1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6233 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Labour annual report, December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6233

Oral Questions

Lottery Fund Applications. Mr. Hall –– 6233

Release of McAlpine report. Mr. Barnes –– 6234

Mr. Lauk

Queen of Oak Bay purchase. Hon. Mr. Fraser replies –– 6237

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

Chabot)

On vote 149: minister's office –– 6237

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Levi

Mr. Davis

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, we have a person in the gallery today who in other years

would have been far more comfortable at the Clerks' table. I speak of a

good friend of this assembly who served as a former Clerk Assistant and

has had a long interest and a long association with our assembly,

having worked for many years with another esteemed member of the

Clerk's office, Mr. E.K. DeBeck. I'd like to ask the House to welcome

Mrs. Evelyn Miller, who is in the gallery today.

MR. COCKE:

Yesterday it was drawn to the attention of the House that you were a

Gemini and that it was your birthday. I would like to draw to the

attention of the House that there's another member in the House who is

very close to your place in the sky: another Gemini, the good doctor

from Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I hope that the House will join me in

wishing her a happy birthday today.

MR. RITCHIE: I

wish to introduce three gentlemen representing the Royal Bank: Mr. Bob

Corlett, Mr. Gerry Conly and Mr. Dave Laundy. Would the House please

welcome these gentlemen to the Legislature.

MR. BARRETT:

I'm not sure if my mother is in the precincts at this moment, but she

may be arriving shortly. It was her birthday yesterday too, Mr.

Speaker. I just wanted to mention to the House that she was greeted

earlier in the day by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), whom she claims to have an old friendship with. I'm

looking into this matter and will report to the House later.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the galleries today we have Mr. and Mrs. Werner Rombach from Windermere. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SKELLY:

I would ask the members of the assembly to acknowledge the visit today

by students from the Maquinna Elementary School in Port Alberni.

Maquinna is the school that my son goes to kindergarten at. I would ask

the members to pay the students of Maquinna a warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: So that Hansard will not defame any member, it's the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who....

also have the privilege of announcing that the new leader of the

Liberal Party is in the gallery today, Mrs. McLoughlin. I'd ask the

House to welcome her if she's in the gallery, I understand she's

accompanied by another Liberal. That's two.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ed Broadbent. [Laughter.]

MR. BARRETT: Well, you win some, you lose some.

The

other Liberal is the regional vice-president of the party, Irma Dunn. I

would hope that the other Liberals on the floor of the House would

welcome them.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, and draw Your Honour's attention to a situation arising

out of yesterday's proceedings — in particular, a point of order that I

had raised with respect to standing order 25, the ruling of Your Honour

and the subsequent division. Following that division, the member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) rose on a point of order asking, basically,

how many people were required for a recording. I saw two standing, and

there were only two standing. I think Mr. Speaker then said: "I think

only one is required for that request." However, standing order

16(3)....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Everybody understands that.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I'm sure everybody understands it. Standing order 16(3) says: "Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall

not be entered upon the Journals unless demanded by three members." I think

the point of order made by the member for New Westminster was correct

and right on the mark, yet I see in the Journals for Tuesday, June 16 — yesterday

afternoon's sitting — that the division is so recorded in the Journals ,

even though three members did not rise to request it. I think perhaps a correction

should be made to the Journals in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER:

In order to refresh all members of the proceedings, the member for New

Westminster correctly questioned how many members needed to stand to

request a recording. I raised a finger to indicate that it was my

impression that only one was required. Only one is required when

requesting a division, but three are required for recording. I

immediately sent a message to the hon. member for New Westminster to

make that correction so that he should not be misled. However, in his

asking yesterday how many should be required, just so that we would not

be recording something in error, I checked to be sure how many people

were standing, and before I said "so ordered," there were at least four

people standing, one on this side and three on that side. It was at

that point that I said "so ordered." If the members wish to refer it

again to the House, I would be pleased to do so, but I sought to be

sure that there were no errors.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour, December 31, 1979.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY FUND APPLICATIONS

MR. HALL:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. The ombudsman reports

that several applicants for money from the Lottery Fund were granted

approval in contravention of the minister's guidelines, and other

applications were rejected on the basis of those same guidelines. Why

are some organizations able to get grants in contravention of the

guidelines while others are not?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I'm a little surprised

that I would receive a question in question period today; however, I'm

quite prepared to answer the question.

The member asks why

some organizations receive grants and not others. The guidelines are

just what they say: they're guidelines, and they apply to most grants.

One of the basic

[ Page 6234 ]

guidelines

of lotteries grants is that they are not approved for regular, ongoing

operational funds of an organization. It is in this respect that a

particular grant associated with the ombudsman's report was refused.

That grant application applied for a staff of three people, which would

have been an ongoing expense. I think you will find that Dr. Friedmann

approved of the reasons for that grant having been refused.

don't have full details on the other grants he referred to, but they

have to do with short-term, one-time-only applications of an emergent

nature such as a handicapped association, the YWCA and a number of

others, on which I could give details to the member, where they were

not intended to be ongoing — "one time only" is the point I want to

make, Mr. Speaker. They were considered to be acceptable on that basis.

These guidelines are not considered to be rigid; they are distributed

to the applicants in complete detail, and they're under the heading of

grants not normally approved. I think these have been distributed some

months ago to all members of this House in terms of attempting to make

clearer to applicants what the basic guidelines would be.

might say, Mr. Speaker, if the member is concerned that bias or

favouritism is applied, all he has to do is look at the full disclosure

which the ministry puts out every three months — full listing and

details of all of the grants — and decide for himself whether or not

they are really fairly distributed across the province. I think all

members of this House have had experience with approaching the

lotteries branch and this minister in terms of grants and would

probably agree that there has been fair treatment.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, the point of the question is to bring to the minister's

attention that there are ministerial guidelines which are being applied

in some instances and not in other instances. We wish to know why some

organizations are able to get grants and why some are not able to get

grants using the self-same set of guidelines the minister has ordered

to be used as rules for that committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I thought I had explained that one of the basic requirements of

lotteries funds is that they will not be supplied to cover operating

expenses. I think you'll find that any of those not approved might have

had that as one criterion they failed on. If the member has a concern

over certain grants that were approved that didn't fit the guidelines,

I wish he'd bring them to my attention.

MR. HALL: I'm

not concerned about the grants that were approved; I'm concerned about

the grants that were not approved. Has the minister decided to file a

list of the rejected applications that have gone through his committee

that have been rejected on the basis of the same guidelines under which

other applicants have been accepted?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I can give that every consideration, but I think the member should

realize that there are a great multitude of applications. Last year

there were 700 general grant applications plus 2,500 for travel

assistance. Of the 2,500 something like 70 percent were approved.

Others did not qualify. Of the 700 about 57 percent were rejected and

the balance were approved. I just wanted him to know that it's a

sizeable undertaking which we might not be able to respond to.

MR. HALL:

The ombudsman recommends that under the statute an advisory committee

be appointed at arm's length from government to administer fair

guidelines for all applicants. The minister has advised the ombudsman

that the government would not do so. As a result of the ombudsman's

report being received, has the minister decided to discontinue the use

of the Lottery Fund as a pork-barrel and apply these public funds in a

fair manner?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Provincial Secretary wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I'll choose not to respond to the last part of that question, which I

categorically deny. I think the member knows better than anyone in this

House that fair treatment is accorded in the distribution of lotteries

on the basis of need. The basic premise on which this government

approaches lotteries is that they are there to address problems people

have that aren't addressed in other programs of government. For that

reason, the flexibility is required to respond to local situations of

an emergent nature, and that's the very basis of lotteries. The member

asks about the advisory committee, which is one of the main points made

by Dr. Friedmann. I would say in answer that it probably was not clear

in the minds of some members that one of the ombudsman's

recommendations was that a lotteries advisory committee be established

not only to advise on guidelines and criteria for grants, but also to

administer the entire granting system. It seems to me that abrogates

the responsibility of any minister of this government who has a

responsibility to stand up and answer for those grants. We are not

prepared to accept that premise on behalf of this government. That's

why the response went forward as it did. No other advisory board of the

many in this province has this much scope and power not only to

recommend but to approve the grants they are associated with. The

minister, as the elected official, has that decision-making

responsibility.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, if the

minister refuses to operate a

section of the statute, breaks his own

guidelines, awards grants to certain applicants and denies grants to

other applicants who meet the same guidelines, how else can this

opposition characterize it but as a pork-barrel?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to make statements.

RELEASE OF McALPINE REPORT

MR. BARNES:

I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister has said his

reason for not releasing the John McAlpine report was that it contained

"contentious issues." Have those contentious issues to do with

suppressing the fact that the report criticizes his ministry as well as

the Ministries of the Attorney-General, Education and Provincial

Secretary?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the report

covers a number of areas. I appreciate the concern which the member has

and I regret that they missed my presence here yesterday. I will tell

you that the government is taking this with a great deal of concern and

has every intention to follow through.

[ Page

6235 ]

MR. BARNES: Supplementary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The

human rights branch officials have submitted a brief to McAlpine indicating

that prosecutions under the Human Rights Code can proceed without amendments

to the code. Has the minister decided to prosecute?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

The information I have is to the contrary. It seems to me that that

question was asked a couple of weeks ago by the member. I thought I

made it clear. As a matter of fact, the information I have from the

branch is that the code is deficient with respect to the problem which

we are attempting to address.

MR. BARNES: I have one

final question to the minister. Does the minister have any objections

to the immediate release of the John McAlpine report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the report will be released in due course.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Labour: does the McAlpine report indicate that amendments should be made to the Human Rights Code?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think that everyone is entitled to look at the report at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

If I'm going to disclose the contents of the report in its entirety,

what's the validity of hanging on until we're in a position to respond?

MR. LAUK:

programs are so seriously underfunded that they directly or indirectly

lead to racial tensions in schools?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

I'll repeat that the contents of the report and the concerns which it

expresses will be made available to the House in due course.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Education, has the minister read the McAlpine report?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. LAUK:

programs are so seriously underfunded that they directly or indirectly

lead or contribute to racial tensions in schools?

HON. MR. SMITH:

As my colleague has said, the report will be filed in due course. My

this province are well supported and well funded.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister, his friend opposite does not agree,

McAlpine doesn't agree either. Has the minister decided to take immediate

before the racial tensions, particularly in the city of Vancouver, reach proportions

that are uncontrollable by the government?

MR. SPEAKER: That portion of the question which is not argumentative is in order.

HON. MR. SMITH:

There are no simple answers to racial tensions in schools or society.

