1982 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8651 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement relative to erroneous statements made by member.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8651

Mr. Stupich –– 8652

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

Transport of farm workers. Ms. Sanford –– 8654

New employment initiatives. Mr. Hanson –– 8654

Travel assurance fund. Mr. Levi –– 8655

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

(Mr. Ree)

Mr. Ree –– 8655

Mr. Levi –– 8656

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

(Mr. Ree)

Third reading –– 8656

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

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8656

Mr. Lorimer –– 8657

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8658

Mr. Macdonald –– 8658

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 8659

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

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8660

Mr. Macdonald –– 8660

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8660

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

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 5 –– 8661

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading –– 8661

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

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8661

Mr. Skelly –– 8661

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 8661

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

Third reading –– 8661

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

(Hon. Mr. Chabot)

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

Mr. Levi

Mr. Kempf

Ms. Brown

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Howard

Mr. Hanson

On the amendment to vote 60 –– 8675

Division

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

Division

Appendix –– 8676

THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the members'

gallery this afternoon are some visitors from Port Alberni. Enjoying

some of the sights of Victoria are Neil and Carol Nixon and their three

children, Jason, Kevin and Kristin. I would ask the House to join me in

making them welcome.

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

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

have a director here today from the Fraser-Cheam regional district,

electoral area E. He doesn't come here very often, hon. members, so

make Gordon Stapley welcome.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) rose on a point

of privilege; you told him you would recognize him when introductions

were through.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, which member

has first call on the floor is determined according to which member is

recognized by the Chair. The first member for Vancouver Centre did

rise. The first member for Vancouver Centre did defer. The first member

for Vancouver Centre did say he was rising on a matter of privilege.

Standing order 26 reads: "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it

shall be taken into consideration immediately." I recognize the first

member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: I rise on a

point of privilege in order to make a correction and an apology.

Yesterday in the House I made statements concerning the Canadian

Imperial Bank of Commerce. I made the statements in good faith, based

on information I had received privately. I am now advised and persuaded

by senior officials of the bank that these statements were not correct.

I wish to totally withdraw any statements which I made to this House in

reference to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Not only do I

unreservedly apologize for those statements, but I wish to advise the

House that those statements were factually in error. I also sincerely

apologize to the shareholders and depositors of the Canadian Imperial

Bank of Commerce. It is a statement that should not have been made.

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

The Minister of Finance has a ministerial statement.

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE:

ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS BY MEMBER

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, notwithstanding that which has just occurred, I wish to make a

statement as Minister of Finance on a matter which is of grave concern

to all members of this side of the House and which is of concern to

many people in British Columbia — in fact, to many in our nation.

Again, notwithstanding the statement which the member has made as a

point of privilege, the fact remains and the record will continue to

show that the damage has been done. Yesterday afternoon, in the course

of second reading debate of Supply Act (No. 2), 1982, the member who

has just taken his seat made comments relative to the Canadian Imperial

Bank of Commerce. It is essential, Mr. Speaker, to quote the relevant

portion of draft Hansard for Wednesday, July 7, 1982. The key

portion of the statement made by the first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) is as follows:

By October

it will be fully revealed that one major Canadian chartered bank will

be in virtual receivership, if not actual receivership. Again, it has

to do with very grave outstanding oil and gas loans. The Canadian

Imperial Bank of Commerce, which has shareholders' equity of about $2.4

billion...

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Statements withdrawn from Hansard

are accepted on the face of that withdrawal by practice of this House.

To open debate on withdrawn statements is not the practice of this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The rules regarding ministerial

statements have been capsulized for us in a recent report on

parliamentary practice in British Columbia; the author is well known to

us. I'll cite pages 45 to 48, and if member wish to review the practice

and procedure regarding ministerial statements, they could refresh

their memories there: "A ministerial statement is the prerogative of a

minister."

The contents and relevancy of a ministerial

statement are provided for here. I would ask the Minister of Finance to

be guided by that practice,

HON. MR. CURTIS: To

continue the quote, which remains as a record of the debates of the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia for yesterday:

...has an outstanding loan to Dome Petroleum of $1.6 billion

or $1.7 billion. Dome Petroleum has outstanding loans with other banks. It's

not paying interest. It's the most outstanding, debtor. There are others,

particularly with the Bank of Commerce. They' re not paying interest. The interest

is accumulating. That's called the capitalization of interest. The most

dangerous attack on the economy one can conceive of is the capitalization of

interest. The silly high interest rates are breaking everybody, and they'll

eventually break one of the most powerful chartered banks in the country.

That is the end of the quote from pages 501-1 and 501-2 of Hansard

Blues for yesterday. lam given to understand, and if I heard him

correctly a few moments ago, the statements made by the hon. member

were made without prior inquiry on his part of any senior officer of

the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. but rather were based on a

source which he did not identify. It would appear that he chose to make

this

[ Page 8652 ]

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

Mr.

Speaker, immediately upon arriving in my office today I met with and

received telephone calls from local and regional officers of the

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Later this morning I spoke with an

individual who works directly with Russell E. Harrison, the chairman

and chief executive officer of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

It should be observed that Mr. Harrison was in meetings in Ottawa, and

I did not wish to disturb him, knowing that I would have an opportunity

to speak with him later this afternoon, British Columbia time. I've

also received a Telex from Mr. Harrison's office which reads as follows:

STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. GARY LAUK, AN NDP MEMBER OF THE BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATURE, IN REGARD TO BASIC

FINANCIAL POSITION OF CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, HAVE BEEN DRAWN TO

OUR ATTENTION. MR. LAUK'S STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETELY WITHOUT FOUNDATION AND

REFLECT THE TOTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE CANADIAN BANKING SYSTEM IN GENERAL

AND THE POSITION OF THE COMMERCE IN PARTICULAR. THEY REPRESENT A HIGHLY IRRESPONSIBLE

ACT BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SPECIFICALLY, MR. LAUK IS TOTALLY INCORRECT IN HIS COMMENTS IN

REGARD TO THE STATUS OF DOME PETROLEUM'S LOAN WITH THE BANK AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

TO OUR ULTIMATE CAPITAL STRENGTH. DOME'S LOANS TO THE COMMERCE ARE CURRENT

AS OF THIS DATE AND ARE LARGELY SECURED BY GOOD ASSETS. MORE GENERALLY, AS REPORTED

IN OUR STATEMENT FOR THE FIRST HALF OF THE CURRENT BANK YEAR, THE COMMERCE HAS

MADE PROVISION FOR SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED LOAN LOSSES, AS MIGHT BE EXPECTED

IN CURRENT ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, AND AFTER SUCH PROVISION REPORTED SIX MONTHS'

NET EARNINGS OF $113 MILLION. THERE IS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER IN ANY SUGGESTION

THAT LOANS TO DOME PETROLEUM OR INDEED TO ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS COULD RESULT IN

LOSSES WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY JEOPARDIZE THE BASIC CAPITAL STRENGTH OF THE BANK.

That

is the end of the Telex, which was not only sent to me, Mr. Speaker,

but, I believe, to most branch managers of the bank in British

Columbia, if not to all branch or senior managers across the country.

Mr.

Speaker, the statements made by the member yesterday have caused a wave

of alarm, anguish and concern on the part of thousands of British

Columbians and other Canadians. A number of our Social Credit

constituency offices today reported a rash of telephone calls and

inquiries based on news reports of the member's comments. I also

understand that many branches of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

— not only in British Columbia, but elsewhere — have experienced a

heavy volume of personal visits, calls and expressions of serious

concern and alarm. I also note, parenthetically, that CIBC shares

trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange have suffered a marked decline in

value. That aspect of the situation is not as troubling to me and to

this government as the dramatic repercussions that the member's

statements have had on individuals who deal with the Canadian Imperial

Bank of Commerce. I refer to small business people and to individual

depositors, particularly the elderly, for whom that member and members

of the NDP claim to have exclusive concern in this Legislature. While

there's no sign that the CIBC is experiencing withdrawals of savings,

term deposits and so on, there can be no doubt that the statements made

by the member have caused a dramatic increase in expressions of worry,

and that this level of concern has also been recorded with other major

chartered banks right across this country.

It is unfortunate

in the extreme that the statements were made in the first place. What

is even more distressing is that the Leader of the Opposition waited

until some time this morning, in meeting with members of the

Legislative press gallery, to indicate that he disagreed with the

opinions expressed by his caucus colleague. Surely the Leader of the

Opposition, who served as Premier of this province and Minister of

Finance between 1972 and 1975, should have known that incautious

statements would have this effect.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. minister knows that within the scope of a ministerial

statement, those things which are a matter of fact can and should be

stated. However, any matters which are argumentative are not in order

in a ministerial statement.

While I have intervened, I would

like to quote from Speaker Selwyn Lloyd of the House in Westminster on

this very question: "There is nothing in itself disorderly in the

communication to the House by a minister of the advice which he has

received from any quarter. Whether it is prudent or desirable that he

should do so is a matter upon which he must make up his mind in each

particular case." Those are the guidelines for ministerial statements.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should have

issued a statement immediately following the member's speech in order

to reassure thousands of people in this province....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Each of us comes into this House knowing that we are fully responsible

for the statements we make; whether the economy is healthy or in

recession, we still have that responsibility. One does not cry "Fire!"

in a crowded theatre. These are difficult times, not only in Canada but

throughout the world. I would suggest that it is vital that public

comment be considered and responsible, particularly regarding our

financial institutions and the establishments and structures which

serve the financial structure of this country.

The

government of British Columbia, the Premier, my cabinet and caucus

colleagues are aware of the deep anguish and concern which has occurred

today as a result of that which happened in this House yesterday. They

will remember today, July 8, as a day of fear, precipitated by the

first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. STUPICH:

Yesterday the first member for Vancouver Centre did make an unfortunate

statement; he acknowledged that. He apologized in every way he could;

he did so

[ Page 8653 ]

publicly

this morning to the media; he did so in the House. He did everything he

could to withdraw from that unfortunate statement. His apology was

complete in every way. It was an unfortunate statement, we all agree.

