1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3737 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

On vote 170: minister's office — 3739

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Hyndman

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Levi

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barber

Votes 170 to 172 inclusive approved –– 3747

On vote 173: government services –– 3747

Mrs. Dailly

Ms. Brown

Vote 173 approved –– 3748

On vote 174: British Columbia lottery branch –– 3748

Ms. Brown

Votes 174 to 185 inclusive approved –– 3748

On vote 186: government information services –– 3749

Mrs. Dailly

Votes 186 to 188 inclusive approved –– 3749

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

On vote 155: minister's office –– 3749

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Macdonald

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Mitchell

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 3762

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a young

guest who is visiting me today from Tamworth, Ontario, Miss Kelly

Dickeson.

Oral Questions

PROVINCIAL IMPLEMENTATION

OF OAP SUPPLEMENT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Human Resources. The federal government recently

approved a $35-a-month supplement to senior citizens. The minister as

well as the Premier announced that that increase was going to be passed

along to seniors. It was reported last week by the minister that this

in fact was happening. Can the minister assure the House that the

criteria for all means-tested programs have been adjusted in such a way

as to ensure that each family receiving the supplement now has $35 more

in their pockets as a result of the federally approved increase?

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

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, this is a new question that the minister might take as

notice at the same time. Would the minister check to find out whether a

person receiving the supplement who is married to someone who is

receiving a handicap pension is not finding that the $35 is being

deducted from the handicap pension rather than from the seniors

themselves — or can she respond to that now?

I have a

question to the minister responsible for B.C. housing. Is the minister

aware that the Premier has made a commitment to senior citizens that

the $35-a-month increase from the federal government is to be passed on

intact? Can he assure the House that this money is not being deducted

through rent increases to people living under the B.C. Housing

Management Commission?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker,

I will have to take that question as notice and bring an answer back to

the member at the very earliest opportunity.

GOVERNMENT LOAN

TO LEWIS ENTERPRISES

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development. On May 1, 1980, the minister signed an

order-in-council approving a loan of $1.4 million to Lewis Enterprises.

Lewis Enterprises Ltd. owns the Waddling Dog Inn on the Pat Bay

Highway. Can the minister tell the House whether this approval is

related to the large Social Credit campaign signs on the grounds of the

Waddling Dog Inn during the last election campaign?

Mr. Speaker, in 1979 an order-in-council approved a loan to the same company

of $1.3 million. This loan was rescinded in May of this year when the amount

was $1.4 million, and that amount was then approved. Did the hon. member for

Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) make any representation to the minister

about increasing the loan by the hundred-odd thousand dollars?

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

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

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

Mr.

Speaker, was the loan increased as a special favour to Mr. Lewis

because of his failure to satisfy the corporation that he had obtained

working-capital financing from a chartered bank sufficient to carry on

his business?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's

amazing to me that my estimates just passed through the Legislature and

I didn't hear one question about the British Columbia Development

Corporation, not one question about the British Columbia Railway — not

one question.

Mr. Speaker, we have, through the B.C.

Development Corporation, based on sound business principles, made a

loan to the Waddling Dog Inn to build a hotel at the location on the

Pat Bay Highway. During construction there was a small overrun; if my

memory recalls properly, it was less than 7 percent. That's why there

was an additional loan made to that business corporation. I'd be most

happy to supply the exact amount of the original loan and the

percentage that the loan was increased by. Mr. Speaker, I want to

advise you and the House that never at any time during the loan

negotiations between that company and the British Columbia Development

Corporation was I approached by the member for Saanich and the Islands.

The loan was made on good business principles, is providing a service

and is helping tourism on the Island.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, the minister, not being blind, would have noticed that between

1972 and 1975, when the NDP were in power, there was a derogatory sign

up virtually every week, changing from week to week. We wonder how much

influence that had on this minister, who probably has 20-20 vision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There may have been a question there.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the statement made by that member for

New Westminster is slandering every hard-working director of the

British Columbia Development Corporation, and I ask him to withdraw it.

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

Interjections.

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

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. D'ARCY: To my friend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources: on July 24 I asked the

[ Page 3738 ]

minister

if natural gas exports to the United States had declined in the

calendar quarter ending June 30 and, if so, how much they had declined.

On that day, 13 days ago, the minister took the question as notice. In

the last two weeks has he had time to obtain that information for the

public in British Columbia?

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

MR. D'ARCY: I have a new question for the same minister. Last week

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) tabled his interim report for the

same calendar quarter, ending June 30 of this year. In it he referred to revenues,

some of which came from natural gas exports. Presumably he must have had some

information on the amount of those exports in order to compile his revenue statement

for the quarter which ended June 30, 1980. My question, to the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources is: does the Minister of Finance know more about

natural gas exports than the Minister of Energy, or does the Minister of Energy

know the answer and is not telling the people of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I believe I took that earlier question as notice. I'll

undertake to give the answer as quickly as I can. The Minister of

Finance and I have been in close contact, and will continue to be,

about the finances in terms, of revenues from natural gas for this

province.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, then, to the Minister

of Finance. On what basis did he compile his revenue statement, since it incorporated

the revenue from natural gas export sales?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ouija board.

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

Mr.

Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources has indicated that there is very close consultation not only

between the two of us but between the senior people in both ministries.

The quarterly report — a detailed but not an interim report; it's the

report for the first three months of this fiscal year — was based on

actual revenue receipts.

BCHMC POLICY ON SEPARATED COUPLES

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, I have checked my list of questions taken as notice, and I

find that on July 15 the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) asked me

the following question:

On April 15, 1980, the British

Columbia Housing Management Commission passed a policy that basically

says this: if a marriage breaks up while a couple is living within B.C.

Housing Management Commission housing, neither spouse can apply for

housing within the commission unless he has the written permission of

the spouse whom he left.

In reply, I have requested and

received clarification from the B.C. Housing Management Commission on

their policy for placement in the housing units that they manage. It is

the mandate of the BCHMC to offer housing to those applicants who can

demonstrate a need, either because of deficient accommodation or

because of their inability to pay market rent. Applicants are housed

according to a priority based on housing and financial need.

Applicants

are visited in their homes to determine a point score based on the

present situation. The higher the point score, the greater the need and

the higher priority given to housing the applicant. Assessment based on

this method deals with the present situation. Therefore a partner

wishing to separate but still living in the family home would be

assessed on present family income and accommodation. In most cases this

evaluation would result in a lower point score than where the breakup

had occurred and the applicant was in temporary accommodation.

The

intent of the commission's policy manual was to clarify this point by

giving examples of actions that could lead to higher priority being

accorded an applicant still living with his spouse. It was not the

commission's intent to dictate what action the separating partner

should pursue before or after leaving. The commission policy has

unfortunately been misunderstood. Therefore the board of commissioners

on July 22 undertook to review and revise the policy to ensure that all

applicants are treated equally in relation to their housing needs.

REVENUES OF PROVINCIAL TREASURY

AND FISCAL RESTRAINT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have

a question of the Minister of Finance. The quarterly report issued on

Thursday showed a revenue surplus of almost a quarter of a billion

dollars. In view of this very good news for the people of British

Columbia, has the minister decided to relax his crude instrument of

restraint?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the discussion

following the quarterly report I was able to, in response to questions,

indicate that three ministries were exempt from the staff freeze to

start with: the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, and

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. Subsequent to that, and

within approximately the last ten days, we have exempted the Ministry

of Agriculture and the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and

Government Services. Within the next few hours I will have a letter

going to another colleague with yet another exemption. So some six or

seven ministries have been exempted or are in the process of being

exempted, and indeed this....

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

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I'm attempting to answer as fully as possible the question

which I sensed was asked by the member for Nanaimo in good faith.

other measures to effect economics in this fiscal year are delivered to

me as Minister of Finance, the exemptions will continue.

MR. STUPICH:

We've noted in the last few days that the Ministries of Education and

Health have been advertising. We wonder whether or not they are

included in the list of those ministries that have been exempted from

the freeze.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, the freeze still

applies there, I hope for as short a term as possible. But at the time

of announcing the freeze in late June, I indicated that in those

[ Page 3739 ]

positions

which were in process of being filled, where advertising had initially

been planned for, where a vacancy had occurred, we would take that into

consideration. In other words, we did not want to take such action

whereby suddenly, once a panel had reviewed applicants for a particular

position, they would just say: "I'm sorry, the rug has been pulled out

from under us." We didn't want to operate that way, and we did not. I

noticed the same advertisements, and I'm quite certain they would have

been in process at the time of the decision to impose a freeze.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell terminates question period. Hon. members, during

the question period a point of order was raised by the hon. Minister of Industry

and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips I ). I deferred that because

points of order, as we know, should be taken at the conclusion of oral question

period, not during it. At this time I ask the hon. member for New Westminster

if he would withdraw as requested. I ask the member; I cannot insist.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I was asking the minister questions. I

was aiming nothing at his department. His department does not, in any

event, have membership in this Legislature. If anybody should withdraw,

the minister should have withdrawn when he accused me of slandering.

It's totally unacceptable behaviour, but that's to be expected from

this minister. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The matter is concluded.

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I have information in my file to the effect that on June

11, 1979, the minister promised to extend the extended health care plan

benefits to some 6,000 superannuated civil servants soon. I wonder

whether any progress has been made on that policy.

I have another question. There is a report about the minister in the Nanaimo Daily Free Press , July 23: "Wolfe said he will introduce an amendment to Bill

27, the bill amending the Pension (Municipal) Act, to bring the

retirement provisions on municipal employees into line with the

provisions which now apply to teachers and public service employees,

which was requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities." I wonder

whether it is the minister's intention to proceed with that

announcement.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The first question, I

believe, has to do with whether extended health care benefits would be

accorded to retirees. I believe the answer to that question is yes, but

I'm getting new information so I can answer more properly. I believe

the answer is yes, that has been attended to. The amendment to the

Pension (Municipal) Act, which I referred to in a statement some days

ago, will be put forward in an amendment which I'm recommending to the

House when we debate those bills.

The extension of the

health care benefits question cannot be done until the amendments

before the House on the Pension (Municipal) Act are debated. In other

words, that will take place after those amendments to that bill are

passed.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if the minister could

perhaps answer a question for me. I think it was in March of this year

that you indicated your ministry had created a multicultural

secretariat. Could you indicate whether or not a person has been hired

as a director of that program?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The

answer to that question specifically is no, but considerable review has

been made of the general thrust of that program in terms of how it can

best serve the various ethnic communities in terms of the total effort

in terms of multiculturalism — not simply a direction to assist new

immigrants but how best this ministry and the government can offer its

services to the various ethnic communities. A search has taken place.

