urban Transit Authority to British Columbia Transit is that the province now funds transit systems operating in rural areas, as well as in urban areas, throughout the province. As well, the name British Columbia Transit is certainly more consistent with the names of other B.C. Crown corporations, such as British Columbia Railway, British Columbia Ferry Corporation and British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Our transit system in the province certainly serves many communities and areas in all parts of B.C. As the system expands and provides a good level of service, not only to the inner community but also to the more rural areas surrounding it, I think people will relate much better to the name B.C. Transit than to Urban Transit, which tends to be related much more to greater Victoria or greater Vancouver.

The bill also provides expropriation powers to assist in the building of the ALRT system. We have commenced construction of the ALRT system. As a matter of fact, concrete is possibly being poured today for the various support structures being built along Terminal Avenue for the demonstration section of the transit system. We would like to see that section operational perhaps in less than a year, so that people will have the opportunity to ride the automated transit system for that stretch along Terminal Avenue to get the feel of what will be the finest transit system in North America. At the same time, we are beginning construction of the ALRT system from New Westminster; we hope to have the system meet and be complete prior to 1986 so that the system will be totally operational.

We are getting a great deal of cooperation from almost every community, in almost every way, and things are progressing extremely well. We appreciate the efforts by the various players in making this tremendous target of the government an accomplishment of which all British Columbians can be proud. We expect very little trouble with the municipalities or, for that matter, with individual property owners. We could foresee the need in some areas for the power to expropriate, but it's my hope that these requirements will be extremely limited and that there will be little need to ever use that power. We are aware of one example where only a small corner of a property is required. For reasons unknown to me — it's rumoured to be for tax purposes which would be of benefit to the corporation that holds the property — they are holding out until expropriation proceedings are possibly commenced. As I have said, it's our hope that we would need to use this power very little, but certainly such powers are required at times. Why the owners or the corporation would have it go to that we can't explain until each individual situation confronts us. But this bill addresses it like no other bill has ever addressed it. It's probably one of the best pieces

[ Page 8657 ]

of legislation in that regard anywhere in Canada, and certainly by far the best with respect to expropriation, at least in British Columbia.

There are positive initiatives that have been included in the expropriation provisions that do not exist in other legislation. This includes the advance notice of expropriation. Prior to the Crown corporation taking legal possession, the expropriated will certainly have full knowledge and the opportunity to participate much more fully than what we find today in the legislation as it exists for expropriation affecting other ministries or Crown corporations. The payment would be made without prejudice to the owner's right to claim additional compensation under the arbitration proceedings. The advance payment mechanism provided for in the legislation, again, is innovative,

The appraisal information on which the payment is based must be included with the payment, even though it may be used against a Crown corporation in the arbitration proceedings. Political accountability is provided for because the British Columbia Transit must receive cabinet approval prior to entering into the expropriation process. The requirement for cabinet approval will enable further consideration to be given to the need for expropriation.

Without going into further detail on this fine piece of legislation, let me repeat again that expropriation will only be used as a very last resort. I move second reading.

MR. LORIMER: The first few sections of this bill merely change the name from Urban Transit Authority to British Columbia Transit Authority. I only hope that under a new name the authority will be more cooperative with the regional districts and cities in planning and developing transit throughout the urban centres of this province. I hope that with the change in name the authority might be prepared to take another look at cooperating with the city of Vancouver with reference to the conflict regarding the Commercial Drive and Broadway area of the proposed ALRT system in that part of town.

Whether the province is correct in their decision or whether the city is correct is not that important. It's a question of cooperation and coming to agreement one way or another to get the best decision possible, and to discuss these matters between themselves and not through the newspapers. Those matters should be settled amicably. With a change of name, maybe there will be more cooperation shown and more decision-making given to the local authorities, wherever the city might be, who have far more knowledge of local conditions than the Urban Transit Authority or the provincial government.

The question of changing the name, of course, also brings up the question of whether or not we're going to go to the expense of repainting all the buses to remove the Urban Transit sign from the sides of the buses and replacing it. A few years back, when B.C. Hydro was operating the Transit Authority, they had a paint shop on Cambie Street. The vehicles were painted from time to time without going to any great expense. Now it's a question of contracting out the jobs. What we're looking at here, in my opinion, is not a substantial expense, but it is an expense at this time. I would like the minister to tell us if he intends to have the changes made at the present time or if he looks to having it done over a period of time.

Before I go further into the matter of compensation and expropriation provisions, I want to say that there has been a substantial improvement in the provisions set out in this bill over what is seen in other bills regarding expropriation, and it's a step forward. But what I would like to discuss is the great need in this province for one standard piece of legislation dealing with compensation, expropriation and all matters of a person losing his property at the whim or desire of a provincial, federal or municipal government, Crown corporations or any other authority that has the power to take away an individual's home. In many cases the individual is unable to react properly and doesn't have the capabilities or the knowledge to look after himself, and in many cases is taken advantage of by some authority expropriating that property.

I want to say that many members on the other side, when they were in opposition, spoke about this matter at great length on many occasions over the years. I just happened to be looking through Hansard, and I want to quote from a speech made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) made in 1973.

In the field of expropriation, Ms. Chairman, there is no established set of rules in the province; there is no established mode of hearing: there is no established method of determining fair compensation. The expropriative power of any government is always a sinister kind of a cloud that is lurking over individual rights.

He goes on and on. Now he's been a minister of this government for seven years, and we still have no standard set of rules when it comes to expropriations or when it comes to payment for property taken away by a stroke of the pen of the government.

I'll quote further from what he said.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Quote the whole thing.

MR. LORIMER: Oh, he goes on for pages. I'm not going to quote it all, but I would like to remind this minister of what he has said in the past and what his actions have been during the past seven years.

We should have fair compensation laws in the province of British Columbia.... At Great public expense we had the Clyne commission report on expropriation laws. At great public expense we had the Land Reform Commission Report on expropriation laws. And they pointed to one thing: we need a single expropriation procedure in B.C. which will bring justice and equity to this very, very troubled area. Quite frankly, short of our natural derrieres. these are the most sat-on things in the province of B.C. — the reports of these two royal commissions.

He's been a member of the cabinet for some seven years, and what has happened in regard to these matters? Absolutely nothing. The problem is still there, as large as it ever was. They just sit. sit. sit on the things. I think it's high time that whatever government it is.... You're the ones in power today, and I say it is high time you did it. I suggest that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations get on with a proper standard act dealing with expropriations and compensation for property lost.

Another freedom fighter we had is the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He said a few things too. He said there were 28 sins in our legislative books, which are 28 ways in which a person's land can be expropriated. There must be about 40 after the expropriation powers that have been given to this government in a number of the statutes that have been put through over the last seven years. We're no closer today than we were 20 years ago to having one set of rules for all expropriation procedures. I think it's high time that the government got busy and produced a bill for this Legislature to examine.

[ Page 8658 ]

I said earlier that this legislation that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has brought in is much better than the expropriation provisions in the other acts. But that isn't what we need; we need one set of expropriation rules. We need one set of rules to determine how compensation is to be made and to determine how the individual is to be protected from losing his home and land.

I have a number of other quotes here that I won't use. I'll pass them over, though, so the minister might have something to read for the afternoon.

We will support this measure due to the fact that if the government is starting to become serious about transit — and I'm still not convinced of this — then obviously expropriation powers will be required. I accept the minister's word that they will be used only in exceptional cases. I suggest that a transit system cannot proceed without those powers, and for that reason we will support this bill.

The suggestion that the ALRT system is proceeding at a rapid rate is something that I think could be put into question. I've mentioned this before, and I won't prolong the debate with further reference to the matters, but I want to tell the Legislature and the people of this province that what is being built is a demonstration area. It will be completed after a number of months, but there will be no further development of an ALRT system during the term of this government. There will be lots of talk about it, but there will be no money spent on developing the capital funds for the ALRT system apart from this little run down Terminal Avenue. I say that it would be refreshing if the minister got up and acknowledged this fact. Then the people of the province would know that they will be riding the bus for a great number of years to come.

Will this change of name improve the service and the scheduling of the present bus system? There have been cutbacks in schedules and promised cutbacks in other schedules of the normal bus system in the city of Vancouver. In my opinion, after seven years of this government the transit system has not improved but has deteriorated. It has deteriorated during that period to less runs and less service to the public, and the population has increased.

I don't object to changing the name of the authority. It has very little power, and it does what the government tells it. It's merely a cushion between the municipalities and a buffer between the regional districts and the province.

In my opinion, this bill has little merit, except for the one provision I have already stated. If there is an intention to proceed with transit, there must be power of expropriation within the authority of the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm speaking in support of this very model bill of my honourable colleague. I was more than delighted to listen to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who has finally succumbed to — or perhaps better stated, acknowledged — the wisdom of my articulations of some nine years ago concerning the expropriation laws in our province. I have to say that he can't really be classified as a lightning learner, because when I made that speech — unless my memory is hazy; his may be — he was the then Minister of Municipal Affairs. At that point in time, unfortunately, it was to deaf ears. But confession is good for the soul, however late in the day. I'm delighted to see that the hon. member has finally repented and seen the wisdom of the direction I was suggesting at that time.

I agree with what he very fairly stated. This bill brought forth by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs is indeed a great stop forward towards proper, effective and appropriate expropriation laws in our province, which we indeed need.

MR. MACDONALD: As the member who has just taken his seat said, we've been waiting a long time for the implementation of the report of the former Mr. Justice Jack Clyne — Blackjack Clyne. It is an excellent report. I can tell the House the reason why we didn't implement it. I had the bill drawn up. I put it in the drawer of my desk, and I took it to caucus one day. But in 1975 we were faced with an orangutang Social Credit opposition that said we were going to nationalize the land and mothers-in-law and toothbrushes and things of that kind, especially the land. No matter what we called the bill, which I had so carefully prepared and left for my successor to implement — a perfectly good bill — I couldn't get it through caucus because of what the opposition would say about that particular bill, no matter how we drafted it.

In terms of expropriation, this is an advance, but there are important omissions. They are in the draft of the bill that I prepared, which I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations hasn't lost. First, under this bill you can put a notice on the property, but there are no time limits to when it can be taken or unfrozen. Second, when you take a home, as under the old Highway Act system, it should not be at market value. The disruption to an individual residence and the people who live in it and their need to find a replacement should be taken into account, so it should be more than market value. Third, there has to be some mechanism whereby whether the property should be taken at all would be a matter of some adjudication and not an automatic decision by government. There are advances in this. I compliment the minister particularly for the advanced payment and interest provisions. They're a step in the right direction. Let's have the one expropriation bill, though, and make Jack Clyne happy.