The repetition of that statement today in the House did nothing to take

anything away from the statement made yesterday. As unfortunate as it

was yesterday, the repetition of it today and the emphasis given to

that statement by the Minister of Finance far outweighs anything that

could be said by a member of the opposition. It was a cheap political

trick....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The same rules of relevancy that apply to

the ministerial statement would also apply to the reply. Remarks which

are factual can be made; argumentative remarks would not be in order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH:

Certainly I can say that in my opinion it was a cheap, political trick

to try to take advantage of what was an unfortunate statement yesterday.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member is now continuing the same kind of debate

that has just been ruled out of order. Would the member please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH:

Everything said on this subject today by the Minister of Finance does

nothing but make the situation worse from the point of view of the

people to whom the member for Vancouver Centre tried to apologize — the

depositors, the shareholders and everyone affected by the Bank of

Commerce. To the extent that they have been hurt by that member's

statement, they have been hurt even more today by the emphasis and

importance given that statement by the Minister of Finance for the

province of British Columbia.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did acknowledge it.

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

There's

one thing of which I am quite certain, Mr. Speaker: while the Minister

of Finance quoted officials from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

as to what they believed about the bank, I did not notice him saying

that he personally and his government believe everything said yesterday

to be wrong, and that he has complete faith in the Canadian Imperial

Bank. I didn't hear it, and I waited for it.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, the statement was heard and accepted. It had an

intervention by the Chair to be sure it was in order. I recommend to

the House that the reply be heard in the same manner.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I have talked to many of my colleagues. Many of us are

customers and depositors; some of them, including myself, are

shareholders of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. We still are.

We have made no attempt to withdraw any support from the Canadian

Imperial Bank of Commerce. I was hoping the Minister of Finance would

himself have said something like that. He has taken the statement that

was made yesterday, which was a story on the back pages of two

newspapers this morning, and built it into a headline issue today. It's

a cheap, political trick to try to take advantage of an unfortunate

statement.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said nothing at all today that

would take away from the unfortunate statement made yesterday. At least

the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) did everything he

could to take away from what he himself described as a unfortunate

statement that should not have been made.

Interjections.

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

Oral Questions

WCB BOARDS OF REVIEW BACKLOG

MS. SANFORD:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The backlog of some 3,000

appeals before WCB boards of review continues to grow. Has the minister

decided on a date for completion of his review of the situation?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I advised the House on a previous occasion that the appointment of

additional people to the boards of review will not resolve the backlog

problem. I'm aware that the appointments of a permanent member to take

the place of one who has recently left and of a part-time member have

not been made, but I hope those appointments will be made in the very

near future. I recognize the backlog, and I appreciate the concern the

member has expressed.

MS. SANFORD: The minister

indicated in May that he had been interviewing applicants for that

position. I fail to understand why those appointments have not been

made. Two other members of boards of review, not chairmen, are going to

be leaving at the end of July, which will make effectively only four

boards of review, rather than six. Can

[ Page 8654 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: The

preamble was long, but we will permit it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. As a matter of fact, I'm presently

entertaining applications for the two vacancies expected to occur at

the approximate time the member has made reference to.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, at the present rate of increase of the backlog of the

boards of review, notwithstanding the appointments that he plans to

make, the injured workers of this province will have to wait a full

year — by Christmastime — to have their appeals heard. In view of the

fact that he has not yet finished his review of the situation, and in

view of the intolerable situation with respect to the time-lag involved

for workers to have their appeals heard, will the minister reconsider

and appoint more boards of review at this point?

MR. SPEAKER:

If the question is, has the minister made any appointments, the

question is in order. If the question is, will he make appointments, it

is not in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I've

mentioned before that the appointment of further boards will not really

address the problem of the backlog of appeals. The member knows that

one additional panel was appointed and the number of appeals did not

diminish at all. As a matter of fact, they seemed to increase, and

there was quite an increase over the last year. I have entertained

submissions and suggestions from both labour and management, and there

is a divergence of opinion in that regard. I'm still of the belief that

the only way to handle the backlog problem is to amend the provisions

of the Workers' Compensation Act and place the boards of review under a

structure parallel to that of the Labour Relations Board.

MS. SANFORD:

The backlog, Mr. Speaker, increased because those chairmen were not

reappointed by the minister, and the backlog continues to increase. But

I have another question.

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

TRANSPORT OF FARM WORKERS

MS. SANFORD:

In view of the alarming accident involving 31 farmworkers packed into a

contractor's van which serves as transport to the work site, has the

minister decided to develop health and safety regulations regarding the

transport of farm workers?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr.

Speaker, I agree, that was a most unfortunate accident which occurred

and it brought to light a problem which must be addressed. I think the

House would be interested in knowing — the information has been passed

to me, and I'm still attempting to secure further information in this

regard — that the driver of that particular vehicle, whether it was the

owner or an operator, was licensed in 1981.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Well, it's rather difficult, Mr. Speaker, because of what it involved.

When a farm labour contractor is licensed under the Ministry of Labour

pursuant to the provisions of the Employment Standards Act,

notification of that licence is communicated to the Workers'

Compensation Board. The Workers' Compensation Board, pursuant to

section 28 under the Industrial Health and Safety Regulations, has a

number of regulations with respect to the transportation of workers

under the heading "Crew Cars and Crummies." My problem is that this

particular vehicle was not licensed, and we had no knowledge whatsoever

that this transportation of employees was occurring. The difficulty I

have is how to find somebody who is doing something in contravention of

the law — and I'm sure that we all have those difficulties from time to

time — but I'm certainly looking at it and I'm most concerned.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, this situation has been in effect for many years. The

situation has occurred time and time again. The minister is aware that

farm workers injured in such accidents and in the workplace are still

not covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Has the minister

finally decided to correct these injustices immediately — not next year

but immediately?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker,

farm-labour contractors do pay assessments to the WCB right now. They

are in fact covered by the provisions of the WCB. If the member is

referring to those who labour in the fields, that is a matter of

hearings at the present time. The Workers' Compensation Board and the

Federation of Agriculture are working together to seriously consider

the implementation of WCB coverage next year, and a great deal of work

has been done. We have made considerable progress in that regard over

the last several months.

NEW EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In front of the

Legislature this afternoon unemployed teachers, health-care workers,

workers in the service industries and workers in the forest industry

are coming to hear the minister speak. Has the minister decided to

announce new employment initiatives to these workers when he speaks to

them on the lawn of the Legislature this afternoon?

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

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

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

This request that I speak to a group today.... This is the first I've

heard that I was speaking. I do recall receiving a circular letter, as

a matter of fact, which has made the rounds. If the member who asked

[ Page 8655 ]

the

question is concerned, perhaps they should be contacting him as their

MLA — while he is still elected. The same is true for all MLAs in this

House who are approached from time to time by people who are unemployed

in their various constituencies.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON:

How the minister handles the correspondence that comes into his office

requesting him to speak is his own business. My question is: does he

have some hope that this afternoon he can offer these unemployed

workers some employment initiatives?

MS, SANFORD: The

office of the Minister of Labour informed the organizers of this march

and demonstration yesterday that the minister might not be able to

address them because they felt that the Labour estimates might be under

discussion. Now that it appears the Labour estimates are not going to

be under discussion, has the minister decided to address the group?

TRAVEL ASSURANCE FUND

MR. LEVI:

My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in his

capacity as being responsible for the Travel Assurance Fund. On August

15, 1980, the minister tabled the report of the Travel Assurance Board,

and at that time the board had approved 215 claims, totalling $102,000.

I've been asked by a number of people in the travel industry....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The

preamble has gone beyond the one-sentence limit already. May I have the question?

MR. LEVI:

I would like the minister to confirm to the House that the present fund

is some $90,000, and there is a claim of $50,000 against it. What plans

does the minister have to refuel the fund in order to allow it to carry

out its purpose?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm happy to

provide a current report on the status of the fund. I'm advised that

the fund presently stands at approximately $100,000. Further, the

outside estimate of potential claims against the fund at this time

would be in the order of $50,000. Those are not proven claims; they

are, shall we say, a cautious estimate on the upside. So the coverage

is about two to one.

As the member may know, contributions

to that fund come in regularly. They are made not by taxpayers but by

members of the travel agency industry in British Columbia. On that two

to one coverage basis, and given current economic times, we believe the

fund to be in good condition. Mr. Rourke, the registrar, is carefully

and regularly monitoring in the field.

MR. LEVI: Is

the minister prepared to undertake to bring to the House a list of the

claims that have been paid? One of the difficulties which the travel

industry has is that they pay for the fund; they make the

contributions, They are not aware of who is actually compensated. Is

the minister prepared to bring to the House a list of all the claims

that have been approved — which he must approve — and all the people

who have been paid?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I would be

happy to do that, if it is the case. which I doubt, that members of the

travel industry who contribute to the fund do not have access to the

results of the operation of the fund. The reason I suspect the member

is in doubt — although I am happy to check it out — is that the travel

agents are represented by three different nominees to the Travel

Assurance Board; that board specifically approves and recommends the

claims. I would therefore assume they are aware of the particulars

through their representatives: but I will be happy to check that out.

Should I find that there is no way that contributors are able in the

normal course to obtain particulars regarding payments, I will be happy

to provide the information to the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave Granted.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker,

I'm pleased to advise that this bill has been through the private bills

committee. It has been considered by all sides of the House in that

committee.

In this act the Vancouver Stock Exchange is

seeking to amend the objects it has under its original act of 1907, in

order to permit it to carry on business, not only as an exchange of

equity securities but also to act as a marketplace for trading of other

instruments — commodities, goods, produce, raw material, and rights

relating thereto.

Mr. Speaker, the decision of the exchange

to seek the amendment was prompted by the opportunity to participate

with the Montreal exchange and the European Options Exchange of

Amsterdam in the trading of gold options guaranteed by the European

Gold Clearing Corporation, in which the Vancouver Stock Exchange has

now obtained an equity position, as it has with the other two

exchanges. In addition to the opportunity afforded to the exchange to

join with these exchanges — that is, the Montreal exchange and the

European Options Exchange of Amsterdam — in trading in gold options,

the exchange also views its entry into the options trading market as a

step towards broadening its product base, and thereby relieving it to

some extent of its sole reliance on an equity market.

The

exchange is also of the opinion that its partnership with the European

Options Exchange will result in development of a better understanding

of the B.C. financial marketplace in Europe, and probably lead, as a

result, to a greater interest by European investors in the British

Columbia market. Possibly this is part of the reason that in 1981 the

Vancouver Stock Exchange experienced its greatest growth and greatest

volume of trading. It had a trading volume of 1,574,000,000 shares.

This was the largest volume of trading in Canada and the second-largest

volume of shares traded in North America. At the same time the total

value of these

[ Page 8656 ]

shares

was $3,859,000,000, which was the second-highest dollar volume in

Canada and the seventh in North America. I think this is an indication

of the international recognition of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, as is

its opportunity to participate in international options trading,

particularly in the gold-options field, which it intends to commence

this month.