No decision has been made on the person, but I think we're just doing

sort of a rethink on the general approach to how that service can best

be provided.

MR. BARNES: I should remind the House

that it was April 1979, I believe, that the affable former Provincial

Secretary held a multicultural conference called "Toward a Provincial

Multicultural Policy." At that time the government had just brought a

budget down — a budget which, incidentally, was not implemented or

carried out because the election was called soon after in May. But I

want to ask the Provincial Secretary, who inherited the problem really,

the purpose of holding that particular conference just before the

election if it was not just to win favour with the ethnic communities

which were quite enthusiastically looking forward to the conference, in

the hope of being able to express their concerns and try to learn

something about the government's commitment to their future and to

their settlement in this country, particularly the many people who were

refugees from the Indo-Chinese countries, and others from Asia of East

Indian extraction.

I understand that the government has done

very little, really, about multiculturalism since that conference. A

number of inquiries have been made to my office wondering why the

government hasn't shown the same enthusiasm that it did in April 1979,

before the election. What seems to be the holdup? Now I understand the

minister hasn't even appointed the person who is going to head up the

secretariat, after over a year. There seems to be some question about

the government's commitment and the government's attitude, as far as

multiculturalism is concerned in this province.

Mr. Chairman, a letter was sent to the Vancouver Home School Coordinating Committee,

which is a committee of various ethnic organizations throughout the city: East

Indian, Greek, Portuguese, Filipino, Chinese — which includes Vietnamese, Laotian

and Cambodian — Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Italian, and so forth — people who

represent a joint coalition of organizations committed to trying to influence

the provincial government with respect to the needs of this

[ Page 3740 ]

diversity

of recent Canadians who are having considerable difficulty adjusting in

a society that quite often fails generally to meet their needs. Finding

means of getting financial support for their programs is no easy task.

The

letter that the secretary sent to this organization, basically, was to

deny them a request for coordinators — that is, people from the ethnic

community who understood the language and the various problems of

settlement and becoming adjusted, and difficulties in their homes,

schools and communities. They were flatly denied funds by your ministry

to hire an additional ten coordinators. There are some 14 of them in

the city of Vancouver right now, but they need at least twice that many

to fulfil their needs. All they received from your ministry was a

letter stating that you were sorry but that didn't come under your

purview, and that you wished them good luck with their request seeking

funds from some other source.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to quote from the minister's remarks in a recent news release

dated March 7, 1980, in which he said that the main concern of that

conference — this is back again to that conference toward a provincial

multicultural policy — was about the government's attitude and not

about funding. Most participants were concerned about the government's

commitment to multiculturalism, a multiracial society, to the idea of

the Canadian mosaic. They were concerned about the government's

attitude with regard to them having equal opportunity and access to the

socio-economic benefits that other Canadians are enjoying. So the

minister said that he was pleased at this particular revelation coming

out of the group, because funds generally could be found through a

number of other sources, and that they really were pleased to know that

the participants were concerned about the government's attitude.

would just like to remind the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I think the

government's attitude is questionable at this point. You will recall

that it was only a few days ago when I sought support in reaffirming

this government's commitment to the Canadian mosaic; this government's

belief in the right of all people to live in harmony in this society

regardless of race, creed, colour, national origin, political belief,

religion, sex, sexual orientation or any other department; that all

Canadians, under law, should be treated equally. Unfortunately, I was

denied an opportunity, as you know, to move that motion which was an

attempt to condemn the activities of an organization that was moving

into this province called the KKK, the Klu Klux Klan; it was denied by

that minister and all of his colleagues. I feel that the government's

attitude, even on philosophic terms, is questionable.

It was

clear that their intentions in April 1979 were politically motivated in

an attempt to win favour from people who are sincerely hoping to gain

the government's sincere interest in solving some of their problems.

What other reason would there be, Mr. Chairman, for the minister's

sending a letter back to these applicants, telling them that he wished

them good luck and hoped that they could find the finances they need

for the home school coordinators somewhere else? It was my

understanding that the Refugee Settlement Fund was specifically for

that purpose; that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the

Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

claimed to be working cooperatively to ensure that these funds are used

to serve that purpose. But we have in an organization in Vancouver at

least one case where funds and encouragement have not been forthcoming;

in fact, it has been just the opposite — a very frustrating situation

involving many futile attempts to get attention to their problems.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to elucidate in detail some of the problems that

refugees and new immigrants have in this province, because those are

well known. The point I wanted to make has been made, and that is that

the Provincial Secretary has indicated that no one is in charge of this

new secretariat for multiculturalism. It is just a paper organization

as far as any real application is concerned, even though it has been

well over a year since the conference, since those people were

encouraged to believe in this government's future interest in their

concerns, and they probably voted for the government. Now we find that

they're just being frustrated.

I hope that the minister will

answer that question, because I think that, if nothing else, you should

indicate whether or not that applies to you or whether that applies to

just your colleagues and not to you. There is a cloud over the

government's head right now as far as multiculturalism is concerned in

this province because of their denial to accept that motion that I

attempted to move.

Mr. Speaker, the other question has to do

with a grant log that's apparently being compiled by the lotteries

administration office. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on

the purpose of a log being compiled by area and by type of grant. There

is only one copy, on non-photocopiable material. The idea there is that

it does not quite self-destruct, but it can't be duplicated. That is

curious to me, inasmuch as we have in the past, as independent MLAs,

received notification whenever a grant was being approved in the

different constituencies, and apparently that is no longer the practice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, it is.

MR. BARNES:

Well, you can verify that for me. I certainly haven't been receiving

them, although the information is available. I'm not suggesting that

the information is not available upon request, but it is not

automatically being provided, as had been the practice prior to January

This particular grant log that I refer to is a

document about which I'm wondering if it's not being constructed for

private political purposes. It seems to be concerning itself with

getting information riding by riding, but it's not available. I have

attempted on a number of occasions to get information by phone calls,

writing letters and so forth, and I've received every bit of

information but the information in this log that I happen to know

exists from people within your ministry. They advise that it's

available but that they're not free to discuss it or to indicate the

purpose for which it is being compiled. It is my opinion that it must

be for private political purposes and not for purposes of public

consumption. Maybe it's going to be used for the next election — who

knows.

A final question I would like to ask has to do with

the initiative of the B.C. lottery program and its advertising program.

Most of us are familiar with the electronic ads as well as the printed

media ads in which it is suggested that if you buy a lottery ticket

you're buying a share of your youngster's future and the future of

youth as far as recreation, culture, sports and arts are concerned. The

program as it is presently constructed is militating against a number

of organizations' efforts to raise their own funds.

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

[ Page 3741 ]

Canadian

national championships just a little while ago, an event endorsed by

the Premier of the province. This picture was on the front page of

their program, but there were no funds involved. In other words, not a

dime from the government's lotteries was used for this amateur,

volunteer program — young adults who were hosting a team from

Fredericton, New Brunswick, in the national playdowns, which,

incidentally, they happen to have won.

What I want the

minister to explain to the House are the standards used to determine

what amateurism is, who qualifies and who does not.

As it

stood when this group hosted that national hockey championship, they

ran the risk of losing about $50,000, because they held it at the

Pacific Coliseum and weren't even able to secure their commitment by

the government underwriting their loan. In other words, the government

wasn't even prepared to underwrite the difference — the shortfall, as

it were. They had to foot the whole bill themselves.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Who's that?

MR. BARNES:

The Burnaby Lakers hockey team. They made several applications and

wrote several letters. They were totally frustrated and could not get

any assistance. This seems to be a problem. That is an amateur team of

adults. Many of them have families. They work and put their extra hours

into playing hockey. They're a credit to the province.

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

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

This

is one of the things that the lotteries sports program is all about.

They like to spend money when teams show excellence, show the ability

to be winners. They aren't all that good with helping those who are....

Well, I shouldn't say 100 percent, because we have the B.C. Summer and

Winter Games, in which we provide programs for youngsters. But the

government has generally shown more interest in high-profile activities

and high-profile individuals, because it gives them an opportunity to

associate with something that is going to put them in a good light.

However,

this hockey team tried hopelessly to get attention from the government.

I would like you to clarify, for the benefit of those of us who are

trying to explain the government's policy on making grants to amateur

organizations that are in a championship category and are hosting teams

from outside the province....

I've used most of the time

that I intended to use, and the points are made. I would like to take

my seat at this time and see if the minister is prepared to answer some

of those questions before I continue.

MR. HYNDMAN: I will be brief this afternoon, but I appreciate

the opportunity to speak in these estimates as a member of the

government side, particularly because the topic I want to raise was, I

think, briefly alluded to by the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes), and therefore the minister's response may be of interest

and help to us both. The general topic I wish to address is that of the

multicultural home-school workers in Vancouver. I believe my good

friend, the second member for Vancouver Centre, used the term

"coordinator," and he referred to 14 multi-cultural home-school

workers. There have been 17 in the last year and they are called

workers, not coordinators. It may be that we are talking about the same

thing. In any event, I do want to address that topic.

A remarkable fact about the city of Vancouver

that few British Columbians appreciate is that 43 percent of the school

as only a second tongue. That is, 43 percent of the school students in

the city of Vancouver return from the classroom to homes in which

That's a remarkable commentary on the cultural mosaic of Vancouver. I

think it's a fact that has not been generally recognized by governments

at all levels. It underscores the need for the multicultural

home-school worker project and it outlines the very valuable work being

done by the multicultural home-school workers.

If you could

envisage a system in which nearly half the school pupils return home to

those families, have recently arrived from other lands, apart from the

students' early problems in getting along at school with a new major

language, new customs and new educational practices, that student

additionally has a transitional problem at home. In returning from the

to explain and liaise with his parents about the rules and practices of

school in a new country. For students, particularly younger children,

this can often be difficult. Heaven forbid, even in the case of

tradition of generations in Vancouver, we all know that students often

have a difficult time liaising with parents between home and school in

spite of that. If you superimpose recently landed families and the

problem of culture and tongue, the problem is even greater. Therefore

the very valuable function that the multicultural home-school workers

do is to liaise between school and home to assist the student and the

family in understanding the new educational process, in dealing with it

and in making a smooth transition.