One step that this ministry has taken this year is to support a pilot

multiculturalism course which is being developed by the Council of

Christians and Jews. We expect it will be available for schools in the

lower mainland this September. We have supported that. That is a

positive step. I would welcome positive suggestions from the first

member for Vancouver Centre, instead of innuendos which may in

themselves increase racial tension.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I am completely and utterly offended by

the remarks of the Minister of Education. I've spent my life working in

civil rights, and I demand that he withdraw the implication that

anything I have said today will lead to racial tension in the city of

Vancouver. I demand him to withdraw that implication, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The only power the Chair has regarding withdrawal is to

ask a member to withdraw any improper motive imputed to a member.

Therefore I will ask the Minister of Education if any such improper

motive was imputed.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I did not so impute, but if he thinks I did, I withdraw what he thinks I imputed.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to an answer by the Provincial

Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to the

question from the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). The Provincial

Secretary quoted from a list. I think the YWCA was on that list. As I

understand the rules of this House, when one is quoting from a

document, it is an obligation that the document be tabled, and I ask

that the document be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, any document which is quoted in the House is required to be

tabled. Any document which is only referred to in the House is not

required to be tabled. However, that is at the discretion of the

minister as well.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker, the minister acknowledged in his own words that he was

quoting from a document. He referred to the document, and even when I

raised the point of order he nodded his head again until he heard fully

what I said. I'm saying that he read two names from a document. The

rules clearly state that the document must then be tabled, and I am so

requesting under the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: In the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May at page 421, the authorities state:

"It

has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be

laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to

the public interest. A minister who summarizes a correspondence but

does not actually quote from it is not bound

[ Page 6236 ]

lay it upon the table, and the rule for the laying of cited documents

cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."

Therefore

if a minister has summarized correspondence or if he has cited it but

not actually quoted from it, we cannot ask him for tabling. The

minister must decide whether or not he has quoted from the document;

the Chair cannot tell.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, he quoted from the document. It's not a question of

his deciding whether or not he quoted from it. He referred to it and

gave a name off the list. He quoted from the document. It's not a

decision according to the rules you read, and not made by anyone except

by the practice of the House. The minister is clearly responsible to

table that document.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is

powerless to know whether the document was quoted from or not, because

the document is not in the hands of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the Chair to

have every document in its hands, and the Chair couldn't have the

document unless it was tabled in the first place. The Chair saying it

is impossible for the Chair to make a decision because the Chair didn't

have the report is not consistent with the rules requiring the tabling.

What I would ask the Chair to do in this dilemma is to go back over the

minister's words in Hansard

and see whether or not he did quote from a document and say that he was

quoting from the document in his answer. If indeed he did, as I think

he did, it would be appropriate that he then table the document in

accordance with the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER:

The point of order is well received. Perhaps a quicker way of dealing

with the dilemma is to ask the minister at this point in time whether

or not he quoted from the document. I simply ask the minister: did he

quote from a document?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I simply referred to a list.

MR. SPEAKER: We have the minister's word that he did not quote from a document; he simply referred to a list.

MR. LAUK:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the nineteenth edition of

May at page 431 the rule seems very clear. "Citing documents not before

the House. Another rule or principle of debate may be here added. A

minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a

dispatch or other state paper not before the House unless he be

prepared to lay it upon the table." It was only after that that it

states: "It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited

ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without

injury to the public interest." The rule Mr. Speaker quoted to the

Leader of the Opposition was the only exclusionary part of the general

rule, which is that it must be laid upon the table. He's not entitled

to read from it unless he does.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon.

members, the general rule is referred to by the first member for

Vancouver Centre. The exceptions to that rule have been cited by the

Chair. We have the minister's word that he did not quote from a

document, and therefore the matter rests.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister to state now what his intent was. I asked that the Hansard

be checked. That is still my position. That's what I'm making the

request on, based on his original statements, not what he's saying now.

I request the Chair to please check the Hansard and see if indeed he did refer to that document on the basis that I originally raised under the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

It would be very difficult for the Chair to undertake what the leader

of the opposition is now requesting, because in order to do that the

Chair would have to have the tabled document in hand to see whether or

not it was quoted properly. Hon. members, I do not have that document,

and therefore we must rely upon the word of an hon. member of this

House. I so rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD:

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that in an identical case with

respect to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) Your Honour took the opposite course. You can't

have it both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: If members of the

House wish the practice of the House to follow other than the

authorities that have been cited, I would recommend that the matter be

referred to the committee on standing orders and be clarified to an

even greater degree than that which the authorities have already

provided. Hon. members, the same citation has been referred to several

times in my hearing, and I do not recall any time when the decision has

gone other than the way it has gone now. If members have such a

decision, I would be very happy to look at it.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, we have not dealt with what I heard, as I understood it,

as a ruling from you on this. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has

raised the point that this ruling you have made, if left, contradicts

an earlier ruling made by yourself relating to an earlier incident with

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. If the matter

is left there, then we are going to have a contradictory ruling by

yourself in the Chair on the same issue.

MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing in hand, and neither has the member for Skeena put anything in my hand, that would indicate a contrary decision.

MR. BARRETT: Well, are you asking then that we challenge a ruling that we know is contradictory to an earlier ruling by yourself?

MR. SPEAKER: That avenue is open to every member.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no other course. I don't want that to

happen. Can you advise us from the Chair how we can deal with this

without having a recorded vote on a matter on which you decided one

way, and then exactly the opposite on the same matter?

MR. SPEAKER: We have no indication that we've gone two ways on the same matter. However, hon. members,

[ Page 6237 ]

perhaps

in order that the House can go on with its business, the Chair will

undertake to sit down with the member for Skeena and see whether or not

a variance of ruling has actually taken place. If that has actually

taken place we will deal with the matter at such time as is convenient.

Is that undertaking satisfactory?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the leave of the House to answer a question that was asked me a few days ago in question period.

Leave granted.

QUEEN OF OAK BAY PURCHASE

HON. MR. FRASER:

I would like to provide information and answers to questions asked of

me by the members for Mackenzie, Skeena and New Westminster regarding

the financing by the B.C. Ferry Corporation of the Queen of Oak Bay .

First, the financial arrangements regarding the Queen of Oak Bay

have not been finalized, and I do not propose to enter into

negotiations in the House. However, I am appreciative of the

opportunity to answer questions from the hon. members so that I can

clarify some misstatements made by some of their colleagues. Briefly,

the B.C. Ferry Corporation acquired the Queen of Oak Bay

at a cost of $24 million and is currently negotiating to finance that

acquisition. An alternative being considered is a sale and leaseback

transaction which would retain the vessel under the management,

direction and use of the B.C. Ferry Corporation while financing it at a

very attractive rate of approximately 14.95 percent, almost 2 percent

below alternative financing sources in today's money market.

Secondly,

to our knowledge no government in Canada has made any special taxation

concessions, nor are they contemplating any, regarding the financial

proposals we are considering for the Queen of Oak Bay

or any other ship of the fleet. What is important is that the B.C.

Ferry Corporation is managed by a strong board of directors and an

excellent management. They are using legitimate, intelligent methods to

finance a growing fleet to meet the ever-increasing demand for ferry

services in British Columbia. They are conducting themselves within the

terms of reference of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act, which

gives them borrowing power of up to $250 million. This authority was

passed by this Legislature.

The Ferry Corporation is simply

conducting itself in a straightforward, businesslike manner. I can

appreciate that some of the financial arrangements made by the Ferry

Corporation — or any other Crown corporation in this province, for that

matter — are not simple, especially when non-financial experts are

examining incomplete information. I can summarize, therefore, by

advising this House that the corporation is arranging its affairs in a

very commendable, businesslike manner within current law and taxation

practices to obtain the use of a new jumbo ferry at the lowest possible

cost to the British Columbia taxpayer.

As I told this House

during the discussion of my estimates for 1981-82, the B.C. Ferry

Corporation is involved in one of the most ambitious expansion programs

in its history to provide additional, improved service to our citizens.

I fully support the expansion and the methods chosen by the board of

directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to finance this expansion from

revenues of the corporation over a term which more closely approximates

the time that the vessel would be used by the travelling public. All of

the financial arrangements are consistent with good business practices,

assuring the people of British Columbia the best possible deal in

acquiring the new jumbo ferry. In simple terms, the method of financing

is not unlike that used by many citizens who find they must mortgage

their existing homes to add extra rooms or whatever.

The Ferry Corporation is receiving $24 million for the Queen of Oak Bay

— exactly what it cost them. We'll still have control over and use of

the vessel, and will be able to invest the $24 million for the short

term at today's rate of 19 percent — well above 14.85 percent — at a

profit, or we will be able to utilize the funds at this very low rate

to make further improvements or additions to the fleet. I think that's

just good business.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 149: minister's office, $156,974.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could determine how much time I have left.

MR. SKELLY: This is estimates; you have 30 minutes.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. I misunderstood the rule; I thought it was a continuing thing.

MR. SKELLY: This is all new.

MR. GABELMANN:

Okay. I don't intend to take the full 30 minutes, however, Mr.

Chairman. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is happy about that.

began the debate on the Housing estimates yesterday afternoon. I want

to continue my participation in this debate by talking about a few of

the problems that exist in the housing crisis facing British Columbia

that can and should be dealt with by the provincial government.

Obviously, as I said yesterday, some of the problems are beyond the

control of the province. The notable one there is the cost of money.

One

area where we have serious problems that can be dealt with is in the

provision of land. I want to read this into the record. I ask the

minister to make some comments about the following information. It

relates to the amount of land available for housing with the Greater

Vancouver Regional District. One often hears that we have a housing

crisis because the agricultural land reserve has taken land off the

housing market that could be used for housing. That argument is

demonstrably inaccurate, and I would like to read some figures to back

that up.

In the Greater Vancouver Regional District alone there are 4,075.5 acres of vacant urban land available for housing.

[ Page 6238 ]

one were to argue that ten units of housing could be provided per acre

— which I think is a reasonable figure, when you include the variety of

housing that could be built on these acres — you must then multiply ten

units times 4,000-plus acres; assuming that there will be 2.7 people on

average in each of those units, which is a fair average, you're talking

about 1.1 million people who could be housed in greater Vancouver

within the GVRD, using available urban non-agricultural land.

That

land is there; it is not on the market, by and large. Some of that land

is Crown land; some of that land is municipally owned land and much of

the rest of that land is privately held; much of that land happens to

be land that is being held in small ways by ordinary people who many

years ago may have bought a double lot, built on one and are holding

the other. There must be programs developed by the government to make

sure that that land — obviously not all of it; we don't need a million

additional people in greater Vancouver immediately — is available. It

is not coming onto the market quickly enough. The government can play a

part, because it has control of a great portion of this land, and it

can by various policies make it attractive for much of the rest of the

land to come onto the market. That, I would argue, should be a priority

of the government.