The only other thing I want to say is that I want to repeat to the minister what I've told him privately and on the floor of the Legislature. When you go ahead with these powers, remember that in Vancouver East, from the great northern cut east, you have residential areas and UTAs are going through those areas. I have a fear that when you come to Kerrisdale, if you ever do, and Arbutus is chosen — although it's a wide swath for a right-of-way — the opposition will be such that you'll tunnel it. But you won't tunnel it in Vancouver East, and I think that would be terribly discriminatory. Even at this time, I urge the minister.... I agree with the previous minister that this thing isn't going to happen as quickly as the minister says it will. For heaven's sake, look at alternatives, such as an underground, to protect the residential nature of the area through which you're passing and the small businesses on Commercial Drive and further east.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment very briefly on this particular bill. As one of the MLAs who has had as much to do with expropriation proceedings in the House as anyone, I suppose, due to the major developments on the Columbia River and the Arrow Lakes and the massive disruption to taxpayers in that area — the expropriation of vast amounts of land — it's been one of my major concerns during my political life. I must say that I want to support the

[ Page 8659 ]

comments made by my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), that there should be imposed upon the agency taking the expropriation action a duty before some kind tribunal to show cause — to show public need and convenience, as it were — for the need for the land, rather than just an arbitrary decision taken in secret by some Crown agency to enter into expropriation. What we found with B.C. Hydro in that area was that years after the fact they ended up with vast surplus amounts of land which they then put up for sale on the real estate market, Mr. Speaker, in some cases profiteering to the tune of a 1,400 percent increase in the price of that land over what they had paid as compensation for the expropriation. That, in my view, is a clear and patent abuse of power by a Crown agency.

I think the provision to show cause and need for the land should be involved. I also want to say that in that area the comments my colleague made about replacement value are absolutely crucial. In practical terms, what happens is that quite frequently the area being expropriated is a rural area, where the cost of housing is relatively low. As an example, a family of six may have a large home in a rural setting with a garden and perhaps they raise a few head of stock. That home, which would cost three times its real value to replace in an urban context, is not taken into consideration when the appropriation takes place. In other words, they are compensated for the rural value of the home and that leaves them with no chance whatsoever to replace that home — to accommodate their family in terms of the compensation paid to them — and that's discriminatory. There should be a consideration of the replacement cost, because in many cases anything less imposes on the family not only disruption but extreme hardship when they are trying to relocate with the compensation they have received.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker emphasized a need for fairness in our dealing with those properties that may be required for the establishment of ALRT, and I couldn't agree more. Frankly, I too am very disappointed about many of the proceedings that have taken place over the last number of years under existing legislation. As the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) will well recall, I paid several visits to a Mrs. Lillian Mann in Burnaby, who was certainly suffering from the process of expropriation as applied by the municipality of Burnaby. I have great sympathy for what actually happened there and the treatment afforded her. Hopefully that sort of situation will not happen again, and I will do all I can to prevent it from happening.

The member for Vancouver East particularly mentioned that sometimes when we look at the provision of transit we could possibly discriminate between one area and another as to how they are treated, be it for overhead or undergrounding. I want to assure the member that that's not the case, and we can certainly provide evidence to that effect. We have adopted a system, and it's been designed to go along a particular route in a particular fashion, all the way from downtown Vancouver to Surrey and Coquitlam. I would not seek any undergrounding for the Surrey section either, and I've never, made a suggestion in that respect. It too goes through much residential land in the Surrey area, and that's my constituency.

I think we should treat all areas equitably, naturally, and we should at all times follow the plan developed and agreed upon by all those involved in the process. To suggest. as the member for Burnaby-Willingdon did, that we're not cooperating — that the Urban Transit Authority fails to cooperate with the regional district and the cities — is completely wrong, and I only hope that at a further opportunity perhaps the member will withdraw those remarks, because it's not fair to the members who serve in a very committed manner at all of the meetings held by the Urban Transit Authority. That authority, it should be remembered, is made up of those very people who serve on those municipal councils. We have alderman Fred Macklin of Kelowna, who's the chairman, Mayor Elmer Mercier of Prince George, Mayor John Agnew of Mission, alderman May Brown of Vancouver, Frank Carson of Victoria, Mayor Mel Couvelier of Saanich, alderman Alan Emmot, who is the chairman of the GVRD and an alderman in Burnaby, Mayor Derrick Humphreys of West Vancouver, alderman Warnett Kennedy of Vancouver and Mayor Charles Lakes of Trail. These are all elected people, mayors, aldermen, and chairmen of a regional district, who serve on that Urban Transit Authority. To even make the suggestion that they are purposely attempting to cause problems and that they are not cooperating with those very cities and regional districts they represent is grossly unfair. They have been cooperative; they have attempted to fairly resolve all the problems they're faced with.

I can understand the reasoning or the suggestions from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), because unfortunately — it's well known to most — this was the attitude during the term when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the NDP years. It was study and study and more studies, and unfortunately nothing ever progressed in the area of transit. There wasn't really a move toward making progress or getting on with the job. They talked a lot about ALRT, made trips to Germany, Norway and Sweden and all over the world to look at transit systems, but there wasn't a getting on with the job. Here we are getting on with the job, and that's the whole intent of it.

Mr. Speaker, I particularly wanted to make the point, because at the same time it was suggested by the member that we've not moved very far in transit and that ALRT probably wouldn't proceed. I want to immediately dispel that notion and set the record straight. We have let the whole of the contract for the construction of ALRT all the way from downtown Vancouver to downtown New Westminster; it's proceeding, and to simply get up on the other side and say "Ah, I want to tell the people of British Columbia that they'll only construct that kilometre and the whole thing will then fail and fall and won't proceed" is completely wrong and not founded on anything at all. The member well knows that we have let a contract for the whole of the system from downtown Vancouver to downtown New Westminster.

Furthermore, the member should be aware that we have approved the commuter train which is scheduled to go into service in 1983 from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver; we have all of those new vehicles that have recently come on stream; we have a custom transit service for the handicapped which is the equivalent of the whole of the transit budget during the NDP years, just the section on transit for the handicapped. So we've made a tremendous amount of progress, and I think we should be very proud of what's been happening in transit in British Columbia. We're into many communities, which is why we have the name change an why we want to relate more to the type of service provided in all of the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 8660 ]

We have the suggestion that the buses will be repainted. Yes, the buses may well be repainted, and yes, the buses are constantly being touched up or repainted; that's part of the program, and it's being contracted out. We don't need a large government paint shop — be it B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation or government. The member said that it didn't cost us anything or very little because it was government or B.C. Hydro, and now it's being contracted out, and it's costing a lot. Frankly, if we were to establish a large paint shop run by the government, we would have a tremendous ongoing expense.

I see that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is cheering me on, and I'm searching for further notes.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is certainly — and I'm very appreciative of the comments made by all members who spoke on the legislation — very forward and very progressive and much of a change over what's in place now. I'm very pleased with it, and I appreciate that perhaps in future years we may be looking at making changes elsewhere and possibly again adding other provisions to this particular legislation, which will make it more equitable still.

I know it's a bill that will receive support from all members of the House. I would hope, however, that the use of it will be minimized to the greatest degree possible, as I am personally much opposed to expropriation, unless it is extremely necessary.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 51, Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 59.

COURT ORDER INTEREST
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, members will be aware that we have in this province a statute which is called the Court Order Interest Act, which provides that upon the delivery of a pecuniary judgment, the court shall include interest at a rate which it considers to be appropriate. Members will also be aware that from the moment judgment is delivered, the rate of interest on a pecuniary judgment is established by the Interest Act of Canada under the provisions of sections 12 to 15, which apply only to the four western provinces and to the two territories. In Ontario, where those provisions do not apply, the matter of post judgment interest is treated as part of the administration of justice. The federal Minister of Justice, Hon. Jean Chretien, has indicated to the western provinces and to the territories that the Parliament of Canada is giving consideration to the repeal of those provisions in the Interest Act. This will permit post-judgment interest to be established by provincial legislation.

In anticipation of the repeal of those sections of the federal act, we are today introducing for debate an amendment to our Court Order Interest Act which will provide for the payment of post-judgment interest on all amounts which remain outstanding after judgment. Under this legislation the basic interest rate will be set at the prime rate enjoyed by the province from its bankers, and that prime rate is subject to semi-annual adjustment. The act, however, will also give the court which deals with the matter of the judgment power, on application by any person affected, to vary the rate of interest or the date from which the interest will be calculated in those cases where the court considers that such variation is appropriate. The act will ensure that the judgment creditors receive a reasonable rate of interest on moneys due and payable following the awarding of judgment in their favour.

These provisions with respect to the fixing of interest rates will parallel for post-judgment interest the practice in this province for calculating interest on funds which are paid in and held in court, and also the practice which is followed under the Court Order Interest Act with regard to pecuniary interest at the time a judgment is awarded.

It is an appropriate step to be taken, and will give us in this province continuing and more effective and equitable control of matters affecting pecuniary judgments and the entitlement of judgment creditors thereunder.

I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition supports the measure. During the NDP administration we had the pre-judgment interest provisions, but we couldn't do the post-judgment interest provisions because of the federal government. Did you pass that, and we prepared the...?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, Strachan dumped it.

MR. MACDONALD: I thought we did that.

Anyway, now we're correcting an anomaly, because it's ridiculous to get a prime rate of 15, 16 or 17 percent up until the moment you enter your judgment, and then to be under the Interest Act at 5 percent.

I think the matter should go to committee, and I hope the federal government will act to relinquish the jurisdiction, because as long as that specific reference to interest on judgments in western Canada is on the books in Ottawa, we do not have the constitutional jurisdiction to go ahead. So I hope it will happen quickly, and it's up to the federal government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might just say in closing that one of the matters that concerned us was whether or not there would be a constitutional problem in fixing the rate of interest, but we are satisfied that the right of the court to vary will resolve that constitutional issue.

I move second reading of Bill 59.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 59 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8661 ]

COURT ORDER INTEREST
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 59; Hon. Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. MACDONALD: As a matter of procedure, I don't like to get into lawyers' technical arguments in this House, but you've defined how the interest on a judgment accumulates in a very rough way. What does somebody do? Do they issue a warrant for the seizure of something a year and a half later? If there's a dispute over the amount of the judgment, do you have to run to court every time? The judgment creditor says: "I think the interest is now $1,610 for that period." And the judgment debtor says: "No, it's about $1,400." What do you do? Do you have to go back to a judge and get another certificate of judgment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The prime rates enjoyed by the province from its bankers are established twice each year. They are published as a matter of a regulation, as they are used for a number of purposes. Therefore I think the basis of calculation would be very simple. If there's a proper dispute I suppose it would end up being referred to a registrar. It would be resolved in that way in the case of any dispute over the specific amount owing at a particular time.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 59, Court Order Interest Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr. Speaker.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. ROGERS: This very minor bill was inadvertently missed in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This bill merely allows the decisions of the controller of water rights, which have previously been made entirely in Victoria, to be made in our regional offices throughout the province. It will greatly assist the constituents of all the various members who have business with the controller of water rights in their region.

I move second reading.

MR. SKELLY: The opposition will support this bill. It's one of the best things the minister has ever done.

HON. MR. ROGERS: There was a debate between the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and myself as to how long it would take to pass water. That was very quick. [Laughter.] I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 61 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 61, Water Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 61; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 61, Water Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 60: minister's office, $187,000.