The regrettable fact is

that although the federal government is responsible for immigration

policy in this country, the federal government has not recently seen

fit or been able to provide any financial assistance to a city like

Vancouver to assist at this very basic, front-line level in the

financing of such valuable work as that done by the multicultural

homeschool workers. For example, I am told by the Vancouver School

Board that in one of the schools in Vancouver there are no less than 37

different tongues represented through the school population. That's an

unusual case, to be sure, but nonetheless it suggests the range of

additional concerns that the teaching faculty must have, and again it

underscores the need for multicultural home-school workers.

Through

a group of ad hoc agencies, existing committees and some very

public-spirited citizens, in the last couple of years there has

developed a very informal committee of individuals representative of

community and cultural groups. They have tried to pull together some

funding to help in the provision of these multicultural home-school

workers. It has been very ad hoc. They have been handicapped by a lack

of permanent financial commitment from any level of government. They

have had a shoe-string budget, year by year. In spite of that, in the

school year just ended in the city of Vancouver this committee was able

to see that 17 of these multicultural home-school workers were able to

work in schools in the city of Vancouver. The need is great. The

[ Page 3742 ]

projection

of the ad hoc committee and its spokesperson, Mrs. Beverly Mann, who

has done a very fine job, sees a future need for as many as 26.

the coming 1980-81 school year, the committee has been able, in working

with the city of Vancouver council and the Vancouver School Board, to

promote and come up with funding sufficient to secure only 12 of last

year's 17 multicultural home-school worker positions. Therefore, to

maintain last year's level of assistance of 17 positions, there is a

shortfall of five. While this is primarily at first blush a

responsibility of the Ministry of Education, given that Ottawa

presently has not seen fit to add any financial assistance, the

Ministry of Education in conjunction with the Vancouver School Board,

through shared costs and formula grants, has come up with the result

that 12 of the 7 positions can be maintained. As I say, there is still

a shortfall of five.

I am hoping that the minister might be

able to give us some further indication as to whether or not — even

this year on a once only ad hoc basis — through the multicultural vote

of his ministry, sufficient funding might be granted in this special

circumstance to the Vancouver School Board to provide funds for the

additional five positions. This, I think, would be a very tangible

measure of support and contribution to multiculturalism in Vancouver.

It would be of great assistance for this year. It would give support to

Mrs. Mann and others on her committee and those like my good friend,

the second member for Vancouver Centre and myself who are concerned and

wish to help this group in finding permanent funding and an extra

year's breathing space. I've had some very informal discussions, Mr.

Chairman, with the minister and some of his officials, and if today the

minister might be able to give us some further thought as to where

these appeals might be in terms of reception, by his ministry that

would be very helpful.

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I

just underline that I think it's important that members from both sides

of the House have spoken on this topic. The work of the multicultural

home-school workers is valuable. They've done a good job. Mrs. Mann and

her committee, I think, are making the maximum use of the limited

resources available. It's a most worthy endeavour. If the minister's

view was that perhaps for this year he could consider it, but probably

on a once only basis because he was developing his longer program, I

think that would be most satisfactory. It would give the program a

year's breathing space.

So, Mr. Chairman, I too would be

interested in the remarks of the minister on this very important topic

to the city of Vancouver multiculturalism.

MR. BARNES: Just to clarify some of the points made by the second member

for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), I happen to have the 1980-81 projected requirements

for home-school workers. You're correct; they are workers, not coordinators.

I think Bev Mann is the coordinator for that particular organization. Just for

the record, there are no West Indian workers; they require one half-time worker.

The Greeks have one worker; they require two. That's an addition of one.

The Portuguese have one and require two; that's an addition of one. The

Filipinos have one and they require no additional workers. The East Indians

have five and require one, for a total of six. The Chinese have five and require

two more for a total of seven. In the Indo-Chinese category, the Vietnamese

have one and require two. The Laotians have none and they require one half-time

worker. The Cambodians have none and they require one half-time worker. The

Italians have two full-time workers and a half-time worker and they require

no additional workers. The Spanish have one half-time worker and they require

one full-time worker. The Koreans have none and they require one half-time worker.

The Japanese have none and they require one half-time worker. The total is 26

workers. The member for Vancouver South indicated that there were presently

17. There were. The school board of the city of Vancouver will pay for 12. They

are down to 12 now. They need more than twice that many to get to 26. There

are only 12, not 17, at the present time.

just wanted to clarify that for the record. I hope that you will follow

through on his suggestion that perhaps you could pick up the difference

so that we could have a proper complement of workers in order to show

your commitment and the government's attitude with respect to

multiculturalism in this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'm happy this subject has been brought up because very recently the

member for Vancouver South has been alerting me to the emergency that

exists and the need to move on it very soon if assistance can be given.

As both of the previous speakers have mentioned, there has been a

cutback in the numbers of these home-school workers that have been

provided. In certain areas of Vancouver particularly there is certainly

a very great need for this service. I might say that the Immigrant

Services Society of B.C. has already been funded by my ministry by way

of a general grant of some $96,580 for the current fiscal year. It's

through their cooperation with the school board and however the other

funding comes about that has necessitated a cutback. So I thank the

member for Vancouver South for explaining it once again because I know

that this was a matter that had sort of fallen between the stools. One

could say: "Well, it's not our responsibility. It's the responsibility

of the national government, etc."

Suffice it to say that

having reviewed it with the member and also, since it is basically an

education matter, with the Minister of Education, in the interests of

getting it resolved at this stage, in answer to the member's question,

I have approved a grant. It is now being processed for the Vancouver

School District, in support of this multicultural worker program, and

is in the amount of $78,061. That is designed to cover the deficiency

of the five people involved plus necessary expenses, I believe. I

haven't the details in front of me, but in answer to the member's

question and to prevent any further delay we have, after discussion,

approved that grant. It's now being processed.

Mr. Chairman,

a number of different areas have been covered, but I want to say, just

in general terms on the multiculturalism program, that we are moving on

the matter of the secretariat. I could ream off all kinds of concrete

assistance now being offered to a variety of organizations through

Cultural Services, the heritage conservation branch, and assistance to

museums — just to get them all on the record — but suffice it to say

today that it is estimated to add up to some $661,000, out of lotteries

or ministerial funds of one kind or another, to organizations like the

Affiliation of Multicultural Societies of B.C., the Multicultural Youth

Action Association, and so on. So I won't take the time of the

committee to ream off all those various financial supports that go

forward. I'll only say that we do have under active consideration, and

will be making announcements in the near

[ Page 3743 ]

future

about not so much a secretariat as the method by which we want to

approach this matter of assisting the various ethnic organizations in

the province of British Columbia.

The meeting of last year

you referred to was a start in this whole process. I've had a number of

meetings with organizations, either at my invitation or theirs, who

have come to me concerned over this. They're waiting to hear what the

government wants to do about this. In my view, it's not so much a

matter of funding as it is of providing an ear to them in terms of how

we can assist. You will be hearing something in the near future on this

subject.

You mentioned the Burnaby Lakers hockey team.

Without going into that in great detail, we are offering assistance to

the B.C. Amateur Hockey Association, which gets an annual grant in

support of this kind of thing. I'm advised that their request for

assistance, in terms of hosting a national championship, has now been

responded to. Whether they've received it yet or not, I don't know; but

we have approved — and I can announce now — a grant of $4,500 towards

their activity in terms of that national event. If they haven't already

been advised they will be in the next day or two.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The policy — I can advise you later, Mr. Member — is support for

hosting national events here, and also for out-of-province travel in

terms of a variety of teams. There are minimums and maximums, and a

percentage of the travel is involved.

MRS. DAILLY: I

have two follow-up questions on what has just taken place in the

debate, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we are pleased that the Burnaby

Lakers are receiving some assistance. I think the second member for

Vancouver Centre certainly did much to encourage that, and we are

pleased that it has come through.

The other thing is on the

matter that the second members for Vancouver South and Vancouver Centre

(Messrs. Hyndman and Barnes) brought up on aiding immigrants who do not

grant. We are very pleased to hear that.

You also mentioned

in passing the Immigrant Services Society of B.C., which I know you

receive a lot of material from. I think you are aware of the fact that

you did give them a grant, but their projected budget is $136,000 and I

understand that they received $91,980. This means they are going to

have a considerable shortfall. I must say that I feel the federal

government should be contributing and assisting the province more in

this area. In the meantime, this society is doing excellent work in

helping the moms and tots program, as you know, and in trying to give

orientation to Canadian customs, etc. With the impact of the refugee

families in B.C., their load is getting heavier and heavier, yet their

grant is not commensurate with that. So I'm just making a plea on

behalf of the good work this society does — for a reconsideration,

perhaps, as the year goes along, to assisting them further.

MR. LEVI:

I spent three years tracking this minister with a Crown corporation,

with not terribly much success. He's now the minister of a new ministry

and he's got another Crown corporation that I've got to track — BCBC.

He's been there nine months and I'm sure he's absolutely familiar with

everything that goes on there.

I'd like him to tell us — if

he'll share it with the House — what took place in respect to the

Bowles report, which was announced by his predecessor in December 1978.

At that time his predecessor was very concerned about a number of

things that were happening in BCBC. Some of it was reacting to rumour;

some was reacting to very specific concerns regarding contracts. The

previous minister mentioned that the private-sector complaints came

basically from small- and medium-sized firms in the business of

providing goods and services for Crown corporations.

Now I'd

like the minister to tell us — if he's aware of what's going on — two

things. One is: what was the result of the study? Is he aware of the

reorganization procedures that had to take place? Also, can he comment

on the rent formula? That's the one that has given a great deal of

concern to a number of ministries. This was one of the areas that Mr.

Bowles was asked to look into; he was also asked to look into some

other aspects of the ministry.

We have not had any

information from the minister, mainly because this is the third

Provincial Secretary in three years. I would like the minister to make

some comment about the Bowles report; it would be even better if he

would table it, but of course the government is not usually in the

habit of tabling reports. It was a $25,000 report done by Mr. John

Bowles, who is connected with Coopers and Lybrand. He was to do an

overview of the department, specifically to look at BCBC and a number

of other areas. I'd like the minister to make some response as to what

his knowledge is with respect to the rental formula, the building costs

that appeared in every ministry.

There is one other thing.

The contribution from the B.C. Buildings Corporation is expected to be

less this year — that is, the revenue accruing to the government will

be less in the present fiscal year than it was in the last year. I see

the minister has now moved into the Minister of Human Resources' seat.

I presume he's going to respond, so I'll just sit down.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I have not received any report called the Bowles report. I understood

the previous minister was studying certain matters within the Buildings

Corporation and so on, but I have not received any report. I think

there were some draft documents that were around, but I've not seen any

formal report to use in my position.