Similar situations exist around the

province. I quote the figures for greater Vancouver because it is in

greater Vancouver that the greatest crisis exists. One of the things

that also needs to be done around the province — and in many ways it's

one of the major policy failings of the Social Credit government — is a

proper assessment and evaluation of all the land in this province so

that we know for years to come which land will be used for forestry,

which for farming, which for industrial and commercial purposes and

which for housing. When I am in Port McNeill, for example, which has

virtually no housing lots available in the middle of thousands of acres

of land, it is very difficult for me to explain to people why housing

lots of 60' x 120' are costing $30,000 and upward.

Across

the water in Alert Bay, where there isn't a housing crisis, fully

serviced lots are on the market for $9,000 each. A few miles away in

Port McNeill, serviced lots are $30,000 and up — many of them are much

more than that; that's the minimum figure. People say: "Well, look at

all this land." As a responsible politician I say to them: "Well, wait

a minute; much of that land is in the forest reserve." And they say:

"Well, some of it has got to come out for housing, doesn't it?"

Vancouver used to be all forests too. So did Campbell River and so did

many other cities. So we obviously do have to alienate some of our

forest land in some of these communities, but nobody knows which land

it's going to be. Because we haven't done the kinds of studies and

definition, the government can't even tell us who owns all the land in

this province, much less what its best use should be.

There

are going to have to be some trade-offs in some of these communities.

One of the ways we can bring down the cost of that land is by providing

a surplus of supply. If Adam Smith were around he'd be surprised to

find a Social Democrat arguing that, but I do. We require a surplus of

supply in serviced land in order to bring down the price. It works in a

little community like Alert Bay, where the municipality itself is

involved in servicing, because they have a surplus of supply. So what

does a lot cost? It costs $9,000. In other communities in my

constituency there are lots available for $12,000 and $14,000 and are

serviced by the municipalities, because there's a surplus of supply. In

most of the communities in rapidly growing parts of this province,

including some of the towns in my riding, that surplus of supply does

not exist. It is the government more than any other agency that can

directly and indirectly assure a surplus of supply.

In these

estimates last year I said that the minister's main interest was with

Crown land disposal — making Crown land available to the people. He's

far more interested in that than he is in parks, housing or any of the

other stuff. He likes to give Crown land away to the people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, really.

MR. GABELMANN:

"As fast as I can," he said. But where it counts, it's not happening.

We're not making that land available. That is something that the

province could do to assist, in very real terms, in bringing down the

cost of housing. In fact, I think we would have an actual drop in some

of the land prices if the ministry had an active program to do that.

There

are other things that the province could be doing. The other evening,

along with some of my colleagues, I met with some senior financial

people in this province, one of whom is a very senior person in the

money-lending business. He said to me that he is convinced beyond any

shadow of a doubt that the flipping that goes on, particularly in the

Vancouver area, has been a major factor in causing the escalation of

house prices. I was going to say "values," but they're not worth that

much so I won't call them house values.

The government has

done nothing at all to bring in rules, regulations or laws prohibiting

that kind of activity. He cited examples of people involved in the

flipping business who didn't even have to lay out any money before they

turned it over again. In some cases the house was purchased and sold

within 30 days, even before some of the legal agreements were

completed. One increase he cited to me was in the order of $50,000 for

a house. He cited another example of an apartment building that was on

the market for $390,000. It was flipped three times in six months, and

its last sale was $790,000. That's more than double. Who pays for that?

The tenants do in that instance. Society and all the social values get

struck down by this kind of crisis, as I argued yesterday. I'm not

going to repeat those arguments, but I think historically those will be

the most profound impacts and effects of the housing crisis that we

have now. Families are in crisis as a result of it. Families are

delayed as a result of requiring two incomes. What kind of policies are

those?

Another area where the provincial government could

act, as other provinces have acted, is in preventing foreign ownership

of land in this province. I'm very concerned about foreign ownership of

farmland, but in this instance I'm particularly concerned about foreign

ownership of our housing stock. I'm not arguing about a landed

immigrant who comes here and buys a house. That's fair enough. That's

fine. But I don't understand why somebody with disposable capital,

living in West Germany, Hong Kong, the United States or some other part

of the world who feels he would make a better investment of his money

by putting it into housing in Canada should be allowed to do that.

Maybe that's free enterprise. If it is, it's part of Adam Smith I

wouldn't agree with, having agreed earlier about supply and demand with

respect to land prices.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 6239 ]

The

fact is that people with immense reservoirs of capital in marks, U.S.

dollars or other currencies are able to come in here on our deflated

dollar and purchase housing at prices far in excess of their Canadian

market value, or even their Vancouver market value; they easily and

gladly write a cheque for $300,000 Canadian for a house that might have

sold for $250,000 or $200,000. There is example after example of that.

That's something the government could have done something about by

saying: "You can't buy those homes unless you live in this country or

are coming here to live and are a landed immigrant." Nothing whatsoever

was done.

I haven't yet talked in these estimates about

government programs for co-op and public housing. The minister and I

have had these exchanges before, but I refer briefly to the fact that

the province has agreed to take seniors and handicapped housing and

leave public and co-op housing to the federal government. There are

activists in the co-op field who agree with that, and I'll admit that

right now. They don't want two governments involved; they want one,

because it's quicker and easier to deal with. But one of the problems

about leaving that essential element — and it's an element; it's not

the total answer by a long way, but it's an essential ingredient —

solely to the federal government is that they generally, with minor

exceptions, treat the problem as it affects the whole country, and

housing isn't in as much of a crisis in the whole country as it is in

Vancouver and British Columbia. Therefore we get from the federal

government programs that might well be adequate in other provinces but

are not adequate here. Even with the additional funding the federal

government was prepared to provide for co-ops in this province, it's

not nearly enough. For that reason I would argue that the province has

to be involved in a greater way, not just in the provision of land,

which it's now obviously involved in, although very slowly — and I'll

get to that in a minute — but also in the provision of dollars. While

co-op housing isn't the be-all and end-all, and while a great many of

us don't want to be involved in co-op housing, there are a significant

number of people who do want to be involved in co-op housing. They

don't now have the opportunity. The waiting lists are thousands of

people long. Once again, I would appeal for the minister to find B.C.

taxpayers' dollars to put into co-op housing in a significant way.

The minister does get involved in co-op housing in the provision of land — slowly, like pulling teeth with your fingers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN:

Nonsense, he says. What's happening at UBC? There's an urgent need and

two co-op housing proposals for the endowment lands at UBC. I won't go

through all the details of those two particular applications, but they

can't get the land. I didn't think it was even true, it sounded so

outlandish. The latest excuse from the minister appears to have been

that there's some discussion about whether or not to create a

municipality at UBC — to turn the UEL into a municipality, or maybe to

attach it to Vancouver. I don't know what the minister has in mind.

Because there are discussions about what kind of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are three options.

MR. GABELMANN: There are three options. He's going to attach it to Columbia River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make it a regional district.

MR. GABELMANN: It's already a.... Never mind, let's not get into that; that's another issue.

That

should be no excuse for delaying the provision of absolutely urgently

required land out there. When the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) wanted to build a hospital out there,

they sure found the land and got the hospital up in a hurry; but the

people who work in that hospital have got no place to live. Yesterday I

referred to people having to drive from Haney, Aldergrove and other

points down the valley to work in the hospital. I know of a woman who

works four hours a day and who drives in from Aldergrove. She's a

single mother who wants to live in Vancouver — another one of those

situations — who works four hours a day, and who would like to live in

a co-op in and around the university because that's where she works.

She can't do it.

We create the jobs, but we don't provide

the housing. Apart from the impact on the people concerned — if you're

not going to concern yourself with how that affects their emotional

health, livelihood, lifestyle and living conditions — think about what

it does to the rest of the taxpayers in the need to provide transit, in

the need to provide additional serviced land way the hock and gone down

the valley, when there is available land that is basically serviced

already in the lower mainland, closer in, here in the university area.

Land is available, but the government for all these years has been

unable to make a decision about what it wants to do with that land.

get two applications in this case for a few acres on which to put some

affordable co-op housing, and what happens? One delay after another.

One of the delays a few months ago was that there were two competing

groups, said the minister, and they've got to get their act together.

Well, they got their act together. So he found a new excuse: "Well,

we're thinking about municipal status or something else." He said there

were three options. Come on, that's not good enough. The minister is

smiling. I don't want that to be misinterpreted. I realize he is not

smiling against what I'm saying. It's amusement. Get on with it. We've

got a crisis out there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let's go. Stop talking. Let's act.

MR. GABELMANN:

So I should stop talking, and you'll get on with it. If I thought for a

minute that if I sat down right now this problem would begin to be

dealt with by the government, I'd sit down right now and I wouldn't say

another word.

MR. LEVI: The problem would then get up.

MR. GABELMANN: The problem would then get up, as the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam just said.

Get

involved in co-op housing. If you're not prepared to get involved with

funding, then at least get involved with providing land at cost — not

at market value necessarily, but at cost. I agree with those people in

the co-op movement who say that they don't want two levels of

bureaucracy to have to deal with, because it takes forever now and it

would take twice forever if they had that. So don't get involved at the

bureaucratic level. Let's just have the one bureaucracy. I don't care

particularly whether it's federal or provincial. One

[ Page 6240 ]

can

be a funding agency and the other can be the bureaucratic agency, and I

don't care particularly which is which. But we've got to put more money

into it.

I wonder how hard the minister has argued for the

alleged 10,000 units at B.C. Place to be affordable, and not market.

Market housing in B.C. Place and the False Creek area is going to cost

an arm and a leg plus. I can't see housing in that area at market value

and at a price very many people could afford — not even MLAs, I

suspect. How many of those 10,000 units are earmarked for affordable

housing? I think they should all be — 75 percent minimum, but I think

they should all be. I wonder how many are going to be.

What

is happening in the development of Vancouver is that more and more

service jobs are being created downtown — which I wonder about anyway —

and increasingly people who work at those jobs with that kind of income

have to live 15, 20, 25 or 30 miles away. They can't live where they

work. It's only in North America. You don't find that in the rest of

the world. People have an opportunity to work and live in their own

neighbourhood in most parts of the world, but we have this insane idea

that we should have different communities for different kinds of

people. Rich people can live in one community, people without children

can live in another, old people in yet another, and working people in

yet another.

If we don't integrate all of the lifestyles and

incomes and different kinds of people and family situations, we're

crazy. What we do is we have a neighbourhood which starts out as being

a family neighbourhood. Then it changes its character. It becomes a

neighbourhood where families aren't allowed anymore. What do we do? We

tear down all the schools, and we have to build a whole bunch of new

schools somewhere else. And it keeps happening. We keep changing the

style of neighbourhoods, and we keep having to change the kinds of

services that are provided as each differing group of people goes

through — at immense cost to society.

We need to have

programs that allow all levels of income in virtually all areas. I'm

not arguing that we should build affordable housing in British

Properties. I'm arguing something less than that. I'm arguing that the

government's lack of policies is creating a variety of ghettos for

families, for single people and for rich people. That's not smart, but

in fact that's what's happening.