Mr. Speaker, having been a staff counsel with

the Vancouver Stock Exchange for over five years, I feel that it is a

great pleasure and an honour to have the opportunity of sponsoring this

bill, and I now move second reading.

MR. LEVI: Mr.

Speaker, we had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Hudson, the president

of the stock exchange, and Mr. Irwin, and had a discussion about the

principles of the bill and the application. It's our intention, of

course, to support it. At some later date we presumably have to deal

with legislation that will cover the options market. We've had some

indication from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hyndman) that we may deal with a new Securities Act, which

presumably will give us the kind of legal framework that we can operate

in now that we're going into a much broader area of the stock market,

particularly in the international gold-options market. We will support

the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, with

respect to the comment on options trading, I understand that the

amendment we're putting through to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act at

this time does not affect its position with respect to the Securities

Act that has been filed and that we will be deliberating on later in

this House. The Vancouver Stock Exchange under the present Securities

Act and under the proposed new Securities Act still falls within the

jurisdiction of the Securities Commission, or the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, and that will have no bearing here. Accordingly

I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 403,

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

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

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It gives me

great pleasure to move second reading of this bill, which provides for

the public transit arm of the province to be renamed British Columbia

Transit. The reason for the change of name from Urban Transit Authority

to British Columbia Transit is that the province now funds transit

systems operating in rural areas, as well as in urban areas, throughout

the province. As well, the name British Columbia Transit is certainly

more consistent with the names of other B.C. Crown corporations, such

as British Columbia Railway, British Columbia Ferry Corporation and

British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Our transit system in the

province certainly serves many communities and areas in all parts of

B.C. As the system expands and provides a good level of service, not

only to the inner community but also to the more rural areas

surrounding it, I think people will relate much better to the name B.C.

Transit than to Urban Transit, which tends to be related much more to

greater Victoria or greater Vancouver.

The bill also

provides expropriation powers to assist in the building of the ALRT

system. We have commenced construction of the ALRT system. As a matter

of fact, concrete is possibly being poured today for the various

support structures being built along Terminal Avenue for the

demonstration

section of the transit system. We would like to see that

section operational perhaps in less than a year, so that people will

have the opportunity to ride the automated transit system for that

stretch along Terminal Avenue to get the feel of what will be the

finest transit system in North America. At the same time, we are

beginning construction of the ALRT system from New Westminster; we hope

to have the system meet and be complete prior to 1986 so that the

system will be totally operational.

We are getting a great

deal of cooperation from almost every community, in almost every way,

and things are progressing extremely well. We appreciate the efforts by

the various players in making this tremendous target of the government

an accomplishment of which all British Columbians can be proud. We

expect very little trouble with the municipalities or, for that matter,

with individual property owners. We could foresee the need in some

areas for the power to expropriate, but it's my hope that these

requirements will be extremely limited and that there will be little

need to ever use that power. We are aware of one example where only a

small corner of a property is required. For reasons unknown to me —

it's rumoured to be for tax purposes which would be of benefit to the

corporation that holds the property — they are holding out until

expropriation proceedings are possibly commenced. As I have said, it's

our hope that we would need to use this power very little, but

certainly such powers are required at times. Why the owners or the

corporation would have it go to that we can't explain until each

individual situation confronts us. But this bill addresses it like no

other bill has ever addressed it. It's probably one of the best pieces

[ Page 8657 ]

legislation in that regard anywhere in Canada, and certainly by far the

best with respect to expropriation, at least in British Columbia.

There

are positive initiatives that have been included in the expropriation

provisions that do not exist in other legislation. This includes the

advance notice of expropriation. Prior to the Crown corporation taking

legal possession, the expropriated will certainly have full knowledge

and the opportunity to participate much more fully than what we find

today in the legislation as it exists for expropriation affecting other

ministries or Crown corporations. The payment would be made without

prejudice to the owner's right to claim additional compensation under

the arbitration proceedings. The advance payment mechanism provided for

in the legislation, again, is innovative,

The appraisal

information on which the payment is based must be included with the

payment, even though it may be used against a Crown corporation in the

arbitration proceedings. Political accountability is provided for

because the British Columbia Transit must receive cabinet approval

prior to entering into the expropriation process. The requirement for

cabinet approval will enable further consideration to be given to the

need for expropriation.

Without going into further detail on

this fine piece of legislation, let me repeat again that expropriation

will only be used as a very last resort. I move second reading.

MR. LORIMER:

The first few sections of this bill merely change the name from Urban

Transit Authority to British Columbia Transit Authority. I only hope

that under a new name the authority will be more cooperative with the

regional districts and cities in planning and developing transit

throughout the urban centres of this province. I hope that with the

change in name the authority might be prepared to take another look at

cooperating with the city of Vancouver with reference to the conflict

regarding the Commercial Drive and Broadway area of the proposed ALRT

system in that part of town.

Whether the province is correct

in their decision or whether the city is correct is not that important.

It's a question of cooperation and coming to agreement one way or

another to get the best decision possible, and to discuss these matters

between themselves and not through the newspapers. Those matters should

be settled amicably. With a change of name, maybe there will be more

cooperation shown and more decision-making given to the local

authorities, wherever the city might be, who have far more knowledge of

local conditions than the Urban Transit Authority or the provincial

government.

The question of changing the name, of course,

also brings up the question of whether or not we're going to go to the

expense of repainting all the buses to remove the Urban Transit sign

from the sides of the buses and replacing it. A few years back, when

B.C. Hydro was operating the Transit Authority, they had a paint shop

on Cambie Street. The vehicles were painted from time to time without

going to any great expense. Now it's a question of contracting out the

jobs. What we're looking at here, in my opinion, is not a substantial

expense, but it is an expense at this time. I would like the minister

to tell us if he intends to have the changes made at the present time

or if he looks to having it done over a period of time.

Before

I go further into the matter of compensation and expropriation

provisions, I want to say that there has been a substantial improvement

in the provisions set out in this bill over what is seen in other bills

regarding expropriation, and it's a step forward. But what I would like

to discuss is the great need in this province for one standard piece of

legislation dealing with compensation, expropriation and all matters of

a person losing his property at the whim or desire of a provincial,

federal or municipal government, Crown corporations or any other

authority that has the power to take away an individual's home. In many

cases the individual is unable to react properly and doesn't have the

capabilities or the knowledge to look after himself, and in many cases

is taken advantage of by some authority expropriating that property.

want to say that many members on the other side, when they were in

opposition, spoke about this matter at great length on many occasions

over the years. I just happened to be looking through Hansard , and I want to quote from a speech made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) made in 1973.

the field of expropriation, Ms. Chairman, there is no established set

of rules in the province; there is no established mode of hearing:

there is no established method of determining fair compensation. The

expropriative power of any government is always a sinister kind of a

cloud that is lurking over individual rights.

He goes on and on. Now he's been a minister of this government for

seven years, and we still have no standard set of rules when it comes

to expropriations or when it comes to payment for property taken away

by a stroke of the pen of the government.

I'll quote further from what he said.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Quote the whole thing.

MR. LORIMER:

Oh, he goes on for pages. I'm not going to quote it all, but I would

like to remind this minister of what he has said in the past and what

his actions have been during the past seven years.

should have fair compensation laws in the province of British

Columbia.... At Great public expense we had the Clyne commission report

on expropriation laws. At great public expense we had the Land Reform

Commission Report on expropriation laws. And they pointed to one thing:

we need a single expropriation procedure in B.C. which will bring

justice and equity to this very, very troubled area. Quite frankly,

short of our natural derrieres. these are the most sat-on things in the

province of B.C. — the reports of these two royal commissions.

He's

been a member of the cabinet for some seven years, and what has

happened in regard to these matters? Absolutely nothing. The problem is

still there, as large as it ever was. They just sit. sit. sit on the

things. I think it's high time that whatever government it is....

You're the ones in power today, and I say it is high time you did it. I

suggest that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations get on with a

proper standard act dealing with expropriations and compensation for

property lost.

Another freedom fighter we had is the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

He said a few things too. He said there were 28 sins in our legislative

books, which are 28 ways in which a person's land can be expropriated.

There must be about 40 after the expropriation powers that have been

given to this government in a number of the statutes that have been put

through over the last seven years. We're no closer today than we were

20 years ago to having one set of rules for all expropriation

procedures. I think it's high time that the government got busy and

produced a bill for this Legislature to examine.

[ Page 8658 ]

said earlier that this legislation that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs has brought in is much better than the expropriation provisions

in the other acts. But that isn't what we need; we need one set of

expropriation rules. We need one set of rules to determine how

compensation is to be made and to determine how the individual is to be

protected from losing his home and land.

I have a number of

other quotes here that I won't use. I'll pass them over, though, so the

minister might have something to read for the afternoon.

will support this measure due to the fact that if the government is

starting to become serious about transit — and I'm still not convinced

of this — then obviously expropriation powers will be required. I

accept the minister's word that they will be used only in exceptional

cases. I suggest that a transit system cannot proceed without those

powers, and for that reason we will support this bill.

The

suggestion that the ALRT system is proceeding at a rapid rate is

something that I think could be put into question. I've mentioned this

before, and I won't prolong the debate with further reference to the

matters, but I want to tell the Legislature and the people of this

province that what is being built is a demonstration area. It will be

completed after a number of months, but there will be no further

development of an ALRT system during the term of this government. There

will be lots of talk about it, but there will be no money spent on

developing the capital funds for the ALRT system apart from this little

run down Terminal Avenue. I say that it would be refreshing if the

minister got up and acknowledged this fact. Then the people of the

province would know that they will be riding the bus for a great number

of years to come.

Will this change of name improve the

service and the scheduling of the present bus system? There have been

cutbacks in schedules and promised cutbacks in other schedules of the

normal bus system in the city of Vancouver. In my opinion, after seven

years of this government the transit system has not improved but has

deteriorated. It has deteriorated during that period to less runs and

less service to the public, and the population has increased.

don't object to changing the name of the authority. It has very little

power, and it does what the government tells it. It's merely a cushion

between the municipalities and a buffer between the regional districts

and the province.