I might say that there

has been a lot of study made of the Buildings Corporation in its

relationship to other ministries and of how it could improve its

service; that would be the size of it. Through Treasury Board we have

tried to streamline the procedure which exists between the Buildings

Corporation and other ministries: how it documents leases, what it does

to renew leases, what examination is made, and so on. In my view,

continual improvement is being made in those procedures. I find that

the officials and the board of directors are very responsive to

commentary from ministries in terms of trying to improve how they

function with ministries in providing their space.

You

asked for a general

summary of how rental charges are arrived at. I

will have to get back to the member at a later time with the answer to

that question. I think I must have provided that information to him on

a previous occasion — when I was representing Finance — in terms of how

they make up their gross rental factor. It would, include the market

value for the facilities being rented and a factor for depreciation,

cost of maintenance, etc., and a profit return on the

[ Page 3744 ]

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

MR. LEVI: I have this nagging sense of déja vu, Mr. Chairman. I

used to have the same problem with the Systems Corporation. Now I'm having

the same problem with the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

The

previous minister announced on December 29, 1978, that he'd ordered a

full review of the B.C. Buildings Corporation for early 1979. He

appropriated $25,000 to Coopers and Lybrand in Vancouver to undertake

the study. This was no little event in terms of the B.C. Systems

Corporation; it was an attempt to find out what was going on. Now the

minister tells us that he's never heard of the study and he's never

received the study. That creates some difficulty. In the reasons given

by the minister, he laid out a number of very serious problems that

ministers were having in terms of obtaining accommodation and problems

with small- and medium-sized business people in respect to bidding. He

talked about other concerns. He said: "But judging from some of the

complaints, there's obvious room for improvement. I intend to see that

those improvements are introduced as quickly as possible. In addition

to the probe being conducted by Bowles" — he calls it a probe — "I

intend to be doing my own looking, particularly at the board of

directors." Okay, we've just had a Good Housekeeping stamp from the

minister; he's got a good board of directors.

If the

minister can't answer this today, then obviously he's going to have to

get back to me later on. I want to know whether he would ask his deputy

or talk to the B.C. Buildings Corporation about what happened to the

Bowles report. Was it called off? My understanding is that it was not

called off; it was completed. It would be worthwhile for this House to

know what the recommendations were, because the previous minister was

quite exercised about everything. That's a substantial corporation,

with significant revenues — almost $200 million — and an obligation in

terms of debentures with a possibility of going over $300 million.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

I'd

ask the minister to.... In fact, I'll write to him, because I don't

think I'm going to get very much from him. I'd like to know what

happened to the Bowles report.

He's talked about the rent

formula. The one other question I asked him was why it is that in the

estimates it's envisioned that the return to the Crown is going to be

about $10 million less. Last year the budget was $30 million in terms

of the return to the Crown. This year it's only envisioned as $20

million. Is there any specific reason for this? It's in the estimate

book.

I hate to be so disruptive as to ask them questions

they can't answer, but there you are, Mr. Chairman; that's the object

of the exercise. But I'm going to sit down, because.... Oh, he's gone.

I thought the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

wanted to have a go. I've had this problem with the minister when he

was the Minister of Finance — déja vu all over again.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to ask the minister. The

first one is: has the minister decided to finally get to grips with the

needs of the emergency services program? The ambulance service relies

on BCDC to provide it with its headquarters. During the estimates of

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) I showed a number of pictures

around the House of the disgraceful accommodation that's been afforded

the emergency services. I think this government should hang its head in

shame for letting the ambulance service down the way they have. This

service is highly visible and vitally needed. The morale is low, not

only because of the fact that there's a shortage of staff but because

there is just absolutely atrocious accommodation. There are a couple of

areas in New Westminster where they're doing something at the moment

but, generally speaking, I think that it's something that has to be

looked at and has to be looked at right away.

My second

question to the minister — and this of course is typical — is why it is

that when the minister makes his recreation grants, which incidentally

run very heavily in Socred ridings.... I realize that they've done a

little bit about their lottery grants to even things out, but in the

area of recreation grants, I notice that when it's a Socred riding, the

announcement is made by the hon. minister, and then the member whose

riding is affected.... For instance, here's one for a $4,433 grant to a

small community in Prince George South. It's announced jointly by Bruce

Strachan, MLA, and by the minister. There is another one for $6,900,

and it's the same thing, with the same member. There is another one for

$8,400, and it's the same thing, with the same member. And so on. It's

quite a hype, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that this is a little bit of

politics, but I suggest that it's playing it a bit too much. Now you

notice here is a $66,000 grant in the Seymour constituency; that's made

jointly. There's one for $55,000 in North Vancouver for a fitness

circuit; that's made jointly by three MLAs, including the minister.

There's another one for $173,000, and that's made jointly by two

ministers — one in Richmond and one in Vancouver–Little Mountain.

There's a whole slew more for Prince George.

During that

same time period when I was keeping these, I found three or four in NDP

ridings. That's all; just three or four. Those were in Powell River,

Port Coquitlam, Esquimalt and Lasqueti Island. So, Mr. Chairman, I

think that the minister should consider the question....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, he should consider that it's the minister responsible who is

providing the grant in his ministry, not the member for the area. I

think that the minister should take a look at his way of doing business.

his opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, the minister alluded to his new

library board and so on and all of the great things they're doing. So

far all we've heard from the library people is that they are quite

dissatisfied with this government's lack of real, vital interest. I

suggest to the minister that maybe he should once again talk to the

Library Association of this province and find out the real needs —

those that can be filled only by the government — to bring our

libraries back up to where they should be; that is, an informative

research and an informative recreation facility. Right now, Mr.

Chairman, they're being let down.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr.

Chairman, in looking over estimates I'm rather puzzled by the very

large miscellaneous expenditure for the Government Employee Relations

Bureau: $8,690,000. It's itemized as a No. 90, which means "other

expenditures" and includes all expenditures not

[ Page 3745 ]

otherwise

classified, such as interest on deposits, supplementary personnel

costs, superannuation, etc., transfers to special funds, loans and

advances etc. In looking over this I cannot for the life of me figure

what this is and why such a large amount could not be better described,

it being about 85 percent of the total vote.

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

MR. NICOLSON:

It's 178, GERB, and it's the last item. It's about $8.7 million. I hope

that the minister can tell us what this huge amount is for. I imagine

he can tell us that off the top of his head, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like first of all to endorse the comments of the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) regarding the way in which the

government creates the illusion of patronage by explicitly and

repeatedly using Socred MLAs to hand out government grants in Socred

ridings and denying that same opportunity to New Democrat MLAs in their

ridings. I think it would do the government a good turn, and the people

as well, if the government changed that policy and returned to the

policy enunciated by the New Democrat administration in '72 to '75. Let

me illustrate for the benefit of the learned member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf).

I recall once in late '74 the practice taken to such

an extent that the then second member for Victoria, David Anderson, a

Liberal, was on the front page of the Victoria Times ,

portrayed handing out a Human Resources grant to a day-care centre in

what is now my riding. Norman Levi, the then Minister of Human

Resources, made it clear that there was no patronage in the handing out

of his grants and, in fact, took that principle to such an extent that

he regularly advised members on both sides of the House when grants

were made from his ministry, and in this particular instance invited

David Anderson, if he cared — as I believe he also invited Newell

Morrison, who did not care at that instant to do it with him — to hand

out a day-care grant in Victoria city. Clearly, a former government had

the guts to deny the appearance of patronage and to invite opposition

members to join in publicly making available these funds to the people

of various ridings.

If it was good enough under that

administration and if that was a sound enough principle that the then

leader of the Liberal Party was persuaded it was a fair and reasonable

way to make public funds publicly known to be available, then I can't

see what logical objection this government would have. But if the

government is not prepared to return to that sound practice where

members of the Legislature, regardless of party, made available public

moneys in a public way in their own ridings, then Social Credit will,

as usual, stand condemned for the appearance — and no doubt the reality

— of patronage in its grant practices. Let me remind you, there was

more than one occasion, but I vividly remember that one, because I was

darned proud of Levi for having the political courage to go to David

Anderson and Newell Morrison and say: "Look, it's your riding. If you

care to hand out the grants to this day-care centre, that drop-in

centre or whatever, go ahead, because you are honourably and

legitimately the member for Victoria." That was fair and good; that was

a reasonable way for the government of the day to treat members on both

sides of the House equitably and impartially. I commend it to the

Provincial Secretary. I observe as well that it was a precedent set in

the years 1972-75.

I've two other matters that I'd like to

raise briefly. One, I am extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of

genuine interest on the part of the Provincial Secretary in saving the

Kettle Valley Railway. Brian Morris, Pat Capozzi and the members of the

Kettle Valley Railway committee have worked remarkably hard under

remarkably difficult conditions to try to save an important part of

Canadian history. The minister will reply: "Well, we commissioned the

TIDSA study." That's very good. I have the study. I'm pleased that they

did that; I'm angry that they did no more. A study by itself simply

gathers dust. A study that results in no action taken is a waste of

time and a waste of the taxpayers' money. A study that did as little as

this study did to animate the government to save this important stretch

of Canadian railway history is a study which condemns the government

for its own lack of action.

The minister, if he had the

courage, could have used sections 4 and 7 of the Heritage Conservation

Act to designate the Kettle Valley Railway as a heritage site. There is

nothing whatever in that act which would refuse him the authority to do

so. The minister could, if he wished, then set a figure for the value

of the 30-year-old track, the 40-year-old ties and the gravel. He could

have designated that figure to be the worth, upon the motion, of the

Heritage Conservation Act, that would be paid to the CPR for its

ancient investment in the track. If the minister had the courage to

take on the CPR and the courage to designate, as he is empowered to do,

we would today be possessed of the whole stretch of that track. The

minister had no such courage, and instead was willing to simply repeat

the ridiculous and unsubstantiated figures the CPR gave him as to what

they thought their track was worth.

I heard the minister say

publicly that it would cost $30 million to designate the track. That

figure, is utterly without foundation; there isn't a shred of factual

evidence to back it up. The only time that figure has ever appeared

publicly was when the CPR made it appear, hocus-pocus, because the CPR,

which is a darned tough negotiator and a darned hard bargainer, decided

to hold this gutless government to ransom and say: "We have decided

that our railway is worth $30 million." The government could just as

easily have said it was worth 30 cents. It made as much or as little

rational sense to take that position. The $30 million figure is not

substantiated in the TIDSA report. It is not apparent in any of the

engineering reports that went into it. I challenge the minister to tell

us on what independent and impartial basis he came up with that figure.