As I said yesterday, I

could go on for hours. I'm not going to do that. There are other of my

colleagues who want to be involved in this debate. I think I'll sit

down at this point and give the minister an opportunity, should he

choose, and carry on a bit later this afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

The member has asked several questions regarding housing in the

province. I'll attempt to respond to most of the questions he's put to

me. First of all, I'll answer commencing with the questions that he put

to me last night in which he expressed a concern for people in the city

of Vancouver who work and wish to live in the city of Vancouver.

Because of the lack of housing and land, they have to commute to

communities such as Surrey, Coquitlam and Richmond.

The major problem facing the city of Vancouver is the question of the bulk

of their land being fully utilized and fully occupied by housing at this time.

I forget the precise figure, but 91 or 92 percent of the land base that is designated

for housing in that city is already being utilized. There's very limited

land in that city. Consequently what should take place now is that the municipal

government of the city of Vancouver has to address the question of zoning. They

have to address the question of density within that city. Unless they do so,

they will not have any additional housing constructed in that city.

It's

one which I've put forward to the mayor of the city of Vancouver on a

couple of occasions. The government of British Columbia is addressing

that problem of increasing densities in the city of Vancouver. In fact

on December 6 last year I made an announcement in the city of Vancouver

that we were going to be putting a modified building code into place,

hopefully to better utilize existing space within the core of that

city; in other words, to better utilize commercial and industrial

buildings in that city. In cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, we are putting together a modified building code at this time.

In fact, I just announced step one. It's moving as fast as I'd like it

to move, but we've announced a modified building code as far as

residential conversions are concerned. Through discussions with the

mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Victoria, I know that I have their

complete cooperation in getting a modified building code in place in

order to increase the ability of people to live in the core of the

cities of Vancouver and Victoria.

However, I don't know how

the city of Vancouver is going to react to increased densities. They

have a habit — I guess rightfully so — of putting that question to the

ratepayers in the immediate vicinities of areas in which they want to

increase densities. In fact just last fall the city of Vancouver had

contemplated the construction of a multi-unit complex of land that they

own in Vancouver East. Because of pressures from the residents, they

opted to sell the land as single detached-housing lots. It commanded a

very substantial price. Twelve little lots were sold — little lots that

we wouldn't even consider in the area I come from; 33-foot frontage and

100 feet deep — for single housing at $102,500 each. That's not

affordable housing. I think sooner or later cities are going to face up

to the realities if they're going to continue to grow. If they're going

to be able to convenience the people who work in their cities, they're

going to have to address this delicate problem of densities.

think most people are in favour of increased densities, except those

people in the areas in which densities are proposed to be increased.

We've had an example of that recently in Oak Bay where they've had

three large public meetings in which they were suggesting an increase

in density in that community. There was a lot of opposition to the

increased densities by those people in the areas in which densities

were proposed to be increased. So it's a delicate problem but one which

the cities are going to have to address sooner or later if they're

going to continue to grow and convenience the workers within their

communities.

Yesterday the member talked about housing

starts. He said we haven't kept up in this province. I want you to know

that in 1980, with over 37,000 unit starts in British Columbia, we

exceeded the provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. Housing starts

in British Columbia were 25 percent of all the housing starts in this

country — so we haven't fallen behind. CMHC officials are predicting

that this year we will have at least 40,000 — some are predicting

higher — housing starts in British Columbia this year. Certainly some

other provinces have escalated this year. You mentioned Saskatchewan

with a large escalation of some 100-odd percent increase in housing

starts in 1981 as compared to 1980. Well, I don't know how many

starts.... They probably had an insignificant number of starts in 1980

to compare it to. It's the number of units that are started that is

important.

[ Page 6241 ]

said yesterday while I was talking that we're not getting enough rental

units constructed in the province. That's one of our major problems. As

far as unit starts are concerned, we will have a substantial number

this year, but I don't know if it's enough to meet the need. Because of

the buoyant and strong economy we have in the province, we have a

tremendous in-migration of people from other provinces. Last year net

migration to British Columbia was 51,000 people, and it hasn't abated

during the first quarter of 1981. So that poses some very dramatic

problems for people and for the industry as well. I don't know just how

many units industry could put in place, but I suggest that industry is

almost at full capacity in building the units they're building at this

time in the province.

On the question of affordability of

rental units, I interjected yesterday whether 25 percent of the rental

units being built in the province would be sufficient to meet the

problem of affordability. The member responded: "No, it should be 100

percent." That was his response. I have a little

article here and I'm

prepared to table it after I listen to the little ruckus I hear even

louder this afternoon. I'm prepared to table this, but I'm going to

read it anyway.

MR. GABELMANN: You should know that I misunderstood that exchange at the time.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Okay, but it made me pull this editorial, which I've been saving on my

desk for about six months for an opportune time to use. It's from the Times-Colonist of Friday, January 30, 1981, and it reads this way:

"One

traditional dream in North America is to own your home. The traditional

dream in Britain, it seems, is to snuggle down in digs owned and

subsidized by the state, in the fond belief that you are somehow

getting something, if not for nothing, at least for less. Nearly six

million families — almost 40 percent of Britons — live in houses or

apartments owned by government and administered by local councils. A

program which was intended to provide housing help for people who

really were in need has over the years gone mad.

"Because

rent for council housing runs about $80 a month, there are hundreds of

thousands of people on the waiting list; the queue is expected to grow

to two million by 1984. Somehow Britons have been able to ignore the

other half of the equation. About $12 billion a year is siphoned from

taxpayers to subsidize those rents. Does anyone doubt that the cost of

running such a bureaucracy means council housing is, in fact, more

expensive than private ownership?

"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is dedicated to withdrawing

government from this landlord role. The Tories have stopped building council

housing and last year enacted legislation requiring councils to sell their housing

to interested tenants at one-half to two-thirds of the market value. The government

also whacked about $160 million off housing grants made to local councils, a

move expected to push rents up about $10 a week next year and, hopefully, stimulate

tenants to buy. Yet occupants and the Labour Party-dominated councils are fighting

Thatcher tooth and nail. The council feels it is morally wrong to sell council

houses when there is a waiting list of 8,500 families, said one Greenwich council

member. Managing to ignore the real dilemma, a shortage of housing, council

housing typifies the worst aspect of socialism — the pretension that somehow

the state can do routine things better than the individual. If Thatcher can

win this battle, one which hits almost half the British people where they live,

it will stand as a monument to her and to common sense."

response to the member, after reading that editorial and his suggestion

last night that the government resurrect that discredited, do-nothing

Crown corporation, the B.C. Housing Corporation, I suggest you're

putting forward a proposal which is found wanting in England and is

costing the taxpayers of that country $12 billion a year. Is that what

you're advocating for British Columbia? The B.C. Housing Corporation

did not result in housing being built. Its record of four to four and a

half years of existence was putting about 1,350 units in place — not

essentially construction, but primarily buying off bad developments by

developers.

I suggest to you that the housing initiative

program, which was an incentive for people to build their own homes as

well as to build rental accommodation in the province, is the better of

the two programs. One is a free enterprise program. The other was a

socialist boondoggle that didn't work. The HIP which dispensed 9¾

percent money, produced over 5,000 units of housing in this province in

a period of three days, while the B.C. Housing Corporation in its four

and a half years was responsible for only about 1,350 units, mostly

broken-down developments from near-bankrupt developers throughout the

lower mainland.

We're still living with the results of the

B.C. Housing Corporation. We're still living with those facts. We're

still living with those bad developments which B.C. Housing Corporation

bought in the years of the NDP. We have one particular project which

was paid for with $3.5 million of taxpayers' money. It would be cheaper

to rip it down than continue to lose money on it. That's the evidence

we have of the B.C. Housing Corporation. Government involvement in

construction and the buying out of developers who are having difficulty

in selling inadequate developments throughout the lower mainland

doesn't work.

The member wanted to be apprised of what's

happening in the lower mainland. He suggests that we should get on with

making land available. I want to assure him that we're active in the

lower mainland. In fact, through the Crown Land Fund, we have allocated

over $31 million for land development for housing in the lower

mainland. The number of developments under construction at this time is

seven. The number of lots under construction is 30,770. The number of

developments proposed is five, which will produce between 5,000 and

7,000 units of housing.

The major one which we're actively

pursuing at this time is, of course, Riverview. We had hoped to market

1,050 single lots this year. This has been delayed by a labour dispute

in that community, which has put it off. Instead of having the ability

to market those lots this fall, hopefully we'll now be able to market

them in January, February or March of next year.

We are

actively doing our planning for development of Westwood Plateau, which

will result in 5,000 to 7,000 units of housing there. We're actively

involved in the communities of Port Moody, Surrey, Richmond and Pitt

Meadows. We haven't been standing still in development of land. I

recognize that because of the tremendous influx of people coming into

the lower mainland we haven't been able to keep up, but

[ Page 6242 ]

we're actively attempting to get ahead of the market in order to stabilize land prices.

The

member mentioned co-op housing. There is a limit as far as the number

of units that CMHC allocates for British Columbia. I believe it's 5,000

units for 1981. The province of Quebec has been allocated 13,000, and

with any luck, if they don't build that many units in Quebec, maybe

we'll be able to have some of those units transferred to British

Columbia. Hopefully we'll be in place with land to meet that need for

co-op housing, which is affordable housing. We've made land available

for the Harold Winch Park. In fact, we've made two enclaves available

for co-op housing. We hope to make land available for 100 units of

co-op housing in the Songhees development, which is just starting to

get underway here in the city of Victoria. Our ministry supports co-op

housing, because co-op housing is affordable housing. When you look at

the market value of land you have to take into consideration that there

is already a deep subsidy applied to co-op housing by CMHC — 2 percent

money — so they already have a substantial incentive to make those

housing units affordable. My ministry is prepared to make some enclaves

available for co-op housing in the Riverview development. We're

prepared to get involved in land assembly and availability of land for

co-op housing, because we know it provides affordable housing units.

However, there's a limit on how many subsidies you can give.

Essentially, we're not prepared to write down land values, because

there is already a deep subsidy on co-op housing. In order to assist

co-op housing, we're prepared to proceed to lease the land on a

long-term basis, which in most instances makes it more economically

viable to proceed.

UEL and the regional park is a complex

issue. Whether there should be a municipality there, whether it should

be attached to the city of Vancouver or whether it should continue to

be administered by my ministry are issues that are current and being

addressed at this time. Just a few days ago — sometime last week, I

believe — the financial statement of the administration was made

available to the ratepayers of the University Endowment Lands by my

senior assistant deputy minister, to resolve that issue. You say we

should make the land available for the co-op project to proceed. We

also have a request before us from the University of British Columbia

to make land available for faculty members coming on stream to that

university.