MR. LEVI: Now that the minister is not in the House, I want to say something nice about him. Where is that Gorgeous creature" Oh. there he is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let's go.

MR. LEVI: Yes. we've already rehearsed this and we're Going to have a go. I'm going to read a letter. When I'm through reading the letter and the minister is through making his bombastic reply, I want him to bear one thing in mind. There are still about 60 or 70 families in Coquitlam who need some guarantee of where they're going to be living in the next year or two with respect to the mobile-home park that they live in.

The minister Lot a letter on June 24, 1982 from the district of Coquitlam regarding the proposed acquisition of mobile-home parksites at Fraser Mills:

"The municipal council and the district of Coquitlam were dismayed. to say the least, upon receiving a

[ Page 8662 ]

copy of your correspondence of June 6, 1982, related to the captioned subject. Residents of this community have depended on the word of the ministry..."

I notice they don't say "minister," but "ministry."

"...related to being able to relocate in the very near future, having been notified that the actual purchase of the land from Crown Zellerbach had been completed in early January."

Of course, there was a news release to that effect.

"It's most discouraging at this late date to now learn that acquisition has not only not been completed but negotiations are being reopened, which can only lead to further delays and quite possibly mean that some mobile-home residents will have no place to relocate. This will create greater hardship on those residents of this community affected by any delay.

"The council, by resolution at their meeting of June 21, 1982, encouraged the ministry to conclude very shortly the acquisition of the property and commence the development of the mobile-home park thereon. We await with anxiety.

"Yours truly,
"T. Klassen,
"Municipal clerk."

I might also advise the minister that one of the alderpeople is in the House — namely my spouse, who has a great interest in this particular issue.

I'd like to know from the minister what led to the breakdown of the initial agreement, which I understand is something that the company did not come forward and fulfil. What has happened since? Bear in mind that a lot of people want to know what the resolution is. I know the minister has some options, so let's get them on the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, in the district municipality of Coquitlam we've done everything to attempt to resolve the issue of the closure of two old mobile-home parks. The owners have given at least one group of people the prescribed notice to vacate under the Landlord and Tenants Act so that they could convert that land to commercial purposes. It was far more financially viable to do that.

In the meantime, we have indicated through meetings with the mayor of the district municipality of Coquitlam, and one with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).... We had discussions. We're prepared to use Crown land in the Westwood plateau region to accommodate the transition from this mobile-home park. The mayor of the district municipality was prepared to hold back zoning of the existing ones until such time as we could accommodate them on that land. Then, lo and behold, we had a proposal put to us by the district municipality of Coquitlam, initiated primarily, I believe, by its planners, that that mobile-home park should be located at Fraser Mills on some land owned by Crown Zellerbach. In an attempt to accommodate and assist the district municipality in locating that mobile-home park where they thought it would be more acceptable, we went along with them. We carried out an appraisal of the value of the land. After the appraisal, we went through the negotiation process with Crown Zellerbach, which was fairly difficult because of the price involved. We made an offer of $3.3 million for that parcel of land, in the belief that the land could accommodate 200 mobile homes. However, because of the regulations imposed and the zoning bylaw put in place by the district municipality of Coquitlam, we concluded that the site would accommodate only 175 mobile homes; that in itself has had a bearing on the location.

The other issue that came to the fore, which we hadn't expected, was off-site servicing cost of $250,500. We came to the conclusion that it was necessary, because this was on the floodplain; it is necessary to spend $234,000 on fill material. Then the district municipality imposed a municipal development cost charge of $120,000 on the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. A lot has happened to the value of land in British Columbia since December 1981: prices have decreased very substantially since we carried out the appraisal of that land. Taking into consideration the realities of what had happened to land values — the value of those pads which would be strata title — plus the additional costs imposed on us, together with the fact that we would be able to locate 25 fewer mobile homes in that park, we had to revise our offer to Crown Zellerbach for the land. So instead of $3.3 million, we made an offer to Crown Zellerbach of $1,528,000, if I remember correctly; that amount recognizes not only the value of the land but the additional costs which we hadn't foreseen being imposed upon us in the development of this mobile-home park.

Another issue came to the fore: the question of a smoke easement. Crown Zellerbach wanted a smoke easement over the top of our mobile-home park. As far as we are concerned, that is strictly not acceptable in the development of a mobilehome park. If a smoke easement is required there, then the mobile-home park isn't required there.

But if the district municipality of Coquitlam is so in love with the site, in spite of the additional costs imposed on this development and what has happened to land values, I'm prepared to offer that district municipality all the funds they require for the development of that site. If they want to buy the site at $3.3 million — which I think is a bad deal — I'll lend them the money at 15 percent interest; then they can go ahead and service it and develop their own mobile-home parks. I don't think it's viable, but I'm prepared to lend them the money. In the meantime, we have to address the concerns of those people who have been given notice in the existing mobile-home park. We're prepared to look at the acquisition of private land in that district municipality: either the acquisition of private land or the development of a mobile-home park on Crown land in that area. We're aggressively pursuing the objective of finding an alternative site that would be acceptable. We're anxious to find replacement land so we can put together an attractive mobile-home park for these people which they can afford — not on land that's worth $3.3 million, plus all the other costs attached. We think we can find an acceptable one, where there is not the necessity of a smoke easement over top of the park as insisted on by Crown Zellerbach. Right now, right this very day, we are aggressively looking for an alternate site to accommodate the uncertainty that these people have in living in the existing park.

MR. LEVI: He's got all of the eloquence of a Robespierre and he sounds like Disraeli when he's really going along, and he's only had six days to rehearse this thing. I talked to him six days ago, and he's done really well.

The other thing that really horrified me was that if that smoke easement goes through, it goes over my house. What I want to ask the minister is this, just for clarification. As I understand it, the first arrangement expired at the end of May. Was that approximately when it was? They didn't answer the

[ Page 8663 ]

first deal; they didn't accept it. You then put a new proposal to them, as I understand it. The original offer made to them was not answered by them — that is, Crown Zellerbach. That is, it fell by the wayside and another deal had to be made. What I want to ask the minister is this: if that deal had gone through — that is, if they had accepted it — would you have gone ahead with it, given some of the reservations that you've talked about now? Did you put anything in the way of this deal so that it would not go through? Because you have quite a lot of reservations about it as it is. You even have reservations as to site.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want it or not?

MR. LEVI: Well, I'm dealing with the minister and his speech. Bear in mind that first of all there was an initial deal that followed the result of the meeting that we had with the minister. He was kind of lucky to get out of it. After all, he was looking at $3.3 million. Then they wouldn't come back because they wanted something else, and he's got a brand new deal. Then he decides to hose them, because I think he hosed them a little bit too, eh? After all, it's $1.75 million. I know you're on record now.... You're quite serious about the loan of the money, but not at the same site. Well, yes, you've indicated that if they want that site, then you'll let them have the site.

Let me ask you a general question apart from this. Perhaps the minister would spend a minute or two telling us where they're moving in terms of mobile-home parks, because this is not the only one that's needed. What are they doing in relation to this? What you've done now is almost an exercise of a policy — or is it just for this particular area? What are you doing with mobile-home park sites now? For instance, when we talked last December we looked at the possibility of making it part strata-title, part lease and part ownership. Has the government still got its hand on that, or is that something that would be up to the municipality? I'm not clear on that myself, frankly. What will happen if it goes through? Who actually has the say on how it's arranged in terms of lease, strata-title or ownership? What part is the ministry playing in that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would think that if the little Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is putting up the money, it'll have some say. On the Crown Zellerbach site, first of all when we made that offer of $3.3 million to Crown Zellerbach we weren't aware of these additional costs that were going to be imposed upon us. We had a commitment to proceed, and we probably would have proceeded without these additional costs of landfill, site servicing and the municipal development charge. We more than likely would have proceeded. It wouldn't have been the most lucrative development that we've been involved in, but nevertheless we probably would have proceeded. Also, the regulations made it such that we couldn't establish 200 units there: we had to go down to 175 units.

All of this stuff came up after the option we had expired. I believe the option we had expired in the latter part of February. Once that information came forward to us, we said there was no way that we could economically develop on that site. The site was essentially identified by the planners in the district municipality of Coquitlam and recommended to us in a sense of cooperation. We attempted to accommodate that particular site, and I suggest that it's really not feasible to develop there, even though I'm prepared to make an offer to the district municipality of the funds developed there if they have that kind of anxiety.

Even though they're kicking me around publicly right now on the issue. I suggest that they are not prepared to take the dollars that I'm prepared to offer them at 15 percent. They recognize that it's not a good economic park to develop, because of the various costs involved, the value of land, and what's happened to the value of land recently. Meantime, we're pressing on with trying to identify some alternate sites.

Fin sure the member recognizes that I'm just as anxious as tie is to find some alternate site for these people; I don't like to see their uncertainty as to where they're going to be living tomorrow. I think in that respect the district municipality of Coquitlam has a responsibility as well; they have a responsibility to consult \N with the owners of the mobile-home park and to tell them that Lands, Parks and Housing is moving as quickly as possible to find an alternate site. They should move to allay the fears of those people who have been given notice in the mobile-home park at Coquitlam.

MR. KEMPF: It's interesting to hear the debate that's just Lone on in regard to a mobile-home park in the riding of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I suggest that none of those problems would exist for the minister if we adhered to a policy of government staying out of the land business, as they should. I was interested to hear the minister say there has been a decrease in value of land since 1981. That's a very interesting statement, and it's one I probably will dwell on as the afternoon wears on.

Prior to adjourning for lunch, I was talking about a problem with regard to one of mv constituents: the charging of what I believe to be exorbitant lease rates for agricultural Crown land in this province. I was reading from a letter — a very unfortunate letter. to say the least — written to my constituent by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing field office in Smithers, and I was telling the House that I believe certain people in the public service have forgotten why it is they are there and who pays their wages. I just want to remind them and this House that the taxpayer pays their wages and they are there to serve the people of British Columbia. I'd like to see more of that happen, particularly out of the office of Lands, Parks and Housing in Smithers.

In regard to the particular problem of my constituent, who is being asked to pay an annual lease rate of $1, 294 for an agricultural lease covering approximately 200 acres, a piece of land assessed. as I told the House that this morning and I'll repeat it this afternoon — at....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I hear the socialists chattering on that side of the floor. They interject; they don't sit there and listen to proper debate.

MR. SKELLY: I was agreeing with you.

MR. KEMPF: That's when I get a little uptight and a little jittery, Mr. Member for Alberni, because I know what it is. I realize that we have some problems in the area of land in British Columbia, but I remember the problems we had back in the days of the NDP administration in this province. I can just imagine the problems that would exist if they ever came

[ Page 8664 ]

back into office in this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Alberni, because their philosophy, which hasn't changed, is that no one should own land in British Columbia; it should all belong to the state. There should be no private ownership of land in this province or this country. He chatters away, but I dare him to get up and say that is not his philosophy; that is not the philosophy of the NDP Let him give this House the assurance that if — heaven forbid — they ever became government, they wouldn't embark on a path of that kind of philosophy in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the hon. member for Alberni not to interrupt at all. I'll ask the hon. member for Omineca to relate his remarks to the estimates for the year 1982-83.