The only author of it, as far as we can tell, is the CPR itself, which,

of course, holds out for a ridiculous price for ancient track, gravel

and ties.

The value of the Kettle Valley Railway is threefold. First of all, it is an

important part of the historical tradition of Canadian development through the

rail system, and it should be saved for that reason. It was sufficiently important

that the CBC used it as one of the principal sites for the filming of The National

Dream , because the railway, in a short distance, contained as much various Canadian

railway history as any other stretch they could find on any of the main systems

in the country. It should be saved because it has unique and irreplaceable

historical value.

Secondly,

the railway, as a means eventually — 20 and 30 years from now — of

transporting significant numbers of people into and around the

Penticton area and up to Kelowna,

[ Page 3746 ]

an investment that we should guard now so we don't have to pay for it

again later. Twenty and thirty years from now the economics of such a

rail line will justify the use of it for rapid transit which it surely

will when gas costs $5 a gallon and people aren't going to be able to

afford to drive as easily, readily and casually as they can now. Twenty

and thirty years from now people will be pleased to give credit — if

they could — to a government that had the guts to save that railway for

transit purposes two and three decades down the road.

The

third reason why the Kettle Valley Railway should be kept as is is, of

course, because of the tourist potential. Once again the minister will

say: "Well, we commissioned the TIDSA study." That's very good, and I

congratulate them for doing that. The problem is they've done nothing

with it. There is no point in simply maintaining the right-of-way on

gravel for backpackers and hitch-hikers. That is an enormous loss and

defeat when you could have so much more if you had the guts to take on

the CPR and name a reasonable price for the ancient ties, track and

gravel, and have the guts to set it aside so that we protect its

heritage worth, so that we protect the option for its transit use in

the future and so that we protect the tourist potential that exists

truly and powerfully along the Kettle Valley Railway. For the

government to say, "Well, we're going to buy the right-of-way," is for

the government to admit that they lost. They lost vision, imagination

and an important part of the Canadian heritage. For the government to

say, "Well, we've got the right-of-way," is for the government to say:

"Yeah, but we lost the trestles, we lost the track, and we lost the

tourism potential." Keeping the right-of-way by itself is a nothing

achievement.

What you could and should have done was to

designate the railway and name a reasonable price to the CPR — maybe

$30,000 would be the fair replacement value for that old track, those

old ties and that old gravel. Having designated it and having paid a

fair price — not the CPR's ridiculous $30 million price — and modest

price for this old track, so old that they don't use it anymore and so

old they plan to put it instead on prairie sidings where it will be

used even less, one suspects, we then would have had the opportunity to

save for the people of the Okanagan Valley the vast tourism potential

of that remarkable stretch of rail, including the fabled Myra Canyon,

and would have had as well the opportunity to use it complimentarily

for transit 20 and 30 years from now when it will be economically

viable to do so.

Because the minister has failed to use any

guts or any imagination and to use all of the leverage of the bill,

which Mr. Bawlf introduced and which was passed unanimously in the

House, we can only say he stands condemned by the people of the

Okanagan Valley for his inaction, for his carelessness and for his lack

of vision. I predict that because of the patent failure of Social

Credit to save the Kettle Valley Railway, they will lose hundreds upon

hundreds of votes in the next general election. We know for a fact that

the people up there are passionately committed to keeping that railway

option open for the future. You have let them down, Mr. Minister. Most

particularly, so has your Premier, the member for South Okanagan.

Social Credit stands condemned for its lack of courage, imagination and

will. Thanks to Social Credit, the Kettle Valley Railway, has been lost.

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

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

MR. BARBER:

The Kettle Valley and Bennett Railway would have been acceptable to the

opposition if that was the price we had to pay in order to keep it.

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

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

However,

the third and final thing I wish to discuss briefly is the fact that in

the last year this province has still to define or articulate in a

persuasive way any cultural policy whatsoever. I recall raising this

last year with the former Provincial Secretary. It was reported widely

in the papers as being the first time in living memory that anyone

could recall a debate being led on the floor of this House in regard to

a British Columbia cultural policy. Well, so be it.

The

minister at the time pathetically pleaded the case that we should have

no cultural policy in order to leave our options open. That was, in

fact, a lamentable excuse for laziness, for lack of wit, and — again —

for lack of imagination on the part of the current government.

have a significant cultural heritage in British Columbia. It includes

originally, of course, the native Indian people. It includes

powerfully, of course, the west coast technology, the west coast arts

and the west coast genius of North America. There most certainly is a

west coast culture on this continent. It includes as well the

tremendous heritage via the ethnic communities that we enjoy so luckily

in this province.

The cultural enterprises of British

Columbia are vast, differential and important. They are not simply good

economically, but they are also very good economically. They are not

simply good for the aesthetic and the spiritual health of the people,

but they are also good for the aesthetic and the spiritual health of

all of the people. Precisely because British Columbia has no cultural

policy at all, this point being admitted last year by the Provincial

Secretary, the following situation results. Arts groups — amateur,

semi-professional and professional, performing and plastic, and all of

the arts interests in the province — inevitably are faced with a

vacuum, are faced with a kind of black hole that offers no direction,

no contour, no symmetry, no point of view about the provincial interest

in supporting arts, precisely because there are no guidelines, no

criteria except in the most narrow and unhelpful way, except in the way

that Mr. Fielding and his people are forced to attempt to administer a

non-policy, and the lotteries branch is required to do the same. Arts

groups are increasingly angry and are increasingly disfranchised from

the important policy making process that they should be able to speak

to and at and for in the province of British Columbia.

other provinces there are commendable, respectable and honoured

cultural policies. Ontario and Quebec especially enjoy a provincial

cultural policy which recognizes, enhances, articulates and gives

dimension to the cultural heritage and aspirations of their own people.

What

do we have in British Columbia? No policy. No criteria except the

narrowest. No challenge on the part of arts community people to help

shape and share in the direction of cultural enterprise for all of the

people.

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

[ Page

3747 ]

the now Provincial Secretary is willing to say that

he's reconsidered, and willing to argue in favour of the adoption of

such a policy. It is needed for the guidance and for the assistance of

legitimate cultural and arts groups of all sorts around the province.

It is not good enough or reasonable to expect them to operate in the

current vacuum and be happy about it. It does not serve their interests

in the long or the short term either. Rather, all it does is persuade

them to try and cosy up to government MLAs and get their grants through

the back door, called "lobbying," because there is no front door called

"policy" for them to go through.

We would prefer that a

front door called "policy" be built. We would prefer that the people in

the arts communities have a chance to build it. We would prefer to do

away with the old and ridiculous system of lobbying through your MLA,

because you've got nowhere else to go, there being no policy you can

find to tell you how to get wherever it is you think you should be.

The

lack of a cultural policy in British Columbia, defined, shaped and

shared not just by this Legislature but by all of the persons

interested in an arts policy here, is fundamentally damaging to the

long-term interests of the appreciation and the growth of art and

cultural activities in every way in this province. I urge the minister

to reconsider. I urge him to ignore what his colleague said last year

and tell us instead that this year he is prepared to debate, to shape

publicly and to bring back to this House sometime soon the outline of a

cultural policy for all of the people and which all of the people can

respect. At the moment, the total lack of such a policy creates a total

lack of respect on the part of the practitioners of the art and

cultural life of British Columbia. There's no need for it, there's no

justification for it, and there's no reason they or we should have to

put up with that situation much longer. I urge the Provincial Secretary

to reconsider.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Some matters are

speeches and other matters are questions. I'd like to answer a question

which related to vote 178 — Government Employee Relations Bureau —

rather than deal with it under a separate vote. The member was asking

for an explanation of "Other expenditures," which rose to $8,690,000.

That vote covers "employee benefits" to "executive benefit plan" to

''management excluded," representing $5,900,000. In other words, it

covers all excluded government employees classified under the executive

position evaluation plan. That's 1,939 employees. In addition, there

are the optional selection benefits which apply to the licensed

professionals, which represents some $2,100,000, covering slightly over

1,000 employees. An additional amount is in there to cover similar

benefit plans attributed to deputy ministers and to order-in-council

employees. So that is the make-up of the employee benefit votes which

fall under "Government Employee Relations Bureau."

MR. NICOLSON: I take it then that this, which is described as "Other

expenditures," and is described under standard objectives of expenditure,

is expenditures such as interest on deposit, supplementary personnel costs,

transfers to special funds, loans and advances, etc., and that it is, in fact,

some kind of a performance incentive plan for upper level management, and also

for order-in-council employees. Might I ask, does each order-in-council employee

have a specific amount over and above what we see — for instance, a position

created in a certain ministerial office? Would that person have a specific amount

allocated, and would that specific amount be achieved this year? Or does he

only achieve that based on how well he performs?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

No, these are pre-designed percentages as an additional benefit

attributed to all management excluded, and certain others. For

instance, in the case of the executive benefit plan, it represents 10

percent of their salary; in terms of the optional selection of benefits

attributed to licensed professionals, it's roughly 7 percent. So this

has been established within the last five years as payment in lieu of

other benefits which would normally be accorded to hourly employees and

others, where they are paid overtime and so on.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Ten.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: Ten, yes.

Vote 170 approved.

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

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

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

MRS. DAILLY:

In looking through the estimates, this is the vote where I see that the

government public information vote has doubled this year. I have a very

simple question to the minister. Would he first of tell us what is

encompassed in this public information vote and why it has doubled this

year?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I am informed the major reason

for that increase would be Transpo '86 and the expenses attributed to

it, covering the current year.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr.

Chairman, also under this vote at least I imagine it would be here —

there was a program established by the NDP called Ask B.C., which

became an inquiry office program in Vancouver. When Social Credit

became government, they pretty well emasculated the program and, I

think, brought it down to almost four or five employees, for whatever

their own reasons may be. The idea of the program, of course, was to

give the citizens of British Columbia an opportunity to phone and get

some immediate answers. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the

government's plans are now that this whole program has been whittled

down to a staff of about four or five.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, I believe that is covered under vote 186, government

information services. Is that what the member is referring to?

[ Page

3748 ]

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

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

think we'll proceed, hon. members, reserving the right, if the minister

prefers to comment in the context of vote 173, so to do. Would that be

agreeable?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it is agreeable. I just have one more

comment; I don't mind waiting for that vote, Mr. Chairman. I don't want

this vote to pass without making once again the point that I

consider.... The answer we're given is that public information, as

listed here, is Transpo. That doesn't completely satisfy me. As far as

I'm concerned, this is the vote where I consider that the taxpayers'

money is being abused, because there's never a breakdown on how much

government advertising is taking place under this government for their

own political purposes.