You've talked about commuting. I don't know what

your views are. Talking to some of the people who are proposing the

co-op there, they don't believe it should be restricted to the staff

and faculty of the university but that everyone should have free access

to those units. I think the number one responsibility there, when

you're talking about co-op housing, would be to took after the needs of

the staff as well as faculty.

I think there's a strong

consensus of opinion in UEL that we shouldn't make any land available

for housing and that all the uncommitted land should go for the

establishment of a regional park. I've indicated that I'm not prepared

to accept that. I think there's a need for housing, and in not too long

a period of time we'll know whether it is feasible for a co-op housing

project to proceed on what I consider to be reasonably expensive land.

I've

had preliminary discussions with officials of B.C. Place — Mr. Narod

and Mr. Hardman — on the question of making some units of affordable

housing available there. On that kind of pricey land — probably the

most expensive land in British Columbia — I think it would be foolish

to suggest that all 10,000 units proposed for that area be affordable

housing. What I have suggested to them is that they attempt to make a

substantial percentage of that land available for affordable housing

units. The meeting took place two or three weeks ago and they are in

the process of attempting to address that issue. I feel relatively

convinced that we'll be able to have a substantial component of

affordable housing at B.C. Place.

MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Chairman, there are over 365,000 square miles of land in the province

of British Columbia — over 29,000 square miles in my constituency

alone. Ninety five percent of that land is owned by the Crown.

Realistically, much of that 95 percent is either provincial forest, in

major parks or standing on end, and for those reasons it is not

available for private ownership by our citizens. But there is not a

land shortage in this province; a situation does exist in most areas of

British Columbia where there is not enough land available for housing.

Because of that, land and lot prices have soared beyond belief. To my

mind we in this province have created a monster. We have created a

fictitious land shortage, and because of this fictitious land shortage

we have created a fictitiously high land value. To top that, we in

government, with what little Crown land is sparingly doled out to our

citizens, have used this situation to place that fictitiously high land

price on Crown land. We are literally pricing our people from the land.

On land for recreation lease rates are far beyond what can be paid by

our citizens. In the north, where there are hundreds of lakes on which

countless thousands of recreational lots could be made available to our

citizens, there is a shortage.

On the leases held at this

time, there are lease rates far beyond reason for a piece of British

Columbia which in most cases — particularly in the north — can only be

utilized for four or five months a year. Lease rates are increasing in

many cases by 1,000 percent on the anniversary dates, causing many of

our citizens to have second thoughts and to drop their leases, not

being able to pay $100 or $200 per summer outing. So they drop their

leases.

While on the subject of recreational leases and land

for recreation, let us talk about Hudson Bay mountain in Smithers and

recreational lots for skiing. For ten years, through three consecutive

governments, lots have not been made available — not one lot.

MR. GABELMANN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a quorum in the

House. I believe it is essential that the cabinet be here to listen to

this important debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of

order is well taken, hon. member. I will ring the division bells and

see if we can acquire a quorum for the committee.

I once again recognize the member for Omineca, who will continue his speech.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Chairman, I was talking about Hudson Bay Mountain and recreational

lots for skiing. I was saying that for ten years, through three

consecutive governments in this province, not one Crown lot was made

available on Hudson Bay Mountain for utilization by our citizens in an

area soon to become B.C.'s most popular ski area. Then one citizen, fed

up with the bureaucratic double-talk and red tape, built on one of the

surveyed lots. Yes, there were surveyed

[ Page 6243 ]

lots

existing on that mountain for ten years. They were not made available

to the people of this province, or to anybody else for that matter.

What

happened when, through utter frustration of having tried for years to

obtain one of the surveyed lots legally but without success, he built

on one? He has been threatened. His cabin has been broken into, the

lock changed and his belongings taken away to he knows not where, and

he's been told to either move his cabin or have it burned down — all

this before ever having been tried in a court of law in this province.

He's been tried and convicted by a field bureaucrat.

I must

give this minister some credit — not all, but some. This has gone on

for some months during which this individual has made three special

trips to Victoria, literally throwing himself on the mercy of

government, pleading to be allowed to pay a fine or go to jail.

Finally, as recently as yesterday, he has been given some measure of

assurance that justice will be served — but not until after a hell of a

lot of fighting on my part and a lot of anguish on the part of the

citizen. Finally, after ten years of not making one lot available at

Hudson Bay Mountain, and because of the initiative of one citizen, 20

lots will now be made available. When the bids are in, I would suggest,

there will be no less than 100 of our citizens looking for those lots —

20 lots on a mountain in this province on which you can stand and look

for 20 miles in any direction and see nothing but vacant Crown land. A

land shortage? I don't believe that. When are we here in Victoria and

in this chamber going to understand what really exists out there in

this great province and what the problems really are that are faced by

our citizens? When are we in this chamber going to have the intestinal

fortitude to overrule those who are supposed to be our servants? In

this situation I have just outlined, certainly the reverse is a fact.

They're supposed to be our servants, but they constantly believe that

they know more about the wants and the needs of the citizens of this

province than do the elected representatives. I think it's a shame.

Crown

land for agriculture. Here again is a total reluctance on the part of

the bureaucrats to allow anyone, if they can help it, to own a piece of

this province — to own their own land, even though in many instances

government policy dictates that that happen. Here again we have a land

value problem. Those lucky enough to get through the bureaucratic maze,

the negative philosophy and the government red tape, are asked to pay a

preposterous price, in my estimation, for that Crown land. Again, it's

a fictitious price based on a fictitious shortage which has literally

forced the price of privately owned land to sky-rocket. What else can

happen? If there's a shortage of anything, the price goes up.

This

is particularly a hardship on our northern farmers and ranchers. In the

first place, after years of horrendous development costs ranging as

high as $350 an acre, only a single yearly crop can be grown after all

that — and in many cases a poor crop at that. In many years there's no

crop at all, depending on weather conditions. Prices for land not only

make it nearly impossible for existing farms to expand, but make it

absolutely impossible for new or young people to get started in

agriculture. It's a fictitious price created by a totally fictitious

land shortage.

Land for housing. We heard that talked about

earlier this afternoon in this chamber. There is a horrendous pressure,

and horrendous profits are being made on the existing available land

for housing. Again, if you have a shortage the price is going to go up.

It's logical. At this point I would say that therein lies the primary

reason for the housing shortage that we face in British Columbia.

The

other major reason is the horrendous problem of municipal and regional

district bureaucratic red tape, but we can't talk about that in these

estimates. As government we must get at the root of the real problem

and admit that the band-aid approach of pouring good taxpayers' money

after bad down socialist program rat holes is not the answer.

MR. LEVI: Order!

MR. KEMPF: Why did you move from England? Was it because you couldn't get a home of your own? Is that why?

MR. LEVI: Socialist Jim! You're attacking the heck out of him.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would ask the committee to come to order, please, and

I remind the member for Omineca that personal allusions are quite

unparliamentary.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll remember, that.

Mr.

Chairman, the answer is to admit and face the real problem in this

province, to face the real reason we have a housing shortage, and to do

something about it.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF:

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) chatters away.

He's never been off the rock. How would you know what happens out there

in the province? You've never been off the rock, let alone north of

Hope. The only way to bring down the exorbitant price of land for

housing in this province is to make land available. The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was correct: you have to make land

available. But I'll get to him. The only way to bring land prices down,

whether it be for housing or for agriculture, is to make sure that

there is more on the market than is needed. It's the only way. Maybe

your kitchen-table way of figuring out the economics of this province

doesn't show that, but I want to tell you that's the way.

The

free market system will prevail, and if there's a lot of anything on

the market the price will go down automatically. You don't have to

spend good taxpayers' money to ensure that people get houses; you just

have to make sure that the climate is right and that there's enough

land. That's the only way you are going to assure the people of this

province of affordable housing without grandiose government handouts of

the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. Coupled with that, you have to have

some restraint on the ridiculous and cumbersome regulations and red

tape at all levels of government. That will bring back from Calgary and

Seattle our own developers and builders, who were driven there by the

madness we see happening in British Columbia. That will change our

housing situation in the province of British Columbia. That and only

that will change the picture. I don't care how much of the taxpayers'

money you throw down that socialist rat hole, and I don't care which

government provides that socialist rat hole either. It's still a

socialist rat hole, as far as I'm concerned.

You can't talk

about housing, you can't talk about a reduction in the price of land,

both private and Crown, without talking about the agricultural land

reserve. I heard the member for North Island mention it a few minutes

ago. I want to tell you he won't like what I have to say about it.

Again I say — and I've said it before and probably will say it again —

that I am not against the preservation of viable

[ Page 6244 ]

farmland

in British Columbia; on the contrary, I was born, raised and lived 20

years on a farm in this province, and I am certainly not against the

preservation of viable farmland. The ALR is a must, but it must be

reassessed and brought into the 1980s. We have land all over this

province which, while within the boundaries of the agricultural land

reserve, will never make a farm. Even the minister's staff agree with

that.

A few weeks ago I had in my possession a computer

printout from which I got some information, before the bureaucrats

found out what I was doing with it, and I haven't seen it since. The

information I got from that computer printout proved quite conclusively

to me — and I have some of that information here today — that there's

an awful lot of land within the agricultural land reserve that will

never make a farm. Do you know how I know that? I know that because the

staff of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has turned down many

applications for agricultural land. Do you know why? Because that land

is deemed not arable. I was able to take this information, get maps

from the mapping division and find out where those pieces of land are.

Lo and behold, they're within the agricultural land reserve. Would you

believe that? I'm sorry I didn't have that computer printout for very

long, because I'd have been able to bring a list that long into this

chamber. But it proves quite conclusively that there is much land —

I've said this before and I'll say it again — within the agricultural

land reserve which is not farmland.

Mr. Member for North

Island, you were here at the time the agricultural land reserve was

brought in, and I'm sure you're quite aware of why it was brought in.

It was not to preserve farmland in the province of British Columbia.

You know it, and the leader of your party knows it. The last time I

brought it up he ran from this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the member to address the Chair, and I will also

advise the member speaking that the Agricultural Land Commission comes

under a vote already discussed in this committee. As arable land

relates to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing that debate is

relevant.

MR. KEMPF: One-third of this minister's responsibility is for the land of this province, Mr. Chairman, and that's what I'm talking about.

must release those lands now within the ALR which are not farmland. We

must take them out. I say here today that that will have a very

positive effect on bringing down the price of land in this province. It

will give competition to those holding the only land available for

housing, and in many cases holding the people of this province up to

ransom for that land. Take away ridiculous, burdensome regulations,

free available land for housing and bring down the price. That will

solve many of our housing problems in this province. Entice our own

builders and developers back into the province, and we will have

housing for our people.

I will have more to say on lands, on

parks and on housing in these estimates, but for now I will make the

floor available for those I am sure will agree with the argument I have

put forward and the issues I have raised.