In my opinion, this bill has little merit,

except for the one provision I have already stated. If there is an

intention to proceed with transit, there must be power of expropriation

within the authority of the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm speaking in support of this very model bill of my honourable

colleague. I was more than delighted to listen to the remarks of the

hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who has finally

succumbed to — or perhaps better stated, acknowledged — the wisdom of

my articulations of some nine years ago concerning the expropriation

laws in our province. I have to say that he can't really be classified

as a lightning learner, because when I made that speech — unless my

memory is hazy; his may be — he was the then Minister of Municipal

Affairs. At that point in time, unfortunately, it was to deaf ears. But

confession is good for the soul, however late in the day. I'm delighted

to see that the hon. member has finally repented and seen the wisdom of

the direction I was suggesting at that time.

I agree with

what he very fairly stated. This bill brought forth by my colleague the

Minister of Municipal Affairs is indeed a great stop forward towards

proper, effective and appropriate expropriation laws in our province,

which we indeed need.

MR. MACDONALD: As the member

who has just taken his seat said, we've been waiting a long time for

the implementation of the report of the former Mr. Justice Jack Clyne —

Blackjack Clyne. It is an excellent report. I can tell the House the

reason why we didn't implement it. I had the bill drawn up. I put it in

the drawer of my desk, and I took it to caucus one day. But in 1975 we

were faced with an orangutang Social Credit opposition that said we

were going to nationalize the land and mothers-in-law and toothbrushes

and things of that kind, especially the land. No matter what we called

the bill, which I had so carefully prepared and left for my successor

to implement — a perfectly good bill — I couldn't get it through caucus

because of what the opposition would say about that particular bill, no

matter how we drafted it.

In terms of expropriation, this is

an advance, but there are important omissions. They are in the draft of

the bill that I prepared, which I hope the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations hasn't lost. First, under this bill you can

put a notice on the property, but there are no time limits to when it

can be taken or unfrozen. Second, when you take a home, as under the

old Highway Act system, it should not be at market value. The

disruption to an individual residence and the people who live in it and

their need to find a replacement should be taken into account, so it

should be more than market value. Third, there has to be some mechanism

whereby whether the property should be taken at all would be a matter

of some adjudication and not an automatic decision by government. There

are advances in this. I compliment the minister particularly for the

advanced payment and interest provisions. They're a step in the right

direction. Let's have the one expropriation bill, though, and make Jack

Clyne happy.

The only other thing I want to say is that I

want to repeat to the minister what I've told him privately and on the

floor of the Legislature. When you go ahead with these powers, remember

that in Vancouver East, from the great northern cut east, you have

residential areas and UTAs are going through those areas. I have a fear

that when you come to Kerrisdale, if you ever do, and Arbutus is chosen

— although it's a wide swath for a right-of-way — the opposition will

be such that you'll tunnel it. But you won't tunnel it in Vancouver

East, and I think that would be terribly discriminatory. Even at this

time, I urge the minister.... I agree with the previous minister that

this thing isn't going to happen as quickly as the minister says it

will. For heaven's sake, look at alternatives, such as an underground,

to protect the residential nature of the area through which you're

passing and the small businesses on Commercial Drive and further east.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment very briefly on this particular

bill. As one of the MLAs who has had as much to do with expropriation

proceedings in the House as anyone, I suppose, due to the major

developments on the Columbia River and the Arrow Lakes and the massive

disruption to taxpayers in that area — the expropriation of vast

amounts of land — it's been one of my major concerns during my

political life. I must say that I want to support the

[ Page 8659 ]

comments

made by my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), that there should be imposed upon the agency taking the

expropriation action a duty before some kind tribunal to show cause —

to show public need and convenience, as it were — for the need for the

land, rather than just an arbitrary decision taken in secret by some

Crown agency to enter into expropriation. What we found with B.C. Hydro

in that area was that years after the fact they ended up with vast

surplus amounts of land which they then put up for sale on the real

estate market, Mr. Speaker, in some cases profiteering to the tune of a

1,400 percent increase in the price of that land over what they had

paid as compensation for the expropriation. That, in my view, is a

clear and patent abuse of power by a Crown agency.

I think

the provision to show cause and need for the land should be involved. I

also want to say that in that area the comments my colleague made about

replacement value are absolutely crucial. In practical terms, what

happens is that quite frequently the area being expropriated is a rural

area, where the cost of housing is relatively low. As an example, a

family of six may have a large home in a rural setting with a garden

and perhaps they raise a few head of stock. That home, which would cost

three times its real value to replace in an urban context, is not taken

into consideration when the appropriation takes place. In other words,

they are compensated for the rural value of the home and that leaves

them with no chance whatsoever to replace that home — to accommodate

their family in terms of the compensation paid to them — and that's

discriminatory. There should be a consideration of the replacement

cost, because in many cases anything less imposes on the family not

only disruption but extreme hardship when they are trying to relocate

with the compensation they have received.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, the last speaker emphasized a need for fairness in our

dealing with those properties that may be required for the

establishment of ALRT, and I couldn't agree more. Frankly, I too am

very disappointed about many of the proceedings that have taken place

over the last number of years under existing legislation. As the member

for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) will well recall, I paid several

visits to a Mrs. Lillian Mann in Burnaby, who was certainly suffering

from the process of expropriation as applied by the municipality of

Burnaby. I have great sympathy for what actually happened there and the

treatment afforded her. Hopefully that sort of situation will not

happen again, and I will do all I can to prevent it from happening.

The

member for Vancouver East particularly mentioned that sometimes when we

look at the provision of transit we could possibly discriminate between

one area and another as to how they are treated, be it for overhead or

undergrounding. I want to assure the member that that's not the case,

and we can certainly provide evidence to that effect. We have adopted a

system, and it's been designed to go along a particular route in a

particular fashion, all the way from downtown Vancouver to Surrey and

Coquitlam. I would not seek any undergrounding for the Surrey

section

either, and I've never, made a suggestion in that respect. It too goes

through much residential land in the Surrey area, and that's my

constituency.

I think we should treat all areas equitably,

naturally, and we should at all times follow the plan developed and

agreed upon by all those involved in the process. To suggest. as the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon did, that we're not cooperating — that

the Urban Transit Authority fails to cooperate with the regional

district and the cities — is completely wrong, and I only hope that at

a further opportunity perhaps the member will withdraw those remarks,

because it's not fair to the members who serve in a very committed

manner at all of the meetings held by the Urban Transit Authority. That

authority, it should be remembered, is made up of those very people who

serve on those municipal councils. We have alderman Fred Macklin of

Kelowna, who's the chairman, Mayor Elmer Mercier of Prince George,

Mayor John Agnew of Mission, alderman May Brown of Vancouver, Frank

Carson of Victoria, Mayor Mel Couvelier of Saanich, alderman Alan

Emmot, who is the chairman of the GVRD and an alderman in Burnaby,

Mayor Derrick Humphreys of West Vancouver, alderman Warnett Kennedy of

Vancouver and Mayor Charles Lakes of Trail. These are all elected

people, mayors, aldermen, and chairmen of a regional district, who

serve on that Urban Transit Authority. To even make the suggestion that

they are purposely attempting to cause problems and that they are not

cooperating with those very cities and regional districts they

represent is grossly unfair. They have been cooperative; they have

attempted to fairly resolve all the problems they're faced with.

can understand the reasoning or the suggestions from the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), because unfortunately — it's well

known to most — this was the attitude during the term when he was the

Minister of Municipal Affairs in the NDP years. It was study and study

and more studies, and unfortunately nothing ever progressed in the area

of transit. There wasn't really a move toward making progress or

getting on with the job. They talked a lot about ALRT, made trips to

Germany, Norway and Sweden and all over the world to look at transit

systems, but there wasn't a getting on with the job. Here we are

getting on with the job, and that's the whole intent of it.

Mr.

Speaker, I particularly wanted to make the point, because at the same

time it was suggested by the member that we've not moved very far in

transit and that ALRT probably wouldn't proceed. I want to immediately

dispel that notion and set the record straight. We have let the whole

of the contract for the construction of ALRT all the way from downtown

Vancouver to downtown New Westminster; it's proceeding, and to simply

get up on the other side and say "Ah, I want to tell the people of

British Columbia that they'll only construct that kilometre and the

whole thing will then fail and fall and won't proceed" is completely

wrong and not founded on anything at all. The member well knows that we

have let a contract for the whole of the system from downtown Vancouver

to downtown New Westminster.

Furthermore, the member should

be aware that we have approved the commuter train which is scheduled to

go into service in 1983 from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver; we have all

of those new vehicles that have recently come on stream; we have a

custom transit service for the handicapped which is the equivalent of

the whole of the transit budget during the NDP years, just the

section

on transit for the handicapped. So we've made a tremendous amount of

progress, and I think we should be very proud of what's been happening

in transit in British Columbia. We're into many communities, which is

why we have the name change an why we want to relate more to the type

of service provided in all of the province.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

[ Page 8660 ]

have the suggestion that the buses will be repainted. Yes, the buses

may well be repainted, and yes, the buses are constantly being touched

up or repainted; that's part of the program, and it's being contracted

out. We don't need a large government paint shop — be it B.C. Hydro, a

Crown corporation or government. The member said that it didn't cost us

anything or very little because it was government or B.C. Hydro, and

now it's being contracted out, and it's costing a lot. Frankly, if we

were to establish a large paint shop run by the government, we would

have a tremendous ongoing expense.

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

Mr.

Speaker, the legislation is certainly — and I'm very appreciative of

the comments made by all members who spoke on the legislation — very

forward and very progressive and much of a change over what's in place

now. I'm very pleased with it, and I appreciate that perhaps in future

years we may be looking at making changes elsewhere and possibly again

adding other provisions to this particular legislation, which will make

it more equitable still.

I know it's a bill that will

receive support from all members of the House. I would hope, however,

that the use of it will be minimized to the greatest degree possible,

as I am personally much opposed to expropriation, unless it is

extremely necessary.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

51, Urban Transit Authority Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

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

COURT ORDER INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker,

members will be aware that we have in this province a statute which is

called the Court Order Interest Act, which provides that upon the

delivery of a pecuniary judgment, the court shall include interest at a

rate which it considers to be appropriate. Members will also be aware

that from the moment judgment is delivered, the rate of interest on a

pecuniary judgment is established by the Interest Act of Canada under

the provisions of sections 12 to 15, which apply only to the four

western provinces and to the two territories. In Ontario, where those

provisions do not apply, the matter of post judgment interest is

treated as part of the administration of justice. The federal Minister

of Justice, Hon. Jean Chretien, has indicated to the western provinces

and to the territories that the Parliament of Canada is giving

consideration to the repeal of those provisions in the Interest Act.

This will permit post-judgment interest to be established by provincial

legislation.