I want to

make a final point. Since Social Credit became government in this

province, government advertising has tripled. That pretty well explains

to us that the Social Credit government has made up its mind that there

is absolutely nothing wrong with using taxpayers' money not just to

propagate general policies of this government for information but to

put forward before the people of B.C. the Social Credit Party line. I

resent it, and many citizens of this province resent it.

MS. BROWN:

I just want to ask the minister whether a department's propaganda would

be funded by this vote and, if so, whether it would show up here rather

than under the department's estimates.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What?

MS. BROWN:

Propaganda from various departments, such as Human Resources. Would it

be funded under this vote and, if so, would it show up here rather than

as part of Human Resources?

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

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Vote 173 approved.

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Under the salary vote.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You already asked me.

MS. BROWN: Well, we'll do it retroactively then. I just want to

use this opportunity to put in a plea for the Big Brothers of Burnaby. They've

been negotiating with the minister for some time, rearranging their request,

cutting and reshaping it to try and meet the criteria of the Lottery Fund, and

they're not seeming to have very much success. Now I just want to remind

the minister that they're doing a particularly good job in Burnaby; there

is a backlog of young men needing Big Brothers. There is a shortage of Big Brothers,

so they're branching out and trying to design programs that would involve

a number of young people rather than just one-to-one. In order to do this, they

need funding and they need accommodation.

Now

I'm not quite sure what else they can do in terms of rewriting their

request for funding to make themselves eligible, but I want to put in

another plea for them to see whether the minister cannot find somehow

under the Lottery Fund the money they need to get the house. That's

what they need — the house out of which to run these programs.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can say is that I'll certainly look into

it. I recall a visit from the provincial organization some months ago

dealing with their problem of funding their office which administers

the whole province. I don't know if you're referring to a local Big

Brothers organization or....

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

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

MS. BROWN: Okay.

.Vote 174 approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3749 ]

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

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, this is where I think perhaps the minister could answer

me about what's going to happen to that provincial inquiry centre that

used to be called Ask B.C.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I quite

appreciate that that function has not been as active as it used to be

and we are reviewing it. In terms of the present employees their

position will be secure, as far as that goes. It's just a matter of how

we're going to need this service in the future. That's about all I can

say on it at this point.

Vote 186 approved.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

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

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I thought for a moment I had my vote, and that everybody was relatively

satisfied with the activities of my ministry in the last 12 months.

want to just briefly touch upon some of the activities of my ministry

and some of the plans we have for the forthcoming year. The ministry is

now halfway through its second full year of operation. During 1979-80

the ministry laid the basic foundation to carry out the performance of

its mandate to make Crown land available to the citizens of British

Columbia. The major challenge the first year was to examine the new

ministry's resources, programs and legislation as the impact upon the

provision of Crown land. In meeting this challenge, the following

accomplishments and initiatives resulted: the creation of the

ministry's Lands, Parks and Housing Act together with major amendments

to the Land Act; a reorganization of the ministry within existing staff

levels; the establishment of a ministry enterprises vote, which

includes the commercial operation of the downhill ski areas, Manning

Park Lodge and the University Endowment Lands golf course; the

establishment of a Crown land fund; a beneficiary study of Crown land

leaseholders; the introduction of a Crown land disposal program; the

establishment of a market unit and public information program; the

development of a three-year parkland acquisition and facility

development proposal; the establishment of a number of protocol

agreements with the Ministry of Forests and the British Columbia

Development Corporation, which defines responsibility boundaries; and

the clearing of a land application backlog, with an achievement of

120-day turnaround time on applications.

Having laid this

solid foundation during its first full year of operation, the ministry

entered 1980-81 better able to provide the services and programs under

its mandate to the citizens of British Columbia. In carrying out the

mandate of this ministry the objectives for 1980-81 include the recent

initiatives of providing $200 million available at low-interest rates

for the construction of new homes. This very successful program led to

the start of more than 4,500 housing units, of which nearly 2,500 are

for rent. The program was very successful in maintaining housing starts

during the period of peak interest rates. I want to thank the directors

and staff of B.C. Central Credit Union for their tremendous

administration of this program.

Speaking about housing,

Vancouver has become the major centre for residential construction in

this country, surpassing Edmonton and Calgary, which have dominated the

construction scene for some time. Housing starts in urban areas in the

province were up 61 percent in June over the same period last year. The

continuation of this trend will result in a 24 percent overall increase

in housing units constructed in 1980. The prediction for the rest of

Canada is that there will be a 20 percent reduction on housing

construction starts this year as compared to last year. Starts in

Vancouver in June were 1,356 units, up 48 percent from June 1979.

Single detached housing starts numbered 865 units, stronger than any

other metropolitan area in Canada. On a year-to date basis,

single-detached housing production in Vancouver equals production in

Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton combined. In

the first six months of 1980 Vancouver had 7,554 starts, 4,356 of which

were single-detached housing units. In British Columbia the

multiple-unit sector has shown particular strength. Some 1,068 units

were started in June, compared with only 334 units last year — a rise

of 220 percent. Victoria is also experiencing a similar surge. In June

290 units were started, up 308 percent over last June's figure of 71.

Despite this tremendous growth in housing starts we're still

experiencing problems with rental accommodation, caused essentially by

interprovincial migration, which for May 1980, the last month that

figures are available, surpassed the highest number in 20 years and was

almost three times the monthly average. The interprovincial migration

has been extremely active during the last ten months. We've had to find

accommodation for people not only from other provinces but for 16,000

immigrants that have made British Columbia their home in the last few

months. We're continuously examining ways and means of further

accelerating housing starts in this province to meet the needs of our

citizens.

The park and outdoor recreation division is

proceeding with the first year of its planned three-year development

program. The number of new park facilities to be provided under this

development program includes 1,800 new campsites, 3,000 picnic sites,

2,500 kilometres of trails, and 19 group camping areas.

The

senior citizens' housing program is able to support non-profit

societies for the construction of more than 600 housing units for

low-income senior citizens.

Through the Crown Land Fund the

ministry is assisting local governments in financing the development of

residential subdivisions and sewer and water servicing by committing

$50 million.

Also under this fund the ministry is developing

580 rural residential lots, 225 recreational lots, 124 rural

development parcels, plus agricultural parcels and a few commercial

lots in a rural land development program.

The recently

announced new policy in acquiring Crown land for agriculture has

created a great deal of public interest. Many British Columbia citizens

are interested in becoming farmers. In early September auctions are to

take place in the Peace River and central interior regions.

Public information also has a high priority during 1980-

[ Page 3750 ]

Crown land information packages are now available which better inform

the public about the programs and services of the ministry.

addition a provincial park map is being prepared to provide better

information about British Columbia's park system to both residents and

tourists. A highway sign and park information board program will be

further implemented.

Better service has been made available

to the public by maintaining a 120-day turnaround time on land

applications. The great numbers of agricultural....

Interjection.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: We'd love it.

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

The

great number of agricultural applications being received make

maintaining this standard a greater challenge. Service to the public is

also being increased by the ministry assuming the land commissioner

function in district offices. Here I want to express my thanks to the

government agents who have carried this role until this spring.

Through

the Crown Land Fund the ministry will provide grants to local

governments for the acquisition and development of community parks

under the terms of the Park (Regional) Act.

Major land

acquisitions have also been planned for 1980-1981: a continuation of

the acquisition of the Sturgeon Bank, Ladner Marsh for habitat

conservation, and land for Pacific Rim National Park, on a cost-sharing

basis with the federal government.

These represent the major

thrusts of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing for 1980-1981. The

required funding to meet these objectives will be derived from the

Crown Land Fund.

With these few introductory remarks I'd now

like to introduce my staff: my new deputy minister, John Johnston, who

took over his new responsibilities on July 28, just about two weeks

ago. I might say he was introduced not too long ago as assistant deputy

minister for the Ministry of Forests. Now I'm introducing him as a

deputy minister in my ministry. I'd like to also introduce Andrew

Armitage, assistant deputy minister of my ministry, and Tom Lee, also

assistant deputy minister.

MR. GABELMANN: First of

all, may I welcome Mr. Johnston to his second set of estimates this

session, and congratulate him too on his recent appointment.

beginning the discussion on these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I would just

say that we have made a decision on this side of the House to divide

the minister's department into three: lands, parks and housing, and to

deal with each of those areas separately, and complete each of those

areas before moving on to the next. This is just for the information of

the House. Our plan at this point is to deal with housing first, then

lands, and then parks. We will keep them separate and distinct.

don't intend, Mr. Chairman, to be either lengthy or demagogic in my

remarks this afternoon. I don't intend to get into a wrangle with the

minister. I don't intend to yell and scream and vent my spleen the way

I would like to about my concerns about housing. I want instead, very

quietly, calmly and quickly, to state a few of our concerns about the

ministry's programs and propose to the House a number of positive

solutions that we believe would be useful.

Could the

ministry, now that it has spent the last year dealing with Crown lands

and very little else, turn its attention to what we perceive as a major

problem in this province, the problem of housing?

When I say

that, I know the minister will come back at me and say: "But look at

the figures." He quoted one of them a little earlier. I believe it was

a 61 percent increase in housing starts in June in urban areas of

British Columbia. Those figures are valid and correct, and there's no

point in arguing about them. The point that I would like to make, and

the theme and basis for what I'm saying this afternoon, is that for

most of us in this province housing isn't a problem, isn't a crisis.

Nobody in this House, earning the kind of income we're earning, has to

depend in any way on government programs to obtain housing; we can do

quite well without any assistance. That applies pretty much to the

majority of our citizens in this province. But there are a large number

of people — the percentage is arguable, but I would say it's up to a

third of the residents of this province, definitely 20 percent,

probably in the high 20s — who absolutely do require government housing

assistance in a variety of ways.

Through the course of this

afternoon's comments I want to demonstrate to the minister that British

Columbia's housing program, and initiatives to try to assist that

sector of our society, don't match at all the records and performances

of neighbouring provinces like Alberta. I won't mention Saskatchewan.