MR. LEVI:

We have just heard an incredible dissertation. I'm having trouble

trying to define what it was he said, but I think what he did was

manage to create for us a new definition in economics. I would suggest

we might try the phrase macrocephalic economics." He starts attacking

that poor, helpless minister over there who stood up and gave us the

most incredible rendition from a slip of newspaper that came from the

John Birch Society newsletter, about socialism and public housing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's the same thing. That's no different.

He's

some contribution to the housing problem. He gets up and he keeps

wanting to go back in history and raving about the Housing Corporation.

Why is it that you are right and all other nine Housing ministers

across Canada are idiots? Or is it the other way around? Each province

has a Housing Corporation, and you say it doesn't work. It doesn't work

in Toronto, in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. Only you know. You have some

God-given gift and insight which you have been able to glean from those

high mountains in Columbia River, and you know better than anybody.

Then

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) comes down. He's been here six

years, and he hasn't learned how to get something out of this

government. He hasn't learned one lesson from the member for Delta (Mr.

Davidson). He was bright enough to say in the middle of an election:

"If I don't get a bridge, I'm going to resign." All we've had from him

is a lot of puffery, and all he wants is a hundred lots. My God,

there's a heck of a difference between that and a bridge which costs

$130 million. But he hasn't learned anything. If you don't learn in

this place, you destroy yourself. We don't have to wait for the gods to

destroy us. He hasn't learned a thing.

Then he talks about

socialist rat holes, and they've been in government for six years.

Who's pouring the money down what rat hole? That is the kind of

opposition that we get from your side. He has one or two good

arguments, but he doesn't back it up with anything. He was doing quite

a number on the minister, Mr. Chairman. The minister isn't too bright

either. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is

sitting there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the hon. member to withdraw the last comment about another hon. member.

MR. LEVI: I withdraw.

The

Minister of Municipal Affairs has been sitting through this debate,

also suffering the scars from that member. Who's he talking about when

he talks about bureaucrats, red tape, money down rat holes and

socialist rat holes in a Social Credit government? You've got some

hidden closet socialists over there, and I want to know who they are. I

know it isn't that fellow. Sorry, he's not a closet socialist.

did a stupendous job of attacking his own government. The only thing

he's got to do now is to get some of that intestinal fortitude that he

talked about everybody lacking. Get it in your hand, boy, and walk to

the middle of the floor, and you can have 30 percent of the action in

this province anytime. You don't have to sit over there. You're not

going anywhere anyway.

Now let's talk about housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, he went all over the lot. He even found himself in the ALR accusing this

[ Page 6245 ]

side

of not bringing it in to protect farmland. That's a tough one. I would

hope one day he'll come up to me in the coffee shop and say: "Come on,

Norm, let's sit down and I'll tell you why you brought in the

agricultural land reserve.

MR. KEMPF: I already know, my friend.

MR. LEVI: Why? We don't know. Anyway, you can get up again later on in the debate.

Let

me ask the minister something. One of the key factors that we've talked

about today is affordable housing. "Affordable housing" is a term that

started to be used about ten years ago when there was a real effort

being made by any number of governments in this country to provide

housing for people who didn't have the money to go to the open market

and compete. That's where the phrase came from. Today when we talk

about affordable housing — ten years later — who are we really talking

about serving? We've already been through it in this House. There isn't

one member of this House, despite his salary — excluding cabinet

ministers — who could get a mortgage. They would not be eligible.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No. He's complaining. My God, this guy's a griever.

MR. SKELLY: He gets $4,000 more than the rest of us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask all members of the committee to not interrupt, please.

MR. LEVI:

On the business of affordability, ten years ago we were looking at a

particular target group: low-income people. Today we are not looking at

a particular target group. Nearly two-thirds of the earners in this

province are the target group for affordable housing. It's no longer

low-income people. If you can't afford to finance a mortgage — if you

haven't got an income of $42,000 — you simply cannot enter into a

mortgage. You don't qualify. That's one of the major questions. What is

going to happen to all those houses that are being built in 1981? Who's

going to be able to afford them? The logical answer to that question

has to come from the government. If those houses are going to sit empty

because nobody can afford to pay them, what are they prepared to do as

a government? He has said that the government is interested only in

seeing the private-enterprise system do everything. Meanwhile he is up

to his hips in $40 million of taxpayers' money involved in the building

of housing. What we are saying to you is that at this time you're going

to have to go a lot further than that.

Take the neighbouring

province of Alberta. By no stretch of the imagination is Alberta a

socialist province. It was a Socred province, but they got rid of them.

They've got Peter the Red, a rather interesting individual who has an

incredible interest in oil — but he built the heritage fund. Let me

read something to you that you can think about, because you read

something from the John Birch Society. I'm going to read from the other

John Birch publication, the Vancouver Sun of November 13, 1980. It's headlined: "Alberta Spending $1 Billion a Year to Get Houses Built."

"The

B.C. government could learn 34 things from Alberta in stimulating

housing supply. Our neighbour and fellow free enterprise traveler" —

this is free enterprise — "is now allotting no less than $1.08 billion

a year for 34 housing assistance programs that are so comprehensive

that 45 percent of all new housing in the province is now subsidized."

What are they subsidizing? They are subsidizing affordable housing for

those people who go away beyond the low-income groups. The

article goes

on to say: "It is the largest and most ambitious government housing

policy in Canada and makes B.C.'s housing policy look downright

anemic." Well, we're up here arguing for a transfusion. "The scope and

the effectiveness of the Alberta programs are more impressive when you

consider that all but eight of them have been introduced since 1976."

You

haven't introduced one housing program. You got rid of a couple; you're

going to tell us all about SAFER in a minute, and that's a housing

program that's....

AN HON. MEMBER: HIP.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LEVI:

What are you talking about — HIP? Seventy-two hours and it went; it

hip-hipped out of the way. We're talking about sustained programming,

which you know nothing about and you don't want to know anything about

because you've said that it's not the role of government to get

involved in anything. Yet your colleague over there — I think he is a

colleague; I didn't say he was your friend — is accusing you of the

most monumental crimes in terms of all sorts of socialist rat holes

which you have in your office and down which you're pouring the

taxpayers' money.

Now let's talk about the Alberta one for a minute:

"The

scope and the effectiveness of the Alberta programs is more impressive,

when you consider that all but eight of them have been introduced since

1976, but more importantly, the programs have won widespread acceptance

from the Alberta housing industry" — private enterprise — "which in

better economic days would have fought to the death to keep the

government out of the private sector. All 34 programs are designed to

increase supply and make housing more affordable for low- and

medium-income families as well as the handicapped and the elderly. All

those sectors generally are acknowledged to be the most harmed by

rising prices and lower apartment vacancy rates."

That's in

Alberta; in British Columbia we have to add the group right here in

this chamber and people up to $43,000 a year, in terms of the ability

to get a mortgage — that is a necessity for affordable housing. That's

what they are doing in Alberta.

Now government intervention

in terms of affordability in this province came briefly a year ago. In

January 1980 they tiptoed into that great pool which he would probably

characterize as a rat hole; it wasn't. It was a first attempt by the

government. They didn't want anybody to notice what they were doing.

They did it so well that when they announced the program the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing was in New Zealand learning a Maori war

dance, and they just kind of snuck it out and announced it. All right,

what did they do? For the first time in four years of government they

took a realistic look at what they had to do to get involved in the

housing market. They had to provide some stimulus, not only because

they needed more housing starts but because people needed to have

mortgage subsidization. It's not a dirty word;

[ Page 6246 ]

it's

a necessity. Alberta has moved towards that with its 34 programs.

That's a free enterprise province. They have the cooperation of the

housing industry. You told us before that the program created about

2,200 homes and the rest were in multiple dwelling. Those are the

figures I have. You didn't create 5,400 houses. You created about 2,400

or 2,600 houses, and then you had another 2,200 multiple-dwelling

units. Nevertheless it's there; it's in place, and you did it. There

are some problems, and they are presumably being looked at. How do you

expect to go beyond the provision of affordable housing that you've

talked about if you don't do some kind of intervention? Every

government across Canada is doing the intervention, and you're not. You

can't expect that somehow building 3,800 units.... Who is going to live

in them?

The Lands, Parks and Housing fourth-quarter report,

which you put out in March 1981, on page 18 says: "Demand Outlook. The

overall demand for housing in the lower mainland region...." I'm going

to get a little annoyed that all we keep reading about in these things

is the lower mainland region. There are other areas that have just as

serious problems — this one particularly, which is not in the lower

mainland. However, the report says:

"The

overall demand for housing in the lower mainland region over the next

18-month period is expected to exceed 24,000 units. This is not

appreciably higher than the forecast in the last supplement.

Immigration to the lower mainland region should be moderated somewhat

by the expected economic recovery in eastern Canada in 1981. This,

coupled with a shortage of rental accommodation and high housing prices

in the lower mainland region, will serve to deter many would-be

immigrants."

That's an interesting way of keeping people

out. It's true. It's happening all the time. Today we had an example in

the public accounts committee of the inability of government to hire

sufficiently well-trained staff to work for this government, because

people simply can't make the move. They sell a house for $75,000 in

Toronto, and they can't get into the housing market under $170,000 or

$180,000. There are some serious problems.

One of the things

that Alberta recognized in the programs that they started was that a

basic concomitant with development and expansion of the economy is a

housing program that will house all the people who are going to come.

That's one of the reasons they went into it. I was very surprised to

read the other day that the population of Alberta is 2.2 million. In

the last eight years that has gone up over a million. We have about 2.6

million; they've got 2.4 million. In terms of permanent settlement they

are probably the fastest-growing province at the moment. They will

probably be well ahead of the three-million mark before we are, unless

we can come to grips with the kind of housing program that they are

talking about. They're talking about a variety of housing programs. The

minister failed to talk about affordable housing and how he would

provide the money to that system. He spent no time talking about mobile

homes or modular units — manufactured housing, which is something one

has to look at. We certainly have to look at those two, because they

are lower cost: and for a lot of people, if the land is available, they

are things that can happen in a much quicker way than if you're talking

about the regular single-dwelling house. The co-op was not adequately

explained. There's no reason the province cannot get into a co-op

housing project as well in the short-term program of getting people in

there reasonably quickly.

Then comes the basic one of

municipalities, which the minister and I have discussed because of a

problem we have in Coquitlam. We've heard some loud, brave words from

his colleague about cutting red tape and getting the municipality to do

one thing or another, but particularly in relation to mobile homes,

which is the thing that I discussed with the minister. It is now an

accepted lifestyle all over North America. We have in this province, as

I understand it, about 55,000 to 60,000 people living in mobile homes,

and more people would live in them if they could find the pad to live

on. We've discussed with the minister a project which I'm hoping he is

going to announce pretty soon in the area I represent with the member

for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Leggatt).