In anticipation of the repeal of those sections

of the federal act, we are today introducing for debate an amendment to

our Court Order Interest Act which will provide for the payment of

post-judgment interest on all amounts which remain outstanding after

judgment. Under this legislation the basic interest rate will be set at

the prime rate enjoyed by the province from its bankers, and that prime

rate is subject to semi-annual adjustment. The act, however, will also

give the court which deals with the matter of the judgment power, on

application by any person affected, to vary the rate of interest or the

date from which the interest will be calculated in those cases where

the court considers that such variation is appropriate. The act will

ensure that the judgment creditors receive a reasonable rate of

interest on moneys due and payable following the awarding of judgment

in their favour.

These provisions with respect to the fixing

of interest rates will parallel for post-judgment interest the practice

in this province for calculating interest on funds which are paid in

and held in court, and also the practice which is followed under the

Court Order Interest Act with regard to pecuniary interest at the time

a judgment is awarded.

It is an appropriate step to be

taken, and will give us in this province continuing and more effective

and equitable control of matters affecting pecuniary judgments and the

entitlement of judgment creditors thereunder.

I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition supports the measure.

During the NDP administration we had the pre-judgment interest

provisions, but we couldn't do the post-judgment interest provisions

because of the federal government. Did you pass that, and we prepared

the...?

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

MR. MACDONALD: I thought we did that.

Anyway,

now we're correcting an anomaly, because it's ridiculous to get a prime

rate of 15, 16 or 17 percent up until the moment you enter your

judgment, and then to be under the Interest Act at 5 percent.

think the matter should go to committee, and I hope the federal

government will act to relinquish the jurisdiction, because as long as

that specific reference to interest on judgments in western Canada is

on the books in Ottawa, we do not have the constitutional jurisdiction

to go ahead. So I hope it will happen quickly, and it's up to the

federal government.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might just

say in closing that one of the matters that concerned us was whether or

not there would be a constitutional problem in fixing the rate of

interest, but we are satisfied that the right of the court to vary will

resolve that constitutional issue.

I move second reading of Bill 59.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

[ Page 8661 ]

COURT ORDER INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. MACDONALD:

As a matter of procedure, I don't like to get into lawyers' technical

arguments in this House, but you've defined how the interest on a

judgment accumulates in a very rough way. What does somebody do? Do

they issue a warrant for the seizure of something a year and a half

later? If there's a dispute over the amount of the judgment, do you

have to run to court every time? The judgment creditor says: "I think

the interest is now $1,610 for that period." And the judgment debtor

says: "No, it's about $1,400." What do you do? Do you have to go back

to a judge and get another certificate of judgment?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The prime rates enjoyed by the province from its bankers are

established twice each year. They are published as a matter of a

regulation, as they are used for a number of purposes. Therefore I

think the basis of calculation would be very simple. If there's a

proper dispute I suppose it would end up being referred to a registrar.

It would be resolved in that way in the case of any dispute over the

specific amount owing at a particular time.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. ROGERS:

This very minor bill was inadvertently missed in the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act. This bill merely allows the decisions of the

controller of water rights, which have previously been made entirely in

Victoria, to be made in our regional offices throughout the province.

It will greatly assist the constituents of all the various members who

have business with the controller of water rights in their region.

I move second reading.

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

HON. MR. ROGERS:

There was a debate between the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) and myself as to how long it would take to pass

water. That was very quick. [Laughter.] I move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

Bill

61, Water Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

MR. LEVI:

Now that the minister is not in the House, I want to say something nice

about him. Where is that Gorgeous creature" Oh. there he is.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let's go.

MR. LEVI:

Yes. we've already rehearsed this and we're Going to have a go. I'm

going to read a letter. When I'm through reading the letter and the

minister is through making his bombastic reply, I want him to bear one

thing in mind. There are still about 60 or 70 families in Coquitlam who

need some guarantee of where they're going to be living in the next

year or two with respect to the mobile-home park that they live in.

The

minister Lot a letter on June 24, 1982 from the district of Coquitlam

regarding the proposed acquisition of mobile-home parksites at Fraser

Mills:

"The municipal council and the district of Coquitlam were

dismayed. to say the least, upon receiving a

[ Page 8662 ]

copy of your correspondence of June 6, 1982, related to the captioned

subject. Residents of this community have depended on the word of the ministry..."

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

"...related to being able to relocate in the very near future, having

been notified that the actual purchase of the land from Crown Zellerbach had

been completed in early January."

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

"It's

most discouraging at this late date to now learn that acquisition has

not only not been completed but negotiations are being reopened, which

can only lead to further delays and quite possibly mean that some

mobile-home residents will have no place to relocate. This will create

greater hardship on those residents of this community affected by any

delay.

"The council, by resolution at their

meeting of June 21, 1982, encouraged the ministry to conclude very

shortly the acquisition of the property and commence the development of

the mobile-home park thereon. We await with anxiety.

"Yours truly,

"T. Klassen,

"Municipal clerk."

might also advise the minister that one of the alderpeople is in the

House — namely my spouse, who has a great interest in this particular

issue.

I'd like to know from the minister what led to the

breakdown of the initial agreement, which I understand is something

that the company did not come forward and fulfil. What has happened

since? Bear in mind that a lot of people want to know what the

resolution is. I know the minister has some options, so let's get them

on the record.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, in the

district municipality of Coquitlam we've done everything to attempt to

resolve the issue of the closure of two old mobile-home parks. The

owners have given at least one group of people the prescribed notice to

vacate under the Landlord and Tenants Act so that they could convert

that land to commercial purposes. It was far more financially viable to

do that.

In the meantime, we have indicated through meetings

with the mayor of the district municipality of Coquitlam, and one with

the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi).... We had

discussions. We're prepared to use Crown land in the Westwood plateau

region to accommodate the transition from this mobile-home park. The

mayor of the district municipality was prepared to hold back zoning of

the existing ones until such time as we could accommodate them on that

land. Then, lo and behold, we had a proposal put to us by the district

municipality of Coquitlam, initiated primarily, I believe, by its

planners, that that mobile-home park should be located at Fraser Mills

on some land owned by Crown Zellerbach. In an attempt to accommodate

and assist the district municipality in locating that mobile-home park

where they thought it would be more acceptable, we went along with

them. We carried out an appraisal of the value of the land. After the

appraisal, we went through the negotiation process with Crown

Zellerbach, which was fairly difficult because of the price involved.

We made an offer of $3.3 million for that parcel of land, in the belief

that the land could accommodate 200 mobile homes. However, because of

the regulations imposed and the zoning bylaw put in place by the

district municipality of Coquitlam, we concluded that the site would

accommodate only 175 mobile homes; that in itself has had a bearing on

the location.

The other issue that came to the fore, which

we hadn't expected, was off-site servicing cost of $250,500. We came to

the conclusion that it was necessary, because this was on the

floodplain; it is necessary to spend $234,000 on fill material. Then

the district municipality imposed a municipal development cost charge

of $120,000 on the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. A lot has

happened to the value of land in British Columbia since December 1981:

prices have decreased very substantially since we carried out the

appraisal of that land. Taking into consideration the realities of what

had happened to land values — the value of those pads which would be

strata title — plus the additional costs imposed on us, together with

the fact that we would be able to locate 25 fewer mobile homes in that

park, we had to revise our offer to Crown Zellerbach for the land. So

instead of $3.3 million, we made an offer to Crown Zellerbach of

$1,528,000, if I remember correctly; that amount recognizes not only

the value of the land but the additional costs which we hadn't foreseen

being imposed upon us in the development of this mobile-home park.

Another issue came to the fore: the question of a smoke easement. Crown Zellerbach

wanted a smoke easement over the top of our mobile-home park. As far as we are

concerned, that is strictly not acceptable in the development of a mobilehome

park. If a smoke easement is required there, then the mobile-home park isn't

required there.

But

if the district municipality of Coquitlam is so in love with the site,

in spite of the additional costs imposed on this development and what

has happened to land values, I'm prepared to offer that district

municipality all the funds they require for the development of that

site. If they want to buy the site at $3.3 million — which I think is a

bad deal — I'll lend them the money at 15 percent interest; then they

can go ahead and service it and develop their own mobile-home parks. I

don't think it's viable, but I'm prepared to lend them the money. In

the meantime, we have to address the concerns of those people who have

been given notice in the existing mobile-home park. We're prepared to

look at the acquisition of private land in that district municipality:

either the acquisition of private land or the development of a

mobile-home park on Crown land in that area. We're aggressively

pursuing the objective of finding an alternative site that would be

acceptable. We're anxious to find replacement land so we can put

together an attractive mobile-home park for these people which they can

afford — not on land that's worth $3.3 million, plus all the other

costs attached. We think we can find an acceptable one, where there is

not the necessity of a smoke easement over top of the park as insisted

on by Crown Zellerbach. Right now, right this very day, we are

aggressively looking for an alternate site to accommodate the

uncertainty that these people have in living in the existing park.

MR. LEVI:

He's got all of the eloquence of a Robespierre and he sounds like

Disraeli when he's really going along, and he's only had six days to

rehearse this thing. I talked to him six days ago, and he's done really

well.

The other thing that really horrified me was that if

that smoke easement goes through, it goes over my house. What I want to

ask the minister is this, just for clarification. As I understand it,

the first arrangement expired at the end of May. Was that approximately

when it was? They didn't answer the

[ Page 8663 ]

first

deal; they didn't accept it. You then put a new proposal to them, as I

understand it. The original offer made to them was not answered by them

— that is, Crown Zellerbach. That is, it fell by the wayside and

another deal had to be made. What I want to ask the minister is this:

if that deal had gone through — that is, if they had accepted it —

would you have gone ahead with it, given some of the reservations that

you've talked about now? Did you put anything in the way of this deal

so that it would not go through? Because you have quite a lot of

reservations about it as it is. You even have reservations as to site.

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

MR. LEVI:

Well, I'm dealing with the minister and his speech. Bear in mind that

first of all there was an initial deal that followed the result of the

meeting that we had with the minister. He was kind of lucky to get out

of it. After all, he was looking at $3.3 million. Then they wouldn't

come back because they wanted something else, and he's got a brand new

deal. Then he decides to hose them, because I think he hosed them a

little bit too, eh? After all, it's $1.75 million. I know you're on

record now.... You're quite serious about the loan of the money, but

not at the same site. Well, yes, you've indicated that if they want

that site, then you'll let them have the site.