MR. KEMPF: We know that the socialists opposite don't believe in private ownership of land. That we learned a very good lesson of. It's probably one of the reasons for me being in this House at this time.

I was talking about the problem that exists. As I've said previously, it's not an isolated problem — the exorbitant lease fees being charged a constituent of mine, Mr. David Rozek. The amount being asked by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is $1,294 a year. It's the lease fee for a piece of property which the B.C. Assessment Authority values at an actual value of $6,000. I was asking the minister just before adjournment for lunch where his ministry obtained the value of $25,850, which is the value they have placed on that piece of property. Using the formula in place, that is the value they've used to try to extract $1,294 a year in lease fees for that piece of property from my constituent. That's my first question to the minister. How did they arrive at that figure? Did they dream it up? Did they pick it out of the air? Did they not for one minute take a took at what the B.C. Assessment Authority thought the real value of that particular piece of property was? I want to know where they got it.

I also want to know, when they got this figure of $25,850 as opposed to the figure of $6,000 laid down by the B.C. Assessment Authority, under what authority they presumed to use that $25,850 figure. That's my second question. I guess, before I get on to the many other examples that I have here and in my office that I wish to discuss during the estimates of this minister, I will sit down and listen to the answers to those two questions.

MS. BROWN: I would like to speak to the minister about the Harrison-Lillooet Goldrush Trail from Port Douglas to Little Lillooet Lake near 29 Mile House. I know he's got the answer, because I gave him all of this information about three weeks ago, so he could, when his estimates were up, be completely prepared and give a brilliant and articulate response to....

This particular trail is really part of the heritage of British Columbia, because it was the one that was used by the goldminers between 1858 and 1865 as the original route to the goldfields of the interior. It had been allowed to grow over and become quite disreputable, until some students from the McPherson Park Junior Secondary School, under the leadership of Charles Hou, their social studies teacher, decided that the project they should embark on was clearing the trail. They have cleared the trail, and it has in fact been used by students from a number of other schools in the Burnaby, Vancouver, North Vancouver and Port Coquitlam areas.

The students wrote to the Premier, as well as sending carbon copies to this minister and all of the MLAs in Burnaby, as well as Pierre Berton of Heritage Canada, suggesting that the provincial government should immediately freeze all land within 100 feet of each side of the trail. That way the trail would be preserved for posterity. What is presently happening is that there is logging and a number of other kinds of endeavours taking place right along the trail. This is destroying the trail.

They went on in their letter to the minister to point out that the area is blessed with several of the original old buildings and some prime archaeological sites, particularly at Port Douglas, 10 Mile House and 29 Mile House. About 60 percent of the trail is wilderness, and it's an excellent area for hiking.

I know the students recognize that maybe the Minister of Parks should not be the only one held responsible for the protection of this trail. They also contacted the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) to help with the financing, and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) as well as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I know they've spoken to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to see whether there can't be some funds allotted under the Heritage Trust Fund to help with the preservation of the trail. But the original request came to this particular ministry.

The students also signed a petition, which they sent to the Premier as well as to this minister and the other ministers whom I have mentioned earlier, stating that they were alarmed at the destruction of parts of the original wagon road and adjacent trees by recent logging, even though much of the logging has occurred on Indian reserve land. They have signed this petition — and it has nearly a hundred names of students on it — asking that this trail be preserved. Their recommendation for preservation of the trail is a freezing of land on either side of the trail; I think they're asking for 100 feet on either side of the trail.

I passed this on myself to the minister, as I said, two or three weeks ago, and I wonder whether the minister is ready at this time to respond to the students.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say yes, the member did hand me some correspondence she'd had from a group of school children from some particular school in her constituency, in which they'd signed a piece of paper suggesting that a trail they detected should be preserved. I think she called it the Hudson's Bay Trail. What did you call the trail?

MS. BROWN: It's the Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail. Well, I'm very pleased to see that a school teacher would take his children out into the less settled parts of British Columbia and try to educate them as to what a fine country we have — that there is more than the asphalt jungle of downtown Vancouver and downtown Burnaby. It's nice to see.

However, it takes some time before we can respond to that kind of plea made by these children. I might say that they wrote to the member; they didn't write to the minister. The member didn't burnp into me in the hallway, but the member handed me this material in the hallway. I think I've indicated to the member that when she talks about archaeological sites

[ Page 8665 ]

and things of that nature, we have a heritage conservation branch under the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, and maybe that request she makes should more properly be directed to the Provincial Secretary. However, the matter is being looked at by officials of my ministry. I don't know whether it is a trail of historical significance or not.

I signed an agreement with the federal government just a few weeks ago in the community of Quesnel in British Columbia in which we dedicated one of the largest and most significant trails in all of Canada, the Mackenzie-Grease Trail. I want to tell you that the designation or the protection of trails doesn't happen overnight. This one, the Mackenzie-Grease Trail, which is 300-odd miles long from the Blackwater country on to Bella Coola, is a trail of great significance. It goes through I ands belonging to four Indian bands, and it was difficult to negotiate access through there. There is still some controversy over it, even though I think the Mackenzie Grease Trail is of some significance.

People of my ministry will assess the request that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has made on behalf of some students from her constituency. As soon as we've had a response from our people in the ministry, I'll be glad to tell the member whether we're able to concur with her request. So in respect to that request from the member, the matter is pending.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) talked about an assessment on Mr. Rozek's property. The property was appraised by ministry staff, who have determined that the value of the property is $25,888. That's the way that land value is determined. Unless there is a dispute about the value attached to the land, we don't go to the full-fledged independent appraisals, because that's costly. However, if there is a dispute, it has been policy in the ministry to suggest to the individual that he engage an independent appraiser at his expense. If our figure is out of whack, we'd be glad to refund him the money on the appraisal cost. But if it's relatively close to our figure, he would have to pay the bill for the appraisal.

Every five years the price is reviewed. It's not subject to the Assessment Authority and what figures they place on the land. In many instances in some of the more remote areas of the province I'm sure that the Assessment Authority doesn't necessarily get to update or inspect the various parcels of land to determine the actual value. I don't have our assessment in front of me, but it was made by ministry staff, I presume, from the Smithers region.

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify for the minister that the students of McPherson Park Junior Secondary are not just children from my constituency. They are young British Columbians who are very actively involved and interested in the heritage of this province.

I did not bump into him in the hallway. I went to a lot of trouble to find him. I had to stalk him for a couple of days, quite frankly. I hope that he will give this request his very serious consideration, because I think the young people are really interested in having some response from him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I have a brief response. Policies are what we have an abundance of in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. We're in the process of putting a recreational corridor policy in place, which I'm sure will address the issue that you've brought to my attention.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister says that his ministry is full of policies, and I agree. It's full of policies, but no action.

I want to talk about housing this afternoon for a little while; not too long. In previous debates during this minister's estimates I made the mistake of thinking that we could present some rational, intelligent proposals, and that some consideration would be given to them by the minister so we could then embark on a serious housing program in this province. I guess in my youthful naivety I didn't understand that I shouldn't really try to be serious about housing issues with this particular minister, because his mind is on the grease trail, the lands, and the parks a little bit — but not too much. It's very rarely on housing.

I m not going to talk today about things I've talked about in previous sessions in which I've outlined our party's position on housing and the seriousness with which we view the crisis in housing in this province, particularly in terms of affordable housing. Rather. I'm going to do a very brief overview of a number of specific issues to which I think the minister should give more careful attention than he's given to date.

Before doing that — I think the minister will be amused by this — I want to use, as my chief ally in this debate, references to HUDAC. They're the great friends of the New Democratic Party.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They're my friends.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister's friends.

Let me repeat what the president of HUDAC says about his friend the minister. "He says the industry is extremely disappointed with the performance of Lands, Parks and Housing minister Jim Chabot." This isn't a quote; this is the reporter's summation of Mr. Barker's point of view. "Provincial housing policy lacks coordination and is directed at helping the wrong people. a spokesman for the housing industry said Friday," He and HUDAC would like to see the Housing portfolio placed in the hands of one minister, and that minister would have that exclusive responsibility. In that, he agrees with us, and we agree with him.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wouldn't go that far, Mr. Member. He says it doesn't receive adequate attention from the current minister. He says we don't have a firm provincial housing policy — and we need one. Right now both the federal and provincial governments are involved in housing without any coordination of long-range planning, and this is April of this year. The problem right now is the affordability of housing. They shouldn't be ploughing money into industry, but should be helping consumers. HLTDAC, in its statement of policy and philosophy in their 1982 housing policy statement, had a central theme....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I'll get to that. I see your pretty little brochure. Here it is here; it's coming a bit later.

I did want to talk about HUDAC, first of all, because when we have allies like this we must be on the right track. HUDAC says as its statement of philosophy that "the crisis of housing accommodation will repeatedly surface until the

[ Page 8666 ]

government of British Columbia assumes its full responsibility to plan for adequate accommodations for its people." I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, and our caucus agrees. It's strange, because over the years that I've been involved in paying some attention to the housing field, I've discovered that if we have any clearly identified ideological opponents in the province, they would be members of HUDAC. Interestingly, things that they are saying, both about the minister and about the role of government in housing, are things that we've been trying to say on this side of the House too. I think Mr. Barker's comments are quite apt and need to be considered seriously by both the minister and his government.

I think there's no question whatsoever that the single biggest problem in the housing field today is the question of affordability. Many people cannot afford to buy — not because of the prices, as they're beginning to come down to reasonable levels, but because of interest rates. More critically for many people, they're unable to rent. If we need any evidence of that, it's that despite the fact that apartments are coming free — in the sense that there appears to be the beginning of a surplus of supply in the rental accommodation field — there is no surplus of supply in controlled rental accommodation. Obviously there is not a surplus of supply in social housing controlled by B.C. Housing Management Commission either, because the lists do not go down; the lists stay up. There are currently around 10,000 people on the waiting list — years and years in waiting. I don't think it's necessary for me to take the time of the House this afternoon to prove the case that the issue of housing is affordability. The ministry's policy or statement of goals or approach to housing is laid out in this housing policy that the minister just referred to a moment ago. It's a pretty brochure; it looks like a campaign leaflet, in fact. I notice that it was introduced just prior to an imminent campaign, and not early in the administration of the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go through in detail all of the statements of philosophy that are contained in this housing policy for the government, because they are really more rhetorical than substantial. I want to pick up on the graph on page 3 and point out what I think is evidence, clearly demonstrated by the brochure itself, that what Mr. Barker and HUDAC are saying is accurate; that is, the government has no long-term policy. The minister will note, as he looks at his copy of this brochure, that in 1978 and in 1979 housing starts were generally lower than they had been in the decade between 1971 and 1981. We had roughly 28,000 starts in those two years of 1978 and 1979. That was a time when starts were more essential. At that time we were going into a period of shortage of supply. We had prices beginning their ascent; we had uncontrolled rents beginning their ascent into higher levels. That was a result of there being, a very serious shortage of supply which had been created, in a sense, by a lack of housing starts in those years.