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Yes, an exchange, as I understand it.

The

main thing is that there has to be that kind of drive from the

government, because, frankly, somebody has got to whip the

municipalities into shape, particularly around the mobile-home

question. But they can only be whipped into shape if they really

believe that the government is serious about the provision of

affordable housing and a range of things. Are you prepared to push the

whole question of mobile homes? Are you prepared to do the land

exchanges? You have to be prepared to take a number; one has to agree

on a number, say up to 200. Are you prepared to strata-title some of

them so that there is a mix of people living in them? That has to come

from government leadership.

Then with your colleague the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) you've simply got

to go after the municipalities about this thing. We're not only talking

about mobile-home pads now. When you start talking about manufactured

housing, it is a viable option and an extremely good option in terms of

the development of the economy. It's somewhat cheaper, but then you're

going to run into all sorts of zoning problems and building-standard

problems, and I've met the building-standard problem.

think that the role of the minister is to be much more of a leader.

He's a pretty low-profile minister. A lot of people out there are

extremely dissatisfied with him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A little like Howard Hughes.

MR. LEVI: You're not likely to wind up like Howard Hughes; you don't even like watching TV.

You

simply can't talk about a program here and a program there. We've got a

lot to learn from Alberta and Saskatchewan, not only about their

successes but also about their mistakes. But frankly, in the five years

that this government has been in power, they have done nothing

whatsoever in terms of social housing. They have complete disregard for

it. Regardless of what you say in the quote which you read from that

newspaper clipping.... Don't talk about what you don't know; go see it.

I was raised next door to those kinds of things. That's a right-wing

newspaper interpreting the lifestyle that exists for almost 20 million

people over there. Don't talk about what you don't know, and don't

repeat the garbage that they repeat; go see it; that's housing. You may

not like the housing. It's not the housing we know in North America.

Public housing was not something that we thought of as a necessary

adjunct to the super free enterprise system in North America. Now we

realize that it is, and that everybody, even people with incomes as

high as $43,000 a

[ Page 6247 ]

year,

is going to have to find some subsidization if they are going to get

into a home. That's the reality of our economy today. Affordable

housing no longer applies to people on low incomes; it applies to

people earning about $40,000 a year. That's incredible. That's where

the major problem is going to be.

I want to read you a quotation from a recent book on housing policy, Canadian Housing Policies, 1935-1980 ,

by Albert Rose of the University of Toronto, now retired. In talking

about the political context, he says: "No government is likely to take

the requisite action to provide housing for those who require societal

intervention" — that's subsidization — "unless there appears to be a

political advantage or unless the pressure for action on the government

in power is so strong that it can no longer be resisted." Then he talks

about Canada: "The intervention of government in the 1930s was

fundamentally a response to economic problems which spawned very

significant political problems."

The housing problem in this

province is moving towards an extremely serious political question for

the government. It's gradually building. Coupled with that, we have the

threat of the removal of rent controls and the high cost of mortgages.

We have all the ingredients for unrest, as the mayor of Vancouver said.

I'm telling you that you're going to have a political group of people

build in such a way because of this. Then you will move, eventually,

when you realize the political reality. You're going to have to move.

Who does it include? It doesn't just include those people who are

looking for houses to live in; it also includes people who want to work

in the construction industry. That was the first positive tentative

result of your mortgage subsidy program, but you haven't gone anywhere

near it since.

Despite what your colleague the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) said, you've done

nothing to pull the banks in. The government deals with nine chartered

banks in this province. You've had no meetings with those people. Never

mind what goes on in Ottawa. You deal with people here and say: "What

are you people prepared to do in terms of mortgages?" That hasn't taken

place.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The

minister says: "The man next door." No, you're part of cabinet. You

have to talk to them about that kind of thing. They have a billion

dollars of government moneys invested in their securities. You have an

entrée to those people. Go and talk to them and see what they are

prepared to do to be socially responsible.

There are so many

things that you have to do to make this thing work, but you've taken

none of those steps whatsoever. The only answer we get from the

minister is the old historical argument of the B.C. Housing

Corporation. We, of course, know better than anybody else in Canada.

We're the only province that doesn't have a housing corporation. We

know better than Peter the Red and all the people across Canada.

Let's

leave aside all the past history and talk about what you're prepared to

do now. I'm asking the minister if he has participated in discussions

with the banking people and his colleague the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs about what they are prepared to do to assist in this

very serious problem. So far we've had no indication other than a look

at their asset and profits statement which came out last week, which

shows the incredible increase in assets and profits as a result of the

mortgages they're carrying. Those are the kinds of discussions you're

supposed to be having, and those are the kinds of questions we'd like

you to address. Don't say in one breath that you're only interested in

the free enterprise system doing it when you're up to your ankles in

this business right now. You're spending $40 million, or $31 million.

You're going to be spending more. You'd better participate in the total

picture. Don't try to pretend to people that you're leaving it all to

the free enterprise system, because you're not. You're in it, but

you're not in it sufficiently to be able to meet the demands that exist

out there.

You have a range of questions. Let's leave out

your friend from Omineca's (Mr. Kempf'

s) definition of the rat hole,

because I don't want to hear any socialist proposals from you. It would

be terrible; you'd ruin my dinner.

MR. DAVIS: I agree

that our number one problem today is affordable housing. Our population

is growing by leaps and bounds. This is largely a product of our

relative prosperity compared to the rest of Canada and the continent.

We don't have enough readily available serviced land on which to build

houses. But worst of all we're up against record high interest rates

which make it virtually impossible for the first-time owner to finance

a roof over his or her head.

Land, as I've said, is a

problem, but it's not our biggest problem. The cost of money is. The

monthly payments which a new homeowner must make are. They're out of

sight. They're prohibitive in that they take up too large a proportion

of the average family's income today.

I said land was a

problem, but the lesser of two problems, the other being the high cost

of money. It shouldn't be a problem in a land-rich province like

British Columbia. We have a population of 2.5 million. We have a vast

territory larger than the state of Texas and larger than all the New

England states combined. Geographically speaking British Columbia could

swallow a dozen United Kingdoms. Theoretically it could accommodate a

population running into tens of millions of persons, but mountains,

narrow river valleys and red tape all stand in the way of suitable,

cheap, easily developable land for housing purposes.

Many of

these difficulties are difficulties of our own making. Land, once

developed, cannot easily be converted to other purposes. We insist on

the highest possible standards when new lots are being opened up:

drainage, sewage disposal, fully paved roadways, finished sidewalks,

buried powerlines and the like. Gone are the days when one could start

from modest beginnings and improve one's own home and surroundings as

one's earning power improved. Now one has to leap full-blown in the

Cadillac class, if I can call it that — either that or buy an old home

in an outlying area which has managed to escape all the refinements

which new technology and a busy bureaucracy have forced upon new

homeowners in British Columbia. We can relax some of these legal and

other requirements. At least we can release them in stages. We can

release land for housing which is by no stretch of the imagination

agricultural land. We can open up our gravel benches and our

tree-covered slopes, land which will never be used for farming but

which, in our haste to establish an agricultural land reserve, was

classified as agricultural in the early 1970s. This, together with the

redevelopment of old areas, the redevelopment of areas with

single-family homes into multiple housing, can at least help solve our

land problem in B.C. Of course it would take a willingness to cut red

tape and a determination to let local people plan for local

[ Page 6248 ]

needs.

It takes a new community planning act, if I can call it that, which

decentralizes decision-making. That's in line with the private

enterprise philosophy which we on this side of the House endorse.

think that the agricultural land act should be changed. The poorest

land should be available for housing purposes also. Take categories 5,

6 and 7, for example. Why, if that land is close to a heavily built-up

area, can't it be developed for residential purposes — a higher

purpose? It has little or no commercial value otherwise. It can't

sustain a viable farming operation on its own, so why do we add

unnecessarily to the cost of housing in this way? At least it's an

option which we should consider. It shouldn't be an absolute

prohibition, as it is under the Agricultural Land Commission Act now.

What

about small plots? I'm told that no farmer can make a living on less

than five acres; some say ten. There are a great many small parcels of

about one, two and three acres. These also should be made available for

housing, if and when the local authorities agree that this should be

so. The value of land for agricultural purposes varies from one part of

the province to another. Close to a large centre of population it can

fetch one figure. Way off in the interior or the north it may be of

little agricultural interest whatsoever. Small in size and poor in

quality, for farming purposes it may be well-nigh worthless. But open

it up for housing and it has considerable value. This is true

especially if community-wide services are available nearby and the cost

of extensions can be kept to a minimum by including small and

relatively barren parcels of land of this kind.

I'm not

saying that agricultural land should be turned over to housing

wholesale. Indeed, that's far from my intention. All I'm trying to say

is that we should distinguish between poor land in small parcels near

existing urban centres and the rest of our agricultural land reserve, a

reserve which everyone agrees should be reserved in perpetuity for

agricultural purposes. As I said before, these are matters which we can

and will resolve by changing our own laws and giving local governments

greater freedom to act reasonably and help solve the land-for-housing

problem here in this province.

Finances are something else.

Money — even more than land — is the real stumbling-block to increased

homeownership, especially for the young. Down payments are difficult

enough, but monthly payments for the new homeowner today are

incredible. With inflation running at 12 to 15 percent a year, interest

charges are bound to be in the 15 to 20 percent range. This means

annual outlays in the order of $20,000, even on a modest $100,000 home.

It means payments of upwards of $1,500 a month. It calls for family

incomes of at least $60,000 a year. Only a small percentage of our

population makes that kind of money nowadays.

One way for

governments to help the prospective homeowner is to subsidize interest

rates. But there's a limit to this kind of help. After a few years the

government would find itself so burdened with making interest payments

on its own that it would be unable to meet many of its other

obligations, let alone continue a benevolent program of this type.

However,

another approach has merit. The government could become a joint owner

of the residential property in question. It could be a partner along

with the eventual sole owner. It could take up a share in this

individual homeowning business. It could be an equity owner in the

sense that it participated along with the home occupier or first owner

in the rising market value of the home as time went by. Of course,

there would have to be a time limit put on the period during which the

government was a partner. Let us say this was five years. For the first

five years homeowner number one — the eventual sole owner — would only

have to make payments on the first mortgage. He or she wouldn't have to

make payments on the government's equity in the home. If the latter

amounted to a quarter of the original cost of the home, then the

monthly payments during that five-year period would be reduced by at

least 25 percent. After five years were up, the government's equity as

homeowner number two could be converted into a second mortgage. This

second mortgage would, of course, reflect inflated fifth-year market

value of the home. It would also bear interest at the government's

borrowing rate. But it could be paid off over a 20-year period. This

would help keep down the monthly payments after year five. As homeowner

number one's income would be higher at the end of the five-year

interval than it was at the beginning, he or she would obviously be in

a better position to carry a first and second mortgage at that time on

the home. The government would have seen its equity appreciate through

inflation. Also it would get all its money back when the second

mortgage it held on this home was eventually paid off

The

big catch, of course, is the initial funding of the government's share.