Let me ask

you a general question apart from this. Perhaps the minister would

spend a minute or two telling us where they're moving in terms of

mobile-home parks, because this is not the only one that's needed. What

are they doing in relation to this? What you've done now is almost an

exercise of a policy — or is it just for this particular area? What are

you doing with mobile-home park sites now? For instance, when we talked

last December we looked at the possibility of making it part

strata-title,

part lease and part ownership. Has the government still

got its hand on that, or is that something that would be up to the

municipality? I'm not clear on that myself, frankly. What will happen

if it goes through? Who actually has the say on how it's arranged in

terms of lease, strata-title or ownership? What

part is the ministry

playing in that?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I would think that

if the little Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing is putting up the

money, it'll have some say. On the Crown Zellerbach site, first of all

when we made that offer of $3.3 million to Crown Zellerbach we weren't

aware of these additional costs that were going to be imposed upon us.

We had a commitment to proceed, and we probably would have proceeded

without these additional costs of landfill, site servicing and the

municipal development charge. We more than likely would have proceeded.

It wouldn't have been the most lucrative development that we've been

involved in, but nevertheless we probably would have proceeded. Also,

the regulations made it such that we couldn't establish 200 units

there: we had to go down to 175 units.

All of this stuff

came up after the option we had expired. I believe the option we had

expired in the latter part of February. Once that information came

forward to us, we said there was no way that we could economically

develop on that site. The site was essentially identified by the

planners in the district municipality of Coquitlam and recommended to

us in a sense of cooperation. We attempted to accommodate that

particular site, and I suggest that it's really not feasible to develop

there, even though I'm prepared to make an offer to the district

municipality of the funds developed there if they have that kind of

anxiety.

Even though they're kicking me around publicly

right now on the issue. I suggest that they are not prepared to take

the dollars that I'm prepared to offer them at 15 percent. They

recognize that it's not a good economic park to develop, because of the

various costs involved, the value of land, and what's happened to the

value of land recently. Meantime, we're pressing on with trying to

identify some alternate sites.

Fin sure the member

recognizes that I'm just as anxious as tie is to find some alternate

site for these people; I don't like to see their uncertainty as to

where they're going to be living tomorrow. I think in that respect the

district municipality of Coquitlam has a responsibility as well; they

have a responsibility to consult \N with the owners of the mobile-home

park and to tell them that Lands, Parks and Housing is moving as

quickly as possible to find an alternate site. They should move to

allay the fears of those people who have been given notice in the

mobile-home park at Coquitlam.

MR. KEMPF: It's

interesting to hear the debate that's just Lone on in regard to a

mobile-home park in the riding of the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam. I suggest that none of those problems would

exist for the minister if we adhered to a policy of government staying

out of the land business, as they should. I was interested to hear the

minister say there has been a decrease in value of land since 1981.

That's a very interesting statement, and it's one I probably will dwell

on as the afternoon wears on.

Prior to adjourning for lunch,

I was talking about a problem with regard to one of mv constituents:

the charging of what I believe to be exorbitant lease rates for

agricultural Crown land in this province. I was reading from a letter —

a very unfortunate letter. to say the least — written to my constituent

by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing field

office in Smithers, and I was telling the House that I believe certain

people in the public service have forgotten why it is they are there

and who pays their wages. I just want to remind them and this House

that the taxpayer pays their wages and they are there to serve the

people of British Columbia. I'd like to see more of that happen,

particularly out of the office of Lands, Parks and Housing in Smithers.

regard to the particular problem of my constituent, who is being asked

to pay an annual lease rate of $1, 294 for an agricultural lease

covering approximately 200 acres, a piece of land assessed. as I told

the House that this morning and I'll repeat it this afternoon — at....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I hear the socialists chattering on that side of the

floor. They interject; they don't sit there and listen to proper debate.

MR. SKELLY: I was agreeing with you.

MR. KEMPF:

That's when I get a little uptight and a little jittery, Mr. Member for

Alberni, because I know what it is. I realize that we have some

problems in the area of land in British Columbia, but I remember the

problems we had back in the days of the NDP administration in this

province. I can just imagine the problems that would exist if they ever

came

[ Page 8664 ]

back

into office in this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member

for Alberni, because their philosophy, which hasn't changed, is that no

one should own land in British Columbia; it should all belong to the

state. There should be no private ownership of land in this province or

this country. He chatters away, but I dare him to get up and say that

is not his philosophy; that is not the philosophy of the NDP Let him

give this House the assurance that if — heaven forbid — they ever

became government, they wouldn't embark on a path of that kind of

philosophy in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask

the hon. member for Alberni not to interrupt at all. I'll ask the hon.

member for Omineca to relate his remarks to the estimates for the year

1982-83.

MR. KEMPF: We know that the socialists

opposite don't believe in private ownership of land. That we learned a

very good lesson of. It's probably one of the reasons for me being in

this House at this time.

I was talking about the problem

that exists. As I've said previously, it's not an isolated problem —

the exorbitant lease fees being charged a constituent of mine, Mr.

David Rozek. The amount being asked by the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing is $1,294 a year. It's the lease fee for a piece of property

which the B.C. Assessment Authority values at an actual value of

$6,000. I was asking the minister just before adjournment for lunch

where his ministry obtained the value of $25,850, which is the value

they have placed on that piece of property. Using the formula in place,

that is the value they've used to try to extract $1,294 a year in lease

fees for that piece of property from my constituent. That's my first

question to the minister. How did they arrive at that figure? Did they

dream it up? Did they pick it out of the air? Did they not for one

minute take a took at what the B.C. Assessment Authority thought the

real value of that particular piece of property was? I want to know

where they got it.

I also want to know, when they got this

figure of $25,850 as opposed to the figure of $6,000 laid down by the

B.C. Assessment Authority, under what authority they presumed to use

that $25,850 figure. That's my second question. I guess, before I get

on to the many other examples that I have here and in my office that I

wish to discuss during the estimates of this minister, I will sit down

and listen to the answers to those two questions.

MS. BROWN:

I would like to speak to the minister about the Harrison-Lillooet

Goldrush Trail from Port Douglas to Little Lillooet Lake near 29 Mile

House. I know he's got the answer, because I gave him all of this

information about three weeks ago, so he could, when his estimates were

up, be completely prepared and give a brilliant and articulate response

to....

This particular trail is really part of the heritage

of British Columbia, because it was the one that was used by the

goldminers between 1858 and 1865 as the original route to the

goldfields of the interior. It had been allowed to grow over and become

quite disreputable, until some students from the McPherson Park Junior

Secondary School, under the leadership of Charles Hou, their social

studies teacher, decided that the project they should embark on was

clearing the trail. They have cleared the trail, and it has in fact

been used by students from a number of other schools in the Burnaby,

Vancouver, North Vancouver and Port Coquitlam areas.

The

students wrote to the Premier, as well as sending carbon copies to this

minister and all of the MLAs in Burnaby, as well as Pierre Berton of

Heritage Canada, suggesting that the provincial government should

immediately freeze all land within 100 feet of each side of the trail.

That way the trail would be preserved for posterity. What is presently

happening is that there is logging and a number of other kinds of

endeavours taking place right along the trail. This is destroying the

trail.

They went on in their letter to the minister to point

out that the area is blessed with several of the original old buildings

and some prime archaeological sites, particularly at Port Douglas, 10

Mile House and 29 Mile House. About 60 percent of the trail is

wilderness, and it's an excellent area for hiking.

I know

the students recognize that maybe the Minister of Parks should not be

the only one held responsible for the protection of this trail. They

also contacted the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) to help with

the financing, and the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) as

well as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). I know they've

spoken to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to see whether

there can't be some funds allotted under the Heritage Trust Fund to

help with the preservation of the trail. But the original request came

to this particular ministry.

The students also signed a

petition, which they sent to the Premier as well as to this minister

and the other ministers whom I have mentioned earlier, stating that

they were alarmed at the destruction of parts of the original wagon

road and adjacent trees by recent logging, even though much of the

logging has occurred on Indian reserve land. They have signed this

petition — and it has nearly a hundred names of students on it — asking

that this trail be preserved. Their recommendation for preservation of

the trail is a freezing of land on either side of the trail; I think

they're asking for 100 feet on either side of the trail.

passed this on myself to the minister, as I said, two or three weeks

ago, and I wonder whether the minister is ready at this time to respond

to the students.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first

of all, let me say yes, the member did hand me some correspondence

she'd had from a group of school children from some particular school

in her constituency, in which they'd signed a piece of paper suggesting

that a trail they detected should be preserved. I think she called it

the Hudson's Bay Trail. What did you call the trail?

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

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The Harrison-Lillooet Gold Rush Trail. Well, I'm very pleased to see

that a school teacher would take his children out into the less settled

parts of British Columbia and try to educate them as to what a fine

country we have — that there is more than the asphalt jungle of

downtown Vancouver and downtown Burnaby. It's nice to see.

However,

it takes some time before we can respond to that kind of plea made by

these children. I might say that they wrote to the member; they didn't

write to the minister. The member didn't burnp into me in the hallway,

but the member handed me this material in the hallway. I think I've

indicated to the member that when she talks about archaeological sites

[ Page 8665 ]

and

things of that nature, we have a heritage conservation branch under the

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services, and maybe

that request she makes should more properly be directed to the

Provincial Secretary. However, the matter is being looked at by

officials of my ministry. I don't know whether it is a trail of

historical significance or not.

I signed an agreement with

the federal government just a few weeks ago in the community of Quesnel

in British Columbia in which we dedicated one of the largest and most

significant trails in all of Canada, the Mackenzie-Grease Trail. I want

to tell you that the designation or the protection of trails doesn't

happen overnight. This one, the Mackenzie-Grease Trail, which is

300-odd miles long from the Blackwater country on to Bella Coola, is a

trail of great significance. It goes through I ands belonging to four

Indian bands, and it was difficult to negotiate access through there.

There is still some controversy over it, even though I think the

Mackenzie Grease Trail is of some significance.

People of my

ministry will assess the request that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

has made on behalf of some students from her constituency. As soon as

we've had a response from our people in the ministry, I'll be glad to

tell the member whether we're able to concur with her request. So in

respect to that request from the member, the matter is pending.

The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) talked about an assessment on Mr.

Rozek's property. The property was appraised by ministry staff, who

have determined that the value of the property is $25,888. That's the

way that land value is determined. Unless there is a dispute about the

value attached to the land, we don't go to the full-fledged independent

appraisals, because that's costly. However, if there is a dispute, it

has been policy in the ministry to suggest to the individual that he

engage an independent appraiser at his expense. If our figure is out of

whack, we'd be glad to refund him the money on the appraisal cost. But

if it's relatively close to our figure, he would have to pay the bill

for the appraisal.