Long-term planning would have recognized in 1978-1979 that we needed more starts to head off the kind of gold-rush housing boom that developed in the years following. In 1980-81, when the trend was starting to go the other way, when it was beginning.... It hadn't happened yet, but the evidence was beginning that there would be an opening up, a surplus, particularly in terms of single-family detached residences. What have we got? Giving the minister his due, we've got virtually the highest level of starts. In 1980 the figures basically matched the highest starts we had during an NDP government some years before, and in 1981 we had the highest starts of all in the ten-year period. But this was at a time when we were going into a period of housing surplus, and what we needed was some attention to the question of affordability.

Now you can't make the total argument in a few minutes in the House, and you certainly can't make this total argument by basing the argument on this graph. But I think what it does is illustrate that for too long now in the province we have not done the long-range kind of planning. We have not built housing at the right time. We have not concentrated the efforts that governments can generate on behalf of the creation of supply at the time the supply is needed, and then eased off that and dealt with the question of affordability when that is uppermost in people's minds. Now we have the question of affordability being the issue. And what do we have? We have attention to supply.

If supply and demand worked as they theoretically work, then supply would bring down the cost — fine. But what happens is that a supply of the wrong kind of housing is being created. There is no supply of affordable housing in the rental field. I think it will begin to happen as a result of market conditions, but there is still not yet a supply of affordable housing in the single-family detached market. There certainly is no surplus of supply in social housing, whether it be co-ops, public housing, seniors' or disabled housing — those four categories. There is no surplus of supply at all in those areas of housing that are most crucial, and those are the areas where affordability is the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a couple of letters — not the entire letters, but portions of them — into the record to put a human face on the reality. Rather than me standing up and talking in general terms about the fact that there is a crisis in affordable housing, I think the point could be made more meaningfully by reading what people's lives are really like.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This letter from a woman in Burnaby — whose name is available, but I won't read it into the record — is really quite touching, because it demonstrates the kind of problem that faces a lot of people. It's a lengthy letter, but I do want to read it. It's the only letter I'll read at length in these estimates. The letter is addressed to the minister with a copy to me. It's dated February 11, but I still haven't received my copy of the minister's reply. She says:

"Dear Sir:

"The growing housing crisis is creating serious hardships for many. Since purchasing a home is now impossible for thousands such as myself, we are left at the mercy of the rental market, which is equally frightening. I have been fortunate in that my family has been living in subsidized housing since 1975. However, I will probably face termination of my lease shortly, due in large part to what I consider unfair policy.

"'At the time of application I was a single parent raising five sons on social assistance. However, before assuming occupancy I became employed on a full-time basis. I was assigned a three-bedroom unit and have worked conscientiously at being a responsible parent and tenant. As my income is relatively low — less than $14,000 gross in 1981 — the housing subsidy has made it possible to continue to work.

[ Page 8667 ]

"As my sons approached the age of majority, I was confronted by the policy that forces children to either assume responsibility for paying a portion of my rent or get out. As a parent who takes her responsibility seriously, I find this very distasteful. With the continuing decline of the economy and the growing rate of unemployment, particularly related to young people, my sons have experienced considerable difficulty in finding steady employment. As a result, I have often found it necessary to support them well beyond the age of 19, and in fact continue to do so. This involves not only providing basic necessities but also paying for their medical coverage, as government decrees that a person over the age of 19 cannot be claimed as a dependant.

"My sons have never been subjected to the humiliation of applying for 'social assistance,' in spite of being instructed to do so by housing staff so that an additional amount of rent can be charged. If a parent supports a young adult for several months, surely it is not inconceivable that said child be expected to reimburse that parent by paying room and board once employment is gained. If that young person owes anyone, it's certainly not the Ministry of Housing. If the parent lives in subsidized housing, the young person will probably be forced to leave home, because if he stays, the parent must declare his salary in addition to hers. The parent is then required to sign a lease assuming the responsibility of paying rent calculated on income considerably higher than her own. In other words, the parent becomes a bill collector for the Ministry of Housing.

"Should a young person be paying room and board, his financial obligation now doubles and he soon realizes it's no longer advantageous to him or his parents to remain at home. Usually young people remain at home until they are able to acquire the necessary elements to become independent. However, two of my sons have been forced to move out and a third is contemplating the same. Should this son choose to leave, I am told I must vacate my unit because policy states that two people cannot live in a three-bedroom unit. There are no two-bedroom units available, and I am too young to qualify for senior housing.

"I have spent the past two years worrying about the loss of accommodation, and have investigated coop housing and applied for federally subsidized accommodation. However, both involve considerable waiting periods.

"It is ironic that someone earning less than $14,000 a year can be forced to vacate premises because they have one bedroom too many. Yet a neighbour, formerly a single parent on assistance, in identical accommodation, living common-law for two years with a combined income of probably $50,000, is able to remain. How can this be called low-income housing?

"As one of the working poor, I have concluded that the past seven years have been an exercise in futility. What is the use? I have overcome many difficulties, but the knowledge that I will soon be forced to meet rental payments of between $450 and $600 monthly is more than I can handle. It is time to admit defeat and throw in the towel."

I don't read this letter with a view to obtaining a specific answer to this woman's problem. I don't agree with some of the things she says about the policy. In some respects, I think the policy is appropriate; certainly the extra bedroom shouldn't be sitting unused, etc. I read the letter for a different reason: there is a growing sense of despair, growing frustration — frustration may not be the right word; anxiety probably — among many people, some of whom are making what we would consider a reasonable amount of money — $14,000 — as compared to welfare. It's almost as much as an MLA makes.

There is a growing element in society which shares the concerns of this woman, expressed in her letter to the minister and myself, about her specific problem with B.C. Housing Management Commission. I think we have to deal seriously with the fact that thousands upon thousands of people in this province feel that same sense of anxiety and worry. That number is growing: it's not diminishing. The minister's policies aren't accomplishing anything that I can see to make life easier and more secure for people such as the woman whose letter I have just read.

First United Church in Vancouver has a committee called the First United Church Social Housing Society. I want to read sections of a letter written to me by a representative of this group. Their concern is to develop affordable housing in the downtown east side of Vancouver:

"Letters have been written to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and though he applauds our efforts, he offers no encouragement in any material way. The reality is that the provincial government has been regrettably negligent in its responsibility to provide adequate housing for the people in the area. Proposals to provide 15 percent social housing on the B.C. Place site, using existing subsidy programs, will do little to alleviate the problem."

Further on, he says:

"The south side of False Creek was developed to allow an income mix of one-third low, one-third medium and one-third luxury accommodation. Fifteen percent low-income affordable housing, which B.C. Place is proposing. Is a shameful disgrace by comparison at a time when the need is dramatically more critical."

I wrote back to the gentleman and his committee, basically endorsing what he said.

For a moment I want to deal with the whole question of the government's approach to affordability. Since 1975, no new social housing has been constructed to be managed by B.C. Housing Management Commission. The waiting list of the B.C. Housing Management Commission is in the order of 10,000. You have to decide how you're going to count applicants. Are you going to count groups of applicants, couples. families, or are you going to count individuals? Then there are seniors and so on. However, a figure of 10,000 is a fair approximation of the number on the waiting list of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Thousands upon thousands of other potentially eligible residents in this province don't even know about the B.C. Housing Management Commission and their possible option to get into that kind of housing, No more is being created, yet there is an overwhelming demand.

[ Page 8668 ]

Even though the government may have to swallow some ideological pride in its determination not to become involved in what it sees as a "socialist venture," it needs to understand that B.C. Housing Management, through its facilities, provides a very real and needed service to a great many British Columbians, but that that need is much greater than what is being met at the present time.

The letter from the First United Church talks about housing at B.C. Place. I think there is an opportunity in this development to provide a much greater element of social housing. I'm not going to make that argument any more, other than just stating it. I think the evidence is clear. I don't think it needs argument. It's not as if we're in a debate about that. We obviously have a crisis in affordable housing. We obviously have the possibility of a solution at B.C. Place, and I think I'll just leave the argument at that.

I do want to ask the minister some questions about the B.C. Place housing arrangements. The minister knows that I have some considerable question in my mind about, if not outright opposition to, programs such as those offered by the Finance minister of Canada the other day, proposing that $3,000 be made available to people buying or building homes between now and the end of the year. My feeling about that is that it does not meet the needs of those people who are most in need of a house, and is in fact just an extra $3,000 to help people who can afford to buy a house in the $100,000 range. Quite frankly, I think those programs are wasted money, and I certainly wouldn't be party to those kinds of decisions.

I want to ask some specifics about what I think are similar arrangements in B.C. Place developments. There was a story in the Sun on June 24, 1982, which described "a scheme to allow middle-income earners to buy into B.C. Place housing by mortgaging their future earnings and the expected increase in value of their houses." No details of any consequence have been released by this....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The MIDSAL program.

MR. GABELMANN: I had a different pronunciation on the second letter in that one.

We're talking about housing that, let's say, costs $100,000. You're then talking about a mortgage reduction from, say, 19 percent to 12 percent. I suspect that 19 percent is a bit low today with the prime at 18.25 percent or 18.5 percent, or whatever it's at. Let's say 19 percent, subsidized, based on future equity of some kind, to 12 percent — a subsidy of 7 percent. You're talking about allowing people to buy that housing on a subsidized basis in the meantime, because somebody has to be paying the banks the difference between the 12 percent and 19 percent. This housing would be available to people who have a family income of $37,000 or more, unless they have a large down payment — I'm excluding that. The average B.C. family income is $29,000. We're talking about providing significant subsidized dollars. There's no guarantee of future earnings on the part of that family going up. Nor is there any guarantee of the price going up to recover the subsidy — today, whether they're recovered or not in the future, to provide subsidies for people who earn more than $37,000 a year. Those families are not the families who should be subsidized.

Why doesn't the government, in cooperation with the federal government, take that same money available today and put it into co-op housing? At least in co-op housing you're subsidizing a different income group. Columbia

Housing figures show that 68 percent of families in co-op housing have a gross family income of less than $20,000. Only 6 percent have over $35,000. That's part of the group of people who should be assisted, in my view, in any housing projects that are initiated by the Crown, whether provincial or federal. I don't understand why we're getting into the position, as the federal government has done, of subsidizing by large amounts people who don't really need those subsidies. I can think of some of the mortgages from federal government projects that are just obscene — where you're spending thousands and thousands of dollars of subsidy for people who don't need a third of that kind of subsidy. I won't go into any detail about that.

Maybe the minister has a very rational and logical explanation for this particular housing proposal that's going on at B.C. Place. It may be that I don't have any criticism of it. I doubt that, but I'd like to hear the minister's response as to how he intends to further develop that particular proposal.

Talking about B.C. Place, I talked about co-ops. I just hope that when the minister meets the federal minister later this month he does everything he can to make it clear, first of all, that we have a serious affordability problem here on the west coast, and that one of the most effective vehicles for dealing with that problem is the co-op housing movement — I call it a movement, but co-op housing in itself. Columbia Housing has at least 2,000 people on its waiting-list for coops which haven't been planned. They have 1,200 on waiting lists for proposed co-ops outside the inner city, and a lot of those get stalled in the way. I'm not going to get into those particular projects that are not getting together as quickly as they should.