Large sums of money would have to be borrowed on the open market by a

government agency or corporation. It could be accumulated in what might

be referred to as a housing equity fund. This fund would pay the lender

interest at the government's ongoing borrowing rate. Eventually it

would be replenished as the government's five-year equity in individual

homes was realized, and as the second mortgages which it held in older

homes were paid off. A program such as this, Mr. Chairman, should be

limited to certain classes of homeowners at the outset. They could be

first homeowners only; they would have had to have a reasonable period

of residence in the province — at least in my opinion; and they would

also have to put up, say, 15 percent of the initial price of the home.

That, together with the government's 25 percent, would mean that their

first mortgage would be limited to 60 percent, an amount which could be

financed in the private capital market.

A program of this

kind could be expanded, of course; it might be used to help older

people finance or refinance their homes in later years. They could sell

part of their equity in their home to the government, a government

agency or corporation on the understanding that the latter would share

on a pro rata basis with the original owners in the enhanced market

value of that home when it was eventually sold. Again, the government

would be made whole, financially speaking, when the transaction was

completed. It would have been a partner in the process; it would have

held part of the equity in the home for a time. Its principal reward

would be the sharing in the appreciated value of the home due to

inflation, largely a product of rising costs nation-wide and

continent-wide.

This government partnership approach,

interestingly enough, does not head off or cancel out any other forms

of assistance to homeowners. Crown land can be made available at

reduced prices and the financial advantage of this type of assistance

is capitalized as part of the government's contribution in the form of

equity. Interest rates on first mortgages can be subsidized as well.

Interest rates can be recognized as a cost by individuals preparing

their provincial income tax returns. But these forms of assistance tend

to be gimmicky, as compared to a government's equity-sharing plan. Such

a plan

[ Page 6249 ]

an equity-sharing plan — I believe, is relatively straightforward. It's

easy to understand, it's self-financing over the longer term, and it

can be adjusted so as to minimize monthly payments in the earlier, more

difficult years of homeownership in B.C.

The government,

naturally, will be taking a risk. But homes aren't a major risk these

days; home values are bound to rise with inflation. What better partner

can a homeowner have than the rest of the people of the province, all

of whom will benefit in one way or another from new home construction

and a greater degree of home ownership in the province? I'm talking

perhaps about a B.C. Housing Fund; I may even be talking about a B.C.

Housing Corporation — one which would have to manage a lot of money. By

the end of the 1980s it would be dealing in literally billions of

dollars; it would need a billion dollars each year in order to provide

the matching equity for 40,000 new homes. This money would, of course,

be raised by selling bonds guaranteed by the government of British

Columbia, bonds which paid the lowest interest rate possible at the

time — a low interest rate made possible, for example, by the

province's triple-A financial rating. This would keep the costs of the

plan to a minimum, both in respect to the equity stage and the later

second mortgage stage in each home-building transaction.

Again,

this is a lot of money. I'm talking about billions of dollars, as if

the word "billion" didn't really matter. But British Columbia's current

housing stock is worth about $30 billion — $30 billion to $40 billion,

I'm told — and its value is rising with inflation. A billion dollars

could only buy 3 or 4 percent of our present stock today, but a 3 or 4

percent addition to our home inventory every year for a number of years

could do a great deal towards making it easier for young British

Columbians to own their own homes and therefore have a stake — a very

meaningful stake — in the province's economic future. And what's wrong

with using the province's excellent credit rating in this way? It's a

kind of "social credit" based on the economic viability of our B.C.

community as a whole. It's the kind of credit which we will be

extending to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in billion dollar gobs

year after year in the 1980s and 1990s. It's the kind of credit we are

extending to our other Crown corporations whenever they borrow on the

open market. It's the kind of credit which the provincial government

will also be extending, as I understand it, to B.C. Rail, when it

builds the so-called Anzac spur to carry northeast coal to our

developing export markets, including those in Japan.

What's

good enough for the users of electricity marketed by B.C. Hydro should

be good enough for B.C. residents and homeowners in this province.

What's good enough for B.C. Rail and our developing coal industry in

the north should also be good enough for British Columbians in general.

We're not taking any more risk as British Columbians in this way; homes

will be needed in increasing numbers, just as more electricity is

needed. Perhaps even more homes will also be needed in this province,

even when coal is replaced by other sources of energy and we're less

dependent on foreign sales of raw materials in order to earn our

livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced that we need to

set up a government-owned and government-run corporation to do this

job. We can use the private sector to manage many of the financial

details, but the equity concept is important. It's the main point I'm

trying to make. As I see it, it's the only way we can get more of our

people into housing which they own themselves during a period of rapid

inflation and certainly during periods of high interest rates. The

government can help by lending its credit. It can help for a while and

then get out without having lost a cent. It can be made whole as a

result of a contract or series of contracts of this kind. All we would

really be using is the credit-worthiness of the province. This is high,

and it will remain high, especially if it is used for such worthy

purposes as improving the housing stock of our people.

As I

said at the outset, housing is our number one problem right now. It's a

problem partly because of our prosperity. A thousand people a month are

coming into B.C. to take jobs that are here for the asking. They need

housing, and we should be able to house them all well. By changing some

of our laws we can make enough land available. By setting up some kind

of B.C. housing fund, B.C. housing corporation or equity fund, we can

make ownership a meaningful part of their lives. Our credit as a

province-wide community — our social credit — can be used effectively

to that end.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I always

appreciate listening to what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis) has to say. It's unfortunate that the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour makes excellent speeches in this House and excellent

suggestions to the ministry, and yet is very seldom listened to. It

reminds me of the definition of a dictatorship: everybody is entitled

to his own opinion in a dictatorship, provided he doesn't vote based on

that opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Provided he doesn't disagree with the dictator.

MR. SKELLY:

Provided he doesn't vote based on his opinions. The member every time,

makes constructive suggestions which are always ignored by the

government, and every time he votes for the government. It simply

doesn't make sense. I wish the member for North Vancouver–Seymour all

the best, but unless he realizes the consequences of what he does, it

really doesn't make much sense for him to do anything in this

Legislature. If this Legislature means anything at all, he should start

voting based on his opinions. If the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing isn't doing what the member suggests he should do, he should

vote against his salary and turf him out of office. It's as simple as

that. Otherwise the member's opinions mean precisely nothing.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

I'm talking about the vote on the minister's salary. If the member

doesn't vote based on his opinions, then he's wasting his vote in this

Legislature.

As for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), it's

very difficult to say whether he's wasting his vote or not, because his

opinions are indecipherable.

I was interested in what the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour said about the problem of small

acreages of marginal agricultural land inside the agricultural land

reserve. I think this is a problem with some of the members on that

side: they don't look at the value of that land over the long term.

There are definitely some areas in the agricultural land reserve that

are of marginal agricultural value now. Because of the problems of

drawing maps, naturally those areas are included. To the extent it's

possible to exclude them by fine-tuning the reserve without violating

the integrity of the reserve, it has been done over the years and

continues to be done.

[ Page 6250 ]

think we should look at the economics of those parcels over the long

term. We have to admit that farming in this country, and in North

America in general, as it's presently structured is based on the

availability of cheap energy and petrochemicals for mechanization, the

use of insecticide and herbicide sprays, petrochemical-derived

fertilizers, etc. A great deal more energy is put into food crops on

this continent than is taken out in terms of caloric food energy, so

we're really putting an energy subsidy into agriculture. When the price

of energy increases to a certain point, these marginal farmlands are

going to become more and more valuable for agricultural purposes,

especially small holdings where individual owners.... If we're talking

about free enterprise and being free enterprisers, we should concern

ourselves with these individual owners who are willing to put a

tremendous amount of their capital, energy and labour into intensively

cultivating small parcels of marginal farmland, because that's where a

great deal of our food production is probably going to come from in the

future.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Elsewhere in

the world people climb high mountains, terrace mountains in Indonesia

and cultivate small, relatively infertile plots in Third World

countries and yet produce a tremendous amount of food from those plots

with very little energy input compared to what we do here. That's

possibly the way agriculture is going to go in the future, at least a

part of it. We should be protecting as much as possible of our

agricultural land, even the marginal land, because the economics are

going to change in the future as energy prices and petrochemical prices

increase. In the future we're going to wish that we had saved those

marginal lands, because at that point they will be economic, and there

are always other ways of solving the housing problem. Unfortunately

with this government there are probably no ways of solving the housing

problem at all, because they don't seem to have the initiative to do so.

Looking

at the history in Port Alberni over the past few years — and I've

written to the minister about this over the last few months since

December — there has been a decline in the number of residential

building permits issued in the Alberni–Clayoquot regional district and

the city of Port Alberni. The number of housing permits has gone down

since 1975. That doesn't mean the need for housing has gone down. There

are as many people there as there were before, and even more. The need

for housing in the area continues to increase, and yet the number of

permits issued is going down. The people who are hit the hardest are

those who cannot afford to get into the market at the present mortgage

rates and the present cost of housing. It's unfortunate from one point

of view that Port Alberni has one of the highest average incomes in

Canada. Every year when the tax statistics come out, Port Alberni is

second to some of the automobile producing cities in eastern Canada and

Ontario in terms of the average income of its residents. That's

unfortunate, because not everybody in that city cleaves to the average

amount. There are a large number of people who fall below. There are

people who depend on industries other than the forest industry or the

secondary manufacturing jobs in the forest industry. There are people

whose work is highly seasonal, such as fish harvesting and processing.

Their income falls well below the cutoff levels you require for

borrowing money to get involved in housing or to buy a house. That's a

serious problem for people in the Alberni valley.

The people

who are hit hardest there are those who cannot afford to get into the

housing market. Up until 1975 we produced low-income housing in Port

Alberni. A number of units there are now managed by the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. Unfortunately there's a long waiting list to get

into those units, and the minister seems to lack the initiative to get

involved in that kind of housing to assist people at that income level

to get into housing they require. Again, I suppose we're talking about

affordable housing. The private sector is not going to build that kind

of housing. They're not going to build housing that people can't afford

to get into. It's as simple as that. Somewhere along the line there is

a responsibility on behalf of the government to provide affordable

housing for those who, because of the cost of housing and the cost of

money, simply cannot afford to get into that market.

I made

a presentation to the city council in Port Alberni on January 26, 1981.

I suggested that the city council get in touch with the minister and

try to get him interested in social housing for the city of Port

Alberni again. They wrote to him, and they got the same excuse I got —

and it is an excuse — that they're not interested in social housing

here in Victoria. He talked about the housing that had been built

before under the NDP and housing that was built and is now managed by

the B.C. Housing Man