Every five years the price is reviewed.

It's not subject to the Assessment Authority and what figures they

place on the land. In many instances in some of the more remote areas

of the province I'm sure that the Assessment Authority doesn't

necessarily get to update or inspect the various parcels of land to

determine the actual value. I don't have our assessment in front of me,

but it was made by ministry staff, I presume, from the Smithers region.

MS. BROWN:

I just want to clarify for the minister that the students of McPherson

Park Junior Secondary are not just children from my constituency. They

are young British Columbians who are very actively involved and

interested in the heritage of this province.

I did not bump

into him in the hallway. I went to a lot of trouble to find him. I had

to stalk him for a couple of days, quite frankly. I hope that he will

give this request his very serious consideration, because I think the

young people are really interested in having some response from him.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

I have a brief response. Policies are what we have an abundance of in

the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. We're in the process of

putting a recreational corridor policy in place, which I'm sure will

address the issue that you've brought to my attention.

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

want to talk about housing this afternoon for a little while; not too

long. In previous debates during this minister's estimates I made the

mistake of thinking that we could present some rational, intelligent

proposals, and that some consideration would be given to them by the

minister so we could then embark on a serious housing program in this

province. I guess in my youthful naivety I didn't understand that I

shouldn't really try to be serious about housing issues with this

particular minister, because his mind is on the grease trail, the

lands, and the parks a little bit — but not too much. It's very rarely

on housing.

I m not going to talk today about things I've

talked about in previous sessions in which I've outlined our party's

position on housing and the seriousness with which we view the crisis

in housing in this province, particularly in terms of affordable

housing. Rather. I'm going to do a very brief overview of a number of

specific issues to which I think the minister should give more careful

attention than he's given to date.

Before doing that — I

think the minister will be amused by this — I want to use, as my chief

ally in this debate, references to HUDAC. They're the great friends of

the New Democratic Party.

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

MR. GABELMANN: The minister's friends.

Let

me repeat what the president of HUDAC says about his friend the

minister. "He says the industry is extremely disappointed with the

performance of Lands, Parks and Housing minister Jim Chabot." This

isn't a quote; this is the reporter's summation of Mr. Barker's point

of view. "Provincial housing policy lacks coordination and is directed

at helping the wrong people. a spokesman for the housing industry said

Friday," He and HUDAC would like to see the Housing portfolio placed in

the hands of one minister, and that minister would have that exclusive

responsibility. In that, he agrees with us, and we agree with him.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I wouldn't go that far, Mr. Member. He says it doesn't

receive adequate attention from the current minister. He says we don't have

a firm provincial housing policy — and we need one. Right now both the federal

and provincial governments are involved in housing without any coordination

of long-range planning, and this is April of this year. The problem right now

is the affordability of housing. They shouldn't be ploughing money into

industry, but should be helping consumers. HLTDAC, in its statement of policy

and philosophy in their 1982 housing policy statement, had a central theme....

Interjections.

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

did want to talk about HUDAC, first of all, because when we have allies

like this we must be on the right track. HUDAC says as its statement of

philosophy that "the crisis of housing accommodation will repeatedly

surface until the

[ Page 8666 ]

government

of British Columbia assumes its full responsibility to plan for

adequate accommodations for its people." I agree with that, Mr.

Chairman, and our caucus agrees. It's strange, because over the years

that I've been involved in paying some attention to the housing field,

I've discovered that if we have any clearly identified ideological

opponents in the province, they would be members of HUDAC.

Interestingly, things that they are saying, both about the minister and

about the role of government in housing, are things that we've been

trying to say on this side of the House too. I think Mr. Barker's

comments are quite apt and need to be considered seriously by both the

minister and his government.

I think there's no question

whatsoever that the single biggest problem in the housing field today

is the question of affordability. Many people cannot afford to buy —

not because of the prices, as they're beginning to come down to

reasonable levels, but because of interest rates. More critically for

many people, they're unable to rent. If we need any evidence of that,

it's that despite the fact that apartments are coming free — in the

sense that there appears to be the beginning of a surplus of supply in

the rental accommodation field — there is no surplus of supply in

controlled rental accommodation. Obviously there is not a surplus of

supply in social housing controlled by B.C. Housing Management

Commission either, because the lists do not go down; the lists stay up.

There are currently around 10,000 people on the waiting list — years

and years in waiting. I don't think it's necessary for me to take the

time of the House this afternoon to prove the case that the issue of

housing is affordability. The ministry's policy or statement of goals

or approach to housing is laid out in this housing policy that the

minister just referred to a moment ago. It's a pretty brochure; it

looks like a campaign leaflet, in fact. I notice that it was introduced

just prior to an imminent campaign, and not early in the administration

of the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go through in

detail all of the statements of philosophy that are contained in this

housing policy for the government, because they are really more

rhetorical than substantial. I want to pick up on the graph on page 3

and point out what I think is evidence, clearly demonstrated by the

brochure itself, that what Mr. Barker and HUDAC are saying is accurate;

that is, the government has no long-term policy. The minister will

note, as he looks at his copy of this brochure, that in 1978 and in

1979 housing starts were generally lower than they had been in the

decade between 1971 and 1981. We had roughly 28,000 starts in those two

years of 1978 and 1979. That was a time when starts were more

essential. At that time we were going into a period of shortage of

supply. We had prices beginning their ascent; we had uncontrolled rents

beginning their ascent into higher levels. That was a result of there

being, a very serious shortage of supply which had been created, in a

sense, by a lack of housing starts in those years.

Long-term

planning would have recognized in 1978-1979 that we needed more starts

to head off the kind of gold-rush housing boom that developed in the

years following. In 1980-81, when the trend was starting to go the

other way, when it was beginning.... It hadn't happened yet, but the

evidence was beginning that there would be an opening up, a surplus,

particularly in terms of single-family detached residences. What have

we got? Giving the minister his due, we've got virtually the highest

level of starts. In 1980 the figures basically matched the highest

starts we had during an NDP government some years before, and in 1981

we had the highest starts of all in the ten-year period. But this was

at a time when we were going into a period of housing surplus, and what

we needed was some attention to the question of affordability.

Now

you can't make the total argument in a few minutes in the House, and

you certainly can't make this total argument by basing the argument on

this graph. But I think what it does is illustrate that for too long

now in the province we have not done the long-range kind of planning.

We have not built housing at the right time. We have not concentrated

the efforts that governments can generate on behalf of the creation of

supply at the time the supply is needed, and then eased off that and

dealt with the question of affordability when that is uppermost in

people's minds. Now we have the question of affordability being the

issue. And what do we have? We have attention to supply.

supply and demand worked as they theoretically work, then supply would

bring down the cost — fine. But what happens is that a supply of the

wrong kind of housing is being created. There is no supply of

affordable housing in the rental field. I think it will begin to happen

as a result of market conditions, but there is still not yet a supply

of affordable housing in the single-family detached market. There

certainly is no surplus of supply in social housing, whether it be

co-ops, public housing, seniors' or disabled housing — those four

categories. There is no surplus of supply at all in those areas of

housing that are most crucial, and those are the areas where

affordability is the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to

read a couple of letters — not the entire letters, but portions of them

— into the record to put a human face on the reality. Rather than me

standing up and talking in general terms about the fact that there is a

crisis in affordable housing, I think the point could be made more

meaningfully by reading what people's lives are really like.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This

letter from a woman in Burnaby — whose name is available, but I won't

read it into the record — is really quite touching, because it

demonstrates the kind of problem that faces a lot of people. It's a

lengthy letter, but I do want to read it. It's the only letter I'll

read at length in these estimates. The letter is addressed to the

minister with a copy to me. It's dated February 11, but I still haven't

received my copy of the minister's reply. She says:

"Dear Sir:

"The

growing housing crisis is creating serious hardships for many. Since

purchasing a home is now impossible for thousands such as myself, we

are left at the mercy of the rental market, which is equally

frightening. I have been fortunate in that my family has been living in

subsidized housing since 1975. However, I will probably face

termination of my lease shortly, due in large part to what I consider

unfair policy.

"'At the time of application I was a single parent raising

five sons on social assistance. However, before assuming occupancy I became

employed on a full-time basis. I was assigned a three-bedroom unit and have

worked conscientiously at being a responsible parent and tenant. As my income

is relatively low — less than $14,000 gross in 1981 — the housing subsidy has

made it possible to continue to work.

[ Page 8667 ]

"As

my sons approached the age of majority, I was confronted by the policy

that forces children to either assume responsibility for paying a

portion of my rent or get out. As a parent who takes her responsibility

seriously, I find this very distasteful. With the continuing decline of

the economy and the growing rate of unemployment, particularly related

to young people, my sons have experienced considerable difficulty in

finding steady employment. As a result, I have often found it necessary

to support them well beyond the age of 19, and in fact continue to do

so. This involves not only providing basic necessities but also paying

for their medical coverage, as government decrees that a person over

the age of 19 cannot be claimed as a dependant.

"My

sons have never been subjected to the humiliation of applying for

'social assistance,' in spite of being instructed to do so by housing

staff so that an additional amount of rent can be charged. If a parent

supports a young adult for several months, surely it is not

inconceivable that said child be expected to reimburse that parent by

paying room and board once employment is gained. If that young person

owes anyone, it's certainly not the Ministry of Housing. If the parent

lives in subsidized housing, the young person will probably be forced

to leave home, because if he stays, the parent must declare his salary

in addition to hers. The parent is then required to sign a lease

assuming the responsibility of paying rent calculated on income

considerably higher than her own. In other words, the parent becomes a

bill collector for the Ministry of Housing.

"Should

a young person be paying room and board, his financial obligation now

doubles and he soon realizes it's no longer advantageous to him or his

parents to remain at home. Usually young people remain at home until

they are able to acquire the necessary elements to become independent.

However, two of my sons have been forced to move out and a third is

contemplating the same. Should this son choose to leave, I am told I

must vacate my unit because policy states that two people cannot live

in a three-bedroom unit. There are no two-bedroom units available, and

I am too young to qualify for senior housing.

have spent the past two years worrying about the loss of accommodation,

and have investigated coop housing and applied for federally subsidized

accommodation. However, both involve considerable waiting periods.

"It

is ironic that someone earning less than $14,000 a year can be forced

to vacate premises because they have one bedroom too many. Yet a

neighbour, formerly a single parent on assistance, in identical

accommodation, living common-law for two years with a combined income

of probably $50,000, is able to remain. How can this be called

low-income housing?