The minister might accuse me of being partisan if I were to do that, so

I don't intend to talk about Saskatchewan at all this afternoon. But I

will talk about Alberta and Ontario, both provinces with fiscally

conservative governments, similar in a general sense to the government

we now have in British Columbia, yet, as I intend to demonstrate later,

provinces with very extensive and very imaginative housing programs

aimed at that sector of society that can't make it on its own — that

sector of society that doesn't benefit from the free market solution to

housing.

I think in any discussion of housing we have to

acknowledge that housing is a basic human right. It is not something

that comes and goes with the forces and vagaries of the marketplace. As

a society, we must recognize that humans have a basic right to housing.

There

has been a lot of discussion in B.C. by the minister, the Premier and

others, suggesting that the federal government is to blame for the

housing problem — that if it weren't for the big, bad feds in Ottawa we

wouldn't have the kinds of problems we have. The capital cost allowance

is one of the items mentioned, But, in fact, in most provinces in this

country there aren't great housing crises, particularly in the

low-income

section of the community, as there is here in British

Columbia. I know that the federal minister responsible for housing was

quite surprised to learn of the needs here as compared to other parts

of the country. The federal programs and policies obviously apply

across the country, and if our housing crisis was the fault of the

federal government then, presumably, the housing crisis would be a

problem in other areas of the country that are experiencing relatively

rapid growth; yet they don't have the same kinds of housing problems

that we do here.

Let me deal first of all with rental accommodation. I

[ Page 3751 ]

won't

bore the House or the minister with all the figures and facts that are

available on the crisis in rental accommodation, particularly in the

large cities, but I might say it's also true in the developing

communities; it's certainly true in small communities in my riding,

like Port Hardy and others. It's acutely and dramatically a problem in

places like Vancouver, where the vacancy rate, which hopefully should

be at 2 or 3 percent or somewhere in that order, is in fact often at

1/10 of 1 percent.

One of the problems is that the city of

Vancouver has embarked on a dramatic and major housing initiative

program.... I shouldn't use the words "housing initiative program,"

because you've taken that away for some other use, and I'll get to that

later. They have initiated programs in the city of Vancouver that deal

with, as much as is possible, some of the acute crises in that city. In

fact, as the minister knows, they have done more to make land available

and to generate low-income housing in the city of Vancouver than the

province has, and I think that that, particularly when you think of the

make-up of the city council in Vancouver, is a pretty good record.

The

point I want to make in developing this argument this afternoon is that

the ideology of the free market has become too much a problem in the

minister's mind. Often the political debate in this province between

you and us is that we are the dogmatists, the people who are hide-bound

ideologues, people who can't develop different kinds of programs

because we're caught up in a philosophy. In fact, particularly in

housing, the facts are the opposite. What has happened is that the

ideology of free enterprise so dominates the thinking, so contaminates

the government, that there is no opportunity for thinking beyond the

market system,

You have denied, in fact, that there are

requirements from the public sector for assistance. That's particularly

true in rental accommodation, and I think the city of Vancouver in its

programs, particularly in terms of co-op housing and low-income

housing, has demonstrated a far greater social conscience and a far

greater awareness of the needs than has the government. I won't go into

any more details about that. It would take far too long in terms of the

variety of issues that I would like to talk about this afternoon.

want to talk about the Housing Initiative Program, the program that was

developed in the minister's absence — while he was in New Zealand and

Australia, I believe — and announced by the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) together with the Premier, following some meetings, as a

political gesture to get the government out from under the shadow of

"dirty tricks." It was done while the minister was in the South Seas. I

wonder why. Well, if not in the South Seas, at least he was Down Under.

I wonder why it would be that the only major program that the

government has initiated in housing since the election came about at a

time when the minister was not even here. It strikes me and many

others, and not only on this side of the House, as a bit strange. It

strikes me that that, in fact, was not a housing program as such, but

rather a political program designed to try to take some of the heat off

the government at that particular time. It seemed like a good idea when

a variant of that program was suggested by the IWA. The Premier grabbed

at it and, as best as I can determine, the program was very hurriedly

put together and announced. The minister didn't even have the benefit

of making that announcement and getting all the glory for himself. I

find that very strange, Mr. Minister.

Let me say that in

principle we don't have any major objections to the concept of

low-interest money for reasonably priced accommodation. In fact, we

were proposing to do just that through the savings and trust

legislation that was passed in this Legislature in June 1975, I

believe. We were proposing, in fact, to provide money for housing at a

lower rate of interest and in a much greater amount than in the

minister's program — not the minister's program, but the government's

program.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some $30 million.

MR. GABELMANN:

It's $30 million over three years, right. Well, we're close. I said $8

million or $10 million or $12 million. You say $30 million over three

years; take my middle figure of $10 million and we're right on. It's

annually a $10 million program. We've all got into the trap of calling

it a $200 million program. It's not $200 million from the government;

it's a $10 million cost to the government per year — $30 million for

the overall program, agreed. There are 4,500 units, agreed — no quarrel

about the number of units that have been or are being built under that

program. I would argue that many of them would have been built anyway

under different financing. One in particular which had federal

financing — Hartshorne in Port Hardy — would have gone ahead anyway as

would many others. The reason that that one would have gone ahead is

that they had an arrangement with Utah Mines. Much of the housing in

that unit was built for Utah Mines employees because they're trying to

close down their bunkhouses, and the program was going to go ahead

anyway. The developer decided that he could make a bit more profit if

he bulldozed his foundations so as to no longer qualify under the

federal program, but to qualify anew under the provincial program. It

may be only 54 units out of the 4,500, but that's 1 percent — and

that's the only one that I'm....

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

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

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN:

Anyway, I won't make the point any further, but I'll use that as an

illustration of the fact that maybe not all, but many of those 4,500

units would have gone up anyway under different financing arrangements.

The

great travesty and tragedy about that program is the number of people

who lined up at credit union office doors the morning of the

announcement only to be told by credit union staff: "We don't know

anything about the program. Please come back." So, in good faith, many

of those people who had lined up early and were first in line came back

several days later, as advised by their credit unions, only to discover

that they were then way down on the list. Anyone that was very far down

that list didn't qualify. If the minister wants some absolute proof and

some very real indication of the need for this kind of relatively low —

it's middle-income housing basically if it's for private housing, but

it's on the

[ Page 3752 ]

low

side nowadays.... If he wants any indication of the overwhelming need

for this kind of program in an expanded form — in the way we had begun

to develop it, frankly — he just has to look at the list of people who

have been turned down for that program. There were thousands and

thousands of British Columbians turned down because they were not in

the first half-dozen or dozen, or whatever it was on the list of that

local credit union.

I won't say more about it. I'm not

criticizing the concept. I'm criticizing the fact that it was not a

program that was well thought through. It hadn't been through the

planning stages in any really detailed way.

One of the

problems that governments have gotten into over the years in this

country, particularly in housing, is that programs have been announced

on their own, without thought to how they impact on other programs,

without thought to what impact they will have later on not only on the

economy but on other programs within all three levels of government.

Unless the programs are really very carefully thought through and

analyzed in relation to the others, they are often doomed to failure.

This one hasn't failed in that sense because the idea is basically

good. I'm glad that the minister borrowed that one from us, even though

it was a few years late and was done in a way that wasn't nearly

adequate — and probably entirely without his knowledge except for one

or two trans-Pacific telephone calls.

Because the federal

government has decided to try to carve up the pie between the provinces

and the federal government as to who does what in various aspects of

housing, there are some very considerable gaps left. For example, let

me take handicapped housing, low-income housing, co-op housing and

seniors' housing. As I understand it, the province has kept seniors'

and handicapped housing and the federal government has kept low-income

and co-op housing. Out of that deal the province did very well

politically, as often happens in negotiations with Ottawa. The province

got the two political winners, in a sense — seniors and handicapped —

because politically you can't get into any trouble building housing for

seniors and the handicapped; it's that kind of issue.

There

is an equally great need — and a greater need in sheer numbers — for

low-income public housing. I'm not talking about the old Skeena Terrace

or Raymur Place; that's the image people have of public housing. I'm

sure that none of us want to go back to those kinds of days in public

housing. The great need in this province is for some low-income and

co-op housing programs. The minister will say, "Well, we've turned that

over to the federal government," and so you have. But in that turning

over....

I want to quote from a letter that you sent to the

manager and chairman of the national non-profit housing, Mr. Ron J.

Cobis. It's a letter from your office dated July 7. Midway through the

letter the minister says: "I have recently personally urged the Hon.

Paul Cosgrove to enhance, for example, Ottawa's allocation to CMHC's

British Columbia region for cooperative housing." Good. They should

increase it. The need is here. What you don't mention is that that

money doesn't include seniors or really low-income people in co-ops.

There need to be specially developed programs for those categories of

people. I won't go into all the details but that point is made

throughout this material that I have from Mr. Cobis' office.

What

I am saying to the minister is that, in taking handicapped and seniors'

housing and leaving co-op and public housing, we're leaving a gap for

the very low-income people who do not fit into the federal government's

definition of incomes under co-op housing. And there is a very real

need there. One of the areas of solution for the very low-income

people, in my judgment, is in fact co-op housing, not just housing

managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

I'm not

being very specific at the moment but if the minister takes that

general advice, if and when he decides to move in that direction, he

might also think about changing the nature of the ownership of the

public housing that is managed by BCHMC and converting it to co-op, so

that the people who live there could in fact own it and eventually

manage it themselves in a much greater way. That might fit very well

into your own philosophy of getting the government out of people's

lives. In that respect I would very much agree that there's a

possibility for some cooperative ventures in that area. It's something

that I wouldn't want you to do very quickly or without very much

thought. I think it requires a great deal of planning and thought, but

it is something that needs to be given some thought.

The

30-minute limit in these debates is a real problem. I've got a lot of

things that I want to go through. I think what I'll do is talk about

some positive things that government should think about doing.

Re-establish

the B.C. Housing Corporation as an active agent, even though it has not

finally disposed of all its assets. You're not going to do it, I know;

but we will. You aren't; we are. There's another opportunity for the

voters to make a decision about the relative merits of the two sides of

this House. We want to establish — as every other province in the

country has — an active housing corporation in this province, because

people in housing corporations in other provinces tell me it can

operate in a much more effective manner than can government departments

in organizing housing programs and, in fact, in taking advantage of

CMHC money on all of the cost-sharing programs.

For example,

what could the housing corporation do? Well, it could do a number of

things. It could assist in construction, maintenance and

administration. Administration and maintenance are now, I appreciate,

in BCHMC, but the housing corporation itself could do that as well as

construction for those people in British Columbia that I talked about

earlier: that 20 to 35 percent of society that is in very real need of

some government assistance. It could undertake land assembly where

that's appropriate. It could be involved in the servicing of the

development for residential use. There would be power to develop

non-profit and public housing right within the housing corporation.