Mr. Chairman, the minister should endeavour to extract every single available federal dollar for co-op housing, and we should get on with that kind of housing. It's one of the most valuable and least costly subsidized programs in society today, and I commend it highly. It's not for everybody, but it's certainly for a lot of people, and the demand at the present time certainly outweighs the provision.

Senior citizens' housing. I think in past years I've complimented the minister on some of the senior citizens' housing programs, but I'm not sure I can do that this year. The approvals aren't coming the way they should, and some people are being told that they're going to have to wait till next year. Out of interest I was curious just to see what the figures were from 1972 to 1982. Under the NDP government.... You can't count 1972-73, because that's W.A.C.'s doing; there were about 1,000 units that year. We increased it by 75 to 2,600-plus units of senior housing. That figure gradually dropped down to 1981 when there were 395 units completed — not units proposed or on the drawing-board but completed — and the figure has dropped steadily. In 1981 it was 395, according to ministry's figures. You get over an argument about when they're approved, when they're finished and that kind of thing, so numbers always have two different applications. But I'm just saying that the trend is down. We're not building as many senior units.

MS. BROWN: When the minister was making his opening comments about housing, he really did a little bit of bragging about the number of units that had been developed for senior citizens, and I just don't know whether the minister realizes what the waiting-list is. I think you mentioned 2,000 units. Am I correct?

[ Page 8669 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's 1,460.

MS. BROWN: It's 1,460, Mr. Chairman. There is a waiting-list as of June 30, which I got from B.C. Housing, of 7,220 people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That isn't all seniors.

MS. BROWN: No, it's seniors and the disabled waiting to get into B.C. housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Low-cost housing.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The problem that we're having is that according to the statistics, something in the neighbourhood of 11,000 people in the province are attaining the age of 65 every year. So the number of seniors needing housing is increasing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some move to Hawaii.

MS. BROWN: One or two, but a large number remain in the province. So 1,460 units is not even a drop in the bucket. I'm wondering whether the minister would give an indication of the number of units planned for the future, so that we can see whether he is going to be able to catch up with this waiting-list that we have.

The other thing that he bragged about was 200 units developed under the 44(1)(a) program for the disabled, Mr. Chairman. Again, that is not even a drop in the bucket, because I know that the minister has received correspondence from the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, which is just one component of the disabled community, and they are saying that they need a catchup of at least 500 units right now and then an additional 200 units every year from now on just to deal with the phasing out of the institutions which is being done by the Ministry of Human Resources, and the moving of the mentally retarded into the community. So 200 units were insufficient. I wonder if the minister will confirm that that number is going to be reduced, and that for 1982-83 there are only going to be 100 units developed for the disabled, despite the fact that the 200 units developed last year were insufficient.

When the B.C. Housing Management Commission gave a breakdown of wheelchair applicants, for example, they said they had 37 single wheelchair applicants and 21 couples waiting for specialized housing. So right now we have a waiting-list of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 68. Surely the 100 units which we were told he has planned for the coming year are not going to be sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to sympathize with the minister, because I received a copy of his letter to the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded. He shared with them the fact that as willing as he was to develop additional housing, he would be unable to do so. Just for the record, I think I should read it. In responding to Mrs. Clark, the minister stated: "There is no disagreement on the value of the Ministry of Human Resources' thrust towards deinstitutionalizing and decentralizing of services for mentally disabled persons. To the extent that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing can contribute to this thrust, we shall endeavour to do so." However, he goes on to talk about the fact that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier have recently emphasized "this very tight fiscal constraint which the government faces," and he therefore finds that "in light of this fiscal restraint" he is going to have to "reduce the annual level of new project approvals."

To what extent is this reduction going to take place? Is there any truth to the fact that there are only going to be 100 units coming on stream for the disabled, rather than an increase over the 200 units which came on stream last year? The minister bragged about the 200 units, and they were in fact insufficient.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few items that I want to cover briefly. I was talking about senior citizens' housing earlier. I want to close on that by saying that although there may be some argument — and it's easy to understand why there would be — about the precise numbers each year, I think it's pretty clear that when you talk about units completed through the late seventies and into the early eighties, you're talking about going from between 1,000 and 2,000 down to 500, 200, 300 and 300 again. That's the trend, even though you might say the trend is increasing this year. There were approvals in 1980 for about 500, and in 1981 for 697, and in 1982 there were 86 approvals in the first quarter. I hope that four times 86 doesn't become the 1982 figures approved.

In any event, however you slice it — and there are various ways of arguing it — the fact is that the seniors' housing program has diminished dramatically over the years. Groups out there who want to construct seniors' housing are finding that they're being told by ministry officials: "Sorry, not this year; there's no money. I think that's really quite dreadful.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) made reference to disabled persons' housing, and I want to do that as well. I'd just like informally to read into the record the concern of the British Columbia Association for the Mentally Retarded over the ministry's response to 44(1)(a) NHA programs. The reaction from the ministry to them was that they were told last year that mentally handicapped persons were no longer eligible under 44(1)(a).

This is a quote from the letter from the president of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded: "I believe 91 mentally handicapped persons benefited from your ministry's programs. This year the suggestion is that they are to be discriminated against." I'm sure the minister will get up and blame it on the federal government, but there are ways of dealing with these problems, if the ministry had any resolve and any desire to want to do it.

An interesting letter arrived just the other day from the Muscular Dystrophy Association — not your typical radical, left-wing, socialist group.

"Dear Mr. Gabelmann:

"l am confident that you are well aware of the present crisis in housing, especially that facing the disabled community. I wish that the government in Victoria would show some evidence that they are also aware of this situation. Their present insane policy of rental subsidy cutbacks for the disabled and seniors shows no sense of reality. Would you try again to make them realize how ill-advised their policy is? With accessible and affordable housing the disabled can make the first step towards integration into the mainstream. The social cost of such housing is defrayed by the disabled who are thus converted into taxpaying members of the workforce.

[ Page 8670 ]

" I know that trying to convince the Socreds of their folly is a thankless task, but could you continue to try to enlighten them."

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's pretty political.

MR. GABELMANN: This is from the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Mr. Chairman. They're getting political: obviously things are in pretty difficult shape. I don't think it is a thankless task at all to try to persuade the minister to do some of these things. The voters will probably be thanking us in the next election, and that'll be thanks enough, Mr. Chairman.

The concern is there. In 1981, just because it was the United Nations Year of the Disabled, the government did the grand gesture and said okay, we'll make 200 units. That was a beginning. That's how that should have been viewed. It was the beginning of a program that was very worthwhile and that financially created a return, in the long term, in terms of the costs of providing services for disabled people in our society. I really do not understand why that's being cut back to the 100 level this year. Between us, I think the member for Burnaby Edmonds (Ms. Brown) and I have covered that issue.

The CNIB situation in Vancouver. My understanding of the situation is as follows. There is a society being established now by the CNIB to set up a housing society so they can act as the agent, as it were, to build an alternative building to replace the one that the city of Vancouver is condemning. I believe the city of Vancouver has given them an extension on the current building so that they can get their act together. I understand that recently, at least, the minister has had discussions with the members of the Legislature from Little Mountain, and that some attention is being given to the CNIB. I'd just like to know what's happening, what the minister intends to do, and whether there will be any assistance to speed up the process, which normally takes some time, of applications for this sort of housing that the CNIB is endeavouring to obtain. I will leave it at that, if I can get a response from the minister about the current status of it.

My final issue in this part of the debate, Mr. Chairman, relates to mortgage foreclosures. I had hoped that the minister's answers to questions in the Legislature from both me and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).... As I remember it, he talked about there being four categories of 200 each of foreclosures so far in British Columbia this year. I think there were 201 in the chartered banks,200 in credit unions, etc. There's a total of about 800 home mortgage foreclosures in the province. I had hoped that that indicated that we didn't have a problem. I have two concerns. One is that in the business pages of the Province yesterday, the supreme court administrator in Vancouver indicated that there were 1,749 foreclosures in the first six months of 1982. These are home; these aren't businesses.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those are actions.

MR. GABELMANN: Here we go again; it's like dealing with seniors' housing. I can quote any number of figures, and the minister can quote any number of other figures, and we'll both be right.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those are foreclosure actions.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand that those are foreclosure actions, and there's a six-month period, and if they've got a good lawyer they can get another six months out of it, and they do, so you've got a year after the writ is filed and all of that. I understand all of that. The point I want to make is that they're increasing. The actions are increasing. Those aren't foreclosures: I agree with the minister. In the first six months of this year there were 1,749 foreclosure actions initiated in the B.C. supreme court. In the month of June alone there were 446 such actions, compared with 432 in the whole of 1981. There were obviously more than 12 times as many in June on a monthly basis. You have as many this June as you had in all of 1981. What this demonstrates, when you put it together with the obvious fact that you glean from any financial institution or any homeowner in trouble, is that foreclosure actions are not being started now because the banks and financial institutions don't want the homes. They can't sell them and they don't want the added liability; they don't want their money tied up in assets that in many case aren't worth as much as the mortgage itself. Demonstrably, and I think unarguably, what we have out there is a crisis in people's lives of quite dramatic proportions. There are literally thousands upon thousands of British Columbians who cannot meet their monthly mortgage payments now. I don't think very much has been done by this government to deal with that problem.

In conclusion, at the request of one of my constituents who cannot meet her mortgage, may I do her a favour, as I promised I would, and ask the minister why he thinks people who raise race-horses should get 12 percent money for developing better stables and better facilities, while she has to pay 20 percent interest for a house.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where do they get the 12 percent money?

MR. GABELMANN: They get the 12 percent money from both the federal and provincial governments, through various programs.

I think our priorities in this society are sometimes askew; we find money for programs which might, in ordinary days, be worthwhile.... I'm not sure about the horse-racing thing, but in ordinary days it might be an appropriate use of taxpayers money. But when people are losing their homes, and renters are having to double up because they can't afford the rent, at the same time as governments are providing cheap money for various other actions, then I think our policies are askew. Food, shelter and clothing are the three basic elements of life. If people cannot be guaranteed by their government that they can be properly fed, housed and clothed, then I think governments are failing.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the fact that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who has been waiting quite a while to get up, has given me a chance to ask my one question, which is in reference to Brentwood House in Burnaby. I corresponded with the minister, and he was kind enough to answer me in January. Since January I have been watching very carefully to see whether anything has been done. I'll just give you the basic problem again, and perhaps you could check into it for me. In Brentwood House the third and fourth floors are almost vacant; they could provide rooms for 31 senior citizens. There is a mix of students and seniors.

[ Page 8671 ]

When there is a shortage of good rooms for senior citizens, I don't know why, after all this time, those two floors are sitting empty. That's my question. The people in Brentwood House tell me the senior citizens are very happy there. Why not make 31 more senior citizens happy, and allow those rooms to be used?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Brentwood House is not one of our better complexes, as far as economics are concerned. It's a bit of a loser, I might say. Nevertheless, if there are some vacant suites which would be suitable for senior citizens, we're prepared to examine that point and get back to you.