"As one of the working poor, I have concluded that the past

seven years have been an exercise in futility. What is the use? I have overcome

many difficulties, but the knowledge that I will soon be forced to meet rental

payments of between $450 and $600 monthly is more than I can handle. It is time

to admit defeat and throw in the towel."

don't read this letter with a view to obtaining a specific answer to

this woman's problem. I don't agree with some of the things she says

about the policy. In some respects, I think the policy is appropriate;

certainly the extra bedroom shouldn't be sitting unused, etc. I read

the letter for a different reason: there is a growing sense of despair,

growing frustration — frustration may not be the right word; anxiety

probably — among many people, some of whom are making what we would

consider a reasonable amount of money — $14,000 — as compared to

welfare. It's almost as much as an MLA makes.

There is a

growing element in society which shares the concerns of this woman,

expressed in her letter to the minister and myself, about her specific

problem with B.C. Housing Management Commission. I think we have to

deal seriously with the fact that thousands upon thousands of people in

this province feel that same sense of anxiety and worry. That number is

growing: it's not diminishing. The minister's policies aren't

accomplishing anything that I can see to make life easier and more

secure for people such as the woman whose letter I have just read.

First

United Church in Vancouver has a committee called the First United

Church Social Housing Society. I want to read sections of a letter

written to me by a representative of this group. Their concern is to

develop affordable housing in the downtown east side of Vancouver:

"Letters have been written to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing, and though he applauds our efforts, he offers no encouragement

in any material way. The reality is that the provincial government has been

regrettably negligent in its responsibility to provide adequate housing for

the people in the area. Proposals to provide 15 percent social housing on the

B.C. Place site, using existing subsidy programs, will do little to alleviate

the problem."

Further on, he says:

"The

south side of False Creek was developed to allow an income mix of

one-third low, one-third medium and one-third luxury accommodation.

Fifteen percent low-income affordable housing, which B.C. Place is

proposing. Is a shameful disgrace by comparison at a time when the need

is dramatically more critical."

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

For

a moment I want to deal with the whole question of the government's

approach to affordability. Since 1975, no new social housing has been

constructed to be managed by B.C. Housing Management Commission. The

waiting list of the B.C. Housing Management Commission is in the order

of 10,000. You have to decide how you're going to count applicants. Are

you going to count groups of applicants, couples. families, or are you

going to count individuals? Then there are seniors and so on. However,

a figure of 10,000 is a fair approximation of the number on the waiting

list of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Thousands upon

thousands of other potentially eligible residents in this province

don't even know about the B.C. Housing Management Commission and their

possible option to get into that kind of housing, No more is being

created, yet there is an overwhelming demand.

[ Page 8668 ]

Even

though the government may have to swallow some ideological pride in its

determination not to become involved in what it sees as a "socialist

venture," it needs to understand that B.C. Housing Management, through

its facilities, provides a very real and needed service to a great many

British Columbians, but that that need is much greater than what is

being met at the present time.

The letter from the First

United Church talks about housing at B.C. Place. I think there is an

opportunity in this development to provide a much greater element of

social housing. I'm not going to make that argument any more, other

than just stating it. I think the evidence is clear. I don't think it

needs argument. It's not as if we're in a debate about that. We

obviously have a crisis in affordable housing. We obviously have the

possibility of a solution at B.C. Place, and I think I'll just leave

the argument at that.

I do want to ask the minister some

questions about the B.C. Place housing arrangements. The minister knows

that I have some considerable question in my mind about, if not

outright opposition to, programs such as those offered by the Finance

minister of Canada the other day, proposing that $3,000 be made

available to people buying or building homes between now and the end of

the year. My feeling about that is that it does not meet the needs of

those people who are most in need of a house, and is in fact just an

extra $3,000 to help people who can afford to buy a house in the

$100,000 range. Quite frankly, I think those programs are wasted money,

and I certainly wouldn't be party to those kinds of decisions.

I want to ask some specifics about what I think are similar arrangements in B.C. Place developments. There was a story in the Sun

on June 24, 1982, which described "a scheme to allow middle-income

earners to buy into B.C. Place housing by mortgaging their future

earnings and the expected increase in value of their houses." No

details of any consequence have been released by this....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The MIDSAL program.

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

We're

talking about housing that, let's say, costs $100,000. You're then

talking about a mortgage reduction from, say, 19 percent to 12 percent.

I suspect that 19 percent is a bit low today with the prime at 18.25

percent or 18.5 percent, or whatever it's at. Let's say 19 percent,

subsidized, based on future equity of some kind, to 12 percent — a

subsidy of 7 percent. You're talking about allowing people to buy that

housing on a subsidized basis in the meantime, because somebody has to

be paying the banks the difference between the 12 percent and 19

percent. This housing would be available to people who have a family

income of $37,000 or more, unless they have a large down payment — I'm

excluding that. The average B.C. family income is $29,000. We're

talking about providing significant subsidized dollars. There's no

guarantee of future earnings on the part of that family going up. Nor

is there any guarantee of the price going up to recover the subsidy —

today, whether they're recovered or not in the future, to provide

subsidies for people who earn more than $37,000 a year. Those families

are not the families who should be subsidized.

Why doesn't

the government, in cooperation with the federal government, take that

same money available today and put it into co-op housing? At least in

co-op housing you're subsidizing a different income group. Columbia

Housing

figures show that 68 percent of families in co-op housing have a gross

family income of less than $20,000. Only 6 percent have over $35,000.

That's part of the group of people who should be assisted, in my view,

in any housing projects that are initiated by the Crown, whether

provincial or federal. I don't understand why we're getting into the

position, as the federal government has done, of subsidizing by large

amounts people who don't really need those subsidies. I can think of

some of the mortgages from federal government projects that are just

obscene — where you're spending thousands and thousands of dollars of

subsidy for people who don't need a third of that kind of subsidy. I

won't go into any detail about that.

Maybe the minister has

a very rational and logical explanation for this particular housing

proposal that's going on at B.C. Place. It may be that I don't have any

criticism of it. I doubt that, but I'd like to hear the minister's

response as to how he intends to further develop that particular

proposal.

Talking about B.C. Place, I talked about co-ops. I

just hope that when the minister meets the federal minister later this

month he does everything he can to make it clear, first of all, that we

have a serious affordability problem here on the west coast, and that

one of the most effective vehicles for dealing with that problem is the

co-op housing movement — I call it a movement, but co-op housing in

itself. Columbia Housing has at least 2,000 people on its waiting-list

for coops which haven't been planned. They have 1,200 on waiting lists

for proposed co-ops outside the inner city, and a lot of those get

stalled in the way. I'm not going to get into those particular projects

that are not getting together as quickly as they should.

Mr.

Chairman, the minister should endeavour to extract every single

available federal dollar for co-op housing, and we should get on with

that kind of housing. It's one of the most valuable and least costly

subsidized programs in society today, and I commend it highly. It's not

for everybody, but it's certainly for a lot of people, and the demand

at the present time certainly outweighs the provision.

Senior

citizens' housing. I think in past years I've complimented the minister

on some of the senior citizens' housing programs, but I'm not sure I

can do that this year. The approvals aren't coming the way they should,

and some people are being told that they're going to have to wait till

next year. Out of interest I was curious just to see what the figures

were from 1972 to 1982. Under the NDP government.... You can't count

1972-73, because that's W.A.C.'s doing; there were about 1,000 units

that year. We increased it by 75 to 2,600-plus units of senior housing.

That figure gradually dropped down to 1981 when there were 395 units

completed — not units proposed or on the drawing-board but completed —

and the figure has dropped steadily. In 1981 it was 395, according to

ministry's figures. You get over an argument about when they're

approved, when they're finished and that kind of thing, so numbers

always have two different applications. But I'm just saying that the

trend is down. We're not building as many senior units.

MS. BROWN:

When the minister was making his opening comments about housing, he

really did a little bit of bragging about the number of units that had

been developed for senior citizens, and I just don't know whether the

minister realizes what the waiting-list is. I think you mentioned 2,000

units. Am I correct?

[ Page 8669 ]

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. CHABOT: Low-cost housing.

MS. BROWN:

Yes. The problem that we're having is that according to the statistics,

something in the neighbourhood of 11,000 people in the province are

attaining the age of 65 every year. So the number of seniors needing

housing is increasing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Some move to Hawaii.

MS. BROWN:

One or two, but a large number remain in the province. So 1,460 units

is not even a drop in the bucket. I'm wondering whether the minister

would give an indication of the number of units planned for the future,

so that we can see whether he is going to be able to catch up with this

waiting-list that we have.

The other thing that he bragged

about was 200 units developed under the 44(1)(

a) program for the

disabled, Mr. Chairman. Again, that is not even a drop in the bucket,

because I know that the minister has received correspondence from the

B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, which is just one component

of the disabled community, and they are saying that they need a catchup

of at least 500 units right now and then an additional 200 units every

year from now on just to deal with the phasing out of the institutions

which is being done by the Ministry of Human Resources, and the moving

of the mentally retarded into the community. So 200 units were

insufficient. I wonder if the minister will confirm that that number is

going to be reduced, and that for 1982-83 there are only going to be

100 units developed for the disabled, despite the fact that the 200

units developed last year were insufficient.

When the B.C.

Housing Management Commission gave a breakdown of wheelchair

applicants, for example, they said they had 37 single wheelchair

applicants and 21 couples waiting for specialized housing. So right now

we have a waiting-list of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 68. Surely

the 100 units which we were told he has planned for the coming year are

not going to be sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to sympathize with the minister, because I

received a copy of his letter to the B.C. Association for the Mentally

Retarded. He shared with them the fact that as willing as he was to

develop additional housing, he would be unable to do so. Just for the

record, I think I should read it. In responding to Mrs. Clark, the

minister stated: "There is no disagreement on the value of the Ministry

of Human Resources' thrust towards deinstitutionalizing and

decentralizing of services for mentally disabled persons. To the extent

that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing can contribute to this

thrust, we shall endeavour to do so." However, he goes on to talk about

the fact that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier

have recently emphasized "this very tight fiscal constraint which the

government faces," and he therefore finds that "in light of this fiscal

restraint" he is going to have to "reduce the annual level of new

project approvals."

what extent is this reduction going to take place? Is there any truth

to the fact that there are only going to be 100 units coming on stream

for the disabled, rather than an increase over the 200 units which came