Take it out of the bureaucracy of the government and put it into a

corporation where it would be a more effective and speedier process.

Give it a budget, let it go to work and let it do something.

The

second thing you could do is to establish a home mortgage corporation.

Do it at the same time or do it one before the other; it doesn't

matter. There we get back into HIP, but this could be done through a

mortgage corporation that would provide money on a regular and

sustaining basis and would not be this kind of one-shot deal that leads

to happy people who have the fortunate timing to be ready to build when

your programs get announced. It would be ready for people whenever

they're ready to build, and wouldn't depend on the vagaries of

announcements from the Premier. In doing that through a home mortgage

corporation, one of the things you'd have to do, of course, is to

persuade your

[ Page 3753 ]

colleagues

to proclaim the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act

so that we could, together with the credit unions, organize a proper

financial system that would allow for the dispensing of mortgage money

at a lower rate to British Columbians in need. The minister should be

keen to go that route of a separate financial institution. The minister

is one of the few old-fashioned Socreds in the government, one of the

few long-time Socreds and one of those who, while he may not

necessarily believe in A plus B.... Oh, he does.

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

MR. GABELMANN:

X, the unknown. While he may not be that kind of Socred, he does

believe, I think, in some of the things that his colleague the former

Premier of Alberta, Rev. Aberhart, was responsible for. Aberhart had

established institutions that had some of the aspects — some of them

were a bit more wild — that are included in the savings and trust: some

public provincial control over capital so that we can develop our own

lives in this province in a way that's suited to our own needs. I'm

sure the minister would agree with me that the big banking institutions

run from Toronto and Montreal are not likely to be as keen to cater to

our needs as a provincially, publicly controlled savings and trust

might be, which could, among other things, establish as part of its

operation the home mortgage corporation that I've talked about.

could establish a provincial land corporation; that's another thing

that could be done, something that should be given some thought. We

could plan, develop, market, finance, manage and sell land now acquired

and acquire more land that's appropriate for future development. It's

not a terribly socialist idea. Prince George does it in one form.

Calgary, Saskatoon and Regina have done it. Many cities and some

provinces have done it. It's not particularly ideological; it's just

another tool in the government's armoury of weapons to deal with the

housing problems that exist.

I refer once again to

non-profit. I'm a great believer in co-op housing as a solution for a

certain

section of our community. Not all of us want to live in a co-op

house, not all of us want to live in a rental unit, not all of us want

to live in a condominium, and not all of us want to live in a

self-owned home on a 33-by-100-foot lot. We all have different

requirements and needs. Many times those different needs are dictated

by one's financial situation; in fact, almost always. For many people

in this province co-op housing offers a unique, cheap way of — in a

sense — owning their own home, which is what most people desire. It

gives them that opportunity, but it allows them to do it at a cost well

within most people's reach, and it allows for a kind of society to

develop in a particular unit or unit of buildings where the co-op

exists. What happens in those units is that there is a respect for

one's own property, even though it's a collective property. As a result

of that there is much better maintenance and a better standard and

style of living in those units. I think that's demonstrated by any

contrasting visits one might take to a co-op housing project on one

hand and a typical free-market rental housing program on the other

hand. The minister, I noted in the press the other day, was quite

overwhelmed or surprised or pleased, or whatever words one might use,

on his visit to a housing co-op project in Vancouver. Let me say as

strongly as I can that the minister should find ways, even though

you've turned that over to the federal government, of adding co-op

housing into the provincial list of programs. It is something that is

desired not by a majority but by a considerable number of people in our

province, and it offers some very real benefits.

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

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that we have these new estimates up from

this minister, and I think he's the best Minister of Housing that this

province has had since the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson).

Mind you, in spite of all the good works that he flimflams about, he's

going to go down in history as the executioner of the B.C. Housing

Corporation. Why did you kill that housing corporation? It was rich in

land, rich in money, making profits, but it bore the stigma of having

been created by the NDP, and you've got the orders from the Premier

that all the works of the NDP had to be buried. I'm at a loss for words

when I look across there and see all of the things — Panco killed, Swan

Valley, the whole thing.

Interjection.

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

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

drawing my comments to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me raise one

other issue and then make a concluding comment. I didn't get a chance

in question period today because there was a lengthy reply from the

minister on another question, which took up the time that I was hoping

to use to ask the minister a question. What are you doing about student

housing? You've got a crisis in student housing at all of the

universities and all the campuses — SFU, UBC, BCIT, Pacific Vocational

and UVic. What's happening? Has the minister had discussions with

registrars at the institutions? Have you embarked on any programs? It's

not unheard of for governments to embark on programs to assist in

providing housing for students. We did it; other governments have done

it; your government could. I don't believe the problem has ever been

worse. The availability of suites or apartments or living accommodation

of any kind, particularly in the Vancouver and Victoria areas, has

never been worse, and many students are desperately worried about what

they will be doing come September. So I trust we'll have some answers

from the minister on those questions.

As I said earlier, I

want to refer to housing programs in Alberta and in Ontario. I pick

those two jurisdictions simply because they are Conservative

governments and the minister can't be accusing me of picking

Saskatchewan as the model. I must say Saskatchewan happens to have the

best housing programs and policies in the country, but I'm going to

compare what they do in Alberta and in Ontario to what we do here in

B.C.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Everybody is moving out.

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: It used to be.

[ Page 3754 ]

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

Let

me read a list of housing programs in Alberta:

(1) Alberta Family Home

Purchase Program;

(2) Farm Home Lending, Program;

(3) Mobile Home

Lending Program;

(4) Cooperative Housing Action Program;

(5) Shell

Housing Program. There are five home ownership programs for families in

Alberta, none of which exist here in this province.

Let me

give you eight programs under rental housing in Alberta, and then

compare that to how many exist here in British Columbia:

(1) Core

Housing Incentive Program — what's the comparable B.C. program?

(2) Modest Apartment Program;

(3) Community Housing Program;

(4) Senior

Citizen Self-Contained Housing Program — we had a program called KIND

earlier, and that's been just frittered away and not expanded;

(5) Senior Citizen Lodge Program;

(6) Municipal Non-Profit Program;

(7) Nursing Home Finance Program; and

(8) Unique Homes Assistance Program.

That's a wide variety and an imaginative list.

Rural and

remote programs. We had a rural and remote housing program here in B.C.

It appears to be getting cut back, not expanded. What have they got in

Alberta? Rural and Native Housing Program, Rural Mobile Home Program,

Rural Home Assistance Program, Transitional Housing Program, Staff

Housing Program. I won't even go into all the details of what all these

programs are. The sheer fact of their existence in contrast to programs

here in B.C. should be enough.

Home Repair Program, Alberta

Pioneers Repair Program. What do we do here for our seniors who in many

cases are no longer able to maintain their homes and, on the kind of

income they have, can't afford to? Often the widowed member of the

family is left to try to keep the house in good repair. What kinds of

programs are available? Not much. Alberta has one.

Private

land development programs. They have the Residential Land Development

Program and the Mobile Home Park Development Program. This is in

socialist Alberta, Mr. Minister.

Municipal assistance

programs. They have the Revolving Trunk Servicing Program, the Land

Assembly and Development Program, Alberta Industrial Land Program,

Lodge Assistance Program, Neighbourhood Improvement Program, Community

Services Program.

Then they have a couple of research and

development programs. They have the Innovative Housing Grant Program.

Perhaps, without getting into the details, we could start here in B.C.

to talk about some innovative housing, particularly in the field of

energy conservation. What kinds of grants are available for people who

build energy-efficient houses? Has the minister even given that any

thought? And they have a Housing Registry Program.

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

Ontario.

Let me just do a similar list of the Ontario programs: Assisted Housing

— well, we have that too; Private Assisted Rental Program; Community

Planning — well, that's partly housing; Community Renewal — we have a

little bit in another ministry, but very little; Urban Development;

Rent Supplement — we have a little bit of that; Public Housing

Assistance — we have a little bit of that. The figures, in fact, I

think, were 31 vacancies and about 3,100 and some odd applications in

the B.C. Housing Management

Commission registry. There is a

great need. They're doing it in Ontario. Public Housing Assistance;

Municipal Housing; New Communities. They have a community planning

wing. We do that in Municipal Affairs to a certain extent. Local

Housing Authorities; Main Street Revitalization; Subdivisions — all in

housing; Community Housing; Provincial and Municipal Non-Profit

Housing; Ontario Land Corporation; and the Ontario Housing Corporation.

The best two for last.

That's Ontario — blue, Conservative

Ontario. Blue Ontario — blue British Columbia. Ontario can have an

Ontario Land Corporation and an Ontario Housing Corporation. Are they

socialist ideas? No, they're not at all. They're ideas that any

contemporary government'would be including in its range of options and

programs in an effort to try to bring some solutions to the problem of

housing in this province.

Let me say again, in conclusion,

Mr. Chairman, that the problems don't exist for the minister and for

me. They don't exist for most anybody in this Legislature, and they

don't exist for a great many of the people who work in well-paid jobs

in this province. We don't have a great need for government assistance

in providing homes for us. But there are a great many people out there:

people who don't have the kind of political clout that we might have;

people who don't have the kind of access to government, access to the

levers of power that we might have; people who don't vote as much, in a

proportionate sense, as the rest of us; people who your government, Mr.

Minister, has clearly decided to forget about, particularly with

respect to housing, because you don't believe there are any votes to be

gained by it. You're afraid that by going in those directions you will

impair or colour your ideological commitment to a system, a way of

providing housing, that works well for most of us, but does not work at

all for many.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll be brief. I

listened very attentively to what the member was saying, and some of

his recommendations for housing. I did come to the conclusion that he

studied very carefully the programs that we have here in British

Columbia.

He has, outside of myself, probably the best

knowledge of any other member of the House of the housing programs that

are available in British Columbia. The member for Vancouver East got up

very briefly and talked about the Housing Corporation of British

Columbia. He talked about that great innovation, and he talked about

the great ability of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) when

he was the Minister of Housing. I'll never forget those dismal days in

British Columbia between 1972 and 1975, when we had to attempt to

secure information about the kind of expenditures on housing and to try

to find out the manoeuvring that took place in the acquisition of Casa

Loma.

I have the background here, but I'm not going to go

into Casa Loma. All I want to say about Casa Loma is that at that time

I remember saying that