I won't attempt to answer all the questions from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) about Jack Barker and HUDAC — my old friends. When you hurt economically, you probably tend to lash out from time to time. When you have an inventory of unsold houses, you hurt and you want to lash out at someone. My friends lash out, even though I meet with them: I've gone to speak to the HUDAC group in Vancouver. I think we have a pretty good relationship, despite the fact that the head of HUDAC makes derogatory statements from time to time about this little minister over here.

On the question of affordability, while prices in British Columbia, primarily in the lower mainland, are decreasing very substantially at this time, there is still a very serious affordability problem, caused primarily by high interest rates over which we have very limited control.

Yes, there is a shortage of social housing in British Columbia at this time because of the waiting lists. There's an attraction for people to get into social housing because of the economic rent structure, whereby no one pays more than 25 percent of their income to live in that type of accommodation. That tends to attract people to that type of housing. I had hoped to increase the supply with the new Canada rental supply program initiated by the federal government, in which we're going to participate, but the federal government is a government that needs some support from the people. They try to initiate programs on their own. They don't want any piggybacking on the part of the provincial government; they don't want any companion program, because they hope to attract some support from the voter community out there. While I had suggested, when I met with Mr. Cosgrove last fall, that we were prepared to assist in that interest-free loan program to increase the supply of rental accommodation, he said that he wanted no piggybacking from the provincial government to make it more attractive for people to build rental accommodation in this province.

Within the Canada rental supply program, a certain percentage of the units are supposed to be designated as social housing. Up to about one-third of those units can be directed towards social housing units. However, the minister in charge of CMHC has broken off negotiations as far as this program is concerned. I'll be meeting with the Minister of Public Works in my office on July 22 and will have an opportunity to discuss this with him then.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

On the question of housing for senior citizens, we have in British Columbia at this time about 1, 460 units in the design, planning or approved stage. We hope to proceed with these units of senior citizens' housing as quickly as possible. We have a larger allocation of dollars than we've had for some years for senior citizens' housing in this province. We are limited by the number of units to which the federal government is prepared to give their 2 percent mortgage money. We generally attempt to achieve an annual number of 600 units of senior citizens' housing; it's now 1,460. I'm proud of the number of housing units for the handicapped that were constructed last year: four times more than in any previous year. This year will be a good year.

As for B.C. Place. that's under the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). You should ask him that question.

On the Columbia Housing statistics on incomes of people living in co-op housing in British Columbia, I'd like to get those. They've never been made available to me or my ministry. I'd be very interested in seeing that; it's information that we need. I'd love to have the member send it over to me.

On the CNIB's Queen Elizabeth Hall, yes, I believe that building was condemned by the fire marshal. It's not a senior citizens' housing project. It's essentially an extended-care unit to which the Ministry of Health makes some contribution. It's not a full-fledged extended-care unit, so my involvement is essentially nil.

MR. HOWARD: I have a few brief comments, in a representational way, to the minister regarding the Lakelse Hot Springs. The hot springs, as the minister knows, were acquired by the Crown in 1979 and have sat there ever since. It's almost an insult to the people in that area who drive by those hot springs fairly regularly and see what used to be a very worthwhile and acceptable local family-oriented facility.

When the hot springs were acquired by the Crown, the former Minister of Agriculture and others in that area indicated that it might cost something in the neighbourhood of $5 million to build another facility. I inquired of a number of people I know in the business community as to whether they would put $5 million into it at that time, and I couldn't find a taker anywhere in Terrace or Kitimat. They said: "No, we just don't think that for that capital expenditure it will generate enough use and enough income for a return on the capital investment." Even at a modest 10 percent, they would need to acquire a net profit position of something like $500,000. So nothing occurred in that regard.

The minister undertook to hire a firm of consultants — DPA Consulting, I believe, was the name of the firm — at a cost of about $50,000 to examine the potential for the hot springs and to make a report about it, which they did. Subsequently the minister asked for proposals to develop and didn't receive any. I should qualify that. He did not receive any of the size that he had anticipated would come along. No Hilton International indicated any interest in the whole thing, although a couple of local people did put proposals forward on what they considered might happen with the hotsprings. Nothing ha taken place with respect to that.

I understand the Ministry of Agriculture is now conducting some internal examination with respect to the prospect of greenhouses in the hot springs. They would use the heat from the hot-water pool through a closed fresh-water system to heat greenhouses, which is something that I've advocated for a long time.

The taxpayers are currently pouring $800 a month down the drain for caretakers, plus I don't know how many dollars a month for hydro, etc. There is a chain across the place, and it really isn't a very satisfactory-looking set of buildings out there. I would estimate that with respect to that hot springs the minister has blown about $100,000 on consultant fees

[ Page 8672 ]

and offers for proposals, or whatever it was he talked about, and caretakers' fees, hydro fees and other costs associated with it. We don't have anything yet except a chain across the gate.

A local society has recently arisen in the area, Mr. Minister, interested in doing something with those hot springs in order to get them started in the direction of a local family operated system — something that would have a family connection to it — so that families in the area could go there with their children and use the pool and the facilities. This was the case when Ray Skoglund first developed it some years ago. It was a very worthwhile project and concept.

I think the minister needs to look at that in a serious way and for the time being forget his grandiose plan of a $10 million to $15 million world-scale complex there. He tried that, and he didn't get any offers. Start it off at a community level, start it off as a family-oriented facility, and you'd be moving in the right direction.

I think the first thing that should perhaps occur — you can develop some employment this way — is to move towards completely razing the buildings that are there now. I went out in 1979 with an architect and have gone back with others since that time — builders and so on — to look at it. Professionals say that the thing to do is to tear it down, because you can't renovate it or adjust it, or you're just going to have a mishmash of injured property and buildings that have been hurt by floods that have been in disuse for some period of time. You'll just have a fourth-rate facility if you try to juggle around with it now. I suggest that what the minister should do is to put it out for tenders, if necessary, for people to bid on tearing it down and perhaps salvage whatever they can from it in terms of material that might be saleable to people in the area. A lot of that material would be saleable to local residents for use in their own homes, garages or buildings. He should start off in that way.

I think if the minister goes in that direction, he will be doing the correct and proper thing and will be indicating to the people in the area that yes, he has the same vision that those of us who live in that area have about the manner in which the development of those hot springs should commence: namely small, locally oriented in its use and family oriented as well. If the minister will do that, I will guarantee to take from him all the heat that he's now receiving from his colleague who sits down at the end the chamber. I'll relieve all of that, if I can, and he'll find in me a lifelong friend if he'll just take this little step towards....

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm in trouble.

MR. HOWARD: I'll just be a friend for a few years then, if that's more satisfactory.

You'll find great support from the municipalities, the regional district, the local association and everybody who lives in that area. For what it's worth, you'll find accolades from me — friendship, generosity and help. Just take that little step, start off and see that those hot springs are developed on the basis that they should initially have been developed, leading toward something of a greater magnitude than is possible right at the moment.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, with friends like him, who needs enemies? I think you should really tell the full story. I know some of the heat that I get from that part of the province comes from the member for Skeena. He attacks me from time to time and goes live on television when he makes those infrequent trips to that far-flung riding of Skeena. He's got to find some way of attracting attention up in the riding, and he always feels that Lakelse Hot Springs is a good whipping boy, and so he whips it up.

I think that the full story should be told, but I'm not going to tell it today. Nevertheless the provincial government inherited.... It did not go out and attempt to acquire Lakelse Hot Springs, but Canadian-American Loan and Investment Corp. of Calgary wanted to get rid of this fabulous hot springs that he talks about shortly after a flood virtually destroyed that entire facility up there. They were looking for someone, and as a tax write-off advantage, of course, they were looking to the provincial government to acquire these assets. An appraisal was carried out.

MR. HOWARD: Before that — it wasn't the flood that did it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, they might have attempted to sell them off, but unsuccessfully. They looked to the provincial government to acquire these assets, which we did, and I've been saddled with them ever since. We did engage a consultant to prepare a package to identify the history as well as the potential of the hot springs, and the potential clientele that could be attracted to Lakelse Hot Springs. I think that was money well spent before we could call for proposals. Well, because of economic times, I guess, to a substantial degree, our proposal call was not that successful. We did get a couple of bites, but not to see the kind of development that I believe can be attracted to Lakelse Hot Springs.

I don't foresee a large Hilton type of development up there. I think it's more of a regional facility that we've been attempting to attract, not a large, international four-season recreational development. Because we were calling for proposals, the regional district of the area expressed some concern that I was looking for a massive, international type of development that would attract tourists from Japan, Europe and the whole world. When they expressed that kind of concern, I immediately responded and pointed out to them that this isn't the type of facility that I thought should be established in Lakelse Hot Springs. However, if they have some concern about my direction, I would gladly convey that facility to them for $1. The regional district — Mr. Pousette — to this day has not responded to that letter and the offer of that facility.

MR. HOWARD: He's a wise man.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, he is.

We're still looking for people to develop. An individual approached me not that long ago. I don't know whether or not anything will materialize. We have some interest by a local association recently formed for the potential of opening that hot spring. I hope it's able to get back into place and functioning, even if it is developed on a piecemeal basis. I would support anyone going in there, providing they have the resources to get the thing functional again.

The member suggests that we rip the building down, sell the materials and supplies, and lay off the caretaker. I agree with him. I'll take his suggestion to heart. I've also suggested that this facility should be demolished, because it's really an eyesore, and we should sell off the supplies and materials. In the meantime, we've been keeping someone employed as a

[ Page 8673 ]

caretaker of the facility, providing lodging and some income. I'm sure there's some appreciation there. Now that the member wants us to lay off the caretaker, I'll take that recommendation into consideration.

MR. KEMPF: Back to the question of land. There has been a lot of intervening debate since I spoke last. I realize that this minister has more than just land under his purview, but I am very surprised that there hasn't been more debate on the land issue in this minister's estimates. I would hope that in the days ahead there will be more. I certainly consider land to be one of our largest assets in this province, second only to our people, who are probably our most valuable asset.

I was interested in listening to the debate on Lakelse Hot Springs. I too would welcome the minister finding some means to bring the Lakelse Hot Springs resort back into operation. Certainly I don't advocate that it be done using taxpayers' money. I would hope that the minister could somehow seek out a developer and possibly make the same offer you made to the regional district in regard to taking it over, developing it and making it what it used to be — a great resource for the people of the north. I can remember frequenting the Lakelse Hot Springs many years ago. It was a great place to go, when the winters were cold and the nights were long, to stick one's big toe in a large pool of nice warm water. I think many, many people from my constituency made that trip in the wintertime and used that facility. I'd certainly like to see that happen again.

Back to land. The minister gave me some answers to the questions that I asked, but I've got to say that I'm not really satisfied with the answers. The minister told me that his ministry assessed the leased land that is in the hands of Mr. David Rozek by sending his own people into the field to make an assessment of that particular land. I have to ask why it is that his ministry does not accept the devaluation placed on the land by the B.C. Assessment Authority. Why must we in British Columbia fund two arms of government that would assess land? Why must he send one of his employees out of the Vanderhoof, Burns Lake or Smithers office to drive 100 miles southwest of Vanderhoof and then to leave his or her vehicle and walk the other 20 miles that this land is from the end of any road merely to assess the value of the property that's already been done by the B.C. Assessment Authority? I find this to be a gross waste of taxpayers' money. Why must we pay two arms of government to do the same thing? And why must we take the assessment of one arm of government over the other if two do it?

Having said that, it would appear that personnel from the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing did in fact assess the value of this property in question. If that's so, what criterion was used by those people who drove the 100 miles, walked the 20 miles and looked at that piece of property? What was the criterion they used that was different than the criterion that was used by the people that did the same thing in the B.C. Assessment Authority? That's my second question, Mr. Chairman.

I find that very difficult to understand. If, in fact, two arms of government have to do this kind of exercise, why it is that they should be so far apart in their valuation — one valuing it at $25,850 and the other valuing it at $6,000? There seems to be a great discrepancy there, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to get to the bottom of that. I'd like to know how people in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing arrived at such a high valuation figure on this land, which is way out in the backwoods southwest of Vanderhoof.

Mr. Chairman, I've dwelt for a long time....

MR. COCKE: Yes, you have.

MR. KEMPF: And I'll dwell for a long time more, Mr. Member for New Westminster. You know, my constituents have problems in the area of land. They sent me here to solve their problems, and that's what I intend to do, Mr. Member. I intend to stay here for as long as it might take to solve those problems.

I've dwelt for a long time on the plight of Mr. David Rozek, a constituent of mine. I said at the outset this afternoon that that is not an isolated case, although it's in a very isolated area. I have many more such examples, and I'd just like to talk about another one of those examples for a while. The minister mentioned the appeals process, and I want to talk about that later on.

Before I do that. I want just to dwell for a while on the plight of another constituent of mine. You talked about the Mackenzie-Grease Trail. You know, that brought to mind another constituent of mine who has a very real problem with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. His name is Griese. They are a young couple, Mr. and Mrs. Griese, who a few years ago bought a trapline. Through no fault of their own. thinking they had some kind of tenure in that particular area.... Again, it's in an isolated area; it's not in an area that is built up or inhabited. Thinking they had some kind of long-term tenure on this particular trapline, they decided they would build themselves a cabin. Fortunately for them that cabin turned out to be a very nice log home, and that's where they really got into trouble, Mr. Chairman. As I was saying in regard to foreshore leases, when we were talking about those a couple of days ago.... One of the employees of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing must have been driving along the road one sunny afternoon and spied this log home way out in the boondocks, and decided: "Ah" — as the minister said — "we've got a trespasser on Crown land, so we've got to see what we can do about that."

Mr. Chairman. I know what they did about it. They seared the daylights out of my constituents by paying them a visit, telling them of all the horrible things that could happen to their property and them personally for having done the dastardly deed of trespassing on Crown land. That started quite a long sequence of events, which is still in progress today. a sequence of events that you would not believe. You know. I've got to use this example as an example of some of the problems that really do face my constituents, and I guess probably more mv constituents than those in any other area of the province, because I have nothing but land, as I said earlier — 29,000-plus square miles of it — in my constituency of Omineca, and therefore I have some land problems.

But I want to get on with the story of Mr. and Mrs. Griese. After finding out that they had in fact done wrong, that they should not have built this log home on Crown land, regardless of whether or not they had purchased a trapline, they wanted to know of the employee of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing what it was that they could do to rectify the wrong they had done. Unfortunately, they were not given any help at all by that particular employee and by the ministry's office in Smithers; none whatsoever. Finally, in frustration — really more in fear than frustration — this couple got in touch with me, their MLA, and I got into the act.

[ Page 8674 ]

That was over a year ago. That situation is still not resolved, because the amount the ministry is asking these young people to pay, not for the piece they originally wanted, but surely more than for the piece that the ministry was originally going to allow them.... The ministry disallowed the size of the piece they originally wanted. They told them they could only have a piece approximately two and a half acres — and I use acres because I understand it better than hectares; so do my constituents. They originally wanted to give them a piece that was too small to accommodate their garden plot, which they had already cultivated and developed. It was too small to accommodate their barn, which they had already built. They were then told they could move the barn onto the property that the ministry was willing to give them. They would have to move the barn. They even suggested that maybe they could move the garden plot, but that was too far out. After thrashing that out, which took many months and many visits to the minister's office, they got an agreement that these unfortunate people could at least have five acres of Crown land, which would accommodate their garden plot and the barn they had built, and would partially accommodate the access road they had built. After all that, we now have a problem with the price being asked for that particular piece of Crown land.

I have letter after letter after letter....

MR. LEA: Read them into the record.

MR. KEMPF: Oh, I will, Mr. Member; absolutely. In the days and weeks ahead we're going to read many letters into the record about the land problems that my constituents face.

MR. LEA: Don't let anybody shut you up.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

MR. KEMPF: There is no such thing, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert, as shutting me up. You should know that.

In the weeks ahead we'll be talking about this. I brought to the attention of the House, in my previous example, the inequities in regard to lease rates. Now I want to bring to the House the inequity in the purchase price being charged the citizens of our province for Crown land. I've had letters back and forth to the bureaucrats in the Smithers office and I've received absolutely no satisfaction. I've got to read into the record part of the last letter I received, dated May 26, 1982. I'll get into the price later, but I just have to read into the record what the bureaucrats out there in the field tell the citizens of this province when they want to get a piece of Crown land for themselves — a miserable five acres in this case. It's a five-acre plot out where you can stand on a hilltop and look for 20 miles in any direction and not see any habitation. Five miserable acres of Crown land.

This letter of May 26, 1982, is signed by Mr. Max Nock, district manager, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Smithers. "The area for which Mr. Griese has received approval is located adjacent to Peacock Creek, a possible water source." True so far. To further quote: "In regard to the lack of services, such as garbage collection and fire protection, while these are not as readily available as they are for lot 6DL2090.... .. I must explain. I used as an example, in my argument for Mr. and Mrs. Griese, like pieces of property in that area and the prices being charged for them. How can this piece of property that Mr. and Mrs. Griese have applied for, this miserable five acres of Crown land, be valued so high, when other land in the area is valued much lower?

It continues: "It is noted that a similar case exists for many rural resident parcels. However, it is assumed that in choosing to live in a rural area, the occupant has placed an equal value on the privacy, setting and associated benefits of his chosen location where he has been resident for some time. Therefore, no downward adjustment is being made for the lack of these services." I find that to be a very weak excuse. I find that to be no argument at all.

Going back a little, I've got to talk about the price that has been asked. In so doing, I've got to relate to letters I wrote to the minister and responses I received.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's the price? We give up.

MR. KEMPF: It's not good enough to get a surrender from the opposition in this case. The surrender must come from a different side of the floor. I've got to continue.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: We've got a surrender from the minister. No, I've started the story, Mr. Minister, and I've got to finish it.

The price being asked of Mr. and Mrs. Griese for this piece of Crown land, which is out of civilization, located off a dusty old forest access road.... It has no garbage collection or any services whatsoever — no power, no water service. The price asked is $27,000 for five acres. Maybe it doesn't sound so bad for those members whose ridings are in Vancouver, on Vancouver Island or in the other urban areas of the province; it may not even sound bad to the minister, whose riding is in the southeast part of the province.

I don't profess to be an expert in the valuation of land — far from it — but I look to the realtors in the area for a fair value. They are in the business of selling land every day.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is cruel and unusual punishment.

MR. KEMPF: The member might think so — and that shows the interest shown by some members of this Legislature in the land problems of this province. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "It's cruel. It's torture to listen to the problems of a northern constituent." Madam Member, that's what I'm here for — to bring to this chamber the problems of my constituent.

MR. COCKE: Is that why you go home?

MR. KEMPF: I go home more often than you do, Mr. Member for New Westminster.

Mr. Chairman, $27,000 was asked for this particular piece of Crown land. I did an investigation. I phoned some people that I knew in Houston who are in the real estate business, asking what they were selling like land for. I was told, firstly, after explaining where the land was, that they weren't really selling like land, because they didn't have any. This was very rural, it wasn't serviced, so they didn't really have any like land. But they gave me some examples of land that might in some way be the same or nearly the same as the land in question. Mr. Chairman, in a letter I wrote on May 12 this year — on my birthday — to the Smithers office I pointed

[ Page 8675 ]

out to the land manager in Smithers that the price of $27,000 was out of line. I gave him the reasons I thought it was out of line, pointing out to him lots that were sold recently in the area: lot 14, district lot 2092, sold for $28,500; lot A, district lot 5202, sold for $24,500; and lot 6, district lot 2090, sold for $26,000.

Well, Mr. Chairman, hearing those figures you wouldn't think the $27,000 figure out of line, but let's go into the whole story. This is what I wrote the district land manager in Smithers on May 12 this year. I pointed out to him that lot 14, district lot 2092, which he had said was similar to the piece of Crown land that they were asking $27,000 for and because of that the $27,000 was a fair figure.... I quote from my own letter: "Lot 14, district lot 2092, which you say is on Buck Creek, which firstly it is not, is serviced by municipal road and Hydro power. It is also serviced by all-weather access to the municipal road and has on it a 350-foot drilled well, which in itself is valued at $8,000."

So, Mr. Chairman, you can see that that particular lot did not resemble the five-acre piece of Crown land in question.

Mr. Chairman, I have more to say in regard to this particular situation and others, but it's late and the time of adjournment, so I would move that the committee rise, report very little progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is not in order, hon. member.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you're not willing to accept that motion, I'll have to move that the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

MR. HANSON: We've heard a lengthy treatise from the member for Omineca expressing dissatisfaction with the performance of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, his administration of the department, the way his constituents are treated by the department and the price the minister chooses to assess his constituents in Omineca for Crown land. We're going to give that member for Omineca an opportunity to vote against the vote of this minister. I move that vote 60 be reduced by $3,500, because we feel the minister does not deserve any money over and above his budget for last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 60 approved.

On vote 61: ministry operations, $78,448,990.

MR. HANSON: We on this side of the House feel that a 52 percent increase in office furniture for that minister, and almost a 60 percent increase in advertising, are entirely inappropriate when the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) can't get his constituents' problems dealt with by this minister. He doesn't get any answers.

I move that vote 61 be reduced by $2,537,139.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

Vote 61 approved.

Vote 62: ministry enterprises, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.

[ Page 8676 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

45 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Program (PREP) —

1. What are the names, salaries, previous occupations, and locations of the "Job Finders" in the program and the Provincial Co-ordinator?

2. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the Job Finders?

3. What is the total cost and the number of months covered for the program for 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981 and to date in 1982?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"With the introduction of the Individual Opportunity Program in July 1980, the Provincial Rehabilitation and Employment Program ceased to exist. Answers covering the period up to July 1980, have been provided in responses to these questions in previous years."